Plenary

The next item is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, and the first question is from Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Mark. Over £54 million has been invested in this Senedd term alone via the Nature Networks fund to restore and connect habitats and protect threatened species so wildlife thrives for future generations. The environment Bill will also provide a framework to set ambitious targets, including reducing the risk of extinction of native species.

As you and I have previously discussed, species modelling predicts that curlew will be functionally extinct in Wales by 2033, unless drastic action is taken at the scale required in order to save curlew from extinction in Wales and generate the multiple multispecies benefits this would deliver. Your written statement today on the publication of the universal layer guidance for the sustainable farming scheme states you intend to provide further information on the first phase of your optional and collaborative offer for 2026 in the spring, and will continue to evolve and strengthen this scheme throughout the transition period. However, the launch of the universal layer of the SFS alone will not be enough to restore nature and save threatened species such as curlew. You say that this will be the role of the upper tiers of the scheme. Given the urgent need for action to save curlew and many other threatened habitats and species, when will the upper tiers of the scheme therefore be available, and what contribution will they make to helping farmers to restore nature in Wales?

Mark, thank you very much indeed, and thanks for your continued advocacy for the curlew, but also other Members in the Senedd who’ve been advocating for species in their role as species champions as well. We do have real potential within the SFS. My thanks, Mark, for flagging the potential of the optional and collaborative layers, because I’ve made repeatedly clear that this is where the business analysis makes clear that the greatest gains can be made for nature and biodiversity and climate resilience. On that basis, I think there is significant scope here as we bring forward, not only for next May at the introduction of the SFS, but as we further then develop schemes within the optional and collaborative layer to take forward in future years.

It's worth saying that we are investing at the moment £2 million in projects, as you know, through the Nature Networks fund to drive forward curlew recovery. The Wales action plan for the recovery of curlews remains a Government-supported plan as well, and we’re looking forward to the outputs of the review from 2025. I‘ve visited some of these myself, but you are absolutely right, and I’m sure you will talk to other Members as well within the Conservative group about the real potential within the optional and collaborative layers of the SFS for having a joined-up approach that can not only lead to the restoration of curlew numbers but also to other species as well. [Interruption.] The upper tiers, yes.

Thank you, Mick. Our aim is to prevent litter occurring in the first place, and to ensure everyone takes their own responsibility as well for disposing their waste properly. By funding Keep Wales Tidy we're providing direct support to communities, and our legislation is shifting the supply chain towards more easily recyclable or reusable products as well.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. There are two blights that are affecting our communities throughout Wales and affect us across all political parties. You will be aware that the cross-party group on fly-tipping and littering has made a number of recommendations for not only legislative change, but greater enforcement, and also other measures to be implemented. This will obviously be a matter to carry forward into the next Senedd. On Thursday, 29 January at the Pierhead, the cross-party group is actually going to be having a briefing for all candidates for the Senedd across all political parties, the objective being that this is one area where I think there is complete political unity on the need for change under the things that can be done. I wonder if you could just let me have your views, firstly, on further steps that need to be taken, and, secondly, if you would obviously consider attending that event, because I think unity and engagement, if we are to resolve this problem across Wales and the criminality involved in it, is going to be required in order to do what I think the people of Wales want us to achieve for their communities.

Indeed Mick, and my thanks to you in your role as chair but also to all the members of the cross-party group, because you are bringing a very welcome focus to this area, but also bringing forward some really actionable ideas. They are multifaceted as well; they go from sentencing down to very localised individual actions. We're watching that with great interest and we're keen to keep engaging with the cross-party group as we take our ideas forward as well. If I can make it to that event, I certainly will. I will look at my diary, but if not, I will make sure that I've got officials there as well.

To say as well, we are not standing still on this. What we can do also, in addition to the ideas being brought forward by the cross-party group, is things like the extended producer responsibility approach, where we put that polluter-pays responsibility back up the supply chain to make sure that we reduce the amount of waste being produced at source there. Then also, where there is waste being produced, the funds come down to local authorities so that they can deal with the litter problem. If we can take forward our proposals on the deposit-return scheme, then that also provides us with an opportunity as well. So, we're definitely not standing still.

But, yes, Mick, please keep with your group focusing on this issue, because I agree with you. I think it's one of those areas where there is broad cross-party support to deal with this pernicious issue of litter and fly-tipping within our local communities.

We are blessed across Wales to have many wonderful places to visit. In Monmouthshire, as you will know very well, we have the Monmouthshire and Brecon canal, the Sugar Loaf, Keeper's Pond, numerous cycle routes and other spots that attract visitors and locals alike from all over Wales. Unfortunately, most of these routes, certainly cycle routes, are plagued with litter, often full of it. The car parks for our mountains and the likes of Keeper's Pond car park—constantly we have reports of waste and litter and we all know what happens with canals, with trolleys and different things getting in them.

Cabinet Secretary, we have all worked hard to save assets, and you certainly have as well, certainly like the Mon and Brecon canal. We now need to ensure that these assets are looked after. Now, while individuals must take responsibility for their actions, how can the Welsh Government work with local authorities and all other agencies to keep these areas tidy and, importantly, ensure that littering regulations are properly enforced?

Thank you, Peter. I think this shows once again that there is good cross-party support and there is no monopoly here on good ideas. I think some of the ideas coming forward from individual Members, from the cross-party group, are worth considering as we try and build that toolkit of ways that we deal with it. But we have to start from the point of individual responsibility, okay. Let's make it clear from the Senedd, as we repeatedly do, that people have to take responsibility for their own actions. There should not be littering and there should not be fly-tipping, including in beautiful places like the Mon and Brec canal. This is a huge community asset. We were delighted to be able to convene that group to look at how we could make sure that there is water in the canal. I made the somewhat obvious but, I think, important point when we brought forward the up to £400,000 a year, alongside the Canal and River Trust themselves, to make sure that there is water in the canal. The canal is nothing without the water, but it's also the banks, the pathways, the biodiversity and the beautiful environment.

But we will certainly continue to work not only with local authorities directly on this—including, by the way, through the EPR that I mentioned in my response to Mick Antoniw, and in taking forward the DRS as well—but also in the funding of things like Keep Wales Tidy, which we have stood steadfastly by, because they then work with those local groups in the local communities, empowering others to go out and deal with the issues of litter. First and foremost, let us just remind all of our constituents: don't litter. It's irresponsible. It's an absolutely pernicious activity to do. For goodness sake, let us take pride in our own local environment.

Questions from the party spokespeople now. Conservative spokesperson, Samuel Kurtz.

Diolch, Llywydd. Deputy First Minister, you'll be aware that I've previously pressed you on whether you agree with the UK Climate Change Committee's recommendation to reduce livestock numbers in order to meet climate targets. To date, I've not had a clear answer. So, in the spirit of Christmas, Deputy First Minister, will you give a clear and unambiguous answer today? Do you agree with the UK Climate Change Committee's call to de-stock Welsh agriculture?

So, in the spirit of Christmas, merry Christmas in advance to you as well, Sam. We recognise there has been a declining trend in domestic beef and sheep populations across the UK over the last 20 years. You will be aware of this. Whilst beef and sheep population numbers have declined, production has actually remained stable since 2008. Now, livestock numbers, as you know, are driven not by Government, but actually by the market. They can be attributed to a wide variety of factors, including changes to agricultural support schemes, wider economic policy, efficiency gains and incomes from beef and sheep farms remaining relatively low compared to other farm sectors. The Welsh Government agriculture and horticulture June survey was released on 9 December. Headline figures show a slight increase in the total number of sheep and lambs in Wales, whilst there was a small fall in the total number of cattle and calves in Wales—no significant changes from 2024. What I would say to you, Sam, is there is nothing within our sustainable farming scheme that says that the numbers of livestock will be driven down. This actually gives the ability and the autonomy to Welsh farmers to grow grass and forage and make the most of the land that we have.

Well, that was a very long-winded answer to not give an answer. But we do know where you stand, Deputy First Minister, and we know where your Labour colleagues stand, and we know where Plaid Cymru stands and the Liberal Democrats stand, because all of you voted in favour of the climate change carbon budget regulations just two weeks ago. Those regulations explicitly support the UK Climate Change Committee's fourth carbon budget, which clearly states that achieving net zero by 2050, quote,

'requires reductions in livestock numbers.'

You supported that, they supported that, the Liberals, Plaid, all of you supported that. So, why does the Welsh Government want Welsh livestock farmers, producers of some of the highest quality, most traceable and sustainable food in the world, to produce less?

It seems you're labouring under some misapprehension here, Sam, because the pathway set out by the Climate Change Committee is not Welsh Government policy. The ambition and the target is not only Welsh Government policy, but this Senedd's desired intent as well. And that's because this Senedd has voted, Sam, not to walk away from our climate change ambitions, unlike the Conservative Party, who are now washing their hands of it and seem to be saying, 'Well, this is all too difficult.' Well, I'm sorry, but some of the predecessors in the Conservative Party were much more resolute in sticking to the plate. So, it's for us to determine, Sam, through the support through the SFS, through what we do with Hybu Cig Cymru, through what we do with investment in the red meat and livestock sector, through our investment in good, green pastureland, to make sure that we sustain that sector and also have the throughput that we need as well. But it is noticeable that the Conservatives—and thank you for reminding us—voted against that climate change budget. I mean, that's a notable moment in time, I have to say, when you have turned 180 degrees and you are washing your hands now of the need to give farmers the ability to resist the ravages of climate change.

Voting records never lie, and our voting record voted against the sustainable farming scheme, it voted against the climate change regulations, because we voted against the UK Climate Change Committee's recommendations to de-stock. We do not believe that Welsh agriculture needs to lose livestock numbers to continue to be the very best in the world. Let's also remember that there are expectations for livestock numbers to be cut within the sustainable farming scheme. Your own analysis says so. The scheme is due to start in only two weeks' time, and only today we've had further details on the universal tiers be published. This isn't last-minute Christmas shopping by the Government, it's last-minute decision making that farmers are expected to adapt to. So, Deputy First Minister, are you genuinely confident that, from 1 January, two weeks' time, everything will be fully in place, from RPW systems, data mapping, guidance, administration, everything will be ready for those farmers who wish to sign up to the SFS? And how many farmers do you expect to sign up to the SFS?

'Yes' is the answer to that. All the work we've done over the last 12 to 18 months—in partnership, I have to say, with all those stakeholders, including the farming unions, the TFA, the environmental NGOs, whatever—plus all the work of my officials, has made sure that we are ready to go. But I recognise that the Conservatives have done everything in their power to try and undermine this way forward, a way forward that is good for the vitality of Welsh farming and gives them certainty and security going forward. All the Conservatives can do, time after time again, is try and undermine this position, and put forward—I'm trying to remember the right initials now—the FSF instead of the SFS—[Interruption.] It is ludicrous, Sam; it is ludicrous. So, everything will be in place.

And simply to say, just to counter once again, if I haven't said it often enough, when you say, within the sustainable farming scheme, that it's actually going to lead to livestock numbers reduction, can I repeat once again, for crystal clarity, before we get to the Christmas break: it is modelling and scenarios? What the SFS does is it puts in the power of farmers, with the lush green pastureland that we have, which lends itself to good rearing and good soil health and good production of red meat—. It is their ability then to actually stock according to what they think is appropriate. So, you are, let me say—how do I say this charitably, in the run-up to Christmas—peddling misinformation around the SFS, and trying to undermine it. It will be ready for delivery, and we will continue to work with all of the stakeholders to bring this forward.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Well, as it is the end of term, may I also wish you a very merry Christmas? But I do think that we are all aware that it doesn't promise to be a good new year for Welsh dairy farmers. You'll be aware, Cabinet Secretary, that milk prices have been reducing substantially recently, and it's expected that that pressure on prices will continue into 2026. Over the past weeks, we have seen dairy companies continue to cut prices, and, yesterday, there was a reduction of 4.4 per cent in the global price index for milk, which was the ninth decrease in a row. Now, this, of course, will bring a direct threat to the viability of the sector and the risk that there will be serious losses faced.

So, can I ask whether any consideration has been given by the Government to using commercial intervention measures through the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023? Can I also ask to what extent the Government has engaged with the agricultural supply chain adjudicator to ensure that the new regulations introduced this year are implemented in order to ensure a fair price for Welsh dairy farmers?

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llyr. Thank you very much as well for the seasonal greetings; I reciprocate with that as well.

We've discussed this with the farming unions in the past week, two weeks, specifically with this on the agenda as we met. As you rightly point out, it is a real concern. Now, Welsh Government is committed to supporting the Welsh dairy industry to ensure it has a strong future. I'm pleased that the milk regulations will now be in place to give more certainty for business purchases and qualifying sellers in the milk sector. But these are worrying times at the moment.

Now, I'm pleased to note that the UK Government are listening to the concerns raised regarding the tiered pricing provisions within the regulations to secure more certainty for both business purchases and the qualifying sellers in the milk sector. Now, we haven't looked yet at using powers within the Agriculture (Wales) Act, but that has been raised with me by the unions, as to whether and when that might be an option to look at. So, we haven't discounted it, but we haven't thought it right at this moment to actually use it. But we're keen to work with the UK Government as well. We're also very keen to work with the supply chain and speak directly to them. I'm going to meet representatives from the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board as well to discuss falling milk prices very early in January as well. We need to keep a very close eye on this and make sure that we can give that certainty to our dairy producers that they can get through this and get to, hopefully, when the prices rise again.

Thank you for that response. I'm sure you'll also be aware that alarming amounts of meat and dairy products are now being illegally imported to Great Britain, for both personal consumption and sale. You'll be aware, I'm sure, of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee's report on this, which highlighted poor enforcement of personal import rules at the border and the exploitation of this vulnerability by smugglers, bringing in significant volumes of meat with relative impunity, and bringing with it, of course, a threat of importing animal diseases, such as, heaven forbid, foot and mouth disease, but also the risk of harm to human health, clearly, as well.

Now, the UK Government of course has said in its response that many of the committee's core recommendations to tackle the issue will only be considered once the sanitary and phytosanitary negotiations with the EU have been concluded and implemented. Now, that's, effectively, putting real action off until 2027 at the earliest. So, can I ask what discussions have you had with the UK Government to urge them to ramp up action on this front now, sooner rather than later, and what role is the Welsh Government playing to protect both animal and human health in the face of this risk?

Llyr, thank you very much for raising this really important issue. I can confirm to you that we have raised in inter-ministerial group meetings, quad meetings between the four nations, on this very issue, and we're not satisfied simply to wait until when the SPS agreement—. Even though that seems to be progressing well, there's still time to go on that. We need, actually, to be working together right here, right now, on those risks to biosecurity, but also food being brought in that could, indeed, have real challenges for our wider food industry. So, we have been not only articulating those views within the IMG, but we are working now with colleagues in Scotland, Northern Ireland and elsewhere to make sure that we have a co-ordinated approach in things such as spot checks—increasing the spot checks—on the different points of entry around the country to make sure that we can do everything in this transition period, not simply waiting for when we have the SPS in place.

I know you're aware of the considerable distress that continues to engulf our farming communities as a result of the UK Government's short-sighted changes to inheritance tax rules, which, obviously, are due to take effect next April. Now, I still believe strongly that the best course of action would be to completely reverse the policy, but at this stage, at least, that doesn't look as likely as some of us would wish. But it doesn't mean that we give up, does it? And it doesn't mean either that options to refine and improve what is currently an incredibly blunt policy instrument shouldn't be explored in earnest over the time that we have left to do so. And there are alternatives, which I've highlighted to you before: the clawback approach, of course, ensuring that genuine farm succession isn't penalised, while more effectively targeting inheritance tax loopholes, is one option. The second is to introduce a minimum share rule, which is something that the Centre for the Analysis of Taxation has highlighted as being less damaging when it comes to our family farms here in Wales.

Now, you've spoken a lot about the improvements in intergovernmental relations in your earlier answers today and previously. Well, maybe now's the time to show that that can deliver positive results for Wales. So, will you consider putting Wales forward to the UK Government as somewhere they can pilot or trial some of these alternative approaches instead of introducing what is currently being proposed, something that would not only be less damaging to farms and businesses here in Wales, but also ultimately could well raise more money for the Treasury?

So, I think the challenge here is that—. We've repeatedly raised the need to make sure that we protect the sustainability of our characteristic Welsh farming here in Wales, and we've done it in every instance we can, both in writing and face-to-face with DEFRA Ministers. But, ultimately, of course, this is a decision—I hate to state the, you know, blindingly obvious here—for UK Treasury as well. But we've repeatedly urged the UK Government to engage with ideas out there in the Welsh farming unions about practical alternatives. And I do, by the way, actually welcome the announcement that was made in the autumn budget that, from 6 April 2026, the £1 million allowance for agricultural and business property relief will be transferable between spouses and civil partners, even if the deceased spouse or civil partner passed away before that date.

But I think the question of whether there would be a concession to allow any part of the UK to actually proceed in a different way, when it's a Treasury-based decision, I think is unlikely, to be quite frank with you. But, meanwhile, what we will continue to do is support farmers through our own initiatives that we have devolved competence in, and that includes, through Farming Connect, the support that's available there, including inheritance tax implications, but also succession review, but also subsidised business and legal advice as well. So, in all of our devolved powers, we'll do everything that we can.

The Welsh Government actively promotes natural flood management and supports risk management authorities to work in collaboration with landowners and farmers to pursue nature-based solutions to reduce flood risk and to protect and enhance our natural environment.

Thank you for that response.

I note that when we talk about this, often the focus is on upland areas. But, as you know, most of the region that I represent, South Wales Central, comprises heavily populated urban environments. The WWF's recently published report, 'Urban Nature Based Solutions', for flood risk mitigation shows that such solutions can also be used in urban areas. So, can I therefore ask how you are progressing this work? When you look at areas that I represent, like Pontypridd, Taff's Well and so on, how can we ensure that we're also investing in those kinds of solutions, not just the traditional defences model?

You are absolutely right, and we are starting to see initiatives come forward now in the urban settings as well, and it's not just to do with SuDS and SABs, but wider initiatives. In fact, I was at one of Dŵr Cymru's first-funded use of natural flood management in a town environment only very recently. But we need to do more on this. I think we're in the foothills, in some ways. So, it isn't just an upland catchment, as important as that is, I have to say, and there's an immense amount of scope we can do, not just through the £2 million investment we're doing, but actually through what we can do in the, as was mentioned earlier, things like the collaborative part of the sustainable farming scheme as well, to bring farmers together in the uplands, but equally within urban environments as well, so that we use natural processes in order to alleviate flood risk. So, there is more to do, but we are leading the way in some ways. We've had people come here to Cardiff to actually see work that we're doing here, which is leading the way. But, yes, we do have more to do, and we have to focus on not just the upland upstream interventions, but down in the towns as well.

Despite technical advice note 15's aim to restrict development on floodplains, a significant policy contradiction has emerged in Wales. The Welsh Government's repeated failure to meet housing targets places substantial pressure on local authorities like Bridgend and Swansea to approve developments on marginal or flood-prone land. Up the road in Penyborfa, Powys, planning permission was recently given for 29 homes on flood-prone land by the local council, despite significant community and environmental concerns. The Welsh Government chose not to intervene on the planning decision. This short-term emphasis on housing delivery is undermining sustainable flood resilience in Bridgend and Porthcawl, reducing space for nature-based solutions such as floodplain reconnections and wetland creation. What measure is the Welsh Government implementing to balance house building with support for local authorities in protecting floodplains and promoting nature-based flood management?

Thank you, Altaf, and I refer to my earlier answer in terms of promoting flood-risk management schemes that are based on nature within urban areas. But you were right in saying that if there is housing development—and we have very high and ambitious housing targets, which we are striving and succeeding, I have to say, particularly in terms of social and affordable housing, to meet there—if these are within areas that are at flood risk, there is clear policy guidance, then, on the mitigations that are needed to enable any development to go forward. It is right that local authorities are in the prime position to actually make these decisions, but with advice from NRW and from other agencies as well, to make sure that they are designed in the right way, in the right place, with sufficient mitigations against the risk of flooding. But, as I said to Heledd earlier, I think it's right as well that we—as you said, actually—enable enough space within these developments, so that we can actually enable natural flood-risk approaches to be built into these schemes as well.

Global warming is affecting the weather and we're now having regular heavy rain and flooding. We cannot stop the rain; what we can do is reduce the volume of water downstream. Trees play a crucial role in reducing flooding through various natural processes that manage water flow and improve soil absorption. Trees act as a natural umbrella, accepting rainfall with their canopies. This slows down the rain before it hits the ground, allowing for gradual absorption rather than immediate run-off. Tree roots create channels in the soil that allow water to penetrate deeper and more quickly. This reduces surface run-off and increases water storage in the soil. By anchoring the soil, trees prevent erosion and landslide, which can lead to increased run-off. Their presence helps to slow down water flow across the landscape, mitigating flash floods during heavy rains. What are the Government's plans to increase tree coverage to reduce flooding as we see the effect of global warming?

Mike, thank you for raising this and for regularly championing the role of tree planting within flood risk alleviation. Now, we do have funding priorities. We have a dedicated natural flood management grant and woodland creation grants that support woodland creation as a key measure to slow down run-off and to store water within catchments, as you describe. There's also an integrated approach with wider policies, such as encouraging riparian planting—planting alongside rivers—floodplain woodlands and buffer strips to reduce flood peaks. And wider nature-based solutions promote tree planting alongside other natural flood management interventions. So, within the sustainable farming scheme, for example, there's an ambition of planting 17,000 hectares by 2030 to support active farmers in creating woodland as well. So, there's much we can do in this area, Mike, and we're lining up the funding and the incentives to do it.

Diolch, Julie. The Welsh Government supports a number of initiatives to improve access to nature. This includes the well supported Local Places for Nature, the Community Land Advisory Service and the access improvement grant. We are committed to creating green spaces that enhance our health and well-being and provide those places that the people of Wales can really enjoy.

Thank you for the answer.

In September, I met with my constituent who lives half of the year on a canal boat, and we had a wonderful journey along the Mon and Brec Canal, which has already been mentioned here this afternoon. And I'm absolutely delighted that the Welsh Government has committed up to £400,000 a year to maintain the water supply to the canal, because I saw the industry that was dependent on it in terms of the river trips, and was so impressed by the beauty of the area, and I really commend the Welsh Government for making this decision. So, how will the Welsh Government ensure that people will continue to have access to fantastic spots like this canal?

Well, thank you very much for that. I'm pleased that this is being raised on the floor today because it was a signal moment that the Welsh Government—alongside the Canal and River Trust—was able to step up and actually commit to sustaining that canal network with up to £400,000 a year funding over the next few years, but also with the investment—the capital money—that we'd put in last year to make sure that water was still flowing into the canal, because the canal, yes, is about the boating and the businesses and everything else, and it's also about the place that people go to enjoy the natural environment as well—walking, cycling along the towpath, paddling along the canal as well, which I've done myself on several occasions.

