Plenary

Diolch yn fawr. Last week, I visited the Treescapism exhibition in my constituency, which looked at how communities like those I represent, with some of the lowest levels of canopy tree cover in Wales, can become greener, healthier and more resilient places to live. One of the most powerful messages from that exhibition was that street trees are not simply decorative additions to our communities, they're essential climate infrastructure. They clean out air, they support biodiversity, they reduce surface water flooding, and during extreme heat events, like we might be facing again this week, they provide shade and cooling. Research commissioned by Coed Cadw in Cardiff showed that surfaces shaded by urban trees can be around 20 degrees cooler than those in direct sunlight. But access to these benefits is not equal and, too often, the communities facing the greatest challenges from air pollution and extreme heat are also the communities with the least tree cover. Now, Cardiff Council has tried to do something about this. We established Coed Caerdydd five years ago as a specific initiative, which has planted over 150,000 trees in the last five years. But here's the rub: only a fraction of those are street trees, due to issues around pressures on highways, underground utilities and maintenance and long-term care. So, what, Cabinet Secretary, will the Welsh Government do to support local authorities to accelerate street tree planting in the communities that need it the most?

I thank him again for that question. Oddly enough, it's something we've been discussing recently. I'm a big fan of increasing urban canopy cover through trees for many of the reasons that you've outlined in terms of providing that shelter and that shade, biodiversity benefits, drainage and flooding mitigation as well. So, there's a lot to be said for that. We're woefully underachieving in that space.

When we look at the broader issue of tree planting levels, yes, farmers and land managers can do more, public and Government-owned land can do more, but we can do so much more when it comes to urban cover as well. So, I'd be happy to pick up with yourself and to learn more about what's happening in Cardiff, because we need to be replicating any good examples across the whole of Wales. It isn't just trees as well, of course—pocket parks and other green areas have a big role to play as well.

My thanks to the Member for raising this question. Minister, temperatures in classrooms a few weeks ago reached 39 degrees in my constituency, making attendance impossible. So, should the UK and Welsh Governments' success in reducing our carbon dioxide emissions prove insufficient in stalling global climate change as a result of carbon dioxide emissions from countries like China and India, would the Government consider a cost-benefit analysis of intermediate measures such as the installation of air conditioning in schools in Caerdydd Penarth?

The short answer is that we need to move in that direction because, clearly, the UK Climate Change Committee in its recent report outlined that one of the biggest challenges now isn't keeping people warm, it's keeping people cool when the weather, as we have seen of late and today as well, is what it is. So, we do need to look at investing in futureproofing the infrastructure that we have, particularly in public buildings—people's homes as well. We need to address this in elderly people's homes, schools, hospitals et cetera. So, it's very much on our radar and it's very much something that we need to be thinking more about, because these are the challenges of the future. We can't bury our heads in the sand—it's coming, and we need to be ready for it.

Community-led solutions to climate change have been proven time and time again to be far more effective than top-down imposed programmes. This was at the forefront of my mind when I also visited, alongside Huw, the inspiring Treescapism exhibition led by Splott community volunteers, together with Coed Cadw, last week. And there I spoke to one of the volunteers, who passionately told me that she and her neighbours were tirelessly dedicating as many spare moments as they could find to this invaluable community work.

This experience is echoed across my constituency: examples like Gwyrddio Penarth Greening, which—I believe I should declare an interest—I chaired for six years, or Benthyg, the Library of Things. These organisations create multiple environmental and social co-benefits. Local repair cafes tackle the escalation of waste and put money into the pockets of families by avoiding the need to buy new. Planting a community orchard is a well-being act, one where I have felt the benefits first-hand. Local projects like this matter. They are what got me into politics in the first place. Community-led climate action works, and it's almost always led by people juggling multiple roles and responsibilities—time-pressured, passionate individuals that care deeply about what they do. It needs Government to practically fulfil its role and show leadership on its part to assist these organisations. How will the Government work together with local authorities and communities to facilitate and enable climate-led community action?

Diolch yn fawr. I couldn't agree more. Local ownership, local involvement in this work breeds empowerment, it ensures that people cherish and value the work that's happening, they're invested in it, they will look after it, and it will be achieved in a way that you cannot artificially try and make happen from the top down. So, that bottom-up approach is absolutely the approach we want to see. I am aware that the Welsh Government has certain schemes to support that ground-level activity. We're always looking for opportunities to increase and provide further support, albeit, mindful of who sat next to me, it's challenging at times. But we are serious about making sure that that's where the heavy lifting happens, because that is the more sustainable answer as well, because long after organisations, companies, sponsors have gone, the community themselves, if they take ownership of something, will continue to do that. So, in principle, we support it. In practice, we do what we can, and there's always more that we can and wish to do.

Well, as we know, current policy sets out a presumption in favour of the undergrounding of grid infrastructure. I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues, as you can imagine, on many of these issues, and the Cabinet Minister for Enterprise, Connectivity and Energy will be setting out further details on our policy, building on the evidence, of course, collected about the costs and impacts of new networks, including, of course, on the environment.

Constituents impacted by proposed pylons across Carmarthenshire continue to tell me that they feel ignored by the very decisions being made about their communities. This also includes the environmental impact of proposed pylons, in which we see loss of habitat, disturbance during construction, and pylons often eroding natural landscapes and scenic views. In your role as Cabinet Minister for Rural Resilience and Sustainability, you have a role in the environmental impact side of pylons. In light of this, what specific action will you take to ensure pylons don't ruin the natural landscapes and scenery that our constituents love and call their home? Diolch.

Thank you for that. You're absolutely right, there is a responsibility on all of us to consider the multifaceted impacts that this kind of large infrastructure has. The environmental one is one in particular. You may be aware, of course, that planning policy reform, hopefully, is on its way, where the Government will be reviewing and updating national planning policy so that we can better enable some of these decisions to be done in a way that aligns all of these considerations that need to be taken on board when it comes to energy policy, the planning system, clearer spatial guidance, the environmental impact as well. So, it's work in progress. It's something we're very mindful of and something we're serious about addressing.

Diolch, Lywydd. Minister, can I take this opportunity to, firstly, urge you to make any key policy announcements before the Royal Welsh Show here in this Chamber, in this Senedd, in the right and proper place to do so, so that everybody across this Chamber has the opportunity to scrutinise any key policy before the summer recess?

Minister, Plaid have previously backed carbon budgets that explicitly state that achieving net zero by 2050 requires a reduction in livestock numbers. The former Climate Change Committee recommended that livestock numbers in Wales be reduced by 19 per cent by 2033. The UK Climate Change Committee has just taken this even further now, which has been accepted by the Westminster Government, outlining that, post 2033, meat consumption should be reduced by 25 per cent by 2040, 35 per cent by 2050, that dairy consumption should be reduced by 20 per cent by 2035, and that cattle and sheep numbers should also be reduced by 27 per cent by 2040 and 38 per cent by 2050. Can you give Welsh farmers today a cast-iron guarantee either way that Plaid and you will or will not be accepting or adopting the recommendations of both of these climate change committees as I've laid out—'yes' or 'no', Minister?

Well, there's no agenda from this Government when it comes to driving down livestock numbers. I can give you that assurance. Agriculture is central to the strength of our rural economy, and it's absolutely critical to the resilience of our rural communities. This Government is clear that Wales needs a strong, sustainable and productive livestock sector. We want to see Welsh farmers producing high-quality food in a way that's both economically and, yes, environmentally sustainable. The sustainable farming scheme is a part of achieving that, including through the sustainable production optional action, which will help farmers improve productivity and long-term resilience whilst continuing to produce Welsh meat to the high standards that we all expect.

When we look at agriculture's climate impact, we have to look at the whole picture. The agriculture inventory records emissions doesn't fully reflect the wider contribution the sector makes—through carbon sequestration, for example. There's a huge contribution that is being made, and more that can be made, in that space, and we need to be looking at maximising those opportunities, to take pressure off other elements within the sector.

So, there's no agenda to drive down livestock numbers from myself or this Government because the kind of food system that we want to see, the kind of food economy that we want to see in Wales, will be based on local production, local processing and local procurement. We therefore need to maintain and strengthen each element of that. So, processing and livestock numbers, the throughput numbers, is part of that, so that we can deliver a strong, sustainable and productive livestock sector, because that is a big, big priority for me.

Well, that's surprising, Minister, considering your obsession with hitting left-wing ideological climate targets, that you wouldn't adhere to those recommendations by, particularly, the UK Climate Change Committee. But I'll take it, that is good news, and we will hold you to account on that, Minister, that you have no intention to reduce livestock numbers, openly or through the back door, because that obviously flies in the face of past Plaid policy and what your Westminster colleagues are saying.

Does that mean instead that we can look forward to an announcement before next week, before the Royal Welsh Show, here in the Senedd, on how you will encourage more food production, more consumption of meat in Wales, as well as increase livestock numbers, because both the farmers and the unions and Reform want that? Perhaps, Minister, we can also look forward to an announcement next week that you will tackle TB once and for all, and that perhaps you'll also introduce a suckler cow premium, which would really help the industry in this regard. Is that your intention?

Well, there are about four questions there; I'll try and answer as many as I can. First of all, on that quip about left-wing ideology, your colleague two questions ago was asking me about heat in schools and the consequences of climate change and the need for air conditioning and improved infrastructure. Maybe you should talk to each other about where you stand on this, because I'm hearing very different messages coming from these sides, these benches over here.

On bovine TB, you know my view. My view has been clear, and it's aligned with the view of the TB programme board, which has explicitly said in its policy position that we need to tackle TB in the human population, in livestock, and in wildlife. I am awaiting advice from the technical advisory group that's been considering that approach, and, as soon as they report, I will then be in a position to consider options. Until we see their evidence, until we see the science that they've been perusing, then I'm not in a position to make a definitive statement on that. But as soon as I am, I will, because, for me, it's a priority, amongst a number, but it's certainly up there, high up on the list.

On suckler cow premium payments, I'm aware of an approach that's been adopted in Scotland, where there are direct headage payments. I'm aware of a policy document published by National Farmers Union Cymru a few months ago, because I attended the launch. There's much to be looked at in that space. I'm also aware that numbers are dwindling, and, actually, it isn't sensible in an environmental sense if you don't get that level of controlled grazing happening in certain parts of Wales. So, there's a lot to consider. It's on my radar, and if we can use the sustainable farming scheme to try and meet that challenge in some way, then we will do so.

Thank you, Minister. Diolch. Farmers need that reassurance. I agree with my colleague across the Chamber that they need that reassurance, preferably before the Royal Welsh Show, on TB, because it is absolutely decimating our industry and it has farmers crying on their knees. It needs to be tackled, and it needs to be tackled now.

Now, an easier one, Minister: sheep scab. Sheep scab is a highly contagious disease, caused by mites, which costs the sheep industry millions in Wales and remains a significant threat to animal welfare, our environment and productivity. Not helped, of course, by not controlling the spread of bracken. The current dip wash used for sheep has clear risks attached to it given the toxic chemicals in it, but I'm aware of new technology, Clear Dip, that would take the risk out of sheep dip, treating it at the point of use, with diazinon being captured for safe disposal on site, which is better for farmers and better for sheep. I'm sure you'll agree, Minister. Having talked to the National Sheep Association last week, it seems to be a viable alternative, not that expensive, better for the environment, and better for sheep welfare. Minister, is Clear Dip something that you think the Welsh Government should support and that you think should be rolled out across Wales? Diolch.

I also met the NSA last week, and I'm very aware of concerns that they've expressed more widely on disposal of sheep dip and all sorts of challenges. It does come down to animal welfare at the end of the day. It is something that we are looking at. Hopefully, there will be new and further developments in that space as well that we can utilise, because I think there's a practical reality in terms of the way that you treat animals in this space. At the minute, whilst there are certain safeguards environmentally in place, and rightly so, I think there are different ways of achieving what we all want to achieve.

Cabinet Minister, this week is Wales Nature Week, but, like the rest of the world, Wales is in the grip of a nature emergency. I'm proud that the previous Welsh Labour Government was the first in the world to recognise this formally by declaring a nature emergency in 2021, introducing a wide range of policies and initiatives to help improve the condition of habitats and reverse biodiversity loss by addressing the root causes and drivers of decline. Yet the global target to halt the loss of nature by 2030 looms ever closer. One in six species in Wales are threatened with extinction, and we have only five years to meet our ecosystem target of 30x30.

One of the last initiatives established by the previous Government was Nature Estate Cymru, bringing together organisations responsible for significant areas of land. It's a great way of making the most of large areas of land as we strive to meet our restoration targets. Linked to this are the Naturfa sites, four announced by the end of the last Government. So, Cabinet Secretary, what is your assessment of the value of these two projects in contributing to our targets for nature restoration, and will you commit to continuing them?

I will be honest with the Member, I'm not fully versed on the work of those, so I'm grateful that she has flagged them. I can see from the passion in her question that she appreciates the contribution they make. I will take that away, I will look at it, and I will write to the Member with my reflections as well. But I will say that we do have an aspiration within our climate and nature action plan, which we're working at and working on, that will hopefully meet and support some of the aspirations that those groups and herself, I'm sure, will share.

Thank you, Cabinet Minister. I'd be happy to meet you and talk at length, passionately, about those two projects.

My second question is about the fact that a crucial part of protecting and restoring nature in Wales is making sure we have the right regulations in place. Minister, you recently announced a review of farming bureaucracy. Let me be clear that farmers are the custodians of our land, they work incredibly hard, and I know they are very passionate about protecting the environment. So, of course, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy is a worthy aim, but not all regulation can be badged as red tape. Many of the regulations for the agricultural sector serve an important environmental purpose, for example, the regulations in place to reduce agricultural pollution and improve the water quality of our rivers and seas. So, Minister, can you guarantee today that regulations designed to protect water quality won't be slashed or watered down as part of the review?

Thank you for the question. It gives me an opportunity, I think, to reiterate an important point here, which is, I think, the thrust of your question: whilst we are keen to reduce bureaucracy and red tape, that in no way takes us away from the importance of many of the regulations and protections that we have, because they're there for a purpose, and we need to make sure that they are respected and carried through and delivered upon.

What I'm not happy with is the bureaucratic burden that comes with some of those processes. So, I've said from the start, if we can take duplication out of the system—and there is duplication, we're already seeing that a few weeks into this red tape review, that there is duplication. If the Government is asking for data and information, then, are we confident that we're using it? Because, if not, frankly, why are we asking for it? These are the questions that we need to ask. Not, fundamentally, 'Do we want to row back on some of the standards, the high standards, that we insist on across the piece in Wales?' And those high standards are important, because they're a big part of what Welsh food and Welsh produce is about: it's high quality, high environmental standards, high animal welfare standards. We need to retain those.

Where I'm persuaded that we need regulatory change, it'll be on the basis of making life easier and more practical, but I won't be sacrificing some of those fundamental principles that we have around the environment and animal health and welfare, et cetera—that's not the driver here; that's what I'm trying to say. The driver here is to make life easier for farmers whilst fulfilling the regulations and the aspirations that we have for the outcomes that we want to see.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, you would have been included in a letter that was sent to spokespeople from the NSA about issues at Hybu Cig Cymru—an issue you would be very familiar with from your time as opposition spokesperson. The Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee did a detailed report on this issue and on the governance at HCC. Its first recommendation was that it should be returned to the producers and actually be run by the producers and the levy payers. And I declare an interest as a levy payer.

Are you minded, now that you're in a position to effect that change, to do that and return HCC to the levy payers, so that governance drives the organisation to the success we all want to see it have, which is promoting quality Welsh beef, lamb and pork on the world stage, rather than paying solicitors and human resources advisers to deal with ludicrous accusations levelled against many individuals within that organisation?

Thanks for the question. I have met with the chief exec and the chair of Hybu Cig Cymru recently, and they know what my view is and what my aspiration is. I want a fully functioning, firing-on-all-cylinders Hybu Cig Cymru. I feel that under the new chief exec and the Vision 2030 strategy that's been published recently, that they are now on a positive trajectory. I will be a critical friend of theirs, but I will support the work that they do, because I honestly think that they are the organisation to move us forward in this space. Levy payers' voices are critical, of course they are, but we need to strike the right balance in terms of making sure that we have an organisation that is functioning, delivering. If we rip it up and start again, I fear we'll do nothing but look at internal structures for time to come. I think we're beyond the point now where we're looking back. For me, it's about looking forward and building Hybu Cig Cymru into what it could and should be.

With respect, Minister, that letter only came four weeks ago from an organisation that would be very familiar with the workings of HCC, and they said the culture has not changed. And you didn't answer the question that I put to you, which you supported in opposition, and that your spokesperson supported in that report that was put together. And it does not mean ripping up all the governance in the organisation. It merely means returning the organisation to the producers and levy payers who pay the bills. And as I said, many of those levy payers have been paying high hourly rates to solicitors and HR advisers to deal with issues rather than putting it into the marketing of the quality produce that comes from Welsh farms. So, here's your opportunity, Minister: yes or no, will you allow the levy payers to take ownership of HCC and deliver an organisation that can be world beating on the world stage?

Well, let's not forget that the Welsh Government brings a lot to the table here as well. So, the Welsh Government has to be represented in the organisation. And I believe that they are on the right trajectory now. So, I don't believe in changing the current structure. I will, of course, keep a watching brief on things as they develop. And I've spoken with NSA Cymru and others on a myriad of issues around this. But I've also spoken to the people running HCC, leading HCC, and they are giving me confidence that they are on the right track and I will support them.

Thank you very much for the question. We are of course committed to addressing the consequences of our industrial past and delivering justice for our coalfield communities here in Wales. The Cabinet Minister for Finance has raised this with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last month—I think that's when the conversation took place. Wales should not carry this burden alone, and of course we remain committed to securing investment to keep our communities safe.

Thank you. In the last Senedd, there was strong cross-party support for the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Act 2025, and I'm pleased that the new disused tips authority will be located in Merthyr Tydfil, creating 60 jobs in my constituency. And although I appreciate the fact that the Welsh Government and the UK Government have invested over £100 million each to ensure the safety of coal tips, it's clear that there are concerns as to whether this will be enough to tackle the coal industry's legacy here in Wales. So, does the Cabinet Minister agree that the remedial work promised by the UK Government isn't currently sufficient to tackle the challenge that the Valleys face in the shadow of the coal industry's history?

Yes, and I want to thank the Member for the work that she's done in seeking justice for these communities. There's a lot of work still to be done. This is a long-term challenge. The funding challenges are significant, and we will be urging, as I said, the UK Government to play its part. Wales shouldn't carry this burden alone, as I've already said, and there is work to be done to ensure that, over and above the commitments that we've received to date, that there will be additional funding made available. Because, despite what we've received—and, of course, we are grateful for the funds that we have received, and acknowledge the contribution that the Welsh Government itself is making to this work—there is a lot more to be done, and it will take decades, I think, to complete this work. And I'm sure that, whilst we do that work, the Member will continue to raise these important questions.

