Plenary

The next item, therefore, is questions to the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution. The first question comes from Janet Finch-Saunders.

I thank the Member for the question. The UK Government has informed the Welsh Government that it intends to fully engage with the devolved Governments in conducting its review of retained EU law. We are pressing for further information in terms of what the review will entail, the proposals that may follow and the implications for Wales.

Thank you. Llywydd, I was really delighted upon reading the agenda that so many Members will be questioning the Counsel General today about retained EU law. And I'm sure that many, including my colleague Rhys ab Owen, are delighted that the UK Government is marking the two-year anniversary of Brexit by continuing to deliver on the democratic will of the people of the United Kingdom in Wales. Despite our exit from the bloc, EU law made before 1 January 2020 continue to have precedence in our domestic framework. That is actually a disgrace and is simply not compatible with our status as a sovereign independent country. Officials across Government are currently reviewing all the EU retained laws to determine if they are beneficial to the UK. Now, you have stated publicly that you want to engage with the UK Government constructively. Will you, therefore, be co-operating in a positive way by making recommendations as to which EU law you would like to see amended or removed, and please tell us what they might be? Thank you.

Well, I thank the Member for that comment. I'd remind the Members—they may have read about it already—the concerns we have about the way this is actually being processed and suddenly rushed forward with apparently no clear reason as to why that might be the case. In December we received a letter from Lord Frost drawing our attention to a written statement setting out more detail about the review, in which he also offered to discuss the review at a future meeting of the new UK-EU inter-ministerial group. However, the devolved Government Ministers were only notified of the UK Government's intention to publish its policy document, 'The Benefits of Brexit', during a call on 29 January. It was published two days later. In fact, I think I saw it when it was published on 31 January. Details about the policy proposals being developed as part of the review have been extremely limited to date, and the policy document largely repeats Lord Frost's written statement. My policy officials are pressing for clarity in this regard, and have asked for a meeting this month for a further update on the UK Government's plans, which still remain extremely unclear.

I agreed to a request by the Counsel General for the grouping of questions 1, 2, 3 and 4, and so I'll ask Rhys ab Owen now to ask his supplementary question.

Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr i chi, Llywydd. Counsel General, you're probably aware of Philip Rycroft's evidence this morning to the Wales select committee in the House of Commons. He described Brexit as a shock to the system, and that one of the premises that devolution is built upon—the Sewel convention—came a cropper through Brexit. Maybe not the usual words of a civil servant, but they were his words, not mine. When you gave evidence to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee last month, you described the situation of the Brexit isolation Bill, as I like to call it, as having a massive impact on the devolution settlement in devolved areas. I know you were only made aware of it on the Saturday, and I'm sure you had better things to do on a Saturday than to be part of that telephone call, but you couldn't give us much detail then about the level of engagement. I'm glad to hear that there has been assurance that there will be more levels of engagement and I look forward to hear more details about that. Do you consider it appropriate that Welsh stakeholders and this Senedd should also be engaged in that process? Diolch yn fawr.

I thank you for the question. The points you raise are absolutely right—the issue of retained EU law and the review of law is something that is of significant concern to us, not just a constitutional issue, but the issue we have in terms of the statements that have been made across this Chamber from all parties about the importance of standards in the areas of food, environment and so on. So, it is unclear precisely what it is. I have to say, I read the document, and considering the earlier debate that was made—. Sam Rowlands, you can have a copy of my—[Inaudible.]—it will certainly be a cure for insomnia. [Laughter.] But I have to say, it does contain within it something I think will be on the lips of every citizen in Wales when they look to the wonders of achievement that are being declared. Listen: a reintroduction of our iconic blue passports, which are printed by a firm in France. But that's not enough—it actually gets better than that, because we're reviewing a ban on EU imperial marketing and sales to give businesses and consumers more choice over the measurements used. But it gets even better than that, because we're going to be allowing businesses to use a Crown stamp symbol on pint glasses. So, I think I can tell the Member we certainly have a lot to look forward to. But in all seriousness, this is a very significant and important document, and we will engage fully, and we will be discussing it fully with UK Government Ministers.

