Plenary

Thanks so much for your response. Cabinet Secretary, over the summer, I met up with a group of residents in Newport who are concerned that they are poised to lose the only community green space in their area, and a plan has been drawn up by Newport City Council. Constituents of mine, particularly dog walkers, children and families, make full use of a parcel of land just off Ruskin Avenue in Rogerstone North, but that could soon come to an end if the local authority rubber-stamps the plan to turn the community green space into an allotment site. To be clear, no-one is against allotment sites or developments, but not only would that take away a vital community asset, it's simply not the right site, with fears about even more traffic in the area, as residents are already experiencing and facing that sort of problem.

Cabinet Minister, more than 200 residents have signed a petition calling for the site in Rogerstone North to be ruled out. I've written to the council myself highlighting the residents' concerns and calling for the site to be dropped, and the decision now rests with the local authority. So, will you join me in putting pressure on Newport council to protect this community green space by removing it from the authority's allotment plans?

Thank you for raising this issue. I am aware, actually, of the concerns that residents have raised on this particular issue. You will also know that this is a matter for Newport City Council; it wouldn't be appropriate for me to intervene in what is and should be a local decision. But I think the wider principle here is important. Communities need both accessible green spaces and opportunities to grow food. But it is important, of course, that those local decisions have to reflect the value that people place on these spaces, and access to nature shouldn't depend, really, on where you live. I want more people to have good-quality green spaces close to home, particularly, as I said in my initial answer, where access is currently poorest.

Minister, Wales needs both renewable energy and secure domestic food production. Welsh planning policy already gives considerable weight to protecting our best and most versatile agricultural land. Can you explain how the protection works alongside the Government's drive for renewable energy, so that we increase green generation without unnecessarily losing our most productive farmland?

Thank you for the question. Obviously it's about striking the right balance, isn't it? We know that there is a demand for energy, we know that there is a demand for food, and consequently there will be, sometimes, conflicting demand for land. The planning system is there to try and protect the integrity of those demands in a way that strikes the right balance. Sometimes, planning authorities get it right, other times, maybe, people will disagree, and that's the nature of the situation that we're facing.

You will know—and I am straying into the territory of other Ministers here—that work is ongoing to look at planning policy, particularly in relation to energy infrastructure. There is also work happening on a new national energy strategy for us here in Wales. I will entrust that work to my Cabinet colleagues, and I am confident that they will get it right and also confident, of course, that all Members here in the Senedd will have an opportunity to scrutinise that when the time is right.

We are very similar in the questioning, Lyn, so I'll try and skirt around some of the other parts of it.

Cabinet Minister, it's not just community green spaces at risk in Casnewydd, but also agricultural land. Currently, plans see 578 acres of farmland given over to solar development at the Candwr and Craig y Perthi sites. Residents have raised serious concerns about flood risk, traffic, landscape damage and impact on wildlife, including the important lapwing habitat on the Gwent levels, particularly around Bishton, which is their only site. What cumulative assessment has the Government made of the impact that these developments will have on food production, biodiversity and local flood risk? And does the Cabinet Minister believe that removing hundreds of acres of agricultural land is compatible with the Government's stated commitment to food security?

Well, thank you for the question. As you say, it's similar to the question that has been asked, and I feel that the answer may well be similar as well. But it is about striking that balance, I think, and, as I say, the planning system should, when it functions properly, take all of those considerations in the round and, hopefully, bring forward the right balance. But we are looking at planning policy in this energy space and we are working as well on the new energy strategy for Wales, much of which will not only deal with solar, but with the additional infrastructure that goes with some of these projects.

Access to green spaces and nature is so important to our physical and mental well-being. The Road to Nature project in Newport is a great example of what can be done, and the incredible work of the Friends of the Road to Nature group, Newport City Council and the wider community has absolutely transformed what was a real criminal dumping ground for rubbish a few years ago, and that's now a haven for wildlife. Biodiversity is absolutely thriving there, and willow emerald damselflies were recorded for the first time in recent weeks, following the completion of a pond dipping area. This area is a real shining example of a community working together for nature restoration. So, will the Welsh Government commit to supporting and funding more projects like this in Casnewydd Islwyn, as well as other parts of Wales?

Thank you for drawing attention to that particular scheme. I always believe that this kind of work is most effective when you empower local communities to take action like that, and, of course, we have backed that commitment with practical investment through Local Places for Nature, for example, because that scheme alone has created or improved thousands of green spaces and pollinator sites across Wales. In Newport and Caerphilly particularly, 28 community garden packages were delivered in the last year, creating nature gardens, orchards, food-growing areas, but wildlife habitats as well. Another 70 nature gardens are planned by the end of this year.

So, there's a lot happening, backed up by the £16 million that the Government has allocated to Local Places for Nature this year. It's very commendable, the work that's happening, and what we really want to see is how we can replicate that as widely as possible across the whole of Wales.

I have regular discussions with my Cabinet colleague. In the coming weeks, I know that the Cabinet Minister for Enterprise, Connectivity and Energy will set out our plans to turn our manifesto commitment for the undergrounding of new electricity circuits in Wales into a new planning policy.

Farmers in Carmarthenshire have reported Green GEN Cymru contractors arriving on their land without warning, with one recent incident reportedly requiring police attendance. This is causing real anxiety and frustration among farming families. Will the Minister raise these reports urgently with the Cabinet Minister for Enterprise, Connectivity and Energy and stand up within Government for the rural communities affected? Diolch.

Thank you for drawing our attention to that. I'm always concerned when there are any circumstances that require police attendance and police involvement. There's a certain way of doing things, and I think decent courtesy means that that should always be adhered to. I won't be drawn on commenting on any specifics, because I'm sure you can understand that I'd be straying into difficult territory.

But we do expect all developments planned in Wales to have regard to all relevant planning policy, to be sensitively designed and implemented to avoid and to definitely minimise impacts, at least on communities and the environment, but also to maximise the benefits, because I think there are two sides to this coin. When you get it right, it releases a lot of opportunities economically, et cetera, but when you get it wrong, then those are the risks that sometimes appear.

What conversations has the Cabinet Minister had regarding the national policy statement for electricity network infrastructure with UK Government Ministers?

Well, that isn't really a role of mine within my portfolio. Clearly, it has a relevance to the energy Minister and it will have a relevance to the planning Minister as well. So, maybe you'd like to direct your question to them when the opportunity arises.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. Firstly, Minister, I want to say 'diolch' to you too for your recent announcements, finally injecting some common sense into Labour's ridiculously rigid nitrate vulnerable zones rules. It's of course welcome and long overdue, as are advance payments for the basic payment scheme and the sustainable farming scheme after such a difficult summer.

But bringing forward that money does not give farmers a penny more overall, and it does not address the downward trajectory of the basic payment scheme. Lawfully, we are all, of course, aware that you have to bring down BPS payments, but it is in your power, Minister, as to how much. Many are struggling on the 60 per cent of the BPS original 2025 value. Now dropping it to just 40 per cent would literally signal the end of most family farms in Wales. As I am, you must be aware that the majority of the 51 per cent remaining on the BPS are those small family farms that you claim to want to protect. Pushing ahead with this cut, with SFS remaining wholly unsuitable, inflexible and unworkable, is playing literally Russian roulette with their livelihoods. Minister, you need to make the SFS workable, and fast, and you need to put protections in place to help those that remain on the BPS. So, would you consider dropping the BPS by just 1 per cent, as opposed to the further 20 per cent, unless of course you do want to be the Minister responsible for the genuine end of family farms across Wales?

I'm under no illusion about the difficult transition that we're on at the minute, from the legacy BPS programme through to the new sustainable farming scheme. It's a journey that we will continue to travel on. You said that the SFS is wholly inflexible. Well, I'd like to think that some of the decisions and announcements that I've made of late shows that we can make it flexible and more workable for more farmers, so we will continue to do that. I will not entertain dropping the transition by just 1 per cent, but I am of course considering making the SFS truly more accessible to as many farmers as possible.

I hope you're more than considering it because it's absolutely completely unworkable, and you know that as well as I do. Not only is dropping the BPS funding by 1 per cent the right thing to do, but by not doing that and pushing ahead with this 20 per cent cut, you're putting our Welsh heritage, our Welsh culture and Welsh language at risk, as well as our national security. You said all the right things in opposition, Minister, didn't you? But now you seem to be struggling to say them and do them as the Minister. I know you've agreed with me in the past that the BPS trajectory needs to be a much more gradual, tapering trajectory—your words, not mine. Now you're in Government as the Minister able to do this, you're backtracking. You said in black and white in this Chamber that you thought that it should be a more just transition—again, your words. So, tell me: will you do it?

'Just transition' is exactly what we are trying to achieve here. You say that we've done nothing; we've committed £1 billion over the coming three years to farming to make sure that those farmers who aren't sure about coming on board with the SFS can see that there actually is a quantum of funding there that they can access, that they can utilise, to make their businesses and their farms more resilient. Now, some will choose not to do that and I appreciate that. My job is to make sure that as many people as possible who wish to come on that journey can do so. I'm focused on doing that because that is the just transition that we need to see.

But it isn't only about money as well, of course. We have introduced the review into red tape, which will be, hopefully, a great benefit to farmers who are grappling with the amount of paperwork that they're dealing with. You mentioned the control of agricultural pollution changes. We have been pragmatic, we have been practical, and, where we can do that, we will do that. But, ultimately, we are on this journey transitioning into the sustainable farming scheme and we need to keep our focus on getting there.

Well, you're putting family farms in Wales at risk, Minister, by saying that. I hope that you do recognise that, currently, on the SFS, people cannot get on it whether they want to or not.

I'd like to bring back to what Sarah Edwards, one of my colleagues, has just asked you in the Chamber. I, too, am aware of the extremely worrying circumstance that Green GEN Cymru surveyors appear to be arriving unannounced on farms to survey land, with huge machinery, and, not only that, they are not even adhering to their own biosecurity measures, with no checks in place to ensure that they are. This is genuinely concerning. This is not about whether you agree with windfarms or not, Minister. Most of these farms have had bovine TB or are at high risk of it. This is not a theoretical concern either; the High Court has already found Green GEN lacking in terms of their biosecurity measures. Without the right measures in place here, there is a real risk of disease like TB being spread farm to farm, and I'm not even mentioning the other environmental concerns that the people of the Towy valley have. Don't you agree with me, Minister, that we cannot have a situation where rural communities in west Wales have to spend hundreds of thousands of pounds to ask a court to help them to merely protect their own farms? Farmers need protection in place. They need support on this, Minister. Green GEN Cymru and contracted surveyors need to adhere to the rules to protect our farms. Will you work with the Cabinet Minister for Enterprise, Connectivity and Energy to ensure this happens, please, and perhaps even visit the Towy valley to meet with the communities there that are so concerned? Diolch.

Thank you. I won't get drawn on particular court cases, et cetera—you'll understand that I can't comment on those—but you make a very valid point about biosecurity measures, and I will write to the company and others to make sure that they are reminded of their responsibility particularly to respect those.

Cabinet Minister, over lunch today we both attended WWF Cymru's briefing on the implications of extreme weather events such as wildfire and flooding, where we heard from speakers including representatives of the fire service and the farming sector. A key takeaway from that session for me was the vital role that nature-based solutions have to play in protecting communities and farm businesses from the impacts of climate change-related weather events. Given the shared commitments of our parties to increase the use of nature-based solutions across Government action, I'm wondering what steps you might intend to take to mainstream their use in the coming months. Both WWF Cymru and the Fire Brigades Union have come forward with funding proposals to ensure Wales is more resilient and better prepared for extreme weather impacts, and a key element of this proposal is seeking commitment to an extreme weather resilience fund that could look to inject tens of millions of new money into the expansion of preventative spend on nature-based solutions. We're at that time of year when everyone is talking about the budget, so, as those conversations go on, will you commit to making it a priority to expand nature-based solution investment within your portfolio?

Well, not only within my portfolio, as I think there's a huge responsibility across Government on all of us to lean more heavily on nature-based solutions, because we can mix concrete to our heart's content, but, unless we work with the grain of nature, we will always ultimately lose that battle. So, we do have to recalibrate our approach, and we absolutely are committed to those nature-based solutions. The wildfire summit in a few weeks' time will offer, hopefully, the starting gun for some particular work streams around that. I have some particular thoughts around how the sustainable farming scheme and land management can actually support that as well, particularly given the way that farmers stepped up to help fight some of the wildfires that we saw over the summer. Flooding as well, of course—we know there's talk of improving catchment or retaining water through various means in the uplands, et cetera. But key to all of this as well, of course, is it still needs funding, it still needs finance, because the interventions will cost. So, yes, Government has a role to play. Other authorities clearly have a role to play. But nature finance as well, I think, is a key area where we need to be focusing on. I very much intend to build on the work of the previous Government to really focus on that area over the coming months.

Cabinet Minister, I'm really encouraged by your answer there, and I look forward to seeing these developments over the coming months. I think there's particular potential within the optional and collaborative layers of the SFS for that as well.

Turning to another matter, a review of the code of practice for the rearing of game birds for sporting purposes in Wales is overdue, with animal welfare organisations such as the League Against Cruel Sports concerned that this is an issue that is being overlooked. This is perhaps borne out by the data. There were no inspections of game bird farms in either 2023 or 2024 and just four since 2025, and those uncovered two breaches of the code of practice. We also have shocking evidence from Animal Aid site visits of three game bird breeding farms in Wales that found conditions falling far below the standards that we all expect. What assessment has the Welsh Government made of the treatment and welfare conditions of game birds bred and reared to be shot for sport, and what plans do you have to ensure that the code is reviewed to ensure it is fit for purpose?

Thank you for that. I'm not 100 per cent sure where we are on that. I am aware, if I'm correct, and I don't wish to mislead the Senedd, that a review is happening of the evidence at the minute. I'm awaiting advice from officials. Maybe, if you'd allow me, I will write to you to give you an update of where we are, because it is an area that clearly needs to be addressed.

Yay. [Laughter.]

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I like a fan next to me. [Laughter.]

Yes, she's very good. She never does it to me. [Laughter.]

You announced at the Royal Welsh Show the national food strategy, which you have got a group working on at the moment, and I commend you for doing that, because it's something that has been missing. But it's really vital that both ends are joined up—the farm gate and the retailer selling to the consumer. Are you confident that you've got the mix right on that group? Because, when I look at the people on there, there doesn't seem to be a major retailer, who, at the end of the day, passes the bulk of the food on to the consumer. And I don't believe you've got a major processor on there either. And those are two key ingredients that are required to build a sustainable chain of supply here in Wales. I hope it'll be successful.

And the other thing that is required is your ability to use legislation to drive improvements in public procurement and nutritional standards. You supported my colleague Peter Fox's Bill when it came to the floor of the Senedd. Will you commit today, as a Minister, that whatever the food strategy group recommends, and if it requires legislation to support those recommendations, you will pilot that through the Senedd as a Government Minister?

Thank you. There were a couple of questions in there. I haven't got the list in front of me of the membership of that group, but we are, you're right, looking at a whole food system, from gate to plate and beyond—well, no, where does it go after that? I'm not sure. [Laughter.] But, certainly, there is a need to make sure that all voices are heard around that table. And I know, of course, that the group itself will be utilising work streams that will draw on experience of others also through other fora and networks. And I know that the chair has engaged widely, to say the least, already, beyond what has been brought together around that particular stakeholder group.

It will have a number of work streams. We want to look at areas around the red meat supply chain in Wales. We want to look at horticulture and growing horticulture, and we want to look at food in schools initially. Those are some of the areas that will be prioritised in the first place. So, clearly, if we're looking at the red meat supply chain, then processors and others will be a big, big part of that conversation.

I didn't hear you refer to the legislation, and I'd be grateful if you'd reply back to me on that, because, as I said, you did support the food Bill when it first came here. Sadly, the Government at the time rejected it. I think it's an important instrument to use to drive up nutritional standards and also local procurement.

But I'd also like to raise with you the point that I raised with you in committee the other day about the fertiliser tax that's coming in in January of this year. That could potentially be devastating to the ability to procure fertiliser to grow the crops for next year's harvest. And at a time when the uncertainty in the middle east is driving up fertiliser prices to double what they should be at this time of year for forward buying, it seems madness to me to actually introduce a fertiliser tax. Will you now lobby the Westminster Government—the point I made to you in committee—to hold that off for at least 12 months, as the National Farmers Union were asking, so that that situation, hopefully, in the middle east can get back to a sense of normality, so that that price pressure can come out of the system and farmers can purchase the fertiliser they need with confidence that there isn't this supertax being applied to it?

Well, after the session we had in committee, I made sure that I did write to the UK Government to make these representations, to make sure that any implications for Welsh agriculture are properly considered and any negative consequences are avoided. My understanding is, of course, that most of the fertiliser coming to the UK is from the EU—so they wouldn't be affected by the carbon border adjustment mechanism—mainly from the Netherlands, Norway, Germany, and Belgium. But there is some coming from beyond, and we need to guard against any negative consequences stemming from that.

To come back to your previous question as well, if we need to legislate on certain areas, we will. I think we need to wait and see what they recommend. I would prefer action that doesn't require legislation in order to get on with it more quickly, but where we do need to legislate, we won't shy away from that.

And on strengthening procurement policy as well, I know that there will be the publication of a new statement on public procurement policy from this Welsh Government soon, and I'm sure the relevant Minister will publish that when it's ready.

Protecting groundwater is essential for safeguarding drinking water supplies, the environment and Wales's long-term water resilience. Planning and environmental permitting processes require risks to groundwater to be assessed and managed. Where risks are identified, Natural Resources Wales can then require mitigation measures, monitoring and ongoing controls to protect water resources.

Diolch. Access to clean and safe groundwater is essential for protecting public health, supporting agriculture and safeguarding our natural environment. As major developments come forward across Wales, it is vital that local communities can feel confident that groundwater sources are being properly monitored and protected. Can you outline how the Welsh Government is working with Natural Resources Wales and the local planning authorities to ensure that groundwater resources are robustly monitored, protected and transparently assessed before major developments are approved?

Thank you for that question. I know that this is a challenge that could occur in a number of different contexts. I hope you'll be reassured that the Welsh Government is working with Natural Resources Wales and local planning authorities through the planning and environmental permitting systems to make sure that groundwater risks are identified and that they are properly assessed and managed before major developments proceed.

We set the national planning policy framework that local planning authorities apply when determining applications, and Natural Resources Wales provide specialist technical advice on groundwater risks as a statutory consultee. Planning authorities can draw on their hydrogeological expertise when they consider whether further investigation or any mitigation or monitoring is needed before a decision is taken.

Where evidence identifies a specific local risk, local planning authorities and NRW can use their respective planning and permitting functions to make sure that proportionate monitoring and controls are in place during construction and operation. But, ultimately, we will work closely with those bodies to support the consistent and effective application of groundwater protections as a number of different development pressures—and environmental risks, no doubt—evolve.

This links back to the Member's question, but I want to go a bit more local. The Welsh Water treatment works in Gowerton serves around 58,000 constituents across Gŵyr Abertawe. However, concerns have been raised that proposed housing developments in Gowerton and surrounding areas could place unsustainable pressure on waste water networks and storage capacity.

Natural Resources Wales has already suspended major developments due to rising nitrate levels in the Loughor estuary. Also, local residents, through Save Gowerton from Gridlock, have warned that the proposed 216-home development would exacerbate traffic congestion on Victoria Road.

What action is the Welsh Government taking to address the concerns identified by NRW and Welsh Water, and to ensure that essential infrastructure in Gowerton is not overwhelmed and that further damage is not caused to our waterways?

Thank you for drawing attention to a very important area here. I won't get drawn on particular local issues, but, more generally, we do know that the nutrient impact on housing delivery is concerning. The Cabinet Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning and I both recognise the importance of this issue.

To strengthen leadership and strategic co-ordination to try and address those nutrient-related challenges, the Welsh Government is establishing a new nutrient efficiency and resilience group. That group will bring together key partners and stakeholders, including regulators, water companies, the agricultural sector, environmental organisations and local authority representatives, to provide strategic oversight of nutrient management across Wales.

Its work will focus on both the immediate operational challenges, which are pressing, but also the longer term actions needed to restore and improve the health of our rivers and catchments, helping to deliver a more co-ordinated and whole-system approach to river recovery and environmental improvement, but also, hopefully, unlocking potential developments such as the one that you've referred to.

The Welsh Government is supporting family farms in Brycheiniog Tawe Nedd through its £340 million annual budget commitment. To help farmers facing significant pressures this year particularly, we've increased advance payments from 70 per cent to 80 per cent. The sustainable farming scheme is an accessible whole-farm scheme, designed to support the long-term resilience of farms.

Thank you. Resilience means very little if our family farms cannot survive. Farmers across Brycheiniog Tawe Nedd have endured an incredibly difficult year, as I'm sure you're fully aware, through droughts, wildfires, rising costs and the continued threat of bovine TB, whilst also being expected to adapt to the new sustainable farming scheme. These aren't simply businesses; they produce our food, manage our countryside, support thousands of jobs and keep our rural communities alive. Yet too often farmers tell me they feel these policies have been done to them, rather than being developed with them. Will you guarantee that food production and the survival of the Welsh family farm will be at the heart of your decisions? And also, will you ensure that environmental ambitions work alongside productive farming rather than adding further costs and regulation to the very people we depend upon to feed us and look after our countryside?

Yes I will, because family farms, as you say, are the backbone of our rural communities in Brycheiniog Tawe Nedd and the rest of Wales as well, and we recognise the significant pressures that those businesses are facing. That's why we have been flexible, for example around the control of agricultural pollution regulations, in allowing a longer period to clear some of the slurry stores that farms have, but to do so in a responsible way, in a managed way, in a controlled way. Natural Resources Wales support that approach, because they recognise that there would be additional environmental risks from those stores overspilling or failing, which would be even more catastrophic. So, I'd like to think that we are being pragmatic and practical where we can be.

I spent the summer visiting a number of agricultural shows, and there were three things, basically, that farmers were asking for. One is certainty in a hugely uncertain world, and we are trying to deliver that with our commitment to long-term funding for farming. But they also ask for flexibility. When circumstances change, such as the drought we saw over the summer, then maybe we need to look at the way we ask farms to do things. We've introduced derogations within the SFS in terms of some of the things that they have to achieve directly as a consequence of some of those extreme weather events. The third element was general support. If you look at the red tape review, one of the steps that we've taken, then hopefully we're demonstrating that as well. So yes, we do need to make sure that farming is resilient and is sustainable for the future, and I will do everything I can to achieve that.

I know that many Members were at the NFU reception last week, and hearing the union and farmers thank the Minister for a number of decisions this Welsh Government has taken so far to support them speaks volumes. For the first time, farmers feel heard. Plaid Cymru's manifesto commits to rural-proofing our communities, including those in my constituency of Brycheiniog Tawe Nedd. Could we have some information on the progress of the rural development strategy for Wales and how this will tackle poverty and create new economic and social opportunities for my constituents?

