Found: I think it was almost in this room where George Osborne signed the devolution deal with the then 10

Found: If you remember, we were doing this at a time when we had George Osborne and the northern powerhouse

Found: It feels like when George Osborne came up with it, he was trying to marry two very different goals with

Found: Former Chancellor George Osborne introduced the LISA in the 2016 Budget, aiming to provide an alternative

Found: the Lifetime ISA, such that the initial philosophy and promise set out by former Chancellor George Osborne

Found: Introduction The Lifetime Individual Savings Account (LISA) was introduced by former Chancellor George Osborne

Found: Former Chancellor George Osborne introduced the LISA in the 2016 Budget, aiming to provide an alternative

Found: The house price cap has also not increased since introduction by George Osborne despite considerable

Found: When people like George Osborne set up institutions headquartered in Manchester such as the Royce Institute

Found: Background I proposed a Lifetime ISA (LISA) in 2014, detailed in a published policy paper1, and George Osborne

Found: As I say, I was lucky, in that when I was appointed Justice Secretary both David Cameron and George Osborne

Found: Providers had to deal with a 1% reduction in rents over a period under George Osborne.

Found: Mr George Osborne 6R 2009–1021 Jan 2010Claimed against ACA for costs incurred before being elected

Found: national strategy: How select committee scrutiny can improve strategic thinking in Whitehall 64 2015 George Osborne

Found: Former Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rt Hon George Osborne, made a compelling case for financial education

Found: know if he referenced it in his evidence, but Alex Salmond had a very good relationship with George Osborne

Found: Q151 Derek Thomas: I would answer that question by saying that it was because the Government —George Osborne

Found: Q151 Derek Thomas: I would answer that question by saying that it was because the Government —George Osborne

Found: Q151 Derek Thomas: I would answer that question by saying that it was because the Government —George Osborne

Found: “We lost our bus service during the cuts [under chancellor George Osborne].

Found: George Osborne at the Conservative Party Conference 2010 told the Country if the Conservatives

Found: It also reflects work done under the coalition by David Cameron and George Osborne.

Found: Q709 Graham Stringer: When you were Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary, you and George Osborne—and

Found: policies on peer-to-peer lending were shaped by representations by the then Chancellor George Osborne

Found: We came about with George Osborne, shortly after the election in May 2015, and we were established

Found: We have not even seen that type of surplus during the George Osborne era of austerity, even though

Found: We know that, in 2010, George Osborne as Chancellor was able to reduce departmental spending in real

Found: effects of 18 See for example Q 32 (Sir John Vickers), Q 44 (Rt Hon Ed Balls), Q 44 (Rt Hon George Osborne

Found: It is eight years since George Osborne, as Chancellor, stood up at conference and said, “We’re going

Found: It is eight years since George Osborne, as Chancellor, stood up at conference and said, “We’re going

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if she will have discussions with (a) her Greek counterpart and (b) the Board of the British Museum on the potential merits of returning the portion of the Parthenon sculptures which are held by the Museum to Athens.

Answered by Chris Bryant - Minister of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)

Decisions relating to the care and management of the museum's collections, including loaning objects from their collection, are a matter for the Trustees of the British Museum, in accordance with the British Museum Act 1963. The British Museum is operationally independent of the Government.

We are aware that the Chair of the Trustees, George Osborne, has had talks with Greek Ministers on the issue, seeking a constructive partnership. We value the work that the British Museum does internationally, and welcome the success of their partnerships, such as the recent collaboration between the British Museum, the V&A, and the Manhyia Palace Museum in Ghana.

With regards to the legal title for the Parthenon Sculptures, the removal of the sculptures was lawful and well-documented. They were transferred to the British Museum in 1816 and have been the legal property of the British Museum, not the UK Government, since then.

Question to the Department for Digital, Culture, Media & Sport:

To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, if she will review the Government's justification to legal title for the Parthenon Sculptures held by the British Museum.

Answered by Chris Bryant - Minister of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport)

Decisions relating to the care and management of the museum's collections, including loaning objects from their collection, are a matter for the Trustees of the British Museum, in accordance with the British Museum Act 1963. The British Museum is operationally independent of the Government.

We are aware that the Chair of the Trustees, George Osborne, has had talks with Greek Ministers on the issue, seeking a constructive partnership. We value the work that the British Museum does internationally, and welcome the success of their partnerships, such as the recent collaboration between the British Museum, the V&A, and the Manhyia Palace Museum in Ghana.

With regards to the legal title for the Parthenon Sculptures, the removal of the sculptures was lawful and well-documented. They were transferred to the British Museum in 1816 and have been the legal property of the British Museum, not the UK Government, since then.

Found: Conservative government’s first Budget after the 2015 general election, the then Chancellor George Osborne

Found: the introduction of new reliefs for video games, high -end TV, and animation, then Chancellor George Osborne

Found: The following week the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, announced that the Government

Found: Conservative Government’s first Budget after the 2015 General Election, the then Chancellor George Osborne

Found: the authors describe as a “typical fudge”, David Cameron appointed William Hague and later George Osborne

Found: ” George Osborne replied that “that is pretty unlikely and pretty theoretical, to be honest ”. 35 In

Allow defined contributions that existed prior to the Labour 2024 budget to be free of Inheritance tax rules due to come into effect April 2027. It is unfair to apply IHT retrospectively.

Found: George Osborne made changes to defined pension contributions in April 6th 2015.

Found: I never thought I would hear myself say, certainly not 10 years ago – he is in Hong Kong with George Osborne

Found: preview tickets Yes David Cameron 23/06/2024 Sir Lucian Graine, Universal Music Group (UMG) via George Osborne

Found: Alexander Marr To discuss Art History teaching in state schools Stephen Parkinson 2024-03-26 George Osborne

Found: Welfare and Pensions (2013-2017), Principal Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne

Found: Welfare and Pensions (2013-2017), Principal Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne

Found: signed by a Peer, then the established form is first name followed by surname, for example ‘ George Osborne

Found: People had been doing pension transfers before 2015, but in the 2014 budget George Osborne (the then

Found: which I worked closely with the regulator on in the Blackett Review on FinTech, commissioned by George Osborne

Found: George Osborne CH Chair of the TrusteesThe British Museum Report and Accounts 2023-242Structure, governance

Found: Melanie also worked as Speechwriter and Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne

Found: Welfare and Pensions (2013-2017), Principal Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne

Found: Welfare and Pensions (2013-2017), Principal Private Secretary to the Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne

Found: from across the political spectrum and public life; confirmed contributors at present include George Osborne

Found: warning about the austerity path his opposite number and, now of course, his podcast partner, George Osborne

Found: Commenting on the decision of former chancellor George Osborne to cap the CPF at £18/ tCO2, Senior Campaigner

Found: increase in the age to which the SAR applied (from age under 25 to age under 35) the then Chancellor George Osborne

Found: assessment of the 50p rate and noted:23 In his 2012 Budget speech in March 2012, the Chancellor George Osborne

Found: So, this is in the era of George Osborne as Chancellor, where the size of the deficit was a political

Found: There's not a bank manager in Wales who'd lend to a business without a plan, yet George Osborne appears

Found: On October 20 the Chancellor, George Osborne, announced to the UK Parliament that the EMA scheme in England

Found: 64 RoP, 21 June 2011 65 Ibid. 66 BBC News, Carwyn Jones praises George Osborne

Found: Hon George Osborne MP, stated in a speech to the Offshore Europe Conference in Aberdeen on 3 September

Found: George Osborne MP, in the Comprehensive Spending Review.

