We will move now to a statement by the Minister for Finance and Local Government on the response to the UK Government's financial statement. I call on the Minister to make that statement. Rebecca Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. Last week, the Chancellor published his financial statement—a significant package of measures that, in total, represents one of the most consequential, divisive and regressive sets of fiscal changes ever set out by any UK Government. The package was deeply unfair and morally indefensible. It completely failed to target urgent and meaningful support to vulnerable households impacted by the cost-of-living crisis, and left public services, currently stretched beyond any recent experience by inflation, without the critical additional funding that they need this winter.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (David Rees) took the Chair.

Through his statement, the Chancellor ignored all of this and instead prioritised tax cuts for the rich, unlimited bonuses for bankers, and protected the profits of big energy companies. It will have significant economic and social consequences and will cost individuals and families in Wales dearly.

The UK Government should have taken the opportunity to offer more support through welfare benefits and housing. This should have been funded through windfall gains in the energy sector. Instead, the Chancellor has chosen to drastically increase public borrowing, leaving lower income households to shoulder the impact for years to come. The statement failed to set out a comprehensive vision for investment to boost economic growth, improve our energy security for the future and address the climate emergency.

We had no prior engagement on any of the changes in the Chancellor’s statement, including areas of taxation that are devolved to Wales. We are strongly opposed to the abolition of the additional 45 per cent rate of income tax. At a time when it is those on the lower end of the pay scale that are suffering the most, this is a shocking policy to introduce. Evidence strongly suggests that the plan to introduce investment zones will displace economic activity from other parts of the country and have no effect on overall economic growth. We will talk to the UK Government to learn more about these zones, but we will not jeopardise workers’ rights or water down environmental protections.

The UK Government’s insistence that this is not a budget means that it was not accompanied by the traditional distributional analysis, which would have shown how the measures would impact on household finances. I think this speaks volumes. According to the Resolution Foundation, people living in south-east England or London will see more than three times the gains of those in Wales, the north-east or Yorkshire. Wales Fiscal Analysis noted that, in Wales, nearly 90 per cent of the gains will go to households in the top 50 per cent of the income distribution, with 40 per cent going to households in the top 10 per cent.

The Chancellor’s refusal to let the Office for Budget Responsibility provide an economic forecast ahead of his fiscal statement is completely irresponsible. At a time where the UK is on the brink of a recession, the UK Government should have focused on opportunities to invest in people and in programmes that provide economic stability. Instead, the turmoil in the markets in reaction to the statement has shown that there is no confidence in the UK Government’s economic strategy. The movements in sterling and in the cost of government borrowing show that markets do not believe that the current UK Government will either deliver on economic growth or put the public finances on a sustainable footing.

In the absence of OBR forecasts, based on work by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, and new independent forecasts published by HM Treasury, the value of the Welsh Government’s budget over the current three-year settlement is up to £4 billion less in real terms than was expected when that settlement was reached. The Chancellor’s statement failed entirely to recognise these pressures.

For the current financial year, we have maximised our funding, prioritising health and public services and addressing the climate emergency. Here in Wales, we will be spending £1.6 billion this financial year on schemes targeted towards the cost-of-living crisis and on programmes that put money in people’s pockets. Without additional funding from the UK Government, we face extremely difficult choices, both for the current year and as we begin to formulate our budgets for the next two years. I remain concerned at the underlying level of uncertainty surrounding the UK Government’s budget plans and the impact that this has on our own ability to plan.

The certainty that I was able to provide to delivery partners and their employees by setting a multi-year budget in 2022 has all but been eroded by the lack of clarity on HM Treasury’s future plans, and I remain increasingly concerned at the impact that this could have. The Chancellor has indicated that he wants to introduce further tax cuts, at the same time as reducing debt as a share of GDP. This implies that we will likely see huge spending cuts in future. Not only is the UK Government failing to address the problems in funding levels now, it is also determined to set the country on a course that means further cuts in already stretched public services.

