Plenary

Item 2 this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Lynne Neagle. The first question is from Julie Morgan.

The Welsh Government is committed to ensuring that opportunities for adult education are truly accessible to all. Over the forthcoming academic year, this Government, via Medr, will be investing more than £80 million to support the provision of adult learning in a variety of settings.

Thank you for that response.

In September, the Inspire! learning awards were held in Swansea as part of Adult Learners' Week, and I'm absolutely delighted that one of the 11 winners was the parent learning group, based at Cathays High School in my constituency of Cardiff North, a school where more than 65 different languages have been spoken since 2014. The group empowers women to support their children's education and to develop personally and professionally at the same time, studying literacy, numeracy, digital skills, childcare, creative arts and cookery, delivered in partnership with Adult Learning Wales. This has resulted in learners achieving around 120 qualifications a year, with nearly half of those taking part going on to find employment. So, it is an absolutely outstanding achievement for the school, and I have been pleased to be able to visit that group. So, would the Cabinet Secretary commend the work that is going on in Cathays High School and agree that this is exactly the type of thing that the Welsh Government should continue to actively support and promote?

Can I thank Julie Morgan for the supplementary, and very warmly commend the work of the family learning group in Cathays High School? I was really delighted that they won the Hywel Francis Award for community impact. Those of us who've been in the Labour Party for a long time will recall Hywel's long-standing lifelong commitment to lifelong learning. I've seen some of the progress that has come as a result of the work of that group, and it's genuinely really impressive. Over 50 women have gone back to work in various sectors. It's built skills and fostered confidence, it's raised awareness of health issues. But, of course, it also enables those learners to support their children better in their learning and is a vital part of our community-focused schools approach.

If I could take this opportunity, Dirprwy Lywydd, just to congratulate all the winners in the Inspire! awards. I was able to go last year, and it was a truly inspiring evening, because people had faced so many challenges, but had persevered, had continued on their adult learning journey, and they had had really life-changing results as a result of that work. So, I think that's a really positive story. Congratulations to all of them and to Cathays High School.

Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. Just to continue along that vein, we know that lifelong learning and ensuring that our adult learners are supported is good for everybody. It's good for those adults who have that experience, particularly if they're from a background where they've struggled, but it's also good for the economy as well. It's good for the economy because we get better-trained people coming into our industries. One of the things I just wanted to touch on is how we get those lifelong learning opportunities to adults to look at the green industry, to enhance green skills, to ensure that we're meeting the needs of those people who say they just don't have enough people who are skilled to come into the green industry. So, I wonder if you could just comment on what the Welsh Government is seeing in terms of a vision to ensure that we have lifelong learning opportunities for our adults in order to adapt and change, particularly in the green industry? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you, Jane, for that question. Of course, we've set out a duty, which hasn't begun yet, in the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022, which does, I think, demonstrate our commitment to lifelong adult learning. I should probably declare an interest myself, Dirprwy Lywydd, because I am actually an adult learner because I'm currently doing a level 3 counselling studies course in Cardiff and Vale College, so I can attest to the benefits that you've spoken about.

There are various types of adult learning, aren't there? There are things that people do for pleasure, for well-being, but you rightly highlight the vital importance of upskilling people for the economy as well. One of our main vehicles to do that is our personal learning account programme, which looks to provide workers with those opportunities to upskill in key sectors. And, you know, going forward, obviously, the green economy is going to be a really major part of that for us.

Careers and work-related experiences is a cross-cutting theme in the statutory curriculum guidance. It is embedded throughout a learner’s education, age three to 16. This ensures learners build valuable experiences and can apply their knowledge and skills in inspiring, real-world contexts.

Thank you for your response. Schools play an important role in helping young people understand and access different career pathways, but that can only happen through strong collaboration between Government, education providers and employers. There are a wide range of opportunities available in emerging green economy jobs, as has just been mentioned, as well as in fulfilling essential careers in our public services, including the NHS. Parents, too, have a vital role in supporting their children to explore the full breadth of these opportunities. In fact, they are very often the biggest influence.

Minister, what action is the Welsh Government taking to strengthen partnerships between schools, parents and employers to ensure that the curriculum effectively prepares learners for future careers and that they know what jobs are actually available in their area?

Thank you very much, Carolyn. It is crucial that we continue to build strong and successful relationships between schools, parents and employers to support learners. This is key to improving the job prospects of learners and helping them to understand the values that local employers have. And, obviously, it also means that businesses can recruit, then, from within their local area.

One of the things that the Welsh Government and Careers Wales have supported is an initiative called Education Business Partnership, and that brings employers and schools together to provide opportunities for learners and teachers to meet and interact with them. The EBP aims to inform, inspire and motivate young people about their future career.

We also have a school valued partner initiative, which gives recognition to employers who support individual schools through a minimum of three Careers Wales employer engagement activities per year, as part of the work that we're doing to upskill practitioners on career and work-related education. One of the things we're also doing is strengthening their knowledge of the gaps that we have in the economy, that intelligence about jobs, which is really important. But you're also very right to highlight, and this is recognised in our guidance, the importance of a co-constructive approach with key contributors, and that includes parents and carers. We commissioned a really interesting piece of work from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development looking at teenagers' engagement with careers advice, which did give us some really interesting data about just how influential parents were in this field. That's why it is important that we give them that information as well, so that they can support young people to make the best possible decisions.

Cabinet Secretary, the armed forces community in Wales has so much to offer in terms of careers advice and skills advice for many young people. From engineering to logistics, medicine, IT and leadership, there are wide-ranging job opportunities that are there in our armed forces that our young people in our schools don't hear much about. So, will you consider, Cabinet Secretary, how schools can work more closely with our armed forces community in Wales so that career-related education can filter through to them, so that they can potentially consider a career in our armed forces, supporting our service personnel around the world?

Thank you, James, for that question. Obviously, it's vital that young people have access to careers advice in their schools. I know that some schools do engage with armed forces organisations who come in and talk to the schools. I think it's important that that is done, obviously, in an age-appropriate way as well. But we are providing a very comprehensive careers guidance offer for all young people across Wales. So, for example, in your area, the take-up of the Careers Wales offer was 95 per cent across Powys schools—higher than the Wales average—and seven out of 11 schools across Powys achieved 100 per cent take-up of the offer last academic year, which means every single young person in those schools had a careers guidance interview before leaving year 11. I think it's important that those careers advisers do work with the young people in a young person-centred way to consider all the options that are open to them.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. First of all, the Welsh Conservatives spokesperson, Tom Giffard.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. As we come to the end of the political party conference season, voters will be looking at each of the different parties' policy platforms on education and making decisions about who has the solutions to turn our education system around. You will know, at party conferences, as well as I do, that there are hundreds of events that take place on a range of subjects and different topics. I wonder what you made of the report by the PoliticsHome education reporter who reported that the Reform conference didn't have a single event focusing on education. And from speaking to people in the party, they didn't seem to have done a lot of thinking about education policy at all. Do you agree with me that a party that has nothing to say on education, one of the key issues at the next Senedd election, should be the last people entrusted to run our education system in Wales?

Thank you, Tom. And, gosh, after all these exchanges we have had over the months, finally something we agree on. So, that's something to mark, isn't it? Obviously, it's essential that any party that is seeking to govern a country has something to say about education. I saw the reports in Schools Week that Nigel Farage did not respond when he was asked about Reform's education policies. In fact, the Reform press office told them that the education spokesperson role was now vacant, with no further explanation.

Education has also scored lowly amongst Reform loyalists when asked to name the biggest problems facing the country, and teachers actually came bottom amongst the groups the Government should protect when making spending decisions. So, I think that shows you where they're coming from. Unfortunately, that picture is being reflected in this Senedd, where our only Reform Member has turned down a place on the vital Children, Young People and Education Committee, where she had the opportunity to pursue issues on behalf of young people. If I can just conclude by also reminding the Member that, in the 2024 general election, Reform's priority was to give a 20 per cent tax relief on private school fees. That, of course, contrasts with our Labour Government, which has changed the VAT rules to ensure that we can raise more money to fund public education across the UK.

Thank you very much for your response, Cabinet Secretary. I agree with much of what you said. A party that wants to run this Senedd needs to be able to have a plan to run its public services, and it's clear that, when it comes to education, Reform simply are not interested.

Now, I'm sorry to break up the consensus—[Laughter.] But I am going to look at the Welsh Government's performance when it comes to education, and you will have seen the report by Onward, 'Devolved to Fail'. It is the most recent in a long line of reports that paint a bleak and depressing picture of the state of education in Wales after 26 years of a Labour Government. It states, and I quote:

'Education outcomes in Wales are significantly lower than its neighbouring countries not only within the UK, but across other OECD countries. Without meaningful reforms, analysis in this paper shows performance may continue to worsen.'

One of the insights in the report is that, quote:

'Wales abolished school league tables and single-word judgements, making immediate consequences for poor performing schools less severe.'

So, will you commit to looking again at whether you will scrap league tables and single-word judgments—at the scrapping of league tables and single-word judgments—as the Onward report recommends, in order to improve parent choice and drive up school standards in Wales?

Oh, and it was going so well. There we are. Thank you, Tom. Maybe you weren't in the Chamber when Natasha Asghar questioned me on the Onward report. Obviously, Onward is a Conservative think tank, and very open about that, and, as I pointed out to Natasha, the foreword was written by that well-known education expert Mims Davis MP. So, I think we can have—[Interruption.] I think we can have a—[Interruption.] But I was on the substance of the report. Our reports are based on evidence, and we don't recognise much of the evidence that is in that report. I have always been willing to acknowledge where genuine evidence has shown us we need to do things differently. We are moving in the right direction in Wales. We saw a good set of A-level results. We saw some improvements at GCSEs. Our personalised assessment results were encouraging in literacy as well.

Just in terms of inspection, I was with Estyn yesterday, actually, and I am very content with our inspection regime in Wales. We have an enhanced inspection regime now, where schools will have more visits. They'll have that more in-depth support from Estyn, which I think is really positive, and, of course, parents can also access information on how their school is doing via the 'My local school' website. As part of the work that we've done on the 14-16 learning entitlement, we're in the later stages now of developing an indicators framework, which will be published for all schools, which will show not just performance in qualifications, but other things that matter to children and young people: how the school is doing on well-being, how good they are at focusing on post-16 destinations for children and young people, and a more holistic range of measures like that. I'm content that that is the right direction to go in.

Thank you for your reply. It's a shame, I think, Cabinet Secretary, that the Welsh Labour Government, over 26 years, has been so quick to dismiss solutions and successes from elsewhere in the UK because they are Conservative. In doing that, you miss the most important part. You should be implementing them not because they're Conservative, but because they are so successful. Whilst Welsh education persisted with things like the discredited cueing method, English pupils became some of the best readers in the western world. You could have done the same, but chose not to because it was being done by a Conservative Government in England. That's what we mean when we say that the Welsh Labour Government has put ideology over the evidence when it comes to Welsh educational standards, and it's our children who are paying the price. Nowhere is that clearer than in our curriculum. So, the Onward report, like us, have long argued that the worldwide evidence shows that a skills-based rather than a knowledge-based curriculum leads to lower standards and ends up with those countries that implemented it eventually having to row back. So, will the Cabinet Secretary now follow the evidence, as she says that she would, and agree to look again at the curriculum, and look particularly at introducing a knowledge-based curriculum, which we know works and will improve the life chances of young people across Wales?

Thanks, Tom. Actually, I think you probably haven't been listening to me over the last couple of years if you're going to claim that I am ideological, because I am not at all ideological. The only ideology I have is what is best for children and young people and what will deliver the best possible outcomes for them. That's the lens that I look at everything through.

I want to be really clear again that we have made it very clear to schools that we are expecting all of them to teach phonics. We are strengthening our professional learning, our statutory support for that, and a whole range of other measures.

In terms of the skills-based point you made, I've lost track of how many times I have said to you that knowledge is an absolutely fundamental part of Curriculum for Wales. But what we are doing through Curriculum for Wales is asking young people to apply that knowledge in meaningful ways.

I've always been happy to look at evidence from elsewhere. I met with the New Zealand Minister, where they are in the later stages of a new curriculum. I've met with the Scottish Minister. I met with Bridget Phillipson yesterday, and will be hosting a ministerial council in a few weeks with Ministers from across the UK where the focus will be curriculum. But my priority is to make sure that our curriculum, which is knowledge-rich as well as purpose-driven, delivers for children and young people in Wales.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Cefin Campbell.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. The Welsh Government has stated time and again its commitment to ensuring that everyone, whatever their background, can access higher education. However, the latest data paints an entirely contrary picture. According to UCAS, only 32.5 per cent of people who are 18 years old in Wales made an application to university in 2024, which is substantially lower than the UK average, which is 41.2 per cent. But that national figure does hide levels of inequality that run even deeper. In Cardiff North, for example, the access to university rate was 47.9 per cent. In the meantime, in Torfaen—your constituency, Cabinet Secretary—only 16.9 per cent applied to go to university, the lowest in Wales.

So, to my mind, these figures raise a number of uncomfortable questions for you as a Government. What are the reasons for these differences? And is it acceptable, in a nation that is committed to expanding access and to improving opportunities and aspiration levels, that this is happening?

Thank you, Cefin, for that question. Of course, raising post-16 participation rates is a priority for this Government. My colleague Vikki Howells has talked at length in this Chamber about this in the past. We do need to get underneath those figures. We're still waiting for the full range of data from UCAS to come through. My understanding is that the entries to Welsh universities were pretty much where Welsh universities had expected them to be. I also think we have to consider FE, where numbers are considerably up, actually, and remember that there are different routes for young people as they decide what they're going to do post 16. But we are mindful of the challenges with participation. We have the most generous student financial support offer in the UK. But, as a Government, we are looking at what more we need to do to make sure that all young people who want to proceed to higher education can do so.

Thank you. Encouraging students to go to university is one thing, but encouraging them to stay and study in universities in Wales is an entirely different issue. Now, Scotland and Northern Ireland prioritise their funding to encourage students to study at home. Here in Wales, however, you as a Government use taxpayers' money to fund students to study outside of Wales, rather than strengthening our higher education institutions here.

Over a period of five years, the Seren Academy has cost over £11 million to the public purse. However, 70 per cent of all school pupils who have registered with Seren go on to study at universities outside of Wales, mainly in England. If every other nation in the UK is protecting its own interests and supporting HE institutions in those countries, why is the Welsh Labour Government so determined to shoot itself in the foot time and time again with this scheme?

Thank you, Cefin. Well, I'm very proud of our Seren programme, and our Seren programme enables learners to study wherever they want to study. It is a learner-focused programme that enables young people to meet their aspirations, and I am hugely proud of it and the successes that it has. We are a net importer, as you know, of students into Wales, and I think it's vital that young people can choose where they want to go.