Found: BBC News, Welsh government budget gets £300m from George Osborne, 29 November 2011 [accessed 1 December

Found: Introduction The Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, made his Autumn Statement on Tuesday

Found: 64 RoP, 21 June 2011 65 Ibid. 66 BBC News, Carwyn Jones praises George Osborne

Found: Chancellor’s Budget 2011 March 2011 On Wednesday 23 March 2011 the Chancellor of the Exchequer, (George Osborne

Found: Impact on Wales Quick Guide November 2010 Introduction The Chancellor of the Exchequer (George Osborne

Found: Emergency’ Budget 2010 Quick Guide July 2010 Introduction The Chancellor of the Exchequer (George Osborne

Found: spending reductions on Wales Quick Guide May 2010 Overview On 24 May 2010, the Chancellor (George Osborne

<p>For any party claiming to represent the principles of equality, fairness and justice, eradicating the scourge of poverty should be their unshakeable lodestar, their unconditional purpose. And we were always led to believe that this was the case with the Labour Party. To quote the Cabinet Secretary for Finance at the 2023 Labour Party conference, an incoming Starmer administration would be guided by a burning sense that</p>
<p>'this party’s mission is not to tinker at the edges, not to offer some mild amelioration, but to eradicate poverty'.</p>
<p>That's why the Welsh Government should have brought this debate to the floor of our Senedd today. It's extremely disappointing that it took a motion to call an urgent debate to force the Government to debate this issue, which will have, in the words of the Bevan Foundation,&nbsp;a huge and concerning impact on 275,000 people in Wales—to discuss the impact on Wales on Wales of the biggest cuts to disability benefits on record, which will push thousands into poverty.</p>
<p>We know that Labour isn't honouring long-held promises to Wales, as we've seen with their refusal to reform the outdated Barnett formula, devolving the Crown Estate and their failure to provide Wales with a single penny of HS2 consequentials, but we've now reached the stage where Labour is not only ignoring Welsh interests but actively working against them. How else to explain a decision to unleash welfare cuts that even George Osborne winces at, in the full knowledge that they will push hundreds of thousands of people into poverty, in the full knowledge that it will impact Wales harder. What's particularly shameful, as was reflected in the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions's letter to the First Minister, is that they haven't bothered with the pretence that the implications for Wales were even given a moment's thought. Instead, we have insulting blandishments about a broken benefits system, singularly failing to recognise that it is Labour's moral compass that is truly broken. An admission that no Wales-specific analysis has been undertaken. The sheer hollowness of the so-called partnership of power is plain for all to see. And to borrow the words of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance once again, from a time when the Welsh Government was far more prepared to denounce the actions of Wesminter, these are&nbsp;</p>
<p>'the deliberate decisions of a Government that knows what it is doing, knows that there will be thousands more children in poverty in Wales because of their cuts to universal credit, but simply don’t care.'</p>
<p>And while this was a decision taken in Westminster, because Wales has higher rates of disabled people of working age than the UK average and five of the UK's 10 local authorities with the highest rates of economic inactivity because of long-term illness, the impact of these unprecedented cuts to disability benefits on Wales will be devastating, and we need to know now what the Welsh Government's position is. After refusing to state what that position was in response to questions to the First Minister, to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and to a topical question tabled by Plaid Cymru, the First Minister finally said that she was reserving her position <span style="text-decoration: underline;">when the Secretary of State for Wales</span></p>

<p>I don't mind a bit of heckling, Dirprwy Lywydd. I don't mind. It was David Cameron and George Osborne in 2010—. And Tom Giffard mentions basic economics; well, you've got to pick a side in this, because, for every problem, there's a different policy solution. My side is basic Keynesian economics, and in 2010 the Keynesian lesson was you invest when the economy's underperforming, you invest to build and grow, which is where we are now with the UK Labour Government. What David Cameron and George Osborne did in 2010, with the support of the Liberal Democrats, was the opposite. That's when austerity began and that's when our continual decline, that led through Brexit, led through Theresa May to Liz Truss and all those disasters—. That was followed through from those early days of David Cameron.</p>

<p>This&nbsp;reminds me of my university days: I'd say something, and then, 'No, actually, Hefin, you’re wrong.' Well, the point was the economic investment that happened during the later stages of the UK Labour Government was exactly that, and there weren't, under any circumstances, the same level of plans to introduce austerity in the way that it was done by David Cameron and George Osborne. It was introduced in a way that was devastating to communities in Wales, and let's not forget the public sector—[<em>Interruption</em>.]—the public sector in Wales is by far the biggest employer in Wales than in the rest of the UK, and that's where the devastating impact happened. I remember I was first elected to Caerphilly County Borough Council in 2007. By 2010, under the Conservative Government, that's when we first started talking about cuts and we've been talking about cuts ever since.&nbsp;But I think what the Welsh Labour Government's amendment does is address some of those misconceptions in the Conservative motion, so I'm really pleased to vote for it. I actually liked some of the things that Luke Fletcher said as well, although perhaps different solutions to the ones that the Cabinet Secretary is going to take.</p>
<p>Let me give you an example of an optimistic view from my constituency. Transcend Packaging at Dyffryn Business Park produce straws for global chains such as McDonalds and Starbucks, and they've just reached an agreement with Tokyo-based paper producer Itochu Corporation, and the two companies will develop a range of paper- and fibre-based packing products, enabling Transcend Packaging to expand into new markets in North America and in Asia. That's a Caerphilly success story and the Welsh Government has issued a press release today identifying that small and medium-sized businesses in Wales have secured export deals worth over £320 million as a direct result of Welsh Government support since the launch of the export action plan in December 2020.&nbsp;</p>
<p>That is small business success and the trick with identifying which small businesses to work with is through those that can export, and those that can export are those that have been supported well by the Welsh Labour Government. And it's not just Japanese companies. In Tir-y-Berth in my constituency, we've got another growing company, Norgine, who make pharmaceutical products, and I visited them with Chris Evans MP a few weeks ago. And we can see the success that they're having as a growing business and employer in my constituency.</p>
<p>And it's not just foreign investment and small businesses that are looking successful in my constituency. The core Valleys lines are connecting communities, getting people to work in Cardiff and beyond in ways that we hadn't seen in the years leading up to the 2020s. The bus Bill, too, will start to develop those opportunities for employment.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Finally, I just want to say one thing that is very close to my heart. If we're talking about employment, we can't forget those people with additional learning needs. You talk about economic inactivity; well, I look at my little girl and think, 'One day, I'd like you to be able to have a meaningful job.' In my 'Transitions to Employment' report I said:</p>
<p>'The Welsh Government should review support for job coaching for those...with Additional Learning Needs who request it. With reference to the good practice developed by Engage to Change and Learning Disability Wales, an ALN job coaching strategy should be prepared, expanding the provision of specialist coaches'.</p>
<p>I think we need to remember that it's not just about the kind of economic growth with exports and small businesses and successful firms; it's also about looking at those employees who need the most support, and I think job coaching for those with additional learning needs is really important. So, I'd like to take that opportunity to advocate for that as well.&nbsp;</p>
<p>I could say more but I see I'm out of time, Dirprwy Lywydd, so I won't test your patience and I'll stop there.</p>