I was already considering what changes we should make to land transaction tax rates and bands due to the increases in property prices in Wales prior to the UK Government’s rushed fiscal statement. I would have liked to have made these changes in our budget later this year. However, I am concerned that the level of expectation of changes will lead to considerable uncertainty in our housing market. I am therefore announcing that I'll be making changes to both the starting threshold at which LTT is payable by homebuyers and the tax rate that they pay. Our zero-rate band will increase for transactions paying no more than £180,000 to not more than £225,000. The next band will be for transactions where the consideration given is more than £225,000 but not more than £400,000. The rate payable will be 6 per cent. This will mean that there will be a reduction in tax payable for transactions costing up to £345,000 of a maximum of £1,575. These changes will come into effect on 10 October.

There will also be a small maximum tax increase of up to £550 for transactions costing more than £345,000. This represents around 15 per cent of property transactions in Wales. I have taken this decision on the knowledge that taxpayers buying homes costing more than £345,000 are also those most likely to benefit from the tax cuts that the Chancellor announced last Friday. Transitional rules will be included to protect taxpayers who have exchanged contracts before the regulations making the changes come into force. There will be no changes to the higher rates residential property transactions—the rates and thresholds will remain the same—and all other elements of land transaction tax will remain unchanged.

I know that many Members across the Chamber will have concerns at the regressive measures that the UK Government introduced last Friday. I want to reassure you that the Welsh Government will continue to work with progressive parties here, and with our partners across Wales, to protect the people and the public services of Wales as best we can in light of the challenges we face.

Can I thank you, Minister, for your statement, although much of its content was not a surprise today? We believe that the best way to get people through these difficult times, and to combat inflation, is through economic growth as well as direct support. It's not about the trickle-down economics, it's about boosting the supply side performance of our economy by reducing the tax burden on businesses and on people. It's about reforming the economy to improve productivity, creating the conditions for investment that creates jobs, drives wages and delivers the infrastructure and the services that the UK needs. And of course, the Welsh Government, as it normally does, is pushing the doom and gloom narrative. But the fact is that the financial statement delivers a tax cut—[Interruption.] Deputy Presiding Officer, I can't hear.

I know the Member is very capable of handling such heckling, but it is important that we all are able to hear what he has to say, and then Members will be able to have their own opportunities to raise questions themselves.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The fact is that the financial statement delivers a tax cut for 1.2 million plus people in Wales, meaning that they keep more of their own money—something that is difficult for the Welsh Government to accept—during these difficult times. Even Sir Keir Starmer welcomed the scrapping of the national insurance increase and cut to the basic rate of income tax, and said he would keep both, although his good friend Andy Burnham disagrees with this and said that it wasn't the time for tax cuts. So where's the continuity in thinking there? So, I wonder, who do you agree with, Minister? When is time for tax cuts, or is it just never the right time?

I completely accept that some of the measures we all know about today have been subject to fierce debate and could have been explained better—I agree. But let's be honest, the cap on bonuses never restricted bankers' remuneration, and a 40 per cent higher rate of tax is what the UK had for over 20 years under previous Labour Governments. This is not a policy by focus groups but a long-term plan with the objective to get Britain growing again, to make the UK more competitive and to attract businesses, jobs and investment. Ultimately, Deputy Llywydd, what the new Chancellor has shown is that he has a plan to get Britain moving again, something that the Welsh Labour Government has struggled to do in Wales.