Thank you very much for the question. I think it's very appropriate that the enterprise Minister is sat next to me, because I fully hope that this will be a joint endeavour. But we are looking to increase that particular focus on some of the communities that feel maybe that they have been marginalised in some of these discussions in the past. But certainly, we want to consider that statutory duty to make sure that, when it comes to creating policy or making funding decisions, for example, that balance and that consideration in the round is taken. It isn't about setting one part of Wales against another. It's making sure that every part of Wales has a fair hearing, and that's certainly, when it comes to the rural-proofing duty, something that we want to achieve. You will be aware that we are consulting at the minute, that there is an opportunity for people to feed in around those proposals, and I very much look forward to receiving those.

We are making good progress in developing ambitious, legally binding biodiversity targets, which we must have in place by April 2028. The targets will be informed by expert and stakeholder advice, underpinned by robust evidence and impact assessment, and supported by delivery of our climate and nature action plan.

Diolch. On 2 June, when I raised this in the Siambr, the First Minister said that the Government is committed to clear public reporting on Wales's progress towards net zero through an accessible online dashboard. I went to have a look for it when some of the other dashboards came out, and all I could find was an old PowerPoint presentation about public sector emissions. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Progress and opportunity for climate resilience is inextricably linked with the need to halt and reverse the loss of nature. I'm glad to see this recognised with the announcement of the forthcoming climate and nature plan, but we need to be clear about how progress on both will be monitored and reported. You'll be aware of the importance of the forthcoming targets due to be introduced in accordance with the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Act 2026, yet presently we don't have targets or any clear means of Member oversight on progress. Could you confirm the timeline for the introduction of those biodiversity and nature targets and whether you intend to monitor and report on progress openly using one of those dashboards?

Thank you for the question. I am committed, as I said, to setting those targets across all the priority areas, and that work has to be done, in law, by April 2028. So, we will do that. As I said, we will work with stakeholders to get that in place. An independent advisory panel is providing expert scrutiny and evidence-based advice to us, while the biodiversity targets task and finish group brings together stakeholders from key sectors to help make sure that those targets are ambitious but also practical and realistically deliverable. They are being developed within a complex social, economic and environmental system. I could bore you with the theory of change and cost-benefit analysis and all of the work that's happening, but they are critical tools to understand that pathway to delivery, to assess the likely impacts and benefits of different interventions and then to build that robust evidence base that we need to support targeted development, implementation and evaluation. I hear what the Member is saying about transparency. I would expect that we would be looking to do that. I will maybe ask my colleague the Cabinet Minister for Government Effectiveness and the Constitution to write to you with an outline. But, certainly, we intend to do that with other metrics across Government, and I can't imagine that it would not be the case here as well.

Last week, I asked the First Minister about the fact that NRW and other agencies do not know the full mix of chemicals discharged legally into the rivers of Carmarthenshire. A report has said that NRW are flying blind. As I wasn't quite sure of the response from the Cabinet Minister, I will ask the Cabinet Minister this: if we do not know exactly what chemicals are discharged into the rivers and how they interact with each other, how can we know what impact they are having on river ecosystems? How can we say with any confidence that this cocktail of pollutants isn't disrupting fish migration, harming fish and aquatic plants, and irreparably affecting river diversity? Diolch.

Thank you. I meet regularly with Natural Resources Wales. This is something that I will raise with them. Clearly, I have confidence in their ability to do their job, but I also recognise that they are being stretched and there is great demand on the expertise that they have. But I will pursue that with them and ask for an explanation.

I welcome your rapid first steps on the climate and nature action plan for Wales, because if we're going to meet net zero by 2040 and achieve substantial nature recovery by 2050, we'll need to keep moving quickly and effectively, because the pace at which nature is declining in recent years is truly alarming. Since before the election, I've been in touch with groups like Save the River Usk, who are not just bringing much-needed attention to the subject but also building up detailed data sets at a grass-roots level, providing crucial local insights about the impact of the climate and nature crisis. You've said that the Government's new climate and nature board will reflect the experiences and priorities of people and communities across Wales. Will there be a role for informed and organised groups, like Save the River Usk, on the board so that their local knowledge and experience can be harnessed? Diolch.

I will happily take that away and consider it. I think you make a fair point. I think the role of citizens—. And I said earlier, in relation to green spaces, when you empower citizens to take action and to respond to some of these circumstances, then you are really creating a more sustainable approach, moving forward. Citizen science, as well, I think, has a role to play. So, we'll consider all of that in the mix, and it's certainly something I can take on board. It's a point very well made.

Well, the Government monitors livestock numbers alongside evidence on farm viability, on emissions, on biodiversity and on animal health, including through the UK Agriculture Market Monitoring Group. Our aim, of course, is to support sustainable, productive farming, and the sustainable farming scheme, for example, will help farmers improve resilience, strengthen food production and, of course, environmental outcomes at the same time.

Thank you. My colleague Laura Anne Jones mentioned back in July that Westminster's Climate Change Committee recommended a 25 per cent reduction in livestock numbers by 2040 in order to hit net-zero targets. Now, you've stated that there are no plans for a reduction, and that is something that I welcome, but it raises a further question to me, and it's one that's been discussed in this Chamber today. Given your dual role as Minister for rural resilience and sustainability, in scenarios where the interests of our rural communities stand in direct contrast with actions necessitated by net-zero policy, will you choose to back our farmers or bow to the interests of the climate lobby?

I think this is where Reform gets it wrong. You see it as one side against another. I would much rather find a way where we can mutually support both farming, by making it more resilient, but, in doing so, support the recovery of nature and tackling climate change as well. It isn't an either/or. I believe that we can—. And look, farming needs to become resilient. Nobody knows more than farmers the impact of climate change. They are the ones who are in the face of drought over the summer. They are the ones whose land sits under floodwaters for weeks on end. That has a direct impact on the economic bottom line. Many of the farmers I work with are the first ones to say, ‘We need to stop this flooding happening. We need support from Government and others to develop some of these interventions. Not only will it help nature and the environment, but, by damn, it will make our business more sustainable moving forward.' So, that is my approach, not this 'let's go and look for a fight' approach that we get from Reform.

Well, we are, I can assure the Member. We are strengthening rural resilience, Dirprwy Lywydd, across all rural Wales through investment in sustainable farming, in support for rural communities and businesses, actions to improve climate resilience, and new proposals for our rural-proofing duty, to make sure that the needs of rural areas are considered, of course, when developing policy programmes and spending plans as well.

Thank you very much for that response, and I'm pleased that you are doing all of that work.

I want to turn to a specific issue that I've raised with you in the past, the water pressure in Redwick. The residents of this village, just outside Newport, have suffered with low water pressure for many years due to inadequate water infrastructure serving their community. This problem is exacerbated during periods of dry weather, like the unprecedented one that we have just experienced. There are five farms in the area and the water supply problem is so bad that some farms are unable to adequately supply their dairy herds. The water supply is so low it cannot keep up with the thirst of the animals. So-called mitigation measures have been put in place, but they have fallen short, and, in some cases, failed to materialise. The only solution to this is upgrading the flow of water into the village through major infrastructure overhaul. Minister, what pressure can you bring to bear on the situation and, in particular, Dŵr Cymru, to make this happen? And what action would you expect to happen before next summer so that we don't see the same problems happening again?

Well, thank you for raising this issue again, in fairness. I share your concern about the problem with water pressure in Redwick and, as I say, it's something that you've raised previously. It is vitally important, first of all, of course, that people have a reliable water supply, but it's also important that farms and other businesses have the water that they need, and animal health and welfare considerations as well are essential, aren't they? So, my understanding is that Dŵr Cymru is investigating the situation and plans to update Redwick residents in October, but it is important that they assess the situation thoroughly and that the problem is addressed. This may, of course, need stages of action. There may well be short-term initial steps that they can take, but then there may be longer term requirements to plan and then implement schemes, and that will depend, of course, on what exactly the problem is and what exactly the best solution might be. But I will commit to raising this with Dŵr Cymru. I meet with them quite regularly, as it happens, and this is something that I will ask them about when we next meet.

Well, the Welsh Government is tackling social isolation in farming communities through its national connected communities strategy. We also support farming communities through the Wales farm support group, which brings charities together to share expertise to provide practical and well-being support.

Diolch, Minister. Farming can be a lonely occupation. Long hours, financial pressures and geographical isolation can place enormous strain on farmers—and their families, of course. We know that poor mental health and suicide are serious concerns for farming communities, yet those most in need of support are often the least likely to seek it. You and I both represent Clwyd, and we know how important farming is to our communities, but, behind the farm gates, there can be individuals struggling in silence, often with nobody to turn to. What specific steps is the Welsh Government taking to identify farmers who are struggling, ensuring that mental health support goes even to the most isolated communities, and intervening before developing into a crisis? And crucially, Minister, how are we ensuring our support reaches the people who need it most, not simply waiting for a farmer in despair to find the courage they need to ask for help?

Yes, improving mental health and well-being is an absolute priority for Welsh Government. We know that farmers face many challenges. I myself have seen it in terms of friends and family in the industry. That uncertainty that comes, of course, with so many aspects of farming, but the isolation and the loneliness particularly that you point to, can have a detrimental impact on mental well-being.

So, officials are working with local authority information and advice assistance services to identify people experiencing loneliness or isolation earlier, or as soon as we can, to try and connect them then to the support that will help them. The sustainable social services grant from the Government funds third sector projects that help people stay connected and active locally, including befriending, social activities and outreach for those at risk of loneliness in rural and farming communities. And the Welsh Government supports Farmwell Wales as well, an online hub offering farmers and their families accessible advice on personal as well as business resilience, including on isolation and loneliness, and we know, of course, that a lot of good work is being done by farming charities out there, and I, and I'm sure other Members of this Senedd, would want to pay testament to the work that they do. It is essential that we do everything we can to raise awareness of the importance of maintaining mental and physical health, and, if somebody is struggling, and I can speak from personal experience here: talk to someone. Share the load; talk to someone. That's how you start getting better. Diolch.

Diolch, Weinidog. As you can imagine, last week's announcements have caused huge anxiety for workers at both Admiral and Legal & General. These are well-paid jobs in an industry that's been a success story for Cardiff and south Wales over recent decades. The news not only impacts the workers at these companies, but also, more broadly, the Cardiff economy in the city centre. And, as I said, the financial services sector has been a huge success story for Cardiff, with Admiral growing from next to nothing to being Wales's only FTSE 100 headquartered company, and Legal & General being at the heart of the city centre's redevelopment in recent years.

Last Friday, Minister, Shav Taj and I, along with Cardiff's four Members of Parliament, met with the companies to press both companies to minimise compulsory redundancies and maximise redeployment opportunities. They need the Welsh Government on their side—the workers, the companies and the industry. So, Minister, have you been able to meet with the companies yet? Will you look to rapidly deploy ReAct and Careers Wales support, working with partners in the Department for Work and Pensions and local government? And, more widely, what support will the Welsh Government deploy to make sure that this industry can return to growth as soon as possible?

Thank you to the Member. I'm meeting with Admiral UK Insurance's chief executive officer tomorrow and I'll be meeting with senior representatives of Legal & General, and we've also reached out to arrange meetings with the unions and workforce representatives. We don't know currently how these redundancies will be apportioned across the individual sites, and I'll be seeking clarity in both of those meetings on that subject with both companies. And we'll be, obviously, working with the companies to understand how they intend to support the affected workers, what we can do more generally to work with the companies and with the workforce to ensure that we continue to support their contribution to the Welsh economy and to the communities in which they're based. And we'll work constructively, obviously, with companies and unions and delivery partners once we know exactly what the position is in relation to the job losses and how we can most usefully help the workers concerned.

I've been hearing from constituents who are concerned about the job losses at Admiral and Legal & General, and I know my colleagues both in Gŵyr Abertawe and Brycheiniog Tawe Nedd have also shared concerns with me about the impact these jobs will have not only on people in Cardiff, but also in Swansea and the local economies. Workers need certainty about their futures and how they're going to support their families and pay ever-increasing bills and rent. And, given the uncertainty around who will be impacted currently by these job cuts, I wonder if the Welsh Government could provide some certainty about what support can be offered to impacted workers.

Yes, certainly. We hold right at the forefront of our minds the very difficult position that many employees and families will be in at the moment, and we will be doing everything that we can to support them in every way possible. And once we have a clearer picture in terms of the potential impact, then, obviously, we can both structure our response, but also share information appropriately with the Senedd.

As I said, both these companies continue to be very important employers and we will also want to talk with them, both as individual companies, but also as representatives of important sectors, about how we can work positively with them to continue to sustain, maintain and, hopefully, grow their workforce in other areas of their activity. And once we have more information in relation to this, then, obviously, we'll share it with the Senedd.

Minister, hundreds of jobs are at risk between Admiral and Legal & General. This is devastating news for the entire Welsh economy, but especially for those who are losing their livelihoods. While artificial intelligence was not the sole reason for these job cuts, those losses are a sign of what's to come. Now, across the UK, businesses are cutting jobs, with a focus on becoming leaner and more efficient. Often, though, the use of artificial intelligence is the core behind those losses. Now, what conversations have you had with these companies about the role that AI has played in these job losses? What conversations have you had with other Ministers about creating a more futureproofed workforce that's safer from redundancies that AI that could cause to our economy? Diolch.

Thank you to the Member for his question. Yes, Admiral have said, in their reported comments in this case, that these changes, these workforce reductions, are not AI related. They relate to other factors. I'm not aware that Legal and General either have made the connection with AI, but have referred to wider restructuring across the whole of the group.

Nevertheless, obviously we as a Government are very conscious of the way in which artificial intelligence is both bringing opportunities—economic opportunities, for example—and driving the growth of our compound semiconductor cluster in Newport, and indeed across the wider region of south-east Wales, and are aware that there are risks as well, in terms of its impact upon particular sectors and particular categories of employment. We are monitoring, as a Government, the emerging evidence not just in Wales, but across the world, as to the interrelationship between artificial intelligence and the labour market, and particular sectors of it. I have had discussions only yesterday with other Ministers across Government about how we can best respond, both to maximise the opportunities that undoubtedly there are, but also the risks and challenges that come with the technology, and how we can prevent the downside while maintaining the opportunities that are available to us.

Thanks to Huw for bringing this important issue up, and for Kiera for mentioning Gŵyr Abertawe. Thank you, both. Admiral's announcement that they were cutting 500 jobs has been devastating for our own communities in Gŵyr Abertawe, as Kiera mentioned as well, and we've had many e-mails about this. In fact, one came just in the time that we've been sitting here in Plenary. It's an important issue for the people of Swansea, because almost 2,000 people are employed by Admiral in the Swansea area. Admiral, of course, being Wales's only FTSE 100 company, recorded a £958 million profit last year, and it is my view, and the view of my fellow MSs, that these lay-offs are completely optional. This is causing concern, as we can imagine, because the economic situation of our own constituency is fragile, to say the most favourable thing, really.

So, can the Minister, please, after his engagement with the company, update both us from Plaid Cymru, but also people from other parties as well, on the situation, so that we can properly communicate with our constituents, because they are very, very concerned, and it has a disproportionate hit on the economy of Gŵyr Abertawe? Diolch yn fawr.

Yes, I think the Member makes a very, very important point, that these companies are such significant employers, of course, that they employ constituents right across the wider south Wales region. Certainly, once we are able to understand more of what the impact will be in relation to the workforce, then I will be keen to share that information, particularly with Members that have large numbers of constituents that were employed in both cases.

It's important to reiterate that these companies, but also these sectors, are important elements in the economy. While we are keen to understand in more depth the reasons for these particular proposals, we want to work with the companies, and with the sectors involved, in order to grow valuable employment in these areas, and that will also form an important part of our engagement with the companies involved.

The escalation of the middle east conflict in early 2026 continues to impact on households and businesses in Wales. While the issue of fuel pricing is non-devolved, we are working closely with the UK Government and our various delivery bodies to provide advice and support to customers, and to respond to any inappropriate price rises.

Thank you for your response, Minister.

The issue is, of course, global in nature, but the impact is very much being felt locally. The price of fuel, especially diesel, is approaching an all-time high, and is already the most expensive anywhere in Europe at just under £2 per litre in many areas, but well over that in others, and there appears to be no end in sight. Welsh hauliers are reporting that this is adding many tens of thousands of pounds to their weekly fuel bills. Bus operators are reporting an increase in their fuel prices of 50 to 60 per cent since January this year. These costs cannot be absorbed indefinitely, and will eventually feed through into inflationary pressures.

Throughout my constituency, many are forced to commute by car. It isn't a decision my constituents get to make, they have to drive, and they will be hit very hard by this, not only at the pumps, but in those goods and services they purchase that rely on logistics. Gweinidog, you've mentioned work with the UK Government, but given the potential impact on household incomes, inflationary pressures and economic activity across Wales, could you tell us in more detail what those discussions have been like, when they've taken place with our UK Government counterparts, and whether any assessments have been made as to the projected duration of this spike in fuel prices? I'd also be keen to know, depending on the forecast, whether any measures will need to be taken to protect households and businesses from these escalating costs. Diolch.

I'm grateful to the Member for raising this very important issue, which, as I said earlier, has been an issue, sadly, since the beginning of the year, has at various times worsened, and we are going through a period of great concern, particularly in relation to the issue of diesel prices, as she suggests.

Fuel pricing is reserved to Westminster, and there's an important role for the UK Government here, and also the Competition and Markets Authority. I have raised the issue of fuel resilience, pricing and UK Government support with the UK energy Minister at a recent inter-ministerial meeting. I've called for appropriate UK Government support in situations where prices are escalating, and that remains our fundamental position.

We recognise the impact that road fuel price increases are having on household budgets, particularly, of course, when it's combined with the high cost of heating oil and the significant increases expected in the domestic energy price cap in January.

The Welsh Government recognises also that the sustained high fuel costs have consequences right across the Welsh economy. She mentioned the haulage sector and my colleague the Deputy Minister for Transport meets regularly with the haulage sector, has already discussed this issue earlier this year, and will continue to monitor the impact on that particular sector. It isn't, of course, limited to that sector. I'm conscious as well of the impact on bus operators, and I know that the Deputy Minister for Transport is meeting bus operators imminently, again to understand the particular problems that are arising now from the spike that the Member refers to.

Across the wider economy, of course, these increases, they raise operating costs, they raise distribution costs for all fuel-dependent sectors directly and indirectly. In all of our engagement, therefore, with the UK Government and other UK stakeholders, we will continue to raise these important matters, ensure that contingencies, where necessary, are put in place, and that the UK Government uses the full range of intervention tools and levers that they have—I'm particularly thinking now in the context of the budget—so that both businesses and hard-pressed households receive the support that is necessary at this difficult time.

Thank you to the Minister for the previous answer. I think a lot of what I'm about to say has been touched upon. We recognise that rising fuel prices are putting growing pressure on Welsh businesses, driving up the cost of deliveries, transport and everyday operations. For businesses already struggling with rising costs, Wales's 20 mph default limit adds further concerns about journey times and operating costs. Just days ago, a family-run haulage firm, CVH Transport Services in Caerphilly, went bust. Will you acknowledge the cumulative pressure these rising costs and Welsh Government policies are placing on Welsh businesses, and commit to working across the industry to ease the pain that these businesses are feeling? Diolch.

I'm grateful to the Member for his question. We are certainly very aware of the pressures in relation to the haulage sector and, as I said, we are engaging with the sector to make sure that we can support in the way that we can, but also that we can, in our representations to the UK Government, set out a very clear picture of the need for further intervention where necessary. We're maintaining regular engagement with the UK's fuel sector representatives and our UK Government counterparts to monitor prices, and we've made consistently clear to the UK Government the impact of higher fuel costs, particularly the pressures faced by fuel-dependent sectors like haulage.

Road fuel pricing, as I said, fuel duty and market regulation are all reserved matters, but we've made clear to the UK Government the impact of sustained high prices on Welsh households and businesses, and we will continue to press for effective action by the UK Government through the levers available to it. We also support monitoring, as I mentioned, by the Competition and Markets Authority and the Fuel Finder scheme to strengthen transparency and competition, and we expect reductions in wholesale costs to be passed on promptly and fully where they are available.

Minister, UK average petrol is now averaging around 173.5p per litre. In real terms now, I've seen it over £2 per litre—diesel that is—and north Wales is paying above the UK average. In terms of energy production, we have the Gwynt y Môr windfarm right off our coast, yet we have the highest fuel costs in north Wales. Minister, Wales is being hit from both directions: rising prices at the pump and an energy policy that leaves Britain increasingly dependent on imports. Higher fossil fuel prices are estimated to cost Welsh households, businesses and public services an additional £5.64 billion. In our rural communities, certainly in Bangor Conwy Môn, travelling by car is not a luxury but a necessity, particularly for our carers, farmers, healthcare workers and small businesses.

The previous UK Conservative Government froze fuel duty and cut it by 5p per litre. Conservatives then campaigned against its planned reversal, now that diesel is so extortionately high. At the same time, an industry taskforce reports that 25,000 UK oil and gas jobs have been lost since the general election, while UK energy import dependency stands at 43 per cent. Will you work with the UK Government to cut fuel duty, reverse its restrictions on new North sea oil and gas licences, protect skilled energy jobs, or will rural Wales once again be expected to pay more while Labour and Plaid Cymru prioritise ideology over the practical concerns? And I know that my colleague Andrew wishes to ask a question on the Veolia refinery.

Minister, the Veolia refinery in west Wales is classed by that company as a North American refinery for economic purposes. [Interruption.] Valero, sorry. If Trump brings forward his ban on diesel production coming over to the European market, and in particular the UK, have you had any conversations with Valero to understand what implications that would have for the refinery? Because that would have a devastating impact on the supply of diesel into the Welsh and UK market.

I met with Valero recently in Pembroke to have a wide-ranging discussion with them. They are an important employer in that region, and, indeed, through the supply chain, to Wales as a whole. They are one of only four remaining refineries across the UK, and they represent a critically important bit of critical national infrastructure. If we were not previously aware of that, we've certainly been made aware of that by the geopolitical insecurity of the last nine months. I certainly will speak with them. I'm sure they have been in regular touch with the UK Government in terms of the contingency planning that I've referred to, and we engage with the UK Government on that front as well. But I certainly will want to know what the latest position is. Of course, it's a complicated situation there, where they are also an important exporter to the US, and, actually, there would be a knock-on effect to US oil supplies. There are complicated reasons as to why that historically is true. So, it certainly is an important area, where we will be engaging with the UK Government and with Valero.

In relation to the broader points that Janet Finch-Saunders made, I think it certainly is an important factor that there is geographic variation across the UK in terms of fuel prices. There is some limited recognition through the UK Government of that in certain areas, but not to rural areas of Wales. I think that now is an important time to revisit that question in terms of equity and to see not just what the UK Government could do in terms of fuel prices in general, where it does need to act at this particular time, but also to recognise the particular impact in rural communities, which face even higher fuel prices than the average. We will certainly take those points forward in our discussions with the UK Government as well.

