Questions from the party leaders now. The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, on Friday, Dispatches, a Channel 4 investigative programme, put a programme out that uncovered some deeply troubling aspects of the Withyhedge tipping site in west Wales. They had insider information given to them by witnesses who had worked at the site and worked for Dauson Environmental as well, and they also had video evidence to back up verbal evidence that was given to the programme. I understand that the Minister has instructed Natural Resources Wales to do a review of what they have collated so far. [Interruption.] That's not an improper question, which my colleague from Preseli Pembrokeshire is saying to the side of me: where have they been? A Channel 4 documentary managed to get verbal and video evidence of malpractice on this site, yet the residents next to the site have had to put up with over six months of intolerable conditions that are detrimental to their health. So, with this review now confirmed, what is your expectation of that review? What are the reporting timelines for it, and, importantly, why hasn't the regulator taken more affirmative action?

So, for the avoidance of doubt, I draw again attention to my register of interests. When it comes to the action that NRW are taking at Withyhedge, I've been really clear in this Chamber and beyond that they need to undertake action as the regulator without fear or favour. The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs has quite properly sought assurance through a senior official on the action that they have taken in the past, as well as the action they are taking now, and that's both the previous operator of the site as well as the current one. And the point about the two distinct issues—. The one about air quality issues, where there is monitoring that has been paid for by the operator but is independently operated and assured, and that's published openly—as it should be—to understand if the remediation action is successful, and that's the point, that the regulator's requirements are properly dealt with by the site operator and that NRW are assured about that. And it's then also the assurance we have sought—which is the separate issue that's been raised in the documentary—which is about whether appropriate items are going to landfill. And again, the assurance that has been sought is whether, actually, if previous complaints have been raised with the regulator, what has happened, what action has taken place, and to give assurance that, whether these are legacy issues or current issues, they are properly resolved. That is my clear expectation, and I say again: it would be my expectation regardless of where a landfill site is operating. I want to see action taken within a time frame determined by the regulator as promptly as possible, with the assurance required that that action is effective to deal with the challenges identified by the regulator.

I think most people would be troubled to not understand why the Government isn't driving this and putting a timeline on this investigation. That's not unreasonable here, because residents have had to put up with being physically sick because the stench is so bad. Can you imagine that, First Minister? Waking up in the morning in your own home and the stench from outside is so great that you are physically sick, and yet you can't see no end to that, so you go through it the next day and the next day and the next day. So, you talking about independent monitoring paid for by the company—. We have physical and video evidence here before us from this Dispatches programme, and I pay tribute to the investigative journalist skills that the reporters showed in that programme. The Government have commissioned, as of Friday, as I understand—Saturday, sorry—after this programme, a review of what NRW have been doing. What have you done around the other key accusation that was in that Dispatches programme, which is that loads were being mixed so that they would avoid the landfill tax, which is something again the Welsh Government is directly responsible for? We're not talking pennies here; we're talking possibly tens of millions of pounds, paying £3 in tax, rather than north of £100 in tax. There was a direct supply of evidence in that programme from a former employee. Have you had any discussions as a Government with the Welsh Revenue Authority to understand the scale of what is disclosed here in this programme, and what instruction have you given as a Government to the Welsh Revenue Authority to look into it and bring that discrepancy to an end?

Well, I thank the Member for those two questions. It's important to place a couple of matters on the record. The first is to go back to when the statement of assurance was sought by the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs's senior official. That was in the course of whilst the documentary makers were undertaking research, and that then caused Huw Irranca-Davies's official to seek assurance about potential issues brought to the attention of NRW as the regulator. And that's quite proper. It is not proper for the Government to act in place of the regulator, but to seek assurance about what it is doing, when and how, and I think that's entirely appropriate.

