Plenary

Thank you, Cabinet Minister. Devolving the Crown Estate to Wales is very broadly and strongly supported all across the country. Every single one of our 22 unitary authorities in Wales have recently voted in favour of bringing powers over the Crown Estate to Wales. Since 2017, Scotland has had powers over its own estate, which lets the Scottish Government retain and reinvest the income generated. According to Crown Estate Scotland, in one 12-month period, it generated an economic impact of £2.1 billion and supported 17,000 jobs. We, on the other hand, are not so lucky. The profits generated from the Welsh part of the Crown Estate flow back to the UK Treasury, with a share allocated to the royal household. The income from retaining the full value of leasing our land and sea bed could be transformative for Wales, generating energy and reinvesting in our communities. Given that the demand is already so strong and supported all across Wales, what is the next step for making the case for devolution of the Crown Estate to Wales and making sure we get a fair settlement in line with Scotland's?

I thank the Member for the question. The case is very clearly made for the devolution of the Crown Estate. If you look over the past decade, there have been hundreds of millions of pounds of profits made by the Crown Estate in Wales. We believe that money should be invested in Wales and in Welsh energy and in supporting Welsh families and communities. The Welsh Government has established an expert group on the devolution of the Crown Estate and the future of the Crown Estate, which is building the evidence case. I expect a final report from the group to be published next summer. Then they will move forward to work on the broader issues of energy devolution.

As a Government, we recognise the value that trade unions bring to Government effectiveness. They provide structures for meaningful dialogue, negotiation and problem solving, enabling early intervention that saves time and money. Social partnership ensures workforce voices are heard early in decision making and remains the most effective way to address Wales's challenges.

Thank you, Minister, for your response. You might have noticed I've written a number of times to you—I've kept your office busy—and I've written to your office a number of times via written questions, and I thank your office for supplying information on that. From that information gathered, it has shown that, over the previous Labour Government, over the course of five years, around £13 million was provided to trade unions. In addition to that information, it has also shown that they have also funded up to 10 equivalent full-time posts. What I do find a little bit concerning is that there's no definite time spent on trade union work and that of their civil service work. My question to you is, Minister, will your Government be spending any more taxpayers' money on political trade unions?

As I said in my first response, this Government remains committed to social partnership. It is something that we believe in, in principle and on principle. There will be Members across this Chamber who have led organisations and who have managed organisations with trade unions and built effective relationships with those trade unions. We will make no apology for supporting trade unions, for working with them. There will be times, as everyone knows, when we will not see eye to eye on everything with those trade unions, but a strong and happy workforce is an effective workforce, and I'm proud to say that this Government will work with our trade union partners.

Diolch, Lywydd. Before I address the Minister, I just wanted to correct the record on something the First Minister said earlier, when he suggested that all Reform Members want to take down the Welsh flag. I can't call that a lie, but I would like to say it's deliberately misleading, because we don't want to do that. I would like to suggest that he perhaps concentrates on his own Members, some of whom seem intent on merging the Welsh flag with the Palestinian flag. I'll leave that there. Thank you. [Interruption.]

To address the Minister: Cabinet Minister, how much taxpayers' money has the Welsh Government committed to pursuing Welsh independence, including establishing the new national commission and seeking powers to hold an independence referendum? Even a recent poll commissioned by the pro-independence organisation Yes Cymru found that only 32 per cent of likely voters would consider supporting independence. So, there is clearly no blanket support for independence across Wales at all. At a time when the NHS, our schools, councils and front-line services are under enormous financial pressure, do you really believe that this is an appropriate use of taxpayers' money, and will you please publish the full projected cost of pursuing this agenda over the course of this Senedd term?

Well, I welcome the Member to his new position on the Reform frontbench. Had he been at a previous question time, he would have heard me say from this position that this Government is committed to delivering on its priorities for the people of Wales—on childcare, on child poverty, on the economy, on educational standards and on tackling waiting lists. Those are our priorities. That mission is underpinned by standing up for Wales, and we make no apology for seeking devolution of the Crown Estate, for the very reasons we've heard outlined earlier, for improving our rail services, and for making our communities safer by devolving policing. That is our agenda as a Government, as I set out in my oral statement on the priorities on the constitution.

Diolch, Lywydd. You answered a question I didn't put to you, but, anyway, I'll try again with a different one. Mine was about devolution, but anyway—sorry, about independence.

Cabinet Minister, how are Wales's taxpayers actually supposed to know whether the Welsh Government is delivering value for their money? Billions of pounds are spent every year across numerous programmes, projects and initiatives, but spending money is not the same as delivering results. So, will you publish clear performance data showing what every Welsh Government programme is supposed to achieve, how much it costs, whether it is on time, and, crucially, whether it is actually working? Now, when a programme repeatedly fails to deliver results or value for money, will you reform it or scrap it altogether, rather than continuing to pour taxpayers' money into something that simply isn't working?

There's a simple answer to that question, which is 'yes', because, as a Government, we are committed to outcomes. We have been critical of previous Governments who have poured money into projects and focused on inputs and outputs rather than outcomes that people can feel in their daily lives across the country. Part of my role is to challenge and to work with every one of my Cabinet colleagues to look at those Government programmes, to ensure that we are both getting value for taxpayers' money and ensuring that we're delivering outcomes for people right across Wales, whether that's on childcare, on the economy, on education—change that people can feel.

Okay. Thank you for that one. Cabinet Minister, I would also like to know why does the Welsh Government keep creating more bureaucracy instead of reducing it. Since 2018, 16 new devolved public bodies have now been created, whilst only five have been replaced or abolished, but now your Government wants to actually create even more. Now, every new body means more boards, more senior executives, more administration and, unfortunately, more cost to the taxpayer. So, when are you actually going to start reducing the machinery of Government? Will you identify which arm's-length bodies duplicate work that is already being done elsewhere, publish what each one costs, and commit to merging or abolishing those that are simply not necessary? Government efficiency shouldn't mean managing even more bureaucracy; it really should mean having the courage to get rid of it if isn't working.

Again, I thank the Member for the question. This Government has a very limited set of bodies that it seeks to set up. There has been widespread debate about the national economic development agency. There is widespread consensus across this Chamber that the Welsh economy is not performing as it should, and an arm's-length, business-driven development agency is a clear way forward there. However, I share the Member's scepticism for the proliferation of bureaucracy, for more bodies for bodies' sake. You will be aware that the Government publishes the budget and the grant letter for every Government sponsored body on an annual basis. Where there are efficiencies to be gained, I will certainly pursue them. Thank you.

Thank you, Llywydd. Many comments have been made over recent weeks on constitutional issues. I want to focus on what's important to the people of Wales, and that's why I want to ask questions on the programme for government.

Minister, the programme for government, which you have overall oversight for, is full of references to collaboration and it's also very strong—there's a whole section on it—about supporting teachers. But, last week, an overwhelming majority of school leaders voted to support industrial action in response to your Government's priorities and policies. Ninety-three per cent of NAHT members voted, and 72.5 per cent of them indicated they would be prepared to take industrial action. Why does the Minister think the programme for government has been so poorly received by school leaders? Can you confirm that intensive negotiations with NAHT are now taking place, and what progress is the Government making?

Thank you for the question.

I think what we're seeing across the public services in Wales is a legacy of a decade and more of austerity that has seen cuts and challenges, and public services that are genuinely facing crisis point. I am very pleased that my colleague the Minister for education has been engaging effectively with a range of teaching unions. There's been more progress with some than others. I said in my earlier answer that trade union colleagues and us will not always agree. Those negotiations are ongoing, and I'm sure we would all wish to see a positive conclusion to those negotiations. My colleague the Cabinet Minister for education has focused on raising standards in our schools, and if we are to achieve that, it must be done in collaboration and co-operation with both the teachers and those who lead our schools.

Diolch, Weinidog. I applaud the answer you gave earlier in response to Reform's attack on trade unions, and I should declare myself a member of many of them, including Unite, because I'm going to come on to this. You talk about social partnership, you talk about Government efficiency, and there's a clear link between both, but at your own party conference this weekend, you had a delegation of health visitors from Cwm Taf, who are Unite members, who've been on strike. They heard a political priority from the First Minister that he would resolve their dispute, and they believe he's lied. Those are their words—that he's failed to keep his promise. As the Minister responsible for keeping the Government's priorities, do you regret the First Minister's failure to keep his promise? We now have the longest running nursing strike in NHS Wales history. To secure efficiency of the NHS, what will you do to resolve the issue?

As my colleague will know full well, the Cabinet Minister for health is responsible for the health service and our health priorities, and has set out our approach and our encouragement to all of those partners in the debate in Cwm Taf, to reach a negotiated conclusion. We very much hope that will happen at the soonest time possible.

The point more generally about the NHS is an important one. People right across Wales are currently being let down by a service that has not invested significantly enough in tackling waiting lists. We have invested, as the First Minister said earlier, £145 million in bringing down waiting lists, because the impact of that on individuals, on families, on workplaces right across Wales is unconscionable, and those are our priorities as a Government.

Diolch, Lywydd. As the Cabinet Minister for effectiveness, what actions are you taking to guarantee that your Cabinet colleagues are effectively ensuring value for money in the departments across the Welsh Government?

One of the areas that we are looking at as a centralised Cabinet office in the Government is looking right across our Government priorities and ensuring that there is effective delivery on those and there is effective value for money. I know my colleague the Cabinet Minister for Finance has been engaging with Cabinet colleagues about their budgets for the year ahead, working closely with them to ensure that there is value for money at the heart of those programmes. Government effectiveness is about value for money, it is about delivering outcomes for people, and it comes back to the question posed earlier: if there are programmes that are not delivering measurable, tangible outcomes for people in communities right across Wales, then we should indeed reconsider them.

Thank you for your response, Cabinet Minister. You'll know, in July, that your colleague the Cabinet Minister for Culture and Sport announced that the Welsh Government will be setting up a new shadow broadcasting and communications authority as a first step in trying to pull powers over broadcasting away from the UK Government. And you'll know, of course, that broadcasting has never been devolved, so setting up the shadow authority is clearly an example of this Plaid Cymru Welsh Government working outside of its constitutional boundaries. And, of course, as the Cabinet Minister for Government Effectiveness and the Constitution, I'm sure you were the first to object to these plans at the earliest opportunity.

At the same time, your colleague also announced that tens of thousands of pounds have been set aside to fund the shadow authority in its first year. And, of course, because it's not a devolved matter, there's no funding from the UK Government to enable this to happen, meaning every penny spent on the shadow authority has to be redirected from an area the Welsh Government does have responsibility for. So, Cabinet Minister, do you think that this is an effective use of taxpayers' money that the Welsh Government is spending tens of thousands of pounds on something it has no responsibility for?

I think if anyone had seen the evidence from colleagues in the media, in BBC and in S4C, to the culture committee in Westminster and in other places on the challenges facing the media landscape, and the very real challenges facing the media landscape right across Wales, they would understand that broadcasting in Wales would be in a stronger place if it was indeed devolved. That is why this Government is committed to the devolution of broadcasting, so that we can have effective media, so that we can have effective scrutiny of this Government, amongst other things. That is what we support, and we make no apology for supporting that.

Diolch, Safa. Trustworthy statistics play a vital role in effective decision making across Wales. They help us understand where need is greatest, target resources effectively and judge whether outcomes are improving. As a Government, we are committed to using high-quality evidence to shape policy and delivery, and to publish clear outcomes that strengthen accountability.

Diolch, Cabinet Minister. Evidence-based decision making is central to delivering effective public service and ensuring the best use of public money. In healthcare, for example, we know that additional capacity can sometimes be needed to reduce waiting times. Audit Wales has highlighted that insourcing and outsourcing can help reduce long waits, but that it can also place additional pressure on NHS finances down the line, whilst opportunities remain to improve productivity within NHS services. So, Cabinet Minister, how is the Welsh Government ensuring that decisions on improving and delivering effective public services are not just informed by immediate cost savings or short-term deliveries, but also on sustainability, long-term outcomes and capacity building?

Diolch yn fawr. The Member, from her professional background, speaks clearly from experience. I believe there is more work to be done in the NHS on improving productivity. I also believe that throwing money at a problem as a sticking plaster is not a long-term solution. Decisions should be informed by evidence on outcomes, value for money and long-term sustainability, not simply the upfront costs. Health economics is an important part of that evidence base, helping decision makers understand what delivers the best outcomes from available resources. For example, health economics is being used in our work as a Government to bring care closer to home, often referred to as Community by Design, including community resource teams, virtual wards, integrated community hubs for health and social care.

Minister, good workforce data should, obviously, allow Governments to anticipate pressures rather than respond when they reach crisis point. How will your Government's data on recruitment, retention and workforce pressures to engage with our trade unions earlier actually help prevent some of those pressures ultimately escalating into industrial disputes? And talking of understanding our workforce, it is important, of course, for me to also reference that TUC Cymru has consistently gathered evidence about the experiences of workers in Wales because good policy obviously does start with good data. And I think that some of the mentions in relation to funding and social partnership—. Of course, Wales union learning fund funding provides funding for unions to encourage and support work-placed learning specifically, and it's about skills, and, of course, the TUC has very cleared referenced that 100,000 workers in Wales have benefited as a result of that funding in recent years.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you to the Member for their question. I also pay tribute to the work that she did in a previous life with TUC Cymru, doing very important work on behalf of trade unions in Wales. The focus of the question on recruitment and retention is an important one in the health service. There is work on a workforce strategy being undertaken currently, both by Welsh Government and our colleagues in Health Education and Improvement Wales. Getting these data right and planning for the long term is crucial, because we need the right staffing in the right places, with the right mix of skills, in order to deliver long-term, sustainable success for our health service.

Good afternoon, Minister, and thank you to Safa for the question.

You said in your response to Safa that trustworthy statistics and evidence is vital to the delivery of services, but that must also include listening to residents: 9,700 people in Powys have objected to the proposals ahead of them. But I also want to talk about a recent Healthcare Inspectorate Wales—and you've talked about that body—inspection of Gwaun Cae Gurwen Surgery. It found that 85 per cent of respondents rated their experience as 'poor', while 73 per cent did not feel listened to or involved in decisions about their healthcare—a very high proportion of patients for that practice, yet the inspection did not identify failings that fully reflected the level of dissatisfaction reported by patients. We know that Healthcare Inspectorate Wales can make recommendations and seek improvements, but there are questions about how much leverage sits behind those recommendations when services fail to improve. So, Minister, I really want to hear this answer—an answer, please: for more effective—

Yes, well, I'm pre-empting it. [Laughter.] For more effective public sector decision making, who has the power to ensure that clear evidence of poor service actually results in action?

I thank the Member for the question and for highlighting some of those very local issues. Clearly, I'm not abreast of the precise nature of the issues in Gwaun Cae Gurwen, but if the Member would like to write to myself or my Cabinet colleague the Cabinet Minister for health, I'm sure we can look specifically at that.

I think there is a broader question here about how Government listens, takes concerns on board and what those avenues are for citizens right across the country to make progress when those concerns are not being listened to. We've heard various examples over the last hour or so from colleagues across this Chamber. It is something that we need to be clear about, and there is almost certainly a case for ensuring that that is as effective as possible, and it's one of those areas I'd be happy to look at.

I have regular discussions with the Cabinet Minister for Finance on public procurement and its contribution to the Welsh economy. These discussions have included strengthening Welsh supply chains, improving access to opportunities for Welsh businesses, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises and social enterprises, and increasing expenditure with Wales-based suppliers towards our 70 per cent ambition.

Thank you. I understand the importance of small businesses across the region being offered the opportunity to grow. Such growth in small businesses is critical to Wales for expanding employment opportunities and in terms of improving their productivity. I see local procurement as one such area of opportunity we should be encouraging and supporting. Therefore, how is your department tracking data to ensure that small and medium-sized businesses are successfully winning local contracts?

I thank the Member for the question. The point is very well made. We need to support our small and medium-sized enterprises, and in my view, we can do more as a Government to support those small and medium-sized enterprises. We track supplier and contract award data through our procurement systems and business intelligence reporting and supplier information, including SME status where available, is drawn from core procurement platforms and analysed through departmental dashboards. And what this enables us to do is monitor the participation and success of SMEs in winning contracts, assess trends over time and identify opportunities to increase access to public sector procurement for local businesses.

I think my question's been answered. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Presiding Officer, I understand that you have given your permission for questions 5 and 9 to be grouped.

In my role, I am focused on strengthening delivery across Government. Through our programme for government, we have set clear priorities. I am working to keep our efforts focused on those priorities, support joined-up working and maintain a clear focus on outcomes.

Thank you, Minister. You highlighted there your priorities for delivery. During the election campaign, the now First Minister signed a letter that has been quoted many times in this Chamber regarding the health visitors' dispute in the Cwm Taf health board area. The key line in that letter was:

'upgrade all Band 6 health visitors to Band 7'.

There's no ambiguity there. The First Minister put his name to that letter. How are you getting on in delivering that pledge, or wasn't it a pledge, and it was misleading in its kindest form and an outright lie in its cruellest form?

I think Members should be very careful in this Chamber of accusing colleagues of misleading the Chamber or—

Well, have you delivered it?

—misleading people. Our manifesto in the election, upon which we stood, upon which we fought the election and won the election, was based on prioritising bringing waiting lists down, on tackling waiting lists, prioritising the health service and developing productivity within the NHS. That is our priority and I will remain focused on that priority.

Cabinet Secretary, before entering this Senedd, I served our communities as a police officer, a teacher and I worked in the NHS. And I now see daily the immense pressures on hospitals, care homes, schools, businesses and front-line staff, especially in my constituency of Fflint Wrecsam. Our communities are closely linked, as you know, with Chester, Merseyside and the wider north-west, and people want practical improvements, not further constitutional distraction. Can you explain how this Government can claim to be effective if time and civil service capacity are spent pursuing constitutional ambitions while front-line public services remain under so much pressure in the area? Thank you.

