Plenary

The next item will be the questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language. The first question is from Mike Hedges.

Llywydd, last week we announced an above-inflation pay rise for NHS Wales staff, demonstrating our commitment to our healthcare workers. The Government's response to other pay remits will be set out over the next month. We will look to fund these important pay awards through the careful management of our budget.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response? When we discuss public sector pay and funding, it is important to remember two things: firstly, with the Barnett formula and Barnett floor, Wales is funded better per capita than England, despite paying in substantially less; and that this year's settlement is the best since I was first elected in 2011. Has any Welsh Government-funded body had less in its financial uplift than the 2.5 per cent employee national insurance charges and the pay awards of its staff? And if anybody has had less, can the Welsh Government directly fund the difference?

I thank Mike Hedges for that. Llywydd, I can confirm that all Welsh Government departments saw an increase in their revenue budgets of between 4 per cent and 14 per cent at the final budget, and Mike Hedges is absolutely right that that is the best settlement in many, many years. He is right as well, Llywydd, that Wales is funded better per capita than England. But that is, of course, the bargain that is the United Kingdom, that funding is provided to different parts of the United Kingdom at a level that allows broadly for the same range and quality of services to be provided as would be provided anywhere else. And with an older, sicker, poorer population, that's recognised in the way the funding flows across the United Kingdom, putting Wales in a position where we are able to match that broad level of services elsewhere.

Now, evidence, as requested, from the Finance Committee in its scrutiny session highlighted that the following increases to employer national insurance contributions will result in additional costs to the following organisations: £112 million, NHS; local government, £77 million; teachers, £33 million; fire and rescue services, an additional £4 million. Now, the UK Government has announced a 4 per cent pay increase for doctors and dentists, along with a 3.6 per cent increase for NHS staff on Agenda for Change contracts. I'm a little bit concerned, though, what impact the NI contributions will have, with the rise, on public bodies. How will your budget cover this? Thanks.

Well, Llywydd, I expect all of my colleagues to make provision within their budgets for anticipated pay awards during the year. Where we see pay awards through the independent pay review bodies coming in higher than that for which provision was made, then I will make funds available from the centre of the Welsh Government, and I'm confident that I have the funding available to allow me to do that, and that's why we were able to make the announcement on 22 May that the Welsh Government will meet the review body on doctors' and dentists' remuneration recommendations in relation to doctors and dentists, and also the pay award of 3.6 per cent for NHS staff on Agenda for Change terms and conditions.

Sorry, I was caught between sneezing and needing to call the next question. [Laughter.] So, I'm calling the next question.

Question 2, Heledd Fychan.

Thank you very much for the question. Llywydd, increasing children's use of the Welsh language is an important part of our Cymraeg 2050 strategy. We invest over £4 million annually in grants aimed at increasing young people's use of the Welsh language.

Thank you for that response. Last week, at the Urdd Eisteddfod, the Welsh Language Commissioner published a report on the use of the Welsh language amongst children and young people. There were some encouraging signs in those statistics, with many eager to use more Welsh in their lives. The report also confirmed the relationship between fluency and where and when individuals acquired their Welsh language skills, with those who learned Welsh at home or at nursery school much more likely to develop into fluent Welsh speakers.

However, children and young people's wider use of Welsh when producing online content and on different social media platforms is generally limited, and English is the language used by the majority on those platforms. A number of respondents also referred to a lack of provision and presence in terms of the Welsh language on social media, particularly in terms of materials that were appealing to them. So, may I ask what steps have been taken by the Welsh Government to ensure that Welsh is available to everyone, in the real world but also online?

Well, thank you very much to Heledd Fychan for those supplementary questions. Of course, it was wonderful to be on the Urdd Eisteddfod field last week and hearing children and young people using the Welsh language. We collaborate with the Urdd and other agencies, the mentrau iaith and so on, in order to provide opportunities for young people to use the Welsh language in all aspects of their lives. I am, of course, grateful to the Welsh Language Commissioner for the report. It's an important report, and, as Heledd Fychan said, the report did highlight the fact that social media has changed the world for young people, and many young people who are fluent in Welsh do turn to English when they're using social media.

Now, we are working with a number of companies in that field in order to develop means whereby young people and others can use the Welsh language when they are using the new technologies that impact all of our lives. Yesterday, Llywydd, I was using Copilot in Welsh. So, now it's perfectly feasible to ask questions in Welsh in Copilot and to get the responses back in Welsh too.

The important thing is that we take advantage of those opportunities. The more we use them, the better the service will be. And through the work that we've done on Microsoft Teams, for example, Microsoft Teams now can transcribe in both Welsh and English simultaneously, and I think that's important. What I want to see is people who can use Welsh and English in the same conversation, and where technological possibilities will support them in doing so.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. We've mentioned previously, it's not just the number of Welsh speakers that's important, but the use of the Welsh language, and how much use people make of the Welsh language, especially outside of the classroom. And looking at the recent report of the language commissioner, one of the things that stood out for me was that the sports arena is the place outside of the classroom where people use the Welsh language most, namely when playing sport in their local clubs.

So, what additional support can the Welsh Government provide, not just to the big boys, if you will, but also those local clubs in our communities, those football and rugby clubs and so on, to ensure that they receive the encouragement and support so that they can use a little bit of Welsh and then a little bit more with those people who play sports in our communities?

Well, I thank Tom Giffard. What he said is entirely true. The commissioner's report does highlight the fact that one of the areas where young people do use the Welsh language outside the classroom is on sports playing fields, but also in the arts too. So, we do work with Sport Wales and agencies such as the Football Association of Wales and so on in order to increase the opportunities available for young people to use the Welsh language outside of school in other aspects of their daily lives.

I look forward to speaking to the commissioner about the report and the recommendations that she has made, and to consider how we can do more in partnership with Sport Wales, the national governing bodies and youth organisations in order to normalise the use of the Welsh language in the lives of our young people.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Welsh Conservatives spokesperson, Sam Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, last week you issued a written statement on the state of play following the UK Labour Government's decision to hike employers' national insurance contributions. In it you said that Labour's funding to cover the shortfall for devolved public sector employers is £72 million short of what is needed. As you put it, coming significantly short of what is needed. So, why have your Labour colleagues decided to short-change Wales?

Well, Llywydd, the Member is quite right, I set out last week the package of funding that will be available to Welsh public sector employers to meet their new obligations to pay additional employer national insurance contributions. The total cost to the Welsh devolved public services will be £257 million; £185 million of that was provided through the UK Government, leaving a £72 million gap, and half of that gap, £36 million, will now be found from the Welsh Government. The reason for this is because the UK Government chose to use the Barnett formula as a way of providing assistance to public services in Scotland, Northern Ireland and in Wales, and because the public sector is larger in Wales than it is in England, that results in the shortfall that we are now aiming to assist in making good.

Thank you for your response, Cabinet Secretary. But, clearly, this is significantly different to what you would have expected, because in November 2024, you said that

'there will be additional funding for public sector workers to cover the costs of employer national insurance contributions’,

adding that the Treasury

'will provide full funding to deal with the national insurance contributions of employers',

and now, as I just explained, they haven't provided the full funding as you assured Members of this Senedd. So, it is concerning that, in November, you were giving guarantees that you are now having to walk away from because of your colleagues in Westminster. But, indeed, organisations would have heard those assurances and would have made plans based on those assurances only for them not to come to fruition. So, how did you get it so wrong and how can people trust your assurances again in the future?

Well, the assurances that were given in November were based on the statement of funding policy. The statement of funding policy does seem clear to me. It says that when any one of the four Governments in the United Kingdom takes a decision that creates costs for any other Government, then the Government that creates those costs must meet that bill in full. That, I think, would have been the right way to have dealt with these national insurance contributions. The UK Government takes a different view and has used the Barnett formula instead. We continue to make the case to them for proceeding in a way that I think is consistent with what the statement of funding policy would require.

You must recognise, Cabinet Secretary, that, when assurances are given in this place, organisations expect them to be followed through. I recognise at this stage that some of that has been out of your control, but, again, that flies in the face of the message that you and others want to project, which is that it's the same Government working at both ends of the M4, working together. This is clearly another example of that working together not happening for people here in Wales. And whilst the public sector itself will be damaged as a result of this, the charity sector also, who are huge providers of public services in Wales, are in an even worse position because, of course, there is no additional funding for them to deal with the national insurance increases. Marie Curie, for example, who provide vital hospice care, said that Labour's tax will cost them an additional £2.92 million a year and force them to reduce services. So, can you give assurances, for what they're worth, to organisations like Marie Curie, and many others across Wales, that they will be in a position to be able to provide the vital public sector services in the future, despite not receiving this level of support that they require?

Well, Llywydd, I'm glad to hear what the Member has to say about assurances, because we can take it then, and so can all those people who work in our public services in Wales, that when his leader said at the Conservative Party conference in Wales that the Conservative Party would introduce a pay freeze—a pay freeze—for all public sector workers, we can take it that that was an assurance on which they can rely. [Interruption.] Ah, I see it wasn't so reliable after all, because already we hear them trying to unravel what they said.

I continue to work with all my colleagues in the Cabinet to provide funding to those many organisations that work alongside our public services in the third sector, in the hospice movement, to recognise the invaluable contribution they make here in Wales. All of those organisations have seen an uplift in the funding available to them in the current financial year, and that stands in very sharp contrast to what was possible during the long years of austerity when his party was in charge.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Heledd Fychan.

Thank you very much. I'm sure that it was no surprise to you that these questions have been asked in terms of national insurance, yesterday to the First Minister and to you as Cabinet Secretary. You've been very open in terms of your frustration. 'Fundamental unfairness' is how you described the use of Barnett in terms of funding these national insurance contributions.

In terms of the £72 million, specifically, and the fact that you had to use £36 million of the reserves, may I ask what it won't be possible to fund now as a result of the decrease in the levels of reserves available? Will anything have to be cut from the current budget to make up for that deficit? As has been noted, in terms of working with local authorities and others when it comes to that additional £36 million, we know how limited their budgets are too—what do you expect that they will do in terms of that deficit? Will going to their reserves be the plan too? A little bit more clarity would be of great assistance, I'm sure.

Llywydd, as Heledd Fychan has said, the funding that we can provide to help public services in Wales has come from our reserves. The problem is that that funding gap will remain year on year, and the funding from reserves is funding available for the current year, only the current year.

We are helped in that, Llywydd, by the fact that the Chancellor did agree—and I wrote to the Chair of the Finance Committee earlier in the month to confirm this—that we would have unfettered access to the Welsh reserve in the current financial year. That's not something we've ever had before. It does definitely make managing the current situation more possible. Now, the combination of the £185 million from the UK Government and the £36 million from the Welsh Government means that we are covering 86 per cent of the costs that local authorities and others face. It does mean that they will have to absorb the remainder, the 14 per cent that remains. But, given that they are going to have to absorb these costs not just in this year, but in the years ahead, that's a journey they have to embark upon, and we've done our best to make that journey as practically possible as we can.

Thank you for that response. Clearly, this is a very serious situation, not just in terms of this year, but years to come as well. May I ask therefore—? Clearly, the partnership in power is something that we've heard about often, but is there any movement at all from the Westminster Government in this regard, any assurance? Because, obviously, this isn't the only matter that has highlighted this gap in terms of rhetoric, but also then seeing what is happening. There have been a number of discussions already today in terms of funding for railways, for example, which demonstrates once again that we aren't receiving a fair share of funding for Wales. There was a suggestion yesterday from Mick Antoniw in terms of not collaborating with LCMs, for example, as one way we can demonstrate how we're going to challenge the UK Government. Are you tempted to take that kind of strategy and approach, so that we can stand up for Wales and show that this isn't good enough?

Well, of course the Government here in the Senedd will stand up for Wales, and we do that at every possible opportunity. Now, we can do it with Ministers in Westminster who are willing to listen to what we have to say and to discuss those issues with us. When that leads to a conclusion where we don't think that the conclusion is either appropriate for Wales, or fair for Wales, we will of course stand up and say so. But the fact that we can have those conversations, and that we can have those conversations with a Government that is willing to hear what we have to say, that does give me confidence to say that that is the best way forward, by finding a means of working together and drawing funding into Wales, such as the £1.6 billion that we have in the budget for the current financial year.

But I'm sure that you, like me, don't just want them to hear, but to act. That's one of the things that's very frustrating, is to see that lack of action.

You were very busy last week, so I want to ask my final question with regard to the Commission for Welsh-speaking Communities and the Welsh Government's response. I would also ask whether there will be an opportunity for us to have a debate on the floor of the Senedd. With 57 recommendations, I can't do justice to all of them in the 30 seconds left to me. The response has been mixed, with Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg giving 33 out of 100 to the Welsh Government's response, but also a number have noted their disappointment that there's no clear timeline for implementing the recommendations, in addition to a full explanation of which of the 57 have been accepted and what 'accepted in part' means, and also in terms of the funding that is related to the implementation of those recommendations. Is it the Government's intention, therefore, to provide this information, and, if so, when? And if you don't intend to do so, why not?

Well, I can tell the Member today, Llywydd, that my intention is to return to the Chamber with an oral statement in the autumn, once we’ve had an opportunity to consider the second report in phase 1. As you know, there will be more than one report in the first phase of the commission’s work. We have now seen the report on planning; it is important. I do want to take more time to discuss that report with those who have been working with the commission, and then return to the Senedd in the autumn to have more opportunities to discuss all of the recommendations in the first report at phase 1, and in the second report too.

Llywydd, economic appraisal, business case integration and regulatory impact assessment all precede spending decisions. Performance monitoring, internal challenge and independent evaluation then follow. Together they focus on achieving value for money at every stage, in both revenue and capital expenditure.

Cabinet Secretary, at a time when the cost of living is so high, it is important that taxpayers’ money is spent well and spent on key priorities. And I know that the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretaries take their duties very seriously when it comes to taxpayers’ money and making sure they get their bang for the buck. And I’m sure you want to see every penny spent on crucial front-line services. So, I think it’s important that the Welsh Government instructs civil servants and others to identify savings on more ideological spending, and part of that is understanding where the money is going. So, in light of that, and in light of the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling on the definition of a woman, could you please update the Senedd on how much taxpayers’ money the Welsh Government is giving to Stonewall, and whether you expect that funding to continue at current levels in the medium to long term? Diolch.