When it then comes to the second issue that you raised, which I was certainly not aware of and I don't think any member of the Government was until the documentary had aired, about whether there had been a suggestion about the inappropriate use of landfill and then issues with the Welsh Revenue Authority, the Welsh Revenue Authority have a range of powers to investigate and ensure that landfill operators are paying the right amount of tax. The Welsh revenue, though, has been created by the Senedd, and it has a legal duty of confidentiality. That's what we agreed, and that's standard for taxation bodies; the same with HMRC. So, the Government cannot and should not be able to direct the Welsh Revenue Authority to investigate the tax affairs of any individual and—this is important too—Ministers cannot direct the Welsh Revenue Authority not to investigate the tax affairs of an individual. The revenue authority have a legal duty of confidentiality. They cannot tell us who they are investigating or not. So, it's for them to undertake that activity, working with other partners, including, of course, relevant regulators and other enforcement bodies, and, if they are going to take action, we will know about it when they commence taking action as well.

That separation of powers and interests is really important to ensure there is no impropriety in the arrangement between Ministers and potentially directing an invasive investigation into tax affairs. I think it would be a chilling message if any Minister in this or any other Government was able to direct the tax authority to pay particular attention, or not to pay particular attention, to a taxpayer. I'm clear the regulators in this or any other matter should undertake their duty, without fear or favour, to look at the evidence, and, if new evidence is acquired, they should be interested in that to reach their own conclusions about the action that should be taken. The separation in powers between Ministers and arm's-length regulators and enforcement bodies is there to protect all of us. I want it to be done as soon as possible, but I want it to be done properly, and I'm sure that all residents across Wales would say the same.

I understand the separation of powers, and that's important, vitally important in a democracy. But, as you highlighted, the legislation was passed by this Senedd to raise revenue for public services. We heard Ministers all the time saying that's what this vehicle is being used for when they were bringing new taxation proposals before us. When you have such blatant evidence of avoidance going on, I'm just trying to understand, up until this programme, has the Welsh Government done anything. I don't think that's unreasonable to try and ask, because you, as the Executive, are responsible for the revenue and spend, and I think I deduced from the answer that you gave that the Welsh Government haven't done anything. They've done absolutely nothing, and that is also followed through when it comes to the poor people living around this tip that have had to put up with weeks and weeks, months and months of intolerable environmental conditions down in west Wales. But is that the point, First Minister, that, because it's down in west Wales, it doesn't matter? What confidence can you give that you are getting on top of this issue, you are dealing with it and you are leading the response to it through the regulatory agencies—with their Division of responsibilities, I get that? But when two journalists can uncover such damning evidence in such a short space of time, what on earth have the Government been doing and the regulators in particular been doing to protect the residents of west Wales?

I think there are two or three issues there to respond to. The first is, on the operation of the site, action is being taken, and you're aware of that in terms of Public Health Wales, the advice they've given, the proper monitoring of what is coming in terms of air quality, and that's got to be objectively assessed and published. It's also then the work between Public Health Wales and Natural Resources Wales as the regulator, and, indeed, the engagement of the local authority. What needs to happen is, as has happened in this case, NRW need to determine what the corrective action is. Whoever the site operator is needs to act on that within the time frame; they then need to understand if that has resolved the issue that's been identified. If not, they need to undertake further action. That is what is happening here, and is what should happen anywhere in Wales. I want to see issues resolved for residents not just in west Wales, but in every part of Wales. And if you look at the history of landfill, there are lots of communities that have had challenges about the way that landfill sites have been operated and need to be brought into improvement. NRW generally have a good story to tell about what they've done to help deliver that improvement as a regulator. We, through the Cabinet Secretary, have quite properly sought assurance about current and historic issues, and that is the right thing to do.

When it comes to, I think, the broader point about landfill, actually, this is a success story in devolution. In 1998, 95 per cent of our waste went to landfill; it is now 1.6 per cent. The challenge now is what more can we do not just to be the second best recycling nation in the world, but what do we do to further drive down the amount of landfill and ensure the proper operation of any active landfill sites anywhere in the country.

And when you come back to blatant evidence of wrongdoing—and I think that's an interesting phrase for a Conservative to use—I think you would do well to look to yourself and a range of issues within your own party—[Interruption.] And I think—[Interruption.] And I think—

I need to hear the First Minister, please. [Interruption.] The First Minister is responding to the question. Now, the First Minister to conclude his response, please.