You're aware that we have been refocusing our Seren programme so that we can better support some of our most disadvantaged learners, but we're also increasing the work that we do with Welsh universities. As you've highlighted, 35 per cent of Seren learners who started university in 2024 chose to study in Wales. Seren has built very strong relationships with universities in Wales via their regional and national programme of activity.

In 2024, 83 engagements and opportunities were held with universities in Wales, and, of all the learners who attended the Seren medic summer school with Cardiff University in 2023, 82 per cent of them applied to Cardiff University. Seren currently works very closely with Cardiff, Swansea, University of South Wales, Aberystwyth and Bangor to support learners in their educational journey by hosting masterclasses, seminars and residentials. The Minister for Further and Higher Education and I are encouraging Welsh universities, on an ongoing basis, to fully engage with the Seren programme, especially under our new delivery model, so that they can promote their most successful courses.

That's fine, but 70 per cent still study outside of Wales.

Another issue risking the viability of our universities, and indeed the viability of the economy as a whole, is the UK Government's proposals to introduce a levy on international students studying in the UK. Now, the UK Government's proposed 6 per cent levy on international student fees is billed as support for higher education, but evidence shows it would do the opposite: fees would rise by 6.3 per cent, deterring international students. Universities would lose £240 million in year 1, rising to £2.2 billion over five years, and institutions may cut UK student places, research and teaching.

So, if applied in Wales, the levy could cost the Welsh economy £65 million in lost gross value added, hitting university towns hardest, like Bangor, Cardiff, Wrexham and so on. So, far from strengthening universities, the levy risks weakening them and making Wales less globally competitive. So, my question is this: the UK Government now says devolved Governments must decide whether to implement the levy. Scotland has ruled it out—will you?

Thank you, Cefin, and, obviously, we've been in discussions with the UK Government about this, and it's already been confirmed that the student levy will not apply to Wales. We're not seeking to moderate overseas student demand in this way, and, indeed, we really welcome international students. We want our international students to continue to feel welcomed for the positive social, cultural and economic contributions they make in Wales, and we're very keen to ensure that that continues. So, there will not be a levy in Wales.

The behaviour summit report published in July outlined key outputs and immediate next steps. Building on this momentum, positive progress includes the launch of new fora on mobiles in schools and exclusions and detentions, early engagement work with children and young people, and plans to accelerate practitioner engagement this term.

Cabinet Secretary, you'll be aware that the number of violent incidents by pupils in our schools has almost tripled since 2019. This is a real problem. The Welsh Conservatives, when I was education spokesperson, and others have asked you for a long period of time what action you are going to take to tackle that. For a long period of time, you pointed at this national behavioural summit as the answer to those questions, and you issued a written statement after that summit where you acknowledged a few key points. You said there was a strong appetite for guidance to be updated, you said that there was a need to develop professional learning opportunities focused on behaviour management techniques, de-escalation and intervention, and you also said you recognised the need to ensure that there are consistent definitions and that all incidents are reported. Now, I agree with all of that, but they, to me, sound like reflections on that meeting rather than actions from that meeting. As Welsh Conservatives, we've been really clear. We've called in our plan, which I presented to you previously, for improved behaviour in schools and tackling school violence, which includes having that robust strategy, but also ensuring exclusion from schools and that PRU guidance issued by the Welsh Government is updated to ensure that those carrying a weapon are excluded from school as well. So, can you speak to the outcomes and the actions you have taken off the back of the behavioural summit, not just your reflections on the summit?

Thank you very much, Tom. As I said, we set out five immediate actions from the summit back in May, and each of those actions has created a work stream underneath it. We have got the group that is looking at exclusions, and it's vital that we work that through with practitioners. That work is advancing at pace, so is the work on mobile phones. We are already working to update the guidance for schools to ensure there's more clarity and consistency across Wales. And just at the end of the last term, we issued a new behaviour toolkit. We are also working now with higher education partners who are going to support us in this work, looking at the kind of techniques that we need. The behaviour toolkit, as I said, was published at the start of the autumn term for schools, but we are also working on the issues that arose from the violence round-table as well, because it's vital that we have more consistent guidance in that space. But I want to be clear that schools can already exclude children and young people who are found with a weapon in school if they want to. It is very clear that they can do that already. They can make that decision, as they are best placed to do as school leaders who know those learners.

Supporting our education workforce is vital, and I recognise that ongoing job uncertainty causes a high level of anxiety for those affected. I expect Bangor University to work closely with its staff, trade unions and students in the spirit of social partnership to ensure the right support is available.

Thank you for that response. Can you confirm that Bangor University has received £1.4 million in funding to mitigate the need for a decrease in the workforce, and are you confident that this funding is being used to mitigate the need to cut the number of staff? There is a great deal of concern that some staff members are facing compulsory redundancy, whilst others have exited voluntarily because they didn't feel that they had any other choice. As you'll know, and as I've mentioned several times, Bangor University is a key part of the economy of the area that I represent, and these current cuts will have an impact not just on the staff and their families, but on the economy as a whole.

Thank you very much, Siân, for the supplementary. Obviously, I recognise this has been a really difficult time for the university, and I absolutely agree with you about the importance of Bangor University in that part of north Wales.

In terms of financial support, in recognition of the financial challenges facing higher education, we provided an additional £28.5 million in 2024-25. Some of that was revenue, some of that was capital, and that brought the total grant support to the sector to over £200 million. That comes in addition to increasing tuition fees in two consecutive years, which we expect to generate up to £21.9 million pounds in income for 2025-26. We are expecting all universities to work in close social partnership with their staff as they are dealing with these issues, and I'm also really pleased that Bangor University has introduced a number of staff support programmes and have initiatives in place to support staff affected by the restructuring process. That includes employee assistance programmes, support for mental health and well-being, and signposting to external sources of additional support.

If I can just assure Siân, as well, that the Minister for Further and Higher Education has been engaging with vice-chancellors and principals to further understand the pressures facing the sector and explore how we can continue to support them through that time. And we've also had regular and productive discussions, at ministerial and official level, with post-16 joint trade unions, and we will continue that work in social partnership.

The Welsh Government respects the judgment of the Supreme Court relating to the definition of sex under the Equality Act 2010, and we have stated that all duty bearers should follow the Supreme Court ruling and take appropriate legal advice.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary, but you haven't yet issued any new guidance to schools. The Welsh Conservatives are a party that believes that biological sex matters if we want to protect the rights of women and girls. Yet there are many schools across Wales at the moment that do not have women-only spaces or girls-only spaces in them—for example, in loos, changing spaces and physical education classes, and girls' sports in our schools as well will be affected by these decisions. When will you issue new guidance to our schools across Wales to make sure that they do have respect for that Supreme Court judgment, because we need to make sure that women and girls are protected in all public spaces and in all of our public schools across Wales? This is an essential move. The Scottish Government has already done it. The UK Government's made its position clear. The Welsh Government needs to pull its finger out and get a grip on this too.

Thank you, Darren. The Scottish Government already had published guidance for schools and they have published amended guidance this week. As I think you're aware, we were working on guidance for schools on supporting learners, including trans and gender-questioning learners. We took the decision to take extra time on that work in order to consider all the evidence, including the ruling that you've referred to. I know my colleague Jane Hutt has set out to the Chamber that we're waiting for the passage of the new ECHR guidance to go through the House of Commons so that we can make a definitive statement. But, from my point of view, it's really important that we do this thoroughly and that we make sure that we're engaging not only with young people, but with parents. I was also very keen that we took account of the findings of the Cass review.

Now, in relation to toilets, our guidance already states that schools have to provide single-sex toilets for children over the age of eight. We have recently done some consultation about whether we should be also providing some gender-neutral toilets as part of that, but in addition to the single-sex toilets. And I just want to be clear that, as I look at this issue, it is always with the well-being of all learners at the very front of my mind. I want our schools to be inclusive, welcoming places for all learners. Spaces like toilets have a really big impact on well-being. We know from Estyn that they can be a focus for bullying, so it is absolutely vital that we get this right, and that we don't do it in haste, but make sure that the guidance is exactly as it should be.

While learner safety is a shared statutory responsibility between local authorities and school governing bodies, I remain committed to ensuring the well-being and education continuity for all our learners. I will continue working in partnership with local authorities, particularly where school closures have occurred, ensuring learner needs and well-being are fully supported.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. For six years, the children of Godre'r Graig Primary School have been taught in portakabins, miles from their community, following the closure of their school building and its subsequent demolishing. Although the whole school community has done a fantastic job under such challenging circumstances, I'm sure you'll agree that it's not a suitable arrangement. Neath Port Talbot Council has submitted an application for a replacement school, one that will be situated in Godre'r Graig and will meet the needs of learners and families across the communities of Godre'r Graig, Ystalyfera and Cilmaengwyn. However, a letter from one of your officials to officers at Neath Port Talbot Council suggests that it's unlikely funding will be provided. The impact a new school would have on pupil numbers in other schools is mentioned, but not the impact that the existing situation is having on pupil numbers at Ysgol Godre'r Graig. Can the Cabinet Secretary explain why the Welsh Government is assessing this application using the same criteria as a brand-new school, not a replacement one, and whether she believes it's acceptable that the majority of learners at Ysgol Godre'r Graig have never been educated in a permanent school building in their own community? Would you agree to visit the school, to meet with leaders, to understand the exceptional context of this application for support?

Thank you very much, Sioned, for that question. Just to re-emphasise, I am committed to ensuring well-being and education continuity for all our learners. I want to pay tribute to the school, because I know that, despite any challenges, they've had really positive inspections and they're a warm and supportive school for the children that they serve.

I thought I should probably set out the chain of events that has happened since 2019 to where we are now, because there is more to it than what you've just described. In 2020, business case submissions were received by the Welsh Government for the original Swansea valley primary school project, which was a new-build, amalgamating Alltwen Primary School, Llangiwg Primary School and Godre'r Graig Primary School. Approval was given, subject to the satisfactory completion of a Welsh language impact assessment. That wasn't forthcoming due to the subsequent judicial review and a decision by the local authority to not progress with the plans. Godre'r Graig Primary School is not currently included in Neath Port Talbot's nine-year Sustainable Communities for Learning programme, and we haven't received a business case. In November 2023, the council submitted a request to amend its strategic outline programme for capital investment in their buildings, and that request included the addition of a new-build replacement for Godre'r Graig Primary School. In January 2024, in response to the request, the local authority was asked to undertake a Welsh language impact assessment and also to consider any mitigating actions that may be required. That assessment was submitted in January 2025 and, in April 2025, the local authority submitted their proposed mitigating actions. Officials did raise concerns regarding the significant cost of the project, but also the potential impact that an increase in English-medium places may have in an area—[Interruption.]—of linguistic sensitivity and on neighbouring schools.

Just to assure the Member, I had correspondence about the school in the summer and I have asked officials to proactively engage with the council. They have had discussions with the council and I know that, on 20 October, officials are due to meet with the chief executive and director of education, leisure and lifelong learning to discuss their plans. And I'm very happy to visit the school.

We continue to see improvements in attendance and I am pleased that overall absence fell from 12 per cent to 10.9 per cent over the 2024-25 school year. But we want to get back to the levels we saw before the pandemic and are investing £7 million this financial year in supporting positive engagement with school.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. I was encouraged by the recent data showing the improvement that you have just mentioned, and the attendance in secondary schools in particular. We all know that schools have faced challenges with attendance since the COVID-19 pandemic. The reasons for missing school can be complex. Getting to the bottom of why children persistently miss school is, I’m sure, key to improving that attendance. So, I welcome the additional Welsh Government funding of £3 million for family engagement officers and £2 million to help pupils with additional enrichment opportunities. I am sure that will be vital to achieving this goal.

Cabinet Secretary, do you agree with me that multi-agency collaborative working is crucial in helping improve school attendance, and that children and families must be at the centre of initiatives to tackle school attendance in order to achieve the best outcome for children who are persistently missing school?

Thank you very much, Joyce, for that question, and for the welcome for the additional money that has enabled us to employ extra family engagement officers. Those family engagement officers are doing really brilliant work. We’ve set up a network of them. I’ve met with them and I have heard first-hand about how they are doing that really complex work with families, because the reasons why children don’t attend school are very complex. There are all sorts of barriers, whether it’s poverty, transport, ill health, and the family engagement officers are doing really brilliant work.

You’ve made a very important point, though, about multi-agency collaboration, and that also plays into what Tom asked me about the behaviour summit as well, because a constant theme I have been hearing from schools since being in post is that they feel that a lot of societal problems are landing on their doorstep. Some schools have described themselves as the fourth emergency service, and we need to do more to make sure that we’ve got that multi-agency wraparound support for schools. That’s why one of the actions from the summit was to tackle those multi-agency issues, to make sure that all agencies are stepping up to support schools; that it is not just schools doing outreach, it’s in-reach from all the agencies. I took a paper to Cabinet a few weeks ago, to look at what we as a Government can do across all of the Ministers to make sure that we are all pulling together to support schools. We’re working now on that at an official level, but also at a ministerial level. That is something that is absolutely vital. It was a key message as well from the Ysgol Dyffryn Aman report, so we have to tackle those multi-agency issues.

Finally, question 8, Mark Isherwood.

Further education is central to Wales’s education and economic ambitions and to the learners and communities they serve. I am pleased to see a significant rise in enrolments over the past year. To recognise this increase, Welsh Government has increased funding allocations for colleges by nearly £14 million this year.

Diolch. Analysis by ColegauCymru in June 2023 showed that in the first year after the removal of the level 2 foundation apprenticeship, there were 1,075 fewer construction apprentices compared to the previous year. Two years later, data published by Wales's Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, Medr, in June 2025 showed a 48 per cent drop in construction apprenticeship starts, attributing the drop to the removal of the level 2 foundation apprenticeship and a 14 per cent cut to the apprenticeship budget. Both the staff in ColegauCymru member colleges and the construction sector are now highlighting this as a major problem affecting both the people and economy of Wales.

Colleges also tell me that further education is experiencing significant growth in core full-time numbers, well beyond current funding levels, and that alongside this, they are implementing the Additional Learning Needs and Education Tribunal (Wales) Act 2018 without increased funding, despite learners with additional learning needs significantly increasing, with the core workload more than doubling in two years. Having ignored the warnings, what, if any, plans does this Welsh Government now have to support the sector by addressing these issues?

Thank you very much, Mark. Those are all important points. As a Government, we are committed to the growth of apprenticeships. Obviously, apprenticeships sit with Jack Sargeant, so if it's okay, I'll write to you about the detail on the construction apprenticeships.FootnoteLink

In terms of the points you've raised about the growth in numbers, I've acknowledged that, including in my answer to Cefin Campbell, and I think that's a positive. That's why we announced additional funding in this year to support more learners going into further education. Obviously, we're about to start the budget round, so I can't make any commitments about additional funding, but I will say to you that I am a very vocal advocate for the importance not just of more funding for education, but of the importance of FE and the need to support it, and I will continue to do that.