Well, Llywydd, that is not a question for me. That’s a question for the Minister, who is in her place. My job is to provide funding to my colleagues. I then don’t micromanage their decisions; it is for individual Cabinet and ministerial colleagues to align the resources I’m able to make available to them with the priorities that they have and the priorities of the Welsh Government.

The Member describes that as 'ideological spending'. But that’s the basis on which we are all elected to this place. We all put our propositions in front of the public, and, when elections are won, you have a mandate to spend that money in line with the promises that we have made. Our support for the LGBTQ+ community was absolutely highlighted in our manifesto and in the action plan that we have subsequently published. Of course we stand by that, and of course we want to see that properly funded.

Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Presiding Officer. One of the really crucial aspects, of course, of identifying spending, and perhaps holding the Government to account for those spending decisions, is through scrutiny. And I would very gently suggest to opposition Members that scrutiny means more than simply reading out press releases at times like this. And one of the opportunities for scrutiny—a primary opportunity for scrutiny—is, of course, the way that the Welsh Government sets its budget. The Minster—the Cabinet Secretary—has, at different times over the years, spoken about his perhaps attraction to a more legislative process for budget setting, although I’m unsure of what the Government’s position is at the moment. So, perhaps it would be useful for us this afternoon to understand whether the Welsh Government remains attracted by the concept of a more legislative basis to our budget-setting, or whether they believe the current process we use remains relevant and futureproof.

Well, Llywydd, I think, in a final year of a Senedd term, it is unlikely that we will choose this moment to move from the system that we have used over recent years to a finance Bill, or whatever other vehicle we would have for the future. I continue to be interested in developing the thinking around that, so a future Senedd would be able to make determinations of its own, and I’m keen to continue to work with the Finance Committee, which has done very valuable work in this area, to align the responsibilities we have, the fiscal responsibilities we have, the revenue-raising as well as the revenue-spending responsibilities that the Senedd possesses, and to discharge those in a way that makes sure that there is proper scrutiny of those decisions.

I thank Jenny Rathbone for that question, Llywydd. Cuts to disability benefits have a direct impact on those individuals and families who lose income, while the potential loss of over £450 million in spending power in the Welsh economy will have a wider adverse impact. The Welsh Government has already increased funding for impartial and specialist advice services to promote the take-up of unclaimed benefits in Wales.

The protocol that was agreed by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice with the Department for Work and Pensions back in February specifically said that the UK Government would provide appropriate impact assessments when significant changes were being made, and, obviously, the benefit entitlements of disabled and sick people would certainly come under that. Now that the UK Government has published disaggregated data, last month, what assessment has the Welsh Government been able to make of the impact on different communities in Wales and different budget responsibilities?

I thank Jenny Rathbone for that, Llywydd. Of course, I'm pleased that Welsh-specific claimant data has now been published. It does enable the identification of the number of people in Wales who could potentially be impacted by the reforms of incapacity and disability benefits. That still falls short of what we believe ought to have been carried out to accompany the proposals—that's to say, a stand-alone impact assessment of those proposed changes on people in Wales.

However, we do now have the claimant data included in the full evidence pack published by the UK Government, by the DWP, on 2 May. That will allow us, in the response that the Welsh Government will make to the consultation exercise, to have some more precision in the impact by individual claimant groups and by geography. It will also mean, as to those other organisations that have so helpfully been analysing the potential impact of these changes—Policy in Practice, the Bevan Foundation, the Wales Governance Centre, the Equality and Social Justice Committee, of course—that this is now data that all of those organisations can use to make sure that when we respond to the consultation exercise, we are representing in the best possible way the impact that the changes would have in Wales and to make sure that those impacts are properly taken into account.

The disability sector want to know what the Welsh Government itself is doing now proactively. You referred to the Bevan Foundation report and Policy in Practice, which found that poverty rates have increased significantly among affected households. The disability sector in Wales is concerned that the UK's current proposals risk further disabling people in Wales by compounding poverty and exclusion—I'm quoting them—and that these cuts may lead to an increase in demand for devolved Welsh services, such as health and social care, funded through the Barnett formula. What, therefore, is your response to their questions as follows: how specifically will the impact of these proposals be measured in Wales? How will any resulting pressures on devolved services be funded, particularly in relation to the adequacy of the Barnett formula? What, if any, concrete steps are the Welsh Government taking to mitigate the impact of these UK Government proposals on disabled people in Wales?

Llywydd, the Welsh Government shares the concerns set out by those disability organisations. It's difficult to give precise answers to some of those questions at this stage, because some of the proposals are still being consulted upon by the UK Government. What we will do is to ensure that, with the new information we have and with the support of those organisations that are analysing it from the perspective of different claimant groups, we bring all of that to the attention of the UK Government in their decision making. More broadly, as you know, and as the Member knows, we’re consulting on the draft disabled people’s rights plan at the moment, and many of those issues are reflected in the work done by the group of people who came together, the disability rights taskforce, and in the proposals that the disabled people’s rights plan sets out.

I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for that response. I’m grateful to him and his colleagues throughout the Welsh Government, actually, for the way in which they’ve responded to these proposals. The proposals, of course, have caused some real fear amongst some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and one of the places that will be impacted most seriously by these proposals is, of course, places like Blaenau Gwent. In terms of how we deliver services in Blaenau Gwent and across the Aneurin Bevan health board, they will be significantly impacted if these proposals are delivered. Will the Cabinet Secretary undertake to continue speaking with his Cabinet colleagues and to Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council and health boards and others in the voluntary sector about how they can be supported to deliver services at a time when some of our most vulnerable people are placed under even greater pressure?

Well, Llywydd, of course I give the Member that undertaking. And he’s right: these proposals have an impact not just on the lives of individuals—very dramatic and adverse impacts in some cases—but the impacts are concentrated in particular geographies. Four of the top 10 local authorities that will be adversely affected are in Wales, and that shows the disproportionate impact that the proposals have in Wales. Of course, we will work with local authorities and health boards to mitigate the impact of any changes, but the real answer is to make sure that, through a redistributive social security system, money is taken from those who can afford to pay and put in the pockets of those people who need it the most. And that’s the fundamental case that we will go on making.

Llywydd, the Welsh Government provides a package of non-domestic rates support worth £335 million in 2025-26. Almost half of all ratepayers pay nothing at all, and fewer than one third pay the full amount, and that is thanks to the support available in Wales.

Thank you, finance Secretary, for your answer. With the recent increase in national insurance contributions from 13.8 per cent to 15 per cent and the lowering of the threshold, many small businesses on our high streets are facing very difficult choices of letting people go or upping their prices, which pushes people out of the high street. Given these challenges and the pressure on businesses and the pressure they have with business rates as well, how does the Welsh Government intend to use the taxation policy it has to support businesses to make sure that we do not have job losses and that we can get people back onto our high streets to make sure that they are thriving in the future?

Well, Llywydd, as I explained, 85,000 of such properties across Wales already get full or partial business rate relief. The Member will be aware that, last month, the Welsh Government launched a 12-week consultation to introduce differential non-domestic rate multipliers, and the proposal that we put forward is one that will particularly concentrate additional help on high-street retailers. Now, I look forward to the responses to that consultation because, if they are supported, then we will be using, for the first time, a new power that is now available to the Senedd to set those differential multipliers. And my conclusion, in consultation with my officials, was that the first use of those new powers should be to assist those high-street retailers, those bricks-and-mortar retail shops, which, as we know, in recent times have faced competition from online retailers in a way that you might not regard as an entirely level playing field.

Cabinet Secretary, I welcome the recent consultation to further support our smaller high-street retailers. I have shared it already, and I will be sharing it far and wide in my constituency. I think that we all recognise that our town centres and the way that we shop have changed over the years. I absolutely agree with the rationale to redress the balance in the face of the growth of large online retailers and the impact that they have on those smaller independent retailers that are at the heart of our high streets. I also recognise that it aligns with the collective commitment in the retail action plan to work together to support our retail sector.

I do want to, very briefly, just raise support for the hospitality sector. When I say that, I am not talking about major corporates or pub chains, but those smaller independents that, so much today, from my experience, do drive that footfall into our town centres. Taken together, they are substantial employers. They often support local supply chains. I want to ask the Government to consider how we use the levers that we do have in Wales to unlock that potential, and to do so in a way that not only enables the sustainability of that sector, but benefits the local economy, the people that work within it and the places in which they are situated too. Diolch.

I thank Hannah Blythyn, Llywydd, and I agree completely with her. I recall very vividly visits that I have made with her to towns like Mold and to Holywell, where those independent high-street retailers give a character to an area, which attracts visitors to it and makes those high streets thrive. The point that she makes is about going beyond our current proposals, which are for high-street retailers rather than the hospitality industry. Of course, I hope that those points will be made by those who support them as part of the consultation exercise. One of the challenges that those who advocate that position will face is how to create a definition that, in law, would allow you to distinguish between the sort of leisure activity that, I think, the Member would not wish to see captured and those that she would wish to see captured. I think we have a definition in relation to high-street retailers that can be made to work. Can we find a similar definition that works in relation to hospitality?

Thank you very much. The agricultural sector has a vital contribution to make to the sustainability of the Welsh language and its prosperity within our communities. We, therefore, give full consideration to the Welsh language in all elements of our agricultural policies.

Thank you for that. Of course, the Commission for Welsh-speaking Communities endorsed the importance of that in their report, with one of the recommendations noting that the Welsh Government should ensure that the Welsh language is a central consideration in agricultural policy, which is something that you have just echoed.

But there is a concern in light of the UK Government's proposals on inheritance tax. If that raises questions about the viability of family farms as they transfer from one generation to the next, then it is going to raise a question about the sustainability of the Welsh language in transferring from one generation to the next, and the ability of those individuals to stay in their communities and to continue to be part of the sector. So, can I ask you to make the case to the UK Government to look again at their intention in terms of the inheritance tax, in order to give specific consideration to the implications of that for the Welsh language?

Dirprwy Lywydd, I know that the Deputy First Minister has done that already. He has written to Ministers in the UK Government, providing them with information about the situation here in Wales. I am sure that he will be eager to continue to make that case for the importance of this issue in terms of the Welsh language.

Through our funded partners, we are increasing access to Welsh-medium childcare, education, community-focused events and adult learning in South Wales East. Participation in learning and experiencing the Welsh language through these avenues has never been higher. The Welsh Language and Education (Wales) Bill will further support that growth.

Thank you very much for that response. I would like to declare an interest as a member of the board of a menter iaith in my region, and as a member of the working committee for the Urdd Eisteddfod in 2027.

Last week, we had the privilege of attending the Urdd Eisteddfod in Margam Park, and I have to say it was a wonderful experience walking around the field, in sunshine and rain, and seeing so many young people, families and teachers coming together to celebrate the Welsh language, which was clear confirmation of the strength of the Welsh language when it's properly supported. It was particularly encouraging to hear so many Welsh learners, as well as fluent speakers, using the Welsh language naturally in all aspects of the festival.

I'm particularly pleased at the announcement that the Eisteddfod will be travelling to Newport in 2027—the first time that the festival has ever been held there in its almost 100-year history. This is a significant milestone for the city and is a great opportunity to strengthen the status of the Welsh language in Newport and the south-east more broadly. But given that the percentage of Welsh speakers in Newport is lower than the national average, I would like to ask: how does the Government intend to ensure that the benefits of holding the Urdd Eisteddfod in the city will go beyond the week itself, and how will you work with the Urdd, the mentrau iaith, the local authority and local communities and others in order to ensure that the Welsh language leaves a permanent legacy in that area, particularly among young people and learners?

I thank Peredur Owen Griffiths for that question. Dirprwy Lywydd, I agree with him—it's important to celebrate the fact that the Urdd Eisteddfod will be visiting Newport in 2027, and I'm sure that the Urdd Eisteddfod will have a long-term positive impact on the city, but also on the region as a whole. We have a very good example already, don't we? Not just the Eisteddfod last week, but the National Eisteddfod in Pontypridd, where everyone worked together not just for the week of the festival itself, but to create those long-term impacts. And I've been back to Pontypridd, more than a month ago now, to celebrate with local people the things that have continued after the Eisteddfod, to have that positive effect. I'm sure that the Urdd, the mentrau iaith and so on, will want to use this opportunity that the Urdd Eisteddfod will offer Newport to create those long-term impacts in that way.

And finally, question 8, Joyce Watson.

We continue to provide significant non-domestic rates support for small to medium-sized retailers through our range of fully funded relief schemes. We are also consulting on the proposal to introduce a lower multiplier for small to medium-sized retailers, to rebalance the non-domestic rates system in their favour from 2026-27 onwards.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. There has, of course, been a lot of discussion before my question on the proposed benefit, post consultation, of lowering that rate, and it could be up to 13,000 retail properties across Wales. So, rebalancing the rates system in favour of smaller shops would definitely boost the high street in most of my region. We have an awful lot of wonderful small shops, and I'm sure you frequent them when you visit my area yourself.

But the other side of that, of course, is we've heard concerns being expressed about the changes that would hit hospitality, businesses and larger shops. Hannah Blythyn, my colleague and neighbour here, mentioned that previously. So, we need to allay those fears now before people get so anxious that it causes them distress.

Thanks, Joyce Watson, for that. I'm grateful for the chance to mention that I spent a very enjoyable morning in Narberth recently at the proclamation of the National Eisteddfod there, and Narberth is a really fine example, isn't it, of a thriving local town with a high street genuinely full of independent retailers.

I want to be clear that there is nothing in the proposals that the Welsh Government has made that would disadvantage hospitality organisations. What we are proposing is a multiplier system in which the additional help that we propose making for shops, kiosks or post offices is paid for by an additional sum of money levied through the very large retailers. It's not taking money out of hospitality in order to provide more help to retailers. So, I hope we can reassure people that that's not part of the proposal.

At the end of this, Dirprwy Lywydd, we would for the first time have three different multipliers in Wales. It's a result of the powers that come to the Senedd through the Local Government Finance (Wales) Act 2024. I think that we will be able to go on having conversations about how we can use that new tool in future. I'm keen that we use it in the first year that it's available. I am keen that we use it in a way that allows the system to settle in. It will be a big change for non-domestic ratepayers as well as the collection system. That's why we've made the rather specific proposal we have made, but I think that that can be a start of that wider conversation about how that new policy tool can allow us to go on helping those businesses who make such a difference in those different localities in all parts of Wales, and particularly in the Member's constituency.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Item 3 is questions to the Senedd Commission. Questions 1 and 2 [OQ62780 and OQ62776] have been withdrawn, so I'll turn to question 3, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Members have been engaged and consulted throughout the design process in the form of a Member reference group made up of Senedd Commissioners; Members of all political parties; architects, RSHP; and contractors, CBRE. All Members have had the opportunity to engage via drop-in sessions, which were well attended, and briefings for all party groups by Commission officials. The timetable for the works has seen the Senedd move its Plenary proceedings to this temporary Chamber, and that happened as from Easter 2025 until February 2026.