But it's bigger than that. So, during the year 2025-26, we'll be providing £19 million for the Local Places for Nature programme. And that means that we get many, many more of those green spaces for communities that we see now in every constituency. I mean, this is really putting people at the heart of that access to green spaces in their communities and the spaces that they love—and the ones that they want to turn around into beautiful spaces to enjoy. The Local Places for Nature programme now has delivered over 3,000 pollinator sites, over 100 food growing sites, over 1,000 community orchards and 110 therapeutic gardens. So, there's much more we can do. Our allotment support grants, the Green Flag Awards, which are promoting the enjoyment and awareness of those green spaces as well, and the investment in the Sustainable Landscapes, Sustainable Places programme as well. So, in many, many ways, this Government is actually committing, in words and in actions and in funds, to promoting access for everyone to green spaces in their local neighbourhoods, as well as along the canal.

Cabinet Secretary, access to open and green spaces is very important—I see you've disappeared behind the lectern—especially to do with the mental health agenda and the obesity agenda. But what we do see is that a lot of our rights-of-way network is currently not accessible for many people. It's either overgrown or the paths are simply not available for people to walk on. So, I'd just like to know what work the Welsh Government is doing to make sure that we can open up the rights-of-way network so we can get those people out of their homes, out of their chairs and enjoying our open countryside across Wales.

James, thank you. It's a really important point. The rights-of-way network is so critically important because, for many people, it's the one where they walk out of their own homes and then access the wider areas, before they get up on the hills and so on and so forth. So, during 2025-27, we're funding a two-year capital access improvement grant totalling £4 million to local authorities and to national park authorities, indeed, that have public rights of way. So, it will enable those authorities to improve the recreational access to green and blue spaces, both for the access principle but also, as you say, for mental and physical health and well-being as well there. But, just to say as well, in the sustainable farming scheme, there's a capital project that also includes improving accessibility and the visitor experience. So, there are different ways of improving that as well. But, certainly, in terms of rights of way, our access improvement grant, totalling £4 million, is going to be a substantial investment in our basic rights of way.

Thank you, Janet. We work with Natural Resources Wales through the emerging threats to water Wales group to assess risks and potential harms from plastics and microplastics in rivers. This partnership drives research, it monitors innovation and evidence-based policy development to assess and reduce plastic pollution in rivers, safeguarding ecosystems, biodiversity and public health right across Wales.

Thank you. I attended a cross-party group the other day with my colleague Delyth, over there, and we were quite disturbed, really, to realise that there is no actual surveying of the water in rivers as there is the sea and things. Now, six of the 20 most polluted rivers in the UK are in Wales. Microplastics were found in 50 per cent of invertebrate samples. Microplastics were found in a wide range of fish organs, from gills to the brain. But it is not just our rivers where we see plastic pollution. There are also instances of plastic discs from water treatment facilities leaking into our seas and rivers. Now, whilst NRW, backed by the Welsh Government, has schemes that focus on farm pollution in rivers, this continues the narrative of the agricultural sector being seen as the main culprit, and by no means are our farmers to blame on this. We see far too much pollution from our water companies. However, NRW, I understand, does not have a routine monitoring programme to measure plastic or microplastics actually in the water in the rivers, rather than the fish and the invertebrates. So, given that this is a really important issue now, will you work with NRW to bring in these routine surveys? Diolch.

Janet, thank you for that. It is a really important issue, and I think there is a way forward on this. So, you are right in saying that at present there is limited data to quantify the contribution of microplastics from each potential source, and the current evidence indicates that some microplastics, notably those found in drinking water, may come from treatment and distribution systems for tap water and/or bottling of bottled water. But, currently, as you point out, there is no regulatory requirement to monitor microplastics in freshwater and drinking water. Therefore, NRW do not routinely monitor for plastics in water. However, the Welsh Government and NRW jointly convened an emerging threats to water quality working group to look at this very issue, to look at microplastics as part of the group's remit in addition to other chemical threats, because it is not the only one.

So, the most recent UK report on microplastics in drinking water was published by the UK water industry research group in 2019, and they found that more than 99.9 per cent of microplastics were removed from drinking water and waste water through the water company treatment processes. Nevertheless, we recognise that more research is needed to understand the full impact of plastic pollution on human health and the environment. So, the work that we are now doing will support the appropriate regulatory standards and monitoring requirements, going forward. So, more work to be done, but we are getting on with it.

I'm really glad that Janet has raised this issue, and it was a great event that we were at recently. Plastics are found everywhere in our rivers, particularly from car tyres, clothing and paint. Animals can mistake those plastics for food. Birds try to eat plastic packaging, and fish can ingest microplastics. Professor Steve Ormerod's research has found that microplastics are ingested by one in every two insects in the Taf, the Usk and the Wye rivers. Chicks can be fed 8,000 fragments of microplastic before fledging. Songbirds and those living near riverbanks eat hundreds of pieces of plastic a day, mainly from those insects. Research that was sent to me by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds shows dippers ingest around 200 particles of plastic every day. Now, clearly, this plastic litter is infecting our wild world. What can be done to raise awareness of these alarming statistics, please, to start to stem that tide? Young people, in particular, are looking to us for answers.

Yes, and in fact I agree. Young people, in fact, are some of the most fantastic advocates now of the need to tackle plastic pollution. But there's much that can be done. And, in fact, I've got to say, credit to devolution, it's in this place, in this amphitheatre of democracy, that we've led the way on this, whether it's been through the plastic bags levy many years ago, whether it's through the legislation we took through on single-use plastic products. I have to say as well that it's the investment that we're putting in to pioneering schemes within the UK such as the recycled fisheries products as well, where we are, by the van load, gathering fishing nets and plastics from the fishing industry. There is much that we can do. And much of the motivation for this is coming from when we go out to schools, and eco councils and so on, and they tell us. I have schools write to me in their dozens, saying, 'Will you, please, do more on this?' So we're keen to do it.

It also ties into, I have to say, what we do with our waste management and recycling and reuse of plastics, and where we can also go next with the circular economy, so we have less of it ending up in the environment, and more of it being reused for useful products that create jobs here in Wales. So, again, this is an area that we're leading in, but there's much to do. But young people, I have to say, are the ones who keep our feet to the fire on this.

Thank you very much to Janet Finch-Saunders for raising this important question. I listened carefully to your answer, and I think it's shocking that this isn't being measured at the moment and, from your answers, I think there isn't any plan to measure plastic pollution in rivers. Because, as Delyth Jewell has said, clearly plastics do pollute our rivers. It's very hard to set a target if you don't know what the current state of affairs is. As an analogy, if you are helping a friend to run a marathon in three months' time, you cannot plan for that effectively if you don't know how far they can run right now. So, bearing in mind the environmental targets, how can we possibly do that and set targets without monitoring at the moment? Are you worried that this isn't possible without current or future monitoring? Diolch yn fawr.

So, Rhys, first of all, thanks for championing this repeatedly here within the Senedd. But just to counter what you're saying, it's not simply that there isn't monitoring, there's a lack of data on the analysis of what the impact of microplastics is within the various systems that we have. So, that's one of the areas that we're working on. We need to actually ascertain that in order to know what the scale of the issue is, alongside, by the way, other pollutants within the environment that are being looked at as well, and then decide what measures we can take.

So, colleagues in the UK Government, in DEFRA, are currently working with the Environment Agency and the water industry to establish those methods to detect, to characterise and to quantify microplastics entering waste water treatment works, and to evaluate the efficiency of treatment processes for the removal from domestic waste waters. And my officials are working with DEFRA colleagues to understand the outcomes from that research.

But I referred in my earlier answer to the additional work that's being done to try and quantify the extent of the threat of microplastics as well. We need to be able to evaluate that, and then decide how we deal with it. It's not the only pollutant out there, but it's very important that we focus on this and we gather the data.

Thank you, Rhun. Planning policy sets out a sequential approach to site selection to protect best and most versatile agricultural land. 'Planning Policy Wales', edition 12, says that if there is a choice between sites of different grades, development should be directed to land of the lowest grade.

Thank you for that response. I don't need to tell the Cabinet Secretary how important agriculture is to Ynys Môn, and it's no surprise, therefore, that there is concern about plans to develop 3,700 acres of solar farms on farmland, and that 1,000 acres of that is BMV land. The loss of BMV land means job losses in agriculture, it impacts the supply chain, and it hits our rural communities. And the Government's policy is to protect BMV land.

The examiner's report for the Alaw Môn project clearly states that there is a fundamental policy conflict because it contains so much BMV land. But this Government has given it the go-ahead regardless. There are other ways of doing solar, of course, on rooftops, and, yes, on smaller packets of less productive agricultural land. But is the Cabinet Secretary ready today to be honest and say that his Government no longer cares about protecting productive BMV land, or, if that's not the case, how on earth can he justify permission being given for the Alaw Môn project?

Diolch, Rhun. Well, first of all, you'll understand that I'm not able to comment on specific cases and, as I understand it, the Alaw Môn decision, Llywydd, is facing judicial review, so you wouldn't expect me or anybody else to comment on the specifics of the Alaw Môn decision.

However, just to say, we have the highest level of protection for high-quality agricultural land here in Wales in the UK, and let me explain a little bit more. We do have indeed—you are right to point out—ambitious targets for renewable energy, requiring a diverse range of generation types, but each case must be taken on its merits, and it has to balance the agricultural interest against other considerations. Now, the best and most versatile classification of land is not a ban on the use of land. The planning system cannot do that. It does, however, set a very high bar, and as I say, we've got the highest level of protection for high-quality agricultural land in the UK. So, we believe the existing measures are strong. They're the strongest in the UK. It's supported, by the way, by the recent Soil Security paper in 2022, describing Wales as, and I quote, set 'apart from its neighbours' and where,

'the primacy of ALC and BMV land has been maintained'.

That's a quote directly from them. Now, my officials routinely—. Just to make clear from my department, my officials routinely make representations in national interest cases, to ensure our best and most versatile agricultural land is given significant weight in the planning process. But, as I say, I'm not able to comment on specific cases.

Diolch, Jenny. Growing in Wales is promoted through commitments in the community food strategy, better access for small-scale horticulture to the upcoming sustainable farming scheme, and through initiatives such as the Welsh Veg in Schools programme. Comprehensive ongoing support includes Farming Connect and the horticulture cluster, together with dedicated capital grant schemes.

Thank you. All those streams of work are very important, and I acknowledge a lot of the progress that's been made, both by Castell Howell in south Wales and the north Wales education consortium, to do good work on procuring more Welsh ingredients for school meals. But growing 10 tonnes of carrots in Carmarthenshire isn't going to feed all our primary school pupils. The work done by Lantra on behalf of Farming Connect in the last 12 months to increase horticultural production has been excellent, but eight full-time equivalent staff doesn't even meet the demand, never mind proactively promote diversification into horticulture under the sustainable farming scheme.

Our biggest horticulturalist, Puffin Produce, could easily double its output if local authorities were being clearer about what they needed from local growers. I'm concerned that the Farming Connect contract for the next three years is being procured behind closed doors, so stakeholders are unable to see how much resource is targeting strengthening the foundational economy to produce sustainable fruit and veg in Wales, rather than on unpredictable foreign imports. It's both a food security and a sustainability issue. So, what targets have you set for Farming Connect to massively expand Welsh fruit and veg production?

Jenny, where I'd absolutely agree with you is on the importance of not only the procurement policy, but also Farming Connect in taking forward the many ways in which we're supporting growing the fruit and veg sector here in Wales, and Farming Connect is key to this. It has now supported 447 businesses in the edible horticulture sector who are currently registered with the programme. That's significant, from where we were a few years ago. Since April 2023, the programme has successfully delivered 335 fully funded one-to-one horticultural business support sessions to Welsh growers. And that is tailored support, by the way, in key areas such as crop planning, diversification, integrated pest management and much more. And there have been 841 training courses on a range of events specifically within this edible horticulture sector delivered through Farming Connect.

The Farming Connect procurement process is, as you mentioned, ongoing and we expect to announce the successful supplier in the new year. We want to build on the success we have had. We want to keep on growing this sector substantially. It'll continue, that process, to uphold our commitment to supporting all of the various sectors, including edible horticulture, as they transition forward to the sustainable farming scheme. It will, of course, also be aligned with the sustainable land management framework as we go forward as well.

So, we're committed to this, Jenny, in taking this forward. I think we've come a long way over the last couple of years, but we do agree with you that we've got a lot further to go. So, lining up that alongside the horticultural grant support and the range of other support that we have, including working with distributors like Harlech and through the Welsh Veg in Schools programme, we will keep on pushing at all of the areas to grow and grow our edible horticulture sector.

And finally question 8, Cefin Campbell.

Thanks, Cefin. Within Wales, Natural Resources Wales is the responsible authority for main rivers. Local authorities and riparian owners are responsible for non-main rivers, also known as ordinary watercourses. Risk management authorities are responsible for undertaking flood protection schemes throughout Wales, including in Mid and West Wales.

Thank you very much. The floods that we have seen in west Wales recently demonstrate how often these events take place and how much of an impact these floods have on various different areas. But it also raises a question as to how well prepared we are for these floods and how resilient we are in terms of these flooding events that are happening more often. Following storm Claudia, for example, the Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service responded to 450 calls within 12 hours, including people who had been trapped in their own homes and their vehicles.

Minister, successive storms have brought heavy rainfall to already saturated river catchments, with river systems unable to recover between events. Now, in addition, we see that unstable trees and accumulated debris have entered watercourses and become lodged, resulting in blockage. This debris acts as a dam, contributing to upstream flooding and unnecessary damage to properties. So, in light of these events, will you work with NRW to commit to a more preventative programme of river maintenance to avoid unnecessary and repeated flooding?

You raise a very good point, because the sheer frequency now with which we're having deluges of rain—we can see it starting again here today—means that our front-line agencies are constantly being stretched to respond. Even in the 18 months or more that I've been in post, we are having more of these, not simply heavy precipitation but actually storm incidents, being reported this year than last year, more last year than the year before. Something significant is happening. I simply say to those who would deny that there is something going on with the climate: something is happening here. And that means that there is a big stretch.

Part of our response to that needs not only to be the massive investment that we are doing in flood and coastal protection, and so on—including those things that are often unseen, by the way, which are things such as culvert monitoring, the cleaning of culverts, and so on. That is vitally important as well, and we work with local authorities on that basis. So, it's not only with NRW, it's actually with local authorities who are the flood risk authorities within their own areas. So, yes, I can absolutely commit. And if you want to contact me with detail of particular rivers or river catchments in your area, I'm more than happy to ask my officials to explore that. But we need to maintain our flood resilience, not just keep on investing more and more. We need to maintain what it is when we're faced with more frequent heavy precipitation week after week after week.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The topical questions are next. The first question will be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and will be asked by Adam Price.

Diolch yn fawr, Adam Price. Recent reports in the media on potential future changes in England and Wales are unconfirmed, but we continue to engage with the UK Government policing Minister, who will be attending the policing partnership board for Wales, which I chair, tomorrow.

These changes that have been reported across several media, and presumably on the basis of a briefing, would represent the biggest upheaval and reform of police forces since the 1960s. I'm not clear—maybe if the Cabinet Secretary could help us in this regard—if there have been any discussions to date in relation to the proposal to create integrated forces and the creation, for example, of a single Welsh police force. When the announcements on police and crime commissioners were made, effectively, if I can paraphrase, you told us that you were told but you weren't consulted. Would you expect to be consulted before the White Paper is published on a proposal that is as significant as this?

On the principle, would you state whether, in your view—certainly, this is our position—no change should happen, a merger for example, without full Senedd scrutiny and a Welsh democratic mandate? Will you particularly call on the Home Secretary to rule out any cross-border structure that would involve, for example, a Welsh force being absorbed into an English megaforce, or indeed Welsh services being effectively operated from a national operations centre in England?

And finally, I think that we would accept that there are some arguments for structural reform—an all-Wales model could have benefits, as has been the case in Scotland—but governance is going to be critical. If an all-Wales force is being proposed, would you agree that the accountability of that national force would have to be national to the Senedd here, to the Welsh Government, through Welsh democratic structures? Will you ask the policing partnership board for Wales, which you chair, to take evidence, set out the options for Wales, and report back to the Senedd so that we can debate and decide the best way forward for Wales?

Diolch yn fawr, Adam. Thank you for that question. As I said, unconfirmed reports and speculation are unhelpful, so tomorrow it's really important that we will address this in the policing partnership board. I was really encouraged by the fact that when we had the announcement made by the Home Office to abolish police and crime commissioners, we raised this immediately to say that we need different governance arrangements for Wales. We need governance arrangements that actually reflect Wales, Welsh circumstances, the Wales partnership that we've built up over the years.

The policing partnership board for Wales, which I chair, meets every quarter. It's an excellent example of how we work together, all the police and crime commissioners, our chief constables and the Welsh Local Government Association—key partners. One of the interesting things about that announcement, about the police landscape reform, is that it has provided us with the opportunity to say that this gives us more opportunity to ensure that the policing partnership board can have a real place in Wales in terms of accountability. I share that view in terms of governance.

Also, we have received assurance from the Home Office that there are different governance arrangements between England and Wales, and they're committed to work with the Welsh Government and policing in Wales. I'm sure this will come up tomorrow in our policing partnership board. There will be plans for collaborative working and the upcoming White Paper that is being developed and, subsequently, will be published in the new year.

Cabinet Secretary, do you not agree that this is the perfect opportunity for a reset for you all to abandon your calls for devolving policing and justice to Wales? There is merit in having a single unified police force for England and Wales, if only to tackle dysfunctional forces like Gwent Police, who have allowed a culture of misogyny to persist amongst their officers and leaders. Cabinet Secretary, when you next discuss policing with the Home Secretary, will you be pushing for better policing for Wales, rather than Wales in charge of policing?

I actually think this provides the perfect opportunity to discuss the devolution of policing and justice to Wales. Let's go back to the fact that this was advocated not just by the Thomas commission, the largest ever examination of the justice system in Wales, but also, more recently, by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, chaired by Rowan Williams and Laura McAllister. I was here in the days of the Silk commission, where your party also, with all the parties, agreed that we should devolve policing to Wales. So, I think this has given us the perfect opportunity to progress these discussions. Of course, this would be a phased approach. At present, we're focusing on the devolution of youth justice and probation, but the change of governance arrangements for policing is a natural opportunity, raised by this question this afternoon, to consider the role of the Welsh Government and the Senedd in terms of accountability for policing in Wales.

You mentioned the word 'partnership' in your responses to Adam Price, and you'll forgive us for feeling a little bit left out when the word 'partnership' hasn't really occurred when it comes to the Westminster announcements and what we know in Wales on this really important issue. This was something that was talked about in the media at the beginning of this week, and indeed was a surprise, certainly to me and presumably to others. Really, the mechanism through which this should come is the Senedd. The idea of partnership is something that we need raised really seriously between the Welsh Parliament and the UK Parliament. So, to echo what Adam has said there, I'd just like to hear a timetable for this process, how the Senedd will be involved in it.

Also, you've mentioned the devolution of youth justice and probation, and I disagree profoundly with my Conservative colleague. We need more devolved powers here, but that timetable is slipping as well. So, could we have a commitment from you for next year that there is going to be a clear statement on both this development and the timetable for the devolution of youth justice and probation, and also looking forward, so that we can feel confident that that work in partnership is happening? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr, Jane Dodds. I can assure you that I do meet regularly with the UK Government Minister for Policing and Crime Prevention, Sarah Jones, and she is attending our policing partnership board for Wales. I'm very proud, as I've said, of the partnership board for Wales. It brings together all of those interests that are crucial to justice and the policing landscape in Wales.

I raised this issue in terms of the Welsh landscape in terms of policing, because, of course, there's been police landscape reform discussed since the new UK Government came into power last year. I wrote to Sarah Jones in November to say that they must recognise the unique Welsh landscape. It is a unique Welsh landscape that we've developed together. It's not devolved, but it's a unique Welsh landscape. I've urged that both sets of our officials should work together.

As I've mentioned, there's a White Paper being developed and it'll be published in the new year. I look forward to discussions emerging tomorrow. A change of governance arrangements, as I said, and I'll repeat, is a natural opportunity to consider the role not just of the Welsh Government but of the Senedd in terms of accountability for policing.

Of course, if there was any real partnership, Cabinet Secretary, you wouldn't have been placed in this invidious position this afternoon. This is the second time in two months where you've had to field questions from Members where this Parliament has been placed in a situation whereby it's discussing hearsay on one of the fundamental public services. This simply isn't good enough. Policing should be devolved to Wales in the same way as it's been described, as the Cabinet Secretary outlined, in the number of commissions and reports that have been published over many years, over decades, on this matter. It is time that the UK Government didn't simply recognise a distinct pattern in Wales—which clearly they don't, because if they did recognise that, you wouldn't be in this position—and actually bit the bullet and devolved policing. That needs to happen. It needs to happen as soon as possible. It needs to happen in a structured way and it needs to ensure that people in this Chamber and across this country can decide the sort of policing they want. I think when we do have that debate, we will want to see more local influence and more local control. We certainly don't want to see the nationalisation of policing that's just been proposed by the Conservatives. We've never had a national police force in the United Kingdom. We don’t want one today. What we want is a devolved Welsh police force responsible to Welsh communities, and the sooner the better.

Thank you very much. I think that was a statement, rather than a question. But I think, actually, it has been helpful to have this question, and I thank Adam Price for raising it this afternoon, because it has enabled people to express their views across this Chamber. I will say that I was encouraged that the Home Office has recognised the different governance arrangements between England and Wales. They've seen all of the reports over the years—I won't repeat them all—that have called for the devolution of policing. They have committed to working with the Welsh Government and policing in Wales. It is important that we listen to the views not just in this Chamber but of all the relevant partners in Wales. This is about us influencing the best and most appropriate form of local policing governance and scrutiny in Wales. So, it has been helpful to air and share today, before my policing partnership board tomorrow, with the policing Minister.

I haven't quite finished yet. There are two more views to share. Mark Isherwood, then Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch, Llywydd. I was actually a member of the sub-committee of the Assembly's Social Justice and Regeneration Committee, which reviewed the structure of policing in 2005, when mergers were proposed then. We carried this out at the request of the then UK Home Secretary via your predecessor and colleague at the time, Edwina Hart.

Our report noted that criminal activity does not recognise national or regional boundaries and that cross-border partnerships must reflect operational reality. Our detailed scrutiny work on behalf of the UK Home Secretary considering the then proposed Welsh police merger led to police mergers being aborted across England and Wales.