<p>The report will undoubtedly help us to continue to develop this relatively new financial instrument, making sure that we are able to deploy it effectively in the future. As you’ve heard, I’ve already responded formally to the report and to each of its recommendations. I was very pleased to be able to accept all the recommendations. The limitation on the acceptance of recommendation 7, for example, was simply in order to allow further discussions to refine the information that the committee would find useful. I’m very happy to ask my officials to pick up the point that Sam Rowlands made about the issue of risk in the way in which financial transactions capital is deployed here in Wales.</p>
<p>I am very committed to being able to provide the committee and the wider community here in Wales with as much transparency as possible about its use. There is some limitation on the extent to which you can provide simplified information, given the inherently complex nature of FTCs and the rulebooks that we have to operate within, as the Chair pointed out in his opening. But I hope that Members will recognise that the draft budget already reflects some of the committee's proposals in that regard.</p>
<p>Sam Rowlands asked questions about maximising the use of financial transaction capital. Well, I can say that we deploy every penny of it, and Mike Hedges, I think, made the important points&nbsp;about the extent to which the recyclable nature of this funding means that it comes back in, particularly through the Development Bank of Wales, and then is used again for the purposes to which it has been dedicated by the Welsh Government.</p>
<p>I think it is important to recall that FTCs were only introduced as part of the 2013 budget process. They were a device then, as Mike said, to allow George Osborne to invest without it being on the balance sheet and therefore to meet whatever artificial rule he was claiming to meet at the time. I think, by now, we can't hope that we will simply revert to traditional capital to fund all areas of Government spend, and therefore we have to maximise the ability that FTCs offer us to boost our investment in private and third sector organisations, while remembering that the key difference between conventional capital and FTCs is that FTCs have to be repaid. Therefore, in thinking of that other recommendation of the committee about the criteria for success in this area, and I set them out in my response: that use of the funds has to be feasible, visible, desirable, but it also, in this case—this is why it's different to conventional capital—has to be repayable. That has undoubtedly had an impact on the appetite of organisations in Wales to use FTCs, and while that appetite may be greater a decade into FTCs, it certainly was an appetite that had to be stimulated in those early days.</p>
<p>Now, as we evolve our approach to the use of FTCs and take incremental steps to improve the process and increase transparency, I am very keen to continue to work with the committee to continue to review the usefulness of this tool and how it might be refined in terms of reporting in future budgets. Progress has been made to address some of the other recommendations in the report. We anticipate that the reclassification of DBW will be considered by both Governments through the current spending review, and I will certainly report on the outcome of that to the Senedd. I've also committed to publishing revised guidance. We'll be offering training sessions to staff in policy areas across the Welsh Government to see if there is an appetite for use of FTCs&nbsp;more broadly than the relatively limited set of purposes in which it has been successively used up until now—[<em>Interruption</em>.]</p>

<p>Well, it's ironic, isn’t it, that it's the Conservatives who are bringing forward this debate today, as we know how damaging their austerity agenda was for individuals and communities in Wales, and the fact that our communities are still feeling the impacts of that agenda.</p>
<p>After all, it was the Conservatives who were responsible for the mess of Brexit, which is still having a detrimental impact on our economic performance and has undermined so much trade and industry here in Wales. They too are responsible for normalising the need for foodbanks and for introducing damaging and cruel policies that have led to so many living in poverty, unable to afford life’s essentials.</p>
<p>In terms of HS2, they should have presented a fair funding settlement for Wales and delivered the funding owed to Wales. Little wonder, therefore, that voters in Wales decided that no Conservative Members of Parliament from Anglesey to Monmouthshire deserved to keep their seats.</p>
<p>But although we remember the legacy of the Conservative Government, a legacy still felt today, the focus of today’s debate is the current Westminster Government, and despite the Conservatives’ hypocrisy in tabling this debate, we will be supporting the motion today, as we too share the concerns expressed in it.</p>
<p>Labour did promise the people of Wales a change, and many people across the country voted for them, because they craved change for the better. Is there any wonder, then, that so many feel that they have been betrayed by Labour, bearing in mind that the situation for them has changed for the worse? They question why Labour wasn't clearer before the election about some of the policies that have been implemented since they came to power.</p>
<p>We've heard about some of those examples, but also there was the&nbsp;refusal to eradicate the cruel two-child cap that has led to 30 per cent of children in Wales living in poverty, the withdrawal of the winter fuel allowance from half a million pensioners—something that even George Osborne, the architect of austerity, didn't consider, and something that has pushed so many of our pensioners now into poverty this year alone.</p>
<p>Second, of course, the increase in employer national insurance contributions without any certainty of a full refund by the Treasury, which has left our universities, GP surgeries and third sector organisations facing a very fraught financial situation. The&nbsp;changes to inheritance tax reflect a lack of understanding of our agricultural communities; the u-turn in terms of WASPI women.&nbsp;</p>
<p>It's becoming increasingly apparent that the relationship between the Welsh Government and the Westminster Government is not, truth be told, a partnership, because how can you talk about a balanced partnership when one side ignores the other on matters of such importance to Wales? For example, we haven't received even a penny of HS2 funding in the budget, despite the fact that the current Secretary of State used to agree with us that we should receive the funding owed to Wales.</p>
<p>There has been no movement at all on the promises to devolve justice and the Crown Estate, with no desire by either side of the 'partnership in power' to act on measures recommended in various reports and a whole host of enquiries for some time now.</p>
<p>In the meantime, we have seen the Scottish Government using their powers to respond progressively and robustly to some of these issues, so there is a clear contrast to the Welsh Government's approach, which seeks to make excuses for Westminster's failings, rather than standing up for Wales.</p>
<p>So, I hope, in the response from the Government this afternoon, that we will hear what discussions have been had and will happen, and what our Government's expectations are in terms of ensuring that Wales receives what it's owed on those things that Labour used to agree with us on, that they used to call for and demand—what movement will there be? Because Wales is losing out here if we don't get not only what we call for, but what we deserve.</p>

<p>The denial isn't just in this Chamber from the Welsh Conservatives; we heard last week about Liz Truss sending a legal letter to the Prime Minister because he'd repeated that she'd crashed the economy, something even George Osborne admits, that Liz Truss crashed the economy. They are all over the shop.</p>
<p>In the last six months, we've seen a new Labour Government inherit an absolute mess. Just as a Labour Government in 1945 had to come in and pick up&nbsp;a mess, the Labour Government in 1964 had to come in and pick up a mess, the Labour Government in 1997 had to pick up 18 years of broken public services, again the Labour Government is called upon to rescue a terrible legacy. In the first six months, we have ended the doctors'&nbsp;strike, which they seem to be saying now is giving in to Labour's paymasters. That's how much they value public servants. After 15 years of austerity, keeping down the wages of our key workers, it's taken a Labour Government to deliver a pay rise&nbsp;for key workers and an increase in the minimum wage. We've ended the rail strikes, we've created Great British Energy, we've abandoned the ban on windfarms across England. We've brought in an Employment Rights Bill to support good employers by levelling up standards of fairness at work, and we've brought credibility back to our standing across the world. None of that was happening under the last UK Conservative Government.&nbsp;The people of Wales knew that good and well; that's why they turfed out every single last one of the Welsh Conservative MPs.</p>
<p>But I was reminded when I was thinking about this yesterday of a quote by Paul Johnson. Older viewers&nbsp;may remember Paul Johnson in his later years, when he was a Thatcher cheerleader, but, in his more liberal phase, when he was editor of the <em>New Statesman&nbsp;</em>in&nbsp;the 1960s, Paul Johnson said, and I've often thought about this, about Conservatives,</p>
<p>'on&nbsp;occasions,&nbsp;endearing—but liable to turn very nasty at short notice.'</p>
<p>That's exactly what we've seen in the last few months, egged on by billionaire media moguls, Paul Marshall, who bought GB News, now Elon Musk, whom they're playing footsie with, trying to get the funding that Nigel Farage may have let exceed his grasp. It was a story by GB News, digging up the concern about grooming gangs, that the Conservatives have seized upon shamelessly in the last couple of weeks, despite the fact that Kemi—[<em>Interruption</em>.]—no, let me finish—that Kemi Badenoch—[<em>Interruption</em>.]—no, I won't—that Kemi Badenoch, when she was children's Minister, did not once mention the issue of grooming gangs, did not once mention what the Government was going to do about the Professor Alexis Jay inquiry, took no action to implement any of those recommendations, unlike the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government, when we had the recommendations of the inquiry—we had six recommendations—we immediately set out what we were going to do. That's the difference in the approach of this Government and their Government. And instead, what are they doing? They're trying to divide; they're trying to look for issues where they can generate some heat, and, with GB News, get a whole lot of misinformation, which is dragging the whole tenor of public debates down.</p>
<p>On the weekend, we had Elon Musk retweeting a post that said that the Welsh Refugee Council was seeking to entice—this is the language, 'entice'—migrant men to come to Wales by showing a video of 12-year-old girls, repeated by Andrew R.T. Davies, even though he'd already been shown to be telling lies when he said that the Welsh Government was giving £1,600 to anyone who wants to rock up—illegal immigrants, as he said. No such thing is true. Asylum seekers are part of a legal process, and we as a Welsh Government—</p>