The Commission has awarded the contract for the Siambr 2026 building works to a local Welsh contractor following a competitive tender process. The works have commenced and are on track. The cross-party Member reference group for this project has met to receive a progress update and to discuss any issues arising. That also met yesterday, and all political parties represented in this Chamber were included in that meeting.

Thank you, Commissioner. That's the most comprehensive answer I've had from the lectern, I think, in fairness. There must be something in the air. Perhaps the First Minister needs to pay attention to your capabilities. [Laughter.]

Commissioner, there's a difference of opinion whether we should have 96 Members or not, and I accept that two thirds of this Senedd voted to have the 96 Members. So, the work is progressing, hence that's why we're sitting in this Chamber. But can you confirm, additional to the answer you've given me, that the reconfiguration will be undertaken within budget and within time frame, as you specified there? Because I think the plan is for Members to return for the latter part of February 2026 and March 2026. So, can you confirm that the plans are to budget and also to time?

On the issue of time, we had in the Members reference group yesterday a clear indication that February is on target. There are obviously snagging issues that will need to take place at the end of the process, but that looks to be completed by a recant in February 2025.

With regard to the cost, the resource impact assessment that was set out for the legislation that was passed to introduce Senedd reform was undertaken before we knew what the content of the legislation was going to exactly be. So, getting that exactly on target with the RIA would certainly be a challenge. But if you listened to the budget I delivered last year for the Senedd Commission, you'll see that it was within 8 per cent. Given the fact that that extra information came after the legislation, I think that's a pretty good hit to that target.

The changes to the Chamber are an opportunity to look again at how friendly it is to disabled Members, staff and the public, and I wondered whether any engagement has taken place with disabled people and disabled charities to ensure the systems are in place that are suitable for those that need them, because it does seem a good opportunity to reassess all that. It's very encouraging that we know that there'll be better BSL provision in the Chamber.

That question was raised in the Members reference group yesterday by Jane Dodds. She was very concerned to see exactly what you're talking about, and we received reassurances as well, including from the design consultants and the architects. They've actually got a disability consultant engaged in the process, and it will be a fully accessible Chamber. It'll be better than the Chamber was previously. There will be ramps and the incline of the desks will be slightly lower, and that will be to accommodate disability access as well. So, it's been at the forefront of the designers' minds as this process has gone on, and I think you will be pleased with the result.

I thank the Commissioner.

No topical questions have been accepted today.

So, we'll move on to item 5, the 90-second statements. And the first statement will be from Jenny Rathbone.

This Sunday is the forty-third anniversary of the Sir Galahad disaster. My constituents Karen Edwards and Dawn Newbury mourn the loss of their brother Stephen Newbury, missing, presumed dead. They testify that their father went to an early death, plagued by the unanswered questions surrounding Lance Corporal Newbury's sacrifice. Fellow Welsh Guardsman Simon Weston is the ultimate survivor, despite 46 degree burns. Everywhere he goes, people want to speak to him or get a selfie in recognition of his courage and his commitment to many good causes, including justice for the Welsh Guards.

Survivors and the bereaved need to know why the Welsh Guards and other personnel were left on board an undefended ship for five hours in broad daylight in full view of the enemy. They have been cynically told that they must wait until 2065 for the conclusions of a 1982 board of inquiry to be published. Amongst the evidence that has been reclassified as no longer secret is the assertion that tactical control of ship-to-shore movements was delegated to the command of the 5th Infantry Brigade. The army had absolutely no control of the logistics to get them to the front line, and this is a complete fabrication by the overall commander of the Falklands campaign, Admiral Fieldhouse, no less. We need to learn from our mistakes, not bury them, particularly if we want to reverse the decline in recruitment and retention of people willing to serve in the military. That is why we now need a court martial so the truth can be told.

The first week of June is Volunteers Week, and I would like to take this opportunity to remember Graham Benfield OBE, who has recently passed away. Graham was the chief executive of WCVA, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, for 25 years. He promoted partnership working in every institution in Wales and developed effective relationships across the UK, Europe and globally.

Prior to leading the WCVA, Graham was the chief executive of West Glamorgan council for voluntary services, now known as Swansea council for voluntary service. Graham was ideally suited to the voluntary sector. He was a deep thinker with a compassionate approach, and a real interest in people. He always promoted the value of volunteers and the independence of the sector. Graham worked closely with the Welsh Government, providing invaluable research and data, as well as standing up for overlooked communities. Graham also developed the third sector partnership council, an arrangement that remains unique in the world, where representatives of the voluntary sector meet with Welsh Ministers twice a year and contribute to policy and practice discussions.

Graham retired from the WCVA in 2014, but of course remained active as a volunteer in the sector until very recently. Graham sadly died in March, and a celebration of his life was held at St Illtud's church in Llantwit Major last month, which was attended by the Cabinet Secretary and his local MS, Jane Hutt. Graham leaves his wife, two sons and six grandchildren. His legacy will live on with them and the many people whose lives have been impacted by his vision and commitment.

This weekend, on Sunday 8 June, we will celebrate World Ocean Day. Here in Wales, around 68 per cent of people live in coastal areas, and eight out of 10 people say that visiting the sea is good for their mental health. It's where we go to think, to breathe and to feel at one with nature.

I welcome the United Nations ocean global treaty on the high seas, agreed in 2023, which covers areas beyond national jurisdiction under the UN convention. The UK Government is a signatory on behalf of devolved Governments. Sir David Attenborough's latest film on oceans highlights the decline in life in the world's oceans and their importance to the planet's support system.

The ocean clearly has a huge effect on our lives and yet it is under threat. Fewer than half of our marine protected areas are in a favourable condition. We are still waiting for a consultation on marine conservation zones. The Marine Conservation Society's Beachwatch data showed a 4 per cent increase in the average amount of litter found on Welsh beaches in 2024. The ocean does so much for us, and I wonder what we can do in return.

Let's remind ourselves this World Ocean Day of what we can do. We need to protect what we say is protected, ensuring our MPAs live up to their name. We need to see effective litter policies that go beyond recycling policies, which tackle waste at its source. And we need to see better marine spatial planning, to ensure we aren't addressing climate change at the expense of nature. Because the ocean is not simply a backdrop to our lives; it sustains us, it inspires us, and it needs us. So, let's make sure we're giving back not just this World Ocean Day, but every day.

Thank you, all.

Item 6 is next, the debate on petition P-06-1476, '1000 meter mandatory buffer zone for all new and existing quarries'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Carolyn Thomas.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. On behalf of the Petitions Committee, thank you for the opportunity to introduce this debate. The petition was submitted by Monika Golebiewska, and closed on 10 October 2024 with 11,473 signatures. The petition reads:

'Ensure mandatory buffer zone for all new and existing quarries in Wales. We propose at least 1,000.00 meters buffer zone from all residential areas, schools, hospitals, and care facilities. Currently the law allows for quarries to be located as close as 200 meters away from residential areas and schools. This is affecting people's health and causing damage to property. The bigger buffer zone we can have the better.'

We met the petitioners last November, and their evidence about the impact of the Craig-yr-Hesg quarry on their lives was very powerful. Monika said, 'I'm worried about my health and structural damage to my home.' Young people from Glyncoch had helped gather over 11,000 signatures, showing the strength of local feeling. Although we debated Heledd Fychan's legislative proposal for quarry buffer zones in October, the committee thought it was important for Members to consider the further evidence we have received. I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary, the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council, quarry owners Heidelberg Materials and the petitioners for their evidence.

We were also contacted by the Mineral Products Association, representing the bulk of operators in Wales. In the interest of balance, I was happy to meet with them before today's debate to hear their concerns about how mandatory buffer zones could affect an industry that employs around 4,000 people and provides vital materials to the Welsh construction industry.

The challenge here is how we safeguard the health and well-being of communities, particularly our most deprived and vulnerable citizens, prevent biodiversity loss, and support the Welsh economy. Quarry locations are dictated by where the materials are to be found, and often, quarries predate the communities that have grown up around them. The MPA also point out the technical evidence and environmental impact assessments undertaken before permissions are granted.

But these are people's lives, and we can't turn back the clock. It is the safety of the children on the way to and from school, with quarry lorries going past. It is the worry about airborne dust in communities, with high rates of serious respiratory conditions. It's the fear about the structural damage to homes, and it's the shock people experience when blasting takes place. It's hard to watch a video of vulnerable children being terrified by blasting operations.

Often on the Petitions Committee, we meet people who feel that their voices have not been heard and that the needs of big businesses are being put above their own. Although this petition calls for wide buffer zones for all quarries, it centres on the lived experience of the community at Craig-yr-Hesg quarry. The expansion of operations there has caused great concern, and as a committee we wanted to shine a spotlight on that.

We're also mindful that there are mothballed quarries across Wales that could reopen in future, so this is a live issue in all our communities. The aggregates levy fund was an important mechanism for affected communities to drive some compensatory benefits from quarrying. That fund no longer exists, as it was considered to become unsustainable. European funding for these kinds of community benefits is also gone, so a question for Welsh Government is how to otherwise guarantee ring-fenced funds to compensate communities. Could we see the reintroduction of the aggregates levy fund in Wales?

We also need to ensure the industry does everything possible to mitigate the effects of its activities. Can more be done about the impact of quarry lorries, for example? They have become bigger, they have become heavier, and they have become noisier.

Community liaison groups are vital in areas where there is quarrying. The council say that setting up a group in Glyncoch has not been without its challenges, but I'm pleased this is now happening and that the council has also set up an online portal at the residents' request. I hope everything possible will be done to help residents. Local representatives, public health experts and the operator need to all work together to address local concerns.

The Cabinet Secretary has explained that she does not support legislative changes that could have adverse consequences, and thinks planning policy and guidance is better able to take account of local circumstances, monitor activity and respond to any breaches by operators. I look forward to hearing Members' contributions and also the Cabinet Secretary's response today on what more could be done to show that we are listening to the voices of those most profoundly affected by quarrying activities in Wales. Thank you.

I fully support the existence of buffer zones between quarries and residential areas, schools, hospitals and care facilities. It is important that we recognise and continue to remember the fact that quarrying not only has an environmental impact but also has an impact on those who live and work by them, and it is necessary to ensure public safety.

We have seen time and again in Wales, and most recently for those living in Glyncoch near Craig-yr-Hesg quarry, situations whereby the local community is unnecessarily impacted by quarrying activity, and it is right that the situation is properly looked into. As such, I can certainly see why this petition has been brought forward and has had such strong support. The community feel a strong sense that the quarry is not sympathetic to the impact it is having, especially during blasting, where the noise and sometimes the tremors are felt throughout the village and the wider local area.

I have myself visited several quarries over the years, including Craig-yr-Hesg, and I've met with quarry management staff. I've also met with residents concerned about the impact that quarrying has had on the local area. For both sides of the fence, I can see the concerns and I believe much more needs to be done in terms of reconciliation and to mitigate the effects of the industry on the surrounding communities. I think this is true for many industries, not just quarrying.

Dirprwy Lywydd, it is important that businesses that have an impact on their environment and on the communities that we live and work in around them are sensitive to the disruption that they may cause. But we also have to be mindful of how quarrying is an essential part of our economy. I therefore believe there needs to be a greater effort by those who manage quarries to be coexistent and not in conflict with the communities that live near them.

Wales has over 2,500 people employed in the mining and quarrying sector, and provides over £170 million to the Welsh economy. It is important that we do not lose these jobs, but it is equally important that communities do not have to live at the mercy of quarrying activities, which can have substantial negative impacts in terms of noise, dust and traffic.

In terms of quarrying and other similar industries, they have a limited choice where they operate, and if communities want employment or want jobs, they also need to engage and form a good working relationship, one that enables both parties to thrive. Minimum buffer zones are a good place to start, and I think there is potential for other provisions to be included that could help communities and quarries exist together in co-operation. I therefore urge the Members here to note this petition. Thank you.

I want to consider four questions this afternoon: (1) is the current buffer zone enough; (2) is new legislation needed; (3) are there health implications; and finally, is the case-by-case basis working for the people of Wales.

Firstly, is the current buffer zone enough? To put it in context, 200m is from the Senedd steps to the Norwegian church. Who here would think it'd be appropriate to have such noise and such pollution so near to our national legislature, let alone so near to where children live, are educated and play? A site, and we've seen the videos and photos, that can raise clouds up to the tree line, as seen in photos that have been submitted by campaigners to the Petitions Committee. Heledd Fychan raised, in a letter to our committee, that the small distance of 200m, from the steps to the Norwegian church, isn't in fact what's happening at the moment. The blasting in the Craig-yr-Hesg quarry is only 134m from Cefn Primary School and is only 109m from the rugby club, Glyncoch rugby field. That, ironically, is only the length of the rugby field itself—109m. So, clearly, the current buffer zone is not enough.

Do we need new legislation? Evidence submitted by the company that runs the Craig-yr-Hesg quarry states that they are fully compliant with all regulations and legislation. Assuming that they are correct, and I have no reason to doubt them on that point, surely this is further evidence that current legislation does not go far enough. The ideal legal situation is when companies comply with the law, that the citizens then are happy with that. That clearly is not the case in this matter. Every time this matter is discussed in the Petitions Committee, the public gallery is full, we can see the support here, and we can see it from the photographs and the videos that the campaigners have submitted. The feelings of the local community are clear.

Thirdly, are there health implications? While, technically, it's true that there are no cases of silicosis that have been documented among members of the general public in Britain, that doesn't mean that non-occupational silicosis cannot or will not happen, nor does it mean that no other health issues might arise from living in close proximity to the quarry. Internationally, we've seen cases of non-occupational silicosis that have already been well documented. Research has also shown a link between living within 500m of a quarry and increased incidence of eye and nasal allergy, chest tightness, chronic coughs, asthma, bronchitis—[Interruption.] I haven't got time, sorry—rhinitis and more. Many of us have seen the black handkerchiefs of coal miners. If we suspect that this is an issue now, we need to take action on it.