The Welsh Local Government Association, police authorities and chief constables all agreed that the issue was fundamentally about finance. They identified a £79 million deficit by 2012-13, adding that this was by no means a worst-case scenario, which would see the deficit rising to £100 million. In order to recognise the regional cultural and geographical differences that exist within Wales, all agreed that Wales must be policed in regions. North Wales Police Authority at the time in particular supported a strong regional element, with real delegated powers.

This is very much groundhog day, déjà vu, all over again. I'd be grateful if you could confirm whether you will ensure that the UK Government considers the reports that we then produced, the work that we then carried out on behalf of the UK Home Secretary, and the decision he then took on the basis of the detailed work that we carried out here.

Thanks very much, Mark Isherwood. I have mentioned a number of reports that have been undertaken that we have commissioned, which have been commissioned in partnership, as well, with the UK Government, the former UK Government, and the Silk commission, I would say particularly. But, of course, we will be looking at all of the reports, and thank you for reminding us of the work you did. But I do think that we have got an opportunity here. We've seized the opportunity, I think, to consider the best arrangements for Wales, following that announcement earlier on regarding the abolition of police and crime commissioners. I think what is essential is that we have to, and I will say today and tomorrow—we must ensure that powers that are currently exercised by our police and crime commissioners in Wales should remain within Wales.

Finally, Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I am amazed weekly here by the mental filofax that is Mark Isherwood, often taking us back and reminding us. It's like groundhog day sometimes here, because this conversation has been ongoing for even longer than 2005, at least 30 years. I don't know if Adam Price remembers where he was on 2 November 2005, but, Adam, you were in the same room as the current Deputy First Minister and the current chief of staff of the Welsh Conservative Party, meeting Westminster Ministers to discuss, as Mark Isherwood has said already, the merger of the Welsh police forces. Nothing happens quickly at all in Wales, and probably, maybe, that's part of the problem.

The current police forces in Wales make no sense at all. The four police forces, with Gwent being such a small force, make no sense at all. Police Scotland has shown us that a unified force can succeed and can flourish, Mark. The evidence shows that Police Scotland is flourishing—[Interruption.] No, I can't take an intervention in a question. It's not failing at all. What the early days of Police Scotland did give us was warnings of how to do it properly. Any restructure or reduction in forces cannot be undertaken just as a cost-saving exercise. Financial investment in policing needs to be put in. It needs to put community first, and make sure that policing is accessible for all of the communities of Wales.

Back in 2005, the figure was put at £12 million, and all of the reserves of the four police authorities back then. As Alun said, this is a bit like déjà vu—money and resources that this Government spends in justice, but yet again it's highlighted that there is no accountability to this place and that you are standing here floundering, finding these things out through the media, rather than through the proper sources. Cabinet Secretary, do you agree with me that it's worth looking at a single unified Welsh police force, but that anything like that needs to be accountable to you or your successor and accountable to this place? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you again. I know you have, Rhys ab Owen, had a long history of engagement in this, including of course the Thomas commission. What I would say to you today is that I absolutely agree with you that all of these discussions about the governance of policing and accountability in Wales must put community first. I'm very proud that it's a Welsh Labour Government that actually committed itself to funding police community support officers, because they are at the heart of our neighbourhood policing teams. We feel that the positive impact they make within their communities has been beneficial.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The next question will be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and will be asked by Mabon ap Gwynfor.

A review of data processes for referral-to-treatment waiting times at Betsi Cadwaladr health board, which includes gathering data, ensuring quality and governance, has moved forward, and the health board is tackling the issues that have been raised. My expectation is that the full reports will restart from January 2026.

Thank you for that response.

Cabinet Secretary, you will recall that, a few weeks ago, I raised questions regarding data gaps on waiting lists at the north Wales health board, and I subsequently wrote to you for further clarification on the circumstances that led to such a serious failure in health data sources. While I appreciate the response that you provided, as well as the explanation of the chief statistician on what went wrong, they raise a number of further questions. It is also unacceptable, I believe, that such an important update was published hidden away on a Government blog page.

First, what are the expected timescales for concluding the investigation, and what will be the consequences for the health board in terms of accountability? One of the reasons for the data gap was the fact that some pathways for patients referred for treatment in the independent sector, or in England, were wrongly removed from the official statistics. Does this suggest that figures were being manipulated? It's concerning that I've had a number of cases in my office, for instance, raising questions exactly along these lines. For instance, a constituent explains how they were on the list for a cataract surgery, which was due to be carried out by SpaMedica. Eleven weeks later, the patient was told that they would no longer be referred to the private provider, and was placed back on the waiting list, to the back of the queue. The constituent believes that this happened in order to make the waiting list figures look good. Is that the type of thing that we're looking at here?

Do you have a figure on the number of affected pathways, and how confident are you that this manipulation of the data isn't happening elsewhere in Wales? The chief statistician's blog also mentioned a misalignment between waiting list trends and operational management information. Is someone providing false information here? On a wider level, this raises serious concerns as to organisational culture and governance at the health board. Finally, will we have reliable data to be able to assess whether the promise to eliminate two-year waits at Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board by the end of 2025 has been achieved, and if so, will it be available before the election?

Well, the Member has taken the opportunity of his question to make allegations of manipulation and misconduct, which are on the record, but which have no basis whatsoever. I think it is important that we let the review be completed. I answered his point about the timescale in my initial answer. I expect that the data in January will be able to be published in the usual way, including Betsi Cadwaladr's data as well.

One of the reasons we were able to identify that there was a challenge in the data was that, by the recent introduction of provisional RTT figures—which the Member objected to, despite being supported by independent statisticians—because it gave us the opportunity of identifying trends early, played an important role in identifying the anomalies that are currently being investigated. Essentially, the provisional data didn't follow the expected trends, based on what we knew was happening in terms of operational intelligence, and that prompted further checks.

He's right to say that the issue arose in the context of data sets that were not aligned, if you like, to what we could see happening in terms of pathways for patients treated by independent providers. It was by marrying our understanding of the operational activity on the one hand with the monthly data that was being reported on the other that we were able to identify the issues that are currently being investigated. But it's important for us to have that review and for that to be completed. We will then have some of the detailed questions that he put to me answered. But, as I say, my expectation is that we will have that information in time for the reporting in January, which I'm sure he'll welcome.

Cabinet Secretary, I don't think my colleague Mabon ap Gwynfor was insinuating anything; it's actually what was in the blog. I'll read it out to you. It said:

'reported waiting list trends did not align with...operational management information'.

So, something is going wrong, and information is being inaccurately reported somewhere, or somebody, or part of the organisation, is providing the wrong information. So, Cabinet Secretary, you've talked an awful lot—and we all have, over these last couple of months—about openness and transparency in the NHS. This organisation in Betsi Cadwaladr has had these issues before, with management saying one thing, doing another, and things being covered up. So, I would think you should take this extremely seriously. I'm interested: are the Welsh Government going to look into this properly, to make sure there is no manipulation of the waiting list figures in Betsi Cadwaladr to make them look better than what they're actually doing? Because I think it's very important that, if people are to trust that this Welsh Government is honest and open about increasing transparency in our NHS, it needs to act when things like this are raised, instead of accusing Members across the Chamber of basically peddling misinformation.

Well, that was not the point I made. The point I made was that the use of the language 'manipulation' suggested a course of action for which there is no evidence. But the point I am making more importantly, I think, is that the commitment that this Government has to transparency is what has unearthed this issue. I took a decision to publish provisional referral-to-treatment data, which the Member also objected to my doing. And it's the collection of that data and the making available of it on a provisional basis, which has been supported by statisticians, which has unearthed this issue that is being reviewed.

He asked what action the Welsh Government has taken. He will recall that when I last stood here discussing this issue, I said that I was giving the health board 24 hours in which to resolve it to my satisfaction and that of the statisticians, otherwise I would instigate an immediate review. They failed to do that and I instigated the immediate review. I have issued a written statement that has set out what that review entails. I did that within days of having made that statement in the Senedd. It is because of this Government's commitment to transparency and to openness that we are having this discussion today. And I share with him the importance of making sure that data is reliable in the interests of improving services, but also in the interests of you scrutinising me and me scrutinising the health board.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 4 is next, the 90-second statements, and the first will be given by James Evans.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Today, we honour with deep gratitude the life and service of the Honourable Dame Shân Legge-Bourke, who died peacefully at her home at the age of 82. She was one of Wales's most respected figures, known for her steadfast dedication to rural life, community services, charity and public duty. Dame Shân was Lord Lieutenant of Powys from 1998 to 2018, the monarch's representative in our largest county, carrying out official duties with dignity and warmth, while always championing the people and heritage of Powys. Her service extended far beyond ceremonial roles.

She gave her time and leadership to a remarkable range of charitable, agricultural and voluntary organisations, serving as president of the Powys branch of the Royal British Legion, president of Save the Children Wales, president of the Royal Welsh Agricultural Society and president of the Brecknock federation and national federation of young farmers clubs. She was also the High Sheriff of Powys, honorary colonel of the Infantry Battle School in Brecon, along with a number of other patronages that she served throughout our communities.

Dame Shân's deep connection with community was matched by her compassion, raising funds and awareness for good causes across Wales. Many can remember her unique 'hat talks', where she would don colourful hats, which she wore as lady in waiting to the Princess Royal on their many visits, turning those fun talks into joyful fundraising moments that helped raise thousands of pounds for local charities and good causes. She was a pioneering landowner, a custodian of Glanusk estate, where she supported local employment, cultural events and community initiatives, promoting Wales's rich rural economy and heritage. She was a star of tv in the Lady of Glanusk tv documentary, and she could often be seen on a mower or strimming grass around the estate. Dame Shân's remarkable contribution was recognised in her appointment as Dame Commander of the Royal Victorian Order, reflecting her many years of personal service to the Crown.

On a personal note, she was always very generous to me, and was always on hand with some advice as to how I should handle my role in public life. Her advice was simple and to the point, and highly effective. She told me, 'Don't do anything silly, keep out of trouble, turn up on time, do your homework and leave on time, and you won't go far wrong.'

On behalf of the people of Brecon and Radnorshire and Powys, we express our deep condolences to her children, grandchildren and her extended family, and all whose lives she touched. Her legacy of service, charity and community leadership will inspire us all for generations to come. Diolch yn fawr, Shân, and may you rest in peace.

I would like to place on record my thanks and congratulations to Dyfed-Powys Police on winning the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence category at the Wales Safer Communities Awards. Last year 1.6 million adults across England and Wales experienced stalking. Stalking can lead to death. It is stage 5 in the eight-step timeline leading to domestic homicide, so this programme is literally life-saving. An award such as this recognises a genuinely collaborative, compassionate and victim-centred approach.

This pioneering pilot, the only one of its kind in Wales, brings together specialist risk assessments, safety planning and practical support. Through their partnership with the Paladin National Stalking Advocacy Service, Dyfed-Powys Police have introduced independent stalking casework advocates and trained stalking champions, so that victims are listened to, believed and supported earlier. I pay tribute to Dyfed-Powys Police, but, more than that, I pay tribute to the victims and survivors of stalking who have taken part in this pilot. Your courage and bravery deserves recognition. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Next we have a motion to elect a Member to a committee. I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion formally— Paul Davies.

Formally.

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

Item 5 today is a debate on the general principles of the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Member in charge to move the motion—Mark Isherwood.

Prynhawn da. I'm pleased and grateful to be able to move this motion today to agree the general principles of the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill. If the motion is agreed today, which I urge all Members to do, it will be another huge step ahead in bringing forward what is vital legislation for Wales. I thank all three committees—the Equality and Social Justice Committee, the Finance Committee, and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee—for their Stage 1 scrutiny of the Bill, for their respective reports and for recommending that the Senedd agrees the general principles of the Bill, for welcoming the Bill's intentions, and for noting the evidence in relation to matters of legislative competence respectively.

I've been able to accept the vast majority of their recommendations, and I propose to table appropriate amendments during the ongoing stages of the Bill, if it passes today's stage. It has not been possible for me to accept all of the three committees' recommendations, and I've provided reasons for this in my responses to them. I will also touch on this later. I also thank the Cabinet Secretary and her officials for their collaborative-working approach to the Bill, and I look forward to working with her further as the Bill progresses. In my statement on introduction of the Bill, I outlined in detail what the Bill seeks to do and why this Bill is badly needed. Given the time available today, I don't intend to cover that in great detail again, but it is worth outlining some of the main points about the Bill.

The Bill recognises that BSL is a language in its own right, not a communication support need. It has been important to recognise that throughout this process. If we don't legislate on this now, Wales would be the only UK nation without sign language legislation. This Bill will also address the current anomaly created by the UK Act, which places a duty on the UK Government to prepare and publish BSL reports describing what Government departments have done to promote the use of BSL, but specifically excludes reporting on matters devolved to Scotland and Wales.

The BSL (Wales) Bill places legal duties on the Welsh Government and public bodies to actively promote and facilitate the use of British Sign Language, aiming to remove barriers faced by deaf BSL signers in accessing services in their first language. The Bill requires Welsh Ministers to publish a national BSL strategy within 18 months of the Act coming into force, setting out how BSL will be promoted and facilitated. Progress reports on the strategy must be published at least every three years, ensuring transparency and accountability. The strategy must be reviewed at least every six years, with any revisions also published. Public bodies listed in the Bill must develop and publish their own BSL plans within 12 months of the national strategy, followed by reports on their implementation and any unmet actions. To ensure consistency and flexibility, Welsh Ministers are required to issue guidance to public bodies on how they should be promoting and facilitating BSL. Public bodies must also review their plans if directed by Welsh Ministers or if the national strategy is revised. The Bill also establishes the role of a BSL adviser, which will be the first statutory BSL adviser role in the UK, and a BSL panel. The importance of this cannot be overstated.

My response to the Equality and Social Justice Committee's Stage 1 report on the Bill reaffirms the Bill's core purpose: to deliver real, measurable improvements for the deaf community in Wales. I welcome the committee's scrutiny and agree with the need for clear, time-bound targets in the national BSL strategy, ensuring that the Bill leads to meaningful change. The ESJ report addresses concerns about making it a statutory requirement for the BSL adviser to be deaf, explaining that such a provision could risk the Bill's passage due to potential legal challenges. As my response to them stated, a successful legal challenge to a single provision requiring the BSL adviser to be deaf would mean that the whole Bill would fall. That would be unacceptable and would let the entire deaf community down. The ESJ committee response also highlights the urgent need to expand the BSL interpreter workforce, and acknowledges the importance of updating cost estimates to reflect inflation.

In response to the committee's recommendations, I've made several commitments to strengthen the Bill. These include reviewing and clarifying the description of BSL in the explanatory memorandum, aligning the publication of BSL guidance with the national strategy, and placing a formal duty on Welsh Ministers to consult deaf BSL signers on both the strategy and guidance.

The committee has recommended that I review the description of BSL in the explanatory memorandum to address stakeholder concerns and consider whether a clear definition should be included on the face of the Bill. I accept this recommendation and will work with the Cabinet Secretary to revise the explanatory memorandum accordingly. I also intend to bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 to add a provision to the face of the Bill clarifying that BSL, for the purpose of the Bill, refers to both the visual and tactile forms. This is in line with the provisions of the British Sign Language (Scotland) Act of 2015.

I agree with the ESJ committee that it is vital that the BSL interpreter workforce is expanded. BSL interpreters provide an absolutely essential service, and I thank those interpreting today. It acts as a vital link for deaf BSL signers both to those providing key services and to the general non-BSL-speaking public. The expansion of the BSL interpreter workforce will be necessary even without the additional duties that will be put in place should the Bill become law, although these additional duties would clearly strengthen this. This also links back to the need for the strategy to specify that targets will be required. While it would be impossible for a framework Bill to pre-specify measurable targets for BSL translators and interpreters in Wales within the BSL strategy, I propose to bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 requiring the strategy to specify that such targets will be required.

I call on the Chair of the Equality and Social Justice Committee, Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you very much. It was a great privilege to scrutinise this measure to deliver equality and social justice for a group of largely unseen citizens whose needs are not being properly heard. We found the Stage 1 scrutiny stimulating, thought-provoking and challenging. We have needed to do things differently, particularly when it comes to simultaneous translation not just from Welsh to English, but from Welsh and English into British Sign Language. This experience has only served to underline why this legislation is needed.

We received compelling testimony from deaf BSL signers, their representative organisations, service providers, as well as those who uphold standards in public services, of the overdue need for this legislation. I thank everyone who took part in this Stage 1 scrutiny, particularly the BSL community. We have raised their expectations and we now need to deliver.

The vision of this Bill is to give more status and standing to British Sign Language as a distinct language and culture, and empower citizens who use BSL to have their voices heard and their needs better met. You may well ask why this Bill should be necessary when the rights of all deaf people, particularly those whose first language is BSL, should have been protected by the Equality Act 2010. A member of one of the committee's focus groups summed it up,

'The current levers are not working',

'The Equality Act isn’t working for us, the accessible standards in health are not working—so pretty much every sector in Wales isn’t working. So, we want improvements everywhere'.

The Bill's central aim is simple: to promote and facilitate more BSL in public services, so ensuring deaf BSL signers can access information and support on equal terms with other citizens. We had considerable discussion on which public bodies should be listed on the face of the Bill and whether or not others should be added. But we came down in support of the approach adopted by Mark Isherwood to prioritise the initial focus on those parts of the public sector where the need is most pressing, namely health and local government, particularly education. These are the universal services that all citizens will have to use at some stage in their lives. We deal with the process for future inclusion of other bodies in recommendation 6.

The committee was unanimous in favour of agreeing the general principles of the Bill, and five of our 12 recommendations require amendments at Stage 2. The Member in charge has confirmed his intention to bring forward amendments in four of the five, and I will turn to recommendation 10, which the Member in charge has rejected, in a moment. The other recommendations are to both the Welsh Government and to the Member in charge to clarify or relating to the process for successful implementation.

The success of this law will depend on three things: (1) adequate funding; (2) clear guidance; and (3) strong engagement with the deaf community. It is vital that the Bill leads to tangible change and avoids tokenism. The legislation won't deliver the change we need without adequate resourcing. We know that resources are scarce in all public bodies, and the needs of BSL speakers are at risk of being lost in competition with other funding pressures. So, we're apprehensive about the capacity of the public sector to collaborate across local and public service boundaries, which we think is essential to ensure that these services are delivered cost-effectively and are front and centre of all these local bodies' delivery plans.

Jenny, you need to conclude now, please.

Finally, I will say what one of the BSL signers told us:

'The Bill would make us feel respected and valued. But without proper funding, planning, and Deaf-led leadership, it won't go far enough.'

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate today on behalf of the Finance Committee.

First, I would like to thank Mark Isherwood, as the Member in charge, for responding to our conclusions and recommendations ahead of today's debate. The committee strongly supports the intentions behind this legislation and its commitment to meaningful action to improve services and outcomes for the deaf community in Wales.

Peredur, can you stop a minute because Mark hasn't got his translation in place?

Sorry.

We'll just wait for Mark to go back to his seat and get his translation.

No problem.

And I'll let you start again.

Okay.

Okay. Thank you, Peredur.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Once more with feeling, I suppose. There we are.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate on behalf of the Finance Committee and I would like to thank Mark Isherwood, as the Member in charge, for responding to our conclusions and recommendations ahead of today's debate. The committee strongly supports the intentions behind this legislation and its commitment to meaningful action to improve services and outcomes for the deaf community in Wales.

We were encouraged to see the Welsh Government working closely with the Member in charge during the drafting process, providing both technical and policy support. This collaborative approach produced clear and robust cost estimates, and it does demonstrate what can be achieved when Government and non-Government Members work together. We believe that this should be a model of good practice for future Members' Bills.

As we highlighted in our report, this is a framework Bill setting out areas of action and expectation. However, it does not quantify the costs of implementing key provisions such as the BSL strategy and individual BSL plans. While we understand why these costs cannot be modelled at this stage, greater transparency on the potential financial benefits and savings would be helpful. We therefore ask the Member in charge to work with the Welsh Government to assess these benefits as the Bill progresses, and we welcome his positive response.

The committee agrees that the costs should be viewed as an investment. Improving access for deaf BSL users will deliver long-term value for money and reduce inefficiencies caused by communication barriers. The proposed BSL adviser and assisting panel will also be central to effective implementation and stakeholder engagement.

We welcome the Welsh Government's decision to allocate funding for this Bill in its 2026-27 budget, while recognising that decisions beyond that point will rest with any future Government. We also note the work already under way on BSL policy within the Welsh Government, which complements the aims of the Bill. However, we found it challenging to separate the costs outlined in the RIA from those already committed, suggesting that costs could be overstated. That is why we have asked the Member in charge to continue working with the Welsh Government to clarify how these policies interact and whether anticipated costs remain accurate, and we welcome his acceptance of that recommendation.

The committee welcomes the methods used by the Member in charge as a basis for the cost estimate, including using existing legislation to calculate financial impact. This is a sensible approach, and makes best use of available data, producing a clear and credible overview of the Bill's financial implications.

We also note that substantial costs will fall on listed public bodies as they implement their individual BSL plans. While we recognise why these costs are not included in the RIA, it remains difficult to understand how public bodies will absorb these costs within existing budgets. This is why we asked for further clarification, and it is disappointing that the Member in charge has rejected this recommendation, as greater transparency would have been beneficial for the bodies impacted.

Finally, we believe there is a risk that implementation costs could escalate over time. To mitigate this, we recommend a robust post-implementation review of the legislation, including an assessment of the actual costs. While the Member in charge has questioned whether a full post-implementation review is necessary, we are pleased that he has agreed that an assessment of overall costs and benefits would be beneficial, and we ask the Cabinet Secretary to consider this further.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I would like to congratulate Mark Isherwood and his team for the thorough way in which he has prepared the financial information accompanying this Bill. Overall, the committee is broadly content with the financial implications and the approach adopted. I would also like to thank him and the Cabinet Secretary, and their officials, for their positive engagement with the committee throughout the scrutiny of this Bill. Thank you very much.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee reported on the Member in charge's Bill on 4 December. We heard evidence from the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip, and the Member in charge. We note that this is a Member's Bill and that the Member in charge has collaborated with the Welsh Government in bringing it forward. We also note the case made by the Member in charge as to why there is a need for this legislation, namely to ensure that there is at least parity with the statutory duties in other UK jurisdictions in relation to BSL provision, and to address the demonstrable challenges faced by BSL signers in accessing public services.

Our report also commented on the Member in charge's reference to this Bill as a 'framework Bill'. We recognise, however, that the Bill is seeking to promote the use of BSL in Wales and, as such, its policy focus is narrow, with the duty placed on the Welsh Ministers to prepare a national BSL strategy and issue guidance for BSL plans to be published by listed public bodies. Therefore, we do not consider this to be wholly a framework Bill, given that significant policy and law will not be delivered through subordinate legislation. We’re content with the approach adopted in this Bill.