<p>Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. It was Prime Minister&nbsp;Disraeli who said that the Conservative Party was an organised hypocrisy, and the motion in front of the Senedd today digs deep into that rich tradition. A series of colleagues here have exposed the basis of the advice&nbsp;that we are offered from the Conservative benches, advice drawn on a 14-year period of austerity, which its author, George Osborne, said would last three years and lasted for 14. The longest period in our history of anaemic growth. [<em>Interruption</em>.] I'll make a bit of progress, Joel; I think a minute is a bit early for an intervention. I won't detain the Chamber long with this rehearsal, Dirprwy Lywydd, because others have already done it. But we're offered advice by a party responsible for the longest period in our history of anaemic growth, stalled productivity, wage erosion, reductions in funding for public services, and a devastating collapse in capital investment, and all this while engineering the most acute crisis of financial management in the post-war period by a Prime Minister who may have been outlived by a lettuce but whose own legacy lives on in the lives of Welsh citizens, with higher mortgage rates, higher interest rates and eroded living standards. Dirprwy Lywydd, this is the foundation from which the party opposite seeks to instruct others about their responsibilities. And while one after another Conservative spokesperson were sent over the top in variations of&nbsp;<em>Apocalypse Now</em>&nbsp;speeches, what we will do on this side is to vote against their motion because it so clearly fails to represent the facts of last week's budget, facts captured in the amendment in the name of the Trefnydd.</p>
<p>And I say, Dirprwy Lywydd, that these are facts, because, two weeks ago, we had a debate in advance of the budget and now we know what actually happened. And in the things that we highlighted two weeks ago, each one of those has been borne out in the budget presented by Rachel Reeves, a budget that, as Hefin David said and Alun Davies echoed, is inherently a political act—a budget that went further in demonstrating that this new UK Labour Government approaches the business of boosting the economy in a way that flies in the face of the failed policies of neoliberalism and makes certain that there is a different future for people here in Wales. I spoke two weeks ago about a Government that will regard workers as key assets in the business of building our economy. That's why the national living wage was increased by 6.7 per cent in the budget and the national minimum wage by 16.3 per cent, in a budget as well that, here in Wales, righted the wrong done to the miners' pension fund, returning it to the trustees where it belonged.</p>
<p>Two weeks ago, we said that the Chancellor would deal with the £22 billion gap between funded and actual expenditure in this financial year. The Chancellor said that she would accept all 10 recommendations of the Office for Budget Responsibility, and she would have to draw together a package of measures that do indeed ask those most able to do so to make a contribution to filling that black hole. In another of those highly inflamed contributions—[<em>Interruption</em>.] Yes, I will now. Yes, Joel.</p>

<p>No, of course I will not. Alistair Darling responded to the economic circumstances he found himself in. George Osborne—[<em>Interruption</em>.]. No, no, no—[<em>Interruption</em>.] Calm down. Calm down. Calm down. George Osborne embarked on a policy of austerity as a matter of policy and choice. It was his determination to shrink the state, a policy I hear echoed by the current leader of the Conservative Party— [<em>Interruption</em>.]&nbsp;</p>

<p>I'm grateful for that. You said at the start that it was George Osborne who was the architect of austerity. That is factually incorrect. Alistair Darling set the first austerity budget. Would you amend your statement?</p>

<p>Well, this is a fairly heroic attempt, Dirprwy Lywydd, at the rewriting of history. I’m afraid George Osborne himself wouldn’t agree with what the Member has said, because he set out, as he said at the time, to reduce the scope of the state, and in three years’ time the sunny uplands would be there for all to enjoy, except those uplands disappeared ever further into the future.</p>
<p>Dirprwy Lywydd, let me give just one example of the way in which the Chancellor used the budget to deal with that £22 billion gap. She found £80 million to support workers in Port Talbot, whereas the Conservative Party simply announced a fund, a fund that it turned out had no money in it at all until last week’s budget.</p>
<p>We said two weeks ago that the Chancellor would start the journey of repairing the damage done to public services. What a contrast last week provided, because it wasn’t just George Osborne who set out to shrink the state, but Kemi Badenoch has made that the centrepiece of her Conservative values. She has one remarkable achievement to her credit already, in that she has managed to be too right wing to be supported even by Andrew R.T. Davies. The contrast between Mrs Badenoch and the Chancellor of the Exchequer could not have been clearer.</p>
<p>Here in Wales, we now have the opportunity to begin to repair the damage done—</p>

<p>—that if the Labour Party were to get re-elected, their cuts would be worse than Thatcher's. And the Liberal Democrats at the time were promising swingeing cuts if they were the Government. So, to say George Osborne, and that it was his policy, again is factually incorrect.</p>

<p>Cadeirydd, diolch yn fawr. I should say at the outset that I am refamiliarising myself with the intricacies of FTC. But I think the basic answer to the question is that the Welsh Government operates very much within the rules for financial transactions capital set by the UK Government. It’s not an area in which there is a great deal of discretion afforded to the Welsh Government. FTCs were an invention of one of the previous Conservative Governments. My memory at the time was that they were essentially a device to allow the Treasury to avoid declaring capital expenditure in a way that scored against the deficit. So, this is in the era of George Osborne as Chancellor, where the size of the deficit was a political preoccupation and FTCs were a way of providing capital in a way that didn’t score against it. The result is that it operates in what I would describe as a straitjacket of rules, because financial transactions capital can only be used for particular purposes, can only be used with particular organisations, and the fundamental underlying rule is that these are loans or equity investments that have to be paid back. So, it’s not like conventional capital in that way. Any loan you make,&nbsp;you have to have confidence that the money will come back, because the Welsh Government has to repay the money to the Treasury. A minimum of 80 per cent of what we are provided has to be returned to the Treasury against the schedule of repayments agreed with them. So, I don't think it has changed very much over time. I think that, as the Welsh Government has become more used to deploying FTCs, we are now deploying them for a slightly wider range of purposes. But FTCs are not easy to use. There is no great appetite out there in Wales for them. By and large, those organisations who take financial transactions capital only do so after they've exhausted every other preferable source of funding. So, I don't want to say to you that we're not glad to have it, because without it we would not be able to do some of the things that we do. I don't want to say that I don't think that there are sometimes very good reasons why you would wish to provide money of this sort on a loan basis, because, when the money comes back, you can recycle it and use it again. So, there are purposes for which it is a sensible device, but, overall, the narrowness of the rules, and the fact that these are rules not set at all in Wales but we have to operate within, limits its usefulness, and that has been the story of the whole period in which it's been available.</p>