Thank you to the Member, and I'm very well aware of those thriving and important cross-border relationships in the north-east to the north-west of England, and also in the south-east to the south-west of England, and we support those important relationships.

I think the broader question relating to Government priorities is very clear in my mind. Our priorities are childcare, child poverty, the health service, schools and the economy. And on each of those, we intend to make progress. As the Cabinet Minister for the constitution, specifically charged with looking at constitutional issues, there are a range of areas—railways, the Crown Estate, policing—where I believe we can make progress, working with the UK Government, to deliver better services for people in Wales. And that remains the core focus of my work as a Government Minister and a core focus of our work as a Welsh Government—delivering better public services, whether it's in schools, health or education.

Thank you, Cabinet Minister. From childcare to business rates and support with the cost of living, this Government is already tackling the issues affecting people across Wales. I'm pleased to see us collaborating across different portfolios and reducing the work carried out in Government silos, which is something that has been needed for many years.

Now, as noted after the first 100 days, the Government is investing £100 million in tackling waiting lists in the NHS. It's vital for people across Wales, and, of course, in Gŵyr Abertawe, that the Government succeeds in tackling this huge problem, which has faced Wales for far too long. How will the Government ensure that these investments will provide the most effective, and, more importantly, continuous benefit, while delivering the programme for government? Thank you.

Well, I thank the Member very much for the question, and I know that he has served the NHS for many years, and very effectively, in Swansea. There is a common theme to these questions, isn't there, that, with this additional funding that the Government's providing in childcare, in the health service, in the economy, we need outcomes for the people of Wales. And therefore, we need to look in great detail, as my colleague the Cabinet Minister for health has done, at what exactly those plans are. Are they plans that will deliver for the longer term? Do they ensure that there is collaboration between the health service and the care service provided through local authorities in order to ensure that the care package is complete, to ensure that some of the challenges in the system are addressed? Do they look, as our colleague earlier referred to, to the longer term with the workforce? So, all of those issues have to coalesce, and we always have to ask the question as to whether this money is going to deliver real change in the long term, not just in the short term. Thank you.

Our assessment is that Wales should have the powers that it needs to deliver for the people of Wales, improve services and strengthen accountability. We are pressing for a fairer settlement for Wales. A new Wales Bill would provide the clearest way and the most effective way of implementing agreed changes.

Thank you for that response. The current devolution settlement in Wales leaves us short of many of the powers and the flexibility that we need as a nation to formulate and implement coherent cross-departmental policies for the benefit of our communities. I was very pleased to hear the First Minister of Wales announce last week that he had written to the UK Prime Minister formally to try to secure a new deal for Wales, a deal that would transfer a number of powers that have already been devolved to Scotland, such as policing, justice, the Crown Estate, railways, welfare and fiscal fairness. A number of independent commissions and reviews over the years, including the Silk commission and the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, have come to the conclusion that devolution needs to be strengthened and more powers placed in the hands of the Senedd in order to allow Wales to deal more effectively with its own challenges. With that in mind, will the Cabinet Minister commit to continuing to press the UK Government? Finally—

Thank you. I believe the Member is asking me to commit to press the UK Government to secure progress. I make that clear commitment this afternoon, and I do so happily. I think it's worth reporting to the Senedd that my initial meetings with UK Cabinet Ministers have been constructive and collaborative. Of course, as the discussions develop, we will get into the minutiae. But I am eager to emphasise that the response that I've received to date has been positive, and I therefore hope that that will be the basis for further progress.

The Welsh Government will work closely with partners at a local and regional level to ensure that decision making and service delivery take place in ways that support effective delivery of public services.

Thank you for that answer. Andy Burnham, the new Prime Minister, of course, has set out his ambition to rewire the state. It's quite clear to me and many people in Wales that we need to rewire Wales in order to make sure that people in their communities have a greater opportunity to shape the decisions that are made about those communities by politicians at all levels. One of the ways to do that is to make politicians more accountable to the citizens that they serve. What action is the Welsh Government going to take to address the accountability gap created by the new Senedd election system, which, I'm afraid, the way that it is at the moment, does not give an opportunity for individual members of the public to demonstrate their support for an individual candidate, rather than a political party?

Well, I'm delighted to see that the Welsh Conservatives are now in favour of the single transferrable vote. I should encourage everyone—[Interruption.] I should encourage everyone in this—[Interruption.] Well, that is the best way—[Interruption.] That is the best way—[Interruption.] That is the best way to ensure effective accountability, and I hope in due course that every Member of the Senedd will support such a development of the Welsh electoral system.

The greatest challenges facing Wales demand a whole-Government response. That is why our programme for government sets out a new ambition for Wales, based on shared priorities rather than departmental silos. I work closely with colleagues right across the Cabinet to ensure that the Government collaborates across portfolios to ensure meaningful outcomes for people across Wales.

Thank you, Minister. I was delighted to lead a debate in this Chamber on the need to integrate the work of preventing ACEs, or adverse childhood experiences, and respond to them across public services. The experience of a child or a person of trauma doesn't respect departmental boundaries. Housing, health, education, social care and employment can all play their part in creating conditions where children and families recover from trauma and prosper. Will you therefore outline how the Government will help to ensure that trauma and adverse experiences during childhood, or ACEs, are covered across Government, rather than as an issue for individual departments?

I thank the Member for the question, and I pay tribute to the work that she has carried out, and others in the Chamber, on a cross-party basis, to develop our understanding of the impact that trauma does have on children and, indeed, on adults who have experienced trauma as children. Through the trauma-informed Wales framework and the support of ACE Hub Wales and close collaboration across ministerial portfolios, we're implementing approaches informed by adverse childhood experiences and trauma across the development of policies and the provision of services.

Preventing ACEs and responding effectively to trauma is a responsibility that's shared across the Government and public services. Our approach has been planned to ensure that the work is co-ordinated, rather than left to individual organisations and departments to implement themselves. That's our ambition, Llywydd. My hope as part of my role is to ensure that that does happen. That ambition, which was shared by Governments of the past, hasn't always been implemented at grass-roots level, and that's what I would wish to focus on.

Thank you, Llywydd.

This Government’s position is clear: policing should be fully devolved to Wales. The Dirprwy Brif Weinidog and I have met with the policing Minister to discuss devolution and other policing priorities. I've also had an introductory meeting with the Secretary of State for Wales.

Thank you. Minister, your Government's supplementary budget was recently defeated. Your finance Minister then wrote

'we must avoid creating additional spending obligations where the funding position has yet to be agreed.'

Before seeking more policing powers, your Government should demonstrate that it can deliver with the powers it already holds. Education is devolved, yet Wales has the worst Programme for International Student Assessment scores in the United Kingdom.

Your Government is also struggling with other existing responsibilities, such as cutting NHS waiting lists. Your own statistics show that the number of pathways waiting for treatment increased between June and July, with two-year waits also rising. Those are delivery problems under responsibilities you already hold. And yet, with all these current issues the Government is struggling with, surprisingly, you seek additional devolved powers for policing. Money doesn't grow on trees, although our previous Welsh Government seemed to test that theory in Uganda. Given your record of failings, what evidence do you have that this Government can deliver if policing is devolved? Thank you.

I thank the Member for the question. I'm not entirely sure that he is convinced of a record of failings after five months. I should probably remind him that another party was in Government for 27 years, and if he wants to address—[Interruption.] If he wants to address questions to Members of that party, I'm sure he can do so afterwards in the tea room.

Our focus as a Government is on delivery, on schools, on childcare, on child poverty, on the NHS and on the economy. We have identified that there is a programme of policing reform taking place now for the England and Wales jurisdiction, led by the Home Office. There is an opportunity there to make the case for greater devolution for Wales, for greater responsibility for the Welsh Government, which will make communities in Wales safer, and that is what we will pursue.

The programme for government and our well-being objectives are a single framework for action, linking the priorities people have entrusted us to deliver and the long-term outcomes of the Act that we want to achieve. I've also agreed to a review of the Act, focusing on enhancing the Act’s implementation in practice.

Minister, culture has faced a decade of funding cuts. Funding cuts don't just affect the arts sector. They also have a direct impact on the well-being and vitality of Welsh communities and society. If we are serious about the well-being of future generations Act, we must ring-fence and protect preventative funding to support the arts. Culture contributes directly to the well-being of individuals and to the vitality of our communities throughout Wales. So, how will the Minister work across portfolios to ensure that culture is recognised as an integral part of preventative health across Government?

I thank the Member for that question. There is a clear commitment from this Government to promote culture and sport. There is a new culture and sport strategy, which is being led by the Cabinet Minister for Culture and Sport and Trefnydd. There is a clear focus from this Government on promoting sport and culture, whilst also recognising, as you have set out, the important role that culture and sport can have across a range of public policies, including the preventative health agenda, which is hugely important to this Government. Thank you.

There are questions to the Cabinet Minister for Health and Care tomorrow, so it would be appropriate for you to raise them tomorrow during that session. If there's no opportunity to do that, I would suggest that you write with all of your questions to the Minister directly.

Could I ask for a statement from the Government updating us on the work on the fire summit, please? I know that there was a very clear consensus in the Chamber when we had the statement from the First Minister that there should be involvement of those who worked at a grass-roots level—so, farmers and others who supported the firefighters in their efforts. I was concerned to see that, of the representatives from Blaenavon, just one has been included. Indeed, one of the key landowners has actually been uninvited. I'm also informed that the summit is only going to be for two hours. I would question whether that will be enough to deal with something as significant as this. So, could I ask the Trefnydd whether we could have an update on this?

Thank you for raising those issues. You will have heard the First Minister stating unambiguously the commitment of this Government to look at and learn the necessary lessons from those experiences. You will also know the order of business in this Senedd. With the concerns that you expresses, I would suggest that writing to the First Minister would be best, because they were very specific issues that you raised. I think, in looking at the business programme, perhaps there wouldn't be space for such a statement for a number of weeks, whereas the issues that you have raised suggest that you need an answer sooner than that. Clearly, we are committed to continuing to update this Senedd and we will do so with all Members on this crucial issue.

Trefnydd, I'd like to request a statement from the Cabinet Minister for Enterprise, Connectivity and Energy on the announcement that Milford Haven's Impala terminal is to cease its commercial operations at the end of this year. We must fully understand the implications of this announcement, including the scale of any job losses and the impact on the local economy. We also need further clarity on how the Welsh Government intends to support both the company and its workforce as this situation develops. These are highly skilled and valuable jobs, and every effort must be made to retain this expertise within the region and to safeguard future employment opportunities. In my view, losing such skills would be a significant blow to the local economy and, indeed, to the wider energy sector. Therefore, I'd be grateful if the Welsh Government could provide an urgent statement outlining its engagement with the company to date, the discussions it has held regarding the future of the terminal and the support that may be available to both the workforce and the operator, going forward.

I thank the Member for raising an important matter that I know is of great concern to Members in the wake of this news, and I know that the Government is in discussions with the company to understand what the implications are. I also understand that there is a topical question on this issue, which will be a matter for the Llywydd and Dirprwy Lywydd to consider. Certainly, we are very disappointed to hear this news. I know that this will create great concern locally and for those who face uncertainty in the broader community. So, I can provide that assurance to the Member that those discussions with the Government and the company are continuing and, certainly, I will ensure that the Cabinet Minister knows that you have raised this important issue today.

Trefnydd, could I request an urgent statement from the Cabinet Minister for Health and Care regarding the reported outbreak of scabies in the Hywel Dda health board area, and the adequacy of the Welsh Government's response to this developing public health concern? There is growing concern about the spread of scabies within communities and care settings. The situation has become even more alarming following the reported death of an elderly gentleman, whose illness was linked to complications associated with scabies. Given the vulnerability of older people, those living in residential care and individuals with underlying health concerns, there are serious questions about the infection control measures, the availability of treatment, support for care providers and the steps being taken to prevent further outbreaks. An urgent statement would provide an opportunity for the Welsh Government to update Members on the current scale and extent of the outbreak in west Wales, measures being taken to contain transmission and protect vulnerable individuals, guidance being provided to care homes, hospitals and community healthcare providers, and whether additional resources or support are being made available to affected areas. Given the significant public concern and the potential implications for public health, I believe that this matter warrants an urgent statement at the earliest opportunity. Diolch.

I thank the Member for raising this issue. I do hope that you took the opportunity to write to the Cabinet Minister for Health and Care. There are questions to the Minister tomorrow here in the Senedd, and hopefully, you'll have an opportunity to raise these important issues. Let me be clear that patient safety continues to be a full priority for this Government. We expect every health board to have disease control processes in place in order to control cases effectively. I will also ensure that the Cabinet Minister is aware that you raised this issue with me today.

I'm requesting a Government statement on its tourism strategy. A strategy is not saying that tourism is important to the Welsh economy and that we want it. Which tourism sectors does the Welsh Government think are important? How are they going to target groups? How will they distinguish between day tourists and overnight tourists? I would prioritise active tourism, such as hiking, cycling and golf. The question is can we share golf tourism with Ireland. Has anybody asked? I would also prioritise cultural tourism to eisteddfods and historical buildings, including chapels and churches. But we do need a strategy.

Thank you very much to the Member. I'm pleased that you agree with me that we do need a new culture and sport strategy, which will include a focus on the economy and tourism. I would encourage every Member to engage with that consultation, which is open until 18 December. I'm looking forward greatly to receiving Mike Hedges's comments as we develop that strategy.

Can I call for two statements today, please? The first is from the Cabinet Secretary for Enterprise, Connectivity and Energy in relation to the mobile network. Action has been taken in Scotland and England, and they've announced this week in Scotland a consultation on changing permitted development rights in order to address mobile black spots. Given the essential nature of a decent mobile signal now, Wales is falling behind with this important digital infrastructure. We clearly need some action here, and I would be grateful if we could have an update on what action the Welsh Government is taking.

Also, can I call for a statement from the Welsh Government Cabinet Secretary responsible for social justice and equality on the action being taken by the Welsh Government to address antisemitism in Wales? As we all know, tomorrow marks the third anniversary of those barbaric attacks by Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorists against Israeli citizens. All of us have condemned those attacks, and what we need to make sure is that Wales is taking appropriate action to address the rise in antisemitism that we've seen in our country since.

One positive action that the previous Welsh Government took, of course, was to recognise the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition of antisemitism, and I'd be grateful if the Welsh Government could reaffirm its commitment to that definition so that we can be sure that the same action will be taken by this new Welsh Government as the previous one in terms of providing some leadership on that issue.

I hope that the Member will have heard the First Minister state unambiguously earlier that we totally condemn any antisemitism. I hope that we can be united as a Senedd on that.

Also, the Deputy First Minister, in her work as Cabinet Minister for Social Justice and Equality, has been looking at the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan' to ensure that it is fit for purpose, reflecting on what we have seen in terms of the increase in hate of all types, including antisemitism. I will certainly raise your points with her.

In terms of your first point, clearly, digital infrastructure is crucially important; it's important for our economy. I know that this is something that the Cabinet Minister is taking seriously. I will raise the specific points that you made with him and ensure that there is an update on that work.

Trefnydd, in a free society, we show our faces. It's how we recognise each other, it's how we trust each other, it's how we talk to each other. A nurse needs to see their patient, a teacher needs to see their parent at the school gate. For public safety, it's important. Reform's position is clear: we would ban the burqa and every other full face covering in public. Trefnydd, could we please have a statement setting out the Welsh Government's position on this? I know this matter falls outside the Senedd's powers, but if the Welsh Government will be making representations to the UK Government on Wales's behalf, it would be beneficial for this entire Senedd to understand your position on this. Also, feel free to sign our petition on this. Diolch.

No, there will be no statement on this issue. As the Member has noted, this is an issue that is not devolved. But could I be clear, as I was in response to Darren Millar just now? This Government condemns all forms of racism, any idea that someone doesn't deserve to be able to live their life in the way that they have the right to live that life. Racism is a great problem in society now, and that's something that constituents tell us consistently. We all have a responsibility in this Chamber to ensure that we do support everyone that we represent, all members of society, and ensure that everyone feels safe, and that we all co-operate to ensure that racism doesn't continue here in Wales. There is no place for racism in Wales.

Minister, can I please request a statement from the Cabinet Minister for health and social care on support for people living with Huntington's disease? Huntington's is a rare neurological condition where symptoms affect thinking and cognitive abilities, as well as movement and behaviour. Symptoms usually develop between the ages of 30 and 50, with life expectancy from diagnosis being just 20 years. Anyone who has a parent with a faulty gene has a one in two chance of having Huntington's themselves. It's a really complex condition, with people requiring support from a number of health and care professionals. There's also a considerable mental health burden, with people often caring for family members whilst worrying about potentially carrying the faulty gene themselves.

Guidance published by the previous Welsh Government makes clear that those with a neurological condition such as Huntington's disease should not be excluded from mental health services. Guidance also calls for co-ordination of care across services, professions and agencies. Too many people say the healthcare service they access does not, in fact, meet their needs. A statement from the Cabinet Minister setting out what action the Welsh Government is taking to ensure that people with this devastating disease get the mental health support that they need and have a health professional to co-ordinate their care would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

I thank the Member for raising an issue that I'm sure a number of constituents have raised with us. I know that it's an issue that's been raised with me in casework. You will have heard me say that the Cabinet Minister for Health and Care has questions tomorrow, so there is an opportunity to raise this at that point. I would also ask the Member, if she hasn't already done so, to write to the Cabinet Minister to ensure that she gets a full response on this issue.

Trefnydd, could I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health and social care on the operation of the 'Listening to People' NHS complaints process? Constituents have raised concerns with me following their experience of pursuing complaints involving Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. The new system places clear requirements on health bodies, including acknowledgement within five working days and a 10 working day early resolution stage. However, concerns have been raised with me about what happens when a patient believes that the health board itself has failed to follow those requirements. Could we therefore have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary explaining how compliance with 'Listening to People' is monitored, what action the Welsh Government can take where a health board is not compliant, and what effective route is available to a patient who believes the complaints process itself has failed? Thank you.