Minister, we've heard your critique of the UK Government's plan for growth, but where is your plan? What is it? How is the Welsh Government seeking to boost investment into Wales to get more jobs into our communities and finally increase wages in Wales? For too long, Welsh workers have had the smallest pay packets in the UK, nearly £3,000 less a year than the people in Scotland. Is that a sound economic plan? I do welcome today's announcement regarding the land transaction tax following the Chancellor's statement, which will be thanks to the £70 million from the UK Government, but your Government could have and should have gone further to support families aspiring to buy their first home, particularly when the average house price in Wales is £240,000. You should be supporting economic growth. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, the fact is that the Welsh Labour Government hasn't got a proper plan. For too long, they have let the Welsh people down. Instead of creating opportunities and building aspiration, they suppress the country's economy with their lack of vision and strategy. This is where our philosophy is different. We don't think aspiration is a dirty word. People shouldn't feel guilty to want a better life for themselves and their families. The Minister also argues that the financial statement does not provide support for people during these tough times. For brevity, Deputy Llywydd, I won't repeat all of the schemes that the UK Government has announced over the past few months. But, let's not forget the energy price guarantee, which will save households around £1,000 a year, the energy bill relief scheme, as well as the numerous targeted help and support schemes, including the £400 energy bill support scheme, whilst the most vulnerable households will receive over £1,200 of additional help.

Let's not forget that the UK Government has already raised the income tax and national insurance thresholds, meaning people on lower incomes already keep more of their own money. But, I accept there is more that needs to be done, and I worry that the Welsh Government is too preoccupied criticizing their UK counterparts at every opportunity rather than focusing on what else can be done to help people. So, how will the Welsh Government's upcoming budget help to deliver the targeted support that you are calling for? How will Ministers use their levers to provide as broad and supportive a package as possible? Thank you.

The opposition spokesperson said that the UK Government hadn't perhaps explained its plans properly and they could have explained it better. Well, the Conservatives will have plenty of time over the autumn and winter to explain themselves and explain their party's policies to people who will be struggling as a direct result of their party's mismanagement of the economy and its wrong priorities.

You cannot think that it is right that 90 per cent of the gains that were made on Friday go to the top 50 per cent of people in Wales. You can't think it's right that 40 per cent of the gains go to those households in the top 10 per cent of the income distribution in a cost-of-living crisis. It is people who are struggling who need support. Of course, the Conservatives say they want people to have a better life. Well, the Labour Party wants to help people get that better life. We don't just want them to sit there aspiring for more, we want to help people achieve their potential, and you see that through all of the policies that we introduce here. We clearly have a completely different aspiration for people. We want to support people to achieve their full potential. 

The Member asks what would we have done differently. I wrote to the Chancellor ahead of his fiscal statement last week and I set out exactly what we wanted to hear from him. We urged action to address the significant gaps in support for vulnerable households, families, businesses and the delivery of public services. We suggested the removal of the benefit cap and the punitive two-child limit to support families and give children the best start in life. We talked earlier in the Chamber about the importance of housing, so I asked that they increase the local housing allowance rates and funding for discretionary housing payments, to prevent a significant number of people being homeless as a result of rent arrears.

I also asked for additional funding to meet the pressures faced by public services, for supporting fair pay rises across the public sector, and to target those windfall gains in the energy sector, rather than passing on the cost to households through higher borrowing. I said that they should provide urgent clarity on the six-month price cap for businesses and public sector organisations for energy. And what happens after the first six months? Nothing on that. And we said that they need to boost economic growth, and provide a capital stimulus package and address the historic underinvestment in Wales by the UK Government in rail and in research and development. Nothing on any of that either. So, I think that if the UK Government had just taken a few of those steps that we suggested to them, we would have seen a much better package on the part of the UK Government.

The Member talks about national insurance contributions. Well, who gains from those?  The tax changes announced are highly regressive. The Institute for Fiscal Studies analysis has found that the lowest paid workers in Wales stand to gain just 63p a month, 3p a day, from this, in terms of the national insurance rise, while the richest could get back £150 a month. I mean, where is the fairness in that? It was a deeply unfair, regressive budget, and I'm very surprised that there is any Conservative in this place who will stand on their feet and defend it. 

I thank the Minister for her statement. I agree with much of what you had to say. The narrative is clear and has been reflected in many comments over the past few days. It is a budget statement that creates division. It's regressive, it's unfair and it's morally indefensible, as you say. It makes the rich richer and hits the poorest in an entirely disproportionate way. You say that there had been no engagement with the Chancellor before the statement. Perhaps you could tell us if there's been engagement since then. I think I know the answer. Indeed, perhaps you could tell us if there's been any engagement at all with the Chancellor since his appointment. 