I do recognise that colleges are under pressure on ALN. I'll be making a statement next week on the legislative review, where I'll have more to say about that. Just to reiterate that point, that I'm aware of the funding need for ALN support in colleges, and that is part of the discussions I'm having with Cabinet colleagues.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

We will move on now to item 3 on our agenda, which is the topical questions. The topical question by Siân Gwenllian [TQ1378] to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales will no longer be asked, so the Llywydd has selected one question today, which is to be asked by Luke Fletcher, and to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning. Luke Fletcher.

We're extremely concerned at the EU's announcement on the new tariff measures and what they will mean for the steel industry in Wales and the UK. We are pressing strongly for the UK Government to have urgent discussions with the European Commission to ensure that Wales and Welsh steel do not get left behind in any future steel trading arrangements with the EU.

Thank you for that response.

Once again, it appears that the UK Government has been blindsided on the steel industry and is now in panic mode. This really is crunch time for the Welsh steel industry. The EU's decision to almost halve tariff-free quotas for imported steel threatens to cut off access to our biggest export market, with industry leaders warning of perhaps this being the biggest crisis the UK steel sector has ever faced.

Labour promised a new relationship with Europe. Labour also promised that it would be a Government that would move mountains for steel. Yet, a year on from Port Talbot, here we are again. So, could you, Cabinet Secretary, tell us what steps the Welsh Government is taking to ensure that Welsh plants like Port Talbot and Llanwern are not left to bear the brunt of this tariff war between Brussels and Washington, because our steel communities can't take much more? And there's already a track record from the UK Labour Government of safeguarding steel plants in England.

The EU's proposal clearly has the potential to have drastic consequences for the Welsh steel sector at a time when, as has been recognised, it's already under immense trading pressure due to the US tariffs and global overcapacity. Of course, it's worth recognising as well that the EU is our closest and strongest trading partner on steel, and we want to see the UK Government making a strong case to the EU to preserve our existing arrangements, especially at a time when the sector is transitioning to net zero.

Actually, the UK is in a similar position to the EU in terms of the current steel safeguard measures, in terms of them expiring in June 2026. The current UK steel safeguards were originally transitioned from the EU to the UK following the exit from the European Union, and they were extended for a second time and a final time in June 2024. So, in the same way as the EU, further safeguard measures on steel cannot be applied under the World Trade Organization rules.

So, colleagues will know that the UK Government undertook its own consultation on this particular issue and issued a six-week call for evidence in June, and is currently considering the way forward. I think the Prime Minister has been very clear as well about the fact that his Government in the UK stands fully behind the steel industry and fully understands the seriousness of this situation. Clearly, there's a way to go now in terms of the UK Government determining the way forward and the response that the UK Government will give. But I do want to reassure colleagues that we are in very close contact with the UK Government on this particular issue and they are very aware of the situation and how important it is for Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, Luke Fletcher was quite right, the steel communities have suffered recently, and we need to address that to ensure that we have continuity of business. Now, I welcome your concerns, but I also want you to make sure that you are in discussions with the UK Government and partners in Europe as well, so they actually see it, because we have allies and friends in Europe who will work on our behalf as well.

The UK might be doing the negotiation for trade deals, but steel is a major, major industry and this is something that will affect a large proportion of our communities if we don't get it right. So, we should have a voice somewhere in those negotiations. Will you therefore go forward to the UK Government and ask for involvement in those discussions, looking at quotas so that we can get a tariff-free quota for the UK that allows us access, also reduced tariffs for UK steel, but also look at sustainability in the future and how we work with green steel? We want to move away from this melt-and-pour argument as well, because in the US, the melt-and-pour argument is putting huge tariffs on Welsh steel produced here, being rolled in Trostre. We can't have that in Europe. We have to move away from it.

So, there's a large discussion to be had, and it's only a voice from Wales in those negotiations that will make sure that we are protected. So, will you go to the UK Government, get yourself a place at that table, make sure we are there, so that we can actually get the quotas that work for us, as well as those that work for the whole of the UK?

Yes, David Rees is entirely right that whatever emerges absolutely has to work well for Wales, bearing in mind how important our steel industry is for us. It is possible that the proposals might change over time from the EU, due to what is quite an extensive legislative process now that will have to take place, as required by the European Commission. However, I think the expectation is that most member states will be supportive of the new measures, but there is room for us to continue making arguments in that particular space.

I know that the UK Government will be considering all options, those points well made around green steel and the future of steel, looking to the industry today, but then also that long-term future as well. Certainly, we'll do everything that we can to have the most influence that we can in those discussions, setting out exactly how important this is for Wales. We have a number of routes to do that. Officials, clearly, are in constant contact now with their counterparts in the UK Government on this particular issue. I have ministerial engagement, and then we have forums such as the UK steel forum as well, the Steel Council, so there are a range of opportunities, I think, to make these arguments.

I thank Luke Fletcher for bringing this forward. No-one is denying the severity of the problem in front of us, but it's two-pronged, because it's quite likely as well, once access is denied for some product, that that could flood the UK market. And we know that China continues to produce much of global steel as well.

But, Cabinet Secretary, I look to you with regard to the Welsh-specific element around the future of Tata and the electric arc furnace, because we know that, in France and Germany, ArcelorMittal has pulled out from investing in moving away from blast furnace to electric arc furnaces, given the cost of electricity. And we know, in the United Kingdom, that the cost of electricity for industry is higher than that on the continent, so making steel here in the United Kingdom is more expensive than on the continent, as well. So, can you assure the Chamber here today that you're continuing to have discussions with Tata about their future plans around electric arc furnace in Port Talbot, the downstream opportunities within that, as well, and that you're speaking to your colleagues in the UK Labour Government to ensure that all efforts are made to reduce the cost of production and electricity for our industries here in Wales to give a level playing field for domestic industries, in comparison to those on the continent?

I'm really grateful for those points. Absolutely, one of our big concerns is the potential for dumping. We can't be in a position where our major partners are implementing solutions to protect their steel sectors only to leave us in a very vulnerable position. So, it is good that the UK Government has completed its call for evidence now, it's exploring the results of that, and at least now we have an understanding of where the EU is going, as well.

All of those discussions that you would expect us to be having are live. We're clearly talking to Tata about the potential impacts on Tata and downstream businesses, as well. The UK Government's consultation, its call for evidence, would be something I know that Tata would be fully engaged with. It was asking specific questions around the current steel situation, but then also looking to the future and what exactly the UK Government should be doing to protect the UK industry from overcapacity, again looking towards that first point that was made. So, I think there's certainly a shared understanding of the problems here and a keenness for the opportunity to address them together.

Cabinet Secretary, it is a worrying time, I think, for steel—that's undeniably the case. Following our exit from the European Union, our economy generally, and certainly steel, is in a vulnerable position, I think, as we see these tariff wars between major blocs, such as the European Union and the United States, and then the overcapacity, looking for markets that are not protected by that level of tariff. It is very worrying. In the discussions that you have, Cabinet Secretary, and in the actions that are taken, will you ensure that plants like Llanwern in my constituency of Newport East, a finishing plant that also has a very important ZODIAC plant operation that produces steel for the automotive industry, are very much involved in the discussions and the consideration that takes place and in the actions that eventually emerge?

I absolutely agree that it's really important that we consider our steel sector in its entirety here in Wales and that we make sure that the decisions that are taken now by the UK Government reflect the entirety of our steel industry. That's why it's so important, as well, that we continue our discussions with the unions because they have a really good feel of the situation on the ground and they have good ideas, as well, as to how we can continue to address this issue. So, we'll be speaking to them very closely, as well.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

No 90-second statements were submitted today.

We move on to the motion to elect a Member to a committee, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion formally—Paul Davies.

Formally.

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

Item 5 is a motion to dissolve the Wales COVID-19 Inquiry Special Purpose Committee. I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion formally—Paul Davies.

Formally.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I think it's important, as we discuss this motion, to acknowledge the fact that there is a great failure here, behind this motion. There's an institutional failure on behalf of the Government, and on behalf of the majority in this Senedd as well, and it's to do our work on behalf of the people whom we represent.

It's particularly galling that it happens in this context. We, in the pandemic, of course, wielded huge responsibilities, literally over life and death. In the context of that, of course, this institution did actually demonstrate an ability to innovate, in terms of how we deliberated remotely, but also the ability to show that we could move quickly.

Many of us believe that we didn't move quickly enough in some instances, but certainly, there was an ability to legislate, for example, at a pace that we had never known possible. There was agility then, but unfortunately, the attitude that we have seen since then is dilatory—an inability to create the proper forum where we could learn the lessons.

I think that that is an incredible lost opportunity, and it worries me considerably, because, in a sense, if we—either as a Government or as a parliamentary institution—are incapable of reflexivity, of learning lessons, then we also forfeit the capacity to anticipate the future. Reflexivity is the bridge between hindsight and foresight. That's where, actually, new and better ideas and improvement and innovation come from.

We have lost that opportunity in this Senedd to do that important work on behalf of the people of Wales: the living—and I have to say this, and I say it with the greatest of respect—and also the dead, and their loved ones as well. It will be for another Senedd now, and for another Government, I think, to make right that wrong.

And I have to say, in particular, that I served on this committee, and that I wanted, and still want, a proper inquiry. That's the only way that we can actually address this, and I hope that my party will have the opportunity in the next Senedd to facilitate that.

But I served on this committee, and I served on it honestly, because even though it was suboptimal, it was born of a compromise between not my party, but two other parties—. But I tried to make it work, and the clerks of the committee worked very valiantly, I think, to try and create a means by which this could be used, at least, however imperfectly, to try and get answers for the people of Wales.

But I was just amazed. We had two parties coming together in an unholy alliance, you could say. And yet, having made that compromise, they were no longer prepared to make other compromises to make it work. And I have to say, if you make an agreement of that kind, then you have to deliver it. Otherwise, you damage the trust of the people in the democratic process.

Can I say that I agree with probably the majority of what the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr said? We, as the Conservative Party, came in good faith into the special purpose COVID-19 committee to identify the gaps between what was missed in the UK inquiry and what we did here in Wales that was specifically different to the rest of the United Kingdom. The leader of our party at the time, Andrew R.T. Davies, entered that with the previous First Minister, Mark Drakeford, as I said, with that open air of collaboration to work together.

Yes, we all agree on this side of the Chamber, and I'm sure you do, that we need that proper COVID-19 inquiry here in Wales, to look at things more forensically. But I will say that the problem of this lies with the Government. The Government did not want to enter this committee in good faith. There were reservations around swearing oaths. I know there were reservations at the time, because I was on the committee during that, but when it was seen that it was legal and we were able to do so, the Government seemed to pull away from that. They didn't want the scrutiny. I think there are some serious questions to be answered here around why a Government would not want to be scrutinised. I can probably guess why.

But I think that anybody who enters any committee in good faith should be able to be scrutinised. They go to Westminster for the public inquiry there and swear under oath. It should have happened here. I think we've done a disservice, as you've said, to the families of people who lost their lives during that COVID-19 pandemic, because we should have been able to bring Ministers and experts in under oath to get underneath the issues, to understand them properly. I think, in the next Senedd, we do need that proper COVID-19 inquiry. I think that's the only way we can give justice to the families of those who have lost loved ones.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip, Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to put on record our thanks to the Chairs and the members of the special purpose committee for their report, and welcome the work it undertook through consultation and stakeholder engagement. We now note the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee has agreed to take forward a focused piece of work in relation to COVID-19 over the autumn term, and we look forward to seeing more details about this.

The Welsh Government continues to work closely with the UK COVID-19 inquiry, most recently as part of the module exploring the impact of the pandemic on children and young people, and the oral hearings started last week. We also continue to provide regular updates to the Senedd and to the UK inquiry about the progress we are making in response to the module 1 recommendations. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

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

Item 6 today is the debate on the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee's report, 'Natural Resources Wales: Annual scrutiny 2024-25'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's my pleasure to be here to contribute to the debate on the committee's report on Natural Resources Wales.

Our report, published in May, looks back at Natural Resources Wales's work in 2023-24, and it considers progress towards its wider work programme. It considers the corporate governance, budgeting and leadership of the organisation, and its specific response to some of the environmental challenges that we know we face as a nation.

We made 11 recommendations for Natural Resources Wales, and NRW have responded to them positively. The Welsh Government has also responded to the recommendations. It has accepted eight of those in full. It has accepted two in principle and rejected one. It was going so well, but there we are. But that broad endorsement, I think, of the committee's findings is welcome.

At the time of last year's annual scrutiny, NRW had recently developed a new corporate plan called, 'Nature and people thriving together', and the focus of our scrutiny was on the implementation of this plan, through the development by NRW and the Welsh Government of service level agreements across a range of priority areas, together with the development of new strategic indicators. Nevertheless, at the time, the budget situation was challenging, and the then chief executive officer Clare Pillman told the committee that, and I quote,

'You cannot work with a lower budget and fewer people and deliver the same services.'

And since that time, of course, the full scale of the challenges facing NRW has been revealed, and there is, quite understandably, significant concern since NRW has announced cutbacks, job losses and widespread reductions in services.

As a committee, we wish to put on record our thanks to everyone who's working at NRW during this period. No organisation can undertake such change without an impact on staff morale. I want to say directly to everyone in the organisation that we appreciate the vital work that you do and that we understand the impact this recent unsettled period will have had on all staff. I'll come to some of these specific challenges in a moment, but before I do so, I want to focus on the crucial issue of leadership within NRW.

NRW is an organisation facing unparalleled challenges, as I said, and it does so during a period of change in its leadership team. As Members will be aware, NRW has announced the retirement of its chief executive officer, and in the meantime, of course, the chairman's term of office will come to an end this month. NRW is an organisation that urgently needs stability, which is the concern that informs the committee’s first recommendation: that NRW must move swiftly to recruit a permanent chief executive officer within the next six months—this was said in May, by the way—and ensure that plans are in place for an orderly succession to a new chairperson in October of this year.

Now, since publishing this report, the committee has also held a pre-appointment hearing with the Deputy First Minister’s choice of chairperson, Neil Sachdev. Our report on the pre-appointment hearing is not the focus of this debate, but with that appointment having now been confirmed, I look forward to hearing from the Minister his understanding of the process being put in place to embed the new chairperson, and to move swiftly, of course, as well, to fill the other remaining leadership gap—that of the chief executive.

It's obvious why stable and clear leadership is needed. The 'Case for Change' programme is the focus of much of the committee’s report. Members will be aware that NRW has been in a constant state of evolution and change for many years. The 'Case for Change' programme was described to us as a fundamental alteration to the delivery model that will mean a lot of change for a lot of people. It involves widespread redundancies and redeployments. This change is expected to last throughout the coming financial year. Indeed, the outgoing chair, Sir David Henshaw, told the committee that, and I quote,

'it's going to be a rough old 12 months or so.'