I thank the Member for raising these issues. As you'll have heard me say, the Cabinet Minister for Health and Care has questions tomorrow, but because of the concerns that you've raised and that there are specific examples, I would ask you to write to the Cabinet Minister and raise those specific concerns. Obviously, you haven't disclosed all the information here—it wouldn't be appropriate. But because of the nature of what you've raised, it's important that he does receive those details. You'll be aware that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board continues to be at the highest level of scrutiny and that we are working very hard to ensure that oversight and scrutiny by the Welsh Government are present in order to target necessary improvements in patient care and the provision of services. And so, ensuring that the Cabinet Minister has that information is vital.

Prynhawn da, Drefnydd. Can I ask for a statement, please, on radical reform of services for our care-experienced young people? Back in July 2023, we debated in the Senedd the Children, Young People and Education Committee's report on this subject. Of the committee's 12 radical recommendations, the then Government accepted just one, rejecting—amongst other things—making care experience a protected characteristic and placing corporate duties on a statutory level. In that debate the now Deputy First Minister shared my disappointment that the Government then said it wasn't sufficiently bold, brave or ambitious. So, given that situation, I'd be pleased to hear from Plaid Cymru exactly how they're going to incorporate these issues around radical reform. It hasn't been so far in your statement for government or in your manifesto, but you've had a busy time, so I'm hoping that there will be a focus now on ensuring that our care-experienced young people across Wales get the services that they deserve. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I thank the Member for raising this issue. Clearly, you will be aware of Plaid Cymru's commitment in terms of what you've outlined. The Deputy Minister with responsibility for this has heard the comments that you have made this afternoon.

Removing profit from the care sector is an issue that we worked on during the co-operation agreement, and that legislation is now in place and we're moving towards implementation during this Senedd term. The previous Government did sign a statement in 2025. As a new Government, we do support the principle of creating a care system that is more focused on families, is based on rights, is trauma informed, is locally rooted and is ambitious for all children, whilst removing profit from childcare and ensuring that no young person leaves care and goes into homelessness also. I do very much hope, given the fact that you will have heard this, Deputy Minister, that there will be an opportunity for you and the Member to discuss this issue further.

Trefnydd, can I ask for a statement on the Government's plans for improving pre-application consultations for major energy infrastructure developments, including solar farms, windfarms, new pylons and substations? My constituents feel ignored and dismayed. They believe these applications are just tick-box exercises. They tell me that notices intended to inform them are put up in places where they cannot be seen. They say letters arrive so late they have no meaningful chance to respond. To them, it feels like they are being deliberately denied a voice in decisions that will affect their homes and communities. They say they are being treated like mushrooms: fed farmyard manure and kept in the dark. So, Trefnydd, will the Government make a statement on how it will improve pre-application consultations for major energy infrastructure developments and ensure that communities are genuinely heard? Diolch.

I thank the Member for raising these issues. There is a clear commitment from this Government in terms of the fact that we are developing a national energy strategy that tackles these challenges and includes communities instead of doing things to communities, which is one of the points that the Member has raised. There will be an update to the Senedd as that work proceeds.

Minister, may I first of all warmly welcome the Plaid Cymru Government's announcement last week regarding the additional £3.4 million for Powys health board to help to reduce waiting times? This investment will make a difference to patients in Powys, where a large number depend on accessing healthcare services across the border in England. Given the vital role that cross-border healthcare plays for people in Powys and along Offa's Dyke, can we have a statement on this, please?

I thank the Member for raising this issue. I'm pleased that you do welcome this important investment. Certainly, this is something that the Cabinet Minister for Health and Care has committed to. We want to ensure that we do continue to ensure a health service that works for everyone, wherever they are in Wales. Certainly, I will raise with the Cabinet Minister the points that you've raised today.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd like to ask for a statement from the Cabinet Minister for Rural Resilience and Sustainability on how the Welsh Government intends to turn the lessons from this summer's wildfires and the very real risk of flooding this autumn and winter into investment in rural communities such as those across Brycheiniog Tawe Nedd.

Research has highlighted that measures such as rewetting peatland and better land management can help prevent wildfires, while also slowing water run-off and reducing flood risk. Indeed, the Welsh Government has already committed more than £5 million to natural flood management this financial year. So, could we have a statement setting out how farmers and landowners will be supported to deliver landscape-scale resilience and whether the Welsh Government will use this opportunity to bring much-needed investment and jobs into rural communities like mine?

I thank the Member for raising issues that got quite a bit of attention, of course, when the First Minister made a statement on this issue some weeks ago, and made those very points in terms of nature-based solutions and the role of farmers too in this regard. And certainly, this is an issue that is at the heart of many of the cross-departmental discussions within this Government.

To be clear, the First Minister leads on resilience, and then individual Ministers, such as the Cabinet Minister for Rural Resilience and Sustainability, clearly have a role in terms of flooding and so on, and in terms of rural policy and farmers. So, that collaboration is important.

There was a statement made. This was raised at that point as the work was proceeding. Of course, there will be further opportunities for Members to scrutinise, ask questions and have an input into that work.

Many people will understandably say that this issue has been debated for decades. They are right. But this work is not about revisiting old arguments. It is about developing options against current policy, environmental requirements, planning considerations and future travel demands, so that decisions can be taken on the basis of robust evidence and a clear understanding of what can realistically be delivered. Our objective is straightforward: we need a solution that is affordable, deliverable and capable of attracting the support and investment needed to make it happen. Without undertaking this work, there can be no credible pathway towards delivering future roads-based and engineering solutions.

But while this work progresses, we cannot simply wait. That is why we are also announcing a programme of improvements over the next five years. We will invest in the maintenance and renewal of the existing motorway and strategic road network. Over many years, Governments have often faced a choice between accepting disruption now or delaying important work until later. Understandably, there has often been a desire to minimise disruption in the short term, but that can make long-term challenges harder to address. Key infrastructure now requires significant renewal and maintenance work. I want to be honest: there will be periods of disruption while this work takes place. Nobody wants roadworks. Nobody enjoys delays. But continuing to defer this work will only lead to greater disruption and cost in the future. This Government is choosing to deal with that problem now.

We will also implement a five-year delivery plan, focused on practical improvements that people will start to see over the next two to three years, with further benefits building over time. This will include improvements to the way the motorway is operated and managed, including targeted improvements to roads and junctions, including potential closures, in and around Newport to improve traffic flow and resilience. The review found that measures such as these offer some of the quickest opportunities to improve traffic flow and resilience in the M4.

But we also recognise that changes affecting the motorway can have consequences for local roads. We will therefore work closely with Newport City Council, local communities and Members to develop these interventions so that the local impacts are properly considered alongside the benefits to the M4. At the same time, we will introduce measures to improve freight resilience by making better use of alternative routes such as the A465. This will maximise the investment made in the A465, supporting the provision of facilities that HGV drivers deserve, and at the same time alleviating pressure on the M4.

We will also continue investing in public transport, making it easier for more people to choose rail and bus services for everyday journeys between Newport and Cardiff, across the wider M4 corridor, and onwards into the rest of Wales and into England. The UK Government has committed to funding the rail stations recommended by the South East Wales Transport Commission. Last week I attended the joint UK-Welsh Government Wales rail board to discuss how we can accelerate delivery. I am pleased that Network Rail have committed to work collaboratively with Transport for Wales to draw on the expertise of both organisations, and TfW will take a direct role in constructing the stations.

We are setting up a new network south-east Wales board to oversee delivery. I have asked the team to prioritise delivery of the Cardiff parkway and Magor and Undy stations, so that communities can begin to benefit from these investments as soon as possible. We will also seek to improve access to Severn Tunnel Junction railway station and support improvements to bus connectivity between Newport and Cardiff, giving real options for travellers.

Dirprwy Lywydd, for too long, people and businesses have seen congestion around Newport become an accepted part of everyday life. This Government is choosing to act. The programme we are taking forward could reduce peak-hour traffic by about one in 10 vehicles. On a motorway that is already operating at or above capacity at the busiest times, that matters. It is a meaningful improvement over doing nothing and simply accepting increasing congestion on the network. But what matters is what these improvements mean in practice for people using the network every day. It means better travel choices through improved rail and bus services. It means the network is better able to cope when incidents occur, reducing the risk of small problems becoming major disruption. These are practical improvements that people should begin to notice in their everyday lives over the coming years.

Dirprwy Lywydd, people want action, not endless discussion. They want government to deal with today's challenges while properly planning for the future. That is exactly what we are doing. At the Menai strait, we are getting on with the work needed to develop a third crossing whilst managing resilience now. Around Newport, we are developing long-term road space and engineering solutions for the M4 whilst delivering practical improvements over the next five years. These are major transport challenges that have built up over many years; they will not be resolved overnight. But, today, we are providing a clear direction, taking practical actions now and developing the longer-term solutions needed for the future.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we are taking action now. We are delivering improvements over the next five years and developing solutions for the future. Thank you.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear, Minister. We were expecting a lot more on this side of the Chamber. But, anyway, we'll start north and then we'll travel south, if that's okay.

So, I'll start with the positives. Nice to see we're doing some baby steps with the current bridges that cross the Menai strait. Wind deflectors—let's get on with that as soon as we can, improve those; we've got a winter ahead of us. And varying the speed limit—we like varying the speed limit in this Chamber, don't we—I'll give you a positive on that one. But, in terms of the actual third bridge, it sounds like you're just thinking about a third bridge, which simply is not good enough. So, you're going to recommence development work and look at design development, environmental assessment, business case preparation. To me, it doesn't sound like you're completely committed to a third crossing, because I thought we'd done all this work before. I thought this was called the purple route and that that work had been done. And obviously what's disappointing to see, and this is why I question your commitment, is there's nothing in here about funding a third bridge. It's going to be an expensive project and is going to need cross-party support, and there's nothing in here about that. So, I want to ask you, and you can answer once I've finished, clearly: are you actually committed to building the third bridge across the Menai strait, 'yes' or 'no'?

Right, then, let's head down south. Now you need more thinking time—18 months of more thinking time—about solutions. And again, I thought we'd been here and gone through all of that with the M4 relief road and the black route. And in between the thinking time—which you clearly need, fair enough—for the next five years, you're going to do some improvements, which, personally, I think is just a sticking-plaster approach that ties in directly to Plaid Cymru's anti-motorist stance.

Let's talk about closing junctions. I do love the statistic about one in 10 cars not making it onto the M4. Of course they can't make it onto the M4, because they can't get onto the M4 because you've closed the junction. Closing junctions doesn't solve congestion and it's going to move that onto Newport's local roads. Newport City Council recently—July 2026—voted unanimously against any measure that diverts traffic onto Newport's already congested streets. I don't think they will be so delighted with your statement today. As we in Reform have said, stopping cars getting onto the motorway isn't a solution that Newport will thank you for. And in your own assessment, the cost of this is £14 million, and reducing traffic by a whopping 3 per cent.

Let's go over to the Heads of the Valleys plan. So, let me just get this right: ferries transport comes off the boats in Pembroke and then goes across east to Dover and on to Europe, and what you want to do is encourage, persuade, divert that freight traffic to go up over the Heads of the Valleys and back down again, and the cost of doing that is £49 million, which is some pretty swanky cafes and some nice rest facilities, and you think that will reduce the traffic on the M4 by 1 per cent. It's just not going to happen.

And then, finally, we get on to rail. Now, let's be clear: Reform supports more rail capacity, but rail should add choice, not be used to justify restricting road access. As Laura Anne Jones pointed out, the M4 users have no realistic alternative. We need to remind ourselves that, unlike us, there are a lot of people who aren't members of the lanyard class who go to work each day with a small briefcase. How are delivery drivers and tradespeople going to get on the train? 'Excuse me, ma'am, can you just move to one side while I put my 12 pots of paint and my toolbox there?' It's not going to happen.

Basically, Minister, I'm asking you to drop your ideology. What you've done here is pretend to be committed to fixing the road issues, but actually you're thinking about a bridge, you've got 18 months more of thinking about the M4, and you've got a five-year scheme, which, essentially, is going to cost millions of pounds and reduce traffic congestion by 4 per cent. So, here is the solution. On your last page of your statement, you say, 'We are developing a long-term roads-based and engineering solution.' Well, I'll tell you, we've got one: it's the M4 relief road, the black route. Reform UK have costed this at £2.8 billion. Yes, that's a lot of money, but I will guarantee here that, if there is a Reform Welsh Government, we will be lobbying and working with a Reform UK Westminster Government—which is coming, ladies and gentlemen—and we will build the M4 relief road. So, Minister, I want to confirm: are you committed to the bridge, completely and utterly committed? And please stop thinking and just get on with it. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you for the question. Before I answer, I just want to thank those Members who turned up for the briefing with officials this morning, and also subsequent conversations in this regard. It was a shame that Members from Reform chose not to undertake those conversations. There were specific conversations that were not entered into, and that was a real shame, because that would have given them the chance to have understood some of the detail behind this more clearly.

In answer to the questions on Menai, I don't think the Member, frankly, understands the process you need to go through to build. This is a significant piece of engineering. It is appropriate that we do it in the phases that we say we are. To be clear, this Government is committed to delivering a third crossing across the Menai. There are no ifs, no buts. That is absolutely clear. What you have to do to do that is to take stages. Now, the Member, and all of this group around here, just seem to think that you can click a finger and things happen. Let's get into the real world. The real world is that it takes real work to get these things done. The interesting thing is, when I was speaking to civil servants earlier prior to this, I was saying I was looking forward to this debate, because I do look forward to these debates. Do you know what they were saying? They're looking forward to getting stuck in to doing the work. That's what they're waiting for, and that's what's going to happen. What's happened for too long is this body politic has failed to deliver. If we have conversations that are in the style that we've had today, we'll continue to do that. But the rest of the Siambr, hopefully, will focus on getting things done. Because if you're just going to backbite on that, it helps nobody, frankly.

Turning to the M4, I think this is a real misunderstanding as well of what a 10 per cent change will do on the M4 with the plan of action that we've put together. Ten per cent—. And I'm sure that Members opposite me as well are probably thinking, 'I wish we'd done some more of this 10 per cent.' But, over the past 27 years, there's been very limited change on the M4. This Government is committing itself, over the next five years, to making an actual difference to people. And 3 per cent here and 1 per cent there makes a real difference. This is about a strategic suite of projects that need to be deployed together. These are the ways that we make the difference to the M4. And it's not straightforward. There is no silver bullet. If there was, we'd talk about it. You talk about the black route as if it's deliverable. That went when it was cancelled. The protected route status went when it was cancelled. So, we're talking about decades of work to even get that off the ground. So, to suggest to the people outside that you can deliver it in an instant is disingenuous—and I'm being kind in saying that.

In terms of the A465—. There are a lot of questions to get through, I will try and be—. But, in terms of the A465, unlike you I've actually spoken to hauliers, who see this as a realistic option. But the haulage companies are looking for facilities, because, unlike some parts of Europe where they actually invest in facilities for drivers—. Drivers are professional. Across the UK, we have very, very poor facilities. This Government is going to make a difference to that, and we've had support from across the industry to say that they want to see those facilities. That will direct people across the piece, and that's including people from Ireland as well as haulage companies from the UK.

Rail adding choice and taking people off the motorway—. One of the things about adding choice using rail is exactly what you just said, it takes people—. So, I may be taking a car; I can now use the rail. That frees up space on the motorway for those people who need to use the motorway in the way that you described. It's a practical way of making a difference. The sad thing is that the Burns review—. I can just hear muttering behind me. Do you want to make an intervention or not?

Yes, sure.

Go on then.

Cars are not a luxury.

Okay, you can't. You can't.

Cars are not a luxury for most people, Minister—they're a necessity.

You can't really ask a question.

Come on, this is a serious statement. All the people are watching this. Please, come on.

Making room for others who are using that road system by putting them on the railways is an important thing. The Burns review reported six and a half, almost seven years ago. I think the disappointment is that nothing's happened in that time. But what has been good—. And listening to the Minister for Government Effectiveness and the Constitution earlier, he described the positive conversations we've been having with UK Government. That's the same for this. We've had a continued commitment from the UK Government to the £14 billion. The Prime Minister has made it. The Secretary of State has made it. The point now is to get that transferred in, in this current spending review, so we can start to move on those stations. We've identified the ones we want to move quickly on, and we will do.

I'm just going to—. The point about ideology is, frankly, ludicrous, ultimately. All we've heard is 'ideology'. The suggestion that we're taking these things, that we're not dealing with cars, helping people to move faster on the motorway through cars, which is exactly what this statement is, which is exactly what we're talking about now, is frankly ludicrous. We need to move together as a body politic and start delivering these things and stop this calling for—. It's just—. We're not dealing with the issues. We're not dealing with the issues at hand.

I thank the Deputy Minister for his statement. After 30 talking shops, reviews and expert panels in the Government's first 100 days, I was hoping for something different from you today. I'm sorry to say I've been rather disappointed.

Now, progress on that third Menai crossing is very welcome. It builds on the work that Welsh Labour had undertaken in Government. But families in Newport will feel let down that, rather than acting now, the Government is launching yet another review on the M4, and we won't have any answers for 18 months. So, my first question to you today, Minister, is: why will it take that long to come up with some serious road-based answers for traffic around Newport? Aren't you just kicking the can down the road and hoping that families in Newport won't notice? And Deputy Minister, if you'd spoken to people in Newport, we think you wouldn't need that long. You'd have been told unequivocally that junction closures will bring more traffic and more air pollution, that silent killer, into the hearts and lungs of communities.

In Government, Welsh Labour took action to help alleviate congestion on the M4 around Newport. We'd secured funding for new railway stations from the UK Labour Government as part of that generational £14 billion commitment to transform rail infrastructure in Wales. We completed the Heads of the Valleys A465 road, the biggest road building scheme in Europe, offering traffic from the north and Midlands an alternative route into south Wales. So, I do welcome your proposals to increase the level of haulage traffic there.