I feel that this whole episode really graphically demonstrates how fiscally beholden this Senedd is to changes that happen, sometimes at a whim, sometimes driven by dogma, at Westminster. We can complain about abolishing tax bands, about changes to NI, to levels of co-operation, but wouldn't it be better, Minister, rather than complaining, that we actually had the powers here to do something about it? Not just little extra borrowing powers here or there, but a real fundamental overhaul of the fiscal powers that are devolved to Wales. The current fiscal framework isn't fit for purpose; it really exposes how weak Wales's hand is when it comes to protecting the people of Wales from this kind of Tory onslaught on our most vulnerable and our poorest citizens. So, will you join Plaid Cymru in calling for maximising fiscal powers to Wales so that we don't end up being just some sort of buffer Parliament, passing on as little of the pain as we can, and that you, having listed a number of issues that you wrote to the Chancellor about earlier, don't end up having to write to somebody else all the time asking for this, that and the other, but that we actually have the powers to do so ourselves? I trust that you will support us on that.

There is one glaring omission in your statement. As far as I can see, you say nothing about the basic rate of income tax. You rightly oppose the abolition of the additional rate of income tax and you outline plans on land transaction tax. Am I, therefore, right to presume that the Welsh Government is actually adopting the Tory policy on this, effectively depriving the public purse of critical funds that it needs to protect the poorest and most vulnerable in society? Is it not the time, Minister, to utilise some of the tax-varying powers that we have in Wales, not to cut, or to increase taxes in this case, but actually just to keep them at the current level? Doing so would generate an additional £200 million for the Welsh Government to protect those essential services that people are going to be leaning more heavily on than ever before. I agree with Andy Burnham. He says this isn't the most targeted way of using the resources that we've got at this moment in time. So, I'm calling on you, Minister: will you use the powers that you have to protect the basic rate in Wales at 20p in the pound, because that money will help save livelihoods and help save lives? 

Thank you to the Member for those questions. I can confirm that I have had no direct engagement thus far with the Chancellor. I did have a meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, but, unfortunately, it was after the Chancellor had made his statement. It's normal practice and courtesy, I think, for the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to make a call to finance Ministers across the United Kingdom ahead of the Chancellor's statement to give the headlines of that statement and have a discussion as to what it means for the devolved nations, but, unfortunately, that wasn't the case on this occasion, although I did have that call after the Chancellor had sat down after making his statement. I did make a few points specifically around investment zones. I sought further information as to what the UK Government's plans were for that—how they intended to engage with the Welsh Government on that. I made it very clear from the outset that, on any plans, we'll happily have those discussions and we will hear them out, but there will be nothing happening in Wales that erodes our workers' rights or that impacts upon our environmental standards and so on. So, we had that conversation.

I was also keen to probe the Chief Secretary as to why the UK Government hadn't provided a distributional analysis alongside the budget so that we could see very clearly the impact that it would have on the different income distributions across the UK. They hadn't done that work, but, of course, Wales Fiscal Analysis has done work to help us understand what it means for us here in Wales, and I shared some of that with you earlier on today.

I think another interesting fact that the Wales Governance Centre has shared as well is that there are fewer than 9,000 additional rate payers in Wales—so, those are those people earning over £150,000 a year. But, abolishing that rate will give them around £45 million, between the 9,000 people. So, clearly, again, it's a policy that is regressive. Imagine targeting £45 million towards those people who need it the most. So, those were the kinds of discussions that we had. We're due to have a finance inter-ministerial committee with all four nations shortly, and I know that we'll be picking up some of these discussions then.

