Plenary

Item 2 is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Trefnydd to make that statement. Jane Hutt.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. There is one change to this week's business. The time allocated to the Stage 3 debate on the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Bill has been reduced. Business for the next three weeks is shown in the business statement, which is available to Members electronically.

Trefnydd, can I request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care regarding epilepsy services? As you know, Epilepsy Action Cymru recently launched their 'Seizing Change' report here at the Senedd. Now, the report makes it very clear that every health board in Wales is failing to meet waiting time guidelines for treatment after a first seizure, and, in the case of my own local health board, Hywel Dda University Health Board, some patients are waiting up to 36 weeks to be seen, the longest waiting time on record.

Now, Trefnydd, I'm very concerned about these waiting times, and I'm also very concerned that the number of people living with epilepsy in Wales is growing, and yet there is an extreme shortage of neurologists, especially those with a specialist knowledge in epilepsy, and epilepsy specialist nurses as well here in Wales. Therefore, I'd be grateful if we could have a statement on epilepsy services, so that we can understand what the Welsh Government is doing to address the serious issues highlighted in the 'Seizing Change' report.

Thank you very much, Paul Davies, and Epilepsy Action is a long-standing organisation, a respected organisation. Of course, you have drawn attention to epilepsy services, and of course there are pathways, and there's been long-term commitment to those pathways, which, of course, are often multiprofessional. So, you've raised this issue, and I'm sure it also could form a question to the Cabinet Secretary when he responds in his oral Senedd questions.

Trefnydd, I'd like to raise an issue with you that a number of members of my group have asked me to do, namely the delay in terms of receiving responses from a number of Ministers to letters, and also delays in receiving responses to written questions. I don't know whether you're aware of whether there's any backlog within specific departments, but I would be grateful if you could raise this with other members of the Government to ensure that responses are received promptly.

Diolch yn fawr, Heledd Fychan, and, obviously, we take very seriously the need to be efficient in our responses, and those clear timelines as well in terms of responses to both letters and to written questions. But also, of course—and I will look at the record for this—we get an enormous amount of questions, letters, and written questions as well, which Ministers and our officials have to handle. But we are obviously wanting to provide the best possible service to our Members across the Senedd.

I want to ask for two statements. They’re both on animal welfare. First, on microchipping cats. In England, all cat owners should now have their pet microchipped. Owners must ensure their cat is microchipped before they reach the age of 20 weeks, with their contact details stored and kept up to date in an approved pet microchipping database. In England, the introduction of mandatory microchipping makes it easier for lost or stray cats to be reunited with their owners and returned home safely. Microchipping is already compulsory for dogs in Wales, and has proved to be the most effective method for identifying lost pets. Can we have a Government statement on when they’re going to implement the microchipping of cats in Wales?

Secondly, on hedgehogs. What is the Government doing to raise awareness of the practical steps we can take to reverse the decline of hedgehogs in the wild, improve their welfare, and safeguard their future? We know that to promote good life and lengthy life in our hedgehogs, we need to promote the offering of good quality, meaty hedgehog food, meaty cat or dog food, or dried cat biscuits, and the provision of water. But hedgehogs are an animal that is under threat. Can the Government make a statement on what they’re going to do to try and protect what is an iconic Welsh species?

Thank you very much, Mike Hedges, and thank you for drawing our attention to this matter.

Thank you for asking, first of all, about microchipping cats. It’s encouraged. It’s good practice for all responsible owners to get their cats microchipped. And, according to a Cats Protection report published last year, 74 per cent of cats in Wales are microchipped. But it’s important in terms of responsibilities, and our animal welfare plan for Wales includes an action to consider extending compulsory microchipping to include cats. Obviously, this would be subject to consultation, but I’m glad you’ve raised it here today. We must get this right before any mandatory microchipping takes place, and make sure that we have fully consulted.

Of course, hedgehogs are so important. The Welsh Government has a range of initiatives to help grow the hedgehog population in Wales. When did we last see a hedgehog? Sadly, a long time ago, as far as I’m concerned. Woodlands are the favoured habitat for hedgehog breeding, and the Welsh Government has several tree planting initiatives, as you know, that will increase habitat for hedgehogs as the new trees mature. And the sustainable farming scheme will provide for the restoration of hedges to a condition that favours all wildlife, including hedgehogs. The SFS will also provide for farmers to plant trees, which, in groups and small woods, can provide the ideal habitat for hedgehogs to breed and develop to adulthood.

Business Minister, can I please request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for transport about the up and coming bus Bill? I have spoken with many bus operators and industry experts across my region about the looming Bill to gauge their views on it. The general consensus is that, whilst many support the Bill’s aims, there is a concern that it will simply not be achieved. There have been assurances made that the SME bus operators and municipal operators will be included and protected, but there is a lack of detail within the Bill when it comes to legal and commercial mechanisms to ensure that this actually happens.

There are concerns that the regulatory impact assessment for the Bill has underestimated key costs and risks, as it omits important things like the recent increases in salary and national insurance costs. Affordability is also of great concern to myself and many others. In Manchester, for example, where similar bus reforms have been made, there is a substantial financial shortfall of around £250 million annually, between operational costs and fare revenues. Given the Welsh Government is taking on all financial risk through this piece of work, it will be left ultimately to the taxpayer to foot the Bill. So, do we have that money lying around to plug the gap every year? That’s my question. These are just some of the few potential issues, but I will save the rest for another day. Therefore, a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for transport addressing these points would be very much appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Natasha Asghar. Many, many people in Wales, I know, are welcoming the introduction of the bus Bill. I believe you and your colleagues have also welcomed the potential, through the bus Bill, to have an integrated bus service across Wales. Of course, I remember the horrors of deregulation of our buses back in the 1980s, which were instigated by a previous Conservative Government. Ever since then, buses have been all over the place in terms of frequency, with deregulation causing a great deal of difficulty for local authorities in terms of strategic management, but also for passengers, most importantly. There are opportunities to raise these questions, as I know you will, and your colleagues will, during the scrutiny of the bus Bill.

I think we were all very pleased that a representative from the Jo Cox Civility Commission came to speak to the women's caucus recently about the levels of abuse directed at female politicians, especially online. Of course, the women's caucus consists of Members from all parties here, chaired by Joyce Watson. So, going forward to the election next year, could the Cabinet Secretary confirm if the Welsh Government has approved the recommendation that safety-related costs will be exempt from election expenses for next year's Senedd election?

Thank you very much, Julie Morgan. It was really very much welcomed that we had engagement from the Jo Cox Foundation. Hannah Phillips highlighted the recommendations from the Jo Cox Civility Commission. Of course, the Welsh Government was very pleased to respond positively to the recommendation that safety-related expenses should be exempt. I'm very pleased that, in fact, this regulation went through last Tuesday. I'm not sure how many colleagues across the Chamber were aware of that, but it did go through last Tuesday, through the Welsh Government regulations. And I think it's encompassed in the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025, the conduct Order that's being debated later on this afternoon. So, that is a real step forward.

Can I also thank Joyce Watson and all colleagues across the Chamber who attended the women's caucus? Indeed, last week, I was able to meet with the political parties panel, which is organised by the Electoral Commission. All parties here were represented by your general secretaries or other members of your party units, and we had a robust discussion about how we can protect not just, of course, our existing colleagues and politicians from abuse and intimidation, but also leading up to the elections in May 2026. I look forward to reporting back to the women's caucus on those discussions.

Good afternoon, Trefnydd. I'm calling for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for finance on business rates in Wales, as well as the criteria for different categories in terms of business types and rate relief. This comes after the Underhill Hub, a flagship community asset in Mumbles in my region, has been forced to close from this coming Saturday due to what they call 'unsustainable financial burdens'. The community hub serves as a home base for several organisations in Mumbles, including Mumbles Rangers Football Club, Mumbles Rugby Football Club, and Swansea Cricket Club. It's owned by a charity, Mumbles Community Association, yet is run by the Underhill Management Company. That is a private limited company, albeit it runs it on behalf of Mumbles Community Association.

Now, they had hoped that there would be charitable rate relief applied, but the Valuation Office Agency decided in August 2024 that that would not apply, and they've now been left with business rates totalling £93,000 over two years, which is a lot, especially for a community hub trying to provide for and give back to local residents. It's also worth noting, obviously, Trefnydd, as an aside, that the Welsh Conservatives plan to scrap business rates altogether for small businesses after the next election. But a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for finance on what support is in place for local community hubs, as well as what consideration he would give to ensuring hubs such as the Underhill Hub in Mumbles are eligible for charity relief, regardless of who operates them, would be appreciated.

Thank you for that question, Tom Giffard. The Welsh Government provides a very favourable business rates regime. Clearly, this is an example of a, I'm sure, very well-founded community organisation that hasn't fit the eligibility in terms of charitable status. But there's no question that advice and guidance is always available to important community/small businesses of that kind.

Trefnydd, there is growing evidence of the increased prevalence and impact of heatwaves. In recent years, the UK, and very much Wales included, has experienced unprecedented temperatures. Spring 2025 was officially the hottest on record, and devastating wildfires swept through parts of England. This is now placing immense pressure on emergency services. Culturally and historically, we are simply not used to this kind of extreme weather. By 10 April this year, the total area of land in the UK burnt by wildfires had already exceeded the yearly total for any of the previous 10 years.

In London, in 2022, wildfires were particularly prevalent, and the London Fire Brigade then undertook significant reforms to improve preparedness. These included the introduction of wildfire tactical advisers, enhanced and expanded training, and increased investment in specialist equipment. Given the increasingly dry, hot and windy conditions that are perfect for wildfires, could we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary outlining what steps are being taken to support emergency services in Wales, both in terms of resources and readiness, as we face a future of intensifying climate-related emergencies?

Thank you, John Griffiths, for this very important and topical question, when we look at the impact of rising temperatures due to climate change, leading, as you have drawn attention to, particularly to wildfires. I think this is something where we do and we must recognise those long-established collaborative arrangements between the fire and rescue service and other partners. It's crucial that they have the responsibility with the strategic all-Wales wildfire board and Operation Dawns Glaw for steering tactical and operational intelligence. Of course, the risk of wildfire remains heavily dependent on the weather and response to incidents, but we have been reassured that the service and partners undertake a wide range of activities to reduce the risk of wildfires breaking out, including deterrents and diversion programmes, engagement with landowners, and also being able to respond to a very high volume of wildfires, as it proved once again during the very dry spring of this year, and indeed that continues into the summer months.

Trefnydd, I would like to request a statement from this Welsh Government for support for our Ukrainian friends who have come to Wales in devastating circumstances, following Russia's illegal invasion. I know we all agree that accepting people from Ukraine was absolutely the right thing to do. Following my recent visit to Ukraine, with other Members of the Senedd, I met some of those Ukrainians who are staying in Monmouthshire. I heard heartbreaking stories, and stories of many Ukrainians who want to return home when it's safe to do so, but no-one knows when that will be. The uncertainty of that is excruciating for them, because although they're very grateful that they've been made to feel safe, it's now three years on, and they need and deserve a lot more than that. There was a lady who was an ophthalmologist who wants to transfer her skills to our NHS, but there's no support for her to do so. There's another lady who wants to open a hairdresser's in Abergavenny, but she's unsure how long she'll stay here as visas are up soon. Many of these feel stuck in limbo, unsure how long they'll be able to stay here before they go back, and unsure how to transfer the skills into our economy. Indeed, many of them are unsure if their children will be uprooted before they finish their education. And there were concerns amongst the young children I spoke to about losing the language, the culture, and that sort of thing. So, I'd really appreciate your Government outlining what are the next steps in helping these Ukrainians now in Wales, and how you're working with the UK Government, local authorities and public services, particularly on visa extensions. Diolch.

Diolch, Laura Anne Jones. Thank you for your engagement, in joining that cross-party group that went to Ukraine, and thank you for your support in raising this issue. I think it's worth reminding the Senedd that Wales has welcomed over 8,000 Ukrainians to the UK since the invasion back in February 2022, and that did include 3,300 under our supersponsor route and over 4,600 to the Homes for Ukraine household sponsors. And we have to thank the people of Wales for offering their hearts and their homes, their incredible kindness, their commitments as hosts, and also our Ukrainian guests have shown us the real benefits of migration. So, there are fewer, of course, arriving—fewer Ukrainians now arriving in Wales—but we will always ensure that people seeking sanctuary in Wales are welcomed and supported from day 1 of their arrival.

So, now we are working with the UK Government, as you requested, looking at the visas issues. The Ukraine permission extension visas have come into effect and are being applied for. And we are looking, of course, at how we can ensure people—our Ukrainians—are aware of their rights and entitlements, their rights to work and live in the UK, whilst their applications are in progress. I think this is something where we are working with the UK Government to ensure that we can continue our welcome support to our Ukrainian friends and refugees.

I am aware that there is another visit to Ukraine, which is being undertaken by Mick Antoniw and Alun Davies next week. I am sure that they are taking all-important medical equipment, as they do, to Ukraine, and I think we would want to wish them well for their visit and journey next week.

Trefnydd, I would like to request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Education on school provision across Bridgend. You may be aware of Bridgend County Borough Council's announcement around delays over the replacement school site for Ysgol Gymraeg Bro Ogwr at Ffordd Cadfan. This is the latest in a long line of similar delays. Other council capital investments in Kenfig Hill's Mynydd Cynffig Primary School, as well as Heronsbridge School, are the most recent casualties of budget cuts. I am currently concerned that the 525 pupil places and 90 full-time nursery slots in Brackla won't be available until 2027-28 at the earliest. Trefnydd, as a Welsh-speaking school, Ysgol Gymraeg Bro Ogwr is needed now. Heronsbridge, a pioneer in special education, is an irreplaceable institution within our local education provision. This, on the top of the closure of the region's private schools, puts a lot of strain on local provision. Therefore, I am requesting a statement today to address a backlog of school building plaguing planned school sites within the Bridgend education authority. Thank you.

Thank you, Altaf Hussain. Of course, these are matters for Bridgend County Borough Council. But I think we can be very proud in Wales of the millions, multimillions, we have spent on transforming our schools and school buildings throughout all the period of austerity. And, of course, we have given a very favourable settlement to local authorities for this financial year, particularly focusing on education and schools. But, of course, Lynne Neagle, the Cabinet Secretary for Education, will be answering questions next week, and you may wish to raise this with her at that time.

I call for a single Welsh Government statement on suicide prevention. The male suicide rate is almost three times higher than for females, and I was pleased to speak at last Friday's launch of the Wales suicide prevention programme, developed in partnership between the Construction Industry Training Board Wales and NHS Wales, designed for males in the construction industry in Wales, held in Oakenholt, Flint. According to the Office for National Statistics, male construction workers are nearly four times more likely to die by suicide than the national average. As I said, these are not isolated incidents; they're the result of systemic pressures, long hours, job insecurity, physical exhaustion and a workplace culture that too often discourages emotional openness. And let us not forget the impact of these deaths. Each suicide affects families, friends, colleagues and communities. The ripple effects are profound and long lasting. The cost is not just emotional, it is social, economic and moral. I therefore call for a Welsh Government statement detailing how the Welsh Government will help to spread the word of this programme to the industry, and particularly to small and medium-sized companies.

Thank you very much, Mark Isherwood, for drawing attention to that all-important Wales suicide prevention event in north Wales. I particularly welcome the involvement of the construction industry in this and drawing attention to this in terms of the impact and the vulnerability of, particularly, men in the industry. I know that the Minister for Mental Health and Well-being will be very supportive of that initiative and, indeed, it's very much at the heart of the consultation and what is being taken forward in terms of the mental health strategy, including the suicide prevention elements of that strategy.

And finally, Gareth Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to call for a statement, please, from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs on the importation of food produce treated with chemical pesticides that are controlled or banned in the UK. There are concerns that have been brought to my attention by farmers in north Wales and across the country regarding the importation of food treated with substances that are banned here in the UK and Europe on environmental and health grounds, namely chlorothalonil. This substance, which was banned in 2020 due to serious impacts on biodiversity and insect reproduction, continues to appear in imported produce, despite our own farmers being prohibited from using it. This creates an unacceptable double standard, which puts Welsh farmers at a competitive disadvantage, with our own farmers rightly held to high environmental and safety standards, yet they're being undercut by imports from countries with weaker regulations. So, I'd like to call for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs on what work the Welsh Government is doing to address this issue and to ensure that Welsh farmers are not being unfairly penalised for following the rules.

Thank you very much, Gareth Davies. Well, you'll know that the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs meets regularly with farmers and the farming unions, so I would like you to share the evidence that you've had from the farmers who have brought this to your attention in terms of the unacceptable imports of food treated with such a chemical substance.

I thank the Trefnydd.

Item 3 is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government on the Building Safety (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Jayne Bryant.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the Grenfell Tower tragedy is a poignant and devastating reminder of the importance and necessity of getting building safety right. I know that the thoughts of all of us in this Chamber remain with those who lost their lives as well as their families and loved ones. It is imperative that we learn from these events and act to ensure that such loss of life never happens again.

The comprehensive findings of the Grenfell Tower inquiry have laid bare the systematic failures across industry, governance and regulation that contributed to this tragedy. Yesterday, we published the Welsh Government’s formal response to the inquiry’s phase 2 report, accepting, at least in principle, all the recommendations within scope of our responsibilities. Our response also sets out the actions we’re taking to implement those recommendations. I will provide Members with an update on progress before the end of this Senedd term.

At the heart of our response is a commitment to put residents first. A key component of that is the occupation of multi-occupied residential buildings. When we talk about multi-occupied residential buildings, what we're talking about is people's homes. These are places where people should feel safe and protected. The risks are significant in all multi-occupied buildings, not just tall ones. Fires also occur in smaller buildings occupied by multiple households. On some measures, these are the most hazardous of all. The situation is far worsened if buildings are not properly maintained, if risks are not identified and managed, if the concerns of residents are overlooked or belittled, and if no-one is being held accountable. Dirprwy Lywydd, these are some of the important lessons from Grenfell.

Learning these lessons, righting these wrongs, is absolutely necessary to protect individuals and families in Wales. The findings of Dame Judith Hackitt's review, of our own building safety expert group, and our White Paper, along with extensive engagement with stakeholders, have laid the foundations for the landmark Bill that I'm pleased was laid before the Senedd yesterday. Its first principle is safety and protecting people. Dirprwy Lywydd, while we can never eliminate all risks, we can significantly enhance safety by identifying the risks that can cause fires and allow them to spread. By ensuring that risks are properly managed, we make people safer, and feel safer, at home. This begins with professional, thorough fire risk assessment of each building. As the Grenfell Tower inquiry recognised, it is unacceptable that anyone can do this regardless of their knowledge or experience. Shoddy or amateurish assessments can put everyone in the building at serious risk, and our Bill addresses this by requiring that only demonstrably competent persons conduct these assessments, with criminal penalties for those who don't comply.

A second principle is accountability. We want to end any confusion about who is answerable for managing building safety risks. We will ensure that those responsible for buildings are held to account, in law, for their safety. So, the Bill defines who is accountable for assessing and managing risks in regulated buildings. A third principle is resident voice. Residents are fundamental to the proposals I'm bringing forward, and their experiences and concerns must be heard and addressed. We will empower residents with clear routes of redress and a stronger voice in matters that affect their homes. We've listened carefully to residents in the development of our proposals. They have told us that they believe all residents must play a part in ensuring that the buildings are safe. That is why our Bill establishes appropriate responsibilities for residents, supported by guidance, to help them contribute to a safer living environment. Those three principles are fundamental to this Bill: safety, accountability, and resident voice.