<p>Thank you, Llywydd dros dro. Plaid Cymru agrees with the contents of the Conservatives' motion today and we will be supporting it. We share the concerns that around 400,000 households in Wales will lose hundreds of pounds' worth of support, following the decision made by the Westminster Labour Government to enable them to pay energy bills—. I'll start again.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Plaid Cymru agrees with the contents of the Conservative’s motion today and we will be supporting it. We share the concerns that around 400,000 households in Wales will lose hundreds of pounds of support, following the decision made by the Westminster Labour Government, and we know that those bills are going to increase even further. But we&nbsp;also call on that Government to overturn that decision.</p>
<p>But our amendment, which adds to the motion, is crucial&nbsp;to this debate today, which is that we regret the fact that this cut is a continuation of the austerity agenda of the previous Conservative Government at Westminster. And I have to say that I disagree too with the way that Joel James has just rewritten the history of the past 14 years. &nbsp;</p>
<p>That is a crucial point, in our view, because we are a party that totally rejects the ideology and policies of austerity. Austerity measures deepen inequality by exacerbating the hardship faced and felt by people on low incomes, while enabling the wealthiest to shoulder the lightest burden.</p>
<p>Life expectancy at birth, which is a key indicator of a nation’s health, has declined since 2010 as a result of austerity, according to the London School of Economics. It’s an entirely ineffective and unfair economic policy. It is about saving money, yes, but the UK debt increased every year under the Conservative Governments. So, it hadn’t achieved what the politicians such as George Osborne had said it was going to achieve.</p>
<p>What it did was it transferred money from the poorest to the richest. As we live with high levels of child poverty, with food banks now a part of everyday life for millions, the billionaires of these isles have seen their wealth go up and up. And it was your party on the Conservative benches that was the architect of austerity, and you must be held to account for that.</p>
<p>Yes, it’s true that you didn’t withdraw this payment from pensioners, although you did consider doing so in 2017. But you did cause pensioners to make difficult—impossible, indeed—decisions, such as between eating or heating. Conservative Governments since 2010 made the wrong decisions—decisions that weakened the economy and damaged public services, and led to so many other cuts that impacted the most vulnerable members of our society.</p>
<p>It is hugely disappointing and hugely concerning to see Members of Parliament from Wales, who were elected on a promise of change, voting in favour of cutting the winter fuel payment, or choosing not to oppose the cut by abstaining. How spineless, how shameless, how unprincipled. Reports by Age Cymru, the older people’s commissioner and Carers Wales have shown that poverty is rife among the older members of our society. Those who are disabled, or who live with a chronic health condition, are even more likely to be impacted by this cut, according to the organisations that campaign for their welfare and rights.</p>
<p>Up to £300 goes a long way to help with energy costs over the winter, especially as the average annual energy bill is expected to rise by almost £150 next month. Withdrawing this support at short notice like this will drive many pensioners into fuel poverty and much further into debt. Being unable to keep your home warm can have serious consequences. A warm home isn’t just a comfortable thing to have; it’s vital to health, particularly for older people. A cold home increases the risk of stroke, of respiratory disease and of suffering a fall or other injury. And it can kill.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The most recent statistics available noted that there were 800 excess winter deaths, as they are called, in Wales in 2021-22, 240 of which can be attributed to cold homes. The United Kingdom is the sixth largest economy in the world, and it has 165 billionaires living in it. Cutting fuel support for pensioners isn’t the solution to economic problems, nor should it ever be. More austerity is not the answer if we want to see fairness and prosperity for the people of Wales, and the Welsh Government needs to stand up for them in the face of this. So, my question to the Government is this: haven’t you had enough of having to make up for policy mistakes made in Westminster? Show the people of Wales that you are putting your nation before your party.</p>

<p>I’d like to speak specifically to the part of our motion that regrets the decision made by the Labour UK Government to continue to apply austerity policies, and the impact that this has on our national health service.&nbsp;Austerity is damaging to people’s health and poverty makes people ill. Read any number of studies on the long-term impact of the previous Conservative Government’s austerity policies and you're bound to come to the same conclusion. Austerity measures are directly responsible for exacerbating health inequalities that cost the NHS in Wales £322 million every year, and most damaging of all, for causing 190,000 additional deaths between 2010 and 2019.</p>
<p>One might expect that the priority of any party that is interested in rebuilding the foundations of our stricken health service, that believes in social justice, that takes pride in its socialist beliefs as the party of Aneurin Bevan, would be to ensure that this disastrous dogma is immediately consigned to the dustbin of history. But what we had all feared throughout the general election campaign has now come to pass, because it appears that Keir Starmer’s party is as enamoured of austerity policies as their Conservative predecessors. After all, one of their first actions on gaining power was to reconfirm their commitment to the two-child benefit cap and the cap on benefits, the main cause of high levels of child poverty in Wales, according to the former First Minister, Mark Drakeford, and harshly reprimanding those few voices brave enough to stand up against this betrayal of some of the most vulnerable in our society.&nbsp;</p>
<p>Even George Osborne, the architect of austerity, hadn’t considered taking the winter fuel payment away from pensioners, and they're expected to live on almost half the level of the minimum income. It's a measure that will, as correctly assessed by the Cabinet Secretary for social justice, drive even more pensioners in Wales deeper into fuel poverty and, of course, will intensify the pressure on our health and care service. The fact that this decision was made without an impact assessment underlines that it's clear that austerity, far from being driven by an unwilling pragmatism, is the guiding principle of Keir Starmer’s agenda in Government. It's a political choice; this was true in Cameron, Clegg and Osborne’s day, and it's true now.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The national health service is fantastic; we are so fortunate and we must not lose it. Our NHS actually offers incredible value for money, if you look at other healthcare systems across the world. However, our ability to properly invest in the NHS has been severely affected by 14 years of Tory misrule, including the devastating impact of a decade of Tory austerity and massive inflationary pressures impacting all public services. I remember NHS Wales being faced with a £20 million extra heating bill when energy prices increased, and that money had to be found within the service area.</p>
<p>Prior to 2010, under UK Labour, funding for the NHS rose in line with need with a 5.4 per cent uplift, and you could see the benefit. But in the decade up to the 2020 pandemic, under the Conservatives, this dropped significantly and included four years in which spending per head actually fell, causing stagnation. You could really see the impact starting to hit in 2013 and 2014, and life expectancy for women has started to reduce—it's started to decline. I recently saw a chart where the average height of children aged five years has actually started to reduce, which is really frightening.</p>
<p>You can't keep blaming the Ukraine war and COVID for the state of the economy. I remember, in 2010, George Osborne wanting to shrink public funding and Philip Hammond saying in 2017 that the belt had to be tightened further, although there were no holes left in the imaginary belt. I was a councillor wondering where on earth the next cut could come from, and for many years public services only had a 1 per cent uplift on annual pay rises, since 2013.</p>
<p>Across the UK, there needs to be a big uplift in NHS spending to increase productivity and reduce waiting lists. Capital funding to Wales has been restricted and so has borrowing, and this needs to change. Over the past decade, the UK had a lower level of capital investment in healthcare compared with the EU14 countries. If it had matched them, the UK would have invested £33 billion more between 2010 and 2019, around 55 per cent higher than actual investment during that period. Despite these financial challenges, Wales invests 15 per cent more in health and social care than England. Earlier, it was mentioned that more funding is received in Wales, but more funding is actually spent on the NHS and social care; you can't separate them. Free prescriptions and free parking help many in Wales, including staff.</p>
<p>Social care services play a crucial role in care pathways, keeping people well for longer outside of hospital and enabling faster, safer discharges home. The sector plays a critical part in protecting NHS capacity and its ability to deliver high-quality, safe care. In 2024-25, Wales will increase funding for the NHS by more than 4 per cent, compared to less than 1 per cent in England. Unlike in England, the health budget is spent on health in Wales. There's no expensive internal market, no purchaser-provider split and no alphabet soup of organisations and bureaucrats diverting funding from front-line care.</p>
<p>Health boards are responsible for every aspect of people's care, from primary and community care to hospital and mental health care. It's neither fair nor accurate to compare waiting times between England and Wales in the way that this motion does. Data is collected, coded and reported differently between the two nations, meaning performance is not directly comparable. This motion also fails to take demographics into account. Wales generally has an older, more rural and less wealthy population. This impacts health outcomes and should be understood and accounted for.</p>
<p>NHS recruitment and retention is a priority, and I welcome that the Minister recently made a statement about offering flexibility to the workforce. When talking to nurses on the picket line, this was a huge issue. Job sharing, having childcare-friendly hours and set shifts were all raised as helpful possibilities. Investment in extra training places for recruitment is now being provided across north Wales at Wrexham University, Bangor—the north Wales medical school—and through Coleg Llandrillo.</p>
<p>The NHS is its workforce, and you cannot continuously criticise the NHS without harming and demoralising the workforce. I would like to pay tribute to all of those who work in it, thanking them for their hard work and dedication, and thank the NHS for being there for my family and friends, free at the point of use. Thank you.</p>