I think we probably come to things from a slightly different perspective in terms of the role of the union in these times. I see being part of the union as an insurance policy when you're in economically difficult times, especially during a cost-of-living crisis. It should be the case that the UK Government is there to assist all parts of the UK, especially those that need it most. So, from my perspective, it's not the fact that we have a union that's the problem; the problem is that we have an absolutely dreadful UK Government in charge of the decisions being made.

I do think that there is plenty of common ground, though, in terms of maximising the fiscal powers available to us. I know that we both want to see increased and improved borrowing powers, for example. We want to see improved fiscal flexibilities available to the Welsh Government to help it manage and maximise its budget. So, there is some common ground there. In terms of any further devolution of tax powers, I think that we're probably quite a long way from that now, with a UK Government that is hostile to devolution, to say the least, and where we can't even get agreement on something as uncontroversial and as simple as a vacant land tax, which the UK Government has previously said that it wanted to pursue itself. So, we'll continue to make reasoned arguments and we'll continue to have the support of respected institutions behind those reasoned arguments, and I'd be, obviously, keen to work with colleagues who share that view across the Chamber.  

Can I welcome the Government's statement? We have had a catastrophic Westminster Government financial statement. Inflation and interest rates are increasing, but the pound is collapsing. The Bank of England's interest rate still remains at a historically low level, although I probably won't say that in a month's time. Unfortunately, house prices have increased based upon the expectation of a continuation of low interest rates. We have commodity-driven inflation. Increasing interest rates will not reduce commodity prices, which are traded on world markets, but will cause financial hardship. Prices, which are mainly set in dollars, are increasing due to—I was going to say 'the reduction', but I will say 'the collapse'—the collapse in the value of the pound. The pound has gone down from $1.50 to $1.08 against the dollar since we voted to leave Europe. Now, whatever you say about whether it was right or wrong to leave Europe, we certainly have paid a price in terms of the value of the currency. The Office for Budget Responsibility has said that 2022-23 will see the biggest fall in living standards in the UK since records began.

Can I just raise one issue, which I raised last week and I will keep on raising: the problem of energy standing charges, which affect the poorest hardest? Will the Minister take this up with the Westminster Government? Nothing is, to me, sadder than people who have scraped or borrowed to buy energy tokens to see them partly used up by standing charges for days they were unable to afford to use any energy, but they're still paying those standing charges. This affects the poorest in society, and can I urge the Minister to raise this with Westminster? It doesn't need to cost anything in terms of total income, but it would certainly benefit some of the poorest in society.

I would absolutely recognise everything that Mike Hedges has said in terms of the economic impact of the statement. I think that it’s been well reported now that the view generally is that the Chancellor has just taken a huge gamble on the nation's finances, and I think a good piece of advice for everyone, really, is never gamble more than you can afford to lose. But, unfortunately, the Chancellor’s gambling with more than just his own life, his own chances; he’s gambling with those of everybody in this country, and people who can't afford to lose. So, I think that that has been a really important observation as well. Mike Hedges's points are completely right in terms of the unnecessary risks that are being taken with public finances. Obviously, we've seen that it's unnerved investors. The Financial Times noted parallels with the 1972 and 1973 budgets, which it described as

'the worst pieces of short-term economic management in Britain since the second world war', and the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the new Government's policies are likely to put debt on an 'ever-rising path'.

Mike Hedges also talked about the impact on sterling, and the lack of confidence in the UK Government's management of the economy and public finances has seen sterling weaken, which will result in rising consumer prices here at home and disturbingly sharp increases in the interest rate on Government debt. So, a whole range of negative responses to the UK Government's budget of last week.

I think the point about standing charges is an important one, and we will absolutely find ways to raise that with the UK Government. It makes that wider point, doesn't it, that it costs more to be poor in Wales and in the UK at the moment, because of a whole range of reasons, including the fact that your shopping choices are often much more limited if you don't have a car, you have to pay for things on hire-purchase, which end up costing much more, and a depressing fact that I heard at a constituency event over the last week was that it actually costs more to run an empty fridge than it does to run a full one. I just think that is such a horrible and ironic characterisation of the challenges that people are facing at the moment.

