Plenary

Item 2 today is questions to the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, and the first question is from Samuel Kurtz.

Diolch, Sam. The Welsh Government is backing farmers with over £366 million support this year alone, including more than £44 million under the basic payment scheme 2024 in Carmarthenshire and Pembrokeshire. We’re delivering direct and indirect support, practical help, tailored advice and assistance with everything from sustainability to improving mental health.

Cabinet Secretary, the UK Climate Change Committee has recommended a drastic cut of over 25 per cent in livestock numbers in Wales. This proposal has caused deep concern amongst Welsh farmers and across the wider supply chain, which depends on the production of high-quality, sustainable and traceable Welsh food. In contrast, the Scottish Government has taken a clear stance rejecting the committee's advice, and pledging not to cut livestock numbers. So, Cabinet Secretary, do you support this Scottish approach or do you back the Climate Change Committee's call to reduce livestock numbers in Wales?

Sam, the Climate Change Committee provides independent advice on meeting the needs of carbon budgets, but the pathways are ours to determine. Part of that is the work that we're doing on the sustainable farming scheme, so that we can determine the right way to use our land management to look at carbon abatement. There are various ways in which we can do it. You'll notice as well, of course, that the Climate Change Committee in their most recent carbon budget analysis have also revised their targets for woodland planting in Wales, as well as in Scotland, and so on.

But let me make it absolutely crystal clear: we give real credence to the advice that is given by the Climate Change Committee, as we always have. I'm pleased that we're able to say that we will be able to bring in, with quiet confidence, the second carbon budget, but the pathways are always for the individual nations and Governments to determine, taking advice from people, our stakeholders, and recognising the approach that we need to take here specifically in Wales, but we welcome the advice that's been brought forward.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Vaughan. Building on our recycling record, we are investing in infrastructure to capture those high-quality recycled materials. We're attracting investment from companies to expand our reprocessing capacity, we're supporting businesses to incorporate recycled materials into products, and improving material use through reforms such as the extended producer responsibility. We're creating jobs and we're driving green growth.

Diolch yn fawr, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet. I'm particularly interested in this area, and it's an area where there's international recognition of the steps that Wales is taking, and I know that from my time in Government. That interest is also leading, I know, to a number of conversations about further investment. I'm pleased you mentioned the work that we have done deliberately in Wales to not just meet recycling targets by volume, but the higher quality of recycling material that is seen as an asset by companies that are keen to reuse it for the future.

I'm interested, Cabinet Secretary, in what that investment looks like for Wales, the UK and internationally, and the growth in value and jobs, whilst meeting our environmental and sustainability objectives. Can I ask you, Cabinet Secretary, what work are you doing within your department, and indeed with the economy Secretary, to identify further opportunities to promote what we are already doing? And specifically, how are you working with the economy Secretary to identify and pursue opportunities for more growth and more jobs in this area?

Vaughan, thank you very much, and it's right that I first of all give some credit to you for the work that you did in leading on this agenda. But you are right: Wales leads the agenda on this. We are looked to internationally for the leadership we've shown on this, and I recall when we had over 400 delegates internationally attending the circular economy hotspot in Sophia Gardens. We were learning from international examples, but they also had come to Wales to learn from us.

This is a cross-Government agenda, so the transition to a circular economy presents really significant opportunities for Wales to unlock greater economic value from the materials that we produce, which we are world class in collecting. The circular economy fund for business provides funding for businesses to take important steps, like adapting their processes to recycle material and reduce the materials they need to use.

And if you look at some of the incredible innovation that's going on in all parts of Wales, in places like, for example, the Royal Mint in Llantrisant, where they are recapturing those precious metals and other minerals, and then using them for economic advantage and new job creation. There are 42 businesses, Vaughan, that have benefited from our support in the circular economy fund for businesses so far. But we're also attracting inward investment and creating new jobs in Wales. In Deeside, the redevelopment of Shotton Mill has attracted investment now of over £1 billion. It's safeguarded 147 jobs. The site will be one of the UK's largest recycled packaging centres, creating a further 220 jobs. Businesses like this know that, in coming to Wales, they can access good-quality recycling thanks to the efforts of the people in Wales and the support of the Welsh Government. But there's more that we can do. I'm working with my colleague Rebecca Evans, and right across Government, to seize these opportunities for Wales and the leadership that we are showing.

Just a few weeks ago, I met with a range of businesses, alongside Jenny Rathbone, here in the Senedd—a number of local, national and international businesses who had grave concerns about the deposit-return scheme being implemented here in Wales. It's a scheme that seems to hang over the industry like the sword of Damocles, because we don't know what's going to happen, but what we do know concerns these businesses very greatly, particularly around the lack of synergy between Wales and the rest of the UK, which could put additional administrative, bureaucratic and cost burdens on a number of those businesses. The businesses that were there wanted an update, a reassurance that we're on the right track on this, and that their concerns are being listened to. Because these businesses make up a huge and vital part of our economy and they want to know that they've got a Government that is standing up for them.

Tom, thank you for that. It's a really good point to make, because, reflecting on the introductory question on this from Vaughan on the opportunities, DRS is a real opportunity for Wales because we can seize the opportunity to be first in the UK—working across the UK, maximising interoperability, which is the issue you probably heard, how do we make these schemes work alongside and with each other. I visited recently Latvia. Latvia is one of the most recent introductions of DRS, but it goes along a slightly different scheme in Estonia, a slightly different scheme across another—. And they're porous borders, by the way. But they've made them work, and all of the retailers and suppliers and shops, big and small, all different sizes, they've worked intently in Latvia to make that work.

That's what we're doing in Wales. We have a full stakeholder engagement process going on. That's been going on for several months. I've met with many of the companies personally myself. We also are moving into a proper consultation period now. I can give you this absolute cast-iron guarantee: we want to design and devise the DRS for Wales, sitting alongside the DRS for England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, in a way that maximises interoperability, that works with those stakeholders to design it properly, so we can do that, and then we seize those opportunities. Because there are opportunities for companies who are queuing up to say, 'We want to be engaged in this, in the washing, the relabelling, the process inside of this'. Wales once again can be leading the way in the UK, but I guarantee you, Tom, the other parts of the UK want to follow on from what we're doing. We'll work with the UK Government, we'll work with the management organisation, and, most of all, we'll work with all the supply chains in Wales, to get this right.

I had the opportunity to visit Kontroltek in Bridgend in April, where I met with Andrew, the managing director. The Cabinet Secretary may be aware that Kontroltek is an employee-owned company that specialises in industrial repair. They are a repair service first and a supplier second. Their commitment to circularity and reuse is embedded in their business model and sets them apart in a culture that lurches towards replacement over repair. During our conversation, Andrew raised an important issue around skills. Currently, there are no basic electronic repair courses available in Wales, which means he must send his staff as far as Kent to receive the necessary upskilling. So, has the Cabinet Secretary had any conversations, perhaps with the Minister for skills or the Minister for Further and Higher Education, about this aspect of the Government's work and about targeting skills development in areas like repair and reuse, and, more broadly, the recycling sector, where there is untapped potential when it comes to the circular economy?

Luke, thank you. I'm more than happy to follow up on that point and have those conversations. Because in this transition that we're making to a circular economy—and it is a transition that is genuinely full of opportunities—we need to line the right parts of the machine up behind it. I'm more than happy to take that piece away and speak to our skills Ministers and talk to them about how we can fill that very specific one, which is a very important one, but also the wider agenda as well.

But let's be under no misapprehensions here: this journey is challenging, but actually very exciting. When people wanted to come and hear us at Climate Week in New York, to hear what Wales was doing in this space, a point was made by a leading global commercial player, who said, 'Let's stop worrying so much about those countries locking down their assets and their mineral resources and so on, and let's start talking about how we reuse and move to that circular economy'—where companies like that, in our local area, can actually thrive by using what we've already got in circulation. That's the economic opportunity here, and that global corporation was right on that point—stop worrying about the others, let's get on with it.

I now call on the party spokespeople. First of all, the Welsh Conservatives' spokesperson, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. As we all know, Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water has been fined £1.35 million for failing to properly monitor water quality at 300 different sites in May, just last month. This company have pleaded guilty to 15 charges relating to more than 800 offences in 2020 and 2021—you could ask why it's taken so long for them to be fined—for breaches of their sewage discharge permits. Shockingly though, rather than the £1.35 million going towards addressing the harm caused and enhancing the environment here in Wales, any pollution incident in Wales sees these fines going to the UK Treasury, and it is not ring-fenced, meaning that it doesn't come back here.

There's much talk in the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill about the polluter paying. Will the Cabinet Secretary agree with me—in fact, I think you have agreed along these lines previously; you've hinted that you are open to this—that this money should come to Wales, and what discussions have you undertaken with the UK Treasury?

Yes, indeed, and thank you for raising this with me again. I can confirm that we would want to see, in an ideal situation, the money returning here. What's most important, though, with Dŵr Cymru is—. And you're right in saying that there are real areas of criticism on the pollution releases and, as we know so well, the antiquated system that they now have to deal with.

Bill payers now are going to see massive increases in their bills, and we have to do two things with that: one is make sure that the most vulnerable customers are protected; but secondly, make sure that that quantum of investment now deals with this problem. Because we all share, across this Chamber, the desire to see our rivers being cleaned up and these things being dealt with. But yes, again, simply to confirm—. And I'm happy to have those discussions with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language, who has direct engagement with his counterparts in London, to see if we can explore a way in which the funds could be returned here.

But to be very clear, they now have a significant uplift in funding as a result of PR24. We want that money being focused on their performance, including not just other areas that they might be lagging in—. They're above other companies, by the way, in some other areas. I don't want to say that Dŵr Cymru is not leading in some areas, because it is, but in terms of pollution incidents—the monitoring and the dealing with them—they need to improve their performance.

Thank you. That's quite encouraging. But for me as well, it annoys me when constituents say that they've contacted Dŵr Cymru—I've done it myself—on leakages and water literally pouring down the drain. That is a vital commodity, and what's more, as you rightly pointed out, the bill payers are paying for this water.

The last thing Dŵr Cymru should really want to do, or can afford to do, because it's taxpayers' money that pays the bills—. They should be allowed the option of undoing the damage caused and reduce the risk of repeated offences. District judge Gwyn Jones concluded that the company had been negligent and had

'no doubt caused significant embarrassment to all those dedicated personnel in Dwr Cymru'.

In other words, the front-line workers.

In addition to the massive fine, there is nothing more embarrassing and unaffordable for the water company than the—and I know I've raised this with you before and other Members have—excessive amount paid to the chief executive: £892,000 for a year's work for a so-called not-for-profit organisation. That's £459,000 more than the Prime Minister, 465 per cent more than the First Minister, and almost 500 per cent higher than the interim chief executive of Natural Resources Wales.

Will you actively join with me in stating that these kinds of moneys paid, in particular here to the chief executive of Welsh Water, are wrong when it's not performing to its best, and speak up for all its customers by calling on Welsh Water to commit never to pay such massive salaries like this again? Diolch.

Thank you. There’s no harm in raising these matters repeatedly, because I think it’s important that these are aired. But it is important to say, first of all, that the Welsh Government has no control over the salaries, dispensations and remunerations of water and sewage company directors and boards.

However, where we can play a part, and we have played a part, is in the partnership with the UK Government recently, where we’ve taken forward legislation that makes it clear that remuneration—bonuses and so on—has to be linked to performance. And if performance isn’t there, then those boards should not be, in the legislation we’ve taken through on an England-and-Wales basis, paid to fail where the performance is lagging. I think that’s a very important message.

We want the right people to be in post in these large organisations, but we do also have to recognise that it’s in pretty much a monopolistic utility situation. In which case, they have to deliver for those bill payers, they have to deliver for the environment, they have to deal with leakages, they have to drive up customer satisfaction—all of these things; they have to. That piece of legislation, between myself and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I think puts in place a very strong message: if you don’t perform, you should not expect additional remuneration.

But I don’t have any direct control, I’m afraid, over wage levels, otherwise I’d be paying all of you double, I’m sure. [Interruption.] There's a cheer from the back.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You’re quite right to point out that Dŵr Cymru is a not-for-profit organisation. Of course, we want leaders who have the best interests of Wales at heart. In addition to accepting fair remuneration, individuals in leadership roles in Wales should be 100 per cent committed to Wales.

This brings me to a role that you’ve just endorsed. We now have a new chair of NRW, an organisation that has gone through some organisational changes, some pressures—you name it. The current chair—I’ll avoid using names—holds so many other positions, including chair of East West Rail—which is building the Oxford to Cambridge line—is set to become the chair of the University of Warwick, and if you read up on this individual, he has numerous chairmanships that, for me, don’t actually apply to his role in NRW.

I made it clear in committee—. And I have to say, Cabinet Secretary, it’s so annoying when these appointments come forward, and we’re asked as a committee to give our opinions, to read the curriculum vitae, to listen to them during interview, to be basically told afterwards that what we really say doesn’t matter, that it’s a fait accompli. And in this case—

You need to ask a question, Janet, please.

Do you really believe that the public appointments process in Wales needs changing? There’s a question later on, and I’m on that too, but I have a document here about public service appointments in Wales, and it’s very damning. Will you, Cabinet Secretary, look, with your Cabinet colleagues around the table, at how you can make the public appointments process more transparent, more accountable, and more relevant to the roles that these people are taking on, usually with very good expenses? Diolch.

Janet, thank you for that. Dirprwy Lywydd, I should make clear that, on the process that is under way at the moment, I’ve put forward a preferred candidate. The committee has actually scrutinised that candidate, and has put forward a report. Just to make clear, there’s a limit to what I can say, because with these processes, the way it works is that it’s then subject to my final appointment and letters of exchange and so on. So, there is an absolute limit to what I can say, you’ll understand, Dirprwy Lywydd.

But simply to say on this appointment that it was really encouraging to find that we had a really strong breadth and depth of candidates, that the experience of the preferred candidate I put forward is significant, and we always have an eye in the Welsh Government to making sure that, on those long lists and short lists, there is a good diversity of candidates as well.

But, of course, as the Welsh Government, and in our discussions with the internal bodies that take this, we always look at the process of this. If there is a feeling from a committee that they would like a stronger involvement in different appointments across Government, it's for those committees to put those views forward. I simply say to you that it is not always an advantage to say to committees, 'It rests on you to make the final decision.' I would simply say, at some points, that may come down to not only matters of judgment on experience and capability, but perhaps the politics within that sphere as well. Anyway, I'm interested in what you've said, but there's a limit to what I can say about a process that is still ongoing to the final appointment and exchange of letters.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. The Deputy First Minister published an update on the sustainable farming scheme last year, which included progress on a number of key issues that Plaid Cymru had raised—issues such as scrapping the tree cover of 10 per cent and reducing the general action steps. But, we're still waiting for a final version, and I very much hope that the Deputy First Minister will agree that it's very important that we have that before the Royal Welsh.

But, there is other information that we look forward to seeing along with the SFS itself, including a new impact assessment of the likely impact on the sector, given that the previous economic impact assessment suggested that 5,500 farming jobs could be at risk under the first draft. And we need details on payments too. So, two questions: will the final proposals include clear information about payments that farmers can expect in terms of implementing the actions, and will a new, detailed economic impact assessment be published at the same time as the scheme to show whether the final proposals will cost jobs?

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Rhun. First of all, we've made a lot of good progress with the SFS. We're in the business end, as I've described it now, of a critical few weeks, but all those matters of trees and hedges and woodland cover, impact assessment, payments—all of those things—now are in the final mix being discussed. But you'll understand the nature of the work of that round-table and the officials group that's been supporting it—who I pay genuine, incredible tribute to for the work that they've done—and we'll bring it forward in a few weeks. And we do hope, by the way, it will be in advance of the Royal Welsh, if we can get all the final details stood up.

And, yes, farmers will know what the payments will be, in the universal layer but also in the optional and collaborative. I would say to Members, 'Take an interest in the entirety of the scheme', because there are individual elements, but this is a whole-farm scheme that we're trying to bring forward. And, of course, we are also doing a full impact assessment, which includes the economic impact, but it also includes the environmental impacts as well. Because it's a whole-farm scheme, with the four sustainable land management objectives within it, we're looking at the entirety of that.

Thank you for providing clarity on that. I will turn now to the threat of the bluetongue virus. Now, much is being balanced in the response—the practical difficulties in having two different statuses on both sides of the border and the need to put the most effective animal welfare measures in place. Plaid Cymru is very clear that the Welsh Government must now do everything within its ability to promote vaccination and to ensure that there is an adequate supply of the vaccine available. We are concerned, however, that farmers could see the requirement to ensure a negative test result before movement as an adequate step in keeping the virus away, whilst, in reality, it's one in a number of measures, along with vaccination, to prevent the spread of the virus. So, in order to increase vaccination uptake, and to mitigate some of the practical impacts on the border, and so on, would the Welsh Government be willing to consider allowing livestock that are vaccinated to move without the need for a negative test?

In direct answer to your question, not at this moment. But, when I stood here and made the statement last week, I said that we would keep the situation live under review. We're keen to engage and to listen to not only the veterinarians and the animal health and welfare expertise on the ground, but also farmers, auctioneers and others, and we want to keep that dialogue going. On that basis, we're keen to explore other avenues that we might want to introduce, if the timing is right. Our priority at the moment, and I realise that it does create additional cost burdens for farmers, if they are looking to move animals, because we haven't stopped the movement, but there are additional measures we've put in place to hold back the virus—. Our focus has to be on working with the sector to make this work now.

Secondly, you're absolutely right, along with the chief—. A letter has gone out by the four chief veterinary officers, all stressing, right across the UK, that we need to focus on vaccination, farmers need to consider this, farmers need to work with their own farm vet to discuss if this is right for them on a strategic basis on their farm—is it right to do—and we would encourage that. But I'll be crystal clear with you and with others in recognising there is not one opinion out there. There are different opinions on whether we should have switched straight away to an all-England-and-Wales zone and so on. What we are trying to do here, quite frankly, is buying time for farmers. Even if we cannot hold this disease back entirely, if we can buy time so that then we have more of the vaccine supplies in place, and other vaccines coming in as well, then we'll have done a darn good job for our farming communities, and we'll have avoided, by the way, the impact of this spreading straight away by transporting it to the west of Wales and north-west of Wales and so on. That's what we're trying to do.

Thank you very much. And I think that what's being asked of the Government is that they are dynamic.