Cabinet Minister, having grown up in the Merthyr valley in the 1970s and 1980s, I had many work colleagues, team mates and friends whose lives were devastated by the tragedy in Aberfan. Communities in Ponty, Cynon and Merthyr, along with many others across Wales, continue to live alongside legacy coal tips. Can the Cabinet Minister provide an update on discussions with the UK Government to ensure that these communities receive the long-term investment they need to make those tips safe, because I, for one, believe that, after nearly 60 years since the Aberfan disaster, we still haven't received sufficient funding needed to make these tips clear and to make these tips safe? Diolch.

Yes, thank you very much. So, as I said, the Cabinet Minister for Finance raised this issue with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 16 June. Now, joint Welsh Government and UK Government investment means more than £230 million has been committed to coal tip safety since 2020. That's supported the development of a three-year multi-year grant programme, which, of course, has supported local authorities and other partners to plan, to develop and to deliver larger and more complex schemes. And that includes, by the way, Merthyr's grant award of nearly £10 million in capital funding and £1.8 million in revenue funding. But I can assure the Member that making our coalfields safe is a long-term programme. As I said, it will take the best part of decades—10, 15 years, and beyond. But we will strongly be making the case for the UK Government's funding contribution to be extended into future years at the next UK spending review, particularly, of course, so that funding extends beyond 2029-30, when the current funding settlement comes to an end.

Wales has already taken crucial steps to ensure that coal no longer has a place in our clean energy future. The closure of Aberthaw power station was a stepping stone on the pathway towards a green energy independent Wales. The UK Government agrees that coal should no longer be part of the UK energy strategy, as is evidenced by its commitment to ban new coal mining licences in the forthcoming energy independence Bill. However, that draft legislation, as it stands, risks leaving coal tip extraction outside the scope of the ban. Whilst this isn't a devolved matter, there are some simple amendments to the Act that will fix this, by explicitly stating that coal tip extraction is included in the ban. These amendments need to be discussed with the UK Government. The implications matter for Wales. Projects such as the current proposal to remove Bedwas tips in return for the commercial rights to hundreds of thousands of tonnes of coal would undermine Wales's climate commitments and reopen the door to an extractive and dirty industry. Will the Cabinet Minister discuss the need for a coal tip extraction ban in the UK Government's energy independence Bill with his Westminster counterpart?

Thank you for that. It is a concern that's been highlighted. In my time as Chair of the climate change committee in the last Senedd, there were concerns. Whilst rightly, the need for clearing these tips is important, there are concerns about the extraction of any residual coal in the tips and what happens to that. I will happily make representations to the UK Government and maybe I could have a moment of the Member's time as well to lean on his experience or the information that he has that maybe could support us to make that case.

We will deliver a dedicated flood forum for Wales to assist risk management authorities, emergency responders and communities across Wales to strengthen resilience, to improve preparedness and to support co-ordinated local action. Our flood programme will take a whole-catchment approach, prioritising, of course, nature-based solutions wherever possible, to deliver robust and futureproof investment.

Diolch. I know it seems to be strange talking about flooding during the summer and on what is one of the hottest days, however, for people who have been flooded or who are at risk of flooding, that concern lasts all year round. The £25 million Stephenson Street scheme in the Lliswerry area of Newport was completed last autumn. It reduced the flood risk from the River Usk to more than 2,000 homes and businesses. Upstream, a tributary of the River Usk at Caerleon, the Afon Lwyd, poses a flood risk to nearby homes and sports clubs. I've met with residents, Natural Resources Wales and sports clubs, and local people are still waiting for clarity from Natural Resources Wales about planned flood defences. The Welsh Labour Government invested record levels of funding for flood defences. So, can the Minister reassure my constituents that this Government will invest in flood defences to protect our communities?

I can give you that assurance. We are serious about meeting the challenge that communities are facing head on. Of course, it isn't just about mixing concrete. As I was saying, and as I know you appreciate, there are nature-based solutions that we can utilise and implement on a catchment-level basis as well. And, of course, it isn't just then direct flood funding that can help mitigate some of these issues; there are other sources of funding that can contribute in their unique ways. If the Member would like to write to me about the particular investment programme that she was referring to, then I would certainly have a look at that for her as well.

Flooding continues to have a devastating impact on communities across my constituency too of Caerdydd Ffynnon Taf. I have heard directly from constituents about the damage and disruption caused by recent flooding. Along the River Taff, Taff's Well and Nantgarw face particular challenges. Their steep valleys, dense development and ageing infrastructure mean traditional flood defences alone are no longer enough. The Taff catchment programme recognises that reducing flood risk requires a whole-catchment approach, combining natural flood management, long-term investment and community resilience. As the River Taff is just one of many rivers flowing through my constituency and Cardiff, this reflects a much wider challenge facing our local communities. Will the Cabinet Minister outline how the Welsh Government is supporting catchment-scale flood management to better protect communities such as Taff's Well and Nantgarw?

Yes, thank you for that. Clearly, I agree, as you will have gathered from my previous answer, that it is a big part of the answer for us when it comes to meeting the challenge of flooding. We've invested more than £5 million, actually, in 2026-27 to support natural flood management, much of which, obviously, takes that catchment approach. We need to look strategically at how we can slow down water flows, how we can store water, intersect surface water as well, especially when it comes to those steeper surfaces within catchments, before it reaches communities and before it hits critical infrastructure that we have. Those approaches, of course, can also deliver, at the same time, I hope, wider benefits when it comes to biodiversity, water quality, and, as well, some of the economic opportunities around doing some of this work.

Between 30,000 and 40,000 people in Afan Ogwr Rhondda are at risk of flooding from rivers and surface water. In December 2025, communities in both Neath Port Talbot and Rhondda Cynon Taf were disrupted by flooding. The section 19 flood investigation report in Pentre identified that tree felling by Natural Resources Wales was the main cause of flooding in the area, and Natural Resources Wales admitted responsibility and promised to make improvements to their practices. What meetings have you had, Minister, with Natural Resources Wales to ensure that their practices and standards have improved so that tree-felling operations will not place residents at risk? Diolch.

Thank you. Obviously, this was before my time, but I am aware that that had been identified as a critical issue. My understanding is that there are now agreements in place. The other issue as well, of course, which was highlighted to us in committee in a previous life by the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council at the time, was that council workers actually needed to remove and fell trees to allow debris and water to run away from flooded properties, but, of course, some of those trees needed applications for licences to remove them. So, my understanding, again, is that the bodies involved are now in agreement about a pragmatic way forward. You may gather—Members may gather—that I am a big fan of practical and pragmatic approaches to these kinds of things, and I would be very disappointed if, with this having been highlighted a long time ago now, it has not been addressed, but I will double-check and I will report back.

Thanks for the question. Our policy, of course, is to phase out landfill by moving waste up the hierarchy through prevention, reuse and recycling, while ensuring that operational landfill sites are independently regulated to the highest environmental standards by Natural Resources Wales.

Diolch yn fawr. I know you've long shared the frustrations of residents around the Hafod landfill site in Johnstown and have stood alongside campaigners who have endured this nuisance for far too many years. Families have repeatedly told us they can't open their windows, enjoy their gardens or simply live normally because of the persistent smell, and, of course, there's growing frustration particularly because the licence still has decades yet to run. Despite Wrexham's excellent recycling record, local communities continue to bear the burden of a landfill that receives much of its waste from across the border, leaving residents to live with persistent odour that affects their health, well-being and quality of life. Will you outline what further action the Welsh Government can now take to improve the transparency of monitoring at Hafod and what milestones you expect the operator to meet before the Government concludes that this long-running nuisance simply cannot continue and that closure to stop the stink at Hafod should be pursued?

Can I thank the Member for raising this because I know that she has been a strong advocate of action around the Hafod landfill site for a long, long time? I recognise the work that she's done over many years, actually, and I also recognise the strength of feeling locally around this issue. Now, you will be aware that the Senedd Petitions Committee published a report recently and the Government, of course, has responded to the recommendations of that, and we are working closely with Natural Resources Wales to strengthen monitoring and to improve transparency.

We've allocated funding this financial year to support further work on enhanced odour monitoring at landfill sites in Wales, including, of course, importantly, Hafod, so that we can assess how monitoring data can be collected, interpreted and used effectively within the regulatory framework. But I will say something else as well because, as part now of our wider move away from landfill, I've asked officials to explore options for restricting biodegradable waste to landfill. This could help reduce the generation of landfill gas and, therefore, associated odour issues, whilst also, of course, reducing movement, potentially, of some waste from outside of Wales into these sites. In relation to closure, clearly, decisions on the operation of Hafod landfill, including any permit review or restrictions or revocations, are matters for Natural Resources Wales and, as Ministers, we can't prejudge or direct those decisions. But, looking at the bigger picture, particularly at the piece around biodegradable waste, I think we can do something there.

Thank you very much for the question. I have commenced the work of ensuring that there is a kind of joined-up approach to developing a future national food strategy. My officials are establishing its scope and strategic approach. I am engaging key stakeholders, including farming unions and businesses. I've also had a meeting with the future generations commissioner to start to shape this work and to develop it further. There will be a ministerial working group set up, and we hope to be able to announce who will lead and chair that work shortly.

Diolch. I welcome the Government's ambitions in developing a national food strategy, including strengthening supply chains and food processing capacity. Food processors in Ceredigion Penfro have told me how excited they are by the opportunities these commitments are already creating for our rural economy. Food processing plays an important role in the west Wales economy, including, for example, Puffin Produce, with a £15 million turnover, and Pembrokeshire Creamery, with a £60 million turnover, who together employ over 300 people and support numerous farming businesses in rural west Wales. Businesses want to work with Government to keep more of the value of Welsh produce within Wales while supporting sustainable and regenerative farming. So, could the Minister outline how the Welsh Government will work with producers and processors to turn ambitions into reality and ensure that rural communities across Wales share the benefits?

Growing those kinds of enterprises is a cornerstone of much of the business activity and growth we want to see. As a Government, we'll be supporting food and drink businesses of various sizes, of various stages in maturity, so that they can grow and thrive, through different schemes that we are providing. Our support programmes provide tailored expert advice and guidance through their business journey, because every business faces different challenges. That agility and ability to adapt to those particular needs is important as well.

It's a big part of the kind of rural economy I want to see being grown here and strengthened in Wales. I made the analogy previously, I think, in this Chamber that the local economy too often is like a leaking bucket. There are too many holes in the bucket, and a lot of the wealth is flowing out of our communities. We need to be plugging those holes so that we can keep the pound circulating in our local communities. It brings me right back to where I started this session, when I was talking about the aspiration to max out on local production and local processing, supported by local procurement as well. If we crack that nut, then I think we'll have plugged a few of those holes in the bucket.

The Welsh Government develops policies through a combination of scientific evidence, stakeholder engagement and practical land management experience. Programmes such as the sustainable farming scheme have been shaped through consultation with farmers, land managers, scientists and environmental organisations, ensuring policies are evidence based, locally informed and support the resilient ecosystems and rural communities that we all want to see.

Thank you. Minister, conservation is not achieved by leaving nature entirely to itself. Farmers, gamekeepers and organisations such as the British Association for Shooting and Conservation understand that protecting biodiversity often requires active habitat management and, where the scientific evidence supports it, lawful control of predator or overabundant species to safeguard vulnerable wildlife. Will the Welsh Government commit to working with BASC and the farming community as equal partners in developing wildlife policy, or will it continue to sideline those with decades of practical conservation experience?

On a personal level, I've done a lot with BASC over many years and appreciate the contribution that they make. In fact, this Government recognises the contribution shooting makes to the conservation ecosystem in Wales, and it's something I don't foresee changing.

The Welsh Government supports surplus food redistribution by providing funding to FareShare Cymru and other organisations to work with food producers and businesses so that we can redistribute that surplus food to charities, community groups, foodbanks and more.

Diolch, Weinidog. As you mentioned, charities like FareShare ensure that foodbanks all over the country can access surplus food from producers and traders, and this is an essential source of food for them. Schemes like Surplus to Purpose ensure that good food doesn't go to waste and can be used for a good purpose. I previously volunteered with FoodCycle in Ely and Riverside. They provide free community meals from surplus food, and aim to reduce food waste, hunger and social isolation. It's estimated that each year around 400,000 tonnes of food waste happens in Wales, which is so shameful, because I've been to the Dusty Forge in Ely where FoodCycle is based, and I've seen the empty shelves there and what they're trying to make meals out of. I'm grateful to the Minister for outlining how the Government will support food producers to donate surplus food, but could you outline how you'll also support projects like FoodCycle to ensure that food doesn't go to waste and they get the support they need to maintain their projects?

Thank you for your question. I can confirm that we will absolutely work with these groups and organisations to make sure that they're sustainable and that their programmes support those who have particular needs when it comes to accessing food. Officials across the food division—and tackling poverty, actually—are working closely with stakeholders to develop a common set of objectives and performance indicators for local food partnerships around this. This work will bring together the cross-portfolio priorities of the combined funding from food, from social justice as well, because it traverses a number of portfolio responsibilities here, from health to social justice, poverty, food, farming, et cetera. It's another example of where, when we get it right, we can achieve a multitude of benefits through one single investment.

As a Member representing Gower and Swansea, I recognise the fantastic effort that many of our local rugby clubs put in, not just on the pitch but off the pitch too in our wider communities. For many young people, they strive to achieve regional goals, such as being selected for the Ospreys, and the ultimate goal of representing Wales. I'm very pleased to say to those Members that are not aware that we actually have the Wales under-20s currently participating in the World Rugby Junior World Championship in Georgia, so do tune in. They've won two games so far, against Georgia and Uruguay. Unfortunately, they lost against South Africa yesterday, but I'm sure the team will pull it around this weekend against Australia. On behalf of the Chamber, we wish all of the team the best of luck. Thank you.

Tomorrow afternoon, we will see the long-awaited unveiling of the Rhodri Morgan statue outside the Senedd, and I hope that everyone will join us to come and see. Ultimately, who was Rhodri? Rhodri was a socialist, and more than anything else, he just loved Wales. He was a very proud Welshman, and he was very clear in terms of what devolution meant. Many of us look to Rhodri as being the godfather of devo.

Many of us remember as well how hard he debated and fought for us to stay in Europe. I remember a time when we were holding a debate in Cardiff University, and he showed up with two Tesco bags and flung them onto the table and started looking for papers to make his case for why this was important. He, of course, did a lot of work in promoting brand Wales and attracting inward investment. He would walk into a room and he would start talking about something that was completely unrelated, and when he walked off, those individuals would go, 'Where is this place called Wales? We must visit'.

He was very unique in that sense, and he did it all with so much style and with such great humour as well. I hope that you will all join me in coming to the unveiling tomorrow. Because he reminded us very clearly that we may be small, but we are mighty, and it's important that we govern ourselves regardless. There will be lots of discussions that we will have in this Chamber going forward, of course, but always remember: what would Rhodri say and do?

I want to share with you today the story of a dear friend of mine, Jamie Bevan, who is currently walking all the way from Merthyr Tydfil to Istanbul—I think it's day 90—a journey of about 3,000 miles over 11 countries including France, Belgium, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Serbia and Bulgaria, which will take four to five months.

Why is he doing this? I'm sure that there are several personal reasons why he's doing this, but he has chosen to use the opportunity to raise money for the cylch meithrin in Gurnos. He's already raised £10,000 towards developing the Welsh language in Merthyr Tydfil. The cylch is located in the Gurnos, one of the most disadvantaged communities in Wales. It provides an opportunity for children to access Welsh-medium education in an area where they would not have had that opportunity before. He's doing fantastic work.

I just wanted to thank Jamie for his extraordinary work for the Welsh language in our community, for his dedication to Canolfan Soar—he really built that with me—and, most importantly of all, for his friendship and his love over the years. We have faced several challenges over the years in terms of the Welsh language and our society. I want to congratulate him on what he's doing, and thank him, and wish him well on the rest of his journey.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I rise today to mark a momentous milestone in the history of Welsh maritime rescue, the sixtieth anniversary of the Port Talbot RNLI lifeboat station, which first established its vital inshore presence on Aberavon beach back in 1966. For six decades, the brave men and women of Port Talbot have protected our coastal communities. When the pager sounds, day or night, they leave the safety of their homes to brave the unpredictable waters of the Bristol channel. They embody the very best of public service and selflessness.

But a lifeboat station is far more than its heroic sea crew. It's an entire ecosystem of dedication. We extend the deepest thanks of this Senedd to every single individual who keeps the service running: the shore crew, the fundraisers, the shop volunteers, the trustees. Their unwavering commitment behind the scenes saves lives. We pay tribute to the station's present and past presidents, and all the supporters who have steered Port Talbot RNLI through challenges and triumphs. Whether navigating the treacherous surf or raising vital funds to keep this station running, the community's generosity has never faltered. Six decades of service is a remarkable legacy of lives saved and families kept together.

A big thank you to the Port Talbot lifeboat volunteers.

Thank you all for 60 years of bravery, dedication and unwavering service to Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I understand that Government say the voluntary charter is better because it can reach private and third sector bodies that legislation cannot, but let us be honest about how private organisations behave. They follow the law not a leaflet, so the charter's breadth is precisely its weakness—it reaches widely because it demands less. Keep it for the bodies we cannot compel, but for our health boards and NHS trusts, the bodies we can bind, a care leaver deserves the duty the law enforces, not a promise quietly set aside. We do not leave safeguarding to goodwill, so we should not leave corporate parenting to it either.

The Counsel General leaned heavily on one specific defence: that part 6 of the code of practice is being revisited with a new chapter on corporate parenting to be laid later this year. I must tell the Chamber that this defence is a dead end. By law, its scope is strictly limited. It applies solely to local authorities exercising social services functions. It cannot legally impose a single duty on a health board.

Local authorities are already under a statutory corporate parenting duty. This achieves absolutely nothing for a young person failed by the NHS. The Government cannot expand the scope of this code; only primary legislation passed by this Senedd can. And I hope no-one offers me yet another review, because, in 2023, the Senedd's own committee looked at exactly this, and asked a question titled, 'If not now, then when?' Three years on, we are still answering 'not yet'. The legal reality is clear: the most robust mechanism is an Act of the Senedd, one that either imposes duties directly or requires Ministers to bring regulations that we can subsequently shape together.