Now, this is going to impact front-line services, just as it will impact, of course, NRW’s workforce. Members should be clear that this will affect the breadth of NRW’s services, which are crucial to Wales's ability to tackle climate change, flooding and environmental pollution. I want to focus for a bit on a few of these in particular.

Recommendation 2 concerns the future of NRW’s three visitor centres, which have, understandably, been a focus of much public concern. The closures have been the subject of Senedd petitions and debates. Concerns have been expressed by Members from all parties. These centres, as we know, play an important role in community engagement and tourism, and their closure will be keenly felt. The wider visitor sites may remain open, of course, but the visitor centres form a crucial part of the visitor offer, without which the sites may not be able to attract as many visitors as previously seen. So, recommendation 2 is that, and I quote the recommendation:

'NRW must urgently provide a credible plan to reopen all three visitor centres. This must include clarity about its vision for the future of the visitor centres, the service levels it wishes to see and a financially viable strategy and timetable to achieve this. This should be provided to the Committee within three months.'

Now, the Government says in its response that Natural Resources Wales will provide the committee with more information regarding arrangements within the committee’s time frame. But over four months have passed and this information hasn't been provided to the committee. So, Members across the Senedd, I'm sure, will want to hear from the Minister today a clear timetable for reopening those centres.

Thank you to Llyr for his exceptional contribution, saying it as it really is in terms of NRW, and indeed in respect of the report.

As we all know, Natural Resources Wales is the principal adviser to the Welsh Government on natural resource issues, but it also carries out a wide range of operational regulatory responsibilities. Following our scrutiny session, our committee set out 11 recommendations for the Welsh Government. Although it accepted 10 out of the 11, it is disappointing that it accepted two only in principle. I do think, when there is a scrutiny committee in place and we give recommendations, we are doing that based on evidence that has been put before us, and I think there needs to be respect for that.

NRW highlighted during the evidence session the volatility in the timber market—it doesn't get mentioned often enough, our timber market, to be honest—and its ability to manage the finances of the Welsh Government woodland estate, which in turn affects how it can plan and invest in growing and harvesting timber. It's not too long ago that I remember the previous Cabinet Secretary saying she wanted to see more natural and native timber used in our house production, so it would be interesting to see how far we've got with that agenda.

Whilst the Welsh Government has provided NRW with an underwritten budget of £33 million to help manage the uncertainty in the timber income for 2024-25, this does not address the longer term issue of NRW being unable to manage its income across financial years. The Welsh Government rejected recommendation 11, due to NRW's accounts being consolidated with those of the Welsh Government. However, recognising the impact this has, they have extended the underwritten budget into 2025-26. I would therefore again like to encourage the Cabinet Secretary to work with Natural Resources Wales. This is an organisation that we have seen bounce from one crisis to another. The current underwritten budgets are seen not just by the organisation itself but by us as Members as merely a sticking-plaster approach.

Recommendation 7 states that NRW should continue to press a multi-year funding regime, so that it can help manage its budgets more effectively over the long term. As with the timber income issue, a multi-year funding regime would enable NRW to plan its finances and activities with a longer term perspective, and that's something that not just your department but other organisations tell us across Wales. The Welsh Government agrees in principle that they should work to minimise funding uncertainties and fully understand the challenges posed by the current budget process. So, if you could explain today how you are taking those concerns forward. They note that changes must work within existing constraints, and are impacted by both the UK Government and Senedd election cycles. With this in mind, there is an opportunity to explore how a multi-year funding regime could be aligned with the Senedd election cycle.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to speak on the committee's annual scrutiny of Natural Resources Wales. One of the points made by Llyr, the Chair of the committee, was concern about staff morale that is being affected by all these changes. As we say at the beginning of our report, I think it's quite important to remember that NRW has only existed since 2013, with additional responsibilities being added in 2016. And a combination of the Countryside Council for Wales, the Environment Agency and the Forestry Commission was always going to be difficult—well-established agencies coming together to get a common ethos. And staff surveys certainly showed those difficulties, but I believe that progress has been made in creating an identity for NRW.

However, more recently, the restructuring work that has taken place has created change and uncertainty. This has meant that there will be the reduction of 235 staff, which is concerning. NRW has also told us that it is carrying over 200 vacancies and will use these as a source for those affected by the restructure. So, there are going to be redundancies and redeployment. So, there's no doubt that the members of staff, in such an atmosphere of change, are bound to be very concerned. Because NRW is ultimately, we were told, changing its delivery model and is restructuring to reprioritise, which may be a good thing to do, but I think the changes that are occurring with it are bound to cause a lot of upheaval within the organisation.

So, as the Chair did, I'd like to pay tribute to the work that the staff at NRW have done and continue to do, particularly the staff on the front line, during these continuous periods of change. And I'd just like to refer to the particular support in my constituency that I have received from NRW, when we suffered from the floods in Whitchurch in Cardiff North after storm Dennis, where NRW attended countless meetings with the residents and other elected members, took part in site visits and really couldn't have done more to support us in that situation.

And I was also very pleased that my staff team and I visited the control room in St Mellons, where we saw exactly how they responded to weather events, like flooding. So, I wanted to say, as a constituency Member, that I've always had excellent service from NRW, and I wanted to put that on the record, because I do know that there is concern about how all the changes that are happening will affect their services, and the Chair has referred to those in his contribution. But as the Chair said, this is all happening as well as the changes at the top. So, I was pleased to see that the new chairperson is anticipated to start on 1 November, followed by the appointment of the chief executive, and the Chair has referred to the induction period that will be planned.

I thank the Chair and the committee team for their work. Well, like a number of other Members, I too would like to begin by acknowledging the important work that NRW staff do. Every day they help to protect our rivers, our landscapes and our forests. It's important work, and they have to operate under a great deal of pressure. It's only when things go wrong or badly that the press refers to their work, of course. The population, as a whole, doesn't hear as much about their successes, and our report praises them for their dedication to the environment. They deserve our thanks.

Now, our report makes clear how significant the challenges that face us are, of course. The body's responsibilities have increased, as we've heard, but their funding hasn't followed suit. So, with cuts to staff numbers, expertise has also been lost, and uncertainty makes planning and budgeting difficult. Asking a body to do more with less becomes more and more of a problem, and, of course, it's impossible to do, as we heard from Clare Pillman. And the report also mentions the need for clarity and for stability in the relationship between the Government and Natural Resources Wales. Setting a direction and lines of accountability will be crucial in ensuring that the body can do its work in future.

Now, the Bill that is currently being considered by the committee, which relates to environmental principles, is an important step, of course, for Wales. Perhaps it will also be a test. The Bill focuses on the need to strengthen environmental governance and on closing an ongoing accountability gap. We in Wales, of course, are behind the curve as a result of Brexit. Now this Bill could be an opportunity to ensure that environmental governance is consistent, is transparent and is effective. But we must ask how these arrangements will fit in with NRW's role. How will the lessons from this report be learned, in terms of capacity, expertise and accountability, to frame how the new arrangements will work? And will the Bill provide the certainty that bodies like NRW need? Because clear and robust governance is vital if Wales is to respond to the environmental and climate challenges before us. So, I would echo what the Chair has said. I would thank, once again, the Chair for steering us through this work.

And I would conclude as I began, by thanking once again the staff of NRW, who, I believe, always hear or see the headlines regarding the challenges facing them. But we see the work that they do, we're grateful for the work that they do, and that is something that we note and praise. Thank you.

I would like to thank the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee for producing their annual report. It's a really important document, so many thanks for that. NRW has become something of a household name in Wales and has taken on more and more responsibility for environmental matters in recent years, and I too thank those who work for NRW for all they do.

My constituency is blessed to have mountains, coastlines, canals and rivers across the borders of Torfaen and Monmouthshire, all of which are areas of interest for NRW. The main area that I wish to hone in on today is flooding, which as we all know too well can be absolutely devastating for our communities. Too many areas have been devastated over recent years by flooding in my constituency, including places like Skenfrith, Tintern and Monmouth repeatedly. I note from the report that NRW faces funding and staffing challenges, with recent storms highlighting the need for increased funding and with it being quite clear that current funding is insufficient for future climate risk. However, I see that some cuts have been identified in flood and risk management, but then additional Government funding has been sourced to mitigate some proposed cuts. How can those two things be compatible? Isn't this robbing Peter to pay Paul?

In NRW's response to the report, specifically on flooding, they refer to financial pressure and the need to prioritise due to limited resources. The Welsh Government, in their response to this report, suggests that NRW should monitor and report on flood management funding and effectiveness to inform future budgets. Now, we appear to be going around in circles. It's clear from the report and the response from NRW that more funding is needed to support flood management, so why do we need more monitoring of budgets? Let's cut the bureaucracy and actually make some progress to improve flood prevention and management. The impacted communities in my area don't really care about budget monitoring. What matters most to them is an assurance that their homes won't be flooded every time there is a storm. Winter is coming, and so too is the colder and wetter weather. Residents will, therefore, be anxious about the potential of flooding over coming months, so I would welcome a commitment from the Welsh Government to properly fund NRW's flood risk management in order to provide some assurance for our residents right across Wales.

I particularly want to put on record, along with my colleagues, thanks to the NRW staff who work tirelessly to deliver what they can in competitive situations, but nonetheless are dedicated towards doing their best for Wales. I'd also like to point out that the period we're talking about, and the challenges that NRW have faced, have been underneath the umbrella of the Tories' cuts to public spending, and you cannot deny that those cuts will have an effect.

But I also want to thank my committee members, the support team and clerks, for helping us to deliver and work towards this report. I've been part of these reviews for a number of years, and I've built up a picture of the challenges faced by NRW in recent years. Decreasing budgets are clearly one of those, coupled with increasing responsibilities, which the Chair alluded to, and, if that wasn't enough, they've also got issues around staffing capacity.

However, thanks to the Welsh budget and the UK Government's increased financial settlement for Wales, the largest since devolution, NRW does have more funding to work with going forward. It suggested to us that this would be used to invest in water quality and in action to support biodiversity and nature recovery, but that is actually for next year, and our review doesn't include that.

The challenges that NRW have faced in recent years coincided with a transition in the senior leadership team, and that has been mentioned today, with Sir David Henshaw stepping down and a new chair coming in, at the same time as a former chief executive retiring in March, and applications for that role closing at the end of this month. That disruption at the top of any organisation is going to be unsettling, so there was a lot to consider, and particularly in regard to the organisation's plans to streamline delivery and save £12 million under its 'Case for Change' plan, which has been talked about at length.

And, as the Chair said, we made six recommendations. I am assured by NRW's detailed response to recommendation 2, and the action it's now taking to reopen its visitor centres. But, as has already been mentioned, we need to know much more than that—what that will mean to encouraging individuals, people and children, to take note of their environment and to also enjoy it.

But I am really concerned about budget cuts in flooding and environmental pollution. So, I'm pleased that the Welsh Government accepted recommendation 4, that ensures NRW monitors and evaluates the adequacy and use of funding for flood management. Under this Government's climate adaptation work, we've seen record investment in flood protection, but we must push on, not slide backwards. NRW says it will prioritise areas at greatest flood risk, and has adopted a higher tolerance of risk in managing pollution incidents. But, at a time when our waterways are under such strain and stress from pollution, again, we surely must trend up more intervention, not less. This is one area that I find deeply concerning and I await your response, Cabinet Secretary. NRW says it's committed to enhancing efforts in improving water quality and monitoring, but will we see how those assessments and aims dovetail over the next monitoring year? I think that is a critical question.

And I call on the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Thank you very much indeed.

Good afternoon and thank you for giving me an opportunity to respond and to draw attention to the important work delivered by NRW.

I'd very much like to thank the Chair and the committee for their very careful consideration and diligent scrutiny of Natural Resources Wales's work, and the committee's recommendations. Now, Natural Resources Wales, as many Members have remarked in their contributions today, have faced a number of challenges of late, and it's been remarked as well that they've come through difficult times with the budget that we've had in Wales, and the budget that we've been able to pass on to our agencies. However, I also commend its staff for their professionalism and their resilience during this particularly difficult time and, as Joyce just reminded us, they have continued to deliver. They're passionate about the work they do. They remain steadfast in ensuring that our environment is protected now and for future generations too.

Let me turn to the detail of the report. The committee made 11 recommendations, 10 of which, as the Chair said, we've accepted or accepted in principle, and the remaining recommendation has been rejected. My apologies for the one rejection, but let me dive straight in and turn to the one recommendation that has been rejected. Just to say to Janet, who raised the point, but to the Chair and the committee members as well, we have real respect for the work of the committee and the recommendations, but there is also honesty and explanation when Government respectfully disagrees with something, rather than simply saying, 'Let's accept it in principle and wash around this there.' So, I just want to make that clear—complete respect for the work that you've done and the recommendations.

But recommendation 11, related to Natural Resources Wales managing its income from commercial timber effectively across financial years—now, this is just simply not possible within the single-year budget that is proposed for the next financial year. The committee will be aware of the arrangements that we put in place for 2024-25 to provide NRW with an underwritten timber budget to support its management of the Welsh Government woodland estate. To ensure these arrangements remain fit for purpose, they're reviewed annually as part of NRW's budget negotiations. That brings the stability to the planning and management of the woodland estate, so that's why.

Recommendation 1, which we've accepted, focused on the importance of recruiting a permanent chief executive officer and a smooth transition for the new chair—the stability issue. I can confirm the recruitment process for the CEO has indeed started. If I turn to the chair's appointment, the committee will be aware, as a remark, that Mr Neil Sachdev will start the appointment as chair of the board on 1 November. There's a detailed induction programme in place, which is helping him settle into the organisation, gain a deeper understanding of its recent history, its work, its stakeholders, and those challenges that it faces as we tackle our nature, climate and pollution emergencies.

Recommendations 2 to 7 centre around NRW's 'Case for Change', and they have a particular focus on NRW's visitor centres, its regulatory and enforcement activities, also including its response to pollution incidents and flood risk management. All of these we have accepted or accepted in principle.

Now, with regards to the visitor centres, I once again want to stress, I want to be absolutely clear: all the three visitor centre sites are not closed, and they continue to remain open, and many people are using them for walking, biking, access to play areas, car parking, toilet provision and more. The visitor centre sites provide a wonderful gateway to outdoor recreation and an important attraction for communities and tourists alike in mid Wales.

So, I'm pleased to share with the committee a bit of an update. The Borth community hub, a small grass-roots charity, which began in 2007, offering support and activities for the local community, stretching from northern Ceredigion to Machynlleth, is now running a community space at Ynyslas, which is proving to be a very welcome addition to the local community. The invitations to tender for Bwlch Nant yr Arian and Coed y Brenin are expected to be launched in November, and it's hoped that the contracts will be in place for April 2026, and they're up and running. The ongoing management of the Dyfi national nature reserve at Ynyslas is a core requisite of NRW's statutory functions, and it will continue. A long-standing approved management plan is in place for the site, which details a programme of conservation work, overseen by NRW's land management team.