Finally, is the case-by-case basis working for the people of Wales? The Cabinet Secretary has argued that these cases are more appropriately considered on a case-by-case basis, but I fear that leads to only a deepening of structural inequality. More deprived areas are unlikely to be able to field the defence against a larger company with a well-resourced objection that a less deprived area would. The area of Glyncoch closest to the quarry, described by Welsh data scientists as 'Glyncoch 1', is currently ranked 51 out of 1,909 areas in Wales for overall deprivation, making it one of the most deprived areas in Wales. This puts it in the top 3 per cent of the most deprived areas in Wales. Meanwhile, the company that owns the quarry, Heidelberg Materials, reported a £21,156 million revenue for the year 2024, and £1,980 million profit in the year 2024. For context, the Welsh Government budget is only slightly higher than that.

Can I thank Carolyn Thomas and the Petitions Committee for your careful consideration of this important matter? I'm not one to over-dramatise or over-use words, but I think it is scandalous what is happening to the community of Glyncoch. And I'd like to pay tribute to campaigners for the fact that they are fighting this and that they are having to come up with evidence themselves without a lot of support to try and prove what they know is happening within the community.

It is scandalous that their concerns are dismissed because they can't provide all the evidence. And even when they provide the evidence, which they've been doing diligently, it's dismissed or doubted, rather than people taking notice. So, I hope from today's debate that we can take notice and that we also support the community of Glyncoch and actually provide that support that they're requesting to understand what exactly is the impact on communities like Glyncoch. So, I really hope that that can be an outcome.

Their plight was recently highlighted in a Nation.Cymru article by Emily Price—in an article with the headline, 'Valleys community describes life near quarry as "slow Aberfan disaster" '. It's a very harrowing read, and I would urge every Member of the Senedd to read it if you haven't yet. I will circulate via e-mail a copy to all following this debate.

We know that pennant stone is a valuable resource. It's prized for its skid-resistant properties. However, this stone contains approximately 70 per cent silica—a substance that, as has been mentioned, is known to pose several health risks when airborne in fine particulate form. Evidence found by local campaigners confirms that silica dust from the quarry is infiltrating nearby homes. A 2014 study by the University of the West of England found that silica-based dust concentrations were nearly 2.4 times higher in homes close to the quarry boundary compared to those situated several hundred metres away. A recent 2024 dust analysis further revealed that up to 50 per cent of dust samples collected near residential areas consisted of silica dust.

Now, local people have shared their stories of ill health with me, convinced that living with almost constant dust inside their homes, on their cars and in the air, is contributing to their various ailments, such as asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, respiratory difficulties, lung cancers, throat cancers, pneumonia, bronchitis—these are all conditions that have been associated with long-term low-level exposure to silica dust, or shorter term higher levels of exposure. These are considered dangerous, that's why there are stringent health and safety precautions for employees.

I'm sure we can therefore understand why they are so concerned. I frequently visit residents in Glyncoch, and I did so recently, especially with those who live just over the hedge from where a crusher operates. They showed me the dust that covers their cars and homes. In fact, my own car, after being in Glyncoch for just four hours, was completely covered. It doesn't happen when I visit other areas.

I'll pick up where Heledd Fychan left off. I was pleased to support her legislative proposal last year. The only reservation I had, as you know, was making quarries developments of national significance, which would mean the Welsh Government would take the decision on planning applications. I would rather they stayed local to local authorities. But, at the same time, I think the direction of the legislative proposal was very much in the direction of the petition statement, particularly with the 1,000m rule.

Now, we've got a quarry in Gelligaer, run by a company called Bryn quarry at Gelliargwellt Uchaf Farm. The planning application to extend the quarry was recently approved, despite the objection of residents who live nearby. That quarry has created both blast nuisance and dust nuisance in the communities of Penybryn and Gelligaer. Now, the issue here is not one of lung damage, though, because I set up, in partnership with Caerphilly council, a liaison group, which brought Public Health Wales, Natural Resources Wales and environmental health together. Through that, with residents on board as well, we carried out, through Public Health Wales, dust monitoring, through Petri dishes, in the community in Gelligaer and Penybryn. The dust monitoring was placed at the places where residents wanted them placed. I'm glad to say that the level of silica particulate that was identified was low, and, relative to other areas, was normal. So, we haven't got those same concerns about silica dust problems and lung health in Gelligaer, but it remains, though, a dust nuisance and it remains a blast nuisance. When blasts happen, residents' windows shake. It can be quite a shock, and we have very little warning as to when these blasts are occurring.

So, as Heledd Fychan said, I've asked for MTAN 1 to be reviewed. It hasn't been updated since it was introduced in March 2004. Surely, there must be an opportunity to look at this. When the Cabinet Secretary responded to Heledd Fychan last year, she said:

'I will explore these issues that have been raised in the Chamber...with officials, and should evidence suggest that that policy or advice is no longer up to date then we'll certainly give consideration to reviewing that guidance.'

She said that

'The minimum distances of the buffer zones that are currently set out in MTAN 1 of 200m for hard rock.... Introducing a mandatory buffer zone of 1,000m could bring about some unintended consequences'.

Well, we need to know how those unintended consequences balance against public nuisance. I think having that discussion—. I'd like to take part—. If the Cabinet Secretary agrees to Heledd Fychan's request, I'd like to take part in that meeting, and have a conversation about balancing those negative unintended consequences against public nuisance.

It's an excellent debate, I have to say. So, the petition does call for a mandatory buffer zone for all new and existing quarries in Wales. It has 11,473 signatures—that's fantastic. The proposals of this petition rightly aim to protect the health of residents. It does raise very interesting questions that do need to be considered and addressed. This has the potential to impact many residents across the whole of Wales who currently live near quarry sites. The current law allows for quarries to be located as close as 200m away from residential areas and schools, and there are many quarries across the whole of Wales, with many of them located very near to homes. So, I do—. I noticed in the petition itself it mentioned about—. What do you call it, when it’s afterwards that you get the—?

Retrospective.

That's the one. Yes, retrospective. I'm just a little bit concerned on that aspect, because we have a Heidelberg Materials Aggregates in Penmaenmawr, making some of the finest rock aggregate for roads and things. And I've been around to see them, and they do work very closely with the community. They dampen down on days that they’re blasting and things like that. So, there are measures that can be introduced. Should these local quarry companies provide, maybe, a community fund that helps to offset some of the problems that they create? Some people live near active and inactive quarry sites, so, then, again, we’d need to know just what exactly is being asked for here.

I notice also that, too often, people will come to see me on an issue—and I have mentioned that particular site—where they have found dust all over their properties, their windows, the fronts of the houses, their cars. Are they making their residents aware before blasts, as they used to? They used to have the sirens going off. Is that happening as much as it should be? And when I check into these things, I do worry that people buy houses, and that during conveyancing, they’re not advised of the impacts. It doesn’t come up on local searches even. So, it’s a really delicate area that we’re talking about.

The quarry in Penmaenmawr—it’s history dates back to the 1830s. And, as I say, the aggregates are transported by rail, and I just worry about that. Friends of the Earth have quite rightly highlighted that people living near quarries are more likely to suffer from shortness of breath, coughs, allergies, eye problems like dry eye, soreness or tearing. There are so many issues here, and I really wish you well in taking this forward.

I do think further clarity is needed from the Cabinet Secretary on what ongoing conversations are taking place with the necessary stakeholders about the health and well-being of residents located near quarry sites. We’ve just done the soundscapes Bill, and the pollution on that. Why, perhaps, were these not classified as witnesses at the time? And then, of course, with new operations, I think there have to be some stark changes to permissions, or else we’re just going to keep storing up these problems year after year.

So, will the Cabinet Secretary provide a statement on how this proposed buffer zone will impact those who are already living less than 1,000m away from existing quarries? Diolch.

I speak in support of this petition. My colleague Heledd Fychan, as has been said, introduced a motion to the Senedd some months ago, which would have achieved something similar. Living near a quarry can seriously affect your health. And as we’ve heard from what Hefin has said already, residents in Gelligaer and Penybryn, who live near one of these quarries, suffer every time there’s a blast from the site, with the dust that’s sent over their houses, that cakes their cars in soot, the vibrations in their homes, the noise pollution, unpleasant smells. If a mandatory buffer zone were in place, where there had to be 1,000m between any such site, and people’s houses, or schools, it would vastly improve people’s quality of life.

The quarry is a constant worry for people living in Gelligaer and Penybryn. They worry about structural damage to their properties. Some of them have shown me the cracks that they say appeared with the blasts. They’re worried about how it could affect their insurance, and whether, now that that quarry has been extended, their homes could be devalued. But most of all they are worried about their children. One resident has written to me talking about how the machinery and the noise have woken her sleeping baby, how she has to keep doors and windows closed in the hot weather because of an ugly cliff face of pure dust. She fears for her children's lungs. Her other child, who is five, often speaks about the noise and the foul smell that comes from the quarry. She's only glad that her five-year-old is in school when they blast, because the windows, the doors, the crockery all shake. She feels sad and angry. The air these residents breathe is affected by this dust. I've long called for enhanced and independent monitoring of the air quality near these quarries. These residents are choking with the dust. We have to see change. And most of all, as we've already heard, we need a system that empowers local residents, not silencing them, I'm afraid, as is happening at the moment. That same resident who wrote to me has said that MTAN 1 quarry guidance is out of date and needs revising, that there is no trust in the quarry from the community—'It feels like everything is against us.' I would add my voice to those points and to what's been said by Heledd Fychan and Hefin David, and I would like, Cabinet Secretary, to be in that meeting to discuss how MTAN 1 can be revised. Change is here patently needed, and it does feel like a farce sometimes, when you look at how these decisions are allowed to be taken in the systems that we have. When that permission was granted for this quarry in particular to be extended, it was passed by a single vote, and, as Hefin has said, it has caused anger and anguish for that community. We need to change how these quarries operate, how closely they can be allowed to people's homes—to where people live their lives and where they breathe every day. I'm urging the Government to listen to this petition and to act on it.

It's a pleasure to take part in this debate this afternoon. I've really enjoyed listening to the contributions, particularly with the health aspects, given my interest in health, and some of those symptoms as a result of living near quarries, and the consequences of some of those geographical realities.

The idea that quarry developments, especially new ones or extensions, should not take place in close proximity to homes and communities without a robust precautionary planning framework—. Residents across Wales are increasingly raising concerns about the impacts of quarries: dust, noise, traffic, long-term environmental degradation and damage to homes caused from the seismic activities. These are not minor inconveniences; they are real threats to well-being, biodiversity and local amenities. The call for a 1,000m buffer zone reflects that anxiety, and I believe we should be listening closely.

If I may, I'd like to speak to one case where such an approach is urgently needed—the proposed extension of Denbigh quarry in my own constituency, which I'm completely opposed to. I regularly meet with the Denbigh Save Our Green Spaces group, who are leading the campaign against Breedon's plans to extend the quarry. It's in the middle of a medieval town such as Denbigh, where an extension would be detrimental to those communities, and particularly those ones in upper Denbigh. That development would devastate grass fields, destroy local woodland and eliminate habitat for protected species such as dormice, bats and peregrine falcons. It runs contrary to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the net zero strategy and the Government's own biodiversity targets to reverse nature loss by 2030. Local residents have mobilised with credible data and the environmental assessments submitted were limited and, frankly, inadequate.

Denbighshire County Council's decision to reject the extension was correct, and I'm pleased that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning has agreed to meet with me on this issue, and I hope that we can schedule this as soon as possible to discuss the myriad of issues that approving the Denbigh quarry extension would cause. But Denbigh is not unique, as we've heard in this debate. It's a symptom of a wider issue: a planning system that still too often favours industrial expediency over environmental integrity and community voice. We need national planning policy that is clearer, fairer and firmer, one that balances the economic need for raw materials with our duties to future generations. This petition reflects that public demand for change, so I'd ask the Cabinet Secretary to take on board the sentiments in the petition and look to ensure a solution that ensures the rights of residents are upheld with regard to the new quarries, or quarry extensions for that matter. Thank you very much.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to the Petitions Committee debate this afternoon concerning the 1,000m buffer zones for all new and existing quarries. And as the Petitions Committee Chair highlighted, we did debate a legislative proposal on this very issue back in October last year, where I outlined a number of reasons why the Welsh Government believes that a mandatory 1,000m buffer zone would not be appropriate for all new and existing quarries, because that is very much a blunt tool. But I'm, of course, very happy to set out our position again today and grateful to colleagues for setting out a real range of important points this afternoon.

This morning, I took the opportunity to visit Cornelly quarry in Bridgend, where I learned about its strategic economic importance to the south Wales region. Cornelly has supported Tata Steel in Port Talbot, it has supplied aggregate for the upgrading of the Heads of the Valleys road, and it has supplied to Cardiff rivers to help alleviate flooding. It will also be playing a really important role in the resurfacing of the M4 between Cardiff and Newport in the coming months. I do think it’s fair to say that the contribution of the minerals industry to the economy is very often overlooked, as is the crucial role that they play in delivering our infrastructure, our housing, for example, our schools and our hospitals. So, I do think that we also need to acknowledge that angle in the debate this afternoon.

I am, though, very aware that residents have raised concerns relating to activities at Craig-yr-Hesg quarry in particular. Local planning authorities do have the powers to investigate potential breaches of planning control, and responsibility for enforcing that planning control does lie with local authorities, and that includes the conditions that were attached to the planning permission, which was granted following a successful appeal. The possibility of enforcement action does mean that the case may well again be presented to Welsh Ministers and this time—[Interruption.]—just let me finish this important point, if you don't mind—this time to determine an enforcement appeal. And I know that colleagues will, for that reason, understand that I can't comment on the planning merits for this site, to avoid prejudicing those proceedings, but I do acknowledge how frustrating that is for both colleagues and also for residents as well.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. I know you say there, and it is true, that local authorities do make these decisions, and quite rightly so, but when they're contested or called in, as it's called, that's subject to ministerial sign-off, which would indeed be yourself. So, where do you assess your role within that in terms of the capabilities and the powers that you have in order to address the concerns raised in this debate that we could directly speak to?

So, I think that that goes back to that point about enforcement action, and that might well find itself with Welsh Ministers again in future, which is why I'm not able to say more in relation to that, because my role then might be to make a determination in relation to an appeal. And I absolutely understand how frustrating that must be for residents when they hear that, that we're not able to engage directly with the specific points that have been made by colleagues this afternoon, but there are good legal and planning reasons for that.