There is a great deal happening this week, so I want to turn to a third issue, if I may, namely the written statement issued yesterday on border infrastructure post Brexit. The decision not to commission the border control points in Holyhead after spending over £50 million on that reflects the chaos of Brexit, doesn't it? Tens of millions of pounds of public funding—. We've lost a lorry park in Holyhead, which is a very important part of the port infrastructure, and these things do have a very real impact on the community. But the Deputy First Minister has noted that the Welsh Government has had to pay some £7 million towards the development, although Brexit, of course, is a reserved matter. We now need an assurance from Westminster that the Welsh Government will be compensated for its contribution to this project and that any funding that's required to repurpose this site for future use will also be paid in full by the Treasury. Could I ask for the agreement of the Deputy First Minister on those points? And does he agree with me that neither Holyhead nor Wales should be paying the price for a hard Brexit made in London?

Well, I can say that we've made the consistent argument to the previous Government, because this directly flows from the decision to withdraw from the EU—you're absolutely right—and I made that clear in my short statement on this. So, the border controls on EU goods are a direct consequence of leaving the EU. So, we've made clear consistently, all the way back, through previous people who held this post, through previous First Ministers, that we expected all our costs—all the costs, of capital and revenue—to be met by the UK Government. We note that the UK Government also gave funding directly for facilities at numerous other ports in England and in Scotland. So, we've made that argument.

There is a small contribution in this case, because in the forefront of my mind and my predecessor's also is that we need these in place, just in case. It is the situation at the moment that I've chosen not to commission this, but actually I could. We have great hopes that the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement will bear fruit and there will be no need for this border post. In which case, we're into a different business then of looking at what is the alternative and new use. But, at this moment, until that is signed, sealed and delivered, we need to keep that border control post ready and able to be operationalised. Now, that means we need to put some—. We're keeping it to a minimum, but we need to keep some minimal investment in there. We're making the argument again to the UK Government that minimal investment should be covered by the UK Government. But I'm not going to let it run down, because, first and foremost, this is a border control post. We need to look at those phytosanitary and sanitary procedures, and make sure the trade can work. So, if we need this, it needs to be ready to be stood up. So, even though we're making those arguments, my first priority is, 'Can it be ready to be stood up when needed?' So, we will need to put some funding into maintenance and security to keep it ready. It cannot be used for other purposes. I know some people have said to me, 'Well, can we, in the interim, use it for x, y and z?' It's actually a very dedicated, very specific facility. But, look, we'll keep those discussions going with the UK Government and make the arguments consistently, as I have done in successive inter-ministerial group meetings, and in writing, to say the costs should be borne by the UK Government. If this had been done in a different way by the previous Government, then we could be in a very situation. But the costs that we are now bearing is a direct result of decisions that were taken and the way that that Brexit was delivered.

Diolch, Sam. As it stands, I'm not aware of any agricultural shows in north Wales that are facing either imminent cancellation or restrictions due to bluetongue disease.

Thank you for your response, Cabinet Secretary. You'll know the agricultural sector's—and we've already had debates in this place—concern around the Welsh Government policy on bluetongue, which includes the impact on agricultural shows, which, I'm sure you appreciate, are a real highlight for us here at county level, but also across Wales. I'm sure you'll be visiting many of those over the summer period, and I think of my local agricultural show, the Denbigh and Flint, in particular, because not only are these shows important from a cultural standpoint for us here in Wales, but they also provide some real local economic benefit to our communities as well. On that point, I was disappointed to see that no economic impact assessment took place by the Welsh Government ahead of the bluetongue policy that you have announced, and I think there's a real error there in not understanding the economic impact of that decision. So, in the meantime, with the view of some of the concerns facing agricultural shows in the coming months, will you first of all consider an economic impact assessment of this policy, and then, secondly, will you implement a support package for any of those agricultural shows that are going to struggle as a result of this policy?

Thank you, Sam, and, as I said before, I recognise the additional burdens this is currently placing on the farming sector, but also the decisions that agricultural shows have to meet. I can say that the Royal Welsh Show, for example, was present at the round-table that I convened on 5 June, and we are continuing to discuss with them, and with other shows, how we can work our way through this, bearing in mind that what we are trying to do is inhibit the growth and stop the westward trend of bluetongue into this area, which would be devastating for farmers and for shows as well. So, we're doing our best to hold it back at the moment. The rules and the entry requirements, of course, for agricultural shows, are matters for the show committees, and they make their independent choices in line with their policies and their own veterinary advice as well. I have to say, my CVO has been in touch with not just the royal Welsh, but other shows as well, assisting them with some advice. But the Welsh Government does not seek to intervene in these matters, which are, rightly, for the shows themselves.

But on the economic impact assessment, as I said in my statement last week, what we're facing is an evolving and a dynamic disease picture, both in England and in Wales. So, actually carrying out an economic impact assessment would not give us hard data, because this could change from day to day and week to week. The focus needs to be on, as has been pointed out earlier on, vaccine deployment and farmers making the right decisions on that, and holding this disease out.

So, I can say that I understand, from discussions with shows and with my advisers, that shows have contingency plans in place in case they are forced to cancel, for any reason. They have their contingency plans in place. There is not support available for shows that make a commercial decision to cancel or who are unfortunate enough to fall within a future bluetongue control zone. And let me clarify what I mean by that as well, because it's important to understand, and I know some Members came along to the very detailed technical briefing that we arranged the other day. So, if, for example, a 20 km bluetongue control zone is declared in a part of Wales, a livestock show within that area would not be able to proceed. So, that's the sort of detail that we're looking at—granular detail. But look, Wales is currently bluetongue free. Welsh livestock are free to move within Wales and to enter shows without any bluetongue restrictions. I would strongly recommend that shows seek their own veterinary advice regarding bluetongue, but I will keep on listening to them as well, Sam.

You have stated that your decision, Cabinet Secretary, is to buy time for farmers, and that you will keep the policy under review. It is vital that you listen to farmers, and the summer agricultural shows really give you that opportunity, along with talking and listening to other stakeholders and, of course, veterinary experts.

You mentioned the CVO gave a technical briefing to Senedd Members, and the role of vaccination is clearly key. Everyone agrees midges do not respect borders. So, do you agree it's important vaccine uptake is both promoted and encouraged on both sides of the border, in Wales and England, and are you content this is being done effectively?

Thank you, Lesley. It's such a good question. I mentioned the fact that all the CVOs now have written out jointly, encouraging all farmers across England, Wales and Scotland to actually look at whether vaccination is right for them and can be deployed. Vaccine is a major tool here in our armoury against bluetongue. We also, of course, have unanimity around this. Even though there are differences of opinion on the measures at this moment, there's unanimity on saying that, on vaccination, we all need to rally behind it. So, the Wales animal health and welfare framework group has said that, but so have farmers, so have livestock auctioneers, so have everybody—Tom, Dick and Harriet have all said exactly the same.

In partnership with the livestock and veterinary sectors, we have been successful in keeping bluetongue out of Wales. That is quite remarkable, frankly. We're very proud of the efforts of everybody making this happen, and I would urge people to rally around and keep working on this. We're keeping those discussions going, Lesley, with our key partners, including the farming unions, the Royal Welsh Show, the Livestock Auctioneers' Association, and we'll keep those discussions going as well. But, yes, there is real, strong agreement that vaccination is the best way of ensuring our flocks and herds in Wales against bluetongue. So, we will keep listening, we will keep engaged and we'll keep working on the evidence of what's best, not just for livestock, for sheep and for cattle, but also for the farming community in Wales as well.

Diolch, Jenny. Managing our water supplies effectively is a key priority for this Government. Water companies factor drought planning into their company plans and under our sustainable drainage systems legislation, we will ensure resilient drainage systems are installed for all new urban and rural developments, strengthening the resilience of our surface water and sewerage network.

Thank you for that. The Greener Grangetown project was the first of its kind in the UK, and it has removed 40,000 cu m of surface water from the public sewer network every year for the last six or seven years. It's also delivered 108 rain gardens and, I think, over 130 trees, as well as the first bicycle street in Wales. So, given the threats of a possible drought this summer, what analysis has the Welsh Government made of the cost-benefit of installing—retrofitting—sustainable drainage systems programmes across Wales in other urban environments, given the huge costs involved in, for example, creating new reservoirs?

Jenny, thank you so much. We're very keen on retrofitting, as well as new developments, and I'm more than happy to write to you with some more detail on how we're doing the analysis of that and how we can take retrofitting forward, as well as fitting on new developments.

Thank you so much for flagging the Greener Grangetown project, because when we had a UK-wide convention here of SuDS engineers, just in the Arup building, just around the corner, they went to see that and they were blown away by that, and it's not the only one in Wales. But that example there is a clear example of the multiple benefits of sustainable drainage. It sets the standard, I've got to say, for subsequent projects across Wales, and we know that other parts of the UK want to follow as well. Interestingly, of course, it was a partnership, as well, on multiple levels. So, it was between Cardiff Council, Dŵr Cymru and also Natural Resources Wales. And whilst it worked with over 500 properties near the River Taf, it removed—. That scheme alone removed around 42,000 sq m of run-off from the system. That is significant. There were 12 targeted streets, and it was designed in consultation with the community. So, there's another lesson—do these things with the community to show the multiple benefits and the quality of the environment. It's had a huge effect already on the immediate downstream pumping station, in terms of energy use and spills from the outflows. It's had that direct impact. There were no overflows recorded at all in 2023, which was an extremely wet year. It works. We need to do more of this. And I'll write to you with some more detail on the retrofitting.

Yes, indeed. Animal health measures implemented by Welsh Government are informed through consultation with key partners and stakeholders, which include the Wales animal health and welfare framework group, industry and veterinary representations and legal advice.

Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Just to correct you on an answer you gave to the leader of Plaid Cymru recently, the Animal and Plant Health Agency sent a text to farmers on Friday that indicated that cattle that were fully vaccinated with the Boehringer vaccine would not need a pre-movement test. In your reply to the leader of Plaid Cymru, you said that animals would be requiring a pre-movement test. This is the difficulty—the messaging that's coming out is proving confusing and difficult, and when the Minister who's responsible is standing at the lectern here in the Senedd and gives an answer that contradicts messages that have been sent to farmers, can you understand how people feel very confused and at a loss as to what the expectation will be on them come 1 July?

But more importantly, bearing in mind the critical decision that you have taken, one that I passionately disagree with—and I should have mentioned my declaration of interest as a livestock farmer, Deputy Presiding Officer—could you name an organisation based in the livestock sector or supporting the livestock sector that supports your decision to create a barrier between livestock movements between England and Wales rather than keeping a one-zone area of England and Wales for the provision of animal health when it comes to bluetongue?

So, Andrew, I can tell you that my understanding is that in the most recent meetings of the Wales animal health and welfare group, they were supportive of the approach that we are taking here, supportive as well of the policy on vaccination to promote vaccination as well, and they also highlighted the risks of putting Wales into a restricted zone right here and now. There are risks that come with this as well, both for animal welfare but also for farmers as well. One of those risks, by the way, is in terms of pedigree stock as well. So, that question of inviting the disease into Wales is a contentious one, I know, but it's one that we're trying to hold off from inviting it in.

There will need to be, as I've said—. By the way, I don't know if you were at the annual gathering yesterday of the veterinary organisations and the British Veterinary Association, but it was interesting to hear their views on this as well on keeping the disease out, on trying to lock the disease out. I don't know if you were able to attend the technical briefing the other day—maybe, maybe not—that we arranged for Members, because we went through immense detail. The answer that I gave to the leader of the opposition was in response to a slightly different question, but I'm more than happy to write to you if you weren't able to attend that technical briefing that many Members did attend to give you the whole A to Z of how this policy is working—what it means for cattle, what it means for sheep, what it doesn't mean in terms of actually putting down a hard border, because we have not put a hard border in place. But farmers will need to work with their on-farm vet now to actually decide what is the right approach. And if they're going to have cattle movements, if they're going to have sheep movements, then they need to work through the rules that we've put in place.

Question 6 [OQ62915] was withdrawn. Question 7 is next—Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you, Janet. Sourcing waste is a commercial decision for landfill operators. The environmental permit for each landfill site lists the waste types and the quantities that are permitted to be accepted. Natural Resources Wales is responsible for regulating the activities and for ensuring site compliance with strict environmental and legal requirements.

Diolch. The Scottish ban on the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste is set to come into effect on 31 December 2025. A Zero Waste Scotland report has warned that Scotland will see a capacity deficit of about 600,000 tonnes in the first year. As many as 100 truck loads of Scotland's waste will now be moved, each day, to England. The landfills and energy-from-waste sites closest to the border have largely indicated they cannot take on any additional capacity. As such, sites are being considered further afield, such as Merseyside. In fact, some Scottish councils and commercial waste companies have been approaching rubbish-handling operators in England to negotiate bridging contracts. As I'm sure you will agree, Cabinet Secretary, no Scottish waste should be allowed to come into Wales. Will you please clarify that position?

I will clarify it. We're all really aware now of the forthcoming ban on the landfilling of biodegradable municipal waste in Scotland, and the ban will include mixed waste and separately collected waste from households, so we continue to monitor the situation as the ban comes into force.

Now, here in Wales, of course, we've been very successful in implementing our policy to phase out the landfilling of waste all together, as part of our commitment to zero waste by 2050. So, since the start of devolution, we've seen landfill fall dramatically in Wales, from 95 per cent in 1998 to now less than 1 per cent of local authority-collected rubbish.

Now, I understand that the limited capacity to deal with the waste in Scotland is temporary, with energy-from-waste schemes due to come in, online, in the next year, and over the next three years, in parallel with multiple actions being taken to increase recycling, from which they have been drawing on, actually, the experience and the expertise here in Wales. The sources of wastes accepted, within the limits of the permit, as I said, are commercial decisions for the site operator. But just to be clear, wastes are accepted from elsewhere in the UK in Wales, but waste is also equally sent to other parts of the UK from Wales. So, there is a cross-border movement of waste.

Please excuse my voice.

Not at all. NRW, Mark, provides guidance and support for the management of sites of special scientific interest. Welsh Government provides support through DataMapWales and initiatives such as the Nature Networks and the national peatland action programmes. We will support landowners to take positive action to improve the condition of SSSIs through the sustainable farming scheme.

Last month I questioned you here on the sustainable farming scheme and how it will help meet Wales's 2030 biodiversity goals, particularly in protecting species like the curlew. I highlighted that, while SSSIs are included in the SFS, there's currently no requirement for their active management. Without urgent habitat action, the curlew could be extinct in Wales by 2033, and I sought assurances that the sustainable farming scheme would support farmers in delivering the large-scale conservation efforts needed. You responded that the SFS requires the production of SSSI management plans under its universal actions. However, I'm advised that there is still no obligation to implement these plans and, as a result, no action will be taken unless participants voluntarily choose to do so. If they do, they must select from the optional and collaborative layers of the scheme, many of which are still being finalised, meaning the timeline for targeted SSSI action remains unclear and unlikely to be met by 2030. Why, therefore, is implementation of these plans not required?

Thank you, Mark. Just to remind you, we haven't produced the sustainable farming scheme in its entirety yet. We produced the outline back in November. We know some of the parts; we do not know the entirety of the scheme. We will know very shortly. But the work on SSSIs has been a core part of developing what we call the 'universal layer'. And 'universal' does mean exactly that—it's the layer we anticipate will be accessible to all farmers, and that all farmers will then need to comply with what's in the universal layer. So, within that, the universal actions have been designed to maintain and enhance the valuable habitats, the hedgerows and the woodlands that already exist. By the way, much of this land has never been brought into management agreements before in previous schemes. There will be a need to improve the condition of SSSIs, our most valuable habitat areas, so there is a universal action specifically targeted at bringing SSSIs under a management plan and supporting farmers to take positive action to improve the condition of them.

We also have retained the scheme requirement for 10 per cent of farms in the scheme to be habitat land. This recognises the positive relationship nature and the environment have to our profitable and sustainable food production. But you rightly flag up as well that there are also the opportunities there of the optional and collaborative actions. Whilst much of our focus at the front end of developing this scheme has been on the universal layer, the optional and the collaborative actions can take us—and working with farmers—even further. And that collaborative layer is the one where we can see landscape-scale interventions of the type that we've seen recently where we've piloted—I've forgotten; I'm going to get the abbreviation wrong now—the INRS scheme, which is landscape scale, but also the Ffermio Bro scheme, which we launched up in the Bannau Brycheiniog recently, which brings together—with the support of our designated bodies working with farmers—many farmers, working together on a range of issues on habitat, land management, water quality and so on. And under SFS there will be opportunities, Mark—and thanks for championing the curlew consistently—to undertake targeted, landscape-scale action to enhance habitats under those optional and collaborative layers, to benefit a whole range of species, including the curlew.

And finally, question 9, Rhys ab Owen.

Thank you, Rhys. We are addressing the pollution impacts of microplastics and nanoplastics through legislation, research and public awareness. Also, through international treaty negotiations, stakeholders continue to inform additional actions. We support innovation, expert collaboration and advanced monitoring to further reduce plastic pollution and to protect public health and the environment in Wales.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Brif Weinidog. I appreciate this is a complex matter and I don't expect you to solve it all in one Plenary session, but, in response to previous questions on microplastics, the Welsh Government have repeatedly pointed to UK Water Industry Research finding that 99.9 per cent of microplastics are removed from drinking water and waste water. However, whilst I've been talking to experts in this field, they've pointed to several problems they find with this report, one of which is that the figure doesn't include sludge. When the same report sampled sludge, they found that they had to replot a separate graph, because the amount of microplastics was so high. Sewage sludge is commonly used as fertiliser, as you know, on agricultural land. So, in effect, the report that the Welsh Government cites as proof that we don't have to worry describes a system in which we are removing it from drinking water but then putting it on agricultural land, spreading it on our farmland. Now, what plan exactly does the Welsh Government have to tackle this issue? Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I know I undertook to write to you, and we've got a detailed letter that I think will satisfy you to the nth degree on what we're doing on microplastics and nanoplastics, but I can give you a little sneak preview, if you'd like. So, we are working—my officials are working—with the UK and other devolved Governments through OSPAR to develop a microplastics indicator for sea floor sediment, which will help then to track progress in reducing those plastics in the environment on a regional scale. We've got colleagues in the UK Government who are working with the Environment Agency and water industry to establish methods to detect and characterise and quantify microplastics entering waste water treatment works—and of course, if you can do that, it's part of that journey—and also to evaluate the efficiency of treatment processes in removing them from domestic waste waters. Welsh Government officials are working with those DEFRA colleagues to understand the outcomes from it. But I'll have more detail in the letter coming forward. It's a really good area for us to do more investigation and more research, because it is part of the solution to tackling this really endemic, now, plastics pollution.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Item 3 is next, the topical questions. I have selected two topical questions this afternoon. The first is to be answered by the Counsel General and is to be asked by Tom Giffard.

As always, the latest amendments will be assessed in accordance with Standing Order 29 and included in a supplementary legislative consent memorandum where required.

Counsel General, this is an important and emotive debate for many, and I feel great sympathy—I'm sure we all do—for those whose illnesses are so grave that they feel that they have no other option other than to end their lives. But, for today, I'm interested in the technical and legal position of the Welsh Government on this Bill and the assurances that it has received from the UK Government.