Moving on to the other recommendations, my officials continue to work very closely with NRW on its flood management programme. They receive regular updates on its work that provides the assurance that their resources are being utilised through that risk-based approach, with the activities targeted rightly at those people and communities that are at the greatest risk of flooding. That's what should be being done. And just to say, last week I opened the £25 million Stephenson Street flood defence. This week I'm in Rhyl, completing another part of their flood defence, which will total over £100 million. We put £60 million into the flood alert and warning system, which is being revised and always updated and reviewed. That's part of the record investment that we are doing, and we need to keep that investment going. We'll turn to subsequent reports of the committee as well, and explore this in more depth.

Therefore, Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd like to thank the committee once again for their valuable scrutiny work and for drawing up the report. I would also like to thank NRW for their ongoing work in safeguarding the environment and the natural resources of Wales. Thank you.

I call on Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate.

I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary and everyone who has contributed to the debate.

Just a few reflections, without running through every single word that everybody else said. I sometimes share the same frustration as you, Janet, when things are accepted in principle, but if you turn to the narrative behind that, I think you do get something of value. But, yes, sometimes—I'm not suggesting this Cabinet Secretary does it—but sometimes it feels as if it's like, 'Yes, yes, we know it needs doing, but we ain't going to do it', kind of thing. But there we are. As long as we're aware of that, as a committee, I think we can treat it, you know—. And, obviously, these are not one-off reports that we then leave behind and don't revisit, and it's certainly something that we will hold the Government's feet to the fire over, in terms of seeing when they do say that they are going to do something, that they do it.

On managing income over financial years, of course we are living in difficult times in terms of budgetary pressures, and getting the biggest bang for our buck is always something that we have to try and strive to achieve. I think that allowing a more flexible management of those budgets year on year would facilitate that—but I understand, of course, some of the challenges of allowing that to happen—as would a multi-year funding cycle. It would allow you to plan and use your money more strategically over the longer term, rather than maybe not doing so as effectively as you'd like. But we are regularly coming back to this narrative around NRW and that it's being asked to do more and more, whilst the budget it has to achieve its work is diminishing. And, fundamentally, I think that's the nut that we need to crack when it comes to our scrutiny, and making sure that NRW can deliver on what we, as the Senedd, and what the people of Wales expect of it.

Julie's right about staff morale; it's one that we've highlighted before. Delyth likewise, and everybody, in fact, expressed our thanks. Not only is that an issue, but you lose experience very often when you go through these processes of redundancies, you lose maybe the most experienced and those with the skills that you need. It isn't just losing capacity.

Flooding: well, I mean, again, it's similar, isn't it? The risk of flooding is becoming greater in so many communities, the threat is reaching further, yet the pressure on flood services doesn't maybe reflect that as it should. The Cabinet Secretary was right to mention the investment, and all of that is welcome, as I said in my opening address. You listed a few items of infrastructure, but of course it was hard infrastructure, whereas we all know—and you appreciate this as well—that soft infrastructure and natural solutions have a big role to play. And NRW probably have an even bigger role to play in that space, and allowing them to have the capacity, the skill set and the time and the head space to be able to do that is really important.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 7 today is the debate on the Local Government and Housing Committee report, 'Housing support for vulnerable people'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—John Griffiths.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I am very pleased to open today's debate on the Local Government and Housing Committee's report on housing support for vulnerable people. I would like to start by thanking all those who contributed to our inquiry, including those who took part in focus groups and interviews, for sharing their experiences with us. We heard from people who access housing support services and from front-line workers who deliver those services. The insight involved in that is always valuable and appreciated.

Our work preceded the introduction of the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill, and along with the other work we have undertaken on appropriate and sustainable housing in this Senedd, it has helped inform our scrutiny of that Bill. We will be reporting on the general principles of the Bill later this month.

Housing support services are a vital part of the homelessness system, but we heard they are often underappreciated. We were told of staff stress and burnout due to the pressures of the job, which, together with low pay, has led to challenges with recruitment and retention. We were particularly struck by the powerful evidence that some people working in the sector are themselves at risk of homelessness. This is clearly unacceptable.

The workforce plays a critical role in supporting vulnerable people to live independently. Their work is vital and, in some cases, life-saving. Better support for staff must be a priority. We know that a workforce task and finish group has been established, and that group has reported. The Cabinet Secretary has agreed to update us on responding to that report, and I urge her once again today to provide that update as soon as possible. We must demonstrate to the workforce that their concerns are being listened to and addressed.

Llywydd dros dro, I'll now turn to the three recommendations made in our report, along with 11 conclusions. One of our recommendations was accepted in full and two in principle.

I'm pleased that our recommendation on data on service performance has been fully accepted. This is important so that providers and local authorities can evaluate their services against others and identify good practice. We know that a vast amount of data is being gathered, and we believe much better use could be made of that.

Another recommendation related to the Welsh Government's ambition to implement rapid rehousing transformation. We know that this has significant implications for housing support grant services, as it means a long-term shift away from transitional forms of accommodation, such as homeless hostels, in favour of giving people permanent homes as quickly as possible, plus the additional support they may need. We recommended that the Welsh Government should make better use of evidence to set clear expectations on local authorities and social landlords about the types of support and accommodation they should be commissioning. We urge the Welsh Government to be clearer about what rapid rehousing good practice models actually look like, as there appears to be a lack of evidence informing the types of services and accommodation that are being commissioned under this banner.

Our third recommendation related to joint working, in particular how the Welsh Government should use available evidence to drive change. We heard about two multi-agency projects involving health and housing, one led by Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board and the other by Cardiff and Vale health board. Our concern is that two examples aren't enough on their own. We believe that if evidence proves that an approach is effective, other local authorities should be required to follow that evidence. We would like to see the Welsh Government take the lead in rolling out good practice in joint working, not just by disseminating information, but by being more assertive, such as placing conditions on grant funding.

It's no exaggeration to say that housing support can be life-saving, preventing crisis situations that would cost other organisations, such as the NHS, a lot more money to deal with. It is central to the Welsh Government's homelessness ambitions. I have often referred to the research that proves the value of investing in the housing support grant by preventing homelessness, easing pressure on health and social care and reducing interaction with the criminal justice system. Service delivered through the grant results in a net saving of £1.40 for every £1 invested.

The Welsh Government is due to publish its draft budget next month, which committees will then scrutinise. Ahead of that, I would like to urge the Cabinet Secretary, as we have done in previous years, to prioritise funding for the HSG. It is crucial to achieving the rapid rehousing approach and to delivering our shared aim of ensuring that homelessness in Wales is rare, brief and unrepeated. Ensuring the grant is adequately resourced is therefore absolutely key.

I would like to begin by thanking and paying tribute to those who work in the housing support sector. It is important that we remember that they work in a challenging environment, where they deal day-to-day with vulnerable people who can have complex needs. This can have quite an emotional impact on them as they try their best to help them. Moreover, so many are earning minimum wage and are working in very stressful environments—in hostels, for instance, where there can be a considerable threat of violence towards them. I, for one, am enormously grateful for the work that they do, and we should all recognise this.

Acting Presiding Officer, I actually think this report does a decent job of highlighting the issues that are faced by agencies and their staff who are helping vulnerable people find homes. It is clear that the short-termism and inconsistency of the funding model is not beneficial, and we have to be mindful that, whilst Government funding is always stretched, this problem of homelessness is never going to go away. There will always be people who find themselves in a vulnerable position in life, who are dealing with trauma that has left them struggling, and who simply do not have the support networks of family and friends to help them out.

Therefore, I feel strongly that we need to do more to design a sustainable long-term funding model. I imagine it must be enormously frustrating for these agencies, that just want to get on and help people, to have to spend so much time applying for grants, worrying about the next funding cycle, or worrying about if they will qualify for an uplift in funding. What they need is consistent funding that is guaranteed and, frankly, permits them to get on with the job of helping people. I believe that this will help to improve consistent good practice by helping to retain staff and save money by reducing the need to keep retraining people.

The report highlights the high turnover of staff because of the stressful environment that they are working in. If you have a consistent funding model, it enables organisations to financially reward staff for their hard work and loyalty, and that can go a long way in helping staff feel secure. There is no doubt in my mind that many people work in this sector because they find the work that they do in helping so fulfilling, and it is right that they should have stable jobs that pay them a decent and fair wage.

Acting Presiding Officer, I want to pick up on point 71 of the report, where Llamau highlighted that the funding model for supported accommodation relies on a percentage of staffing costs being recovered from rents and service charges, rather than the HSG, which means that rents become really expensive, in their words, and it makes it difficult for young people to move into employment while living there, as they would then become liable for paying the rent through their wages, rather than through housing benefit.

The Member must now conclude, please.

Thank you. We all want to see homelessness eradicated, but I feel, unfortunately, given where we are, that this is a very long way off. Thank you.

Thank you very much. I would first of all like to thank all of the stakeholders and contributors who have given of their time to contribute to this inquiry, and I specifically thank those people who are on the front line, providing support to vulnerable people across Wales. This workforce faces huge pressures, and they do vital work that often saves lives.

Although the Welsh Government has accepted in principle many of the committee's recommendations, it is concerning that they pass on responsibility for a number of the recommendations to local authorities in the midst of a crisis that demands collaboration across every level of government. And of course, we welcome any positive steps towards meaningful change, such as the increase to the housing support grant and the commitment to a housing first approach. This support is crucial and has been called for consistently by Plaid Cymru for many years. However, despite these steps, significant gaps remain in the system. The report by the committee clearly demonstrates that the Government's housing strategy has entirely failed to comprehend the scale of the crisis in the sector, and the Government's failure to gather adequate data on a national level has exacerbated this situation.

I would like to draw attention to two key aspects of this report. First, the severe lack of social housing. That's the root cause of the current housing crisis. This lack of housing is forcing far too many vulnerable households to turn to the private rented sector, where they face higher rents and live under the constant threat of being evicted at short notice. In addition, the report demonstrates that the majority of current temporary accommodation is not suitable for people with complex challenges. How can the Government justify placing a vulnerable person in a setting that doesn't have basic cooking facilities? What a lack of respect for human dignity and the ability to live independently. It's a shame, therefore, that the Government is unwilling to commission an evaluation of the effectiveness of accommodation and support on a large scale.

All of this is entirely contrary to the housing first principle and creates a cycle of uncertainty that undermines every effort to provide stability to individuals who are already under strain. That's why we, in Plaid Cymru, are committed to increasing the supply of social housing and to ensure that everyone has the right to access adequate housing. But all these issues cannot be solved without understanding exactly what the real demand and needs are, and I am concerned that the current proposals in Part 2 of the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill are likely to weaken the evidence base rather than strengthen it.

Secondly, I’d like to turn to the evidence that points to the Government's failure to deal with the preventative approach effectively. Although the Government's response to the report's recommendations claims that the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill may provide solutions, the draft version does raise significant concerns regarding is effectiveness in practice. For example, key players like schools and general practitioners are not included in the duty to ask and act. The report, I feel, demonstrates clearly that collaboration between agencies does not happen often enough, and in cases where there are opportunities for the Government to drive change, such as in the homelessness Bill that is currently on its journey through the Senedd, the Government is failing to include those crucial bodies that are able to safeguard the most vulnerable people.

This week, committees received a copy of a letter that the First Minister sent to the Presiding Officer at the end of the summer asking them to make fewer recommendations to the Government. She said:

'I am keen to get to a position where Committees, in carrying out their work, concentrate on fewer recommendations, with a focus on specific and clearly defined recommendations which will have the greatest impact as appropriate to the matter under consideration.'

Now, some have clutched their pearls at this letter; I welcome it. I think she is bang on the money, and this is something this committee inquiry was ahead of its game on; this is something we'd already decided to do and this is a cross-party report on a non-party issue and we have followed the evidence and we've come up with just three recommendations. And despite that, of the three recommendations, two have been accepted in principle, and when you look at what is said in response to that, this is pretty weak stuff, acting Presiding Officer, and I think it's something that should concern us all. We talk a lot about Senedd reform in this place and the need for extra Members to provide extra scrutiny, but I think this report shows that scrutiny isn't just a matter of numbers, it's a matter of culture, it's a matter of willingness of committees and Members to challenge, and of Government to respond in kind. And a Government that is bringing forward this reform measure, saying it wants more scrutiny, giving such a weak response when proper scrutiny is provided, to just three recommendations after all—.

So, I think this is an incredibly disappointing response and I want to focus just on recommendation 3, which I think is pretty uncontroversial, really. The recommendation says that

'The Welsh Government should take a more assertive role in relation to joint working to ensure that evidence-based good practice is replicated everywhere it is needed across Wales. It should do this by ensuring that the right structures and grant funding are in place, including grant conditionality where necessary.'

I don't think that's particularly controversial. We've heard for a long time of sharing good practice, but we know simply sharing good practice does not lead to that good practice being taken up. As well as innovation, we need to see diffusion, we need to see good practice adopted as standard, and the recommendation made by our committee around the social housing grant, which after all is £21 million a year given to Welsh local authorities to improve conditions, to stop people falling into homelessness—. We should say where good practice is identified, where innovation takes place—it shouldn't be a matter of whim whether the local authorities then take that up. It should be expected, it should be standard, and if the local authorities themselves aren't prepared to do that, the Welsh Government through its grant conditions should say, 'Adopt this good practice or justify why you can't.' Now, the Welsh Government's response to that is—well, it's hard to discern, to be honest. I've gone through the report to recommendation 3 and it simply notes that it supports joint working through its guidance, that a Bill is being brought through that will strengthen the statutory framework for joint working, it'll establish joint protocols and promote co-operation, but that's not what the recommendation says. The recommendation doesn't say it should promote good practice. It says good practice should be replicated and the Welsh Government should use its grant conditions if necessary to put that in place.

I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government, Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, acting Presiding Officer. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this important debate today. I'd just like to start by welcoming the committee's work during its inquiry into housing support services for people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. I'd also like to thank everyone who contributed evidence to the inquiry, many of whom shared their personal experiences. I'd like to thank the committee for their report. I have accepted or accepted in principle all three of the recommendations made in relation to the use of housing support grant outcomes data, rapid rehousing and joint partnership working. I take on board my colleague Lee Waters's point around short numbers of recommendations, and accepting or accepting in principle those numbers, and I'll come on to address some other points that he raised as well.

Good-quality and effective housing support services are vital to ensuring that we have a system in place that prevents homelessness and places the right people in the right homes in the right communities with the right support in order for people to succeed and thrive. You'll all be aware of the Welsh Government's long-term ambition to end homelessness in Wales, as set out in our ending homelessness action plan. The housing support grant plays a pivotal role in delivering these vital housing support services, which complement local authorities' statutory duties to prevent and alleviate homelessness. This grant, together with the move to a rapid rehousing approach and our reform to homelessness legislation, supports delivery of the long-term transformational change necessary to ensure that homelessness is rare, brief and unrepeated.