Section 3 of the Bill requires Welsh Ministers to issue guidance to ‘listed public bodies’, which is defined at section 8 of the Bill, on how they may promote and facilitate the use of BSL in exercising their functions. We acknowledge it would be atypical for the Senedd to have a formal role in scrutinising guidance. However, we felt that attention must be afforded to the guidance in this instance, given it will be a significant factor in delivering the policy objectives underpinning the Bill.

Whilst it's not standard practice, we consider that it would be beneficial for the guidance to be laid before the Senedd in order to draw it to the attention of Members of the Senedd formally. This is particularly important given that the implementation of the Bill, if passed by this Senedd, would be the responsibility of a future Welsh Government, and any scrutiny of that implementation would fall to the next Senedd. As a result, the committee recommended that the Member in charge should table an amendment to the Bill to require that the statutory guidance issued under section 3, and any future revisions of it, are laid before the Senedd. The Member in charge rejected this recommendation, and we note his reasons for doing so.

Section 5 of the Bill requires the Welsh Government to appoint a person to serve as BSL adviser, along with a panel to assist them. The Bill does not specify the size of the supporting panel. However, the explanatory memorandum notes that a typical public appointed advisory board, to which the panel will be closely aligned, has six to eight members, with a final decision on the panel size resting with the Welsh Government and the BSL adviser. We understand the desire for flexibility around the number of panel members, but there's a danger that, without specifying a number, the panel could become unwieldy and incur unexpected costs, or could be left with insufficient numbers to deliver the support required. We believe that flexibility could be provided by specifying a minimum and maximum number of panel members on the face of the Bill. We recommend that the Member in charge should consider the merits of specifying a minimum and maximum number of members that should sit on the panel.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you to Members of the Senedd, to you all, for giving me the opportunity to speak in this debate on the general principles of the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill.

The Welsh Government welcomes the comprehensive scrutiny provided by the committees during Stage 1. I'd like to express my gratitude to the committees, to their members, and all of those who have participated so thoughtfully in scrutinising the Bill at Stage 1. Their diligence and collective expertise have been invaluable, as we've heard this afternoon from the Chairs. You will all be aware that I continue to champion advancing social justice, promoting equality and enhancing well-being across Wales.

As the Member who has led and promoted this Bill, Mark Isherwood, has said and made clear, BSL is a language, a culture and an identity. By working to enshrine support for BSL in law, we send a clear message that Wales values and respects its deaf BSL signing community. This Bill does go further than the other UK nations. The example has already been given of the creation of a dedicated BSL adviser role, a unique feature of this Bill that will ensure expert guidance and accountability in delivering its aims.

The Bill is, of course, as I said, a Member Bill led by Mark Isherwood. I want to acknowledge Mark's unwavering commitment to the deaf BSL signing community in Wales. Members will recall that we've contributed to the drafting of Mark Isherwood's Bill. This collaborative working between Mark Isherwood and myself throughout this process has been constructive and positive, demonstrating our shared commitment to improving outcomes for the deaf BSL signing community in Wales.

I'm pleased that the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the Equality and Social Justice Committee both support the general principles of this Bill. The Equality and Social Justice Committee recommended that the Senedd agrees the general principles of the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill at Stage 1. I hope, as has been said already, that all Members here today will support this.

The reports produced by the committees have highlighted the importance of deaf leadership, and I support the recommendations in the reports that strengthen engagement with the deaf community. I agree that BSL signers must be engaged in the development of the national BSL strategy and BSL guidance, and also that we must make sure that the appointments process for the BSL adviser meets the needs of the deaf community.

Would the Member give way? Thank you. I think it's hugely commendable that the Government has worked with a backbencher to bring forward a Bill like this. It's simply not possible for a backbencher to be able to draft and understand the technical implications of a Bill, so I think it's hugely to the Welsh Government's credit. This Bill would not be happening without the help and co-operation of the Welsh Government.

Thinking in terms of future Senedds, will there be an opportunity to offer lessons through the Senedd Commission for future parliamentarians on how they could do this in future, drawing on the leadership the Welsh Government has shown and the co-operation that Mark Isherwood has shown, to make sure that this isn't a one-off?

Diolch yn fawr, Lee Waters. I think this was also mentioned earlier on by the Chair of the Finance Committee—that this is a model for us to look at, working together. Indeed, Members from all parties are engaged, through the Business Committee, following the seventh Senedd committee report, in looking at these ways of working and how we can learn from them in terms of the future, so I hope it will be something that can be a model and an example.

Just going back to the Bill, I recognise the vital role that the listed public bodies will play in implementing the aims of the Bill. I agree that the BSL guidance should be published at the same time as the national BSL strategy, to ensure that timely support is available to bodies to develop their plans. It will be important that listed public bodies collaborate and are equipped with the right expertise to prepare and execute their plans effectively. I also agree that the list of listed public bodies included within section 8 of the Bill must be kept under review as capacity to promote and facilitate BSL grows.

The Welsh Government is committed to strengthening the BSL workforce and recognises the importance of BSL interpreters available in Wales. It's vital that we work in collaboration with deaf BSL signers to ensure that their needs and priorities are met. We've already begun this work with the Welsh Government BSL stakeholder task and finish group, which has produced both short-term and long-term recommendations in relation to the BSL workforce. This must be the foundation of any future activity. I recognise the ESJ Committee's recommendation to be more ambitious in our approach, and I accept the need to include clear targets as part of the BSL strategy.

Members will recall that, in response to Mark Isherwood's legislative oral statement on the introduction of the BSL (Wales) Bill on 16 July, I confirmed that the Welsh Government will provide the costs for the first year in full, for 2026-27, of £214,300. This was based on the figures in the Member's RIA, and I'm pleased that the Finance Committee was content with the financial implications of the Bill. In my response to their report, I outlined my acceptance of their recommendations and a financial resolution for the Bill. I recognise the support of the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language in enabling us to have that very clearly identified in terms of those costs.

I would also like to refer to the recommendation by the Finance Committee to conduct a post-implementation review. It will be essential that the implementation of the national BSL strategy and guidance will be monitored as the Act progresses, to ensure that its aims and purposes are being realised. Having reflected on the evidence presented during Stage 1, the Welsh Government is satisfied that the general principles of the Bill should be supported. The Bill provides a necessary framework to address gaps in current provision, offers a proportionate and focused approach, and aligns with our commitment to fairness and inclusion.

I would like to take this opportunity to welcome, once again, the British Sign Language Bill and to thank Mark for his exceptional work on this piece of vital legislation. As a member of the Equality and Social Justice Committee, I had the pleasure of taking evidence from Mark and a whole host of witnesses who have a keen interest in this Bill. What was abundantly clear from our evidence sessions was the widespread support for Mark and his Bill. It was also clear that a BSL Bill is long overdue. To quote the British Deaf Association, the Bill provides a clear foundation to drive progress for deaf signers across Wales. It gives a new focus on information being available in BSL and it presents deaf signers as full citizens of Wales, making a substantive contribution to our country rather than being a burden. For deaf signers across Wales, this respect and recognition of ourselves as a distinct language minority is critical. End quote.

The last point in particular hits home to me. Prior to taking evidence on this Bill, I saw BSL as a communication tool rather than a language with all of its cultural implications. We owe it to the deaf signing community to put as much effort into protecting this language as we do the other languages of Wales, if not more. After all, we can choose whether to siarad Cymraeg; for deaf signers, it is not a choice. Our committee made a number of recommendations to improve the legislation, but above all, we recommended that the Senedd agrees to the general principles of the BSL Bill. I hope that every Member will support our recommendations and agree to support Wales's deaf signing community by getting behind Mark's Bill, helping to make it better at Stages 2 and 3, and ensuring that it becomes law in 2026. Diolch yn fawr.

I would first like to thank Mark Isherwood for bringing forward this progressive Bill. This is an important piece of legislation, and Plaid Cymru is supportive of its core principles.

In recent years, we have seen increasing recognition of the importance of BSL as a language in Wales, along with greater efforts to make it visible and a part of public life. It's good to see more use of BSL interpreters in Senedd proceedings recently. But goodwill or the occasional positive action here and there, in themselves, are not enough, of course. We need a solid legislative foundation to make real progress in enabling the deaf community to access services and information, and, perhaps most importantly, to ensure recognition and respect of BSL as one of the languages of Wales.

This Bill, therefore, relates to fundamental rights—the right of each individual to use their own language. Language is a part of our identity, our culture and our personal dignity. When someone cannot use their language, they are excluded from education, healthcare, employment and public life, and that is not acceptable in today's Wales, which prides itself on its inclusive nature. The impact of not ensuring consistent opportunities to use BSL creates harmful inequality.

This Bill not only relates, therefore, to human rights and equality, but it is also a prudent economic investment, I would argue. When we ensure equal access for deaf people to all opportunities, we open doors for them to make a full contribution to the economy. This Bill offers an opportunity to start creating the change that is needed in this regard, therefore, and I chose my words carefully there when declaring that this Bill would be the start of creating change.

I would like to quote what one of the participants in the committee's engagement work told us, because I think that it crystallises not only why we need to support the basic principles of the Bill, but also what needs to happen after we do that, and the risk of not doing that properly. They said:

'If the Bill doesn’t do what we want it to do, we’re going to be a very, very angry, disappointed, dejected Deaf community in Wales, because the existing levers are not working. The Equality Act isn’t working for us, the accessible standards in health are not working—so pretty much every sector in Wales isn’t working…. I want to see a massive change where you feel included in your community.'

We have a duty, therefore, to ensure that this Bill does not dash these hopes for change. I'm pleased to see that the Member in charge of the Bill accepts almost all of our recommendations regarding how to reduce that risk. I agree with the British Deaf Association, which told us that it's not appropriate, possible or efficient for non-signers to lead the way for that change.

Sioned—

I'm coming to an end now. One of the biggest challenges, therefore, is ensuring that this Bill is delivered in full, and I look forward to seeing how this, as well as the other recommendations, are reflected in the second stage of the Bill, and Plaid Cymru look forward to playing our part in that. Thank you.

I'd like to also thank Mark Isherwood for all his tireless work on this Bill, and I'm very pleased to speak in this very important debate. I do hope the Senedd will agree with the general principles. I was a member of the committee that looked at the Bill, and I think I agree with what Jenny Rathbone said at the beginning when she made her contribution, that it was a privilege to take part in that process. I think it clearly brought home to the committee the importance of recognising BSL as a language. As the briefing that we've had from the British Deaf Association says, the Bill presents deaf signers as full citizens of Wales, making a substantial contribution to our country, rather than being a burden. I think that is a key part of what this Bill is going to do—it's going to mean that signers are full citizens and fully part of an inclusive society.

I think this point is reflected in our discussion on the role of the BSL adviser, which Sioned has already mentioned, because this is an absolutely crucial post, and as has already been said, it is a unique post and the other countries in the UK don't have such a post. So, it really is an absolutely great opportunity to make sure that we get somebody who can lead this strongly from the front. Our recommendation 7 calls for consideration of how the needs of the deaf community are reflected appropriately in the appointment process. Obviously, if a deaf adviser were to be appointed, this would be so important to the deaf community and would serve as a role model. So, I do hope that the Government will consider that carefully, but I do note what the Member taking the Bill through said, about how he couldn't risk losing the Bill by requiring the adviser to be deaf. But I think that has got to be looked at very carefully.

The other important point I wanted to highlight is recommendation 12, urging the Welsh Government to ramp up efforts to expand the BSL interpreter workforce. We all know how difficult it is to get interpreters when needed. It's also been reiterated to me how important it is for professionals who are trying to get interpreters to be aware of how the system works, because a request for an interpreter does not mean you automatically have one, and that is absolutely crucial, particularly in the health field. It's been mentioned already here this afternoon how health is one of the key areas where we need BSL interpreters urgently, where a patient or carer's understanding of the situation can actually be a matter of life or death.

This was brought home to me very strongly by one of my constituents, a deaf constituent with two very small children who had to spend long periods of time in the children's hospital at the University Hospital of Wales because of the complex medical condition of one of her children. She was able to have three hours of interpretation a day, which was all that was available, which didn't always coincide with when interpretation was needed. She described a very difficult situation where consent was needed for an operation, but an interpreter wasn't available. It's for those really difficult situations that we have to make sure that interpreters are available. So, I think that's a very important part of the Bill, so that parents, carers and patients can have information.

I want to join the long queue of people who are thanking Mark Isherwood for bringing this Bill forward here today. I'm very proud to speak on it and to have been part of the committee that scrutinised it at Stage 1. I'd also like to welcome and pay tribute to people who are with us this afternoon as well, many stakeholders, I can see, who gave evidence to us. Thank you to you. I learnt a lot in terms of the language, in terms of the culture and in terms of what we need to scrutinise, so I'm very grateful to you specifically.

This speaks to me of what we should all care deeply about—fairness, dignity and making sure that everyone in Wales can take part fully in public life. For too long, deaf BSL signers have had to fight to be seen and heard. This Bill is an opportunity to say clearly that deaf people are a valued, linguistic and cultural community with enormous contributions to make in Wales. We are the ones who need to adjust our arrangements. If this legislation is to make a real difference in people's lives, we have to be honest about what still needs to change and what actions need to be taken.

The clearest and most practical challenge we face to this Bill is the crisis in interpretation. We were absolutely right, in our report in the Equality and Social Justice Committee, to identify the shortage of BSL interpreters and translators as the single biggest threat to effective implementation of this Bill. As of July of this year, there were just 54 registered sign language interpreters based in Wales—54. Many of those trained through the BSL Futures programme nearly 20 years ago, and are now, respectfully, approaching the end of their working lives. But without action now, as we've heard, the risk is obvious: longer waits, poorer access to services and deaf people still struggling to attend medical appointments, as we've heard, engage with public bodies or participate fully in civic life.

We had our own experience, because I know that our committee clerks, who are seated here today, and I do thank them, struggled to book interpreters for the sessions of our committee. We cannot—we must not—allow this Bill to fail because we didn't have the foresight to address this crisis now. As Mark has acknowledged in his response, the expansion of the BSL interpreter workforce would be necessary even without this Bill. I welcome, therefore, the Welsh Government's acceptance of the committee's recommendation to expand the workforce and look forward to seeing the publishing of the BSL route-map in early 2026.

I just want to touch on one other issue and that is the importance of deaf leadership in this field. The British Deaf Association have been crystal clear on this point. They put it:

Today we have the opportunity to discuss a piece of legislation that can transform lives across Wales—the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill, introduced by Mark Isherwood. I and Reform warmly welcome this Bill and I extend my sincere thanks to the Member in charge, Mark, for his unwavering persistence in bringing it forward. It has been long overdue, hasn't it? For years Mark has championed the rights of deaf people, chairing the cross-party group on deaf issues and listening to the lived experience of the deaf community. As Mark rightly stated, consultation and engagement have revealed strong support for the Bill throughout Wales. The Bill is the culmination of dedication, and it deserves our full support. British Sign Language is not a means of communication; as has been said, it's a rich, vibrant language in its own right. It's a first, preferred language for thousands of deaf people across Wales, yet, too often, they face barriers when accessing public services, education, healthcare and employment, and, without proper support, they are denied equality and the chance to participate fully in society. This Bill seeks to change that by placing duties on Welsh Ministers and public bodies to actively promote and facilitate the use of BSL. It aims to make Wales the strongest nation in the UK for BSL users, going further in legislation than in Scotland, in England and in Northern Ireland.

A key area where this matters most is education. In Wales, there is no dedicated specialist school solely for deaf pupils. Instead, deaf children are supported in mainstream schools or through specialist resource spaces, supported by teachers of the deaf, who are in declining numbers. This approach can work when the right adaptations are in place, but, too often, schools lack the resources, training or interpreters needed to make it effective. And in Wales, we face challenges providing sufficient specialist support as teachers retire. This is something that I have grave concerns about: whether we can train and recruit to achieve the aims of this Bill. The Bill gives us a chance to move that from good will to consistency, so that access to BSL support does not depend on postcode, budget pressure or the determination of individual staff.

Let me share a few positive examples that clearly demonstrate what is possible in my own constituency region. At Ysgol Gymraeg Gwynllyw in Trevethin, a Welsh-medium school, a pupil with special educational needs, including deafness, is thriving. Thanks to the tailored support, dedicated staff and appropriate adaptations, this young person is fully engaged, achieving their potential and enjoying mainstream school life. This is the kind of success that we should see everywhere.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course.

I'm rather puzzled by your support for this Bill, because I note that every Reform—. When we do hear about their policies, which isn't that often, one of the things we do hear about very often is that they want to scrap diversity, inclusion and equality roles in our local authorities across the country. So, why are you in support of this Bill? How can you be in support of this Bill while also defending and proposing that diversity, inclusion and equality roles should be scrapped?

I find it deeply regrettable that you're making something so important party political. I do not think this—[Interruption.] No, I don't think this is appropriate. I'm actually saying—[Interruption.] In this Chamber now, I am committing us to this. I think it's very important, and I know that I have the backing of my party on it.

This Bill will drive exactly the improvements—better access to BSL in classrooms, more teacher training and guidance—to ensure schools make the necessary adaptations. It will help remove barriers so that every deaf child in Wales can flourish, regardless of where they live.

Deputy Presiding Officer, this is a moment for unity, but unity must be matched by delivery. The success of this Bill will depend on proper guidance, realistic funding and meaningful engagement with deaf organisations as it's implemented. The Welsh Government has already signalled its support, which is welcome, and we have seen cross-party backing in previous stages. I hope and I believe that this Bill will receive unanimous cross-party support as it progresses. Together, we can send a powerful message that Wales values BSL as a language, respects the deaf community and is committed to true equality. So, thank you to the committees for their work, and I echo much of what has already been said. Let us accept the general principles laid before us today, take forward this Bill and let's build a more inclusive Wales for generations to come. Diolch.

Good afternoon, everyone. Diolch, Polly. Diolch, Martin. Diolch, Mark. Polly from RNID, Martin from BDA, diolch for their engagement with me for this speech. But, more importantly, a big diolch to Cedric Moon, a constituent who has contacted me over the last few years, a tireless deaf campaigner, and has taught me so much about the deaf community. Before receiving correspondence from Cedric Moon, I was totally ignorant about BSL. I did not realise that BSL was a language. I imagine that is true, that ignorance is true, of many people out in our community, but BSL is a language. And we all know, especially those of us who speak more than one language, how powerful language is. It's more than just words. It connects us. It shapes our identity. Speaking more than one language opens opportunities, opens cultures. It's how we learn, how we work, how we contribute and how we participate in society. But, for the deaf community here in Wales, British Sign Language or BSL is not just an important tool, is not something nice to have, it's a lifeline. And I've received similar e-mails as Julie Morgan has received about parents being in hospital and struggling, not having that interpreter present when a loved one is ill. It's a lifeline. It shouldn't be seen as an afterthought or a niche matter, but a language that is integral to our society. We need to normalise BSL in the same way that we've normalised the Welsh language. I hope that this BSL Act will take us on the same route that the Welsh language has gone in Wales, by putting BSL on an equal footing.

Laura Anne Jones mentioned about going to her children's nativity play recently. Last week, I went to Ysgol Treganna’s nativity play, and they signed to every song. Every song was signed. And my five-year-old now is teaching me how to sign. She loves it; she loves to be able to sign. But we have to admit, despite positive steps, that BSL faces incredible challenges. We've heard this afternoon about shortages of BSL interpreters and also shortages of BSL teachers, that there is no deaf school in Wales anymore. The stakeholder group had made recommendations that the Welsh Government should act now to try and sort out the gaps, so that a lack of BSL interpreters does not block the ambitions of this fantastic Bill.

There also needs to be better data on the BSL workforce here in Wales. We know that we only have 54 interpreters in Wales now, but we don't know how many more are needed to plug the gap. We also need to make sure that there’s better co-operation between various bodies, between local authorities, between health boards, between education services. They all should be sharing resources rather than them being kept in silos. They all should be sharing the resource they have. Of course, as with everything—we heard this quite clearly yesterday—plugging the gap will cost money, but I'm confident that short-term cost will lead to long-term gain. A RAND report suggested that every £1 invested in BSL teaching for families and children aged zero to five yields about £14 in return.

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

Diolch. I'm aware that time is very, very short. Thanks very much to Jenny Rathbone as Chair of the ESJ committee, and for unanimously agreeing the general principles of the Bill. As you've said, success will depend upon adequate funding, clear guidance and real engagement with the deaf community. As you rightly said, the biggest barrier to implementation is the availability of interpreters and translators. I agree it's an immediate concern. You referred to the need for a pre-appointment hearing for the BSL adviser—clearly, that would normally be the case with public appointments, so I would expect that to apply—and the need to be more explicit about how a BSL user can complain.

I thank Peredur Owen Griffiths, as Chair of the Finance Committee, for your contribution and for sharing the committee's conclusions regarding a number of matters, particularly around the cost of implementing future provisions, the cost to public bodies and a post-implementation review. And then the Cabinet Secretary responded to the point you made to her regarding that.

I thank Mike Hedges, as Chair of the LJC committee, for his comments, again drawing attention to the need for attention to the guidance issued by the Welsh Government, pointing out that implementation responsibility will be for the next Welsh Government, the need to specify a minimum and maximum number of panel members, which I addressed, and to add full names of NHS trusts, which I addressed, and I endorse his comment that he's been with me from the beginning on this.

Cabinet Secretary, thank you for your comments. As you said, and reinforced, BSL is a language, culture and identity, and we need to send a clear message that we value and recognise Wales's BSL signing community.

I thank the positive and supportive comments from Altaf Hussain, Sioned Williams, Julie Morgan, Jane Dodds, Laura Anne Jones and Rhys ab Owen. Sioned, you put a particular question to me about having a panel of deaf signers involved in the appointment of the BSL adviser. I see huge merit in that. In fact, I'd be very concerned if that wasn't the case.

The bottom line is that this is a framework Bill, and it will be the next Welsh Government and the next Senedd who will have to decide to resource the delivery needed, to monitor and evaluate the implementation of the Bill. I think it was you also, Sioned, who said, rightly, that this Bill is just the start of making the change needed. But it's a vital start. We've turned the engine on. We now need the feet on the accelerator to take it forward. If you feel more amendments are needed at Stage 2, that's down to you at Stage 2 in the ESJ committee. I won't comment at this stage. You've heard what I'm going to be doing.

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

Item 6 is next, the motion to agree the financial resolution in respect of the British Sign Language (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip, Jane Hutt.

Move.

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

Item 7 is next, the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv), children's access to play. And I call on Rhys ab Owen to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I must declare an interest at the outset. As the father of two daughters, aged five and two, the play park is a very important place for us. It's possible to spend hours free of charge in the park, and the disappointment is obvious on their faces, and probably on the faces of myself and my wife, when the park is closed due to vandalism, or equipment has been moved for months, if not years, due to maintenance work.