Section 23 of the English Act already provides wording that could be adapted for our devolved bodies. The power is ours; it was always ours. No duty is entirely immune from judicial review, but that risk is not managed by inaction, but by drafting duties clearly with ascertainable standards and robust targets. That is a reason to legislate carefully, not an excuse to avoid legislating at all. The risk we face by doing nothing is we are simply paying different parts of the system to manage a crisis we failed to prevent. We are not saving money by relying on voluntary charters, and far, far, far more importantly, we save a life from avoidable suffering, because this, above all else, is not a monetary question, but a moral question. These are children who do not have what we had. The average young person in Wales leaves the parental home at 24, but many care leavers are forced out at 18—it is a sheer cliff edge that I would have faced—with no parents to catch them when they fall.

Leaving care is a predictable route into destitution, with one in four care leavers ending up homeless. The Children, Young People and Education Committee asked us, 'Would any of us claiming the system works be happy for our own child to be cared for by that system?' I certainly would not. Would you?

I will be honest about the journey this motion has taken to reach the floor today. When I first tabled it, I did not feel the broad support across the Chamber. But that has since changed, and I am genuinely deeply grateful to those who broke rank, did the right thing and put their names to it. I single none of them out, except to thank them sincerely. But I would gently say this: the moral case for strengthening care-experienced children's rights did not suddenly become true last week. It was always true. The reaction to this week has shown that the public appetite for this is massive. It is the very reason they need statutory duties the system is legally bound to honour, not a voluntary promise it may choose to keep.

Some may ask whether this is the moment, whether, amongst all the pressures on the Senedd, this is the priority. But my answer to them would be: if not now, then when? For a care-experienced child at the cliff edge, there is no 'later'. Their childhood is not on hold while we find a better time. Each year we wait is another year of young people falling through a gap we already know how to close. After all, it is not just about words, but about actions, signalling to care leavers in law that they matter. Sometimes you do have to legislate in order to send a signal to care leavers that their rights are enshrined in law, and I believe that that is really significant, no matter what the voluntary charter says. Remember, the law is our living word, our living promise, and the law, ultimately, outlasts us all.

If I could thank, first of all, Sarah Cooper-Lesadd very much for bringing this debate before us today.

Care-experienced young people are amongst some of the most vulnerable in our society. Many of them have experienced significant hardship, trauma and instability before they've even reached adulthood. For too many of them, those challenges are indivisible. Often, their experiences are intersectional, steered by factors such as poverty, disability, mental health needs, ethnicity, identity and other circumstances that can create additional lifelong barriers.

That is why corporate parenting is so important. It is not simply a statutory responsibility or a set of duties to be completed, it is about recognising that, as a society, we have a responsibility to stand alongside care-experienced children and young people to advocate for them and create opportunities for them and to provide the consistency and the support that every child deserves.

However, we must be honest about whether our current arrangements are meeting that ambition. A young person does not stop needing support simply because they reach a particular birthday. The transition to adulthood is challenging for any young person, but for those who have experienced the care system, that transition often comes with additional pressures and without the family networks that many of their peers rely upon. We can see the consequences of that reflected in the evidence. Around one in four adults in prison in Wales has a care background, and research has found that, by the age of 24, around 15 per cent of people who have been in care have received a custodial sentence, compared with just 1 per cent of those who have not. Those figures should concern every one of us, and they are absolutely not a reflection of the potential of care-experienced young people. They are a reminder of what can happen when vulnerable young people do not receive the consistent support they need as they move into adulthood.

Our ambition should be to ensure that no care-experienced young person loses access to meaningful support simply because they reach a certain age. Extending the age at which local authorities retain formal responsibility to 25 for all care leavers, rather than limiting extended support to those in education or training, would better reflect the realities of the transition to adulthood and provide a more consistent and a more compassionate offer of support. We should aspire to a system in which every local authority consistently delivers the highest standard of support for care-experienced children and young people, with clear accountability where those standards are not met. Care-experienced young people have been asking for years who is held accountable when these duties are not fulfilled. Corporate parenting must mean more than words on a page, it must mean a genuine commitment that every care-experienced child and young person receives the support, stability and opportunities they need to thrive. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Sarah. And diolch, Beca, as well. Llywydd, the measure of any parent is simple: when a child says they are being hurt, do you listen and do you act? For one young girl, the answer from too many adults was 'no'. I want to speak today about corporate parenting and what it really means in practice, not as a policy but as a responsibility.

I want to begin with a case. It's anonymised, but it's real and it's deeply personal to me and my family. In fact, it's the actual reason I became involved in politics in the first place many years ago. A young girl grew up in a household defined not by care but by control, violence and abuse. Like many children living in fear, she did not always have the words to explain what was happening, but there were signs. Changes in behaviour, fear without explanation—those signs were seen but they weren't acted on. When she finally disclosed what had happened to her, the system should have stepped in to protect her, but instead, she encountered disbelief, pressure and silence. At one point, she was even persuaded to retract her statement. Years later, she found the courage to come forward again, this time with evidence from another child, and still no prosecution, no day in court, just the decision: no further action.

Llywydd, this is not simply a failure of process, it is a failure of responsibility, because if the state acts as a parent to vulnerable children, then it must do what every good parent would do, and that's listen, notice and believe, and, where necessary, act. That's why this debate today matters. Children do not experience services in silos, far from it. They don't care whether it's a local authority, a health board, the police or another agency. They simply need someone to protect them.

In the case I described, warning signs existed across the years and across agencies, but no-one joined the dots together. No-one acted decisively enough. That's exactly why stronger corporate parenting duties matter, because this is not just about structures, it's about culture—a culture that listens to children, a culture that understands trauma and a culture that does not wait for perfect evidence before stepping in to protect a child. Because behind every policy is a child, a child who is either heard or ignored, a child who is either believed or dismissed, a child who is either protected or left to face harm alone. When we get that wrong, the consequences can last a lifetime, as I know.

So, if we’re all to call ourselves corporate parents, we must meet the standard that that word demands, because a good parent doesn’t look away. A good parent does not wait for someone else to act. A good parent protects their child. That’s the test before us today, and that’s why I support your motion, Sarah. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank Sarah for tabling this debate today, and for the way she's using her lived experience to drive change for care-experienced children and young people? I would have signed in support of it, but was advised that, as I'd submitted a legislative proposal, that would not be possible.

I do want to acknowledge the work that was done by the Government in the previous Senedd on the transformation of children's social care, on the elimination of profit, but also the work to listen to young people and to co-produce solutions. Now, I attended all the summits the previous Welsh Government held with care-experienced young people, and it was a privilege to have them share their experiences with us, but it was also a salutary, frustrating and sometimes deeply upsetting experience. In the first one I attended, a workshop on mental health, I met one young person who had had nearly 20 social workers, and it was very clear to me that there is considerable work to do to prevent the care system re-traumatising care-experienced young people.

As Cabinet Secretary for Education, I got the opportunity to hear about care-experienced children's experiences in education. I met a young person who had moved to a different foster care placement, and as a result had had to move school rather than their local authority fund their transport costs. That, to me, was a powerful example of a young person being shoehorned into a system rather than a system being designed to meet their needs. The settled education of an already traumatised child was disrupted because of the cost of transport.

Now, I think the test for all practitioners should be, 'Would it be good enough for my child?' If the answer is 'no', then it shouldn't be happening. This is what I think genuine commitment to corporate parenting should be about.

We do have voluntary charters, but for me, on something so fundamental as the responsibilities we all have to care-experienced children, voluntary is not good enough. All local authorities and health boards have signed up, but if you look for any information on what they've committed to as part of their charters, it is very hard to find. It is not published, and I certainly couldn't find the information for my own health board.

So, I think it is now time to look at how we strengthen the protections for looked-after children and care-experienced children and young people. I don't know how the Government intends to vote today, but I hope that the Government will listen to the debate, listen to the strongly held view that we need to do more for our children—and they are all our children—and will commit to working with Sarah on this vital issue. Diolch.

The Welsh Conservatives want to begin by recognising the importance of the proposal in front of us today, and commend the Member for bringing it forward. I had the privilege, Deputy Presiding Officer, of serving on a fostering panel for nearly 10 years in a previous role, and it gives you a real insight as to the importance of the work that takes place in local authorities currently.

Of course, corporate parenting, at its best, is about the state acting, when required, as a responsible parent should, with consistency, care, attention, love, compassion and a genuine focus on that child's long-term future—all the things that a birth parent should do, but in all areas. It is reflected in the motion in front of us today. It's quite striking that this seems to be required to take place. I think many people, our constituents, would assume that this role of corporate parenting is already embedded within public bodies across Wales. I think they would be surprised to see a motion like this having to be tabled here today. So, I certainly commend the Member for bringing it forward.

I also want to acknowledge the positive role of the 2026 legislation referenced at a UK level, affecting young people in England, the recognition of that as improving those life chances of care-experienced children. And it requires a whole-system approach. It's absolutely right that Wales now considers how best to achieve the same ambition. If stronger corporate parenting responsibilities across public bodies are helping those children in England, then why should we expect anything less for children here in Wales? I absolutely support the principle that every part of the public sector should play its part in improving outcomes for looked-after children and care leavers. I think it's the very least that people would expect.

I just want to touch on a point—I appreciate time really is flying for this matter today; it's a 30-minute debate for such an important item today. I'm not sure whether that's usual for Members' legislative proposals, but it does feel like quite a tight timescale, because, whilst I hope there's support for this legislation in this place today, there's also a conversation needed around the implementation of this as well. Because we know public services are stretched at the moment, and it's essential that any new duties are backed by resources, workforce capacity and clear guidance to make it meaningful in practice as well. So, I'd be interested to hear the Government's views on that. Because we cannot simply place new statutory responsibilities on already stretched services and expect better outcomes without giving them the tools to succeed. I think we've seen that happen time and time again when things are agreed in this place, when the resources don't follow to enable things to be enacted fully and properly.

So, I will conclude, Deputy Presiding Officer, by saying that we will support this legislative proposal. We're also really keen to engage constructively, as it progresses, to ensure that these duties are matched by the resources and workforce capacity needed to make it effective as well. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I do really want to start, as many have, by really praising Sarah and the work that you've done. I heard you on Radio Wales this morning, and what an advocate you are—an amazing interview, and you really put it across so clearly. Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I totally support this Bill. Let us just be clear, though, in passing this Bill, it does not require the Government to adopt it, which is a travesty and a tragedy. So, the least I expect the Deputy Minister to say is that this will be taken forward formally by the Government. And may I just say about the Deputy Minister—I do totally respect you—you have an amazingly broad brief. We've called for a Minister specifically for babies, children and young people, and that is what our babies, children and young people here in Wales deserve. So, I hope the Welsh Government will take this back and create another Cabinet role, at a very senior level, for that brief specifically.

I've worked, as many of you will know, with children for over 25 years as a social worker. Most were lost, traumatised, desperate for love, and many of them, sadly, could only react by kicking out and feeling in a corner. 'Why do they do that?', many people ask. Because it's actually easier to reject straight away than think they are going to be loved and then find out later that they are not. So, they are immediately judged, they are rejected, they are damaged even more. They are our children. They belong to us. And we, in this Senedd, are responsible for them. There are currently more than 7,000 children in Wales who are looked after, yet their futures are shaped not just by social services but by our schools, our health service, our housing system and the wider public sector. Imagine what it feels like to be cared for by a series of agencies. That's not how it should be. They are our children and we need to provide them, as we've heard, with the highest level of care.

You've heard that much of this is agreed across the Siambr, and it's really encouraging to hear that, but I do appeal specifically to the Deputy Minister here today: we must see this enshrined in legislation. We must see you take forward the seriousness that you take—and I know you do—for our babies, children and young people by adopting a ministerial role, so actually we can then give all of the issues that we want to give to that specific role. So, I look forward to hearing from the Minister, and once again I pay tribute to Sarah. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to begin as well by thanking Sarah for bringing this prominence to corporate parenting. I think that your work in this area has been a credit to the Senedd. So, diolch, Sarah, for that. I want to work with you to make things better in this area.

It is a tremendously powerful thing that the needs of care-experienced children and young people have been placed on our agenda so early in this Senedd term. We can't underestimate the difference we can all make to the lives of care-experienced children. This is where our collective corporate parenting role is vital, supporting a child to navigate the transition to adulthood, and that requires the active involvement of key agencies and partners, as has been laid out in this debate.

I was struck by the contribution that Beca Brown made last week in another debate, by saying that it takes a village or community to raise a child and how that phrase has to mean something. Because what is our society other than that, that collective responsibility we share to ensure everyone is given a fair chance at life?

Now, I have an open mind about what happens in this space. I'm still learning. I want to work with people who have lived this. Legislation is clearly an important lever. I'm absolutely willing to consider that option. The two choices would be—. I don't see them as necessarily binary, either/or. I don't see it as right versus wrong, I see it as right versus right. Because there are very positive aspects to the Welsh setup we have too, which we wouldn't want to lose no matter what happens in the future. Its being voluntary gives it more flexibility, able to encourage innovation, creativity and true buy-in to the concept, rather than simply being an obligation, without organisations possibly truly doing more than the statutory minimum. I'm not saying that that means that we should not consider legislation; I'm just saying what we don't want to lose if we do that.

There are also complications, of course, that we would need to get over arising from what is devolved and what isn't. So, what I would want to do is to make sure we get the right balance between strengthening our situation, which we absolutely need to do, and also ensuring that we don't lose that good that's been nurtured in the system that we have, that flexibility that allows organisations to shape their own pledges, to go further than statutory obligations, though I do take the point that Lynne made that, actually, if those pledges are not being communicated very well, then they're not doing the job that they're meant to be doing, are they? Again—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Thank you very much for doing that. Just on that point about should it be voluntary or should it be statutory, if you're a young person and you want to actually hold an agency to account and it's not statutory, what powers does that young person have? Would you agree that that, surely, is where we should be?

Absolutely. In terms of some of these—. In terms of local authorities, they are statutory obligations, of course. This is about—. I don't disagree at all with what you're saying. I don't. Again, I'm not seeing this as an either/or. I want to make sure that the system that we develop has the good of both, and that's why I want to make sure that we are doing this with care-experienced young people as well. So, no, I don't disagree at all, Jane, of course.

Our corporate parenting charter enshrines corporate parenting on a far broader footing than the legislation in England. We're not simply focusing on public sector bodies, we're also establishing partnerships with the private and third sectors to reflect the way that society works, because Wales is a nation of communities. The charter's been developed alongside young people who are care-experienced—so, we want to work, clearly, with those groups too. Every principle is aligned with the articles of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. To date, over 70 organisations have signed the charter, including every local authority and health board.

Now, yes, signing the charter is voluntary, and we do need to look at this. But every organisation that does sign it is asked to pledge what they will offer. With the caveat that Lynne introduced earlier, there are some excellent examples that I would like to share with you. Cardiff Council has a corporate parenting strategy that focuses on five priorities. They've recently held an event on corporate parenting specifically to demonstrate the work being done there. Premier Forest Products—the first private sector company to sign the charter—supports individuals through work placements that provide support from mentors as well as educational support to move forward successfully into employment. And Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board has pledged to provide a health team specifically focused on care-experienced individuals. They've also pledged to introduce a transition programme that will deliver a strategic approach that is trauma-informed. They offer work experience and apprenticeships, and they guarantee that care-experienced children and young people will have the opportunity to participate in candidate selection processes.

These are some of the examples of the creativity, the innovation that I would not want to lose. And we need to find a way, I think, of making sure that where we move to still encourages that innovation and that it is being nurtured from the ground up, as well, potentially, as being from top to bottom.

Now this autumn, as we've heard—Sarah had referred to this—we will table strengthened guidance through a dedicated chapter on corporate parenting within the Part 6 code of practice, and that will set out a strengthened strategic and partnership approach to corporate parenting. That isn't to say that that is enough. I know we can improve things further. That is why I very much welcome this constructive scrutiny and cross-party dialogue that is fostered through motions like this. This Government is committed to expanding the corporate parenting network in Wales as part of our future vision for children's services.

Now, for the purposes of today's debate, the Government will abstain on this motion, and we will keep this position under close review. I do not intend for this to be the end of this conversation. We are in no way ruling out possible statutory options. I'm keen to make sure that we get this right. And I'm also determined that we make sustained progress in building upon that great work, that enthusiasm, that goodwill that's already in evidence amongst our committed partners. And I would very much welcome further discussions with Sarah so that we can work together to improve opportunities and outcomes for the children and young people of Wales. Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd.

I thank Members for contributing to this important debate and for the breadth of the discussions—they've been truly deep and insightful. Beca Brown put it exactly right: we must be honest about our current protections, how strong they are and whether they are fit for purpose, and who is held accountable. I think that's one of the most key and important questions in this.

Nigel Williams reminded us that children do not experience services in silos and that it's about a culture that listens. He is right, and you cannot build that culture on a voluntary promise that some bodies keep and some don't. Lynne Neagle—I mean it says it all that you couldn't even find on your own health board's website information about what the duties did and what the duties didn't do. This is precisely the difference in some cases between a charter and a law. I also thank Jane Dodds for her intervention. She is exactly right about lines of accountability, and this is why we're having this debate today. And—

Will you accept an intervention?

Yes.

Thank you, Sarah. Hopefully, we can all agree that corporate parenting is one of the most important responsibilities that we hold for every child in our care. This does include unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, and, sadly, many Members in this Chamber just last week voted against the nation of sanctuary concept. So, I'd be very grateful if you could clarify if the needs of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children do fit into your proposed Bill. Thank you.

I would say that I'm going to work with the Minister on this to shape legislation going forward. I thank the Minister for her openness to working with me on this, and I want to work in that spirit. I think that's really important. Volunteerism is a wonderful part of our Welsh culture, and we don't need to lose this, but I think we can have a hybrid approach between a statutory obligation and also a voluntary action as well. So, I look forward to working with the Minister on this.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Ddirprwy Lywydd. And I, first of all, have to declare a very obvious interest in this, which you can all can guess anyway, but, for the record, I myself am a consultant ophthalmic surgeon at Singleton Hospital, as is Safa, who is a co-submitter. And I have to thank as well, not just Safa, but Jane Dodds, who also is a co-submitter, although, to the best of my knowledge, she does not have any formal ophthalmic surgical training. [Laughter.]

I want to thank, though, everyone around this Siambr, from all parties, who supported the motion and allowed it to get to this debate. Thank you, everyone. I don't see this as a party-political thing at all really, but something for everyone who wants our people to see better. Because eye care affects everyone. Individual people from this Chamber have come up to speak to me—though I will not mention their names, patient confidentiality and all—who have had surgery for sight-threatening eye conditions. Perhaps you'll hear from them later.

I wanted to break this down into three sections: what the problem is and why I've brought this, the background to the possible solution, and then the actual solution itself.