<p>It's interesting to hear Avril. I was area manager for the south-west for Homes England for a year before I joined the Duchy, and I was working in the Olympic park in London before that, but I fought tooth and nail to set a criteria based on quality as much as price. At that point, George Osborne had made a statement in Parliament about raising £5 billion from surplus public sector land, and that was before we knew what we were going to do with that land. I thought that was very curious, because there was clearly a case and a need always to make the best use of public assets.</p>
<p>In that case, historically, it was best value. I'm pleased to say that that's no longer the case. With Homes England and the current tenure, they're back to changing the criteria. I had to work really hard to make sure that we were selling the land to the people who would deliver the social impact and to try and set the criteria with strings attached, as it should, for public land. So, I think what I would say to the Welsh Government—as I would to any landowner—is be clear on the criteria, because I know of landowners here in Cornwall and across England who have regretted selling to the highest bidder in areas where they have a vested interest themselves and care about that community, and therefore retain control.</p>
<p>That's the other point: there's always someone sitting on someone else's shoulder telling them to cut corners and maybe not renege on obligations, but maybe to revisit and renegotiate. It's very similar for the Duchy, as I think it is for public agencies and public land, which is, if you can set some clear criteria, which is a commitment to quality outputs, don't be shy of working with private house builders rather than volume PLCs—people who are committed to the same quality outcomes you are. Because that's the other point: often, Homes England were selling to volume house builders. If you retain control through the disposal of land and enable the infrastructure, like we do, you're guaranteeing the quality outputs and the socioeconomic impacts you want to see. By retaining that control, you're turbocharging it through the delivery of infrastructure as well, so you can set quite high and exacting standards in return.</p>
<p>And that's the relationship we have. It's a bit like a patronage is the landowner of the process. I think there's a lot of landowners now wishing to follow suit, building a legacy movement, which His Majesty started, and I'm pleased to say that the Duchy has been at the vanguard of. I'd happily talk in more detail about that if anyone wishes at a future date.</p>

<p>Following the mishandling of the economy with 14 years of Tory austerity, a failed Brexit, COVID cronyism and rising inflationary pressures caused by the Liz Truss mini-budget, public services are on their knees. Local authorities are cut to the bone right across the UK, so they no longer have enough to deliver essential services, and in England are facing bankruptcy. George Osborne started it in 2010. Philip Hammond continued it in 2017, saying to councillors, 'We just have to tighten our belts further'. There were no holes left on the belt then following seven years of cuts. How Jeremy Hunt thinks he can continue astounds me. How can he talk about more efficiencies when there are so many councils facing bankruptcy in England, with no more efficiencies to make? The utter devastation of services has been years in the making under the Tory Government.&nbsp; &nbsp;</p>
<p>When I was first elected as a councillor in 2008, we used to say it cost £1 million a day to run a council. We're the second-biggest employer in Flintshire after Airbus, delivering education, social care, public protection, planning, and hundreds of other services, which have run smoothly and been taken for granted until now, when they are closing or difficult to access. Councils in north Wales have each made between £90 million and £120 million of savings over the last 14 years. Local authority officers already share staff back-office facilities and many don't have enough staff to deliver essential services, with vacancies taken as efficiency savings.&nbsp;</p>
<p>The Tory cost-of-living crisis and COVID have seen rising pressures of need in social services and in education. Now is when they need it most, not just during COVID. Recently, I visited Rhyl High School and Cian was keen to ask about education funding after being told he can no longer print off artwork for his art GCSE. They simply cannot afford the basics. Many schools this year are having to work with deficit budgets, and have to scrimp and save and cut back on the basics. They can't afford the rising energy bills, the staff, the curriculum, and these will have to be part of the council reserves going forward. Councils are using their reserves this year, borrowing from Peter to pay Paul for emergencies. I remember when we had the beast from the east, and we had snow that was 5 ft high in places—</p>

<p>I'm grateful to the Minister for introducing this debate. I'm also grateful to both Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Conservative for embracing this consensus. I think there has been a consensus at different times over the past few years on different elements of these matters, but this is the first time that I can remember that all three parties represented here have come together with an agreed position. Whilst welcoming the consensus, I'm also going to ask Peter Fox to move a little further in that consensus and think perhaps a little more radically about the sorts of challenges facing Wales.</p>
<p>One of the things that comes up time and time again, and has come up throughout my time in this place, is the fiscal calendar. Throughout all that time, no matter who has been in Government in the United Kingdom, what we've seen are decisions taken by the Treasury that suit the Treasury. And what we haven't seen are decisions being taken by the Treasury that are relevant to all parts of the United Kingdom. And we do need to agree with the Treasury that there will be a fiscal calendar for all parts of the United Kingdom, and that fiscal calendar is one that all Governments buy into and agree that they will stick to.</p>
<p>But we've also seen significant changes to the way the Treasury manages the finances of the United Kingdom. And this is the crux of my argument today. I think, if we had this debate in the UK House of Commons, you'd find Ministers who'd sat in different departments of state in Whitehall agreeing with our analysis of the Treasury. I don't think the Treasury is uniquely targeting Wales or Scotland or Northern Ireland. I think the Treasury is a bully in London as well, and I think most people recognise that. I think we need to look hard at how the financial structures of the United Kingdom actually function for the whole of the United Kingdom, and not simply for civil servants who happen to be sitting in the Treasury today.</p>
<p>The Northern Irish agreement, which was published last month, I think, demonstrates that there can be a way forward, because hidden within the command paper 'Safeguarding the Union' was a commitment to change the basis of funding for Northern Ireland. Without any discussion, any debate, we will move to a needs-based formula. Now, I'd be interested if the Minister has heard anything about what that actually means in reality or whether the Treasury's made any statement on that. If she could address that in replying to the debate, I'd be grateful. But the fact that the Treasury can make a decision of that nature, that fundamental nature, without any debate and discussion, demonstrates that it has too much power. That's what it demonstrates. And that that power can be used in an arbitrary way.</p>
<p>We have an inter-governmental relations agreement that establishes structures to resolve disputes between the Governments of the United Kingdom, and, as Mike Hedges has very eloquently described, it doesn't work. Because when you do have these disagreements, and we can use HS2 as an example that is on our minds today—. When Labour were in Government, exactly the same thing happened with the Olympics, so let's not pretend that this is simply a Conservative issue. This is an issue of the governance of the United Kingdom; it goes beyond political parties.</p>
<p>It is impossible to have a debate and a discussion and a disagreement with the Treasury if the Treasury is the judge and jury, and that simply does not work, and it works for none of us. So, we need to have an independent element to the management of these structures, and what strikes me as being an interesting example, and it's very difficult just to take a structure out of a different country and plonk it down in ours, but the Australian Commonwealth Grants Commission has operated independently of Government for 90 years. It's been changed and it's been through several reforms in that time, but what it does, at its heart, of course, it redistributes the goods tax in and across Australia. But what is important is its independence.</p>
<p>Now, the Conservative Government, George Osborne as Chancellor, introduced the Office for Budget Responsibility, and I welcome that, because what it provides is independent oversight and it provides independent challenge to the Treasury, and what I believe we should be looking at is an independent UK body that is a UK body in the sense that it represents the interests of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but not a part of the UK Government, which ensures that all parts of the UK are treated fairly, that we have a funding formula that's agreed by all parts of the United Kingdom, we have a financial framework and structure that is agreed by all parts of the United Kingdom, and that that financial framework and structure is delivered through impartial advice and independent oversight. When we reach that point, we will have a financial structure that I hope drives equality across the United Kingdom.</p>
<p>I'll finish on this point, Deputy Presiding Officer: had the Treasury been uniquely successful over the decades in delivering a United Kingdom where fairness and equality are a part of the lives of everybody, then we'd have no room for complaint, but the reality is that the United Kingdom is the least equal country in Europe. We cannot allow that system that created those inequalities to continue; we need change. This is a good start, but we need radical and fundamental change.</p>