I think, when looking at evidence, it is important that the people who have responsibility for undertaking that look at whatever the evidence is, as I have said. The regulators, wherever they are, need to act, without fear or favour, on the evidence available to them, and you have to respect the fact that the revenue authority are not in a position—and nor should they be—to share information with the Government about any investigation they're undertaking. They need to undertake that action, as indeed do NRW when it comes to their own responsibilities.

Leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd. We're within a week and a little bit to the General Election. We can be quite sure that Sir Keir will be the next Prime Minister, but it's not as clear what will happen afterwards.

Sir Keir uses the word 'change' a lot, doesn't he, and, God knows, we need to get rid of this UK Government. But the Institute for Fiscal Studies gives us grounds to believe that change could be little more than a campaign slogan when it comes to the fundamentals of Government under Labour. The IFS has hit both Labour and the Tories with accusations of offering little more than thin gruel, or a knowledge vacuum, or a conspiracy of silence on their tax and spending plans. So, when Sir Keir speaks of this election being the moment that we've been waiting for, I'm still waiting for that moment when there's a little bit more honesty, in particular about what all of this means for Wales.

Now, with Plaid Cymru's calls for fair funding, and even the calls of Labour Members for fair funding, falling on deaf UK Labour ears, is the First Minister really happy to just cross fingers and hope for the best, because I think there's more at stake than that?

I think there are three points I'd make. The first is that the IFS do recognise that there's a need to think about not just taxation but growth in the economy, which is a real challenge. If you're going to set such heavy store by what the IFS say, you will, of course, be interested in what they have to say about the Plaid Cymru manifesto, where it says that you are not honest about the costs of your own manifesto and ultimate objectives. The second point I'd make is that I do expect that a future UK Labour Government, if that is what people vote for, will be fair about Barnett and Barnett consequentials.

A big part of our challenge has been the deliberate avoidance of Barnett consequentials in a whole range of areas. There's been an industry in the UK Treasury in trying to avoid providing proper consequentials from choices that have been made. I expect an entirely different relationship, if we do have a UK Labour administration, not just on this, but in the way that Wales's interests are actually respected and safeguarded, with devolution being taken forward, with regular engagement with the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. You'll recall that, at the start of the Tata crisis, the Prime Minister would not pick up the phone to speak to Mark Drakeford about more than 2,800 jobs being on the line. We will have, if we have a UK Labour Government, a council of nations and regions, with a Prime Minister who will regularly meet with First Ministers across the UK, regardless of their political background, and, indeed, metro mayors across England—a very different and welcome relationship that respects and recognises devolution.

The final point I'd make is that, if people want to see change, they need to vote for it. It is not guaranteed. I want not just a protest voice from Wales. I want to send a Government to Westminster, not a small band of protesters. That is what we are fighting for. That is what is on the ballot paper.

Well, somebody's got to speak up for Wales, because it's certainly not Labour MPs, by the sounds of it. It is very difficult to make the case for consequentials for a project that the Labour spokesperson for Wales believes doesn't exist, for starters. There's a real feeling here that Keir Starmer won't even pick up the phone to his leader of the branch office in Wales.

Now, the IFS has also honed in on the Tories' and Labour's plans for tackling child poverty. They cite Labour's pledge to

'develop an ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty'.

And I should remind you that Labour in Wales once promised to eradicate child poverty, only to drop the target later on. But so many poverty charities, of course, are warning that there is a massive disconnect between Labour's promise now to tackle child poverty and their refusal to ditch the Tories' two-child benefit cap. They say that lifting the cap has to be at the very core of any strategy. I will quote from just one of them, the Child Poverty Action Group, which has said:

'Any government serious about making things better for the next generation will have to scrap the two-child limit'.

Now, does the First Minister agree with them, or with Sir Keir's insistence on following the Tories on this? Or does he think that this is one area where UK Labour could follow the lead of Labour in Wales and conveniently drop any targets when they aren't reached?