Parks are important to our communities. Only yesterday, we heard from Carolyn Thomas that protecting her local play park was one of the reasons why she started her political journey, and this place is fortunate to have her common sense and her battling for communities, partly because of the play parks. So, we are grateful and we recognise our play parks. As we approach Christmas, I think it's very important that we prioritise time to think about children and young people in our country.

The pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis and more than a decade of cuts have been a savage blow for our children and young people, and the services that they use. It is heartbreaking, isn't it, that we hear nearly weekly in this place about how many children live in poverty in Wales—31 per cent of children living in poverty. That's a terrible condemnation of this place and Westminster that we haven't been able to tackle child poverty. And the link between poverty and play is recognised in the child poverty strategy for Wales. The third objective says that people want to live in areas with play facilities, and the ninth objective states that more play opportunities will be offered for children and young people. But is this strategy, like so many other strategies we hear about in this place, delivering anything?

While this Senedd should welcome the fact—and it's possible that the Minister might talk about this—that Wales was the first country in the world to legislate for children's right to play, and that Cardiff was the first city in the UK to be accredited by UNICEF as a city that is good for children—of course we can celebrate these things—I think that we do need to look beyond these great headlines. Listen to the conclusions of the report 'What children say about play in Wales: 2025.' Here are some of the conclusions: access to outdoor spaces

'is counterbalanced by issues of maintenance, accessibility and inclusivity—especially for disabled children'.

'37% of disabled children never, or hardly ever play out.'

That's a disgraceful figure.

'Overall satisfaction with opportunities to play has declined from 84% in 2019 to 71% in 2025.'

I'm concerned that the motion talks almost exclusively about play areas and play equipment, but we know most children want to play outdoors, they want to play in their streets, they want to play on pavements, so the provision of play areas, not just cordoned-off areas with play equipment, is critical. So, things like quality paths for walking and cycling, lower speed so people can play in the streets are a key part of this agenda, but your motion seems to ignore that.

No. That's a very good point, Lee Waters, and, of course, you could have given an amendment to my motion, I imagine. Of course, maybe next term now, you could make a similar motion on that point. No, I agree with what you're saying, but of course the motion was just concentrating on parks from my own experience, but I accept the point you make; it's a point well made.

'What can we do?', that's the question. Well, I think that there is an urgent need to strengthen the duty in section 11 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 so that local authorities must ensure adequate play opportunities in a park for children in every community. At present, there is a get-out clause in the legislation, namely,

'so far as reasonably practicable'.

And if the local authorities say that it isn't reasonably practicable, then they have a get-out clause not to provide a park for children in every community.

We have examples of local authorities such as Conwy county sending letters to town and community councils saying that they expect them to find the money themselves to maintain play parks in 2026-27. Indeed, these settings are suffering because of local authority cuts. Listen again to Play Wales:

'budget cuts to local authorities have clearly led to a decline in maintenance, leaving many existing spaces in disrepair and with missing equipment.'

We could halt this by having the Senedd make it a legislative requirement to provide and maintain a play park in every community. I appreciate the fact that we need to think carefully about how we define 'community', and I do accept the point made by Lee Waters that we need to think carefully about what we do about defining where to play, and what we should offer, but the principle is clear. Already, from Cardiff to Holyhead, community groups have had to step in to raise money and it shouldn't be necessary to rely on local communities—[Interruption.]

Of course I will, Carolyn.

Just on that point: I think communities should have a play provision, but when I was on the planning committee, if so many houses were built—I can't remember how many, but it wasn't many—they should provide a green space for play. And at the time, it was with a commuted sum of money, £20,000 for 10 years' play to cover maintenance. But as things developed, developers used to push back on that. But do you believe that that is something that we should reintroduce and try and legislate for, so that it should happen?

Certainly. That's a very good point, Carolyn. I think we will all know, and especially those representing more urban areas will be able to give you examples of developments—large developments—where that has not happened. Where even the money that was given to a green space or a play area has not been used for that effect.

So, thank you, Carolyn, for that.

In Powys, the Friends of Montgomery Play Park, since the beginning of 2020, have been working closely with the town council to bring new play park equipment into the community. They buy equipment when grant applications are successful. And in Pontyberem, the community council has transformed the park in the same way by applying for grants. But we shouldn't be reliant on that. It's sad that the ability of children to play in some of our communities is dependent on volunteers—volunteers who have the time, the energy and the knowledge to make grant applications.

I recognise that there is some support available through the community support package, but these groups will always face the same challenge every year, namely funding. The same problem will continue in 2026-27 and in every subsequent financial year. At a time when the Welsh Local Government Association has reported a shortfall of £137 million for school budgets alone, it is clear that the additional £113 million for all local authority services won't even get close to dealing with this issue. On 10 May, the Welsh Government made this pledge—and I quote:

'We will continue to work with local authorities and partners to support our ambitions in improving opportunities to play and promote the benefits of play for children’s wellbeing.'

Alongside that pledge was an investment of £5 million. That £5 million equates to around £225,000 for each local authority, and for a city like Cardiff here, which has over 100 play parks in its portfolio, that is only a financial uplift of about £2,250 per park. Now, resurfacing a park can cost as much as £5,000. One bird's nest swing apparently—sorry, I didn't know the Welsh word for that—costs around £5,500, and a new play area for a small community can cost between £10,000 and £40,000. Minister, will there be a more generous allocation than £5 million in 2026-27?

As well as the Welsh Government and local authorities, we all have a duty to ensure the safety of our parks, to work to create the safest environment possible. Here are some examples in 2025 of vandalism in local parks: in Newtown, a swing was damaged, leading to expenditure of £5,000; equipment was burnt in Melin Mynach park in Gorseinon, leaving the community concerned about the safety of their children and a bill of £6,000; and then, in Blackwood, vandals tore up the tarmac at the park, and even damaged the infants' slide. We have to seek a sense of ownership and a voice for children and young people in the future of their play parks.

Can I please take this opportunity to thank Rhys ab Owen for bringing this important debate forward in the Chamber today? Without a doubt, ensuring children have access to play is of paramount importance. It is so much more than just messing around with friends. Playgrounds are the springboard for our future generations, where they can develop their social and emotional skills, build their confidence, and, of course, improve physical and mental well-being.

Yet, despite their importance, play areas and playgrounds are often overlooked and forgotten about, with repairs and maintenance kicked into the long grass. One 13-year-old girl from Caerphilly said, and I quote,

'Due to anti-social behaviour our equipment gets broken, burnt and vandalised and is then not replaced. Lot of rubbish, glass, spray cans are around the village and play areas—regular cleans are needed.'

So, it's clear more needs to be done when it comes to ensuring that playgrounds are there, and that they are indeed usable by the community at large. I also read what children said about play in the Wales report with great interest, and I was quite taken aback to discover that 28 per cent of children and teenagers have hardly ever played outside in a park.

Issues with outdated and broken play equipment were identified in the report, as were safety concerns, with smashed glass and damaged play structures being a common feature. Another apparent reason children do not play outdoors is because they are simply not allowed to go outside on their own. There's a myriad of factors behind why they can't go out alone, but parents often feel too fearful to let them go out because of safety concerns.

A 12-year-old from Newport told the 'What children say about play in Wales: 2025' report that she was not allowed to go outside without an adult because the area is not safe. Another child from the city, this one aged 14, cited drug dealing in the immediate area as a reason why she wasn't allowed out, adding that they're too afraid to play outside. That's a really sad reflection of how society is today, and I believe that the Government, as well as a range of key stakeholders, should look into this going further, as it should not be preventing our young people from accessing play.

I just want to touch on asks for play for disabled children. I know Rhys ab Owen touched upon this in his introduction, but I was truly stunned, Deputy Presiding Officer, to hear that only 11 per cent of playgrounds are classed as 'green', meaning accessible and inclusive, with 47 per cent rated 'red', meaning poor accessibility. Deputy Presiding Officer, 30 per cent of playgrounds have no accessible paths leading to them, and 18 per cent of playground gates are not wide enough for a wheelchair. Those are just two of the barriers preventing disabled children from accessing play, and I really do welcome any additional funding from the Welsh Government to refurbish playgrounds and purchase inclusive equipment. I really hope that this cash boost will go a long way in transforming play for disabled children, but I would really like to know from the Minister today how the Government is going to ensure local authorities actually deliver this.

I was one of the co-authors, and I certainly will be supporting it. Play is important for children, both for their education and well-being. Wales can be proud to be the first country in the world to legislate for children's right to play. Wales is seen, internationally, as a leading nation in play. Play has featured in recent UK Parliament debates, with rising awareness and support for play sufficiency legislation in England as they try to catch up with us. The Welsh Government has continued to invest in playgrounds, play spaces, and the Playworks holiday project. Local authorities have a play sufficiency duty, a statutory duty to assess and, as far as would be reasonably practicable, secure sufficient opportunities for children to play in their areas.

Swansea's play sufficiency assessment outlines the work they have done in helping those who may need support to access play, providing adequate spaces for children to play, providing sufficient supervised provision, providing access to sufficient play free of charge, securing and developing the play workforce, and engaging with the public on play. A large number of new playgrounds and equipment, suitable for children of all ages, have either been created or refurbished in Swansea, some funded by Swansea Council, some partly or fully funded by community councils, and some funded by community organisations such as Clase for All, who've had lottery funding.

Thousands of youngsters in communities across Swansea are benefiting from the major investment in the city's play infrastructure, as Swansea Council has committed to upgrading more than 60 community play areas. The upgrades are part of the council's ongoing commitment to investing in free play areas, which has seen the council agree to a further £1 million for them in the coming year, bringing the total investment so far to £8 million.

Just look at one of the developments in Brynmelyn Park in Waun Wen, where the upgrades have been designed to cater for both teenagers and infants, which is very important, because sometimes you have a very young children's play area or you have an older children's play area, but not a play area for both of them. The teenage area now boasts a combination basket and flat-seat swing, a junior multiplay unit with high and low play features, and an above-ground carousel. The infant area includes an infant multiplay unit, two bay swings with a disabled seat, a 'you and me' seat and two cradle seats, a four-person see-saw, a trampoline with drainage incorporated, and a springer.

We always need to make sure that play equipment is available for those who have disabilities, making sure they can get in, making sure that the equipment is capable for them to use. Will the Minister congratulate Swansea Council on the importance it attaches to play and its investment in new play equipment? Can I ask the Minister to come and visit some of them in the new year? I'd ask her to visit all of them, but it would probably take her the best part of two weeks.

I was a co-sponsor of the motion, and I'm grateful to Rhys for bringing this to the Senedd. We know that play is not a luxury for children—it is fundamental to their happiness, their health and their development. Over the past year, I've been lucky enough to work with colleagues from across the Siambr and with passionate organisations, through the cross-party groups on children and young people, to develop Bil pob plentyn, every child's Bill. Within that Bill, we call for a strengthened statutory right to play, with a statutory duty on public authorities to secure those services in line with national best practice.

There are thousands of children and young people losing safe spaces to play, to socialise, to simply be children. Like others who've spoken, I'd like to hear specifically from the Minister on the issue around access for disabled children to be able to play. To hear that 37 per cent of disabled children in Wales say they never or hardly ever play outside should be a figure to stop us all in our tracks. We need to ensure that all of our facilities are planned with them and are focused on them. It is essential that we are an inclusive Senedd.

I also want us to consider teenagers and older children, as sometimes we act as though play provision stops at age 12. Older children and young people don't just need spaces where they can hang out; they need places where they can actually play, be active, socialise and develop. The devastating evidence speaks for itself. We lost 62 per cent of our youth centres between 2010 and 2024. The number of children accessing youth clubs has fallen from 10 per cent in 2019 to 7 per cent. No wonder young people feel like they don't have a place in their own communities. A fenced playground built for younger children does not meet the needs of a 15-year-old, a disabled child or a mixed-age community. We need to plan better with children and young people, and specifically with disabled children too.

I want to finally mention the importance of strengthening the right to play, as we've heard. When section 11 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 was introduced, with the play sufficiency duty, it was genuinely groundbreaking. But over a decade on, we must ask whether it is still fit for purpose. Play does not only happen in council parks; it is shaped by town and community councils, by our national parks, by public health decisions and by planning and transport policy, as we've heard. If play cuts across all of these areas—and it does—then responsibility for securing it cannot just rest with local authorities.

I'm very pleased to contribute to this debate, and I thank Rhys for bringing this forward. I'm very pleased to support his motion.

As Jane said, play is not a luxury; it is a fundamental right. It's how children learn, build confidence, form friendships and understand the world around them. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child makes this clear, and Wales has been proud to lead the way in recognising children's rights.

I'm also very pleased that Cardiff is recognised as a UNICEF child-friendly city, as I represent a bit of Cardiff, as Rhys does. I think that this is a very important recognition, because you do actually have to reach certain standards to be recognised as a child-friendly city, and one of them, of course, is the involvement of children in decision making and in seeing that the provision that we have is what they want.

Jane mentioned youth provision. It has been devastating, the way that, over many years, youth provision has been decimated. But now it's coming back, thanks to the Welsh Government putting money in to local authorities for this reason. Certainly in Cardiff, we've got a number of youth clubs that have now started, which are absolutely crucial, I think, for open access, places for children and young people to go, and to have adults they can talk to. I think it's great that that is happening here in Cardiff.

The fact that we're the first nation in the world to pass a law about opportunities to play has already been mentioned. I think that that was a bold thing to do. That does put the obligation on us to create places where children can play, where they can play freely and safely, and that they can play close to home. I'd like to pay tribute to the great organisations that are involved in play. Play Wales, I think, has pioneered play, and I think it's so important that we do support them as a Government and that we continue to support them. Because we know that children do face barriers to play, with a lack of green spaces. We've already talked about inequality of access.

I think that, if we're serious about children's rights, we've got to make sure that it is embedded in every bit of policy. Those are the policies like planning and housing. We've already heard today about new houses being built and the spaces are not there. They don't have to be particular designed play areas for children, but there should be open space where children can be free to use their own imagination and create their own places. Those are all decisions that are made when we're planning. Obviously, the transport system is crucial, and also the decisions that are made in the community are crucial.

First, I declare an interest—I'm not sure if I have to—as a trustee for Usk park and Usk Pump Track Club.

Thank you, first—diolch—to the Member, Rhys ab Owen, for bringing this forward to the Senedd today. This debate matters, because play is not just about leisure, it's where physical activity starts, where confidence is built and where many children first discover that love for sport and physical exercise. As the chair of the cross-party group on sport, I and the CPG have seen very clearly the link between access to play when children are young and participation in sport in later life. If children are not moving, climbing, running and playing outdoors, they are far less likely to join teams, use facilities or stay active as teenagers or adults.

That is why the findings in the Play Wales report should concern us all, but it certainly doesn't surprise me. Parks and sporting facilities in general have been at the bottom of the Government's list of priorities for decades. Falling satisfaction, outdated and broken equipment and a lack of provision for older children point to a system that is not keeping up with children's needs. The report also shows that overall satisfaction with opportunities to play has fallen from 84 per cent in 2019 to just 71 per cent today, which should be a wake-up call for us all. Too often, we talk about new strategies and rights, but families tell us a much simpler story: the playground is there, but it is closed; the equipment is there, but it is broken; the space exists, but it is not suitable for older children, disabled children or those who simply want to be somewhere safe to be active. This is particularly acute in rural and semi-rural areas. Space alone does not equal access. Distance, transports, poor maintenance and lack of inclusive design can make facilities effectively unsuitable, especially for disabled children and families without cars. This is also a wider inequality issue. Some communities benefit from modern multi-use games areas, school sports facilities and 3G pitches that are available beyond school hours. Many, sadly, do not, particularly in rural areas where an investment in all-weather facilities in particular is vital.

That uneven access directly affects children's chances to be active and engaged with sport. This is exactly the issue that has come up time and time again with the cross-party group on sport, where we hear about facilities ageing, access shrinking and communities being asked to do more with less.

When Reform are in Government next May, we will be far more ambitious with opening up school facilities, investing in durable multi-use spaces and supporting community groups who are trying to keep local play areas alive with limited resources. Our teenagers are crying out for outdoor gyms in parks and pump tracks. We need to work with children for children, as has already been said—it's very important. Something that we certainly did was engage with the community and the children in that community when developing a local park in my community.

First of all, I'd like to thank Rhys ab Owen for bringing the motion forward.

Every child has a right to play and access to green spaces and play areas. They should be able to walk there as well and not have to be taken by a car. That way, they learn independence. They are also great places for families. It means that families can get to know each other, and it builds strong communities and combats social isolation as well for young mums and parents.

In my area, we also had summer play schemes in the play parks, and it meant that the children would meet up in the park at a certain time and they'd be led by play leaders who would then go on to possibly have a career in education, working with young people, or as youth leaders. It meant that once they were out in the play area, they would stay out, then, and carry on playing together, which was really great. And some young people who didn't have holidays, that would be their holiday for the year, actually meeting up in the local play area at a certain time, led by a play leader, and playing out all day. That was their holiday for a few weeks, it felt like. I know we had to plan our holidays camping, so it didn't clash with the play scheme.

As I said earlier, my journey into politics began because the roundabout from the play area across the road got removed and my children were really disappointed, so I asked the community council if they would fund a new one, and they said they couldn't afford it. It cost about £7,000, which is quite a shocking amount, really, even then, but to replace it and install it did cost a lot of money. So, when I became a county councillor, I set up a match-funding scheme so that the county council would match-fund a piece of equipment with the community council, to make it more affordable.

We set up a task and finish group and marked play areas or scored them red, amber, green, and the ones that were scored red had funding first, if that was available. Then, over the following 12 years, all 172 play areas in Flintshire were renovated. Originally, they wanted to rationalise them, because they said they couldn't afford that many, but, at least by doing that, they were saved. We also used 106 money from planning—I think it was if there were more than two or three houses, they had to pay a committed sum for an existing play area, but over I think it was 15, they had to have a green space within that development, which worked really well.

All play areas were designed in consultation with young people. That was really important, because in some areas we actually put pods in as well. So, when the parents complained about pods and teenagers hanging around in the parks, we'd say, 'Well, actually, this was in consultation with your child.'

I'm pleased to speak in this debate today as a co-submitter of this debate and motion, and can I thank Rhys ab Owen for bringing forward this debate today and working on this as he has? From my perspective, we know how important it is to tackle health inequalities, but also we know that out of the four UK nations, Wales has the greatest obesity levels, sadly. We also know that across Europe, the UK is amongst the highest countries when it comes to childhood obesity. So, if there's any reason for the Government today and the next Government to support any strengthening of legislation in regards to local authorities, ensuring that every community has access to play areas, then this should be it, because we know, so importantly, how childhood obesity and play and physical activity are linked together.

I was struck by Carolyn Thomas as well, who mentioned in an earlier intervention—I think others have mentioned as well—planning gain, and this is important, because, so often, as part of those planning applications, planning gain is put in, and there's a requirement on the developer, then, to bring forward an open space or a play area. But we know so often—and I know from my own experience through casework—that the developer doesn't then put into practice what has been required through the planning permission. Sometimes, 10 years go by, and I've got constituents who are still chasing the local authority to ensure that the developer commits to what they agreed when the planning permission was agreed. Sometimes, of course, the developer goes into administration as well.

So, I think in any kind of strengthening of legislation or regulation, this also has to be considered to ensure that that money is set aside, if you like, to ensure that local communities are not forgotten about due to planning gain through planning applications.

Also, another plea I have as well in this debate is so often any grant funding is often linked to new play areas. But so often we look around and we see play areas that are just in disrepair. They just look shabby. I like to think they're safe, but they don't look good at all. They don't look appealing. Sometimes, new grant funding isn't necessarily needed for a new play area, it just needs to have an uplift of an existing play area. So, I think this is something also to be considered as well, when we think about any requirements needed for supporting new play areas. Let's look at increasing what we've already got and making sure that they're good and safe areas as well, and appealing for children to go and play as well. Diolch, Llywydd.

I call on the Minister for Children and Social Care, Dawn Bowden.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thanks to all those Members who tabled this motion today and to those who contributed to the debate.

As we heard referred to in the motion and by many Members in the debate today, Wales was, of course, the first country in the world to legislate for the children's right to play, under section 11 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010, and we should be rightly proud that Wales continues to lead the way in championing children's right to play.

Our play sufficiency duty makes it a legal requirement for every local authority in Wales to assess and secure sufficient opportunities to play. It was good to hear from Mike Hedges about the positive provisions in Swansea, and I certainly do congratulate Swansea, Mike, on that. And I'd be delighted to visit at some point. And there are many other similar examples of excellent facilities across Wales. Julie Morgan mentioned Heath park in her constituency, and I can point to several fantastic play areas and parks in my own constituency as well.

But since legislating in support of children's play, we've continued to work closely with local authorities and Play Wales to support the implementation of the duties. In 2019 we began an in-depth and collaborative view of our play vision and aims. The ministerial review of play steering group report, published in 2023, made key recommendations for Welsh Government and we published a progress report earlier this year on actions being taken forward and our continued ambition to improve opportunities for play for all children in Wales. We've published an animation and child-friendly version of the progress report, which highlights the importance of the powerful impact that playing has on children's well-being and development, which was noted by a number of contributors to the debate today.

Now, Wales has many wonderful play opportunities for children across the country and we continue to build on the progress made and focus on working collaboratively to reach the aims of the review of play. As was also noted in the debate, Cardiff Council's status as the UK's first UNICEF accredited child-friendly city is a testament to that local authority's commitment to children's rights and well-being, and it shouldn't be dismissed or trivialised. It is not easy to achieve, as Julie Morgan pointed out—there are rigorous standards that have to be met. But children are absolutely at the heart of our legislation, our policies and our guidance for local authorities to promote children's right to play and support our shared vision for the whole of Wales to be play friendly.

Rhys ab Owen to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Gaf i ddechrau trwy ddweud fyddai fe ddim yn bosib cael dadl Aelod oni bai am gydweithio rhwng Aelodau? Felly, dwi'n dechrau trwy ddiolch i Russell, i Mike ac i Jane am gefnogi'r ddadl. Diolch yn fawr i chi. A diolch yn fawr hefyd i bawb sydd wedi cyfrannu yn y ddadl heddiw. Rŷn ni wedi clywed o Natasha am brofiadau plant eu hunain a'r problemau maen nhw'n eu cael gyda hygyrchedd.

Mike gave examples of excellent work in Swansea—the upgrade of 60 playgrounds. And I'm pleased that you've managed to achieve a visit from the Minister to some of the Swansea playgrounds; I'm sure she'll look forward to that in the new year.

Jane mentioned that play is not a luxury, but it's a fundamental right, and Julie went on to mention and to highlight again that Wales has led the way with children's rights. Both Julie and Jane mentioned the cuts in the past years to youth provision, but Julie mentioned some excellent examples of new centres opening. And it's good that you mentioned Play Streets—a point that Lee Waters made in his intervention.