First of all, as we've heard before, medicine evolves. The system we have now is perfectly set up for the 1980s and 1990s, when ophthalmic surgeons pretty much could do all the operations, apart from extremely rare complex ones, and high technology didn't really exist for things such as advanced tube surgeries for glaucoma. Injectable agents for age-related macular degeneration didn't exist. Services weren't needed anywhere near to the scale they are now, but now we have sub-specialisation, expensive equipment, and it isn't possible any more for every health board to do everything in every hospital. If they could, it wouldn't be very efficient, it wouldn't be very safe, because the systems are too small.

So, in Wales, we have too many small hospitals and small health boards attempting to do everything, and not enough tertiary hospitals, unfortunately. The health boards are not joined up to each other at all. There is a great wall separating the flow of patients and staff between health boards, and I know, because I've attempted to break the walls down, and they are insurmountable barriers of bureaucratic Sovietness in the worst kind of way. So, people go blind because of this. This is the problem.

I was going to illustrate an example of a patient of mine who came to see me in Swansea and had the misfortune of living just the other side of the bridge in the Hywel Dda area, just over the bridge in a place called Bynea. A very nice place, but the fact that it is the other side of that river caused a huge problem, because I couldn't order any scans in my hospital, properly, without filling out an IPFR, as it's called—an independent patient finance form—for every single interaction. If I wrote to Hywel Dda, the people there rightly would say, 'Who are you, working in a whole other health board to tell us what to do?' And everything is delayed by 100,000 per cent, that's the problem.

Another thing: retinal detachments. Because the health boards are all siloed—and we heard of the evil of silos just now—because the health boards are siloed, vitreoretinal surgeons, who are the only people who can treat retinal detachments, can't work properly together. So, say you have a retinal detachment, it's just random serendipity if you can have your operation that day, and you need to be operated on urgently for this, otherwise it's a long journey to Bristol, to Oxford, to Moorfields in London. And if you have a retinal tear in need of surgery, you have to posture for that time, which usually involves lying flat with where the tear is lying at the most inferior part. Otherwise the retina slowly peels away as you reach help. And if you have to travel to Oxford, you obviously cannot drive in an upside-down position in the back seat of your car. And it is stressful for people as well, having to put up with such awful long journeys, whereas if the system was joined up within Wales itself, they wouldn't have to do that.

Uveitis: I tried for a long time to set up a tertiary referral centre within Wales for uveitis, and I've been to many, many NHS-style meetings, as I know other people have as well. And the NHS loves meetings to discuss things; it does meetings very well indeed, but rarely do actual solutions come from simply meetings, because I've been to many regional meetings about the health boards working closer together, and the end result? Uveitis patients still go to Bristol as a tertiary referral centre, which is far away.

Photodynamic therapy for a condition that is called central serous chorioretinopathy: there's only one laser that does that in south Wales, which is in Cardiff. We can't get access to it from Swansea, and we can't buy our own laser, the lasers are very expensive, and the drug is very expensive. It makes sense to join everything together.

Corneal transplants: not every health board has a corneal surgeon. Cross-linking for a condition called keratoconus. It's completely a postcode lottery as to whether you can get to it. Even cataracts—. We do 500,000 cataracts a year in Britain. Cataracts, the commonest operation. Everyone in this room will end up having cataract surgery. Wouldn't it be a wonderful thing if they could have it done in a timely way? If we could do it, one day when I need cataract surgery, in a timely way within Wales itself, rather than having to pay out of my own pocket to have it done privately, or wait 100,000 years to have it done in my local hospital.

We need to adapt with the times, and we need surgical hubs, efficient surgical hubs, but also we need the free flow of patients. It's a wonderful thing, for example, having a wonderful surgical hub in Swansea, but if you live in Carmarthen, you can't get to it because it's in a whole different health board. We have to have the free flow of patients.

And this, what we've ended up with, is from decades, decades, decades of neglect of the NHS in general, and including ophthalmology. A part of this is due to the lack of an electronic patient record. If there's no light shone on anything, bad things fester. If proper numbers aren't being collected as to the delays in surgery, the delays in transplants, the delays in injections, the delays in treatment for diabetic eye disease, the commonest cause of blindness in working-age people; if it's not recorded, it goes unanswered, unchallenged, untested. It's been terrible trying to set this up, because I've been, again, to 100 billion NHS meetings trying to get this organised. Whereas Digital Health and Care Wales mandate OpenEyes, which is what they unimaginatively called the electronic patient record, it has to go through every single health board separately. And even though the same risks would be present everywhere, every single health board has onion-like layers of accountability and different forms of managers and people who say, 'Well, this isn't right, that isn't right, we need to adjust this, adjust that.' And the curious thing is, whereas the problems should be the same everywhere, each health board comes up with a whole different list of problems that need to be addressed independently, which is inefficient, expensive, and sadly leads to blindness. That is the thing.

So, the health board system is letting us down on multiple different fronts. So, that's the background to it. People going blind in Wales because of a lack of access, because of artificial boundaries, and an out-of-date system. But then comes the background, and this is where another conflict of interest comes in, because the current llywydd of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists in Wales, the inestimable Rhianon Reynolds, has called for just this very solution: an EPR, joined-up ophthalmology, the breaking down of the health board barriers and the implementation of the national clinical strategy for ophthalmology. All of which, really, were suggested by another inestimable person who chaired the Health and Social Care Committee report, which was published last year, into the failings of Welsh ophthalmology.

But now comes the time to put all this into action, because people out there are relying on us, and I also feel very guilty myself, of course, because I've caused direct harm to my own patients by being in this place. There are many skills required of a person being in here, but an advanced knowledge of ophthalmic surgery isn't really one of them. [Laughter.] So, that aspect of my training is—[Interruption.] Perhaps for this debate alone. So, I feel guilty for that as well. So, I want to show, on multiple levels, that our being here—not just me, but Safa as well—is making some sort of difference to things.

We need joined-up working, and if we can't—. If it was up to me, I would take all of ophthalmology out of all the health boards and merge it together, cull the hideous levels of managerial excess and overlap, and grow the system again. This is what I would do. This is the best thing. And many people would say, 'Ah, but this would apply to other specialties in medicine as well', and I'd say, 'yes'. There's a whole issue with the health board system duplicating things everywhere. If it is not possible, for whatever reason, to break down the health board barriers, let's just think of some way of squashing them together, so that we don't have these hard and fast blocks to patient and staff flow. Otherwise, we will repeat the mistakes of the past. And I trust Mabon ap Gwynfor to deliver the goods, to see the thing through.

So, we need three things, in summary, because my 10 minutes is coming to an end: the implementation of the national clinical strategy for ophthalmology; to break down the health board barriers; and, in my view, merge all of ophthalmology into one single health board to escape from those barriers altogether and to get rid of expensive, duplicative administrative work that isn't really administrating anything because we don't have an electronic patient record, which we need to track things. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Gwyn. This is one of the reasons why it's important that people work before they come into politics, because it is important that we hear the experience that you've brought to us.

I've got a very personal story. In 2016, I was a candidate for the Welsh Senedd in Maldwyn. Suddenly, the sight in my right eye went. I couldn't see anything. It was the day of the election, so I was slightly busy. I was in Newtown, and I really didn't know what to do. I did listen to that phrase, though, 'You should have gone to Specsavers', and I did. I went to Specsavers in Newtown and saw an optometrist—a very brilliant person who was able to almost immediately diagnose what my situation was, and she told me it was urgent, and I had to then attend Shrewsbury and Telford hospitals in the days after that. And I won't tell you that I might have driven in between, which I was told very clearly I shouldn't have done, but I'm just saying that there are really qualified people who can, at the front line, actually help people with sight problems, and we need to include them as well in this debate. I'm very grateful to them for saving the sight in my right eye.

The electronic records didn't work. They didn't work across the borders at the time, so if we're aiming to get electronic records being shared in Wales, we also have to consider how they're going to be working across the border with those English hospitals that those of us who live on the border use, and I know the health Minister is thinking of that.

We want to see a change in the approach here in Wales to sight. I wanted to also tell you about a gentleman who came to the Health and Social Care Committee. His name was Edward Kenna, and Edward had macular degeneration. I'm sure some of you have heard of his situation. Edward was sadly in a terrible place and wasn't able to save his sight, but he gave very clear evidence to the committee that changes should be made. I want to set out three things I want this Government to do differently in this arena. I want honesty, geography, and follow-through.

Firstly, honesty about harm. Between 2021 and 2023, as the number of patients waiting beyond safe time frames climbed past 70,000, Wales managed to record only 45 incidents of harm. This was not because sight wasn't being lost. The Royal National Institute of Blind People Cymru, the royal college and the health boards themselves all told the committee that harm was almost certainly going uncounted, and that is unacceptable. If we cannot count the harm, we cannot be honest about the scale of the crisis.

Secondly, geography. You won't be surprised that, being in a very rural area of Powys, I need to mention the rurality issue here. Being in a rural area means that we have particular challenges. I was very lucky; I found Specsavers in Newtown and a very qualified person was able to help me. But Powys, as we know, has no district general hospital, and we have to make other arrangements. I would like to hear from the Minister how we're going to deal with geography and rurality in this issue.

And finally, we need to see follow-through. Too many patients are not once offered support—not emotional, not practical, not a single person to tell them where to turn. We don't need a new idea to fix this; we need an eye care support pathway with ophthalmology and optometry lying at the heart of it. That already exists, but we're not seeing it followed through. As we've heard, what we want to see is a single agency for ophthalmology that operates across Wales and offers our residents here, and those who use across the border, a really high-quality service.

People losing their sight in Wales today are not losing it because we lack the medical knowledge to help them. They're losing it because of where they live, because we have not trained enough people to treat them and because too often, when they have tried to tell us something is wrong, nobody has been listening. I know that there is no burden on the Government to take this Bill forward, but I do hope that through this debate the health Minister will listen and look at what options there are to make sure that we deliver better on this. Diolch yn fawr.

I, too, begin by declaring my interest as a practising consultant ophthalmologist. My remarks today are both informed by my professional experience and my role as a Member of the Senedd. Throughout my career, I've had to tell patients that their sight can't be restored, and these are amongst the hardest conversations any clinician has to have. That is why preventing avoidable sight loss matters so much, and I'm pleased to second this motion. As a consultant ophthalmologist and a Member of this Senedd, I believe that everyone in Wales deserves timely, high-quality eye care, regardless of where they live.

When we talk about ophthalmology, we're not simply talking about eyesight; we're talking about independence, dignity and quality of life. We're talking about a person's ability to work, drive, read and to remain active within their community. Whether it's a child that's struggling to see the whiteboard at school or a grandparent that wants to recognise the face of their grandchild, timely eye care makes a difference between living independently and losing that independence. That's why this debate matters.

My message is simple. Ophthalmology in Wales is under immense pressure and those pressures will continue to grow as our population ages. Ophthalmology is the busiest out-patient specialty in NHS Wales, with 66,000 people waiting for treatment. Too many people are still presenting with advanced disease that could have been treated earlier. If Members want any evidence on the scale of the challenge, they only need to look at the Welsh Government's eye care measures. The target is for 95 per cent of high-risk patients to be seen within a clinically determined time frame. The all-Wales figure is 49.7 per cent and no health board is meeting that target. Too many patients whose sight is at risk are not being seen in a timely manner.

A major reason for this is workforce capacity. Simply, Wales does not have enough ophthalmologists. The Royal College of Ophthalmologists recommends three consultants per 100,000 people. Wales has 1.97. That's the lowest ratio in the UK. Retention is also challenging, with many resident doctors leaving Wales to complete their training in England. We should have an all-Wales recruitment pathway that will help retain more doctors in NHS Wales. Recruitment alone won't solve this problem. We have a very highly skilled team of optometrists, orthoptists and nurses, and we need to provide local opportunities to develop and upskill this workforce.

Meeting this challenge requires reform. This is why I support the proposals set out in this motion, particularly the focus on dedicated surgical and diagnostic hubs. By concentrating expertise, we can improve efficiency, increase capacity and deliver better outcomes for our patients. These hubs can help reduce the reliance on outsourcing to the private sector, allowing us to invest in Welsh services, Welsh staff and Welsh hubs. Patients don't really care which health board provides their treatment; they just want to receive safe, timely, high-quality care. Alongside that, we need better workforce planning, stronger digital infrastructure and a long-term strategy to match these growing demands.

This debate is far more than waiting lists; it's about protecting people's sight, protecting their independence, protecting their confidence and protecting their quality of life. Both as a clinician and as a Member of the Senedd, I know that the expertise exists in Wales. Our responsibility now is to ensure that the system enables those professionals to deliver the care patients deserve. The motion provides a practical road map to achieving this. We have the expertise, we have the evidence and we know what works. Now we must match the evidence with action. Because in ophthalmology, every referral matters, every appointment matters, every member of the clinical team matters, and, most importantly, every patient matters. I'm pleased to second this motion and I urge Members across this Siambr to support it. Diolch yn fawr.

In many of these debates, people get up and make very grand speeches, but I think probably the best speech I've ever heard was just made by Gwyn. I think he said everything I wanted to say. I don't intend to repeat everything that went on, because I agree with almost 99 per cent of what he put forward. I do want to pay tribute to you for all the work that you have done in your professional life—and your wife as well—serving the people of your health board area. Thank you for your service to our NHS and thank you for your service to this Senedd as well; I know your expertise is going to be really welcomed.

I don't want to go over old ground. We agree on a lot of the matters you talked about, especially about how managers and different people in the NHS are very good at identifying what the problems are, but can't actually put anything in place to try and simplify things; that's something that we support very heavily. Gwyn also talked about the fragmentation across health boards; we see that too often. We don't see the sharing of best practice. You could be doing something phenomenal in Swansea Bay, but just up the road in Cardiff and Vale, they won't copy what you're doing because they've got their own structures, their own bureaucracy, and it doesn't work. So we support the motion in the way it's called.

You also called for surgical hubs—that's something that our party has called for also, because we do know that surgical hubs can really help get waiting lists down across the NHS. It's not a new concept, it's been happening in England for a very long time, except we've never actually grasped the nettle here and got on with it. So, we support that and the Government's view of doing that. It's about delivery, though. It's how quickly these things can come online to make sure we're getting waiting lists down. Because I sat on that Health and Social Care Committee with the current Cabinet Minister, putting those recommendations forward, and I hope that he, as a co-author of that report, will implement all the recommendations in full and not leave one out or just accept them in principle, which the Government has been quite handy in doing over the years.

I support you, Gwyn, in what you're doing, and we support you in this motion. I'm not going to go over old ground, because I don't think there's need to. Thank you very much for what you've brought forward today, and we're very much looking forward to supporting this motion when the vote comes later. Diolch.

For the record, I wish to declare a personal interest. I previously gave evidence to the Health and Social Care Committee's inquiry into ophthalmology services based on my lived experience of sight loss, and I remain a patient under ophthalmology services.

I grew up knowing that, as somebody with type 1 diabetes, sight loss was a very real possibility. By the age of 26, that possibility had become reality when I experienced a vitreous haemorrhage whilst on holiday in Italy. Losing my sight was frightening; waiting to find out whether it could be saved was, in many ways, even harder. After 18 months of treatment, referrals and uncertainty, my surgeon told me, when I finally underwent surgery, that I was likely only a week away from permanent sight loss. I can't say that I was suicidal, but there were many times where I genuinely questioned how much more waiting and how many more setbacks I could endure. That experience showed me something that statistics alone never can—what it actually feels like to live on a waiting list. But if we only measure the wait, we miss the experience of waiting, so perhaps we should ask not only how long people are waiting, but what is happening to them whilst they wait.

For me, the impact went far beyond my eyesight: discrimination at work, unfair dismissal, my mental health deteriorated into severe depression, I had to pay my way for a tribunal because of a Tory Government in the UK at the time, and I became overwhelmed by anxiety, thinking I'd never be employed again. Every day I woke up questioning whether I would permanently lose my sight before the system reached me.

But today, I want to challenge us all to think differently about waiting lists. Because I was not simply waiting for treatment, I was waiting to know whether my sight could be saved. The waiting itself causes harm. The silence causes harm, and the lack of communication causes harm. When you're on a waiting list, every gap in information is filled by fear: has my referral gone through? Has it been lost? Have I been forgotten about? What's happening while I wait? I remember receiving an appointment letter and a cancellation letter for the very same appointment on the same day on more than one occasion. Every appointment brought hope, every cancellation brought further fear. Soon, even letters citing 'unforeseen circumstances' became predictable. And that fear has a cost—a human cost, a social cost and, ultimately, a financial cost too. I do not believe for one moment that healthcare professionals do not care. My experience has shown me the exact opposite. The problem is that, too often, they are working within systems that leave people waiting too long with too little information, too little support, and too much uncertainty.

I am beyond grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Of course we need to reduce waiting times and of course we need more capacity, and we should be looking at surgical hubs, centres of excellence and more consistent services across Wales. But I would also ask the Minister a simple question: if we cannot eliminate every waiting list tomorrow, can we at least ensure that nobody feels forgotten while they are on one? What if every patient on a waiting list had access to someone who understood not just the condition, but the experience, someone who had walked the same path, faced the same uncertainty and had come out the other side? Because good healthcare does not begin when treatment starts. Good healthcare begins the moment somebody enters the system.

Some of us remember when Twitter was a good place, a place where support saw no health board boundaries. Over the years, I lost count of the number of people who contacted me through social media, distraught after receiving a letter telling them that they had background retinopathy. Often, all they needed at that point was reassurance that they were not alone, guidance on questions to ask, and to understand what might happen next. Many understandably assumed the worst without realising that, with the right intervention and support at that point, the condition at that stage can be stabilised. Their anxiety did not disappear, but it became more manageable. They felt informed, more confident and better able to engage with their care. We rightly value experts by occupation. Our clinicians, nurses and healthcare professionals do remarkable work every day. But we should also value experts by experience. One understands the condition, the other understands what it's like to live with it, and the strongest systems recognise the value in both. I needed that support and I gave it to others because they needed it too.

Dirprwy Lywydd, there are people in Wales today who are where I once was: waiting, frightened, isolated, uncertain, and this is why this motion matters. Because ophthalmology waiting lists are not just administrative backlogs, they are people's independence, mental health, jobs, futures and lives. We owe them a system that recognises a simple truth: we often focus on the length of the wait, but we rarely acknowledge the damage that waiting can do. The waiting list was not the only thing harming me; the waiting itself was harming me.

Today I'm grateful for the opportunity this Senedd has given me to speak out about an experience that, for a long time, I struggled to talk about. And again, I'm going to say I believe this Chamber is strongest when it listens to lived experience, confronts difficult truths, works together for the people of Cymru, and turns motions into meaningful change. That is why I ask every Member to support this motion today. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank Gwyn for bringing forward this debate today? I must say, I don't say it very often, but I thoroughly enjoyed your contribution. On behalf of the Welsh Conservatives, we can confirm we will be supporting you in today's vote.