Again, when you come back to where we are, the reduction in child poverty is something that we have a proud record on in our last UK Labour Government. Over 0.5 million children were lifted out of poverty by deliberate choices made by the last UK Labour Government. The introduction of the tax credit system—the deliberate and clear-sighted redistribution towards families with children, which made work pay and made sure that parents in work with children were supported—was a huge success, which has been progressively undone by the last 14 years of Conservative leadership across the UK.

We will now have a significant hill to climb to recover the progress made by the last UK Labour Government, and to go further. I'm proud that Welsh Labour candidates are standing on a manifesto with a commitment to reduce child poverty, and that includes a commitment to review our benefit system. The review of not just universal credit, but understanding how different parts of that benefit system interact, not single pledges in one part—. We want to review how the whole system works and understand the absolute shower that a future UK Labour Government would inherit after the Tories.

And I go back to what I said in an earlier question: the waste of £1.4 billion on PPE equipment has huge consequences, not just about competence in Government, but what that money could have paid for. We are now in a position where that money has been burned up and wasted. We will have to recover a position where, actually, the UK economy has been sluggish, and that affects the number of children living in poverty, because wages have not risen. The Tory cost-of-living crisis has driven more children into poverty. All of these things are on the agenda. That's why we do desperately need a change at a UK level. It's why people should vote for change, and again I say: it's not about sending a message from a handful of people to Westminster. This is about sending a Government to Westminster that will actually make a real difference for children and families up and down our country. I'm proud to support and stand on that manifesto.

Listen, Sir Keir Starmer will become Prime Minister regardless of how Wales votes. We need to make sure that we have people in Westminster who will stand up for the interests of the people of Wales. Anybody who acknowledges the cruelty of the two-child cap should be making an absolute pledge to eradicate that cruel Tory policy. Labour is refusing to do it.

Another highly respected organisation that has conducted detailed analysis of Labour's pledges is the Nuffield Trust. They note, and I quote again, that

'the increases detailed in this manifesto would amount to annual real terms increases of just 1.1% if added to the 1% in extra yearly revenue spending the OBR projects'.

That, they say, would leave us with the tightest period of funding in NHS history. They warn that

'This would mark an unprecedented slowdown in NHS finances, and it is inconceivable that it would accompany the dramatic recovery all are promising.'

First Minister, is this what you had in mind when you said, back in April, that you were looking for longer term stability with a UK Labour Government? Or isn't it the truth that Labour's spending plans, just like the Tories', are bound to lead to further pressures on public spending and, as a result, on Wales's NHS? Plaid Cymru MPs will make the case for funding fairness. Why won't Labour's?

Well, actually, I look forward to a Labour Chancellor forming part of the next UK Labour Government, if voters vote for that Government here in Wales and indeed across the rest of the United Kingdom. Not just the immediate measures that a UK Labour Government would need to take that have been set out—closing loopholes for non-doms, doing something about undoing the unjustifiable tax benefits that private education gets, to invest in key public services—but, more than that, a commitment to invest in the future of the economy, the clear statement that the age of austerity will be over, investing in a national wealth fund that will put additional investment into the key future of not just Wales but the wider UK, investment in ports, in steel, and in our renewable sectors, not just to do the right thing for the planet, but the jobs that will come from it.

All those things matter, and all those things are on the ballot paper. I'm proud to stand by the Welsh Labour manifesto that we launched at the end of last week in the Llay Miners Welfare Institute. It's more than just funding, we offer a great deal more in taking devolution forward, a great deal more in putting right the wrongs of our past. That's why we have a manifesto commitment to a Windrush commissioner, that's why we'll get to the truth of Orgreave, why we have a commitment to have a Hillsborough law, and it's why only with a UK Labour Government will we get justice on the miners' pension fund surplus. That's what Welsh Labour MPs will deliver. The voice for Wales after this election will be Welsh Labour MPs, it will be Welsh Labour Senedd Members, and indeed a Welsh Labour First Minister standing up for the future of Wales, for fair funding, and the future that I believe people here in Wales and across Britain want to see. I look forward to seeing how people vote on 4 July.