Plenary

The next item will be the questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. The first question today is from Mike Hedges.

We recently published an evaluation of the dementia action plan, which assessed its impact on dementia care and support in Wales. We have also continued our engagement through a public questionnaire to shape our engagement activities for the successor dementia action plan.

Thank you for your reply. Around 18,000 people living with dementia in Wales do not have a diagnosis, leaving families struggling to cope without support and treatment. That's 18,000 individuals, 18,000 families struggling in silence without knowing what to do or where to turn. The Alzheimer's Society has published a research revealing that the cost of dementia care in Wales has now reached £2 billion per year. It is estimated the figure will be set to rise to more than £4.5 billion by 2040.

More important than the financial cost is the human cost. I am aware of the good work that is being done, and I thank those running the dementia hub in Swansea Quadrant. Will the Cabinet Secretary publish a timetable for this consultation on the action plan as soon as possible, so that the new plan's development can be properly scrutinised?

Thank you very much, Mike Hedges, for raising this, and I'm so glad that you have raised diagnosis. As we know from the Lord Darzi report looking at the UK Government's dementia action plan, early diagnosis is absolutely crucial, and the reason for that is that there should be hope. It's absolutely possible to have rehabilitation for dementia, but also to be able to live independently and make decisions about your future as early as possible, and to live well. That is absolutely crucial, and something that is going to play a real part in the upcoming new dementia action plan. I think what we need to do, really, is that we need to bring some hope to people. Every day we're hearing about new research and new advances in dementia care and dementia medication and support and diagnosis, so I really want that to be something that comes through very loud and very strong.

I want to assure you that we are working tirelessly now on the dementia action plan. It is going to be co-produced; it's going to be co-produced by the stakeholders that you just mentioned, like the Alzheimer's Society, also by clinicians and people with lived experience. We're absolutely committed in Welsh Government to co-production, but it is not quick and it shouldn't be, but I think that when you have it and it's being co-produced, it's so much more effective. So, I am looking towards, at the moment, beginning that consultation towards the end of this year. Then, of course, that will be open to the public and anybody else who wants to have input into it.

Like I said, I really want to give people hope, so that they do come forward for that earlier diagnosis, so that they can see that they can live well and they can have that support as well within their community. Diolch.

Well, with a new dementia plan for Wales in the works, new treatments in the pipeline and the prevalence of dementia continuing to increase, it's vital that you get this right. A fortnight ago, I visited the Wrexham dementia hub with Alzheimer's Society Cymru and met a support group for people living with dementia, and carers. They told me that although the north Wales memory support pathway is doing what it can to bring service providers and third sector together to provide a pathway for people living with dementia across north Wales, there is a postcode lottery and services, including access to specialist support nurses, are still not available to everyone who needs them. How will you therefore ensure that Wales has a new dementia action plan with a bold commitment to meet the needs of people who are living with dementia and their carers, such as those they identified to me?

Thank you so much for that question, Mark Isherwood. I agree that we absolutely have to get it right, and that feedback in itself is incredibly helpful and useful. I am trying to visit now as many dementia hubs as I can across Wales. Interestingly, when I went to the Swansea hub, as Mike Hedges mentioned, they said to me that, actually, people do just want to drop in. It's so important that it's in the town centre, and actually, what they found is that if they put on sessions, peer mentor support workshops, people didn't necessarily want to go to those, because they wanted to continue doing the activities that they already did, like being in the Ramblers and going to their history classes. So, what I'm saying is that everywhere is different, and we need to have a real range of support that suits everybody.

This is exactly one of the questions that I was addressing this morning when I was talking to the NHS, looking at this. The regional partnership boards are absolutely crucial to providing that dementia support within the communities and doing that join-up across local government and the health boards. They have to be able to have that tailored support that is right for the community, but then we need to be setting that overarching message and theme, and what you said then about the memory support pathway and the specialist support nurses is what has to be really, really clear within the dementia action plan.

So, just to reassure you that everything that you've said is absolutely being considered. I think we did a really good foundation with the original dementia action plan, and these things are exactly the things now that we need to be able to build on, so that we have the tailored support and the community engagement, which make such a difference, but that there isn't a postcode lottery when it comes to the pathway and the clinical support that you are going to need throughout your life. Diolch.

Our approach to improving pancreatic cancer outcomes in Wales is set out in the quality statement for cancer and the NHS’s cancer improvement plan. This includes improving outcomes and experiences of people diagnosed with cancer, preventing and detecting cancer earlier, and addressing waiting times.

Thank you for that, because this is something that affects too many families still. Pancreatic cancer is the deadliest common cancer in Wales. That's because 80 per cent of people get diagnosed too late to receive life-saving treatment, and half lose their lives within three months. We have to see more people getting their diagnosis earlier to save so many more precious lives.

I lost my mam-gu to pancreatic cancer 20 years ago, and I don't want to see any more families having to go through what we went through in losing her. I'm urging the Government to invest in new tests to help detect pancreatic cancer at earlier stages, in meaningful research as well, and in regular monitoring of those people most at risk of developing this cancer. These are crucial parts of Pancreatic Cancer UK's 'Unite. Diagnose. Save Lives.' campaign. I would ask: will you make tackling these stubborn diagnosis rates a focus, please, for your Government, so that we can save more of those lives that are being lost to pancreatic cancer, as well as other less survivable cancers in Wales?

Could I thank Delyth Jewell for that supplementary question? I think it's right that I start by acknowledging the fact that pancreatic cancer does have some of the worst survival rates. Like you, I've also lost loved ones to pancreatic cancer. It is heartbreaking to see it happen, and it's heartbreaking to see it diagnosed so late, so that by the time we get the diagnosis, we know that there is very little that can be done to actually halt the disease.

That is primarily related to how difficult it is to identify in the early stages, and we know that there are other cancers that are in that similar category. We know that ovarian cancer is one of those that are very difficult to identify early on. If we can identify it earlier, then, of course, it can be more effectively treated. That is the approach that we've sought to take in Wales, to focus on providing people with rapid access to diagnostic treatment. Our focus, really, then, is on implementing the nationally agreed pathway for pancreatic cancer under the cancer waiting times target.

We have also focused on the quality of care, and funded a national clinical audit to help NHS services to identify and to act on quality improvement opportunities. We're working with the NHS to determine the long-term service model for pancreatic and liver cancer surgery. Our surgical centre in south Wales has increased surgical capacity.

We know that innovation is a key to some of this, the things that you identified, and we know that Pancreatic Cancer UK has been doing a lot of work on that, and there are a number of calls that Pancreatic Cancer UK are making on both the UK and the Welsh Governments in terms of how we might address that. I've seen the specific areas. They're looking at the surveillance of those at higher risk, and what I would say is that I expect NHS services to offer people surveillance procedures for pancreatic cancer in line with National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance. They're also asking us to invest in new diagnostic tests, and there is very much innovation under way right the way across the UK on novel diagnostic tests for cancers such as pancreatic, and those tests herald the prospect of being able to identify those harder to detect cancers that we're talking about. They're also asking for more funding for cancer research and innovation, and cancer has been the single biggest area of Welsh Government health research investment.

But what I am more than happy to do, Delyth, is to agree that we should have a meeting with Pancreatic Cancer UK to talk about their cause, to talk about what the Welsh Government is already doing in this space, and perhaps what more we can do to accelerate the improvement in the diagnostics and treatment that you identify. Diolch.

Minister, we all know of the devastating impact that pancreatic cancer, and cancer in general, has, and it has on many families across Wales. It's likely to impact all of us in some way during our lives.

I'm pleased to see a new radiotherapy centre is due to open in Nevill Hall. This will certainly go a long way to not just helping to treat patients in Wales, but providing them with some reassurance that treatment is available on their doorstep. In my constituency of Monmouth, there have been several recent events that have raised significant funds for cancer centres and charities—examples including a charity ball, a cycle ride, and even a mud run. I think we should all be thankful to those who attend and put on these events to fund further research into cancer.

The most recent statistics, though, for Aneurin Bevan health board, from March 2025, for suspected open cancer pathways, showed that there were 3,664, the second highest in Wales, and that simply has to improve. So, Minister, can I ask what steps your Government are taking to improve these statistics in my area in order to provide real change for constituents who are suffering and waiting to be diagnosed?

Can I thank Peter Fox for that supplementary question? I join you, first of all, before I come on to my substantive answer, in celebrating all of the charities that raise a phenomenal amount of money to support our cancer research and cancer charities. They absolutely do sterling work and help to supplement the funding that the Government puts into that.

The Cabinet Secretary, you may be aware, did lead a summit of cancer services leaders in September of last year. Then, in February of this year, he announced the introduction of the national cancer leadership board, which was about accelerating progress and co-ordinating system-wide access. That is about improving on performance against cancer waiting time targets. What we are looking to ensure is that investigation and treatment can start more rapidly, certainly within 62 days of cancer first being suspected.

We do know that, in that upper gastrointestinal suspected cancer pathway, Aneurin Bevan is doing very well. I hear what you say about the entire pathways of all cancers, but on that upper GI suspected cancer pathway, we are seeing them improving their diagnostics and treatment pathways. But it is absolutely a clear focus for the Government that we need to see improvement right the way across every health board. We're seeing significant improvement in a number of health boards, but we need to see that consistently, right the way across Wales.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Welsh Conservatives spokesperson questions—to be answered by the Minister for Mental Health and Well-being, and to be asked by James Evans.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. Minister, the Royal College of Psychiatrists' recent report 'Weight Management and Mental Health: A framework for action in Wales' highlights that current Welsh weight management strategies, such as 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales', offer no tailored guidance for people with mental health conditions, despite their elevated obesity rates—nearly 26 per cent versus 16 per cent of the general population. So, will you commit today to updating national guidance and guidelines, so that mental health services in Wales receive the specific direction they need to support healthy weight, alongside well-being and mental health support?

Thank you so much for raising this, James Evans. As you said, and as the Royal College of Psychiatrists highlight, when you are having support for mental health, sometimes that really does impact your weight and your relationship with food. I think that it's really important that you've highlighted this today. It's not something that I would be able to make a commitment to at this moment, and that's because, as I've already said today, we do everything in the Welsh Government with our stakeholders in a co-produced way. I'm so pleased that the Royal College of Psychiatrists has done this assessment and this report, because they do so many of these, across lots of different areas, for us in the Welsh Government, and then it's an excellent start to go about addressing this. But they would have taken this from lived experience, and so if this is what it's calling for, then I agree with you, this is something that needs to be addressed.

Thank you. It's a bit of a shame you can't give us any assurances today, Minister, but I am going to push you a little bit on this, if I can. The Royal College of Psychiatrists framework also made clear there is no current standard in place requiring regular medication reviews or annual physical health checks for people who are prescribed medications. As you said, that's something really important, because it does affect people's relationship with food, and there has been that link made between significant weight gain and people who are on antidepressants and different types of medication.

The gap in monitoring the risk is compounded for people with existing health conditions. I think that's something that needs to be looked at, because people who already face poor physical health due to inequality and their background don't need to have that exacerbated. So I'm just interested in what concrete steps you will take to make sure that these checks are mandated by GPs and by health professionals to make sure that physical health checks are done along with the regular check-ups that they're having for their mental health and well-being.

Thank you very much. Again, I think you raise a really important point here. I would say, though, that when it comes to anything to do with prescribing and pharmaceuticals, this is something that will always have to go through evidence-led NICE guidelines and checks. And also, when it comes to what GPs offer and what can be, as you said, mandated, that's something that has to be negotiated through the GP contract, which, again, sits with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care.

As you know, we had some great success this year with the new GP contract, which will now see that they have to give annual health checks to people with a learning disability, which I think is great progress, and will actually touch on many of the things that you've mentioned today. Again, I won't be able to commit to anything in the Chamber today, but this is a really good start to being able to have this discussion as we start to look to the next year.

Thank you. I think I'll leave my notes to one side. I think I do better without them sometimes. It is a bit disappointing that you won't give us any assurances today, because a lot of people who fed into this report are going to want some answers. I'd be interested to know what feedback the Government is giving to this report to see how we can improve that across Wales.

One thing that was highlighted was the lack of data that there is around this area, and it's not the first time that the Welsh Government has been accused, as such, of not having the reliable data to hand on certain health conditions. I'd be interested to know how you're going to improve data in this area. And it's not just from the health side of it, it's also working with your colleague the Cabinet Secretary for local government, to see how we can get data from there.

One thing I think could really help in this space is the involvement of our sports clubs and Sport Wales. I would like to know how you're working across Government to break down those silos to make sure that, if people are taking medication, there is that support available across Government and third sector organisations, to help people to have a better relationship with food when they are taking this medication.

We do need to make sure that all people are supported out there, because we do know that when people are taking this medication, it can spike people's weight and it can make their conditions worse, especially people who are suffering with anxiety and different types of mental health conditions—sometimes you're suffering with that and all of a sudden then you start to suffer with obesity, which can, as I said, exacerbate the problem. So, I'd like to know what you're doing across that area as well.

Thank you very much. Just to be clear, what I can say today is that I give you an absolute assurance that I will take this away and we will discuss it across Government. It goes across many of our portfolios. But just to say I absolutely agree with you. I know people with lived experience of this and it can really knock your confidence at a time when you need to be building yourself up. I would also give you assurance that we will be able to send you my response to that report that you've highlighted today. This is definitely not me saying that we're doing nothing—this is me committing to doing something now going forward and getting back to you on that.

When it comes to mental health data, yes, this is one that many people have pointed out—that we just don't have the same access to data in mental health in Wales. But we now have the mental health and well-being strategy that's come out; we also have a suicide prevention and self-harm strategy, and these are key aspects of addressing everything that you've said there.

When it comes to working across the third sector, he's left unfortunately, but I wanted to point out that the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership has now provided funding so that every football club in Wales will be able to access one of around 1,000 mental health awareness training places as part of a drive to better support clubs to support their teams, coaches and players, and their wider community. I've actually learned a tremendous amount through listening to Jack Sargeant, the Minister, and what he said about having the right support and being in the right place sometimes, where you're willing to say, 'Yes, you know what, I do need some help.'

The link that you've made with medication I think is really important, because even though we've done an awful lot to reduce the stigma of talking about certain mental health issues, I still think that there's a stigma around needing medication for those issues, whether that's short-term or whether that's long-term. I think there are a lot of people who have a fear of that, and I think there's an awful lot more work to do around that. It plays a huge part in everything that we're doing here.

As you mentioned, this sounds like excellent evidence, but when it comes to things around prescribing, I will have to take this away. But I agree with you: we want to be able to give everyone the support that they can have to absolutely thrive, whether that’s with mental health and well-being, or whether that’s how they feel about themselves physically, because we know that physical and mental and emotional health are so intertwined.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson questions now, to be answered by the Minister for Children and Social Care. Mabon ap Gwynfor.

This week is Carers Week, and I'd like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hundreds of thousands of carers across Wales for their immense contribution to the health and well-being of our nation. But the unfortunate reality is that their work remains thoroughly undervalued and underappreciated. Indeed, the raw deal endured by these legions of unsung heroes has become even more stark in recent years.

The latest report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation paints a truly sobering picture in this respect. Thirty-one per cent of carers in Wales currently live in poverty, even higher than the shamefully high levels seen across the general population. Moreover, the poverty gap between carers and non-carers has widened since 2023.

So, my question to you, Minister, is a simple one: how on earth have we reached this point whereby, as our reliance on the care sector increases, the personal circumstances of carers themselves are becoming more intolerable?

Can I thank Mabon ap Gwynfor for that question and join him in saying ‘thank you’ and appreciating the work that all of our unpaid carers do? We know what the contribution to our national economy is from unpaid carers, let alone the contribution that they make to the people that they are looking after. We know all of the things that you’ve highlighted. So, it’s absolutely right that, in this Carers Week, you’re asking me about this particular subject.

You know that we have spoken about this many times. You’ve asked me questions about it before. I’ve attended many events in the Senedd, and I’ve met with the carers organisations on many occasions, and have met with unpaid carers themselves on many occasions. It’s absolutely right that, as a Government, we do as much as we can to support our unpaid carers.

There are significant challenges that you’ve already highlighted around their financial situation. And while it’s right to say that local authorities have responsibility to support unpaid carers, we’ve also got a responsibility to help supplement the support that we make available. I’ve talked about this before, and I make no apology for talking about it again—the additional funding that we do put in, over and above what is provided to local authorities to pay for the respite care that is available, unpaid carer assessments, carer needs assessments and so on. We continue, through the regional partnership boards, to fund the carers support fund and the short breaks fund.

As I say, I don’t apologise for talking about that again, because those kinds of things are very important in the larger scheme of things. We talk about respite care within local authorities, but the short breaks fund actually gives a tailored break for carers and/or the people that are cared for. It is not something that is standard; it is bespoke to the individual and identifies what they need. In the last three years, those schemes have exceeded all of their targets in terms of the number of people that we’ve sought to reach. And we’ve invested a further £5 million-plus this year to continue. So, we’re doing what we can to support unpaid carers, but we know that there is far more to do.

You’ve previously asked me, Mabon, about carer assessments and the work that local authorities are doing in that regard and the apparent inconsistency in the way that unpaid carer needs assessments are identified and delivered through local authorities. So, I’m working very closely, through the ministerial advisory group, who are reporting back to me, on work around that, to improve the access to carer needs assessments, and working very collaboratively with my colleagues the Cabinet Secretaries for health and local government as well, to make improvements both in the carer needs assessments and in the consistency in the delivery of them.

Thank you for that response, Minister, but, sadly, the pressures facing carers are unlikely to ease anytime soon. Indeed, they will inevitably intensify as a result of the UK Labour Government’s determination to push through deep and swingeing cuts to the welfare budget.

Even before Liz Kendall announced that she’d be going further with her welfare cuts than even George Osborne dared venture, carers were struggling, with recent studies showing that more than one in three carers are having to cut back on essentials such as food and heating and having to endure an average pay penalty of £414 per month. To quote Carers UK,

'If these cuts go ahead, even more carers will be pushed into crisis—leaving people struggling to afford food, heating, and other essentials.'

Could you, therefore, confirm how many carers in Wales will be adversely affected by the proposed benefit changes outlined in the White Paper? And do you agree with me that knowingly pushing yet more carers into poverty is the action of a Government whose priorities are totally out of kilter with the needs of our society?

Again, thank you for that question, and I absolutely understand the concerns that unpaid carers will have around a whole range of issues. The cost-of-living crisis hasn't gone away, but we have seen the UK Government increase the benefits for unpaid carers, so that allowance has increased.