As I did mention, though, the sustainable supply of minerals and aggregates is essential to support our economic development in Wales, and it is then the role of the planning system to seek to balance society's need for minerals against the protection of amenity. I do appreciate that these issues are very, very controversial at times, and, as I set out in the previous debate, they are also very localised, and that’s why they are best, I think, dealt with locally through the appropriate policies in local development plans. And I think, actually, the contributions in the debate this afternoon have only served to reinforce that. They’ve been very, very local, very locally focused contributions, absolutely quite rightly, because that is what our roles are as Members of the Senedd, to make the case on behalf of our constituents. But I do think that that has emphasised that local point.

I think that the key issue that comes with that localism is that the rules that have been set for councils mean that councillors have no choice but to vote in favour of planning applications, because officers tell them, 'If you go to appeal, you'll be defending this yourself, and you haven't got a leg to stand on because of the rules.' So, what we're asking for is: help those councillors out to make better local decisions, because MTAN 1 has not been reviewed for 21 years, and, in that 21 years, you've heard all the experiences that Heledd Fychan, that Rhys, that Delyth and Gareth and Janet have mentioned. It must be listened to.

I will be coming on to the point about MTAN 1 and also the points that you've made in previous debates on this, but I'll just move on to say that we don't agree that a blanket 1,000m buffer zone on new and existing quarries would be appropriate or effective, because, as I said, those circumstances do vary. But 'Planning Policy Wales' and 'Minerals Technical Advice Note (Wales) 1: Aggregates', MTAN 1, are the principal sources of national planning policy, and we do believe that they do provide comprehensive and robust guidance about controlling the impacts of quarrying.

Planning policy is nuanced, and it is capable of being more locally place-based and sensitive, reflecting local circumstances. And also, though, it is kept under regular review, so should evidence suggest policy or advice is no longer up to date, consideration will be given to reviewing guidance. So, I know colleagues this afternoon have made reference to a number of sets of evidence that they say has changed the situation since MTAN 1 came into force, so, please, let's have that evidence and explore that evidence, because, as I say, we do keep things constantly under review.

One of the key principles within our policy is to provide for the safeguarding and the working of mineral resources to meet society's needs, both now and in the future, encouraging the efficient and appropriate use of those high-quality materials. The system does already require that the consideration of impacts on the environment, biodiversity, and public health are assessed as part of the planning process for new quarries and for the extensions to existing quarries. The primary purpose of those buffer zones is to limit the impact of mineral working and to protect land uses that are most sensitive to the impact of mineral operations by establishing that separation distance between potentially conflicting land uses. And as colleagues have said, the minimum distances of the buffer zones currently set out in MTAN 1 of 200m for hard rock and 100m for sand and gravel were arrived at through careful consideration and consultation with a range of interested and informed stakeholders.

So, introducing that mandatory buffer zone of 1,000m could bring about some unintended consequences, preventing the use of land for other uses, and that might then prohibit or adversely impact on the provision of key infrastructure, and I've mentioned house building as an example.

MTAN 1 is clear that the potential impact on health must always be considered in relation to proposals for aggregates extraction and a health impact assessment should be carried out for any proposal for a new quarry or sand and gravel pit located within 1 km of an existing community.

Our policy recognises that well-established liaison committees do help to provide the better local understanding of the impacts to be expected from aggregates extraction, and many quarries have already established those liaison committees and they do act as a forum for regular discussion and explanation, and those fora can be set up through the initiative of the operator or through the local planning authority, and I can't see any reason why a liaison committee would not be set up around a quarry, especially if it's a quarry where there are particular local concerns, because I think that that could be a really important forum for the exchange of information and exploring ways in which you can work together to address some of the concerns.

Cabinet Secretary, you will need to conclude—

—so that's a really important sector.

—and I've given allocated time for the interventions, so you need to conclude.

Apologies, I will conclude.

So, ultimately, we are seeking to actively reduce the proportion of primary aggregates that are used in relation to secondary recycled or waste materials and there's more work that we're doing in that area that I can share with colleagues. But, really, I do want to thank the petitioners themselves for bringing forward this issue for us to debate this afternoon. I clearly can recognise the strength of feeling, and the strength of feeling that has been brought forward by the representatives of those constituents as well, but I also hope I've been able to set out how difficult this is, to have that balance between the need for minerals and also the protection of local amenity.

And I call on Carolyn Thomas to reply to the debate.

I'd like to thank the Members for all their contributions. We've heard today about the current buffer zone not being enough. The existing buffer zone has not been adhered to. I saw evidence from witnesses that we met, from people living close to the quarries, of a video where children were attending a youth club and they were shaking. It was vibrating and shaking with the vibration of the blast. I saw clouds of smoke—well, it's dust containing silicosis, as we've heard—very close. And the loud crusher is less than 200m away from houses and residents.

We've heard about the review of planning policy guidance MTAN 1 needing changing. It's been existing for 10 years. In the last 10 years, quarry lorries have grown huge. They're massive, they're noisy, they cause vibrations. At this quarry, they operate 40 per cent of the time between seven and nine in the morning, when most children are trying to get to school, when school buses are trying to pass them. Things have changed, and I think that that does need reviewing.

I did meet with representatives of quarrying, and I do understand the importance of quarrying for businesses, but I really think that the balance needs shifting towards communities, because they've had to come forward with evidence to us, to our Petitions Committee, for us to do something about it because they don't feel they're being listened to.

Will you take an intervention?

I will.

Do you agree with me we have the future generations Act in Wales? Actually, when RCT council had this presented to them, they cited the future generations Act and refused the planning application, but it was Welsh Government that gave the permission to go ahead. Do you think we need to reflect the future generations Act, because that's been since MTAN 2014, and also the World Health Organization in terms of safe levels has changed dramatically? Do you think the Welsh Government should be taking notice of those from what you've heard in terms of evidence?

Yes, I think we need to have regard to the well-being of future generations Act, the pollution and soundscapes Bill as well, and other legislation that we've passed since as a Senedd. I think that we need to look at it from a health point of view as well as a business point of view, going forward. It would be appreciated if the Cabinet Secretary would meet with stakeholders, as has been suggested, just so that we can get our view across to you, as well as the side of business. That would be really appreciated.

Cabinet Secretary, I know you spoke about the importance of businesses, but I really do think we need to balance up the health and well-being here, going forward. As was said, it is down to local planning, but when they wanted to object to this planning application, it went to appeal and then charges were put against the local authority by Heidelberg. There's always a threat of that hanging over them, should the appeal go against them.

So, to sum it up, basically, I think that we'd like to have a meeting going forward. We need the MTAN 1 looking at, and we need to have a shift of balance. I'd like to thank the Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, but I'd like to thank all the petitioners and campaigners for fighting to have their voices heard in this Parliament. I hope that you have been heard today and that you feel that you have people putting your point across here. Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the time. Thank you.

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

Item 7 today is the Welsh Conservatives' debate on Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. I call on Gareth Davies to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Deputy Llywydd. I’m pleased to be able to move this motion today in the name of my colleague Paul Davies.

We have laid this debate today to confront a stark reality. Ten years after Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was placed into special measures in 2015, the first health board in Wales to face such escalation, it remains mired in systemic failure, with no clear timeline for recovery. A decade on, the Welsh Government has acknowledged that Betsi could languish in this state indefinitely. This is not just a failure of management, it’s a failure of accountability, leadership and political will under Labour’s stewardship. The Welsh Conservatives call for an urgent public inquiry into Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board to uncover the root causes of this prolonged crisis and deliver justice for the people of north Wales.

The evidence is damning. When combined, Betsi has spent longer in special measures than any other organisation in the history of the NHS. Political expediency saw the Welsh Labour Government prematurely lift Betsi out of special measures, only for dire realities—safety breaches, patient harm and operational chaos—to force its reinstatement back in 2023. And let’s have a look at the numbers. In June 2015, just two people waited over two years for treatment. Today, that figure stands at 5,747—a staggering 287,250 per cent increase. Of the 8,389 pathways in Wales waiting over two years, 68 per cent of those are in Betsi. Patients in north Wales are 1,460 times more likely to face such delays than in England. A quarter of all NHS waiting lists in Wales, whether for diagnostics, therapies or treatment, fall under Betsi’s jurisdiction, despite it serving just a fraction of the population.

The human cost is alarming. The Health and Safety Executive fined Betsi Cadwaladr £250,000 after the tragic deaths of three elderly patients from preventable falls, with the inspector noting that the board failed to follow its own safety policies. Audit Wales’s 2024 report paints a grim picture of ongoing leadership instability and a lack of coherent long-term planning. Over 8,000 ambulance hours were lost to handover delays back in 2024 alone, with emergency department waits averaging 8.5 hours. Betsi’s A&E performance is the worst in Wales, with over 39 per cent of patients waiting over four hours, 17 per cent over 12 hours—far below the national average.

Cancer pathways and ambulance response times are deteriorating and diagnostic waits are abysmal. Over a third of tests are taking longer than eight weeks, undermining the health Secretary’s promise to restore an eight-week diagnostic target by March 2026. And the staff are struggling too. Staff still report feeling undervalued, with engagement scores below the Welsh average, and corporate governance, described as lacking coherence before special measures, remains weak, with inadequate risk scrutiny and financial oversight.

The Welsh Conservatives have a bold plan to turn this around. On day 1, we will declare a health emergency, launch a public inquiry into Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board and implement the largest recruitment and retention plan in Welsh NHS history. We would guarantee a GP appointment within seven days, cap waits at one year and fast track surgeries with evening and weekend theatre access.

This Government here in Cardiff Bay, opposite, has no plan. What we are witnessing is the inevitable consequence of a tired, statist administration that has run out of energy, ideas and legitimacy. Labour’s model, centralised command and control, beholden to the unions and allergic to reform, has failed not just in theory, but tragically in practice. Their instinct is always to throw away money, regulate harder and avoid accountability, even when patients suffer and staff despair. This is not the result of unfortunate circumstances or bad luck, it is the product of a world view that confuses bureaucracy with care. North Wales is paying the price for a Government that has surrendered to inertia, clinging to the failed left-wing dogmas of a bygone age, utterly unsuited to the challenge of a twenty-first century health service.

Deputy Llywydd, the people of north Wales deserve better than a health board trapped in perpetual crisis. We are proud of our NHS and the fantastic, hard-working staff within it, but they are being let down by those in Government, as well as the patients. We cannot afford to wait another 10 years. Lives are at stake, and the damage is deepening by the day. A public inquiry isn't just necessary, it is absolutely critical and must happen now. The situation demands immediate action, and I implore this Senedd to pass this motion tonight, without delay, for the sake of restoring trust, demanding accountability and salvaging what hope remains for our NHS services in north Wales. Thank you.

I have selected the amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to move amendment 1.

Formally.

I call on Mabon ap Gwynfor to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. At the start of April, the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales published a damning report, outlining significant shortcomings in the post-operative care received by a cancer patient in north Wales. A few weeks later, a freedom of information request from Plaid Cymru revealed that patients were misled as to the temporary closure of Penley community hospital. These are but the latest chapters in a long story of chronic failure, executive dysfunction and organisational chaos that has bedevilled the north Wales health board since its creation.

After all, this is a health board that has been in special measures for over two thirds of its entire existence; where less than 60 per cent of cancer patients receive the necessary treatment within the clinically recommended timescale; where almost 17 per cent of all A&E visits last longer than 12 hours; where over a quarter of patients are stuck on waiting lists for longer than a year. It's also worth reminding ourselves of the history of the north Wales health board, which demonstrates that, despite the frequent churn in ministerial personnel, Labour's record of broken promises to both the patients and staff alike in north Wales has been consistent.

Back in 2009, the merger of the six local health boards in north Wales, as part of the wider reorganisation of the NHS in Wales under the then health Minister, Edwina Hart, was framed as a means of reducing geographical health inequalities, fostering more robust strategic planning, and defusing conflicts between NHS bodies. Not only have these benefits conspicuously failed to materialise, if anything, discord, regional discrepancies in care, and strategic incoherence have become even more pronounced over the past 16 years.

We could spend all day discussing the problems at Betsi Cadwaladr, but what the residents of north Wales are really crying out for is an end to the excuse making and the buck passing, and some tangible evidence of progress towards improved standards. The Conservative motion calls for a public inquiry to this end, and while I do have considerable sympathy with that view, there are a number of reasons why, on a practical level, I don't believe that this is the right course of action at this stage.

Firstly, as I've already alluded to, the failures at Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board are deep-rooted and multifaceted. So, a full public inquiry would take many years and many tens of millions of pounds to reach its conclusions. Moreover, while the situation at Betsi is undoubtedly the most egregious example of Labour's mismanagement of our precious health service, it's far from unique. We need only look at the recent upheaval at Hywel Dda to realise that, if we have an inquiry into Betsi, we might as well have an inquiry into the Welsh NHS as a whole.

Of course, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was created when Plaid were in Government with Labour.

Our call on the Welsh Government to initiate a public inquiry into Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has been long in the making, and 8 June, as we've heard, marks 10 years since the Welsh Government first placed this health board in special measures.

After the health board attended the Senedd's Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee in March 2022, I wrote to them as Chair regarding concerns about some of the responses they had provided to us. Our letter referred to various reports over the previous decade, including the Holden, Ockenden, Health and Social Care Advisory Service and Public Accounts Committee reports, and included, 'We were disappointed by the lack of ownership and responsibility taken by the executive of the problems at the board.'

Despite the Senedd's Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee and its predecessors having consistently reported concerns regarding both board functionality and oversight of the health board by the Welsh Government, including reports published in 2013, in 2016, in 2019, and despite the North Wales Community Health Council having raised these concerns throughout, matters were allowed to reach this head.

A written statement by the health Minister, now First Minister, in February 2023, stated that she'd agreed it was time for independent members of the board to step aside. However, in their subsequent letter to the First Minister, these independent members stated, 'We're writing to express our sincere concerns about the future of health services in north Wales following this morning's meeting with the health Minister when we were left with no option but to resign as independent members with immediate effect.' They said, 'We're gravely concerned that the Minister's focus on independent members rather than the operational executive and their delivery exposes patients across north Wales and the organisation to significant risk going forward.'