We also commissioned independent evidence-based resilience studies, not just of the M4, but the A55, the A494 and the A483 to ensure that roads are fit for the future. Those resilience studies are vital work that should form the basis of future recommendations, but they appear now to be gathering dust on the Government's shelves, with no comment today on the A484 or the A483 or the A55 east of the Menai strait, where you'll know that there are significant traffic problems. Deputy Minister, as you know, Welsh Labour's view is that devolution shouldn't stop at Cardiff Bay, that Wales is too centralised, and local leaders should have a far greater say on the issues that affect their communities, and this decision today is a case in point: trunk roads are maintained and owned by the Welsh Government, but they should be designed and delivered for the regions and economies that they serve. So, will you commit to engaging fully with families, drivers, businesses and local leaders in Newport before any decision is taken about junction closures? Will you also commit to publishing the evidence behind any junction closures in full? And finally, will you also commit the Government to publishing a full response to those resilience reviews that Welsh Labour started in Government?

Thank you for the questions, Vikki.

I really appreciate the question, and I think, despite the disappointment that was expressed in that statement, there were a lot of things that you agreed with, so I welcome that. I'll deal with junction closures at the end, if I may. The resilience studies, in the first instance, that you asked about, when they're ready to be published, I'll be publishing them. They'll be published in full. I think there's good work that's being undertaken, and it does feed into the wider issues across Wales. One thing I've been really committed to is that there were two issues of strategic importance when I came into office: one was around Menai, and one was around the M4. So, I focused very much on those, and asked for the resources to be put into that thinking, in the first instance, to make sure we got those right.

In terms of 18 months, 18 months is actually a relatively fast time period to get the sort of work that we want to do done, but whilst those 18 months are happening, this Government isn't standing still. We've designed and put together a package, a full range of interventions, that need to be seen as a whole, not just my interventions in and of themselves. Some of them will be relatively easy. It will be relatively easy to direct people along the A465. Some of them are trickier. Some of them will require—. Like you said, the UK Government committed the £14 billion, it needs to show us the money on that. That's the next stage of this now, so that the work can be done.

I referenced in my statement that Transport for Wales would be working on developing those stations. That's a massive change of heart from UK Government that shows the positive relationship we've had with the Department for Transport and with Network Rail, that they see what Transport for Wales have done on the core Valleys lines and want to be able to utilise that same workforce. Remember that's a Welsh workforce developing, so the economy benefits from that work.

You asked a specific question, whether or not I commit to working with the communities of Newport and wider with regard to publishing the data around junction closures. The answer is a very emphatic 'yes' on that. One of the things that we need to do is to make sure that people don't feel like there are things being done to them. We want to work with Newport City Council and the other councils that also interact with these junctions as well. So, I give my commitment and the commitment of the teams who are working on this to do that. That's probably the most important thing about this. We're trying to make sure that this process has been transparent. That's the reason we're publishing the report that was issued today. You will all have had it in your inboxes. This isn't something that's being held behind closed doors. We didn't put a Lord's name on it. We've taken responsibility ourselves to move this thing forward. So, I'm really keen to continue this engagement to make sure that we get it right.

Before I begin my contribution, I just want to thank the Minister for the meeting that we had this morning. It was incredibly productive, and also I'm delighted for the residents and activists of the Magor and Undy station who have been campaigning for decades. It has been a labour of love to get that station going. So, I am really pleased that we're heading in the right direction. I know it's been something that we've worked on for years and years and years, and I know they will be delighted with the response.

So, Deputy Minister, I wholeheartedly agree with you that something needs to be done when it comes to improving the M4 around Newport, but this is not the right way. Not a day goes by when drivers, many of them my constituents, aren't caught up in traffic along the M4 at Newport. Bumper-to-bumper traffic regularly plagues that important stretch of road, causing frustration and making Wales a less attractive place to do business. You could have brought that to an end today, Deputy Minister, but instead you seem hell-bent on making things 100 times worse by closing junctions along the M4. A full closure at junction 27 at High Cross, a partial closure of junction 26 at Malpas, and a partial closure of junction 25 at Caerleon will cause complete chaos across the city. How on earth have you come to the conclusion that this will help improve the situation? All it is going to do is clog up Newport's surrounding A roads and residential streets.

Deputy Minister, do you not accept that your decision is going to have a major impact on commuters and businesses, both of which our city's economy relies on? And how were these junctions identified? Did you carry out an impact assessment before reaching this decision? If so, will you commit to publishing the findings in full? And if not, why not? I'd like to know what conversations you've had with residents, businesses, the police, the ambulance service, the city council and other key stakeholders about these junction closure plans. I cannot stress enough how much of a backward step this, Deputy Minister. By even considering junction closures, you have consigned Newport to even more misery.

Let me take you back a few years, Deputy Minister. Former transport Minister Edwina Hart pushed ahead with closing junction 41 on the M4 in Port Talbot during rush-hour times back in 2014. Sound familiar, Minister? Her plans were quickly abandoned following huge public backlash from traders in the area reporting a 20 per cent drop in business and long-standing businesses closing for good. So, before you resign yourself to repeating the same mistakes as Edwina, have you carried out any modelling on the economic damage this is going to cause to Newport? After 27 years of Labour's failures, the people of Newport cannot afford any more blunders being made by Plaid Cymru. Whilst I believe junction closures should be an absolute non-starter from the get-go, will you be monitoring the effectiveness of these closures and will this evidence be reviewed? If these closures do not do what you think they will do, will you commit to reopening these vital junctions?

The junction closures form part of a wider package of proposed measures, many of which, I'm sure you'll be pleased to hear, I do actually support. A commitment to investing in the extra road network, accelerating plans to deliver railway stations and improve rest stops for HGV drivers, are very welcome in my book. But I want to touch upon the plans for freight, with your ambition for redirecting HGVs away from the M4 and onto the Heads of the Valleys road. This stretch of road currently runs at 50 mph, so will you be looking to increase the speed limit to 70 mph as a result of the anticipated influx? What discussions have you had with the hauliers and others about these plans and what has the response been like? I'd really like to know.

My Welsh Conservative colleagues and I have been very, very clear that the best way of unblocking the M4 is via a relief road. Without a relief road, Newport and the rest of south Wales will continue to see more delays, more congestion, more disruption and more damage to the Welsh economy. So, as part of your long-term plans, will you commit to making sure an M4 relief road will be firmly back on the agenda?

I'd also like to know what other sorts of options are on the cards. Will you be open to considering tunnel widening, as I have previously raised with you here in the Chamber? When will this piece of work get under way and when can we expect a final decision to be reached? Deputy Minister, I appreciate funding for the stations is a matter for Westminster, but can you share with us the total anticipated cost of the five-year plans and how they will be met?

Whilst it is a bit of doom and gloom here in the south of Wales with your transport plans, things seem to be looking a bit brighter in the north. My Welsh Conservative colleagues and I have long called for a third Menai crossing to be built, so we are actually delighted to see this important infrastructure project set to be delivered. In particular, I know my colleague Janet Finch-Saunders will be thrilled with today's announcement. The public meeting held by Janet on a third crossing demonstrated not only significant cross-party support, but also overwhelming support from members of the public who were in attendance. More than 1,000 people signed a petition calling for a third Menai crossing within just 24 hours. That's pretty impressive.

We cannot deny that the Menai crossings are indeed essential access points on and off Anglesey, as well as a main artery for people and businesses travelling to and from Holyhead—as well as the port—including those travelling to Ireland. With 50,000 vehicles crossing the Menai and Britannia bridges each day, these crossings are vital for residents, businesses, tourism and the wider north Wales economy. Yet we have seen just how fragile these are, with the Menai bridge closing in October 2025 for repair work and the problems that have indeed followed. These closures, as I'm sure we're all aware, have caused significant impact, causing delays, congestion and disruption for residents, visitors and businesses. So, Deputy Minister, when will we expect to see spades in the ground and work under way to build this vital third crossing?

Details on the cost of the project and timelines would be greatly appreciated, and in terms of the existing Menai bridge, are the repair works still on course to be completed early next year? And on that note, Deputy Minister, what further steps will the Welsh Government be taking to increase the resilience of the two existing crossings? As much as I could continue on these important topics, Deputy Presiding Officer, I will draw my remarks to a close, as I appreciate there's a lot to unpack there. Thank you.

Thank you for the questions, Natasha.

And, again, thank you for the constructive way you approached the conversation this morning. I do appreciate it. And I think the frankness—. I didn't expect agreements as you walked into the Siambr today to talk about this, but I think what we got was a situation of understanding some of the issues that we're addressing.

I think, when we talk about junction closures, the thing that I'm really clear about is that it's something where I do recognise the concerns that are out there, and this is something that is very, very important that we get right. So, as I said in my answer to Vikki just a few minutes ago, I'm committed to engaging not just with Newport City Council and the surrounding councils, but with traders and local communities to make sure we understand how things can be mitigated and how things can work better as well. The three junctions you're talking about, one of them is a full closure, whereas the other ones will see changes that are less severe. So, it's about understanding the impacts of each one, which will be quite different.

The other thing I think is important to note is that we talk about this as if the intra-Newport system is working well, and, frankly, it isn't. Whereas I've got responsibility for the strategic road network, this is about working with Newport City Council, together, and the corporate joint committee as well, to make sure that we're delivering across the piece to improve the whole thing. The M4 is part of the system that makes Newport work, or not at the moment, and we've got to improve that. It's a youthful city, and people are expecting a modern city with modern public transport facilities. But at the moment, today, it's the most car-dependent city in Wales. So, we've got to do things to give people the choice. And going back to the point I made earlier, that choice needs to be very real and needs to be effective.

On the A465, we've had discussions with hauliers; we'll have more discussions with hauliers. But the initial points were to be welcomed, particularly about the routes that we're talking about from Fishguard into the midlands. It's a perfect route for that, but currently, it's not being chosen as the route of choice, and part of that is about providing the facilities. At the moment, we have freight drivers who are having to park in car parks and lay-bys, and it's wholly inappropriate. This is something that we can make a definite difference on and can attract drivers onto that route again. And again, going back to every time we take some of that traffic off the M4, it frees up space for people who have no choice but to use the M4.

Tunnel widening was one of the points that was considered in this review. I would imagine that it'll be considered within the 18-month review as well, with more detail. But at this point in time, it was considered it wasn't something where we had a route to take forward at the moment. The timescales associated with the disruption are something like 12 years before it gets finished. So, it's something that we'll look at in more detail. And on that point, I'd encourage Members from across the piece to engage in that piece of work, to make sure that they find out what's going on, and I'll do my best to make sure that Members are appraised of it, as we go through.

In terms of the Menai and when it happens, there is a process that you need to go through to be able to get a bridge to start. We're making a commitment that we want this bridge to be built. I think I've made that clear. That process starts today. That process then goes through—. There are a number of stages to it. What I'll be doing is updating this Siambr with written statements to talk about how that progress happens. The major work on a bridge build happens in the latter end of that, after all the plans have been approved, and all the environmental regulations, et cetera, have been agreed to. So, you'll see the actual spades in the ground, but the real work, and a lot of the work, will start now. That work starts now. So, we're looking at somewhere between eight and 10 years for that bridge to be finished and to be opened. That's a realistic timetable. And as I hope Members will understand, I'd rather deal with realism, rather than deal with things that won't happen, which brings me to the black route.

This is a project now—. There is no deliverable opportunity for the black route. So, I would encourage the Members opposite, and other Members in the Siambr, just to think about what we can do to make practical improvements today. Because my concern is—and I've said this before—the body politic has let people down in Newport, and outside, by not solving these issues. So, there are lots of things you agree with, and I'm glad for that support.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I thank the Minister for his statement and for all his work in recent months to put a plan and a commitment for a third crossing over the Menai back on the table. I know that this news will be welcomed across communities adjacent to the bridge and beyond. Those communities have had to endure years of disruption and our local economy has suffered as a result of significant congestion. Of course, everyone accepts that a project as significant and complex as this cannot be implemented overnight, so I welcome the short-term measures that the Minister has mentioned to ease congestion in the meantime. Could the Deputy Minister share more information on the next steps that the Government will take to develop the plan and the business case, in order to provide a better understanding for the communities who are too often affected by the resilience problems of the current Menai crossings? Thank you.

Thank you for the question, Mair.

I've referenced it before, so I'll try and be brief. There are a number of steps that need to be taken prior to you even getting to a design stage, and these are the steps that we're taking now. So, although there's been a lot of work previously there and the route is protected—and that's probably one of the things that can make this a lot easier to deal with than others—we still need to go through the process of consenting and environmental work to make sure that works.

But you also made the point that it's as important that we keep these current bridges working effectively, and that's something here we've seen an improvement in recent months. We still want to invest, especially on the Britannia bridge, with things like wind deflectors, which make a massive difference, especially during the weather that we're expecting to come our way over the winter. But this is practical work to get to the position where we can start to get to the point of appointing contractors and getting the bridge built.

Thank you, Deputy Minister, for today's announcement. People on both sides of the Menai strait will judge this statement on whether it gives them a credible plan that's both affordable and keeps traffic moving. When either of the existing bridges fail, hospital appointments are missed, staff are late for work, and businesses in Bangor and on Ynys Môn lose trade. Local estimates put that at £30 million a year. So, we welcome this announcement.

But given how tight Welsh budgets are, and that we're already suffering under unbearable taxes, I worry how we can afford this. Given Holyhead's role as the principal gateway between Great Britain and Ireland, can the Deputy Minister please tell us: has he appealed for funding for the third bridge from the UK Government, and, if so, how have they responded? Are they prepared to pick up the lion's share of this bill? And if the UK Government does not share the bill, how will the Welsh Government finance the £400 million to £600 million cost? Thank you.

Thank you for the question. I think the Member is jumping one step ahead, but it's an important question to start addressing, and it is front of our mind as well. You asked whether it's a credible plan. That's why we're making the steps today, so that people can understand that this is a credible plan. We are committed to the third Menai crossing, so the plan will be something that is very deliverable.

When it comes to financing it, this is part of the work that we would need to do. The Member makes a good point that the Menai strait is a link between us and Europe, through Holyhead. It's the second-biggest roll-on, roll-off ferry terminal in the country, so the benefit of that is really important. The other infrastructure projects that are happening on the island equally need a crossing that's going to be sustainable. So, discussions with the UK Government will have to occur with this. There are ways of being able to fund this. The plans are already starting to be put into place, but I'll be coming back with future plans as this work progresses.

This statement is telling us what we already know: that there is a problem on the M4 around Newport. It really is astounding that junction closures are even being considered as part of the solution by this Plaid Cymru Government. The people of Newport are not to blame for the congestion on the M4. The motorway runs through the city, and whenever there's an accident or a major event, traffic shifts onto local roads, grinding Newport to a halt.

Local people, including in surrounding areas like Risca, Blackwood and Cwmbran, need to have their voices heard, and people haven't been involved at this point. These people aren't just data points in a transport policy document; they are individuals, families and businesses whose lives will be impacted. They should be at the heart of this Government's approach to the M4. But local people's voices are clear: fully closing the junction at High Cross and the eastbound junctions at Malpas and Caerleon will bring more traffic and air pollution closer to homes, schools and businesses—

Deputy Minister, if you close these junctions, how do you expect the two remaining fully open junctions at Tredegar Park and the Coldra to cope?

Thank you for the question, Jayne. I just want to agree with you on the point that people in Newport aren't to blame for the problems that we've got here. What is to blame is, I think, a body politic failure to be able to resolve some of these issues that we're trying to address now. All I'd say is that we need to be thinking about these things in the round. This work isn't just one piece of work that makes the difference. So, alongside any junction closures will be improvements in public transport and improvements in the flow of roads that go between those junctions, which should make life easier in many ways.

I've made the commitment before, and I'm going to make it again to you, and I made it to you earlier on when we met: I'm committed to work closely with everybody who's going to be engaged in this. I'm there to listen and to hear. I did a lot of listening today. It wasn't all a one-way street, and I intend to carry on that process.

Thank you for your statement, Deputy Minister, on the M4 relief road in particular. Can I ask two things? First, you talked about disruption while this work is ongoing. What level of disruption are motorists going to have to endure? Because at the moment the road is gridlocked most days and, at its worst, it can be gridlocked back to the Severn bridge, or to Cardiff Gate if you're travelling east. So, any potential disruption is going to have a devastating impact. And secondly, the really important thing here is capacity. The issue you've got here is that the modelling that was done for the inquiry into the black route showed an 18 per cent growth rate in traffic over 15 years. You've talked of a 10 per cent reduction. That's still an 8 per cent growth in traffic using the M4 as it's currently constructed, or as you've outlined today. The real issue here is not the failure of body politic, as you put it, to agree the solution; it's the Labour Party supported by your party's refusal to build the black route. Because if we had the black route, that capacity would be there and the economy of south Wales and the wider region would be doing so much better.

Can I help the Member with the second part of that question? The 10 per cent improvement was in 2042 expected traffic volumes. So, it's a 10 per cent improvement on them, which has built some of those increases before. So, it does make a valid and important difference. Is it enough? I don't think it is, which is the reason we've got this 18-month piece of work as well to look at other longer term solutions alongside this. But the point is we're not going to stop.

You talked about disruption, and I think this is a really important point, so thank you for raising it. For too long, the M4 and the rest of our strategic road network hasn't been maintained in the manner that it should have been. Maintaining a network is like maintaining a boiler at home. It needs to be serviced. If you don't service it when it does work, the problems manifest. We want to make sure that we grasp that and deal with these issues. Because what I don't want is for us to have a situation where the M4 is closed for much longer because we haven't dealt with the issues at hand. It's an important thing that we do. It's also a serious thing that we do. I'm hopeful that we get broad support so that we solve and maintain our networks as we should. It's one of our biggest assets on our balance sheet.