We've got to do some analysis on the spending review that was announced today. You'll appreciate that, while the Chancellor was on her feet making various announcements, which included huge uplifts for the next 10 years for Wales as part of that announcement, we've got to take a step back and analyse all of that and see what that actually means in terms of our spending powers and what we can do in this area. But you asked specifically about the benefit changes. These are subject to consultation at the moment, so I think we need to be very clear that there are no final decisions that have been made on all of that. Until we know what those final decisions are and what the benefit changes might or might not be, then it's very difficult to put a figure on how many people are potentially affected.

But I am committed, as I said to you earlier on, to doing whatever we can within our responsibilities and within our competence to help support unpaid carers. Obviously, on the decisions that the UK Government make, we will continue to make representation on any proposals that we think will impact on unpaid carers.

The findings of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report should represent a watershed moment in terms of society's attitudes to carers, because, as things stand, the extent to which they are failed by the system to which they contribute so much is nothing short of a national disgrace, to be honest. The spending review that you just referred to was an opportunity to right this wrong, but it seems that it's been squandered by the Chancellor, so it's imperative that, here in Wales, a different path is struck. While I appreciate that the Welsh Government has introduced the carers support fund, the fact that only 15,000 carers have been reached through this fund since 2022 suggests a refreshed approach is necessary. As I've mentioned before, part of the problem is that only a tiny fraction of carers currently receive the needs-based assessment to which they're legally entitled. So, does the Minister agree that there is a moral responsibility on the Welsh Government to condemn the proposed welfare changes in the strongest possible terms, and to re-evaluate the current support mechanisms they provide to ensure that a Welsh helping hand of support and solidarity is always extended to our carers?

Yes, I absolutely agree with that, and I think that was what I said in response to your last question. We will do whatever we can do within our powers and competence within the Welsh Government to support our unpaid carers. We have done that over a number of years, and we will continue to do that. We are, in fact, publishing our new strategy for unpaid carers in the spring of next year, and so we're engaging with stakeholders and groups of unpaid carers to inform that strategy. That draft strategy is going to go out for consultation at the end of this year, and that will ensure that our actions and policy drivers are targeted to those areas that are most important to unpaid carers.

I will reiterate that we will continue to make our views known to the UK Government around any particular changes that we think will adversely affect any groups in society, but we obviously have to work within our competence rather than within the competence of another Government.

Welsh Government officials have raised the research relating to cancer risk highlighted by the Fire Brigades Union with the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council. The council’s advice remains unchanged. But the chief medical officer will consider the available evidence in conjunction with Public Health Wales to provide advice to Ministers.

Thank you for that response, Minister.

In First Minister's questions on 6 May, I raised the issue of safeguarding firefighters' health and asked specifically about the chief medical officer's role in this work. The First Minister confirmed that while there has been a delay owing to that change in personnel, the chief medical officer has been asked to treat this as a priority. So, following that exchange, I contacted the chief medical officer directly to seek further clarity on the status and scope of this work. While I welcome, of course, the assurances that the matter has been raised with them by the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary, I have not yet received a substantive response from either the Government or the chief medical officer. In fact, when contacting the chief medical officer’s office, I was advised that they would ask the Government for advice on how they would respond to me. So, given that I had a question today, I thought I would ask the Government if they could provide that update and actually provide us with a date on which we can get further information on what is a really important intervention that the Government could make.

Sure. Can I firstly acknowledge your support, Luke, in terms of this particular issue? I know, as you said, you’ve already highlighted that you have raised this several times and I know that you had a debate on this recently, which my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government responded to. It is a campaign that we are supportive of as a Government; we absolutely understand what the Fire Brigades Union and the employers are saying in this space. And everything that we do, clearly, has to be driven by evidence, and you would accept that.

All I can tell you today is that the Cabinet Secretary has asked the chief medical officer to produce advice based on the available evidence and will report back when that’s been concluded. And the best I can tell you at this stage is that we have been advised that we will get that report back from the chief medical officer this year. I will take it away and see if I can get that honed down a little bit, pinned down a little bit more firmly than that, but, obviously, you’ll appreciate that the chief medical officer is still relatively new in post and is clearly having to assess quite a big range of work priorities. But I will take away from here the question that you have directly put and see if we can get a more detailed time span on when we can receive that report.

Minister, as you may be aware, recent research shows a clear link between firefighters’ exposure to fire effluents and poor mental health, specifically endocrine disruptors like polychlorinated biphenyls found in flame retardant materials, which can cause hormone imbalances and neuroendocrine issues, contributing to increased risks of depression and anxiety. Pregnant women are particularly vulnerable, with exposure increasing the risks of maternal depression, which can negatively affect the child’s mental, cognitive and physical development. As you will remember, I raised these concerns before with the former First Minister, Vaughan Gething, but I’m keen to have an update as to what actions the Welsh Government is taking to ensure that fire and rescue services inform staff about these hazards, and what measures are in place to enforce strict practices that minimise long-term exposure. Thank you.

Can I thank Joel James for that question? Just a couple of things to say are that all serving firefighters do receive annual fitness checks and three-yearly full medical examinations from their employers. But you’re absolutely right that research does show that some firefighters may face increased risk of some cancers, and that’s the point I think that was being raised by Luke Fletcher, and the work that we’ve commissioned through the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council, which is now being looked at by the chief medical officer.

But it quite clear that—. There is an agreement between the Fire Brigades Union, the staff and the employers to ensure that they are continuing to provide the necessary support for health checks, including mental health checks, for their workforce, and to ensure that they are effectively providing the effective and decontaminated personal protective equipment, because what we established was that one of the problems that had been previously highlighted was that some of the PPE was contaminated and was potentially causing problems. So, that is something that is in place and is already happening. What I would say is, of course, if any firefighter is feeling that they have been exposed to any particular danger, they should immediately report that to their employer, who will make sure that they are seen as a matter of urgency if there is any particular risk in terms of what they have just been doing.

We are extremely pleased with the work under way to implement the new optometry contracted terms of service for primary care optometry providers to improve patient outcomes. This represents a significant reform of eye care, aligned to the commitments set out in 'A Healthier Wales' and our 'Future Approach for Optometry Services'.

Thank you for that response. There are many positives. I have certainly seen that myself. But a constituent of mine has a long history of complex eye problems. They had extreme pain, went to Specsavers and were told that they needed to be referred to a specialist. They were told that, due to the new contract, Specsavers could not refer them to their usual senior eye specialist as it was not the nearest hospital. The patient had to undergo many appointments over a period of weeks at the local hospital before they eventually conceded that they needed to see the senior eye consultant at a different hospital. This led to the constituent being kept on dangerously high levels of eye medication, with strong side-effects and experiencing a lot of pain for weeks. The senior eye specialist saw that urgent surgery was needed, and she was in London within days to save her eyesight, after an immediate referral. Happily, the treatment was successful, but the delay could have meant that it was too late. So, can I ask: how are you going to ensure that the person gets the right treatment at the right time, and that that delay doesn't happen? And would you be happy to meet with my constituent to understand her experiences, so that that can help inform future treatments?

Thank you, Heledd Fychan, for that question, and I am very, very sorry to hear about your constituent's experience. Of course, that should not happen, and the changes that we are proposing and that are being implemented are designed to avoid those very sets of circumstances. What we are looking to do is deliver a system whereby people with low-level conditions can have follow-up treatment in the community, through an optometrist, and that, really, secondary care is only for the most serious cases, where they go in the first place for treatment. The system, when it is working in the way that it is intended, should have ensured that your constituent was treated in an appropriate way. So, what I would say in response to that is if there is something that we can learn from your constituent and her experience, so that we can ensure that that doesn't happen again and so that we can inform the changing process, then I will be more than happy to recommend to the Cabinet Secretary that that happens.

The contract agreement between the Welsh Government, NHS Wales and Optometry Wales was intended, indeed, to go towards supporting the expanding scope of clinical services in primary care optometry, reducing the demand on hospital eye care services and increasing the capacity for specialist eye care provision. The total number of pathways assessed as health risk factor R1—waiting for an out-patient appointment—has increased from 155,500 in April 2024 to 161,350 in April 2025. The number of patient pathways assessed as health risk factor R1 within the target date or 25 per cent beyond the target date for an out-patient appointment has increased to 80,178 from 78,000. Those figures are increasing. They are especially concerned with the Royal College of Ophthalmologists predicting that demand for services will increase by 30 per cent to 40 per cent in the next 20 years. The Welsh Conservatives believe that a substantial workforce plan needs to be implemented as a means of recruiting more eye surgeons and ophthalmologists, to reduce the length and time and the risk of irreversible damage. Patients, including my constituents in Aberconwy—. Cataract appointments are delayed and delayed and delayed, and lots more eye conditions. Do you agree with me, Cabinet Secretary, that the additional funding awarded through the contract agreement must now be prioritised to reduce these waiting times?

Thank you, Janet, for that question. I think it is important to say that this is a phased approach to a completely new way of delivering optometry. We are already seeing that over 3,000 episodes a month are now being seen through independent prescribing optometrists, rather than in the hospital. We are freeing up something in the region of 30,000 hospital appointments. There clearly is a backlog that has to be worked through. The change doesn't happen overnight. There's been significant investment in the staffing of the primary care optometry workforce. That's been strengthened. We're seeing more people now in the community, so that is freeing up the hospital appointments. We can see this pathway increased in terms of activity. In April of this year, it shows that 1,156 appointments were being undertaken. That indicates activity is increasing at pace. But there is a way to go, because, as I say, this is a phased approach and this is something that will deliver improvements, is delivering improvements as we go, but will continue to deliver improvements. We've seen that 51.5 per cent of patients have been retained in the community for their glaucoma treatment, 25.25 per cent are discharged back to their original optometrist, 25.25 per cent are referred on to hospital eye services and so on. So, we are seeing the shift, but, as I say, it is phased approach to a new service, which is really only in the early stages.

Our women’s health plan will improve support for women and girls, and ensure their voices are heard by the Welsh NHS. The duty of candour ensures honesty and transparency in healthcare, and the 'Putting Things Right' arrangements are available for those who have experienced harm through NHS treatments or procedures.

Diolch. I highlighted to both the First Minister and yourself last year the ongoing and terrible experiences of women fitted with mesh implants, and I asked what conversations have happened with the Westminster Government around the response to the Hughes report, which called for compensation to be paid to those women whose lives, in Dr Hughes's view, had been unjustly destroyed. It's disappointing that thousands of women, including some of my constituents, who received mesh implants to treat incontinence and pelvic organ prolapse have been left in permanent pain, have had to endure multiple procedures, are unable to walk, work or have sex. Women who have suffered so much harm are still waiting for action on this.

You told me, in response to my question last year, that the Government is considering the recommendations from the report and working closely with colleagues in UK Government. Well, Minister, it's over a year since the Hughes report was published, and six months since I asked my questions, but we've heard nothing from the UK Labour Government, nor have we had an official Welsh Government response to the report. So, when can we expect that to be made and when will this terrible injustice, which has been called the most serious women's health scandal since thalidomide, be fully addressed? Diolch.

Thank you so much, Sioned Williams, for raising this today, and for continuing to raise this and put pressure on UK Government and myself in Welsh Government. Making sure women's voices are heard in every interaction they have with the NHS is a key aspect of the women's health plan, and will ensure that women's concerns are taken seriously and not dismissed. We have also launched the people's experience framework in April to fully integrate the experience of people receiving healthcare in Wales, but that is doing the bare minimum of what we should be doing to ensure that these things don't happen again.

I did also want to highlight, though, that the use of pelvic mesh in the treatment of stress urinary incontinence and prolapse has decreased in Wales since we introduced a high-vigilance restriction on procedures in 2018, until a range of measures could be put in place to ensure its safe use. I of course have to report that I note the UK Government suggested that primary legislation may be required now to take forward the financial redress aspects of the Hughes report, so that is why there's a delay. They believe that that's going to need primary legislation, and that's why we are continuing to work with them. But today I do want to give you an update to assure you that we're not doing nothing.

Officials have recently completed a detailed analysis to understand the extent of the impacts of the use of pelvic mesh and sodium valproate on women in Wales, and the potential financial impact of a redress scheme. So, we're good to go as soon as we have this in place. Officials from the science research evidence team have recently completed a detailed assessment to estimate the number of women in Wales who could have been potentially impacted by pelvic mesh. It was a complex analysis that has taken time, but it does provide the important evidence that is required in our discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care in UK Government as to the extent of the issues for women in Wales.

There were two data sets that were used. There was a population proportionate estimate, using estimates from England and Scotland provided in the Hughes report, but we also had the Welsh data provided by Digital Health and Care Wales for numbers of procedures using pelvic mesh between 2007 and 2017. By using these two approaches to build the scenarios in our analysis, so the population proportionate data versus Wales-based data, it gives us further confidence in the estimates provided.

So, I want to, as I said, assure you that we continue to have these conversations and absolutely push for this redress. I share your frustration. We now, I am confident, have the evidence to prove and support the redress and the financial settlement that the women of Wales should receive. Diolch.

The Welsh ambulance service works closely with all health boards to plan and deliver non-emergency patient transport services to meet local need, in conjunction with the health board service provision. Additional funding for transport was provided to Hywel Dda earlier this year to increase resource available to support system flow.

Thank you for that, Minister. One of the biggest costs to the NHS is missed appointments, and one of my constituents missed three appointments at Morriston Hospital because on the day before the appointment their organised hospital transport was cancelled at short notice, not allowing them to then transport themselves to the appointment.

Now, with Hywel Dda in the process of looking at centralising further services—nine critical fragile services they've discussed around critical care, stroke and urology—it's likely that patients and constituents of mine will have to travel further for these services, making them more reliant on hospital transportation. So, what work is the Welsh Government doing to ensure hospital transportation is fit for purpose and patients aren't missing appointments due to last-minute cancellations because of the wider cost that that has on the Welsh NHS?

Thank you, Sam Kurtz, for those further questions, and I absolutely understand how frustrating it is when patient transport is cancelled, and there can be all sorts of reasons why that happens. We know, for instance, that 70,000 journeys were actually cancelled on the day of transport because the patient themselves cancelled without prior notice, and so we have a very wide problem around all of that. But what you're specifically asking about is when the transport service itself cancels it, and people are not then able to reach their appointment. Unexpected changes in demand of course can lead to those cancellations, where emergencies take over, and particularly when people are trying to get to renal and oncology appointments, those tend to take the priority.

What I can say is that the non-emergency patient transport service team—where cancellations do occur, the provision of transport needs is prioritised to those patients with the highest level of need. So, the point I was just making—if somebody has to be transferred for whatever reason, then there has to be an order of priority. But what is happening to mitigate the risk of cancellations is important, of course, and whilst there have been introduced now additional methods to remind people of their transport booking and to make it easier for them to tell them that they no longer need their transport—that's where they need to cancel—the NEPTS team continues to explore improvements in the patient experience, including welfare checks and the introduction of an enhanced care hub, which is trialling new approaches to the way in which patient transport is delivered more effectively.

But I think that what we need to be looking at in particular is the kind of contractual arrangements that we have with the Welsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust and the health board to ensure that there is adequate transport to be able to relay people to the appointments that they need. But I think it is important to say that some of those cancellations are due to unexpected circumstances that the ambulance service then has to try to manage in the most effective way that it can.

There is a demand and capacity review, and the service is also reviewing its resource profile to ensure that it best meets the needs of patients. That review is going to be complete later this year, and it should deliver additional capacity to support the growth in patient volumes as planned care activity increases. And in acknowledgement of the forecasted increase in demand for ambulance services over the winter period, we've now allocated an additional £400,000 to commission non-emergency patient transport services to deliver that extra capacity.

The quality statement for maternity and neonatal services sets out the standards and outcomes families can expect when accessing care. The strategic maternity and neonatal network, through their safety support programme, are working across the system to reduce mortality and eliminate avoidable harm through the implementation of safe, effective services.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. I've recently received a number of e-mails from constituents who have asked me to raise this issue with you, constituents who have experienced the heartbreaking loss of their child. The correspondence I've received acknowledges that since 2010, whilst there's been an overall decline in stillbirths and neonatal deaths in Wales, there is still much to do. Individuals and organisations have asked for a commitment to specific targets to reduce pregnancy loss and baby death, and also eliminate inequalities in loss. In 2022 the Welsh Government launched a national maternity and neonatal safety support programme. Are you able to give us an update on progress?

Thank you very much, Joyce Watson, and I echo what you've said that the loss of a baby at any stage of pregnancy is a distressing experience. We want to make sure all families who experience late pregnancy loss at maternity units in Wales are supported by bereavement midwives, and I've met many of the teams, and we also then want to ensure that bereavement midwives are also receiving the mental health support that they need as well.

As you said, in February 2025 a maternity and neonatal quality statement was published, which sets out our national vision for that safe, equitable and high-quality care, driving consistent standards across Wales and focusing on reducing avoidable harm, including stillbirths and neonatal deaths. The quality standard promotes evidence-based care and continuous improvement in every health board. Wales is committed to involving women and parents in shaping these services, and hearing all the voices that use maternity and neonatal services, and that is why Welsh Government published the perinatal engagement framework in February 2025, which ensures health boards listen and act upon all feedback to inform service design and delivery.

We also then have NHS Wales Performance and Improvement, who are working on developing national dashboards and safety indicators to monitor perinatal outcomes and assist in identifying variation and drive targeted responses. They are also working collaboratively with parent organisations, including the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Charity, and experts in this area to implement the national bereavement care pathways across Wales, specifically for miscarriage, stillbirth and baby loss. A core working group has recently been established to develop the pathway. Several third sector organisations are members of the group, including SANDS, Bliss, the Antenatal Results and Choices and the Miscarriage Association.

In answer to your specific question, although we currently do not have specific targets to reduce pregnancy loss and baby deaths, we are committed to reducing stillbirths and neonatal deaths, and the provision of equitable care by the implementation of safe and effective services for all families. All health boards are delivering targeted improvement work through the maternity and neonatal safety support programme, including enhanced clinical review of deaths, adoption of the national early warning surveillance system, safer pre-term birth care bundles, and learning from incidents through structured case reviews. All maternity and neonatal services provided by health boards in Wales will need to make improvements to meet the ambitions in the quality statement, and to ensure that we continue to have high-quality care consistently provided, and that experience and outcomes are absolutely optimised. Diolch.

Finally, question 8, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Health boards are responsible for providing quality mental health services and ensuring access for those who need it. NHS Wales Performance and Improvement works with all health boards to drive improvements in these services. The Minister for Mental Health and Well-being—myself—meets with the health board each quarter to review its progress.

Thank you for that response. Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board data shows that Anglesey is one of two areas in north Wales that failed to reach the target in ensuring that mental health assessments for adults were completed within 28 days in 80 per cent of cases in 2024-25. Many, of course, are waiting much, much longer than that, and behind the statistics there are people, individuals who are truly suffering. We see that in the individuals and families that contact me as a Member, and we see it, very sadly, in the stories in the press and the media about people who are self-harming or even worse as they wait for treatment.