Now, whilst this is a Westminster Bill, it's clear that this has a significant interface with the devolved competencies of this Senedd. And whilst it's not unusual for legislation to cross over between those competencies, this Bill did have an earlier safeguard, which has since been removed by MPs, to give the Senedd a say in this Bill. I think that it's deeply regrettable that this Senedd's—and Wales's—voice has been quietened down on this issue, given the clear responsibility that this Senedd will hold in this area, particularly as, when we voted on it, the Senedd did not support the proposal. It seems—and I'm grateful that you've confirmed—that this Senedd's voice will now only be heard in the form of a legislative consent motion.

You will, of course, know that LCMs can be and have been essentially ignored by UK Governments in the past where the UK Government disagrees with a decision taken by this Senedd. So, can you outline what discussions you have had with the UK Government to stand up for the voice of this Senedd, to ensure that we do have a say? And do you have an assurance from the UK Government that, if this LCM in this Senedd produces a different outcome to the vote in Parliament, our decision will be respected by the UK Government?

Well, thank you, Tom. I'll explain what clause 54 of the Bill did. Clause 54 of the Bill deals with commencement, and it previously provided that the Secretary of State's commencement powers and the four-year backstop for the coming into force of the Act's provisions did not apply in relation to Wales and, instead, the Welsh Ministers would bring into force the provisions of the Act in relation to Wales on such a day or days they appointed, with the regulations being subject to the approval to the Senedd. The amendments agreed to clause 54 at the House of Commons Report Stage debate on 20 June 2025 limited the Welsh Ministers' commencement powers under the Bill to clauses that confer operational regulation-making powers on them, which are clauses 42(1) and (2) and 51(2) and (3). These commencement powers are not subject to any Senedd legislative procedure. The other provisions of the Act will largely come into force in relation to Wales when the Secretary of State, by regulations, appoints or, in accordance with the four-year backstop—. Sorry, I'll say that again. The provisions of the Act will come into force in relation to Wales when the Secretary of State, by regulation, appoints a commencement day or in accordance with the four-year backstop, which brings Wales into alignment with England in respect of the commencement of the Act's main provisions.

The reason that this is important is not that it denies Wales a veto, as the question put it, but it ensures that the Welsh Ministers' commencement powers under the Bill align with the devolution settlement and do not confer powers on the Welsh Ministers to commence provisions that are outside the Senedd's legislative competence, and that is as a result of the restriction under paragraph 4 of Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006, which is the modification of offences in relation to suicide. So, to explain that very simply, the amendment in the Bill was never intended to operate as a veto. It relates to the operation of and changes to the Suicide Act 1961, which is at the heart of this legislation. This is a matter that is entirely reserved under existing devolution legislation and so it doesn't have any new constitutional implications for Wales. But, just to reassure the Member, and, indeed, all Members of the Senedd, the Bill still contains the key provisions that mean that the NHS or any public body in Wales will not be able to provide voluntary assisted dying services until regulations have been laid by Ministers and there has been an affirmative vote in the Senedd to that effect.

And just to the point that the Member made about LCMs being ignored by the Government, that of course would refer to the previous Tory Government that regularly ignored votes in this place. That has not been the case under the new Government.

As I understand it, the Bill does change the Suicide Act 1961 and criminal law is not devolved, so I understand that point, but can the Counsel General assure me that there will be very close working between Ministers in the UK Government and Ministers here to ensure that, if this becomes law, we do come up with a system that is able to operate completely fairly to people in Wales who are seeking assisted dying? And I wondered if she had any idea of a timescale—and I know that the Bill is going to the House of Lords now—when, if an LCM is needed, when would that be likely to happen, and whether she has got any other information of that type.

Diolch, Julie. The Welsh Government has indeed been working very hard with the sponsor of the Bill, Kim Leadbeater, since the earlier parliamentary stages, and this involvement has been to strengthen Welsh interests in the devolution arrangements, both in relation to the role of Welsh Ministers and in relation to the role of the Senedd in amendments, and we are very pleased that all of those have been accepted. We will be laying a supplementary LCM in due course, reflecting these changes, which strengthen the role of the devolved institutions.

The timeline I have, which is not necessarily the one that is held to, as you know better than I do, is that the Lords First Reading is in late June 2025—it's actually happening just now. The Lords Second Reading will be July 2025, before the summer recess. The Committee Stage is then October to November 2025, and the Report Stage and Third Reading will be in late 2025 or early 2026, and then the so-called ping-pong between the Commons and the Lords is in early 2026, and we expect Royal Assent to be asked for in early 2026 as well. And the implementation period then takes up to four years with the backstop.

The legislative consent motion will be laid as soon as we can, in terms of anything that happens that changes that. We already laid one on 9 April in respect of clauses 37, 39, 45, 47, 50 and 54 in relation to the Bill, and we are keeping a close eye on what we will need to do in terms of any other amendments, and we will lay those as soon as we can. This is a unique Bill, as the Member knows, because the UK Government has confirmed it will remain neutral on the Bill, and we expect that to be the case here in Wales.

Thank you for the question from Tom, and, likewise, I don't want to go into the fundamental ethics of the Bill. There will be further opportunities to discuss those issues. But I am concerned, in the context of what's before us, that there are failings in the process. For example, when it comes to the Welsh language as part of the provision, there will be a requirement for the patient to set out specifically the need to have use of the Welsh language, without it being a natural choice that is offered. As things currently stand, there will be a requirement to establish a panel to decide on an individual request, but it won't necessarily be the case that all members of that panel are able to speak to operate through the medium of Welsh. So, there are very Welsh aspects here that need to be part of the Bill but aren't at present. So, I want to know what role you, as a Government, will play in order to ensure respect for people who wish to operate through the medium of Welsh, and respect for the language itself.

But, further to that, I do have some constitutional concerns about this too, and we don't have time to go into the minutiae today, but the Bill, if implemented, as I understand it, will give the power to the Secretary of State for health in Westminster on issues that are devolved to Wales. For example, palliative and end-of-life care are devolved issues that are in the competence of the Welsh Parliament and Government, but this Bill will introduce new frameworks, and those frameworks will sit as part of England-and-Wales legislation, or Wales and England, without the need for the consent of the Senedd or the Welsh Government to implement them—that is my understanding. So, do you believe that this is acceptable, and what steps will you take in order to ensure that it's the Parliament here that has the final say on issues that relate to the health of the people of Wales? Thank you.

Well, diolch, Mabon. Just to say that, obviously, I am not the responsible portfolio Minister for this Bill, and questions around the content of the Bill should be addressed to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. But I can tell you, and I hope this is helpful, that the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and his officials have been at great pains to ensure that devolved interests are fully reflected in the drafting of the Bill. He and I have had a number of discussions on the Bill around ensuring that the Senedd's interests and the interests of the people of Wales are fully reflected.

The contact with the UK Government has included regular technical engagement, including weekly meetings, which have played an active role in shaping clauses that have regard to devolved matters. The Cabinet Secretary and his officials have been in constant contact with the Member who's in charge of the Bill, and those matters have included Welsh language considerations. I'm afraid I'm not the person to ask for detail on exactly what those provisions are at the moment, but, if the Member would like, I'm absolutely happy to ask the Cabinet Secretary to engage with him on those matters.

I thank the Counsel General.

The second question is to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, and is to be asked by Gareth Davies.

Yes, of course. I am immensely grateful for the incredibly swift and co-ordinated response from the many agencies involved, which meant that there were no losses of life and no serious injuries from a situation that had high potential for it. All the emergency equipment installed worked precisely as it was designed to, and the tunnel was fully reopened on Sunday morning.

Thank you for that response, Cabinet Secretary. Last Thursday, the people of north Wales publicly witnessed one of the worst major road incidents in the A55's and Conwy tunnel's history, with a major fire within the tunnel as a result of a crane transporter catching fire on the westbound side shortly after entering it. Although I recognise that the tunnel has reopened, which is a positive testament to the fantastic work and diligence of the fire service, road authorities, police and all services involved, I was concerned that such a major incident in north Wales risked not being discussed on the floor of this Senedd, and, indeed, any public questions being posed to the Cabinet Secretary on this subject, hence the reason why I tabled the topical question.

Whereas matters have been resolved in terms of reopening the tunnel, something that was highlighted and remembered as a result of the fire was the fragility of the road networks of north Wales, and a reminder of why such roads as the A55 and Conwy tunnel were built in the first place, and that if there was any prolongment to the closure of the tunnel in the future, it would mean a return to the darker days of yesteryear, in traffic having to pass through the walled town of Conwy and past Bodlondeb, or, if they're feeling adventurous, navigate the complexities of the Sychnant pass and return to the A55 at Dwygyfylchi.

The important thing to note also is that the Conwy tunnel, Pen-y-clip and Penmaenbach tunnels, which were constructed in the 1980s and 1990s, are still now some of the finest pieces of civil engineering that we've seen in modern times, and the Conwy tunnel, despite being opened in 1991, remains one of the only water-immersed tunnels in the whole of Britain. So, it's a pretty unique stretch of road, as you'll be aware, Cabinet Secretary, which needs highlighting and people being reminded of.

So, in the wake of this major incident, what action is the Welsh Government undertaking to ensure the long-term safety of the Conwy tunnel, and others along that stretch of road, in the future, to assure the public that such infrastructure is robust to possible future accidents and incidents? Do you recognise the fragility of the road network? If you do, Cabinet Secretary, will you commit your department to investing in the A55 as is needed, rather than the Welsh Government seemingly continuing to hang off the coattails of achievements made pre-devolution?

Well, can I first of all, and before answering the various questions that were raised by the Member, extend an offer that I've already made to Janet Finch-Saunders, to Gareth Davies, and, indeed, to any Member with an interest in the tunnels? I'd be delighted to arrange a tour and an inspection of the tunnels, and also arrange an opportunity to speak directly with the very people who carried out amazing work over the weekend. We're arranging tours and opportunities to speak with those valuable employees next Monday or Thursday. As I say, this is an invitation that is open to all Members.

I'd like to reiterate just how grateful we all are, I believe, to the emergency response teams, our key partners, and of course our agent—the North and Mid Wales Trunk Road Agent—for their swift and co-ordinated response. And as I've already said, every component of the emergency equipment that was installed worked precisely as it was designed to.

Gareth has given us a very interesting—and I do value it—history lesson on the tunnels along the A55. It is also interesting to note that the systems that are installed in our tunnels are amongst the most advanced available. And it was the tragic circumstances, around about 20 years ago, between Italy and France in the Mont Blanc tunnel that led to EU directives being introduced that meant that tunnel safety has been vastly improved right across Europe, including in north Wales.

In direct answer to the question about road resilience, I'm pleased to say that a road resilience study has been commissioned and is being worked on at this very moment in time. It regards not just the A55 and the A55 tunnels, but the entire strategic road network, because I do acknowledge how fragile the network can be.

In terms of road maintenance, the Member will be aware that we've endured 14 years of austerity and the UK Tories crashing the economy around like it's a dodgem car. However, the Welsh Government, with support from the UK Government, is now investing very heavily indeed in the road network—not just the strategic road network, but also our local roads.

Now, in terms of disruption, of course, we would always wish to avoid disruption when events like this take place, but plans and preparations, which indeed were rehearsed just two months ago, are proven to ensure that we can minimise disruption and minimise any injuries and loss of life.

People with knowledge of local roads will always seek to find alternatives to the formal diversion route, and that can put pressure on the local road network in communities. But with an event such as this—and it was a major event, but fortunately there was no loss of life and no injuries to human beings—it goes without saying that there will be disruption. I am really grateful to everybody involved for their incredible work right around the clock—right around the clock for those three days whilst the tunnel was closed—to minimise that disruption. That final call to reopen the westbound tunnel was made at 4.30 in the morning on Sunday morning. And that demonstrates, I believe, Dirprwy Lywydd, just how important our teams, our emergency services, and co-ordinated action have been.

I would like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for his response, and you, Gareth, for raising this question. Just in terms of history, of course, it was the late Wyn Roberts who, but for him and the UK Conservative Government, we wouldn't have had the A55 or the tunnels. And my late parents were both with him—he's been Sir Wyn and Baron Wyn Roberts—at the time of the opening of these tunnels. So, that's something that's quite an historic thing.

Anyway, can I just thank the fire and rescue services—they were immense; they didn't know what they were dealing with; a very, very dangerous, unprecedented situation; the crane driver for his quick response—when his crane was on fire and his main priority was getting people out of their cars, out of that tunnel, and to safety; and your own highway department, which I spoke with on Friday; and the local authority?

The reason that I'm speaking now is because of the chaos that ensued, and we see this chaos too often, Cabinet Secretary, in Betws-y-coed, Aber, Dwygyfylchi, Penmaenmawr and the Sychnant pass. The road transport—. I've written to the leader of the council, and you'll be getting a copy. So, it affected Conwy town, Glan Conwy, Llanrwst, Betws-y-coed, Capel Curig and Bethesda. Now, while it's true that in such unprecedented circumstances this kind of disruption is inevitable, in reality—and you know I've put in freedom of information requests on this—too often now, we are getting this kind of disruption, where the A55 is closed due to accidents, or for one reason or another. Traffic jams have been compounded by the fact that there were no officers from any authority present to help manage the volume of vehicles. And so, when you come to do the debrief on this, I would like a small part in it, to just feed back really good intelligence to you.

I believe that £9 million was spent on a survey and scoping study for the removal of those two roundabouts on junctions 17 and 18, because of the number of accidents. In fact, a caravan went over one of the roundabouts quite recently, and, again, it just caused tremendous gridlock. The previous holder of your portfolio spent the £9 million on the survey, but never delivered the goods. Those roundabouts are still there, despite the fact that the survey said that they needed removal.

Can we work together on this, Cabinet Secretary? A strategic contingency plan must now be put in place for when whatever situation happens, whatever accident takes place, whatever disruption, so that we can actually make sure that those outlying villages are not affected in that horrendous way, with people arguing, people trying themselves, getting out of cars and trying to manage traffic, which is not sustainable, and it’s not safe.

Well, Dirprwy Lywydd, I’m delighted that Janet Finch-Saunders has accepted the invitation to visit the tunnels, and I think it will provide a valuable opportunity to discuss some of the issues that the Member has raised today.

I must stress that there is a long-standing and established diversion route for the tunnels, and that was introduced immediately. That is planned and co-ordinated with local authorities. It is a diversion plan that is shared with the local resilience forum, which includes the local authority. But as I have said to Gareth Davies, people with a deep knowledge of the local road network will often seek to avoid a diversion route—a formal diversion route—and that can put pressure on local communities. My advice would always be to adhere to the formal diversion route.

But as I’ve said to Gareth Davies, I recognise just how fragile the road network can be at times, and that is why that resilience work has begun, examining all of our trunk roads. And, of course, we will work in partnership with communities, with all Members, as we look to improve the road network across north Wales, including those roundabouts. And I gave an update recently to journalists regarding the work that we’re taking forward in regard to those roundabouts.

As somebody who grew up in north Wales, I remember these tunnels being built. But I’d like to also thank the emergency services for their swift response, and all members of the public for their patience and co-operation.

Given the strategic importance of the Conwy tunnel, particularly as a key UK-EU transport route serving the port of Holyhead, can the Cabinet Secretary provide any further clarification on the expected timescales for any further repairs that are needed—I know the tunnel is now open—and whether or not anything else needs to happen?

You acknowledged the concerns of local people about the vulnerability of this major route for the Welsh economy. You suggested in your answer some of the resilience work that you’re going to be doing, and, potentially, improvements. Could you give us a bit more information about the timescales of that work, to understand when we’ll be hearing about that? And whilst this latest incident seems to have been an accident, does it underline a need to consider improvements to the road, in order to ensure that it is more robust and less susceptible to disruption in the future?

Can I thank Peredur for his questions? I think it’s very difficult to improve a road so that it can cope with unforeseen events such as a crane catching fire. What you can do, and what we have done—and, I think, the success of this has been demonstrated in the past week—is that you can plan for events. You can’t actually introduce new roads with the specific intent of diverting people when a crane bursts into flames, but you can actually put into place resilience measures, and you can plan those resilience measures, and we’ve done just that.

I’ll be issuing a written statement before recess regarding roads, and, within that statement, I’ll provide some detail on the resilience work that’s going to be taking place regarding the strategic road network. The Member raises very important questions about ongoing repair work, and also ongoing planned scheduled maintenance work. I’d like to remind Members that this event has pointed to why it’s so essential to regularly maintain and carry out inspections on the road network, particularly on our tunnels.

There will be night-time closures. They started yesterday. There'll be one tomorrow. There'll be night-time closures on 30 June through to 3 July. We'll have a full understanding at that point of the work that has been undertaken and any further work that is required. As I say, there are already scheduled night-time closures for regular maintenance, which is so important, between 14 and 17 July. We strive, at all times, to minimise disruption to the motoring public, and I think that's been demonstrated by how quickly we got the westbound tunnel open again.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement. It's been raised by other colleagues in terms of the resilience of the A55 trunk road, and it is something, of course, that I've raised many times in the past, too. You say that you can't plan for all eventualities—I get that, I completely understand it. But what you can do is improve the road to the extent that there are hard shoulders available along large parts of its length. You and I both know that that is not currently the case.

You can plan for contraflows to be enabled, to save diversions through some of our town centres and villages, which then become choked up with traffic. Those are not in place. You say that you've initiated a resilience study, but that's across the whole of the network. What people want to see is investment in the A55 trunk road. It is the key artery for our economy, for people getting to and from the locations that they need to get to for work, for education, for hospitals, et cetera.

Why can't you do a focused piece of work on resilience just on this one particular road, taking into account the need for contraflows, making sure that we've got a phased approach to improvements in terms of the delivery of hard shoulders, so that we can make sure that the A55 is fit for purpose and that it isn't frequently beset, as it currently is in terms of the situation now, with regular traffic jams, when we don't need them, which give a negative impression of Wales when people drive upon them?

Can I thank Darren Millar for his questions? I should remind Darren Millar that some of his own Members have pressed for the sort of work that we have commenced on other trunk roads across Wales. There are resilience issues that affect many of our trunk roads. We will be carrying out specific work in regard to the A55, but I believe that there is a broader piece of work required to look at all of our major routes.

This is not something that's the exception in Britain, nor in Europe. I've already spoken about the Mont Blanc tunnel and the tragic loss of life that took place there around 20 years ago. Members may be interested to know that the Mont Blanc tunnel itself will be closed not for one day, nor one week, nor one month—it will be closed between September and December of this year for essential maintenance. That demonstrates how important it is to show patience when it comes to maintaining our road network and, crucially, our tunnels.