Thank you for the briefing this morning and for this afternoon's statement.

The M4 runs through my constituency. Communities across Newport and beyond feel the impact of congestion every single day. These problems are not new. Successive Labour Government have had 27 years to act. They commissioned studies, gathered the evidence and spent more than £150 million developing the M4 relief road only for it ultimately to be abandoned with a promise of other solutions.

But the reality is Newport has been left without a solution, yet these same voices are now very vocal when this Welsh Government is grasping the nettle. So, the question is: will these proposals solve the problem? Time will tell, and I will continue to scrutinise the Government on these solutions. But one thing is clear: doing nothing is not an option.

I welcome the commitment to work with Newport City Council and other local government partners while ensuring residents and businesses have a meaningful voice. So, Minister, how will you sequence and implement these proposals over the next 18 months and ensure that local government, residents and businesses genuinely shape the decisions that you take? Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Pred. Thank you for those questions. I think you're right: the issues aren't new. This is something that's been around for a long time, and that doesn't mean that they're easy. Probably the reason why these issues have never been addressed is because of their complexity.

Will this package of measures that we talked about in the five-year plan actually solve the problem? I don't think they will, but they'll go a long way towards it, which is the reason we've got this 18-month piece of work to run alongside it. But we're not standing still. We're making sure that some activities go alongside it.

Your point about sequencing is the next stage. I think this statement today, and the conversations we're having today, are about setting an intent, a strategic intent, from this Government. The programme activity now to say what comes first and what comes next is a really important part of it. The assurance that I give you and other Members who represent the area is that my engagement with Newport and those communities that are affected will be central to making sure that we get these things right, and that will be a deep and meaningful engagement.

Deputy Minister, much of what I'm going to say some people have already asked, so I'll try to skirt around the edges. These words aren't mine, but those of my residents within Newport. They're deeply concerned by reports that your Government is considering closing M4 junctions around our city. Local commuters have warned that this would mean turning local roads and school routes into highway relief tracks, forcing motorway traffic off the M4 into residential streets, where families live and children travel to and from every day. The lack of an overall system basis taking into account flows from junction 23 to junction 28 is short-sighted. We seem to fixate on junction 25 onwards, but it starts before then. It will lead to continued use of the well-known runs to divert around any issues that happen on the M4, whether Brynglas or accident related.

There are also serious concerns for Newport's economy. Small and medium-sized businesses are already operating in challenging conditions, and restricting motorway access risks making it harder for customers, employees and suppliers to reach their destinations. Will the Minister rule out closure of M4 junctions if the public's voice says that they oppose it and commit to solutions that reduce congestion without putting children, communities and the local economy at greater risk?

Thank you for the question, Art, and thank you for your engagement earlier in this session—for the questions you raised then and for the questions you've raised now. I think I've made myself clear in terms of my engagement with local residents. I make that same commitment to you and those people whom you're talking about and talking to. The point about challenging economic conditions is one of those things—that the road network around Newport and the M4 currently doesn't help businesses. We seem to be thinking that the position today is a good position, but it isn't. This is about trying to resolve that. Getting a 10 per cent improvement on the motorway, as well as looking at longer term solutions, is a practical improvement to improve the economy of not just the area of Newport, but further along. That doesn't get away from my commitment to working closely with those communities to help them to get it right. Diolch yn fawr.

Our commitments are clear. Children's voices must be heard and must be acted on. The signs of abuse must be recognised earlier. Lessons have to be learned when safeguarding concerns arise, and we are committed to taking forward duties to report child sexual abuse. Those commitments remain central to our approach. This Government is clear that safeguarding cannot simply be an aspiration, it must be demonstrated through action. Every review provides lessons that must be learned. Every inspection identifies chances that might have been missed, opportunities for improvement. Every safeguarding incident demands reflection and action. But if we respond only to individual events, we risk creating a system that is reactive rather than preventative. Our ambition must be greater than that.

We need a safeguarding system that continuously learns, identifies risks earlier, shares intelligence effectively and acts before harm escalates. We need a safeguarding system that is joined up, accountable and ensures that lessons lead to consistent improvement across Wales. That is why the strengthening safeguarding governance review that was led by Jan Pickles has been so important and continues to be important. The review found that while Wales has strong legislative foundations, safeguarding governance has become fragmented, with inconsistent intelligence arrangements, limited national oversight and a need for clearer accountability.

The Cabinet Minister for Health and Care and I have accepted the recommendations from phase 1 of the review. The opportunity before us is not simply to implement individual recommendations, of course, it's an opportunity to strengthen the safeguarding system as a whole and ensure that it is equipped to respond to the risks of today and the challenges of the future. The stronger safeguarding for a safer Wales programme is designed to achieve that. It brings together our commitments, lessons learned and review findings together into a single programme of safeguarding reform. Its purpose is clear, as I've said: to strengthen leadership, to make the system more coherent, to promote the effectiveness of safeguarding and to ensure—and this is central, Deputy Llywydd—that the voices of children, young people, adults at risk, victims and survivors shape the services designed to protect them.

The programme is structured around four ambitions: stronger leadership and accountability for safeguarding; clear and consistent safeguarding arrangements throughout Wales; a system that learns and improves; and listening to children and adults and acting earlier. These ambitions will be delivered through a phased programme of activity across this Senedd term. Together, they'll create the foundations for improving the system over the long term.

A key element of the programme will be the establishment of a ministerial safeguarding oversight and assurance board. This will strengthen national leadership, accountability and oversight of safeguarding risks across Wales, ensuring a clear line of sight between safeguarding intelligence, system performance and ministerial assurance.

We will establish a dedicated safeguarding function within a national social care intelligence hub. The hub will bring together intelligence, data, evidence and lessons from across Wales. It will strengthen our ability to identify emerging risks, understand patterns of harm and support more informed decision making across the safeguarding system. It will also help ensure that lessons from reviews, inspections and wider safeguarding activity are translated into action. We will also develop a national safeguarding plan and a national safeguarding risk register. Together, these will provide a clear national framework for safeguarding improvement, helping to align priorities, strengthen accountability and support greater consistency across Wales.

The programme will also create the conditions for future reform. And this will include our intention to consult on proposals for an adult and child protection authority for Wales, helping to inform the future shape of safeguarding arrangements in Wales. Alongside these developments, we will continue to take forward our commitment to strengthen duties to report child sexual abuse. This delivers on our manifesto commitment and builds upon the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse.

Taken together, these developments represent a whole-system approach to safeguarding improvement. They will help Wales move towards a safeguarding system that is proactive rather than reactive, preventative rather than responsive, and a system that is driven by intelligence, learning and accountability. One of the clearest messages emerging from reviews, inspections and life experience is that lessons must drive change. Too often, the lessons of reviews, practice, inspections and data remain dispersed across organisations and sectors.

The national social care intelligence hub will strengthen an approach of learning from every case. Our aim will be to ensure that these lessons are translated into action, that safeguarding partners are supported to respond effectively to emerging risks and that people across Wales are better protected from abuse, neglect, exploitation and harm. And a defining feature of this programme will be the commitment to ensure people's voices are heard and acted upon as a result. This was the commitment again in our manifesto, and it remains central to our vision for safeguarding in Wales.

Children, young people, adults at risk, victims and survivors often have the clearest understanding of how safeguarding systems work in practice and where they need to improve. Their voices must never be an afterthought. They must be central to how safeguarding services are designed, scrutinised and improved. That's why lived experience will be embedded throughout this programme. The experiences of all victims and survivors will help shape that improvement, that accountability and those future developments of the system, because safeguarding systems should not simply work on paper. They should be shaped by the people they exist to protect.

Dirprwy Lywydd, ultimately, this programme is about building a stronger safeguarding system for Wales, a joined-up system that learns, rather than reacts, a system that identifies risks earlier and listens to people's experiences, a system that provides stronger protection and better outcomes for children, young people and adults at risk. Stronger safeguarding for a safer Wales is our commitment to creating the conditions for better protection, stronger accountability and improved outcomes for children, young people and adults at risk across Wales. We owe it to them to get this right. Diolch.

Thank you, Deputy Minister. I welcome the statement and the recognition that safeguarding is one of the most important responsibilities of any Government. Every single one of us in this Chamber has been given the honour of representing the people of Wales, and with that honour there comes a strong responsibility to protect our most vulnerable and to challenge the system that fails them. However awkward the questions, however uncomfortable the answers, we must have the courage to act. Safeguarding is essential. Children, patients and adults at risk must be protected. People must feel confident about reporting concerns, knowing they will be heard and taken seriously.

I welcome the Minister's emphasis on strengthening safeguarding across Wales and on creating a system that is proactive rather than reactive, one that learns lessons and acts before harm escalates. But we must never judge safeguarding by what it achieves. A policy is only effective if it works in practice. Additional procedures must address and identify problems and deliver a clear benefit. We must distinguish between preventing abuse and investigating allegations against those entrusted with people's care. Both require accountability.

Children can face exploitation in their homes, their communities and online. They may not recognise the abuse. They may even defend the person harming them. Protection cannot depend on a child finding the words to explain what is happening. Warning signs must never be dismissed because an individual is respected, an organisation fears embarrassment or someone is uncomfortable asking difficult questions. That principle applies everywhere, including hospitals and care settings.

Proper scrutiny also demands fair treatment. Doctors, nurses, social care workers, teachers and foster carers carry enormous responsibilities. We want people to enter these roles, stay in them and feel supported to provide good care. An allegation must be taken seriously. It must never be treated as a verdict. Immediate protective action may be necessary while facts are established. The action must reflect the risk, being regularly reviewed and accompanied by a fair and timely investigation. Where a process becomes unnecessarily prolonged or poorly co-ordinated, the consequences of this can reach into someone's livelihood, family life, confidence and mental health. For a foster family, an investigation affects their home. For a nurse or a doctor, it can leave their professional future uncertain. Children, patients and those reporting harm also need answers. Avoidable delay serves nobody. When an investigation continues for months, who is responsible for its progress, who reviews the restrictions, who challenges the unnecessary delay? The statement speaks of stronger leadership and accountability. Those principles must apply not only when concerns are raised, but throughout the safeguarding process itself. Several bodies may have legitimate responsibilities, but there must be clear co-ordination with avoidable duplication identified and removed. Those affected need clear communication, appropriate support and a fair opportunity to respond, subject to necessary safeguards for the investigation. Decisions must draw on relevant clinical and care expertise. Front-line experience must inform the process alongside safeguarding expertise, and decisions must be open to proper challenge.

You announced today a national oversight arrangement, a national social care intelligence hub and a national safeguarding risk register. These may help improve consistency and identify emerging risks, but they must also demonstrate how they will improve outcomes on the ground for vulnerable people and support timely, effective decision-making in front-line services.

We must also examine the effect on recruitment and retention. If foster families withdraw because of how allegations are handled, the Government must establish why. It must examine what any loss of placements means for that child needing a stable, suitable home. The same scrutiny must apply to concerns about nurses, doctors, social care workers leaving their roles. You must explain how existing arrangements of these proposed reforms will protect vulnerable people, how unnecessary duplication is prevented and who takes responsibility if investigations drift. Before introducing further requirements, identify the gap they address and demonstrate how they will improve safety.

I call for a review of existing arrangements, their effectiveness, proportionality, delays and support for everyone affected. That review must listen to children, families, patients, front-line workers and safeguarding professionals, and publish clear findings and actions. Accountability cannot stop with a nurse on a ward or the foster carer in their home. It must extend to those managing investigations and setting those policies. Our constituents deserve protection. Those caring for them deserve fair treatment. The Government must deliver both. Diolch.

Diolch, Claire. As you've said, safeguarding is indeed one of the most profound requirements and responsibilities of any Government, and indeed of any Senedd too, in terms of the responsibilities that each of us have to represent those people who have put their trust in us. It is something that we as a Government take incredibly seriously, and I'm really gratified to hear again that I hope that there will be cross-party agreement on the need to get these things right.

As you've alluded to here as well, people have to feel empowered to feel that they will be listened to if they report, and also, as you alluded to there, if a child has not themselves disclosed something, but someone suspects, that's why, again, we're going to be looking in the future at how to strengthen that mandatory reporting, so that where there are gaps, where there's a possible chance where something could be lost, we are making sure that we close those gaps in the net. So, absolutely, I agree.

And you said too that the policy is only effective in terms of how it works in practice, and, indeed, children do face increasing risks. Safeguarding risks are now cutting across different organisations, different geographical divides, different service boundaries. Child sexual exploitation, criminal exploitation, online harms, modern slavery, complex adult safeguarding concerns—these have become so complicated, we need this stronger national leadership and co-ordinated action. This programme sets to look at that overarching structure, and it is going to develop, and I hope very much that the Senedd will continue to scrutinise how it does develop, and where Members have ideas, and where you can point us to people with further expertise who should be involved—this is something that is going to evolve over the course of the Senedd term, of course.

And, yes, we have to be looking, of course, into how this is translated into workforce training, and I think that's a really important point. I'm really grateful to you for bringing some of the human voices into this debate, and as you have asked—. Well, in terms of making sure that we are acting as quickly as possible, that is why this is a phased programme approach, so that we can bring activities together where the practical improvements that can happen immediately can happen as quickly as possible, at the same time as establishing a structured route for those more complicated reforms, so that we're not waiting for one thing to happen before we are moving on with that.

And absolutely, in terms of clear co-ordination and avoiding duplication, that is one of the main reasons why we're going to be introducing things like the central intelligence hub, and, of course, the ministerial oversight board, to make sure that we have that trosolwg—. What is 'trosolwg' in English? That oversight. I think it is literally 'oversight'. And in terms of some of the practical improvements that could be brought about by this, having that stronger evidence base to make sure that we're setting the right priorities and we're targeting improvements in the right place, and that we can spot those risks emerging. Because sometimes something might be seen as, 'Oh, this is only happening in this one area.' We need to have the oversight to see that. Actually, this is not just collecting data; it's about making sure that we are improving people's lives and improving services before something awful happens.

In terms of who will oversee that work, that will sit underneath the national office, so that it doesn't sit in isolation. It will report to the ministerial assurance board. Now, a lot of this data is obviously going to be in the public domain already, but it's bringing that together. I think that the points you make about foster families and the wider workforce do deserve consideration, certainly, with that. No-one would want any unintended consequences to come about, so I wonder if you would be willing to write to me with some of those particular concerns, so that we could look into that in greater depth. I'd really appreciate that. Thank you, Claire.

And of course, in terms of the review of the current effectiveness, that was what Jan Pickles's review had been looking at, and whilst we've committed, of course, to taking forward all of those recommendations, as I've said, this doesn't stand frozen in time. We have to keep learning. We have to keep seeing where there are gaps that need to be filled, where those risks keep evolving. So, this is something that—. I'm really proud that we are setting down this framework, but a framework is only going to exist if all of those components within it keep it erected in the air, afloat, depending on what the metaphor is. But, no, thank you, Claire. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you, Deputy Minister, for your statement. I definitely concur with you that safeguarding is one of the most important responsibilities of any Government, and I wanted to focus my remarks on children today. You've just said then that you get lessons from the various reviews that are brought forward, and, unfortunately, recent child practice reviews have identified a number of recurring themes, including problems with information sharing, inconsistent application of safeguarding thresholds, and insufficient focus on the child's voice. And therein lies our challenge, doesn't it, really? It's taking policy into practice and making sure that that is implemented in a way that keeps children safe.

It was very good to see you accepting all the recommendations of the Jan Pickles safeguarding review, including on a ministerial safeguarding board. And of course, in 2024, under the previous Government, Wales was the first in the UK to introduce a single unified safeguarding review process, and that included the Wales safeguarding repository. So, I wanted to ask about the commitment in your statement to a national social care intelligence hub and how that would build on the work of the safeguarding repository.

I note as well the commitment to an adult and child protection authority for Wales, and that wasn't recommended in Jan Pickles's review, but it was a recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and I would certainly support anything that strengthens protections for children and young people. But it would be good to hear you say a little bit about why you've taken that decision to go down that particular road. We're all acutely aware that social care services are stretched financially, and so are those vital services that deal with early intervention with families. So, I'd be keen to hear more about whether you're planning to announce dedicated funding for stronger safeguarding for a safer Wales.

Now, it's been nearly a year since I stood up in the Senedd to make a statement on 'Our Bravery Brought Justice'. That report was the most sobering thing I had ever read since becoming an MS, and parts of it, literally, took my breath away. Now, the overriding failure, really, that ran right the way through that report was the failure to listen to the voice of the child on, literally, countless occasions. Now, you've referred to the importance of children's voice today and embedding that in the work that you're doing, but what I would like to hear is some more detail as to how you are going to do that, because children's voice can't just be an issue for agencies out there—it has to be embedded in the Government's efforts to safeguard children.

Criminal and sexual exploitation of children remains a very serious issue, and one of the problems in this area is the fact that so many vulnerable children, looked-after children, children on the edge of care, are going missing too often. Now, there have been calls for statutory return-home interviews, because, at the moment, there are different practices amongst local authorities and police forces. Can I ask if that is something that you will consider as part of the work that you're doing on children?

And I can see that the Cabinet Minister for education is in the Chamber today, which is good to see. Obviously, it's crucial that there is joint working across Government to protect children. I know that you're still committed to the follow-on work on safeguarding in education, but can I ask how you intend to work with the Cabinet Minister on those issues in education, and particularly on things that we know expose children to more risks, such as exclusion, which can lead to them being more vulnerable to exploitation? Thank you.

Diolch, Lynne, and I know that this is something that—. You have tremendous expertise in this area and dedication over many years, and I thank you for that. Of course, what we are doing here is building on a lot of work that was done by the previous Government and, again, I'm grateful to you for leading a lot of that work.