Diolch for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. Thank you also for taking the time to meet me before this today. I know that for many people in Wales, this is a statement they've waited a long time for. As you say, eight years ago the Grenfell Tower fire took the lives of 72 people—a tragedy that was ultimately avoidable and exposed serious regulatory failures. I think we can all agree on the need for urgent reform to prevent anything like this ever happening again.

We support the aims of the Bill, particularly addressing the concerns raised by Dame Judith Hackitt around compliance and the importance of hearing residents' voices. Those principles must be carried through into the occupation phase. So, this is clearly a necessary and important piece of legislation and I hope that we can work together to get it right during this scrutiny process.

A key feature of this Bill is that local authorities will take on the role of building safety regulators during the occupation phase. This is a significant departure from the approach taken in England, where regulation is centralised through a national building safety regulator. From a local government perspective, there will of course be concern about the additional burden that this then places on our councils.

Councils in Wales, as you know, Cabinet Secretary, are already under intense financial pressure. We've all seen the difficult decisions being made locally, from rising council taxes to the closure of valued community facilities. These new duties will undoubtedly stretch capacity further. So, I'd like to ask why the Welsh Government chose a locally delivered model rather than a centralised approach. Would it not make more sense to hold the buildings register centrally, and have a single national regulator, rather than splitting oversight across 22 different local authorities?

A centralised system, of course, would also help avoid the conflicts of interest where councils are both landlords and regulators of the same buildings, and it could reduce the risk of a postcode lottery, as we discussed, in safety standards, as not all councils will be able to attract or afford the specialist staff needed to enforce these new rules effectively. So, Cabinet Secretary, what additional resources or funding will be provided to local authorities? You said there will be some; it would be good to hear exactly how much, please, to ensure that they can discharge these new responsibilities.

On the issue of accountable persons, we recognise that this role carries significant statutory responsibility, but I'd like to ask: will these individuals be required to undertake any formal training or certification, or can anyone simply be nominated? It's important that this doesn't become a paper exercise, a name on a form. We need real accountability, and that means ensuring accountable persons are competent, not just nominated. I'd also appreciate clarity on who these people are likely to be; will they be the residents, managing agents, housing associations, developers or local authorities themselves? If we want to ensure transparency and accountability, residents will need to know exactly who is responsible and how to escalate concerns if needed.

Thank you, Laura, and thank you for your welcome for this important Bill. As you say, this is something that we have been waiting for, and we've been working really hard to make sure that we get this right in discussion with all of our partners within this, including local authorities and, importantly, residents as well. We know that this landmark Bill will fundamentally transform safety in multi-occupied residential buildings across Wales.

Just to touch on a few of the important points that you mentioned, I certainly recognise the pressures that local authorities are facing. I frequently speak to local authority leaders across Wales, and I want to do all I can to minimise the challenges that they face, and that's why we are phasing commencement of the new building safety regime, and that phasing, by doing that, it'll ensure that we have a smooth transition where local authorities really do have that time and space to plan resources needed for the new regime.

As I said, I'm making funding available because of the additional pressures that the Bill will place on local authorities, and particularly because of the creation of their new regulatory functions. So, I'm making available £1.3 million to support local authorities with training and transitioning to the new regime, and we'll also work with them as we go through the scrutiny of this Bill and beyond to understand the costs post transition and the support we can provide to enable the effective operation of the new regime. But obviously, local authorities are absolutely key to us in this.

In terms of accountability, as you rightly point out, that is a key point and tenet of this Bill, and I think it was certainly something that we saw that didn't happen through Grenfell, when we found that residents were not heard, they were not listened to, and they did not know who to go to, and who was accountable. Currently, we know there's far too much ambiguity in relation to where responsibility for building safety lies, so the Bill is going to address this by introducing clear duty holder roles.

These duty holders will have a legal responsibility for assessing and managing building safety risks. Exactly which person or entity is identified as an accountable person will vary depending on the ownership and the management model for each building, but typically, we'd expect building owners and landlords, both social and private, to be identified as the accountable persons. But as we know, building ownership can be complex, and in some buildings, it could be possible for freeholders, headlesees or others to be accountable persons.

I very much welcome your comments today and I look forward to working with you and others through the passage of this Bill to make sure that we get the best possible Bill that we can after this scrutiny.

I welcome the publication of this long-awaited Bill today, eight years since the Grenfell disaster where 72 people lost their lives, 18 of them children. I know that we will want to remember that backdrop throughout this Bill's journey through the Senedd. It is perfectly appropriate that we have a Bill made in Wales for the specific nature of the housing stock in Wales, but, of course, we shouldn't rest on our laurels. Grenfell demonstrated the awful results that can emanate for innocent people as a result of a culture of cutting corners when it comes to safety and of prioritising profit at the expense of people's lives, of privatising and deregulating and of a reckless attitude towards the residents of social housing on behalf of those authorities that are supposed to be safeguarding their interests.

I am aware that there has been work under way for some time on this Bill as part of the building safety programme that was part of the co-operation agreement. My priority in that initial phase was to urge to ensure that the remediation aspect of the programme happened as soon as possible, and my call remains the same today. In March 2023, it was announced in the Senedd that the developers' commitment had been signed by some of the largest developers and the Welsh Government would enforce the deal with developers on behalf of people and would prevent them from having to turn to the courts. But I do have to ask whether this stance continues to be sustainable, bearing in mind, for example, the residents of Victoria Dock in Caernarfon, in my constituency, are still waiting for clarity that Watkin Jones will undertake the necessary works. They don't know what the timetable is for that work, although the contract was signed almost a year ago.

So, when will the Government be enforcing these agreements and can you provide an assurance that the Bill won't draw your department's attention away from the momentum with this remediation work? This Bill, as it stands, won't provide a great deal of comfort for residents in places such as Victoria Dock, and if the Government doesn't take enforcement action appropriately, has the time come to include provision in the Bill, provision in statute to enable residents to challenge developers directly if the Government fails in its work in that direction?

Turning to the costs, at first glance, the costs in the RIA appear slightly ambiguous in terms of the fact that the major task of the new regime is likely to fall on the local authorities and on the fire and rescue service. The RIA foresees that the Government will shoulder £25 million of cost over 10 years, the industry—whatever the definition of that is—over £130 million and the county councils and the fire and rescue services around £8 million. So, how will we ensure in future that these costs on behalf of the industry aren't passed on to residents? That would be unacceptable, particularly with rent costs as they currently stand and the fact that the Bill's aim is to hold the developers responsible.

Diolch, Siân. Thank you for those questions and for your welcome to the Bill and the work that you did with the co-operation agreement in preparation for all of this. So, as you know, it's been long in train, and lots of things going on within this. So, I'm sure that you're as pleased as me to see this here today.

I think that it was really good and pleasing to see that you mentioned how this is made in Wales, and this part of the legislation—. It's really important that we are looking at the situation here in Wales. The nature of buildings compared to England is quite different. We know that there are a lot taller buildings, 18m and above, in England compared to Wales. So, I think that it's really important that we look at our own landscape here. You're quite right, we shouldn't rest on our laurels. There's a lot to do. But we have been doing that work across the piece, really, following the tragedy of Grenfell. As I said, it really has to be meaningful change, and that's why this part of the Bill, particularly, looks at the occupation phase of the buildings as well, so looking at what happens there and making sure that we're protecting people in that way.

So, again, following on from the Grenfell inquiry, as I said, we fully accept the findings of the inquiry and have accepted, at least in principle, all of those recommendations. The inquiry's phase 2 report is relevant to Wales, and our response describes the action that we're going to be taking to implement the recommendations. As I say, much of that is under way.

So, in terms of some of the other points that you raised, and perhaps picking up on the local authority issue—. Also, I note that Laura raised that as well. I think that it's been important to recognise, again, the strength within local authorities, in terms of them being the body. Again, I've said that I would look for that to be one or two—working between one and two. That's still to be developed through this process as well, but we'll be working with local authorities on that as well, as we go through this process. I do think it does fit best with them without creating a specific body.

In terms of the other points that you raised, which I'm trying to have a look at now—. In terms of the costs as well, we know that there are costs to doing this. As I said, I've announced the £1.3 million now to work with local authorities, in terms of the training that will be needed and some of the other preparedness for it. We know that there's obviously a cost to that and, again, we'll be working with local authorities and others. But I think that it's also important to note there's a cost of not doing this. We know what the cost of Grenfell was—we're talking financially, but not least, the human cost—of not doing anything. So, I think that it's absolutely clear that we do recognise that within the points as well, because it's absolutely crucial that we protect people. I think that this Bill will go certainly a way, so that people are safe and certainly feel safe, which is crucial.

I thank the Minister for her statement introducing this Bill. I welcome the Minister's statement that, at the heart of her response, is a commitment to put residents first. Residents should always be put first. Well, as the Minister said, the Grenfell Tower tragedy is a poignant and devastating reminder of the importance and necessity of getting building safety right to us in the Senedd. It is a cause of fear every day for those living in high-rise buildings. Imagine every night, when you go to bed, fearing another Grenfell Tower where you are living.

We know the comprehensive findings of the Grenfell Tower inquiry laid bare the systematic failures across industry, governance and regulation that contributed to this tragedy, where profit was considered more important than safety. My constituents living in Altamar have been negotiating with Bellway for several years. When can they expect the remedial work they need done on their building to be completed?

Thank you, Mike. Thank you for the points that you raised, your welcome for the Bill and the recognition that people do have that fear. I think, again, the key element of this Bill is to make sure that people are safe and feel safe in their buildings. I also acknowledge a point that you've made, and I know that you've raised it a number of times. I also remember one of Siân's points in her comments as well; I'll add to that in this response, if that's okay. I do regularly meet developers, because it is really important that this Bill is about, again, the occupational phase, rather than the remediation part of the Bill. We've been doing that work. That has been ongoing, as you know. And I met the developers last on 9 June. At that meeting, I was very clear that I expect the developers to step up to their responsibilities and to accelerate remediation. There are some positive signs that progress is improving, with a large number of remediation works already under way. But in response to an expectation set, I've also received a commitment from all developers that have signed the Welsh Government contract that works on all their developments in Wales will have at least started by the end of 2026.

I am concerned about the number of leaseholders that contact my officials expressing frustrations about them being kept in the dark, and I just want to put on record, again, that this is unacceptable. All developers have been instructed to develop detailed communication and engagement plans to ensure residents and leaseholders are kept fully informed at every stage. My officials are closely engaged in the progress at many developments across Wales, and I'd encourage Members to contact me or my officials if you have any concerns about specific developments.

Thank you so much, Cabinet Secretary, for the statement. It is incredibly frustrating that here we are, eight years later. Many groups and individuals here in Wales feel so let down—groups like the Welsh Cladiators, who have formed themselves and really taken a lot of time and a lot of their own resources to actually raise the issues that we are now starting to see being addressed. They've told us of waking watches that have cost thousands every month, of skyrocketing insurance premiums, of some selling their homes at huge loss. Whilst this Bill does something for the current group, it doesn't reflect what's happened to the people over the past eight years who have suffered. It's hard to understand how the Welsh Government can find £20 million-worth in interest-free loans for the very developers who caused this crisis, but offer no equivalent support to their victims. Reforming our regulation is vital, of course, but it is not enough. So, I would like to ask you, Cabinet Secretary, how will you commit to ensuring this Bill brings real support for current victims, not just future protections, and that that is within a legal and statutory framework? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch Jane, and thank you for raising those important issues. As I said, this Bill is very much separate to the work that we have been doing on remediation. So, this is about the occupation phase. You'll know that we took forward the regulations that appeared in the 2022 Act, a UK Government Act, in terms of the fabric of the buildings. This is our response to the occupation of the building. As I said, we have our remediation work going on. I've set out that I meet those developers regularly and I constantly urge the pace. I would like to see more pace in the system, and I know you would, and I know others, like the Cladiators and others, do as well.

But in terms of the work that we are doing, which I think is, again, separate to this Bill, we are closely monitoring the progress of that remediation by developers who've signed up to the Welsh Government contract. We know that the scale and scope of our programme is very different to what is in place in England. It is not possible to compare how we are in Wales to England. In Wales our remediation programme adopts a whole-building approach to fire safety and it is not focused solely on cladding. For that reason, our figures include remediation for both internal and external fire safety issues. Buildings are reported as complete when both the internal and external fire safety remediation is complete, and for this reason, the data published by other nations is obviously not directly comparable.

But we do work closely. We have an established leaseholders group as well, and there’s a stakeholder group that we’ve established in response to some of the concerns that the Cladiators have raised. We have this group that’s open to all leaseholders to come along, and I know that that has been very well received as well, but I can assure you that the remediation part is very much alongside this. We know that there is still more to do.

And finally, Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Diolch yn fawr, Gweinidog. I also, like everyone else, welcome this Bill, but like other contributors I'm also going to mention the painfully slow remediation of current buildings. I spoke to a couple last week who live around the corner in Victoria Wharf. They're in their late 80s. On their development the work won't start until 2027 and it'll be two to three years of disruption from then on. They'll be in their 90s before work is complete.

Only three private sector developments have been completed. You will know from the leaseholder forums that people feel very frustrated. They believe that the Welsh Government aren't doing enough to hold the developers’ feet to the fire. They don't see an end to their plight and they do think that the Welsh Government could do far more. So, how will you accelerate the pace of development? How will you use your influence to protect leaseholders against multinational, large companies with deep pockets? I receive regular correspondence, and I'm sure you do also, Cabinet Secretary, about high service charges. Can you ensure that this Bill’s provisions will not lead to increases in costs for leaseholders? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you, Rhys, and thank you for raising the concerns that you do on behalf of your constituents as well. In terms of the programme that we have, our building safety programme, as I said, is making progress and I'm clear that there is more to do. I can assure you that I have been very clear with those developers as well, as I regularly am, that I expect work to progress as quickly as possible.

There are currently 461 buildings in the programme. Of these, 43 per cent are either complete or work is under way, 47 per cent of buildings are in the planning stages, with the remaining 10 per cent either not requiring work or remediation needs are yet to be identified. So, we have set a stretching target for all developers to ensure that remediation work is started, as I say, as a minimum on all of their developments by the end of 2026. I can assure you that I will continue to push them on that in my regular meetings, doing everything I can to make that go as quickly as possible.

I'd also like to assure you that my officials are very much in regular contact with developers and leaseholders. We've got two different groups now and they're very much engaged, certainly weekly if not sometimes daily on some of these issues, because we know how important that that is. When there are barriers that have been identified, officials work very closely on the detail and they do everything they can to help remove the barriers so work can begin as soon as possible.

Our principle is that where a developer can be identified and can afford to remediate the buildings, they should do. Where there's no developer identified, Welsh Government will step in to fund that work. You'll also know about the consultation that we've launched in conjunction with the UK Government on leasehold reform. That launched on Friday and that is open, I believe, until September, so I'm sure you and others here will want to encourage your constituents to make sure they have their voices heard on what will be an important chance to have the leasehold reform that I think many Members here would say was much needed.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Item 4 is next, the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government to move the motion. Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. I’m pleased to bring the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025 before you today. The conduct Order is an unusually large piece of secondary legislation, which reflects its significance as a fundamental instrument for elections to this Parliament. It details the procedures for Senedd elections, how the elections are to be managed, and how independent candidates manage and report their election campaign activities. It also outlines the process for legal challenges to an election.

This Order replaces the current Order, which was originally made by the Secretary of State for Wales in 2007. That Order is now a much-amended piece of legislation that has become increasingly complex and difficult to follow and is no longer fit for purpose. This is the first time since the legislative powers were devolved that the Order has been redrafted as a single instrument. The Order considered today is more concise and employs suitable and modern terminology. Very importantly, the Order is presented bilingually for the first time, meaning that the rules for the elections to our Parliament are written in the two languages of our nation for the first time.

Our electoral reform principles of accessibility, equity, improving citizen experience, participation, simplicity and integrity have been at the forefront of the work of consolidating and modernising the Order. Its content and structure will be largely familiar. However, the Order has been updated to reflect the historic reforming legislation in the shape of the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024 and the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Act 2024. This is a huge step forward, but we have been conscious of the pace of change and the capacity of electoral administrators and therefore have not sought to address every issue in one go with this Order. This is especially evident where we have reconsidered the implementation of postal vote statement correction procedures, which was in the draft Order we published last year. In our consultation, we heard concerns of the potential impact this would have on election teams, and have therefore removed the procedures from this Order. The Order supports consistency in electoral legislation, and the election rules themselves align as far as possible with the rules for local elections in Wales. We have listened to the consultation responses and amended the Order further where possible, and I hope you agree that we now have a workable and accessible Order.

The Order is being considered now to allow sufficient time for the election to the reformed Senedd to be prepared for properly, including the production of guidance, administrative training and public awareness building. A delay to this legislation would threaten the delivery of the Senedd elections. My officials will continue to work closely with the Electoral Commission and the electoral management board, the Association of Electoral Administrators and other key stakeholders to implement this historic legislation and to ensure that the Senedd elections next May are run as efficiently as possible. On that note, I’d like to express my thanks to the stakeholders and election teams for their continuous hard work and humility, and for their engagement throughout the project of remaking this Order. They are essential for the functioning of democracy.

This Order has been subject to considerable scrutiny, and I would like to thank the Reform Bill Committee for its consideration of a draft Order during the consultation period. The views of the committee were taken into account in the Order considered today. I’d also like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their consideration of this legislation. I have responded to their helpful report, and have set out the amendments that will be made in the Order in response to those reporting points before it’s formally made. I can give the Senedd my assurance that all the amendments that will be made are minor in nature and do not change either the meaning or legal effect of the provisions being amended. I look forward to the views of Members.

Now, as the Cabinet Secretary is aware, my party does not support Senedd expansion. Whilst this Order is not specifically about the policy of Senedd expansion, but rather making provision for the conduct of elections to the Senedd following the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024, given our reservations about the Order, we will be abstaining on the Order this afternoon. Now, we have concerns about the Order itself and how it has been drafted, and we also share the concerns raised by organisations like the Royal National Institute of Blind People as well.

I'm grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for its scrutiny of this Order. Its members have been very vocal in expressing that this is not a particularly well-drafted piece of legislation, and I believe they have made that point clearly to the Welsh Government. It speaks volumes when the Member for Blaenau Gwent states that this is not a good piece of work from the Welsh Government and that we have a right to expect better. Well, on this side of the Chamber, we agree.

The committee has expressed concern about the high number of drafting defects and the inconsistencies between the English and Welsh language texts. Whilst I acknowledge that this is a substantial Order, that does not excuse the volume of drafting issues, and you'd hope the Welsh Government's own checking process would have been rigorous enough to pick out these issues.

I also share the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee's concern regarding the Welsh Government's proposal to use the correction process. I understand that the Government believes the corrections are minor, and I do not dispute that, but the fact remains that correcting more than 20 errors in an instrument after it has been approved by the Senedd is, as the committee rightly states, an unreasonable and inappropriate use of the correction process.

I'd also like to highlight some of the issues raised during scrutiny by the Reform Bill Committee and through the consultation process. Firstly, the Reform Bill Committee made four recommendations in relation to the Order, all of which were either accepted or, indeed, accepted in principle by the Welsh Government. Two recommendations concerned the issue of vacant seats. The committee had concerns over whether a 21-day period provides a sufficient amount of time for a prospective Member to return to the register of local government electors in the event that they were not registered at the time when the seat became vacant. A 21-day grace period could prove problematic for some individuals. Whilst this is a very niche matter, it's a serious one, which, if not properly addressed, could cause significant disruption to the process for filling vacant Senedd seats. Now, the Welsh Government made it clear that work is ongoing in this area, so I hope the Cabinet Secretary will provide an update in response to this debate this afternoon.