These former independent health board members subsequently told me that, through her actions, the Minister has wiped the memory of the organisation. Those who battled to see the organisation learn from past failings have been replaced. At the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee meeting on 3 May 2023, we also heard from former independent health board members that their forced resignation followed their attempts to hold certain executive members of the board to account through purposeful challenge and scrutiny.

A Flintshire constituent recently wrote to me stating he had had procedures at Wrexham and found the consultants and doctors excellent. However, he described poor emergency care for his 98-year-old mother-in-law, overworked staff and inadequate facilities. As he put it, 'There is no benefit in just throwing money at a broken system.'

I welcome this debate as it gives me the opportunity to say thank you to the dedicated and hard-working staff right across Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, but particularly those based in my constituency of Wrexham. Whilst of course more improvement is needed, particularly around waiting times and some specialties, I do want to highlight areas of improvement.

It also gives me the opportunity to do something my constituent Phil Lee has asked me to do, and that is pass on his thanks and details of his experience in the Siambr. I've already passed them directly to the health board and to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, as he requested. Mr Lee e-mailed me specifically because he believes the NHS across the UK, not just in Wales, does not publicise its successes enough. He told me, and I quote, he is ‘fed up with the press having a pop at the service whenever they like’.

Mr Lee had a heart attack last month. He states the cardiac team were the epitome of professionalism. It was not just him being treated by the team, but four others too. Five lives saved in 24 hours. He talked about all staff in positive and complimentary terms. He was full of admiration and gratitude for the care he received and continues to receive, and I'm very grateful he took the time to write to me. I've been able to ensure his thanks have been heard, and I wish him well in his recovery.

Another area where huge improvements have been made is supporting people living with dementia who require in-patient care or treatment in the emergency department. I met with the consultant dementia nurse last week to hear about the innovative work she and her team are doing.

Ultrasound and x-rays are now routinely undertaken at weekends and in the evening, something that did not happen a decade or so ago, demonstrating things are being done differently to ensure patients are not waiting for unacceptable lengths of time for diagnostic tests. Orthopaedic waiting times are also significantly reducing. I spoke with a constituent last Friday who saw his surgeon in out-patients 10 days previously and had now received a date for his second hip replacement, on 17 June. So thank you to everyone at the health board for providing such wonderful care and treatment and for often going beyond the call of duty. Diolch.

Lesley Griffiths is absolutely right to praise the efforts of staff, whether doctors, nurses or whichever types of staff they may be, in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. But they would say that they could do so much better if only they were working in a system that worked well for them and for the patients that they so desperately want to support to the best of their ability every single day. I must declare at this point, Llywydd, my relatives who work in the health board as well. I'm aware of the work that they carry out every single day in supporting patients in north Wales.

But it's not by chance that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has been in special measures for the past 10 years. Despite the efforts, as Lesley Griffiths pointed out, by those hard-working staff, people in north Wales have experienced a decade of decline, despair and despondency when they're trying to access those health services that they so desperately need. It hasn't happened by mistake either. This is a direct result of choices—often political choices—made by a Labour Government here in Cardiff.

North Wales far too often is an afterthought for the Labour Party—a place far, far away from the Cardiff Bay bubble, a place that gets less funding, doesn't get the infrastructure investment it requires, and sadly lags behind the rest of Wales in public service capacity. And it has a health board that, despite that hard work by those staff that I agree with Lesley Griffiths on, has not been fit for purpose for too long, and people in North Wales know this all too well.

Colleagues have already pointed out some of the statistics that point to this truth. Colleagues have already pointed out that a decade ago, the amount of people in the pathways waiting for treatments was 86,000. That number is now at 198,000. Gareth Davies mentioned that a decade ago, just two people were waiting more than two years for treatment. Now, it's nearly 6,000 people languishing for two years or more.

What I don't understand, and perhaps the Cabinet Secretary will be able to respond to these particular points in his response, is why every opportunity to reduce those waits is not being utilised. Time and time again, I've had both independent and third sector organisations approaching me to share their frustration at the lack of engagement by the health board. Indeed, Specsavers—I was with them just recently—talked about their audiology services. They say that they could clear those waiting lists within three years in audiology, and they're not getting the engagement from the health board to enable them to do that.

British Red Cross have just had their contract supporting Wrexham Maelor A&E removed. They will no longer be supporting patients in Wrexham Maelor A&E, the same patients, as Mark Isherwood described himself as one very recently, where the British Red Cross are able to supply services to those people to make their wait as comfortable as possible. Their contract has now been removed.

Over the last couple of years, we have seen real positive change with Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, with the promised stabilisation under new leadership. It's going to take a while to get to where we need to be. The health board is a big, complex umbrella organisation and change takes time to embed. But over the last few years, there's been the development of medical training centres, well-being hubs, extended minor injuries at community hospitals, prescribing pharmacists and physiotherapy being delivered in community centres.

We really need to start celebrating what is good about our health service. Many people receive fantastic treatment, people having hip operations, and newly refurbished wards in Wrexham, and an orthopaedic hub soon to be complete in Llandudno, which will transform elective orthopaedic services and provide benefits for patients, staff and the wider north Wales community, by delivering a planned 1,900 procedures a year. Thanks to the Welsh Government, we have seen significant investment to increase recruitment into the health board as well, including the north Wales medical school at Bangor University and nursing and allied health professional training at the new medical facilities at Wrexham Glyndŵr.

However, retention remains an issue, as morale continues to be a factor, which is why I always listen when anybody who works in our health service wants to speak to me about what they see, where improvements can be made, and I feed that in, and the health board are always listening and wanting to learn. But it's why I refuse to talk down our wonderful NHS. If politicians continue to talk down the health board, it will continue to struggle to recruit people. The NHS is its staff. It is terribly demoralising. We must celebrate their efforts and successes, and not forget the many people who receive excellent care day in, day out. Our NHS is one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the world, and we must not take it for granted. In the US, people are paying tens of thousands of dollars to give birth, and hip ops can cost up to £45,000. We must protect healthcare free at the point of use and put in the necessary investment to ensure our NHS is sustainable.

I'm really concerned that both the Conservatives and Reform believe that there are further efficiencies to be made in public services, attempting to run it into the ground, so that privatisation is the only option. From 2000 to 2010, under UK Labour, NHS resources increased in real terms by 50 per cent in line with need. But from 2010, when the Tories took over, austerity and the decline really started in the NHS across the UK. Year after year of cuts, weakening and stretching public services, including social care, and housing and preventative services such as leisure moved to breaking point. Capital funding had been cut dramatically as well under the UK Conservative Government, and it's only since the UK Labour Government came into power less than a year ago that we've seen funding going back into public services, with fully funded pay rises, not found down the back of the sofa, as used to happen before under the Tories.

Well, well, well, here we are once again, the Welsh Conservative group highlighting the ongoing failings within our local health board, otherwise known as the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board.

This Sunday marks 10 years since this board was placed in special measures. Now, at that time, it was classed as an emergency situation with urgent need for so many of our patients who had been failed, and yet here we are, as I've just said, 10 years later. It was the first health board in Wales to ever be placed in full special measures, and the Welsh Government have acknowledged that there is no timeline to remove it from these escalated measures. Now, these measures actually mean it's this Welsh Government—it's you, Welsh Minister, Cabinet Secretary—that is responsible for the running of this board. Even though you delegate some of that responsibility, the buck stops with you.

Now, one of the main reasons that it was placed in special measures was the horrendous situation, and we heard about shocking incidents that were taking place with our patients requiring mental health service and treatment, especially in Glan Clwyd. A decade on, we still have a greater failing of mental health services in north Wales. Interesting, though, as my colleague Sam Rowlands has mentioned, it was just months before the last Senedd election in 2021 that it was withdrawn from special measures. Now, if that wasn't a political manoeuvre, I don't know what can be classed as one. And then, of course, it soon found its way back into falling under the responsibility of the Welsh Government Minister. Even with direct Welsh Labour oversight and after years of special measures, auditors discovering at least £122 million not being accounted for. No repercussions for those staff and those officers involved in that.

And let me make it clear: thank you, nurses, consultants, junior doctors, cleaners, everybody who works in our health service. And thank you for whenever I access health services at any time on behalf of myself or a relative, and thank you for thanking us for what we do in highlighting the horrendous situations that you are working under.

Now, there has always been, since special measures began here, highlighted serious concerns about leadership and governance. And the chief execs come and they go. We've had, well, four or five chief execs and a couple of chairmen. And when they come in, they promise everything, but it's the same old, same old. They just pass the buck all the time. It's completely unacceptable, and clearly demonstrates how the Welsh Labour Government have been running the NHS in Wales. And forget your 14 years of austerity, or call it what you like. For the last 26 years, Welsh Labour Government have been responsible for health in Wales.

Now, of the 8,389 pathways in Wales waiting more than two years, just under 6,000—well, 5,747, to be precise—of them are in Betsi. And I can tell you that despite the First Minister yesterday suggesting that treatment waiting times are improving and large numbers have been removed off this list, I can tell you, I have GPs in my constituency who do not believe now the waiting times announced on the website of the Betsi board itself because they are witnessing now where it's saying one figure and then patients are going in saying, 'Well, my consultant's told me it's two and three times that time limit.' So, I'd like the Cabinet Secretary to explain to me why GPs are telling me this.

Now, in 2015, 15 per cent of patients were waiting more than four hours in A&E services. That figure is now 32 per cent of patients. And I can tell you—and I'll declare an interest—I have a very, very close relative, 100 years old, who has had to go into hospital on more than one occasion quite recently. But he's fairly tough, and thank goodness he's come out, and he's very grateful for the treatment that he's had. However, on Monday morning, early, he was experiencing an angina attack. The ambulance was there, they were wonderful with him, but he refused to go into hospital. And do you know why? Because on two or three occasions that he's had to go in recently, he has had to stay in a chair for two or three days, and he has been in pain. And he was so terrified on Monday morning that he signed a document. They made him sign a document that he would refuse to go into hospital. Imagine his worry. He spoke to me, and he's worried about that decision that he took at the time. But it was a better option than going into hospital and just being left for two or three days in a chair. I've raised it before. On one occasion, he went in and he ended up with sores. It's unacceptable.

Janet Finch-Saunders, I've been extremely—

Oh, gosh, you have, yes.

Yes, I have. Thank you for acknowledging that fact, and if you can bring your comments to a close.

We will keep bringing these debates here. We will keep scrutinising and challenging you, Minister, and your Government. But I would ask, at some stage, please listen to us, listen to our constituents, and actually make some positive differences. It is not acceptable what is going on now. Diolch.

Okay, yes, and it is the Minister now to respond—Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I’m pleased to reply to this debate today to put on record, once again, the progress made by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board over the past two years under the special measures regime, in addition to areas where further focus and attention is required. I will be making some of the same comments that I made in my statement to Members three months ago, when I published the second annual progress report on special measures. The health board is making sustainable progress in several areas. I think we need to support the health board and the thousands of NHS staff working across north Wales to continue to make these positive changes.

What we should be discussing, in reality, is how the health board is putting the building blocks in place for sustainable improvement and better health outcomes for north Wales communities, and I would like to thank the staff for their commitment to this work. They turn up every day to do the best work possible in very challenging circumstances, whilst facing unending criticism very often.

The reasons why the health board was placed in special measures are well known and have been the subject of scrutiny in this Chamber many times. I don’t want to rehearse those today, and neither am I going to analyse the decision to withdraw the board from special measures in 2020. Over the past two years, we have seen substantial improvements. In the first year, we have seen improvements in corporate governance and in the leadership of the board. In the second year, we have seen a real emphasis on quality and safety, with the board responding to many inherited issues in an open and transparent manner. By now, the work relates to improving management and agreeing on a new operational model, putting it into operation, improving performance, and rooting the necessary foundations that will enable the organisation to be successful in the long term.

Llywydd, the number of people waiting more than two years for treatment has almost halved from just over 10,000 people in December 2024 to just over 5,700 at the end of March. Despite the reduction, this is the highest number in all of Wales, and we must see urgent improvements if we are to meet our ambitious plans to continue to cut waiting times for people this year. Performance against the 62-day cancer target is also lower than elsewhere and, as is the case across Wales, waiting times at the urgent and emergency care departments are too long. As I said in the Chamber yesterday, Welsh Government officials are now working alongside health board staff to focus on improving the planned care position.

Llywydd, the new Llandudno orthopaedic centre, which will open later this year, will help to manage demand by delivering a planned 1,900 procedures a year, and the long-awaited plans for the redevelopment of the Royal Alex in Rhyl will help to support Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. We are hoping to receive the business case in September.

I turn to mental health services. The Minister for Mental Health and Well-being and I have had the opportunity to visit many of the sites across north Wales, and we have seen the best and the worst. The Ablett site is of course in urgent need of redevelopment. This is not news to the health board, which is developing plans to make sure it is suitable for the local population, and we will review and progress that business case once it is received. And the board continues to make progress against the recommendations in the review undertaken last year by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

Performance against the mental health measures shows there has been a 5.6 per cent increase in local primary mental health assessments completed within 28 days, and a 5.2 per cent increase in people starting a therapeutic intervention within 28 days for all ages since February 2023. Mental health leadership has been enhanced through the appointment of a substantive director for the division. Llywydd, these are signs of an improving mental health service, although there remains more to be done, and the Minister and I will continue to support the health board to make further improvements.

The health board has ambitious plans for the year ahead. For the first time ever, it has submitted a balanced three-year plan, after last year achieving financial balance. It has made £5.5 million available to improve access to NHS dentistry across the region, and a new dental practice will open in Connah's Quay later this year. Llywydd, I know of course that not everyone in north Wales is seeing or feeling these signs of revival yet. Too many people are still frustrated by the length of time they are waiting to see a GP, a dentist, for a blood test, an operation, results or emergency treatment. These are all areas the health board must urgently address, and the health board shares this view. But there is, alongside this, genuine good news too. Betsi Cadwaladr is leading the way on the design and implementation of a mental health electronic health record. It is the first in Wales to introduce a new intravenous access service, which provides specialist care for people with difficult veins and long-term therapy needs. The health board is the first in Wales to have a community audiology van. Ysbyty Gwynedd is the first NHS robotic training centre in Wales to train other surgeons in robotic knee surgery. Surgeons in Abergele Hospital are trialling augmented reality technology for total knee replacement surgery. Doctors in training have ranked Ysbyty Gwynedd's emergency department as the best place to train in Wales, for a second year running.