As I've already said, we will always seek to reduce the impact that routine maintenance and inspections have on the motoring public, but it is vital that we carry out that work. As I've said, investment is continuing. We have endured 14 years of austerity and a lack of investment from Conservative UK Governments, but now the UK Labour Government has turned on the taps and we are investing in the road network right across Wales, including in north Wales.

Today, I was in Conwy with local councillors, including the council leader, and I witnessed work that was taking place resurfacing 14 km of a local road as a result of the Welsh Government's investment in roads in north Wales. We can't look at trunk roads in isolation. We must recognise the vital importance that local roads play in moving people and goods across our country. The Welsh Government is doing that. We are investing very heavily and including additional sums to maintain our roads this year for the strategic road network, as well as an extra £120 million of investment over the next two years for our local roads.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

No 90-second statements were selected today.

Item 5 has been withdrawn.

Item 6 is a motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow the next item of business to be debated. I call on a member of the Business Committee to formally move.

Cynnig yn ffurfiol.

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

Item 7, Member debate under Standing Order 11.21, allied health professionals. I call on Mabon ap Gwynfor to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. At first glance, the motion before us relates to a specific group of people within the NHS workforce, who are given far too little attention and who are constantly undervalued, our allied health professionals. But in truth, the motion is about much more than the workforce alone; it's a call for change in the way that we deal with health and care in Wales.

AHPs account for about a quarter of the NHS workforce here, and they represent 13 professions, from occupational therapists to dieticians, to radiologists to speech and language therapists and more. They are an integral part of our health services, not only in terms of treatment, but particularly in terms of the work of sickness prevention and promoting well-being. They support individuals from the cradle to the grave, working in the community to uncover health risks, educate the public and provide preventative interventions that can reduce chronic illness and prevent hospital admissions. It's vital that we understand that AHPs are the cornerstone of our preventative agenda. By helping people to live healthier and more independent lives, they strengthen our communities and reduce the burden on secondary care. They assist people to improve their ability to act and empower them to take control of their own health.

Despite this, the AHP workforce in Wales is under significant threat. The workforce shortage, the greying age profile and the increase in demand are real risks. We're already seeing geographical inequalities in terms of access to services, particularly in respect of community rehabilitation, a vital element of recovery and managing conditions over the long term. Without a strong workforce, it will not be possible to provide these services fairly or effectively. A lack of workforce planning over the long term for AHPs threatens the future of our health services. Other Government policies already emphasise the need for community-centred services, but we cannot achieve this aim without purposeful investment in AHPs.

Too often, discussions around health focus on hospitals, GPs, beds and targets. And while these are crucial, we risk missing the broader picture that health starts in our homes, our workplaces, our schools and our communities. It's time to fundamentally rebalance our system, shifting from a reactive model to a proactive one. At the heart of that shift are our allied health professionals.

Prevention must become the golden thread running through all health and social care policy in Wales, and AHPs are not just well placed to deliver on this, they are already doing it. AHPs are experts in early intervention, they reduce avoidable hospital admissions, they support older people to live independently at home, they empower people with long-term conditions to self-manage, and they deliver rehabilitative care that speeds up discharge and improves quality of life. They support mental health recovery, reduce the risks of falls, enhance nutrition and communication, and ensure that people are physically active and socially engaged.

In Wales, we face significant public health challenges. Over 60 per cent of adults are overweight or obese, one in five people live with a mental health condition, our ageing population is growing, and with it the demand for long-term support. We know that 80 per cent of the burden of our health service is due to preventable chronic conditions. This can't be tackled by doctors and nurses alone. We need a full team effort, and AHPs are vital team members in this national mission.

Across Wales we already see evidence of the transformative role AHPs can play when empowered to lead. For example, in Powys, physiotherapists embedded in GP practices have reduced unnecessary referrals to secondary care and helped patients manage musculoskeletal pain without the need for medication. In Swansea Bay, expanded AHP teams support over 240 older adults through early intervention, complex co-morbidity management and palliative care. This is prevention in action, keeping people well at home, preventing escalation and preserving dignity. In Cardiff and Vale, dieticians are delivering programmes tackling malnutrition in older adults, reducing hospital admissions and improving health outcomes.

These aren't isolated examples, they're glimpses of what is possible when AHPs are properly integrated into the health strategy. But far too often, their contributions are siloed, underused or misunderstood. And the postcode lotteries persist. Too often, your ability to access life-changing support depends on where you live, not what you need. That's why this motion calls on the Welsh Government to commit to universal access to AHP services as part of treatment pathways.

It's not just what AHPs can do, it is also who is being left behind. Every year, Wales invests in training the next generation of AHPs, yet shockingly, many of them are unable to secure employment after qualifying. These are highly skilled, motivated individuals trained at public expense, but often left underemployed or forced to leave Wales for work. In the Hywel Dda university board region, the problem is particularly acute. Newly qualified AHPs report lengthy waits for suitable posts to open up, and some are having to leave Wales altogether. This is a scandalous waste of talent.

Having worked with several of the 13 professional bodies representing allied health professionals in Wales over many years, I was pleased to attend the launch of Allied Health Professions Federation Cymru here on 26 March. For too long, the allied health professions in Wales have provided a missed opportunity to reduce pressure in our hospitals and acute health services to improve lives and make better use of resources. The allied health professions, which make up 25 per cent of the NHS Wales workforce, have a key role to play in improving the health and well-being of the population in Wales. The timely mission of the newly formed Allied Health Professions Federation Cymru is to provide collective leadership and representation to influence national policy and guidance at a strategic level.

For what is now decades, the Royal College of Occupational Therapists has been working to help politicians here understand the role of occupational therapy and the role it plays in improving people’s health and quality of life. Throughout Wales, their occupational therapists play a vital role in delivering innovative services, but could do so much more. For many years, the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy has been highlighting the urgent support needed by the many people waiting longer for orthopaedic surgery, including pain courses to support people waiting longer for surgery for hip and knee interventions and rehab space to allow the full range of rehab services to be available across Wales.

A childhood language disorder can affect the child’s ability to learn to speak, name objects and build complete sentences. Language disorders in adults are almost always the result of brain injury or disease. People who’ve had a stroke, for example, often have trouble forming sentences or remembering words. In January I led a Senedd debate on speech and language therapy, working with the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists and calling on the Labour Welsh Government to establish a clear, sustainable funding model for speech and language therapists, to improve workforce planning for the profession, and to work with the UK Government to mandate the presence of a speech and language therapist in all youth justice teams as a statutory requirement.

Although speech and language therapists play a vital role in helping people with additional communication needs, Wales has fewer speech and language therapists per head than anywhere else in the UK. To make matters worse, the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales reports that 71 per cent of sentenced children have speech, language or communication difficulties, showing just how important these services are. It was therefore disappointing that Labour voted against our motion. As I said then, Wales is only training 55 speech and language therapists a year, and although this includes a welcome programme in Wrexham, it is the smallest in the UK. As I also said then, the royal college are calling for sustained increases to speech and language therapy training places, including the introduction of 'earn as you learn' opportunities, sustainable funding for speech and language therapy services to meet growing demand, and better, more sophisticated workforce planning for the profession, as part of the preventative agenda.

Public Health Wales has predicted that by 2035-36, as many as one in 11 adults in Wales will be living with diabetes—260,000 people. A significant proportion of these will need access to podiatric care to prevent complications of the foot and lower limb. In 2021 over 600 people with diabetes had a toe, foot or leg amputation in Wales, and these rates are reported to be increasing. The mortality rate for diabetic foot ulcers is third only to pancreatic and lung cancers at five years. Up to 70 per cent die within five years of having an amputation and around 50 per cent die within five years of developing a foot ulcer. A concerted effort is therefore needed to prevent diabetic foot complications, and fundamental to this will be a sufficient podiatric workforce to meet needs. The Royal College of Podiatry is therefore calling on the Welsh Government to commit to a workforce plan for allied health professions in Wales to expand student places and to commit to degree-level apprenticeships in Wales for allied health professions, as exists in England.

Thank you for introducing this debate—I think it's very important. I simply hadn't realised that allied health professionals are 25 per cent of the workforce, because they certainly don't get 25 per cent of the attention, so this is a very welcome debate. I absolutely agree with you that we need to have more prevention in the health service and have a proactive model, and get people moving, get them eating better food and generally looking after themselves better.

The figures that Mark Isherwood presents around the diabetes epidemic are obviously horrifying. And, obviously, it's extremely disappointing that nearly one year into the UK Labour Government we still haven't got any ultra-processed food being taxed, because that is what's needed to try to shift the culture of constantly eating adulterated food that's killing people, frankly.

I was just looking at the statistics for the numbers of allied health professionals compared with—. The latest figures for 2024 compared with 2019, so pre COVID. There has been an increase of about 1,100 in all disciplines, but I suspect that that's slightly less than the numbers that have been recruited in other parts of the NHS workforce. So, it would appear that not enough attention is being given to this.

I think, in light of the conversation I had yesterday with a senior anaesthetist, and the importance of planning for operations in advance so that we're not wasting bed spaces in hospitals, clearly this is a job for allied health professionals, because the pre-operative screening assessments are all about, ‘How well are you, how overweight are you, do you have diabetes and are you managing it properly?’ and, ‘Are you mobilised, are you walking, do you have the muscles to actually be able to benefit from a new hip or a new knee or whatever, and are you doing the exercises right to aid your recovery for when you have your operation?’ All of these things are generally done by allied health professionals, and only the most difficult cases will be referred to the consultant anaesthetist or the consultant surgeon.

So, if we want to ensure that we're managing people correctly, we really do need to ensure that people are ready for the operation and that they are going to maximise the benefits of it, and therefore we need more of these sorts of people. Going around general practice, I'm astonished that I don't hear more about the dietician or the physiotherapist or the podiatrist—a very, very important role, I would agree, and that, actually, is one profession where the numbers have gone down slightly. So, I'd like to know if—

Would you take an intervention?

Yes, happy to.

I was just curious about your comments around the building of muscle and the role of AHPs before surgery, which is important, obviously. But, then, do you also recognise their interventions after surgery? So, take a hip, for example. Somebody will have a hip replacement and then the work after that is doing the relevant exercises to build that muscle through, firstly, the hospital setting, then the community setting, and then some of those preventative things, like when occupational therapists can come in and put practical solutions in place to stop people getting into hospital. Do you recognise those?

Yes, I absolutely do. I just want to go back to podiatry, though, because I think this is a really important subject. I want to know why there has been a decrease in the numbers—only 20, but there's been no increase. Is it because foot care assistants are not counted in the podiatry figures? Because, obviously, some people become too disabled to be able to cut their own toenails, which is a very, very important issue, particularly in relation to diabetes. You don't need to be a fully qualified podiatrist to do that—you do need to have some training—but I think it's important that we understand this.

In general terms, the most important thing is that we need to be operating prudent healthcare, which means that the person who is conducting the intervention is qualified to do whatever is required, but is no more qualified than that. Otherwise, we are never going to deliver on the effectiveness and efficiency of the NHS if we don't have the appropriate person who's got the appropriate skill to carry out that, and so that we reserve the most highly qualified people to do the most complex things. Thank you.

May I thank Mabon ap Gwynfor for bringing this important debate forward? It does align very well with my debate last week in terms of the importance of culture, and so many of the points raised then are pertinent here. As chair of the cross-party group on health and the arts, I wanted to focus specifically on art, drama and music therapists, who are so important, because that's not an add-on to treatment, it is treatment in and of itself. It is medical treatment. Very often, some of these posts are seen within health boards as nice-to-haves, rather than being crucially important, but they are absolutely important. There are numerous examples across Wales of projects within our health boards that transform people's lives, that save people's lives, and these are by people working in these areas. If we—[Interruption.] I'm happy to take an intervention.

I'd just like to point out that, according to the statistics, last year there were only 23 of these art, music and drama therapists employed, which is only two more than in 2019. So, there's obviously not very many of them operating in the Welsh NHS.

Thank you very much for raising that point, because one of the things we have also seen is some health boards not continuing with these roles, for example in Cardiff and Vale, in terms of the health board. But there are other health boards, such as Hywel Dda University Health Board, who have an arts and health charter, which is a public pledge to integrate the arts into the work of the health board, and I think that's to be warmly welcomed. And the projects that they have—well, it would be valuable for all of us as Senedd Members to be aware of those projects. And certainly, when we discuss them in the cross-party group, you see that impact. There is so much valuable evidence available to support this, and certainly, I would like to see this normalised within every health board and everyone having the opportunity, because, at the moment, the numbers accessing these services are very low, despite how important and transformational they are for people of all ages. So, certainly, I do think that the arguments are there, the evidence is there. How do we then move the health boards to be acting in this way and moving towards a preventative agenda?

Certainly, in the work of the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee, we have seen report after report that demonstrate a commitment from the Welsh Government emphasising the importance of the preventative agenda. But I think our last report showed that we've seen the same thing said over five years, but no progress being made in this area.

Also, of course, there are recruitment problems, and I think this will only get worse. If we look at our education system at the moment, the numbers taking drama and music, for example, at GCSE levels and A-levels are reducing. Some schools can't even offer the courses anymore, so this is going to create future problems too. We do have to look at the education system holistically and consider what skills we need if we are going to recruit art, drama and music therapists. Are we promoting these roles within our schools and in our colleges, because, also, these are the exact courses that have been under threat, if we consider, for example, what we saw at Cardiff University with the music department, for example? This all has to tie together, and that's why it is cross-portfolio. There's a need for the whole Government to look at this issue. And I well recall, and I've said this on a number of occasions by now, the former Minister for culture shouting at me in the Chamber—or our former Chamber—last year, 'What about the health service?', when I was talking about the importance of culture. Well, this is why it is important.

I'm also very pleased about the points that have been raised in terms of speech and language therapists. This is extremely important in terms of children and young people, but people of all ages, too, because sometimes people think that it's only about speech, but it's about eating and—something that is so fundamentally important—swallowing too. This is so important.

I'd like to thank Mabon ap Gwynfor for bringing this motion forward today. I was very happy to support it as well, because we do need to recognise the invaluable contribution that our allied health professionals give to our nation's health and well-being. But this motion today is very clear about expressing our concerns as well, and those concerns are about our workforce shortages—we all know about the pressures there—about the ageing staff profiles across our AHPs—that's something we really need to be concerned about—the increasing demand that we're actually putting on AHPs, and actually better routes, career progression routes, and better routes for people to get into being an allied health professional.

Other people have said that allied health professionals contribute a huge amount to the NHS—25 per cent of the workforce—and, as others said, I don't think we talk about that enough in this Chamber. We spend an awful lot of our time talking about doctors and nurses, but not the people who support the wider NHS, and I think that's something we need to talk more about. I know Jenny Rathbone raised that.

There's a number of different professions. I'm not going to go into those, because others have. But I think one thing we don't recognise is just how important they are in diagnosing, preventing, rehabilitation and maintaining the independence of people to live in their own homes, and that reduces hospital admissions, it shortens stays and it eases pressures on our GPs and our emergency services. That's something I think that really needs to be celebrated about our AHPs. They do a great job.

They also help people stay active in their communities for longer. Jenny Rathbone talked about the obesity crisis, and that's something that we need to push an awful lot more on, actually helping people to stay fitter for longer. Because we see far too often people deteriorate very quickly when they don't have the support to stay active, get out in their communities, get out in open spaces, and that's the job of physiotherapists and others, of keeping people active, which keeps them fitter and in their own homes.

It is under strain—the workforce is hugely under strain—and that's why we need that national workforce strategy that goes around our allied health professionals, to make sure we can have that holistic approach across the country. It's no good looking at it individually in individual health boards. It needs to be a national strategy so we can actually plan properly and put people where they're needed, not the piecemeal effect that sometimes happens across the piece. I know Jenny Rathbone mentioned podiatry, and that's something that's really important for our ageing population; there are people who lose the ability to bend down to cut their own toenails, and actually people who aren't seen in podiatry can get in a lot of pain, actually, as well, especially people, as you said, who are suffering with diabetes.

I do very much welcome this debate today and the focus on prevention and supporting the provision of healthcare in our communities, and the role of allied health professionals and their willingness, really, to come forward with proposals and to engage with politicians here in the Senedd and Welsh Government. All of that, I think, is hugely welcome.

We know that one in five people live with a lung condition in Wales, and this includes conditions such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, bronchiectasis, pulmonary fibrosis and severe asthma. Pulmonary rehabilitation is very useful as a structured evidence-based programme designed for individuals living with those lung conditions and people experiencing breathlessness as a result of long-term conditions.

The programme, which I've seen in action, and I'm sure many other Members of the Senedd have, offers tailored exercise sessions specifically adapted for people with those lung conditions. It goes alongside education on people managing their own conditions, which I think is very much the right approach, putting people in charge of their own health, and, of course, people know their own bodies best. It also involves breathing techniques and strategies to support overall well-being. It's typically delivered over a six-to-eight week period and can be a lifeline, with improvements to breathing leading to significant beneficial impacts on quality of life. People on these programmes experience improved muscle strength, enabling more efficient oxygen use and reduced breathlessness, and this very much promotes confidence in performing daily activities, which goes with improved mental health and that overall well-being.

We know as well that lung conditions are costing the NHS in Wales some £295 million in direct costs each year, representing 1.3 per cent of total NHS expenditure. They cause reductions in productivity due to illness and premature death totalling £477 million a year, and therefore have an overall impact of some £772 million on the Welsh economy. So, really, with that sort of context, pulmonary rehabilitation is one of the most cost-effective treatments for COPD, and, in fact, only smoking cessation and flu vaccines are more cost effective. If we really get to grips with what pulmonary rehabilitation has to offer us in Wales, it could potentially save the Welsh NHS £7.7 million and prevent 10,500 bed days, according to figures provided by Asthma + Lung UK Cymru.

We do know, though, that many eligible patients face significant barriers to participation, including limited service provision in certain health board areas, long waiting times, and challenges related to transport, digital access and lack of local facilities. So, there are a lot of issues that need to be addressed if we are to fully realise the benefits that pulmonary rehabilitation has to offer.

I'm pleased to speak in this debate today in support of this motion brought forward by Mabon ap Gwynfor, and I thank the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd for tabling it.

Let me begin by recognising and thanking the vital contribution of allied health professionals, who represent the third largest clinical workforce in NHS Wales and are central to the function of our health service. Allied health professionals are a diverse group that includes physiotherapists, radiographers, occupational therapists, dieticians, podiatrists, speech and language therapists and many more. Working in hospitals, care homes, schools, communities and courts, they are integral to a modern, effective, and, perhaps most importantly, a preventative healthcare system.

Having worked in the NHS myself for 11 years, I know first-hand the work that AHPs undertake to maintain the health of our nation, as people are complex. The health problems people present with are getting more complex, which means the role of AHPs is getting more important and more in demand. They help people recover from strokes, regain independence after injuries, manage long-term conditions, overcome communication disorders, and live healthier, more active lives, reducing pressure on GPs and avoiding unnecessary hospital admissions. If the Welsh NHS is to be sustainable, AHPs must be properly valued, resourced and supported.

