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

Thank you, Presiding Officer. It's nice to see the Deputy Minister shouting from a sedentary position. I hope he speaks as loudly for his patients who are stuck on record waiting lists in his constituency, because I never hear him saying anything about that, I don't. But anytime you want to have a debate on it, Deputy Minister, I'll have that debate with you.

First Minister, you travelled to Scotland last Tuesday to meet with Nicola Sturgeon. Nicola Sturgeon has agreed to have an independent public inquiry into the COVID regulations and rules that were made in Scotland. Why is she wrong and you're right, because you're blocking one here in Wales?

Llywydd, I've explained on numerous occasions here why I believe that the answers that patients and their families in Wales deserve to get when we look back at the events of the pandemic, that those answers are best secured through a Welsh participation in a UK inquiry.

I welcome very much the fact today that the Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice group here in Wales has secured core participation status in front of the UK inquiry. I had written to them earlier this year supporting their application for core participation status. That will mean that they will be able to ensure that the voice of those people who are members of their group will be heard in that inquiry. I believe from the meetings I've had with them—I've met with them five times—that, unlike the leader of the opposition, they are moving on from continuing to ask for something which is not going to happen. Let me be clear about that. I've told you time and time again, there will be no inquiry of that sort here in Wales. They are moving on to put their energies and their efforts into making sure, as I want to see, that their questions are properly rehearsed, and the best answers provided in front of the Baroness Hallett inquiry.

Stop misrepresenting their view, First Minister. Only today they've repeated the request for an independent inquiry here in Wales, and through you not allowing such an inquiry to happen, they have had to accept that the UK route is the best route for them to have these explored. But I ask you again, First Minister, because you didn't address the first question: why is Nicola Sturgeon wrong in your mind, and you're right? Because she has looked at the route that the UK inquiry will undertake, and it is correct that it will look on the four-nation basis that some decisions were taken, but you made a political virtue of the point that you did things differently here in Wales. So, those decisions deserve to be looked at through the lens of a Welsh public inquiry. So, like the COVID-bereaved families, why don't you allow such an inquiry to happen? And if you won't, will you answer my first question to you: why is Nicola Sturgeon wrong, and you're right?

Well, Llywydd, the Member knows perfectly well that the decision is made, there will be no Welsh separate inquiry and, instead, the answers to the questions that people quite rightly want to see here in Wales will be properly, fully, and best answered by the inquiry that his Prime Minister established, and which I was able to discuss with Downing Street on a series of occasions to make sure that Welsh interests were fully represented in the terms of reference and in the way that the inquiry will be conducted. That will ensure that the best possible answers are provided. That's why I believe that to be the right course of action. The First Minister of Scotland must speak for herself. I see that Lady Poole, the chair of the independent Scottish inquiry, has resigned. Any idea that everything in Scotland is completely marvellous because they've agreed to an inquiry would not stand up to a moment's examination.

I'd tread carefully on saying that's she's resigned and trying to use that in a political forum. I understand that she's resigned for personal reasons, which does happen, First Minister, and I'm not trying to say anything to the contrary about the integrity of any inquiry. I happen to believe that an independent inquiry here in Wales, but also on a UK level, would speed up the process to get the answers that the COVID-bereaved families require, rather than get it pushed into the long grass. Now, you could work positively with the families, with all the interested parties here in Wales, in allowing such an inquiry. But because you say 'no', we have to accept it? Well, on these benches, we won't accept it, because, ultimately, the scrutiny, the torch of scrutiny needs to be placed on the decisions that all the Ministers took, sitting around that bench. So, whilst you might decree that there is not going to be a Welsh COVID inquiry, I have to tell you that the weight of public opinion and the weight of professional opinion here in Wales wants to see that independent inquiry. I will not rest until we have that independent inquiry, despite what you might try to say to the contrary, First Minister.

Well, Llywydd, there is the impotence of opposition. The leader of the opposition can of course go on making his case for as long and as loudly as he likes. In the meantime, the world has moved on. There is an inquiry, a fully constituted inquiry, set up by a Conservative Government at Westminster in which there will be full participation by patients and families in Wales, in which all the actions of the Welsh Government and of other public authorities in Wales—[Interruption.]

Can we allow the First Minister to finish his answer, please? Oh, that was the end. Sorry. Right. I think I was failing to hear him, actually, because there was quite a bit of noise.

Leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. In your discussions with the Scottish First Minister last week, it was reported that you focused on the cost-of-living crisis. It's good to see that you, at least, First Minister, are prepared to talk with the SNP even if Keir Starmer is not. Now, yesterday, the SNP Government published emergency legislation to freeze rents across Scotland, backdated to 6 September, running initially until the end of March, with the potential to be extended. The legislation also bans evictions of tenants who fall into arrears, both ideas originally proposed by the Labour Party, which begs the question: if they're good enough for Labour in opposition in Wales, why aren't these measures good enough, so far at least, for Labour in Government here?

Well, Llywydd, we will look carefully at the proposals in Scotland, of course. I've had an opportunity to look at them briefly this morning. Let's be clear about what the proposals actually are. There is a rent freeze for social renting tenants in Scotland. That already exists here in Wales. All those rents are fixed and will not rise before the end of this financial year, so there is no difference between us there.