I apologise to the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mike.

Sorry, Mike, I missed you out. I now call upon the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee first considered the draft conduct Order on 2 June, leading to an exchange of correspondence with the Cabinet Secretary. This is because the committee’s report on the draft Order contained 42 reporting errors. Thirty-six of these are technical points. Of those 36, 14 reporting points note inconsistencies between the English and Welsh texts of the Order. I've difficulty in blaming the Minister for this—I don't expect the Minister to check that the English and Welsh texts are the same. What I do expect is some competency amongst civil servants in the Welsh Government to ensure that happens. Six reporting points highlighted potential defective drafting. There was also one issue with gender-specific language being used in the Order.

The committee wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 4 June. While acknowledging that the conduct Order is large, the committee told the Cabinet Secretary that the number of potentially defective drafting issues and instances where the English and Welsh language do not match was of concern. The committee asked for clarity on the process that has led to the conduct Order being laid before the Senedd containing the errors and inconsistencies we identified. We asked the Cabinet Secretary to confirm whether it remained her intention to seek approval of the conduct Order in its present form. The Cabinet Secretary responded on 12 June, providing a response to the points in our report. She also included a table that runs to four pages in length, setting out corrections the Welsh Government propose to make to the Order should the Senedd approve it this afternoon and therefore it is signed into law.

The Cabinet Secretary also confirmed that the Senedd would be asked to consider the Order as laid today. The committee was not satisfied with this response. On 18 June, the committee wrote again, expressing concern that not only are there significant issues with the Order, but the Cabinet Secretary proposes to address more than 20 points raised in our report via the correction prior to making process. The Welsh Government has previously given a commitment to the Senedd that corrections would only be made to an instrument after its approval by the Senedd and prior to being signed into law by a Welsh Minister when the error in question is very minor. While each error identified by the committee and which the Cabinet Secretary proposes to correct prior to making may be minor, the committee is of the view that correcting more than 20 errors in an instrument after it has been approved by the Senedd is an unreasonable and inappropriate use of the correction prior to making process.

The committee has also challenged the Cabinet Secretary’s statement that she does not believe that any of the matters reported on by the committee give rise to any issues that compromise the overall integrity of the Order. This is a different assessment as to whether the instrument scrutinised and approved by the Senedd is deemed to have been substantially changed before being signed into law. We also informed the Cabinet Secretary of our concern that some of the Welsh Government’s proposed corrections will not actually address the errors and issues identified in the committee’s report.

This Order, of course, reflects a new chapter in the history of the Senedd, as the foundations of our democracy come of age at last, a quarter of a century since Wales began its devolution journey. We also welcome the fact that the Order, for the first time, will be provided bilingually, an important step forward in confirming the status of the Welsh language in the context of the election.

We do, however, have several concerns that these Orders have some serious practical shortcomings, as well as glaring omissions, and will be abstaining this afternoon. My colleague Adam Price will speak to the specific issue of deliberate deception, but we are disappointed that the Order does not guarantee that universal roll-out of automatic registration for the 2026 election, in line with prior commitments made by the Government. I also have concerns, which have been raised by the LJC committee, regarding the shortcomings of the checking process for these Orders.

It's quite damning that, on the eve of this debate, on a matter of such significance as the arrangements for our next set of national elections, we have a Senedd committee submitting written correspondence expressing its view that the drafting of the Order has been badly mishandled, despite repeated prior warnings. It speaks to an alarming failure of the most fundamental machinery of Government. So, why has this gone so badly wrong, and will you commit to an urgent review of any current checking system?

Finally, returning to the theme of communication that I mentioned at the start of the contribution, you will be aware that the likes of the Electoral Commission have stressed the need for a robust and comprehensive communications campaign, well in advance of the next election, to ensure that voters are fully aware of the upcoming changes to the electoral system. Could you, therefore, provide an update as to the Welsh Government's intention in this area? And will you commit to bringing forward a public outreach strategy by no later than six months before the next election, to allow Senedd time for an element of scrutiny? Diolch yn fawr.

This conduct Order is really part of the jigsaw to actually make our Senedd elections in 2026 much more open and much fairer. I would agree with Paul Davies' request around the RNIB, insisting that, actually, we need to see a fair bit of this actually being non-discriminatory. And we've had evidence, particularly the committees I've sat on, that this is discriminatory to blind people. So, I would like to hear that specific response, if I may, Cabinet Secretary.

But I want to just touch on an issue that many of us here in the Senedd feel is important, particularly as we go into the 2026 election, which is the issue of deliberate deception. We are going to be faced with an election in 2026 that will include a broad range of parties, and some of those we know, not just necessarily members, but potentially candidates, where there will be concerns around what they have said. This is not just about our electoral commitment to democracy, but it's also about ensuring that the public see, here in Wales, that we are committed to ensuring that we address deliberate deception. The situation with the public is that we're at an all-time low in terms of trust of politicians. So, although this Order doesn't include the element of deliberate deception, and I know that's coming in the Member accountability Bill, I would just ask you, specifically, if you could put on record that there is a commitment to looking at whether we are able to introduce deliberate deception in 2026, that there's an openness from the Welsh Government to consider any means by which we're able to get the mechanism in place to ensure deliberate deception comes into play, ready for the 2026 elections. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I start by apologising to the Chair and to the Cabinet Secretary, and to the Chamber, for being late for the beginning of this debate? But I'd just like to pick up on those last comments by Jane Dodds, really, and remind us of the connection between what we're discussing today, which is the conduct Order that introduces, through secondary regulations, the existing electoral offences, et cetera, and the fact that we are going to be, very shortly, discussing a new piece of primary legislation that will create a new electoral offence of deliberate deception. The purpose of doing that now is to get it in place by the 2026 election. The Government has committed to doing that and translating that into conduct Orders for future elections. But if the principle has been accepted, it's important that it's implemented now, because it's this next election when we are going to face, as Jane Dodds was intimating really, a tsunami of disinformation and deceit. So, we need to use this measure that we are going to legislate to create and we need to then turn that into action at this coming Senedd election.

We had a very useful conversation with the Counsel General on this very issue, about how, practically, given that we are getting closer to the Senedd election, we can translate the primary legislation into an amended conduct Order. So, it's important that we put that on the record now, so that Members, and indeed the public, are aware of this. And where we left the very constructive conversation we had with the Counsel General is that, at the moment, the Government is not convinced that there is a route through, but if we are able to demonstrate a route that is practical, then the Government is supportive. The Counsel General was supportive of that, so that was, I think, a very, very positive and constructive commitment.

And from our perspective, you can't delay the defence of democracy. Democracy needs to be defended in the here and now. So, we are hopeful that we will be discussing an amended conduct Order at the appropriate juncture, following the passing of the primary legislation, so that we're then able to ensure that what we and the Government are committed to doing for future elections, we're also able to enshrine that standard at the heart of the coming election through a future amendment to the conduct Order.

The Cabinet Secretary now to reply.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and thank you to all Members for participating in this debate today and, once again, to the Reform Bill Committee and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their thorough consideration of this legislation.

I know that it was raised by a number of Members, the appropriateness of making amendments to the Order prior to it being made. I don't accept that the number of amendments is considerable, just given the size of the Order. Just to remind everyone, it is over 400 pages in length in each language, and almost 270,000 words in both languages. And I can assure Members that the Order did go through a process of consultation and checking. Due to the extensive and complex nature of the Order, unfortunately there is always the potential for human error. But I can assure Members that careful and detailed consideration was given to all of the points raised by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and I'm satisfied that using the correction process in this instance is appropriate.

As I've set out, all of the amendments to the Order prior to it being made are very minor in nature. They don't change the meaning or legal effect of any of the provisions being amended, and even taken as a whole, the effect of the amendments would not substantially change the Order. And I think it's important to remember that, if these amendments were not made, the Order as it stands would not be defective and it would be fully operational. However, I am committed to addressing the amendments identified before the Order is made to ensure the integrity of the Welsh language, to ensure that gender neutrality is upheld and to ensure that the Order is as accessible as possible to readers. Again, it is a really important point to note that this is the first time that this Order is being made fully bilingually, and this in itself was a substantial, but obviously necessary, undertaking, and I'm really proud that we've been able to do that.

In terms of the other really important points that were made by Members, particularly around accessibility, obviously I very much support the pilots of the ballot paper, and I was really pleased to actually be at one of those pilots, in Cardiff. And in partnership with the RNIB and local authorities, we did carry out those trials with blind and partially sighted people of various audio and tactile voting solutions. We used a mock ballot paper, based on the current regional ballot paper, and although we did not test the ballot paper as it appears in the Order, as this was still out for consultation, it really did provide us with an insight into how blind and partially sighted voters might still navigate a long ballot paper, including all four party list candidates. I published a report outlining the findings from these trials on 12 May. And just to be clear with Members, while the sample ballot paper contained in the Order has each party's candidate in a single column, the legislation allows the returning officer to decide how many columns they should present it in, and this will allow for ballot papers that resemble the current regional ones. But I'm very committed to ensuring accessibility within the election.

[Inaudible.] Would you allow us to put on the record that that legislation, I think the Counsel General has already confirmed, would also apply to candidates, not just to Members?

We can certainly write to you following that because, obviously, I wasn't—. It's good to put that, perhaps, on record in that way. But as I say, we are very much committed to achieving this on a very tight timetable, and work is very much progressing on that. I know that this is of particular concern to many Members in the Senedd.

Somebody mentioned how close we are to the Senedd elections. Time is upon us, really. It's fast approaching, the election, I think less than 10 months now. We know that there's a lot of work to do, but just to be clear that without this Order, there will be significant risk to the 2026 elections, so I would urge all Members to support this today. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, therefore we will defer voting until voting time.

Item 5 is next. This is the debate on the first supplementary budget for 2025-26, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language to move the motion. Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. It's a pleasure to open this debate on the Welsh Government's first supplementary budget for 2025-26. As is usual in the case of supplementary budgets, it makes adaptations to the general level of the resources available to Wales as a result of the spring statement and the main estimates for 2025-26 made by the UK Government. It includes spending and fiscal plans for the Welsh Government and the bodies directly funded from the Welsh consolidated fund. This is the first opportunity to present the budgetary plans for the current financial year since the final budget was agreed in March.

Llywydd, this first supplementary budget includes a total increase to the Welsh departmental expenditure limit of £587 million, of which £342 million is revenue. One hundred and eighty eight million pounds comes for non-cash budgets, £16 million for general capital and a small reduction of under £200,000 to the financial transactions budget. Alongside the income side, the supplementary budget also regularises spending plans.

This first supplementary budget contains two items of particular note. First, it confirms the allocation of a total package of £220 million revenue to support our public services, including further education, with increased national insurance contributions. I have passed on in full the £185 million provided by the UK Government. Members will be aware that this fell short of the £257 million needed by devolved public sector employers in Wales to meet the impact of increased costs. This supplementary budget therefore also shows the additional £36 million from reserves to contribute 50 per cent towards the gap faced by those employers. This total package of support will fund 85 per cent of the additional costs reported by public sector employers. I continue to press the UK Government to fully fund the cost of the additional national insurance contributions in Wales.

Llywydd, the second expenditure item of significance is a transfer of £100 million to the health and social care main expenditure group. The new funding will support the NHS to build on the progress made to date to reduce the longest waits for planned treatment. The new planned care recovery plan, agreed by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, sets out our ambitions to reduce the overall size of the waiting list by 200,000 people, to eliminate all two-year waits, and to restore the diagnostic wait times to under eight weeks by March 2026. I recognise the enormous efforts being made by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and those in the wider NHS, to fulfil these plans, and, of course, as finance Secretary, I share his expectation that this funding must deliver tangible improvements.

Other transfers of a smaller order made through this first supplementary budget in respect of specific funding received from the UK Government include changes that are to be found in the MEGs available to my Cabinet colleagues responsible for health and social care, economy, energy and planning, education and social justice. The budget also regularises approved transfers within and between Welsh Government ministerial portfolios to align resources with the delivery of our priorities, ensuring that resources are deployed effectively.

In bringing the supplementary budget in front of the Senedd, I have drawn £40 million from the Wales reserve to support our spending plans. Funds remaining in the Wales reserve are sufficient, I believe, to manage emerging pressures during the rest of this year. As is normal practice, I will table a second supplementary budget later in this financial year. Any further allocations from reserves will be regularised in that second supplementary budget, which will also include details of any further consequentials to Wales, be they positive or negative, that arise as a result of changes to UK Government departmental spending.

Llywydd, the first supplementary budget is a regular but important part of our annual process for the budget. It provides assurances to public services. It also ensures that Senedd Members and committees, as they scrutinise, can clearly see the changes made in Government decisions in terms of income and expenditure. I would of course like to thank the Finance Committee for giving full consideration to the budget, and I'd like to thank them for their report. I will respond in detail to the recommendations in due course, but I can say today that I'm sure that we can accept a number of recommendations contained within the report. May I urge Members to support the budget before the Senedd this afternoon?

The Chair of the Finance Committee, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to the Cabinet Secretary for responding to our report. I'm pleased to speak this afternoon on behalf of the Finance Committee in this debate. The committee scrutinised the first supplementary budget on 26 June, and I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary and his officials for their attendance. Our report makes eight recommendations and comes to one conclusion. As the Cabinet Secretary has indicated, the changes in this supplementary budget are largely codifying Welsh Government decisions that were made prior to the outcome of the UK spending review that was published on 11 June.

However, we found areas where improvements could be made and where further action is required. Firstly, we are grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for providing a breakdown of the consequential funding the Welsh Government has received in correspondence after the supplementary budget was laid. We have long called for this level of transparency and find it particularly helpful in our budget scrutiny work. So much so that we would like this information to be provided as soon as possible after each UK fiscal event from now on, as well as incorporated within the explanatory notes of supplementary budgets in the future.

Turning to specific issues, we share the Cabinet Secretary’s disappointment that the funding provided by the UK Government to compensate public sector organisations for the increase in national insurance contributions is around £72 million short of estimates provided by public sector organisations in Wales. We have received significant correspondence on this issue since last year’s autumn statement, and are deeply concerned by the financial impact this is having on organisations across Wales. This is very disappointing, given that the UK Government is not providing the same level of support to Welsh public sector services as provided for in England.

The committee is particularly concerned that no compensation will be provided to third sector providers or commissioned services. We call on the Welsh Government to assess the impact of this funding shortfall on those bodies, given they are often providing services on behalf or instead of public sector agencies such as the NHS and local authorities. Despite this, we welcome the steps taken by the Cabinet Secretary to plug the funding shortfall in this budget. We also support the Cabinet Secretary in his efforts to both secure full funding for this shortfall in this financial year and to develop a sustainable plan to manage recurring costs without relying on reserves in future financial years.

This episode also illustrates that the relationship between the Welsh Government and HM Treasury is often undermined by a lack of robust dispute resolution mechanisms. It often places the Welsh Government at a disadvantage, especially as the current position involves the Treasury both making the decisions on interpreting rules and investigating challenges to these decisions. We have previously recommended action in this area as part of our inquiry into fiscal inter-governmental relations, and the committee again supports a more balanced system of dispute resolutions to address this.

In terms of specific allocations in the supplementary budget, we note the £100 million funding provided to reduce waiting times. We note the assurances provided by the Cabinet Secretary that the oversight arrangements within Government around this additional funding are robust and will lead to the desired outcomes. Nonetheless, given the ongoing concerns of the committee in relation to productivity in the health service, the committee wants to see more evidence of how Welsh Government allocations are linked to outcomes, and have included a recommendation to this effect.

To conclude, Llywydd, I would like to discuss budget flexibilities. Despite some welcome recent developments, notably in relation to allowing the Welsh Government unfettered access to the Wales reserve this financial year, it was disappointing to hear that there were no further changes in this area following the spending review.

Given our previous support for increasing borrowing limits and drawdowns in line with inflation throughout this Senedd, it would be particularly disappointing if no progress was made on these matters before the end of this Senedd term. We therefore call on the Cabinet Secretary to continue to pursue these matters.

As ever, we welcome the Cabinet Secretary's continued engagement with us as part of our budget scrutiny work and we ask that the areas that we have identified in our report are taken forward. Thank you very much.

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for opening this debate today. I also recognise that what's being presented to us is very much a process element of the role of the supplementary budget. The reason why it's presented to us in this format today, as the Chair of the Finance Committee mentioned, is recognising it's very much a reconciliation process for the sake of the budget as it stands today. That's why we as a group will be abstaining on the motion in front of us here today.

I'd like to take my time just to focus on the most significant element of the supplementary budget, which is the national insurance contribution impact on the Government's budget and the broader impact of that, both in terms of our economy and public service providers more broadly.

Of course, for context, according to the Governor of the Bank of England, the national insurance increase is, as they've described it, contributing to a job market slowdown with lower labour demand and a forthcoming what they describe as significant decline in wage growth, which is an important context for the Government here to consider. Of course, that does apply across the United Kingdom, but we know here in Wales it will have a particularly negative impact because of the lower pay packets that are here. So, the relative impact on employers is going to be and is proving to be significant. We're also aware of the prospect of future tax hikes, possibly even in the autumn, which certainly is a risk to some businesses here in Wales.

What this means for the Welsh Government's budget, as we've seen presented to us today, is that £185 million being met by the UK Government to support the increase of those national insurance hikes to the public sector here in Wales. As we've heard the Cabinet Secretary say previously, this has fallen significantly short of what is required to enable the Cabinet Secretary to fully fund that increase in our public services, specifically for public sector employers. We know that cost is £257 million.

It's important to distinguish those public sector employers in Wales from public service providers, because we know that there's going to be no specific or ring-fenced increase in funding for public service providers, whether they're charities, who provide a significant amount of public service work here in Wales, often commissioned, of course, by public bodies, but also for those businesses, in particular in social care, who provide a significant amount of public service work. They are not going to feel the benefit directly as a result of that funding for the national insurance increase.

We know the reason for that, and credit to the Cabinet Secretary for raising this on numerous occasions and for his continued work in this space. We know that, in England, the full cost of those higher national insurance contributions has been met by the Westminster Government. That's not the case here in Wales, because of the way the Barnett formula has been set up. So, I give credit to the Cabinet Secretary for committing to campaigning and pushing for the further levels of national insurance to come through. But, in the meantime, what's been created is some uncertainty for public bodies and for public service providers, and there's a real risk here in the way this has been plugged.

May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for opening today's debate? I do think that there is consensus across this Chamber in terms of NI. It’s something that’s been raised so regularly. May I thank the Finance Committee for its work and for the report? I think the recommendations are sensible and are extremely important. And, certainly, I'd like to hear from the Cabinet Secretary. You did mention that you accepted the recommendations, but particularly on recommendation 6, in terms of measuring the direct and indirect impact of the increase of national insurance contribution on the third sector and services commissioned, to understand the long-term impact of this deficit. I would like to know if that is something that you would commit to, because I do think that it’s a key recommendation made by the Finance Committee.

It is something that you have spoken clearly about, in terms of your frustration, that we haven’t been given the necessary amount in terms of the £257 million in full, and also the impact that this will have on all future budgets because of that deficit. I do think that it was the right decision to use reserves to plug that gap, because we do know that it’s a very challenging situation indeed. But I would also like to understand if any support has been provided to some of the Welsh Government sponsored bodies. They're clearly—. In terms of the definition of 'public sector', that's something that we were questioning you on when the announcement was made on the UK Government's budget. But in order to understand what the impact will be across the whole range of public services, including Amgueddfa Cymru, the National Library of Wales and so on, I would appreciate some clarity in terms of that.