And in terms of how the—. I'm grateful that you've welcomed a number of the separate components of what I've been announcing today. You asked specifically a little more about how the central intelligence hub will work in practice. As I've set out, in terms of spotting patterns and gaps and helping to set priorities, a lot of this data or the intelligence already exists, but if we were to ensure that—. That would include things like insights arising from single unified safeguarding reviews. If we can bring those insights together to develop a greater national understanding of where different patterns are and where these risks are emerging, so that—. Because it's, deeply worryingly, something where so many risks evolve and emerge, we need to keep looking to make sure that something doesn't get lost or thought of as, 'Oh, well, that's something that is isolated. That couldn't possibly happen here.' We can never think in that way.

And I suppose this intelligence hub, which would be under the National Office of Care and Support, would be—. We'd want a dedicated safeguarding arm of that to bring all of that intelligence together. It would do things like spotting risks that cross organisational boundaries, that cross geographical boundaries, and make sure that that evidence helps to set priorities nationally, and make sure as well that—. I said earlier that a lot of this information is already available publicly. We are going to be establishing—well, I think we're, certainly, looking at establishing—a number of task-and-finish groups to look at how exactly this data can be used, how we can be guided, and I would welcome any Members with expertise in this area, including you, Lynne, if you have thoughts on how that should evolve, I'd really like to draw on your expertise with that.

You asked particularly about 'Our Bravery Brought Justice' and the voice of the child, which, if there is one thing that is a common theme running throughout this work and this, whether we look at it as a structure, whether we look at it as architecture, the fundamental cornerstone of all of it is making sure that children, when something goes wrong, either their voice is heard if they've raised that concern themselves, or someone is looking out for them and that gets heard and that gets spotted. It is something that—. I'm really determined that we have to make sure that this system is informed by those voices.

If we look at 'Our Bravery Brought Justice', the name of that report says it all. Children should never have had to have been that brave in the first place. We have to make sure that something like that doesn't happen again. We have to take every action possible to try to make sure that that doesn't happen again. And again, very often, we need to make sure that the services we have—. Even if they're well-meaning, they're not always trauma-informed, they're not always person-centred. We need to make sure that this is something that, again, as you have alluded to, is cross-Government. It's something that I'll be working really closely with the Cabinet Minister for education on, certainly, but across health, across social care, across so many different aspects, this is something that will come into so many elements of children's and young people's and adults' lives. Phase 2 of the review is looking at sport, at faith, at religious groups. We need to be looking across different sectors.

You asked about statutory return-home interviews, and, yes, that is something that is definitely under consideration. I think it is £700,000 that has been set aside for the work on safeguarding, but there is other work from other budget expenditure lines that is coming together, because, of course, this is, again, a cross-Government initiative.

But I would say, again, that there are Members across this Chamber who have had disclosures made to them, who have had horrendous experiences themselves or have known people who have gone through terrible things, and you will know more than anyone that we owe it to people who have gone through something terrible to get it right for people in the future. Their voices have to shape those improvements. So, diolch, Lynne, for those questions.

Thank you, Deputy Minister, for this afternoon's statement. Putting stronger safeguards in place is something to be welcomed, but it must be more than just about structures, strategies and warm words from the Welsh Government. It is about whether a child or vulnerable adult at risk is identified early, whether concerns are acted upon and whether there is a joined-up approach from agencies working at pace to help keep people safe.

We must also learn from the past. I don't intend to go over the specific details today, as I am sure we are all aware of the situation, but we must learn from incidents such as the Neil Foden case. Following Foden's imprisonment for 17 years after being convicted of 19 sexual abuse offences, a child practice review was indeed held. That review found that there were more than 50 missed opportunities to intervene and stop the predator headteacher from sexually abusing children. The failings we saw in this were utterly sickening, and we must agree that it never—and I mean never—is allowed to be repeated ever again. So, how will the Welsh Government ensure that cases like these are taken into account as part of this piece of work?

In April 2025, the Supreme Court ruled that sex is defined as biological sex only—a welcome decision for women and girls across Wales. However, since then, we have seen dither and delay from the Welsh Government and other public bodies in ensuring that this ruling is adhered to, especially when it comes to single-sex spaces. So, Deputy Minister, do you agree with me that ensuring that the judgment is adhered to and implemented consistently across Wales is an important part of improving safeguarding?

Deputy Minister, whilst I welcome the Government's aim of delivering stronger safeguarding for a safer Wales, there are some important questions about how this is actually going to work. You say that the Government will strengthen national leadership, oversight and accountability, but who will ultimately be accountable if safeguarding arrangements fail, and what consequences will there be when agencies do not perform effectively? Deputy Minister, I am curious to know what, if anything, these proposed reforms will mean for staff on the front line, like social workers and teachers. What specific improvements will they see as a result of this piece of work?

Sticking with those on the front line, another obvious question is about whether the system has sufficient capacity. We know that there are severe staff shortages across the board, so is the workforce there to successfully bring these changes forward? If not, where will the extra capacity needed be coming from?

Also, Deputy Minister, what are the financial implications of these reforms? In your statement, you outlined plans to create a national social care intelligence hub, a national safeguarding plan and a national safeguarding risk register. When do you expect all of these to be operational? I'd really like to have some dates in place.

A joined-up approach between the various agencies is going to be instrumental in improving safeguards. That means better data sharing, which is something we all know previous Welsh Governments have seriously lacked on over the years. So, how will these reforms provide this joined-up approach when it comes to data sharing between sectors like health, education, social care and policing? I welcome the Government's commitment to ensuring consistency and protection across all parts of Wales. Nobody—and I mean nobody—should be at a disadvantage just because of their postcode. So, how is the Government going to measure whether these safeguards are applied consistently across the country?

Deputy Minister, talking about lived experience, it will be vital in relation to this going forward, and the voices of children and adults should be heard and should be at the heart of these reforms. So, can I please get a commitment from you that it will be the case and, if so, can you elaborate on how exactly they're going to be feeding into this? Deputy Minister, the proof will ultimately be in the pudding. The $1 million question is whether these reforms will make people feel safe in the long term, and I sincerely hope that they do, but what specific outcomes does the Government expect to improve and by when? Thank you.

Diolch, Natasha, for those questions. As you've said, this has to be about making improvements to people's lives. This can't just be about what's down on a piece of paper, it can't just be what is collected in graphs. It's about whether what is collected is analysed effectively, whether it leads to action and whether that action translates into saving and improving people's lives, because that's the stuff that we're really talking about here. So, none of us will lose sight of that, of course. You've alluded to cases in the past where too many missed opportunities have been missed opportunities to act. We have to learn from those. We have to do everything in our power to save children and adults at risk in the future.

And, yes, this Government has committed to adhering to the law—always, of course. And we have also committed always to protecting those groups and those people who are at greatest risk and who are vulnerable in our society, and there are many facets to this. That is something that the Deputy First Minister has always been consistent on.

In terms of what you asked about what this will mean for front-line staff, well, this, of course, will mean empowering front-line staff. Because there will be so many missed opportunities that staff themselves will have flagged, when different staff might have spotted something, whether that was in one area or the same patterns emerging in different places. This will mean that we are ensuring that those staff voices will be amplified and that they won't be standing in isolation any more.

And, of course, as I mentioned to Claire, we're going to have to look at training and making sure that staff, in order to be empowered, are able to use the—. To make sure that they are aware of how this is going to change their work, but it is about empowering them and not putting further burdens on them. Because, of course, a lot of this, in terms of—. You asked about capacity. This is workable because an awful lot of this is not creating new obligations; this is about when staff are spotting things, when staff are doing their jobs, that we are gaining that national picture and that we have greater cohesiveness across the piece. So, it isn't about creating new forms or anything like that that staff will need to fill in; it's about making sure that every contact counts and that every voice is listened to.

You asked some specific questions about when, and I mentioned earlier that this is going to be a phased programme of work, so that where there are things we can do immediately, we can act very quickly on those at the same time as progressing some of the work that, as I've mentioned, is going to take further time and further consultation in some of these areas as well. In terms of the ministerial oversight board, the plan is to establish that certainly by the beginning of next year.

In terms of the national safeguarding plan and the national risk register, the time frame—. So, I think that we are determining at the moment whether it will cover three years or five years, but there will be annual deliverables and it's something that we are going to be working on over the next two years to establish, in terms of making sure that we know what a good system looks like. Again, that is with the hope of consulting on an adult and child protection authority in the future. So, again, this is phased because we don't want to do something that is then going to—. We don't want to have to throw the baby out with the bath water. So, that is why—. And I hope I haven't asked—.

And in terms of how children's voices will actually be listened to, whether they are actually going to matter in this process, as I mentioned to Lynne, we are going to be, I hope, establishing some task and finish groups to look at how exactly this can work. But we want a system that is more person centred, that's more accessible, that's more trauma informed, so that children don't have to keep retraumatising themselves by disclosing time and again about the same thing. We need to make sure that how the system itself is experienced improves and is made better, because of the voices of people who've gone through too many awful things in the past as well. As I said to Lynne, if there is one cornerstone in all of this structure, it is ensuring that children's voices and young people's voices, and adults at risk, that their voices shape structures and systems for the future. They will be central to all of this.

I declare an interest. My husband's a child protection social worker.

Five-year-old Logan Mwangi, two-year-old Lola James, 16-year-old Kaylea Titford, all three of them were here in Wales and had the attention of the local authorities, and all three sadly died. And the biggest single factor in the deaths of those children that was identified was lack of communication between the services.

I had been a child protection social worker for 25 years before I came into politics, and I cannot tell you how difficult and challenging it is to be a child protection social worker. It is so hard to do a job where you are, if you're doing a good job, listening to the child and the young person, and you are looking at all of the risks, and you bear the risks. I'm grateful to Natasha for mentioning—and I can't see it in your statement, but maybe it is something I haven't read—child protection social workers, because they are the critical front line in all of the changes you seek. You are looking at a wholesale, or the potential of a wholesale, reorganisation of this service.

You are looking at a wholesale child protection rearrangement of the service, but I would like you first to look at how we support those child protection social workers at the front line. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you for that, Jane.

Thank you so much for your expertise and your work for many years in this area. You mentioned at the start that there are too many children who have been let down by our system in the past, and the workforce and people like your husband, people who are working day in, day out to protect them, and to save more children's lives must be commended, and that has to be central. Child protection social workers, of course, are going to be central in all of this.

What you've talked about there as well, in terms of ensuring that we work with children, that we learn from their voices, but also the voices of the people who support them. That has to be absolutely central to our approach. We're going to be working, of course, with lots of different partners, with the National Youth Advocacy Service, with Llamau, to make sure that we are learning every lesson possible and that there are no gaps in what we're doing.

So, thank you, Jane, for raising that.

Thank you for your crucial statement today, Deputy Minister.

I very much welcome the emphasis on a whole-system approach to safeguarding, and the ambition to strengthen the system's capacity for early identification and intervention, moving us away from a predominantly reactive model towards one that is genuinely preventative and intelligence led. I want to focus on design principles, which you've mentioned already, particularly on the commitment that the voices of children, young people, adults at risk, victims and survivors will be central to service design. As you've said, centring lived experience at the heart of safeguarding means that experiences should actively inform the systems and practices designed to protect children, and organisations should be able to demonstrate what has changed as a result. This is where there can be a danger of coming up short, because listening can feel like an achievement in and of itself, as opposed to a basis for action. So, how will the Government ensure this doesn't become the case? Like Natasha Asghar and Lynne Neagle, I wanted to ask you about how children, young people, adults at risk, victims and survivors will be engaged in the development and design of safeguarding services. Now, whilst you've answered that question, I'd also like to know—

—what ongoing scrutiny mechanisms will be developed to enable these people to engage meaningfully, and over a sustained period of time, to ensure a culture of constructive challenge and continuous improvement. Diolch.

Diolch, Sera, and, as you said, listening alone cannot be enough. And the point has been made by Members across the Chamber that the measure of success is going to be where the children and young people and adults at risk and victims and survivors can see that their experiences have influenced decisions, have improved practice and that they lead to better outcomes. That is the measure of success here. And, of course, we want to make sure that lived experience goes further in influencing policy and that organisations, again, not only listen but demonstrate what they've done differently as a result. And the ministerial group will want a clear line of sight of this.

You asked about overall scrutiny. There will be a really clear role for that in terms of internal to Government. I will be very interested to see what the Senedd proposes as well in terms of scrutinising this, because that will be of vital importance as well.

A number of Members have asked for some practical examples about how this is going to help children and young people at risk. Maybe one example: safeguarding systems can be very difficult to understand and to navigate, and national programme materials could maybe, perhaps, help individuals to understand the safeguarding system. They could be shaped by the voices of those who have used these services in the past, so that children and young people would not have to be seeing this through the lens of something as frightening—that they would be seeing it shaped by children and young people who have gone through it themselves. But, again, all of these ideas are to be developed by that expertise. So, diolch, Sera.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. To declare an interest, I've got a close family member working in the NHS.

Deputy Minister, nobody disputes the importance of safeguarding. No-one disputes that children need to be safe from neglect, harm or abuse, and in that way, the statement's right. But we have to be realistic about what is happening on the ground in Wales. Across Wales, we have more than 7,000 looked-after children, around 4,800 living in foster placement, yet Wales needs 550 new foster carers every year. And at a time when the numbers of foster carers are declining, demands continue to rise. In Wales, more than 20 per cent of foster parents who left cited safeguarding allegations as the reason.

We also hear of too many cases of individuals in fostering, education, care and other professions spending months or years under safeguarding investigations. They can't move on with their lives, despite no wrongdoing ever being proven. Doctors face triple jeopardy: investigated by the police, the General Medical Council and the trust all at the same time as trying to work, if they're not off with stress. Nearly one in three who experience fitness-to-practice investigations experience suicidal thoughts, and sometimes investigations go on for years.

Does the Minister accept that safeguarding systems must protect the vulnerable, but must also be proportionate, timely and fair to those who are accused? As you say in the statement, we owe it to them to get this right.

Diolch, Catherine, and it's a similar point, of course, that was raised by your colleague Claire, and of course that needs consideration to make sure that we don't have unintended consequences, and I do take that point, of course. The central, fundamental need here is for children's safety and the safety of individuals who are at risk to be at the centre of all of this. The intention here very much is that it will be further empowering those people who surround those children, and certainly not the opposite, which are the instances that you would have alluded to there.

That is why the system will be iterative, why it will build with time to make sure that we are spotting any potential negative consequences that we would never want to happen. And again, if any Members have concerns about things that you would like officials and for me to be considering in greater depth, then please, if you could write to me, I would be very grateful. Thank you for raising that. Diolch, Llywydd.

The motion calls on the Welsh and UK Governments to work together in three key areas: enhancing Wales's fiscal flexibilities, to review the operation of the Barnett formula and to reaffirm support for the UK Government's commitment to invest £14 billion in rail infrastructure across Wales. These are practical, achievable steps that can help to strengthen our economy, support public services and improve people's lives. They are not asks for special treatment. They are asks for a collaborative approach to lead to better outcomes for Wales.

Fiscal flexibilities, therefore. The First Minister has been clear that the Welsh Government faces an exceptionally challenging financial outlook, with next year's budget expected to be lower in real terms than this year's. While demands on our public services, our infrastructure and economy continue to grow, the funding available to us is not keeping pace. Current forecasts point to a real-terms reduction in our resource budget of 0.7 per cent in 2027-28, while our capital budget is expected to be around 9 per cent lower in real terms by the end of the spending review period in 2030.

That challenge may become even greater once the implications of recent announcements by the UK Government on defence spending become clearer. In these circumstances, it's more important than ever that Wales has fair funding and the fiscal powers and flexibility needed to meet emerging challenges, invest in our priorities and deliver for communities across Wales. Ensuring that Wales has the tools to manage its own finances effectively is essential if decisions about Wales are to reflect Wales's needs and priorities.

In-year announcements from the UK Government, changing spending profiles and unforeseen economic circumstances can all have substantial impacts on our budget planning. But under current arrangements, the Welsh Government only has limited access to its own reserve and more restricted fiscal flexibilities than other parts of the UK. The Welsh Government has had to seek temporary waivers to Wales reserve restrictions in three of the last four years. That is not an effective way to manage public finances. We should not have to ask the UK Government each year for flexibilities that are already available elsewhere in the UK. I'm therefore seeking to place these temporary arrangements, which we have had to rely on repeatedly, on a permanent footing, providing greater certainty and supporting effective budget planning.

Removing restrictions on the Wales reserve is a practical first step. It would allow Wales to make better use of resources that already belong to Wales and bring our arrangements closer to those available in Scotland. Without full access to the Wales reserve, I will only be able to draw down £200 million, which is well under 1 per cent of the Wales budget, to assist with known and emerging pressures. This includes the impacts of funding announcements by the UK Government in year, such as the expected cuts in our capital settlement because of increased defence spending.

Of course, these issues extend beyond the operation of the Wales reserve alone. The case for greater flexibility highlights a broader question about whether Wales's fiscal arrangements remain fit for purpose. That's why I have proposed a review of the Wales fiscal framework. A decade has passed since the fiscal framework was agreed in 2016. Wales has changed. The economic environment has changed. The constitutional landscape has changed. It's reasonable to ask whether the current arrangements remain fit for purpose and whether they provide Wales with the resilience and flexibility required to meet future challenges.

As part of that review, I will be looking to address a variety of issues, including the operation and flexibility of the Wales reserve and the adequacy of Wales's borrowing powers—and remember that local authorities have greater flexibilities than the Welsh Government has. We also need to look at the effectiveness of current funding arrangements in reflecting relative need and the case for further tax devolution. The Welsh Government plans to seek further income tax devolution and the devolution of air passenger duty. We will also be separately seeking competence for a new vacant land tax.

These issues go beyond the motion before the Senedd today, but I can also give you this commitment today: I will not agree, as finance Minister, a revised fiscal framework unless it is a good deal for Wales, and the opinion of the Senedd on this will be an important consideration as the review proceeds.