So, our goal is to achieve systematic change and to embed a truly public service approach to preventing and alleviating homelessness, one that enables us to overcome the challenges and the root causes of homelessness. That's why I was delighted to introduce the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill to the Senedd in May. This landmark legislation represents a bold step forward in our commitment to ending homelessness in Wales.

The Bill is rooted in lived experience and shaped by extensive consultation. It introduces a range of transformative measures designed to create a more preventative, person-centred and trauma-informed homelessness system in Wales, and stronger co-operation across all Welsh public services. So, the coming months will be crucial as the Bill undergoes scrutiny in the Senedd, and I urge all Members who share my concerns about homelessness to support the Bill.

We're also continuing to drive forward the shift towards rapid rehousing. Last month, in partnership with Cymorth Cymru, an in-person event to share best practice about rapid rehousing was attended by over 140 key partners. That provided a valuable opportunity to strengthen collaboration and showcase innovative approaches that are already making a difference across Wales. I accepted in principle the recommendation too, because there are already grant structures and guidance in place that facilitate and promote joint working by local authorities.

I call on the Chair of the committee to reply to the debate—John Griffiths.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you to all Members taking part in the debate and to the Cabinet Secretary for her response. A common theme from all has been the very necessary tribute to the workforce. We heard in evidence—and the Cabinet Secretary has also reinforced this—that we're very fortunate to have such a committed workforce delivering housing support for our vulnerable communities here in Wales, and they do so without the reward in terms of pay and conditions that they undoubtedly deserve. There is no way that the remuneration matches the responsibilities and the pressures, so I think it's so important for us all to put that very firmly on the record in this debate today. Joel James, in beginning Members' contributions, did so. Joel also highlighted the need to have a longer term, more stable funding situation for these services, and certainly, that's a strong point in the committee's work and this report. Also, Joel mentioned the role of the private rented sector and sometimes the relationships with local authorities not being everything that they should be, and I'm sure that that's one element of good practice that can be usefully shared—looking at where those relationships are everything that they need to be and making sure that that's replicated right across Wales.

Thanks to Siân Gwenllian for her contribution, again paying tribute to the huge passion of the workforce and their role in saving lives, and also in emphasising the importance of adequate supply of housing, and particularly social housing. That has been such a strong theme in the work of the committee over a period of time. Our stated view, on record in our report, is that we need something like an additional 60,000 affordable, good-quality social houses for rent over, perhaps, a period of something like the next five years, into the next Senedd term. That's obviously a huge challenge, in terms of finding the resource, but it's very necessary for that to happen if we really are going to adequately address the variety of housing-related challenges that we have.

Siân also rightly emphasised the preventative approach, which is a strong theme in our report and our work generally and, as we all know, makes huge sense for all sorts of reasons. Lee Waters emphasised the challenge from the First Minister in having fewer recommendations and making them clear, and I think understandably asked that that's responded to by Welsh Government Ministers in understanding the discipline that went into that exercise, and then responding, hopefully, strongly and positively to the recommendations. As we heard in the previous debate on a committee report this afternoon, we too, as a committee, are very keen to follow up on our recommendations and make sure that we see adequate and necessary progress. I'm sure that the committee, including Lee Waters, will be very keen to do that. Having gone through the discipline of those three recommendations, we will follow up to make sure that we get the progress that we all want to see.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 8 is the Welsh Conservatives debate on the sustainable farming scheme. I call on Samuel Kurtz to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Once again we find ourselves debating the Welsh Government's plans for agriculture, and, once again, their own economic impact assessment tells a stark story: job losses, livestock reductions and millions wiped from farm business incomes. We're told not to worry, that these are only modelling figures based on the universal layer alone, not the optional and collaborative layers, that this reflects just the first year's universal layer budget of £238 million—a budget that the Government already plans to cut in future years. But let's be clear: even this modelling doesn't withstand scrutiny.

Will you take an intervention?

I would happily take an intervention.

Where does it state that we plan to cut the universal layer in future years?

You've stated previously that you wish to move funding away from the universal tiers into the optional and collaborative. I'm conscious that the Deputy First Minister is going to have an opportunity to make a long statement—

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd like to correct the record.

—so I'd quite like to make some progress. You will have 10 minutes to respond.

Point of order.

I will take the point of order at the end of the debate.

Thank you.

But let's be clear: even this model doesn't withstand scrutiny. Over 3,000 farmers currently on the Habitat Wales scheme were not even included in the modelling. So, when the Government says that the data doesn't tell the full story, we can only agree, but for very different reasons. Because, Dirprwy Lywydd, if the modelling is flawed, then so too is the policy built upon it.

Behind every one of those numbers lies a family, a community, a business, people who have served Wales for generations. Farming is not simply an occupation. It's a way of life, the beating heart of our rural economy, and a cornerstone of Wales's national identity. Wales's farming sector employs around 50,000 people directly and supports over a quarter of a million more across the wider food and drink supply chain—a sector worth £9.3 billion to our economy every year. For every £1 of public money invested in farming, £9 is returned. That is genuine value for money. So, when a Government proposes a scheme that undermines productivity, cuts livestock numbers and threatens jobs, it is not just farmers who lose; it is Wales as a whole.

Farmers were promised that there would be no funding cliff edge, yet the basic payment scheme will be cut by 40 per cent in 2026 and scrapped entirely by 2029. That leaves farmers with no real choice but to sign up to a flawed scheme—one that they've had little time to scrutinise—or face severe financial strain. Some have already said that they will not sign up at all, and who can blame them?

The Government's own impact assessment confirming these devastating consequences was published just three months before the scheme is due to go live in January 2026. I don't believe that is acceptable. Welsh farmers deserve far better. Yes, we welcome the removal of the 10 per cent tree cover requirement and the introduction of a social value payment, but the fundamental problems remain: this is a scheme that prioritises bureaucracy over practicality, a scheme that puts environment targets above food production, and a scheme that risks hollowing out the very core of Welsh farming, the universal layer, in favour of layers that push food production from the centre to the sidelines. Because, let's be honest, Dirprwy Lywydd, I don't believe that this is a farming scheme; I believe it is an environmental scheme that the Government expects farmers to deliver.

We all recognise the importance of sustainable land management, but, too often, when this Government talks about sustainability, it is narrowed to purely environmental goals. True sustainability is far broader than that. It is community sustainability, keeping our rural towns and villages alive; economic sustainability, ensuring farming families can make a fair living; cultural and linguistic sustainability, keeping our Welsh language and traditions rooted in our land; and the sustainability of Welsh produce, a trusted supply of high-quality, traceable food trusted the world over.

Yet this flawed scheme is not the only threat facing our farmers. Alongside it sits the proposed family farm tax, the continued failure to eradicate bovine TB, and the unworkability of nitrate vulnerable zone regulations. Each one of these adds weight to the cumulative burden already bearing down on our rural communities. And it's not just us raising concerns. NFU Cymru has described the Government's economic modelling as extremely concerning, calling for certainty that Welsh farmers are not left worse off than under the basic payment scheme. The Farmers' Union of Wales have warned of red tape, administrative burden and the anxiety of punitive inspection regimes. Even so, Labour insists they are listening. Yet, when the Welsh Conservatives called for a binding Senedd vote on the final sustainable farming scheme, to ensure democratic legitimacy before its implementation, Labour rejected it. They denied farmers the chance to have their voices properly heard here in this place. I don't believe that is democracy in action—rather, Government by decree.

I have selected the amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Move.

And I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move amendments 2 and 3, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I wanted to start—. I want to make a positive contribution, but I do think there's a huge amount of irony here, in that those who supported Brexit, those who spent their time telling us that Brexit would be good for this country, are now complaining about the consequences of Brexit. We wouldn't be here at all today discussing this if it wasn't for Brexit. Now, the people of Wales listened to those people then; I think they'll think twice about listening to them again. But we are where we are, and we have to get on with it. And that's the—[Interruption.] No. And I have to get on with my speech as well, I'm afraid. No.

I want to say that I stand with the farming unions on this issue. I don't think that ripping it all up and starting again is the best way ahead on this. The sector has suffered years of uncertainty and instability already following Brexit.

Now, with all of the work that's happened in recent times, I would say that we have reached a point that is surprisingly good in the circumstances. Certainly, the unions have played their part in that, and there is a consensus behind the framework that's at the heart of the programme, if not a consensus around some of the detail, and throwing that aside I think would be an error.

No, it's not perfect. We all—or very many of us—would accept that. And I've heard the Cabinet Secretary say that the impact assessment isn't entirely reliable, and that you could question some of the stats and the baselines that are years old, and maybe it's only considering the universal layer, and so on. And yes, perhaps it is the worst-case scenario, but it is a cause of concern for me and many people out there whose livelihoods rely on the scheme.

When you look at the fall in the number of livestock, once again, I know that many people say that we need to focus on efficiency and productivity rather than headage. But there is a reality behind that too, because we know that many of the meat processors and abattoirs are struggling already. So, we need to hear from the Government what the plan is to ensure that those abattoirs, for example, remain viable if less livestock is coming through the system.

The assessment also mentions job losses. Well, we need to hear, therefore, what are the opportunities that will come through the new programme. We know that there will be agri-environment opportunities, in creating new infrastructure on farms and so on, but what are those? But the main concern for me, like many people, I think, is that the assessment states that farm income levels may fall. Again, I know that it's a worst-case scenario, and that perhaps it doesn't speak to the circumstances of every individual farm, and those individual farms do have to look at what the exact impact on them will be, but it does show me very clearly that the Government has to turn every stone now to close that income gap.

And that, of course, is where the cut to the share of agricultural funding coming to Wales from the UK Government hurts us now more than ever. ‘Not a penny less’ was the pledge made by the Conservatives, and Labour criticised that at the time, but now the Labour UK Government has Barnettised the Welsh agricultural budget, which means, rather than the 9.4 per cent of the funding that reflects the size and relative importance of the sector in Wales, we now get 5 per cent, which reflects the population size. And if the partnership in power is to mean anything to anyone, then it should at least mean that that funding that used to come to Wales, and should come to Wales, does come to Wales. That would assist in closing the income gap. So, I would encourage you to support our amendment to this motion in relation to that.

I refer Members to my register of interests as a farmer. I think we have to take some time to remind ourselves of what our farmers and rural communities have endured over recent years. As we have heard, bovine TB, water regulations, increased red tape, the fear of an unworkable SFS and, more lately, obviously, bluetongue. Add to this that very real prospect of having to break up their farms to pay for Labour's new inheritance tax, and you can see how they must be feeling right now. It's been a perfect storm of challenges.

The issues with the SFS last year were the last straw that led to the biggest protest that this Senedd has seen, with thousands of farmers demonstrating on the steps outside. Following that disastrous iteration of the SFS, we were glad that the Welsh Government re-evaluated the scheme. However, there was no clarity about the true impact this revised scheme would have on Welsh farmers. This has only now come to light. Whilst the impact assessment of this latest scheme may not be quite as disastrous as the last, it still outlines an unacceptable future for our farming industry. The Welsh Government's own modelling for this latest scheme predicts, as we've heard, an estimated reduction of 56,000 Welsh livestock units; nearly 1,200 jobs could be lost; and we could see nearly £77 million wiped off farm business incomes.

Can this be classed as a sustainable farming scheme when it threatens the industry, making it less sustainable in so many ways? As we've heard, the NFU have described these potential outcomes as extremely disturbing, and has called on the Welsh Government to commit to evolve the sustainable farming scheme in light of these impacts. The FUW is also deeply concerned and have highlighted the negative impacts that these changes will have on family farms across Wales. Now, Dirprwy Lywydd, the Government's assessed impacts have sent shockwaves throughout our rural communities once again.

Whilst the farming community needs stability, we have to ask at what cost should that stability come, if indeed it can. The SFS, as it remains, needs replacing with one that would protect our food security and put food production at its heart, whilst, of course, protecting the environment. I'm aware that the time for farmers to sign up for the SFS is fast approaching, and sadly there may be little choice but to move forward with the SFS in its current form for a short while. But we as Welsh Conservatives believe that a better scheme could be shaped, one that delivers sustainable food production and enables sustainable farmers. To that end, we would invest, as you've heard, an additional £100 million into the agricultural budget over the next term. This would enable a better scheme to come forward, one that would not decimate our farming industry, but would truly sustain it for farmers and future generations of farmers, unlike the devastating effects that the current SFS would level on Wales.

I find that the Tory motion is a real glass-half-empty motion, because you haven't taken account of all the work that has gone on to embrace the maximum number of farmers being involved in shaping this scheme, and instead you're focusing on something that may or may not turn out to be a problem. So, in your motion, you're pointing to a prediction about the reduction in livestock, but that may be a good thing. You don't even consider that. Some farms are stocking more animals on their land than that land will allow, and it's exhausting that land, and they're then having to pull in—[Interruption.] I haven't finished my sentence. They're having to pull in expensive imported soya and corn, which could be used for feeding people.

Jenny, do you not realise that with the reduction in livestock numbers across Wales—as Llyr Gruffydd mentioned, actually—that critical mass of livestock that's going into our abattoirs will be reduced, which will cost jobs in some of those vital industries, where there aren't that many jobs in those areas currently?

I appreciate that having our own abattoirs is a really important issue, and we need to safeguard them, because otherwise we completely lose control of where the animals go, and also of the levies that go with them.

In your motion, you talk about jobs lost; what about the increased jobs that will be required for the testing of soils and other requirements under the sustainable farming scheme? We absolutely need to protect our soils, because nobody's invented how to make more of it. It's irreplaceable, we need to husband it, both because we don't want it to go into the water, as we have increased rain just going into our rivers, and we don't want it to be so exhausted from the over-application of fertilisers that nothing will grow in it. Seven out of 10 people, who, by the way, are the people across the country who are contributing to the sustainable farming scheme, are wanting to see reduced permitted levels of fertilisers and pesticides, because they're worried about the impact on the environment and the nature crisis that this is causing.

We've managed to have really good conversations with farmers about these important matters, and we now need to deliver on reducing the harm that it's doing to nature, reduce the harm that it's doing to our rivers. We have seen, for example, the impact that these chicken farms are having around the Wye, the Usk and the Lugg, and the biggest environmental lawsuit in the UK. Nearly 4,000 people have actually taken action to try and protect the rivers that used to have pure water and are now a bit like a cesspit.

So, I agree that we can celebrate the high-quality traceable food, trusted the world over, the trouble is that most of it's going to other parts of the world and not staying in Wales. But as the public purse is providing £238 million, we need to ensure that the sustainable farming scheme enables more Welsh people to be able to enjoy the fruits of the high-quality food. I'm not suggesting that the public purse should be buying expensive cuts of lamb or pork or beef, but how much of the fifth quarter—very important in the abattoir—is ending up in tasty lamb stews or beef broths for our pupils, our patients and residents in our care homes? I am yet to have any reply to that fact, but it's a really important one, because we absolutely have to be growing for Welsh people as well as for foreign export.