Last week marked the hundredth anniversary of the opening of the Stiwt, or Plas y Mwynwyr, in Rhosllanerchrugog. The Stiwt was built by the community for the community. Between 1924 and 1926, a penny was donated for every tonne of coal mined from the local pits towards building the theatre. Almost £18,000 was raised, a huge sum at the time. The miners continued to contribute, giving 2p from their weekly wages towards maintenance. The Stiwt was opened in 1926, the same year as the general strike. Amid enormous hardship and uncertainty, the Rhos miners built an incredible thing: a place for entertainment, education, the community and Welsh cultural life. For generations, it has been a gateway to the arts. As Mark Lewis Jones said last week, 'It all started in the Stiwt'.

When the Stiwt closed in 1977, it could have all come to an end, but the community didn't allow that. After a determined campaign and £2.1 million from the heritage lottery fund, the Stiwt was reopened in 1999. We owe a great debt to all those who campaigned to save it. On Friday night, we had an amazing night at the Stiwt celebrating the centenary in the company of incredible talent on stage. It was also a privilege last year to meet Emyr Prys Jones, the creator of the Stiwt's beautiful stained glass window, a powerful tribute to the industrial heritage of the Rhos. So, with the Stiwt celebrating 100 years, let's celebrate not only the building but the community that built it, saved it, and continues to give it life.

Tomorrow marks International Day of Older Persons, a fitting occasion to pay tribute to the array of community centres and organisations across Afan Ogwr Rhondda, and indeed the whole of Wales, that do absolutely vital work supporting older people. Today, I want to focus particularly on overcoming isolation and loneliness, the hugely important but often overlooked social determinants of health for older people. There are many community organisations in Afan Ogwr Rhondda that do life-affirming work by bringing older people together with people of all ages. They help make sure that getting older does not mean becoming isolated. In Caerau, Noddfa community centre, run by Matthew Rowlands, is at the heart of the community, offering a dizzying array of activities from fitness classes to craft sessions. I'd be remiss not to mention the Caerau Men's Shed here as well, where Phil, Gyp and everyone involved there do brilliant work. Then over to Gwynfi Miners Community Hall, where Simon is doing an unbelievable job providing a space that genuinely makes people's lives better, with walk-and-talk groups, book clubs, a gym, and much more. There's Gilfach community centre, Pen Rhondda Support Group, Treorchy Senior Citizens Club, and Action for Elders in Aberavon. I've had the privilege of seeing first-hand and hearing about the difference all of these organisations make for older people in our communities, ensuring that everyone has the opportunity to live a long life while remaining connected to the people and places around them.

Thank you to them all.

Yesterday marked World Heart Day, a day that brings together a global community to raise awareness of cardiovascular disease, one of the most significant health challenges we face. CVD is responsible for more than one in four deaths in Wales, and Public Health Wales projects a 46 per cent increase in heart failure by 2035. These figures are stark, and they remind us why continued action, investment and awareness are so essential. I want to extend my thanks to the British Heart Foundation for bringing the red bench to the Senedd steps yesterday. It served not only as a symbol of remembrance, but also as a powerful prompt for conversation about prevention, early diagnosis and support. I'm grateful to all Members who took the time to visit the bench and showed their commitment to improving heart health across our communities. I also want to place on record my appreciation for the many individuals, clinicians, researchers, volunteers and organisations across Wales who work tirelessly to prevent cardiovascular disease, improve care pathways and strengthen the data we rely on to deliver better outcomes. Their dedication ensures that no matter where people live in Wales they can access the support and treatment they need. Together, we can continue to raise awareness, promote healthier lifestyles, and push for the improvements that will save lives for generations to come.

As Childhood Cancer Awareness Month draws to a close, I want to recognise children and families who are living with, and whose lives have been turned upside down by, a cancer diagnosis. In Gŵyr Abertawe, Latch is supporting 15 children affected by cancer and their families. As a clinician, I recognise the importance of treatment and care, and as a mother, I think of parents sitting by the hospital bed, holding their child's hand, trying to offer reassurance while carrying fears of their own.

Behind every diagnosis is a child missing friends and school, and a family learning to live with uncertainty. I thank Latch for their emotional, practical and financial support, and for helping families stay close when they need each other most. I pay tribute to the NHS teams, volunteers and fundraisers who bring care and comfort through difficult times.

We remember too the children who've died and their families, who carry their love and their loss every day. To every family facing childhood cancer, you deserve to be heard, understood and supported. September may be ending, but our support must continue throughout the year. Diolch.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Firstly, I would like to thank all the Members who have shown their support for this debate today. I especially want to thank Elwyn Vaughan, who has worked closely with me on this motion and has been a strong advocate for change in his constituency as well. The fact that this motion has support from Members across the Senedd and from different parts of Wales is significant, because contaminated land is not an isolated or local problem. It's a legacy of our shared industrial past, which communities across Wales live with to this day. I look forward to hearing from Members in this debate, and particularly about the experiences of communities in their own constituencies.

For many people across Wales, our industrial past is not simply something confined to the history books. It's something that communities continue to live with today. We see that with our coal tips, which remain a visible part of the landscape in many of our communities. But the legacy of contaminated land is often much harder to see. Toxic substances left behind by historic industrial activity can remain in our ground for decades after that activity has ended, and in the case of some chemicals, they can be in our ground for generations.

So, what do we mean when we talk about contaminated land? As Natural Resources Wales explains, land can become contaminated through previous industrial, commercial or landfill uses, including where contamination has migrated from an adjacent site. That can include heavy metals, such as arsenic, cadmium and lead, oils and tars, solvents and gases, alongside radioactive substances. And those consequences can extend beyond the disposal site itself, with contamination potentially affecting human health, animal health and also our wider environment. We've also heard increasing public concerns about persistent chemicals, such as polychlorinated biphenyls, or PCBs—a group of toxic, human-made, hazardous chemicals that have dangerous effects on our environment and our health, which can remain in the environment for long periods of time.

The recent BBC documentary Buried, presented by Michael Sheen, has brought renewed attention to this issue of contaminated land, which I very much welcome, and I would like to thank all of those who have been involved in its production. However, we must recognise that, for many communities, these concerns have been raised by them for many years. Campaigners and communities across Wales have been raising these issues with us, and quite a few of them are actually up there in the gallery today.

And I've seen the impact of that legacy first-hand in my own constituency. In Ynysddu, Ty Llwyd quarry was actually featured in the recent documentary, with the two Jans. It's a site where local people have been raising concerns for years about the historical disposal of chemical waste, its links to Monsanto's former manufacturing plant in Newport and what that legacy could mean for the surrounding community. There have also been concerns about leachate leaving the former quarry site, particularly following periods of heavy rainfall, and the potential for contaminants to move then into the surrounding area.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Councillor Janine Reid, who is here as well today, and also her colleague Councillor Jan Jones, for the tireless work that they have done to raise these concerns and make sure that their community's voice is heard.

But, ultimately, Ty Llwyd is about more than what is happening at a former quarry site. It's about the people who live alongside it. For those people, this is not an abstract environmental issue. It's something that's been hanging over the community for years. It's about the place where people live, where their children have grown up and where people go and walk their dogs. It's about being able to feel confident that the place they call home is safe and that their community and its future are being protected.

As Councillor Reid put it:

'For our community, Ty Llwyd is not an abstract environmental issue—it is something that has been hanging over us for years. The consequences of what has happened here are felt by the people who live alongside it.

'We need the contamination to be properly understood, the risks to our community to be taken seriously, and a clear plan to ensure that Ty Llwyd along with other sites in Wales, do not continue to be a source of concern for local people—with reassurance that our community and its future are being protected.'

And I think that quote from Janine gets to the real heart of this issue today. People shouldn't have to live for years with unanswered questions about what may be beneath their feet, what may be moving through the land around them, or what the potential risks could be. They deserve clear information about what is known, a proper understanding of the risks, and confidence that there is a clear plan in place on how we deal with those risks. And, as we know, Ty Llwyd is not unique. Across Wales, there are thousands of sites with a history of industrial or other potentially contaminating activity—from north to south, from Cefn Mawr to Maendy, communities across Wales are living alongside that legacy.

Research by Friends of the Earth Cymru has identified more than 45,000 potentially contaminated land sites across Wales. And while that gives us some indication of the scale of this issue, it also highlights the fact that we still do not have a clear national picture of potentially contaminated land across Wales. We need to know where these sites are, what contaminants may be present and which pose the greatest risks to our communities and to our environment. And that is why this motion today calls for a national framework for the testing and assessment of potentially contaminated land, prioritising those sites that pose the greatest risks. We need to know where these sites are. We need to understand what contamination may be present and the risks it poses. And we need to make sure that the sites presenting the greatest risks are prioritised.

But there is also another important issue here, and that is who pays. The principle of 'polluters pay' should be at the heart of this approach. Where the person or the company responsible for pollution can be identified and held responsible, they should contribute towards the costs of putting it right. That burden should not simply fall on our local authorities, and it shouldn't fall on the taxpayers either.

But. of course, as we know, with historical contamination it's not always straightforward. Some companies may no longer exist. Ownership may have changed. Records may be incomplete. That's why the motion also calls for the UK Government to introduce a dedicated funding mechanism for cases where the costs cannot be recovered, because there has to be a solution for those sites as well. We cannot have a situation where a local authority knows there is a potential problem, but does not have the resources to properly address it. And we cannot expect communities to carry the burden of historical industrial activity simply because the pollution happened many years ago.

Local authorities, Natural Resources Wales and other organisations are already doing important work in identifying, investigating and managing contaminated land. But they need the resources and the support to fulfil those responsibilities. And communities need confidence that, when they raise concerns, those concerns will be properly investigated.

So, Dirprwy Lywydd, this motion is ultimately about making sure that the legacy of our industrial past is managed properly and fairly. It's about having a clearer national picture of contaminated land. It's about prioritising the sites where the risks are greatest. It's about giving local authorities the support that they need. And it's about making sure that, where possible, those responsible for pollution contribute to the cost of putting it right.

The communities living alongside these sites did not create this contamination, so they should not be left with carrying the uncertainty, the potential risks or the costs. For those reasons, Dirprwy Lywydd, I hope Members across the Siambr will support this motion today. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you for bringing this particular motion forward today.

Thank you for bringing this motion together today. From Agent Orange production to genetically modified organism controversies, Monsanto has been at the heart of it. This agricultural giant's legacy includes toxic chemicals, patent disputes and environmental damage, leading to lawsuits and ongoing health concerns worldwide.

Monsanto's controversial legacy has left an indelible mark on agricultural global health and the environment. The agrochemical giant's decades-long history includes production of toxic chemicals like Agent Orange, PCBs, polychlorinated biphenyls, and DDT, dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane, while its aggressive patenting of genetically modified seeds has sparked intense debate about food sovereignty and farmers’ rights. From lawsuits over cancer-causing pesticides to allegations of suppressing scientific research, you'll discover why Monsanto has become one of the most criticised corporations in modern history. Many critics argue that Monsanto's business practices prioritise profits over public health and environmental safety, leading to lasting consequences we're still grappling with today.

Monsanto began in 1901 as a chemical manufacturer producing saccharin. By the 1940s they expanded into agricultural chemicals, including DDT and Agent Orange. The company shifted focus to biotechnology in the 1980s, launching the first genetically modified crops in 1996 through their flagship product, Roundup Ready soya beans. Monsanto's production of PCBs led to widespread environmental contamination, with devastating effects on local communities. Monsanto operated a PCB manufacturing plant in Anniston, USA from 1929 to 1971, dumping toxic waste into local waterways. The contamination left residents with high rates of cancer, liver disease and diabetes, while polluting the soil and water systems. Testing revealed PCB levels 200 times higher than the federal safety limit in local creeks. Internal documents reveal that Monsanto knew about PCB dangers as early as 1937, but continued production until 1977. The company buried contaminated soil in unlined landfills. In 2003, Monsanto paid $700 million to settle claims by 20,000 Anniston residents over PCB contamination. Monsanto's decades-long history of corporate misconduct has left an indelible mark on public health, environmental safety and agricultural independence. From the devastating effects of Agent Orange to the ongoing Roundup controversy, their actions continue to impact millions of lives worldwide.

Their acquisition by Bayer—something I'm sure they regret—hasn't eased the company's troubled legacy, as lawsuits and health concerns persist. You'll find that the Monsanto story serves as a stark reminder of how corporate profits often overshadow public welfare. In 1919, the US chemical company Monsanto entered into partnership with Graesser's chemical works at Cefn Mawr to produce vanillin, salicylic acid, aspirin, and, later, rubber-processing chemicals. The site was later operated by Flexsys, a subsidiary of Solutia, but production ceased in 2010.

The alleged dumping of PCBs, poisonous chemicals that do not break down but build up in the environment, animals, fish and humans over time, are widespread. These chemicals were dumped in 12 known sites across Wales, including in Rhiwabon, Cefn Mawr and the infamous Llwyneinion acid tar lagoon near Rhosllanerchrugog. Evidence gathered by campaigners and experts over years claims that PCBs may have been responsible for spikes in rare cancers in those areas. A local resident, featured in Buried with Michael Sheen, Michael Phillips, revealed that, as children, he and his friends went down to Llwyneinion acid lagoon to watch as fire crews battled to bring a fire there under control in 1980. The fire took 18 hours to extinguish, but, years later, Michael and his friends all contracted rare cancers, which he attributes to exposure to PCBs. And he says, 'My surgeon said, "This is strange, I've never seen this type of cancer before" and he'd had this distinguished career of 40 years', said Phillips. Two of his friends have passed away, with brain cancer and breast cancer. Another is battling brain cancer, while a fourth had all his lymph nodes removed, as they were cancerous. A fifth even had the same type of cancer as Phillips—something his surgeon said was equivalent to the odds of winning the lottery every day for six months.

And that's the reality today of the situation left behind by the worst of multinational capitalism. At the end of the day, it's about people, about their and our environment. It's about the potential threats to them, their families, children and future generations. And that's why we owe it to them to demand action and put a strategic framework and plan of action in place. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I begin by thanking Niamh, with Elwyn's support, for bringing this important issue to the Chamber today? Some of what I'm going to say may repeat some things that Niamh and Elwyn have said, but that's because they are important and need to be said more than once.

Wales has a proud industrial history. It has brought jobs and prosperity to communities across the country and made an enormous contribution to the development of modern Britain. But that history has also left us with problems, which, many decades later, we are still having to deal with. Old mines, quarries, chemical works and industrial sites simply did not operate to the environmental standards that we would expect today. And for some of the people I represent, that isn't just history. Close to the north-eastern border of my constituency, as mentioned by Elwyn, near Rhos, Cefn Mawr, Acrefair and Ruabon, is the former Monsanto chemical waste tip. This is not rumour or local folklore. Parliamentary records confirm that Monsanto chemicals were deposited there in 1964 and 1965—prior to my being born, just.

More than 60 years later, people are still asking questions about that site and the neighbouring acid tar lagoon. Wrexham council has investigated the sites extensively. Its position is that contaminants are present, but the sites do not meet the legal definition of contaminated land. It does, however, continue to inspect and monitor them. But I can understand why people living nearby remain concerned. If you live close to somewhere like this, you want straightforward answers. What is in the ground? Is it getting out? Is there any risk to my family or my home, and if there is a problem, who is going to do something about it? These seem perfectly reasonable questions to me, and 60 years is an awfully long time to be asking them.

There have been calls for people living near contaminated sites to be offered blood tests for PCBs. Public Health Wales has considered that, and its advice is that blood testing is not recommended. It cannot reliably tell somebody how or where they were exposed, or what the consequences for their health might be. We should listen to that advice. There's little point in offering people a test that may leave them with more questions rather than fewer.

But that makes investigating the land itself all the more important. We need to establish what is actually there, whether contaminants are escaping and whether they present a genuine risk. This is where councils need help. They have responsibilities for contaminated land, but investigating sites like these is complicated and expensive. I welcome the fact that capital funding has now been agreed, but Wrexham County Borough Council is already making the point that additional funding will be needed if councils are going to investigate potentially contaminated sites properly. I think we should listen to them. There is little use giving local authorities responsibility for dealing with these sites if we don't also give them the means to do the job.

Then, of course, comes, as Niamh has mentioned, the difficult question of who pays if something needs putting right. Where the original polluter can be identified and liability established, every reasonable effort should be made to recover the costs from them. But when something happened 50, 60 or even 100 years ago, that isn't always possible. Companies disappear, businesses change hands and records are lost. We cannot simply shrug our shoulders. The fact that pollution is old doesn't make it any less real. And it isn't reasonable to leave one council and its council tax payers facing an enormous bill simply because the original polluter can no longer be pursued. There is a balance to be struck here.

I don't want to frighten people unnecessarily. Public Health Wales makes clear that PCBs can come from a number of sources and that finding elevated levels in a particular place does not necessarily establish where someone has been exposed. What I do want is for people to have confidence that somebody is actually finding out. If a site is safe, tell them, give them reassurance. If there's a problem, tell them and then do something about it.

The people living near the former Monsanto tip have lived with questions about that site for long enough. There will be other communities across Wales in very much the same position. They deserve answers, they deserve a system capable of establishing the facts, and where action is needed, they deserve to know that the money and the determination are there to see it through. As their representatives, the least we can do is to make sure their questions are heard and keep asking them until they get a proper answer. Thank you.

Can I welcome this debate and thank those who have already spoken? There have been some powerful contributions so far. It is obviously the subject of enormous cause for concern across Wales, including in and near my constituency, and indeed in my home village of Ruabon. I support the motion, obviously. I must say, though, that I would have liked to have seen greater reference to the role of the Welsh Government in addressing land contamination in Wales and in terms of protecting public health. There is historic precedent for the Welsh Government to intervene with money. I'll come to that in a moment, though.

First, my thanks must go to Michael Sheen and his production team for highlighting this issue, and also to Steve Witherden MP and his wife, Councillor Katie Witherden. These are activists who are featured in Michael Sheen's documentary, and Steve, in particular, has been very vocal in Parliament on the subject. He's raised the need for Natural Resources Wales to undertake urgent tests. Furthermore, Public Health Wales must undertake a programme of blood testing in affected areas without delay. It is the Welsh Government that must lead on this matter and get to grips with it, not shirk responsibility.

Turning to those who pay, I don't think that anybody in this Chamber would disagree that the polluter should pay. Absolutely, those responsible should be held to account and should pay for what they have done. But this is often not possible, sadly. And here comes the historic precedent. Back in 2015, contaminated land issues hit the headlines in north Wales, in Coedpoeth, in my constituency, and also in Blanefield up in Scotland. In both cases, the polluters sadly no longer existed, and so in the case of Scotland, it was the UK Government and Stirling Council who paid. The Scottish Government did not contribute. In contrast, here in Wales, to remediate the land in Coedpoeth, it was the Welsh Government that paid. The UK Government did not contribute. And then in this decade, it was the Welsh Government that pledged £100 million for coal-tip remediation, with an additional £143 million from the UK Labour Government.

What these recent major cases requiring Government help demonstrate above all is that all levels of government—all levels of government—need to act fast and need to act together in partnership. That's why there is a need for a consistent approach and, indeed, a framework, as the motion calls for. So, I support the motion, but I would urge the Government here in Wales to have a more responsible role within that framework and to do as we did in Government to help solve the problem, not to pass the problem to councils or to Westminster. Councils, citizens, communities cannot afford the cost of remediation, nor can they afford to wait any longer for action. So, I call on the Government here to stand up for the people of Wales by taking urgent action where it can, now.

Thanks, Niamh, for bringing this debate forward. This subject of contaminated land and pollution in our water supply is unfortunately a frequent topic in this Senedd Chamber and has been over the past number of years. Now, we have a new Plaid Cymru Government, and certainly when I was on the committee with Llyr Gruffydd as our Chair in the environment committee, this was a very big issue for us as a committee. And it's nice to see Carolyn Thomas up there, a former colleague of ours here in the Senedd, who also used to speak up very passionately and very strongly about contaminated land. Thank you, Carolyn.

I strongly believe that in incidents involving contamination, leaks or the illegal dumping of waste, the perpetrator should be held responsible and required to cover the cost of clearing and restoring the site. This is especially important in cases that involve repeat offenders, such as Dave Neal. My colleague Paul Davies, over the years, has represented so many constituents who were badly affected, so much so that they used to have to keep their windows closed, and yet for years it went on and on and on. Fines aren't enough. Many of these environmental polluters simply add them as a business cost because the fines—. They make more money doing what they do than the cost of a fine, and it's wrong.

We must take a stronger stance against illegal dumping that contaminates our land and threatens our natural environment. Failure to take stronger action against these criminals has even brought down a former First Minister here. Accepting funding from individuals involved in this activity was shameful. So, I reiterate my call for stronger action to be taken against these organisations and for a clear message to be sent out today that this behaviour cannot and will not be allowed to continue. You pollute our land in Wales and you will pay.

In a freedom of information request conducted by Friends of the Earth, it was found that potentially over 45,000 contaminated land sites exist in Wales, yet only 82 sites are designated as contaminated. So, data collection and investigations and inspections are key. Only six out of our 22 councils provide a full public register online. Fifteen councils have an inspection strategy, but only four have updated it in the last five years. I'm sorry, but you need to really get a grip of this. These figures are deeply concerning, especially as we all know that contaminated land can have a significant impact on our health, our environment and our water supplies. Today, there have been some shocking examples of illnesses that people have contracted—some terminal—and we cannot stand by any more. And I thank the people in the gallery for the work that you do. You're not elected; you're volunteers, you're activists against these environmental criminals.

It is vital that these sites and other potential sites of contaminated land are reviewed, monitored and registered. This will ensure that we have current and up-to-date figures, allowing contamination to be identified and contained as effectively as possible. It is essential that joint action is taken by the Welsh and UK Governments, and appropriate resources to identify, assess, monitor and register are key. We also need to ensure that responsibility does not simply fall on local authorities and taxpayers when pollution has been caused by those who have chosen to break the law. Where wrongdoing can be established, those responsible should face appropriate enforcement and be required to contribute towards the costs of remediation. And if you think that a fine is enough, it isn't. If you keep polluting, you should go to prison.

The public should not be left to carry the financial burden of dealing with pollution caused by illegal activity. There must also be greater transparency around contaminated land. Communities should be able to understand where these sites are located, what risks have been identified, what action is being taken and whether that action is satisfactory. Regular inspections and up-to-date public registers would help. We must ensure that lessons are learned from previous incidents. Where contamination occurs, the response should be timely, co-ordinated and proportionate, with clear responsibility for investigating the source.

This is not simply about dealing with contamination after it has occurred; it is about prevention, enforcement and accountability. If we really are serious about protecting our land, our water supplies, our environment and the health of our people, then we must ensure that contaminated land is dealt with. Those who illegally dump waste or cause contamination must understand that there are serious consequences.

I'll just say this: I would like the First Minister now—. And I am not calling for any further devolution, but I've called for this numerous times before. Currently, any fines from environmental pollution go to the UK Treasury. That is morally wrong. That money should come to Wales. So, do your best, First Minister; you will have my support. That money should come to help to pay for the pollution. But let you now, as the new Plaid Government, work with us all, because we're all against allowing these criminals to pollute. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I want to thank Niamh Salkeld for bringing forward this important debate today, and also Elwyn Vaughan for his work on it as well, because like many people, I recently watched the Michael Sheen documentary on contaminated land, and I didn't really know what to expect, so I was horrified when pretty much straight away in the documentary it focuses on Brofiscin quarry near Groesfaen in my constituency of Caerdydd Penarth. The Environment Agency named this site one of the most polluted sites in Britain, with 67 different toxic chemicals, including seven different PCBs, leaking into the porous ground at the former limestone quarry.