<p>Well, Chair, I do think that the discretionary assistance fund is the most practical demonstration of the commitment that the Welsh Government has to helping those who are the very least well-off. You will remember that this used to be known as the social fund, and it was administered by the UK Government. The responsibility came to the Welsh Government unasked for, and, indeed, we wish it hadn't been devolved. It was a decision by George Osborne when he broke up the national council tax benefit scheme and the national social fund scheme, and provided those responsibilities to the Welsh Government, Scottish Government and local authorities in England, and gave us the budget with a 10 per cent cut in it. When we first had that responsibility, we decided not to devolve it further to local authorities, because we thought it was important to have a national scheme in Wales, with national rules and national standards, and the decision that would be made in Newport would be broadly the same, whether Newport was in Gwent or in Pembrokeshire. When it first came our way, it was a handful of millions of pounds. This year, it will be £38 million, and that's an £18 million uplift in a single year. And that is because of the enormous pressures that the fund is under. It is the welfare state of the last resort. It's where people go when everything else has run out, and because you know that, by definition, that money is going to the hands of those people who have absolutely the least, we have made it a priority, even in these very, very difficult times. This is part of our budget that we have worked really hard to go on protecting and, where we can, to go on investing in it.</p>

<p>I'd start by saying that it is important that these zones fully serve the interests and aspirations of the communities and people of the regions that they'll be established in. Previous experience has shown that without robust oversight and strategic clarity such place-based initiatives end up being exploited by multinationals for tax purposes without delivering tangible benefits in terms of local skills development and productivity gains. For example, the enterprise zone programme spearheaded by George Osborne fell far short of its ambitions for job creation. While the Treasury initially predicted in 2011 that the creation of the zones would lead to 54,000 new jobs by 2015, subsequent analysis in 2017 showed that five years of the programme had delivered only 17,500 jobs, of which at least a third were jobs that had been relocated from other parts of the UK.</p>
<p>The disastrous free ports policy of the Thatcher Government, which was eventually put out of its misery by the Tories in 2012, had a similar record of underdelivering for the local economies for which it was designed. And the eight enterprise zones created by the Welsh Government in 2012 have fared little better. The report of the then Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee in 2018 concluded that the original aims of the enterprise zones policy in Wales, to create growth and jobs, had not been achieved across the board, while also expressing misgivings at the lack of regular performance-tracking data.</p>
<p>Now, I do sincerely hope that the Government, therefore, has learned from its previous venture into enterprise zones and has incorporated some of those lessons learned from previous failures. Wales has witnessed far too many false dawns when it comes to economic strategies. So, how will the Government learn from those lessons, and what’s to say that we won’t be in the same position again, where delivery falls short of ambition? Will we also be given the regular data, highlighted by the then Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, to be able to then scrutinise the performance and track the performance of these new enterprise zones, so as to hold the Government to account?</p>
<p>Now, I think that it’s important for us to consider the additionality factor as well in this—so, the extent to which place-based investment policy can actually drive growth at source, as opposed to simply redirecting economic development that would have happened elsewhere anyway, as has already been highlighted by the Tory spokesperson. This has also been a concern of mine with the proposals for free ports.</p>
<p>Now, I understand the Minister’s answer in response to the Tory spokesperson around choosing established centres. But I don’t think that it fully explains what the Government is doing to mitigate the potential problem of relocation. So, how much thought has been given to it, and what are the specific mitigation policies that the Government have in place? Because I think that it is important that we not only mitigate displacement, but monitor it throughout the life of these enterprise zones.</p>
<p>Of course, we welcome that the Government will not accept any dilution of workers’ rights. I would appreciate it, though, if the Minister could set out exactly how the Government will guard against the dilution of workers’ rights. What exactly are the mechanisms for monitoring and then taking action if there is an infringement?</p>
<p>Finally, Llywydd, we should ensure that the commercial incentives for attracting businesses do not unduly favour larger corporations at the expense of domestic enterprise. I have been clear for some time that supporting growth in our SME sector, and ensuring that domestic firms are resilient, competitive and dynamic, is vital as a means of reinvigorating our economy. Now, every effort should therefore be made to ensure that local SMEs are active shareholders in the establishment of such zones, and that the value of investment zone opportunities is not determined by the size of participating firms. So, in that sense, how does this factor into the Welsh Government’s strategy to support Welsh SMEs?</p>

<p>Diolch, Delyth. Who would have thought that you and I would be on the side of Boris Johnson and George Osborne and Janet would be against them? In what world has that come to pass? But that is where we find ourselves, because it turns out that Janet just agrees with whoever the current Prime Minister is, regardless of their policies or their commitments. I really regret that that's what's happening on the Tory benches opposite us, because actually we did have a consensus in this Chamber on the need for climate change action, and it looks like that's unravelling, which is very unfortunate indeed.</p>
<p>It is absolutely imperative that we have certainty in the transition process for our businesses and for our investors. We will hold fast to ours. We need investment in the grid, which I really hope the Government is not going to water down—fortunately, it wasn't in this investment—and we need that investment to come fast, because we need—Janet even mentioned it herself—the free ports here in Wales to be able to take advantage of the opportunities in the Celtic sea. Unfortunately, Llywydd, we've already seen a watering down of the proposals for Celtic sea opportunities, so I really hope they can be accelerated again.</p>
<p>The one that really, really bothers me is the switch from gas heating. We will have to do some analysis of that, Delyth, but we really hope that we will be able to continue to invest in air-source heat pump manufacturers here in Wales, so that they will have an order book that means they can accelerate their investment, because without that, the price will not come down, as is the projected curve. You know how that works: you put the investment in upfront, the order books go up, the cost of each individual unit comes down, the cycle continues. You have the adoption of a new technology, and that technology becomes cheaper over time, as has happened with every other technology. What this does, in a frankly illiterate economic policy, is elongate the investment for that and therefore the probable curve. But I haven't done that analysis yet. We will hope that we can hold fast to ours.</p>
<p>We need to help society come to terms with changing. The aviation one is a classic example. If you do an analysis of the cost of travel by air and the cost of travel by rail, you can immediately see that we have a Government putting its subsidies into the wrong part of our transport network, because it's rich people who fly and it's poor people who use the train, by and large, and this is a Government that's for millionaires and not for the normal people. We will continue to do what we can. I will do a further analysis and bring it back, probably to the climate change committee, but, Llywydd, there'll be another statement here in the Senedd once we've done it. So, I hope we can hold fast, but there's no doubt at all that this is very disheartening.</p>

<p>Well, I don't think there is a way of resolving them in principle, because here was a piece of legislation that the Senedd denied consent on two separate occasions, where I could see no compelling case for the United Kingdom insisting on legislating on our behalf. I don't see where the Sewel convention could be overridden in it. And yet we have this impasse now where we are going to be using powers that we sought not to have in the first place. In a pragmatic way, though, while I can't resolve it in principle, I guess, in a sheer pragmatic way, we will use those powers when we think they are in the interests of Wales. And we've been here before, Chair, haven't we? We've had to navigate some of these things in the past, if you think of the social fund, which we didn't want, which we were clear with the UK Government should remain as part of the fabric of the welfare state, but where the then Chancellor, George Osborne, insisted that it be made our responsibility and with only some of the money to discharge it. Now, we could have said, on that day, 'Well, we won't run the social fund—we don't want it. We've made it clear we don't want it, and we just won't do it.' But you think of those thousands of people—thousands and thousands of people—who have benefitted from the discretionary assistance fund in the decade, now, that it's been there, and playing an even more important part in people's lives a decade into austerity. So, while the principle we couldn't reconcile, in the end, we exercised the new powers we had, and I think we were right to do so. And I expect we will inevitably try and tread the same relatively pragmatic pathway in relation to the Swiss Bill that you've mentioned, or the Swiss agreement that you mentioned.</p>