Can I ask the Minister, therefore, what urgent steps the Welsh Government will take to support the health board in improving adult mental health services on Anglesey as a matter of urgency, so that the targets are at least met, and that people in Anglesey get the care that they need and deserve?

Thank you very much for those questions, Rhun ap Iorwerth. So, we expect health boards and local authorities to work in partnership to provide mental health support to meet the needs of the local population. As you said, the targets with Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board have not been met when it comes to adult care. The latest figures that I have, though, are that 84.1 per cent of adult mental health interventions were completed within 28 days in March 2025, and the target for that measure was achieved in nine out of the past 12 months.

I meet with Betsi Cadwaladr health board on a quarterly basis. They're obviously in escalated measures at the moment, specifically around mental health, and that is partly historical, and that is partly addressing where we are at the moment as well. So, I meet with them regularly, and they are having to put those plans in place and those steps in place to absolutely address this, and I'm confident that they are taking it seriously, and that they are doing that. Performance against the various mental health measures for under-18s, for example, has massively improved, with 96 per cent of assessments completed within 28 days in March of 2025, compared, then, with 91 per cent in March of 2024. So, we are seeing some improvement, and I want to be fair to them in that respect. But you're absolutely right, anybody waiting—. And we know that those first 28 are absolutely crucial. So, we're doing everything we can to work with the health board and, like I said, they remain in escalated measures, so this is something—. And the targets absolutely have to be met.

What I also wanted to say, though, is that we obviously now have the mental health and well-being strategy, and the purpose of this is so that people don't get to that need, where they have to have an assessment and then they may be waiting. We want to have that prevention in place and that single-session stepped care model, because, when people do come to ask for that help and reach out, they need to see somebody, often just to have that conversation, just to feel listened to and just to feel heard, and not feel as if they've gone to somebody and been told, 'We'll put you on a waiting list; here's some medication', or, sometimes, you know, 'Maybe you need to have a sleep.' That's the kind of feedback that I get from people. If people can have that single session, we know that it makes a tremendous amount of difference, and that may then be being signposted to other services, or it may then be escalated, so that you can have a conversation with somebody.

We're looking at the moment at where we will have our three initial health board pilot schemes. Betsi Cadwaladr are very keen to be one, because they really understand the challenges, and they really want to improve their mental health provision across the board. So, I'm looking at that at the moment, because we would obviously want it to be a success. But I think that this would be a really good case for that happening.

I thank both Ministers.

The next item will be the topical question. There is just one today, and it will be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, and will be asked by Heledd Fychan.

Well, I have regular discussions with the UK Government regarding rail funding, and I am delighted that they have confirmed huge investment today to improve rail infrastructure in Wales. Of course, this builds on our investments, such as £800 million on brand-new trains, over £1 billion on the core Valleys lines, and, of course, the commencement of Network North Wales.

Thank you for sharing your views on an irrelevant answer to the question I asked. I asked specifically around the Oxford to Cambridge line, and are you equally delighted that that has been reclassified, denying Wales the equal share that we would have received, if it were still classified as an England-only project, of £330 million? To date, we have received £1.1 million-worth of consequential because of its classification as England-only. Have you been asked to repay that money? Because that would be the expected outcome if this was normal, in terms of it being an England-and-Wales, and that, as Jo Stevens mentioned today—the Secretary of State for Wales—it was an error in the designation. Do you agree with that point? At what point were you made aware, as the Welsh Government, that there was going to be a reclassification? Was there any engagement? Or, as has been indicated by the First Minister, did they not bother telling the Welsh Government what was going on, and do you not know the reasons, and that's why you did not answer my question?

Well, clearly, the UK Government didn't put the Oxford-Cambridge line into the railway network enhancement pipeline as they normally would do, which resulted in consequentials coming to the Welsh Government. But I am delighted to report that, as a result of two Labour Governments working in partnership, the UK Government will not be clawing back any of the consequentials we've received. And I find it astonishing that, on a day when we learn Wales is to receive an additional £5 billion—£5 billion—including at least £445 million for rail, Plaid Cymru are choosing to talk down rail investment by the UK Government and by the Welsh Government—two Labour Governments working in partnership. And when we talk about comparability, let's just look at where we would be in a world of Plaid independence: £2.6 billion, on their own figures, every year, lost. In contrast, we've received today confirmation of an additional £5 billion. Labour has delivered where the Tories wouldn't, where Plaid can't and, frankly, where Reform don't care to deliver.

Cabinet Secretary, the Oxford-Cambridge line project was originally designated as an England-only scheme, which would have resulted in extra funding inevitably coming to Wales. Yet for some irrational reason, your Labour colleagues have decided to reclassify it as an England-and-Wales project, blocking any cash from flowing down the M4 to Wales. We're not talking about chump change here, Cabinet Secretary; we're talking about millions and millions of pounds. And I know what you're going to say, and, yes, there was additional money announced in the spending review today, but it is simply a mere drop in the ocean to what the people of Wales are owned.

To be clear: the £450 million announced is over 10 years, working out at just £45 million per year—significantly less than the £1 billion plus invested in rail by the previous Conservative UK Government over the same period of time. Labour politicians, including the Secretary of State for Wales, constantly shouted for billions from HS2 when the Conservatives were in power, but now they are content with a fraction of that amount and expect us all here to be grateful. The so-called partnership of power between the two Labour Governments is clearly nothing more than empty words, as it has, once again, left Wales short-changed. Instead of standing up and demanding what's right for the people of Wales, this Labour Welsh Government has stayed shtoom, played second fiddle and accepted Westminster's scraps.

So, Cabinet Secretary, do you agree with me that, despite the rhetoric, Labour's partnership of power is in fact damaging Wales, and how long will this Government continue to accept being deprived and short-changed by your London paymasters? Thank you.

Well, we shouldn't be surprised that the architects of austerity, who ignored Wales for so long, are talking down this huge investment in Wales by the UK Government—an additional £5 billion for this spending period.

And I'd just like to add a little more detail on the 10-year period of investment. In actual fact, the vast majority of that investment—£350 million—will be spent in this period. When longer term investment is required, as is often the case on rail projects, it can span beyond a single rail period. And, as the UK Government has said, this sets the foundations for further work on Welsh railways. That has to be welcomed as a long-term guarantee of improvement—improvement the Tories would not pursue.

The £445 million is the money that we are going to be getting for transport, rather than the £5 billion overall. So, I was just making that clear.

Are you frustrated, as I am, that the Treasury seems to be not following its own rules, in changing the goalposts as we go along, and that, one minute, we were meant to be getting a Barnett consequential of around £330 million for the Oxford to Cambridge line, and the next, at a stroke of a pen, we're not? So, could I ask: have you assessed what future plans would be affected now by the fact you will no longer be receiving the full £330 million from that project, and what will you have to shelve or delay as a result of those decisions?

Well, a lot of projects start out as local transport grant led projects, and it's the same in Wales. We apply local transport grants to those projects that can be worked up into heavy rail opportunities, such as Cardiff Central station, that then go into the railway network enhancement pipeline. What appears to have happened—. We need to have firm confirmation, but what appears to have happened is that that process of transferral didn't take place at the appropriate time, which resulted, it appears, in us receiving additional consequentials. But I'm delighted again to say that, as a result of two Labour Governments working in partnership in power, UK Government will not be seeking any repayment of the consequentials that we received.

I just want to come back to the topical question, which is really just asking you, with the greatest of respect, Cabinet Secretary, that we just want some absolute truth as to why the Oxford to Cambridge rail programme was initially classified as an England project, and then was switched to an England-and-Wales project.

Just to take you back, if I may, in the 2020, 2021, 2023 and 2024 editions of the UK Government's statement of funding policies, the railway line was classified as 'England only'. And due to work by David Chadwick MP, the Welsh Liberal Democrat MP, we found out the switch. So, there is a considerable degree of confusion here, and we just really want some clarity, because, actually, my understanding would be that, if it had remained as an England-only project, then we would be getting consequentials from that programme, as well as everything that you've spoken about, which, of course, isn't the issue here that we've asked in the topical question.

So, with the greatest of respect, could you explain, or perhaps there's a need to go and review those policies from 2020 up to 2024 to help us to understand, why there was the change, and is there a commitment now from this new Labour Government that it's reclassified as an England-only scheme, and therefore we do get the consequentials we're due? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Well, I'm hoping that, longer term, we'll see significant reform through the changes that Lord Peter Hendy is pursuing with his legislation in Parliament. Those reforms, I believe, will lead to Welsh Ministers having a far greater say and Wales having a guaranteed fund of investment over the long term.

What we've heard—. And I accept opposition parties don't want to hear it, but we've heard today a huge investment announcement: £5 billion extra for Wales, including £445 million extra for Welsh rail. That's more than we would have received to date in HS2 consequentials, and that will pave the way for huge, transformative projects in north Wales and south Wales.

I have no further contributions.

So, we will move on to the 90-second statements. Sioned Williams.

Thank you, Llywydd. This week is Infant Mental Health Awareness Week, an opportunity to raise awareness of the vital importance of supporting infants' mental health and well-being. This year's theme, decided by the Parent-Infant Foundation, is 'Who is holding the baby?' It highlights the fact that some parents, especially those facing trauma, mental health issues, poverty or domestic abuse, could find it harder to connect with their infants and meet their emotional and physical needs, and that they need specialist support.

Infants who are vulnerable to trauma or difficult circumstances, without the right support are at greater risk of experiencing a range of negative impacts on their physical and mental health throughout their lives. Infants need safe and loving homes, along with sensitive care, to promote their healthy development from conception onwards. Unfortunately, we know that more than one in 10 infants in the United Kingdom today live in fear, confusion and anxiety. Despite this, there is insufficient specialist support for vulnerable infants and their families in Wales.

This week, we are reminded that supporting early relationships and infant mental health involves investing in a healthier future for every child. I encourage every Member to help to raise awareness of Infant Mental Health Awareness Week, and to promote the support that infants and their families need to have the best possible start in life. Thank you.

Wales is a nation of sanctuary. That is something that we can all be proud of. At a time when society is becoming increasingly divided and fractured, it reminds us that, as human beings, we are part of something bigger, and that Governments can make a difference.

Individuals and community groups can make a difference too, and I would like to pay tribute to PONT, a charity in my constituency that has done just that. It has transformed the lives and the prospects of hundreds of thousands of people in Mbale, in Uganda. PONT was formed in 2005 by a group of volunteers in Pontypridd, although the charity's origins go back to the 1980s, when volunteers working in camps during the Ethiopian famine saw an opportunity to improve the lives of poor people in Africa by building direct personal relationships between the two communities.

Led by my constituent and friend, Dr Geoff Lloyd, the team has built PONT into an effective community-to-community aid programme. It has built schools, provided educational programmes and healthcare services to remote villages who otherwise would have none of these services that we take for granted. PONT's programmes extend from the provision of essentials, such as mosquito nets, to a highly successful volunteer programme that sees doctors, teachers and other professionals from Wales working in rural villages, and to an income-generation programme based on goat ownership.

This month, PONT celebrates its twentieth anniversary. It will hold a special celebration conference in Pontypridd, where the former First Minister Carwyn Jones will be the special guest. Carwyn has a close connection with PONT, and he visited Mbale with Geoff back in 2014. With support from PONT, their model has been adopted by organisations in other parts of Wales. When I spoke to Geoff recently, he reflected on what PONT had achieved. He told me that, in the fight against poverty, town twinning works. Over 0.5 million people now have access to primary health care where, before PONT, there was none. We can all be proud that Wales is full of people such as PONT volunteers, who are bringing the world closer, one community at a time. Diolch.

June is Pride month, a time to come together as a community to celebrate and campaign for change.

Pride was born out of the need and the will to protest, a response to rights denied, to be seen, to be ourselves, to be accepted and be respected. Fifty-five years after the Pride that followed from the Stonewall riots, 53 years since the first UK Pride, and 40 years since the first parade here in the capital of Cymru, Pride remains as relevant and as important as ever, a positive force for good that brings together both the LGBTQ+ community and the wider community too.

Pride doesn't have to be big to be beautiful, and it doesn't just belong in cities. It's about visibility, being valued, and it can be vital. It's not a threat to a town's identity, it's a reflection of the diversity that already exists. I've taken part in Prides right across the country, but the Prides that have had the lasting impact on me are those that have taken place closer to home. Just last year, Flint, the town where I went to secondary school, hosted its first ever Pride event, something my teenage self could never dare to dream of. Last weekend witnessed Prestatyn's premier Pride. It was fantastic to see so many people from across the community, and such support, as the parade made its way through the high street. Despite the wet weather, it didn't rain on our parade. Further down the coast, a few weeks ago, the sun shone again on Colwyn Bay's third Pride on the prom, and, next year, Newport will be home to UK Pride.

These Prides matter and they make a difference. They're not a luxury, they are a lifeline. Progress is not inevitable and Pride is still a protest. So, this Pride month, and every month, let's stand together to support our LGBTQ+ community. Diolch.

Sir William John Boston was born in Angelina Street, Butetown in 1934. Billy was a docks boy, his father, John, a seafarer from Sierra Leone, and his mother, Nellie, from the vibrant Cardiff Irish community. He started playing rugby union for Cardiff Internationals Athletic Club, a much storied club, celebrating its eightieth anniversary next year. Much has been written about how Billy really wanted to play for Cardiff and Wales, but the call of club and country never came. It's hard to believe this was simply down to a scouting system failure and nothing to do with the colour of his skin.

Wigan rugby league club recognised Billy's enormous ability. The most told story about his signing is that Nellie demanded that Wigan double their offer before Billy went north. They did and he was a runaway success. The figures show that it was 478 tries in 488 appearances for Wigan; 24 in 31 Great Britain test matches. The figures don't tell you that he was a trailblazer: the first person of colour selected for Great Britain. Being the first is never easy, but he was a hero and a role model on and off the pitch at a time when black people faced everyday overt prejudice.

It's taken 130 years for rugby league to get a knighthood. Here in Wales, we have taken too long to recognise Billy. He had statues in Wigan and Wembley long before the Codebreakers statue finally cast Billy, Clive Sullivan and Gus Risman looking back at their city. I hope Wales will not forget what he went through and what he achieved. There are many more like him who deserve to be remembered.

Thank you for those very powerful statements.

Item 5 is next, and that's the dissolution of committees. In accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the two motions under this item will be taken together, for the dissolution of the Reform Bill Committee and the dissolution of the Future Senedd Committee—they'll be grouped for debate, that is, but with separate votes. Are there any objections to that? I see that there are none.

Therefore, a member of the Business Committee to move the motions formally.

Yes, formally moved.

The motions are moved. The first proposal therefore is to agree motion NDM8922. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The second proposal is to agree motion NDM8924. Does any Member object to that? There is no objection. Therefore, that motion is also agreed.

The debate on the Equality and Social Justice Committee report is next: 'Anything’s Achievable with the Right Support: Tackling the Disability Employment Gap'. And I call on the Chair of the committee, Jenny Rathbone, to move the motion.

Thank you. I'd first like to welcome the British Sign Language translator who's joining us this afternoon. And I thank the Senedd Commission for making sure that we had her services today. I also want to thank the contributors to our inquiry, who are following the debate online.

Our title is inspired by our 65 contributors with lived experience—the persuasive, talented and impressive individuals whose testimony gave the committee hope and faith that anything's achievable with the right support.

The disability employment gap is one of the most persistent inequalities in the labour market. Despite various warm words, disabled people are still far less likely to be employed compared with non-disabled people. The latest statistics in the Welsh Government's disability rights plan show that only half the disabled people aged 16 to 64 are in work, compared with just over four in five non-disabled people in those age groups. This is not just an economic or labour market statistic; it's an issue for all of us because we collectively are missing out on the talents and creativity of a whole section of society. There's a cost-benefit for anyone who wants to work and a disbenefit of enforced idleness in terms of mental and physical well-being.

This report identifies the myriad barriers that need ripping down. We should start with low awareness of, and compliance with, equality legislation. A survey on behalf of the Royal National Institute of Blind People Cymru revealed that over a quarter of disabled people had employers who simply failed to make reasonable adjustments for them, even when the average cost of reasonable adjustments to an employer is a mere £75. These tunnel-visioned employers are ignoring a pool of reliable staff, who are less likely to move on to a different employer as soon as they get their feet under the table, and more likely to want to prove that taking them on with their impairment was a very wise investment.

Our core message is clear: disabled people who can and do want to work should be properly supported to do so. There is nothing systematic about what is available at the moment, and we are a long way off, as a country, and a nation, from embracing the social model of disability. It is not the disabled citizen who has to change, but the society who discriminates against the person with a disability. And that particularly applies to people with a learning disability.

There is no doubting the Welsh Government’s ambition and commitment to the social model. The 'Locked out' report in 2021, and the co-produced disability rights taskforce, across multiple areas affecting disabled people’s lives, are signs of commitment to address this injustice. Yes, co-production takes time. However, the three years it has taken the Welsh Government to produce the disabled people’s rights action plan, now out for consultation, is four times the time it takes to have a baby. And Professor Debbie Foster, who co-chaired the disability rights taskforce, shared with us nine months ago the concern that the Welsh Government is running out of time to implement its ambitions. And, on top of that, it’s not keeping pace with the potential tsunami coming down the track in the form of the proposed cuts to welfare benefits, which were revealed less than two weeks after our report was published.

The live letter to Lisa Nandy and Liz Kendall, signed by bodies including the Welsh National Opera, Theatr Clwyd and the Sherman, and many other cultural bodies cross the UK, warned that removing the support that disabled people can get at the moment, hopefully, through personal independence payments and Access to Work, risks excluding disabled people from the workforce entirely.

We received evidence that people were having to wait 20 weeks to get support from the Access to Work scheme. Which employer is going to be able to wait that long for a new recruit to start? The committee shares some of the concerns that have been expressed regarding these changes, and I know that the Welsh Government is working with the Department for Work and Pensions, employers, and all tiers of government, to get their houses in order before implementing any changes. But the failures to comply with the law and to proactively and consistently offer reasonable adjustments for disabled people is not due to a lack of guidance, in our evidence. There is a perfectly good guide from the Equality and Human Rights Commission, which any business can get hold of for free before they take the plunge in becoming an employer.

So, we want to know how Business Wales is addressing this lack of awareness of employers’ responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010, and signposting them to support. We would like to know the outcome of the review that the Welsh Government initiated on the service provided by Business Wales in 2023. If you’re able to share it with us, what targets were set to narrow the disability employment gap? Because, clearly, these people are best able to support employers to take on more disabled people, which is the right thing to do, both economically and socially, and in terms of justice.

The disability employment gap we face is inequitable. I am in absolute agreement with the committee Chair, Jenny Rathbone, in stating that too many disabled people face unnecessary barriers to employment in Wales. 'Anything’s Achievable with the Right Support' provides pertinent though timely analysis alongside relevant recommendations. In my position as shadow Cabinet Secretary, it's often these equality-related problems that provide the groundworks that need overcoming to build more just societies. Unfortunately, it is apparent via expert witnesses testifying that progress up until now is less concrete.