The areas the Welsh Government needs to focus on, which are acknowledged in the motion, are workforce shortages, an ageing workforce, and the growing gap between demand and supply, particularly in areas such as speech and language therapy, where the need is both acute and increasing. We currently have fewer speech and language therapists per head of the population in Wales than any other part of the UK, with vacancies at roughly 11 per cent in paediatric services, and 15 per cent in adult services, and this problem is more pronounced in north Wales, where recruitment is hampered by the two-year NHS bursary tie-in. The stagnation in training numbers also needs to be addressed. Despite the addition of a second undergraduate course in speech and language therapy at Wrexham University, training places in Wales have not increased since 2020. Worryingly, even with higher demand for places, both courses are operating below teaching capacity. In England, however, the number qualifying has doubled over the last decade, and that's why it's absolutely essential for the Welsh Government to follow the recommendations of the Allied Health Professions Federation Cymru, which represents 13 separate bodies, in creating national workforce strategies for AHPs.

The current model is not sustainable. The needs are growing, whether it's in early years, where communication difficulties affect school readiness, or in older adults, where speech and swallowing issues impact those living with stroke or Parkinson's. Delayed or unavailable therapy has long-term consequences and places further strain on the NHS. Children presenting with speech and language impairments are growing in frequency, with the complexity of problems also rising. The COVID pandemic massively exacerbated these problems, but the investment in speech and language therapists was not increased to remedy the massive disruption to the lives of young people caused by the pandemic.

Will you take an intervention, Gareth?

Yes. Certainly, James.

Do you recognise that speech and language therapists as well—I know there are other people in this Chamber that represent rural constituencies—that actually, some rural constituencies are at a disadvantage when it comes to speech and language therapists, especially places like Powys? We've only got one or two people covering a huge geographical area, so some people in the system—and young children—aren't getting the care that they need.

Yes, absolutely. Because, you know—. I've seen that first-hand, when I was working in community hospitals, the lack of speech and language therapists. Because there's a shortage, they tend to get put into the major hospitals—you know, and maybe rightly so in those cases—but then, because of that shortage, it's not felt and recognised within those rural communities.

There's also a large impact on the youth justice system, with 71 per cent of children sentenced for a crime having speech and language and communication needs. And when I found that statistic, I found it to be quite harrowing. And I'll just say that again: 71 per cent of children sentenced for a crime have speech and language and communication needs. But with the vast majority of these cases only being addressed post conviction, these are missed opportunities to intervene earlier and change lives for the better.

So, Llywydd dros dro, allied health professionals are not an addition to our health service, they are essential to safe, effective and person-centred care. So, I urge the Welsh Government to act and follow the advice of experts and develop a national workforce strategy for AHPs to increase training numbers to ensure that everyone, young and old, in every part of Wales, has access to the specialist care that they need, with the evidence demonstrating the return on this investment will be manifold. Thank you very much.

I call now on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you very much, acting Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you to Members for bringing this debate to the Senedd today and highlighting the important work that allied health professionals do in health services, and often without being given due attention, as Jenny Rathbone mentioned in her contribution.

I welcome the opportunity to provide an update to the Chamber as to how the Government is supporting this crucial part of the NHS workforce, which plays such a key role in helping people to live healthier, more independent lives. It's crucial, of course, that people have timely, direct access to these professionals, and community rehabilitation services, for example, to ensure that they can remain as healthy as possible for as long as possible, and to recover as quickly as possible after a health crisis.

AHPs offer a preventative, proactive approach that focuses on solutions to meet the health and well-being needs of people, either at home or very close to home, in accordance with the Welsh primary care model. And we all, of course, understand and recognise the huge pressures on NHS services and the workforce. But despite those challenges, there are also opportunities. There's an opportunity to build a stronger, more resilient generation of professional healthcare workers, including our committed AHPs. And it's important in that regard that we remember that the key to this future is our people—our most valuable asset, as we have heard during this debate today.

Their commitment and their skills are the heartbeat of the health service and social care, and we do need to invest to nurture and develop this workforce further. And the work of attracting and retaining the workforce has to be a joint effort.

This requires collaboration between the Government, health and social care employers, education institutions, professional bodies, trade unions and professional regulators, as some colleagues have touched on in the debate so far. We must share best practice and then streamline processes and work together to create that supportive environment that we need for health and care professionals to both learn and work within.

Today, we have more allied health professionals working in the NHS in Wales than ever before: a 12 per cent increase in just the past three years. And this growth reflects our ongoing commitment to strengthening our healthcare workforce and delivering the best possible care to our communities. Health Education and Improvement Wales has, as we've already heard, already developed a dedicated allied health professions workforce development plan to tackle both current and future workforce challenges, and in the debate we heard about the important role that apprenticeships can play in this area—it's certainly an area that I'm very interested in. We are keen to pursue degree-level apprenticeships, an expansion of them, and we're working with HEIW on that already. We have degree apprenticeships in the NHS at a non-clinical level, and we want to try and expand that. Every health board has its own apprenticeship scheme, offering a range of opportunities for people to enter the healthcare workforce.

Cabinet Secretary, will you take an intervention at this point?

I will.

I'm just interested in some time frames. You say you're willing to expand and look into it further. I'm just interested, do you have any time frames in mind as to when you'd like to bring some of these things online? Because we've all got an ambition that we'd like to do something, but actually having a time frame attributed does help, doesn't it?

Yes. And the point I was making is that this is already happening. So, for instance, Hywel Dda health board has a seven-year healthcare apprenticeship, where individuals can start as a foundation apprentice and progress through to a qualified nurse, through part-time study. There are foundation level 2 apprenticeships, and, as I mentioned, degree apprenticeships in the NHS, and we want to see those expanded. The HEIW plan that I referred to a moment ago sets out clear timelines and deliverables over the next two years, which I hope Members will be reassured by. It's by putting that into action that we can ensure that the AHP professional workforce is equipped to meet the evolving needs of our population.

The AHP framework for Wales sets out the action that's needed both nationally and locally to make sure that we can realise the full value and the impact of AHPs, looking to increase the proportion of AHPs delivering community-based and preventative and health-promoting interventions. A number of Members today have correctly pointed out how important that is to the broader agenda that we have, and that we must redouble efforts to realise, making sure that people can be kept well in their communities.

From April 2023, we made an extra £5 million available to health boards every year to create additional AHP posts, to increase access to that kind of community-based care. More than 100 additional full-time equivalent AHPs and support workers have been employed as a direct result of that additional investment. It's helping people to return home from hospital quickly and safely, with access to the right community assessment and rehabilitation, so that they can remain active for as long as possible, living with their families, doing the things they enjoy doing most in their daily lives. That investment is also being used to develop or expand services to prevent admission to hospital. For example, paramedics are able to directly refer people to a community falls or therapy response team rather than taking them to an emergency department. We heard about the importance of that again in the debate today.

The NHS offers a career unlike any other. It's one of those rare employers that I think offers an immensely rewarding job for life, with genuine career progression and supported professional development opportunities. It is a field where staff can make and can see the incredible difference they themselves make to people's lives every day. But we do need to do more if we are to make the NHS the first and the continuing choice for AHPs and other healthcare professionals.

So, we'll continue to work to create and maintain a culture where people feel valued, supported and empowered, maintain those opportunities for career development, modern placement opportunities—we heard about that in the debate as well—and also that leadership development and research, which AHPs, as other parts of the healthcare workforce, can and should be able to take advantage of. That kind of supportive employment network for one another, where we are sharing best practice, developing one another and being the colleagues that we all deserve. Diolch yn fawr.

I call now on Mabon ap Gwynfor to respond to the debate.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd dros dro. I'd like to thank everyone who has contributed to this debate this afternoon, discussing this motion that I've placed before us. A great many people have contributed, which is a reflection of the importance of the motion and, at last, a recognition and an appreciation of the vital role played by this workforce. The contributions have talked about the importance of podiatrists, dieticians and arts therapists, and these people who assist people who have bone conditions, for example, diabetes, speech, stroke and lung conditions, and mental health. That range of work that is undertaken by this workforce, all of it has been touched upon today, so I won't go through all of your contributions, just to say that I think that they are important contributions and I'm grateful for them, and I'm sure that a number of people will be listening in and will appreciate what has been said.

The debate is important, not least because, as we've touched on, AHPs represent a quarter of the NHS workforce. If we are to tackle health inequalities and prepare for changing demographics, then we must put the preventative agenda at the front of our health strategy. And AHPs play an integral role, so we need to ensure that we have a comprehensive AHP workforce plan in force here in Wales. The 'Science Evidence Advice' by the Welsh Government recognises that

'Making the NHS more efficient will require more investment in primary care and wider workforce (e.g. Allied Health Professionals)'.

And I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for referencing the need to invest further in the workforce in his contribution, and I'm sure others will appreciate that as well. So, there is a recognition of this need from the sector, and it's evidence based. And let's be clear, the Government's key policy ambitions, such as reducing waiting lists or keeping people well at home, well, AHPs are key in delivering these.

In a previous debate, I argued how Wales was excellent at developing best practice, but terribly poor at rolling that best practice out. And developments among the AHPs are a perfect example. The Cardiff and Vale's podiatry department's diabetic foot emergency early triage is a Bevan exemplar, and the people of Cardiff and Vale are extremely lucky. But why should that service stop at the Cardiff and Vale boundary? Everybody across Wales deserves that same level of service. Patients across Wales should be able to access all these AHP services as part of their treatment.

But finally, just to emphasise the point that therapy services are provided in settings beyond the NHS. They are truly community based, with therapists and other allied health professionals operating from local authorities, schools, and the judicial system. Not often do we discuss this workforce in this Chamber, and they are often, or far too often forgotten and ignored. But they're a backbone for our health service. So, to all orthoptists, drama therapists, music therapists, prosthetists and orthotists, dieticians, psychologists, physiotherapists, paramedics, occupational therapists, podiatrists, speech and language therapists, radiographers, osteopaths and art therapists out there, thank you for the immense work that you do. You too deserve our support, and that's why I'm asking this Chamber today to support the motion.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection, so I'll defer voting under this item until voting time.

We'll move on now to item 8, which is a debate on the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee report on public appointments. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Mark Isherwood.

Prynhawn da, good afternoon, and thank you for the opportunity to discuss the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee's report on public appointments in Wales, which exposed serious failings in the Welsh Government's approach to public sector appointments. The committee's report was published on 27 March. The committee agreed to pursue this issue as part of its public administration remit, following an extension to the Public Accounts Committee's remit from the previous Senedd.

The remit for the committee's inquiry included consideration of the Welsh Government's public bodies unit's role in the process, the role of the Commissioner for Public Appointments, issues around diversity, how effective the Welsh Government's approach is to addressing diversity issues, and how the process can be more transparent in general. The committee held evidence sessions with the Commissioner for Public Appointments, the Senedd Commission, a range of external stakeholders, and the Welsh Government itself. The Senedd's citizen engagement team also conducted interviews with previous applicants to public appointments, with some invited to provide evidence to the committee.

The Welsh Government responded to the committee's 23 recommendations spread over two reports on 9 June this year. The response is of serious concern, given there is no indication whether any of our recommendations have been accepted, rejected or even accepted in principle or part. Whilst I will reflect on the response at the conclusion of my address, it should be stated that the response was unacceptable and a troubling departure from previous convention, which should be reflected upon seriously by the Welsh Government.

Our recommendations were made with genuine intentions to make improvements following in-depth evidence sessions, and, in the interests of accountability, we would expect the Welsh Government's response to each recommendation to be clearly flagged and a full explanation for the reasons to be provided. We heard troubling evidence about the lack of diversity in its public appointments on the basis of ethnicity, disability, age, gender and sexual identity. Furthermore, it's clear that public appointments are not representative of all Wales on the basis of non-protected characteristics, with far too many appointments clustered in and around Cardiff and the south-east.

Despite these concerns, it's also clear that the Welsh Government is ineffective in its capturing of data relating to diversity, despite its diversity and inclusion strategy, 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales', mandating the capture of such information. Originally published in 2020, the strategy expired in 2023, with six of its actions remaining incomplete. The Welsh Government's written evidence of January 2022 described delivery of the strategy as a ministerial priority. Unfortunately, it's difficult to accept this now, given the demonstrable lack of progress against the aims of the strategy and the subsequent failures to put in place either a new or revised strategy for the future.

The committee recommended that the Welsh Government urgently review the strategy and set out a clear timeline for the subsequent development and implementation of a new strategy to replace it. However, in the short term, we asked the Welsh Government to restate the original 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' strategy until May 2026, which we note has happened. We are encouraged that there will be a formal evaluation of the strategy, led independently, and look forward to hearing more about its conclusions.

The public bodies unit underperformed in its role relating to public appointments. Its role and purpose was confused and unclear, with many public appointees telling the committee that they were unaware the unit even existed. The unit has been an area of concern for the committee for some time, most notably in relation to our scrutiny of governance issues at Amgueddfa Cymru, Museum Wales. The unit was originally unambitiously tasked with undertaking tailored reviews of every eligible body during this Senedd term. However, this was a challenge that the unit did not even get close to achieving, with the tailored review programme being redesigned entirely to a new, light-touch self-assessment model.

The Welsh Government’s response notes that this was explained during the evidence provided on 17 October. However, having reviewed the transcript, this was far from clearly stated to the committee. Regardless, the principle of our conclusions remains valid and should be reflected on seriously by the Welsh Government. Having a dedicated team driving improvements to the process and working proactively with prospective candidates is, in the committee’s opinion, vital. Splitting these functions across the organisation may not drive the change so sorely needed.

We heard valuable evidence from previous applicants about some of the reasonable adjustments that could be made to help address some of the issues relating to diversity in relation to both protected and non-protected characteristics. Several stakeholders felt that the process itself presented barriers to underrepresented groups, with many describing an art to making successful applications, which may block new applicants from entering the process. These issues were compounded by the problems with the public bodies unit, which wasn’t visible or proactive enough in assisting applicants to overcome these barriers.

The committee were convinced that further innovation and simple changes to the process could help solve some of these problems, including: opportunities to shadow roles; a more inclusive approach to advertising vacancies; proactive promotion of the reasonable adjustments available to prospective candidates; better and more consistent feedback for applications and training for recruitment panels; and a review of remuneration for public appointees, with a more realistic estimate of the time commitment expected advertised from the outset.

The committee were unconvinced that the role of the Commissioner for Public Appointments for England and Wales was effective in driving improvements in the system. Wales remains only a very small proportion of the commissioner’s work and is therefore ill-equipped to deliver the transformational change required in Wales. Having heard evidence from the Ethical Standards Commissioner for Scotland, who shares that role alongside his role as the public appointments commissioner for Scotland, the committee were convinced that this was a model that would work well in Wales. We acknowledge in our report that there were insufficient appointments in Wales to justify a stand-alone commissioner. However, as in Scotland, we felt that by combining the role with an existing commissioner’s, a cost-effective solution could be found. However, it’s clear that the Welsh Government does not wish to proceed on this basis, despite the lack of an explicit rejection of the recommendations relating to a new commissioner.

I must reflect again on the unacceptable response provided by the Welsh Government to this important report. To depart from established convention and provide a response like this to our report raises serious questions about the Welsh Government’s accountability and engagement with the important issues raised in our report. The committee accepts that the Welsh Government is not obliged to accept all recommendations and, in some cases, there may well be entirely valid reasons for doing so.

I'd like to start by thanking the committee for its comprehensive report. At a time when public confidence in our institutions is lower than ever, often for valid reasons, it's vital that high standards are maintained in terms of public appointments. But unfortunately, it's clear that the Government has been complacent in this area. The conclusions of the report are extremely critical, and deservedly so.

Worse still, the Government's weak responses to the committee's recommendations undermine any belief that it will learn any lessons from past failures, and this is part of a wider pattern of unnecessary delays, particularly in terms of promoting representation and concern regarding diversity. As the hard right relentlessly attacks the principles of diversity and equality to protect its privileged status, it is more important than ever that we in Wales show a positive example, in line with our identity as a nation that welcomes and celebrates diversity, and the social and cultural benefits that that brings.

It was heartbreaking to hear that the structures to support disabled people and members of ethnic minority communities have long been inadequate. This lack of representation is also evident in geographical terms, with 43 per cent of public appointments living in CF and NP postcodes alone. Once again, we see the good Government objectives, as set out in the future generations Act, failing to be realised in terms of practical results.

In 2020, the Government published its diversity and inclusion strategy for public appointments in Wales, 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales'. The aim of the strategy was to gather data from all members of public boards, to draw up a basic picture and to develop a robust system to gather information about protected groups, including their socioeconomic background, language and geographical location. But five years later, we still haven't seen that data. And despite the claim that this is a priority area, there has only been one report on the strategy in half a decade, and the commitment to consult on targets for diversity has disappeared completely. If that is the value of a priority from this Government, then that is a disgrace; the people of Wales deserve much better.

It is also worrying to see the overrepresentation of appointees who have declared significant political activity in the past. According to the Commissioner for Public Appointments, almost a quarter of appointees in Wales in 2020-21 fell into this category, compared to less than 6 per cent in Westminster. Considering the coverage and justified concerns seen over the last few years regarding the politicisation of public institutions, I very much hope that these findings will trigger an urgent response.

The committee spent a long time investigating public appointments. Scrutiny means trying to make things better. It's very difficult to try and make thing better when you're dealing with people who don't want to. I commend the recommendations made by the committee to the Senedd. This is not a criticism of Ministers, but one very critical of senior civil servants. It's the role of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee to look at the workings of Government. We met with senior Government civil servants who were, at best, unhelpful, or in my view, and possibly that of other members of the committee, positively obstructive.

The inquiry sometimes appeared like an edition of Yes Minister, without the humour, but with the obfuscation. Public accounts and public administration is different in its investigations to other committees. It very rarely has Government Ministers to question. It questions senior civil servants regarding public accounts and public administrations.

Like other Members, I'm both annoyed and disappointed that the response we had does not accept any of the recommendations. I, like other Members, consider the response disgraceful to an inquiry about public appointment, showing disrespect bordering on contempt, not just for those of us who are members of that committee, but for the Senedd itself.

I'm going to highlight some of the conclusions that were not accepted. We recommended that the Welsh Government provides us with a clear statement on the five areas of development identified by the thematic review of public board recruitment. The statement should clearly state what actions are being completed or not, setting out how actions are being completed, and where they have not, why not. The response to each one was 'in progress'. The most positive part of the response was:

'These five areas are being taken forward as part of the wider Public Appointments Reform Programme. A further update will be provided to the Committee in autumn 2025 as part of our ongoing reporting on public appointments reform.'