Decades ago, people purchased homes in Groesfaen, unaware they were now living next to one of the most contaminated places in the whole of the UK. Children grew up there and played around the quarry, and for decades families were uninformed of the risks. In 2011, after decades of campaigning, the quarry was finally capped to prevent PCBs from leaking. So, although Brofiscin has been designated a contaminated site, thousands of sites are yet to be classified. Communities have the right to know if they're living next door to contaminated land, and they should not be left footing the bill for toxic waste clean-ups.

The site in Brofiscin immediately brought the issue home, because when we talk about contaminated land, it may sound like a historical issue, but these places exist right now all across Wales in our communities, where people live and work and walk and exercise and raise their families. I want to recognise the important work that has been done to remediate the site in my constituency, but I am aware this isn't the case for similar sites across Wales, and those responsible must be held to account and made to clean up. PCBs were banned decades ago, yet all across Wales you'll still find them. And because these chemicals persist for such a long time, we're now dealing with another legacy of the industrial past of Wales. We cannot change the past, but we can decide how we deal with the consequences. Polluters should pay, and if they won't or can't, Westminster needs to step up and introduce a funding mechanism to support investigations and remediation.

The motion rightly points out the absence of a clear and consistent national picture of potentially contaminated land across Wales, and I think this lack of a clear picture is causing fear unnecessarily in our communities. In Gwaelod-y-garth, there was recent flooding caused by blasting at a nearby quarry shortly before the release of this documentary. Residents were then understandably concerned that perhaps PCBs were involved in this case, which is why establishing this framework for testing and assessment of contaminated land is so crucial, so people feel informed and confident. And where there is credible concern, communities should be able to have the confidence that the site will be properly investigated and that the appropriate action is followed.

I think Brofiscin demonstrates the two sides to this issue. It demonstrates the scale of the industrial legacy that Wales has inherited, but it also demonstrates that we can do something about it, as Brofiscin underwent remediation in the early 2010s. Monsanto initially refused to contribute to clean-up. They said they'd hired a third-party waste disposal company to dump the chemicals, so they weren't responsible. But, fortunately, an agreement was eventually reached where they did contribute towards the clean-up.

The industrial history of Wales is something we should be proud of, but we also have a responsibility to deal properly with the environmental legacy it leaves, and never again should Wales be used as a dumping ground for toxic chemicals by large corporations. Diolch.

My thanks to Niamh for brining this motion forward. I speak in strong support of this motion, but, more importantly, to inject some practical, commonsense and local reality into a debate that goes straight to the heart of public health in Wales, and local accountability right across Wales too. I'd also like to thank Ken Skates for what he said about our area. As Ken knows, we live in one of the most heavily industrialised areas in north Wales, and it's got a huge historical legacy. I'll tell you about that in a moment.

What's buried under our soil doesn't simply disappear. Historic industrial pollution poses severe, as we've mentioned already, long-term risks to human health, animal welfare and our waterways, and the families living along those waterways too. My constituency, and that of Ken Skates and other people here within this Senedd, of Fflint Wrecsam goes right along the Dee estuary, and the industrial legacy is not an abstract concept there. And actually, dare I say it, it's not some inane lines in some academic briefing either. It's something we walk along and we see every day.

Let me tell you, I worked, years ago, as a beach guard, in a former life, as it were, a long time ago. I walked along the Dee estuary, along what's called the marsh there, from Flint castle all the way towards the steelworks. There was lots of industry along there. But one particular area used to be the site of Glanzstoff chemical works. Some people know about this. When I was a beach guard, I can remember walking there, and there were colours within the soil—there were pinks, oranges, awful alkalinity—which are there still to this day. So, if there's one thing I'd like to mention today, it's that that is a place they could look at, because you only have to take one dig with a shovel, and suddenly you've got bright colours. It looks fantastic, although it's covered in grass now, but underneath, it's a huge, awful legacy to the health of the people of the area. And worse still, it leaches straight into the river there, so that's awful.

The other thing I'd like to mention is if you cycle along the cycleway there—and Ken will probably tell you that, as well—at one stage there are pipes coming out of the ground where the old tip used to be. That's a real worry to those people in the area. So, I'd like to note this here today: make sure that people take that on board. And those are just two areas, to be honest. There's Courtaulds works that was there, there's the steelworks that was there. Lots of stuff has been dumped along that area. And places like this exist all over Wales.

A failure of national oversight is exactly what has been highlighted recently in the press and before the Welsh Affairs Committee, following investigations, as we've mentioned here today, by the BBC's Buried series. Analysis shows that, across Wales, there are tens of thousands of potentially contaminated sites and hundreds of areas that are classed as high risk. Yet the vast majority remain untested—as people have said—unmapped, and unmanaged. Hopefully, I've managed to map a couple of those places today. We can't continue with a postcode lottery where local councils and hard-pressed taxpayers are left holding the financial baby for historic industrial liabilities. Crucially, whilst we address the past, we must also stop creating tomorrow's contaminated land today. That's really important. That's why practical modern waste management and infrastructure is vital.

A couple of weeks ago, some of us visited the Enfinium Parc Adfer energy from waste facility on Deeside industrial park. Several people, I think, have been there, actually. There was a bit of historic apprehension to that facility because it was a bit concerning that it was regarded as an incinerator—'What would go into the skies?' We had no idea, really. But, having been there, the stewardship is absolutely fantastic, and stops, if you like, waste now being dumped into the environment, as we've seen in the past. I'd like to praise that company from here now. That's absolutely brilliant. That's what I would call practical environmentalism in action: dealing with unavoidable waste cleanly and domestically rather than burying liabilities or shipping waste overseas, which we've seen a lot of in recent times.

Turning directly to the motion before us, I fully endorse the core principles as set out: acknowledging the severe risks to human and animal health, recognising that liabilities fall unfairly on local communities, admitting the glaring absence of a clear national picture, addressing community uncertainty, and enforcing the vital polluter-pays principle so that the commercial polluters are made to pay wherever possible. But obviously, historically, that's not possible either.

I also acknowledge the work already undertaken by our local authorities and Natural Resources Wales under very difficult circumstances at times. Waste seems to be everywhere at times. Crucially, I support the calls to Government. Firstly, the Welsh Government must work with the UK Government to ensure polluters pay and introduce a dedicated ring-fenced funding mechanism to remediate historic sites where costs cannot be recovered from defunct operators.

Secondly, and most importantly, we must establish a comprehensive national framework for the testing and assessment of potentially contaminated land, prioritising those sites that pose the greatest risk, such as the areas I've just mentioned now, especially when they're leaching into our waterways, and provide real, tangible support to our local authorities so that they can finally fulfil their statutory responsibilities. We cannot leave local councils, our communities, and our taxpayers, more importantly, facing the costs and health hazards of pollution they did not cause—

Okay. Sorry. We need a clear national picture, systematic testing, dedicated funding and urgent action where the danger is greatest. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much.

Sixty-one years ago, the former Brofiscin quarry was repurposed as a landfill site, and a year later, a similar fate befell the former Maendy quarry. The quarries are a little over 5 miles apart. Both quarries were permeable—the former limestone, the latter sandstone—and over the next seven years, both were used to rehome a bewildering array of toxic substances. Crucially, neither site was capped nor lined to prevent rainfall extracting contaminants into the local environment. Perhaps unsurprisingly, this is exactly what happened time and again over the following decades.

After boundary changes at the last election, both sites are now within the constituency I represent, with Brofiscin straddling both my and Kiera Marshall's constituency. I've been contacted by concerned constituents about both sites, so, accordingly, I will spend the bulk of my time talking about them, as they highlight many of the wider issues.

Firstly, one of the most concerning points for me about this whole issue is that we simply just don't know exactly what was dumped at these sites. The processes that were put in place were not adequate to deal with the dumping of chemicals. In 2005, the Environment Agency found 75 different substances amongst the 80,000 tonnes of waste that had been dumped at Brofiscin. That includes heavy metals and toxic chemicals. And perhaps most shocking, it even included Agent Orange, the herbicide used as an instrument of war by the US in Vietnam. I find that completely shocking—that a chemical that I used to teach my GCSE history students about, and have to warn them of the graphic nature of photographs of babies born with really serious deformities as a result of that substance, has been found in a site in south Wales.

Polychlorinated biphenyls, PCBs, which have been banned by most countries in the world and classified by the International Agency for Research on Cancer as definite carcinogens in humans, were found there too. Such is the concatenation of chemicals at Brofiscin that it has been labelled one of the most contaminated places in Britain. For The Ecologist, it is, I quote, the site of

'one of the biggest environmental crimes ever to have occurred in the UK.'

This mix of waste highlights a further point. Whilst we might be aware of the impact of isolated elements, what we don't know is the full impact of this cocktail of different chemicals.

That brings me to my third point. Whilst we might not be fully aware of the impact of those substances, we can see numerous aspects of their effect. Farmers were paid compensation in the 1970s for the death of animals grazing at both of these sites. I've been contacted by a constituent who worked as an ecologist, who told me about the devastating ecological impact at Maendy. My constituent tells me that the site previously hosted a rich ecosystem with a range of birds, including owls and raptors, rabbits, three varieties of shrew, foxes and badgers, lizards, grass snakes and slowworms, but now, I'm told, fauna in the quarry is limited to a few rabbits and small birds.

Michael Sheen's documentary Buried was inspired in part by the work of the late Douglas Gowan, who noted the impact on farm animals near Brofiscin and Maendy. That programme contained a chilling account of how the health of people living near similar sites elsewhere in Wales was affected—people dying of a variety of cancers and dangerously high levels of PCBs in their blood.

Fourthly, as other Members have pointed out, there's the question of accountability, of who is responsible. Monsanto, it seems, knew of the consequences of what it was doing in 1972, but continued producing those PCBs, and continues to avoid responsibility. When Rhondda Cynon Taf council and the Environment Agency did cap Brofiscin in 2011 and 2012, Monsanto and fellow dumpers BP and Veolia did eventually agree to contribute to the clean-up of the site. However, all three denied liability.

To conclude, I want to make a few overarching remarks about this scandal. We know it's an issue that predates devolution, so we do need a co-ordinated approach from Welsh and UK Governments. I hope the previous Welsh Labour Government's work on coal tips and the joint funding of remedial works will provide a template for that. But we also need to explore what we can do to ensure the polluter-pays principle is at the core of our approach. We need to know the scale of the challenge. I've seen a figure where the Welsh Government suggests 9,000 sites need investigation. We need to test these sites as a matter of urgency. I endorse Friends of the Earth Cymru's calls for immediate testing.

We also need to consider the mental health and well-being of people living near these sites, to provide reassurance and information for communities. I've written to the Cabinet Minister and I've asked the Welsh Government to add that sort of information to its website. I hope, Minister, that it's a suggestion you will take up. Diolch.

I'd also like to thank Niamh for bringing forward this important debate, and Elwyn for his support in so doing. We've heard a range of very sobering statistics and analysis today and I'd like to very briefly add to that by drawing attention to the numbers for Afan Ogwr Rhondda. There are 6,000 sites identified in Neath Port Talbot, and a further 4,600 identified in Rhondda Cynon Taf. Alongside these, there are some very troubling unknowns. Bridgend County Borough Council currently does not have, to the best of my knowledge, a public register of contaminated sites. This mosaic of differing standards of practice underscores the need for a clear national picture, as Kiera Marshall has already referenced.

This brings me on to the UK Government's first comprehensive statement on forever chemicals, which was published in February. The previous Welsh Government had worked with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to develop this, with a list of indicative actions. I'd be very keen to hear from the Cabinet Minister today about the extent to which there's been collaboration on this—appreciating, of course, that there have been some disruptions, shall we say, in Westminster. The more comprehensive our understanding of contaminated land, the better able we are to prioritise action and, most importantly, protect the communities who have to live alongside this legacy. Diolch.

Good afternoon, all. My only contribution is to state that also in Casnewydd Islwyn, we have three of these sites. Monsanto itself, very famously, is the site within Newport that was creating much of this, but we also have Glebelands and the Severn river estuary. The Severn river estuary was, essentially, used as a point to just pump out tonnes and tonnes of toxic waste, which would have found its way all the way down the Bristol channel and out into the ocean—shameful, at best. But Glebelands, Glebelands is a site that's very close to where I live; I have a lot of friends that live around that site too. Lots of them played there as children, and now, as my colleague in front stated earlier, they are coming through with very rare forms of cancer.

It's really good that we've got consensus across the house, especially how much support is there. But one area I haven't heard yet that I think is quite critical for us to think of as well, is that, when we do start to look at where there are areas of blame and we can actually hold these people to account, these poor people that have suffered need compensation too. Diolch.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. May I start by thanking Niamh Salkeld for bringing this debate to the Senedd, with the support of Elwyn Vaughan, and for the work that you've done, but also everyone who has contributed to this debate this afternoon? I know that there are many communities across Wales who are gravely concerned following the Buried programme on the BBC and are looking to us for answers. PCBs aren't the only concern, as we know. I am aware that there are communities who are concerned about other chemicals, such as PFOAs and so on, and there are others too that are a cause of concern to many.

So, I would like to start by reassuring Members that this Government is committed to ensuring real fairness for those most affected by our industrial past. Because, across Wales, far too many communities continue to live with that legacy of environmental degradation and damage. From old opencast mines and unsafe coal tips to historical waste sites, these sites not only pose potential risks to people and the environment, but also, of course, prevent economic regeneration and growth.

Now, although minimising any potential harm is my main priority, I also see opportunities. Dealing with these sites may require new and innovative remedial techniques. This could require new research, manufacturing and job creation opportunities with specific skills. We shouldn't see all of this as some implacable barrier; I'm keen to explore all options to move forward on this complex issue, and to do that on more than one level.

However, I also agree with the motion that at the heart of this issue is a simple, simple principle: those responsible for pollution should cover the costs of putting that harm right. Now, the polluter-pays principle is an important safeguard for communities and for taxpayers, and I believe it's an essential part of delivering environmental justice.

I recognise that determining contaminated land liability can be challenging for regulators. Some of these sites we're dealing with, as we've heard today, relate to activities from decades ago, even hundreds of years ago, and that can mean that there's often little evidence left behind to link the contamination to the polluter. Indeed, the polluter may no longer even still exist. Yet, despite these challenges, I'm keen to strengthen this core principle, and we will work closely with regulators and the UK Government and, indeed, others on an international level, over the coming months, to identify the options that we have to get to grips with this properly.

On the point of working with others, I welcome the numerous calls for the UK Government to play their role in addressing these issues as well. I'm under no illusion that, in the absence of any polluter being able to pay, then dealing with the legacy of contaminated land will require sustained investment. However, communities that have lived with these issues for many years rightly expect us to work together to deliver those lasting solutions. So, we've already seen what we can achieve through the joint commitment of the Welsh and UK Governments on coal tip safety that a number of Members have referred to, and I believe that that gives us a strong case for a similar approach here. This partnership hasn't only helped to address coal tip safety, but also has removed the economic burden on coalfield communities as well, and I am keen that this model is something that, hopefully, we can adopt in this context as well.

That's why, of course, we are continuing to press the UK Treasury on the importance of providing funding to support our joint efforts to address this legacy, through both the restoration of coal tips, yes, but also the remediation of contaminated land, as highlighted in the debate today. And I know that the First Minister has written to the Prime Minister, encouraging him to engage to develop this joint endeavour. I'm also aware that the finance Minister raised this with the previous Chief Secretary to the Treasury, as well, of course, more recently on more than one occasion with the current incumbent as well. I can also confirm that we will be making the case to HM Treasury to secure funding for this work at next year’s UK spending review.

Turning now to the request for a national framework, I recognise concerns have been raised about how sites are assessed and the need for more testing. Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is the statutory regime for contaminated land in Wales. Local authorities are the lead regulators and have a statutory responsibility to identify and, as well, to prioritise sites in their areas. This will be based on local knowledge and different assessments that they undertake.

Whilst I want to avoid duplication or, indeed, undermining the importance of that local expertise, I am supportive of exploring a possible all-Wales approach to site prioritisation. For example, I understand that individual local authorities may actually use different parameters and different tools to risk-assess a site. Well, really, could there not be merit in adopting a standardised approach for all, so that we all know where we stand, and that it's done on a consistent basis? So, that is certainly something that I will be exploring further with my officials.

It's also important to note, of course, that, for a site to be designated contaminated land, it needs to be causing, or having the potential to cause, significant harm to human health or the environment. Now, the legislation adopts a risk-based approach. So, in simple terms, land contamination only becomes a Part 2A problem when there is something harmful, and then a way for it to move, and something that can be harmed by it. Remove any one of these, and the risk linkage is broken.

However, I recognise that, whilst this approach is intended to ensure those sites causing direct risks are prioritised, it can create uncertainty when a site is not legally defined as contaminated land. I am keen to see how these sites are considered to explore how we consider that, and whether a wider, again, national framework could capture such sites if a legitimate burden is being placed on a community or a local authority.

I also understand, of course, that people living near polluted sites want answers. Why wouldn't they? Of course they do. And they want reassurance as well when it comes to their health particularly, and I'm aware that Public Health Wales is working with its partners, including health boards, local authorities and Natural Resources Wales, to review the concerns raised in the BBC Buried programme.

I also understand Public Health Wales have urged caution in relation to calls for widespread blood testing for PCBs, noting the limitations and the barriers to adopting this type of approach. They've noted that managing current and future risks to the population should involve a focus on identifying and containing potential routes of exposure to PCBs from sites of concern.

Finally, on the call to support local authorities with their statutory responsibilities, I've already asked my officials to provide options as to how best to achieve this. I recognise that individual local authorities will have different levels of resource and different levels of experience available to them. I want to make sure that any support we may provide is reflective of these differing needs so that everyone is able to benefit, regardless of the capacity of their local authority.

Once again, I welcome this opportunity today to engage with Members on this issue, and to listen the concerns that have been raised. I've certainly been making notes and I'll be looking to see how some these issues can be directly addressed. As previously noted, this is, of course, a complex area, with many years of evidence gathering and research undertaken to help regulators. Consequently, some changes may take longer than others to make. However, despite these potential challenges, we as a Government are absolutely committed to developing a Wales-wide strategy to progressively restore post-industrial land and to protect communities from those potential risks that come with that legacy. I hear the calls for action and I will ensure that former industrial land is made safe. I'll protect public health and deliver long-overdue environmental justice for the communities that have been most affected by this. I look forward to all Members, hopefully, supporting this motion today and to help continue this journey to protect both people's health and the environment for future generations. Diolch.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to thank everyone who has spoken today and shared their experiences of communities in their constituency. Elwyn, I'd like to thank you for sharing the heartbreaking story of Michael and his friends. I think it really highlighted the impact that contaminated land can have on people's health in the long term.

Andrew, thank you again for being a voice for your constituents and also noting that people are still asking questions 60 years later. We need to make sure that those people have the answers that they've been waiting for. To Ken and Nigel, thank you for speaking about your constituencies in the north-east—I see a lot of similarities in the north-east with where I represent in the south-east as well—and mentioning the impact that it has on local people. The fact that, Nigel, you were listing potential sites I think again highlighted the fact that we need to know where these sites really are.

Janet, again, thank you for your contribution. I completely agree with stronger action on polluters, definitely, and that data collection is key when we talk about contaminated land. Kiera, thank you for speaking about your constituency. I remember seeing that area in the documentary, and what really stood out to me was people were just getting on with their everyday lives, but also very aware that they're, potentially, next to a very, very dangerous piece of land, and the impact that can have on their homes and their children as well.

Vikki, thank you for bringing up your constituents. Again, the most concerning thing that you mentioned—and I agree—is that we just don't know what is dumped on these sites. I think that, again, is at the heart of this, and the polluter-pays principle needs to be at the core of what we do here. Also, I take on board what you say about mental health support as well; I think that's really important. Sera, those figures that you said, again, are terrifying, and also highlighting the fact that that data collection is different in every constituency as well—that's something that, again, needs to be addressed by having a clearer national picture.

And then, Art, thank you as well for that final contribution. Obviously, as you mentioned, the Monsanto site is in Newport, which is in your constituency, and we need to hold those polluters to account. I agree as well that people need to be compensated for that, if we can get the polluters to pay for what has happened.

Listening to the contributions today, I think it's clear that Wales's industrial legacy is still felt by so many communities across our nation. For some, that legacy is visible in the land around them and in the concerns they continue to raise about what may have been left behind. Contaminated land is an important part of that legacy. The substances that are left behind by historical industrial activity can pose, as we've all mentioned, real serious risks to people, to animals and the wider environment. And for communities—a lot of them sat up there in the gallery, again, today—who are living alongside these sites, that uncertainty about what is there, about what risks it may pose and what happens next can be really difficult for them to live with.

I'd like to thank as well the Cabinet Minister for his response. I think that a lot of what you said will be welcomed by many people in this Chamber today, and I know many of the campaigners as well, to see that we're really taking action when it comes to contaminated land and bringing communities along with us. I really do welcome the Welsh Government's commitment to continuing to address Wales's post-industrial legacy when it comes to coal tips as well, and supporting communities that continue to live with its consequences.

But today's debate has also made clear, I think, that the Welsh Government can't do this alone. The UK Government needs to step up too, for Wales and for the wider UK as well. For generations, Wales's resources and communities played a huge role in powering industrial growth across the UK and beyond. It's only right that the UK Government now supports efforts to help those communities to finally move forward, and that means working with the Welsh Government to make sure that polluters pay, and that, where those costs cannot be recovered, there is dedicated funding available to investigate and remediate contaminated land.

Communities can no longer wait for this issue to be treated as something that can simply be left for another day. Urgent action is needed to make former industrial land safe, to protect public health and the environment and to address the concerns that communities have been raising for years. For me, this debate comes back to a really simple point: we cannot change what happened in Wales's industrial past, but we can decide what happens next. Communities should not be left carrying the consequences of pollution they did not cause. They should not have to spend years fighting to have their concerns heard. And they should be able to have confidence that, where risks exist, they will be properly investigated and addressed. We must take action and demand fairness for our post-industrial communities, and that's why I encourage Members across this Chamber to support this motion today. Diolch yn fawr.

Yes, I move.

For three years, the word was everywhere. It was in the first election pledge Reform made in Wales. It was on their Facebook page. One of their candidates said it to the camera while standing in front of a 50 mph sign. The word is 'blanket', and it is missing here today because it was never true. Flexibility was built into this law from the start, and it is not an afterthought or a concession. It is the design.

Twenty miles an hour is the start, not the destination, and the Welsh Government accepted very early on that the lower limit would not be right everywhere. And so every highway authority in Wales was given criteria, guidance and funding to decide, road by road, where 30 mph should remain. That is the whole architecture of the policy, a national starting point, and local judgment can be exercised where it does not apply. Whatever else is said, 20 mph is not a blanket, and it never was.