Ophthalmology waiting times and lists are indeed unacceptably long. It's something that we all know and it's something that often makes us all very sad to hear of. There are more than 11,600 patient pathways open in Wales who are waiting more than a year for ophthalmology treatment. Of the 11,600 waiting more than a year for treatment, around a third of them are within the Betsi Cadwaladr health board, which again highlights the need for urgent improvements at the troubled board.

Whilst the figures are lower in my local health board, with just shy of 1,000 patient pathways waiting more than a year for treatment, it is clear that we need to see action across the board, because all of these delays are putting patients at risk of avoidable sight loss. And with an expected rise in demand for services, the time to act is indeed now. At the end of March 2025, around about 80,700 patients assessed at the highest risk category of irreversible harm were waiting beyond clinically safe time frames for treatment. Fast-forward to just a year, and things haven't really improved; the figures have barely moved. At the end of April 2026, the figure was more than 76,000 patients.

The lack of progress can be further highlighted by the percentage of people being seen with a target date, or 25 per cent beyond the target date itself. In March last year, this was 49.9 per cent, and in April this year, it was 51.1 per cent. Frankly, it's just not good enough. Unfortunately, we didn't see much meaningful action from the previous Labour Government, but I hope that this new administration will take this seriously and move with pace to address the issue within ophthalmology services.

The health committee in the last Senedd term found several systematic issues when it came to ophthalmology, and I know that they've been touched upon. Yet it appears that very little has been done since then to rectify it. One of the big challenges—and I know many of my colleagues have said this today—was indeed workforce shortages, something that is, of course, having a major impact on the NHS sectors. Wales has just 1.97 consultant ophthalmologists per 100,000 population, well below the recommended three per 100,000. When the Minister responds to this debate, I would like to know how his Government plans to hit these recommended levels.

Also, the crumbling NHS estate, something I've raised on numerous occasions already, was found to be one of the big barriers, as was, indeed, equipment. Outdated and unsafe hospital facilities with leaky roofs, cramped spaces and broken equipment were disrupting surgery and extending waiting times. Not too long ago, Newport patients arrived at the Royal Gwent Hospital for prearranged surgery at the ophthalmology unit, however, when they got there, they were turned away and told to go home because there was an error in ordering equipment for the hospital's theatres. Lessons must be learnt, as incidents like these will hamper efforts to drive down the waiting times that we speak of. So, how is the Welsh Government ensuring equipment and NHS estates are going to be fit for purpose?

The Welsh Government's response to the committee's findings sparked a wave of concern and disappointment, including from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists. The college accused the Government of deferring or avoiding making key commitments that would deliver the committee's recommendations. Now, I'd like to quote Rhianon Reynolds from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists, who said that

'The Welsh Government needs to show more ambition to tackle the huge challenges facing ophthalmology services. To meet the needs of patients now and in the future, we must invest to improve our dilapidated estates and provide the workforce and digital infrastructure necessary to deliver the best care.'

End quote. My question is simple: will this Welsh Government do what the last one didn't, and show the ambition to tackle the mammoth challenges that lie ahead of us?

The debate is indeed rather timely here today, Deputy Presiding Officer, as it coincides with Glaucoma Awareness Week, and there are warnings that glaucoma prevalence is expected to rise over the coming years, with 100,000 cases expected by 2033. Research earlier this year found that as many as half the people with glaucoma are yet to receive a diagnosis, which is especially concerning given the irreversible damage it can cause if left untreated. Glaucoma is a leading cause of irreversible blindness worldwide, and yet many people don't know they have it. But optometrists can play a vital role in early detection as it can be picked up via a routine eye test, and we have two advocates who I'm sure can agree with this.

Worryingly, a briefing from Glaucoma UK and Specsavers revealed that a fifth of the population still didn't know how often they should visit their optician for a routine check-up, and the same percentage either can't remember their last eye examination or have never had one at all. In light of that alarming statistic, I'd like to know how does the Welsh Government plan to turn that around. And I'd be interested to know if the Welsh Government plans to look at further bolstering community eye care.

Deputy Presiding Officer, let me conclude by once again thanking Gwyn Williams for bringing this debate to the forefront, and I'd also hope to see the Welsh Government act swiftly when it comes to implementing the points raised in this motion to address the challenges when it comes to ophthalmology here in Wales. Thank you.

I'd like to also declare an interest in this subject—basically, I will be supporting my colleague Gwyn Williams on his contribution today—I worked for a deaf charitable organisation for over 20 years and know how important ophthalmology is for an individual with hearing loss.

One in six of the adult population has hearing loss in Wales. With hearing loss, their eyes, whether it's lip reading or British Sign Language, are their ears. With an older generation and the increase of macular degeneration, which is the commonest cause of blindness in the UK, cataracts and glaucoma, it is important that individuals suffering hearing loss become a priority on detection and treatment. So, that's my wish. I'm not making demands, I just wish.

I'd like to begin by thanking Gwyn Williams for securing this important debate. Whatever our political differences, I believe protecting people’s sight is something that can unite this Chamber, and I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak in support of the motion.

Now, you may find this difficult to believe, but today I think every Member in this Chamber will agree with me on two things. First, never take your health for granted. And second, you never know what's around the corner, not just politically, but health-wise too.

Four years ago, I discovered just how true those words are when, over the course of just 48 hours, I went completely blind in my right eye. It was terrifying. Before joining the police in Romania I trained as a nurse, and something told me that it wasn't just simply blurred vision. I suspected that I had retinal detachment involving the macula, the part of the eye responsible for our central vision. It was very unusual at my age, and I remember telling the optometrist at Specsavers what I thought it was. To their credit, they examined me immediately. I was right. It was a macula-off retinal detachment, a genuine ophthalmic emergency. Within hours, I was referred to Wrexham Maelor Hospital, where the diagnosis was confirmed before I was transferred urgently to the eye unit in Abergele. I still remember that miserable Thursday afternoon in January. The following day, the consultant phoned me: ‘Can you get here for surgery on Monday morning?’ ‘Absolutely’, I replied. Then came the pre-operative assessment, and finally, on the surgery day, the injections to numb the eye.

Now, I have enormous respect for ophthalmic surgeons, but when the anaesthetist said, ‘This is going to hurt’, I can confirm that that was the most accurate diagnosis that week. But in keeping in line with parliamentary standards of conduct, I shall not repeat exactly what I said when I both felt and heard the needle passing through the tissues around my eye to get the back. Suffice to say, when the doctor tells you it's going to hurt, believe them.

Thankfully, the surgery was a complete success. I remember being wheeled back to the ward afterwards. A lovely nurse handed me a slice of buttered toast. To me, it tasted like caviar. That was the moment when relief finally caught up with me.

But recovery wasn't easy. For a week, I had to remain in one position for 50 minutes every hour, 16 hours a day, so that the gas bubble inside my eye could do its job. I wasn't upside down, thankfully. I also want to thank my husband, whose love, care and support made all the difference during my recovery week, so much so I was secretly hoping the consultant might prescribe another week, but, unfortunately, he said that I was making excellent progress. It was exhausting, but it worked. My eyesight returned. I genuinely struggle to put into words what it feels like to regain something that you genuinely thought you might have lost forever.

But unfortunately, the story didn't end there. Like many patients following this type of surgery, I later developed a cataract. Cataract surgery is one of the most successful operations the NHS performs, but timing matters. In Wales, the waiting time in many areas stretches to around two years. Just 10 miles from my home, across the border in England, patients can often receive surgery within weeks. I was fortunate. I could afford to pay privately. So, last summer I had the operation and, once again, it restored my vision. But most people cannot make that choice. The pensioner who has stopped driving because they cannot safely see the road, the grandparent struggling to recognise their grandchildren's faces, the self-employed tradesman whose livelihood depends on precise eyesight, the child whose education depends on being able to read the board in school—they cannot simply buy their eyesight back. Their only option is the NHS.

And that is why today's debate matters. This motion is not simply about organisational structures, consultant numbers or waiting list statistics. It's about preserving people's independence, protecting livelihoods, preventing avoidable blindness. Giving people back one of life's greatest gifts: the ability to see the people they love. No patient should lose their sight because the system moved too slowly. No family should spend months wondering whether permanent damage could have been prevented. And no matter where someone lives in Wales, they should expect the same timely, high-quality ophthalmology service.

If establishing centres of excellence, reducing duplication and implementing the committee's recommendations help achieve that, then this Chamber should unite behind those ambitions, because when it comes to protecting someone's eyesight, there should be no Government benches or opposition benches, only patients. Diolch.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Minister, it's difficult—it is always difficult—to follow Gwyn. In some ways, he's always been my warm-up act, but I've always been a flop. [Laughter.] Some of the people that spoke today have been absolutely fantastic with their lived experiences, and it shows the depth of the problems that exist. In a very minor, minor way, I ended up having to go to England to have an operation about eight years ago, because my eyesight got so bad for a number of reasons. I had new lenses put in and I just couldn't work. It reached the point that I couldn't work. So, these things really do matter, and they improve life dramatically.

A few things about Gwyn. Gwyn, obviously, knows exactly what he's talking about, the same as Safa, and what possibly people also know is he's really passionate about what he does. However, as an ophthalmologist, he is one of the top people that you would ever get. He travels internationally to show how to do things, and he does also go abroad to help wherever he can. So, in that respect, what he's pushing here really, really does need support, and I'm glad everybody so far has come this way.

I'm going to be a bit of a damp squib. Everybody's talked so well, and, just like James said, there's no real point in pushing those things over and over and over again. What I'm going to do is bring it down to brass tacks. The whole thing, apart from being absolutely fantastically wonderful to do it, it is essentially something that's going to save the NHS money, it's going to produce huge amounts more productivity, and, as a lovely by-product, it's going to affect so many people's lives.

Plaid Cymru have a fantastic part in our manifesto, which is essentially the hubs—the place where specialists can stand alone beyond all the battle that's going on in the NHS, where they can focus, and they can rely on predictable methods, because people are coming in, everything's controlled, which lead to the productivity gains. These are the simple things that really change. What you do is you get more people through, you get more pleasant working, because it isn't that stress that you've got in accident and emergency, and people can focus on the specialisms, and therefore everything increases in terms of the ability to do what you can do.

Substantial productivity gains offered by surgical hubs, which is what we're proposing, Minister, is something I've experienced quite recently. My wife had an operation, and the ability to move through the process is so slick. It's like a production line; that's the only way I can describe it. So, it actually does work. Implementing this across Wales is, without doubt, the solution to the problems that we have. Surgical hubs also mean there's less outsourcing; we're saving money. I had to go private when I went to England to get it done, but other people will have to—. Previously, Labour have been paying quite heavily for treatment to be outsourced and for people to have operations privately but paid for by the NHS, which isn't anywhere near a long-term solution. Staff retention in the NHS and in this particular area as well is massively difficult, and the very fact that you've got good working conditions, you've got high productivity and happy people means that you're going to have better productivity just as a result and people will want to stay. Safa mentioned in a talk a few days ago that, of a cohort of seven ophthalmologist doctors coming into, I assume, Singleton Hospital, within a very short time, four of them had left, just because the systems were dysfunctional, they weren't happy. And it really does make a difference.

This doesn't just affect health, but also can affect what we do outside. You've got people who are far more productive. With me, I could not work, I couldn't drive, and from knowing that I couldn't even see colour, all of a sudden, being able to see colour and a clock on the wall was mad—totally mad. But these things do change people's ability to be productive so, so much and it had a huge impact on me.

The brain drain that we've got because these doctors are leaving here, we just cannot allow to happen. In my opinion, the hubs that we have and the ways and the systems that we have to work will facilitate people to be happier and to stay.

Yes, okay.

I would like, possibly, Minister, for you to consider—. Possibly three hubs, I've been told, may be coming for eyes—I don't know. But, as a Swansea Jack, I'd like to put my hand up for one, and the reason for that is, apart from Gwyn and Safa being around and the specialisms that we've got, it's the geography and the transport that we can cope with in west Wales. Swansea health board has lost or is in the process of losing 800 jobs—

Okay. I'll finish on the basis that eye care here can transform people right across Wales, and it's a win-win position, both from a care perspective and from an economic perspective. Thank you.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. In the previous Senedd, I was a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, which conducted the inquiry into ophthalmology, and I heard first-hand the challenges experienced by too many people. The report made 17 recommendations, and they related to governance, implementation, the workforce, digital transformation, patient safety, data, service delivery and infrastructure. It acknowledged that the national clinical strategy for ophthalmology was setting the right direction, but that the process of implementation and speed of transformation were insufficient. I am determined to change this.

I recognise the pressure on ophthalmology services, and the waiting times inherited from the previous administration are far too long. Reducing waits is one of this Government's immediate priorities. Now, I want to recognise the committed staff working in these services—some of them behind me. The need to strengthen workforce capacity hasn't had the attention it deserves. The demand for eye care services is likely to increase significantly in the next decade as our population ages, which will make it increasingly difficult to provide timely access to specialist services if we continue to do things the same way as before.

There's a preventative aspect to this as well, as long waits for eye care treatment can increase costs and worsen conditions, as we heard from Sara Crowley. At the end of May, ophthalmology pathways made up 11 per cent of all open pathways, with over 150 waiting more than two years. That's too many people waiting too long, and I’m determined to reduce these numbers. In our 100-day plan, we've committed to reviewing NHS performance, including the impact that long waiting times are having on patients.

Sight loss has profound consequences for individuals, families and communities, affecting a person's independence, ability to work, education, mobility, mental well-being and participation in everyday life. Preventing avoidable sight loss is about maintaining independence, reducing health inequalities and enabling people to continue living healthy, fulfilling and productive lives. That is why timely access to eye care remains such an important priority for this Government.

The national strategy remains the agreed blueprint for transformation of eye care services. It sets out a model based on regional working, workforce transformation, clinical networks, digital enablement and more effective use of capacity across the whole system. But the challenge has been and is implementation. Patients experience better care only when strategy is translated into delivery. I want a renewed focus on implementation and outcomes. Work is under way to establish a clearer understanding of progress across Wales, identify variation and provide a stronger basis for future delivery. I expect clearer implementation planning so progress can be measured against defined priorities, milestones and expectations.

Digital transformation is essential to future success, ensuring that we rectify the mistakes of previous years. Better information sharing and integrated digital services will support safer, more efficient and connected care. We're encouraging health boards to work more collaboratively, building on the regional work already under way across parts of Wales. Working with NHS Wales Performance and Improvement, health boards in Wales are increasing activity. Many organisations are treating six or seven patients on a cataract list as standard, closer to the Getting It Right First Time expectations. This national approach will ensure services benefit from improved capacity and more consistent pathways, supporting timely delivery.

We must provide staff with the facilities to do what they do best—to see and treat patients. Our focus remains on building a system that can meet demand sustainably and deliver timely care. We're launching an ambitious programme to expand elective capacity, developing up to 10 surgical hubs across Wales to focus on delivering the high-volume low-complexity procedures to reduce long waits for procedures such as cataract surgery, and it's good to hear cross-party support for this plan. So, I look forward to seeing cross-party support for our supplementary budget in order to achieve this next week.

Infrastructure alone is not the solution. Sustainable improvement requires workforce development, service redesign, digital transformation and implementation of the national strategy. Health boards need to share the available resources and work together on a regional basis.

One of the strongest examples of service transformation is community optometry. Through Wales General Ophthalmic Services, optometrists with additional postgraduate qualifications are increasingly managing patients closer to home, improving access, allowing hospital services to focus on those with greatest clinical need. This approach is making a difference.

Over 2,000 care episodes a month are managed by independent prescribing optometrists in the community, which helps to reduce unnecessary demand on hospital and GP services. But we have to go further. The future of eye care calls for more than just expanding hospital services. It means creating an integrated system, where optometry and ophthalmology work together to provide the right care, in the right place, at the right time. Whilst there's been significant improvement in optometry, we now need to see the same progress and the same emphasis on ophthalmology capacity.

The Member talks about the possibility of developing an all-Wales health board for ophthalmology. I understand why he suggests this, and I agree that there’s a strong case for reducing institutional and bureaucratic complexity, as is reflected across our policy agenda. I acknowledge the Member’s complete frustration. There’s been too much slippage, and this failure to implement the strategy has led to an appetite for rapid change. I share that frustration, and I have committed to the task ahead. So, let us see that work bearing fruit before we consider anything else.

We are one nation, one NHS, and I'm determined to reduce unnecessary regional variations and inconsistencies. My immediate priority is to ensure that current NHS organisations in Wales work together more effectively to deliver the national strategy and to improve outcomes.

I welcome the cross-party interest in this area and intend to have further discussions with Members. I want to ensure that implementation proceeds swiftly and that we have a clear overview of progress. We are committed to ensuring that people have timely access to good quality care. The committee report challenged the Government to move beyond acknowledging the problem to focus on providing a solution; I share that ambition. We have the vision, we understand the challenge and we know what needs to change. The next step must be to concentrate on action and on ensuring measurable outcomes for patients the length and breadth of Wales. This Government will be abstaining, therefore, and focusing tirelessly on implementing the national strategy and breaking down the barriers between the health boards, and I'm happy to work with everyone who's put forward the motion and opposition spokespeople to monitor the strategy. Thank you.

Thank you very much, and thank you very much, Minister.

I'm very grateful, and I don't think there are any words in English or Welsh to express how happy I am to see the unity in this Chamber today over this purpose. I'm grateful to everyone. Thank you. I'm especially grateful to those who spoke of their personal experience. Thank you so much. And to hear of NHS toast being described like caviar—I've never heard that before, and I don't think I will again, but it was a very beautiful description. Thank you, all.

I wanted to come to a few very important things that Jane Dodds said earlier. First of all, she said about the optometry side, which is something that was echoed, of course, by the Minister himself. And I hope that she will be gratified to know that I have bored David O'Sullivan, the chief optometric officer, to death over multiple hours over my rumination as to how things should run in Wales, and he is exactly in line with everything. And I hope perhaps, for he asked me what time this would be on, that he might be even watching now, to say, 'David, there's work to be done.' Because primary care, as you well know and rightly pointed out, is absolutely a key element of fixing secondary care. They're two sides of the same coin; you can't fix one without the other. And the other thing you said was around—. Although you didn't say the word 'Datix', you implied Datix forms. They're forms that people fill out when bad things happen. And I completely concede that Welsh people, people living in Wales, are too stoical for their own good. They don't complain, and a common phrase, in fact, said amongst the ophthalmic community here is that, 'This wouldn't happen in Surrey.' I don't know much about people who live in Surrey—I imagine they complain at a more regular basis—but we don't complain very much at all, and it is to our detriment. Stoicism is good in some ways, but bad in others, and I wanted, lastly, to thank the Minister for his hard work in putting together the report last year. And I look forward, and I offer myself—and Safa as well; I'm sure she'd agree—[Laughter.]—to help you as much as possible to do what needs to be done to fix ophthalmology in Wales.