We recommended that the Welsh Government should, now that the formal strategy has expired and no successor has been put in place, urgently have a dedicated stand-alone public appointment strategy and action plan in place covering diversity and inclusion in its broader sense, including language and geographical location. Adam Price is, unfortunately, not here today, because Adam Price spent a lot of time in our committee meeting going on about language and the fact that in some parts of Wales, it's very important if you're in a public appointment that you speak Welsh because that's the language being used by the vast majority of people in that community.

What we found strange, and I've certainly found strange, was that we had a situation where they just didn't know how many people spoke Welsh. I just find that difficult to believe. When you fill in most forms, it says 'Welsh speaker—tick or not'. Why they don't do it, or why they're incapable of reading off those forms and keeping count—.

Of course, the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee—PAPAC—report has exposed a series of failings in the Welsh Government's approach to sourcing and securing a broad, high-quality and diverse pool of candidates for public sector appointments. I've already raised my concerns earlier about committee appointments that came before us, as committee members, and I felt it was very much a fait accompli. This report also highlights shortcomings by the public appointments commissioner for England and Wales, and it's an extremely damning report.

During the evidence sessions, the chief operating officer submitted correspondence to PAPAC revealing that the Welsh Government had not collected or analysed data on several key areas, including the number of Welsh speakers on public boards; the percentage of public board members who live outside of Wales; and whether data is collected on the residential locations of public appointees. Although the Welsh Government does collect data on Welsh language ability and applicants’ addresses, this information has not been analysed or compiled. This is a significant oversight, particularly when committees are scrutinising applicants to ensure that they fully understand the challenges and needs of specific areas in Wales. The lack of this comprehensive data is concerning.

In addition, the evidence presented to the committee lacked data on the representation of people from ethnic minority backgrounds, people with disabilities, LGBTQ+ and individuals on public boards. Whilst these characteristics should not influence individual appointments alone, this data is actually crucial for the Senedd to hold the Welsh Government accountable for its commitment to diversity and inclusion. It is also deeply troubling that PAPAC had to request further information just to carry out its own scrutiny functions. Furthermore, the Welsh Government's diversity and inclusion strategy is now over a year out of date, with no evaluation, consultation, action or plan in place to update or replace it.

Available data paints a concerning picture. Of the 391 applications made to regulated public bodies, 42.7 per cent came from individuals in south-east Wales, with 56.4 per cent of those being appointed. Only 4.3 per cent of applicants came from mid Wales. These figures suggest a geographic imbalance in public appointments, potentially leaving some areas of Wales under-represented and unheard. Despite the Welsh Government's strategy outlining the importance of collecting and sharing data, it is clear this has not been done effectively. As the committee observed, at best, the Welsh Government would be delivering action point 1 of objective 1, but very late in the process—five years too late, to be precise. At worst, it perhaps hasn't been delivered at all. And we will have to wait until 2025 to see any progress. Either way, this reflects a very poor delivery record for a key action point in a central Government strategy.

I'd like to thank the public accounts committee for what I think is an excellent report, and all involved should be commended for the work that they've done. I want to focus on pre-appointment hearings, which is part 7 of the report, because I think they go right to the heart of public appointments. They are supposed to be scrutinised in a democracy, and I think that's very, very important, because these hearings are meant to do one simple thing: ensure transparency and accountability in the system. They give the Senedd a chance to question candidates before they take on roles that carry real power and real responsibility in our public services—roles that shape our health boards, our cultural bodies, our regulators and institutions that really matter to people's lives here in Wales.

But the problem is that that's how they should work, but they're currently not working. What the committee has exposed, clearly and convincingly, is that these hearings have become little more than a box-ticking exercise for the Government. They are treated as procedural necessities rather than the meaningful oversight that is the committees’ role here in the Senedd. In fact, what we have seen, and the committee highlighted this, is that candidates have already started the jobs that they're supposed to be doing before the committees have had a chance to actually scrutinise these candidates. I don’t think that’s appropriate, and I know the committee doesn’t think that’s appropriate, because we need to scrutinise these people.

They come with big remuneration, some of these jobs as well. It’s very important, especially in health and social care and other matters, that the Senedd has its say, because, currently, what we're doing isn’t oversight, it’s a piece of theatre where we’re just going through the motions. I don’t think that that’s what needs to be done. It’s performance. We say it’s about accountability, what we’re doing, but currently, as I said, it’s just a bit dressed up. It’s all theatre and it doesn’t deliver, I think, what the people want, because the public do expect better. When somebody is appointed to a senior public role, they should be able to demonstrate their experience and suitability, and their independence from the Government, and I’ll pick that up at the end. They should be questioned before they start because they’re making decisions on behalf of the Welsh people, and we shouldn’t have to be questioning them after the fact when things have happened.

But what was the Government's answer to this? They refused to codify pre-appointment hearings into Standing Orders and they reversed any move to strengthen the process for committees here. They maintain that existing internal methods are enough, even when these methods have clearly and repeatedly failed, time after time. But let’s not dress it up, let’s call it what it is: it’s the Government's refusal, or even, as Mike said, some senior civil servants' refusal, to accept scrutiny and a reluctance to let go of control, and I don’t think that’s good enough. I think that if Ministers here are really serious about restoring confidence in how public appointments are made, this is where it should start: in the home of democracy here in Wales, giving our Senedd committees a proper role in the appointments process, as I said earlier, not just rubber stamping and a box-ticking exercise for the Government.

I will have no conversations—[Interruption.] I will have no conversations across the Chamber, please. You had your opportunity to have your contribution, which you did, and therefore it's now the next turn's contribution. And the next person is the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip, Jane Hutt.

Prynhawn da, bawb, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute and respond to today's very important debate. I'd like to thank the committee for its inquiry into public appointments and the two reports published in March. These result from the committee's long-standing review into public appointments, which we respect, and your commitment to improvements. Can I say, from the outset, we welcome challenge and scrutiny, and I hope my response today will demonstrate the clear and decisive action on the concerns raised, particularly around diversity, governance, transparency and the need for modernisation in public appointments? It is regrettable that historic delivery in this area has fallen short of expectation. That's why I've asked for—and we are delivering—a root-and-branch reform programme, ensuring that public appointments are truly reflecting the communities we serve, and your inquiry report will help guide us with this.

Our principles are fairness and transparency, and we're committed to continually embedding the principles of 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales'. That was that groundbreaking diversity and inclusion strategy for public appointments that we commissioned and was published. I will say, in line with recommendation 7—and this has been raised in the debate—of the committee's report, I'm pleased to confirm that we are extending the 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' strategy to May 2026, in response to your recommendation. The strategy is being evaluated, as has been also mentioned, and, of course, in our response, we said this. The outcomes of that evaluation will help shape the next phase of our approach, ensuring it's informed by evidence and lived experience. We are seeing momentum. Reform is visible, and its pace has accelerated over the past six months. We're already seeing improvements.

I'm very glad that I can now share with you our latest Cais data, and that's from April 2024 to March 2025, which shows very encouraging progress. So, 20.5 per cent of appointees are from ethnic minority backgrounds, up from the 14.4 per cent we previously reported; 61.5 per cent of appointments were women; 12.8 per cent identify as disabled, which is more than double the previous figure reported; and 25.6 per cent of appointees have advanced Welsh-language skills, helping ensure boards reflect the linguistic diversity of our nation, our bilingual nation, and supporting the ambitions of 'Cymraeg 2050'. So, this data does reflect welcome progress, and I'm glad I'm able to share it with you today. Mike.

Thank you, Minister. If you've got information to tell us now of the number of people who speak Welsh on appointment, why could the civil service not tell us when we were doing our investigation?

Well, I'm glad I've been able to share this with you today—indeed, with all the other statistics and data, which I know you will find encouraging. But thank you for that point in terms of more clarity and transparency on Welsh-speaking applicants and appointments.

So, our commitment extends beyond the principles set out in our strategy, 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales'. The introduction of our 'Anti-Racist Wales Action Plan' is important to this, because, of course, as you know, this was co-produced with diverse communities and groups throughout Wales, and, in our updated action plan, this includes goals of enhancing diversity in public appointments.

But I’d also like to draw attention to our disabled people’s rights action plan, which will help us advance the rights and opportunities of disabled people in Wales, including representation on our public bodies, and, indeed, of course, that’s out for consultation now. An event was held, indeed, today, about the consultation on that plan.

We’re also investing in the future. Our funding of Equal Power Equal Voice, a partnership between Women’s Equality Network Wales, Stonewall Cymru, Disability Wales and Ethnic Minorities and Youth Support Team Wales—. Again, in terms of mentoring and engaging and empowering applicants, it’s really important, Equal Power Equal Voice. There’s the Academi Wales aspiring board members programme, helping to build a strong, diverse pipeline of future leaders, as per recommendation 13 of the committee's report. And we're also recruiting a dedicated diversity, inclusion and outreach lead official to support the next phase of our talent pipeline and engagement work.

I’ll respond to recommendations 5 and 6 of the committee's report, highlighting the need for a rebrand and relaunch of the public bodies recruitment service and the appointment process, and, of course, the points made in your inquiry report and in the debate are important. We have already launched new public webpages to support prospective applicants, and through these we've introduced new guidance, advice for first-time applicants and real-life board member case studies, and they'll be developed further in the next iteration. It is important, and we're determined to provide that confidence for the Senedd and the committee that the service is robust, strengthened and transparent.

In response to recommendation 14 we've introduced guidance for candidates requiring reasonable adjustments, and this has been raised this afternoon. Our candidate materials now invite individuals to contact the team to discuss any adjustments or support they may need. It's vital that everyone feels welcome and supported throughout the process. We've also developed and shared a practical guide on inclusive board practice with all chairs following our board chairs network meeting. We've strengthened engagement across Government through the public bodies reference group and partnership communications.

I call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate. Mark.

Diolch yn fawr, bawb—thank you very much everybody who contributed. Peredur Owen Griffiths started. As he said, the objectives have not been met. We don't have a system for Wales that provides an adequate service for Wales, and we need to re-engage with the goals of the strategy, which is missing now.

Mike Hedges, who played a valuable role in the scrutiny that took part to produce this Bill, pointed out that we spent a long time scrutinising this. He referred to Welsh Government officials and said that the inquiry, in that context, seemed like an episode of Yes Minister. He said that the response was disgraceful, showing disrespect bordering on contempt for the Senedd itself. He talked about a lack of belief apparent in actually doing or taking the actions required. He noted that the committee was unconvinced that enough was being done to create a pipeline of talent in Wales. He referred to a lack of transparency and the need for an inquiry into public appointments as a matter of urgency.

Janet Finch-Saunders pointed out that the report exposed serious failings in the Welsh Government approach to sourcing candidates for public appointments. She said the Welsh Government has not collated or analysed data on public appointees, and is therefore failing to understand the challenges, barriers and missed opportunities that creates. She said it's troubling that the committee had to request further information just to carry out its functions, and that it's troubling that, in the response, we were even told that we shouldn't have been, effectively, asking, taking one of the actions that we recommended. It is not for Government to tell a scrutiny committee, particularly a senior committee in Parliament, what it should or should not be doing within the scope of its inquiries. She talked about that geographical imbalance in appointments made reflects a very poor delivery record. The overall theme of this report is of great concern, she said, exposing a lack of transparency and accountability, and that urgent action is needed to address the service failings identified.

James Evans, thank you for acknowledging that this was an excellent report. He referred particularly to pre-appointment hearings not working as they should, having become little more than a tick-box exercise for the Welsh Government, when we need to scrutinise the applicants concerned, and Government and/or senior civil servants refused also to accept scrutiny being a concern—if the Minister is really serious about how public appointments are made, this would be a good place to start—and the key issue of independence from Government.

In her response, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice welcomed, or stated that the Welsh Government welcomes, challenge and scrutiny, said it is regrettable that historic delivery has fallen short of expectations, and stated that the Welsh Government is carrying out a root-and-branch reform programme. As I had stated, and she reconfirmed, the strategy has been extended to 2026. She then provided statistics, which sounded potentially in the right direction, but these had not been shared with us when we needed them, and therefore have not been interrogated by the committee in its scrutiny work. She listed actions not shared with the committee, and, again, therefore, we didn't have the opportunity to scrutinise those actions and find out whether things are as they should be or not.

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

Item 9 today is the Plaid Cymru debate on a funding formula for Wales, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I'm delighted to move this motion before the Senedd today. Fairness is something that should be a cornerstone of any healthy relationship, and the same is true of a constitutional relationship that is supposed to be a union of equal partners. So, the fact that we are here once again, having to put a spotlight on that fairness that we've been looking for since the dawn of devolution, says so much, doesn't it? It's damning, indeed, not only in terms of the very peripheral status of Wales within this union of inequality, but also the total neglect by successive Westminster administrations of our needs. Unfortunately, the poor deal that Wales gets is identified in many different ways in the fact that successive Governments have refused to devolve the Crown Estate, have refused to devolve the justice system. But the problem is highlighted most, I think we can agree, in terms of the fiscal arrangements that let down the people of Wales year on year.

The inadequacy of the Barnett formula has been apparent ever since its inception, which, of course, way predates the devolution era. It was never designed with Wales in mind, and even the architect of the formula itself, the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury Joel Barnett, said it was always intended to be a temporary measure, and not one aimed at Wales, but a temporary measure to tie over funding arrangements in Scotland prior to the referendum of 1979.

Now, given their barely concealed contempt for devolution, it's unsurprising that the previous Conservative Government showed little interest in this issue, and on the rare occasions they did, it was only to use the inequities of Barnett to short-change us even further, as we saw with the HS2 scandal, which now of course continues. But we were promised for years, running up to the last general election nearly a year ago, that things would be very different with a Labour Government in power at Westminster. We were told by the First Minister at the time, now the Cabinet Secretary for finance, at the start of last year, that an incoming UK Labour Government would provide the investment that we need in our public services. A few days prior to the general election, his successor as First Minister assured us that a new UK Labour Government would be

'standing up for the future of Wales, for fair funding',

and fair consequentials. I quote the former First Minister there. And, of course, the current First Minister has waxed lyrical, has she not, about the benefits that would derive from the so-called partnership in power.

And why would Welsh voters doubt them? Why would they not take them at their words? After all, surely it wouldn't be too much to ask Labour to do right by the nation to which it owes so much for its electoral success over the years and, arguably, its very existence, even. But sadly, as the events of the past year have shown, not only is it beyond any question that this UK Labour Government has inherited their predecessor's—and I'll choose my words carefully—their indifference towards the notion of a fair deal for Wales, they've found new ways of shamelessly manipulating the Barnett formula at our expense.

We've had the imposition of an added tax on Wales of £72 million, through the flawed calculation of Treasury reimbursements for the increase in employer national insurance contributions. The Cabinet Secretary for finance is quite right to be outraged about it. 'A fundamental unfairness' heaped upon us, he said, that leaves the Wales reserve in an acutely precarious position and which exacerbates financial pressures on our already beleaguered local authorities and other parts of public service.

HS2—I've mentioned once; you'll hear it from me again, no doubt—has remained a scandal under this Government. No consequentials for money already spent, and crucially, of course, no consequentials to come. We are told of the spending that is to come: tens of billions of pounds leaving Wales, billions of pounds short-changed. We've had the creation of a new HS2 scandal even, through the retrospective redesignation of the East West Rail project as an England-and-Wales project, a piece of underhand chicanery that will see Wales lose out to the tune of another £360 million. And that's on top of the £4.6 billion—I'll use the Secretary of State for Wales's own figure—we're already owed from HS2, and the billions more, of course, that it's agreed here have been withheld as a result of historic underinvestment in our rail network by successive UK Governments, both Labour and Conservative.

Over the past 12 months, we have seen motion upon motion from the Plaid Cymru benches on fair funding for Wales from Westminster being rejected by the Government here in votes, giving permission to their chieftains in London to reject the strong case for the reform of Barnett. Something that is, let us remember, something that has the support of the majority of this Chamber. Because the reality is, if Labour in Wales doesn't take the case for fair funding for Wales seriously in its day-to-day work, making those calls day after day, what reason do Labour in London have to do so? So, whilst I am pleased to see the Government at last saying that they do support fair funding for Wales—and I hope that they will support this motion today—the truth is that time has been lost and continues to be lost, and damage is still being done.

Over the past year, they've had opportunities time and time again to prove the value of the partnership in power for Wales and to prove their influence on 10 Downing Street by putting this on top of their agenda, but the reality is, time and time again, they have proved their willingness to put party before nation on this issue, not to rock the boat, and they've done so by sacrificing Wales's interests in the process.

Dirprwy Lywydd, with our ageing population, shockingly high rates of child poverty, public infrastructure that, from our hospitals, our schools and, of course, our rail network, is literally crumbling before our eyes, we simply can't afford to wait for Labour to remind itself how to stand up for Wales. And the First Minister's remarks to me at last week's questions was rather telling, perhaps, in that regard. She accused me of always complaining about the UK Government's treatment of Wales. As if seeing our nation being deprived of billions of pounds' worth of much-needed funding isn't something that's worth complaining about, but perhaps that underlines the key difference between us and the current Labour Party: we won't be satisfied until fairness for Wales is an unconditional, unabridged and unambiguous reality, no ifs, no buts.

I have accepted the amendment to the motion, and I call on Sam Rowlands to move amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the amendment laid by my colleague Paul Davies, as set out. Of course, the fiscal framework and funding formula have been the source of much debate over the years. Not always something that gets the juices flowing necessarily, or captures the necessary headlines, but we know in this place that getting the funding formula right is fundamental to the delivery of public services here in Wales. We'll be supporting Plaid Cymru's motion today, and I'm grateful to them for laying the debate before us.

But I want to speak to our amendment specifically for most of my contribution, and whilst what I might have to say may be fairly dry and border on boring at times, I think it's really important to set out the brief overview of the current situation, so that there's more context behind why we have included the amendment as it's laid out. As a reminder, our amendment is to add a new point at the end of the motion by Plaid Cymru to call on the Welsh Government to initiate a review of Wales's fiscal framework.

As it stands, as we know, in simple terms, the Welsh Government receives £1.20 from the UK Government for every £1 spent on public services in England. Members in this place will know that this is the headline funding arrangement that was introduced following the 2015 UK Conservative Government's review of funding into Wales, known as the fiscal framework—a fiscal framework that went beyond the assessed need at the time of £1.18 per £1 spent in England. I take some note of the Plaid Cymru leader, but I'd like to push back on his description of 'contempt' from the Conservative Government, considering there was an increase from what was recommended for the Barnett formula at the time. This was of its time, in 2015—

Will you take an intervention?

Sure.