The disability employment gap in 2023-24 was in fact particularly pronounced in my own region, in Neath Port Talbot and Bridgend local authorities. Often, machinery of Government illustrates intent. The report states that the committee notes that disabled people's rights are not mentioned anywhere in the list of ministerial responsibilities allocated to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, or any other portfolio. Disability rights taskforce co-chair Debbie Foster was worried, stating that things have drifted. I believe there should be at least one named Minister leading here. Will the Welsh Government make more clear areas of relevant responsibility by portfolio holders, increasing internal accountability?

Whereas the Welsh Government's own muddled policy making often leaves questions unanswered, the large number of DRT working groups, confusion regarding roles and overlaps in the responsibilities and a general sense of siloed working suggests that there are issues with the overall approach. Now, moving forward, it's imperative that these labyrinthine arrangements become streamlined and attuned over delivering actual results—such status quo ante are overly bureaucratic, focus-driven and cumbersome.

Moreover, I'm incredibly alarmed at how high numbers of employers disagree over knowing where to find information and support on making adaptations. Groups like Learning Disability Wales believe reasonable adjustment passports work well, eliminating excessive duplication over applicants repeating needs every time they go through this. Will the Welsh Government look at supporting similar steps? I question just how effective disability employment champions are when we know, through Terry Mills, that there is no target to measure effectiveness.

I'm strongly supportive of report recommendation 3, at a time when 26 per cent of employed disabled individuals have not had reasonable adjustments at all. However, promisingly, Business Disability Forum and BrightHR research reveals costings of reasonable adjustments average at just £75 per person, as the Chair has said. We know conclusively it's not expensive to treat disabled people properly, but barriers to this sadly still exist. The committee has concerns over the Disability Confident scheme's leadership qualifications.

I need you to conclude now, please, Altaf.

I'll take just a little more time, because of my throat.

No, you've had your time. You need to conclude, please.

—that work can bring in terms of financial reward, community engagement and self-esteem. I would like to know more about how factors like transport availability are influencing disabled people's workplace participation. To go forward, we want permanent blue badges, not nuisance reassessments.

Lastly, it is vital that recommendation 1 is implemented—

Altaf, you need to conclude, please.

I am concluding, Sir—concluding leftover work during this term. We owe disabled people urgency, let us get this right collaboratively. Diolch.

This report has taken on extra significance, of course, since we as a committee undertook our work on understanding why Wales has the highest disability employment gap in the UK, at 30.9 per cent. The report's title, 'Anything's Achievable with the Right Support', has taken on a cruel irony, because while we were hearing, as a committee, about the extra challenges and systemic barriers disabled people face, it was announced that vital support to enable them to sustain work opportunities was going to be cut.

There's a unanimous view amongst policy experts and disabled people's organisations that the removal of support in this way pushes people into poverty, not employment. It was disappointing that we had no u-turn on this today from the Labour Chancellor. And it's telling, perhaps, that the Welsh Government, in responding to our report, make no reference to the changes, which will have a cataclysmic effect on the financial position and ability of disabled people it serves to be able to work, whether they are already in employment or indeed should they be able to find employment.

Do you agree, Cabinet Secretary, that the recommendations of this report are being undermined by the actions of the Westminster Labour Government? Can you tell us how your responses have taken these proposed reforms into account? And do you agree with the points made by the committee in our letter to the DWP about our report that the specific barriers that disabled people face in accessing employment, identified in our report, must be addressed before changes to eligibility and support for disabled people are implemented?

Last week, of course, we saw the long-awaited and long-overdue publishing of the disabled people's rights plan. Our report asked for targets in that plan, but there are none in the draft. You do not explain why in your response, so perhaps you could today.

We also asked you to deliver your programme-for-government commitment of incorporating the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People into Welsh law during the Senedd term. Incorporating the UNCRDP would ensure that the impact on disabled people is considered for every law and policy developed by the Welsh Government. It would mean, in fact, that all the inequalities that are barriers to employment, and that are faced by disabled people in Wales who can and want to work, would have to be addressed.

We know from our scrutiny of this commitment that progress has not been prioritised, has been under-resourced, and the response to our recommendation on this is disappointing. So, will you commit, today, to allocating sufficient resources to enable the legislative options working group to bring forward recommendations on legislation to incorporate the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Disabled People as soon as possible? Are you still committed to taking forward those recommendations? I think disabled people should have honesty on this.

As always, I declare an interest. My daughter is autistic and severely learning disabled, and any decisions made by the Welsh Government will of course affect her future as much as anyone else's.

I wanted to say 'thank you' to Sioned for mentioning my views and experiences. One of the things about being a committee member is I quite like to be a kind of nomad committee member, going into different committees where different inquiries are taking place. This is an inquiry I would have loved to have been part of. Particularly on chapter 4 and chapter 5, I wanted to mention—probably picking up where Sioned Williams left off—the evidence you got from Engage to Change. I think the content of the report is exceptional and covers the views, particularly from that massive project in Cardiff University that took 1,300 young people into work, 40 per cent of them in sustained employment, whereas across the UK the figure is 4 per cent. That's what Engage to Change did.

Unfortunately, Engage to Change funding ran out, so they've stopped now, but having that kind of programme running full-time across Wales would be really important. And I think, just to say, some of the recommendations that come out of chapter 4 and chapter 5, I would actually like to turbo-boost them a little bit and add perhaps some of my own recommendations to that, something that I think could actually be in a party manifesto should there be an election coming up at some point. I really think that this could be something that all parties could grasp and it could be beneficial, which I will just go on to in a second.

Before I do, I think the key page, if people want to go to it, is page 40, under supported employment. The title of the chapter is 'Supporting employment opportunities', but of course that isn't what supported employment is. Supported employment is creating jobs and coaching in jobs and keeping people in jobs that suit their unique needs. Something Jenny Rathbone said earlier really struck me; it's about these unique skills these people have. My daughter can't read very well, she can't count very well, but you put some plasticine in front of her and she'll create some amazing things that go way beyond anything I could do.

It's recognising those skills those people have and carving those jobs, shaping those jobs into those skills, so that the young people, when they go into work, have jobs that are shaped for them. That is exactly what Engage to Change did for those young people who needed that support. And I keep saying 'young people'. At the event we did in the Pierhead, it wasn't just young people, was it? There are people of all ages who need that support and who would benefit from it too. Conclusion 6 stated:

'We agree that future supported employment provision should build on the success of schemes such as the Engage to Change project and that specialist job coaching should be a priority for future provision.'

Today, far too many disabled people are feeling let down. They're losing out, but much more importantly we are losing out. We are losing out in our society of highly trained, highly skilled people. Instead of being empowered, people are being pushed aside, left to navigate a storm of rising need and shrinking support. We know, as Sioned has said, that we did this report and the inquiry in a context where we were hearing that up to 90 per cent of people here in Wales who are currently receiving the standard rate of PIP for daily living could lose that under the new Westminster proposals. That's 190,000 people here in Wales. The UK Government says that these reforms are about getting Britain working, but our committee finds another picture. The employment gap, as we've heard, between disabled and non-disabled people in Wales stands at a shameful 31 per cent. And in some communities, like Neath Port Talbot, it's as high as 42 per cent.

The long-awaited disabled people's rights plan, four years in the making, feels more like a description of the problem than a solution to it. Damian Joseph Bridgeman, who chaired part of the work, didn't mince his words. He called the plan a

'collection of vague intentions dressed up as progress...No targets. No teeth. No real-world accountability.'

And from our inquiries, it's really hard to disagree.

We see also, shamefully, similar issues in the Government's response to our report and to the recommendations, but I just really want to highlight three key areas, because many have been covered already. Firstly, our report highlights a deep-rooted failure in how employers across Wales are meeting their legal responsibilities. It's a lack of awareness, it's a lack of education. We need to make sure that those employers are more aware. That's the key. The onus must be on employers, not the employees. Many still wrongly believe that disabled staff are less productive, despite evidence to the contrary. The average cost of an adjustment is only £75, yet only 38 per cent of employers know where to get guidance. So, I'd like to ask you, Cabinet Secretary, what are you doing in order to ensure that our employers across Wales have that clear leadership to ensure that they know what (a) their responsibilities are, and, secondly, what they're losing out on?

And we've seen as well, in the public sector, they're failing to lead by example. Despite their responsibilities, only two local authorities and four NHS boards and trusts have achieved the Disability Confident leader status—a missed opportunity and a worrying sign of complacency.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course I will. Thank you.

Just to say, what an employer can do is ditch the job description, ditch the person specification, look at the work they've got and shape that work to the abilities of the person in front of them. Would you agree that that is a good approach?

Absolutely, anything that includes and leads to a much broader cross-section of people joining them—particularly, as we heard, very skilled, very experienced, very willing people wanting to join the workforce, and yet they're being excluded.

The issue, really, is going back again to the disability rights plan, which contains relevant actions, but there's no explicit requirement for public bodies to meet Disability Confident standards or close the employment gap. And perhaps more concerning is the Welsh Government continuing to sidestep its fundamental obligation to incorporate the UN convention on the rights of disabled people into Welsh law. Despite being part of the programme for government by the Labour Party and the sole recommendation to Wales by the relevant UN committee seven years ago, the Welsh Government has still not adopted the UN convention. So, I do implore the Cabinet Secretary to take disabled people's rights seriously and fulfil their commitment to incorporating the convention into law.

Finally, this is all about leadership, this is all about modelling. Here in the Senedd, I asked for some research on how many disabled people we employed here. We have 11.2 per cent of the workforce in Wales registered as disabled, and here in the Senedd, we only employ 7.49 per cent. We are well behind. We should be leading and should be well above that 11.2 per cent if we really take this seriously. If we believe that anything is achievable, then let's prove it through action, not just words. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The Welsh Government response to the seven recommendations in this report accepts in principle only five of these. This is not an acceptable response when the Permanent Secretary previously gave the Public Accounts Committee a commitment in January 2018 to end this practice in light of Members' concerns that acceptance in principle did not constitute an adequate response. Further, yet again, it is not clear how the Welsh Government has agreed with the recommendations, even in principle. Although the Welsh Government's responses refer to other activity being undertaken, implementation requires monitoring, evaluation and a clear timetable.

Three of the Welsh Government's five accept-in-principle responses refer to the then unpublished, but since published, draft disabled people's rights plan and its associated actions, stating, for example:

'This plan includes consideration of the employment and pay differences between disabled people and non-disabled people, and the measures needed to reduce these variations.'

And that key projects for the disability disparity evidence unit in 2025-26 would include

'a new programme of work to evaluate the implementation and impact of the Disabled People’s Rights Plan.'

As I stated here last week, however, I've consulted the sector on this plan as chair of the cross-party group on disability. They expressed disappointment with the lack of actionable measures within the short term, and stated that many of the longer term objectives lack firm commitments. I also referred to criticism from within the sector that the plan does not have concrete targets, making it impossible to hold the Welsh Government to account on progress. Dr Natasha Hirst, who chaired the Welsh Government's disability rights taskforce's access to service working group, said a key concern was the lack of a mechanism for scrutinising and holding the Welsh Government to account, as well as the lack of clear and robust targets and no new funding for implementing the actions. Similarly, Joe Powell, chief executive of All Wales People First, who chaired the disability rights taskforce's access to justice working group said:

'in order for this plan to succeed we need the appropriate investment into the infrastructure and services to make this aspiration a reality. We need clear targets about how we are going to achieve this. Without these, it is very difficult to see how the plan will make a difference to disabled people in Wales.'

Jane Dodds referenced Damian Bridgeman, who chaired the disability rights taskforce's housing and community working group. He said the draft document was 'a smokescreen' rather than a plan. He pointed to the absence of new money and no mechanism to track delivery of the action plan further, adding,

I'm very pleased to take part in this debate as a member of the Equality and Social Justice Committee, and I'd also like to welcome the British Sign Language translator. I hope we'll soon reach a situation where we don't have to comment on it, that there will be somebody here every time, and that will be giving more access to disabled people in a very visible way.

Obviously, the disability employment gap in Wales is something that is very, very worrying. It has declined in recent years—I think 4.5 per cent over nine years—but it's stubbornly high, and it is the highest in the UK.

I'd like to use my time today to focus on disabled young people. In order to ensure that disabled young people have the opportunity to work, they must have every opportunity open to them at a young age, and this is why this report goes hand in hand with the Children, Young People and Education Committee's report on disabled children's access to education. If disabled young people don't have access to suitable education settings, then they won't have the means to transfer into the world of employment. Our education system must ensure that everyone, regardless of who they are, fulfils their potential.

We did hear some distressing situations. Arthur Beechey, the chief executive officer of Agoriad, in his evidence, told us of an example of a disabled person being ignored and left out of a placement. He said:

'I always remember a horror story, whereby the children in a school, which will remain nameless, all had placements to go out, bar a young disabled girl, because it was too much trouble to get her one, and she's the only one left in school of her year, and everybody else is out. There's something wrong there'.

We did then have evidence from the education Secretary and from other careers bodies to assure us that every effort was made to give disabled young people access to placements. But the fact that one story—we hope it was unique—came to us, is very, very distressing. And I hope that, by airing these things in this Chamber today, we will give the momentum that Hefin David wants so much.

One of the witnesses we heard evidence from, Dan Biddle, who was an advocate for disabled people’s rights, said that statistics show that if you’re not in employment by the age of 26, the likelihood is that you’re not going to get into employment at all. So, that’s why it is so important to start early, to make sure that disabled children and young people are given absolutely equal rights right from the beginning. So, they must have full and open access to education opportunities, apprenticeships and different schemes from a very early age.

But then we go on to, of course, employers, and quite a lot has been said about employers already today. Young people will not get into employment unless employers remove false assumptions and negative attitudes towards disabled people in the workplace. And sadly, in the evidence that we heard, we did hear that these false assumptions and negative attitudes do exist, and this was told to us by people who work in the field. So, I think that employers should be proactive in their approach to ensuring that workplaces are accessible to everyone, and that adjustments should be made to each person’s requirements. We know that this is not routinely happening, and, according to the Royal National Institute of Blind People, over a quarter of disabled people said that employers had failed to make reasonable adjustments for them.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and the Trefnydd, Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I start by thanking Jenny Rathbone, Chair of the Equality and Social Justice Committee, and all other committee members for their excellent inquiry and insightful report? I would also like to thank all those with lived experience who have contributed to the inquiry, and welcome the British Sign Language signer this afternoon.

I am responding to this debate on behalf of the Welsh Government, the whole Welsh Government, given the cross-cutting nature of the inquiry and its recommendations, which span the responsibilities of Ministers, including the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning, the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership, and, indeed, education as well. As I stated in my statement on the disabled people's rights plan last week, ensuring that disabled people can participate fully in society is key to the values of this Government. That's why we established the disability rights taskforce and why I have accepted all of the Equality and Social Justice Committee's recommendations. But this debate is important—it's vital for us to then discuss more, to flesh out, the recommendations, and for me to respond as the lead Minister.

The taskforce's dedicated working group on employment and income, which was chaired by Professor Debbie Foster, examined the critical issues related to eliminating barriers that prevent the participation, retention and advancement of disabled people in the workplace. That's what we need—we need the inclusion and advancement of disabled people in the workplace. Improving the employment outcomes of disabled people is a key commitment of the Welsh Government, underpinned by our national milestone to eliminate the gender, ethnicity and disability pay gaps by 2050.

Our draft 10-year disabled people's rights plan, which has been mentioned, of course, today, is clear in its overarching ambition for employment, income and education. We want an inclusive approach to employment that supports disabled people to have equitable access to fulfilling and fair work, and also where disabled children and young people—and I'm glad that this has come up again this afternoon in the debate—can access their right to education, and feel safe and included within their educational settings.

That's why there is a clear alignment between our plan and the committee's report, and I am thankful for that. At the heart of our approach—and I think that this is very much embraced by the committee report—is the social model of disability. We know that people are disabled by barriers and attitudes in society, not by their impairments or differences. Importantly, our approach also supports the principles set out in the UN convention on the rights of disabled people. I wholeheartedly support the committee's recommendations in relation to our commitment to incorporate the UN convention on the rights of disabled people into Welsh law. We established our legislative options working group to support us in this. We're continuing to work and be guided by them. I would be very happy to invite spokespeople to our human rights advisory group, so that they can also share progress in terms of that important objective.

Would you be kind enough to take a very brief intervention please, Cabinet Secretary? Thank you for responding to the issue around the incorporation of the UN declaration. May I just ask you for some timelines there, in relation to when that committee or that group will be reporting back, and how it will do that, given that this has been going on for some time, and that we just need some speed and urgency? Thank you very much.

Well, I will invite you to meet with the committee. You will be very clear—. I know that you will be very aware of the competency issues in terms of the state party; indeed, we're working with Scottish Government on this issue, which is also keen to incorporate UN conventions. But I'm very happy to take that forward.

I just want to move on to recognising the importance of Business Wales—this has been expressed today—supporting employers to provide fair and inclusive recruitment and working practices. I do share your view that we need to take every opportunity to raise awareness of Business Wales—the resource is available; a full review of Business Wales undertaken in 2023. And we're committed to exploring how we can improve the service provided to employers and raise awareness of the disabled people's employment advisers and champions. Of course, this has also been raised by Altaf Hussain. Our disabled people's employment champions are playing a vital role, and we know how valued their work is. Also, I'm very keen to provide regular updates on their work and impact.

I also thank the committee for their recommendations and conclusions on the Disability Confident and Access to Work schemes, because these are part of the wider work associated, indeed, with the UK Government's 'Pathways to Work' Green Paper and the Keep Britain Working Review. So, I have raised this with the UK Government Minister for Social Security and Disability, about both Disability Confident and Access to Work—clearly room for improvement in both. And I also took the opportunity to alert the Minister to the Equality and Social Justice Committee's excellent report. But, Deputy Llywydd, the social security system needs to effectively support disabled people into employment. There are reforms in the Green Paper that could begin to address concerns that disabled people in Wales have on the current system and barriers on their pathway to employment. I've heard of those barriers. But we know that many disabled people are very concerned about the change to the personal independence payment eligibility criteria and what it will mean for them, particularly given that Wales has the highest proportion of the population in receipt of benefits affected by the proposed changes. I will make these concerns very clear in my response and publish it, as I have said, in response to the Green Paper consultation.

I just want to mention, in terms of looking at time, that we have today published a report that was co-produced by the members of the disability rights taskforce and our disability disparity evidence unit. I can't underline enough the importance of that new unit, the value of that evidence unit.