And I'll end by saying, for I'm wearing the tie of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists here, whose motto is 'ut omnes videant'—and if I was in teaching mode, I would ask, 'What does that mean?' to those who speak Latin—'so that all may see'. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Llywydd, I move the motion in the name of Llŷr Powell.

Tourism in Wales is not a 'nice to have' on the margins of our economy, it is one of the load-bearing pillars of it. Welsh Government's own data shows that this sector directly supports more than 150,000 jobs—nearly 12 per cent of all employment in Wales—and generates £3.8 billion, 5.1 per cent of our gross value added. These are not abstract statistics on a spreadsheet; this is the guesthouse in Tenby, the cafe in Betws-y-Coed, the outdoor activity centre in Eryri, the small hotel in Llandudno that keeps its lights on in February because it knows summer is coming.

In Pembrokeshire and Anglesey, more than one in five jobs sits within tourism. This is not a supplementary income stream for those communities; it is the backbone of their local economy. Four in five tourism enterprises in Wales employ fewer than nine people. This is a sector of family businesses and sole traders, not international hotel chains that can absorb bad policy and move on. When this Chamber legislates without understanding that reality, it is these people who pay the price. So, point one of this motion shouldn't be controversial, it simply asks the Senedd to recognise what is already true.

My colleagues were with the First Minister last Friday on a luxurious cruise ship in Holyhead port, and we were hearing about the good work that Cruise Wales and Holyhead Town Council have done to get more cruise ships to stop there on their British isles tours. There are around 60 a year at the moment, bringing close to £0.25 million to the immediate local economy, not to mention the wider benefits of showcasing north Wales to returning visitors. This is an excellent example of what can be achieved when Government works together with the sector, but these examples are few and far between.

Wales is currently the only UK nation yet to recover pre-pandemic visitor spend. Scotland's international spend was up 41 per cent on 2019, ours is still down. If we're serious about Wales being world class, this Chamber must ask why we're the exception and stop making decisions that make the answer worse.

The first bad decision: tourism tax. A tax on visitors is a tax on the jobs that serve them, a blunt instrument that hits small, rural and coastal operators hardest. And remember that Wales, as part of the UK, already charges 20 per cent value added tax on hospitality accommodation, more than double Germany's 7 per cent or France, Italy and Spain's 10 per cent. Layer a visitor levy on top of this and we're pricing Wales out of the market when we're trying to grow the sector. It's not even been implemented yet, but the perception of Wales taxing visitors, especially from England, I believe, has already had a negative impact on visitor numbers, and I'll let my colleagues expand on this further.

The second bad decision: introducing the 182-day rule. Nearly 40 per cent of genuine holiday lets are not making this unrealistic high bar of letting days. Independent survey evidence shows 47 per cent of owners are losing money as they're being classed wrongly as second homes. England's equivalent threshold is 70 nights, less than half ours. And there is no evidence so far that the higher Welsh bar achieves its aim of increasing the number of family homes in local communities. Protecting housing supply and community sustainability can be done through the planning system, not through an unfair fiscal tool, and I'll let my colleagues set out why that number needs to change.

We talk about sustainable tourism. What does that mean? Well to me, in my opinion, it means the visitor should bring maximum cash to the local economy for jobs and businesses, with minimum disturbance to daily life and no lasting change to the fabric of a community. But sometimes it feels there are winners and losers in our busy summers. The tourism sector makes the majority of their revenue over summer, but for those who can't park outside their house or find their bins full of visitors' litter, it can feel that they are not benefiting from this surge in numbers, and we totally get that. But this need not be the case.

We can have winners and winners if we ease up on regulation. Let the farmer open his field to cars on busy weekends in certain hotspots; let residents associations negotiate a residents' permit scheme, so locals get parking while visitors pay for theirs; let a village hall become the ticket office or shuttle bus pick-up point for a nearby attraction, taking a fee for the privilege. On this side of the Chamber, I have a whole bucketful of ideas to make sure that local communities benefit from this sector, but this doesn't include taxing visitors, leading them to go somewhere cheaper, which could literally be a few miles away in a different county that hasn't implemented the tax. Although I do not agree with the policy, if the previous Welsh Government wanted to implement the tourism tax, they should have had the guts to insist it was a Wales-wide policy rather than passing the buck to local authorities.

Sustainability also means a wide range of accommodation, so people stay rather than just visit for a day in tourism-specific places. This means relaxing regulations to support more hotels, bed and breakfasts, caravan parks and campsites. For example, we recently changed the law in Wales. We only allow 28 days of permitted development for a landowner to run a summer campsite. In England it's 60. Nobody will invest in water supply or temporary toilets for just 28 days of business. So, let's change that.

Sustainability means better transport and co-ordination around our tourism hotspots. I know, from a number of occasions, freezing cold at the base of yr Wyddfa waiting for the Sherpa bus that never arrived, that this system isn't good enough. I know there's a transport plan specifically for the Eryri National Park, but it currently remains a plan. Where is the Welsh explorer pass linking public transport to discounted attractions? Where's the Cadw castle pass, where you can visit as many castles as you can in a week and take a selfie at each one and get a discount in the shop? This is not a lack-of-resources issue. These things are often policy and partnership problems. We can do so much more to support the sector without taxing it.

And finally, I want to make this point about how the tourism and hospitality industry can make a vital contribution to stopping our rising youth unemployment. Almost everyone's first job was in hospitality. It teaches communication, quick thinking, hard work. Major hotel chains and tourism attractions employ lawyers, accountants, engineers, sales and marketing. It's not just making beds and serving tables, but for many of those best paid professionals, that's where they started. And I've seen first-hand how hospitality careers are valued across Europe.

I've visited Swiss hospitality schools, which are world class, drawing students from across the globe to prestigious courses. I recently set up a hospitality excellence fund with my local college, privately funded to help our students compete nationally to raise their game. We talk about ambition for Wales. So, why can't we compete with those Swiss colleges? Why can't we say proudly from the very top that hospitality in Wales is one of the best starts to a career? Where is the drive? Where is the ambition? Well, maybe it starts now.

In this Chamber, by supporting this motion and removing those two barriers—one fiscal, one regulatory—that the previous Government has put in the way of that sector's success, we need to be working cross-party to create an environment that encourages private business to invest in our tourism offer, high-value accommodation, world-class visitor attractions. Let's liberate the tourism sector, not strangle it with taxes and regulation. Llywydd, I commend the motion to the Senedd.

Formally.

I want to start by celebrating the huge contribution that tourism makes to Wales and my constituency in Ceredigion Penfro. Ceredigion Penfro is one of the most beautiful places in the world, shown by the millions who visit each year. In Ceredigion Penfro, you can travel from sandy beach to rolling hill to ancient woodland—and sometimes find all three in one place. From the only coastal national park in the UK in Pembrokeshire, to the remote wilderness of Ceredigion's Cambrian mountains. From Tenby to Trefdraeth and from Aberaeron to Arberth, it's no wonder that people across Wales and around the world want to visit Ceredigion Penfro.

Tourism accounts for around 13 per cent of all employment in Ceredigion and 23 per cent in Pembrokeshire, so I'm delighted that this Government recognises the importance of the tourism industry to Wales. But evidence gathered from the previous Government showed that high levels of tourism, if not managed, can have a negative impact on an area. High levels of second homes and short-term lets can impact on local housing markets and the sustainability of local communities, particularly in areas where properties are not occupied for much of the year.

It's important that we are promoting tourism that provides maximum benefit to our people, environment, language and culture, and I welcome the lots of ideas that have come up in this debate already. So, I fully support the Government taking steps to enable sustainable tourism that secures jobs and income into local economies and which benefits our communities, environment, language and culture. And I support measures that prevent harm. That's why I support the visitor levy as a choice for local authorities to ensure that local communities reap the rewards of tourism. Funds raised through the visitor levy enable investment in the local environment, the Welsh language and culture, and local infrastructure, which also supports tourism.

However, it's also important for the Government to act quickly when good policy intentions are not delivering the intended change and, in the case of the 182-day threshold, may be in danger of taking us in the wrong direction. Since becoming a Member of the Senedd, I've met with many constituents who have told me about the challenges that the 182-day rule for holiday lets is creating. I've heard about the pressure that the policy is putting on many self-catering businesses and the toll it is taking on people running local businesses. I've heard how it is threatening the viability of some local businesses, as well as jobs and spend in the wider economy, and I've also seen examples where it's not achieving the intended outcome for the local housing market.

So, whilst I fully support the intention of the 182-day rule, I also welcome this Plaid Cymru Government's commitment to keep the 182-day occupancy threshold under review, and I urge the Government to begin this work quickly, so that we can find pragmatic solutions that better support the original purpose of the policy. This should include whether 182 days is the right threshold, but also have clear and reasonable exemptions, particularly where a property would not qualify as a private home. We need clear guidance to avoid holiday let owners being left stunned by unaffordable backdated council bills, sometimes by three or four years, or living with the mental stress that they soon could be. So, that's why I'm pleased to support the Government amendment today, and I urge other Members to do so. Diolch.

I'm going to echo some of the things we've heard already today, but with a slightly different take. So, first off, tourism is one of Wales's greatest success stories. It does support around 159,000 jobs—almost one in every eight in Wales. Millions of visitors come here because of our coastline, countryside, history and culture. They support jobs, sustain businesses and bring vital income to many of our rural and coastal communities. Nowhere is that more evident than in my constituency of Gŵyr Abertawe, where the visitor economy contributes more than £700 million annually and supports around 5,500 jobs.

For many communities, tourism is not simply an important industry, it is the industry. It supports family businesses, keeps our high streets alive and helps sustain the very communities that people want to visit. When tourism prospers, our community prospers. But that prosperity depends on businesses having the confidence to invest, employ local people and plan for the future. Tourism businesses understand the need to support local communities and recognise the pressures on the housing market; what they need are policies that reflect the commercial realities of a seasonal industry.

We all share the same ambition: a successful tourism industry alongside communities where local people can afford to live. Indeed, your own manifesto recognised the importance of tourism, and I quote:

'Plaid Cymru recognises the importance of the tourism industry to Wales.'

'We will promote tourism which provides maximum benefit to our people, environment, language and culture'.

I agree with that ambition. The question is not the destination, the question is whether the route chosen is actually taking us there.

The issue I want to focus on today is the 182-day occupancy requirement for self-catering holiday accommodation. Let me be clear: this debate is not about whether there should be a qualifying threshold—the tourism industry accepts that there should be one; the question is whether 182 days is realistic, proportionate and evidence based.

Representatives from across the tourism industry have consistently argued that 105 days is a more realistic threshold for demonstrating genuine commercial activity. His Majesty's Revenue and Customs recognise 105 days of actual letting as a qualifying test for the furnished holiday lettings tax regime. Ministers may argue that the purposes are different, but the principle remains the same: identifying genuine commercial activity. And, I have to say, persuading HMRC to agree to anything outside their own way of thinking is no small achievement. It's certainly not an organisation renowned for changing its mind simply because somebody asked politely. So, what evidence led the previous Welsh Government, with Plaid Cymru support, to conclude that 182 days was a necessary and proportionate figure? Why 182? What modelling or economic assessment supported that decision? If that evidence exists, publish it.

The Government's stated objective was to increase the supply of homes for local people, but intentions do not automatically create good outcomes. The assumption behind the policy was that raising the threshold would return more properties to the residential market. But has that happened to any meaningful extent? Many tourism businesses report that income has fallen off significantly, with some parts of the self-catering sector reporting reductions of around 30 per cent. The Welsh Government's own tourism business barometer highlights continuing pressures within the sector. But reducing holiday lets was never the objective. The real test is whether more homes have become available for local people. So, the question remains: how many properties have actually returned to the residential housing market because of this policy? How many homes have become available to local families? What measurable improvement has there been in housing affordability or availability?

If the Government believes this policy has succeeded, publish the evidence. I understand Ministers are considering further flexibility and additional exemptions, and I welcome the fact that they are listening. But there is a certain irony here. A policy introduced to solve one problem is now requiring exemptions to solve the problems created by the policy itself. The tourism industry is not asking for special interest. The message is loud and clear: it is asking for a system that is fair, proportionate and based on evidence. So, Cabinet Minister, if you remain convinced that 182 days is the correct figure, publish the evidence that justifies choosing it. Publish the evidence that shows it has delivered more homes for local people. Because if this policy requires an ever-growing list of exemptions simply to make it workable, perhaps the problem is not the exemptions, perhaps it is the policy itself. Exemptions are not the answer. Good government is measured by whether policies deliver the outcomes they promise. If the evidence shows that this one is not, then we need real and substantial change. I call on all Members to support our motion. Thank you.

I think we can all agree that Wales is very much a world-class destination for tourism. That moment when you see someone posing for a photograph outside a castle or looking around at many of our museums or enjoying our national park—that is a special moment, and it should make us all proud. Because, of course, Wales does actually belong to all of us, and we're very lucky that we can share our beautiful country with people from all over the world. I often enjoy having family over and taking them up to Pen y Fan and getting them to do that early morning walk up the mountain, and, of course, the many lush waterfalls that we have.

But getting back to our capital city for a moment, we've had some incredible success lately in putting Cardiff on the map. In just the last decade, we hosted the UEFA Champions League final, which smashed the previous footfall record by bringing more than 310,000 people into our great city. We hosted Clash at the Castle, a real global event, and the company's first stadium event in the UK for over 30 years. Most of these spectators came from outside Wales, and when they were surveyed, they said they just wanted to explore a bit more. Last year, we had the European Rugby Champions Cup, and with the eyes of the world on them, Oasis chose Cardiff to kick off their reunion tour. All of these major events bring thousands and thousands of people who want to spend their time and money in Wales, and this brings me to the topic of this debate.

The Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Act 2025, which only became law last year, isn't even coming into effect anywhere until next April. So, we haven't had a chance yet to assess the positive impact that it can have on our communities. To be clear, this gave councils the choice to introduce a small charge on overnight accommodation after they had consulted with local residents and businesses. In Cardiff, we have chosen to introduce the levy, and it will come into effect next April. Anglesey, Conwy and Gwynedd councils are currently consulting, and they will make their decisions later this year. The challenges and the opportunities around the visitor economy will ebb and flow, and all councils are free to make their decisions in the future. And that's exactly the point here: this is a great example of devolving power beyond the Senedd, taking decisions closer to the people who live there.

Reform would have you believe that this is a tourism tax—they call it so, and they say that it's going to cost people in the future. On this idea that it is going to deter people from coming to Wales and spending their money here, the truth is that this is a visitor levy where local councils choose to adopt it and decide. It's £1.30 for a night. You can't even get a pint or a coffee for that much money. That's what we're talking about here—a very small contribution from people who have chosen to visit Wales, which will collectively make a real big difference.

Councils who adopt the visitor levy will spend that money on improving their tourism offer, protecting local nature and landmarks, and promoting Welsh culture. Surely these are objectives that we all support. Most importantly, the people who choose to come to Wales will be happy to support them too. This is a way of making sure that our visitor economy grows and the benefits feed back into our communities, creating good jobs, revitalising our towns and cities and protecting Welsh culture for future generations to enjoy.

This is all about making sure that the infrastructure works as well. This Government's amendment makes reference to two specific policies—

Will you accept an intervention?

Yes, go for it.

When you talk about £1.30 a night, you need to add the VAT on that for a lot of businesses. That comes up to £1.57. If you do the calculation on £500 for a cheap week in a caravan in my constituency, that's £65 extra tax for a family of five or six. So, that's not just a cappuccino, is it?

The fact of the matter is it's not something that we're going to agree on. So, let me just finish off.

First, on keeping the 182-day occupancy threshold for self-catering businesses under review, we absolutely support keeping this policy under review to ensure that it works as fairly and effectively as possible. Secondly, on the visitor levy, I've already set out the benefits. It's common practice, it happens across many parts of the world, and Scotland are now also looking to follow suit. This is ultimately all about choice. It's about giving choice and power to local people, to local councils, so that decisions that affect their communities can be made in those same communities. So, we will be supporting the Government amendment and we will continue to push for a thriving tourism economy all over Wales.

I strongly support this motion from my colleague Llŷr Powell. The tourism sector is not just a luxury for Wales—it is a lifeline. It contributes £3.8 billion to our economy and accounts for over 11 per cent of employment. This so-called visitor levy is the wrong tax at the wrong time. It is regressive by design. A £1.30 charge on a £50 room represents a far higher percentage increase than the same charge on a £200 room. It hits cheaper accommodation hardest, precisely the kind used by families, younger visitors and domestic tourists, the people who keep our smaller businesses alive. Smaller operators, often family-run, already face heavier administration burdens than the large chains. This levy imposes more paperwork, administration costs and responsibility. It is not progressive; it is a tax on aspiration.

Our accommodation providers are already struggling. Visitor numbers haven't recovered to pre-COVID levels. Cost-of-living pressures are squeezing domestic demand, whilst international visitors have cheap choices elsewhere. Visit our coastal towns and you will see the evidence: tired frontages, peeling paint and far too few high-quality new developments. If budget operators could simply raise their prices without losing occupancy, they would have done it years ago. Instead, many are fighting to survive.

These businesses are already heavily taxed and regulated. They collect VAT, they pay business rates, they pay corporation tax, they pay national insurance and they pay income tax on behalf of their staff. They generate additional revenue for the Government through alcohol, tobacco and waste charges. Yet now we ask them to become unpaid tax collectors once again, this time for a levy that, in practice, frees up council budgets for other spending rather than delivering genuine new investment in tourism.

Let me be frank about the numbers in my own area. Conwy council carries £230 million in debt, with annual interest and repayments exceeding £17 million. Conwy council's own impact assessment estimates that the visitor levy would raise £2 million a year. That's a sticking plaster. It's not a solution. Council overspending and poor financial management—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Can you confirm that you understand that the money raised from the visitor levy is ring-fenced for visitor purposes, not to pay debt or anything else?

The reality is that the council will redirect money that they're already using to support tourism. This basically plugs a hole of theirs and allows them to redirect that money elsewhere. And you already know that.

We should not take tourism for granted. People choose Wales for our coastline, our castles, mountains and culture, but above all for the Welsh welcome. Wales has the potential for immediate growth in tourism, but world-class status is not our birthright. It is earned every day by thousands of small business owners who invest their savings, time and energy into keeping hotels, guest houses, bed and breakfasts and campsites open and attractive. If those operators feel their efforts are being taken for granted, or that the Government is determined to stop them from making a living, they will invest elsewhere or simply give up.