Clearly, one of the other recommendations made by the committee is on the fiscal framework and the frustration that that hasn't been progressed either. Are there any updates that you can provide to the Senedd today?

But more than anything, I think what we all want to see happen in terms of national insurance is that we must find a solution to this issue. There are so many third sector organisations and charities who continue to contact us to talk about the gravity of the situation in this financial year, but who are also fearful, when it comes to the 1 April next year, that they won't be able to continue with their activities. And we know how crucial so many of these third sector organisations and charities are in terms of doing some of the important things that the Welsh Government wants them to do to support the most vulnerable people in our communities—those who will also be impacted, of course, by the welfare changes imposed by the UK Government.

So, I know that we are all asking the same questions here, but I don't think we can overemphasise how much of a concern this is across Wales. So, with those few questions, I will leave my contribution there. But I would like some clarity on the issues that I have raised. Thank you.

The first supplementary budget is not a major financial event, but it's an important one. The changes in the supplementary budget are minimal. It largely codifies Welsh Government decisions that were made prior to the outcome of the UK spending review published in June. The supplementary budget reflects the budgetary changes since the final budget of 2025-26, which was published in February and which was approved by the Senedd in March. It regularises allocations to and from reserves, transfers within and between portfolios, and includes adjustments to the Wales budget to reflect the impact of UK Government fiscal events. Overall, the budget shows an increase in funds allocated to Welsh Government departments.

Having listened to the debate, I think a lot of people would have great difficulty in actually understanding that there is more money going to Welsh Government departments, and there is more money coming into Wales—substantially more than the 2.5 per cent national insurance contributions. The non-fiscal resource base increased by £188.2 million—

Would you take an intervention?

Certainly.

Can you explain, therefore, why the Cabinet Secretary has had to make the difficult decision of going into the Welsh reserves in order to make up that shortfall?

I can, but he can also do that. It's because he didn't want to take money off the spending departments. He didn't want to take money out of health. He prioritised health; the money had already been spent on health. I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary will explain it in greater detail.

The balance of unallocated non-fiscal resources reserved following the supplementary budget is £339.7 million. This is not money that can be allocated and spent, but an accountancy convention. Following a question from me at the Finance Committee, the Cabinet Secretary confirmed in evidence that these changes don't affect the amount of revenue or capital available to us for spending purposes. If the student loan fund was run by anybody other than Government, it would be considered a Ponzi. At some stage, it's going to be technically bankrupt—if it isn't technically bankrupt already—but the fact that it's got the Government underwriting it means that it continues.

There are no changes to the devolved tax income, with forecasts reflecting those published at the time of the final budget. However, the amount required to repay principal borrowing has reduced, increasing the amount of financing available by £2.5 million. The level of borrowing remains as it was in the final budget, at £150 million, but again, it may not all be used. There is no better example of how the Treasury treats devolved Governments as no different to Westminster departments than how, unlike local councils, they are not allowed to move money into and out of reserves as they wish, and that borrowing limits are set centrally as opposed to the stability to borrow prudentially. Those people in here who have held senior posts in local government will remember the ability to move money into and out of reserves as and when it was needed, and not having to get somebody to agree that that was the right amount. It makes no sense. It doesn't actually mean anything to the Treasury, because they've already allocated the money. It's just Treasury micromanagement.

When asked in the Finance Committee how the Welsh Government is assuring that the £100 million allocated to health will deliver the planned outcomes, the Cabinet Secretary confirmed that the primary responsibility for delivering outcomes with the funding provided lies with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. Additional money must provide increased numbers of people being treated. The committee recommended that the Cabinet Secretary explains how the Welsh Government maintains rigorous scrutiny and monitoring of health service funding to ensure it delivers the intended outcomes, including how the funding is reviewed and adjusted based on performance outcomes. What the Welsh Government failed to do is produce an expectation of what additional money will achieve. How many additional patients will be treated? What is the standard cost for each intervention? Why is the cost higher in some hospitals than others, including within the same health board, for carrying out the same level of intervention? Using the additional money to support artificial intelligence developments that can help diagnose lung cancer more accurately and predict heart attacks and strokes would be a good use of resources. It can also be used in areas such as ophthalmology, where it should increase accuracy in the screening and diagnosis of glaucoma and cataracts. AI can be used to analyse biopsy results, speeding up results for patients. I think that far too often, we don't think how we can use technology, we think how we can employ more people. Using technology actually means that you can get more work done by the same number of people, and I would hope that the health Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for finance will look at that as a means of taking us forward.

The Cabinet Secretary now to reply to the debate.

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

Llywydd, I'm always grateful for suggestions for improvement and, as I said in my opening remarks, I will look carefully at the eight recommendations contained in the Finance Committee's report. I don't want to pre-empt that process, but I will say that I'm looking forward to accepting the recommendation that we routinely provide information on consequentials as part of the supplementary budget process. And I agreed with what the Chair of the Finance Committee said about the need to have a better form of dispute resolution when disputes arise with the Treasury, and a form of resolution that has an element of independence within it. I give the Chair an assurance that where matters continue to be under discussion between us, we will endeavour to still be at the table to move those discussions forward.

I was grateful to the finance spokesperson of the Conservatives for indicating that his group will, as they have in the past, abstain in relation to the first supplementary budget. It is, as Sam Rowlands said, essentially a process event rather than a decision-making event. I listened carefully to his careful analysis of the national insurance issue as well, and there was little that I would have dissented from what he had to say.

I will make just two points: as far as FE colleges are concerned, because of the legal framework of FE colleges in Wales, they fell outside the Chancellor's definition, the ONS definition of public service employees, but I took the decision, together with the Minister involved, to include them, so insofar as I have been able to assist other public services, further education colleges are being treated on the same basis. Of course, Mr Rowlands made the important point, Llywydd, about reserves. In-year management of additional expenditure is routinely managed through reserves. The point I think the Member was making is what happens beyond this year, and that will indeed be a matter for us to discuss in the budget-making process during the autumn.

Heledd Fychan also focused on the national insurance issue, Llywydd. I've said what I've said on that matter many times now. I wanted to make sure that Welsh public services were treated as closely as possible as public services across our border. What I wasn't able to do was to use Welsh Government resources, provided primarily for the great public services—health, housing, education, local government, and so on—to divert those resources into meeting a responsibility that isn't a responsibility of this Senedd. And I recognise that that will cause challenges for many organisations here in Wales, but it's a judgment, and my judgment was that I could not provide for that ever-widening circle of employers who fell outwith the Chancellor's definition, where there would be no help in England for me to match or attempt to match from resources here in Wales.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore we'll defer voting until voting time.

Item 6 is next, the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Bill: signification of His Majesty’s consent. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for finance to move the motion.

Llywydd, I have it in command from His Majesty the King to acquaint the Senedd that His Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Bill, has given his consent to this Bill.

Thank you.

Item 7 is next: Stage 4 of the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Bill. And the Cabinet Secretary for finance is to move the motion for Stage 4—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'm pleased to move the motion before the Senedd today for Stage 4 of the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Bill.

I’d like to begin, as is conventional at this point, by expressing my thanks to a range of those who played an important part in the development and passage of the Bill. I begin by expressing my thanks to the committees, the Commission staff and those Members who've been directly involved in the consideration and scrutiny of the Bill for their sustained attention throughout the process. I also extend my gratitude to Cefin Campbell and his colleagues. The Bill was part of the co-operation agreement, and I thank Cefin Campbell for his consistent support of the Bill. And I wanted to thank my colleague Rebecca Evans for the formative work that she undertook in this policy area when finance Secretary. I am very grateful as well to the stakeholders and delivery partners for their views, suggestions and expertise as the policy was developed. They've been an integral part of the process since the outset and their input has undoubtedly been influential in shaping the Bill, and the Government remains committed to working with them to ensure that this policy, where implemented, is a positive step for all. Finally, Llywydd, I would like to express my gratitude to all of the officials—the Welsh Government officials—who've worked tirelessly on the Bill, ensuring that it has remained responsive to the process of scrutiny, while never losing sight of its founding principles.

Llywydd, by passing this Bill, we will give councils the choice to introduce a modest additional charge on overnight stays, which will be reinvested to support a thriving, sustainable tourism industry. The visitor levy is the first local tax for more than 500 years to have been designed and legislated upon in Wales. In our still young institution, it marks another important step on the devolution journey—a levy that, as Members know, through a small contribution, could still make a significant difference.

The levy could potentially raise £33 million across Wales, were all local authorities to introduce a visitor levy, and that would be a significant ongoing investment in those communities. The Government wants to ensure that the pressures and opportunities of tourism are fairly balanced. We believe it is reasonable for visitors to contribute towards infrastructure and services integral to their experience, as they do in so many other parts of the world, from Iceland to New Zealand, and many, many countries in between. Our research tells us unequivocally that the revenue generated has significantly contributed to environmental protection, the enhancement of facilities and infrastructure, the preservation of natural beauty, while supporting the visitor economy—all without deterring tourism. We want the same for Wales.

The Bill establishes a register of visitor accommodation providers operating in Wales, which will provide data to inform future tourism development and subsequent phases for regulating visitor accommodation. At present, our information about providers is incomplete. Enhancing this knowledge will be beneficial for the tourism industry itself and will support the effective implementation of the levy.

Llywydd, during the scrutiny of the Bill, several amendments were made. A partnership forum will now be established so that local people will have a say on how the visitor levy will be applied. While the rate has been set at a relatively low level compared to international standards, and exemptions have been limited to reduce complexity, the Bill now provides for those under the age of 18 no longer having to pay for hostels and campsite pitches, to limit any impact on young people.

The Welsh Revenue Authority will collect and manage the levy, to minimise the burden on local authorities. Should the Bill pass today, we will work with our partners and businesses to ensure a smooth implementation process before the proposed commencement of national registration in the autumn of 2026, and the earliest that a levy can be introduced will be in April 2027.

Llywydd, I ask Members to support this unique piece of legislation. It will strengthen communities, build democratic accountability and put tourism in Wales on a new and sustainable footing. Diolch.

The Welsh Conservatives have opposed this Bill from the start and continue to oppose it to this day. We believe it is bad for Wales and bad for the Welsh tourism sector, which forms such an important part of our Welsh economy. After 26 years of Labour-run Welsh Government, the economy in Wales is in dire straits.

This levy, by the Welsh Government's own admission, will impact jobs and our economy more broadly. Implementing a policy that undermines a sector that is world class and that already contributes significantly to the public purse through taxation and through various levies does not make sense to me or to my Welsh Conservative colleagues. It certainly does not make sense to the sector itself, which is strongly opposed to the Bill.

Through this process, we have proposed many amendments to this Bill, most of which, due to the beauty of democracy, were unsuccessful. But they were done in a way that I hope was constructive and engaging with the process, whilst we continued to be clear about our opposition to a tourism tax. That opposition is arm in arm with the people who know tourism and business best, and that is the actual tourism sector itself. In my capacity as chair of the tourism cross-party group, I regularly meet with tourism providers and operators, and, in my role as the Welsh Conservatives lead on this Bill, I've had the opportunity to meet with even more, hearing their concerns and also their hopes and their aspirations for the future too.

Wales really is a fantastic place to visit. We have so many people who work hard to keep it fantastic, ranging from unique accommodation providers to those who create unbeatable experiences up and down Wales. The work they do is essential to providing jobs, supporting our communities and stimulating economic growth. We really need more of that. Sadly, I think this Bill will create less of that, and we need a Government that understands the necessity of jobs and growth, so we can see a flourishing Wales in the future too. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I would reiterate Plaid Cymru's support for this Bill. There is a genuine opportunity here for us to create a sustainable tourism sector that works with both our communities and the businesses that operate within those communities. What I would say to the Cabinet Secretary now is that there have, of course, been some tensions around the introduction of a levy in some parts of the sector. Of course, I've met many businesses within the sector that also are supportive of the Bill and what is set out in the Bill and the sustainable tourism element of the Bill, but there have been some tensions. So, what we need to do now going forward—. It's important that we recognise that there are those concerns, and that this levy is implemented and reviewed to ensure that it actually achieves what the Government set out in the first place for it to achieve.

Now, I do believe that we will look back at this period in years to come and determine that this was the right course of action, as they have done in other countries over the years. The very same arguments were happening when they were looking to introduce a tourism levy in Barcelona and in other places, so I do really believe that we will look back at this as a positive step forward for our communities and to creating that sustainable tourism sector that, again, works with our communities and works with our businesses in tandem.

What I would like to say, of course, is 'thank you' to the Cabinet Secretary for working alongside myself and other colleagues to put together amendments that would improve the Bill, notably, from my perspective, the amendment to ensure that we give more time for those people who are seeking refuge from whether that be abusive relationships or homelessness to be able to claim back that levy. I think that was an important step and, again, signals the intent of the Government that this is something that, again, works with our communities.

I'd also, again, like to reiterate—the same as the Cabinet Secretary—a 'thank you' to Cefin Campbell, Siân Gwenllian and Adam Price for the work that they did during the co-operation agreement as well. Again, I think it is reflected in this Bill, much of the intent that was put forward by them during that period. Diolch yn fawr.

I just want to say that I think the Tories are completely out of touch and out of date on this issue. Thousands of people have visited Cardiff in the last few days and weeks, and some of them have come from as far away as Australia for the Oasis concert. I know that TfW manages to just about cover its costs through the increased revenue from more people travelling on public transport, and that's very welcome, but how do you expect the poor people of Adamsdown to have to cover all the other costs, like the litter that inevitably is created?

I went to Liverpool on the weekend, and I was more than happy to pay the £2.30 or £2.40 that it cost to stay for a night in Liverpool. Why we think that poor people, rather than visitors, should have to pay for the inevitable costs of thousands of people congregating in any one place, whether it's Tenby or it's Cardiff or in Colwyn Bay—? This is a really good idea, and it won't in any way impact on tourism.

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary for his constructive engagement throughout the journey of this Bill. I'm grateful to him for confirming that complaints related to the registration of accommodation will be part of the WRA's remit, and it was confirmed that the commencement Order will be made before the end of this Senedd, with registration to begin by October 2026. May I ask for a word of explanation on that? Will that happen in each local authority in turn, or in clusters of local authorities in turn? That is, will one authority be able to start on it immediately, if they so wish? I would urge again for us to have a final end date for the completion of this registration work throughout Wales.

Finally, in terms of definitions, we had an assurance that guidelines will be provided to accommodation providers about the kinds of accommodation as they register. That will be crucial for us to create a comprehensive picture and to understand the impact of tourism on the use of houses in our communities—houses that could be used as homes, leading to the possibility of reintroducing balance in some communities. So, I very much look forward to continuing with that discussion with the introduction of the licensing of long-term accommodation Bill. Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Well, Sam Rowlands was right to say that the Welsh Conservatives have consistently opposed the Bill. They've been hampered throughout, it seems to me, by a complete lack of proportion about the Bill, the consistent attempts to catastrophise this very modest measure. You really would think that nobody would ever travel to a holiday destination in Wales again because they're going to be asked to pay less than the price of a cup of coffee as a result of this Bill, where local authorities choose to introduce it. It is a permissive power. Nobody is being required to introduce a visitor levy. Where local authorities believe it will be beneficial to their areas, they will now have the opportunity to do that and to share the costs more fairly between local residents—of course, it is very popular amongst the residents of those constituents represented by some Conservative Members here—to share those costs between residents and people who make that visit.

The caravan site in Pontcanna, Llywydd, was filled to bursting over the weekend, as Jenny Rathbone has said. All of that requires the local authority to provide services to clear up the site when people move on. What the Bill does, should Cardiff Council decide to take the permissive power, is make sure that those people make a very small contribution, alongside the residents of the city itself, to make sure that Cardiff goes on being an attractive place to hold such events and for people to visit in the future.

I thank Luke Fletcher for his contributions during the passage of the Bill. I agree with him that we now move to the careful implementation and review of the Bill and to continue to work alongside the industry to make sure that, where local authorities do decide to use the power, it's done in a way that has their involvement.

I also agree with Siân Gwenllian, Llywydd. Of course, we will be providing guidance to local authorities and others involved in this area. When a new initiative is introduced, it's important that we work with people to give them an opportunity and to give them time to familiarise themselves with the new duties that will be placed upon them when the Bill is enacted.

And of course I am keen to go on working with others to bring a second piece, a companion piece, of legislation in front of the Senedd, as we agreed in the original co-operation agreement.

Llywydd, this is a modest measure. It provides a power for those local authorities who wish to use it. It has a broad base as a tax, which charges a very modest amount for visitors from within Wales and to Wales, to make sure that there is investment in the conditions that make the tourism industry the success it is in Wales, and will allow that industry to go on thriving into the future. I ask Members here to support it.

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

That brings us to voting time, and unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will move to voting time. So, we will take our first vote. The first vote this afternoon is on item 4, the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, 24 abstentions, none against, and therefore the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on item 5, the debate on the first supplementary budget 2025-26. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, 24 abstentions and one against, and therefore the budget is agreed.

The final vote will be on Stage 4 of the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Mark Drakeford. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 37, no—[Interruption.]

You've just walked in. That might explain it. I don't think you need to worry too much. For 37, no abstentions, 13 against.

And therefore the motion is agreed.

There we are. That concludes voting for this afternoon. We will now take a short break of some 10 minutes as we prepare for Stage 3 proceedings on the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Bill, and we will ring the bell five minutes before we reconvene.

I hope that we are ready to start our Stage 3 consideration of the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Bill.

The first group of amendments relates to the establishment and functions of the disused tip authority for Wales under Part 1. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 49, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. First of all, I’d like to thank everybody involved in the development of this legislation, but from my side I would like to give special thanks to Molly Skates, Katie Wyatt, Elizabeth Wilkinson and Mostyn Jones. In terms of amendment 49, fellow Members do need to be aware that the authority will be subject to the section 6 duty in the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, and ‘the authority’ is as discussed throughout this legislation.

The difference my amendment would make is that it would require the authority to set out, in the corporate plan, just how it intends to consider biodiversity when discharging its functions under the Act. During a time when both the nature and climate crises do exist, and bearing in mind the evidence we’ve received of the high biodiversity significance of disused tips, we should make it a legal requirement to detail how nature is to be considered in the corporate plan. This would be of advantage to the Welsh Government's own amendment 17, which does require consultation on the corporate plan. We know from committee that environmental organisations have considerable interest in these tips, and I would expect that they would be consulted on the corporate plan. Why, therefore, exclude details on the management of biodiversity from it?

During a recent site meeting with Natural Resources Wales and the Mining Remediation Authority, both of whom are undertaking exceptional but significant work at Parc lead mine in the Gwydir forest, it was highlighted that situations can arise where flora and fauna have grown on tips, which can lead to a site of special scientific interest classification, and that causes serious complexity and increased costs associated with remediation. The flora and fauna would simply not be there but for the tip. The tip would not be there and need remediation work should the spoils have been managed to higher standards. Why then should the authority, NRW, the Mining Remediation Authority and others encounter higher costs because the balance at present is in favour of protecting an aspect of the environment that is only present as a consequence of industrialisation? All I am aiming to achieve, as part of amendment 50, is to set out in law a commonsense solution that, in cases of conflict, the authority must prioritise human welfare over maintaining and enhancing biodiversity.

Amendment 31 does address the skills crisis. You agreed with me in Stage 2, Cabinet Secretary, that this is a major problem and highlighted that the authority is not a training provider. However, I think you’ve misunderstood me and the evidence. Stakeholders were clear with the committee that the development of the authority could lead to an even greater skills shortage. Rather than becoming a training body, the authority should play its part in seeking to promote skills development, such as by co-operating with universities on apprenticeships and co-operating with our colleges.