But this report explores the potential to improve the Disability Confident employer scheme, which has come up this afternoon and, indeed, in your report. I think that it's important to say that this report, published today, has been welcomed by the taskforce co-producers, and that does include those members who've been mentioned today: Professor Debbie Foster, Damian Joseph Bridgeman, Dr Natasha Hirst, Willow Holloway and Joe Powell, all contributing generously of their time, expertise and lived experience to this research. I hope you will read the report and see how we are going to use this in terms of discussions with the UK Government about the Disability Confident scheme.

Cabinet Secretary, you need to conclude now, please.

I'll finish now by just thanking Julie Morgan as well for ensuring that we have looked at this from the perspective of children and young people. Inclusion is at the heart of the education reform in Wales, and I'm glad you acknowledge that the Cabinet Secretary for Education was able to assure you of this, when she also gave evidence to the committee.

Removing barriers—

Cabinet Secretary, I keep Members to time; I'll keep Ministers to time as well, please. I've given you additional time.

Diolch yn fawr. Once again, I do hope you'll respond to the 10-year plan consultation, the disabled people's rights plan. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on Jenny Rathbone to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much indeed for all your contributions. I think we covered a lot of new ground, which is very good. Both Altaf Hussain and Jane Dodds highlighted the inadequate response by employers, which is very difficult to understand. It really isn't that difficult to find out the information. Clearly, Business Wales has a role here, and I would say the trade unions have a role with larger companies. They need to also be champions of disabled people.

I was also pleased to hear Altaf Hussain talking about people with invisible health issues, like endometriosis, and we did have evidence in that regard—people who feel reluctant to tell their employer about the particular challenges they face in case they're going to get discriminated against and they're the first ones to go if people are going to be let go.

We had an excellent intervention on this point from Hefin David. It is the case that some employers do adapt their recruitment policies to align with life skills, rather than the pieces of paper that have been required. I think Aneurin Bevan health board is one that has done that. We need to acknowledge that there is good practice going on. But I think one of the most damning points that was made is the point made by Dan Biddle: if you are not in employment by the age of 26, it is very unlikely you will ever become employed. That was reiterated by both Julie Morgan and by Altaf Hussain.

It was useful for Sioned to raise the issue around the UN convention on the rights of disabled people, and I think we should thank the Cabinet Secretary for inviting representatives to go and meet the working group that is looking at the complexities of the legal issues around that, so we can understand exactly how we can move forward on it. But I think that one of the issues is definitely around how do we ensure that young people, when they are still in school, when they are still in college, are going to be able to get the extra support they need that is not limited by their chronological age.

I think it is important that we recognise that recommendation 6, which addresses these issues, has been accepted. That, I hope, will ensure that we are seeing a much more seamless service for people with disabilities to ensure that they are getting what they need. I hear what you’re saying, Hefin David, that the conclusion on building on the success of Engage to Change is possibly something we should have made into a recommendation. Clearly, your expertise and the particular issues and challenges faced by your autistic daughter, who nevertheless is obviously a very artistic individual—. It is a classic example of how everybody can do something. It is about focusing on what they can do and how we adapt the job offer to suit the individual's needs.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 7 today is the debate on the report of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, 'Green Economy', and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion in my name on the order paper.

I would like to start by extending my thanks to Paul Davies, my predecessor as Chair, who led the committee in its work on this inquiry. While I had the privilege of joining the committee only after its scrutiny of this subject had come to an end, the challenges and opportunities that were presented by the green economy were made clear through the subsequent discussions as we finalised the report to its publication. While I am not directly involved with the committee's work, I am pleased to be able to provide an overview today of some of the key recommendations, which aim to show how Wales can grasp the opportunities of both managing a fair transition to the green economy and reaping potential economic benefits.

I would also like to place on record my thanks to the committee clerks, researchers and witnesses, who obviously participated in the completion of this report. Before I delve into the detail, I would like to put on record our thanks to the Cabinet Secretary for her broadly positive response to this report. I can see you are grinning at me, so I must have said something right.

Decarbonising the economy will not only help Wales to fulfil our obligation under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, it will provide economic opportunities and a chance to create skilled, well-paid jobs in areas where these are most needed. However, the committee is clear that this will not happen by chance. Moving to a green economy will require clear leadership from the Welsh Government and collaboration with partners at all levels of Government, across industries and with communities.

The committee recognises the key role that will be played by the UK Government in this area, and it therefore concluded that the Welsh and UK Governments should work at pace to develop an industrial strategy that provides a clear vision for decarbonising the Welsh economy. The committee welcomes the Cabinet Secretary's commitment to collaborating closely with the UK Government on the development of the forthcoming industrial strategy, and we look forward to seeing what tangible results for the Welsh economy emerge from this.

The committee also called on the Welsh Government to set out how it intends to attract commercial developers to become active partners in the transition to a green economy. In accepting this recommendation, the Cabinet Secretary has pointed to the investment summit as being, in her words, a major piece of active engagement with huge opportunities for collaboration. This is encouraging and we would ask the Cabinet Secretary to keep the committee updated on the outcomes of the summit.

Moving on to communities and what role they can play, the committee noted that there is a great deal of potential opportunity for those that host renewable infrastructure via community benefit schemes. However, the committee raised concerns about the fragmentation of the community benefit landscape, and argued that a more strategic approach is needed.

The third recommendation was for the Welsh Government and partners to publish consistent guidance for developers to support a strategic approach to delivering community benefits across renewable energy projects. The committee was pleased that the Cabinet Secretary's response confirmed that this work is ongoing with Community Energy Wales and partners to consider the existing guidance. The committee also notes the UK Government is consulting on proposals to require renewable energy developers across Great Britain to pay into community benefit funds.

We heard the Welsh Government has increased its target for locally owned renewable energy capacity, which the committee welcomes. However, we also heard concerns about potential loopholes in the definition of 'local ownership' being open to exploitation, and believe these need to be addressed. The Cabinet Secretary's response says they are being considered by Community Energy Wales and partners, and we would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could keep the committee updated on these developments.

It will not come as a surprise that the renewable energy sector faces a number of barriers that will need to be overcome in order to deliver the energy generation that Wales needs. While some areas for this work are non-devolved, the planning system is a key lever for which the Welsh Government is responsible. The report's eighth recommendation called for the Welsh Government to provide further details on how it intends to address the lack of resource in the planning system. The Cabinet Secretary's response, which sets out a range of immediate measures taken to speed up decisions on infrastructure schemes, is welcome, and we will be seeing how successful it proves in helping to address the delays.

I'd like to thank Andrew R.T. Davies, as the current Chair of the committee, for opening the debate and moving this motion, and to his predecessor Paul Davies for chairing this inquiry. As a member of the committee, I'm really excited by this report, because it's not just about policy, it's about potential. In my constituency of Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, the Celtic sea represents a generational opportunity. The Celtic Freeport has the capacity to transform the green economy of Wales, delivering renewable energy, high-quality jobs, and the economic and energy security our nation urgently needs. I'm pleased to see that the free port was backed today by the UK Government, continuing the support of the previous UK Government.

This transformation will be built on the legacy of the hydrocarbon industry, an industry that not only continues to provide energy and skilled employment, but in places like Pembrokeshire, it is these companies—RWE, Valero, Dragon LNG and South Hook LNG, and all of the supply chain businesses—who are helping to lead the transition towards a more sustainable future. The reality is that hydrocarbons will remain a part of our energy mix for many years to come. They will play a vital role in supporting the development of new industries and current industries, and unlocking our future full energy potential, whether that's floating offshore wind, solar, tidal or nuclear. And to the oil and gas businesses in Pembrokeshire and across Wales, I say to you 'thank you', and I value your contribution to the Welsh economy.

At the heart of this opportunity is Pembroke Dock, a historic maritime hub now reinventing itself for the green economy. With a deep-water port, strategic location and a skilled workforce, Pembroke Dock is perfectly positioned to support offshore wind and marine energy projects. Local firms like Mainstay Marine Solutions, a key player in marine engineering, Ledwood Mechanical Engineering, and Jenkins and Davies Engineering, with a track record in major energy infrastructure, are already demonstrating what local capability can deliver when given the right backing.

But to realise this potential, Deputy Llywydd, we need to focus on delivery. Taking a look at some of the recommendations from the report, I see that recommendation 9 rightly calls for prioritising investment in Welsh ports. Pembroke Dock must be central to this. The Government says it will act through the offshore wind task and finish group, but my question to the Cabinet Secretary is when will funding reach the ground. Local businesses, be they fabricators, marine engineers, logistics providers or even HR specialists, need certainty to be able to prepare.

On recommendation 12, the committee has called for a full skills audit, something I asked the Minister today during questions. This is something that I've long called for, because it's just common sense that we should know what skills we currently have and what skills we will need to meet future demand. For rural areas across Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire and all of west Wales, it's not optional, but it's essential, because our colleges and training providers can deliver, but they will need clarity around future demand. So, I ask the Cabinet Secretary this: how will it ensure that constituencies and areas such as mine are not an afterthought when it comes to national skills planning?

Of course, from the outset, I'd like to thank the current chair, Andrew R.T. Davies, for setting out the committee's report, but also, as well, the predecessor, Paul Davies, who led us through much of that inquiry, and, of course, the fellow committee members, the clerks and those who gave evidence to the committee.

I just would start by agreeing with Sam Kurtz on the disappointment around the investment strategy recommendation. I mean, for a number of years, or at least over the course of this Senedd term, every Member in the Chamber has been critical at some stage or another of a lack of an industrial strategy. Well, this is a vital part of an industrial strategy going forward, especially when that industrial strategy seeks to focus on those green investments and those investments in green technology. But that isn't the thrust of my contribution today. What I really want to focus on, actually, is skills, because, as I touched on in spokesperson's questions earlier today, if Wales is to build a strong green economy, then we must get serious about skills. To put it plainly, our current skills system isn't delivering. It's failing young people, it's failing businesses and it's putting the brakes on our economy. And as I mentioned earlier today, we are seeing the consequences of this play out in real time.

In 2024 the Open University found that nearly half of Welsh-owned businesses were facing a skills shortage. In 2022 the Federation of Small Businesses in Wales reported that 80 per cent of small firms struggled to recruit. Many of those businesses said they wanted to grow, but couldn't because they simply couldn't find the people with the right skills. That's a direct link between our broken skills system and stalled economic growth. This puts us at a competitive disadvantage. It makes Wales more vulnerable to offshoring and outsourcing and it limits the ability of our own businesses to expand and create jobs. What's even more frustrating is that skills policy is one of the few levers we do have full control of here in Wales, and we should be using that to our advantage, but we're not, and there are things that the Welsh Government could and should be doing.

Right now we don't have a clear picture of what Wales's current and future skills needs actually are. And I think we're all to blame here, including myself, in this, because we've never really been clear about what we mean when we say that we want to see greater investment in green skills. That's why recommendation 12 is really important. I'm glad to see that the Government has accepted it—that need for a skills audit within the report to set out exactly what we mean when we talk about green skills. The committee heard from ColegauCymru, who are arguing for a vocational education and training strategy to map out what's needed, where the gaps are, and then how we can respond in a way that aligns with the priorities of our industries and our economy and our communities. An example of this work, actually, is already under way at NPTC Group of Colleges, who are currently developing a skills audit model for the green skills work they are going to be doing on supply chain accelerators. Now, this is the kind of long-term data-led planning we need across the whole system.

As a member of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, I'm pleased to contribute to this debate on our report into the green economy. I think it's the first one I've had the opportunity to contribute to since being back on that committee. I'd like too to start by thanking both the current Chair and former Chair, and the whole team and everybody who was involved with this report. I think it presents a clear, practical and ambitious vision for a green economy that works for all, but it also rightly highlights urgency and the scale of the action that is needed.

As we've heard, the committee has set out a number of recommendations, and I want to place on record my support for them. I believe they provide a firm foundation, but could also serve to unlock the potential that delivers a fairer and greener Wales. But I also, too, think we have to move further and faster.

One of the most important recommendations we've made is the call for a long-term, cross-Government green industrial strategy, a strategy that puts decarbonisation at its core, links up skills, innovation, investment and infrastructure, and delivers real benefits to people in all parts of Wales. I fully support this, and I'd urge the Welsh Government to go further still by embedding clear delivery plans with measurable outcomes and regular public updates, so that we can track progress and hold ourselves to account. And, of course, the workforce, through their trade unions, need to be front and centre of this, because it isn't just about hitting targets, it's about creating meaningful opportunities.

In my own constituency and across north Wales, I see first-hand the difference a green economy can make. Just a few months ago, Hafod Renewable Energy, a local business based near St Asaph, installed solar panels for a food producer on Ynys Môn, cutting emissions and energy bills in one move. That's local jobs, local skills, and the local supply chain all benefiting from green investment.

But we know those opportunities won't come on their own. We need to remove the barriers that are still holding too many projects back. That's why the committee's recommendations around planning and grid infrastructure are crucial. We need the planning system to have the capacity and expertise to deal with renewable energy applications efficiently, and we need investment in the grid, particularly in north Wales, to ensure that communities and businesses aren't left behind.

As a proud north Walian, I strongly believe in the potential for my part of the country to be at the vanguard of the green industrial revolution, investing in our people and places, and bringing broader benefits for both the economy and the environment, whether that's the expansion of the port of Mostyn to build a new berth capable of handling the next generation of floating offshore wind turbines, or Gwynt y Môr, Rhyl Flats and North Hoyle, new tidal stream energy projects, and much more.

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

Thank you very much to all colleagues, and particularly to the committee, for what is a really helpful report and inquiry. I'll just begin with a topical reflection on what I think is obvious to everyone in Wales, apart from the leader of Reform when he decides to visit, and that's that a prosperous economic future for Wales does not lie in reopening our coal mines. Despite what Reform would have us believe, young people in Wales are not clamouring for a life down the pit. Although we're deeply proud of our coal mining heritage, we know that young people understand that a prosperous future lies in high-tech, clean industries, and that's why the Welsh Government is already taking a strategic approach to developing the green economy, which is a cornerstone of our economic mission and is well aligned with the UK Government's ambitions to drive economic growth for the good of the UK.

The transition to a green economy has already begun and will continue in collaboration with the UK Government through the industrial strategy. We're not pursuing growth for growth's sake and at any price. We're pursuing growth to invest in the things that make Wales a wonderful place in which to live and work, and which put our commitments under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 into practice. In pursuing growth, we're ensuring that communities are supported to reap the benefits of the transition, and we've published a wealth of guidance on local ownership of projects and how wealth generated can be retained locally. To deliver our renewable energy priorities, I've set out my intention to negotiate a renewable energy sector deal, which encompasses all established and innovative technologies, clarifying the roles and the responsibilities of Government and industry as we work together to make real that greener economy. I've previously updated the Senedd on the establishment of the offshore wind task and finish group, which I've asked to co-ordinate work across sectors, from ports and supply chains to skills and workforce requirements. This sector will become increasingly important in the years ahead. I've also introduced a range of immediate measures to speed up planning decisions on infrastructure schemes, including renewable energy projects, to give confidence to the sector and to drive forward delivery.

To ensure a just transition, the Welsh Government has already consulted on a just-transition framework and will work in social partnership. Careers and work-related experiences is a cross-cutting theme for learners from age three to 16 within our new Curriculum for Wales. This will ensure careers education features throughout children's learning and makes important links with key areas, such as our green economy. We're encouraging developers to share knowledge, information and opportunities with schools and colleges. An example of this is the Morlais tidal stream project off the coast of Ynys Môn, which is helping to equip the next generation of learners. Our national careers service, Careers Wales, is providing our schools with a range of support, including resources to help them embed careers and work-related experiences across the curriculum, professional learning events to help build up their skills, and a facilitated education business partnership offer, which provides opportunities for learners, their teachers, and often parents, to meet and interact with employers. All of these activities aim to inform, inspire and motivate young people about their career opportunities, including opportunities in green skills. To ensure that we're ready to grasp all of the opportunities on the horizon, the Welsh Government is currently scoping a skills audit for Wales, considering the approaches that have been taken elsewhere. A green skills review is already under way, led by the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership, and it will continue to strengthen our understanding of current and future needs. Following the Minister's round-table that he held on this, there will be further targeted engagement to inform recommendations for future skills provision.

Would the Cabinet Secretary take an intervention?

Yes.

I'm aware I'm taking you back a bit through your speech now, but I was just processing the stuff you were putting down on the table around careers advice and options for learners as they go through. What do you see as the disconnect, then? Because, on paper, from what you've said, it sounds like there's no issue and that the Government is doing everything they can to ensure that there's no issue, but there seems to be a disconnect, because we're having constant feedback from constituents, and from FE providers as well, that they're simply not able to access students. Now, there are good examples, don't get me wrong; Hefin David, in his report, pointed to some of the good practices that are happening within Caerphilly. But it is almost universally accepted that that just simply isn't happening across the rest of Wales. So, what is the disconnect here? That's what I'm trying to understand.

I think that the work of the committee and contributions this afternoon, including discussions earlier on in relation to Ministers' questions, will definitely give us some things that we need to further consider in terms of ensuring that best practice, which we know exists, actually becomes the norm and that young people do have access to all of the opportunities that they need. And I think that this even goes back to the previous debate that we had this afternoon, ensuring that every young person has the opportunity to understand the careers that are available to them, and lots of those exciting careers will be in the green space. So, I think that we'll definitely reflect further on both the work of the committee and the contributions this afternoon.

So, I've mentioned the green skills, which are already under review, but then I also wanted to turn to financing the transition, which again is another important aspect that the committee has looked at. There is a range of measures in place to support that. The First Minister's investment summit later this year has been referenced, and we will certainly keep colleagues up to date and informed in that space. That will be an opportunity for us to really showcase the green opportunities that we have in Wales to global investors and developers.

Alongside that, we've got the Development Bank of Wales, and it's also playing its part in supporting Welsh businesses to find their place in the green economy. It has established a green business loan scheme, and that's been in place since 2023, providing over £7.5 million of repayable finance to SMEs to invest in energy-saving technologies. DBW also operates a £12.5 million local energy fund to support community-led renewable energy projects.

We're also working with the UK Government through development of the industrial strategy and its supporting sector plans, and we're working to ensure that there is a joined-up approach so that we can maximise our devolved levers in key sectors such as clean industries.

It was interesting to hear from the leader of Reform and his pledge to reopen the blast furnaces in Port Talbot. Well, of course, we would have wanted a fair transition to greener steel, but every steel expert and Tata themselves have made it clear that restarting those furnaces is not just impractical, it's impossible. So, this isn't about protecting jobs or industry; it's about cruelly using and manipulating people's anxieties for political gain. But, by contrast, we've got the national wealth fund, and that is a serious lever for delivering the UK Government's clean growth mission. It reflects a clear, credible ambition to drive economic growth, support the creation of skilled jobs in renewables, and accelerate the transition to a low-carbon economy. We support the strategic direction that is set out, mobilising private sector investment, developing strong pipelines and helping communities like Port Talbot to secure a real future, not one built on false promises.