The combination of this levy, the 182-day rule and the 20 mph speed limit is all sending exactly the wrong message: that Wales is becoming a less welcoming place for visitors and for those who serve them. We have a responsibility after a clear verdict by the Welsh people to review the previous Government's decisions. Scrapping this regressive levy and lowering the 182-day threshold would send a powerful positive signal: Wales is open for business and values tourism. Let us reject the politics of burden. Let us back growth, investment and opportunity. I urge the Senedd to support this motion. Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd.

As has already been said, the tourism sector is of huge importance to the communities I represent in Ceredigion Penfro, so I'm pleased to speak up on behalf of the tourism businesses and providers in my constituency who are operating under significant financial pressures.

Today's motion refers specifically to the visitor levy or the tourism tax and the 182-day occupancy threshold. I've made my views very clear on both of these policies. In fact, one of my very first actions in this Senedd was to appeal to the Cabinet Minister for Enterprise, Connectivity and Energy to reduce the 182-day threshold. And whilst we've heard some commitments from the Cabinet Minister for Finance about introducing exemptions, I do not believe that this goes far enough. I believe that there needs to be a fundamental rethink of this policy so that it's fairer for all providers, not just some.

I know the Cabinet Minister recognises the importance of tourism to supporting communities and strengthening local economies, and he's made it clear in correspondence to me that he wants to ensure his engagement with the tourism industry is constructive, evidence led and focused on supporting businesses to thrive. There's plenty of evidence to show that reducing the 182-day threshold will help the tourism sector and will help support businesses to thrive. Data from the Valuation Office Agency has shown that the number of self-catering businesses is down by 30.7 per cent, and yet in England, over the same period, the fall is only 12.2 per cent. In my view, the difference is because of the 182-day threshold. We've all heard compelling evidence why the threshold is unrealistic, how the market is changing, and why a one-size-fits-all approach just doesn't work. So I hope the Welsh Government will now reflect on the evidence that is already out there showing how damaging this policy really is.

And it's not just hurting Welsh business, it's hurting our people and our communities too. Ninety-four per cent of Welsh members of the Professional Association of Self-Caterers have said they are more stressed because of this specific policy. Many holiday let owners in my constituency are also farmers, who are already competing with so much red tape and regulation and have been pushed into diversifying over the years only to face even more red tape and regulation. I've also heard from countless owners about how their family has let their property for 20, 30, even 40 years, sometimes longer, and they are heartbroken that they're having to consider selling it now. These are people with deep connections to the communities where their properties are.

I've always believed that increasing taxes and regulations on one group of people does not make housing more affordable for another group of people. If we begin to see more tourism businesses close as a result of policies such as the 182-day threshold, there is no guarantee that those properties will become more accessible to local residents. Indeed, there's a real risk that they could instead be purchased by wealthier buyers from outside the area. And it also impacts our local communities. It could result in fewer visitors, which means reduced footfall and reduced spending in pubs, shops and local attractions, putting many tourism-related jobs at risk. And so, for those reasons, I hope the Welsh Government will be sincere in its commitment to reviewing the policy. The evidence is already mounting and action is needed now.

The same holiday owners who are struggling with the 182-day threshold are also facing business rate rises, tax changes and, from next April, a visitor levy could be introduced too. This levy does not support business owners and it does not maintain affordability for visitors. It's also highly likely to be applied inconsistently across local authority areas, pitting one county against another and risks worsening an already fragile tourism market. And this will not just only tax tourists, it will apply to everyone who stays overnight in Wales, including people within Wales. Llywydd, the tourism sector has been overwhelmed with additional financial pressures, and rather than pause and consider the cumulative impact of all of these policies, the previous Government added more burdens on business owners, and so the new Welsh Government has an opportunity here to reset the balance.

It also has an opportunity to take a more strategic approach to how the sector is valued and how its long-term sustainability can be secured. For example, how do we properly recognise the contribution made by seasonal workers within our communities, or by those who rely on multiple part-time jobs in the tourism and hospitality industries? These are important questions that require thoughtful consideration if we are serious about supporting a thriving tourism sector, while delivering sustainable economic growth in our communities across Wales.

So, Llywydd, I look forward to hearing from the Cabinet Minister about his views on these issues and how we can create conditions for the sector to grow and flourish in the future. I can confirm that the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting this motion.

I rise today to address yet another example of Welsh Government introducing policy without fully understanding the consequences. I refer to the 182-day occupancy requirement for self-catering accommodation providers. The policy was supposed to help tackle housing pressures and the impact of second homes. Instead, it is placing genuine tourism businesses under increasing strain, particularly in Ceredigion Penfro.

Since 2023, holiday-let operators have had to achieve 182 days of commercial occupancy to qualify for business rates rather than council tax. If they fail to meet the threshold, they can face significant additional costs, often including second home premiums. In theory, Ministers may argue that this sounds reasonable, but governing is not done in theory. It must be rooted in the realities faced by communities in Tenby, Saundersfoot, Newport, St Davids, Aberaeron, Newquay and countless other coastal and rural towns whose economies depend heavily upon seasonal tourism. Owners cannot control the weather. They cannot control rising living costs that reduce holiday bookings. They cannot control wider economy uncertainty, and they also cannot control the fact that west Wales remains a highly seasonable tourism market. Yet Welsh operators face one of the highest occupancy thresholds anywhere in these islands.

Reports suggest that almost 40 per cent of operators have failed to meet the target while many are now questioning whether their business should remain viable. These are not large investors. They are family-run businesses that support jobs and local economies. They employ local cleaners, gardeners, tradespeople and maintenance workers. They support cafes, pubs, restaurants, shops and visitor attractions across our communities.

What is particularly difficult to justify is the comparison with England. There is the equivalent threshold of 70 nights. In Wales, it is 182—more than double. So, where is the evidence that this higher threshold is delivering better outcomes? Has housing become more affordable in Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion? Has the housing supply significantly increased? Or has this policy simply created financial pressures and uncertainty for local tourism and businesses? The evidence increasingly points to the latter.

The Government's consultation generated over 1,200 responses, yet the result was largely administrative changes and technical exemptions. The central issue remained untouched: the threshold itself. This is not about protecting second homes, or those who exploit loopholes, it is about recognising that legitimate tourism businesses should not be penalised because they cannot guarantee year-round demand. The realities of Ceredigion and Penfro are not the realities of Cardiff. A one-size-fits-all approach simply does not work.

At Reform UK, we believe that Government should support enterprise, not burden it. If housing supply is the problem, build more homes. If affordability is the issue, reform planning and increase housing delivery. But please do not place the blame on small businesses that create jobs and support one of Wales's most important industries. So, I urge this Government to think again. Please review the 180-day rule, work with the tourism sector and local communities and introduce a fairer, more flexible approach that reflects the realities of rural Wales. Because good policy should be based on evidence, common sense and economic reality, not arbitrary targets that risk damaging the very communities that they claim to help. Diolch.

I don't want to use many words, you'll be glad to hear. The truth is that tourism taxes are common worldwide, including in Amsterdam, Venice, Barcelona and Paris, some of the cities with the greatest influx of tourists in the world. And of course, by now, there are great parts of England that have this tax—and in Scotland as well—including Liverpool and Manchester on our doorstep. The tax does not penalise the tourism sector, rather it boosts income for local government to improve our areas, to reinvest, to improve visitor amenities in the area, improving the feel of our tourism destinations and therefore facilitating sustainable tourism.

We as a party have long understood and appreciated the importance of tourism to our economy—I can say that as somebody who had family in the sector—and we take pride in the fact that we can show the beauty of our country to people from across the globe, but this must also bring benefits to those who host the tourists and our communities. One way of ensuring this is by introducing a tourism tax. What's important to note, at a time when many people speak of devolving powers to local government, is that it's up to our local authorities to introduce the tax, not the Welsh Government. If a council doesn't think it's a good idea, they don't have to introduce it, but this ensures that they have the power to do so, if they wish, to help with the cost pressures that they face.

This fund needs to be used to improve infrastructure, to enhance the tourist experience—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, go on.

Obviously, councils that have a lot of tourism have an enhanced population grant, which is exactly what's there to fund those issues, so we don't need another source of income. Do you agree or disagree?

Well, I prefer this as a clear model.

These funds have to be used to improve our infrastructure—that's the reality—and this is a matter of improving our tourism offer, not penalising the sector.

A Plaid Cymru Government will promote Wales as a first-rate tourist destination, focusing on ensuring that tourism works sustainably for Wales's communities, learning lessons from our Celtic colleagues in Ireland and Scotland, who maximise their international connections. And in the same way, Wales could emulate that success and sell Wales as a special, unique and fascinating place to visit, making use of that sense of place, focusing on language, culture, food and drink and our environment as unique factors, and through that ensure that the tourism sector isn't just sustainable, but that community sustainability principles are central to the sector too. Thank you.

I thought it was important for me to speak on this topic, given that, in my previous role as leader of Cardiff Council, one of the final decisions I took formally was the decision to introduce the visitor levy to the capital city.

I did so for a very specific reason. Over 20 million people visit Cardiff every year, and we wanted to grow that number further, whilst also recognising and responding to the pressures that those visitors bring to the city. Over decades, Cardiff has built an enviable reputation as a destination for major sporting and cultural events. Every summer, the city teems with live music in our stadium, our castle and our parks. The new indoor arena, now under construction, will bring a further 1 million visitors every year to the city. From the Champions League final that Shav referenced to the Tour de France to the European football championship in 2028, a team Wales approach between Welsh Government, Cardiff Council and other partners has allowed Cardiff to secure some of the world's premier sporting events over the years.

I know from my unsuccessful attempt to purchase a ticket to see Oasis how much visitors are prepared to pay to purchase these golden tickets. If you've travelled from North America to see Taylor Swift, my guess is you're not going to worry about paying a visitor levy of £1.30.

Here's the mad thing, for all the visitors that come to Cardiff, often as part of events that the council is delivering, for all the money they spend in local bars, restaurants, hotels, for all the overnight clean-up operations required after 70,000 people have partied in the Principality, the council receives not one penny of income, thanks to the completely centralised taxation system we have in this country.

A visitor levy, estimated to raise about £3.5 million a year for Cardiff, starts to change that calculation so that the council raises revenue from major events to in turn fund a better experience for visitors and residents alike. And it will also allow Cardiff to attract new events to the city and also better market ourselves internationally. That was the calculation in proposing a levy.

In the extensive consultation carried out with key stakeholders and the general public, of the 2,000 responses received, 62 per cent supported those proposals, recognising how the money would be ring-fenced to support the visitor economy. It's not a tourism tax, it's an investment in tourism. It's a modest contribution from visitors towards services, infrastructure and attractions that make Wales such a desirable place to visit in the first place.

Elwyn Vaughan references—

Liverpool and Manchester. The Chamber might be interested to know that the systems working there are voluntary schemes. It's the councils, city councils and local businesses that have come together to agree those measures. And I know, from speaking to the leaders of those councils, that they are envious of the powers that local authorities in Wales now have.

The Member opposite named a number of fantastic Welsh destinations in her opening remarks. None of the councils in those areas have confirmed plans to introduce the visitor levy. In fact, many have already ruled it out. And that's the beauty of this legislation, that it enshrines local decision making. They have the freedom to consult, consider the evidence and make a local decision. Cardiff has chosen to do so. Other authorities are consulting on the possibility. But as Paul Marr put it, a one-size approach does not work. So, having local decision making is key, local democracy working as it should. I'm stunned that the party there and the party here don't support that principle of local decision making.

Llywydd, I've been very fortunate to have spent many of my holidays in recent years in Wales. From our ancient mountains to our glorious beaches, to the glorious food in our restaurants, to the uniqueness of our cultural centres and museums, Wales has an offer that can compete with the best destinations in the world. Let us be confident in that offer. And rather than scaremongering and shroud waving to make political points, let us promote Wales together. Thank you.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. There's a basic law of taxation that we understand. Let's have some examples. If you tax smoking, you get less smoking. If you tax jobs, you get fewer jobs. If you tax private education, as we've seen in the last few days, you get less private education. It's about time that we realised that. Wales is not exceptional. We do not have large numbers of foreign tourists who will compensate for this. Please, please think very carefully about that and support the motion of Llŷr Powell. Thank you, Presiding Officer.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'd first of all like to thank Llŷr Powell for tabling this debate, and to Louise Emery for opening the debate and doing so in a balanced way that included some sincerely held disagreements and scrutiny, but also offered constructive ideas, and I think that that always reflects well on our democracy, that we have that combination of factors. And I will return to some of the main points of disagreement between us as I move through my speech, but I'd like to respond to some of the ideas that Louise put forward, which are interesting, and certainly I would be more than willing to look at how we can strengthen hospitality training and to learn from Switzerland in that regard and the connections that she's already built, and also those ideas on the travel passes as well as the Cadw pass that she mentioned. And I know, having spoken to Louise, that there is a whole host of ideas that she also has, and we are always willing, of course, to look at those in a constructive manner. That is true, of course, across the Senedd.

Let me first of all turn to the ambition: a visitor economy that works for Wales, works for our communities, for the businesses that rely on that economy, and for the people who live in those areas where the world wishes to visit. The first part of the motion calls on us to recognise the contribution of the sector, and I do that gladly on behalf of the Government. Around one in eight workers in Wales work in tourism and hospitality, and, unlike many other sectors, that work is distributed the length and breadth of the country, maintaining incomes in rural and coastal communities where other opportunities are scarce. Those aren't figures in a spreadsheet, they are livelihoods.

And I agree entirely with the second part of the motion: Wales is a world-class destination, and that is a cause of celebration. We've been very lucky to live in a country with glorious views, glorious coastline, outdoor activities that are unsurpassed, excellent food and drink, and a warm Welsh welcome. Our work is to make the most of that good luck; that's what Visit Wales does, strengthening our international profile through activities in Europe, the United States and beyond, bringing visitor expenditure and benefits to all parts of Wales.

Llywydd, next year, that international profile takes on a new dimension. Wales steps on to one of the biggest sporting stages on earth as we welcome hundreds of thousands of Tour de France fans, and there's a certain justice in it—for decades we've been apologising to cyclists for our gradients, and now the greatest race on earth is coming precisely because of them. It turns out we were sitting on a world-class asset all along.

But a great event that leaves nothing behind is just a party. Our ambition is a legacy, so I'm proud to announce today a £4.5 million investment over 2026 and 2027 in tourism-related cycling infrastructure. The peloton will pass through Wales in a matter of hours. What it leaves behind must last for decades. This is about converting a moment of global attention into a permanent national asset—routes, facilities and businesses that serve visitors and communities long after the last rider has crossed the line.

And if we're inviting the world in, the welcome must be real for everyone. A quarter of all visitors to Wales are disabled; if Wales says 'croeso' to the world, that word cannot come with small print. It must hold true for disabled visitors, neurodivergent visitors and people with hidden conditions and barriers. That's why I'm launching Croeso i Bawb, £2 million in grant funding to help tourism and hospitality businesses open their doors wider still. Accessibility is good business, but, more than that, it is simply what 'hospitality' means.

Let me turn now to the two questions at the heart of this debate. Firstly, the visitor levy. Where tourism happens, there are impacts on the local area. That's not a criticism of the sector, it's a facet of success. Visitor levies are neither unusual nor untested. They operate successfully in destinations across Europe and the world, providing resources for the very infrastructure and services that make places worth visiting in the first place. It's, rightly, for each local authority to consult and decide, but, where a levy is introduced, it's an opportunity to make the visitor economy work both for the sector and for the communities that host it, and this Government supports that model.

Second, the 182-day letting threshold. Tourism matters to our economy; so do homes for local people. Those two truths must be held in balance. And where the balance is wrong, we will act. That's why our manifesto committed to reviewing the threshold and creating clear, reasonable exemptions where self-catering accommodation would not qualify as a private home. The Cabinet Minister for Finance is considering these matters as an early priority and will set out our proposals in due course.

Llywydd, the First Minister has said that he is committed to learning at all times, and that will be my approach too. I meet the chairs of the regional tourism forums later this month, and over the summer I'll continue taking evidence directly from sector representatives across Wales, but I do want to go further. Over the course of this term, we are committed to examining whether the form and function of Visit Wales is right for the sector it serves. I believe the moment has come for a proper stocktake, a reset moment between Government and the sector, leading to a shared vision and action plan, a new deal for the visitor economy. I want the sector to help shape it, and I want the Senedd to help shape it too—the cross-party group, Members on all sides, including the parties opposite and the party behind me—for the whole of Wales, built by the whole of Wales. And in that spirit, let me turn now to the contributions Members have made this afternoon.

Anna Nicholl shared some of her constituents' experiences, and I think that, in listening and learning, we need to hold those experiences right at the heart of everything that we do. Steven Rodaway asked us to look at the evidence base, and we certainly will be committed in this and in everything we do to ground everything in the evidence base. We urge Members that want to bring data to our attention to do so, and we will do so ourselves in a transparent manner. I welcome the positive contribution from Shavanah Taj. The levy used well, in partnership with the sector, as we know from across Europe and the world, can actually be an engine of growth and development for the sector. And I know that's the kind of approach that's been taken by the sector in Cardiff. There could be lessons elsewhere in Wales.

I am out of time at this point. The flesh was willing, but the spirit was weak. [Laughter.] All I would say in closing is: look, every nation tells the world a story about itself, and tourism is how the world comes to hear ours. Let's make sure that story is worthy of the country and the country worthy of the welcome.

'Welcome' is the first word that Wales says to the world; let's make sure that we always say it from the bottom of our hearts. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you to all Members who have contributed so far. Minister, can I also welcome your announcement mere minutes ago of extra millions of pounds for the tourism industry? You've made me rewrite the start of my speech quickly, but I have to welcome that announcement. I am so glad that it was Reform's debate today that has enabled you to bring that money forward for the tourism industry.

Tourism is an essential part of the lifeblood that sustains towns and villages across our great country. I think of towns like Tywyn, Rhyl, Prestatyn, Llangollen, Llandudno, Barmouth, and so many others where this industry is not just important, it is essential. This is why this debate is so important. This industry and its supply chains and the businesses that are attached to it run through every single part of Wales. So, can I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate so far?

It is critical that this place recognises the importance of this industry to Wales and hears the concerns that are coming directly from the industry. So, can I thank Paul Marr and Paul Davies? The both of you have explained clearly today the impact of the policies that we're talking about here and the impact of those policies on the tourism industry in your constituencies. We must never forget, Members, that, when this place passes down legislation, introduces new taxes or burdens industry with more red tape, there are real people at the other end.