I'm grateful to the Minister for her statement. I think it's clear that this was a budget for the very richest people in society. It wasn't a budget for Wales and it wasn't a budget for the people of Wales. Liz Truss has seen the economy collapse by £500 billion—or dollars, as you could say nowadays—since becoming Prime Minister. It is the most extraordinary economic failure that I can remember in my lifetime, and, together with Brexit, I think we are seeing some really serious structural damage to the basis of our economy at the moment.

I very much agree with the assessment of the Minister. I also agree with the point that was made by Llyr in terms of the financial framework, and looking again at the financial framework. I think the financial framework was established at a time when you had two Governments working together, and clearly at the moment that's not what we have. I think, Minister, the points you made in your statement this afternoon underpin that assessment. I'd like you, if you could, Minister, to give us the cost of the changes you've made to the land transaction tax—how much that will cost the Welsh exchequer—so we can understand the consequences of that. And one of the issues that we haven't really debated—

Alun, you have gone past your time. Can you make it very quick, please?

Yes, I understand that.

It's the impact on public spending, and the impact on our future ability to fund public services. Inflation is already hitting public services, and it is important that we are able to understand the impact that this budget statement will have on our ability to fund public services in the future.

Again, I agree with everything that Alun Davies has said about this being a budget for the very richest, which will benefit very, very few people here in Wales. It is absolutely an extraordinary economic failure, and I agree that it is another approach by the Conservatives that sits right alongside Brexit in terms of ways in which it can cause long-term economic harm to Wales, and, obviously, all of the social and economic challenges that go alongside that as well. 

In terms of the financial framework, yes, I think that there is more work to do now in terms of thinking about what the future of that should look like, and I know that colleagues will have a great interest in that. And I think this point about public services is one of the most important things, which I think has generally been overlooked so far in the coverage of the budget. But, as the dust settles and we start to understand what the impact will be on public services, and the fact that there is no more money coming and that difficult choices are going to have to be made, I think that we'll be talking much more about that. I know that local government and health, in particular, will have lots to say on that. 

And then, just to respond to the specific question in terms of the cost of the changes to the LTT main residential rates and bands, in this financial year it will be £9 million; in 2023-24, £19 million; and in 2024-25, £18 million. The overall impact is that a higher proportion of transactions in Wales than in England will pay no tax, and around 61 per cent of transactions will be paying no tax in 2023-24. And, of course, the threshold increase that we've announced exceeds the price growth between 2018-19 and 2021-22. So, I think it does offer a good package for homebuyers. As I say, it's something that we've been working on over the summer. I had hoped to announce it alongside the draft budget, but I didn't want to cause uncertainty in the housing market, which is why I've brought it forward to today. 

Minister, this week, the people of Wales watched the UK Chancellor hand grotesquely unfair and, I would say, immoral tax cuts to the super rich; uncap the bonuses for bankers; protect the profits of big energy companies; lose control of sterling, which has plummeted off a cliff; increase both the debt and the cost of debt to the UK; load those costs onto ours and to future generations; increase the cost of imports; increase the risk of household mortgages and borrowing costs, rising way beyond affordability and crippling households into the spring; and add frightening new costs above and beyond the existing Conservative cost-of-living crisis to families, business and public services up and down the land. Would you agree with me, Minister, that this is not time for the 1922 committee to respond to letters calling for a change of leader of the Tory party; it's time for a general election and a change to a Government of sound economic competence, to a UK Labour Government? 

Yes, Deputy Presiding Officer, I would. 

The rich are getting richer; the poorer are getting poorer. People will be struggling to pay their mortgages on top of rising energy costs. Public services are on their knees following 10 years of austerity. Forty-five billion pounds of tax cuts could have paid for a 19 or 20 per cent increase in public sector workers, including carers, and universal credit is the impact of that as well. So, I hear that people who work part-time will have to work more hours in order to receive universal credit, which will have an impact on parents, childcare and on people with disabilities. Minister, do you agree with me—. And women, again. Minister, do you agree with me that it will be the ordinary people of Wales who will be paying for this for years to come, rather than the bankers who will be filling their pockets, and the wealthy? 