I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I won't detain the Senedd too long, because I know that Janet is very keen to get to the lectern. She hasn't defected over to the other side. [Laughter.] Thank you to everyone who has contributed to the debate. The one thing that was illuminating to me is that it's far nicer being a Chairman in this Chamber than it is being a leader, because, when speakers stand up, they thank you when you're the Chairman of the committee; when you're the leader, they curse you in heaps, they do. But it was a good debate, albeit short, because obviously this evidence gathering took some time over a period towards the back end of 2024.

Sam Kurtz, in his remarks, highlighted how the legacy sector, i.e. the oil industry and other fossil fuel industries, do have a key role to play in moving us to the green economy, and obviously playing their role in that transition. And he highlighted how Pembrokeshire is such a host to many of those companies, as well as the support industries, such as Ledwood and other engineering companies, and, with the designation of the free port in that particular area, that's a golden opportunity to weave it all together. But the underlying deficit that was touched on by Luke as well, and Hannah, was the skills deficit that was highlighted in a lot of the evidence that the committee took, and in particular the inability for companies to expand.

Luke introduced into the debate the key fact that, if you look at the Open University stats, 50 per cent of companies—50 per cent of companies—said that they were limited in their expansion plans because, obviously, they couldn't get people with the right skills. And that was amplified even greater by the stats from the Federation of Small Businesses, which said that 80 per cent of businesses highlighted the lack of skills as a key constraint on their ability to grow. Now, that really is a challenge to the Government, and I see that various Ministers are here—Jack is here and Rebecca is here—to really ramp it up and get that information to the colleges, to the schools and to the providers so that the economy can benefit from that joined-up skills uplift that would be delivered if that information was available for colleges to put the courses on, and the training providers. I take the point that Luke touched on. I've been here now 17 years, and we've been talking about joining this up for the whole 17 years, and here we are talking about these statistics. So, I'd implore the Government, with the evidence that this report has put on the table, to actually get on top of this and actually deliver that support that training providers and colleges and schools feel that they need, and we'll ultimately crack this one chestnut if nothing else, because the skills deficit that we're seeing is a real constraint on the industry.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We'll move on to item 8, which is the Welsh Conservatives debate on solar energy. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. From local authorities to Westminster, decisions are being made on solar developments in Wales, including by the Welsh Government here in Cardiff Bay. Now, whilst this is probably the first debate just on solar power, I don't believe it will be the last, because we're seeing so many really huge schemes coming to us in Wales. Now, through the developments of national significance process, the Welsh Government has just agreed to a solar farm on around 14 fields in the Vale of Glamorgan. In fact, there are around another 20 solar farms waiting for determination, including Gwenlais solar field in Swansea, 31 hectares of agricultural land, Plas Power solar farm in Wrexham, 136 hectares of land, primarily used currently for grazing, and the Alaw Môn solar farm in Ynys Môn, which consists of 268 hectares of agricultural land, predominantly used for grazing. Now, I appreciate that the Cabinet Secretary cannot comment on these individual and specific applications, but the point I am making is quite clear: hundreds of hectares of agricultural land will now be being switched from a focus on food production to electricity generation.

Forty per cent of UK food is now imported, compared with around 22 per cent in the mid 1980s. The UK's self-sufficiency in fresh vegetables, key in supporting the health of our nation, is at its lowest—I was looking for Jenny, then, Jenny Rathbone, but she's not in here today, but—it's at its lowest since records began in 1988, at 53 per cent. Now, whilst these huge developers for these huge schemes try to make the case that the land around solar panels can still be grazed by sheep, the reality is there will often be loss of agricultural income. They cannot graze sheep during the construction of these sites, and then, afterwards, I understand it's around half the amount of stock that they can use on that land. The admittance that there will be loss of agricultural income is clear evidence that solar farms do cause food production to decline.

Now, by August 2024, the new energy security Secretary, the Rt Hon Ed Miliband, had already approved three huge, controversial developments, covering 2,500 hectares of farmland, sending a clear message that he is now willing to see our green fields become meadows of metal and glass. And Welsh Labour's decision to delete our entire motion—. Not that we're surprised—to delete all, that's quite the norm here, but, you know, that sends out exactly the same message, and this has to stop. The Senedd should take a stand by announcing a moratorium on all applications to place solar panels on agricultural land. Such a pause will enable this Parliament to develop a solar strategy for Wales, looking at where we want those panels to be placed and where they are made. Forty per cent of the UK's solar photovoltaics are imported from China. Now, at a time of increasing global tensions, that, as a nation, we cannot rely on. Shockingly, GB-Sol is the only manufacturer of conventional solar panels in the UK, and they're based here in Wales, and have been manufacturing since 1994. Romag and Sharp were other notable solar panel factories in the UK, but their operations are now, sadly, closed.

So, you can see where I'm going with this argument: that, if we are going to have solar farms, first of all, we need to have as much of that production made in Wales or in the UK. There's huge potential to significantly expand the solar panel manufacturing market in the UK and limit the reliance on often inferior products imported from China, and for Wales to rightly continue to lead, given the expertise we do have here and the potential to put a strategy in place. That's an odd statement for me to make, because I'm not a fan of strategies. I'm a great fan, though, of action where we realise that problems need solving.

We also need to consider how the materials used are ending up in our fields here in Wales. I'd like to thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for the work he's doing on the huge scheme that's coming to Ynys Môn, because I think we're quite united on these monstrosities; these huge schemes are not in the interests of Wales.

Refurbishing past producing mines enables companies to tap into valuable resources and extend the life of existing sites. We need 7 million megatonnes of copper for the market. So, why are we bringing panels in from China when we could be making the copper that's needed? The focus on creating more Welsh and UK-made solar panels will inevitably help to develop the green skill set that is desperately needed, and we've just been talking about it in the previous debates.

This call has been supported by the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by no less than the Rt Hon Andrew R.T. Davies. The committee recommends that the Welsh Government set up a strategy for introducing targets and quotas for the use of local workers and contractors when developing renewable energy installations. This, along with the recommendation for the Welsh and UK Governments to work in partnership to tackle the gap in diversity in the renewable energy workforce, will enable us to tap into different skill sets that will only strengthen our renewable sector, as well as working with Careers Wales to ensure that these green skill sets are supported and nurtured throughout the education system. All of this will certainly help to provide the needed skills for our journey towards net zero.

The committee also noted the importance of ensuring that communities hosting the developments should be supported. We need to ensure more of the wealth generated by the renewable sector is retained by the communities who host these developments. So, I do highly encourage the Welsh Government to put these recommendations into action.

Alongside making as many solar panels in Wales with Welsh materials and manpower as possible, we need to consider carefully where they should be placed. We can learn from other nations. An institute has found that 287 GW of solar energy capacity could be installed along roads and railways, over parking lots in supermarkets, in industrial and commercial areas. Germany is where that's happening. That would be more than enough to meet the 200 GW expansion target for ground-mounted systems that Germany has set for 2040.

Sun-Ways have placed 100m of solar panels on tracks in Buttes in western Switzerland, and this is not the first time solar energy has been integrated into rail infrastructure. Projects in Germany, Italy, France and Japan are testing solar panels between the rails. Why are we not putting panels between the rails on the around 1,000 miles of track that we have? The Netherlands and Germany, along with other countries such as Japan, are seeing more people install solar panels on fences—not actually on the fences, they're creating fences made of solar panels.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary now to move amendment 1.

I move.

Let me begin by saying that Plaid Cymru supports the principle behind the Conservative motion. The growing concern about the loss of agricultural land to large-scale solar developments is serious, and we agree that there needs to be urgent action, but we will be abstaining on this motion today and I'll explain why.

The motion, as presented, is too blunt for a problem that is far more complex. I think there was a lot to agree with in Janet Finch-Saunders's contribution, but it illustrates the complexity of this issue. That word 'moratorium' is thrown around, I think, too willingly on a number of issues. In this instance, a blanket moratorium on all applications for solar panels on agricultural land without distinction or nuance will lead to unintended and unfair consequences. For example, under this motion, if an individual farmer wanted to install a modest number of solar panels on their own land, perhaps to power their farm, cut emissions or generate a little extra income, they'd be prevented from doing so. That simply doesn't make sense.

What is needed is something slightly more nuanced, an approach that considers applications on a case-by-case basis, factoring in the scale of development, the quality of the land and the broader community impact, and all the things set out by Janet in her contribution, such as manufacturing capacity—we need to be producing and manufacturing these solar panels here in Wales to feel the benefits of this emerging solar industry. There are issues around the planning process, making sure that we're able to put solar panels on the roofs of public buildings. You mentioned schools; look at the building we're in right now, with massive roof space that's completely underutilised.

I re-emphasise, Llywydd, that there are real and pressing issues tied to large-scale solar farms on agricultural land, legitimate concerns about the long-term threat these developments pose to food security, the agricultural industry and to rural livelihoods across Wales. Our prime agricultural land is not just a national asset, it's the bedrock of our rural economies and the bedrock of wider society. It supports local jobs and local supply chains and ensures that wealth is retained within our communities. We can't say the same for these large-scale solar developments. That is why we must protect that land and ensure that planning policy puts food production and rural sustainability at its heart. That is why we need a solar strategy.

As a Conservative, I fundamentally and passionately believe in the need to protect our environment. Our party has a strong track record when it comes to implementing legislation that protects our biodiversity, as well as embracing green technology for the future. In fact, our last manifesto had many policies that embraced environmentalism, as well as supporting businesses and employees.

However, we all believe that we must take a practical approach to implementing new green enabling infrastructure. In relation to solar infrastructure, as it stands, the Welsh Government has no comprehensive national solar strategy guiding investment, regulation or grid integration. And it clearly shows when it comes to their installation.

Many of my constituents are hugely concerned about a proposed solar farm, which I have mentioned in this Chamber, near Ponthir, potentially seeing over 120 hectares of land used if it is progressed. Not only are there 300 acres of usable farmland being put at risk, the practice itself I feel is unethical, when one environmental aspiration—for renewables, in this case—threatens our other environmental assets. That doesn't seem correct.

A challenge is being mounted against that proposal, Llywydd. The Design Commission for Wales, an independent body set up by the Welsh Government, has crucial guidance to be followed. The guidance stresses that solar farms will be designed in a manner that complements the qualities of existing landscapes. This proposed solar farm clearly doesn't do that.

Furthermore, the guidance highlights that solar farm design is fundamentally a landscape design challenge of integrating a wide range of ecological and conservation disciplines with engineering, project and construction management skills. This type of landscape change needs to make a positive contribution to these landscapes. The design approach should not merely rely on mitigation measures to ameliorate scenic and nature impacts.

Again, I would strongly argue that many of the large solar farms proposed across Wales, especially those in the middle of the countryside, would wholly be relying on mitigation measures, rather than making any positive contribution to the landscape. I hope that the Welsh Government Ministers will also see the negative aspects that proposed solar farms, like the one in my constituency, may have on that community and those other ones across Wales.

Rather than needlessly building across good agricultural land throughout Wales, the Welsh Government needs to be looking to use more of those obvious places that we see abroad—rooftops, public buildings, covered car parks, et cetera—rather than taking up farmland or risking diverse environments across Wales. A moratorium on placing solar panels on agricultural land is vital if we are to ensure that we use up all other avenues before decimating our countryside.

May I thank the Conservatives for bringing forward this motion today? It is important that we work across parties in this Siambr on a matter that is genuinely important to communities in all parts of Wales. I agree with the vast majority of the comments that we heard from Janet Finch-Saunders. I agree with the majority of the motion as well, and that's why I want to focus on the element where there is agreement between us in this regard, because co-operation is important.

There is a genuine risk at the moment that the kind of solar development that is happening—there's a very good example in my constituency; I'll refer to it in a moment—does place agriculture at risk, endangers communities and food production, and it's another example of that extraction that has been characteristic of Wales's industrial history over the years. And that's why I believe very strongly that we need to have a strategy on how to use this excellent energy source for our benefit in Wales, and to mitigate the impacts where there are risks.

I see that Anglesey County Council has just placed a solar roof over one of the council car parks. It provides shelter from the rain as well, but it's an example of the kind of innovation that we can achieve. We've heard of examples of installing solar panels on roadsides, by railways, using them as fences, ensuring that there are solar panels on every public roof, and perhaps on every roof in Wales even. That means the need to invest in the grid and so on. And that's why we need to have a strategy. And in that vacuum, without a strategy, these major corporations step in and see how they can make their millions from our landscape, from our agricultural land and from our communities.

Where I disagree with the motion, by the way, is the call for a moratorium on installing solar panels on agricultural land full stop. I don't think that it's difficult to imagine where a farmer would want to benefit from installing panels around some fields, or where a community, perhaps, would request a relatively small development on land in their area. Or what about where it is clear that land is of low quality? This motion says, 'Nothing anywhere', and I don't think that that's the right attitude here. We need to be able to demonstrate that we are eager to do what we can to develop benefits from solar energy.

Thank you very much, Rhun, for that.

Just to come back on that point, I agree, but what we're suggesting here is a short moratorium, so that this can be brought in while that solar strategy is being developed. So, that plays an integral part of it—of allowing those farmers, in those corners of the fields, that wish to have solar. That can then be integrated into the solar strategy, which is then needed across all of Wales at the same time. It's horses for courses, I think we're arguing over.

That's not what the motion says, though, of course. It says, 'Let's stop everything.' And I think, in the spirit of showing that we're serious about using solar power in a way that works for us, I think being as blunt as that doesn't particularly help. I had somebody come along to a public meeting that I held recently, along with Llinos Medi, the MP for Ynys Môn, who was there to push back against our opposition to solar. But he listened to what we had to say, and he left agreeing with us and thinking, 'Goodness me, this kind of extractive approach on large, large swathes of land is not the way that we should move forward.' We need to bring them with us, too.

Let me talk about the plans in Ynys Môn—

—two major projects. There are 3,700 acres of agricultural land on Anglesey. I asked a developer of another scheme on Anglesey, 'Give me an example of how this works for our benefit.' 'Less agricultural traffic', was the answer that they gave. And what agricultural traffic represents is jobs. It means economic activity, and so on. But genuine damage and harm can be caused as a result of these schemes, because far too many of them are on good land.

It's no wonder so many people on Ynys Môn have engaged in the consultation process and made their opposition known, worried about so much grid capacity being taken up, so much productive land being taken up. And if we look at the Alaw Môn project, the development, the Cabinet Secretary has responsibility for deciding on—I know she can't comment on it—it doesn't just go against the Welsh Government's policy of developing on the best and most versatile land, it runs completely roughshod over it. Three hundred and ninety-two acres of the 660-acre development is BMV land, eight times more than the Welsh Government's threshold for a significant development on BMV land. If the Cabinet Secretary follows the Welsh Government's own policy, there is no reason why she should allow that specific development to go ahead, and I urge her to consider that when reaching her decision, which I know will be soon.

And I encourage everyone to continue to work together, to ensure that we plan for a solar future in Wales, and to not allow this to be another thing that is done to us and without the benefits remaining in our communities.

Wales, as we are all well aware, is not short of rain, but neither are we blessed with excesses of sunshine. And yet our hills, pastures and valleys, the same lands that for centuries have fed our people and shaped our culture, are increasingly being given over to fields of silicon and glass in the name of green virtue.

Now, I'm all for reducing emissions. Who wouldn't be? But let us do it in a sensible and evidence-led way. Climate policy ought to be measured by outcomes, not by intentions. And the empirical reality is that covering productive farmland with solar panels is a spectacularly inefficient way to reduce emissions. Even in sunnier climates, solar energy remains intermittent and land intensive. Here in Wales, where the sunny weather is a rare treat for us, the returns are even more meagre. For every acre of farmland smothered in panels, we lose an acre of food production, at a time when global food prices are rising and supply chains are more fragile than any time since the war. The concern among many in the farming community is that the use of agricultural land for solar farms is another veiled attempt by the Welsh Government to get rid of livestock, particularly following the first iteration of the sustainable farming scheme, which would have seen a loss of 122,000 livestock units.

The most moral form of energy is that which is cheap, reliable and abundant. The majority of our renewable energy sources in Wales are weather dependent, which has not only made energy more expensive, it has made it less secure. Solar should be part of a diversified energy infrastructure. We cannot put all of our eggs in the wind and solar basket. We need to see more investments in tidal power and hydroelectricity. Rather than plaster prime farmland with solar panels, the Welsh Government need to focus on creating further financial incentives for solar panel installation. Now, not everybody is eligible for the Warm Homes Nest scheme, and I know, from speaking to constituents who were eligible, that getting support for solar panel installation is not easy. Many public buildings, schools and homes still lack rooftop solar due to cost or lack of Government initiative, and this should be the priority before solar panels are even considered for agricultural land.

Whilst useful to reduce demand on the energy grid, if used as a primary energy source, the cost of solar energy is colossal due to the battery storage required. To demonstrate this, if the United States were powered entirely by solar energy, the cost of battery storage would be five times the GDP of the US, and those batteries would need to be replaced every 15 years. It's important to recognise too that solar panels often contain lead, cadmium and other toxic chemicals, and, if damaged, the solar panels can leach toxic chemicals into the soil, which means it can never be used again as arable land. Demand for food is increasing, putting pressure on arable land, with the cost of agricultural land also rising across Europe, with food prices, and following the COVID-19 pandemic and the war in Ukraine, we should have learnt how important food security is.

Plaid Cymru is proud to be consistently an environmentally responsible party, and, as we've heard from Luke and Rhun, it is why we can't support this bluntly worded motion put forward by the Tories today. We are not a party that believes that renewable projects could or should be sited absolutely anywhere, come what may. It's a lot more complex and nuanced than that. In my region, I have some of the most egregious examples of badly located solar developments. I say 'examples' because of the sheer scale and number of applications that are proposed. The Gwent levels are internationally renowned as an historic habitat for rich, diverse and rare variety of fauna and flora. Yet, in the pipeline, there are no less than six huge solar developments that could well change the delicate balance of this unique ecosystem. If every application is approved, nearly a fifth of the total area of the Gwent levels' sites of special scientific interest could be within development boundaries. To put this into context, this would be the equivalent of more than 1,000 international-sized rugby pitches of SSSI land largely covered by panels. For one of the affected SSSIs, as much as 43 per cent of its total area could fall within development boundaries if all were built.

The Gwent Wildlife Trust is gravely concerned about the potential damage of these developments, and they are right to be concerned. The evidence from one solar power plant development that was approved years ago does not make for good reading. We know from the Welsh Government's own post-construction monitoring report on the Gwent levels, which came out three years after the Llanwern solar farm began operating, that protective measures have not worked and that wildlife has suffered. The new lapwing mitigation area has not attracted a single lapwing pair three years after construction. Key bee species numbers are down, including significant declines in the shrill carder bee and the brown-banded carder bee populations within the solar array areas. Bat activity has declined, and the common crane has gone. Prior to the solar farm's construction, a pair of these majestic birds were seen in the area, but they have not been seen since.