Laura mentioned that space does not equal access, and that's certainly my experience. I remember my grandparents living in a rural area, but all the fields were fenced off. So, if you wanted to go and play in a field, you had to climb over a hedge or a fence.

Carolyn, you mentioned, and it struck me, the importance of independence and communities when it comes to parks, and that is true. I think probably the first place I went alone to was to the park, and then, in later life, I've met many families through our children playing in the park and then we'd go off somewhere together afterwards. So, it's very important. Parks are very important for independence and communities.

Russ, you mentioned health struggles, and I think this is something I tried to mention at the end of my contribution. We hear on a weekly basis in this place about the health inequalities, the health problems, Wales faces. I know Jenny Rathbone is a huge advocate of prevention when it comes to health problems, and playing, and playing at a young age, is crucial for that, because, if you play sport and if you're active at a young age, you're likely to continue in later years.

Minister, thank you. You highlighted successes, but you also admitted the challenges and said that you would give serious consideration to the challenges raised. And of course the debate wouldn't have happened if the Welsh Government hadn't commissioned the report in the first place and actually asked for the voices of the young people, and so I’m grateful for that, and we've heard the experiences of young people.

Could I just close, Llywydd, with the words of the important people, some of the children of Wales? I'll start off with a 13-year-old girl from Newport, and she said:

'There’s nowhere I can play or hang out safely by myself as I use a frame to help me walk and there’s nothing for disabled people anywhere close or that I know of.’

Or we'll go to the core of debate today, a 10-year-old from Flintshire saying this:

'My local park. There is a lot of space and loads of fun items there, also it is very close to my house so I can get there quickly and whenever I want.'

And there it is, that's a special target for us to work towards this Christmas and in 2026. Thank you very much.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed.

Item 8 is next, the Plaid Cymru debate on the devolution settlement, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and, in formally moving the motion, I'm going to start my contribution with a quote.

I will begin with a quote.

'Devolution is a process. It is not an event and neither is it a journey with a fixed end-point. The devolution process is enabling us to make our own decisions and set our own priorities, that is the important point.'

Now, we know who said those words, of course; they've been repeated many, many times. And it would be reasonable, would it not, for those words by Ron Davies, published in a pamphlet ahead of the first elections to the new National Assembly for Wales in 1999, to hold true today. They were spoken by a Labour Secretary of State for Wales. It is a post that Labour have now inherited once again. And from executive devolution to primary law-making powers and now a reserved-powers model of devolution, we have indeed seen the process play out. It has lilted along through the best part of three decades now, dancing incrementally, sometimes awkwardly, to the beat of considered opinion, from the Richard commission to the Silk commission to the more recent Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. And at every turn, the people of Wales have decided the next move, either through referenda or mandating a Government to act on their behalf. They have been milestones of constitutional consequence, yes, but, crucially, they've had practical effect each time: powers for a purpose, supported by the people of Wales so they can benefit our communities.

And now that will of the electorate is being flagrantly ignored, at best—and I'm being kind here—by inertia in Gwydyr House, the Wales Office on Whitehall, and, at worst, a conscious and concerted attempt by the UK Labour Government, just like the Tories before them, to deny Wales its constitutional rights. Or, as a third of the Labour benches in this Senedd put in that letter to Keir Starmer last week, a 'rolling back' on the existing devolution settlement.

In its final report, the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales also said what is now being implied by signatories to that Labour letter. This is what the commission said:

'The effective conduct of relations between the four governments of the UK is too important to be left to the discretion of individual ministers. The only basis for successful relations is parity of esteem'.

'At times the UK government seems to see good relations as an optional extra; they are not.'

That's what the commission said.

Now, for balance—and we should always seek that—this isn't a new phenomenon. As I said, the Tories also did what Labour are doing now and the irony isn't lost on me that the previous Conservative Secretary of State for Wales now heads up Darren Millar's back office here in the Senedd, and no doubt played a part in writing the Tory amendment today that defends the contemptuous attitude of successive UK Governments, red and blue, towards Wales.

Llywydd, there was another very revealing session of the Welsh Affairs Committee in Westminster last week. There was an incredible admission, if truth be told, from the Cabinet Secretary for economy, Rebecca Evans, that there was a gap of £68 million between the regional funding pledged to Wales by the Westminster Government over this current period and the far smaller sum that was confirmed in October. Once again, this is an example of Wales's funding being clawed back behind closed doors into a plan managed from Whitehall—funding that was pledged to Welsh communities being allocated in London, without any assurance that it will go to those areas that most need it for the projects that are most in need of that funding. As the Plaid Cymru MP for Ynys Môn, Llinos Medi, said, following the comments of the Cabinet Secretary, this is a situation that raises serious questions about Labour's respect towards devolution and, more fundamentally, questions of trust and fairness.

Indeed, it appears as if the much-vaunted respect agenda between the Welsh and UK Governments only works one way. Westminster will do what it wants. Wales will do as it is told. The First Minister loves reminding us of how she has a direct line to No. 10, although Keir Starmer's abject lack of delivery for Wales or interest in Wales suggests she spends most of her time on hold. But worse still, she seems to think that a UK Labour Prime Minister will only pick up the phone to a Labour First Minister in Wales. Isn't it the case that any UK Prime Minister of any political party should be willing to engage respectfully and constructively with a Welsh First Minister of any party and, indeed, vice versa? I want to have that constructive relationship. To suggest otherwise, that a Labour Prime Minister will only speak to a Labour First Minister here, smacks of a deep disrespect towards Wales, unless it is a Wales of the same political colour. A Government has to be very, very aware of appearing arrogant or entitled, because those kinds of attributes are almost certain to be harmful to the health of our democracy.

The Sewel convention is just that, a convention—a loose agreement of considerable limitations. Isn't it time we had a Sewel constitution, if you like, a legally binding, new statutory formulation of the Sewel convention, which should apply both to legislation in relation to devolved matters, and explicitly to legislation affecting the status or powers of the devolved legislatures and Executives, as recommended by Gordon Brown's commission on the UK's future, as pledged in the 2024 Labour manifesto, which spoke of strengthening the Sewel convention, but seemingly gathering dust in Labour's bookcase of broken promises?

I will end, Llywydd, by returning to the motion and reminding us of that letter reflected in our motion today—the letter from Labour backbenchers here to the UK Labour Prime Minister. And I'll say this: we didn't fight for a Senedd of our own so that we could articulate views by letter alone. We didn't fight for a Senedd of our own to say one thing on paper, only to recoil from those very sentiments in our nation's democratic Chamber. We didn't fight for a Senedd of our own to create a Chamber as a platform to display a lack of moral courage. We fought for this Senedd for the opportunity to put words into effect. Party loyalty of course runs deep in all of us, but our loyalty to Wales must always come first, and we can all demonstrate that today by backing Plaid Cymru's motion.

I have selected amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on James Evans to move amendment 1. James Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to move the amendment, tabled in the name of my colleague Paul Davies. And here we are again, isn't it? Another Wednesday afternoon, another Plaid Cymru motion where they're outraged about something else. And let me be absolutely clear from the outset, consistent arguments about the devolution settlement are not only tiring, they are actively distracting us from the serious challenges that the people of Wales face. While politicians in this Chamber argue over powers, structures and the constitution, hard-working people across Wales are asking a fair and simple question: what has the devolution of powers here actually delivered for me? After more than two decades of devolution, the Welsh Government already has extensive powers. The problem is not a lack of powers, the problem is a lack of results from the Labour Government in Cathays Park. People are losing faith in devolution because they see a tired Welsh Labour Government, propped up by the separatists in Plaid Cymru, that is pushing their left-wing extreme socialist agenda onto our communities. And people in Wales are getting more and more frustrated, and that frustration is turning to disillusionment with this Senedd, with Welsh politics, and with the entire devolution settlement itself.

Today's motion follows a letter sent to the Prime Minister earlier from members of the Labour group. In that letter, Labour Members criticise their Westminster colleagues for directly funding Welsh councils, presenting this as some sort of constitutional offence. But the truth—[Interruption.] I'll finish this point, Jenny, and then I will. But the truth is this: there is nothing wrong with funding going directly to those who can do the most. Local authorities know their communities far better than Ministers do in Cathays Park.

I agree, there's absolutely nothing wrong with money going directly to local authorities. That isn't—

There you are—thank you for agreeing with my point.

No, no, not at all. Let me finish. But what is not right is that, with the money that is being sent through Pride in Place, they're being told it can only be spent on one community, pitting one deprived area against another. Instead, the Welsh Government—. Had the money that was originally supposed to have come in the local growth fund—. It was top-sliced from that. That would have led to dialogue with local authorities to identify the best way of spending that money across the communities it represented. So, that is why this is so devastating, and it is absolutely about the everyday affairs of the people I represent.

Well, Jenny, I don't agree with you, because when the Welsh Government had shares of European Union funding, they actually sent it to their Welsh Labour heartlands. It didn't benefit most of the people I represent. So, I don't trust this Welsh Labour Government not to do the same again.

But, during the COVID-19 pandemic, it was councils, not Ministers here, who proved just how quickly and effectively they could respond when empowered to act and deliver. And I've said it many times before, and Plaid Cymru need to listen to this: Wales has two Governments—one here and one in Westminster. That's a fact. I know some of you won't like it, but that is the fact of the matter.

And for Senedd Members to dress this situation up as some sort of constitutional outrage may suit well for those who are obsessed with their socialist ideology of taking powers away from local people to centralise it, because, in their view, the state always knows best, doesn't it? But we on these benches know that that approach does nothing to improve the outcomes for the people we represent. It increases bureaucracy at the centre of Government and delivers nothing for the people.

You actually pinpointed the biggest anomaly in your own contribution there. You say that Wales has two Governments, and that's exactly the problem. That is not normal for an ordinary country, is it?

The mask has slipped: 'We want separatism.' This is the party here—

Says the Brexiteer.

—that wants independence that would pull our country into the gutter. I'll take no lectures from the party who took money from Colonel Gaddafi.

But what matters now is not who controls the money, but whether that money actually delivers results on the ground. When two Governments work together pragmatically, communities will benefit—growth deals, city regions, free ports. These are not abstract concepts, they're practical examples of how co-operation produces real results and economic outcomes. And that's where the real focus of our time should be—in delivery for the people and providing value for money for the taxpayers of this country who pay their bills and expect a service in return. When I knock the doors in Brecon and Radnorshire, no-one talks to me about devolving more powers. [Interruption.] You can make an intervention if you want, Alun, I'd love to take one. No-one talks to me about—[Interruption.] I've already taken one from you, Jenny. [Interruption.] Go on, then. Why not? I'm enjoying this.

Of course they knock the doors. They want to have resolved the issues that are facing them, whether it's schools, the roads, the lighting, the litter, the crime—all these things are really important. And what this Pride in Place is doing is ensuring that the money has to go to one community rather than the four or five most deprived communities.

But, Jenny, you've just highlighted, haven't you, 27 years of failure? Because what they tell me is that Wales is broken—a broken health service, broken education, broken farmers who feel neglected, and a broken economy. But the biggest issue they tell me on a day-to-day basis is that they're fed up with this Labour Government and their old bedfellows Plaid Cymru, who are presenting themselves as something different, but I can assure the people of Wales that they are nothing different—they are Labour, but worse.

So, as I've said, Llywydd, today's debate offers no solutions to the real problems—[Interruption.] You can make an intervention, Rhun, if you want to. The debate offers no real solutions to the problems facing Welsh communities. Instead, it reinforces the growing perception of politicians in this place talking about politics when ordinary, hard-working people are left to pick up the pieces day in, day out. Labour have failed and, as I've said, soon enough, the mask of the separatists over there will slip as well. Wales deserves better than this. It deserves a change of Government. It deserves a Conservative Government and, for that reason, I urge Members to support our amendment.

The Deputy First Minister to formally move amendment 2.

Formally.

Thank you. Mike Hedges now.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. This is a debate we've needed for some time. What is interesting is that Reform do not appear to have any interest in it, though they seem very keen on being the next Government. Where does devolution end? Well, I don't agree with Ron Davies, who became a member of Plaid Cymru, that it was a process, because Plaid Cymru's policy is one of salami-slicing to independence, summed up by 'devolve, devolve and devolve' until there's nothing left to devolve—'please ignore that Wales is financially a net beneficiary of the union'. Wales is a net beneficiary of the union. David Phillips of the IFS has estimated that it is a net beneficiary of the union of between £12 billion and £15 billion a year. If Wales keeps its revenue, funds its own public spending, and then makes a population-based contribution to the UK-wide situation, at least as it stands, that would lead to a large fiscal deficit for Wales. Also according to David Phillips of the IFS, the most recent estimates from ONS suggest public expenditure in Wales is about 10 per cent higher than it is across the UK as a whole, this despite raising substantially less money.

We also know small countries do not have the economic strengths to weather financial storms. The Icelandic financial crisis was a major economic and political event in Iceland between 2008 and 2010. It involved the default of all three of the country's major privately owned commercial banks in late 2008, following problems in refinancing their short-term debt and a run on deposits in the Netherlands and the UK. Relative to the size of the economy, Iceland's systemic banking collapse was the largest in any country in economic history. This crisis led to a severe recession and the 2009 Icelandic financial crisis. We also know that Britain survived the banking crisis

The Conservative policy, that's fairly straightforward: this is the end of the devolution journey, even opposing the devolution of policing, although it had already been devolved to some English mayors, as well as Scotland and Northern Ireland.

We have had several devolution settlements for Wales, and we are no closer to a long-term settlement than we were before the first. In the UK, we've seen different devolution settlements for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, as well as different responsibilities devolved to London and some of the larger English cities. We have what is meant to be a reserved-powers model in Wales following the most recent settlement, but the host of reservations within the supposed devolved areas makes a mockery of such a definition. On leaving the European Union, it is now a battle to get devolved to Wales those powers being repatriated to Britain that are in wholly devolved areas. If the settlement had been a comprehensive reserved-powers model, then this would—[Interruption.]

Would you allow me to intervene?

Please.

Would you allow me to intervene?

Yes, certainly. Sorry.

I'm following your speech with interest, as ever. In relation to your point about small nations, given what you've said, why do you think that Iceland has the fifth highest GDP per capita in the world, considerably higher than the UK or, indeed, Wales?

Well, I think that we could have a long debate on small countries and larger countries. I think most people accept that the most powerful and economically strong country in the world is the United States of America, which certainly isn't a small country, but I'd be happy to discuss this in a future debate, and if you'd like to bring along a debate on that, I'd be more than happy to take part in it.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Are you aware the United States is spending more money on prisons than it is on education? That's a broken country.

I'm discussing the United States' wealth rather than how they spend the money. I think the United States is not a good example of how money is spent, but, in terms of wealth, the United States is primary in terms of wealth. If somebody can name another country that is wealthier than the United States of America, let me know, because everything I ever read shows it well ahead of China and the European Union on total.

We have what is meant to be a reserved-powers model, but we've got a problem with where we are with the reservation. On leaving the European Union, there's now a new battle to get devolved to Wales those powers being repatriated to Britain that are in wholly devolved areas. If the settlement had been a comprehensive reserved-powers model, then this would not have arisen and nothing would have been repatriated beyond the current reserved list. Hence why I signed the letter.

There are obvious areas that need to be held centrally, such as defence, foreign affairs, national security, currency, interest rates, overseas aid, immigration; driver and car licensing, the central bank, and national insurance, just to name some. If all areas are devolved, it's called 'independence' rather than 'devolution'. I'm just amazed that Plaid Cymru didn't put forward a resolution for independence. Please—. Were you going to do that, Rhun?

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

I just wanted to provide the information that you were seeking on which countries are richer than America. I went for GDP per capita: Monaco; Liechtenstein; Luxembourg; Bermuda; Ireland; Switzerland; Iceland—still coming to the United States pretty soon—Cayman Islands; Singapore; Norway; the United States—eighth. There you go.

Can I help you, because you seem to have difficulty understanding? In terms of absolute wealth, the United States, it's got the biggest GDP in the world. GDP per head is—[Interruption.]

It doesn't make a difference—. All right, will you take an intervention?

Last one.

We're talking about powers for a purpose, wealth for a purpose. Surely we're looking at the impact that a country can have on its citizens; that's per capita.

If this is your argument for independence, please make it. Please put a resolution down calling for independence for Wales. Please make that argument. Please send the £12 billion to £16 billion back. I can't take any more interventions because the Presiding Officer won't let me.

Moving finally on, should UK taxes to pay for centrally funded items be, with all other taxes devolved, collected locally, similar to state and national taxes in the USA? How will financial support from the wealthier to the poorer regions be organised, if at all? What I'm asking for is for everything that's able to be devolved to be put on the table, without a big bang, like the policing to Northern Ireland, where it had two-thirds support in the Northern Ireland Chamber, and that meant that Northern Ireland had, devolved to it, policing. That's the way to take devolution forward, but there has to be an end of devolution.

And, finally, can I just say that we also need to think about devolving more powers to local government? Many powers of local government, like policing, like further education, have been taken off them. Nothing has been moved back to them. We need to see where things work best, not centralise everything in Cardiff.

Devolution is not a favour. It's not a gift handed down when Westminster happens to be in a generous mood. In a nation that has voted twice in a referendum in favour, devolution is the right, simply put, to have our democracy respected.

In July 2024, a UK Labour Government came into office promising change, but as far as devolution is concerned, we've had the opposite of that. The Counsel General has confirmed, in a written answer last month, that since July 2024 there's not been a single example of a transfer of legislative competence to this Senedd by the UK Labour Government. Not one. Yes, there have been UK Acts that have given powers to Welsh Ministers, but they've all been in areas that are already devolved because, of course, the UK Labour Government, as we've heard, has been a serial denier of the Sewel convention. That's not devolution. That's Westminster saying, 'We'll write the script and Wales can initial the margin.'

Now, here's the bitter irony. A Conservative Government, accused by Welsh Labour and others, with some justification, of being anti-devolution, actually did deliver extra powers in energy, in rail, in teachers' pay, income tax, et cetera, whereas a Labour Government, wrapped in the language of partnership, has delivered no new powers at all. Indeed, as the letter signed by many Members of the Labour group has pointed out, far from underlining devolution, Labour in power at Westminster has undermined it. Pride in Place, it's not empowerment, it's patronage. It's UK Government as benefactor, the Senedd as bystander. It's not 'Pride in Place', it's 'know your place' as far as Welsh democracy is concerned.

The Welsh Government say that they are always standing up for Wales, but what we've seen is silence and inaction. Take water. Ten years ago, with the St David's Day agreement, we were told Wales could have full control over water. Yet section 48(1) of the Wales Act 2017 still has not been commenced, and the Wales Office says there's not even a timetable to do so because the Welsh Government have not even made a request for those powers. Where have you been for eight years? And then there is the injustice that is justice. The Thomas commission, the independent constitutional commission, even the Brown commission all recommended devolution. We've received nothing of substance from the UK Labour Government. And, as we heard earlier today, the Welsh Government has not even been consulted on the proposal to abolish police and crime commissioners or to merge Welsh police forces. This is not devolution delayed, this is devolution denied.

Do you support devolution, or do you want Welsh independence?

I support the principle of democratic self-government and at the point, if the majority of the Welsh people decide that they want to exercise that through independence, then absolutely I support that. At this point in time, the majority of the people of Wales have voted twice in favour of devolution. Why is it not being delivered? [Interruption.] I've got to make progress I'm afraid.

So, my challenge to the Government of Wales is this. Wales is being treated with contempt. This Senedd, the Welsh Government, the Welsh people, even the Welsh Labour Party. Where is your anger? We've seen a glimpse of it from the back benches in the letter the Labour group sent. If we saw a bit of it from the front benches, maybe you as a party would not be on 10 per cent in the polls, but more importantly than that, maybe a UK Labour Government would start to treat Wales with respect. And if you, as a Welsh Labour Government, are not prepared to use your voice in supporting this motion tonight, then it really is time to make way for another Government that will.

I think it is important that we do debate and discuss these things. I'm delighted that Plaid Cymru takes such a keen interest in the internal matters of the Labour Party, and I'm delighted as well that the Conservatives have again made themselves utterly and completely irrelevant to the debates that are taking place here.

But there are some really important issues here for us to discuss, because there is a real crisis facing democracy in the United Kingdom, and this isn't simply a matter of the powers of this place; it's about the democracy across the whole of this kingdom. And that crisis has been created by systemic economic failure, by a loss of political leadership, by Brexit and by an historic failure to address fundamental inequalities in our society. The United Kingdom remains one of the most unequal places in Europe. And those of us who believe in the union of the United Kingdom must also recognise that this democracy and this union needs radical reform, and that should not be in itself a radical statement. Gordon Brown's report, the original draft as well as the final draft, said that very clearly, and it is a tragedy for the Labour Party that Gordon Brown's report is gathering dust rather than being delivered.

For too long, there have been politicians in all political parties who misunderstand unionism to mean centralism, and we heard that from the Conservatives today. Too many politicians do not understand the difference between the two. Too many politicians believe the myth that Whitehall and Westminster know best. But those of us who come from some of the oldest traditions of the Labour Party and the Labour movement offer something that I believe is rooted in the traditions of this party.

Keir Hardie's first priority was home rule. The demand for home rule defined the birth of the Labour Party, and it has been one of the threads that has run through our history. When campaigning a century ago, he understood the importance of political power. And Aneurin Bevan, of course, understood the importance of where political power lies. If you read In Place of Fear, chapter 1, the first chapter of that book, is about Bevan's search for power. He knew that if you want to change and challenge inequality—economic and social inequality—you must have the levers of political power. And that is why I believe it is important for us in the Labour Party, in the Labour movement, and in this place, that the place of political power is at the heart of our political discussions and debates.

And it is Welsh Labour that has been able to lead this through most of the last century. It's Welsh Labour that has been at the heart of the political centre of gravity, leading the people of Wales, firstly in the campaign for home rule—the Parliament for Wales campaign was led, if you remember, by S.O. Davies. The Parliament for Wales campaign, which led to the campaign for Welsh devolution, was again led by the Labour Party, and we all remember the role of Rhodri Morgan and his friends continuing in this place in defining devolution. And Elystan Morgan's last contribution, of course, to Welsh politics before we lost him was about the place of political power in this country. And that is why we need today to ensure that we continue to put country before party, and why we have to continue to assert that the Welsh Labour Party believes in home rule, believes in the democratic self-government of Wales within the United Kingdom. And I say this to anybody who says that they believe in devolution: well, that needs to be demonstrated in actions and not words. I give way.

Thank you very much for taking an intervention. We'll see how people will have voted at the end, but it would be useful to have it on the record now, confirmation that you will be voting to back Plaid Cymru's motion today, backing the words that you put in that letter last week.