Some councils have judicially applied that flexibility immediately, and there are countless examples of where that is the case. Gwynedd applied exemptions to over 80 areas of road from the very beginning. They assessed their network systematically and argued that the arterial routes and roads with fewer than 20 buildings per kilometre should stay at 30 mph. On the A4086 between Nant Peris and Llanberis, they kept sections of 30 mph not only because of housing density, but because they were concerned about the response times of the mountain rescue team. That is a real example of a local authority using its judgment to weigh the local conditions and apply an exemption, as is allowed already in the law. Likewise, Torfaen did exactly the same, and when the Government opened the door to further reviews in 2024, they proposed increasing the numbers to 44.

While places like Gwynedd are mainly rural in nature, other places are more densely built up, and there are cases where local authorities have judged that exemptions would be inappropriate. That is a case of local leadership in action, not of national legislation. That's something that Plaid Cymru has exercised from the very beginning, that discretion. And when councils propose reverting dozens of roads to 30 mph under revised guidance, that is not the policy failing, that is the evidence that the policy works. If this were genuinely 'blanket', these reviews would not happen at all.

I want to deal with two further claims, because they have been repeated as often as the word itself. The first is journey times. Transport for Wales found that reducing speeds to 20 mph results in an average increase of about one minute per journey. One minute. That ties in well to my second point. There is a view that increased journey times put visitors off from coming to Wales. The evidence I've seen proves contrary to my point. A Visit Wales survey in 2023 asked about 2,000 people why they chose not to visit Wales. Thirteen distinct reasons were identified. The speed limit was listed as a minor factor by 3 per cent of the respondents. Around 73 per cent were likely planning to return at some point in the future. Clearly, 20 mph isn't limiting tourism to Wales.

So, let us be clear about what is in front of us. Members opposite are asking for flexibility, but this has been available since 2022, the same flexibility that Gwynedd and Torfaen have been using all along. The honest answer is that applying for these exemptions requires patience. It is slower than a motion, and it makes a far worse soundbite, but this is work that actually changes a road and is being done by councils who have got on with the job, rather than telling—

Will you take an intervention?

—no—rather than telling visitors that it's not worth the journey. I am told that Reform have been monitoring me very closely, including what I eat for lunch. I rather thought that effective opposition was about the governance of our roads, that is clearly not the case.

I welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate, and I thank my fellow Members for their contributions today. Our position on the 20 mph limit is clear. We stood on a pledge to scrap the default policy and to return to speed limits that are based on evidence. That remains our position. We make no apology for standing up for common sense and saving public money.

I want to concentrate my contribution on what the 20 mph default policy has actually meant for communities and councils across my constituency of Bangor Conwy Môn. When the default policy—the default policy—was first introduced, local authorities were required to make substantial changes across their road networks before many of those same roads were then reconsidered and, in some cases, changed back again. On Ynys Môn, nearly 700 road signs were replaced ahead of the introduction of the default limit. The council then had to revisit a number of roads, consider 25 proposals to restore 30 mph limits and ultimately approve 22 of them. Is it any wonder our electors get so frustrated when public money is wasted in this way?

Conwy Borough County Council has been through the same process. It received 702 representations relating to 149 streets or sections of road, before further roads were subsequently returned to 30 mph. Gwynedd also identified a significant number of locations where 30 mph was considered the more appropriate limit.

This tells us something very simple. The road network of north Wales cannot sensibly be governed by a one-size-fits-all assumption. Bangor Conwy Môn contains a city, large towns, villages, rural communities, schools, hospitals, residential estates and major connecting roads. A road through central Bangor is not necessarily performing the same function as a road through rural Ynys Môn or Dyffryn Conwy.

Yet the policy started from the assumption that 20 mph should be the norm and then forced councils to work backwards from there. It was nothing less than lazy politics. In 2024-25, the Welsh Government allocated £107,500 to Ynys Môn, £110,000 to Conwy and £20,000 to Gwynedd specifically for implementation of the 20 mph policy. Further funding followed in 2025-26, including £421,000 for Môn, £120,000 for Conwy and £54,000 for Gwynedd. Across those three authorities, that is £832,568 over two financial years. That does not capture all of the officer time involved in reviewing roads, consulting residents, preparing traffic regulation orders, dealing with objections, changing signage and then, in some cases, going back to roads that had only recently been altered. People are entitled to ask whether that was a good use of public money.

I want to be equally clear about what Reform is proposing, because there should be no attempt to misrepresent our position. We are not saying that every road should revert back to 30 mph. There are roads outside schools, hospitals and through residential communities where 20 mph will quite properly be the safest and most appropriate limit. What we reject is the default. The starting point should be the road itself, its location, its character, its collision history, the number of pedestrians using it, whether there is a school or hospital nearby, whether it is a residential street or an important route connecting rural communities. That is what an evidence-led system should look like, a commonsense system.

For many people across Bangor Conwy Môn, particularly in rural communities, the car is not a luxury, it is how people get to work, take their children to school, attend hospital appointments and access shops and essential services. Transport policy has to recognise that reality as well as the importance of road safety. The experience of the last three years has shown that councils are already having to make these judgments road by road. Reform believes they should have been allowed to make those judgments in the first place. Scrap the default, keep 20 mph where the evidence supports it, set limits according to the road and the community it serves. That is a far more sensible approach for Bangor Conwy Môn, for rural Wales and, we believe, for Wales as a whole. Diolch yn fawr.

Welsh Labour will be opposing this motion today, but we will be supporting the amendment that has been tabled by the Welsh Government. At the start of this debate, it's worth remembering why the previous Welsh Labour Government introduced the 20 mph policy. That's to protect children and families from road collisions, to make our roads safer and, ultimately, to save lives. And let's just take a second to remind ourselves of the evidence base. It's nearly a decade now since the OECD highlighted research that consistently showed that lower speeds reduce deaths and injuries. There's more time to react and collisions will lead to reduced levels of harm. Similarly, a survey of the international evidence base shows that, on average, a person is around five times more likely to be killed when hit by a vehicle travelling at around 30 mph than they are from a vehicle travelling around 20 mph. And taking evidence from closer to home, Dr David Hanna, University Hospital of Wales paediatric emergency consultant said, and I quote, that road traffic accidents are the largest cause of serious injury in children:

'It’s simple, slower speeds save lives! Every year in Wales we see the devastating impacts road traffic collisions have on children and their families. They are the biggest single cause of serious injury in children who are typically walking or cycling.

'Children have less road awareness than adults and can be difficult to see. They also tend to be struck higher on the body than adults due to their smaller height, and more likely to suffer severe injuries as a result. So, the 20mph limit will help reduce the number of collisions and severity of injuries.'

And the evidence shows that our roads have become safer. Vehicle speeds have slowed and the number of collisions on 20 mph and 30 mph roads has fallen. Last year, there were 3,000 collisions—3,000 too many of course, but a fall of 300 from 2022. And in the first quarter of this year, there were 621 collisions, a 15 per cent fall compared with the first quarter of 2023.

On the second anniversary of the introduction of the policy, the BBC reported that there had been nearly 900 fewer road casualties and 14 fewer deaths at those lower speeds. And I would say to the Reform spokesperson, when you quoted evidence of the number of deaths on our roads going up, you should be transparent with this Senedd and use your closing remarks to clarify, because we've all got a responsibility not to mislead this Senedd, to clarify that the evidence base you were using there is from deaths across roads with all speed limits, and it's not an accurate description of the situation on 20 and 30 mph roads. [Interruption.] No, I haven't got time. [Interruption.] You've got time later, as you well know.

However, we have also said that we should have done more to bring people with us when we introduced the policy. That's why we learnt lessons, listened and acted on what we heard. We spoke to drivers up and down the country, as well as businesses, communities and councils across Wales. And my colleague Ken Skates, when he returned to the role of transport Secretary, reviewed the policy and changed the guidance for local authorities. That gave councils greater flexibility, as other Members have already pointed out, to look again at individual roads and to return them to 30 mph where it is safe to do so and if that's what's right for the area. Since then, some local authorities have decided to change speed limits back to 30 mph, whilst others haven't felt the need. To give an example, in my own home area of Rhondda Cynon Taf, 22 roads were returned to 30 mph after a transparent process where local residents and elected members, including me, had the opportunity to express their views. And there's been a similar picture in Merthyr Tydfil too. And that's how it should be: the degree of change being determined locally in each area, not centrally by the Welsh Government. And that's the approach that I believe that this Plaid Cymru Welsh Government should continue to take: listen, learn, and give people a meaningful say in the decisions that affect their communities. So, I would say to the Deputy Minister that those lessons about listening to people and acting should be taken on board by this Government across all policy areas. Diolch.

Now, of course, I was here when this legislation came forward, as were my Welsh Conservative colleagues, and right from day one we said 'no' to the 20 mph default, blanket—call it what you like. The fact was that the majority of our roads were being turned back—

I used both. [Laughter.]

I apologise for using the word 'blanket'. Anyway, we knew at that time, when the road network was subjected to 20 mph, 2024, it increased from 2 per cent to 37 per cent by road length. The Welsh Government's 2022 impact assessment estimated direct financial costs of around £33 million and a central net economic disbenefit of £4.54 billion over the years. Now, what kind of Government actually persuades or brings forward legislation that then damages its own residents and businesses? Absolutely rubbish.

Now, in October 2025, Ynys Môn county council's planning and orders committee approved 22 of 25 exception proposals to return sections of road from 20 mph to 30 mph. And as Helen Jenner has quite rightly mentioned, the cost of this makes this institution, actually, and those in Government at that time, a laughing stock. Only it would be, if it wasn't so serious.

Now, I support the motion calling on the Welsh Government to scrap Labour and Plaid Cymru's default 20 mph speed limit. Let me be clear, this is not an argument against 20 mph limits outside schools, near playgrounds, around hospitals or on highly populated residential streets, where evidence does show a genuine safety need. It is an argument against a blunt, one-size-fits-all default that treats very different roads as though they were the same. The Welsh Conservatives are clear: restore the 30 mph default while retaining 20 mph limits where they protect pedestrians and vulnerable road users.

Now, Labour and Plaid Cymru, you chose the opposite approach, and, to this day, your co-operation agreement has left the legacy of this Senedd and, indeed, Wales with some terrible decisions made during that co-operation agreement, this being one of them. They imposed the default first, leaving councils and communities to work backwards, road by road, and traffic regulation order by traffic regulation order. And do you know what? It actually cost the Minister at the time their job.

Public opposition could not have been clearer. A record nearly 500,000 constituents out of a just over 3 million population said 'no', but they were ignored. Public opposition should be listened to. These people were not opposed to road safety. They simply wanted common sense, local knowledge and the right speed limit on the right road. Lee Waters, the Minister responsible, told the Senedd that the Buckley pilot showed that an area-wide approach does not work. He also said that piloting involves failing and learning from the failure. So, if the pilot showed an area-wide approach had not worked, why was a nationwide default imposed before those lessons were reflected in the roll-out? The public were assured that the policy had been carefully designed, yet, in 2024, the Welsh Government—oh, Ken's gone now—revised its guidance, allowing councils to identify roads. And, Helen, we've still got roads in Conwy, actually, that haven't gone back to 30 mph. They just haven't put the signs up yet. The consequences are visible in my constituency.

Now, this is Government in reverse. Ministers imposed the default nationally, rejected an unprecedented public demand for change, and expected councils to sort out the consequences locally. The costs are substantial. I get in a taxi now when I get here from Bangor Conwy Môn, and I ask the taxi driver, 'How does the 20 mph affect you?' And they hate it. They say it actually hits their pockets. And taxi driving isn't the easiest job in the world.

I'm going to finish now. Look, we didn't put any amendments forward. We wholeheartedly support this debate. And if you had listened to your residents during election time, and even now since, you would all be supporting this 20 mph.

I have to say, as well, I recognise that this is an important issue to debate, and I think it is good that we've got this out in the open so we can discuss these things, for I also, as with Janet Finch-Saunders, have come across residents that have said to me that they are very much against this, and I've come across many residents—though I tend to meet them in meetings rather than going round houses, funnily enough—who say that they support it. But I recognise that there is opposition, and where there is opposition, for this Chamber to be democratic, we have to have a debate about it. So, I welcome this. [Interruption.] Thank you.

So, first of all, I also agree, could it have been rolled out in a better manner? Yes, I think it could have. And I think if I introduced any of the people on this side, or that far side over there, to my own father, he would have much to say as well with that. But, when it comes down to the actual blanket—. I shouldn't say that, sorry.

I apologise for using the word 'blanket'. When it comes down to the policy itself, generally, which is not a blanket policy in any way, it's a good thing. And I will use data to illustrate this. As a lecturer in Swansea University, I'm very used to PowerPoint presentations, and I think it is very strange to discuss data, especially graph-based data, where you can do with lines on graphs, and not have that luxury. I was going to ask Louise, as she had a very nice paper-based graph, and I thought about adopting that, but then I thought I would never be able to draw the graphs or the pictures in anywhere near your style, for my writing is terrible. So, I'll use the actual figures instead, although they are more tedious to read out like this.

First of all, they come from Senedd research, because I thought everybody would respect that, and the UK Government's STATS19 road safety data, and I was going to separate this into four parts: collisions, injuries, economics, and the culture of it. First of all, collisions. There's been a 22.5 per cent fall in collisions after the 20 mph limit was introduced in September 2023 and, on other roads, a 0.2 per cent fall. In England, this fell by 4.7 per cent, and in Scotland it went up by 1.5 per cent. That's collisions.

And then we come to injuries. Casualties: there have been 630 fewer casualties of all kinds. Deaths went down from over 100 to 84, but you're quite right in saying it went from 84 to 91, but this is still down from where it was before. An 11 per cent decrease in those killed or seriously injured.

And then there is the economics of it. Can you put a price on life? Well, yes, you can. That's the basis of healthcare economics as well in medicine, when you put a price on lives saved versus cost to the economy. And there is projected cost to the economy. You're quite right in saying that as well. Do they balance up? There's not enough data to come to a conclusion yet. But, and I won't read out these tedious figures, but, there are: pounds for everybody killed, measured in the millions, mainly because of the way the road is closed, traffic is diverted and such; hundreds of thousands of pounds for somebody seriously injured; and some £20,000 for somebody slightly injured. And there have been many estimates as to what this adds up to, but, again, without the use of PowerPoint or a graph-based phenomenon, I won't read out a very long number that doesn't mean anything in itself—

Will you accept an intervention?

I will take a leaf out of your book, and I'll say, 'Yes, I will welcome the intervention.'

There's a thing called an opportunity cost: when you spend money on one thing, it means you're not spending money on another. If you accept that there are economic costs of the 20 mph default speed limit to the Welsh economy, and if you accept that the Welsh Government has spent £30 million-odd implementing the measure, and many millions more since reviewing the measure, how many lives could have been saved had that money been spent on our emergency departments, on beds in our hospitals, or on other matters like that? It's an interesting one to quantify, is it not?

It's an interesting one, and I think it's a very legitimate point, opportunity costs. I would answer that by saying that we're in a situation now whereby I am told by the scientists that it will take until 2029 for them to have properly understood both the economic and the lives-saved cost of this, and we can't come to a proper decision as to what those costs would be, pro and con, until 2029. We have the option of finishing the experiment early and not knowing whether it would have made a difference one way or the other, or waiting until 2029. It might well be that, when that comes to an end, they say the drift upwards in casualties or lives might have continued, it might come back down again, but until we've reached that date—and that's a date chosen by people who are more intelligent than I—we can't know. So, the answer is, as a scientist, I will say that we can't know the answer to that question, because the time hasn't elapsed yet for us to properly compare the data. I'm aware the clock has gone red, but also I'm aware of the culture of this place—that if you accept an intervention, you get a little bit of grace.

Thank you. With regard to culture, to come back to that aspect, people used to play outside more. I went to Sketty Primary School in our constituency this week. One of the greatest problems is people being addicted to social media—not playing outside, but indoors. Max Boyce, when he used to sing about this four-hours-each-way match, 'When I Played for Wales'—Wales against England, it was something like 400-odd against 12—he played in Llewellyn Street in Glynneath. I've never been been to Llewellyn Street in Glynneath, but I encourage people, for preventative health, mental health, all that kind of thing, to be outside. Let's play outside more. Less social media. Less in the house. So, for multiple reasons, I think this is a good thing. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.

It's a pleasure to be able to speak in this debate today, tabled in the name of my friend Llŷr Powell, on scrapping one of the most hated pieces of legislation to come out of this Chamber in a decade. A policy cooked up by Labour and Plaid Cymru, not in response to public demand, not with solid evidential basis, but because it was a fashionable left-wing policy that was gathering steam elsewhere, and they didn't want to lose out on the trend. The same can be said about the tourism tax, and now plans for rent control—all disastrous policies stolen from other failing far-left governments.

Nobody in this Chamber wants to see people killed or seriously injured on Welsh roads, and I think anybody who says that is disgraceful. The question is whether making 20 mph the default across thousands of miles of roads is the right way to achieve the objective of decreasing road traffic collisions. Three years after the policy came into force, we now have more evidence to examine. As Jason said, 91 people were killed on Welsh roads in 2025, 9 per cent higher than 2024. More significantly, Department for Transport figures from last year show the highest number of deaths on Welsh roads since 2019.

I'm aware that the increase in deaths was not necessarily on 20 mph roads, but the aim of an overall reduction in road traffic deaths has not been achieved. There is also a great deal of confusion. I regularly get stuck behind people going at 20 mph on roads with 30 mph or 40 mph limits. The confusion, I think, contributes to accidents. I literally had somebody last weekend on a 60 mph road going 20 mph. I overtook him, he put his hand on his horn and beeped me. I pulled up and I said, 'Are you okay?' And he said, 'No. Do you know this is 20 mph?' And I said, 'Mate, it's not.' And then we made friends and he was from outside the area. You can argue the details, but it's undeniable that this policy has failed in its overall objective and it has come at enormous cost to the Welsh economy.

We also need an updated economic appraisal. We haven't had one since 2022, perhaps because the Welsh Government wouldn't like the results. But if they are confident in the policy, then let's see the data. Presiding Officer, this should never have been about ideology; it should have been about what actually works. If we want safer roads, let's target dangerous roads, improve road design and crack down on dangerous driving rather than imposing a blanket limit—[Interruption.]—across the entire country. I apologise—default. Let's end the anti-motorist agenda that punishes all road users. I urge all to vote with our motion to scrap this crazy failed scheme.

Diolch, Lywydd. The core of this debate appears to be a very simple question: do we accept the evidence that lower speeds save lives or do we not? Yes, this is about road safety, but it's also about value for money and it's about public health. Despite what some in this Siambr insist, the science tells us that the consequences of even small increases of speed are stark. At 30 mph, a pedestrian struck by a vehicle faces roughly a 50 per cent chance of suffering a severe injury; at 20 mph, that risk falls to 10 per cent. And let's be honest, even most of the loudest critics of the policy don't deny this. After all, they too usually want 20 mph limits outside schools, they are happy to have them outside hospitals and they think they're important around playgrounds and care homes. In other words, they acknowledge the principle. They accept that where vulnerable people are present, slower speeds save lives.

What strikes me about some of this debate is that it feels like the proposers of this motion are employing something I'm going to call 'imbyism'. They're quite happy to have that 20 mph speed limit outside their child's school, quite keen to have one outside the care home where their parents live, enthusiastic to have it on the road they cross every day. But what they're forgetting is that vulnerable people do not only exist within a few metres of a school gate or near a hospital entrance. Children need to walk to school from their homes, elderly people have to cross the road to get to the shops, disabled people need the freedom and confidence to travel around their communities. They need to navigate busy roads and residential streets every day. This is why the 20 mph policy was introduced—to reduce death and serious injury, to make people feel safer to walk and cycle around their communities, to reduce congestion and parking issues and to improve people's health, something I'm pleased had cross-party support in the previous Senedd.

When some people say that a 20 mph blanket ban—. Sorry. I do apologise. It's in my notes. I didn't mean to say it. It's really hard when I didn't realise. When some people say it infringes their freedom, they are ignoring the freedom of those people. The freedom—

Would you take an intervention?

Yes, why not?

That's very generous. Would you not agree with me that the reason why there's so few Labour people sitting on benches now—? This was one of the fundamental reasons why the people of Wales were so angry—that their petition of 0.5 million people was completely ignored. They were furious about the 20 mph policy. It has actually changed the Government here.

I couldn't possibly comment on that, except to point out that Plaid Cymru also support this, as do the Greens.

When some people say that the 20 mph default limit infringes their freedom, they're ignoring the freedom of those people—the freedom to walk safely in their communities, the freedom to cross the road without fear, the freedom to participate fully in community life. We need to be serious about encouraging a shift towards walking, wheeling and cycling, so we must create environments in which people feel safe to do so. We cannot talk about reducing congestion and parking issues whilst simultaneously arguing against measures that make streets safer for those who do not or are unable to drive.

That brings me to the practical alternative that is so often proposed: selective 20 mph zones for those schools, hospitals, care homes and playgrounds. Let's consider what that would mean in practice. The Welsh Government's nationwide implementation cost around £33 million. But if we were to scrap the 20 mph policy, which in itself would probably cost about £33 million again, and then redesignate every school, every care home, every hospital and every playground individually, at the average of £33,000 per location, the cost of that would be £163 million. I wonder whether Reform agree with me that £163 million is more money than £33 million. I understand that I can't use the B word in this debate, which is a shame, because communities need a simple, consistent layer of protection. The alternative, of course, is an expensive patchwork quilt of varying speed limits requiring more signs, more admin and more enforcement, leaving drivers confused as they try and work out which rule applies where. I'm nearly finished.

In this debate about cost, we're losing sight of the fact that lower speeds reduce the risk of death and serious injury. That's why the policy was introduced. That's why many opponents support 20 mph in the places they care about. That's why this debate ultimately comes down to this: whose freedom do we value in society? Is a car journey that is, on average, less than a minute quicker really more important than the ability of a child to walk safely to school, an older person to cross the road with confidence, or a disabled person to travel independently through their community? Almost one in five households in Wales do not have access to a car. Many of these people are old, disabled, young or poor. Why should they bear the consequences and the risk—

—one sentence—simply so that the rest of us can reach our destinations 50 seconds sooner? Diolch.

Diolch, Lywydd. I'm going to cover a lot of ground that's already been covered, but there are two separate questions in this debate, and too often they're deliberately rolled into one. The first is whether 20 mph is right in some places. Well, of course it is; we're not going to argue with you over that. Outside schools, around hospitals, on clearly defined residential streets where the evidence justifies it, nobody on these benches disputes that lower speeds make collisions less severe. The second question is very different: should 20 mph be the default for restricted roads—I'm not going to use that term—across Wales, with communities left to argue their way back to 30 mph?