We know that a third of greenhouse gas emissions come from the global food system, and we have an obligation to clean up our act, to change our diets, to ensure that we're not causing the starvation of people the other side of the world.

Thank you, Jenny, for giving way, and I appreciate the time. I'm always concerned when we relate the global impact of agriculture in comparison to the Welsh impact of agriculture, because Welsh agriculture is far more sustainable than feedlots in Argentina and Brazil. It is far more sustainable than that universal average, and I think the data in quantifying Welsh agriculture on a global average does a disservice to the industry in Wales.

I'll accept what you're saying, absolutely, but when it comes to horticulture, we are in a different place altogether. We know that only 0.1 per cent of land that's farmed is used for horticulture, and we know that we all have to have a healthy, balanced diet. And given the state of the world, where the war in mainland Europe could spread and could cause huge disruptions to the food that we currently import, for our own food security we need to be increasing the amount of fruit and vegetables that we are growing in Welsh soil. And we need to protect the 20 per cent of land that's classed as—

You need to conclude now, please, Jenny.

—the best and most versatile agricultural land. Much has to change, and I'm hoping that the Cabinet Secretary will be able to tell us how the optional and collaborative aspects of the SFS are going to deliver for better food security in fruit and vegetables.

Well, I want to start by thanking our group for bringing forward this debate, Sam Kurtz for leading it, and all our farmers—not just in my constituency of Aberconwy, but across the whole of Wales. Those gladiators who are working, in some instances, far harder than many politicians, but they're doing this whilst constantly fighting against your negative policies coming forward. Farming is the backbone of Wales. The sector employs around 50,000 people, with approximately 230,000 employed across the entire food and drink supply chain. For every £1 of public money invested, £9 is put back into the Welsh economy; £2.2 billion annually from farming output, and £9.3 billion is the value of our Welsh food sector. So, they deserve a big thank you. And we, as Welsh Conservatives, will always support our farmers.

The benefits of having a strong, thriving and sustainable farming sector in Wales are unquestionable, yet they work hard, risking at times their own lives, in working conditions that I don't think many in this Chamber would relish. Come rain or shine, hail, frost or snow, our farmers turn out every day, looking after their livestock, looking after our environment and putting food on the table for many. Yet both the UK and Welsh Labour Governments have been implementing policies that only harm this vital sector: nitrate vulnerable zones, lack of support on TB, confusion on the bluetongue, just to name three. Labour's family farm tax threatens the lives and livelihoods of people in rural Wales.

And I must, at this point, also thank Abi Reader, for all her efforts to highlight the importance of Welsh farming, and she's a really good champion for dairy farming.

Are you also aware that she's also a champion of horticulture? I agree that she is a great agricultural leader, but there's a lot of other people—

Good, good. Well, thank you, Abi, if you're watching or listening. Not only are you speaking up for the farming industry, but you're a good horticulturist. Well done.

The president of NFU Cymru, Aled Jones, has told MPs in the Welsh Affairs Committee that the announcement has thrown many family businesses in Wales into turmoil and forced some very difficult conversations for families. We've seen farmers with mental health issues. Jenny, you talked about maximum numbers farmers are working on—. It's their land. They know about animal welfare. And I know so many farmers who feel completely—. You mentioned about all this input they've had into the SFS scheme. Well, come and speak to my farmers in Aberconwy, because many of them feel completely disenfranchised. They've not spoken to anybody about any SFS scheme. This is unacceptable—

Can I intervene?

As long as I get the time allowed, yes.

I think that's a fascinating insight, and it highlights the fact that most farmers are not members of the farming unions; that's probably why those members feel they've had little engagement. And yet both the Conservatives and Plaid Cymru present the farming unions as the voice of the farming industry, and she's just proven that they're not.

At the end of the day—. You know my views on unions. I think this is a tax on people working, by being part of a union that then funds your election campaigns. [Interruption.] Some election campaigns. [Interruption.] Some unions, even.

Well, whilst we can all agree on the need for renewable energy, this should never come at the cost of our food security. As it is, our farmers are one of the major contributors to nature recovery, biodiversity, supporting our species in decline, yet that is never recognised. The 10 per cent tree planting scheme was made without any thought of the consequences that could see some dairy farms now become unviable.

The Welsh Government's economic impact assessment of the sustainable farming scheme estimates that it will result in a loss of 56,000 Welsh livestock—and I'm sorry, Jenny, I don't agree with that; 1,163 jobs on Welsh farms lost—I don't agree with that; and £73 million lost in farm business income. These are costs we cannot afford. We talk about—[Interruption.] I'm going to crack on, if you don't mind. We talk about food security. We need to protect and support our farmers. Not only are they massively contributing to our GDP, they are the custodians of our countryside. In fact, amongst the people of Wales, I firmly believe that they are rated more highly than politicians.

The Welsh Conservatives will always stand with our farmers. We would scrap the SFS and bring in another scheme that's far more beneficial. We would provide £100 million extra over the next Senedd term, and replace it with a scheme that truly works for farmers, with food security and production at its heart. The Welsh Conservatives do have a plan to fix Wales. Our farmers are a huge part of that plan. Next May, vote for our farmers by voting Welsh Conservative. Diolch.

I call on the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm very pleased to respond to this debate. Let me make clear that the sustainable farming scheme will support farmers in Wales to produce world-class, high-quality food, and at the same time tackle and adapt to climate change, manage their natural resources and habitats, and ensure continued high standards of animal health: a whole-farm, whole-Wales approach, which the Conservatives clearly do not support, which is deeply, deeply regrettable. So, I am also looking forward, Dirprwy Lywydd, to correcting the inaccuracies in the way in which—and I'm looking to my right politically and literally, Dirprwy Lywydd—some have interpreted the data that we published last week.

Even the motion tabled before us today is inaccurate. Nowhere—nowhere—in the evidence we have published does it say that job losses, livestock number reductions, or reductions in farm business income will definitively happen. Nowhere. This is trying to turn really complex information into simple soundbites. This is not helpful to serious debate and, most importantly, it is not helpful to farmers. The documents that we published last week—and it is right we published them, because we believe in being open and transparent—have allowed me, as Deputy First Minister, to take a decision to invest over £340 million in our sustainable farming scheme in 2026.

And just on the new promise that we have heard given today by the Conservatives to put more money into farming, this is the same party that promised 'not a penny less'. Where was it? [Interruption.] Sam, tell me where this is. It was your party that promised it. This is the party that has betrayed the farmers by not making good on that. And it is also the party that this week, of course, as we heard in the Conservative Party conference, promised there would be a £47 billion cut of the UK budget going forward. What will that mean—I look at the Treasury Secretary here—about the quantum passed here to Wales? What does that mean for farming, let alone public services? I think, to be honest, most people out there would find it laughable that the Conservatives' promises can be trusted at all, and not least by the farming community. The evidence we put forward needs to be considered as a whole, with all of the limitations understood, and not to have figures quoted in isolation, out of context, and, in many cases, incorrectly.

Let me be absolutely clear. The business case makes clear that the SFS offers better value for money—which I would have thought the Conservatives would have believed in—better outcomes than the current funding model centred on the basic payment scheme. In terms of the modelling results that were published, it's important to stress that these are scenarios, not, as some would have it, that they're predictions for the future. Even then, we know that these scenarios are likely to be overestimates.

I want to ask the Members if they will keep quiet. They are speaking quite loudly, and I can't hear the Deputy First Minister without him having to raise his voice.

And I don't like raising my voice, as you know, Dirprwy Lywydd, but I can hear what they're asking, which is why is this useful. It's useful because it's allowed me, but also the ministerial round-table, with all stakeholders, to come to a conclusion that this scheme works for farmers and the wide range of outcomes. It is modelling that helps us make that decision. Please, Sam.

Thank you. You've just said there that the round-table would agree to this. Are you saying that the farming unions accept this economic impact assessment?

I'm saying that the farming unions accept that the scheme that we have launched back in July, with all the pillars of it, is the right scheme to take forward, whereas you are now proposing to scrap it and start again. And if you want to deliver uncertainty into farming, that is the Conservative way to do it. You've talked about, very often in this Chamber, the effects of multiple pressures on farming and their welfare and their mental health. You want to scrap this scheme and start again. The message for farmers is the Tories will give you uncertainty and instability, and that will not be good.

Cabinet Secretary, I ask the leader of the opposition to calm down. I will also ask the Cabinet Secretary to, therefore, lower the voice tone.

I'm very passionate.

Whilst you're passionate, Cabinet Secretary, it is important that we keep a sensible tone within the debate.

Indeed. And it's also crucial to remember, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the modelling does not take account of the potential significant economic and environmental benefits of the optional and collaborative actions. This is where many of the benefits to farmers and the environment will lie. That's why our focus right now is working collaboratively with stakeholders to develop that detailed offer to farmers for these layers. It's vital that that work continues with all the stakeholders and that we deliver on those opportunities.

But perhaps most importantly, what every individual farmer wants to know is what does this mean for me and for my farm. The evidence we published last week does not answer this question. No two farms in Wales are the same. Every farm is different, with very different circumstances. We have seen the appetite amongst farmers to understand the scheme and the payments for next year at the summer shows and our roadshow events that started last week, which are being very, very well attended. I'm pleased so many farmers are engaging with us in this way.

We've worked really hard, all the round-table members, to make the scheme accessible. But let me make clear, entry is a choice each farmer needs to make, based on the individual circumstances of their farm business. I therefore urge farmers who haven't already done so to take a look at the ready reckoner to see what your payments are likely to be under the SFS next year. Come to the roadshow events across Wales this autumn to understand what this means for you.

I often say that I've engaged hugely closely with the members of the ministerial round-table in developing the scheme, that we've worked collaboratively, and we have, it's all true. But it doesn't quite do justice to the hours and hours and hours in their hundreds that so many organisations have given to make the scheme a success. We have truly burnt, as I said we would, the midnight oil. The scheme is stronger—the business case makes that clear—and more accessible as a result.

And we're not done yet. To address the point made in Plaid Cymru's amendment, the SFS is an evolving scheme by its very design. It will be a living scheme that changes and adapts as necessary, so this amendment isn't necessary. I've been clear about this many times before, but I'm, of course, happy to provide further reassurances on this today. What farmers want and what they deserve now is certainty. The sustainable farming scheme developed through unprecedented collaboration provides a framework that will build economic, social and environmental resilience for farmers and their farms across Wales, now and for generations to come. I urge the Senedd to support the Government amendment, and to reject the main motion today and the opposition amendments.

I call on James Evans to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for what has been a good and lively debate this afternoon, mainly raised up the tone by the Deputy First Minister.

I'd like to thank Sam Kurtz for opening the debate today and highlighting just what this scheme and the impact assessment has said: job losses, farm income lost, and a reduction in livestock numbers. But as he said, these aren't just the numbers. These are people's families, this is people's homes, this is people's livelihoods—and that cannot be forgotten. As he said, farmers have been clear. I think the Deputy First Minister needs to look on social media to see what real farmers are thinking. They're not happy with this scheme. They're not happy with the proposals as they currently stand. As we know from polls that have been done, farmers have said they are not going to enter this scheme and will go it alone—not something I want to see. I want to see a farming industry supported by a Government and not one that cuts off away from it.

Sam highlighted the removal of the tree planting that was in it. That was something that was very positive that came through, but it hasn't gone far enough, this scheme. The unions have said they're not happy with the scheme in its current form. Farmers have said they're not happy with the scheme in its current form. We need to make sure that when the Government designs anything, it has farming and food security at the heart.

And also what Sam talked about was our high animal welfare and food standards here across Wales. That is something we need to protect and make sure we're driving forward—that high-quality food that we all want to produce here in Wales.

Llyr Gruffydd then moved on and he started his debate, as many Plaid Cymru Members do, talking about Brexit. I would just like to remind Llyr that if he took a look over to the continent, actually there have been farmers protesting across Europe about the way that they're unhappy with how the European Union is designing their scheme. So, I don't think we can look across there for any inspiration. We need to make sure—

Would you take an intervention?

I wasn't sure if you were just standing around. Yes, I will.

It's a bit awkward because you're standing behind me. Would you agree with me that the biggest economic risk to our rural economy and our farming industry is Plaid Cymru's plan for independence, which would make Wales worse off and cost thousands of pounds to every single household in our country? This is a party that has been wedded to this Welsh Labour Government for years. Of course, it was also the party that was an original author of the original sustainable farming scheme, which was a disaster, had it been implemented.

I totally agree with everything you just said, Darren, of course. I agree with you that Plaid Cymru would rip Wales out of the United Kingdom, which would risk our food security, and not just that, but our national security as well.

Llyr, I do agree with you on the work that has been done by the unions, and other Members raised that as well, and the people who contributed to the round-table. We cannot miss the fact that there are other people who have been feeding in, unions and others, but they're not happy with the scheme in its current format, and we need to make sure a scheme comes forward after the next election that actually works for our farmers. Like you, I am concerned, as I said to Jenny, about the loss in livestock numbers. That is going to be huge for our abattoirs across Wales. I've been talking to abattoirs close to my part of the world in my constituency, and they're very concerned about the critical mass of livestock going down, and it's a huge concern, which is only going to drive food costs up, not push them down.

Peter Fox, you talked about this Welsh Labour Government, not on this scheme, but the wider issues with bovine TB, NVZs, bluetongue—you name it and the Welsh Government have made a mess of it, haven't they? But you talked then about the 56,000 livestock numbers going, 1,200 job losses and £76 million of lost farm income. That is huge. If we divide that out between all our family farms across Wales, that's a huge loss for all those farmers who need that money to sustain their—[Interruption.] Yes, go on, Jenny.

Were you in the room when Huw Irranca-Davies explained that these were estimates, not actual figures? [Interruption.] These were modellings, and you don't seem to have considered that.

Hold that thought, Jenny. I'll get to it in a minute. Because then, Jenny, you came into the debate, and you talked about pesticides and the need to reduce them. I agree, we do need to reduce reliance on pesticides. I don't think anybody would dispute that. But that means we need to make sure there's proper investment in research and development to make sure there are alternatives provided, because if we don't have pesticides currently, some of our food crops would fail, and then we'd see food shortages across the world, and we can't have that.

You also talked about poultry farms and the impact they have on our environment. I would just like to say that our poultry farmers are one of the most regulated parts of our food system across the whole of the country. Their nutrient management plans are probably higher than any other part of the agricultural industry, and I say 'thank you' to our poultry farmers right the way across Wales for doing the fantastic job they do in producing highly nutritious food for our population. [Interruption.] I'll let you have one more go, Jenny, and then—[Inaudible.]