Let me tell you this, Rhun: what I'm trying to address are some of the fundamentals that we should be debating and discussing, and we'll have this debate in the run-up to next May, and I would suggest that the voting next May is more important than the vote that will take place in the next hour.

But I'll say this to anybody who says that they believe in devolution, and we've heard it in the last few weeks: actions speak louder than words. The Pride in Place—[Interruption.] Let me carry on. The Pride in Place programme and the way that it was delivered, using Conservative legislation and a Conservative model of governance, was wrong. It was wrong, and Welsh Ministers shared this anger, and Welsh Ministers shared this frustration. And I would suggest that the people of Wales want to hear that frustration as well, and that's why I certainly signed that letter, because I felt that it was important that the people of Wales are at the centre of our conversations and not excluded from those debates.

We need to ensure, as we campaign on these matters, that we root our arguments in where we stand and in our political traditions. I will be campaigning over the next few months for equality in Wales: equality amongst peoples, equality amongst our communities, but also equality for our country within the United Kingdom. It is not fair that Wales is treated the way it is, and it is not fair that Welsh Ministers are humiliated—and we saw it this afternoon—having to run to catch up because they don't know what's being said from London. It's not fair that Welsh Ministers need to try to explain that rail funding is fair when it's self-evidently not, that Barnett is fair when it is self-evidently not. That is not fair. It is not fair for this Government, it is not fair for this Parliament, but more importantly it is not fair for our people. So, we will campaign for equality over the coming months. We will campaign for the equality of people, as we've done in the Labour movement through our history. We will campaign for the equality of our communities because Labour believes in every community in this country, and then we will campaign for equality within the United Kingdom for Wales because Welsh Labour believes in Wales.

Labour used to pride itself on being the party of devolution, although I must say, coming as I do originally from the Gwent valleys that were Neil Kinnock's fiefdom when I was growing up in the 1970s and 1980s, I remember only too well that a very long and strong streak of devo-scepticism runs deep in those Welsh Labour veins, Alun. Perhaps that's why you were in Plaid Cymru at the time.

But let's deal in the present, and a year and a half of the so-called partnership in power has irreparably shattered this image that Labour in Wales like to trumpet so loudly. And I think all the warning signs of Starmerism's indifference to Welsh devolution were on display for some time prior to the general election. Long-held commitments on devolving powers over justice and policing, underpinned by a wealth of academic research, were quietly dropped. The thin gruel offered to Wales in the Gordon Brown report on the constitutional future of the UK was watered down even further, and the very notion of devolution as a means to a progressive end casually disregarded by an arrogant Westminster-knows-best attitude.

But since the general election, this apathy has translated into something much more hostile. Because what we're seeing is not just a Government that's firmly putting the brakes on devolution; this is a Government that is actively trampling over our hard-won devolution settlement, with as much contempt as their predecessors. This stands in stark contrast to their attitude to devolution in England. The likes of Cumbria, Cheshire, Essex, Hampshire, East Anglia and Sussex have been placed on a fast track for devolution, while Wales is left behind.

And now, finally, the Labour backbenchers themselves are waking up to this inescapable reality. We commend Mick, Hannah, Alun, John, Lesley, Julie, Jenny, Rhianon, Carolyn, Mike and Lee for calling out their UK leadership. They are right to say that had these actions been committed by a Conservative UK Government, there would have been howls of outrage from their frontbenches.

If the Welsh Labour Government had any self-respect, they would make every effort to amplify their words into a chorus of condemnation. But while we sincerely hope their concerns are treated seriously by both branches of Labour HQ, we will not hold our breath. After all, the amendment the Welsh Government has laid completely airbrushes the central premise of the letter: that the UK Labour Government has overseen a rolling back of the devolution settlement.

When the legitimate concerns of over a third of the Labour group here in the Senedd are swept aside so readily by their own Government, there is no wonder Starmer feels absolutely no qualms at all in pushing ahead. Hopefully we will see the 11 Labour Members put their money where their mouths are this afternoon and vote in favour of today's motion, but I'm not holding out much hope after hearing from Alun Davies there. Because what a shame it would be if they were to follow up such a powerful articulation of putting national interest before party by ultimately voting the way their party bosses would prefer.

I'm finishing now, Llywydd.

In Plaid Cymru, they know there is a party that will never compromise our unshakeable belief in devolution, not as some kind of abstract constitutional inconvenience, but as a route to reinvesting power where it belongs—in the hands of the Welsh people.

It's a pleasure to take part in this debate tonight. Let me begin by contextualising my contribution today by saying that this Senedd was established in 1997 by a knife-edge referendum result—a narrow majority winning on the promise that devolution would improve everyday life in Wales. That trust has been repeatedly abused and the centring of once fringe political parties is concerning, as their underlying motivation is rooted in their ultimate goal of Welsh independence.

The line parroted by Plaid Cymru politicians is that independence is a journey, and their constant rows over the devolution settlement are part of that journey. The destination, at which I hope we never arrive, personally, will leave all Welsh people considerably poorer. They are now acting as conduits for decades of failure. As the leader of the Welsh Conservatives said yesterday, in just one of many fitting analogies, Labour and Plaid are two parts of the same pantomime horse, working in tandem to ensure Wales is at the bottom of just about every league table.

At a time when people are waiting months, sometimes years, for NHS treatment, when standards in our schools are slipping year after year, and when communities like west Rhyl in my constituency are crying out for regeneration and jobs, Plaid Cymru has chosen once again to reopen an argument about constitutional tinkering. [Interruption.] Yes, Llyr.

Are you happy with the fact that Wales is paying £25 million a week towards rail infrastructure in England? Could that money not be spent on some of the services that you spent a few minutes berating?

If it was for Welsh independence, we'd be a lot poorer, Llyr, and the figures are there for everybody to see. [Interruption.] Yes, I will, Mike.

Can't we come round to the fact that we get a benefit of between £12 billion and £16 billion a year from the Treasury by being part of the union? That is a fact. It might not be a fact that Plaid Cymru would like to hear, but it is a fact.

I agree, Mike. And the Welsh Conservatives did call for the funding from HS2, and we've always been consistent with that approach.

Not health outcomes, not educational standards, not economic growth, but more powers is what Plaid Cymru are obsessed with. This obsession with devolution has become a distraction from the real work that the Senedd should be doing. Wales does not suffer from a lack of powers, it suffers from a lack of delivery, and a lack of original thinking. We have had a left-wing permastate for over a quarter of a century, and look where we are.

Since 1999, the Welsh Government has accumulated significant authority over health, education, transport, housing and the economy, yet NHS waiting times are worse than in England. Wales languishes at the bottom of the Programme for International Student Assessment education rankings, and our economy continues to lag behind the rest of the UK. Plaid Cymru's answer to all of this always remains the same: give us more power. More power over policing, more power over justice, more power over the Crown Estate. Rhun.

Thanks for taking an intervention. I was working as a journalist covering that devolution referendum in 1997. It's remarkable how much you are echoing the opinions voiced by Conservative politicians back during that referendum. Are you aware that you're speaking the language of those anti-devolutionists now, and are you brave enough to say now that actually you're against giving Wales its voice?

Nice try, Rhun. Probably in your journalistic years you learned how to spin and misconstrue things, which is not my stance, and I will lay out the case during the course of my contribution.

Frankly, if you cannot competently run the powers that we already have, why on earth should the people of Wales trust you with even more? We see YesCymru marches attended by Plaid Cymru politicians demanding independence when places like west Rhyl struggle with deprivation, health inequality and a lack of opportunity. Plaid don't understand this, but the residents have more important things to worry about than the devolution settlement, like if they can put their heating on or have a meal that night.

The recent letter from Labour backbenchers accusing their own Government of rolling back devolution says more about the Labour Party's internal chaos than it does about constitutional reality. Yet, instead of accepting responsibility, Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru default to blaming the previous UK Government, distractions and demands for more powers. The Tory Government in Westminster never held a gun to the Welsh Government and forced them to waste money on planting trees in Uganda. The Tories never forced the Welsh Government to spend £120 million on expanding the Senedd or spend £20 million on a universal basic income pilot scheme or £32 million on the hated 20 mph policy. They willingly throw away taxpayers' money.

We are the only party in this Chamber clearly against devolving more powers. Reform supports expansion. Plaid wants independence. Labour bend over backwards to appease them every single time. But we stand for accountability, because the Senedd doesn't need more powers, it needs accountability and a Government that uses the powers it has to fix Wales. Until that happens, debates like this will continue to feel detached from the real lives of the people we are elected to serve. Wales deserves better than constitutional navel-gazing. Wales deserves a Government with new ideas for the problems facing Wales and who are intent on actually delivering them. And that, Llywydd, is the Welsh Conservatives.

It does feel like we have reached a pinch point after over 12 months of Labour rule in Westminster. We've got the letter by a third of Labour Senedd Members. I would like to pay tribute to you and to your courage for going out there and being clear on what many of us feel. We've seen, secondly, the very insulting statement of Jo Stevens that she only communicates in English. And we still see the non-delivery of the consequentials we are entitled to and the non-devolution—and that's what I really mean, the non-devolution—of HS2, the Crown Estate, police and criminal justice, probation. We have absolutely no timeline for those important issues to be devolved to us here in Wales, despite many requests, and we are running out of road.

Labour in partnership with the Labour Government in London is not what we are seeing. This is not a partnership of equals in any way, shape or form. My mum was part of the steering group in 1997 that helped to develop the foundations of the Assembly, and nearly 30 years later, we don't see ambition, we are seen as an afterthought. In 2025, we don't see partnership, we see a lack of respect. This Senedd should be listened to, we should not have to demand our rights. Our language, not just of this Senedd, but of our country, which is a vehicle for our culture, should be respected. And while some see this debate as not addressing people's issues and everyday concerns, it is absolutely foundational to meeting the needs of people in Wales and the delivery of the services that we need. This debate is essential, and I do thank Plaid Cymru for bringing it forward. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I was going to say that I disagree with the Tory amendment because I think these debates on devolution are useful and important. After some of the comments that were made, I sort of question that. But I do agree that these debates are important, and I don't agree with those who say that constitutional issues are not important. They are, because they go to the core of our ability to deliver for Wales and the people we represent. They underpin the principles and the legislative basis for the exercise of power and the distribution of resources.

Of course, the devolution debate goes back well over a century. It goes back to the turn of the century, to Cymru Fydd. And, of course, there was the 1950s 'Parliament for Wales' campaign, and some of us here were very involved in the 1979 devolution referendum. Cefin, I seem to remember our tussle with the constabulary while fly-posting the Baglan bay bridge, I think, if I've got that right, at that particular time. That whole campaign in 1979 was one we lost, and we thought after that that we would never be able to achieve devolution, and there would not be change in the future. It was a very depressing time, and it showed how divided Wales was at that particular time. It was slow, but 20 years later there was progress.

There's much in principle that I can agree with in the motion. In fact, there is no disagreement on the well-established, I think, Welsh Government and Senedd view that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 should be repealed. It was legislation that was introduced by the Tories to undermine the important work that was done on a four-nations basis in establishing common frameworks post Brexit to ensure continuity of the single market whilst respecting devolved interests. The Act overrides the frameworks, and it gives the UK Government overriding financial powers in devolved functions. It was an Act the Tories introduced to give them powers that they couldn't achieve through the ballot box.

In opposition, Labour opposed the Bill. And in Wales, we oppose it. It is still under review, we continue to call for its repeal, and we will continue to engage with the UK Labour Government for its repeal, because it is only at Westminster that it can be repealed. We will eventually succeed, either via repeal or, my preferred option, a new constitutional reform Act, because there are a whole host of reforms that need to be put together to resolve some of these issues.

I think the drafting of the motion, however, is disappointing, because there is such a large degree of common agreement. It is also a missed opportunity to address in more detail what I think is the more fundamental and related devolution issue, which is that of sovereignty. So many of the contradictions in our constitutional framework arise from the differing understandings of how sovereignty applies and is developed in a country that used to have only one legislature, but that now has four legislatures, each of which have their own democratic mandates. But I do think it also exposes—[Interruption.] Yes.

I accept that you're disappointed with the wording of the motion. Are you therefore not as disappointed that the amendment put forward by your party didn't reflect your views?

Well, I'm going to vote for the motion as amended, because I think that would be a much more effective motion. I think the drafting of it exposes also a certain impotence of Plaid Cymru in this process, because to achieve change we have to achieve consensus with Westminster, whether we like it or not. We are involved in a process to that end, and I see no basis at present in which I think Plaid is capable of replicating that.

Now, it is true that achieving constitutional reform is a slow, tortuous and frustrating process. When I first got involved in the campaigning, I was 26 years of age. I'm now 72, and it's still an ongoing struggle. But it is Welsh Labour that delivered reform, and will continue to do so, and we're in this for the long haul. When I look back at the start of the devolution process, the Plaid position has often been one of negativity. For example, when, during the One Wales Government, we were offered control of the agricultural wages board for Wales, you rejected it, and it was left to Labour to introduce the agriculture (Wales) Act to reverse that position. When we were offered additional powers under the Wales Act 2017, which is the basis on which we've been able to reform our electoral system and reform the Senedd, you actually opposed that legislation—you opposed legislation that was giving more powers to the Senedd.

I think it's likely that your motion is going to be defeated. If it is, I think the question I would perhaps put as a reverse to you is: if it is defeated, will you have the maturity and courage and principle to then vote for the Government amendment to re-endorse the findings and recommendations of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales? I think that will be the test for you out of this debate. Diolch yn fawr.

During First Minister's questions this week, Eluned Morgan said that Labour is the party of devolution, and then she went on to criticise Plaid Cymru for wanting to discuss issues around devolution and the constitution. Both statements are contradictory. If Labour is the party of devolution, why criticise others for wanting to discuss the issue? Then there was another statement from the First Minister, namely that the people of Wales wanted politicians to focus on bread-and-butter issues rather than constitutional matters. And we've heard the same argument made again this afternoon by the Tories, calling for us to talk about the lives of real people. This is also a false argument, because there is a clear link between constitutional issues and improving lives. Having powers is necessary in order to generate real change in people's lives. I'm going to give you just one example. I could quote thousands, but I want to give you one example—[Interruption.] But before I do—.

You made a statement there that we need more powers to improve people's lives. I had a constituent die waiting for an ambulance. I'm not sure more powers to the Senedd are going to improve his outcome, are they?

I am going to give you an example of a change that could really happen with full powers: homelessness. There are 11,000 people living in temporary accommodation. Children will have come home from school this afternoon to inappropriate accommodation: nowhere to cook, no privacy, nowhere to do homework or to relax with friends. Last week we discussed Stage 2 of the homelessness Bill in the Local Government and Housing Committee. It's a Bill that seeks to focus on the prevention of homelessness, so that people receive support before they end up in temporary accommodation or on the streets, and it's a Bill that I am in full agreement with. It does introduce a new duty, an ‘ask an act’ duty that is statutory, which asks particular bodies to seek the consent of a person who they feel is either homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. That is, permission to refer them on to the local authority. The intention, of course, is to find problems early and then to work around the individual across the system.

I introduced an amendment in order to add the police as one of the bodies that would have to implement this ‘ask and act’ duty. But the Government opposed that and the amendment fell. The explanation given was that policing is not devolved, as we know, and the Cabinet Secretary for housing said that we would need the consent of the UK Government to place any duties on the police. That consent hasn't been given, according to the Cabinet Secretary, and without that consent, the Bill would be outside the legal competence of the Senedd.

Now, that is an unacceptable situation on several levels. Why should we have to go cap in hand to another Government to ask for permission to do something in our own country in order to improve the lives of people here? The police have a key role in preventing homelessness in Wales. It's a crucial role of working in partnership with local government and the voluntary sector to prevent homelessness. They have a key role in identifying and engaging with people who are sleeping rough, providing mental health support, tackling drug abuse. There is no sense at all that we cannot align the police's duty with the duties of other public bodies in Wales. I think that that is just one example of a devolution settlement that doesn't work for the benefit of some of the most vulnerable people in our society. It's a constitutional issue that needs to be discussed and needs to be changed so that we can prevent homelessness from happening in Wales. It is a bread-and-butter issue that is hugely important to our constituents.

So, it's extremely disappointing that the commitments made over a long period to devolve justice and policing have now been quietly dropped, despite all of the evidence supporting their devolution. And then there is rowing back on devolution happening too, as has been outlined here this afternoon by my fellow Members, and as has been clearly highlighted in the letter sent to Keir Starmer. Labour is the party of devolution, according to the First Minister, and if Labour Members in this Senedd truly believe that, and want the people of Wales to believe that, then support our motion and send a clear message to Westminster just before Christmas.

I think it's quite appropriate that we’re having this debate in this old Chamber, one of a diminishing number that I'll take part in, and one of the last ones that we'll hold here before we move into the new Chamber in February. Because this Chamber, I think, reminds me of how far we've come, but also how far we've still to go. There's a sense of both continuity and change here. The debate today has reminded me of the petty tribalism that still divides us on issues where actually there should be a great deal of consensus. But also, I think, let's remember what things were like in 1999 when this place was created, when we had Governments imposed on Wales that we didn't vote for and policy areas that we didn't agree with and that we couldn't do anything about. We had Secretaries of State for Wales from English constituencies and we couldn't do anything to hold them to account. And look how far we've come. Yes, of course, there's much more to do, but we've come a long way. And if we are not able to look at the things we have in common, there's a danger we go back to this. And I think people forget how grim it was before this place was created.

Now, Rhun ap Iorwerth began by quoting the words of Ron Davies in his pamphlet, ‘Devolution: a process not an event’, and I helped write that pamphlet. And he quoted the letter to Keir Starmer, which I also helped write. So, I've been reflecting a lot on how far we've come. And I think the letter is a healthy thing, because it shows that there is now—. Territorial disputes are a normal part of devolved politics. That shouldn't be a matter of clutching pearls. It shouldn't be an attempt by Plaid to table motions trying to catch us out—some form of student politics that is clearly the motivation behind this motion today. [Interruption.] I'm happy to give way.

To throw accusations of student politics is beneath you, I think, but actually—

But true.

Well, it's not beneath you, Mike. [Laughter.] The issue of consensus is very, very important. Plaid Cymru is literally, in this motion today, quoting back the words put in that letter that you helped write in order to try to get us together to build a consensus that we believe that there's been a rolling back of devolution across political parties.

If that was the motivation, then I would support it, but I'm not sure the motivation is quite that straightforward, hence your interventions trying to test people into whether they're going to break a whip to support your motion.

Look, let's put it to one side. This is a trivial issue and this debate has been quite trivial. Listening to the Conservative contributions—[Interruption.] I'm sorry, the Conservative contributions I'm talking about primarily show how far they haven't come. I was here as a journalist when I saw Nick Bourne, David Melding, Jonathan Morgan, Glyn Davies, Suzy Davies, Angela Burns and others genuinely try and develop a Welsh form of Conservatism—Paul Davies did for a while as well; he went off the idea—and they seem to have reverted back into a very binary 1997 era form of anti-devolution, which is a real shame and a missed opportunity for them, and the opinion polls show that they're going to pay the price for it, as are we in all likelihood.

But I would say, look, it is right that this Parliament pushes back when the devolution settlement is infringed—it's not just a matter for the Welsh Government, it's a matter for this Parliament. There is a strong consensus, certainly on this side of the Parliament and certainly within my party, that devolution should be respected and it should be strengthened. It's not a view that's shared unanimously across the Labour Party, and I've spent enough time in the National Library of Wales in Aberystwyth's Welsh political archive to know these are not new debates. These are debates as old as socialism itself, and we are seeing that still playing out.

There is disagreement. There's nothing wrong in disagreement. The whole point of devolution was to give a reflection of that disagreement, not to get rid of the disagreement, but to allow that to be arbitrated, debated and dealt with. And that's what will happen. There is disagreement. The Westminster Government—I think in the letter there was an important line in the sand for us to say that we are not happy with it and we will not accept it quietly, and we want to push back against it. We stand united in that. As inconvenient as that is to many in our party, that's the position of principle that we take and we stand by.

I think in the next 25 years, certainly in the next five years of devolution, it's in all our interest to reflect on the things we do agree on, not constantly try and trip each other up on them, because there is a development of a new political culture in this country that we are part of. It's an ongoing project of developing political cultures, and political cultures take generations, and they are delicate things. I've been proud to be part of growing this one. Today shows there's work still to do. But it is still, nonetheless, an important thing we've all contributed to. The letter I think is an important part of building on that, so let's make sure that in our response to it, we don't return to our tribal instincts and we look at how we can build on that consensus.

I was pleased to see the letter from nearly all of the Labour backbenchers. It was about time, and it is correct in saying that there would be far greater outrage if a Conservative UK Government would be behaving in the same way. It is important to have this debate. We've spent a long time this evening talking about independence, talking about further powers, or not, and talking about the GDP of other countries. Other contributors have highlighted the weaknesses in the current Government, but independence, further powers or not, or the Welsh Government record, is not the motion today. This Parliament will have an opportunity next year to elect a new Government, and people can make the case for or against further powers and independence at that time. But this motion is about the fact that the devolution settlement as we have now, whether we like it or not, is being undermined. I believe everyone here who is a devolutionist, and I'm sure there's one here, who's not in the room, who is out as saying that he would support the abolishment of the Senedd—. I think all devolutionists here should be able to support this motion.

I could actually vote in favour, and I probably will vote in favour, of the Plaid motion and the Labour motion tonight—I'm allowed to do that now. [Laughter.] I could not vote, however, for the Tory amendment. Others have made the point, but undermining the devolution settlement, taking power away, taking the co-ordination away from the Welsh Government is undermining the powers of this place and the ability of this place to improve the lives of the people of Wales.

After the internal market Bill was forced through without the consent of this place, without the consent of the Scottish Government, we have seen consent being withheld on a far more regular basis. The then Conservative Government defended their initial choice of passing the United Kingdom Internal Market Act by saying the Sewel convention only says the UK Government will not normally legislate on devolved matters—not normally. They said that leaving the UK customs market was unique. Nevertheless, they then went on to force through more than twice as many Bills without devolved consent in the 2019 to 2024 parliamentary term than Westminster had ever done in the first 20 years of devolution. As a result of this, the Counsel General, in July, determined that—we have many conventions; she mentions about Sewel—many of these conventions aren't worth the paper they're written on. Nevertheless, she assured us, the Labour Westminster Government hadn't overridden us like this—at least in July they hadn't overridden us like that.