This is where Reform takes a different and pragmatic view. The focus should be on realising the data isn't conclusive—and it hasn't even been properly evaluated yet—and actually focus on that, rather than taking the credit for an initiative that was really poorly executed. Trying to take the credit for a small dip is like me taking credit for Italy winning the world cup in 1982 because I switched my tv on once. It's absolutely preposterous. It's delusional. For me, I'd like to give my own perspective on why we've seen this dip, and it has nothing to do with the B word. We're all getting e-mails, all of us, from constituents regarding speeding on specific roads, in parks at night. I have it in my ward with regard to the A484, which is a racetrack. I have it in North Dock in Llanelli, I have it in Llangennech in my ward. The most common factors, speaking to people and police officers for this behaviour and the change of behaviour, are as follows. Vehicles now have more safety measures than they ever did before—ever. There are fewer pedestrians around at night because they just don't go out because of the state of our roads. And these guys are speeding and driving at night. They do that because the police are spending less time patrolling in the evenings because of limited resources. So, there's another angle as to why you see that slight dip, and I think we're not looking at that.

There is a perception within people that lawlessness is acceptable, and the offenders that we should be focusing on take advantage of that. I'll give you an example of that perception. On 5 March 2026, I witnessed a car overtake me in Felinfoel in a 20 mph zone at approximately 60 mph. The car was going so fast that he actually had to swerve into oncoming traffic and narrowly missed a pedestrian by 1.5 ft to 2.5 ft. I phoned the police on 999 and was told to stay on the line whilst I followed the car in traffic. The registration number was given. Fifteen minutes later, I was told they couldn't do anything because he'd crossed into another force area. That was 5 March. To date, as of this morning, that person has not been visited and spoken to. This is a guy who almost killed someone. So, I would suggest that, actually, we're looking in the wrong place.

Now, Reform believes in far, far stronger enforcement of measures. Target the problem. Don't put a default in there. It's absolutely preposterous. So, back to the default. So, what currently decides whether you need your road to be a 20 mph zone? It isn't a school, hospital or a children's crossing. It's a lamppost because that's how we work our default out, by the space between the lights. So, if the street lights are close enough, it's 20 mph, and it's up to your community to prove otherwise, which is a nonsense.

Now, as I said, collisions on 20 mph and 30 mph roads are dipping slightly and every one of us should welcome that. But they were already falling for around 10 years. This isn't an overnight thing. The post-policy period is short and the Government's evaluation isn't even finished. So, I would say: publish the evaluation in full. Show us which roads actually produced a benefit, because if the gains have actually come from streets where 20 mph was always the default, then that's wrong, isn't it? That's an argument for targeting, not a national default.

Then there is consent: 469,571 people signed a petition to say they didn't want this—didn't want it. And we're accused of always talking Wales down, where it looks like they told you—500,000 people who didn't want it—and you talked them down. So, let's get our facts straight there. Transport for Wales's own monitoring sites in summer 2025 said that barely half of the vehicles are doing 24 mph or less. A default that half the drivers aren't keeping to has a credibility problem in itself. And when communities did push back, what happens? In Carmarthenshire, the council received 1,604 submissions from the general public. One hundred and fifty stretches of road were reviewed, and only 11 of those actually made it back to 30 mph.

Then there's the cost. The Government's own appraisal level predicted a net benefit. It estimated the cost of slower journeys at £6.35 billion over 30 years. And after counting every road safety, active travel and environmental benefit, its central estimate was still minus £4.5 billion.

Now to the Government. Plaid Cymru did not merely inherit this policy, you promised it and co-opted it. You promised it in your 2021 manifesto. You voted for it in 2022. Then, this May, you asked for a mandate to govern without a word about the default in your manifesto. At Reform, our manifesto is clear. Restore 30 mph as the default, keep 20 mph where it's generally needed outside schools and hospitals and on clearly defined residential streets, with a positive evidence-based case for each one. And invest in fixing dangerous junctions and collision black spots, instead of treating a change of signs as a road safety strategy and a cash cow that you can milk.

Thank you. And have evidence-led limits that improve safety without strangling town centres and turning a daily commute into a daily irritation.

So, I ask the Deputy Minister for three things: publish the updated economic appraisal, give this Chamber firm dates for the evaluation, and commit to the Chamber today that if that comes back and it doesn't justify a national default, it goes. That's it—it goes.

Llywydd, I'm grateful for the opportunity to respond to the points raised by Members this afternoon. Let me start by saying that road safety is not a political issue to score political points with. Every road death is a tragedy. Every serious injury can change people's lives forever, impacting not only the individual, but also the family, friends and the whole community.

Firstly, just to set the tone, I wrote to all the business managers here this morning, and I copied the Llywydd in, to make sure that we were dealing with facts, so that we had a factual representation. And I thank you, Vikki, for pointing to that in your contribution a few minutes ago. I was really disappointed early on to hear the 91 being repeated here. Let's just be clear that that isn't related to 91 deaths on 20 mph or 30 mph roads; that's across the piece. So, if we're going to talk about something that's related to 20 mph and 30 mph, like Vikki, I would like that to be explained when Jason wraps up.

The other thing I'd like to say is that the motion before us from Reform didn't make any of the caveats that have been referenced in the contributions from behind me, some of which have been worth while. We were clearly concerned, when we were in opposition in the last Senedd, to make sure that Labour, in time, dealt with this proposal in a different way, and I think even the Labour benches would probably agree with that position now anyway. But it does concern me that we're continually going back over this old ground without dealing with the facts in front of us.

This Government is absolutely committed to reducing the number of people killed and seriously injured on Welsh roads. The responsibility for road safety is shared between all those who use the roads, those who design, regulate, manage and operate the transport system, and those who enforce its rules. We all have a part to play. This Government is clear that the 20 mph speed limit in areas where pedestrians and cyclists mix with motorised vehicles is fundamentally the right policy. The evidence so far points absolutely in the right direction. There are many fewer collisions and fewer people injured on these roads now. This supports the aim we should all share of no family having to grieve a loved one because of an avoidable tragedy.

It is important that this debate is grounded in evidence rather than assertion. Much has been said about the impact of 20 mph over the last three years, but the laws of physics are clear, and Gwyn referenced this earlier—I'm just building on that—a small increase in speed creates a much larger increase in collision energy. This means a car travelling at 30 mph carries 2.25 times more kinetic energy than the same car travelling at 20 mph. A vehicle at 30 mph needs almost twice the distance to stop as a vehicle at 20 mph. Driver reaction time increases from about 6m to 9m when comparing the two, meaning there is less time to perceive hazards. That is why, at 20 mph, collisions are more likely to be avoidable, and if they occur, they are considerably more survivable than collisions at 30 mph. It is true that 91 people were killed in collisions in Wales in 2025, and one thing I'm really disappointed about in this debate is when we've talked about people's lives lost, I've heard laughter and derision from the benches behind me. This is a serious matter, and we hear this again and again and again. That's even more people than in 2024, but five fewer than the last calendar year before the introduction of the 20 mph default speed limit. Despite 84 and 91 fatalities in 2024 and 2025 respectively, there were only 19 fatalities on 20 mph roads. That is 19 too many, let's be clear, but that's a big reduction. The number of casualties on 20 mph and 30 mph combined is 23 per cent lower than in 2022, before the speed limit came into force.

Road casualty numbers fluctuate from year to year. It has always been acknowledged that this will take several years of monitoring and evaluation before firm conclusions can be drawn. That is the responsible position, but, equally, it is not accurate to suggest that the evidence demonstrates the policy is, and I use quotes, 'clearly not working'. The published data simply does not support that conclusion.

The same applies when looking at speeds and journey times. Transport for Wales has undertaken extensive monitoring on behalf of the Welsh Government. That monitoring has shown reductions in average vehicle speeds on roads affected by the policy. It has also shown that the impact on journey times is measured in seconds for many journeys, with journey times actually becoming more reliable on 45 of the 60 roads monitored. Some drivers may experience very slightly longer journey times, and I understand that frustration, but it is important that we deal with facts.

We've heard repeated claims that the policy cost Wales £9 billion. That is not what the regulatory impact assessment says. The regulatory impact assessment applied standard UK transport appraisal methodology, which monetised changes in journey times. While this provides a useful measure of travel time impacts, it does not fully reflect the wider purpose of the policy. Adopting a broader conception of value, it is clear that a marginal increase in travel time is more than justified where it saves lives and improves safety, public health and quality of life. From that perspective, the primary question is not whether journey times are marginally longer, but whether Wales becomes a safer, healthier and better place in which to live for current and future generations. While the theoretical figures applied to travel time impacts are a commonly used tool, they do not and are incapable of reflecting the wider real impacts. The policy is intended to save lives and reduce injuries.

Compared to figures on 20 mph and 30 mph roads in England, casualties in Wales have reduced at a three times greater rate between 2022 and 2025. Whilst I and this Government stand over the fundamentals of this policy, I will also freely admit—and I think others will, even on the Labour benches—that there were issues with the initial implementation under our predecessors. And some of the points that Helen made earlier fall into that category. Plaid Cymru's proposal and a balanced and flexible approach to implementation were supported by a majority in the last Senedd; they could and should have been adopted from the outset. One of the clear lessons from implementation was that there were inconsistencies in how the policy was applied by councils across Wales, and that there were roads where local people felt that different speed limits would be more appropriate. Those concerns were heard, and as we've heard this afternoon, local authorities acted on those concerns.

The previous Welsh Government did eventually revise its guidance, clarifying criteria, working closely with local authorities and empowering highway authorities to review roads in light of local circumstances. Councils across Wales have reassessed sections of the network, engaged with communities, considered local evidence and, where appropriate, made changes.

I'll make one final point, if I may. Some people wanted every road to remain at 20 mph, others wanted every road to revert to 30 mph. However, the feedback from local authorities was clear. When asked, their residents did not want their own road to return to 30 mph. We therefore want to continue with this more pragmatic approach: the right speed on the right road, informed by evidence and community engagement. I therefore urge Members this evening to vote on the amendment from the Government. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch, Lywydd. Well, those local authorities next year will be tested on that, if that's what the response was, because we'll be looking forward to taking this issue back out onto the doorstep and letting the people of Wales decide whether this was a good or bad policy.

This question here today was about, for us, honouring what was a manifesto commitment. We on these benches think it would be wrong to tell the public one thing and then stand up in this Chamber and say the complete opposite. A betrayal in trust of the electorate is an absolute disgrace, and we won't tolerate that. We are going to follow every manifesto commitment we did that put us in here. That's why we are discussing this.

The thing you failed to mention in your response there, Minister, was the people of Wales in this. You went through your figures, you spoke about those, but what about all those people who signed a petition to this place saying that it was wrong to do the roll-out, and 20 mph doesn't work for them? We've heard the figure is 469,571—15 per cent of the people of Wales decided to take their time to sign a Senedd petition to try to send a clear signal to this place, and the problem was there were deaf ears in this place that didn't want to listen. Well, guess what? The people of Wales then sent these people here to these benches, so you will have to listen. That's what we are. [Interruption.] We're going in. It's coming.

Now, an opinion poll by the BBC in March showed that 54 per cent of the people of Wales still oppose this policy, and I heard on the Labour benches quite a strange supporting of their policy there. Quite strange that, because all I've heard Ken Skates speak about in the last couple of weeks was how true devolution needs to come, that local authorities should be making decisions, but what you were supporting in this Chamber today was a top-down approach that didn't work. It shows that Labour want to talk the talk, but they won't walk the walk. They can't be trusted again—

Are you going to talk about road safety?

What? Oh, Minister, you've got more to say again now, have you? Is this the democracy of Plaid Cymru? Heckle from the front benches after having minutes of your own time. Trust me, I've got a lot to come to, Minister.

This decision today is important to how the electorate look at us. We've heard from Members, good Members, like Gwyn there. I always enjoy his contributions. I can't say I agree with everything Gwyn says. But you were right—the public have told you as well that they are frustrated with this policy.

When you came here today, Minister, I didn't expect you to agree with us, but I thought your tone could have been slightly different. Rather than insulting people that don't agree with this, how about listening to them? Because that there—

Llywydd, on a point of order, I find it really bad that the Minister is sat almost intimidating—

Oh, I—

He's not scared of them.

The Minister is completely reversed in his chair, almost intimidating a Member that is speaking.

Diolch, Lywydd. As I was saying, we heard also from the benches opposite about how some councils hadn't reversed the decision. Maybe, because of the state that Labour left councils in, with a lack of funds, they simply can't afford it. Some people don't want to put the burden on the taxpayer to undo your mistakes. That's the problem.

What we are talking about today are people's lives. Now, you say you're thinking of the children, but how about we think of, actually, the people out there? Minister, you say it adds a bit of time and it's not much impact. We can say that on these benches, but, for people out there, time is money when they're on the roads—actual people needing to get from one job to the next to pay their bills, to put food on the table. There is a real cost to this.

So, I think the remarks today—. Let's think of the bigger picture. I agree, road safety is an important issue, but there's a wider impact here. Even the last Welsh Government's assessment said that this policy could cost up to £4.5 billion in 30 years. That's a huge impact to the Welsh economy—jobs going, livelihoods. How about we think of them when we're here—people we represent? We in here, this Chamber, are servants to the people, not masters, where we get to ignore them. We don't get to turn our back when we don't like what the electorate are saying. It's important to listen, and that's why we are having what should be an important debate.

Now, you mentioned road safety to me earlier, Minister. We've addressed road safety. We've said that there are lots of things we could be doing and focusing our time on, where that money could have gone, from dangerous junctions to potholes galore. There is a lot out there that we could be spending time on, but, no, we have to be sitting here talking about this today, because a failed policy was rolled out.

And the fact that politicians don't accept it—. And I agree with you, Janet, in your intervention. There's a reason the Labour benches are so empty here today. Deaf ears should not be what the electorate get. And I do want to pay credit to you, Carmelo, for your contribution today; Jason, Helen, Janet, for yours, and Gwyn, I do always enjoy it, like I said, but I don't know what the mobile phone—. I don't know how I could possibly get into that; I think that's a debate for another time at the end. Spending more time outdoors, I do agree with you, but—. I always appreciate a Max Boyce quote as well in a contribution.

I urge Members today to vote on what they think their constituents would want. It's easy for some people to say, 'Oh, it doesn't have much of an impact; our lives aren't impacted by it.' My inbox and my colleagues' inboxes, and I'm sure yours, are of people who are impacted by a policy that does have bad consequences. As we have said, we are not in here today saying that we want 30 mph or higher outside schools or hospitals, what we are saying is that roads that were safe before should be back to 30 mph, and to roll that out to councils in the way that it is, so that they have to work backwards, not work forwards—. I'm afraid, Ken, you don't understand your own policies now in the sense of—

Absolutely. I want to hear this one.

Thank you. So, your motion explicitly states that you want to scrap the default speed limit, which would mean going back to 30 mph outside schools, outside hospitals, outside play areas, and then you would have to pay a fortune, using traffic regulation orders across every community at an enormous cost to reduce back to 20 mph. It would be a farce.

You didn't answer what I was addressing, your top-down approach, Ken. Let's get back to your true devolution. But, in terms of schools, I went through education under Labour Governments consecutively here. There wasn't 30 mph outside my school when I was younger. [Interruption.] That was your deal. There wasn't when you brought this bad legislation through, drove it through, ignored the wishes of the people of Wales, ignored them with their concerns, and then you as a Minister tried to unravel the chaos of what your party created. It's time to put your hands up and own it.

Apologies, I did name him, so he came to respond, probably. I'm sure he wasn't looking to break any rules.

In closing, I urge Members today to support our motion in getting Wales moving again. Diolch yn fawr.

And my message and our message as a Senedd to those individuals, those workers, in those industries today should be very straightforward. It should be that we value what you do. We will champion your role in our defence and security as a nation, and we value your role in our economic security too. My party seeks to support opportunities to attract further defence-related investment to Wales, and I had hoped that all political parties in this Senedd could be united and agree on these particular issues. But I have to say, having seen some of the announcements and actions of the Welsh Government in recent weeks, and the unnecessary amendment to our debate today, I'm now not so sure as to where the Welsh Government stands on this issue, particularly that announcement on pausing investment in our defence industry in order that you can undertake this ethical defence review. I think that that is a recipe for disaster. It sends absolutely the wrong signal to those businesses that are getting ready to invest in different parts of the UK as the spending taps come on, because we need to make sure that we spend more on defence as a nation. And yet, at the very same time that those businesses are trying to make decisions about where to invest, the Welsh Government puts on the brakes and says, 'Stop. We're going to do a review.' It couldn't have come at a worse time. It couldn't have come at a worse time.

You seem happy, Cabinet Minister, for that investment to go elsewhere, and I'm looking forward to your contribution to this debate today, because you need to put on record that Wales is open for this investment in order that we can secure those important jobs in our defence industry and create new, highly paid, well-skilled jobs in the future as well. And I think what you need to tell us is how long is this pause on investment going to be. How long are companies going to have to wait before they get a signal from you that Wales is still open for business? How many projects have been affected by that pause so far? How many millions have been set to one side as a result of this pause? What new tests are you expecting to apply to firms that are already operating under an ethical framework effectively within the UK, and legally operating and producing things, some of which are being exported? Are you going to be judging, as a Government, whether an ejector seat or a parachute that's going to be strapped to an RAF jet is an ethical choice or not? I think it's very bizarre. It's baffling, and I'm concerned about it. Investors need certainty. Workers need certainty. But you're creating uncertainty, and that's bad for business. It's not good for business at all.

You say, or appear to say, that you value defence jobs, and yet you are deferring decisions that could be supporting those defence jobs and making sure that we attract them. Just last year, prior to the Senedd elections, I challenged the Development Bank of Wales on a restriction on arms manufacturing investment in this Chamber. It's only after I pressed them on that issue that the bank publicly clarified that that exclusion had been removed. Defence firms need plain answers. They don't need uncertainty. And I'm afraid that your amendment replaces our very clear call for a Welsh defence industrial strategy with just warm words about jobs and a request for us to endorse an ethical framework that hasn't even been published. We don't know who is undertaking the review. You haven't told us which individuals you're going to be listening to, and whether there's any involvement of the defence sector itself in that review or any engagement with them. These are important things, and I think we need to know as a Chamber—the nation needs to know—where you stand on this issue of defence. What are you going to do to help grow the industry here in Wales?

In July, the economy and enterprise Minister, to be fair, went to the Farnborough airshow—very pleased to see you go there, and I know that you met with some defence companies while there. I commend you for doing that, but I was really disappointed that, when those businesses came to Newport, when they came to Newport, just down the road, you chose not to meet them. Even though you were down to be a speaker at that event, you didn't turn up. What sort of message does that send to these big multinational corporations that might want to invest in Wales? I'll tell you what message it sends. It sends the message, 'We don't want you here,' and I'm afraid that's absolutely the wrong message that you should be sending, especially given the value of the defence industry to our country and the value of it to our economic and, obviously, national security.

So, businesses deserve an answer. We don't need more stalling. We don't need you holding up the creation of well-paid jobs and investment. Instead of sending out these mixed signals and these mixed messages to those businesses that are waiting to make decisions on where they invest, I think everybody in this Chamber should reflect, you should back our motion, you should demonstrate to those businesses and those workers in the defence industry across our country, who do so much to contribute to our national security, that you are on their side. You should make sure that we express, as a Senedd, a welcome for the increased defence spending by the UK Government, and every one of us in this Chamber should be fighting for Wales to get our fair share. You often talk about the fair share of investment in rail, right? And I'm all for that as well. But let's get our fair share of defence investment into Wales as well. That's why you need to get behind this motion.

Let's develop that strategy to grow our defence sector. Let's try to boost the opportunities that that brings to our economy, our advanced manufacturing centre, our education providers, and the opportunities for research and development right at the cutting edge, which, of course, can help to transform other parts of our economy too. It's the duty of every single Government, including every single Government in the United Kingdom, to keep our citizens safe and secure. Wales should play its full part in ensuring that we have an armed forces that are equipped with the modern capabilities that they need to be able to do just that. So, let's back them, back our defence sector. I urge Members to support the motion.

Formally, Llywydd.

Diolch. Here in Cymru, we had a proud tradition of peace activism. Many of us can trace our family history back to a woman who signed the Welsh women's peace petition. St Fagans held a powerful exhibition tracing that journey from the women who organised for peace in the aftermath of the first world war to the women of Greenham Common who sacrificed so much in their campaign against nuclear weapons. Once again, we find ourselves living through turbulent times with devastating conflicts unfolding across the world. And, of course, there remains a pragmatic need for defence, and we must engage honestly with that reality.

I welcome the work that this Plaid Cymru Government is undertaking to develop an ethical defence investment framework. It presents a real opportunity to build on the Scottish Government's human rights due diligence approach, which evaluates businesses before they receive public grants or investment, and to establish a gold standard for ethical investment here in Wales. This framework is the first of its kind in Cymru, and Wales can be world-leading in setting clear expectations that public money should never support companies linked to human rights abuses or violations of international law. It allows us to stand on the shoulders of those women who came before us and carry forward their commitment to peace, justice and ethical leadership. Whether the conflict is in Gaza, South Sudan or Ukraine, we should be clear in our determination that no weapon manufactured, even in part, in Wales should ever be used in a way that breaches international human rights law.

Global responsibility is not just about following money. It is about ensuring Wales is never complicit in human rights abuses, and that our economic choices reflect our commitment to peace, justice and international solidarity. But we must also be honest about the wider questions this debate raises. Defence spending is often presented as an economic opportunity, but what kind of economy do we want to build here in Wales? The people of Wales elected this Plaid Cymru Government with a mandate for a different kind of economy, an economy that places our people and communities at its heart. They voted for an economic model rooted in ownership and community wealth, ensuring that wealth generated in Wales remains in Wales, building stronger communities, creating opportunity and delivering prosperity that is shared by all. If that is our ambition, then we must also ask who owns Wales's arms and defence manufacturing facilities and whose interests they serve. In many cases, ownership rests with large multinational corporations and private firms whose primary responsibility is to shareholders—

Will you take an intervention?

No, I won't.

Rather than to communities in which they operate. When we talk about wealth leaking from Wales, this is exactly what we mean. Wealth created by Welsh workers and Welsh communities flowing out of Wales, rather than being reinvested in the places that need it most. That also raises questions about who gets to make decisions with profound consequences for peace, security and human rights. Those decisions should be guided by the public interest, ethical responsibility and respect for human rights, not by commercial priorities alone.

And there is the question of jobs. We must be willing to ask whether it’s right that military bases and defence manufacturing facilities are concentrated in civilian communities and what the consequences of those choices are. A leaked Russian strike list by a senior Senator shows a map of UK military and industrial sites, with Merthyr Tydfil as a potential target due to the General Dynamics facility there. Hosting facilities in Welsh communities inevitably ties the safety and everyday lives of civilian towns to international conflict. This is a reality that we can't ignore. Is it fair that some of our poorest communities are expected to shoulder those risks while being denied the investment they need to thrive? Is it fair that working-class people are presented with a choice between employment in the defence industry or economic insecurity? Is that really a choice at all?

The work this Government is undertaking on an ethical defence investment framework is both necessary and timely. I wish to thank the Welsh Conservatives for bringing forward this debate because it gives us an opportunity to reflect on the kind of Wales we want to build. I believe there is one principle on which we can all agree: any investment connected to defence must be consistent with international law and fundamental human rights. As we shape Wales's future, those values must remain at the heart of the decisions we make.