Thank you for taking an intervention. I think it's very important to point out at all times that it's not benevolence to Wales; there are parts of England, including London itself, that end up getting high levels of funding, which is why we believe always that funding should be based on need, which it currently isn't, which is why we need this change.

And that's why we support it, but I think it's worth recognising that it was a UK Conservative Government that went beyond an assessed need at the time of £1.18 up to £1.20, to recognise the support that Wales deserves, certainly.

But that, 2015, was of its time, and came off the back, of course, following the Holtham commission framework, instigated in 2007, and we all know that provided £1.12, rather than £1.15, recommended of its time as well. But with the 2015 review, it was rightly anticipated that there would be periodic reviews of this framework, and that's why we support your motion today, because those reviews have not taken place, as was absolutely necessary for them to do.

But our amendment today is not just about the Barnettisation elements of funding, but the broader fiscal arrangements, which I know the Cabinet Secretary has had frustration with many times himself. I want to point out that we in Wales have not had those reviews since 2015, whilst Scotland has had at least two reviews in the same time period. Just to note what's happened in Scotland since 2015, the latest version of the framework that Scotland now has in place allows them to increase their annual limits on capital borrowing powers from where they were at £300 million up to £450 million annual capital borrowing, and, importantly, they rise in line with inflation as well. The statutory limit for total capital borrowing by the Scottish Government has been increased to £3 billion, and, again, rises each year in line with inflation. In addition, Scotland's resource borrowing limits have increased up to £600 million per year, with an overall limit of £1.75 billion, and as with the capital limits, they increase in line with inflation year on year as well.

So, whilst on these benches, and I'm sure across the Chamber, we may argue about the prioritisation of spending by the Welsh Government with the money it has available to it, in my view, the very least that we should have in Wales, on the broader fiscal arrangements, is movement in line with inflation to ensure the powers of borrowing and of holding reserves are not watered down over time. Because currently, every year, the ability or the opportunity for Wales to deliver on its historically assessed need is made more difficult due to the eroding power of inflation.

As I said, Scotland has had two reviews in their funding settlement, whereas Wales has had none in the same time frame. But I'm not just comparing us with Scotland—we know that our friends in Northern Ireland have benefited from recent reviews too. Their most recent review, published in 2024, provides a Barnett needs assessment of a 24 per cent increase, against Wales's 20 per cent. So, it doesn't seem right to me that, while Scotland has had reviews, Northern Ireland has had a review, Wales has yet to have the review.

Dogma and political ideology are not at the heart of the battle for a fair funding settlement for Wales. Neither is this a matter of dry constitutional reform. At its core, this is an issue relating to public health—not public health as a general concept, but instead as a matter of the greatest urgency in terms of the health of the people of Wales today. With every year that goes by, the fundamental flaws of the Barnett formula become increasingly apparent—a mechanism that was created without any consideration of need, never mind the increasing health demands facing Wales. It's entirely apparent by now that the formula is out of date, inflexible, and entirely unsuitable for meeting the health needs of our population.

Let us consider the staggering changes that have unfolded in the health sector in the last four and a half decades—astonishing medical developments, a rise in awareness of mental health issues, major public health awareness campaigns and, of course, a global pandemic that tested our services in the most extreme way possible. And yet, despite all of these changes, our funding mechanism has basically remained unchanged over five decades, steering our funding envelope today and failing utterly to reflect these seismic changes. If the Barnett formula is Westminster's solution for the health needs of the people of Wales, then that demonstrates a lack of understanding of Wales, or, worse still, a complete lack of interest.

And it's not just about historical underfunding—it's about the very worrying trends that lie ahead. According to the most recent census, Wales has the oldest population of any nation in the UK, with a median age of 43. By 2031, it's projected that nearly a third of our people will be over the age of 60, and close to 12 per cent will be over 75. You might assume that, with people living longer, we're becoming a healthier nation. Sadly, the opposite is often true. In too many communities across Wales, healthy life expectancy is actually falling. Despite the noble ambitions of the well-being of future generations Act, we're seeing stalling or even reversing trends in long-term health.

Wales also has the highest rates of long-term illness in the UK. Chronic conditions such as diabetes, obesity and dementia are already stretching our services, and are projected to increase significantly in the coming years. These aren't just statistics, they're real people, real families facing hardship, and often struggling to access timely care and support. The ability to provide the necessary social care for our loved ones is now at breaking cost, with the country failing to pay what the care workforce deserve to reflect the importance and difficulty of the essential care that they provide.

And what is the response of the UK Government? A formula that treats a pensioner in Powys the same as a banker in the City of London, a funding mechanism that takes no account of the fact that our needs are different, greater and growing. To make matters worse, we see the Welsh Government spending over £1.5 billion since the last election on emergency measures to cut waiting lists. Yet what has that investment achieved? A staggering increase of nearly 200,000 in those same waiting lists. Meanwhile, the kind of preventative investment needed to build a healthier, more resilient population is being continually postponed or deprioritised. This isn't just inefficient—it's self-defeating. Preventative health measures are not a luxury; they're a necessity. Investing in keeping people healthy is always better and cheaper than treating illness once it has become critical. But under a funding model that squeezes every penny and ignores need, we're forced into crisis management instead of long-term planning.

With over half of the Welsh Government's entire budget now consumed by health spending, we're seeing other vital devolved areas—education, local government, housing—struggling to cope. And when those sectors falter, the pressure on our health service only grows. It's a vicious cycle. Replacing the Barnett formula isn't simply about numbers on a balance sheet. It's about securing the future health and well-being of the people of Wales. It's about fairness. We need a needs-based funding model that properly reflects our demographic reality and our social challenges—a model that gives us the tools to invest in prevention, to build sustainable services and to tackle health inequalities at their root. I urge every Member of this Chamber to support this motion.

Can I first of all say that there's a very strong economic case for the United Kingdom, not only with Wales being a net beneficiary of redistribution, but also larger countries can more easily withstand economic storms and support the less affluent parts? Devolving the Crown Estate is, I think, a particularly good idea, but it gives you no extra money. When you get devolution, and the funding from devolution of something, then it comes off the block grant. That's happened to everything that's ever been done here. [Interruption.] Rhun, if you'd like to tell me something where it didn't come off the block grant, I'd be happy.

I think it was Cefin.

Okay. Cefin, do you want to tell me what didn't come off the block grant?

Thank you for taking an intervention. I guess—[Interruption.] I guess you're looking at the Scottish model, where they've had a slight reduction in the block grant, to acknowledge that, which is about £10 million, if I remember correctly, but they make £118 million from the revenue from the Crown Estate, so that doesn't make sense, Mike.

No. What you've said doesn't make sense, but I haven't got time to correct the whole lot of it. Wales has never benefited from it. I just know the difference between net and—[Interruption.] Learn the difference between net and gross. It would make life so much easier.

The Barnett formula evolved from the Goschen formula, which was specifically designed to preserve Scotland's public spending advantage over England. The formula was thus never designed with Wales in mind. Applied vigorously, the formula should have led to convergence in the levels of spending per head across the UK. The formula preserved the spending advantage for Wales over England. There have been periodic adjustments to the operation of the formula since 1980, mainly through relative population changes. These adjustments have increased relative spending levels in Wales.

The main advantage of the formula is its simplicity and objectivity as a basis for making spending allocations. There's been notable success in securing formula bypass since devolution, for example in relation to objective 1 match funding and the funding for city deals. We also have the Barnett floor. At the 2015 spending review, the UK Conservative Government implemented a funding floor in Wales. This provided a guarantee that the Welsh Government's block grant funding per head would not fall below 115 per cent of the equivalent funding per head in England.

What are the other options—Wales pays its share of Westminster costs and keeps the rest of the taxes raised in Wales? This, folks, is what independence looks like. This would have a catastrophic effect on public expenditure in Wales. From Office for National Statistics published data, we know that as a percentage of British income raised, Wales raises about 72.1 per cent per head. The only way Plaid Cymru could get anywhere near getting it to work is to not fund the state pension as a central benefit expenditure and to not fund the Welsh proportion of the national debt.

Wales gets its population share of devolved expenditure—this is the simplest and second most catastrophic. The 115 per cent Barnett floor would be reduced to 100 per cent of English expenditure. This would lead to removal of the Barnett floor that protects expenditure in Wales.

A new formula is created, which I think is what people are asking for. Any new formula will not be without criticism. Consider the local government formula and the misunderstandings, arguments and misleading statements we have on it. The two authorities who receive the least Government support per head are Monmouthshire and the Vale of Glamorgan. You'd never hear that in debates in here. The system of grant allocation is designed to be objective and to equalise for need and resources. The following principles underlie the calculation of standard spending assessment.

Can I just come back? I just want to clarify something. I've been listening carefully to what you're saying. Are you saying that you're going to be voting against this motion today because you don't believe that there should be a review of the way that Wales is funded?

No, I don't, but what I do believe is that that review would come out with a formula for funding Wales, and we need to start talking about the formula, not, 'Oh, we want a fair formula. We don't want to talk about what formula we want.' [Interruption.]

There are no conversations between the two of you. You've had the intervention and he gave an answer, so we need to move on. [Interruption.] Well, I did hear voices from the benches.

The continuous underinvestment in our rail infrastructure over decades reflects the structural unfairness that lies at the heart of the current financial settlement between Wales and Westminster. It is clear evidence of a system that has failed Wales, time and time again. Although the transport Minister admitted at the end of last year that Wales has historically been treated unfairly, there has been no effort whatsoever from Labour to right this wrong. No plan, no commitment, no change. Indeed, the current Westminster Government seems determined to push the unfairness of the Barnett formula to the limit, and instead of standing against it, Labour in Wales has been complicit in its silence.

As Rhun ap Iorwerth said, the warnings have been there for a while. After years of demanding our fair share of HS2 funding—over £4 billion, according to the Secretary of State for Wales—Labour went quiet as the general election approached. No protest, no fighting for Wales. And despite the First Minister's claims since then that she is constantly making the case for HS2 funding, the truth is that not a single penny has come to Wales. That is the ruinous end-point of the Welsh red way.

And as if that wasn't enough, we now see Labour supporting the next phase of unfairness, a decision to reclassify the East West Rail project, between Oxford and Cambridge, as a Wales and England project. There won’t be a single inch of track in Wales, but we will be £360 million out of pocket. It is a preposterous situation. Even when the Tories were ready to acknowledge Wales's right to the funding, the Labour Government in Wales blocked it. And it is worth remembering the words used by the Cabinet Secretary for finance a few months ago to describe the situation:

'a scandal, isn't it? That a railway line that is entirely in England...treated as though it was an England and Wales project, and we get no benefit as a result.'

But now, we see exactly the same unfairness unfolding again, and instead of anger, we have had a non-responsive response from the Government. Not a single word of objection, not a single iota of shame. Instead of that, Orwellian explanations to try to justify the decision of their partners in Westminster. This is all part of a pattern by Labour, a pattern of neglecting Wales, of undervaluing the understanding of the people of Wales, and of consenting to continued underinvestment in our rail network. And remember, when asked why HS2 funding was not coming to Wales, the Secretary of State for Wales said that it was because HS2 no longer existed. Somebody had better tell that to the Minister for transport in Westminster who is still funding it.

In addition, a number of Ministers tried to portray the recent spending review as some huge victory for Wales, even though the amount earmarked for transport over a decade is less than 10 per cent of what we are owed from HS2 alone. And who says that? Well, it's not just us. This is the view of the Wales Governance Centre:

'Any suggestion that this funding in any way compensates Wales for the loss incurred from HS2 is obviously unsustainable.'

So, Dirprwy Lywydd, it's high time that this Government stated its position clearly: do you support these decisions and do you stand with Westminster or with the people of Wales? Because if you accept the redesignation of East West Rail as a Wales-and-England project, you also accept the lack of HS2 funding. And if you really believe that the spending review is a victory, then you openly acknowledge that there is no chance of Labour correcting this historic betrayal of our railways. Wales deserves better, deserves fairness, and it's high time for Labour to choose: for Wales, or against it. Thank you.

I'd like to make three fairly simple points about the situation we currently have in Wales. Firstly is how the Barnett formula funds on an annual basis. It makes it very difficult to plan for the long term. How often have we heard anxiety from constituents, from organisations, from people who rely on yearly grants? I've heard from people in multiple industries across charities and small businesses who wish that the Welsh Government funding could work on a more long-term basis, so that it can be relied upon, so that it can write a real growth strategy, rather than being faced with uncertainty year upon year.

Secondly, as we know, as Mike has mentioned, the Barnett formula is not based on need. Now, we all know that a new formula wouldn't satisfy everyone, of course, but the current formula is certainly unsatisfactory. We are all aware that Wales has its own demographic. We are, on average, older, as Mabon said, and sicker than England, and there are historic reasons for this. However, the Barnett formula, particularly with regard to health, means we are not addressing the specific Welsh need. Rather, the formula assumes we are some sort of an average of whatever is happening in England. Funding is linked to specific changes in public spending in England and is fundamentally responsive to English need—what's happening in England—rather than Welsh need. We need to be funding based on the needs of the people of Wales. This needs-based allocation of health funding is what actually is happening in England. There, health boards serving those with higher needs are given more funding. Just this morning, it was reported that this needs-based funding in England will be strengthened by the UK Government. Wes Streeting has announced today that £2.2 billion in NHS funding will be diverted towards the coastal towns and deprived areas in England—[Interruption.]—no, I'm sorry, Mike—towards the poorest places that have the worst health. The UK Government continues to acknowledge health spending should be based on need, but that philosophy will not be applied to Wales because of how the Barnett formula works. Instead, Wales, which is the poorest of the four nations, and the sickest, is treated like an average of England. The health of the nation has a knock-on effect on every other part of the country, as Mabon's already said—housing, productivity, education. If we want a prosperous future for Wales, we need funding that is responsive to the needs of Wales in the present.

Finally, I want to talk about borrowing, and I'm glad to see the Conservative motion, and I don't often say those words, and I don't often say that I agreed entirely with Sam Rowlands today. This isn't not just about the Barnett formula; it's part of the fiscal framework between Wales and the UK, and I'd be pleased to support the Conservative amendment today. Being able to borrow and spend is fundamental to building a prosperous future for Wales. This economic fact is acknowledged by the UK Chancellor, Labour's Rachel Reeves, Hefin David, whose own fiscal rules have made borrowing for capital spending much, much easier. But this ability to invest in the future has not been passed on to the Welsh Government. In fact, Wales has the lowest borrowing powers of the nations of the United Kingdom. If we look at capital borrowing in other devolved nations, Scotland has an annual capital borrowing limit of £450 million, three times that of Wales's £150 million, despite being nearly two and a half times the size of Wales. In terms of total borrowing limit, both Scotland and Northern Ireland can borrow a total of £3 billion, where Wales's borrowing limit is £1 billion. County councils, in proportion to the population they represent, also have more borrowing powers than the Welsh Government. Put together, the councils of Cardiff and Swansea, the two biggest cities in Wales, have currently borrowed and invested more than £1 billion. It makes no sense to me that this is more than the entirety that the Welsh Government is allowed to borrow for capital investment.

The foundation of a fair, equal and prosperous society is a fiscal framework that is predictable, based on a clear set of rules, and, most of all, fits and serves the needs of its population. Unfortunately, every single one of these basic requirements has been withheld from Wales throughout the devolution era, because what we have instead is a thoroughly muddled, inconsistent and haphazard set of arrangements that are certainly not a good fit for the needs of the people of Wales. Fair funding is one of the most powerful tools available to ensure both equality and equity within society. In the case of Wales, a nation with deep-rooted and widespread social and economic inequalities, spending needs to actively correct historic and structural imbalances. The Barnett formula, of course, fails to deliver either of these principles, and instead it reinforces disadvantage.

I'd like to focus in particular on the implications of the UK spending review for capital spending, which is, of course, a symptom of the wider deficiencies of the Barnett formula. As others have already alluded to, the need for investment in our public infrastructure is stark. Our ageing, dilapidated housing stock, of which over a quarter dates from before the first world war, is made up of some of the least energy-efficient housing in western Europe, deepening already severe fuel poverty, with 18 per cent classed as being in a poor condition. The Welsh Government's flagship policy aimed at addressing this is, as the Equality and Social Justice Committee report set out, barely touching the sides because of a lack of investment. Our disconnected transport system, as we've heard, is starved of fair funding year on year. There's a £0.25 billion emergency maintenance backlog in our NHS estate, and our school estate is similarly beset with deep-rooted investment issues. So, across so many areas, the evidence of the deficiencies of that fundamental fiscal foundation is overwhelming. As we've discussed so many times, these deficiencies disproportionately weigh on those who are already disadvantaged by societal inequalities. For example, as a report by Shelter Cymru on the right to adequate housing highlighted, black, Asian and minority ethnic people in Wales are disproportionately likely to live in overcrowded houses that are in a poor condition.

Meanwhile, as was revealed by Plaid Cymru's analysis at the start of the year, the most urgent maintenance backlogs in education tend to be clustered in the most deprived areas of Wales. Blaenau Gwent, for example, which consistently ranks towards the higher end of the Welsh index of multiple deprivation, has one of the worst child poverty rates in the entire UK, and 23 of its 25 schools are classified as requiring urgent maintenance. Isn’t it ironic, then, that a UK Government that is so fixated on economic growth, renewal and the principles of 'securonomics' is simultaneously wedded to a funding model for Wales that leads nowhere but deeper and deeper into the quagmire of managed decline, exemplified by the fact that this capital block grant is expected to be 3.6 per cent smaller at the end of this spending review period? As the former Counsel General stated in a recent article, in the year since the general election, we haven’t just seen progress on long overdue reforms to our fiscal and devolved architecture grind to a complete standstill, in many ways, the situation has deteriorated even further. I agree wholeheartedly with him.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. The Government side will support the motion today, because it is nothing more than a restatement of the long-standing policy of successive Welsh Governments.

I want to take the elements of the motion in order. It begins by saying that the Barnett formula is outdated. Well, I don’t think there can be any doubt about that. As we’ve heard, Lord Barnett himself rejected the Barnett formula. He said in 2003:

'It was never a formula when I invented it; it became one only after 18 years of the previous administration and under this one. It is grossly unfair and should not have been continued'.

The First Minister of the National Assembly, as it was then, throughout the whole of that first decade, Rhodri Morgan, gave a lecture to the Electoral Reform Society in that decade. He argued for reform of the House of Lords. He argued for an electoral system based on proportional representation. He called for a written constitution that would provide for fair funding for Wales. He said that that written constitution would have these three clauses in it: that there would be a resource distribution formula amongst the nations and regions of the United Kingdom; that this formula should be based on equality and redistribution; and that there would be a dispute resolution process for problems that occur between the different actors. Well, there it was. That’s the first decade.