Natalie Buttriss from the Gwent Wildlife Trust sums up the Plaid Cymru position on this to a T when she says:

'Of course we are pro-renewable energy, but the impact of...these destructive dominoes falling could be catastrophic for the complex wetland ecosystem of the Gwent Levels'.

This is why, although we cannot support the bluntly worded motion, we cannot support the Government's amendments, which do not offer the protection that areas like the Gwent levels, with its rich wildlife, need and deserve. Diolch.

I share the concerns, Llywydd, regarding proposals for large-scale solar farms on the Gwent levels. It has caused a great deal of concern locally and further afield, and I chair the Gwent levels working group, which considers all those issues. And it is a matter of cumulative impact, when there are so many applications for large-scale solar farms on those Gwent levels, which are, of course, hugely sensitive in terms of their environmental quality, the historic nature of those Gwent levels, their importance for biodiversity, the SSSIs and, indeed, much else.

I think many people on the Gwent levels, as elsewhere in Wales, accept that, yes, of course, we need a lot more renewable energy, including solar, but, as ever—and this applies to any application anywhere, really—it obviously has to be in the right place. Sometimes, Welsh Government policy is more targeted at identifying suitable areas for renewable energy development, and sometimes perhaps a little underdeveloped. But I very much welcome recent changes to 'Planning Policy Wales', which I think do offer much greater protection through the planning system against some of these large-scale solar farms in inappropriate locations, for example, where there are SSSIs that need to be protected and safeguarded.

So, chapter 6 of 'Planning Policy Wales' and the tests around wholly exceptional development that would in fact improve the environmental quality of the area, rather than be detrimental, is a significant hurdle to overcome amongst the general planning policy requirements that apply. We've already heard about the post-construction monitoring on the Gwent levels in terms of existing development, which, I think, do again demonstrate the need for greater safeguarding and greater protection for that hugely sensitive and valuable environment.

So, one thing that I know very much concerns local residents and activists is the actual application of the latest 'Planning Policy Wales' developments as far as large-scale solar farms are concerned on SSSI land, and are concerned that inspectors, in making their decisions, obviously need to be fully aware of that and, more importantly still, to consistently apply it. It has to have practical effect, and the statutory consultees, similarly, have to fully realise the latest planning position that's applicable in Wales and, again, reflect that in their views and the documentation that they provide as part of the planning process.

So, in short, I do think that we're in a better position now with recent changes to 'Planning Policy Wales' and how they relate to large-scale solar farm applications on SSSI land, but the challenge is to make sure that any actual decisions made on those latest developments are fully applied and effective.

The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning to contribute to the debate. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. I'm really pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this debate on solar energy. Whilst we agree that this is an incredibly important issue for us to be debating today, we don't support the motion as it stands.

We know that having a reliable and green source of energy is crucial and, even here in Wales, solar does have an important role to play. We've set the ambition for Wales to host enough renewable energy to meet our electricity consumption by 2035 and to keep pace with the growth in demand thereafter, as well as delivering greater benefits to our economy and our society than the system that we have today. This is an ambitious target, as we know the demand for electricity is projected to grow significantly. We also know that we will need a range of technologies to meet this target. As we look to continue to drive down the cost of energy for consumers, we know that solar remains one of the lowest cost technologies in energy generation.

As our energy generation report published earlier this year shows, there are over 86,000 solar projects across Wales. The vast majority of these are on the roofs of our buildings and, in total, solar generates around 15 per cent of our total renewable generation. We want to see a transition that accelerates growth in Wales and brings jobs and new opportunities for future generations. As we're fundamentally changing the way that we generate and use energy, we have co-commissioned the National Energy System Operator to develop a strategic spatial energy plan. The aim of the plan is to develop the least cost system to meet our current and future energy needs, and this is incredibly important for all of us, to ensure that we have an efficient system that takes into account the cost of generation, but also our wider spatial priorities, including nature restoration. It's essential that we have a strong policy framework to be applied when projects come forward.

Our planning policy is robust. It takes a balanced view across all policy areas when considering applications. A key part of this is our clear commitment to protecting agricultural land. The best and most versatile land policy gives considerable weight to safeguarding grade 1, 2 and 3a land, recognising it as a finite and valuable resource. This approach has been effective in protecting our agricultural land and will continue to guide responsible and sustainable renewable energy development. And, as colleagues were talking in the debate, I was reminded of a chief planning officer letter that my predecessor, Julie James, sent in 2022, and that was really explicit and it helped to further clarify the policy by saying,

Are you giving way to the Member?

Yes, of course.

Thank you, Rebecca. You've made it really clear that we're not going to be building on BMV land 1, 2 and 3a; I wonder if you're able to give a similar assurance about SSSI land, because, obviously, the impacts on nature are very serious, as outlined by Peredur Owen Griffiths and John Griffiths. And, in your spatial energy plan, have you any ambition to undertake a review, a national audit of all suitable roofs? Because they have the potential, these 1 million roofs, to actually generate everything we need for peak energy in the winter.

I'm really grateful for that. And, of course, every development will be considered on its own merits in line with planning policy. But I think John Griffiths was really helpful in setting out, this afternoon, the recent changes that have been made, and he referenced 'Planning Policy Wales', chapter 6, which states that:

'development should not cause any significant loss of habitats or populations of species...locally or nationally and must work alongside nature and...provide a net benefit for biodiversity and improve, or enable the improvement, of the resilience of ecosystems.'

And I think, again, that's a really strong statement that we've included now in our planning policy to set the direction and to help in the consideration of those decisions in relation to planning applications, which are always difficult and nuanced. But that clarity, on top of the clarity provided in the letter I previously referred to, I think, is really, really helpful.

And there's absolutely a lot more we can do in terms of how we use our roofs. So, the Welsh Government energy service is there to provide information, advice and support to the public sector in the first instance. We heard of schools, in the debate, who don't know where to go for advice to realise that benefit, but the service is there, so I'll see what I can do to promote that service to our public sector even more.

We do recognise that individual businesses, the public sector landlords and households do all have a role to play, and they can benefit from renewable energy on their premises, so we do have a range of policies in place to promote the use of solar on suitable rooftops. Through our building regulations, we have a requirement for homes and non-domestic properties to reduce their carbon emissions, and we will be increasing this requirement in future years, and we do expect solar technology to play a really significant and important role in achieving those requirements.

And also, this year, we've allocated a record £93 million to decarbonise our social housing stock through our optimised retrofit programme, and that funds packages of energy efficiency and renewable energy measures. Those are interventions that are delivering cleaner air, healthier homes, more stable energy bills and new job opportunities in communities across Wales, and again, solar is an important part of that offer.

We also have the Development Bank of Wales, and they are piloting an incentivised loan scheme to support households in Wales to decarbonise, and eligible measures in that space also include energy generation through solar PV systems, as well as the batteries to secure the maximum financial benefit to the household. We've heard reference in a previous debate to Ynni Cymru and the great work that's happening there by providing interventions, including solar projects, across community groups and clubs, the public sector and also small businesses.

Samuel Kurtz now to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you to everybody who's taken part in this debate this afternoon. To address Plaid Cymru's point on the bluntness of the debate, I think it's right that when we're talking about agricultural land and the development of solar on land, be those large-scale projects or those small, farmer-led projects in their own corners, if we take a step back and pause, when we look at the development of a solar strategy, I think it's right that all those developments are looked at in the whole, and that's the ethos of the motion brought forward here today. But if I were a Minister and I was bringing forward a Bill, and Plaid had suggested an amendment to it, then I'd be open ears to collaborative working on something in the future around this, because I think it's quite right that those farmers who are looking to do development of renewables on their land are given every opportunity to do so. Indeed, one of my amendments to the agricultural Bill was around the ability for farmers to have better access to deliver renewables on their farms, with the focus around roof space. You've heard at length this afternoon about the acres of roof space that are available to us, not just in agriculture, but in the private sector, the public sector, and other opportunities to develop solar before we start looking at using agricultural land and reducing that ability for us to produce food.

I think that's where before the summer recess, maybe before Christmas, before the end of this sixth Senedd, we look at something more holistically as a joint motion or a joint voice from this Senedd around what we think about solar developments. I think that would be a strong point for us. If the Government wish to work with us as well as a real unified voice, I think that would be quite welcome, because the fear in the communities where these large-scale developments are happening is real. They see that extractive element of it, and I mentioned it in the ETRA report debate earlier today: when communities feel that things are being done to them, with no benefit for them, it's a very difficult sell, and what they're seeing is solar panels being brought in, agricultural land and the agricultural employment being lost, and then those electrons being shipped out of the community and the profit being shipped out of that community as well. So, if there's a way of co-working on that for the future, I think that would be really, really important.

I think what this motion is as well is one of looking at common sense. It's not anti-renewables, far from it. We're very pro renewables and pro the opportunities that renewables bring in terms of new employment, new skills, energy security, but we need our food security to be held alongside that equally as well. I think that's the crux of the motion here, just taking stock for the moment, given that, I would argue, these developments, these large-scale developments, have accelerated further and faster in these areas than we were anticipating. So, let's just take stock for a moment and think, 'Hang on, is that intended when we're bringing forward solar developments?', 'Is that what was intended when the planning rules were first established around that?' And I think it's a sign of strength that you're able to go, 'Let's take a moment, let's take stock, let's understand if this is the right way forward.' And I think that's what this motion looks to do today.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, therefore we will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 9 is next. It's the Plaid Cymru debate on the UK Government spending review, and Heledd Fychan will be moving the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. Fair funding for Wales: that's at the heart of today's debate, and I hope, as a Senedd, that we can find common ground this afternoon and agree that, though there is some welcome news for Wales in today's spending review, the announcements made still perpetuate what is a known and accepted truth. Wales continues to be short-changed by Westminster and disproportionately affected by many of the decisions taken. How we are funded is fundamentally flawed and does not meet the needs of our population.

So, why does this matter? Well, until the way we are funded is resolved, our Government and future Governments will always be constrained and reliant on the whims of a UK Government, of whatever colour, in terms of the funding available to spend on our priorities as a Senedd and as a nation. I find it frankly insulting that we're supposed to celebrate and be grateful for whatever funding is offered, even when it falls considerably short of what is owed. Better than nothing or better than we had from the Tories is a very low bar and not one any of us should settle for. It's like being owed money and being happy and grateful when you receive only 10 per cent of that money due. You'd say 'thanks', but you'd also question, 'Where's the rest?' At the very least you'd want to know when to expect it, with an agreed payment plan. That's why, as part of the motion, we're calling for an economic fairness Bill that would deliver three things for Wales. Firstly, it would ensure fair funding for Wales to replace the outdated Barnett formula. Secondly, it would provide us, as a Senedd, with the powers to create new income tax bands. And thirdly, it would increase draw-down limits and borrowing powers in line with inflation. It's therefore disappointing to see the Welsh Government remove this call from the motion in their amendment, and simply just note the spending review. Surely Wales deserves better from its own Government, and surely these are asks any Government would want to see delivered. Also removed are our calls for the introduction of a wealth tax that would ensure that the burden would fall on those individuals and corporations with the broader shoulders to bear a fairer share of overall tax paid. This would help our struggling public services immensely.

Also, our calls for the scrapping of the two-child benefit cap have been deleted by the Welsh Government. Why? Especially in light of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report published yesterday. Can we not agree that this cruel policy, that pushes more families into deep poverty, needs to go?

So, no matter how many times the Welsh Government try and spin that the partnership in power is working for Wales, let's look at the facts. We have only received the Barnett consequential of what was needed to cover the costs associated with the changes to national insurance contributions in the public sector. This has left a £72 million deficit in our budget, with the Cabinet Secretary having to allocate half from the Welsh reserve and the public sector having to make up the rest. As stated by the Cabinet Secretary himself last week, this will be an ongoing issue, and the deficit will need to either be funded by the Welsh Government, or found by the public sector, in every future budget. And that's not all, is it? The cuts to disability benefits, taxing small family farms, and the lack of action on energy bills—all these impact Wales. And also the Welsh Government's own budget as it tries to plug the gaps. It's clear that benefits must be devolved to Wales so we can create a fairer and more compassionate system that supports children and disabled people.

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 Finance and Welsh Language to move amendment 1.

I move.

I call on Peter Fox to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Yes, I move the amendments in the name of Paul Davies. Today's spending review is just more of the same from Labour: some catchy headlines, but burying the real truth, which is that Labour does not care about Wales when it comes to substance. Far from the proposed partnership that Labour Members sang about during the election, we have seen damaging policies coming from their Westminster colleagues, and nothing but defence from Welsh Ministers here. Remember that the first thing that the Labour Government did was to axe the winter fuel payments for pensioners across the United Kingdom, disproportionately affecting pensioners in Wales. Yes, there has been a screeching u-turn on this dreadful policy, but the fact remains that, last winter, too many pensioners had to choose between heating and eating. This is an embarrassment, and the Prime Minister should apologise. But, no, they won't even admit that they got it wrong. Rachel Reeves is still doubling down and trying to say that it's not a u-turn at all. The arrogance is simply astounding.

Now, let's turn to the national insurance rise, which we've heard about already—and I will be repeating much of what Heledd said. The national insurance rise has not only cost businesses dearly, but has disproportionately affected Wales's public sector. The impact of this rise will also affect local authorities, which will ultimately fuel further council tax rises. The policy was set to hike up on the already cash-starved public sector, and we were promised funding to make that difference. Now, as we have heard, we find out that the Welsh Government needs to find £72 million to make up the shortfall as a result of more underfunding from Westminster. Now we know that the Welsh Government are likely to pick up perhaps half of that, leading hard-pressed public services to pick up the other £36 million.

Now, I want to say that, while additional money to improve rail infrastructure is always welcome, and I welcome the Burns stations that we are likely to see as a result, it comes nowhere near the figure that Labour politicians were demanding when it was the Conservatives in power. Many times in the Chamber we heard people telling us that we are owed £4 billion—£4.6 billion; I don't know what it was. There was always this shouted demand on us from all quarters. Now, they're happy to settle for a fraction of what they wanted before. Clearly, this is Labour simply playing politics again. And as we've heard, under the Conservative Government, the Oxford-Cambridge line was designated as an England-only project, and therefore Wales got a proportion of extra funding. Now, Labour Ministers in Westminster came in and changed it to an England-and-Wales project, depriving Wales of an estimated £360 million. So much for Labour supporting Wales. Rather, we are just being short-changed and being told that we need to be grateful for it. This new money does not come close to the £1.8 billion owed to Wales to date as a result of the proposed £36 billion that has been spent to date on HS2, something that Labour politicians here and in Westminster were calling for, as I talked about earlier. And simply, there's no additional money for the road infrastructure and to even revisit things like the M4 relief road or the upgrade on the A55.

We know from details released today that the Westminster Labour Government are investing £15 billion in rail infrastructure in England in this spending review. Here in Wales, we have 11 per cent of the UK's rail track. As we know, rail infrastructure isn't devolved, but if Wales was getting fair funding and fair investment from this spending review alone we should be receiving £1.65 billion, and that takes no account of the historic injustice. Instead, we are getting just £445 million over 10 years.

Then we know that the Oxford to Cambridge line has been reclassified to an England-and-Wales project since Labour won the last Westminster election, and, following the announcement in the last couple of weeks that this is a £6.6 billion project, if it remained as a previous Government classified it, it would be resulting in £330 million for Wales, and, over the current spending review period, this would equate to £137 million in consequentials for Wales. So, thus, as a Treasury correction of a perceived error, we miss out on investment. That's before we unpack the well-rehearsed arguments about HS2 and the billions that Labour used to agree with us on, that run to £4 billion. And you can see why the announcement today is underwhelming. Even if the Government have changed their minds on the fairness of demanding the £4 billion we are owed over the whole HS2 project, the consequentials of HS2 for the current spending review period equate to £1.3 billion, far more than the £445 million that we are supposed to be grateful for getting. When we take this into account, announcements today should not be cause for celebration. I've been hearing announcements in the media, and Labour are clearly now trying to spin this £445 million as HS2 consequentials for what has been spent on HS2 so far, also claiming that this funding is addressing the historic underinvestment in rail investment in Wales. Let's be clear: it does not. But if this was the case then why haven't they reclassified the project? This move would guarantee Wales fair funding from future funding too. That would be the right and fair thing to do, so I call on the Welsh Government to get a commitment on the record that we will receive the full billions over the lifetime of the project, on top of fair rail investment, and for HS2 to be officially reclassified.

If this Labour Government in Wales is happy with the funding, they are conceding that the only rail infrastructure spend that Wales should receive is from HS2, and none of the England-and-Wales projects that have benefited and are benefiting England only. They've promised to electrify the north Wales main line, and lambasted the Tories previously for making underfunded spending commitments. Yet, with this level of rail infrastructure spend from their Westminster counterparts, they will not be able to fund the north Wales main line.

I must be reading another script, that's all I can say. For the very first time, we've had a historic settlement into the Senedd. It is historic, and it is the largest ever settlement for Wales. I want to welcome it; I don't want to moan about it. I don't want to try and rewrite history like the Tories were, because it is welcome, and I know that the people who gain jobs from that spend in rail investment of £445 million will also welcome it. I know the people who gain apprenticeship and work opportunities will also welcome it. I also know that the nearly £5 billion extra for Welsh Government over the next three years will also be welcome. [Interruption.] No, not now, in a minute. I've heard enough moaning, and I'm going to be positive. The £22.4 billion per year on average for Welsh Government between 2026-27 and 2028-29 into public services will be more than welcome, because public services took a battering, an absolute battering, for the period that the Tories were in Government, but they forgot to mention that, of course. And then there's the £211 million in local growth funding in Wales for the next three years, and that supports the growth mission that this Government, working with a Westminster Government, are determined to deliver. I'll take an intervention.

Thank you very much for taking the intervention. Two things: how do you figure that £450 million, compared with £4.5 billion that the Labour Secretary of State called for just for HS2, is good news for Wales, and how do you also figure that a £1.4 billion per year uplift in this CSR for Wales, compared with a £2.5 billion uplift for Wales under the Tories, even, in the last CSR, is good news for Wales?

What I would put back to you, because you want independence, is how you're going to pay for it: where are your uplifts going to be once you've decided? What I'll also put back to you is: are you going to vote for the budget this time? Are you going to yet again say it's not enough, therefore, we don't want any? To me, I remember, if I offered my children a few sweets, and they didn't feel it was enough, they might have a tantrum. It sounds a bit like that to me—[Interruption.] It sounds a bit like that to me: 'It's not enough, so I don't want any.' And that's your attitude all the time: moan, moan, moan.