Whilst we will be supporting all the other amendments in the group, I cannot back No. 20, sorry, Delyth. Bearing in mind that we have left the European Union, why are you and Plaid Cymru trying to introduce a legal requirement to have regard to EU law and policy relating to climate change? We had that argument many years ago, and the decision stands—we have left the EU. Diolch.

I'd like to begin by placing on record my thanks to Lewis Owen, Niamh Salkeld and Tomos Rowley for their support with this Bill, as well as several environmental groups that I will mention during these debates.

I'd like to begin by reiterating my support for this Bill's core principles. Although we continue to be firmly of the belief that there are a number of areas where we need to go much further than we currently have in this legislation, this will be an important step forward to provide long-awaited fairness to the many communities that contributed so much to the world's wealth but received so little in return, and have had to live in the long dark shadow cast ever since then, with all of the damaging social and economic implications that ensued. That's a symbol that is incorporated by these tips.

We fully support the aim of this Bill to establish a designated authority with responsibility for overseeing the remedial work of clearing disused tips, and I speak particularly in this group to amendments 30, 18, 19 and 20, tabled in my name. It would be a perverse irony indeed if, in the process of carrying out work to undo decades of harm caused by coal mining, this authority were to inflict new environmental scars. The purpose of our amendments in this group, therefore, would be to place on the face of the Bill various pieces of environmental legislation, both Wales specific and international, to which the authority should have regard while undertaking its responsibilities.

Janet had asked why we were seeking to include EU legislation here. The reason for that is because we want all of the most ambitious legislation relating to the environment to be ones to which we have to have regard, regardless of where that is, because internationally and domestically we have to get the right legislation appearing here. That would include the principles of sustainable management of natural resources that are defined in sections 4 and 8 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016; the most recent future trends reports, under sections 11 and 23 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015; and all recent international law that relates to climate change policies, like the Paris agreement. We've also included a specific requirement for the authority to have regard to the impact of its work on biodiversity, on nature and the environment, as per the section 6 duty of the Environment (Wales) Act. This would ensure that the work of the authority is held to the most robust standards, and it would eliminate any potential for unintended consequences arising from its duties.

We have sought to clarify the kind of areas in which the authority must take all reasonable steps to minimise the potential disruption to communities who've had to endure more than their fair share of disruption from the presence of these tips—like noise levels, air pollution and access to green spaces. We believe that spelling out these mitigations explicitly on the face of the Bill would go some way towards securing the confidence and the buy-in of those communities. I hope we can all agree that they have more reason than most to be entitled to such reassurance.

When we presented these amendments in their original form at Stage 2—. I don't mean to be using the royal 'we'. When I presented these amendments at Stage 2, the Cabinet Secretary primarily objected to them on the basis that the authority is already bound by public law principles, like compliance with the section 6 duty in the Environment (Wales) Act, and as a result of that I've responded to this by replicating the wording of section 6 in amendment 18, so placing it on the face of the Bill, and that's to remove any ambiguity about the responsibilities of the authority in this area.

I simply want to say a short word this afternoon. [Interruption.] Thank you. I particularly want to thank the Deputy First Minister for the visit he made to Cwmtillery in the aftermath of the slide on the tip there. It's difficult to overstate the terror that you can feel when you feel the slurry coming down the mountainside, when you hear the wind, when you see the people moving from their homes because there is an unstable tip and they are living in the shadow of it.

I speak to that community on a regular basis; people are still terrified in their beds every time it rains. Whenever the forecast says there is going to be heavy rain this weekend or next week, people are terrified. It is incumbent on all of us to create the structures that can meet the challenge of climate change and of disused tips at this time. It is important that we recognise that this Bill is directly addressing some of the most challenging circumstances that the Government is facing at the moment. We need to be able to create this authority to deal with these matters, and I commend the Welsh Government for their speed of action here.

When myself and Huw Irranca-Davies stood at the foot of that tip early in the morning, that Monday morning last November, and we could hear the noise of the wind rushing past us, we knew that this was an urgency that cannot simply be delayed. We need to ensure that not only do we pass this legislation this afternoon, but we ensure that we have the funding available then to provide the remediation that is necessary. I'm very glad that the Welsh Government placed in its budget the funding available to do that. I only wish that every Member here had supported that at the time.

What we need to do then is to be absolutely clear as well that this is a legacy that the United Kingdom Government has a responsibility to support. This isn't simply a matter for the Welsh Government, where you can forget about it in London; this is essential for the United Kingdom Government to support the Welsh Government and ensure that it provides the funds to deliver the remediation. So, I will be supporting this legislation this afternoon, Deputy First Minister, but I will also want us to ensure that we have the resources to move with all due speed to ensure that the people I represent and the people many of us will represent in different parts of Wales are able to sleep safe in their homes. Thank you.

I now call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. Before we start on the specifics of the amendments in this particular group, could I first of all put on record my thanks to all of the colleagues who've been involved in very productive discussions at Stage 2 of the committee, which have actually formed the basis of the majority of the Government amendments that have been tabled now at Stage 3?

I'd also like to just reflect, as we get into the details of these amendments, on the important message that my colleague and friend Alun Davies has just laid out. In amongst the detail of these amendments is the importance of actually making sure that the stability of these tips is ensured, and that it's for the safety and the welfare of the communities that live in the shadow of this industrial legacy of our mining past; that's what this is fundamentally about.

I do want to thank also my officials and wider stakeholders as well, but I particularly want to thank all the members of the committees, and particularly Delyth Jewell and Janet Finch-Saunders, for the very constructive way in which they've engaged with my advisers and officials in the drafting of some of these amendments that we'll be discussing here and in the relevant groupings.

I'm pleased that as a Government we've been able to respond to a significant number of the matters raised by Members at Stage 2. As you'll know, we also responded positively to a significant number of the committee recommendations at Stage 1.

If I turn directly now to the amendments in group 1, let me first speak to amendment 17, which is a Government amendment. Amendment 17 requires the authority to consult such persons as it considers appropriate prior to submitting its corporate plan to the Welsh Ministers for approval. The corporate plan sets out how the authority intends to exercise its functions during each three-year planning period. It is an amendment that I committed to bring forward during the Stage 2 debate, and I thank all Members who raised this with me during the course of Stage 2. So, I ask all Members to vote in support of this amendment.

Turning to the other amendments raised by Delyth Jewell and Janet Finch-Saunders—many of which do, indeed, reprise debates that we had in committee in Stage 2—let me start with amendment 31. I understand why this has been tabled. As I've said before, I am very aware that there is a skills gap in this area, and I've spoken about that before, during both Stage 1 and Stage 2. However, in my view, the amendment is unnecessary. Firstly, the authority is not a training provider. There are bodies that already exist to provide specialist training, who are funded for this purpose and they have the necessary skills to provide this. My officials are working, as we speak, with those bodies to create a skills pipeline to bridge the current gap. But, of course, the authority also will play its part within it, but it's not a training provider. So, I would ask the Senedd not to support this amendment as it's very, very important—curiously, for the reasons laid out by Alun a moment ago—that the authority’s resources are not diverted from the core functions that it is there to exercise. There are other bodies better placed to focus on skills development.

Regarding amendment 19, which would impose a duty on the authority to take into account the need to minimise negative impacts on communities, including noise, air pollution and access to green spaces and so on, this amendment is not necessary, because as a public authority, as I've stated before, and Delyth rightly reminded us that I have said this before, the authority must act in accordance with public law principles and it must be mindful of the impact of its actions on those local communities. Indeed, to go further, under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the authority will be required to think about the longer term impact of its decisions, and this will involve working closely, in line with that Act, with people and communities, and collaborating with other bodies as well.

Regarding amendment 20, section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 requires the authority to have regard to reports prepared under sections 8 and 11 of that Act, so that element of the amendment is already dealt with in legislation. This Bill amends the well-being of future generations Act to add the authority to the public bodies subject to that Act. This means that the authority will be required to set well-being objectives, and in so doing, will be required to have regard to the most recent report under section 23 of that Act. Therefore, this element of amendment 20 is also already covered in legislation. And in relation to having regard to the most recent future trends report under section 11 of the well-being of future generations Act, because of the nature of that report, this is something that is more appropriately covered in guidance. Now, this amendment also places the authority under a duty to have regard to scientific knowledge, technology and EU and international law and policy relating to climate change when carrying out its functions. These provisions, I have to say, are very broad and they are open to different interpretations. This could place a significant burden on the authority. The authority is not an environmental body. It will, of course, comply with environmental legislation, but I think we must be wary of placing extensive duties on it that will take it beyond and detract from the protection of human welfare of these communities. Our priority must be focused on making sure that our communities are safe. This is not, primarily, an environmental Bill.

I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Diolch. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. We've made very strong arguments at every stage of this, so I think let's just go to the vote.

The proposal is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will, therefore, proceed to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 49 is not agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 17.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 17 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Delyth Jewell, amendment 30.

It's moved.

The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, we will move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied.

I vote against.

There were in favour 27, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 30 is not agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 50.

I move.

The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. So, we will move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, there were 12 abstentions, and 28 against. Therefore, amendment 50 is not agreed.

Delyth Jewell, amendment 18.

I move, please.

The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will, therefore, proceed to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied.

I vote against.

There were 27 in favour, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 18 is not agreed.

Delyth Jewell, amendment 19.

Move, please.

The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. Open the vote. Close the vote. Once again, the vote is tied. As required under Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. There were 27 in favour, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 19 is not agreed.

Delyth Jewell, amendment 20.

I move, please.

The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 20 is not agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 31.

I move.

The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, so we will proceed to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 31 is not agreed.

We'll move now to the second group of amendments, which relates to public information, communication and engagement. Amendment 6 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. A number of amendments were tabled at Stage 2 by both Delyth Jewell and Janet Finch-Saunders. The aim of the amendments was to require the authority to establish a website and for certain key documents to be published. I was supportive of the amendments tabled, but I wanted to work with the Members to bring forward a set of amendments at Stage 3 that ensures a comprehensive and a consistent approach to publication on the face of the Bill. So, I am pleased to say that that is exactly what we have done, and I wish to put on record my thanks to Delyth and Janet for their input and their co-operation in the preparation of these amendments.

If we look first at amendment 15, this requires the authority to establish and maintain a website or other electronic facility that is free for the public to access. The reference to other electronic facilities is included to futureproof the legislation in light of rapid technological advances.

Amendment 16 inserts a new section into the Bill relating to publication. It provides that where the Bill requires the authority to publish anything, for example a notice or a report, it must be published on the authority's website or other electronic facility established and maintained under the section inserted by amendment 15. Where the authority is required to publish anything, this amendment gives the authority the power to publish in any other way the authority sees fit. This caters, for example, for people who are digitally excluded and who may not be able to access information online. Now, the effect of this amendment is that the following documents must be published on the authority's website as they are subject to an existing duty to publish in the Bill: so, the programme of preliminary assessments, the statement of policy on categorisation, the corporate plan, the annual report, reports of preliminary assessments, additional preliminary assessments, full assessments and additional full assessments.

Amendment 13 places a duty on the authority to publish notices under Part 2. It provides that where a provision in chapters 3 or 5 of Part 2 requires a notice to be given to a person, the authority must publish the notice as soon as practicable after it is given. This means that the following notices must be published on the authority's website: section 20, the notice of proposed registration of a tip; section 21, decision on registration; section 22, the notice of proposal to deregister a tip; section 23, a decision on a proposal to deregister; section 29, a proposal to make a notifiable change; and section 30, the decision on notice of proposal of notifiable change. This provides a comprehensive list of all of the notices relating to registration, and it covers all the notices and more that were included in the amendments tabled at Stage 2.

You will have noted that amendment 13 gives the authority the ability to publish notices in a redacted form if it considers it necessary to do so to avoid disclosing information contrary to any prohibition imposed by an enactment or other rule of law. For example, this would allow the authority to redact personal information from a notice.

Turning to amendments 6 and 12, these amendments are consistent with the new approach to publication. Under the Bill as currently drafted under section 31, the list of all disused tips must be accessible electronically by members of the public at all reasonable times. Similarly, under section 9, the information that is included in the register of disused tips must be accessible by the public at all reasonable times. Amendments 6 and 12 now require this information to be published, which means published on the authority's website, which will ensure that the information is available at all times.

So, I am satisfied that these five amendments, when taken together, achieve the aim of including a clear publication requirement on the face of the Bill. I wish to thank again committee members, and especially Delyth and Janet, for their input and I would ask Members to vote in favour of these amendments.

Turning now to amendment 45 briefly, which places a duty on the authority to publish a communication and engagement strategy, this would require the strategy to set out how the authority will engage with the public in the exercise of its functions. It also sets out that the authority may revise the strategy and must publish the revised strategy, and includes a consultation requirement. The authority will, of course, have to engage with local communities and this will be an inherent part of fostering good community relations. I made a commitment in Stage 2 that confirmed the authority will have a communication and engagement strategy. However, a statutory duty is not necessary to achieve this. So, for these reasons, I would ask Members not to support amendment 45.

Thank you, Deputy First Minister, and your officials, for your kind co-operation on amendments relating to the website. The lack of such a site was a weakness that I highlighted in Stage 2. You've listened, you've worked with us, and I welcome the changes put before us in this group today. I was rather hoping we could go further and that such cross-party co-operation would extend to amendment 45, which would require the authority to publish a communication and engagement strategy. During Stage 2, you did highlight to me that you wanted and you believed that this would happen. So, why not go that step further and ensure that it will happen by placing the requirement in law? Diolch.

I welcome the Government's amendments in this group, and, as the Cabinet Secretary, the Deputy First Minister, has outlined, they are the result of productive discussions we have had since Stage 2 relating particularly to issued notices and the register of disused tips and to making this information publicly available online. We were motivated originally by the need to embed rigorous standards of transparency in all aspects of the authority's work. I talked earlier about the need to get communities' buy-in; I think this is essential for that. I think that that is especially important in this case, given the entirely possibly justifiable distrust that is felt by so many of these communities who've been let down after decades of promises that have been broken to them and false dawns on behalf of the powers that be. I am glad that the Government has agreed with this approach. I'm grateful, again, to the Deputy First Minister, and to his officials, and I'm satisfied that these amendments do align broadly with what we had set out to achieve, so I commend them. Diolch.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Only very briefly, Dirprwy Lywydd, just, again, to thank Janet and Delyth for their input to this. I think we've got some good amendments here. It's a good example of cross-party working to get to the right objective. So, I'm pleased if everybody can support this. But, as I say, on the communication strategy, as I made clear in Stage 2, the authority will have a communication and engagement strategy, we just don't need a statutory duty to actually achieve this. So, that's why I can't support amendment 45, but thank you for your work together on bringing the other amendments forward.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections. The amendment is therefore agreed.

Group 3 is next. The third group of amendments relates to assessment, registration and monitoring of disused tips under Part 2. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 32. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Now, the Welsh Government's intention is for preliminary assessments of these tips to be desk based. Now, I'm not the only one who is concerned about this, and I feel really pedantic about it, but several stakeholders have also raised concerns about the efficacy of this approach. For example, Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council questioned the validity of a desk-based assessment. As I do hope that all Members here will agree, nothing replaces just going to the site, having a walk over, taking some preliminary investigations on your way around that site. How that can be transcribed just from a desk in an office elsewhere baffles me.

Now, during Stage 2, the Deputy First Minister objected because of the impact this requirement would have on time. Now, my colleague Alun Davies has just pointed out to us all the absolute importance of making sure these tips are safe. That is, first and foremost, why we are supporting—the Welsh Conservatives are supporting—a lot of this Bill in its entirety. I'm just really concerned that this aspect to it could be seen as rushing through preliminary assessments, desk based, and I am really concerned about the legitimacy of these being undertaken properly. So, I ask all Members present to consider this point very carefully.

Amendments 33, 34 and 35 would enable any person to make representations that the authority must have regard to in making a decision on a proposal to register a tip, deregister a tip or make a notifiable change. This would mean that the views of the public would need to be taken into account by the authority. Ultimately, we are developing this legislation to help to protect our communities, the very communities that Alun has mentioned. Should anyone in those communities wish to make representations and for their comments to be considered, the authority should be ready to listen and act. My amendments help to achieve that.

Finally, amendment 36 sets a target in law for the authority to identify and to compile a list of all disused tips by 1 January 2030. During Stage 2, the Deputy First Minister tried to dissuade me from pursuing the amendment on the basis that the work will be completed, boots on the ground, assessments done, categorisation done, by 1 April 2027. However, I don't consider that to be quite correct. It will be all coal tips that will have been identified by 1 April 2027, not all tips. Diolch.

I speak principally to amendment 21 in this group. Now, this amendment places an obligation on Welsh Ministers to explain their decision to approve a programme of work, regardless of whether it has been modified. Now, I believe that this reinforces the robust standards of transparency that I was alluding to in the previous group.

Now, when this amendment had been laid at Stage 2, the Cabinet Secretary had argued that this requirement would place an unnecessary administrative burden on Welsh Ministers. Now, I do appreciate the fact that Welsh Ministers, of course, are already bound by public law principles that require them to make rational decisions in the public interest, but I continue to believe that the threshold for transparency in this particular instance, because of all the sensitivities that we've already been discussing, that that is such that requesting an added layer of clarification on governmental decision making is indeed warranted. Again, I'm not thinking of this Government; I'm thinking of Governments in years to come.

I also welcome amendments 10 and 11 in this group, which also fulfil the aims of our amendments at Stage 2 to establish an absolute minimum of 14 days for the representation period for registering a disused tip. Now, I'd argued for this provision due to the need to be as thorough as possible in determining the scale of implementing the legislation, so I'm grateful that the Government has accepted the reasoning there. Diolch.

Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to speak, first of all, to the Government amendments in this group, if I may. So, amendments 7, 8 and 9 make some minor, technical drafting amendments to sections 14(2)(b), 16(1)(b) and 17(2)(b). The amendment substitutes the word 'each' with the word 'the'. There is no impact on the policy underpinning these sections.

So, to explain the change: section 14(2) requires the authority, as soon as is practicable, to carry out—

Are you replying to the debate there, rather than doing the next group? I think you're replying to the last group, not starting the next one.

I do apologise.

You're not replying to the debate; you are responding to group 3.

Indeed. I do apologise. Just a moment.

Your Cabinet colleague is checking on it.

Yes. I'm responding to group 3, but also my own amendments within this.

Yes.

Yes. Sorry. I'm just dealing with my own amendments first of all, before I turn to responding to the other ones. Sorry. Different order of play here. So—

I trust that your Cabinet colleague was trying to help you.

Amendments—. [Laughter.] I know. So, I'm dealing with our amendments first of all, the Government amendments in the group, before I respond to the others.

So, amendments 7, 8 and 9, they make those minor technical drafting amendments I just referred to. So, to explain the changes a little bit further, section 14(2) requires the authority, as soon as practicable, to carry out an additional preliminary assessment in relation to the tip when it considers an assessment ought to be carried out, and to produce and publish a report of each assessment. As the section refers to assessments being carried out in relation to 'the tip', rather than 'every tip', the duty should be to produce and publish a report of 'the assessment'. The same point arises in relation to full assessments and additional full assessments in sections 16(1)(b) and 17(2)(b). Now, as I've said, these are minor, technical drafting changes and they're not a change in the policy that all assessment reports are to be published. So, I'd ask Members to vote in support of amendments 7, 8 and 9.