In the second decade, Carwyn Jones published 'Reforming our Union'. It called for a needs-based funding system:

'Spending power for the devolved governments'—

it said—

'should be determined...by reference to a set of agreed objective indicators of relative need, so that spending power is fair across the different governments and an equivalent level and quality of public goods can be delivered in all parts of the UK.'

'Reforming our Union' called for a new, relative needs-based system that would be implemented within a comprehensive and consistent fiscal framework to which all Governments in the United Kingdom would agree. And, just to be ecumenical in all of this, Dirprwy Lywydd, then, in 2023-24, the Barnett Formula (Replacement) Bill was moved in the House of Commons by Sir Christopher Chope, the Conservative Member for Bournemouth—an unlikely person, you might think, but the private Member's Bill that he proposed required the Chancellor of the Exchequer to report to Parliament on proposals to replace the Barnett formula with a statutory scheme for the allocation of resources based on an assessment of relative needs. There you have it. Any sense that today's debate is about breaking new ground is clearly untrue. This has been the policy of many parties for many years.

Now, the second leg of the motion says that the Barnett system is 'unfair'. Yes, indeed, the system is unfair, but to different degrees and in different ways. Here are four ways in which the Barnett formula is currently not a fair formula. The first is the way in which the comparability mechanism, which is at the heart of Barnett, operates. We've heard a lot this afternoon about the Oxford to Cambridge line, so I thought I'd use that as my example of how the comparability factor that drives the Barnett formula doesn't operate in a fair way.

The Oxford to Cambridge rail line was originally described as a local scheme, and therefore gave rise to a comparability factor, and that, in turn, gave rise to a Barnett consequential. Now it is being described as an England-and-Wales scheme, for which there is no comparability and therefore no consequential. But in the comprehensive spending review, because the Treasury said that the original description was a misapplication of the rules, the Treasury decided that that rule would not be followed. Despite the fact that there should be no comparability factor, they decided they would give it a comparability factor. So, a scheme that had previously produced Barnett consequentials, but which should no longer produce such a consequential, has, in fact, produced a Barnett consequential in the comprehensive spending review.

Now, that may be a good outcome for Wales, but it’s a very bad outcome indeed for anybody who believes in a rules-based system. So, the second reason why Barnett is unfair is that Barnett can be ignored. Funding is not allocated fairly and systematically across the devolved countries. A good example of that is the Theresa May bung of £1 billion to Northern Ireland following the 2017 election, purely driven by the need to prop up a minority Conservative UK Government—unfair to the people of England, and unfair to the people of Wales and of Scotland.

And then, thirdly, Barnett is often bypassed. It was bypassed in the UK Government's increase in employer national insurance contributions, which led to greater public sector pay costs across the United Kingdom, in which only a Barnett share of English costs has been provided to the three devolved Governments.

Fourthly, Barnett is an arbitrary formula, because it is entirely in the hands of the UK Treasury. If you believe that the rules have not been properly followed, what is your recourse? You appeal to the Treasury, the organisation that made the rules and made the decision in the first place. There is no independent element in the way that Barnett operates, and that, too, is unfair.

So, it’s clear at this detailed level that the Barnett formula is indeed unfair, but at the aggregate level the picture is less clear-cut. The One Wales Government, which some of us here remember very well, established the Holtham commission, and the commission's report remains a landmark event in the short history of devolution. Its authoritative analysis established that in order to allow for that equivalent level and quality of public goods to be provided in Wales, our needs required funding at between 115 per cent and 117 per cent of funding for equivalent services in England. That analysis formed the basis of the 2016 negotiations to agree a new fiscal framework for Wales. That framework recognises that the budget available to this Senedd is now a mixture of Barnett consequentials and the taxes that are devolved to Wales. Twenty per cent of the resource in the current year's budget is raised not through Barnett at all, but by decisions made on taxes for Wales in this Welsh Senedd.

Cabinet Secretary, you need to finish, please.

I will do what the motion asks, Dirprwy Lywydd. I will make the case tomorrow, at the quarterly meeting of finance Ministers in London, for a replacement for the Barnett formula. But it'll have to be one that is based not on resolutions, but negotiations—negotiations that involve all four nations of the United Kingdom, in which every nation will want to know that its position has been protected. I am there to protect Wales's position. That's why we will vote for this motion.

I call on Heledd Fychan to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. May I thank everyone who's contributed to the debate today? It's good to hear that the vote is likely to be unanimous on this motion, because it is important, at times and on important issues such as this one, that we can unite and speak with one voice. And I hope that the unambiguous message that the Welsh Government will convey to the UK Government today, and in the coming weeks and months, is this: Wales deserves fairness, and Members of the Welsh Parliament are entirely united in insisting on a new fiscal model for Wales. That is a clear message, and I hope it will be unanimous.

Clearly, the challenge now for our Government is how we can secure that as a matter of urgency. It was interesting to hear the contribution made by the Cabinet Secretary now, reminding us of what has been the Labour stance in the past. Rhun ap Iorwerth reminded us of what our current First Minister said in response to him, since she became First Minister:

a fair application of Barnett.

Well, as you said, Cabinet Secretary, no such thing is possible.

And also, if we look at motions that we've put forward, even in the past 12 months, the Government has voted against amendments that we've tabled that have been calling for a review of the Barnett formula, as well as changes to our borrowing powers. So, it's good that we can be united as we restate these things, but it's disappointing that there has been inconsistency on this. So, we have to be clear on that too.

If you consider that the Tony Blair Government managed to hold a referendum that led to the establishment of this Senedd, and had implemented that manifesto commitment four months after the 1997 election, and that this Parliament opened two years later, I don't accept the argument that I've heard earlier today that it is reasonable that we haven't seen any movement here from the UK Labour Government within their first year in power. We have to see action and a definitive timetable for this work.

Many of today's speakers have outlined the unfairness of how Wales is funded, and I won't repeat all those arguments in closing. The points are well made and well rehearsed. I do, however, want to add my voice in my closing remarks to echo what Rhun ap Iorwerth said when opening the debate, to condemn the words of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Darren Jones, who told a Welsh MP that he should be ‘a little more grateful’ for the railway funding Wales received in the spending review. It was contemptuous. ‘A little more grateful’—really? Grateful even when the money falls short of putting right the historical underfunding of railway infrastructure. A little more grateful even when HS2 is still classed as an England-and-Wales project, leaving Wales short-changed. A little more grateful when regions in England are £15.8 billion for local and regional transport compared to the £445 million for a whole nation. Grateful not to be reimbursed in full for national insurance contributions. Grateful that we don’t get the benefit from our own natural resources because Labour refuse to devolve the Crown Estate to Wales.

So, let me be clear: Plaid Cymru is not grateful when Wales gets short-changed, and neither should this Senedd be. Because who suffers when we are short-changed? Our public services and, in turn, our constituents. A funding formula from the 1970s has no place in Wales’s modern democracy, and it’s about time it’s confined to the history books.

The proposal is to agree the motion unamended. Does any Member object? There are no objections, and therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

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

We have one vote today, on item 7, a Member debate under Standing Order 11.21. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Mabon ap Gwynfor. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 31, there were 16 abstentions, none against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

And that brings us to the end of voting time today.

Please remember there is a short debate, so if you're leaving, please do so quietly.

We move on now to the short debate, and I call on Altaf Hussain.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I have agreed to give a minute of my time to Peredur Owen Griffiths and Sam Rowlands.

It’s a pleasure to bring forward this debate this afternoon on the topic of treatments for substance misuse. I have declared an interest as a patron of Brynawel Rehab or Brynawel House Alcohol and Drug Rehabilitation Centre. Through my involvement with Brynawel, first as chair and now as a patron, I have come to better understand the toll addiction takes on an individual as well as the steps needed to combat addiction. Over the last 40 years Brynawel have developed innovative treatments to help tackle drug and alcohol addiction. Its mission and belief is that anyone can recover from dependency on drugs and alcohol given the right support.

Substance misuse is a worldwide tragedy affecting millions of people. About 275 million people worldwide, which is roughly 5.6 per cent of the global population aged 15 to 64, used illegal drugs at least once during the past year to the point where they may need treatment. Opioids continue to cause the most harm, accounting for 76 per cent of deaths. Globally, deaths directly caused by the use of drugs increased by 60 per cent over the past 25 years.

Here in Wales, we had 4,342 admissions related to illicit drugs and 12,628 alcohol-specific admissions. Alcohol-specific deaths—those from conditions wholly caused by alcohol—increased to a new record high, with 562 fatalities recorded in Wales. Nearly one in 10 people in a hospital bed in the UK are alcohol dependent. They are just the tip of the iceberg. The cost to our NHS is £109 million a year from alcohol-related harm alone. We don’t have Wales-specific figures but, according to the Home Office, the cost of illicit drug use in the United Kingdom is £11 billion per year.

Research commissioned by the UK Department of Health concluded that the only type of formal treatment service that was a key factor in helping drug users to stay abstinent was residential rehabilitation. They concluded that formal long-term structured treatments other than residential rehabilitation played only a peripheral role in the recovery journey. When you consider the cost of treating people, you have to compare it with the cost of not treating them. Research has shown that every £1 invested in drug treatment results in a £2.50 benefit to society.

Brynawel believe that everyone can recover, given the right support. But we recognise that this a health concern. It is clearly more complex than an appendix operation, but it is a health issue nevertheless. A percentage of people will relapse, but it is possible, even likely, that they will re-engage. Compared to many other medical and psychiatric illnesses, people with substance misuse dependency have a good prognosis. It is estimated that up to 66 per cent of people with substance misuse dependency can achieve full remission, although it can take time to do so.

However, not everyone can benefit from the treatment offered at Brynawel. As a small not-for-profit organisation, they can only offer 20 residential places, and, as I said earlier, hundreds, even thousands of people across the country need this treatment—treatment that can deliver sustained recovery, a healthy life free from drugs and alcohol—and treatment programmes that are tailored to client’s individual needs.

Can you imagine the disaster if health services adopted a one-size-fits-all programme for the treatment of patients? It should be no different in the treatment of dependency on drugs and alcohol. Brynawel utilise only well-researched, evidenced-based approaches. Clients will only experience therapy with a professional who is highly experienced and qualified to help them to effectively overcome dependency in a confidential setting.

Evidence-based treatments delivered are cognitive behaviour therapy, dialectical behaviour therapy, motivational interviewing, relapse prevention and psychosocial interventions, including family therapy, but it does not stop there. Brynawel are looking to develop a diagnostic and treatment care pathway for individuals with alcohol-related brain damage.

Diolch yn fawr to Altaf for granting me a minute of time in this debate, and also for bringing this important debate to our Senedd. This is a problem I've come across many times in the cross-party group on substance use and addiction that I chair—people often waiting too long for treatment they desperately need, or, too often, the quality or length of treatment they receive is dependent on where they live. We shouldn't accept this.

One thing that could greatly help deliver consistent care, not to mention provide clarity and leadership, is a national strategy on substance use. The last one, I believe, came out in 2008 and was meant to run until 2018, so we are seven years on from that date and we're still waiting for a new strategy. So, this is something that professionals working in the field say is desperately needed in Wales. A letter from the cross-party group will be on its way to you shortly, Minister, but I'd really like to understand where you're at with that, and any timescales that you could provide for us for a strategy. And I would like to know, and I'd like to hear, whether or not we can look forward to one in the future. Diolch yn fawr.

I'm grateful to Altaf Hussain for, first of all, holding a short debate here today, but also for granting me a minute of his time. I too had the privilege of visiting Brynawel at the end of last year, December 2024. I spent time with Sue and the team there, and what struck me about my time there is that we talk about systems and structures, and we talk about processes, but this is just all about people. And there are two groups of people in particular I just want to pay some credit to today: first of all, those people who access those important services and seek the support that is provided to them. These can be people from any background, from any community, from any family, and I want to give them credit for reaching out in those moments of most difficulty, recognising the need for them to turn their lives around. So, it's good to give them credit and honour for taking the initiative and doing that at times, overcoming what can be difficult at times, in terms of your own pride and perhaps shame, and recognising that they need that support. I wanted to give them some honour in this place here today.

I also recognise those people who work in places like Brynawel, who provide support for people accessing those services. They are heroes in helping people break those lifelong and life-wrecking addictions, and I want to give them some respect and thanks for their efforts in supporting our constituents—as I say, anybody from any community, at times, may need their support. And my ask, just briefly, to the Government, is to—and I'm sure the Minister will, in her response—recognise these two groups of people who need that regular support, and ask that there is not just words that are shared in this place today, but a commitment to continued support, whether it's through resource or through finance, whatever is necessary, to ensure that people can continue, our constituents can continue, to access these really important services. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I now call on the Minister for Mental Health and Well-being to reply to the debate. Sarah Murphy.

Diolch. Thank you very much, and I want to really thank the Member for bringing forward this debate this evening. Tackling the harms associated with addiction is an important part of my portfolio, but also in my role, obviously, before I was Minister, I had the pleasure of being a trustee on the board for Brynawel whilst Altaf Hussain was the chair, and I learned a tremendous amount whilst I was there. I'm very privileged now to get to be the Minister in this role and try to take forward as much as I possibly can and what I learned.

I have had the privilege of meeting many people and organisations involved in this work, and I've been so impressed by people's passion and commitment to the services and the support that they provide. If we look at substance misuse, sadly, the latest figures show just what we're up against. Last year, there were the highest ever numbers of drug-use deaths in Wales, and every one of these could have been avoided.

I am proud in Wales that our substance misuse policy is rooted in a harm-reduction approach, which recognises that substance misuse is a public health issue and not just a criminal justice issue. And to come straight away to Peredur Owen Griffiths's question to me about the strategy, the latest strategy we had was 2019 to 2022, but, obviously, we're in 2025 now. But just to say that we still have a substance misuse policy that is rooted in that harm reduction. We would need to do a review, as we did with the previous one, to see what worked and what didn't and what can be improved. But also, in the meantime, we have as well set out the guidance for the substance misuse strategy for young people as well.

So, it's not that we're not doing anything in this space—and I absolutely take on board what you're saying in terms of setting the direction as we go forward, so thank you. And obviously, this means that we do consider the wider causes as well, then, of substance use and its impacts. These include access to education, quality housing, healthcare, good employment and financial security. And we know so many people battling substance use have been deeply affected by trauma in childhood or other adverse childhood experiences. And that's why, in the toughest of financial climates, we've worked hard not to just maintain, but to increase the level of Government funding for substance use services to just over £67 million this year. And this recognises the scale of the issue and the importance of this work. And the majority of this funding is provided to area planning boards, which commission services based on the needs in the area.

Now, the emergence of new substances, such as synthetic opioids, mean that service provision needs to respond dynamically to current and emerging trends. And last year, Welsh Government officials, together with colleagues from Public Health Wales, took part in a scenario-planning exercise to explore the response to an increase in harms related to synthetic opioids. And further discussions were then held in area planning boards to ensure robust plans are in place.

We're also very fortunate to have the Welsh emerging drugs and identification of novel substances programme, which provides real-time data and harm-reduction information about new and emerging substances circling in Wales and the UK. And WEDINOS played a central role in sounding the alarm about nitazenes, and informs services about what needs to be done in terms of awareness and raising support.

There is also increasing concern about the use of ketamine at the moment. This was something that, again, Peredur, you raised with me on behalf of the substance use and addiction cross-party group. It's something that my officials are now looking into seriously. I welcome and appreciate all of the research that you were able to share with me. And over the last—. And also, just to say that ketamine is—. We're getting work done now with the area planning boards, and they're introducing joint assessments, so that people can get the support that they need right now. And, again, it kind of points to where we would go now with the future strategy. This space is moving so quickly.

Over the last five years, we've also seen a significant and consistent rise in the deaths involving cocaine use, as well as an increase in hospital admissions and a growing number of people seeking treatment for cocaine use. People who use cocaine often have little contact with services, and this is an area that we know that we need to work on. We want people to be aware of potential risks and the impact so that they can make their own informed choices, and, most importantly, that they know where they can get the help and support. And that's why we will continue to work with partners, particularly through the area planning boards and third sector, to ensure the needs of the most vulnerable are met and the appropriate guidance and treatment is in place.

Last month, I had the pleasure of attending Brynawel residential rehabilitation centre in Llanharan to officially open Meadow Lodge. I am sure the service it provides will make a massive difference to the lives of so many people. Altaf Hussain was there with me that day and it was a very important and special moment. Having those detox beds is incredibly important. We heard from a previous service user who said, you know, going through detox is not pleasant, so when you get to do it in a really supportive, modern facility, it really does make you feel as if you can do it, and it really improves those outcomes. We know that Brynawel has provided excellent rehabilitation services for nearly 50 years, and these new facilities will further strengthen this work. We have also invested £800,000 in the development of Brynawel House, as we recognise the importance of improving support for services and people struggling.

Will you give way?

Yes.

I agree with you on Buvidal; I think it's fantastic. But when you are speaking to Government, especially the Home Office, with regard to policing and getting licences for testing, some charities have got testing machines that they can't use because they can't get a licence, and it's being blocked, so is that something that you're able to talk to your colleagues in Westminster about, to try and ease some of those blockages?

Absolutely. The next UK four-nation meeting that we're having, I believe, is going to be in September, so that can certainly be on the agenda, but it's also something that I do discuss quite regularly as well. I should be able to give you a response then after I've attended that.

And I also wanted to say a thank you to Dr Jan Melichar and his team, who are part of the Buvidal psychological support service. There's a pilot taking place in Cardiff now, so we'll have even more evidence to really show what a massive difference this makes to people.

I also just wanted to touch on the naloxone programme, because, again, we're really leading the way in Wales on this. More than 48,000 kits have been distributed, of which 3,800 plus have been used to reverse an overdose. Again, it's about harm reduction, it's saving lives, and this is also now being extended to prison officers.

I didn't want to not mention gambling support services, because I know that this is something that many of you have been raising. Members will be aware that the gambling industry levy has now come into force. My officials are working closely with colleagues in Public Health Wales and NHS Wales Performance and Improvement to develop prevention activities and those treatment pathways that we need. So, I want to ensure that anyone suffering from gambling-related harm can access timely and appropriate treatment, and I will be publishing a statement before summer recess outlining our plans, so that is now moving along.

And then I'm just going to end by saying thank you again for bringing forward this debate. It's really important. It highlights a tremendous amount of work that we're doing. Wales is leading the way in so many areas, and also the areas that we need to be focusing on, because this is very fast moving and fast paced. I will end by saying that I really want to thank everyone who has lived experience and shares it. There's still such a huge shame and stigma associated, but, exactly as Altaf Hussain said, everybody can recover. And when people share their lived experience and their recovery journey, I think that's the most powerful thing you can do. That's what makes people feel less alone, that's what helps people to really reach out for that support, and that’s what I think is transformational. So, I respect everybody who ever talks about their experience, and everybody who continues to support those people as well. So, diolch yn fawr.

And that brings today's proceedings to a close.