I want to be clear: recent UK Government funding settlements have provided additional resources for Wales, and we recognise that. Next year’s settlement, however, is negative in real terms. However, any increased funding does not automatically mean fair funding, nor does it necessarily provide sufficient resources to meet growing demands or address where there has been historical underinvestment by the UK Government.

The pressures facing public services remain significant. The NHS continues to face increasing demand, local authorities and other public services continue to face substantial financial pressures, while persistent inflation continues to erode the real-terms value of public spending. These pressures reinforce the need to consider whether current funding arrangements adequately reflect Wales's needs.

My priority is to improve the operation of the Barnett formula while also exploring, over the medium term, whether a more needs-based approach could better support communities across Wales. All systems can be improved. I do not underestimate the challenge. The Treasury's instinct will often be to resist changes to established funding arrangements or the transfer of additional fiscal powers. However, we must move beyond viewing these issues as a zero-sum game, and we must believe that the spirit of the new Prime Minister to support more devolution from Whitehall will reach even the darkest corners of the UK Treasury in the coming weeks and months.

I also realise that there will be a variety of views across this Chamber on the need for reforming or replacing the Barnett formula. In the interest of building consensus, that is why this motion concentrates only on its operation. This is about ensuring that the system commands confidence, operates transparently and enables funding decisions to be clearly understood by governments and citizens alike.

As an illustration, we have limited visibility over how comparability percentages are determined and how changes at fiscal events are assessed by the Treasury. These decisions directly affect our funding. There should be a structured and timely process through which we can challenge or seek clarification.

We have already secured an action through the Finance: Interministerial Standing Committee to make practical improvements to the operation of the Barnett formula, increase transparency around funding decisions and remove constraints that limit our ability to invest in and improve Welsh public services. This work was started in the interministerial group by my predecessor, and new Ministers in our meeting in September agreed that this work must deliver tangible progress before we meet again in the new year.

Finally for this opening introduction, Llywydd, the third part of the motion. For decades, Wales has experienced significant underinvestment in rail infrastructure. That is why we welcomed the UK Government's recommitment to invest £14 billion in Welsh rail infrastructure through the joint UK-Wales rail board vision, ‘Today, Tomorrow, Together’. I would also like to acknowledge the amount of work undertaken by the previous Welsh Government in its development.

However, commitments alone do not improve connectivity. What matters now is delivery. At present, only £302 million has been allocated for the enhancement of non-devolved rail infrastructure in Wales during the current spending review period. That represents little more than 1 per cent of Network Rail spending in England and Wales over the same period.

The consequences of this long-term underinvestment extend beyond the rail network itself. Insufficient rail capacity and connectivity have limited travel choices for many communities, contributing to greater reliance on road transport, increased congestion on key routes such as the M4, as we heard earlier this afternoon, and higher transport-related emissions. Strengthening rail infrastructure is, therefore, not simply about improving train services; it is about creating a more resilient, sustainable and integrated transport network for Wales as a whole.

Delivering the £14 billion commitment is an important step towards addressing decades of underinvestment in Wales's rail infrastructure and the legitimate concerns felt across Wales that we did not benefit from HS2 consequentials, despite the scale of rail investment elsewhere in the UK. Not receiving a consequential for HS2 has meant that we have not been able to choose to use that additional funding that would have come into our budget to invest in our own priorities for rail, roads or wider transport infrastructure.

We now need agreement on a delivery programme and a clear timeline for the £14 billion rail investment commitment. The UK Government must substantially increase current levels of investment to deliver the Burns and other stations, including in north Wales, that were committed to at the UK spending review in 2025. Doing so would improve connectivity, support economic growth and enable the development of future projects for the next spending review period, while beginning to address the historic underfunding of rail in Wales. We therefore want to see an additional £1 billion of the £14 billion commitment invested during the current spending review period, up to 2029-30.

Better connectivity links people to jobs, businesses to markets and communities to opportunities. Every part of Wales deserves the benefits that modern transport infrastructure can bring. If we can build consensus on what Wales needs, we'll be in a stronger position to secure the investment, powers and funding arrangements necessary to ensure that Wales's interests and needs are fully reflected in the UK autumn budget and future UK Government decisions.

I look forward, this afternoon, to hearing the views of Members across the Chamber. I hope that there will be clarity on what unites us on fiscal reform. We will always be stronger in making our case for Wales when we speak with one voice. Diolch yn fawr.

Before I get into the meat of this debate, I have to ask: what really is the point of tabling this motion today and taking up an hour of Welsh taxpayers' time? The motion was co-tabled by the Plaid Cymru Government and its little helpers, in a spectacular reversal of roles, Welsh Labour. So, unless there is some kind of revolt going to happen on the back benches, we already know what the outcome will be. And yet here we are, spending a full hour of our lives on it, when we could be doing something useful for our constituents.

This Chamber has already come under fire recently for how it spends its time. I saw a post on X, viewed more than 300,000 times, showing last week's Plenary and the row over the word 'blanket'. The caption of the post read:

'Oh my god. This isn't a sketch. This is real. It happened at the Welsh Senedd. Madness'.

We as a Parliament have to be very careful that we are spending our time here wisely, that we are addressing the challenges that the Welsh public is facing, that we walk in their shoes, that we get it. I'm afraid I do not think that the public would put fiscal reform anywhere near the top of their agenda.

Now to the contents of the motion itself. In it, the Welsh Government is asking the Senedd to call on the Welsh Government to work with the UK Government. You already do that, don't you? Working with the UK Government is a fundamental part of a devolved Government's responsibilities. Welsh Labour did it for 27 years when they were in power and your own Government has been doing it ever since. You do not need the Senedd to hold your hand while you speak to Andy Burnham.

My other issue on this motion is the utter vagueness of the wording. Part (a) states:

'enhance the Welsh Government’s fiscal flexibilities'.

Which ones and to what extent? You say that that includes

'removal of all restrictions on the Wales Reserve'.

But, of course, you're asking for much more than that. So, why not be honest and write exactly what it is you are calling for?

Reform's position is clear and unequivocal: prioritise doing better with the existing powers. Deliver better results with the money you have. The Welsh Government and civil service need to prove that they can deliver first-class public services efficiently. Reform welcomes your clear commitment to more transparency, as outlined by the Cabinet Minister for Government effectiveness, but so far, year after year, all we see is more economic decline and an NHS in Wales that is sinking financially.

On part (b),

'review the operation of the Barnett Formula to strengthen fairness and transparency',

I understand that your argument at first is about transparency and reporting, but this is politics. The wording is so general and so open to interpretation that if this motion is agreed, we may well hear a Plaid Government, down the line, suggest that the Senedd backed fundamental change to the Barnett formula and demand more funding on the back of it.

Specifics matter. Precise wording matters. If the Welsh Government knows which fiscal powers it wants, it should name them, cost them and explain the safeguards. If it cannot do that, then this motion is not a plan for reform, it is a request for political cover for the lack of ideas on the left.

I hope the theme of this speech was clear: please, for the sake of the people of Wales, say in clear words what exactly you're asking for, and please remember that our time belongs to the people of Wales and they expect us to use it wisely. Diolch, Lywydd.

Well, I'll try and use my time wisely, then, and I look forward to having no more contributions from the Reform benches as we get straight to the vote. [Laughter.]

Let me be clear, Welsh Labour is proud to co-table this motion, welcoming and reaffirming support for the UK Labour Government's transformative £14 billion commitment for Welsh rail infrastructure. I'm delighted, a bit cheeky, that our co-tablers feel able to welcome this commitment rather than their previous position, which was to question the seriousness with which both Labour Governments at the time were determined to boost rail infrastructure in Wales. Look, we all recognise the underfunding that has resulted off the back of HS2. That £14 billion makes that good and then some. I'm pleased that Members from across the Senedd will also have the chance to put on record their support for this generational commitment. I'll take Cai's as read, right?

We all know how important public transport is to improve people's quality of life, to create jobs, to link communities and to bring people closer together, and to encourage economic growth and prosperity. We heard that in the debate on the Menai crossing and the M4. But, for too long, our rail infrastructure has been prevented from reaching its potential by successive Conservative Governments in Westminster that failed to invest in Wales. That changed in 2024 when a Labour Government was elected in the UK, meaning that Wales had two Labour Governments at the time that could work together. And through that collaboration, the two Governments managed to commit to historic levels of investment in Welsh rail infrastructure and to double the long-term plan for Welsh rail, bringing a welcome end to the 14 years of neglect and underspend.

The investment will transform communities across Wales, including the five Burns station between Cardiff and the Severn Tunnel Junction, and improve capacity and accessibility in Cardiff Central station, which is the busiest station in Wales, and also start the north Wales network by improving rail crossings and undertaking that crucial work to get more regular services. The project will also help to build a pipeline for planning the next generation of improvements across Wales.

A pipeline of potentially 43 projects, 12,000 jobs in every part of Wales, with some examples including new stations in Swansea and west Wales, including at St Clears, improved services to Milford Haven, Pembroke Dock and Fishguard, direct services to Liverpool, the Wirral and Wrexham, and stronger links to Deeside industrial park, as well as plans to upgrade the north Wales main line and more reliable trains and services on the Cambrian line. These generational commitments will help deliver the transport network that Wales deserves and show the benefit of having a UK Labour Government that is committed to investing in Wales. I know from Ministers in Westminster that the UK Labour Government is working to deliver these plans as quickly as possible, and I can give my assurance that the benches here will work with the Government here in Wales to secure those commitments.

On the issue of fair funding, as the party of devolution, Welsh Labour is also proud to reiterate our long-standing calls for the Barnett formula to be reviewed and for the Welsh Government's fiscal flexibilities to be enhanced. Welsh Labour has always pushed for more funding and more powers for Wales as part of a strong United Kingdom.

Thanks to the two Labour Governments working together, we managed to secure additional powers in this area, including in relation to the expenditure of reserves. We are clear that those changes should continue and be permanent. But, as has been an issue for a series of Welsh Governments over the years, it's also appropriate that Wales gets its fair share of funding. That does mean reform of the Barnett formula. In our manifesto this year, Welsh Labour made the case for a new 'fair share formula', which would ensure that Wales receives its proper share of UK resources automatically in all-important areas.

We also worked to ensure the reform of Barnett to create a system that is based on need and works for all parts of the UK. We recognise that the only way, ultimately, of reaching a system that is based on need is through negotiation and securing agreement between the four nations of the United Kingdom, and, in that regard, I would question how productive it is to for the Welsh First Minister to be grandstanding on this issue by placing the whole responsibility for fairer funding entirely on the shoulders of the UK Prime Minister, as he did over the weekend.

We know that the Scottish Government continues to evade demands for a system based on need, so I think the Welsh Government has a key role in making the case to secure an agreement across the nations of the UK. I'm running out of time.

I'm running out of time, so I'll just go to the end, Llywydd.

Welsh Labour will continue to make the case for Wales to receive its fair share of funding. We'll continue to press for needs-based funding and greater fiscal flexibility.

I'm concluding as we speak. My last sentence is: whatever the vote is today, the action continues and we in the Senedd and the Welsh Government need to continue to press on this issue. Diolch yn fawr.

I'll begin by stating the obvious: the case for Wales's fiscal reform is, as far as Plaid Cymru is concerned, cut and dried. Independent commissions and expert reports have repeatedly identified the limitations of the current arrangements. Most recently, the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales set out a clear case for greater fiscal autonomy, and now with Plaid Cymru in Government, we have an opportunity to take that clear-eyed analysis and turn it into a programme of practical reform. Because, ultimately, the question we should ask of our fiscal framework is a very straightforward one: does it give Wales the flexibility we need to sufficiently deal with the scale of the challenges we face?

The fiscal framework established limits on both the size of the Wales reserve, £385 million, and annual draw-downs with limits of £137.5 million for revenue and £55 million for capital. This is, of course, in contrast to the Scottish fiscal framework, within which the Scottish Government can draw down as much as they need to. There is simply no justification or compelling reasoning for Wales being treated any differently—none whatsoever. And while it's welcome that the overall limit on the size of the reserve and the annual limit for drawing down both capital and revenue spending has increased by 10 per cent, it still falls woefully short and does nothing to restore the large inflationary losses to these limits since they were set in cash terms a decade ago. This is not bloodless constitutional abstraction. It has implications for our ability to build up and use resources for future investment, whether that be in infrastructure, public services or the economy. And where there is insufficient capacity within the reserve, the ceiling for putting money in is set at 1.4 per cent of our budget. The Treasury can simply claw that money back.

The same absurdities apply to our borrowing powers, and whilst not included in this motion, Llywydd, I'm going to mention it anyway. Less expensive forms of borrowing are subject to strict limits: £1.1 billion, with an annual limit of £165 million via the national loan fund. If the Welsh Government wishes to undertake a project above a certain scale, it must either take this money from public services, borrow it privately via the mutual investment model, or hope that the UK Government decides to undertake a project of a similar scale in England and that it delivers on Barnett consequentials.

The Welsh Government has responsibility for huge areas of policy. The very principle of devolution is predicated on the notion that the people of Wales should be able to elect a Government that can pursue different priorities and make different choices from Governments elsewhere in the UK. But meaningful political responsibility requires meaningful fiscal powers, and we currently operate within a system that actively inhibits our ability to raise, save and borrow the resources necessary to deliver on the vast range of devolved responsibilities.

I'm conscious that the word 'limit' is one that I've used a lot during this contribution, but it's an apt characterisation of our fiscal framework: it is both limited and limiting. The current system of occasional ad hoc flexibilities afforded to the Welsh Government at the Treasury's discretion militates against our democracy. This is not a sustainable basis on which to take our ambitions for Wales forward. The restrictions on the Welsh Government's access to the reserve should be removed permanently, bringing Wales in line with Scotland. The current limits are debilitating and the fiscal framework needs to be reformed.

Well, here we go again: Labour and Plaid Cymru lecturing this Senedd on fiscal reform, which, to many of my constituents, will be somewhat like Bonnie and Clyde asking to look after the bank over lunch time. Whilst you admire the confidence, I wouldn't give them the keys. Plaid Cymru and Labour may sit on different sides of this Chamber, but when it comes to the fundamental approach of taxing and spending, we have seen remarkably little appetite for genuine fiscal reform.

Indeed, this current 2026-27 budget was secured through an agreement between Labour and Plaid Cymru, and when Plaid extended to Government, it chose to honour the spending commitments in that budget. So, this debate should not simply be about who spends the money. It should be about something much more fundamental: how Government raises it, how it spends it, whether taxpayers receive value for it, and whether Government itself is prepared to reform, because fiscal reform cannot simply mean changing the name above the door whilst maintaining the same approach underneath it. That is why fiscal reform is ultimately about a choice: a choice between a Government that believes the answer to almost every problem is more spending and more bureaucracy, where Reform UK believes taxpayers have a right to demand value and accountability and results, because Government has no money of its own. [Interruption.] No, thank you.

Every pound spent in this place ultimately comes from taxpayers or borrowing that taxpayers will eventually have to service, and Reform UK starts from a very simple principle: it is taxpayers' money before it is Government's money. That is where I believe the fundamental difference between Reform and Plaid Cymru lies. Plaid Cymru came into Government promising change. Then came its first financial test, the supplementary budget. And what happened? It failed. On 14 July, Plaid Cymru's first supplementary budget was rejected by this Senedd by 49 to 44 votes. Now, Plaid will undoubtedly blame opposition parties, but Government is about more than announcing how much money you want to spend. Government is about leadership. It is all about building confidence in your priorities, demonstrating value for money, and convincing Parliament your financial plans deserve its support. That is precisely why fiscal reform matters, and Plaid cannot pretend that they have nothing to do with the financial settlement that they inherited. Only months earlier, Plaid Cymru negotiated a budget agreement with the previous Labour Government and then abstained to allow the budget to pass. They did not endorse every line of it, but they helped provide the parliamentary route for that financial settlement to take effect.

So, Reform's message on fiscal reform is different. Fiscal reform cannot simply mean spending more, taxing more, creating another scheme. This isn't reform; it's more bureaucracy. Genuine fiscal reforms mean asking the harder questions. What can Government stop doing? What can Government do better? Where is taxpayers' money going and being wasted? And what bureaucracy can be removed? That is what fiscal reform should be about: prioritising expenditure, eliminating waste and ensuring that Government lives within the resources available to it. It commits us to cutting 1p from every £1 across all rates of Welsh income tax by the end of this Senedd term, funded through reductions in expenditure elsewhere without cuts to front-line services, putting more of people's own money back in their pockets. We will review the quango state, merging or abolishing bodies whose functions are duplicated or unnecessary. And we will introduce a tax lock. Reform will not introduce a new Welsh-controlled tax or levy that has not been set out in our manifesto and approved by voters.

That is fiscal reform—lower taxation where it can be afforded, disciplined spending, less waste, and protecting the front-line services upon which people depend, because economic growth does not come from Government's endless moving of taxpayers' money around Cardiff Bay. Prosperity comes from people building businesses, entrepreneurs taking risks, companies investing, and people earning and spending their own money. And Government should create the conditions that allow them to do it. That is the Reform alternative—lower taxes, less waste, less bureaucracy, better infrastructure, stronger front-line services, and a Government that understands that economic growth ultimately pays for public services upon which we all depend.

So, when Plaid Cymru return to this Chamber with further spending plans, Reform should ask a very different question: not simply, 'How much are you spending, and where can savings be redirected towards front-line services in—?' Sorry, bear with me. Apologies. So, this includes politically fashionable projects that Governments are often reluctant to challenge, because fiscal reform requires us to confront spending driven more by ideology than outcomes. The test should not be whether a policy makes a Minister feel virtuous. The test should be: does it work, does it improve people's lives, and is it worth what taxpayers are being charged for it? If the answer is 'no', then Reform should have absolutely no hesitation in challenging that expenditure. There should be no sacred cows here when it comes to taxpayers' money.