It gives me great pleasure to take part in this afternoon's debate and to highlight the contribution being made by the defence sector in west Wales. Now, our motion recognises the importance of the defence sector, particularly during this time of geopolitical uncertainty. In Ceredigion Penfro, and contrary to the previous speaker, we are proud of our military heritage, proud of the men and women who serve our country, and proud of the role our communities continue to play in supporting our armed forces and the wider defence industry.

The Ministry of Defence maintains a substantial operational and testing presence in west Wales, and this, of course, includes the MOD Aberporth range, located near Cardigan, which provides a vast and secure safety area for the testing and evaluation of air-launched weapons and uncrewed aerial systems, ensuring that these are safe, effective and fit for operational use. As I understand it, the range employs around 200 skilled staff and makes a significant contribution to the local economy. The facility supports a wider supply chain of local businesses, contractors and service providers, which, of course, helps to sustain jobs and investment across the region. These are important roles that provide career opportunities and help retain skilled workers in west Wales. MOD Aberporth has established itself as a centre of excellence in aerospace and defence innovation, particularly in the rapidly developing field of uncrewed and autonomous systems. And I believe this supports innovation, research and technological advancement, which, in turn, strengthens our national defence.

Of course, the presence of the defence sector in west Wales is not limited to Aberporth. Cawdor barracks in Brawdy has long been an important part of the region's military landscape and also makes a significant contribution to both our national security and, indeed, to the local economy. The barracks have provided employment opportunities for military personnel, civilian staff and local contractors, and the service families are a cherished part of the local community. There has been some discussion around the future of the barracks, with proposals to develop it as the UK's host site for the deep space advanced radar capability programme, known as DARC. This would be the UK's first dedicated military space tracking radar system and it would help the UK contribute towards space security by providing greater levels of UK-sourced data for the National Space Operations Centre.

I appreciate there are strong-held views for and against the DARC programme, but in my view, Cawdor barracks has an opportunity to be at the forefront of this very important technology. It would provide jobs for up to 100 UK military and civilian personnel onsite and it would also deliver further supply chain opportunities for the local area. For example, there will be significant opportunities during the construction phase. And so, if the DARC programme does proceed at the Cawdor barracks, I believe it would continue Pembrokeshire's proud tradition of supporting our military and protecting our nation.

The final sub-point in our motion calls on the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government to explore opportunities to strengthen investment in the defence sector here in Wales. I also want to make a brief point about Milford Haven, and the announcement last year that it was identified by the UK Government as one of 13 potential sites for new munitions and energetics factories. We are now waiting for further details from the UK Government on the next steps in that selection process, and whether the Milford Haven site will ultimately be chosen. But the fact that it has been shortlisted as a potential site reiterates the area's strategic importance.

At a time when strengthening the resilience of our defence supply chains is becoming increasingly important, it is encouraging to see west Wales being recognised for the role it can play in bolstering our defence. Of course, it would be remiss of me not to also highlight the importance of the Castlemartin training area and firing range, which is regularly used for live firing and tactical battle group-level exercises that are an essential part of ensuring our soldiers are prepared for all combat eventualities.

My constituency has a strong military history. Pembroke Dock's naval dockyard was one of the most important shipbuilding sites in Britain during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Angle airfield was a fighter station belonging to No. 10 Group Fighter Command, and a succession of squadrons passed through Angle, flying Supermarine Spitfires, Westland Whirlwinds and Hawker Hurricanes. St David's, Britain's smallest city, was a submarine listening post in world war one and a radar station in world war two. That's just a few examples, but there are many, many more. We in west Wales are proud of our contribution to our defence sector and to our armed forces, and we will continue to make an important contribution in the future. So, I urge Members to support our motion.

Reform heartily supports today's motion that's before us today. Wales has a proud defence tradition, and our aerospace and defence sector directly employs 16,000 people. The UK defence investment plan commits £298 billion over the next four years, with almost 60,000 industry jobs created. The investment is coming, the jobs are coming, the contracts are coming, and thank God we are part of our United Kingdom, so we can access these opportunities. The question for this Government is simple: how many of these opportunities are coming to Wales? Because Wales must not simply watch this investment happen elsewhere. We have to fight for our share of it.

I know personally what this industry can offer. I started my career with a three-year apprenticeship at the Ministry of Defence at St Athan. It was one of the best decisions I ever made. I earned while I learnt, I gained skills, experience, and it became the foundation of a 30-year career in aerospace and defence. I later joined General Dynamics, where I had technical teams that led the installation of complex communication systems in military platforms. And that's the power of what a good apprenticeship can do. It doesn't simply give somebody their first job, it can give them a career. It's a foundation for success, it can transform their prospects, and when we get it right, it can transform whole communities as well.

That's why Wales needs an ambitious defence industrial strategy. We have the workforce, we have world-class companies, we have universities, engineers, manufacturers, and the supply chains. What we need is a Government determined to bring those strengths together and compete relentlessly for investment. And that means stronger relationships with the MOD and industry, closer ties with decision makers in Westminster, not ideological division or the pursuit of independence. More apprenticeships, more technical skills, and fighting for every factory, every contract and every skilled job that Wales can secure.

Look at Merthyr Tydfil: General Dynamics has already demonstrated what high-quality defence manufacturing can bring to the heart of the Valleys. We're thrilled that Marshall Land Systems has seen the potential that Merthyr holds and is establishing its new facility there, employing hundreds, and that's exactly the sort of investment Wales should be pursuing. We should make sure that Welsh SMEs and supply chains benefit from this investment too. But this is where the Government needs to answer a very serious question. At the precise moment Britain is embarking upon one of the biggest periods of defence investment in generations, this Government is developing an additional bureaucratic Welsh ethical framework for defence investment—more unnecessary red tape.

Now, we are told, of course, that this will not create more barriers to defence investment, but this claim doesn't pass the commonsense sniff test. And here's the contradiction: this Government says Wales needs defence investment, they say they want the jobs. Yet instead of focusing on how Wales can attract that investment, Plaid wants to put an ethical defence framework at the centre of its approach to this crucial industry. We all want responsible investment, but Plaid's framework is an ideological purity test, putting political conditions ahead of jobs, growth and the economic opportunities Wales desperately needs.

And while this Government is busy putting barriers on defence investment, Russia's foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, is openly questioning the future of the United Kingdom, seeking to divide, weaken, disrupt, just as Plaid are trying to do for our union. Now let that sink in: a country that poses a direct threat to our national security sees the break-up of the United Kingdom as an opportunity. And yet Plaid is determined to pursue the very ambitions that Russia sees as being in its interests.

Now, this motion today should be a wake-up call for Plaid Cymru. Wales should be leading the way in strengthening Britain's defence, not undermining the very country that protects us. Plaid needs to stop putting ideology before our national interests and start putting Welsh workers first. Back this motion today, back our national defence, and let's get these defence jobs into Wales and back our communities. Diolch.

I very much welcome this debate today. I support the motion and also support many of the points raised in the amendment. Indeed, I particularly welcome the reference to the importance of respecting human rights, of upholding international law and international solidarity. I would also say that national solidarity is just as, if not more, important. A divided nation is a weak and vulnerable nation, and we must demonstrate unity to our enemies as much as we possibly can.

Now, Llywydd, the defence sector is interwoven with many other sectors in Wales, including aerospace, automotive, AI, glass, electronics, fabrics and advanced materials. So, investing in defence provides investment across the economy, and, crucially, in jobs that require the highest levels of skills and provide the best opportunities for career progression, especially for young people leaving universities and college. In my constituency, the defence sector is particularly important, as many Members will be aware. Fflint Wrecsam is home to a huge number of businesses, producing items that are then used by our armed forces and our allies. It represents a huge, huge proportion of employment across the constituency. So, without defence businesses, we would be so much poorer, not just so much weaker. Defence is just that—a means of protecting against aggression, against attack, against harm, and, crucially, against invasion. But we must never, never use our defence capabilities for aggressive intent, nor should we allow those who use what our defence sector produces and provides, whether it be intelligence, weapons, vehicles or kit.

Now, to the point in the motion referring to geopolitical instability, I would refer Members to NATO's assessment of global security at present: we are not living in war, but we are not living in peace either. We are living in the most vulnerable time since the cold war, with Russia in particular growing its military might. It's doing so not for the purpose of defence, as we can see in Ukraine; they are doing it for more nefarious purposes. I do believe that a strategy here is definitely needed. It's needed in order to take maximum advantage of the UK Government's increasing investment in defence, and I believe that the Scottish National Party in Government are looking at creating their defence strategy as well. I welcome and also agree with what Paul Davies had to say on the DARC programme. I do believe that this is essential for our defence and for jobs.

We also, whether we like it or not, invest in our intelligence services, our armed forces, and their families. I was with veterans at Caffinaafi in Connah's Quay just last Friday. It's a brilliant hub—I'd recommend it to all Members. It's a brilliant hub for veterans, for service leavers, reservists, cadets, serving personnel and, of course, their families. I spoke with a number of the veterans there. They didn't go into the forces and their loved ones didn't support them in the forces in the hope of war, or in the anticipation of invading another country. They took the action they did to defend people here, in our communities and around the world, for a better, safer, freer tomorrow.

Let's be absolutely clear about what we are talking about here today: we are talking about an industry that employs thousands of people across Wales, one that supports some of our most highly skilled jobs, and an industry that drives innovation, supports apprenticeships and contributes billions of pounds to our economy. And yet, at a time when the world is becoming increasingly volatile, we have a Welsh Government that is reluctant to engage in the opportunities that this sector presents. Some members of their own party have even been heard to say that we should move the arms industry out of Wales, because they do not want to have the guilt or the feeling of complicity in death.

Plaid Cymru's approach risks weakening our defence industry at precisely the moment when we should be strengthening it. We cannot allow Wales and the United Kingdom to become vulnerable in a time of geopolitical instability. The Welsh Government's own figures tell us that the combined defence and aerospace sector directly employs around 16,000 people, with a turnover of £3.7 billion and approximately £1.5 billion in gross value added. And when we include security in space, these figures rise to around 18,500 people and £5 billion in turnover and £2 billion in GVA. These aren't insignificant figures. These numbers represent family apprenticeships, families paying their mortgages. They represent the very best of engineers, innovators, technicians and highly skilled workers who are contributing to Wales and the United Kingdom's safety.

And we see that contribution in my own constituency of Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan. We have a proud tradition and history of contributing to Britain's defence sector and war effort. In the Vale, RAF St Athan played a major role during the second world war, training thousands of flight engineers, with more than 22,500 British Commonwealth and allied personnel passing through the site between 1941 and 1951. The area was also directly involved in the wartime scientific work, including radar research at St Athan, while Porthkerry Country Park in Barry was occupied by the British and American forces preparing for D-day. In Bridgend, the contribution was on an enormous industrial scale. The royal ordnance factory was one of the largest munition-filling factories in Britain during the second world war, and employed 40,000 people at its peak, making a major contribution to the production of ammunition and the war effort. That tradition of defence manufacturing continues today through businesses such as Spectrum Technologies in Bridgend, which designs and manufactures industrial laser systems for customers including the Ministry of Defence and the US Government Department of Defense. And as we heard from Darren a little earlier, IrvinGQ makes parachutes and ejector seats also in the constituency of Bridgend.

From the factories and airfields of the second world war to the highly skilled defence manufacturing and aerospace businesses of today, Bridgend and the Vale have constantly played their part in keeping Britain safe. The defence sector provides skilled employment opportunities for our young people and supports a wider supply chain. That is why I welcome the work that is being done to develop the defence training college in Wales, because if we want young people to have opportunities, we need to give them the route into highly skilled careers. We know that there is a skills challenge across Wales, so we want to use the defence sector to address this skills challenge. Wales currently receives around 3 per cent of the UK Ministry of Defence expenditure. There is an opportunity to increase that, but we will not get that investment by turning our backs on the sector. And we certainly will not get it by allowing ideology to come before jobs, skills and economic interests of communities, such as my constituency in Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan. We should be ambitious for Wales. We should be saying to defence companies, 'Come to Wales, invest in Wales, employ Welsh workers, train Welsh apprenticeships and develop the technologies of tomorrow here in Wales', because supporting the defence sector means supporting our economy and building skills in the workforce across the whole of Wales, and we should be proud of that. And at a time when our allies are strengthening their defences and the threats facing the United Kingdom are becoming increasingly complex, Wales cannot afford to stand on the sidelines. We should be competing for that investment, we should be creating those jobs and we should be making sure that Wales plays its key role in keeping Britain safe. That is why I will be supporting today's motion and rejecting the Government amendment, and I urge all colleagues here this evening to do the same.

As a veteran myself, I have to say I am thankful to our defence industry, which allows us to operate in dangerous environments efficiently, effectively and safely. I have to say I'm somewhat baffled by some of the arguments I've heard on Plaid's side of the Chamber. It's bizarre. So, I want to support a motion that allows Wales to build more, make more and win more of the skilled work that helps keep this country safe. I want a young person leaving school to see a future in Welsh engineering. I want graduates to have the opportunity to remain in Wales, and I want Welsh businesses competing for defence contracts to believe they have a Government that is firmly behind them. There is nothing shameful about earning a living helping Britain to defend itself. Our engineers, our manufacturers and our apprentices deserve respect. Being proud of Wales should mean being ambitious for the people who work here.

Defence is reserved to the United Kingdom Government. The Senedd does not direct our armed forces or control the MOD's procurement programmes. But Welsh Ministers have a responsibility for education, training and business support. Those powers matter. Use them properly and we can help Welsh firms compete. Use them badly and we risk putting obstacles in their way. Reform's Welsh manifesto already commits to expanding high-quality technical education and apprenticeships and working with employers to match training to the needs of the Welsh economy. This is a commitment I want applied to the opportunities in defence. Bring defence employers and higher education closer together. Give school leavers a route into skilled work, graduates an opportunity to build their careers here, and experienced workers the chance to retrain.

On 20 February, the UK Government and Wales Office announced their intention to work collaboratively to establish a defence technical excellence college in Wales by September 2027. What's the location? Is it in Swansea? Please say it is. But wherever it is based, we need a clear delivery plan. What funding has been agreed? Is September 2027 still achievable? How will the college work with defence employers? When can students find out what they can study and how to apply? For somebody considering a career in defence, those are details that matter. They should be able to see a route from training into employment here in Wales.

The same practical approach is needed for smaller businesses. A Welsh firm with the skills to produce to a military specification should have a fair opportunity to win the work. There should be support to help it prepare a bid, help it to meet the security requirements, and help to put it in contact with the MOD and major defence contractors awarding work. Give them a clear pathway, then show us whether that support is helping Welsh businesses win contracts and take on staff. Reform would introduce a Welsh industrial strategy built around secure, affordable energy, as our manifesto commits. I want defence manufacturers and their suppliers included in that ambition, with opportunities to invest, expand and employ more people.

That brings me to the Government's proposed ethical framework. On 22 September the Minister said that, wherever legally and practically possible, the new Welsh Government investment support decisions for defence activity should not be finalised until the framework is published and its implementation considered. Existing contractual commitments remain unaffected. Discussions can continue. Decisions needed sooner can go to the First Minister. I have to agree with Darren Millar, as, I have to say, asking businesses to wait while the rules are being developed is the wrong signal to industry. Before committing to expansion and recruitment, employers need to understand the conditions attached to that support. Minister, a company deciding where to invest needs an answer. An order book cannot be organised around your consultation timetable. Set clear standards and, in doing so, explain what this approach will achieve and how you will prevent avoidable delays. Plaid talks about standing up for Wales. Here's the opportunity to demonstrate it. Give Welsh employers clarity and Welsh workers a fair chance of securing the next investment. A Reform Government would be fearless in its support for the Welsh defence industry.

We should equally be focused about the weapons and civilian harms. Some weapons are restricted in their use. Others are prohibited because of their effects. With weapon systems, how they are deployed and used matters enormously. The UK's export licensing criteria already address the risk of equipment being used to commit or facilitate serious violations of international humanitarian law. Welsh Ministers need to explain what their framework will add and why that benefit justifies any further bureaucracy, administration and expense. Delays could encourage businesses to invest elsewhere.

I can't say this framework hasn't already cost Welsh jobs. I can demand that Ministers assess the risk to investment and employment. Welsh workers deserve to know that their livelihoods are being properly considered. I want Wales to play a confident part in a strong United Kingdom, with skilled people making equipment we can rely on and businesses capable of competing for work. I want this motion to lead to apprenticeships someone can apply for, a contract a Welsh business can bid for and a stronger Welsh defence industry. Deliver the training, help firms win contracts and give investors clear answers—

This is the last sentence. Our ambition should be Welsh apprentices qualifying, Welsh factories securing orders and Welsh families building their futures here. This is the opportunity before us, this Government should be getting on and delivering it. Thank you.

There's some irony here that only last week, when we were scrutinising and challenging your ethical defence framework, the aircraft went down at RAF Valley. I would hope that everybody on these benches is glad that those two pilots were able to eject and that they're well now after receiving treatment for minor injuries. I'm incredibly proud of that base. I'm also incredibly proud of the defence industry across Wales and the United Kingdom. And I'm incredibly proud of those who serve, and have served previously, in our armed forces—those who have lost their lives so that we have the freedom of speech here in this place. I've enjoyed so many excellent contributions today, bar one. I will leave it at that.

It should be noted that the ejection seats in that aircraft were made by Martin-Baker, a company based in Denham. The company's own data notes that these seats have saved almost 8,000 aircrew lives around the world, but it is shocking to note that this essential business has been subjected to vandalism and factory occupation by Palestine activists simply because the Israeli air force utilise their ejection seats. This type of behaviour should be firmly reprimanded and these essential companies should be protected.

This crash last week served rightly as a reminder to us all of the risks that each and every one of our brave servicemen and women take in protecting our country. And when I say 'our country', I mean the United Kingdom, to include Wales. Our vital defence sector uses a wide range of high-value skills that makes it naturally an ideal partner for schools, colleges and universities. It also employs over 18,500 people, has a turnover of more than £5 billion and contributes around £2 billion of gross value added to the Welsh economy. This industry contributes significantly to both our Welsh economy and our nation's safety. It provides highly skilled employment, supports supply chains across Wales and creates opportunities for collaboration between industry and education. Following the crash last week, when I got out of this Senedd, even though I had to go on somewhere, I made a point of contacting RAF Valley, sending them my best wishes and assuring them of our 100 per cent support.

Unlike the Welsh Government, some within Plaid Cymru in particular want to move the arms industry out of Wales due to what they describe as a feeling of complicity in death. Other Plaid Members use the pretence of an ethical defence framework that will push back defence spending in Wales. This is absolute madness at a time—well, it's madness at any time, but particularly now—when we are under such global threat. This is also reflected in the ideological blacklist that's set out in the form of the ethical framework for Welsh Government engagement with the defence sector. There's one that already exists in the United Kingdom Government. The Conservatives understand the importance of this sector because of the global unrest and have instead set out a plan. We would increase defence spending to 3 per cent of GDP.

It is also important to remember that, in the last Senedd term, the Welsh defence growth deal memorandum of understanding was signed. This agreement allocated £50 million to Wales from £250 million of UK-wide investment in regional growth as part of growing investment in defence. Following this, the regional defence and security cluster was established. This helps Welsh businesses, universities and colleges access Ministry of Defence contracts, develop their supply chains and grow their share of defence spending. It also connects businesses with Wales's eight universities and further education colleges, making use of their research and their expertise in areas such as cyber security, optoelectronics and artificial intelligence. The UK Government has pledged to work collaboratively with the Welsh Government to establish a new defence technical college by September 2027. This will train the next generation of defence engineers and help support Britain's growing autonomous capabilities. There is a clear opportunity here for Wales, Cabinet Secretary. We have a strong—. We were in committee this morning—

Yes, I will. It's essential we have productivity in Wales. We are lagging behind because of the previous Welsh Labour Government, supported by you. The evidence is clear: the defence sector is a vital component. We need the Welsh Government to commit to ensuring this industry has the support and what it needs to thrive here in Wales. I hope that you have a change of heart and that you support this motion today. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Hopefully, we're getting to that point where we've got some common ground across the Chamber in relation to how important defence is to our economy, and the aerospace sector as well, but the measure of success can't simply be about how much money we spend on defence, it must be about what investment delivers for Wales, for our workers, and for our communities.

We already have so many enormous strengths, which many of us have talked about. At BAE Systems in Glascoed, around 500 people work in defence manufacturing, alongside an apprenticeship programme delivering the next generation of skilled workers. At Airbus Broughton, we have world-class aerospace manufacturing and thousands of highly skilled jobs. The UK Government has announced a £50 million Welsh defence growth deal, with Welsh workers expected to be involved in designing, testing and manufacturing new technologies. The investment includes funding a specialised college designed to train the next generation of defence engineers. Yesterday's UK Government announcements on Great British Grid also matter. If we want Welsh manufacturing to expand, to attract investment and create jobs, businesses need that infrastructure to do it. Faster grid connections can help unlock that growth. This is what joined-up industrial policy should be about: investment, infrastructure and skills working together to create good jobs.

My challenge is really simple: if defence spending is increasing, Wales must secure its fair share of the jobs, skills and investment. This means using procurement to strengthen Welsh supply chains, creating apprenticeships and ensuring that public investment supports fair pay, secure employment and opportunities to progress. Governments, employers and trade unions must be around the table together, because investment shouldn't simply deliver more jobs, it should deliver good jobs, decent conditions and a strong voice for workers.

We don't need to start from scratch. The Wales Union Learning Fund gives us a model to build upon. It supports union-led workplace learning and workforce development through Wales's social partnership approach. It's an approach that was very much championed by the Welsh Labour Government, putting workers and trade unions and skills at the heart of our economy. Let's build on that as defence investment grows, upskilling today's workforce and ensuring the next generation of defence jobs are Welsh jobs.

But this can't become a false choice between investing in defence and investing in the things our communities need. Building homes, investing in our NHS, schools and care services and protecting our national security are not competing ambitions. A strong country needs each and every single one of them, because security isn't only about defence, it's about having a decent home, a good job, strong public services and confidence in the future. Now we must move beyond talking shops and frameworks. We need delivery and we need it urgently—delivery that means good jobs and good futures, delivery where workers and communities can see and feel the economic benefit, and delivery that ensures that no worker and no community is left behind.

So, let's judge defence investment not simply by how many billions are spent but by what those billions leave behind: more skilled workers, stronger Welsh businesses, good secure jobs and stronger communities. Welsh industry should have its fair share. Welsh businesses should have their share. But above all, Welsh workers and Welsh communities should feel the benefit: good jobs, good futures, prosperity that stays here in Wales with nobody left behind.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to respond to this motion, because it gives me an opportunity once again, following the oral statement I made last week, to place on the record what's at the heart of this Government's view, namely that Wales has always sought to be a nation that combines economic ambition—and I think there is consensus on that there—with social responsibility. On that basis, of course, we are developing the ethical defence investment framework, because we don't see these two things—economic ambition and ethical values—as being contrary to each other; we see them dovetailing together and supporting each other.