Darren Millar now to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to everyone who has taken part in this very important debate. We know that, over the weekend, we will face an anniversary in north Wales that is not an anniversary that any of us are proud of, and that is that the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board will be marking its tenth anniversary since it initially went into special measures back in June 2015, after a scandalous report was published into, and I quote,

'institutional abuse on the Tawel Fan ward.'

Of course, further reports have been published into services in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board since that date, and they included references to all sorts of other failures in the health board, not just its mental health services. This is in spite, of course, of the hard work of dedicated staff in our NHS in north Wales, who, frankly, are battling in a system that is very challenging and difficult, where they too, I am afraid, are victims, alongside those patients who have regrettably come to harm, some of whom have died. We have read report after report after report by the coroner, by the Health and Safety Executive, by Healthcare Inspectorate Wales, and by independent people who've been brought into north Wales to look at its services, which have identified serious failings. Now, special measures was designed to try to make things better, to improve things, but what have the results of these special measures actually been? Well, I'm afraid the performance of the health board has gone backwards on almost every single measure. We just heard the Cabinet Secretary popping the champagne corks again about progress against two-year waiting time targets. The reality is that people in north Wales are being let down, because you're 1,460 times more likely to face a two-year wait for treatment in north Wales than you are over the border in England. That is an absolute scandal. And what is happening is that that waiting time target—. It was promised to be eliminated by the Welsh Government over two years ago and dealt with, but it hasn't been dealt with.

And it's not just the waiting time targets for planned procedures; the emergency departments in north Wales are failing too. Their performance has deteriorated and they are now the worst in Wales and amongst the worst in the whole of the United Kingdom. One in three patients are waiting in the emergency departments for four hours or more—left languishing—and 17 per cent of patients, by the current figures, are in the emergency departments for more than 12 hours. Again, on both of those counts, they are the worst-performing hospitals in Wales.

So, special measures is not working, and it's not working because, in Wales, we have a politicised arrangement for special measures, which is not the case in other parts of the United Kingdom. A health board cannot go into special measures without the say-so of a Minister. That is unacceptable, because it means that there's pressure around election periods to remove special measures, even when it's not appropriate or prudent to do so, in order to protect the reputation of Ministers in a failing Labour Government, rather than because it is the right thing to do. And that's exactly what we saw in advance of the last Senedd elections, back in 2021. And I'm afraid that there are hints that that's the direction of travel that we're going in now, because of the complacency that we're seeing from the current Cabinet Secretary and, of course, the current First Minister, who was of course a health Minister, and the former First Minister, who was a health Minister, and the former First Minister before that, who was also a health Minister. There seems to be a pattern here in terms of the way that things are being dealt with.

The performance is supposed to get better when you're in special measures; Betsi has actually gotten worse. So, it tells us that special measures aren't working. Independent investigations have come up with recommendations to be implemented; they're not being implemented. There was a report done just last year, which suggested that only half of the recommendations that should have been implemented from various reports on mental health alone had actually been implemented in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. We know that the governance arrangements—. And the Welsh Government seem completely and utterly incapable of turning the situation around. So, the victims of this mess—and I call them 'victims' deliberately—the patients and the staff are actually getting a worse deal in north Wales than any other part of the country. It is intolerable, and that's why we've got to make sure that we get to the bottom of this situation once and for all. We owe it to every person who has had a relative who has come to harm and every single person who has lost their relatives or loved ones as a result of this disaster in north Wales to make sure that we get to the bottom of these problems.

Will you take an intervention?

Absolutely.

As I explained in my contribution, we've developed a comprehensive plan for the NHS, so we've worked out the plan. It seems to me that you're trying to outsource the Conservatives' plan to an organisation outside, which will take 10 years.

We're not trying to outsource anything, and there are things that can be done immediately that we've called for as well. So, for example, we'd love to see more minor injuries units opened in north Wales, we'd love to see that new hospital built in Rhyl, we'd love to see the delivery of the mental health unit—all of these are years and years overdue. We'd love to see some of the beds that have been closed in our current community hospitals recommissioned, to take pressure off our district general hospitals. So, there are all sorts of things that can be done in the immediate future in order to improve the performance of the health board and to deliver a better service, but they're not going to get to the bottom of the root of the problem in this health board, which the Welsh Government seem completely incapable of being able to deal with. I'll happily take the intervention.

Would you accept that hospitals have had extended minor injuries units, that there are new facilities being opened up, including the orthopaedic hub, that we are looking at the Royal Alexandra? In Flint, the community hospital closed, but they have a new facility there now for step up, step down. So, there are lots of new buildings happening. And do you accept that it's only since this year that we've had investment from a UK Labour Government, capital investment, to be able to do this work?

The reality is that the number of beds in our national health service in north Wales has gone down. We've not only seen the closure of Flint Community Hospital, we saw the closure of a hospital in Prestatyn, the closure of community hospital beds in Rhyl, in Denbigh, in Ruthin, and in all sorts of other places across north Wales, and that has contributed to the catastrophe that we're facing. That is partly because the Welsh Government has allowed it to happen, but it's also because the special arrangements measures do not work, because they're politicised.

In England, the inspectorate there can get involved in a health organisation and turn it around quickly, because it doesn't have the shackles of the political interference of Ministers, and I think that's the sort of independence that we need to give to our inspectorate here too. So, I would encourage you all, notwithstanding your reservations that you expressed before, to give the support to this motion that we believe it needs. There is some common ground in terms of the work that still needs to be done, and I want to recognise the efforts of staff, but the current arrangements are not working. This is the only way to make sure that they deliver on the promise that everybody in this Chamber wants to make to people in north Wales, and that is that their NHS will be fit for purpose and safe and there when they need it.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore defer voting until voting time.

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will move immediately to our first vote, and the first vote will be on item 7, the Welsh Conservatives debate on Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, and I call for a vote on the motion without amendment tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour, 13, no abstentions, and 33 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We'll move to amendment 1; if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. And I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, and 23 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Amendment 2 is therefore deselected.

We will now vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, and 23 against. The motion as amended is agreed.

And that concludes voting for this afternoon.

But we do have two short debates. The first of those is to be presented by John Griffiths.

I'll let some of the Members leave quietly, so we can progress with the work. John Griffiths, in your own time.

Diolch, Llywydd. Newport—a city on the rise economically, socially and culturally. Llywydd, back in February this year, the business journalist Douglas Friedli wrote,

'Best thing about London? It's less than two hours from Newport'.

Being proud to represent my home city, I thoroughly agree with that assessment and those words. Newport is a place with a very significant past, a strong present and a very promising future.

In terms of the past, we saw many, many years ago the Romans sailing up the River Usk to settle in Caerleon, and, of course, more recently, the Chartist uprisings in the vanguard of the campaign for political reform for working-class communities, and, in more modern times, a strong industrial and commercial scene from the development of the steelworks at Llanwern in the 1960s to hosting the 2014 North Atlantic Treaty Organization summit, which, at the time, was described as the most important since the fall of the Berlin wall.

But also, as I mentioned, a very exciting future and that has been reflected in more and more people moving to the city and making Newport their home. Of course, Newport has long welcomed new arrivals from all over the world. I was born in the multicultural Pill area in the city, and my own mother came over to the area from Ireland. The city is much more diverse now. A recent feature has been significant numbers moving over the border from Bristol. Between the last two censuses, if that's the right plural, the city's population has increased by 9.5 per cent from just over 145,000 in 2011 to just under 160,000 in 2021. Newport now has Wales's second lowest average median age at 38, and the number of people aged 25 to 34 rose by just over 5,000, an increase of over 27 per cent.

There really is a sense of the city growing in confidence and being on the rise. Economically, of course, Newport has a very strong set of economic clusters, particularly seen in the development and growth of the semiconductor industry. Newport is rapidly becoming central, not just to the UK, but across the whole world in terms of that semiconductor industry. The opening of KLA's new research and development centre in the west of Newport, my colleague Jayne Bryant's constituency, a couple of weeks ago being testament to that. That new facility, costing around £100 million, will create around 750 jobs. It builds on the company's 40-year long association with the city, with another base, this time in Newport East, close to the Coldra roundabout in Ringland, having produced microchips for many years. And, of course, all of that powering the everyday technology that we all use and rely upon. They are part of that, I think, very impressive culture, which also includes Vishay, formerly Newport Wafer Fab, which, again, is a very strong element of that presence in the city.

Since the election of the UK Labour Government last year, we have seen a strong partnership with our Welsh Labour Government, which has been able to secure and safeguard the hundreds of jobs at that plant. In total, there are 14 semiconductor businesses in a 30-mile radius of the city and a number of higher education institutions within close proximity, giving access to thousands of technology and engineering students. This is a great strength for Newport, and I know that the Welsh Government is very keen to continue working with the sector and our city council, and the UK Labour Government as well, to help deliver further highly skilled job opportunities over the coming years.

Linked to all of this and something that the city council and its leader, Dimitri Batrouni, are very keen to take forward are the proposals by SAE Renewables at the Uskmouth Sustainable Energy Park, which will be critical to delivering the power for the data city vision that is another powerful part of the future, also including an AI investment zone and a battery storage facility. All of this fitting together, I think, in a very exciting set of proposals.

The manufacturing base is also strong more widely, including CAF rail, manufacturers of trains, based next to Tata Steel plant at Llanwern, and of course, that Llanwern plant itself has great potential in terms of the growth of green steel. It’s an industry for the future, as well as having a very strong historic past in the area.

More widely, Newport—. I mentioned the NATO summit that took place at the Celtic Manor Resort. That Celtic Manor Resort is a major player locally and it now includes the International Conference Centre. And the Celtic Manor Resort, as well as hosting that NATO summit, also hosted the 2010 Ryder Cup, which was huge in putting the city and Wales on the international map.

There are many more examples that I could mention. And, of course, underlying all of this is the lifeblood of the city’s economy and, indeed, the economy of Wales: all of those small and medium-sized enterprises, which, in Newport, are very strong in terms of the independent traders populating our city centre, giving it that individual feel, which is so appealing, I think, to visitors and local residents alike. All of that, Llywydd, puts us, I think, in a very good place in terms of the current scene in Newport, but also the potential for the future.

Newport’s cultural offer, I believe, is very impressive as well. I’ve mentioned the Roman and Chartist histories. We, of course, have the iconic transporter bridge, which will soon see the opening of a new visitor centre, with major investment from Welsh Government, in partnership with Newport City Council. The city’s cultural offer is growing in momentum, and the creative industries employ over 5,000 people locally. This includes many freelancers, and we are home to more than 40 cultural venues. Of course, these numbers matter; they show the scale and importance of the cultural economy and the potential for growth if it continues to be nurtured. Newport’s cultural scene has long been vibrant and diverse. Currently, we have the Riverfront Theatre and Arts Centre working very closely with community groups such as Ballet Cymru, which is going from strength to strength, and Urban Circle, which has added the biennial Reggae and Riddim Festival to its many other activities and productions.

Newport City Council, Llywydd, has recently unveiled its new cultural strategy, reflecting all of these strengths and providing new energy, matched by a vibrant grass-roots scene, which I think has great promise in taking the city's cultural offer forward. It's very good news, not just for artists and musicians, but everybody living in the city. We also see film studios develop, for example, at Queensway Meadows. In fact, between 2015 and 2022, Newport saw the fastest growth in the creative sector of any city in Wales, at an astonishing 125 per cent.

People are very familiar, I think, with Newport's musical past, with legendary venues such as TJ's. But we now have some new venues, such as the Corn Exchange, and existing or previous ones such as Le Pub and, indeed, the Cab—again, part of that very vibrant music and cultural scene in Newport. Earlier this year, we had the Newport Music Trail, which was run in partnership with FOCUS Wales, and brought over 15,000 additional visitors to our city centre in just 36 hours. It had over 96 acts across various venues in the city, again taking advantage of that vital infrastructure. So, there is much to say, and I hope that I have outlined some of it.

One further aspect is Newport's medieval ship, which again has captured a lot of people's imagination. It is one of the most significant archaeological finds in European maritime history. Experts have described it as the most important medieval ship found in the world. Talks are ongoing, I believe, between Newport City Council and the Welsh Government's Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership, in terms of ensuring an adequate and dedicated home for that medieval ship. Once that is established, it will allow visitors and residents alike to see the ship and learn more about its history.

Personally, I'm very keen to also emphasise Newport's very notable sporting history and present. Newport is a green city, which facilitates much of that physical activity and sport. Newport has notable parks and, of course, the Gwent levels, which include the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds wetlands. We have lots of urban greening going on through organisations like Greening Maindee.

I'm keen to promote Active Newport to encourage greater physical activity and sport for very obvious reasons: the health and well-being of the population and the fact that it's also fun and vital in so many ways for the future of the city. Part of that are the city's parkruns. Newport was an early adopter of parkrun, launching the second 5 km event in Wales at Tredegar House in 2011, and the first ever junior parkrun in Wales in 2013. Parkrun has continued to flourish in the city, with the launch of the riverfront parkrun, serving the inner-city communities, in 2017.

Can I thank John Griffiths for allowing me to contribute in this short debate here today? Newport is a fantastic place to live, work and visit, and I'm really proud to say to anyone who asks me that I was born there, I was raised there, and no matter where I've lived and worked in the world, my family home is my ultimate sanctuary.

Having been in this job since 2021, I've come across a lot of people, and what I love the most about this is that I encounter people who've gone through many of the same experiences that I have whilst growing up in Newport. I learnt how to walk in Ridgeway, I learnt how to swim in the Newport leisure centre, ride the wave machine, which I have to say had many issues and perhaps was one of the most deadly things I've ever rode in my life, but, nonetheless, it was a great experience and a wonderful place to grow up. I spent many of my summers on the high street, going to Wildings, testing make-up and feeling really sorry for those poor assistants who had to suffer with myself and my friends trying to pick out our favourite lip glosses and things like that.

We have to say that Newport, whatever the case may be—. I know, as parties, as politicians, we often talk about transport links and how much of a problem it is, but Newport, where it's situated and the way it is placed, is absolutely wonderful, and one thing I have to highlight is the location, you just can't beat it. It connects to every single part of Wales, regardless of where you are—north, south, east or west—and the viability is great. We all admit that there are issues when it comes to potentially speed limits on motorways, on roads et cetera, but I love the fact that Newport is a diverse place. There are so many different people from so many different communities who all get on coherently, cohesively with each other, and they're the ones who truly bring the place to life.