I just want to make you aware that nearly all of the chicken that is served in our schools doesn't come from Wales, it comes from Thailand. And that is part of the problem.

And that's a failure of the Government, isn't it? That's a failure of this Welsh Labour Government that they're not getting British and Welsh food into our schools. So, I think that you should take that up with your own Cabinet Secretary, Jenny.

Janet Finch-Saunders, you took part in the debate in your usual eloquent, funny and out-there way of doing it, and I'm very pleased you did, because you thanked all of our farmers for the work that they do across our country and the farmers in your own constituency, and we all know what a champion you are of farmers in your constituency and the dedication that they give, day in, day out, in all weathers, 365 days of the year, and that cannot be missed. And you also mentioned the mental health impact on our farmers. Yes, this debate is lively, but we do have to realise that this is people's livelihoods, this is their way of life, and I'm afraid that there are a lot of charities out there that are inundated with calls from farmers because they're uncertain about the future, and it's not just about SFS, it's about TB, it's about a number of issues. So, we do need to remember that there are people at the heart of this debate.

Then we moved on to the Cabinet Secretary, who was in good spirits this afternoon, highlighting all of the Welsh Government views on the scheme. But I think that we need to set the record straight here, Huw, don't we? You talked about this modelling that the Welsh Government has done—it's a model. But basically what you're trying to say is that it's not worth the paper it's written on. [Interruption.] Well, that's what you're implying, Cabinet Secretary. I'll very happily take an intervention from you, because that is what you're implying.

Just to clarify one more time, as clearly either the Member wasn't here when I responded to this earlier on or in previous debates, the modelling has helped both me and the ministerial round-table design a scheme. It has helped us to design a scheme. It is not definitive, it is not predictions, it is not real life; real life is what each farmer will make. So, just to clarify that once again.

So, why has it taken you until now to publish the modelling, Cabinet Secretary? So, you launched the scheme without the modelling and then actually brought the modelling out to help to inform the scheme. Well, this is a bit cart before the horse, Cabinet Secretary. [Interruption.] I think we've heard—[Interruption.]

[Inaudible.]—absolutely back and forth.

Your Member is closing the debate; let him close the debate. If the Cabinet Secretary wishes to ask for an intervention, it's up to the Member to accept it.

I'll take one more from you, Cabinet Secretary. Yes, go again.

So, the purpose, as explained, actually, in the submission of the business case, which is a rounded business case, the environmental assessment and the economic assessment needed to be finalised over the course of the summer because not every detail was done. That is why we produced it in the round. What you have chosen to do as the Tory party is selectively pull out stuff from that and say, 'It is fact, it is going to happen', and you are wrong and you are doing a disservice to the farming community.

What the Conservative Party here is doing is standing up for our farmers across Wales, where this Welsh Labour Government, after 26 years, has failed. They have failed on TB, they failed on nitrate vulnerable zones, they failed on the sustainable farming scheme, and down the road in Westminster, they failed our farmers with their family farm tax. Labour do not understand rural communities. They never have, never will. So, I tell everybody in this Chamber today: support our motion, because in doing that, we send a clear message to the agricultural industry: we support you, we stand with you and we will never, ever, on this side of the Chamber, let our agricultural community be sold down the river in the pursuit of some environmentalist agenda.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. I will therefore defer voting under this item until voting time.

Cabinet Secretary, do you wish to raise a point of order?

I do. Thank you. I have great respect for Sam, who introduced this debate, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I believe that he is indeed an honourable Member of this Senedd Chamber, and he wouldn't seek to mislead or put inaccuracies on the record. He said in the first couple of minutes of his opening remarks that I have said that the funding in the universal layer will be cut. That is completely wrong, completely inaccurate, and I have checked the Record, Sam, as well. So, I know that you are an honourable person. I invite you to retract that, because you wouldn't want to mislead the Senedd.

Dirprwy Lywydd, if I may, on the fifteenth of the seventh, when talking about the quantum of the payment:

'So, there's a maximum on the universal level—we're being very frank and honest about it—and there's a minimum level on the optional and collaborative'.

So, if it stays at £238 million, there will be a real-terms cut to the funding of the universal tier. I'm an honourable gentleman and I understand the complaint of the Member, who I respect greatly, but there will be a real-terms cut to the universal tier as mentioned, the maximum that he said, on the fifteenth of the seventh.

You have put your argument for what you said. The Cabinet Secretary has put his position. It's all on the record. I think we'll leave it at that.

Right, that brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move immediately to voting time.

This afternoon, we will be voting on item 8, the Welsh Conservatives' debate on the sustainable farming scheme. First, I call for a vote on the motion without amendment tabled in the name of Paul Davies. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, 31 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 1 in the name of Jane Hutt. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 22, no abstentions, 20 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

Amendment 2 is therefore deselected.

I now call for a vote on amendment 3. I call for a vote on amendment 3 tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 9, no abstentions, 33 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 22, no abstentions, 20 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

We will now move to the short debate, and I call on Heledd Fychan to speak to the topic that she has selected. Heledd.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd.

And thank you to those of you who will be staying for today's debate. I'd like to give a minute of my time to Llyr Gruffydd and Luke Fletcher and I apologise to others that wanted to contribute, but I can't give more time today. Hopefully, you'll have a chance to intervene if you would like to do so.

As all of us know, learner travel is an issue that comes up time and time again in the Senedd, and yet, despite a Welsh Government review commencing first of all in 2019, the problems persist. In fact, not only do they persist but they are worsening as more local authorities reduce the amount they spend on school transport so that they align with statutory provision, which is, of course, 3 miles for secondary school or a further education college and 2 miles for primary school.

In January of this year, we were told by the Welsh Government that new guidance would be published by September 2025, six years after a review began. But with the consultation now extended until November, who knows when that guidance will see the light of day. Most worrying of all is what will be in that guidance, because the consultation includes a proposal to increase the time deemed acceptable for a child or young person over 11 years old to walk to school from the current 60 minutes to 75 minutes, and that's one way. So, potentially, a two and a half hour walk to and from school each day. How many of us would be happy to do that in every weather, even when dark, carrying bags full of books and a change of clothes for physical activity, and perhaps even a musical instrument? I played a cello when I was at school. It was difficult enough taking it on the bus. There's no way you'd carry a cello for nearly 3 miles. None of us would do that, would we, especially along some of the paths that have been deemed safe, yet that’s what we expect of our children.

This is a particularly live issue in my region, especially in Rhondda Cynon Taf where changes to school transport came into effect last month. Though the full extent of the impact won’t be fully understood for a few years, it’s clear that the results are already profound. So, today I’d like to share with you how this is impacting my constituents, and why the Government must take action. I’d also like to repeat calls on the Welsh Government to make sure this is addressed via the bus Bill rather than kept as a separate issue.

The majority of the evidence I’m going to share with you has been compiled by an amazing group of women campaigning on this issue under the banner of the Save the School Transport RCT campaign. Tina, Kayleigh, Laura, Ange and Helen have all done a fantastic job in co-ordinating the campaign, with a petition they set up garnering a huge amount of support that will, hopefully, lead to a further debate in the Senedd soon as they pass that 10,000 threshold. I was pleased to hear that the Cabinet Secretary for transport has agreed to meet with them and hear their concerns directly, and I look forward to hearing how their concerns will be addressed following that meeting.

As part of their campaign, they have put together this document, and it's based on a survey that they undertook and was completed by parents and students, with 947 people responding, all based in RCT. These are some of the headline statistics: 82 per cent of pupils said their route to school is unsafe, with 72 per cent noting a lack of safe crossings; 91 per cent of parents worry about their children sitting in wet clothes all day due to walking in poor weather; 44 per cent are concerned about increased absenteeism; and 64 per cent are facing new financial pressures from having to pay for public transport or having to reduce their working hours in order to be able to take their children to and from school.

This change is also impacting Welsh-medium education, with those living close to an English-medium school losing access to the nearest Welsh-medium school, which, in a number of cases, is just under the three-mile threshold. Parents have told me that they will either withdraw their children from Welsh-medium education, or that they won’t opt for Welsh-medium education in the first instance, if this continues to be the policy. Is this Government, therefore, content that the distance to a school and the availability of transport are barriers to children accessing Welsh-medium education? And how does this align with 'Cymraeg 2050' targets?

The current guidance also states that local authorities must make appropriate transport arrangements to ensure that they don’t place undue strain on learners. But, as the Measure does not define 'strain', nor does it include a definitive list of the criteria, how are authorities supposed to implement this at present and measure its effect? And what will you, as a Government, do if there is strong evidence of a lack of action in this regard?

Now, I’m sure that we will hear in the response the Cabinet Secretary referring to yesterday’s update on £1 bus journeys, but I believe that it is very important that we don’t conflate the two issues today. Yes, a £1 journey cost will help in some cases, but it isn’t a solution for everyone, as demonstrated by a number of the comments I’ve already shared today. The availability of public bus services, and the routes that these services follow, aren't as good everywhere as they are, for example, in Cardiff. And we know that even in Cardiff there are problems because of a lack of transport to schools at convenient times.

So, what comes next? How will we solve this situation? Well, it’s clear that the statutory distance doesn’t meet the needs of learners or their parents. It doesn't take into account geography or children’s welfare. Nor does the policy adequately consider child safety, and learners are expected to walk along isolated pathways that aren’t sufficiently well lit.

I therefore would like to urge the Welsh Government to listen to the voices of parents, teachers and campaigners, to revisit the countless pieces of evidence presented to them over the past six years, which include from commissioners, from the Welsh Youth Parliament, from committees of the Senedd, and through correspondence from Members. We must review and reform the learner travel Measure, lower the mileage thresholds, and ensure that vulnerable children are protected.

Yesterday, I had two single parents contact me separately, both unable to work anymore due to needing to get children to different schools, and this is not unusual. One has three children, one of whom is neurodiverse and had school attendance challenges since losing his bus. This parent has now had to give up their work to get their child to secondary school. The second parent who contacted me told me:

'I work part-time in the NHS but I'm signed off work at the moment. I am a single parent to two children. One has a physical disability and the other has a complex medical condition. They are both in different schools. I love working and it is essential for our finances that I do. I used to be able to do three full days a week. Now I can’t because my child doesn’t get a school bus to secondary school anymore and I have no practical way or safe way to get both children to school and meet my contracted hours'.

So, let us not balance the books on the backs of our most vulnerable. Let us invest in their future, so that every child in Wales can access education safely, affordably and with dignity. And let’s work together to ensure that no child is left behind because of where they live or the challenges they face. It's been six years that we've been reviewing this policy—when will we see change?

Hear, hear, Heledd Fychan, that's what I say, and thank you for bringing this debate before the Senedd. There are too many young people across Wales being let down at the moment. We regularly raise examples in the Chamber here, and I have a specific example that I want to refer to, and that is one pupil who is now, half way through their school career, having to change school because of changes to school transport rules—having been at the school for five years, the council now says that it's impossible to continue to go to the same school to attend sixth-form education, although the school that the council is going to send the individual to is further away, and that new school is not going to be able to provide the A-level subjects that the individual wants to study. So, where is the common sense in that? Where is the consideration of the well-being of the individual here? We're talking about people's lives here—students, their families, and the right to continue with their education in the school that they call home in a way, where their friends are too. But no, the system tells them a different story. It's time for fairness and common sense to come first, and it's time for the situation as it stands to change.

I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government to reply to the debate—Jane Bryant.

Diolch, acting Llywydd. I'm pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, who is unable to attend. I firstly want to thank Helen Fychan for bringing this important debate to the Siambr today, and I also want to thank Members who've contributed to what is an emotive and complex issue for families, communities and policy makers at a national and local level. And I'm grateful to both Heledd and to Llyr for raising the issues of their constituents.

The Government understands the rationale for many of the arguments put forward today on why change is needed. However, it is also incumbent upon us to acknowledge and to work within the financial and legislative context that we have. Last year, £204 million was spent on school transport. Extending mileage thresholds and entitlements has an inevitable impact on the funding available for other priorities. It involves difficult choices for Welsh Government and for local authorities managing limited budgets. There's always more that we can do, but we also do not have unlimited resources to do everything that we might wish to do. But we are taking significant action.

This debate today is timely because it's six months since the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales held a Government debate on this important issue. Since then, he has hosted a learner travel summit with my colleague, the education Minister, Lynne Neagle, and with delivery partners. So, it's the first time that we have brought together all key players in the same room.

He has published the draft revised operational guidance for consultation—the first time that this important document has been updated in over 10 years. So, in terms of that document, that's been part of the work stream from that travel summit.

Cabinet Secretary, will you take an intervention?

I will do, yes.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Are you able to explain the rationale for why 75 minutes is being proposed rather than the current 60 minutes, given that you've acknowledged that there are huge challenges? Is there a rationale why 75 minutes is deemed acceptable—a two and a half hour round trip to get to and from school?

Diolch. Perhaps I can ask the Cabinet Secretary to write to the Member on that issue in particular. But, in terms of the guidance, as I said, that was being updated, it was put out to consultation in June, and that was due to end at the beginning of September. However, after listening to concerns that not everyone who wanted to contribute has had the chance to do so, the decision was made to extend the deadline until 28 November. We are committed to ensuring that all interested parties have the opportunity to voice their views to help future policy making.

We have also asked the Welsh Local Government Association to lead on this piece of work, around the sharing of best practice across local authorities, improving collaboration and co-operation. They have already started work to prioritise activity discussed at the summit, such as standardised contracts and developing tailored training that can be rolled out across Wales. We've also introduced £1 bus travel for our young people—the first national intervention of its kind for young people in Wales, which has been well received. And we're also committing £110 million this financial year to active travel routes, the Active Journeys programme and the Safe Routes in Communities grant, all of which help make our school streets safer.

In the past six months, this Government has implemented an increase to the household income threshold for education maintenance allowance, providing financial support to an additional 3,500 students. We've also invested £6.5 million in family engagement officers to help support attendance, and we've increased funding, through the local government settlement, to over £6 billion in revenue funding to spend on delivering services, which include school bus transport.

In terms of the bus Bill that Heledd mentioned, although the bus Bill is not setting out any proposals for changes to the learner travel Measure, we do believe that the bus Bill will facilitate improved learner travel provision on the local bus service network, and it'll help provide those structural changes needed to support places of learning and have the required levels of service to encourage more children and young people to use public transport to access their education. But there is no silver bullet to solve the complexities of learner travel, and each of these activities in isolation will not address all the challenges we've discussed today. But, put together, we as a Government are using the levers we have, and our collective resource, to support effective travel and transport options for our young people.

Since the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales took his role, he has been clear that we want to work collaboratively across political parties to examine and seek to respond to the challenges that we accept do exist in the provision of learner travel. There are no easy answers, and we're willing to work with all interested parties to improve policy and delivery. This is why we extended the consultation on the learner travel guidance, because we want all parties to contribute.

And that brings today's proceedings to a close.