So, I'm going to welcome the £180 million this Parliament that would support coal tip safety, on top of the £25 million, and the recognition that that is of utmost importance to those people who are living near and close to those coal tips, and the £2.4 million new brand Wales programme that is selling Wales to the world.

Now, lots of this, of course, has to be worked out, and there is much more to come. But, when there is a record settlement, it would be rather nice, wouldn't it, if it was actually welcomed, rather than just acting like children, saying, 'It's not enough, therefore we're not going to vote for it.' [Interruption.]

The Member has finished. Sioned Williams.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This week's spending review represented an opportunity for this UK Labour Government to make purposeful strides along a progressive path of equality, redistribution and fairness, a path from which it has strayed so blatantly of late. Given that this spending review coincides with the publication of the latest Joseph Rowntree report on poverty in Wales, which has found that over a fifth of our entire population and over a third of our children are in poverty, with little progress having been made in over two decades to correct this most malignant symptom of societal failure, the need to address poverty has never been more urgent. So, what did we see today that would help alleviate the deep and deepening poverty in Wales? Well, here are two verdicts, sadly relevant to us here in Wales. The End Child Poverty Coalition said that the announcements will not make significant progress in tackling child poverty. The Child Poverty Action Group said national renewal doesn't start with record child poverty.

There are things to welcome, especially the announcement of spending on social housing, which I hope would result in a consequential here for us to have more focus on building social housing. The Joseph Rowntree report found that poverty rates for social renters have not declined in Wales since 2004, with the highest point being 52 per cent in 2005 to 2008, and the lowest point being 44 per cent in 2012 to 2015. The latest figures show that more than four in 10 social renters, that's 46 per cent, and a third of private renters, were in poverty after housing costs. Poverty among social renters is disproportionately due to low incomes, so, while more affordable housing of course is welcome, the inadequacy of incomes to cover essential day-to-day costs must be addressed.

The report showed clearly that, over the past 30 years, children have consistently faced the highest poverty rates in Wales, and the poverty rate for children in families with three or more children is twice as high as the poverty rate for children in one- or two-child families. By refusing yet again to scrap the cruel two-child limit, as well as their continued determination to implement devastating and, frankly, immoral cuts to welfare, this Labour Government in Westminster is actively backing away from its socialist heritage. Where once there was a burning sense of duty to the mission of eradicating the scourge of poverty, now we have the gutting of an already precarious welfare system that will knowingly push thousands, including children and disabled people, into deeper poverty. And where once there was a Labour Party in Wales unashamedly willing to put clear red water between themselves and Westminster, now we have a pale and meaningless imitation, the red Welsh way, which leads to nowhere but meek apologism for deepening poverty levels in Wales, and an impotent wringing of hands and a constitutional cul-de-sac in terms of Wales’s devolution journey.

Yes, please.

—or they can use the time they have remaining to demonstrate in deeds as well as words that the red Welsh way actually provides a path to a progressive alternative by supporting our calls to introduce a Welsh child payment, by developing a poverty strategy with clear targets, by ensuring the devolution of benefits, by expanding childcare—

You did say you would finish.

—this is my last sentence—and by refusing to co-operate with the slew of legislative consent motions that are flooding the Senedd at present. We need a Westminster that engages seriously with Wales's priorities, especially those in Wales who are most in need. Diolch.

And that was more than one sentence. I remind Members that you have a time limit and that's the reason—so that we can get everybody in to speak. Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’d like to highlight in my contribution five areas where I think the Welsh Government, but, more importantly, the people of Wales, have been let down by the spending review.

Firstly, as others have mentioned, the national insurance shortfall in Wales—that still hasn’t been addressed. While the Welsh Government has pulled from its reserves for this year, this shortfall cannot happen every year. That means that the UK Government is essentially forcing Wales to make cuts elsewhere, cuts that will not have to be made by any other nation in the UK—not much thanks to the only nation that has consistently kept the Labour Party in government over the decades.

Secondly, the cuts to benefits will impact the Welsh economy and the Welsh Government budget. By limiting access to personal independence payments, the Chancellor will be reducing the monthly support for a single person on universal credit without children to only £421.14 per month—a huge 68 per cent reduction in household income. A report by Policy in Practice has found that 190,000 people in Wales will be affected. That's 6.1 per cent of our population, and would lead to a loss of £470 million from the Welsh economy.

However, of course, we will face an even greater impact than simply the money not being able to be spent in our local communities. We will be pushing people deeper into poverty. The Chancellor will start a terrible domino effect of suffering, of homelessness, poor physical health, poor educational outcomes, mental health issues, and family breakdown. In her spending review, the Chancellor said this:

'Austerity was a destructive choice for the fabric of our society.'

Well, the negative effect that this decision will have on the people of Wales, who are already, on average, sicker, poorer and older than the rest of the UK, is also a destructive choice for the fabric of our Welsh society. Yet again, we have another UK Government that is happy to balance the books at the expense of the Welsh Government, but more devastatingly, at the expense of the people of Wales.

Thirdly, the ongoing inequality of power over borrowing. The Chancellor's economic principles on borrowing for capital investment are also not passed on to Wales. Following her own rules, the UK Government can borrow billions more for capital investment, but the Welsh Government's borrowing powers remain relatively small, with no change. Currently, local authorities have vastly more borrowing powers than the Welsh Government, relative to the population we serve.

The Welsh Government, in fairness, has innovated around this with the mutual investment model, but this means that we are effectively paying an interest rate to private companies. This is much higher than what we would pay if we could borrow in the same way as the UK Government. If the Welsh way of borrowing was cheaper, then surely the UK Government would follow suit. Effectively, Wales has to pay more money to invest.

I do wonder, Dirprwy Lywydd, how some Members might have reacted to this same spending review had it been delivered by the Tories. The bar of acceptability should not be determined by who has set it, because in so many sections of this review, Wales has been treated like an afterthought.

On coal tips, yes, I welcome the money that's promised towards coal tip safety. It is the least that Westminster could do, considering that the tips are the legacy of an industry that stripped our Valleys of their wealth and left us with the rubbish—literally the rubbish—scattered across our mountaintops.

The £118 million that's promised still won't cover the costs of clearing those tips. We can expect to get, I would suppose, less than £40 million a year from this commitment over three years. That would be roughly the cost of clearing just two coal tips a year. It cost more than half that sum to clear the Tylorstown coal tip slip alone that happened in 2020.

Will you take an intervention? This is something that, as you say, is the least the UK Government should do. Currently, they are agreeing to pay around a fifth of the total estimated cost. If the UK Government only agreed to pay a fifth of the cost of the Post Office scandal, or a fifth of the cost of the contaminated blood scandal, people would be up in arms. They should be the same here.

Of course, I can't disagree. If only there were an ITV exposé programme on this in the same way that has been on the Post Office scandal, because I think Toby Jones has a lot to answer for with why there was finally work on that.

Let's be clear. Wales is owed this money. This is no largesse from the Treasury. They are giving us the least we are owed after decades of neglect and negligence in leaving these tips to shut out the sky. Last year, one tip slipped at Cwmtillery. We can't yet know how many more will be destabilised in the coming years with increased rainfall. So, yes, I welcome the money, but why on earth has it taken this long for any Government in Westminster, Labour or Tory, to acknowledge the damage that's been done with these tips and the duty they bear to clear them? How many more years will it take to clear these tips from their conscience?

On rail, Heledd and Peredur have mentioned this and have gone into great length on this, but it bears repeating. Wales is set to get £445 million for railways, and it will be over 10 years. Wales is once again being short-changed, because, even if we were getting it in a lump sum, as we've heard, this figure would not begin to make up for the billions we are owed from HS2. It would be nearly eclipsed by the money we are losing now that the Oxford to Cambridge line has been redesignated an England-and-Wales project. UK Labour has lost both its moral compass and its compass—its grip on geography and on integrity.

No trickery from the Treasury can change the stark facts. Wales will forever be an afterthought to both Westminster and Whitehall. It is constitutional thuggery to be cheating us in this way. How they must have laughed in the Treasury when they came up with that sleight of hand, 'Ooh, the Oxford to Cambridge line, let's say that that's for Wales as well.' How much longer do we have to put up with this? A spending review that promises one thing in headlines and details something else entirely in the small print. [Interruption.] Yes, Mike, I'll take an intervention.

Thank you for that. Do you think that Wales is a net contributor to the Treasury, or do you believe, like I do, that we pay about 75 per cent of the money in and get about 105 per cent out?

Diolch, Mike. Review after review after review has shown that the way that we are funded through the Barnett formula is not fair. But if we're not even getting consequentials for something, because—differently from Scotland, differently from Northern Ireland—the Treasury seems to be trying to do a sleight of hand here and say that, actually, this is something that will benefit Wales—. I don't think that anyone could really argue that an Oxford to Cambridge line will benefit Wales in a way that would be different from Scotland or anything like that. So this, I really think, is almost laughable, if you see the maps or the graphics that show how far away it is. But thank you for the intervention.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, on the coal tip money again, apparently some of that will also be used to repurpose our land for economic growth. We'll have to see the detail, but that does sound worryingly like it might be exploiting the land again, if private companies will be seeing the profits. Again, that is something that we will have to look at. It is sometimes said that the devil is in the detail. The more detail we see of this review, the more fiendish the tricks seem to be. This cannot be, this should not be, as good as it gets.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Welsh Language, Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I thought I'd begin, unlike most Plaid Cymru contributions, by looking at what the motion says. Because, actually, there's a lot in the motion that we would agree with and is already the policy of the Welsh Labour Government.

The motion asks for fair funding for Wales. Well, that has been our policy over many, many years. It asks for powers to create new income tax bands. Some Members here will know that we've already announced work in Wales to look at our income tax powers and to make them more usable than the ones we currently have. It asks for an increase in our draw-down limits and borrowing powers. That's in Labour's UK manifesto, and I look forward to the delivery of that with an updating of the fiscal framework.

The motion asks for a restating of the winter fuel allowance as a universal provision. Actually, that is exactly what the Chancellor has done. She's acted in an entirely socialist way. Everybody will get the winter fuel allowance, and for those of us who are on incomes above a certain level, the tax system will take that back from us. That's exactly how I would expect a Labour Government to act: a universal service and progressive taxation to deal with the consequences.

The motion asks for the two-child benefit cap to be removed. The First Minister, the social justice Minister and I published a written statement calling for exactly that only two weeks ago. It asks for reimbursement in full for the employer national insurance increases. I couldn't have been clearer on the floor of the Senedd, Dirprwy Lywydd, that we believe that the rule book was improperly applied in the way that compensation for public sector employers was decided in the Treasury. And of course, that's not a uniquely Welsh issue. I hear Rhys ab Owen getting that completely wrong. We do deserve better, I think, than that, because that is not a Welsh problem. That is a problem for Scotland and for Northern Ireland as well.

And then finally, the motion asks for the introduction of a Welsh wealth tax. I was very pleased, with the leader of the Liberal Democrats, and again with the social justice Minister, to meet recently with the Patriotic Millionaires organisation, and I met this week with the Tax Justice Network, both of whom put forward concrete proposals for wealth taxation in the United Kingdom. It's not in our motion, because this Senedd cannot pass legislation to make that happen. But we can add our voice to those who are making that case, and that's exactly what we are doing.

Shall I turn, though, to the spending review, which is what most of this debate has been about? There are three very good reasons why the spending review should be welcomed here in Wales. First of all, for the first time in many, many years, we now have budgets that allow us to plan for the future. A three-year horizon for revenue, a four-year outlook for capital. That means we can make better use of the money that is coming to Wales, because we have a horizon, especially for capital expenditure, that allows us to be able to plan ahead, make those investments, guarantee that we will get the best value from those investments for Wales. We haven't had that since the last time I was the finance Minister, and that's a long time ago by now.

Cabinet Secretary, there will be no discussions across—

The leader of Plaid Cymru is very bad at listening and very bad as well at—

Will you take an intervention?

I'll take an intervention.

The intervention is very, very simple. The Chancellor said in her announcement that £445 million was coming over 10 years. Those were her words.

Let me explain it to you so you don't make the same mistake a fourth time this afternoon. The leader of Plaid Cymru is very bad at listening and very bad at hectoring people from where he sits down—not an attractive trait, I can tell him that.

Now then, of that money, so Members here can understand, £350 million comes in the first three years. There is £95 million over and above that that is part of the 10-year investment strategy. Wales will benefit from both, and that is surely a welcome recognition that, for far too long, Wales has been underfunded for rail purposes and now we are able to make a proper start to realise the ambitions of the Burns review.

Dirprwy Lywydd, it took until Delyth Jewell’s intervention to recognise that there is £118 million for coal tip safety in today's announcement, over and above what we will get in that £1.6 billion. That has been a key priority for a Labour Government. The joint investment now from the UK and Welsh Governments will stand at more than £220 million, money designed to make those coal tips safe, to reassure those communities. Delyth said, 'Would we have been saying these things had the spending review been delivered by the Tories?' I sat in meeting after meeting with the Secretary of State for Wales, asking for money to help us with coal tip safety, immediately after the Tylorstown slip, and not a single penny came our way.

Would you take an intervention?

Of course.

Thank you for that. Would you accept the two things can be true at the same time here? Yes, as I said, I welcome this money. I do welcome this money, but, at the same time, we have been waiting for far too long. As I said, Labour and Tory Governments in Westminster over decades—decades—have failed to give Wales what we are owed from this. Those two things can be true, and they are true, at the same time. Wouldn’t you accept that?

The facts, clearly, are these: in all those years of Tory Government, we got not a single penny; under a Labour Government, which is less than a year old, we had £25 million in October of last year and now we have a total investment of £118 million. I think the contrast is clear enough. I am quite sure people who live in those communities where coal tips tower over them every day will know which Government has come to their aid.

But as we have heard, Dirprwy Lywydd, time and time again, no matter how much money there would have been from Westminster today, for the supporters of this motion, it would never have been enough. Indeed, the leader of Plaid Cymru told the First Minister yesterday that whatever the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, he was determined to run it down. [Interruption.] Well, that is exactly what he said to the First Minister. He said, whatever is in the comprehensive spending review, it will not be enough for us—whatever it would be. Well, that is all very well for a party satisfied with perpetual opposition. But, for a Government, for this Labour Government, the Chancellor's statement today is about a future in which choices and not speeches must be made. Those choices are about growing the economy, restoring living standards and making our services secure again. I look forward to working with my colleagues not to run down the future prospects of Wales, but to make those choices work for our nation.

I call on Heledd Fychan to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thanks to everyone who contributed to this debate.

I started the debate by saying that this was about fair funding for Wales, that we weren’t going to be happy if Wales didn’t receive fair funding, and we asked for unity in standing up for Wales. The Cabinet Secretary mentioned that he doesn’t disagree with many things in our motion, so why 'delete all'? Why not send that clear message to Westminster today that we are serious about wanting fair funding for Wales by voting for the motion as it is? We cannot stop repeating those calls when we continue to be ignored, ignored by consecutive UK Governments of every colour, when it comes to reforming the outdated Barnett formula—something we agree on, Cabinet Secretary, but deleted from this motion. The two-child benefit cap—we should be repeating it weekly until it disappears, that cruel policy continues to inflict poverty in our communities. We can't 'delete all' if we're serious about standing up for Wales. To compare the money offered to us as refusing sweets because we say it's not enough is not something—[Interruption.] And to be called 'childish' for demanding something that you used to agree with us on is shocking.

Are you going to take an intervention? What I said was you were behaving—. I do think you're behaving childishly—I stand by that—and what I did was I compared it to when I offered my children sweets, and they would throw them away if they thought it wasn't enough. That's the child-like comparison. I'm not saying this money is like offering sweets. You've just twisted it, as you always do. I didn't expect anything else, but I do know that you'll carry on moaning just the same.

It's not about moaning; it's about demanding what we're owed and being united. You used to agree with us on this. Your Secretary of State for Wales used to agree with us on this. What changed? An election. If you do say you agree with the motion, then vote for it as it is.

In terms of some of the things we have discussed today, Peter Fox, I agree with you—it is a u-turn when it comes to the winter fuel allowance, a welcome one, but it should never have happened in the first place. The fact that we've seen fear in our communities amongst older generations, to know of the damage it inflicted, I'm glad there's been a u-turn, but it took Labour plummeting in the polls for that policy to change.

In terms of some of the other things we've heard from colleagues, Sioned Williams, thank you for outlining and ensuring that focus on that issue that we should all be united on—ensuring that child poverty is eradicated from our communities. We know of the impact the cruel austerity years have had. Yes, it's welcome investment, but because it's better than the Tories doesn't mean we should be happy, content and celebrating when we're owed billions more. We are not going to settle or apologise for less.

Rhys, I agree entirely in terms of the welfare cuts. They are going to cause more expenditure in the health service, and so on. That's going to have implications in terms of the Welsh Government's budgets, and the injustice in terms of borrowing is also clear.

I'm pleased that Delyth Jewell did reference coal tip safety. We know that the estimated cost of clearing the tips is a conservative estimate of £600 million. Of course, it's welcome, but I would like to know how we are going to ensure that we're able to meet even that £600 million figure. It could be far more than the estimates from experts. The challenge there also, as we've seen with Tylorstown and so on, is that climate change is destabilising these tips at a rate that scientists aren't certain about. I think having that clear programme is, yes, welcome, but still that £600 million figure is still there.

I would urge Senedd Members here today to consider what it means when we talk about standing up for Wales and being united. This is not good news for Wales—that is very clear. Yes, we can spin it, but our role here is to represent our communities, represent Wales. That means calling for fair funding for Wales. This is not a fair settlement. We won't settle for it. That's why I'm asking Senedd Members here of every party to unite behind our motion, which calls for fair funding for Wales, the two-child benefit cap to be scrapped, the reimbursement in full of NI and a wealth tax. Those are the things that would make a difference to people in Wales, not this spending review.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. I will, therefore, defer voting under this item until voting time.

That brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time. Okay.

The first vote this afternoon is on item 8, the Welsh Conservatives' debate on solar energy. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendment. Open the vote.

So, that's voting on the motion without amendment.

Close the vote. In favour 13, 10 abstentions, 23 against, so the motion is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 1. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied, so I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. So, 23 in favour, no abstentions, 24 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

As the Senedd has not agreed the motion without amendment or the amendment tabled to the motion, the motion is, therefore, not agreed.

The next vote is on item 9, the Plaid Cymru debate on the UK Government spending review. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion.

Voting on the motion without amendment, in Heledd Fychan's name.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, 35 against, so the motion is not agreed.

Therefore, we will vote on amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote now on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. So, in favour 23, no abstentions, 24 against. Amendment 1 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 34 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

Once again, as the Senedd has not agreed the motion without amendment and has not agreed the amendments tabled to the motion, the motion is not agreed. And that brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.