I agree that it is absolutely a punitive budget from the UK Government, and it speaks volumes that only the Conservative spokesperson this afternoon has got up to defend the Conservative budget this week. I'd be very interested to see what the other Conservative Members make of it, and those who don't feel like they have to stand up and defend it, because it's indefensible—that's why. And I think that this point is really important about the fact that it's poorer people who will be mostly disadvantaged, but it's just the attitude as well.

So, the UK Government thinks that rich people have to be incentivised with lots of cash to get out and do some work and to grow the economy. But, at the same end of things, they think that you have to give poorer people a good kicking because they should have that kind of incentive to get out and work, because what they're doing on universal credit is absolutely punitive. People who, for whatever reason, can only work a certain number of hours, they might have childcare—of course, this budget is very, very anti-women as well—they might have childcare responsibilities, they might be disabled and working as many hours as they possibly can, but now, if they don't go out and get another minimum-wage job, they will have their benefits sanctioned. And we know that people who have their benefits sanctioned, according to the National Audit Office, are more likely to just give up on benefits and stop claiming entirely than take other action. So, clearly, this budget is going to have the worst impact on the people who need the most assistance. 

And finally, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister, could you maybe give us an indication of whether you agreed with Andy Burnham leaving the 20 per cent rate as it is, so that it leaves the money there, so that we can actually invest in our communities?

So, we've got a really well tried-and-tested approach to Welsh rates of income tax, so, it's normal practice for us to announce those rates alongside the final budget debate. And, obviously, we will be having discussions with colleagues ahead of that, because we have a vote in this Senedd on our Welsh rates of income tax. You'll have heard what the First Minister said to the Senedd last week in his First Minister's questions on our approach to Welsh rates of income tax, but as I say, we take this issue very carefully, we consider a whole range of items, and we'll be making our announcements in the normal way, rather than being pushed into any quick announcement because of actions on the part of the UK Government. And, as I say, our normal practice and our normal routine is to make those announcements and have that vote alongside the final budget.

Mark Isherwood, you put your hand up. This is a statement and not an intervention. Do you wish to ask a question, because the Minister did invite Members to ask questions?

Yes, to ask a question, if that's appropriate, to yourself.

I will allow you to be the last speaker in this case, because our time is almost up, and you were invited to ask questions, so I will allow it. Mark Isherwood. 

That's very kind, thank you. Well, I've been a Member for almost 20 years, and throughout that time, I've heard the Welsh Governments talk constantly about the amount of money it has to spend but almost never about how that money is earned. In consequence, Wales has the lowest prosperity, lowest wages, lowest employment and the highest child poverty in the UK, and pays billions less in tax than it receives from the Treasury. Is it not the case that this begging-bowl Welsh Government is entirely dependent on the taxpayers of south-east England and the city of London?

Well, you get the impression from the tone of the contribution that the Member doesn't much like Welsh people and their efforts here in Wales. No, I'm sorry, I don't recognise what the Member is saying. We're talking here about a budget that is just so completely regressive. How on earth Members can try and defend something that just takes money away from poorer people—let's remember, vulnerable people are going to be paying for this borrowing for years to come. There will be less investment in public services, so if any Conservative stands up in our budget debates and asks me to put another penny into public services, I will be very, very unimpressed by that, if they are supporting this UK Government's budget. And if I see a single photograph of a Conservative in a foodbank or a warm hub over the course of this winter, I will be equally unimpressed, because these things do not need to happen. Foodbanks and warm hubs are political choices made by the UK Government and ratified in their budget—[Interruption.]

Can I ask all Members to keep quiet, please, because I'd like to listen to the Minister's contribution?

I've finished now, Dirprwy Lywydd.

 I thank the Minister.