Can I thank Louise Emery? Her knowledge, experience and years of promoting this industry, not just with words but with direct action, has been remarkable. We both share the view that the tourism sector is a key pillar to the economy in Wales, but Louise has gone further and she has shone a light on how this place, this Government, can work proactively with the industry. As we've heard, this industry can be key to us tackling issues such as youth unemployment. Particularly with all of the talk of those not in education, employment or training, you would be hard pressed to find an industry more experienced in providing youth employment opportunities than the tourism sector.

Louise has shown also how on these benches in Reform we recognise the importance of sustainable tourism. We recognise that this, like any other industry, can have an impact on the area that they operate in. However, to address this we need targeted local action, working with local stakeholders. We don't need nationwide regulations or more taxation—an approach that amounts to taking a sledgehammer to the issue.

I'd also like to thank my colleague John Clark for highlighting what the industry itself is telling us. They have still not seen a return to pre-pandemic visitor numbers and the challenge that this industry has in attracting visitors here against our international competitors in Europe is stark. With all that in mind, we must accept that surely our best way forward is to work with the industry to break down cost barriers, so businesses can better compete with international markets. A visitor levy won't do that. As already highlighted, most overnight stays are already subject to VAT, and, in comparison to our European rivals, we are already taxing overnight visitors at a much higher rate. Applying a visitor levy on top of VAT will simply be implementing a tax on top of a tax. Additionally, this approach will hit working and low-income families hardest. It'll have little impact on the high-end tourism across Wales, but will dramatically hammer more affordable holiday options and smaller businesses. Governments of the past have had the approach of trying to tax or regulate this industry into growth. That will never work.

I'd also thank Steven Rodaway as well. You're absolutely right. The industry has spoken. The 182-day rule is too restrictive and it is damaging the industry and the people that work within this sector.

And I want to turn to the amendment that the Government has put before us. In the amendment, it says that they will keep the 182-day rule under review. Members, we've heard today about the pressures the industry is under and we understand the importance of this industry to every corner of Wales. Saying that you're going to keep it 'under review' is not good enough. The industry is struggling. It needs our support, not a Government holding response. Also, what I will mention is it has been brought up today that the 182-day rule would help address the housing crisis in Wales. It hasn't. We still have a housing crisis. We have a housing crisis because we've had decades of a Welsh Government failing to build enough homes. Please don't try and scapegoat that to the tourism industry. If you want to address the housing crisis in Wales, get on and build more homes.

Then the amendment says that the visitor levy is about giving local councils a choice in introducing the levy to help fund improvements to the tourism sector locally. This is a false narrative, Members. As someone who has spent the last four years in local government, I know first-hand the pressures that councils are facing. Any moneys from this levy will not go to tourism investment. If you put this power in local councils' hands to levy additional taxation on local businesses, they will use it to ease their financial pressures, mostly in education and social care, not pressures caused by the tourism industry. Additionally, as the Government should well know, there are already provisions in the local government funding formula to support councils to deal with tourism-related pressures. Councils with high numbers of tourists already receive an uplift in funding. So, if you're concerned about councils managing tourism-related pressures, you want councils to invest in the tourism sector locally, or want to protect council services, then fund councils properly. Do not scapegoat this again to the tourism sector for Cardiff Bay funding failures.

Members, we have heard that the sector is a vital component of our economy in Wales, and we've heard how this slate of legislation is burdening it. We have the opportunity to tell the industry that we stand with them. Members, reject the amendment and support our motion.

With a population of around 750,000, almost a quarter of Wales's population live in the south Wales coalfield areas, covering much of the Valleys, extending from Carmarthenshire in the west to Torfaen, the eastern valley. This area has been slower to recover from the decline of the coal industry than many other former coalfield areas in Britain. The former coalfield community in my constituency extends down from Blaenavon to Pontypool, with a population of almost 25,000. Pontypool, my bro fy mebyd, and communities across Torfaen are proud places with a strong history and identity. Post-industrial communities like these have yet to fully recover from Thatcher's de-industrialisation. Austerity has only made this worse.

In this area, inequalities are clear to see. They're a living scar. To highlight some of the inequalities, I've seen data that compares the two council areas within my constituency. These comparisons are not intended to dismiss the very real challenges faced in Monmouthshire, but to illustrate the inequalities that exist between neighbouring communities.

Cancer incidence in the Torfaen coalfield wards is higher than the rest of my constituency. Similarly, chronic conditions are 5 per cent more common in the Torfaen wards. Mental health conditions are present in a third of GP cases in the Torfaen wards. Premature deaths and long-term illness are much higher in Torfaen than in Monmouthshire. So too are personal independence payment and universal credit claimants. This makes the residents in Torfaen much more vulnerable to UK Government benefit changes. But every statistic represents a person who may be struggling to find work, or a family who may be struggling with the health of one or more of its members, a child going to school hungry.

Two points that are particularly important to me, which have had a direct impact on my family, and I'd like to reflect on, are cancer and mental health. People in the most deprived communities are more likely to be diagnosed with cancer and significantly more likely to die from it. The evidence shows that lower screening uptake and wider social inequalities continue to drive these outcomes. In a previous life, I worked on a campaign to increase the uptake of screening for breast cancer in Wales. This need still remains.

When it comes to mental health, the picture is not as clear because data is patchy at best, as we heard yesterday. What's more, official statistics don't encourage us to look at mental health through the lens of the former coalfield communities. But the evidence we do have points in a clear direction. A 2026 study, published in the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, found that people living in areas with a stronger history of coal mining in Wales reported poorer mental health than people living in non-coalfield areas. That link was strongest amongst the generations who lived through the decline of the coal industry, but it continues to shape mental health across generations today.

I was proud to hear the Deputy Minister for Social Care, Mental Health and Women’s Health yesterday outlining her commitment to improving mental health provision. We know that waiting lists for mental health services are too long, and third sector partners are playing a vital role in helping to alleviate some of these pressures, including places like Tidy Butt, a small community-based charity in Pontypool, which is providing counselling sessions to those who need support. I only wish that there were more opportunities for counselling, as we've lost too many people along the way, including in my own family.

We know that health barriers do not stop at the clinic door or at the end of a waiting list. For many people, poor health is made harder by everything else going on around them: not having enough money, struggling to get to appointments, living in a home that is not suitable, feeling isolated, or simply not knowing where to turn.

Take transport. In Blaenavon, people supported by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust have spoken about how difficult it can be when there is no community transport. For someone going to Velindre Cancer Centre for chemotherapy or radiotherapy, treatment can mean travelling up to five days a week for several weeks. If they rely on hospital transport, they can be picked up hours before their appointment and get home hours afterwards. And unless there's an approved clinical need, they may have to make that journey without a family member or a carer with them. For someone who is already exhausted, vulnerable and immunosuppressed, that's not a small thing. It affects their well-being, their quality of life, and sometimes even the choices they feel able to make about their treatment. This is what inequality looks like in practice. Where you live and what transport is available to you can shape your experience of cancer care.

Housing is another example. The trust told me about someone they supported whose cancer treatment was put on hold because their housing was not suitable for safe treatment and recovery. In that case, the wrong home became a barrier to their healthcare.

Then there's money and food. Another person supported by the Coalfields Regeneration Trust was going through cancer treatment when their household income fell because of their diagnosis. They were helped to secure a Macmillan grant, and emergency food support was arranged while longer term solutions were put in place. That kind of practical help can make a real difference. It can take away some of the pressures that are stopping people from focusing on their treatment and recovery. And I'd really like to invite the Minister to come and see some of this work that's happening.

Finally, there's isolation. Often people feel anxious or overwhelmed after a diagnosis. That's especially true for people living alone, older people and those who do not have a strong support network around them. In those moments, practical help with benefits, transport, housing, money and social connection can make a real difference to someone's confidence and well-being.

There are so many more barriers that I could go into, but time is limited. I've not had the chance to talk about respiratory issues, for example, or the work that's happening as part of the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government's 100 days to improve funding of GP services, ensuring people have access to primary care when needed.

But, one thing that does definitely needs mentioning is the economy. So many aspects in that vicious circle we've mentioned can be altered with an economic uplift. More local shops can make it easier for people to get those essentials, and cafes and pubs can all build communities. Local enterprise can play a key role in reducing inequalities. Coalfield areas do not lack enterprise. There are some fantastic local businesses based in Blaenavon, including a new fruit and veg shop, some amazing cafes and community enterprises, and, of course, Blaenafon Cheddar Company, which was crowned champion in the local food and drink category in the Welsh Countryside Alliance awards recently. These businesses and other entrepreneurs want to make a difference in their community. They must be supported to do so.

Evidence tells us that former coalfield communities continue to face significant social, economic and health disadvantages. Lower employment, higher levels of economic inactivity linked to long-term sickness, poorer health outcomes and deeper concentrations of deprivation are not abstract policy terms, they are the lived reality of communities like those in Torfaen and across the south Wales coalfield. And, of course, not every challenge faced by former coalfield communities is unique to those communities. Poverty exists in rural Wales, in urban Wales and in communities right across the country, but what we see in the coalfield is a significant concentration of disadvantage, shaped both by present-day deprivation and by the long shadow of industrial decline.

I'm so pleased that this Government has a focus on preventing ill health, because if we only intervene at the point of crisis, when somebody's already ill, already out of work, already in unsuitable housing, or already struggling to cope, then we're not tackling inequality at its root; we're simply managing its consequences. There are no quick fixes, but there is a place to start. We start by properly understanding the coalfield, its history, its strengths and the specific barriers its communities still face. We start by recognising that prevention cannot be a slogan; it has to mean shifting resources earlier, closer to communities and towards the conditions that keep people well in the first place. If we're serious about tackling inequality, then that preventative approach has to include extra effort in places where inequality is deepest.

People are right to feel that they've been left behind. They're right to feel that the promises made to post-industrial communities have not always been matched by the investment, attention and ambition needed to change outcomes. Former coalfield communities do not need sympathy; they need fairness, focus and a Government willing to match the pride and resilience of those communities with the resources and long-term commitment they deserve. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank Matthew for giving me a minute of his time today to speak in this debate? In a debate like this, it would be easy and entirely justified to dwell on the injustices of the past, but, while we must acknowledge that history, we also have a responsibility to look ahead. There is much that could be said, but, like Matthew, I want to focus on one aspect in particular, and it is one that Matthew has already mentioned, and it may seem a little left field, but that is the role of our town centres in supporting healthier, stronger communities.

The insecurities of the post-mining economy in south Wales brought new health challenges, compounded by the degeneration of town centres that once fostered association and community, that once housed places that gave people connection and purpose. Communities have paid a high price as a result of their loss, reflected in rising levels of isolation and loneliness, as Matthew so eloquently mentioned, leading, inevitably, to poorer health outcomes. This is why the regeneration of our town centres is an economic question, but also, in part, a public health intervention.

Some coalfield communities have managed to avoid the hollowing out of their town centres, and while not without their challenges, they're doing more than simply surviving. My home of Treorchy was recognised as the UK's High Street of the Year in 2020, and, awards aside, if we're serious about tackling health inequalities in our former coalfield communities, then surely we must also be serious about rebuilding the places that bring people together and restoring that culture of communal life that orbited the old industries, thereby combating loneliness and isolation. As Matthew said, again, there's plenty of local initiative and imagination, and I'm confident that our Government will provide the support to enable this generation to support improved health outcomes for our coalfield communities. Diolch.

Thank you, Llywydd. I very much welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate, to emphasise how important our coalfield communities are to this Government, and the need for us, as a new Government, to understand their specific needs, as well as to outline how we will acknowledge this and act accordingly during this Senedd term. I know that these issues are very important to the Member, as we've heard this afternoon, and I thank him for presenting them today. And I look forward to working with him during this term to highlight the issues that our coalfield communities face and to act to bridge the unacceptable health gap that exists.

It's also notable that this is the second time in a fortnight that we've discussed health inequalities. This reflects this subject's importance to the new Senedd and Members of the Senedd, which is hugely encouraging, and the importance of that is shared by this Government, and we take pride in that.

This is the first time that we've truly focused on preventative healthcare in Government. And as we've heard from Matthew, these diverse elements that dovetail across every portfolio area ensure that we're going to have that preventative lens on the decisions that we make. It's an uncomfortable fact but one that we must accept that, in Wales today, where a person is born, where they're brought up and where they live has a deep influence on their health, on their life expectancy and how many years they can expect to live in good health. And nowhere demonstrates these health inequalities that we face more than our former mining communities.

From Blaenau Gwent, Torfaen and through to Merthyr, Rhondda Cynon Taf, Caerphilly, Neath Port Talbot, Swansea and part of Carmarthenshire, we see that families and communities that helped build modern Wales now experience social, economic, environmental and health challenges. These communities powered the industrial revolution and fuelled the prosperity of Wales and far beyond. They produced the coal and steel that helped shape modern Britain, and they built strong traditions of solidarity, resilience and community that remain a source of pride today. But our industrial heritage has left a legacy.

The health inequalities that we see today are the result of long-term social and economic change. They have been shaped by our industrial past and by the decline of the industries on which many families and communities depended. The economic hardship, unemployment and underinvestment that followed are responsible for that legacy, affecting opportunities, well-being and health outcomes across generations. The inequalities we see today did not happen by chance; they are a result of political choices made over many years by previous Welsh Governments and successive Westminster Governments that failed to give enough priority to closing the gaps that our communities continue to face—gaps in wealth, gaps in opportunity and ultimately in health.

Too many people have been held back by circumstances beyond their control, and those inequalities have been allowed to persist for far too long. This Government is determined to change that. We are committed to understanding the challenges that people face, tackling inequality wherever it exists and making fairness the foundation of everything we do. Ensuring that reducing health inequalities is embedded across every part of Government is my responsibility, because, as we've heard, improving health cannot be the job of the health service alone; it must be at the heart of every decision that we make.

Too many people in Wales can expect to spend far fewer years in good health than they should. In just a few years, healthy life expectancy has dropped by over two years for men, and two and a half years for women in Wales. This isn't a gradual change; it's a clear warning that the nation's health is getting worse. The challenge is particularly acute in the south Wales coalfields, where healthy life expectancy is below the Welsh average for both men and women. In Cwm Taf Morgannwg, girls can expect just 55 years of good health, and boys 56 years, which are the lowest figures in Wales. This is just simply not fair. It's about people spending longer periods of their lives living with illness, people losing their independence, families facing hardships and more pressures on our public services. In some of our most deprived communities, men live 18 years less in good health than those in the most affluent communities—18 years less in good health—and, for women, the gap is 19 years. That is the legacy that we are dealing with.

The gaps that we see in healthy life expectancy are much more than about health alone. They tell a story about opportunity, economic security and whether people have access to the things that help prevent ill health and support healthy lives. That is why this Government speaks as one in our focus on prevention and promoting people's physical and mental health and well-being across everything the Welsh Government does, and why my role, the first of its kind in devolution, was created. If we want healthier populations, we must look beyond hospitals and GP surgeries. Health is fundamentally shaped by our homes, our schools, our workplaces and the strength of our communities. Action on poverty, housing, education and employment is also action on health. Tackling the root causes is essential if you want to reduce inequalities and help people live healthier lives for longer. We need to help individuals, families and communities across Wales to be their best. Our communities are strong and resilient. They are best placed to shape their futures. That is why this Government's commitment to prevention is also a commitment to fairness and empowering communities to build on their strengths, support local leadership and create a healthier, more prosperous future for generations to come.

There are encouraging signs of change across the coalfields areas that we can learn from and we will build on. The Coalfields Regeneration Trust—about which I must declare an interest, as I used to work with them last year—who my colleague talked about earlier, provides a strong example of community-led change, supporting jobs, skills and community development in former mining areas, and helping communities build healthier and more prosperous futures. Their work in tackling health inequality is to be championed and built on.

In Gwent, Wales's first Marmot region is bringing partners together to tackle the root causes of poor health through action on poverty, housing, employment and community well-being. This involves adopting public health expert Sir Michael Marmot's eight principles, which aim to eliminate unfair and avoidable differences in health, which can be caused by where people live, what kind of job they do and how they're treated in society. Places such as Torfaen have been at the forefront of this work, demonstrating how co-ordinated action across public services and communities can reduce inequalities and improve health outcomes.

The Torfaen deal provides a clear example. Built around shared ambition for a fairer, healthier and more resilient borough, it brings together residents, public services and community partners to co-design solutions to local challenges, focusing on the things that most shape health. I've been lucky enough to meet the chief exec of Torfaen local authority, Stephen Vickers, who is a leader in this field, and I would urge everybody interested in the Marmot principles to meet him and to see the brilliant work that they're doing to embed reducing health inequalities across all decision making across that local authority, from planning to delivering of services to building resilient communities.

Torfaen has recognised that health is created in our homes, in our schools, workplaces, neighbourhoods, and not just in our hospitals. It is exactly the kind of preventative, community-led approach that can help narrow inequalities and improve health outcomes for future generations. The Health Equity Wales initiative is helping accelerate this change, working in partnership with and learning lessons from local authorities, health boards and communities from across Cardiff, Denbighshire, Merthyr, Neath Port Talbot, Torfaen, Blaenau Gwent and RCT. Together, this growing number of partner organisations are committed to strengthening the ability of all places in Wales to act on health inequalities.

Last month, I visited the Happy Healthy Blaenau Gwent initiative, where I saw first-hand the impact of a preventative approach through social prescribing. It was a powerful reminder that improving health is more than just treating illness. Initiatives like this can improve well-being, strengthening community connections, and, for some people, provide the first step towards building confidence and moving closer to employment. By listening to local people and building on local strengths, we can create healthier and fairer communities.

Ultimately, our ambition is simple: to ensure that no community's future is determined by its past, and that places that contributed so much to Wales's prosperity are given every opportunity to share in Wales's future prosperity. The debate that we held two weeks ago about health inequalities in Cardiff was important because it reminded us that health inequalities remain a reality in modern Wales. Yet we can see something else: communities with enormous strength, deep resilience and a determination to build a better future. We owe it to those communities to untap the potential and build on our strength to spread prosperity to our coalfield communities and to all parts of Wales.

Next week in the Siambr, I'll be setting out my priorities for public and preventative health in Wales. The challenge before us is not simply to treat illness more effectively, it is to create the conditions across Government for better health for all. Because good health should never depend on wealth. Because where someone is born should not determine how long they live. And because the gap between the healthiest and the least healthy communities in Wales is not inevitable.

This Government is committed to tackling the fundamental causes of ill health, to tackling inequalities wherever they arise, and to ensuring that the preventative approach is central to the Government's work, so that we can build a Wales where everyone in our communities or anywhere else in Wales can have the opportunity to live a longer and healthier life.

I'd like to thank the Member for bringing forward this debate today. There's no doubt that you're going to be a strong and passionate representative of your communities. I would be very happy to visit the projects that you've mentioned. That is our ambition as a Government, and that's the task that we are determined to accomplish. Thank you.