Yes, certainly. Our Welsh manifesto sets out a cost-neutral programme, cutting waste and funding additional expenditure, rather than assuming that every new priority requires additional funding or borrowing. We set out our fiscal approach clearly. If we want to spend more—

Yes, certainly. I'll do that now. That is what fiscal reform in Wales needs, not another Government asking taxpayers to dig into their pockets, but a Government prepared to look into its own pockets first. That is the difference—

Diolch, Lywydd. I'm grateful to be able to take part in this debate this evening. And I must say, Llywydd, it has been far more interesting than I expected when I saw the title of the debate in the first place. I will first of all remind the Labour spokesperson, who seemed to forget about the hundreds of millions of pounds the Conservative Government supported his own city growth region in, especially when it came to the south Wales metro as well. He seems to have completely forgotten about that rail investment over the last Conservative Government here.

We've heard, so far, from Reform, Llywydd—the first speaker who seemed to think that this debate was a complete waste of time, and the second speaker who used nearly six minutes of that time to talk about the importance of fiscal reform and why it matters so much.

I think, Llywydd, it is fair to say that a Government should be in a position to be able to have the right amount of flexibility to respond to pressures that are facing communities across the area that it represents and is responsible for. And I think, as Welsh Conservatives, we want to ensure there's a system in place that gives the appropriate Governments the appropriate amount of flexibility to deal with those issues. And I think, to be fair, the current arrangements are probably unusual, to say the least, in particular around the issue of reserves, Llywydd. I think there's a different argument around borrowing powers, and I think Members will certainly understand the fact that your borrowing power is often related to your ability to raise taxes. That's why local authorities are able to borrow more readily than the Welsh Government, currently. But I think the current arrangements around the Wales reserve is unusual, to say the least, and that's why, as Welsh Conservatives, we would support greater flexibility, in particular around the restrictions that currently exist on the Wales reserve.

And that greater flexibility, though, should also come with making sure there's very clear accountability and scrutiny, because if those restrictions are removed, taxpayers should be able to see how that flexibility is being used and what it is delivering. I think it is reasonable to say that a Government should be able to plan beyond a very small time frame and with very limited flexibility around reserves, in particular.

As I say, the issues around borrowing—I think it's a completely different discussion and argument. Perhaps another one we should have on another day in this Chamber, because I expect the views may be different across this Chamber if that was debated as a single issue.

In relation to the second part of the motion today, which is the review of the operation of the Barnett formula, we would support a review of the operation of the Barnett formula. We believe the current formula is beyond its shelf life, it's out of date and we need a funding mechanism that works well for Wales. It is complicated, and I think that transparency is a question to be asked around the Barnett formula. And after all these years and other debates, it's reasonable to ask whether it remains the right mechanism for funding the different parts of the United Kingdom. But again, if we're going to reform it, we need to do so carefully and based on evidence, to have a system that's fair, transparent and properly reflects the needs of Wales, without putting our existing funding at risk.

I was grateful to the Cabinet Minister for pointing out the wording of the motion here today about the operation of the Barnett formula, because there is a very real risk that a full-scale review, without appropriate mitigations in place, could actually see us in a worse place. We need to have a grown-up discussion about that as well.

We know the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimated that, in 2024-25, Welsh Government received around 25 per cent more funding per person than was spent on comparable services in England. That's an important figure to keep in mind when we consider the Barnett formula—a formula that, of course, was agreed by the Conservative UK Government all those years ago, with that extra support in place recognising the needs of people here in Wales.

The third part of the motion, in relation to rail—the support for the £14 billion commitment to rail infrastructure in Wales is significant, but what matters, of course, to passengers is what actually gets delivered. We need to see projects that are going to be accelerated, sufficient funding being made available and communities across Wales actually benefiting from this investment across all of Wales. People will only feel the system's working when they can get to work well, when businesses can access markets and when our communities have the transport infrastructure they deserve.

We absolutely agree that the Welsh and UK Governments should be working together to deliver for the people of Wales. So, as Welsh Conservatives, Llywydd, we support this motion in front of us today. We support the greater fiscal flexibility. We support a review of the operation of the Barnett formula. We support the £14 billion commitment to rail, while making clear that we want to see investment delivered across all of Wales, alongside asking for greater flexibility and a fairer funding system, and also making sure that every £1 Wales already receives is spent wisely. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Firstly, I'm amazed to hear that Reform don't think that fair funding is important and don't want more money for Wales. That's quite a statement. [Interruption.] Even though I wouldn't want to bore you, Cai, I'll crack on.

My comments are in relation to the Barnett formula. As we've heard, designed in the 1970s and, as we know, it was never designed to reflect need. Population is a key part of how it operates, but Wales isn't simply a smaller version of England. We've got an older population, higher levels of ill health, deprivation, greater rurality, and communities where delivering public services can cost significantly more. That's the fundamental problem for me. Barnett takes account of how many people live in Wales; it doesn't properly assess what Wales needs. Almost 50 years after it was introduced, I think we're entitled to ask whether that's still the right basis on which to fund our country. If we're serious about fairness, then need has to play a much greater role in how Wales is funded. Reform of Barnett is long, long overdue.

The reforms this Government are pursuing are important. We need to be able to see clearly how decisions are made, how spending is classified and how our share has been calculated, and we need independent oversight rather than leaving the Treasury effectively marking its own homework.

The funding rules also need to reflect the reality of devolution. If Wales takes responsibility for infrastructure, as we have with the core Valleys lines, then the way our funding is calculated should recognise that. I'm pleased that this Government is prepared to go further in the longer term and explore ultimately what could replace Barnett, because the Welsh fiscal framework already recognises something important: need matters. And these are precisely the kinds of things a fair funding system should take into account. Because surely the test shouldn't be whether every part of the UK gets the same amount per head, the test should be whether every part of the UK has the resources it needs to provide a comparable standard of public services. For me, that's where the debate now needs to go.

If the fundamental weakness of Barnett is that it doesn't properly assess need, then the starting point for whatever comes next should be a proper independent assessment of relative need across the nations of the UK, and it should be regularly updated so that our funding reflects the Wales we actually live in rather than relying on a formula that's inherited from the 1970s. That would be a much more rational basis for funding our public services.

And of course, as we've heard, Barnett is only one part of the wider fiscal settlement. The treatment of major infrastructure projects like HS2, control over the Crown Estate and the limits placed on Welsh Government borrowing all raise their own questions about whether Wales has a fair settlement and the freedom to invest in our own priorities.

So, this motion isn't simply about making the existing system work a bit better, it's also about being prepared to ask what should come next, because almost 50 years after Barnett was introduced, we have the opportunity to do something we haven't really done before—to start with Wales, to start with the needs of our population and our communities, to look honestly at what it costs to deliver public services that people rely on and to make sure that we've got the resources and powers to invest properly in our future. That is, I think, a much stronger basis for a fiscal settlement than simply asking what Wales gets as a consequence of decisions made somewhere else. Ultimately, that's what fairness should mean—not asking Wales to fit the formula, but building a funding system that properly reflects us, a system where the rules are clear and independently overseen, where funding reflects the actual needs of our country and where we have greater control over the resources and fiscal levers we need to invest in our nation. Because after nearly 50 years of Barnett, we shouldn't be asking how much longer we can make an outdated funding formula work, we should be asking what a fair funding system for Wales looks like and be making the case for it. Diolch.

Every local authority in Britain can move money into and out of reserves. This includes town and community councils and it actually includes school governing bodies, who can also move money into and out of reserves. No controls, no rules. It's their money, they can spend it or save it. Why is the Welsh Government treated differently? Once money is allocated to Wales or is raised in Wales, the Treasury has no legitimate interest in that money. This is the way they treat Westminster committees and how they treat different spending areas in Westminster. It is not the way to treat a Government.

Money is sometimes allocated late in the year, sometimes very late in the year. Money has been claimed back. There is an expectation it could have been carried forward, but that's only an expectation. The rules are really unfair. If not always able to carry it forward, money was claimed back. I did suggest at the time that we should not rely on the Treasury being fair—I don't think anybody's ever thought the Treasury was fair—and that we should actually take the money and spend it. We could give it to local authorities or give it to housing associations without any problem at all. But this is not a way to run a national budget. It does not cost the Treasury any money. Once it's here, it's here, and I don't see why they want to get involved in micromanaging Wales. It has to end. And once the money is allocated, then why does the Treasury want to get involved? It is not their money, they should be leaving us alone.

On funding, despite what has been said and believed, Wales does well out of the current system. We receive substantially more than we pay in. Estimates suggest that we collect about 70 per cent to 75 per cent of the per capita income in Wales. We spend about 110 per cent, including central Government expenditure, here in Wales. This is what being part of a larger country means—money is provided to those who need it most.

What should a funding system look like? Characteristics of a funding system for subnational Governments that were originally proposed by the Calman commission include: stability and predictability; simplicity and transparency; autonomy; efficiency; equity, so that resources are allocated in a way that takes account of relative need; and accountability, so that the link between decisions made and the tax paid by voters is clear. Any additional tax take within a region should impact on the budget available.

The Barnett formula evolved from the Goschen formula, which was designed specifically to preserve Scotland's public expenditure advantage over England. The formula was thus never designed with Wales in mind. Applied rigorously, the formula should have led to convergence in levels of spending per head across the UK. The formula has, however, preserved the spending advantage for Wales over England. There have been periodic adjustments to the operation of the formula since 1980, mainly through relative population changes. These adjustments have increased relative spending levels in Wales. The main advantage of the formula is its simplicity and objectivity as a basis for making spending allocations. There has been notable success in securing formula bypass since devolution. For example, Objective 1 match funding and funding for city deals. Northern Ireland has done substantially better in receiving money in excess of the Barnett formula. Remember, the Barnett formula calculates the minimum to be provided. Anything over and above that is allowed to be provided by the Government if they so desire.

We also have the Barnett floor. It was set following the Holtham commission investigation into the needs of Wales. At the 2015 spending review, the UK Conservative Government—see, Sam, I do mention the Conservatives—implemented a funding floor in Wales. This provided a guarantee that the Welsh Government block grant funding per head would not fall below 115 per cent of equivalent spending per head in England. Currently in Wales we get about 120 per cent of the equivalent funding per head in England. With the result of the Holtham review that Wales needs 115 per cent of the equivalent funding per head in England in devolved areas, if we get 120 per cent, we're doing well.

Currently, the total budget is £27.5 billion—£22.8 billion in revenue and £3.6 billion in capital. So, if Wales gets its 115 per cent, which is what Holtham said, then we get about £1 billion more than we should be getting, or than would be calculated. So, this idea that Wales is treated very badly by everybody might play well in certain circles, but it doesn't actually play with reality. This needs recalculating. I suggest academics, jointly appointed by the Welsh Government and the Treasury, at five-yearly intervals, should recalculate Wales's need. But remember, there's a danger that Wales will get less.

I support additional funding for rail. I have stations in my constituency that we need to be opening and reopening. Would money better be spent on transport in general? We need work doing on bus and rail interchanges. We need to ensure adequate parking near the new stations. What we do not need are rail lines to fulfil the wishes of the few passengers who want to use them.

I'm pleased to be able to contribute to this important debate this afternoon. I'd like to put on record at the outset that of course I support point 1 and point 2 in the motion before us. A number of my fellow Members on these benches have made the case clear again today as to why we need to see urgent action from the UK Government, and I wish to focus my comments on point 3 of the motion.

When the Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, made his way to Wales to announce £14 billion of investment to, as he put it, 'transform' Welsh rail, I'm sure many of us were hopeful that it was signalling the beginning of the end of historic underfunding for Welsh rail. However, as the details of commitments emerged, it became clear that, far from putting Wales on the right track, this commitment risks facilitating the continuation of underinvestment in Welsh rail over the current spending review period. It also, of course, made no effort to right the wrongs of the HS2 and the Oxford and Cambridge lines scandal. And whilst I'm sure we are glad to hear the new Prime Minister recently confirm that the £14 billion commitment remains firmly in place, I would maybe suggest to the Labour Party that it should have a word with Stephen Kinnock, the Secretary of State for Wales, given his views on this, as he doesn't quite seem to be on the same page as you in the Labour Party here, or even the Prime Minister.

Point 3 in today's motion does not set out to give Wales any special treatment or to secure any additional funding. Rather, the motion aims to ensure that the UK Government's commitment properly aligns with the delivery timelines of projects in Wales that have already been given the green light.

As the Cabinet Minister for Finance put it in her letter to the Chancellor:

'At this level of funding, the projects underpinning the commitment cannot be progressed at the pace required and key commitments will not be delivered within the planned timeframe.'

If we continue as we are, deadlines will be missed, projects will be in limbo, jobs could be at risk, and rail in Wales will continue to lag behind the rest of the UK. I therefore urge you all to support this motion today.

Devolution should never mean a transfer of responsibility without the means to discharge it, and yet, too often in Wales, we've been given the powers we have so far without the funds to use them, trying to meet our responsibilities with one hand tied behind our backs, and that erodes public confidence in devolution.

I welcome this debate. It has shown me, actually, that there is a significant amount of cross-party support for the three points in the motion. Just to touch on them very quickly, the Wales reserve: if a Government does not need to spend money in one year, it should be able to save it for what is needed in the next year. That's exactly how we all do our own budgets at home. If we don't spend it, we can carry it over, and, therefore, that should be the same application to our budget here in Wales. Scotland does not face the same constraints. It has unlimited annual drawdowns from its own reserve.

The need for flexibility, though, goes beyond the reserve. Last July, Members across this Senedd agreed that it makes little sense for a national Government to have less borrowing flexibility than a local council, as has been raised by Mike Hedges. We remain stuck, with an overall capital borrowing cap whose real value is eroded by inflation over the past decade.

Secondly, the Crown Estate. Borrowing and revenue have to go hand in hand. Wales has a revenue stream in sight, and, at the moment, it is being collected elsewhere. The Crown Estate's Welsh assets were valued at £853 million in 2022-23, and 93 per cent of that is tied to offshore wind and marine energy. Of course, devolving that revenue would come with a reduction in the block grant—we do know that. But, just as in Scotland, the way that adjustment is calculated matters. If it is set transparently and reflects the growth of offshore wind in Wales, it could give us the much-needed means to invest in our own coastline and communities.

On the Barnett formula, I welcome the motion's language of review, fairness and transparency. But we must, as has been said, be cautious, as the Institute for Fiscal Studies has noted. Reopening the formula could cost Wales as readily as it benefits. So, the credible route is not a leap in the dark; it is, as has been said, a rigorous, evidence-based process. At present, the Treasury acts as judge, jury and executioner in disputes. We've seen that HS2 is the clearest example, and the Oxford to Cambridge line as well. When the same decision goes against Wales twice and no-one outside the Treasury can overturn it, that is not an error, it is a flaw in the design. What we need is an independent fiscal commission, along the lines of Australia's Commonwealth Grants Commission.

Finally, on rail, I welcome the commitment to £14 billion-worth of investment, and I support, of course, devolving rail infrastructure to Wales, as Scotland has. I have to refer us to the modicum of confusion that there was in the last Senedd over the £14 billion and the befuddlement and confusion in terms of the motions coming forward to us. But let's move on from that, as we should see, in terms of our railways. We need to see that rail devolution come to Wales, with the money attached to it, and we need to make sure that that affects the whole of Wales.

To finish, I ask the Welsh Government to be bolder in what it asks for, and I ask the UK Government, in turn, to give us a fair hearing into a fair settlement. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch, Lywydd. To Reform, and to Cai Parry-Jones, may I start by saying that this Senedd most definitely should be discussing how we are funded? You tabled a debate last week on blankets of the past. I tabled one this week on the financing of Wales. Reform, you may be counting views and shares on social media. I'm counting the money made available and used in Wales. So, this motion is clear: it supports flexible access to reserves to enable better financial planning and control by Government, and that will definitely benefit the people of Wales.

Secondly, it supports better operation and transparency on the decisions that finance Wales via Barnett. These decisions should not be hidden behind a Treasury curtain. And it calls for rail investment in Wales to finally be realised, and those Burns stations, so often mentioned in this Senedd, to be built.

So, I'd like to thank Labour for jointly tabling the motion and also for their contribution outlining the commitment that you have to further reform of the fiscal framework in Wales. Sera Evans also outlined the need for flexibility in that access to our reserves, which is so important to us.

Paul Marr, we share the same constituents, and I can tell you that they are interested in Wales getting its fair share of funding, and especially on rail investment in Pembrokeshire and into Aberystwyth. That's not ideology; that's better rail services.

Will you take a small intervention?

Yes.

I'd just like to request, well, ask, really: do you appreciate that, if another funding review was to take place, it could actually result in Wales getting less funding? And if that was to happen, would you then accept that?

This motion today is not about the fiscal review; it's about the operation of Barnett. It is different to the call—. It was seeking to create a consensus, a commonsense consensus, across this Chamber that you've decided that you don't sign up to.

It was good to hear the commonsense approach by the Conservatives, speaking of appropriate powers for appropriate use, and that's what good politics means. [Interruption.] Look at the detail of what's in front of you. Others have suggested and said quite clearly that we need to not lay on our laurels and remain just on what this motion today is seeking to create for the Senedd, but to be bolder—Jane Dodds's words; Carrie Harper also made that call.

I would say also, Mike Hedges, I will use that line when I next speak to the UK Treasury, when you reminded us all that school governing bodies and local authorities have more fiscal powers and borrowing powers than this Senedd itself has, on access to reserves in particular. You said the UK Treasury should not be micromanaging the finances of Wales, and that's a very important thing for us to get them to understand.

So, we've created a consensus here today. It doesn't include Reform. I won't lose any sleep over that. But if I can finish by just saying that these proposals in this motion are rooted in partnership, fairness and a shared cross-party ambition to improve outcomes for the people of Wales. And if that wasn't worth an hour of this Senedd's time, then I don't know what could be.