Let's be honest, Newport is a place that we all, regardless of our political affiliations, want to see thrive. However, the city's economic prospects are being seriously, unfortunately, hampered by the Labour Government in Westminster. More than 4,000 adults were supported to retrain, reskill and find work under the previous UK Conservative Government's shared prosperity fund in Newport. Now the decision by Chancellor Rachel Reeves to cut this fund has resulted in significant job losses across the city, with thousands of jobseekers missing out on employment training and support—something that previously supported our local economy and businesses. A freedom of information—

This is a one-minute contribution that I've been very generous on already.

Thank you so much, Presiding Officer; I appreciate that. A freedom of information request to Newport City Council has confirmed that eight local authority jobs are at risk of redundancy due to the cuts. Not only that, but as a result of the cuts—

I'm going to have to bring it a close, because you carried on regardless.

That's absolutely fine. Thank you so much, Presiding Officer. Just a final sentence. It's clear to me, with the way things are, that the UK Government has shown a level of short-sightedness, particularly when it comes to putting Newport on the map, and I want to see it rise and thrive, just like all of my colleagues who will contribute today, and I really hope they'll take note and do just that. Thank you.

Thank you very much to John for bringing forward this debate. I just want to highlight three of the number of organisations that support the debate today and the argument today that Newport is a city on the rise economically, socially, and culturally.

Firstly, I'd like to highlight KidCare4U. I know, John, you're well aware of the fantastic work that they do with diverse ethnic communities and bringing together young people—over 300 young people—on a regular basis, getting fantastic experiences within the city.

Second, the excellent work that the menter iaith in Newport does, being extremely active across the city, bringing excitement to the Welsh language for people in the city and being able to socialise through the medium of Welsh, from Welsh lessons to coffee and a chat on a Friday morning, or to go for a meal in the market. And third, as I've mentioned earlier in the Siambr today, as vice-chair of the working group for the Urdd Eisteddfod in 2027, the Urdd Eisteddfod is coming to Newport in that year, and that will be an excellent platform for Newport to show that it's a city that is on the rise socially, culturally and economically. The question for the Government is how are they going to be supporting that. Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary for local government to reply to the debate. Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. It's a pleasure to respond to this debate from one Newportonian to another. Thank you to John and to all who've contributed today.

Newport has a proud and long history from its Roman history, its medieval maritime routes and industrial heritage. It has emerged as a dynamic centre of innovation, renewal and cultural vibrancy. Newport's bid for city status over 24 years ago highlighted its deep historical roots with indoor market stallholders celebrating its Roman heritage, and this legacy extends to the Chartist uprising, a defining moment in British democracy, which is commemorated every year. The Chartist tower, built in 1966, has since been redeveloped through our Transforming Towns programme, now housing a hotel, offices and retail spaces, reinforcing Newport's regeneration efforts.

Soon the city will welcome one of the UK's first net-zero in operation leisure and well-being centres, supported by over £10 million of Welsh Government funding. This project preserves leisure facilities in the city centre while also enabling Coleg Gwent's Nash campus relocation, embedding education opportunities within Newport's urban fabric.

The historic market arcade refurbishment was backed by £1.2 million of funding, strengthening Newport's retail offering, and the old station building has been remodelled into a tech incubation hub, attracting start-ups and innovators through £1.3 million of funding. The area by the train station is evolving, with redevelopment enhancing the urban landscape.

Kings Sports Bar, supported by placemaking funding, has been brought back into use, while Kings Chambers will introduce new office and retail spaces, keeping the district dynamic. With just over £246,000 in grant funding, Tramshed Tech has refurbished Griffin House, creating flexible workspaces that foster entrepreneurial growth. These initiatives are shaping Newport's future, ensuring that regeneration drives both economic prosperity and community well-being.

Building on this momentum, the city continues to strengthen its business ecosystem and commitment to inclusive growth. Newport City Council's strategic equality plan 2024-28, embedded with the socioeconomic duty, ensures that regeneration remains inclusive and equitable. Through the fairness and equality impact assessment process, urban development is guided by accessibility, representation and economic opportunity, fostering a thriving connected city.

Meanwhile, Newport's economic evolution is being shaped by semiconductors, advanced manufacturing and renewable energy, positioning the city as a hi-tech leader with global influence. Vishay's acquisition of Newport Wafer Fab in spring 2024 is accompanied by £300 million of investment, with potential expansion to £1 billion, securing 480 jobs and paving the way for further growth. Similarly, as John mentioned, KLA, employing 600 people in Newport, which manufactures the equipment used to produce chips that power everyday technology we all rely on, has launched a £100 million research and development manufacturing centre, which is projected to support 750 employees.

Thank you very much for that short debate and the response.

The next item will be the short debate on a battery energy free-for-all from Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Today, I bring forward a debate on a topic that's fast becoming an urgent issue for many of our communities across Wales, namely the rapid and largely unregulated rise of battery energy storage systems. Let me be absolutely clear from the outset: I don't oppose battery energy storage systems technology, quite the opposite in fact. I recognise it as vital infrastructure in our national mission to reach net zero. But what I do oppose is risking the safety of our communities and the integrity of our planning system in what is clearly now a rush to deliver developments without the proper scrutiny that they deserve.

Let's begin by acknowledging the importance of BESS. Battery energy storage systems are a cornerstone of Wales's strategy to achieve net-zero emissions and to transition to a clean, resilient energy future. As the country accelerates the shift away from fossil fuels towards renewable energy sources like wind, solar and tidal power, the importance of effective energy storage can't be overstated. Renewables are inherently variable—we know that. The sun doesn’t always shine, the wind doesn’t always blow. BESS technology addresses this challenge by storing excess electricity generated during peak production times and releasing it when demand is high or when generation dips. Now, that stabilises the grid, ensuring a constant and reliable energy supply, regardless of fluctuations in generation. For Wales, which is rapidly becoming a net exporter of renewable electricity, BESS offers a practical solution to balance supply and demand and make the most of our clean energy assets.

In addition to grid stability, of course, BESS supports energy resilience at both local and national levels. In rural and coastal communities, where grid access may be more vulnerable, decentralised storage systems offer back-up during outages, and reduce dependency on large-scale fossil fuel-based infrastructure. That resilience is especially important as extreme weather events, of course, increase due to climate change.

BESS also plays a key role in decarbonising other sectors. As electric vehicles and heat pumps become more common, the pressure on the grid will intensify and battery storage helps to manage that growing demand efficiently, ensuring that renewable energy powers the transition in transport and heating, as well as electricity. Furthermore, investing in BESS creates economic opportunities for Wales. It can stimulate job creation in green technology, in engineering and innovation, while positioning our country, of course, as a leader in sustainable infrastructure. However, for BESS to truly serve Wales's net-zero goals, development must be guided by strong planning policy, strong safety standards, and, of course, strong and meaningful community engagement. Projects should be well sited, they should be transparent and designed with public trust in mind. In a nutshell, BESS technology isn't a luxury, it's a necessity for a net-zero Wales. It allows renewable energy to be used when it’s needed most, it strengthens grid resilience, it reduces emissions, and supports a cleaner, more secure energy future for all. Clean energy and smart infrastructure must be encouraged, but a careful balance needs to be struck. Too often, communities are an afterthought in this conversation, but this energy transition needs to put people first.

Most of the projects being proposed aren’t happening in remote industrial parks, they're being planned within metres of homes, schools and places of work. And the concerns raised by local residents aren't Nimbyism, they're real, evidence-based fears, particularly around thermal runaway fires, which have caused serious incidents in countries around the world. Now, one such incident is the Moss Landing battery energy storage facility in California, one of the world's largest. It experienced a significant fire just in January of this year, just gone, highlighting the potential risks associated with large-scale lithium-ion battery storage. The fire destroyed approximately 80 per cent of the batteries in the affected building and led to the evacuation of around 1,500 residents due to concerns over toxic smoke emissions. The incident raised environmental concerns, as elevated levels of heavy metals such as manganese, cobalt and nickel were detected in nearby Elkhorn Slough, a sensitive wetland ecosystem. Now, these contaminants, linked to the battery materials, pose potential risks for both the environment and public health. The technology used at Moss Landing is identical to what is proposed in many of the 80-plus—80-plus—BESS developments currently under consideration here in Wales, although maybe the storage configuration might be different, of course. Now, we can't build public confidence in this technology unless we put transparency and safety at the heart of how it's planned and how it's delivered.

The proposed Ynni Celyn scheme by developers NatPower in Gwyddelwern in my region, as I said, is set to be one of the largest battery energy storage projects in the UK, and among the biggest in the whole of Europe. Now, the development plans to house millions of batteries across nearly 1,000 shipping containers on a 75-acre greenfield site close to the village. Now, if you want to know or understand how big that scheme is projected to be, the investment needed to build it is estimated to be around £1.2 billion. Now, that's almost exactly the same as the cost of the electric arc furnace proposals for Port Talbot. That's the scale of the scheme near a little, old village in Denbighshire.

Now, understandably, the scale and proximity of the project to homes has sparked serious concern among local residents. A community campaign group has voiced strong objections, not only about the size and location of the facility, but also regarding the nature of the developer's engagement with the community. Many feel the communication and consultation have been inadequate and indeed dismissive of local worries.

Similar concerns are also being expressed about other large-scale BESS proposals in places like Northop, Rhostyllen and elsewhere across the country. Residents frequently express deep scepticism towards the developer's reassurances on safety. Reassurances, I have to say, that do little to alleviate public concern.

Going back to the Ynni Celyn site, a fire at that site would pose a serious risk to the River Dee catchment, which, of course, provides drinking water for over 1 million people, and the environmental consequences there could be quite devastating.

Now, we can't ask residents to simply hope that nothing goes wrong. That isn't good enough, is it? Developers and Government must guarantee safety, no exceptions. Only this week, the Government presented us with the proposed Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill. One of the core principles of that piece of legislation, laid out by the Government this very week, is the precautionary principle. Well, surely we need a dose of that principle here. The responsibility for guaranteeing the safety of our infrastructure has to rest with developers, operators and Government alike. Communities shouldn't be expected to take a leap of faith in the assurances surrounding a technology's safety. It needs to be demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that battery energy storage systems can be trusted to be safe and responsible neighbours.

Now, due to recent reorganisation by NESO, the National Energy System Operator, which is the independent, public corporation that has the responsibility, of course, of planning and operating the whole of Great Britain's energy system, the current planning system has become—and I've said this in the Chamber before on numerous occasions—a free-for-all. And in this vacuum, developers are rushing forward with applications that often fall far short of the safety or location assurances that communities deserve.

The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning now to reply to the debate—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch. I'd like to begin by thanking Llyr Gruffydd for tabling this debate this evening. The Welsh Government is committed to decarbonising our energy system and to promoting the growth of sustainable and renewable energy. To address the climate crisis and to reach our net-zero targets we need a range of renewable technologies to meet our future energy needs. Renewable energy also generates significant opportunities to create those green jobs and to stimulate economic growth across our communities. The growth in energy generation from renewable sources does require flexibility, including measures to match supply with demand, and energy storage is one type of technology that can help as it retains the excess power that can then be used as required. Energy storage does have an important part to play in managing the transition to a low-carbon economy and to ensure that we have a secure and resilient and flexible energy system that meets the needs of users, and I'm really grateful to Llyr for the way in which he set out his strong recognition of that in his contribution within this debate.

As a general point, we would see these projects clustering around our existing grid connection points, and that then goes on to reduce the connection costs and helps, of course, to minimise the need for overhead lines. In Wales we have led on a planned approach to the energy transition, looking at what networks are needed to connect energy use with renewable generation and storage and, at a national level, our 'Future Energy Grids for Wales' report sets out what a net-zero energy system might look like and what networks we may need to best serve our communities for the long term. And we've also supported our local authorities to produce local area energy plans that set out the changes needed to transition to net zero in specific areas. So, we are working with the National Energy System Operator on the regional energy strategic plan for Wales, and that will give us a clearer understanding of how much storage capacity we need to ensure that stable, secure energy supply in Wales.

Decisions on the appropriate locations for battery storage development are made through the planning process, and national and local planning policies in the development plan, supported by national planning policy guidance in 'Planning Policy Wales', provide the framework for considering planning applications for battery storage facilities. National planning guidance in 'Planning Policy Wales' is clear that renewable and low-carbon energy is of paramount importance in order to tackle the climate emergency and to increase energy security. 'Future Wales' also contains policies to support the growth of sustainable and renewable energy, and recognises that there is a need for large-scale energy storage as part of a resilient energy system. I do, of course, though, recognise the potential environmental impacts, and the health and safety issues with battery storage are valid concerns. The planning system does consider how these issues impact on the acceptability of proposals, including considering issues such as landscaping, design and layout. Planning applications are subject to consultation with key stakeholders, and the fire and rescue authorities are consulted on major development proposals. The planning system is able to prevent and mitigate potential harm resulting from the development proposals by imposing conditions on planning permissions.

Major planning applications require early engagement with communities and consultees at the pre-application stage, and again through the application process. That does provide local communities with the opportunity to make representations on development proposals and to raise any concerns that they may have. Listening to the contribution this evening, I am just reminded by how important it is then that the developers respond openly and transparently and in detail, providing proper responses to those issues that are raised by communities throughout that process. In addition to the control provided by the planning system, it's also important to note that development proposals need to comply with other regulatory regimes in order to ensure that the development is operated safely. These additional controls include the Planning (Hazardous Substances) (Wales) Regulations 2015, the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 and the fire safety regime.

I'm aware that there are a number of proposals for large-scale battery storage facilities across Wales, including in north Wales. Given the Welsh Ministers' role in the planning system, I obviously can't comment on the merits of specific developments, and I realise this is the second debate this afternoon where we have had issues of that type, and I do understand that's frustrating to communities and to colleagues sometimes, but any queries relating to specific proposals at a pre-application stage should be directed to the developers. But, as I mentioned earlier, the planning system provides a robust policy framework for considering the potential environmental and other impacts of battery storage facilities. The views of key stakeholders, such as Natural Resources Wales, the fire and rescue service and the Health and Safety Executive may be sought on battery storage proposals, and their advice should then inform the planning decision-making process. Given that battery energy storage systems can present a risk of fire, we would of course encourage developers to engage early with the fire and rescue service.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary and I thank Members for their contributions to that debate. That brings today's proceedings to a close.