I understand that there is a difference of opinion on some of the elements we've discussed this evening, but there is broad recognition on the importance of the sector. We've all been quoting the same figures, haven't we? What's important is not just the size of the sector but also the related sectors, because it's more than just the core defence sector. I agree with the broader point that Shavanah Taj has just made. We need to think about security in that broader sense, including the resilience of our infrastructure and so on; that is part of security, and there are important economic opportunities for us in that direction too.

But the defence sector and related sectors—aerospace and so on—are not only important employers, but they are also growing significantly. Our amendment, which sets out the most recent figures, which contradict the figures in the original motion, shows that—in just a short period of time, just 12 months, there has been a significant increase in terms of employment in the sector.

It's important to note also that one figure that is worth quoting is the percentage of MOD procurement that Wales gets at the moment—3.6 per cent. We have 5 per cent of the population, so it's less than the percentage share of the population. In terms of our manufacturing sector, because it is larger as compared to the rest of the economy, we in Wales have something like 6.5 per cent of the whole manufacturing sector of the UK. So, 3.6 per cent of defence procurement and 6.5 per cent of manufacturing. Over 6 per cent of members of the armed forces are here, and we as a Government are entirely committed to the armed forces covenant for those who are serving now, and for our veterans

We have contributed more than our population share to the armed forces, and yet only 3.6 per cent of the procurement budget is coming to Wales. So, there is a fundamental unfairness there, which is reflected in other parts of public procurement across the UK in terms of the use of public money. I think it is something that unites us, namely that Wales should get fair play and that companies from Wales should have their fair share of those opportunities. Why? Well, because these sectors do create high-value employment: high salaries, they maintain wide supply chains and give people across Wales the opportunity to develop higher level skills and to have worthwhile careers. We do have the manufacturing base here, of course: aerospace, electronics, cyber security, and so on. So, we are in a position where there are opportunities. There is potential there, and we certainly want to ensure that we deliver that potential.

Of course, it's important to note that we as a nation can't ignore changes to the geopolitical map across Europe and beyond. Governments are considering how they can be more resilient and safe and how to strengthen their industries. And Wales will need to be able to take advantage of those economic opportunities that will come from greater investment in that context, whilst also remaining true to our own values and responsibilities. And I think that is where there is perhaps some disagreement between us.

There was reference to the defence growth plan. That is a contribution towards creating more opportunities for companies in Wales. That will place Wales in a position to make the most of the opportunities that will come in manufacturing, advanced digital technologies, cyber capability, autonomous systems and dual-use innovation. And of course, skills will be crucial, as we have heard, to our future success. We as a Government, of course, are committed to understanding the skills needs more generally. That's why we're going through the national skills audit, but it is pertinent in the context of defence too.

Will you give way?

Yes.

I've sat here and obviously listened to your contribution for six and a half minutes. Can you just answer the questions about how long this pause in investment is going to take? If I accept what you're saying, and I do accept what you're saying, that you want to attract more of the MOD procurement to Wales so that we get our fair share, don't you accept that by pushing companies away with this pause, you're sending absolutely the wrong message in terms of trying to attract that money into Wales at this critical time, when businesses are making investment decisions? Don't you accept that that's a problem? And if you do, how long is this review going to take? How long is this pause? Who's undertaking the review? Which individuals are involved? Are you engaging the industry? Answer those questions.

Thanks. Well, I answered all of those questions in the oral statement I made last week. We said that we would publish the framework in the autumn—[Interruption.] I did. It's being developed, as I said just last week, by the Welsh Government in engagement with the defence sector—which was one of your questions—and with other stakeholders too. It doesn't mean that we won't be supporting the sector; it relates to providing clarity and assurance and a clear, transparent framework.

As I said last week, it aligns with what is happening globally with governments. The leader of the Labour group made reference to Scotland. Scotland has an ethical framework for the defence sector. The Northern Ireland Government has an ethical framework for the sector. The UK Government, as we heard from a Reform Member, has a framework. We were the only Government in the UK that didn't have a framework. We are putting that right so that we have a clear framework, so that, yes, we can ensure that Welsh companies benefit from the opportunities that exist, but on a firm foundation that is consistent with the values that are so important to our democracy here in Wales.

Diolch, Lywydd. I'm grateful to all Members who've contributed to the debate in this Chamber this evening. I think it shows the importance of the defence sector in Wales to all parts of Wales. I will start my closing of this debate, Llywydd, by addressing the Cabinet Minister's opening remarks in relation to the ethical defence framework, because it became clear through the debate that Members across parties have serious concerns about the implications of this, the delays it will induce and the consequences in Wales and more widely as a result. It clearly sends a message out that the defence sector is not properly supported by this Welsh Government. And I hope, Cabinet Minister, that you'll reflect on the concerns that Members have raised in this place, because we want to see that investment here in Wales, we want to see those jobs created here in Wales so that we can see prosperity here in Wales as well.

I did welcome the Cabinet Minister's remarks, Llywydd, in recognising the importance of the defence sector here, in particular growth industries around cyber security, aerospace, advanced manufacturing. I was pleased to hear from colleagues in Fflint Wrecsam. Ken Skates mentioned Airbus, and I was pleased to be able to visit there recently with Darren Millar and see the incredible work that they do in my own constituency—a real highlight for Wales is the work that Airbus do. And they've just recently announced another 480 new jobs in the area. Again, a fantastic example of what aerospace does in Wales.

And this growth and investment has been enabled by the skilled workers we have here in Wales, working with the UK Government and Welsh Government-backed Wrexham and Flintshire investment zone, alongside the support from local authorities. We heard in the debate, Llywydd, from Paul Davies about the strategic importance of west Wales and the opportunities for defence investment there, and we heard from the Reform spokesperson about the difference that the armed forces and the apprenticeship that he had made in his life and his career. And these are examples of why the Welsh Government should be directing more support to the defence sector right now, not pontificating and tying up the sector in red tape. And with the announcement of the ethical defence framework, potential investors and workers in the defence sector are facing nothing but uncertainty and delays. And that, Cabinet Minister, is what Members have raised in this place with you this evening.

These investments, as we've heard from Members also, are the things that make a very real difference day in, day out. We heard from Janet Finch-Saunders, didn't we, of the real-world impact of defence investment here in Wales. And when we talk about the defence sector, I think sometimes it's really easy to be fixated on the materials being produced—extremely important, of course, but let's not forget what is actually being defended. Darren Millar mentioned this with reference to the cold war in his opening remarks. It's our freedoms that are being defended; it's our values that are being defended; it's our democracy, our economic security, it's our resilience that's being defended by the defence sector. It's our way of life, it's the equalities that we enjoy as a nation, it's our peace that is being defended by the defence sector. And peace has to be fought for. We see it in the world that we live in today that peace is not something to be assumed. We have to fight for peace. And it's a fundamental. The highest priority of any Government is the peace of their nation. And it's this social responsibility of peace that we must fight for as a nation as well. That is our responsibility when it comes to our country. It's so important that we defend our values.

This debate comes precisely at a time when we are realising the growing need for investment and action. In short, Llywydd, because the world on our doorstep is getting more and more dangerous, we in this Senedd should be giving the defence sector our full backing, enabling manufacturers to be able to expand in Wales, provide good jobs to skilled workers and bolster the UK's defences. This is fundamental to the security of Wales, the security of the United Kingdom and the security of our allies abroad. That's why I urge all Members to back our motion and show your support for the defence sector here in Wales. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

And this brings me to something I feel very strongly about, which is social care. Because the pressures faced in Withybush do not stop at the door. We have the best doctors and nurses in the world, but if somebody is medically ready to leave that hospital and support isn't available in the community that person cannot simply go home. And while that person waits, a hospital bed remains occupied, another patient is waiting in A&E and an ambulance may be waiting outside, and the pressure moves backwards like a vicious circle. Health and social care cannot continue to operate as though they are separate worlds. We need health boards, councils, GPs, community nursing, care homes, domiciliary care and the third sector working around that patient as one joined-up system.

And we must include unpaid carers in that conversation, because, far too often, when we say that somebody can be cared for at home, there is a family member behind that sentence—a husband, a wife, a son, a daughter; someone who may suddenly find themselves providing hours of care every day. We cannot solve pressures on hospital beds by simply transferring that pressure onto families. If somebody is going home, care must be waiting for them, the family must know what is happening and unpaid carers must be properly supported. That isn't separate from protecting Withybush Hospital; it's part of protecting Withybush Hospital. Because the answer to pressure on hospital beds cannot simply be fewer hospital beds. We need to prevent unnecessary admissions to make sure they're ready to leave and can do safely.

I also want Withybush to have a stronger future in cancer care and palliative care. For someone living in Pembrokeshire, travelling for cancer treatment isn't necessarily an appointment of an hour or two. So, let's look at what we can deliver locally safely: diagnostics, follow-up care, cancer treatment where appropriate, GP premises, community facilities and, working properly with organisations such as Macmillan and our wider third sector, bring healthcare to people wherever we safely can instead of continually expecting sick people to travel long distances.

And that brings me to transport. You cannot have an honest conversation about centralising healthcare in rural Wales without talking about how people are actually going to get there. You cannot design healthcare for Pembrokeshire as though Pembrokeshire has the transport network of Cardiff. It doesn't. I am seeking discussions with Transport for Wales about improving connections involving Withybush and Carmarthenshire. But transport cannot be an afterthought. If you move healthcare, you must first show us how the patient is going to reach it.

And there is another issue that I believe we need to talk about more openly, and that is accountability. We often hear that these are decisions for the health board and, of course, health boards have a responsibility for planning and running local services, but responsibility cannot simply stop at the door of a health board. Health boards are accountable to the Welsh Ministers; Welsh Government oversees their performance and has powers to intervene when things go wrong. So, when communities are frightened about the future of their hospitals, I don't believe an elected Government can simply point towards a health board and say it is their decision. Health boards must be accountable for the decisions they make, but, ultimately, political accountability must sit with those of us who are elected.

As a member of the Health and Social Care Committee—. I'm really sorry, I've missed a page. But if patients cannot access the care they need, if services continue to deteriorate or if communities lose confidence in their local NHS, somebody democratically accountable has to answer for it. For me, ultimately, the buck stops here, in the Welsh Government.

And that brings me to money and workforce. We cannot keep putting more money into the same structures if patient outcomes and access do not improve. Administration is important. Hospitals cannot function without good administrative staff. But administration supports healthcare; front-line staff deliver it. So, when finances are under enormous pressure, we have to be brave enough to look at the structure itself. Are there unnecessary layers of management? Are roles being duplicated? Could services work differently? Could management structures be simplified? And could those savings be redirected towards the nurses, doctors, healthcare support workers, therapists, carers and other front-line professionals patients actually need? That isn't an attack on NHS managers; it's about making sure that as much of every pound as possible reaches patient care. And these concerns are not mine alone. Thousands of people have signed a Senedd petition raising concerns about healthcare provision at Withybush. The Petitions Committee has now agreed that those concerns deserve further scrutiny, including further engagement with the Health and Social Care Committee. A petition on its own will not decide the future of Withybush, but, when thousands of people take the time to put their names to one, we should pay attention. And I am paying attention. I have listened to the residents, I have spoken to the staff, I have visited Withybush, I have spoken directly with the health board, and, as a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, I will continue to scrutinise the decisions being made, because I don't want the story of Withybush to be one of managed decline.

I want us to protect what works, change what doesn't, specialise where clinical evidence generally shows we need to specialise, but localise wherever we safely can, keep emergency and urgent care strong, build on same-day emergency care and frailty, bring rehabilitation closer to home, strengthen cancer and palliative care, join healthcare and social care together, support our unpaid carers, and make transport part of healthcare planning, not an afterthought. And to the doctors, nurses, healthcare support workers, therapists, porters, cleaners, administrative staff, ambulance crews, and to everyone else working at Withybush Hospital, this debate is not an attack on you. It is quite the opposite. You are the people holding these services together. I used to be one of them, and you deserve to know that the hospital you work in has a future.

So, my message today is simple: Withybush cannot simply become a hospital where more and more patients are assessed and then sent somewhere else. The people of Pembrokeshire deserve safe, specialist care, but they also deserve local care. They deserve honesty. They deserve replacements to be ready before existing services disappear. Above all, they deserve something they have been asking for for far too long: a clear, credible, secure future for the hospital. Diolch, Lywydd.

Diolch, Lywydd. I thank Claire for bringing forward this important debate today, and thank you to all Members that have remained to hear it.

For older people living across Ceredigion Penfro, access to healthcare must not become a postcode lottery. At the last census, more than a quarter of Pembrokeshire residents were aged 65 or over. For someone who no longer drives, the distance can mean an expensive taxi fare, dependence on relatives, or maybe not even getting there at all. In an emergency, distance matters. Hywel Dda's 2023 travel survey recorded 38 minutes from Withybush to Glangwili, even with lights and sirens. Specialist care matters; so does reaching it safely. I support Claire's call to protect Withybush. Safe transfers, affordable transport and care closer to home must be built into any changes from the outset. Living in west Wales should never mean being left further from care, with our constituents financially victimised because of where they live. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you, Claire, for bringing forward this important debate. I know how close Withybush is to Claire's heart, but this is an issue that should unite every corner of this Chamber, because access to healthcare should never depend on where in Wales you live.

For people living in rural Wales, distance is not just an inconvenience. When you are frightened, in pain, in labour or facing a medical emergency, distance can become a clinical reality. A hospital like Withybush is therefore more than bricks and mortar; it is reassurance. It's the knowledge that, when something goes wrong, skilled professionals and essential care are within reach. And we must remember the staff too: the doctors, the nurses, the paramedics, the support teams, who understand these communities and have built their lives around serving them. People living in rural Wales should not have to accept poorer access to healthcare simply because of their postcode. We hear repeatedly about bringing care closer to home. Well, protecting viable local hospital services is precisely what 'closer to home' should mean. Withybush matters because rural communities matter, and access to timely, safe healthcare must never become the privilege of geography.

Thanks to Claire Archibald for tabling this important debate, and I agree with a great deal that's been said.

Since being elected, I have heard again and again constituents' concerns about services being downgraded in Withybush and ever greater centralisation, particularly towards the outdated Glangwili Hospital. I'd like to thank the Save Withybush Campaign for raising these issues. A big concern for me is the low level of trust between Hywel Dda and communities. This has not helped when decisions are delayed. Residents in Pembrokeshire deserve state-of-the-art facilities in hospital and in primary care, but, under previous Governments, a new hospital was discussed for 20 years with no decision made. This cripples planning, and I hope this decision can finally be made with urgency. But to build trust and design better services, Hywel Dda needs to start genuinely involving communities and staff in co-designing solutions.

And to close, I want to welcome the investments that are being made in Withybush, as Claire did, including the new £0.75 million children's out-patient facility, the Puffin centre, due to open in spring 2027. Diolch.

I'm grateful to the Member for allowing me a minute of her time so that I can take part in this very important debate.

Protecting services at Withybush Hospital and ensuring it has the resources needed to serve the people of Pembrokeshire has been one of my foremost priorities since I was first elected to this place in 2007. I know that long-standing Members will be aware that I've challenged proposals that centralised or downgraded services at Withybush Hospital, and I've tabled questions, led debates, attended public meetings, supported local campaigns, presented petitions and worked alongside residents to make their voices heard here at the Senedd.

And in my view, the people of Pembrokeshire deserve access to safe, high-quality healthcare close to home. They should not have to live with the constant fear that more vital services will be stripped away from their local hospital. Whilst Hywel Dda University Health Board is responsible for service delivery, Welsh Governments cannot continue to stand on the sidelines. They have the powers to intervene, and for too long they have chosen not to use them. This Government does not have to be a continuity Government of the last Government. It can and it must do better.

And so, I echo some of the points that the Member has already made in this debate about the importance of protecting Withybush Hospital, and I urge this Government to work with us and work with local residents to protect the future of Withybush Hospital. The people of Pembrokeshire deserve nothing less.

Thank you, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate, and to acknowledge the strong feelings held by people in Ceredigion Penfro about the future of healthcare services and the role of Withybush Hospital in the future.

I wish to start with a point that I believe all Members in this Chamber can agree upon. Local NHS services are important. They are important because health services are not abstract organisations. When people speak passionately about local services, it is because they understand the vital role that those services play in their lives.

In this Chamber in June, I said that when we talk about change in the NHS, we are talking about something that is very personal to every individual in Wales. We are talking about services that people rely upon when they are most vulnerable. Ultimately, we are talking about the care that we would all like to have for our own families: safe, high-quality care that achieves the best possible outcomes.

I believe that that is the correct starting point for this debate. Although there will be different views about how services should be organised, there is one principle that unites us all, namely that we want the people whom we represent to have the best possible care and the best possible outcomes. That is what matters most.

I understand the concerns that have been raised about access to healthcare in rural and coastal communities. Those concerns are valid. People who live in Ceredigion Penfro and, indeed, across Wales, experience health services in a different way to people who live in more urban areas. Geography is important, distance is important, transport is important. As a Member of the Senedd who represents a predominantly rural constituency, which also includes a number of communities on our west coast, and as someone who has personal experience of accessing health service in those areas, I am fully aware of these challenges.

That is why improving access to healthcare in rural and coastal communities is a key priority for this Government. We know that these areas experience disproportionate impacts all too often. That is also why we are strengthening collaboration between the health and transport portfolios, because we have to ensure that people in rural and coastal communities are not at a disadvantage when it comes to accessing healthcare services.

Despite this, Llywydd, accessibility is only part of the equation. People also deserve services that are safe, resilient and sustainable. When any of us, or a member of our family, need urgent or specialist care, we want to know that this service is provided in the right environment, that it is staffed appropriately, is supported by the right expertise and can ensure high and consistent standards of care. To achieve that, we sometimes need to have honest conversations about the pressures facing healthcare services today, including workforce shortages, issues relating to the estate, increasing demand and changing clinical standards. And in light of demographic trends, we also need to have conversations about standing still and keeping things as they are, come what may.

Those challenges are not unique to Ceredigion Penfro. They are challenges that arise throughout Wales and across the United Kingdom. That is why our agenda places such a strong emphasis on prevention and on care closer to home. The point that was made on transport, for example, is fair. That's why I discuss these things consistently with the Cabinet Minister for transport, and it's part of the bus franchising scheme that's being rolled out. And the Minister is here listening tonight.

Llywydd, I said in this Chamber recently that the true measure of success for this Government is not how many hospital beds we fill, but how many people we help to live healthier lives without needing one. That means investing in prevention, early intervention and stronger community services. Our ambition is clear: better access to care closer to home, earlier support when people need it and improved health outcomes for the long term. I've made it clear to health boards that this is not optional. I expect to see a genuine shift in resources towards community based care, backed by credible plans that demonstrate how that change will be delivered and sustained.

This was at the heart of the primary care summit we convened within the first 100 days of this new Government, and we will shortly be assessing the plans that the health boards have been developing in response to the challenge we've set them. The real question is whether patients receive the right care, in the right place, at the right time, from staff with the skills and resources required to deliver it safely and effectively. That must remain our guiding principle. The honest and inescapable conclusion is that the current configuration of services is not where it should be in order to deliver the improved outcomes we all want to see.

I've been clear from the outset that the contours of our health and care landscape invariably reflect the needs of yesterday rather than those of today and tomorrow, and that is precisely why we can't shy away from difficult but necessary choices on service redesign if we want to build an NHS that is fit for the future. The NHS is at its strongest when it evolves to meet the needs of the community it serves. That's why we must always listen to those who know our health service best: our nurses, doctors, allied health professionals, wider NHS staff and the communities who use these services every day.

As I've said before, when clinical experts tell us how we can improve outcomes, make services safer and more resilient and deliver better care for patients, it's our duty to listen. Ever since I was assigned the health portfolio, I've been of the view that health policy design has to be clinically led first and foremost, and that is precisely the ethos I have now sought to embed as a Government Minister. However, much of today's debate in reality is about the decisions taken by Hywel Dda University Health Board through its clinical services plan, and I want to address directly the concerns of communities in Ceredigion Penfro.

I recognise the strength of feeling these decisions have generated and I understand why many people are protective of Withybush Hospital. People want reassurance that services will remain accessible. They want confidence that decisions are being taken in the interests of patients, and I recognise that not everyone will agree with every decision that has been taken. That's entirely understandable. But it is important to recognise that the health board followed a detailed process informed by clinical evidence and feedback from thousands of patients, staff, stakeholders and members of the public.

Some have sought to frame this issue as a choice between protecting local services and pursuing change. While I completely understand why they may have come to this conclusion, I don't accept that characterisation. The purpose of service change, where it is proposed, is not to weaken the NHS. Far from it. It is to ensure that services remain viable, safe, sustainable and ultimately stronger for future generations. We know there are ongoing workforce challenges across a range of specialist services. We know recruitment remains difficult in some disciplines. We know that national clinical reviews have repeatedly highlighted the risk associated with small services delivering low volumes of highly specialised activity. We know that demand continues to increase and outpace capacity, and we know that healthcare is changing, with more diagnostics, treatments and follow-up care increasingly delivered closer to home.

Those realities can't simply be ignored because they're politically inconvenient. The story isn't simply one of services being removed. The clinical services plan also includes confirmation of the important role Withybush will continue to play through significant investment and enhancement of services. The hospital will see expanded orthopaedic services, helping more people access treatment more quickly. It will also become a key site for planned diagnostics and weekday interventional radiology, strengthening its role in diagnosis and supporting cancer care. And only recently, as was mentioned earlier, the health board announced a £750,000 investment in a new Puffin paediatric facility to improve out-patient services for children and young people.

The health board itself has repeatedly stated that agreed changes will not happen overnight and that implementation will be phased over time to minimise risks and ensure services remain safe. The board has also outlined its intention to strengthen community-based services as part of its wider model of care, consistent with Welsh Government policy and ministerial expectations.

Llywydd, it's also important to be clear about where the responsibilities lie. Under the current statutory framework, it is the responsibility of NHS organisations to make decisions about the form of local services, acting within their statutory duties and using their judgment based on clinical evidence, workforce sustainability, quality, safety and public engagement. As a Cabinet Minister, I cannot—and I should not—try to pre-judge local executive decisions that, appropriately, are matters for the health boards. That reflects an important principle. It protects the integrity of the process of making clinical decisions and ensures that decisions are made on the basis of evidence, not political pressure.

Some Members will disagree with certain aspects of the clinical services plan. That is their right. But whatever our individual views are, I hope that we can agree on three things. First, the people of Ceredigion Penfro deserve healthcare that is safe, sustainable and achieves the best possible outcomes. Secondly, staff at Withybush Hospital deserve our gratitude, respect and support for the exceptional work that they do every day. And thirdly, discussions about the future of healthcare services should be informed by evidence, clinical expertise and the long-term interests of patients. This will be achieved through honest discussions, careful planning, clinical leadership and a tireless focus on improving outcomes for patients. That's what the people of Wales deserve. That is what the people of Ceredigion Penfro deserve. And that is what this Government expects. Thank you.