Turning to the other Government amendments, 10 and 11, at Stage 2, the Government supported an amendment tabled by Delyth that limited the scope of the regulation-making power in section 20(4) to change the minimum period for making representations on proposals to register a tip, by specifying that this cannot be less than 14 days. So, I committed to bringing forward amendments at Stage 3 to make an equivalent change to section 22, the proposal to remove a tip from the register, and section 29, the proposal to make a notifiable change. Amendments 10 and 11 give effect to that commitment. I'm grateful to both Delyth and Janet for their input into the preparation of these two amendments, and I would ask Members to vote in favour of them.

Turning now to the non-Government amendments in the group, unfortunately, I will not be speaking in support of those, for reasons that I'll outline now. So, in my view, amendment 32, which requires a visit to a site for every preliminary assessment, would result in a disproportionate expenditure of effort and time and resource on tips where there is no potential threat to human welfare. Now, I believe that this amendment would make the Bill unaffordable, and I'm very concerned about the diversion of resources away from category 1 and category 2 disused tips, which is where I'm sure Members would want us to focus our attention and the authority to focus its attention.

To be frank, it would take several years for the authority to visit all disused tips. For example, it will have taken—and this is where there might be some misunderstanding, because the MRA has already been doing some of this work, since Tylorstown and so on—it will have taken the MRA around six years to undertake similar assessments, that it's been doing already, on coal tips, and this would focus resources away from highest risk areas, and would mean that the preliminary assessment process would take far longer than necessary, with no corresponding benefit. Don't forget that we estimate there to be up to 20,000 disused non-coal tips as well as over 2,500 disused coal tips.

In practice, I expect the authority to make use of the intelligence gained through the programme of operations delivered before its establishment when determining whether a physical visit to a particular site is appropriate. And just to say, the assessment will be based on the information that will be provided by the Mining Remediation Authority, the work they've already done, who will have physically inspected the tips. And, in addition, they'll have additional information available to them to add to the MRA reports. So, it's important to remember that the MRA will have physically inspected and categorised every disused coal tip prior to 1 April 2027. This means that the new authority will have the ability to consider the findings from the MRA’s physical inspection, so that it can prioritise its resources and its direct effort on the most appropriate areas, on those most in need of assistance. So, I would therefore ask that amendment 32 not be supported.

Amendment 21 places a duty on Welsh Ministers to explain their decision to approve the authority's programme setting out its proposed approach to preliminary assessments, and to provide the reasons for the decision. The amendment is not necessary. The Welsh Ministers must act in accordance with the principles of public law and, in so doing, make reasonable, rational and lawful decisions. Including this express statutory duty in the Bill will put an unnecessary administrative burden on Welsh Ministers, and, for this reason, I urge you not to support this amendment.

Amendments 33, 34 and 35 require the authority to have regard to the representations of 'any person' when making decisions about registering a tip or removing a tip from the register and making changes to the register. Currently, the authority must have regard to any representations about such proposals from a person who was given the relevant notice of proposed registration, proposed deregistration or proposed notifiable change. This is appropriate and sensible. Including a legal requirement for the authority to have to take account of representations made by 'any person' is unnecessary. In reality, the authority will consider any relevant representations, but there is a considerable difference between being under a general public law duty to consider relevant representations and placing a duty on the face of the Bill to consider representations from all persons. The latter has the real potential to become administratively unworkable and could result in the authority being inundated with representations, for example, by an organised campaign or being involved in legal proceedings if challenged about how they have fulfilled their duties. The current provision does not prevent anyone from making representations to the authority, and the authority will have to act within the principles of public law when making decisions, which will include making sure that it considers relevant representations. So, I would therefore ask Members not to vote in support of amendments 33, 34 and 35.

I now call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Let's move to the vote, please.

The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, so we will move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 32 is not agreed.

Delyth, amendment 21.

I move, please.

The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, so we will move on to the vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied and therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. In favour 27, no abstentions, and 28 against. Therefore, amendment 21 is not agreed.

I propose that amendments 7, 8 and 9, which appear consecutively on the marshalled list, are disposed of en bloc, given their nature. Does any Member object to the grouping of these votes? No.

Cabinet Secretary, amendments 7, 8 and 9.

Do you move 7, 8 and 9?

I move.

The question is that amendments 7, 8 and 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. The amendments are therefore agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 33.

Do you move it?

Yes.

The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, and 28 against. Therefore, amendment 33 is not agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 10.

I move.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 10 is agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 34.

I move.

The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore proceed to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore amendment 34 is not agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 11.

I move.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 11 is therefore agreed.

Janet, amendment 35.

I move.

The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied, therefore as required under Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, there were 27 in favour, no abstentions and 28 against. Amendment 35 is not agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 12.

I move.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 12 is therefore agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 13.

I move.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 13 is agreed.

Janet, amendment 36.

I move.

The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied. As required under Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. In favour 27, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 36 is not agreed.

We'll move on now to group 4. This fourth group of amendments relates to the removal and disposal of property for the purpose of carrying out operations under Part 3. Amendment 37 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Okay. So, as you can see, there has been a lot of co-operation on this Bill thus far. However, my colleague Delyth Jewell and I—well, I disagree on this particular group. In short, I believe that any coal found during the remediation process that is going to be disposed of, or as part of the process of making tips safe, should be used here in Wales. In 2023, the UK imported 3.4 million tonnes of coal. The coal imported is from countries including Canada, the USA, Kazakhstan, China, India, Indonesia, Australia, Mozambique, South Africa, French Guiana, Colombia and Venezuela. It is globally irresponsible to be so reliant on coal imported from the other side of the world, most of which have considerably worse standards than us and cause greater pollution here in Wales. In fact, relying on imports when we can reduce the need by utilising coal found during remediation—. I'm not saying reopen the mines, I am saying coal found during remediation. I believe that's in breach of the requirements by this Senedd's Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 to be globally responsible. This pattern of offshoring emissions by this Welsh Government and by Wales has to stop. Where we need coal in Wales and the UK, the demand should and could be met from our resources, not from making our carbon footprint bigger by importing coal from abroad. Diolch.

This is indeed an area on which there is certain disagreement. I speak to amendments 1 and 2 in this group principally, and I am indebted to organisations including the Coal Action Network, Climate Cymru and Friends of the Earth Cymru for their support with a number of amendments that I've tabled, particularly the amendments in this group.

It would be a tragic irony if a Bill that is ostensibly designed to resolve the environmental damage of over a century of industrialisation ended up enabling the further degradation of our climate and environment. The purpose of my amendments in this group, therefore, is to place a prohibition on the sale of any coal extracted during the course of remediating coal tips for the purposes of burning. My motivation here is in part to ensure that coal tips cannot become new coal mines, that we won't see more cases where private companies produce plans to remediate coal tips but wish to finance their work through coal extraction. That would make our valleys once again a mockery of mining and would be an insult to our yesterdays and our towns' tomorrows.

I appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary is likely to argue against the inclusion of these amendments on the grounds that they infringe on reserved areas. I was surprised to learn in the course of preparing amendments for this Bill that coal is a reserved matter, as per the Wales Act 2017. For me, that underlines the sheer absurdity of Westminster's continued refusal to pay its fair share for the cost of clearing the mess that's been left. But I would argue that the consequences of not providing robust safeguards preventing the combustion of this most harmful of fossil fuels would directly relate to the devolved responsibilities of the Senedd, especially the sustainable management of natural resources principles of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and, of course, the well-being of future generations Act.

I would appreciate it if the Cabinet Secretary could outline in his response any legal advice that the Government has received on this matter, and explain why the Senedd's devolved responsibilities in relation to environmental policy do not permit us to go further in regulating how the extracted coal is used. I also wonder if the Cabinet Secretary has any insight as to the implications of this amendment being agreed, in particular whether it would precipitate a Supreme Court case, and if so, what the Welsh Government's position would be were that to happen.

At Stage 2, there was broad support in the committee not to allow coal that was extracted from coal tips to be sold for the purposes of burning, with one exception, as has been rehearsed already. I welcome the fact that all Labour committee members spoke out against the principle of selling coal from coal tips for burning and they supported the principle behind these amendments. The Deputy First Minister was conciliatory and he had said that he would be taking those concerns on board, and he was keen to provide additional assurances to avoid this situation happening. As a result, Members were somewhat reassured my amendments didn't pass at Stage 2.

In my first contribution, I just want to say I've been grateful for the conversations I've had with the Deputy First Minister, so thank you for those, and also liaising with Delyth as well. I want to say that this is a necessary Bill, which of course I support, but I just want to speak to the amendments in this group.

Firstly, I'm pretty gobsmacked at Janet's proposal that we support amendment 37, which is about reusing the coal that may be extracted here in Wales. It's an absolute obscenity that we think it's okay to use coal here in Wales if it's extracted through this process. Selling coal will have real consequences for people all over south Wales and beyond. It will give that really negative message that, actually, they will continue to see Wales exploited.

I want to hear more from the Government. I'm really pleased to hear that there may be something that may help us look at this particular issue. But I have heard the Deputy First Minister say that he cannot envisage a scenario in which the extraction and burning of coal will arise as a result of this Bill. In my view, but I'm here to listen, it would be naive to imagine that the extraction and burning of coal will not continue and be open to misuse and abuse. Sadly, this will potentially be by private companies who will be trying to sell that coal.

We cannot look back to coal. We have to look forward to a cleaner and greener Wales. Therefore, I urge Members across the Senedd to reject the amendments from Janet Finch-Saunders, but to support amendments 1 and 2, which are to disallow the private coal companies using any coal extracted for the future. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'm certainly happy to vote against amendments 37 and 39. That's where I absolutely agree with Jane Dodds and Delyth Jewell. The issue is more about what Janet Finch-Saunders said in her speech, which suggests that the Conservatives would be happy to see more opencast across Wales. That's certainly the direction the discussion went in that speech. I know it's Reform UK's policy as well. We vigorously opposed Nant Llesg in Fochriw, despite the fact that officers of the council were encouraging us to approve it. Labour politicians took the decision to oppose it against the advice of officers, and Nant Llesg was never opened. I worry that the Conservatives' direction of travel and Reform UK's direction of travel will put Nant Llesg back on the agenda. That's a real concern. We do not need to see more opencast in Wales—categorically not.

I do want to come to amendments 1 and 2, though, and I have a disagreement on this one. I can see the intent and, I think, one day that will be a strong policy to have, when remediation of tips is complete or that the remediation of those tips is fully funded by the UK Government as well, as we've argued before. My concern is that the remediation of tips—. I'm going to take the example of Bedwas. It will cost nothing to the public purse to remediate Bedwas through a private company. So, a private company is now in the process of applying to remediate Bedwas. They're category D tips, so they'll be in category 1 and 2 for the new legislation. We want to see those tips remediated. We haven't got the money in Caerphilly to do it. A private company will do it. But what they will do is take the coal that's lying on the surface, wash it, sell that on and use that to fund their enterprise. That gives us the tips remediated for nothing.

And the other issue—. You say, 'Okay, well, that's creating carbon.' Well, actually, what it's doing is displacing imported coal. The coal would be sold in the UK. That imported coal has a greater carbon footprint. So, actually, what you're doing is reducing the carbon footprint because you're displacing imported coal. And that is coal that already exists on the surface. [Interruption.] No, it's not what Janet said. No, Janet is arguing—. I'll take that as an intervention, Dirprwy Lywydd. Janet is arguing for further unregulated coal in the future. You listened to what she said. What we are talking about today is allowing—

Will you take an intervention, please?

No, I'm not taking an intervention. [Interruption.] I need to get on with it.

On a point of order, he's actually saying I said something I didn't say.

I need to get on with my speech. I've got limited time. What we want to see are those coal tips that have coal on the surface being allowed to be remediated. That is currently the policy. There is no need to have an amendment in the Bill to either allow or disallow that.

What I think is important to note is that there will come a time when it would be an appropriate amendment to have, but I think until that remediation has been carried out, unlike, 'Let's have unmitigated coal dug in the UK', when that time has been reached, that is the appropriate time. Delyth. [Interruption.] I'll come back to you in a second.

Thank you for taking the intervention. The point that I wanted to perhaps challenge in what you said was your argument that it won't cost our communities for this to happen. I think, in terms of the monetary cost in the short term, then perhaps that will be true. But would you agree with me on the long-term cost of what that could mean to the environment, and the possible path it could lead us on into the future and what it could open up? To finish the intervention on something I think where we would agree, we'll be in a situation where the Westminster Government of yesterday and today had been, and will be, paying what they should be to clear the tips that shouldn't be there in the first place. There shouldn't have to be even a question.

I'd say 'no', because I don't think it's starting a precedent; it's based on existing policy, and there are very strong controls through planning means. I also mentioned the fact that this would offset the carbon footprint of imported coal. But also, if you did have the public sector being funded to do this work, they don't have the resources themselves, they would have to subcontract, and it's very likely they would subcontract to companies like ERI who would then do that work. If then they were presented with an argument, 'Look, we can both offset the carbon footprint and sell this coal to have less cost to the public purse', then that's an argument that is quite strong. It would cost the public sector less. That's quite a strong argument in that case. Once the tips are remediated, we can then say, 'We'll move to no more coal sold at all.' I will come to Janet Finch-Saunders. I'll take her intervention.

Thanks, Hefin. Actually, I want to say 'thank you' for the latter part of your argument, because you're saying exactly what I'm saying. I haven't said let's reopen tips or mines or anything. What I've said is, where coal or spoil is found whilst the remediation of a tip is taking place, obviously a lot of this will be surface-lying coal, and that is going to cut down the amount of imports that we're bringing in.

This has been a really interesting and important debate, but it is now clear to all—[Interruption.] Oh, all right. Yes, okay. But thank you, because I think we're on the same wavelength, actually. So, maybe you might vote for my idea.

But I think there are two points we need to make. No. 1, this is not the Bill to do that, and existing Government policy allows companies like ERI to do that work. The Government can call those in at any time, so that doesn't need an amendment in this Bill. But also I listened to what you said, and what you said was suggesting that we should expand coal production in the UK in order to offset UK production. [Interruption.] That's what I heard in your speech. [Interruption.] That's what I heard in your speech. So, I will not be voting for 37 and 39. There is no need for them. And I will not be voting for 1 and 2 for the reasons I've outlined.

I obviously support the Bill and played a small supporting role in its development, but I do have sympathy with the position of the Labour Members on the committee who supported in principle Delyth Jewell's amendment. From a carbon point of view, this argument for displacement is a complete red herring. If you are burning more coal, you are putting more carbon in the atmosphere, regardless of where the coal is coming from. It's not just about extracting the coal from the ground. It's what you then do with the coal. [Interruption.] It doesn't matter. The damage of getting the coal out has been done. So, it's not a debate about extracting coal from the ground. This is an argument of what you do with the coal once you have it. Any more coal we burn, any more carbon we put into the atmosphere, adds to the problem of climate change. We've seen just this week river levels in Texas going up by 8m in less than an hour. That's the carbon already locked into the atmosphere. If we add more carbon, whether it's from Colombia or from Cwmbach, it doesn't really matter. It's going to add to the overall environmental load that we can no longer sustain.

There's no point in us as a Senedd passing laws saying we declare a climate emergency, that we want to have net zero by 2050, and you’ve got Janet Finch-Saunders standing on the Senedd steps sending petitions to the Conference of the Parties, if, when it comes down to it, you're willing to burn more coal. That adds to the problem of climate change. It is not consistent with the policies and the pledges that we have as a Senedd, and I hope the Government will reflect carefully on the spirit of Delyth Jewell’s amendment and come forward with some further toughening that goes beyond simply a coal policy, which can be changed easily.

The second concern I have is the way the Government approaches its legislation. I think this is another case study in the imperfect way that we as a Senedd and a Government debate legislation. Again, because of an overloaded Government system, we're having a Bill brought to the Senedd that in effect cannot be amended, other than by small technical amendments the Government approves of, because the Government is resisting it at every step because of the capacity constraints it faces. And we've seen this a number of times now. So, in effect, our role as a legislature is a bogus one. The argument the Minister has made is that any changes at this stage to the substance of the Bill would delay it to such an extent that it would be lost from this Senedd, and therefore we can't in practice change the legislation.

The Minister said that this is not an environmental Bill. Well, this Bill is whatever the Senedd decides it to be. That's the whole point of legislating. We can amend the Bill depending on the democratic will of this Senedd. It's not for the Government to tell us what the Bill can and cannot do. That's for the democratic parliamentary process to have its way. And this is a Government without a majority. And future Governments without a majority need to think very carefully about the role the Senedd has in law making. It's not just for the Government to plant a fait accompli on the desk of Senedd Members and say, ‘Suck it up, because if you vote against it you'll lose the Bill.’ That is no way for us to be governing this country and no way to be involving our Parliament.

In many ways, coal extraction defined my childhood in Tredegar. We had tips where we played. I met some schoolfriends of mine last week and we recalled playing on the coal tips, and the rest of it, in the town. But above the town, of course, you had opencast, 'the patches' as it was called at the time. And I remember, on days like we're enjoying today, in Tredegar, you had dust blowing through the town. You couldn't breathe sometimes for the dust that was coming from the opencast. And I will never, ever stand by and allow any element of opencast to be reintroduced to Wales at any time in the future.

At the same time, the remediation of the tips, of course, was started but largely not completed. And I remember very well, at the top of my street, where some of the tips were being remediated, you had some unknown shafts discovered as well. The whole of that valley, that town and that community were peppered with the remnants of coal. And I believe we are right in the direction of travel in moving beyond that. I certainly hope that for me, for my son and my daughter, that remains a history and never a future. But it's also right—. And I've got great sympathy with some of the things that Lee Waters has just said about how we legislate, because I believe we do have a responsibility to legislate in a way that recognises the existing policy architecture and not to pretend that that policy architecture does not exist.

Now, I remember the Welsh Government changing the policy on coal in 'Planning Policy Wales'. I think it was Lesley Griffiths, actually, who introduced these changes—I'm sure she'll correct me if I'm wrong. And I'll read it out, with your consent, because it needs to be said. 'Planning Policy Wales' is clear, and I'm quoting now:

'Proposals for opencast, deep‑mine development or colliery spoil disposal should not be permitted. Should, in wholly exceptional circumstances, proposals be put forward they would clearly need to demonstrate why they are needed in the context of climate change emissions reductions targets and for reasons of national energy security.'

And then it goes on to say that it would be a ministerial decision, and not simply a decision for planners or officials. So, it's not correct to argue for these amendments on the basis of scaremongering about what is possible within today's law, because that is not the way that we can make law—I will give way in a moment—or to recognise where the law currently stands.

Thanks for taking the intervention. I guess the concern is about the nature of these wholly exceptional circumstances, because in a scenario where a tip has been shown to be unstable, an offer to remove that coal to then be commercially mined would be seen—no doubt by a Minister facing those circumstances—as permissible. So, in practice, that can drive a coach and horses through this so-called environmental protection.

But only if you allow it to do so, and that is the key thing about our democracy. And it would be a matter for the Minister—in this case, the Deputy First Minister, or a future Minister, of course—to take that decision. [Interruption.] I will take another intervention.

I just want to highlight Six Bells in his constituency, the country park that was remediated in exactly the way that has been described. That is currently permitted under the law that you mentioned. That can continue and would continue and benefit the people of his constituency, as Bedwas would benefit mine.

And, of course, it's worth remembering that last week I laid a wreath at the memorial in Six Bells to remember the colliers who died there in the disaster 65 years ago. The price of coal has been paid by the people in the communities that many of us here represent, and many of those people there.