<p>Thank you to the Deputy Minister for the statement. Before moving on to scrutinise the statement and asking some questions that arise from it, I want to express disappointment about the public discourse that led up to this statement today. In the same way as we've seen misinformation and, indeed, lies on sex education, and, as we discussed earlier, on vaccinations, the same pattern is emerging here, mainly from the British right-wing press. This misinformation must stop. It's damaging to our democracy and causes public concern without need.</p>
<p>Now, in looking at the statement before us today, I'd like to thank the Deputy Minister for advance sight of it. The ambition to tackle obesity and the habits that lead to illnesses that are related to poor diet are to be welcomed, but, whilst these are to be welcomed, there is no talk about what support will be provided to assist families and individuals from low-income backgrounds to enable them to make these healthier choices, as the Deputy Minister mentioned earlier about the need for this. With the current cost-of-living crisis and the misinformation about this legislation that I mentioned earlier, will the Government commit to develop a strategy to promote accurate information on its food strategy and to support people, specifically those from the poorest socioeconomic backgrounds, so that they can buy healthier foods and make healthier choices? Because the truth is that, whilst there is a strong argument that food is cheap here in the UK, the truth is that unsustainable food and food with high levels of salt and other additives is cheap, whilst healthy and sustainable food is expensive, particularly for the poorest among us. The poorest 20 per cent would need to spend half their disposable income in order to buy nutritious, healthy food, never mind the cost of energy to prepare these foods rather than just using a microwave for a ready meal, say, which would be cheaper.&nbsp;</p>
<p>It was interesting to read recently that children from the poorest backgrounds born and brought up during the David Cameron and George Osborne years of austerity are 1 cm shorter than those born to more advantaged families. Poverty, therefore, has a direct and visible impact on the health of our children. I'm proud that Plaid Cymru and the Government have started a programme of introducing free school meals to every child in the primary sector in Wales, but this demonstrates that it's difficult for less advantaged people to make healthier choices. So, what plans does the Government have to ensure that healthy foods are competitive in terms of price and are the first option for people of all backgrounds to buy?</p>
<p>Finally, I want to ask about calories. The Government has previously talked about calorie labelling on menus, and the statement today talks about steps towards calorie labelling. But, as far as I can see, there is no evidence that calorie labelling leads to healthier eating, and, indeed, as James mentioned earlier, there is evidence demonstrating that it could be damaging for people with eating disorders. Providing detail about nutrition is a step in the right direction, but not calories. Indeed, following enforced calorie labelling in England, the NIHCR has published a grant in order to fund research into the impact of this on people with eating disorders. I'm pleased to hear the Deputy Minister now saying that the Government will consider the outcomes of the NIHCR study; that will be important. But is there other research across the world looking at this, and will the Government consider any other research to feed into the report? Thank you very much.&nbsp;</p>

<p>The impression this debate gives is that local government somehow has extra cash lying around, whereas the reality is that, after a decade of Conservative austerity, followed by huge inflationary pressures caused by the Liz Truss Government, local authorities are in dire straits. The future is also bleak under Rishi Sunak as there was nothing for public services in the spring budget. As the First Minister said yesterday, the Chancellor failed to do the most basic things on which growth depends, leading to a collapse compared to anything achieved in the last 60 years, leaving families across the UK worse off. As a councillor, I remember the Chancellor George Osborne delivering cut after cut to public services, saying the deficit had to be paid off. Yet, under successive Tory Governments, the deficit has grown out of control.</p>

<p>I should say, Chair, I wish we didn't need a discretionary assistance fund, but I'm very proud of our record on it in Wales. You will remember that the reason we have a discretionary assistance fund is that the then Chancellor George Osborne broke up the social fund, which was its predecessor as part of the social security system, and without asking us or with our permission, devolved responsibility for it in Wales to Wales. He cut the budget of the previous year by 10 per cent, and said, 'From now on, it's your problem', not his. Now, in England, that fund doesn't exist at all, because the money was given to local authorities and most of them, cash-strapped as they are—I don't mean that critically; they've got other urgent needs, and they've diverted the money to that. We made a conscious decision here in Wales that we would retain the money; we've supplemented it many, many times over. It is a national scheme in Wales. It is a rules-based scheme, so people know what they can and cannot be entitled to get, and the demand for it, in the way that Des has just illustrated, shows what a lifeline it has been over the crisis of the last few years.</p>

<p>As we discussed earlier, we are introducing legislation to put into place a better, more coherent bus system. The challenges are multiple. As he pointed out, many people are reliant on the bus service. We know a quarter of all households don't own a car. Transport for Wales's research of its own passengers suggests that something like 80 per cent of people who travel on the bus don't have a car. So, we have a real sense of transport injustice here, social injustice, as reflected in the way people use modes of transport. There's a particular need to make sure there are good-quality bus services for young people and for people on lower incomes especially, but we want the bus to be something for everyone, not just for those who don't have a choice.&nbsp;We want it to be good enough that it's better to go by bus than it is by car. To do that needs a series of systemic reforms, and we've started that process.</p>
<p>I should point out to the Member that local authorities like Bridgend used to subsidise routes, but 10 years of austerity&nbsp;have meant that the discretionary funding that they had is no longer there. Now, I know that the Conservative benches don't like to be reminded of the financial facts, but when there are right-wing experiments being carried out in Westminster, they have consequences on real people's lives. And when there isn't money available in the budget, discretionary services—non-statutory services like bus routes—get cut. So, there is a consequence between the policies that you put forward, and then you complain when those consequences are played out in real life. I'm afraid that that is simply hypocrisy.</p>
<p>We are trying to address the systemic problems, but without the funding, we can't do it. We know, as the First Minister said yesterday, that the biggest cut that we have had to the Welsh Government's budget in over 20 years of devolution was by Chancellor George Osborne, when he cut our budget by 3 per cent, after a decade of growing budgets under Labour. Since then, we have had a decade of cutting budgets from austerity. And according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, because the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—whom many of the Members here voted for—have blown up our economy, we now face spending cuts of not 3 per cent, but 15 per cent. Under those sort of cuts, our ability to provide bus services for those who need them will simply not be there. So, you have to look at your own conscience, rather than standing here, telling me that I should intervene. You should intervene to reverse these idiotic policies in Westminster.</p>

<p>It's an important point that the Member makes, and I want to repeat it again this afternoon, as I did last week, because these are absolutely serious times in the lives of citizens in Wales. The Welsh Government's budget is already worth, in purchasing power, £600 million less than it was in November of last year at the time of the comprehensive spending review, and the Chancellor has said that he has no intention at all of making up for that erosion in the budgets available to protect citizens and public services in Wales. And now we know that there are cuts on top of that on the way.</p>
<p>While the Welsh Government will use every capacity that we have, every pound that we are able to mobilise, every partnership that we are able to rely on, to do what we can to protect people in Wales from the impact of those cuts, there will be a limit beyond which we simply cannot go. And people will see directly and inevitably, not simply because their mortgages now cost astronomically more, not just because the energy protection that they were promised last week would last for two years is now only to last for six months, not only because the benefits on which they rely may be cut while bankers' bonuses are unrestricted, but they will see it as well in the services that they have been able to rely on up until now that simply will not be there in the same way, if we have to cut our budget on the scale that some commentators are predicting.</p>
<p>Llywydd, the biggest cut we've ever had to make in a single year came when George Osborne was Chancellor of the Exchequer. We had to cut 3 per cent of our budget, and we did it after 10 years in which our budget had grown every single year, year on year on year, real-terms growth, and then we had to cut by 3 per cent. The Institute for Fiscal Studies, last week, were saying that there would be a 15 per cent—a 15 per cent—cut in public expenditure, and this now not after a decade of growth, but after a decade of austerity as well. Nobody can pretend that people in Wales can be sheltered from the full onslaught of that, and that’s the message that I will be conveying whenever we have an opportunity—as my colleague Rebecca Evans did in her conversation with the latest Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the sixth one she’s had to deal with during the time she has been the finance Minister here in the Welsh Government.</p>