The Deputy First Minister now to contribute to the debate—Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. As this is the very last debate before we go back to our constituencies and prepare for the festive season, can I just take the opportunity to wish all Members the very best for Christmas and for the new year as well? Can I thank all Members for their contributions as well? There have been some quiet and thoughtful contributions and some more raucous contributions, as probably befits the season. But I don't need to remind Members that we have the immense privilege of holding this debate, with all the diverse views and opinions, because the people of Wales voted in two referenda to make it so—and the first by a very tight margin indeed, as many will remember. Indeed, as one contributor reminded us today of the situation before this place was established, in a memorable turn of phrase, 'how grim it was' when the people of Wales had no voice on the matters in Wales, here in Wales.

Now, over the years since this began, we have strengthened that devolution settlement with primary law-making powers and tax-varying powers and borrowing powers. We've progressed from that foundational Assembly to a far more powerful body, where the Government and the scrutiny are separate and are both growing in confidence and in ideas. And broadly speaking, though certainly not always, as we've heard today, not entirely, there has been cross-party and wider cross-society support for the steady progress that we've made—tortuous as it has sometimes been, Mick—on the devolution journey. Both inside this Chamber that support has been, and outside.

Just to say, the young man that I once was, who was previously Under-Secretary of State in the Wales Office, dealing with the requests of the then Welsh Assembly to deliver the red-meat legislative competence Order in a very lopsided power dynamic, is now the slightly—

Don't take me back there.

I know. Is now, Llywydd, the slightly older man who is taking forward proposals on the devolution of regulation of the water sector to Wales, and, with Cabinet colleagues here and in the UK Government, working on the devolution of youth justice and probation. We are still on that journey. We are standing up for Wales, we are standing up for devolution.

And to be crystal clear, let me just say it very loudly: Welsh Labour has always been and will be at the heart of that progress—committed but pragmatic, ideas-led but never just ideological. We have led the way on advocating for devolution at every step and we will continue to do so. And why? Because that fundamental principle of making decisions closer to home, closer to the people whose lives are affected, has always been and continues to be our north star. Because those decisions will be better decisions. That means we will continue to not only defend devolution, but stand by our well-established and principled positions on further devolution in areas that we believe and we know will make the greatest difference to the lives of people in Wales. We continue to be the Government and the party of devolution—not separatism, though we respect that other political parties will advocate for that position, but for devolution, power closer to the people of Wales.

Standing up for Wales is not just a slogan; defending and building on devolution is not some ideological fortress without foundation. This is about practical things that we have achieved through our devolved powers: free prescriptions, free hospital parking, free school breakfasts, the first Parliament in the world to declare a climate emergency and is continuing to act upon it, the plastic bag charges, world-leading recycling, ending smoking in cars with children, eliminating profit from the care of looked-after children, achieving the fastest COVID vaccine roll-out in the UK, a dedicated mental health phone line, a new national forest for Wales, universal free school meals in primary schools, £1 bus fares for young children, and I could go on. That is what devolution is fundamentally about.

So, for this reason, we totally reject the Tory amendment out of hand. This is not a binary choice between standing up for devolution or improving people's day-to-day lives. The two things go hand in hand; that's the whole point. Devolution is the ground on which we stand, because devolution is what delivers the benefits for the people of Wales. Now, this is why we want to see the Crown Estate devolved to Wales. It's why we want to devolve youth justice and probation as a first step towards policing and justice in its entirety. It's why we are seeking a whole new set of powers to help clean up our rivers, and we want to see the Sewel convention strengthened and more besides.

I understand that mayors in England have succeeded in getting the UK Government to produce the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, which is going through Parliament now. How is it that mayors in England have been more successful than you in the Welsh Government?

I think the point you make on individual areas goes back to my original point, that we will always stand firm on the principles that we've set out in our amendment, by the way, which I hope you'll be supporting, because it aims for a position of consensus within the Senedd that we have achieved before. On those principles, including on further devolution, we stand very firm.

We're very pleased, I have to say, that the expert group on the Crown Estate will now look at the detailed evidence and build on the consensus that exists, both in this Siambr and in the country, that the Crown Estate should be devolved to Wales. We're having and we'll continue to have productive discussions with the UK Government about how we realign responsibilities for youth justice.

And where we don't see eye to eye, let me be clear, be in no doubt that we will always stand up for Wales and stand up for devolution. We oppose UKIMA and the use of financial assistance powers, as the letter discussed today states. UKIMA should be revoked and repealed. We have and we will continue to make this clear to every level of the UK Government. Again, this is not a binary choice between devolution and delivery. Alongside pushing for more and better devolution with the UK Government, we are also standing up for and we are winning changes that will help people's daily lives in Wales.

Will you take an intervention?

Do you mind if I continue this for a moment, and then I'll take an intervention? We will help 70,000 children out of poverty by the abolition of the two-child limit. That was a position that the First Minister stood on and advocated for proudly, and we won. We will have the ground-breaking investment in jobs and energy security at Wylfa. We will have the AI growth zones in both north and south Wales to support the jobs and the skills of the future. Let's not forget as well the record budget for Wales that helps us turn the corner on those years and years of Tory austerity. That is delivering bread and butter issues. Jenny.

I don't disagree with anything you have said, Huw, but the point we have to address is how, short of a civil war, are we going to get the same respect that Hilary Benn has for the people of Northern Ireland? Because, in the current situation, we're just not seeing any progress on rail that the UK Government controls. I've just had an e-mail today saying that that’s now being watered down yet again. And we are in danger of having even more prison places built in Wales, which then leaves us with even more of our citizens being sent to prison.

Jenny, thank you for that point. Can I just contradict one point that's been made by several people today about the Pride in Place funding that's been mentioned for Northern Ireland, and why the same doesn't happen here? Our understanding of this is very different from what has been actually said here in this Chamber. The Pride in Place funding will not be delivered in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland Executive, except for the £2 million per annum for the Belfast trailblazer, which is incorporated into the local growth fund allocation. So, just to be crystal clear on that. And just to be further clear, I understand and we agree and we have objected to the use of the approach that the UK Government have taken for the Pride in Place schemes, which is £83 million. But we have secured, through our negotiation with the UK Government, Jenny, £547 million in the local growth fund, the decisions on which are being made here in Wales, and that has been secured by our negotiation here by Welsh Ministers.

Now those parties who want to focus exclusively and only on constitutional matters, or those who choose to ignore them completely, are doing the people of Wales a great disservice. It is not an either/or. The strength of our record as a Welsh Labour Government and as a Welsh Labour Party is that we stand up for devolution and we deliver for the people of Wales. We do both, and we will continue to do just that.

So, Llywydd, as this is that season where people come together and try to celebrate what they have in common and shared values, in that spirit, we seek to amend the motion so that it reflects on a position of consensus in this Senedd, so it reflects our ambitions for the future of devolution and the benefits that it'll bring to Wales. The Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, led by Rowan Williams and Laura McAllister, drew from a wide range of views and perspectives from across political parties and the public too, and it gave a detailed, considered view of how the Governments of the UK could work together better and where devolution can be strengthened. These recommendations are the foundation of our approach to constitutional reform, including in discussions with the UK Government. Now, I'm sure Members across this Siambr would wish to recognise the work of everybody who took the time to put that report together. It's right, I think, that we show that consensus today and reaffirm our commitment to their recommendations. So, I would urge Members to support the Government amendment to the main motion and reject, as another speaker has said, the tribalism, and unite around a clear and shared position. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

I'm not coming here because I'm going to speak for long. It's been a chunky debate. I think I can hear sleigh bells in the background now. Christmas is rapidly approaching.

Everything has been said already, but, just to remind everybody what we have in front of us today, we have a motion from Plaid Cymru that demands that devolution is respected, and which echoes words written by Labour Members here in this Senedd, raising a concern that devolution is being rolled back—their words. We have an amendment by the Conservatives, which I believe is as strong a statement as I have heard, probably since the mid-1990s, that this is a party that doesn't believe in devolution. It highlights, I think—[Interruption.] I think we have places we need to go tonight. As I said, everything has been said. It, I think, reflects the irrelevance now of the Conservative Party as a fringe party in Welsh politics, and that irrelevance, of course, is what's driving opportunities for another party, Reform, which couldn't even be bothered to take part in this debate today. And then we have an amendment by Labour that seeks to silence—let's be honest about this—seeks to silence its backbenchers and make them take their words back. My message to those Labour Members is this: anything other than a vote for Plaid's motion, and against Labour's amendment, is to vote to delete your own words from this motion. It is capitulation. Anything other than that—

Will you take an intervention from one of those Labour Members?

I'll finish. I'll give you an opportunity in a second. Anything other than voting in that way, having been brave enough to make those comments last week, is to apologise, essentially, for those comments today and be brought back into line. Alun Davies.

I'm rarely accused of being silenced, and let me tell you now, Rhun, that I can choose my own words. I don't need yours.

What we have, as I say, is a deletion of Labour words put in a letter to the Prime Minister last week. We have had, then, Labour Members wriggling in explaining why they won't be voting in that way today—accusations of tribalism. Is the tribalism here that there is no way that a Labour Member can back a Plaid Cymru motion? That is tribalism. We have accusations of Plaid Cymru Members trying to trip up Labour Members rather than build consensus. The tripping up is all of your making. There is nothing unusual about members of one party backing a motion placed and tabled by another party, unless you actually want to act in a tribal way. There was a request, an appeal for consensus from the Cabinet Secretary, asking us to then back the amended motion, if that's what we have. No, we won't back that amendment. And I'll tell you why we won't be backing that amendment, it's because we back your Labour backbenchers in a way that this Labour Government in Wales will not do. We will not accept a Labour Party deleting words that were put on paper in a letter to the Prime Minister. I can sense the shame in Labour Members, having been praised, including again today, cross-party, for being brave enough, today capitulating in this way—[Interruption.] Very, very briefly.

You talk about being brave. Previous Plaid Cymru leaders before you—Adam Price, Leanne Wood—were quite happy to say that they backed independence. You seem to have gone very quiet on the matter. Don't you think that it's about time that you were brave and that you actually stated the case that you want Welsh independence? Or, if you're not going to mention it, why are you so scared to tell people?

I have led debates in this Senedd on empowering Welsh people through independence when they believe that the time is right for that. Are you not listening, or are you again showing that you are totally irrelevant and out of touch with what's happening in Welsh politics? That is the truth.

Listen, time is against us. We are approaching the end of this term, and it would be wrong of me not to take this opportunity to wish everybody in this Senedd, across parties, a happy Christmas and a happy new year. So, let's make the last vote of this year a meaningful one and back the Plaid Cymru motion and back those brave comments made by Labour backbenchers last week.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections.

We will therefore move on to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will move directly to our vote.

The votes this evening are on the Plaid Cymru debate on the devolution settlement. The first vote is on the motion, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We will now vote on amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. A vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions and 37 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 2, in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, one abstention, 24 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

The final vote this year will be a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, 13 abstentions, 12 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

That concludes the voting.

For those of you leaving, may I wish you a merry Christmas? We do have work to complete. We have the short debate, and so if Members are leaving, please do so quickly and quietly. The short debate is to be presented by John Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm giving a minute to Sam Rowlands in this debate, Llywydd. This short debate is 'Locked in, bruh! The impact of screens, smartphones and online-gaming on young people'. I want to start today's debate, Llywydd, by thanking 14-year-old Tom from Newport, who helped my office and me to come up with the name for today's debate, the 'locked in, bruh' element, which is a state of playing a video game while oblivious to anything else. Of course, it's not news that the rise of technology has brought us significant benefits but also significant challenges, and one of those challenges today, I believe, is the epidemic of screen use among our younger population.

As children grow, the types of devices they use change dramatically. For children under five, it's television and tablets taking up 64 per cent of screen time, according to parents, in terms of use of those devices. But, strikingly, research from the Centre for Social Justice estimates that up to 814,000 UK children aged just three to five are already engaging with social media. For those aged five to eight, 54 per cent of children spend most of their time on a desktop or laptop computer, and 58 per cent use gaming devices. By the time we reach the nine to 11-year-old age group, the numbers soar: nearly three quarters use a desktop or laptop computer, and specific to Wales, by age 11, two thirds of Welsh primary school children have their own smartphone. Gaming remains strong: nearly 70 per cent use a gaming device and 80 per cent use a tablet.

Interestingly, there is divergence in use when looking at gender. Young boys spend two hours more a day on online gaming, while girls spend more time on social media and reel scrolling, which has been linked to damaging effects on self-esteem and body image through comparison. Boys are becoming more short-tempered and violent when exposed to violent video games, and there is rightly much concern that children in more deprived families are particularly vulnerable.

And as children grow, their digital world expands—more devices and more time spent on them. Children aged between five and 16 spend at least six hours a day looking at a screen. For older children between 11 and 14 years, that figure rises to nine hours a day. Recent research shows that over 70 per cent of young people in the UK do not undertake even one hour of physical activity a day, but have at least six hours to spend looking at a screen. Children are sat inside with a screen at the end of their nose and are not spending time outside, enjoying their local communities or playing and interacting with friends.

So, what does all this screen time mean to babies, children and young people's health and development? It has damaging effects, such as increasing levels of obesity from sedentary lifestyles. And interestingly, rising numbers of young people are also experiencing vision problems, with one in three children globally now short-sighted. As for mental health and wider social impacts, anxiety and depression are increasingly linked to excessive screen use, as is sleep disruption, with social media interfering with rest and emotional development. A New Zealand study of over 6,000 children, aged between two and eight years, found over 90 minutes of daily screen time correlated with below average performance in communication, writing and numeracy, and toddlers showed heightened behavioural issues. And as we hear regularly from parents and teachers, excessive screen use affects neurodevelopment, with children having increasingly shortened attention spans and an inability to concentrate. This also impairs their executive function—skills essential for planning, self-control and problem-solving—because if young people cannot focus on a task, and if they become bored, they often immediately disengage.

And, of course, these are not just facts and statistics. The impact of these barriers to development are lived experiences for parents, teachers, families and, of course, young people themselves. My constituent, Danielle, for example, explained to me that when her son has been gaming for a significant number of hours, he becomes more aggressive and snappier in his mood towards others. She finds his competitiveness turns into an unhealthy one, which is very different when he is playing physical sport; or, Lucy, another constituent, who told me how her children find the endless reels on social media addictive. Once they start scrolling, it is hard to break that cycle, and when she and her husband take devices away, it often results in tantrums and tears.

Technology can develop at a pace that makes it very difficult for public policy and law to keep up and deal with emerging harms. The Online Safety Act 2023, introduced by UK Government, legislates that users will have to prove their age to access the most harmful material on social media and other sites, with platforms having to use secure methods like facial scans, photo ID and credit card checks to establish the age of users, making it harder for under-18s to accidentally or unintentionally access harmful content. This is an important step forward, but the Act largely covers the extreme websites on the internet and not the apps on phones or the games in consoles. So, we do need to go further.

Countries like Australia, France and Italy are going further and have introduced strict age checks and bans on social media for under-16s, and hold platforms accountable for confirming users' ages and enforcing the rules, effectively transferring responsibility away from families. So, Wales can learn from some of these international examples, but the introduction of such a policy as I've just mentioned would need to come from the UK level, as internet services remain a reserved matter. But, of course, there is much that Wales has responsibility for, to introduce measures that can help our younger population through, for example, education policy.

Finland have introduced a ban on the use of telephones and other mobile devices during school lessons, with exceptions only allowed for particular situations. The Senedd Petitions Committee recently explored this option, but decided against it, stating that the evidence it had gathered did not support a move to a uniform ban on smartphones in all schools in Wales, although we should remember that schools still have the authority themselves to ban phones entirely through individual school policy. Within that report, however, schools and teachers have said that a blanket policy across Wales would be helpful in ensuring consistency across the nation and removing the need for heads to defend their own school policies. So, perhaps how we approach that particular issue remains open for debate, but there are facts around it that cannot be ignored.

Stories of increasing behavioural challenges in schools are known through the testimony of teachers. Pupils are increasingly distracted and often unable to concentrate for more than a few minutes due to the fast-paced environment that phones and video games provide. Notifications and constant multitasking habits make deeper learning harder. The Welsh Government's behaviour summit, a survey of education providers and support staff, reports that the distraction of mobile phones or other portable electronic devices was predominantly a concern within FE colleges and secondary schools, although the figures suggest this to be a rising issue within primary schools. A snapshot survey by the Children's Commissioner for Wales in October 2024 found that in secondary schools 97 per cent of learners have smartphones, with 94 per cent saying they took them to school.

John has left you 25 seconds, actually, Sam Rowlands. [Laughter.]

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. I'm grateful to John Griffiths for tabling this short debate, not necessarily on the last day of this term before Christmas, but it's absolutely right and proper to raise this issue today. John Griffiths rightfully highlighted that stark statistic from the Centre for Social Justice, which showed that over 800,000 children aged between three and five are currently using at least one social media platform. I found that a really sad statistic, actually, and hopefully a wake-up call for us in this place and for parents across Wales as well.

I want to focus the brief moment I have on some of the algorithms that are driving the information that young people see, and the quite sickening effect that that is having, particularly on adolescents. I read that adolescents are over eight times more likely to feel or act on self-harm urges when exposed to self-harm content on social media, and those adolescents are seeing that information far too readily. TikTok users with eating disorders receive over 4,000 per cent more toxic eating disorder content because the algorithm is driving the information that's in front of them. And 70 per cent of teens are now seeing violence online on a regular basis. So, definitely, I agree with John Griffiths that there is a role for us to play here, but also for the providers of social media in terms of what they are feeding into young people and the data they’re collecting.

The correlation between mental health quality and the age at which a child has access to a smartphone has now been shown to be very clear. The younger a child has access to a smartphone, the worse their mental health position is, and this information needs to be understood. So, in terms of solutions, I agree with John Griffiths. I would be stronger, probably, perhaps as a parent of young children myself at the moment, as I think it's very important, actually, that we see a ban on mobile phones in schools. I think it would empower parents and teachers and support them, because there's a challenge for those parents who don't want their children to have mobile phones, as the peer pressure is so intense at the moment. If there were a position that was agreed across schools, I think it would be so much easier to manage.

The Centre for Social Justice is also calling for a public health awareness campaign on the harms of excessive smartphone use, which I would agree with, including in NHS antenatal classes, because it's not just children's use of mobile phones, but of course it's parents’ use, and particularly parents with babies. We're seeing a clear correlation between issues around speech and language development and the amount of time that parents spend on their phones as well. Simple things, like when breastfeeding a baby, that eye contact is so important for the development of that child, and so often these days parents are looking away at their phone, or when they're pushing the pram or the buggy, that eye contact that would naturally have been there in the past, parents are so often looking at their phones rather than that relationship, that bond being built, and it's impacting speech and language as well.

Thanks. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Jane Hutt, to reply.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and thank you, John, for raising this important topic. It's very timely that, just this afternoon, the Keeping Safe Online Youth Group met and discussed these very important issues with officials from the Welsh Government. And we are living through a profound change. Childhood today is shaped by technology in ways that were unimaginable a generation ago. As we've heard, and as has been expressed so clearly, for many young people, screens, smartphones, and online gaming are part of everyday life. Ofcom's ‘Online Nation’ report, released last week, highlights just how central the online world has become for all of us.

Screen time sparks debate in almost every home across the nation. And the truth is, its impact is complex. When screen time is purposeful and creative, we know it can be positive. Digital tools give learners the ability to collaborate more easily, explore new ideas and access a wealth of information. And Ofcom's latest findings and data from our school health research network show that screen time is on the rise. Young people aged eight to 14 are spending nearly three hours online every single day. Ofcom's report highlights how teenagers rely on these apps for staying connected. Social media and messaging apps can play a positive role in building friendships. For some, especially those who feel isolated, technology can be a lifeline.

But we can't ignore the risks. Passive scrolling, excessive gaming, and what has been termed ‘doom scrolling’ can have a detrimental impact on well-being. Research links prolonged unstructured screen time to anxiety, sleep disruption, and even reduced attention spans. And it's something the youth group has raised too. They're worried about the negative impact short-form content can have on their well-being. And of course, this isn't a new challenge, but it's one that continues to evolve. Keeping pace is essential to understand what support children need to use technology safely, responsibly, and to build positive communities online.

Families are grappling with these challenges every day and, John, you've told us about the concerning feedback you've had from parents. We're seeing the growth of movements, as you say, calling for smartphone-free childhoods. In Australia, the Government has introduced a social media ban for under-16s. It's clear there are strong opinions on both sides of the debate.

Here in the UK, the Online Safety Act is a step forward. It has brought in regulations for digital platforms and greater clarity for everyone. Internet regulation is reserved to the UK Government. However, here in Wales we work closely with Ofcom as regulator on the steps it expects tech companies to take to ensure children have safer experiences online. We've engaged in Ofcom's consultation exercises as part of their work to develop codes of practice to implement the Act. It's critical that we hold social media platforms to account and educate young people about their right to be safe online. But also, crucially, that we make sure that they're aware of the harms and what to do if something goes wrong.

By reducing access to harmful content, the Online Safety Act aligns with the Welsh Government's preventative work in relation to suicide and self-harm. Last month, the youth group was hosted by Ofcom. They explained their role as online safety regulator and their media literacy work. This prompted an honest discussion about their experiences since the new regulations came in. Their voices remind us that policy must be shaped by lived experience.

The keeping safe online area of Hwb provides the latest resources, training and guidance to ensure schools are well equipped to educate and support learners on a range of online safety issues. These resources can support constructive conversations around issues that are often complex and sensitive, including peer-on-peer harassment, harmful attitudes and other risks amplified by social media.

A key focus of the digital resilience in education action plan is to ensure that all members of the school community, including parents, carers and governors, are supported in working together to address online safety issues. Through Hwb, we provide bilingual app guides for families, with key information on social media and gaming platforms popular with young people, including tips on how to apply safety settings. These guides are designed to bridge the generational divide, encourage conversations, and support parents and carers to make informed decisions.

The online safety support is informed by the latest evidence, expertise and perspectives of schools and learners. In November, we hosted our digital resilience in education symposium. Leading experts in online safety, including the UK Safer Internet Centre, NSPCC, Internet Matters and others, joined to share their perspectives. We also invited representatives from Estyn, Ofcom Wales and the Children's Commissioner for Wales to ensure strong alignment across the sector, and provide a Wales-specific focus. This year, artificial intelligence was a key topic for discussion, along with the importance of critical thinking skills and ensuring young people are involved in decisions affecting them. Thank you again, John, for involving your young constituent to help shape this debate, 'Locked in, bruh!'

We will use all the insights gathered to continue to build a thoughtful, proactive approach to enhancing our digital resilience in education programme of work. A key part of this is Safer Internet Day. We're encouraging schools to get involved in that day and have a variety of activities on offer. It's about a campaign to encourage children and young people to use technology safely and positively, something everyone can get behind. We've run a storyboard competition for primary schools that closed earlier in the month. We're looking forward to seeing the creative ways learners capture how AI is being used, alongside its benefits and risks.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. That brings our work as a Senedd to a close for the year 2025.