I spoke to a couple of colliers that afternoon who spoke to me and described to me how they rescued the bodies of their friends who died in the explosion, how they carried those stretchers through those dark tunnels to the pit bottom and then raised those bodies to the top—men who were in their late teens, early twenties 65 years ago, still alive today, still remembering what the price of coal really is and who paid that price. There's no way I want to go back to those days. There's no way that, I believe, this Welsh Government or any future Welsh Parliament will allow a return to those days. I would hope that we will debate and argue these policies according to where we come from, but please base these debates on where we are today, and not pretend that by simply amending a law today we can create a different tomorrow, because the Welsh Government has already done that. The Welsh Government has already moved to make sure that we do have the safeguards in place that enable us to ensure that there will not, in years to come, be the same industry that I endured as a child, and those men endured, young men, working in Six Bells, all those years ago.

I now call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. My thanks to all those Members who have spoken on these amendments. I think it is worth reflecting, just in my opening remarks on this group of amendments, what this Bill is and what it is seeking to do. We've been reminded by several of the Members here that what this Bill is focused on is the health and welfare and safety of those communities living within the shadow of the legislation. That's what it is about, that's what we set out to do. There has always been very strong support for that aim within the legislation, and setting up a new body that will actually ensure that disused tips remain safe and communities reassured.

I want to stress that, because I live in the top end of the Llynfi valley. I've spent my life living in mining communities. There is a desperate desire to see this Bill on the statute books and to do that task, to fulfil that aim, which we set out to do. But I am aware, and we've heard from some today, that, for some, the legislation brings fears that Wales could once again be at the centre of a renewed coal industry. Alun reminded us of the existing coal policy. Now, I could go into nth detail—as I did, indeed, on the committee, at Stage 2—on actually the safeguards there. But I do not believe, I genuinely do not believe, that there is evidence to support this concern that this Bill is anything about opening up a mining industry again. That is not its function, it's not its intention, it's not the spirit, it's not in the letter of this legislation, and I'll go into some detail on why I think those safeguards are in place as well that go beyond this Bill.

First of all, I continue to believe that the existing coal policy, some of which has been read into record this afternoon, provides the strong protection that the amendments seek to achieve, especially when we consider that policy alongside the requirements of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which we all know and understand very well in this place, which is a statutory requirement—the now and future well-being of future generations as well—the Welsh Government's wider objectives, which are set out explicitly in 'Planning Policy Wales', and our commitment, repeated ad nauseam, to phase out the use of fossil fuels in energy generation. These policies are established, they are robust, and they cannot easily be reversed. I've also made a commitment during Stage 2 discussions on this that I would amend the Town and Country Planning (Notification) (Coal and Petroleum) (Wales) Direction 2018, to make it explicit that the definition of coal development includes operations connected with disused coal tips—just to make that absolutely crystal clear. Now, work has already started on this, and the direction will be amended as soon as possible, and, just to give you the assurance, well before 1 April 2027, when this new authority is in place. Llyr.

Can I thank you for making that perfectly clear? But you do have to acknowledge that's totally not what the Labour Member for Caerphilly told us. So, are you therefore saying that what he proposes, or what he suggests may happen, cannot happen under the current circumstances?

Can I say very, very clearly, I'm not referring to any specific example or any application that may come forward shortly? I'm talking about this Bill and this legislation. But what I'm bolting down very clearly and very explicitly through that notification process is that—and let me repeat it very clearly—the definition of coal development includes operations connected with disused coal tips, and we will bring that forward, as I say. We're working on it now; it will come through in the autumn. There might need to be a consultation, but it will be in place well before 1 April 2027.

Now, what that makes explicit, Llyr, is the fact that we're not opening up a new coal industry here. This is to do with the health and safety and security of these communities who are affected with this legacy. That's what this Bill intends to do. The Bill is very specific. Let me make absolutely crystal clear: it enables the authority and landowners to remove and dispose of property—and 'property', in the legal definition, includes coal—where this belongs to another person, and only where—only where—this is done for the purpose of carrying out operations under section 43 or those required by a section 34 notice. Why is that important? Because it's in connection with the health and welfare of the communities and the stability of tips. That's what this Bill is to do with. So, some of the wider discussion, while I understand it, and the passion, it's not what this Bill is about.

Now, should the need arise to remove coal during the course of operations, this would automatically be subject to Welsh Government coal policy, some of which has been read into the record here today, and to planning law as well. There's another safeguard. Coal mining operations, recovering coal from tips and incidental coal extraction activities require planning permission before extraction can commence. So, I just want to be clear that planning policy on coal development is explicit. Any proposals, as has been touched on by previous speakers, for opencast, deep mine development or colliery spoil disposal, should not be permitted other than in wholly exceptional circumstances. The Government's policy is clear: we are against the extraction of coal. Now, where planning—[Interruption.] Let me just get to the end of this and then I'll—. Sorry, who—? Yes.

Where a planning authority does not propose to refuse an application for coal development, the Town and Country Planning (Notification) (Coal and Petroleum) (Wales) Direction 2018 requires the planning authority to notify the Welsh Ministers—and here's the clarity—who will consider calling in the planning application to decide whether the application is consistent with Welsh Government coal policy. So, who decides in those circumstances, in the full glare of scrutiny and transparency? Welsh Ministers determine what are exceptional circumstances in each case, and it's because of that that I'm confident that the policy and the transparency is in place to strictly control extraction. Sorry, Hefin.

I don't think that Llyr Gruffydd was listening to what I said, but I would say that what you've just said there is exactly what I was referring to. That policy is in place and therefore those four amendments we're talking about now are unnecessary.

Thank you, Hefin. I'm trying to give clarity, because sometimes this Bill and this particular section have got caught up in a lot of other arguments about extraction and so on, and that isn't what this Bill is about. So, let me be clear: this means that the prohibition on the sale of coal for burning, introduced by these amendments, would be very narrow in scope and would not apply to generic reclamation schemes. But let me go a little bit further here as well. Because, in my formal response to the CCI committee's report into opencast mining sites, I made that commitment, Delyth, that, once the Bill had received Royal Assent, there would be a more detailed strategic approach to mining and the industrial legacy in Wales. I've said this repeatedly on the floor. There's something here we need to deal with about that legacy of opencast that has been left, where people have walked away from it. That legacy still overshadows many communities. I confirmed that this would need to include reclamation of disused tips and the management of opencast mining.

Now, this wider piece of work—I'm committed to it—would consider the social responsibility of organisations who played a pivotal role in Wales's industrial legacy and have walked away from their responsibilities to the people of Wales. These are organisations that, let's be clear, have not fulfilled their commitment to the communities they were supposed to have served. So, this piece of work will look at how we develop and how we deliver a strategic approach to transforming these sites. We've already started looking at how we can take forward this significant piece of work, in conjunction, I have to say, with the UK Government as well, because there is shared ownership—there has to be shared ownership—of this. So, I think it's important that we do not pass amendments today that are either technically deficient or likely to delay this very important Bill. If I can—. Oops, sorry, as I shuffle bits of paper around here.

On that point—

Yes.

Thank you. Could you confirm that when you referred—thank you for taking an intervention—when you referred to that, some of the amendments, if they were passed, they would delay the process, is that because, if they were passed, we would have to go to the Supreme Court, because coal is a reserved matter, even though coal tips are devolved?

No, not necessarily, but it is worth pointing out that—you asked the question of reserved matters—under paragraph 98 of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006, coal, including the ownership and exploitation of coal, is reserved. But, of course, I come back to the point that this Bill isn't about coal exploitation; it's about the welfare of those communities affected.

Sorry, I just want to expand a little bit on the particular amendments. First of all, amendments 1 and 2 would seek to prevent landowners and the authority, during the course of operations, from selling another person's coal to a person who intends to burn it. Legislating to achieve this, if this is the aim, is not without some technical difficulties. Should amendments 1 and 2 be passed, I don't believe they'll actually achieve the intended objective, and I'll explain why.

Whilst the amendments would prohibit landowners and the authority, during the course of operations, from selling another person's coal for the purpose of burning, it would not prevent the person buying the coal from burning it. On a practical level, how is the landowner or the authority expected to exercise control—this is a legal matter—over what is done with the coal once it has been sold? In addition—just to point out—the amendments do not contain any sanction or consequence if the new provisions are not complied with. So, this raises real questions—practical questions—about the enforceability of the provisions introduced by the amendments.

Turning to amendments 37 and 39, which have been subject to some debate here today, these amendments are not required because coal actually falls within the natural meaning of the legal word 'property', which could be interpreted to include coal.

So, on that basis—and making good on the commitment that I made at Stage 2 to the committee—I would ask Delyth to consider withdrawing these amendments and to work with us on that wider piece of strategic work on the mining and the industrial legacy in Wales for those communities affected. And I would urge otherwise Members to resist these amendments because of technical deficiencies, but also because amendments 1 and 2 are unnecessary. And I hope I've shown to Members that there is very strong coal policy, planning policy and other guide rails in place that prevent this being an open door for the exploitation or sale of coal. This is not a coal mining Bill; it is a protection of communities Bill.

I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Let's move to the vote, please.

The question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Therefore, we'll move to a vote on amendment 37. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 37 is not agreed.

Delyth, amendment 1.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, we'll move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

Group 5 is next. This fifth group of amendments relates to the right to appeal against a notice requiring operations under Part 3. Amendment 38 is the lead and only amendment in this group, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the amendment.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Legislation as currently drafted enables an appeal on the basis that the owner of the land is unable to meet the costs of the operations, however, there is a lack of clarity on what evidence is needed, if any, of unaffordability.

During Stage 2, the Deputy First Minister advised that, in practice, a landowner will need to provide evidence of being unable to meet the cost of operations in order to rely on the hardship grounds set out in subsection (4). That is both our expectations, but the law as currently drafted does not require it. Guidance may go on to advise it, but still cannot require it. This now needs to be clarified in law. Both the Deputy First Minister and I seem to agree that evidence must be provided, so please do consider agreeing to this amendment today.

The Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. So, in my view, Janet, I understand what this is, and we're rehearsing what we did in committee Stage 2 here, but amendment 38 is unnecessary. So, the amendment requires that evidence must accompany applications made under section 37(4) where an owner is unable to meet the costs of operations required by a section 34 notice. It is possible to appeal against a section 34 notice on a number of grounds. Evidence will have to be submitted with such applications to allow for the determinations to be made. Placing a statutory obligation to provide evidence on only one of those grounds will result in confusion. It's not necessary. It could be interpreted, indeed, to mean that evidence is not required where an application relies on another ground of appeal.

Now, in practice, Janet, a landowner will need to provide evidence of being unable to meet the costs of operations in order to rely on the hardship ground. It's not necessary to include this on the face of the Bill. And guidance given by Welsh Ministers to the appointed person will address the matter of evidence for all of the grounds on which an appeal can be made, and that's under section 37(3)(a) to (f) and 37(4).

Janet, do you wish to reply?

To the vote we go, please.

The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Therefore, we move to a vote on amendment 38. Open the vote.

The Member's not here. It's up to the Member to be here.

In favour 25, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 38 is not agreed.

Janet, amendment 39.

I move.

The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We'll move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 39 is not agreed.

Delyth, amendment 2.

Symud.

The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We'll move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

Group 6 is next. The sixth group of amendments relates to operations carried out by the authority under Part 3. Amendment 14 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendment in the group.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Amendment 14 is a Government amendment that removes the word 'reasonably' from section 46(4) of the Bill. Currently, section 46(4) imposes a duty to give a copy of a section 45 notice to persons with an interest in the notice on the day that the notice is given to the owner or, in quotes, 'as soon as reasonably practicable' after that day. The amendment omits the word 'reasonably' from section 46(4). This achieves consistency with similar provisions in the main body of the Bill. It's a technical amendment. There's no real difference between a requirement to do something 'as soon as reasonably practicable' and a requirement to do it 'as soon as practicable', as reasonableness must be an intrinsic consideration of whether it is practicable to do something.

Turning to amendment 40, I would ask Members not to support this amendment, for a number of reasons. Amendment 40 gives the Welsh Ministers a power to direct the authority to carry out operations where they consider operations need to be carried out immediately to prevent or deal with threats to the stability of a disused tip, or to stabilise it or prevent it from becoming more unstable so as to avoid or reduce threats to human welfare. The power of direction is unnecessary. The authority already has the power to carry out operations immediately under section 45 of the Bill. The authority, rather than the Welsh Government, will be the expert body who will be best placed to determine when such operations are required.

New section 56 of the Bill on management plans strengthens the Bill’s provisions on emergency planning. This provision was indeed inserted into the Bill following the passing of a Government amendment at Stage 2. Amongst other things, section 56 provides that a management plan must contain information the authority considers may be relevant in an emergency involving the tip, information about roles and responsibilities of the authority and other public bodies in such an emergency, and how the authority intends to co-operate with such public authorities in an emergency. For those who’ve been involved with this, they will understand the sense of this and the co-ordination of those public bodies.

So, you’ll note the strong emphasis on emergency planning in respect of management plans. It’s essential that the authority works with those other public authorities, such as Natural Resources Wales, the local authorities, the Mining Remediation Authority, the fire and rescue services, et cetera, et cetera, when planning for possible emergencies at a particular tip, and for the appropriate robust emergency response to be documented in that emergency plan.

By the way, such a system already exists for reservoirs. So, that’s why NRW have started work with our key partners on a protocol on how to develop and implement emergency plans for disused tips. These management plans will be a crucial way to plan an effective response to an emergency at a disused tip. Planning an effective emergency response will be a far more effective way to protect communities living in the vicinity of tips than just a power of direction.

There are also, by the way, a number of issues with the proposed power of direction. The policy behind the Bill is that the authority will be an independent expert body that will make judgments based on its expertise about whether operations are necessary. The amendment undermines this, and it overlooks the fact that, with all credit to all my colleagues, Welsh Ministers do not have the necessary expertise to determine whether operations would be needed to be carried out immediately. The authority will.

Under subsection (4) of the amendment, where the authority carries out operations required by direction under subsection (1), the authority will not be liable for breaches of planning or environmental law. The amendment does not define what is meant by the terms 'environmental law' or 'planning law', and the result is that there may be uncertainty as to whether the authority is liable for regulatory breaches when carrying out its operations required by a direction. And, in addition, since it’s unclear what is meant by 'planning or environmental law', this amendment could potentially capture elements of reserved areas of law.

The suggestion that the Welsh Ministers take a power to switch off environmental planning laws is not a new one. As I stated during Stage 1 and Stage 2 scrutiny processes, this is something that the Government has actually considered. But, for the reasons outlined above, our view is that such a power is unworkable, as well as unnecessary, not to mention highly unusual. So, I’m satisfied that the better solution is to strengthen the emergency planning, which is just what we’ve done with the insertion of the section on management plans during Stage 2. So, I ask Members to vote in favour of amendment 14, and to vote against amendment 40.

Amendment 40, of course—that’s why we’ve put it forward—includes in the Bill a power of direction for Welsh Ministers to address, in emergencies, tensions between disused tip safety and environmental and planning law. The Bill does enable the authority to carry out operations immediately without giving notice, but there isn’t that further safety net by giving Welsh Ministers a right to direct this authority. This amendment would strengthen the ability of the state to respond to a tip crisis as it happens. Diolch.

I just wish to speak to Janet’s amendment 40. The concerns we have on this amendment are similar to those we had in respect of amendment 50, insofar as, although we do as a group fully sympathise with the principle behind this, I worry that exempting the authority from liabilities for breaching environmental and planning law in certain situations might create an awkward precedent, which could lead to unintended consequences. So, on that basis, we’ll be abstaining on amendment 40.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Simply to reiterate my point, noting the comments of Members. Janet actually said the Bill does indeed enable the authority to carry out emergency responses. This Bill actually goes further and requires it to plan for those emergency responses. I’ve listened to the arguments about amendment 40, but not least because it's unclear what is meant by 'planning or environmental law' and the fact that this could then mean that we capture, unintended, perhaps, but elements of reserved areas, I ask Members to vote against this amendment but to support amendment 14.

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 14 is agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 40.

I move.

The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We'll move to a vote on amendment 40. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, there were 12 abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 40 is not agreed.

We have reached group 7. We have some troubles with the air conditioning, so I suggest we take a 10-minute break for Members. [Interruption.] Well, there are Members who have raised the issue of the air conditioning, so I think they need a break again. If you wish to have a five-minute break, we'll do five minutes, but I think that Members need to have five minutes. Okay. So, a five-minute break for Members.

We'll move now to group 7, and the seventh group of amendments relates to payments in connection with operations under Part 3. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 3, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Delyth.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I speak to amendments 3, 4 and 5 in this group. Now, the purpose of these amendments is to extend the window of liability for the costs of clean-up operations to the year 1800, with the aim of ensuring that all those parties that contributed to the present state of the coal tips are held accountable. It was the National Coal Board, and hence the UK Government as its former owner, that created these coal tips—they must carry responsibility for clearing them.

Now, as I acknowledged at Stage 2, some might call these amendments provocative, but there is a deadly serious message at their core. Indeed, I would argue that it would be a gravely missed opportunity to pass a Bill relating to coal tips that somehow wipes clean the slate when it comes to Westminster's responsibility for clearing them. Whatever creativity I might have deployed in drafting these amendments pales in comparison with the mental gymnastics deployed by successive Westminster administrations in dodging their duties when it comes to these tips. The coal tips that litter our landscapes predate the time of devolution, and since coal—we've heard already this evening—is largely a reserved matter under the Wales Act 2017, I believe that Westminster, as the former owner of the National Coal Board, has both a moral and a legislative responsibility to cover the costs associated with the activities.

I appreciate that the current UK Government has provided some funding to this end over the past year, which does indeed represent a welcome step change compared with the complete apathy of previous administrations, but the figures provided so far also pale in comparison with the estimated costs of perhaps upwards of £600 million it will take to clear completely and restore those tips. I sincerely hope the Welsh Government will be unrelenting in making the case for the full extent of funding.

When it comes to the National Coal Board and the liability they bear, I'd like to quote an extract from The Times newspaper published on 25 October 1966, two days after the Aberfan disaster. It's something my father remembers reading at the time; he's since found the extract and shown it to me. It recounts that at a coroner's inquest into that disaster, in which 144 people, 116 of them children, died, there were shouts of, 'Children have been murdered' and 'Mark the death certificates: "buried alive by the National Coal Board"'. In the tiny chapel vestry, Mr John Collins, whose wife and two sons were killed, demanded that the cause of death should be recorded as buried alive by the National Coal Board. When the coroner sought to disagree, a woman from the back said, 'No, Mr Collins was right. They killed our children.'

That was their belief then, and Aberfan was the moment that should have changed everything: no coal tip should have been allowed to remain on our hillsides after that darkest of days. But nobody lost their job. No-one was held responsible. Isn't it time that that wrong was made right? By passing these amendments, the Senedd could at last ensure that justice was done for those families, to make recompense in some way for that pity of our past, and it would send a signal today that it's time that that shadow was lifted.

I do thank you most sincerely, Delyth, for your work on these amendments. I was eight years old, living in a little village called Huncoat, which had a coal tip, and I'll never forget, as long as I live, when—on the radio then, no tvs—the news of Aberfan came across, and none of us can ever, ever forget what happened.

However, as the Deputy First Minister explained in Stage 2, there are really significant practical issues associated with seeking contributions from legal persons for operations and maintenance for those with a historical interest in the land of any of these tips, dating back as far as 1800. It could actually be impossible for any court to verify estates or interests from over that period. On the basis that the amendments could result in extremely complex legal cases, but notwithstanding—. I share your frustrations, but we cannot support you today.

I'm speaking in support of amendments 3, 4, and 5, tabled by Delyth Jewell. For me, they speak to the fundamental question of responsibility when it comes to Wales's industrial heritage and our environmental legacy. These amendments represent a crucial rebalancing of responsibility that has been centuries in the making. The current 12-year limitation period, whilst administratively convenient, does not reflect the reality of how Wales's disused mine and quarry tips came to be, or who should carry the responsibility for them.