The rent freeze in Scotland applies only to existing tenants, so any flat that becomes vacant and is let to a new tenant, there is no rent freeze at all there, nor is there a freeze on costs that landlords can legitimately claim. So, if a landlord can demonstrate that they have to meet increased mortgage rates, they will be able to increase rents for existing tenants. If they can demonstrate that they have extra insurance costs, they will be able to pass those on to existing tenants. If there are rises in the service charges that landlords have to cover, they will be able to pass those on to existing tenants as well. So, let's be clear what this rent freeze actually is. It's a rent freeze that doesn't cover anybody taking up a tenancy, and for existing tenancies there is a whole series of ways in which their rents will be able to go up anyway.

And then a ban—a ban on evictions. Well, not for tenants with significant rent arrears; not for people who have anti-social behaviour; not where landlords can demonstrate that they are suffering financial hardship; and neither does the ban on evictions prevent a landlord from selling their property.

When I was in Scotland last week, I was being told about two great anxieties about this piece of legislation before it was published. First of all, the stampede to evict existing tenants, so that the changes in the law could be evaded by landlords in that way, and secondly, the risk that there will be a collapse in the amount of property available in the private rented sector, with landlords deciding to sell up rather than to rent, and that then exacerbating changes that are about to happen in the housing market. The Member will be very well aware that the consequence of the Conservative package is that mortgage rates are likely to rise to 6 per cent, and that house prices are likely to fall by up to 15 per cent. To engineer a situation in which a flood of properties is put onto a falling market in that way is hardly likely to be to the benefit of people looking for properties to rent.

So, I will look more carefully than I have been able to so far at the Scottish proposals, but any idea that they are a panacea that we should just pick up and put in place here in Wales, I don't think that will stand up to examination for long.

Nobody, First Minister, is arguing that they are a panacea; they need to be implemented alongside a whole range of measures. They are temporary measures because we are facing an emergency. Winter is almost upon us. Why do you think, First Minister, that Shelter in Wales is calling for a rent freeze, is calling for a moratorium? Why do you think that the Kerslake commission, led by the former head of the civil service, who is a supporter of your party, their commission on homelessness has called for a ban on evictions in winter? In France, they ban evictions every winter as a sign of a civilised society.

In relation to what you said, by the way, there's a cap; even in exceptional circumstances where landlords can ask for some increase, there's a cap of 3 per cent. And they can only ask for a maximum of 50 per cent of the specified cost. So, let's be clear about what the Scottish Government is calling for. And if the First Minister is arguing that we should go further in Wales in relation to the points that he has made, then certainly let's have that discussion, but surely we should be introducing a rent freeze and a moratorium to protect tenants this winter in Wales.

Well, Llywydd, Shelter is not calling for a rent freeze in Wales, and the reason that they are not calling for a rent freeze is that they recognise, I believe, the potential unintended consequences for tenants when that happens. I think the leader of Plaid Cymru has just conceded that the Scottish Government's proposals don't amount to a blanket rent freeze in the way that it might be being reported. On 1 December, we will introduce a six-month 'no fault' notice for new tenancies, as far as eviction is concerned. We're consulting on extending all of that to existing tenancies, and we will bring forward a White Paper, as we have promised under our co-operation agreement, to look at how rent controls might be introduced in Wales in a way that does not lead to the unintended possibility that it will make the supply of rented properties in Wales go down just at a point when the demand for properties in Wales can already not be easily met from the existing supply. 

It begs the question: why did we introduce a moratorium during COVID on evictions? There are certain circumstances—emergencies, crises—where it is necessary to bring in temporary measures, and I'm afraid that many, many people are making these arguments in the housing sector, not just in Scotland, not just in Wales, but across the whole of Europe. 

Can I turn to one of the unfunded Tory tax cuts that still remain? Of course, the reversing of the national insurance increase means the abandonment of the proposed new health and social care levy, which was meant to provide a sustainable basis to fund social care into the future. I'm sure you believe that the decades-long failure by Westminster to face up to the problems in the social care sector has left us with a huge legacy of a crisis in that sector. But, doesn't this place an onus now on us in Wales again to find a Welsh solution? Specifically, does Westminster's abdication of responsibility mean that we should look again at the proposals put forward by Gerry Holtham for instituting a Wales-based social care levy?

Well, Llywydd, it must be nearly a decade now since I first discussed with UK Conservative Ministers their plans to implement the Dilnot review. That never happened. More years went by. We did appear to reach a point under the last Prime Minister where there was to be a specific levy in order to create, as the then Prime Minister claimed, a sustainable future for social care and to deal with the financial consequences in the lives of individuals. Now that's gone as well. So, I agree with the leader of Plaid Cymru: that means we have to go back and revisit some of the work that was carried out here in Wales to see whether there is a Wales-only solution to this matter.

It is very complicated. I know that he will know this very well. The interface between the powers that we have in Wales and the charges we could levy against the powers that lie in Westminster, and particularly the decisions that are made in relation to the benefits system, mean that designing a levy in Wales that does not lead to Welsh citizens paying twice, paying a levy in Wales and finding that money taken away from Wales by decisions made in Westminster, designing a system that can offer us a guarantee that that cannot happen, is itself fiendishly complicated. But a lot of work has been done already, and in the light of what has happened across the border, and in particular in the light of what I believe now are likely to be significant further cuts to public expenditure here in Wales, of course we need to go back and revisit the work that we’ve already undertaken.