The industrial tips that mark our valleys and hillsides are not recent issues, they’re the product of centuries of mining, quarrying and exploitation—industries that created huge wealth, but left devastation behind. Amendment 3 takes a clear and principled stance: if you’ve profited from creating an environmental hazard, you should put it right no matter how long ago it happened. Similarly, amendments 4 and 5 remove the 12-year limitation for waste depositors and those who caused or contributed to the need for operations, ensuring that the costs of remediation fall on those who created the problems. This is not about chasing shadows. This is about ensuring that responsibility sits with those who caused the harm, not those who are unlucky enough to inherit it.

I know that there may be concerns about how we track responsibility over time, but these amendments don't force courts to impose blame, they simply allow courts to look at all the evidence and decide what's fair. Many of the companies and estates involved still exist today, and the paper trail is often clear. Look, for example, at remediation in the slave trade. Wales is a nation that takes pride in its past and responsibility for its future. We cannot talk about sustainability if we're willing to ignore the damage left behind. I urge all Members to support amendments 3, 4 and 5. These amendments make it clear that environmental responsibility doesn't have an expiry date. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I now call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. First of all, it's worth stating that I do fully understand the sentiment and the intention behind these amendments, and we discussed this at Stage 2 as well. Whenever you hear the mention of Aberfan, it sends a chill down the spine, and not just in former coal mining communities, but right across the world. There's an understanding of not just the tragedy, but the aftermath of Aberfan and what it meant for generations of people. That's what, in many ways, this legislation is trying to do. Those coal tips are the legacy of this industrial past that shaped and scarred our communities.

But those who own tips today are not always those who benefited from the profits that were made in the past. There are significant practical issues associated with seeking contributions for operations and maintenance from those with a long historic interest in land as far back as 1800. It would be very difficult for a court—because let’s be clear, that’s where much of this would end up when it’s being challenged—to verify estates or interests from over 200 years ago, or, frankly, even 50 years ago. In such a situation, the provision would be pretty much impossible to enforce.

On a practical level, it would be difficult to establish that something that happened or didn't happen 200 years ago caused or directly contributed to the need for operations now. To prove that causal link is likely to take up an inordinate and disproportionate amount of time. The 12-year period included in the Bill maintains continuity with the current regime under the 1969 Act. It's considered reasonable and proportionate, and importantly, evidence is likely to be available to establish whether a person should be required to make a payment.

But can I just say as well that there are reasons why we should rightly expect contributions from significant players within this sphere? That is from the Governments—it's not just from the Welsh Government, but also from the UK Government as well. The Welsh Government has, for several years, funded on its own the work that has been done post Tylorstown. We've invested in the inspection, the monitoring, the maintenance, the equipment, the contracts to make good that and other tips. We've done it on our own.

The arguments were put very forcibly, repeatedly and consistently by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language, by the First Minister, to the new UK Government that we needed to actually work together on this. The industrial legacy is a shared industrial legacy. The money that went out of these valleys, north and south Wales, all parts of Wales, went to enrich people way beyond our boundaries. And on that basis, the legacy is our shared legacy. So, whilst we started with a £25 million contribution, now, as you're very well aware, we have a £118 million contribution from the UK Government. It takes the total investment in this to over £200 million. And that will get us well on the way.

Delyth Jewell to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you to everyone who's spoken.

These are indeed amendments about fundamentals, and they do push at the seams of the legislation, but that is not a reason not to include them. They are practical issues, but that is not a reason not to try and see what could be done with them. I thank Jane for her point. Yes, environmental responsibility does not have a sell-by date. Indeed, that is absolutely of the essence here. These amendments do cover a wide expanse of time, and so they should, because this is a Bill about time. It's about time we had it, yes, but it's also a Bill centred on the effects of time past, time lost and time yet to come. The tips encapsulate and symbolise the passage of that lost time, the cost of what has happened, and what has not happened. They tell a story of our wounds. It's about time those wounds were healed. I push the amendments to a vote.

The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is. We will, therefore, move to a vote on amendment 3. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

Amendment 4. Is it moved?

It is.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. So, we will move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.

Delyth, amendment 5.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will, therefore, move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed.

We'll now move to group 8. The eighth group of amendments relates to offences. Amendment 41 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the lead amendment and to speak to the other amendments in the group.

Amendments 41, 42, 47 and 48 address activities that could destabilise a disused tip. Since Stage 2, a small technical change has been made so as to provide that specified activities will be subject to the offence created in regulations. During Stage 2, the Deputy First Minister raised concern that the offence could capture and criminalise activities such as farming, popular outdoor activities such as horse riding or mountain biking on trails and the erosion caused by them, and so on. My amendments do not result in that, because they do give the Welsh Government power to make regulations in relation to specific activities on a disused tip. So, you would be in charge of what is included and excluded. Diolch.

I speak to amendments 24 and 25. The purpose of these amendments is to introduce a civil sanction regime for offences relating to this legislation. This would enable Welsh Ministers, in line with Part 3 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, to make regulations to provide for alternative civil sanctioning powers for certain criminal offences, which could include fixed monetary penalties, discretionary requirements, stop notices and enforcement undertakings. In this respect, we've sought to replicate existing provisions contained in the Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Wales) Act 2023. I'm hopeful the Cabinet Secretary will acknowledge that there is a legal precedent for the Welsh Government using powers of this nature. Now, as I mentioned during Stage 2, this is just one of many possible options to ensure the robustness of enforcement mechanisms. I acknowledge the reservations of the Cabinet Secretary as to the merits of this particular approach. If he can reassure us, in his response, that the criminal sanctions regime contained in this Bill provides a sufficient deterrent, I will gladly withdraw these amendments.

The amendments, as we've heard, provide a series of regulation-making powers enabling Welsh Ministers to create additional offences and enforcement provisions. I do understand the motivation—I said this at Stage 2—behind these amendments. However, in my view, these amendments are not needed.

Amendment 41, as we've heard, gives Welsh Ministers a regulation-making power to create a stand-alone criminal offence in relation to specified activities on a tip that destabilise the tip and threaten human welfare. It is not clear from the amendment what sorts of specified activities would be captured within this power. As I've said before, the amendment could, as it's currently framed, inadvertently capture and criminalise a range of activities, including farming, popular outdoor activities such as horse riding, mountain biking on trails and so on. So, if the intention behind the amendment is to try and stop illegal activities such as quad biking and off-road motorcycling—and I understand this—there are powers that are already available to deal with cases where riders are trespassing. So, in my view, this amendment is simply not necessary and, as I've set out, could have unintended consequences.

Amendment 42 gives the Welsh Ministers the power to make regulations conferring a power on the authority to serve a stop notice in relation to an offence created by the new section in amendment 41. Now, stop notices could involve a significant amount of additional administration, and they're likely to create delays caused by the introduction of appeal mechanisms. I laid this out in Stage 2. The authority is an expert advisory body. It is not intended that the authority will act as a police force patrolling activities taking place on tips across Wales. The application of a stop notice regime would require considerable additional resources and would significantly increase the number of staff needed to those that have been budgeted for. I keep focusing on what the authority is meant to do.

Amendment 24 inserts a provision in respect of civil sanctions into the Bill, and it gives the Welsh Ministers power to make regulations making any provision in relation to an offence under the Bill that could be made under Part 3 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, the RESA regulations. RESA makes provision in relation to the creation of new civil sanctions. But in my view, very, very clearly, amendment 24 is just not necessary. This is because I believe that the criminal sanctions regime, already included in the Bill, is sufficient to fully enforce the Bill's provisions and, actually, reflects the severity of the Bill's offences. The criminal sanctions regime in the Bill includes, for example, failure to comply with notices requiring operations that is punishable by an unlimited fine. The kind of matters to which the Bill applies criminal sanctions, such as obstructing monitoring activities or assessments, failing to comply with notices requiring operations, are of such a level of seriousness that civil sanctions, we consider, are inadequate. They would give the wrong message. Including supplementary civil sanctions to the regime would, again, be unnecessary and it could place excessive administrative and bureaucratic burden on the authority. As a result, this amendment has the potential to divert vital resources, financial and otherwise, away from the authority's core purpose, which is preventing disused tips from threatening human welfare by reason of instability.

Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Do you want to respond?

We'll go to the vote, please.

If amendment 41 is not agreed, amendments 42, 47 and 48 fall. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Does any Members object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 41. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 41 is not agreed.

We will now move to group 9. The ninth group of amendments relates to information sharing. Amendment 22 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to the lead amendment.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I speak to amendments 22 and 23. The purpose of those amendments is to include the Secretary of State for Wales and the Crown Estate commissioners in the list of public authorities in section 55 that are obliged to share relevant information with the authority as it undertakes its functions. As these individuals either previously had oversight of coal mining activities in Wales or currently manage land on which the clean-up operations could take place, I believe it is entirely appropriate that they support the work of the authority where appropriate, and that that should be made explicit.

Since presenting these amendments at Stage 2, we have modified the wording slightly to clarify that it is the Crown Estate commissioners who will be required to share information, which I hope addresses the issue that the Cabinet Secretary had with the original drafting.

On Janet's amendment 44, whilst we do agree with the rationale for introducing penalties for providing false information, and I completely understand why the amendment in this way was probably unavoidable, we do oppose the exemption of the Crown on principle, and as such we will be abstaining.

Janet Finch-Saunders.

As I advised at Stage 2, amendments 22 and 23 are out of competence. Amendment 43, which I have tabled, would create a duty on owners of unregistered disused tips to report any change in circumstance to this new authority. The authority cannot be monitoring every aspect of every tip simultaneously. As such, I think it would be wise to have measures in place to encourage owners of land that includes a disused tip, or land adjoining such a tip, to inform the authority of relevant changes.

Amendment 44 would introduce a fine should a landowner not share the relevant information with the authority. This again is meant to encourage those who are most likely to be seeing the tips on a daily basis to report any problems. For example, a landowner could see a large sinkhole appear on his land but not bother to highlight this change to the authority. My amendments would ensure those reports would need to be made.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Delyth, I recognise the slight amendment to the amendment that we debated at Stage 2 has been done, but I will explain why the principle of my problems with these amendments still remains. With regard to amendments 22 and 23 tabled by Delyth, I understand why they have been tabled, as the definition of ‘relevant public authority', in section 57 of the Bill, is an important one. It governs the bodies to whom the information sharing provisions in sections 58 and 59 of the Bill apply. However, I am content with the definition of ‘relevant public authority’ in the Bill as introduced, so in my view the amendments are just not necessary.

The bodies that form the definition of ‘relevant public authority’ are considered appropriate and they comprise those bodies who have relevant experience and relevant knowledge in supporting the functions of the authority. This is because they are the bodies who are most likely to become aware of threats to the stability of a disused tip when exercising their day-to-day functions. So, for the purposes of section 58, which gives the authority power to require a relevant public authority to provide information that the authority requests for the purpose of exercising its functions, again, the bodies most likely to have such information already form the very definition of ‘relevant public authority’. In practice, the Coal Authority, now known as the Mining Remediation Authority, is the primary custodian of information relevant to the authority's functions. It is already included in the definition. Therefore, I would ask Members to vote against amendments 22 and 23.

Amendments 43 and 44 have to be read together. Amendment 44 provides that it is an offence for an owner of land not to provide the information required by amendment 43 unless there is a reasonable excuse for an owner not to do so. Amendment 44 also makes it an offence to give false or misleading information. I will reiterate the concerns I have with these two amendments, as I said at Stage 2. To bring a successful prosecution against an owner of land, it will be necessary to prove that the person (a) became aware of a threat to the stability of a disused tip or evidence of a disused tip's instability and (b) considered that the information ought to be shared with the authority in the interest of avoiding or reducing a threat to human welfare. Now, it may be possible in some cases to prove point (a), limb (a), but it seems almost impossible for the prosecution to prove what the person considered ought to be done. If the offence isn't capable of being proven, we should not be creating it in law. Criminal offences must be reasonable, rational and have a sufficient level of foreseeability; that is, a person should be able to tell if they are committing an offence or not.

Delyth Jewell to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I thank Members for their contributions. I hope that I have explained the principle underpinning the amendments in my name. So, although I do recognise the points that have been made by the Deputy First Minister, I do wish to move to a vote, please.

The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, we will move to a vote on amendment 22. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 22 is not agreed.

Amendment 23. Is it moved?

I move, please.

The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. So, we will move to a vote on amendment 23. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 41 against. Therefore, amendment 23 is not agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 43.

I move.

Moved.

If amendment 43 is not agreed, amendment 44 will fall. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 43 is not agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 15.

Move.

If amendment 15 is not agreed, amendment 16 will fall. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 15 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 16.

Move.

The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 16 is therefore agreed.

Janet, amendment—[Interruption.]

It's 45.

Forty-five, yes. I move.

The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 45. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 45 is not agreed.

The tenth and final group of amendments relates to the meaning of 'threat to human welfare'. The lead amendment is amendment 46. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the lead amendment and to speak to the other amendments in the group.

Diolch. Amendment 46 means that guidance must be published about the circumstances that may constitute a threat to human welfare. In short, what is the difference between 'serious human illness or injury' and 'human illness or injury', 'serious damage to property' and 'damage to property', 'serious disruption of a supply of food, water, energy or fuel' and 'disruption of a supply of food, water, energy or fuel', 'serious disruption of a system of communication' and 'disruption of a system of communication', 'serious disruption of facilities of transport' and 'disruption of facilities of transport'? Whilst I would like Delyth to clarify the difference between, for example, 'serious contamination of water' and 'contamination of water', all of your amendments in this group have our support today. Diolch.

I will speak to amendments 26, 27, 28 and 29. As this is the final time I'll be speaking during Stage 3, I would like to add to the thanks I gave earlier my thanks as well to Daniel and Anthony at the Coal Action Network, Bethan and David at Climate Cymru and Haf at Friends of the Earth Cymru.

The purpose of our amendments in this group is to widen the definition of 'human welfare' in section 84 to specifically include serious threat by fire, flood and contamination of water. Janet, we have included 'serious threat' because of the order of magnitude, and as well to follow some other precedents in legislation. But if you'd like to have a—. If these were to pass, we could have a further conversation perhaps about the implications of that. But I thank you for your support that you've indicated.

Now, these are all in line with recommendation 30 of the report that was made by our committee, of course, before Stage 2, as well as a further provision to ensure that the threat of environmental harm is also considered in this context. Now, I believe that these amendments are necessary to strengthen and clarify the remit of the authority as a body with specific responsibilities, again, for environmental protection. I also hope amendment 28 in particular will act as an additional safeguard against the possibility that the authority's work could lead to the unintended consequence of further environmental damage.

Now, during Stage 2 proceedings, the Cabinet Secretary opposed these amendments on the grounds that they would alter the scope of the legislation and turn it into an environmental Bill. I would argue that we should be viewing this Bill as not simply a vehicle for remediation but also as a long overdue pathway to restoration and revitalisation in areas that have long been denied the splendours and beauty of those parts of their natural land. As such, I believe that widening the scope of this Bill in this way is entirely consistent with this ambitious interpretation of the Bill's purpose. While I do note the Government's fears concerning potential adverse effects on the functions of the authority, I would also contend that the design of these functions should fundamentally flow from the scope. So, by having a more defined remit from the outset, we could in turn further refine those functions to make them more responsive to the critical goal of rejuvenating these landscapes.

For the sake of our Valleys, for the sake of Wales, and our communities today, yesterday and tomorrow, I move these amendments, and I pledge to them that today is not the end of our journey.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I just begin by giving my thanks, on this final group, to Members who have taken part in the debate today, to committee members that we've worked, I think, positively with, and also to my officials? They're a small team but they're an incredible team, who've helped to work with all Members as we've taken this Bill through committee and got it to what I think is a very good place. But my final thanks just go to all those incredible, wonderful, close communities who came to existence, frankly, because they were established in places to extract the mineral wealth from all parts of Wales, north, south, east and west, and now look to us, in this legislation and in our investment, to actually make good that legacy that they live with.

So, I've listened very carefully here, in this group of amendments, to Members' views about the balance in what's contained in guidance and what's included on the face of the Bill. Indeed, I made amendments at Stage 2 to place a duty on Welsh Ministers to give guidance to the authority on aspects such as charging, monitoring, preliminary and full assessments, compensation for damage or disturbance caused by monitoring or assessment activity, payments in connection with operations, and management plans.

So, with this in mind, I turn to amendment 46. The amendment requires Welsh Ministers to publish guidance about what might constitute a threat to human welfare under section 84. Now, I understand the thinking behind the amendment. We will absolutely provide guidance on this. But it is important that this is contained in the guidance relating to the authority's functions on, for example, the monitoring, the assessment and the management plans. In my view, guidance explaining what is meant by 'a threat to human welfare' in the context of one of the authority's functions will be much more useful than stand-alone guidance. Examples contained in stand-alone guidance about threats to human welfare could be treated as a definitive list, a bit like a tick-box exercise, without considering the specific circumstances or situations or placing the term in the context. Now, obviously, we would want to avoid this, and I'm therefore unable to support this amendment. But, since I introduced this Bill, I've emphasised the importance of ensuring that we maintain a very clear focus on the remit of the authority. This allows communities to feel safe because of the specific focus of the authority and to allow the development of world-leading expertise and skills.

Now, I am concerned that amendments 27 and 28, indeed, as Delyth said, attempt to expand the scope of the Bill and give the authority a far wider remit by adding things such as 'serious contamination of water' and 'serious environmental harm' to the definition of 'threat to human welfare'. The Bill's purpose—going back to what we know about the impact of tip instability—is and it must be to prevent disused tips from threatening human welfare by reason of instability. Threats to matters other than human welfare are, in the Government's view, outside of the Bill's scope. The effect of amendment 28 is to include 'serious environmental harm' within the definition of 'threat to human welfare'. Now, this would be, I would argue, illogical, as it would mean that something that may only impact the environment and not affect human welfare at all is captured within the definition of 'threat to human welfare'. And the same is true of amendment 27, which seeks to add 'serious contamination of water' to the definition of 'threat to human welfare'. There is no link in this amendment to a threat to human welfare. Now, amendments 27 and 28 appear to be seeking to alter the scope of the Bill in order to turn it into an environmental Bill. This is significant broadening of the scope, and it would have an adverse impact on the delivery of those core functions of the authority, which are the protection of human welfare and keeping communities safe. I am clear as well that such a broadening of scope is completely uncosted, and it's highly likely to have significant financial implications, which in turn would impact on the ability of the authority to direct funding to those areas that need it.

Janet, do you wish to respond?

To the vote, please.

The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Does any Member object?

Yes?

[Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote. Open the vote on amendment 46. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 46 is not agreed.

Delyth, amendment 24.

I am happy to withdraw that amendment, Dirprwy Lywydd.

You are happy to withdraw. Therefore, the amendment is withdrawn.

Amendment 26, Delyth.

I move the amendment.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 26. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied. As required under Standing Order 6.20(ii), I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, there were 27 in favour, no abstentions and 28 against. Therefore, amendment 26 is not agreed.

Delyth, amendment 27.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. Therefore, we will move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied. As required in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii), I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. So, there were 27 in favour, no abstentions and 28 against. Therefore, amendment 27 is not agreed.

Amendment 28.

Moved.

It's moved.

The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied. As required in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii), I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, there were 27 in favour, no abstentions and 28 against. Amendment 28 is not agreed.

Amendment 29.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied. As required in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii), I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, there were 27 in favour, no abstentions and 28 against. Amendment 29 is not agreed.

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

That brings today's proceedings to a close.