I echo the points made by Rhys about proper engagement and the constructive approach being taken by the Minister, but can I just say, citizens across the nation were hanging the bunting out over the weekend. They were overjoyed to hear this news, and also the appointment of man of the people, Jacob Rees-Mogg, as Minister for Brexit opportunities, and that there would be a bonfire of regulations brought forward as this grandly titled Brexit Bill mark 2 proceeds on retained law. We're far beyond parody now, of course. As this coincides with the cross-party Public Accounts Committee reporting that Brexit and the increased bureaucracy of cross-border movements of trade has suppressed trade with the EU every day since we've left. We see the political impact in Northern Ireland and Éire playing out before us every single day. Hauliers are choosing to bypass Welsh ports and the UK to ship directly to the continent, and we learnt only these last 24 hours that exports into Germany from the UK have tumbled by 8.5 per cent during 2021, and before the opposition benches say, 'Well, that's been the same for everybody', it's compared to a 16.8 per cent increase in imports from other European Union member states. Minister, Counsel General—. Does the Counsel General believe that this new iteration of Brexit Bill mark 2 will build on these remarkable successes?

If I perhaps respond to the Member's first comment, which was about this wonderful new descriptive propagandist creation of ministerial titles—Minister for Brexit opportunities—it almost reminds you, doesn't it, of the former Soviet Union Government and 'The Minister for the over-fulfilment of the five-year plan'? [Laughter.] But the point the Member makes is very important, because the document that we have is a very propagandist document; it is full of very loose aspirations. We will obviously want to engage and to explore what they mean, but also we will want to seek guarantees in terms of the constitutional integrity. In the meeting I had on that Saturday I referred to, I raised very specifically not only that the process was unacceptable, calling us in that way, but that was not respectful engagement, but equally so, that we wanted assurances—and I know that others asked for the same thing—in terms of devolution integrity. I'm still not convinced that we have actually been given that, but we will see what actually happens. But the point he does raise, of course, is that if you are to look at EU retained law, if you are to look at it in the round, you have to look at all factors, not just the propagandist ones you want, but the serious implications that there are for trade in terms of some of the things that have either been removed or are proposed to be removed, and the serious implications there might be for the standards that we want to uphold in food, agriculture, environment and so on.

Counsel General, working collaboratively with other devolved Governments of the UK is essential. The majority of the people of Wales support devolution and have twice voted for it in referendums. Leaving the EU must not mean that devolution is diluted by the UK Government. Our devolved powers must be protected. What action is the Welsh Government taking to help ensure that all nations work together to defend their devolved interests?

I thank the Member for the question. We will be working co-operatively with all the Governments of the United Kingdom. I hope the discussions and negotiations will be in accordance with the principles that have already been agreed now in terms of the inter-governmental review, which are respect for the devolved Governments, mutual respect, and principles of integrity in the way the discussions are actually to take place. Now, if that happens, then we can have a positive and constructive discussion, but I make it very, very clear that we will not concede, we will not make any concession, if this is just an attempt to introduce another internal market Act mark 2.

Moving on, what is the position of case law from the European Court, such as the well known Bosman judgment? Will they still apply now that we've left the European Union and, if so, for how long? This is an issue of great interest and has major repercussions, not just in football.

Well, of course, the influence of jurisprudence—the influence of decisions from Europe, from the European Court, are obviously ones that are important, still taken into account, and of course we do have, as Members from all parties have mentioned, retained EU law. The assumption that somehow—an assumption was made by the first speaker—that somehow all this stuff is bad, that somehow it is all something negative, I think, will turn out not to be the case, but, again, until the review starts—. Now, the problem is, until we are properly engaged, we won't precisely know what direction UK Government actually wants to do, but I hope that what will come out of it is that we will recognise that there are many aspects in terms of existing EU law that we not only want to retain, we may even want to improve upon, and, where that happens, I hope that what won't happen is an attempt to actually basically negate all those positives that exist.

Questions now from party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, last week, the UK justice Secretary announced that seven new regional Ministry of Justice offices will be opened across Wales and England as part of the UK Government's Places for Growth programme, with 22,000 roles moving out of London by 2030. This move will see more than 2,000 more roles in areas like finance, human resource and digital move out by 2030, with 500 of those heading to Wrexham, Swansea, Cardiff and Newport.

A new collaboration centre will also open in Cardiff for teams to meet up or attend training and for home workers to use when they need to be in the office. The UK justice Secretary said:

'By having more of our staff based outside London we can recruit the best people wherever they live so that the justice system benefits from more diverse backgrounds, outlooks and experience.'

And the Welsh Secretary added:

'We want to make full use of the talent and potential of the Welsh workforce and moving hundreds of roles to Wales will help us achieve that objective.'

How will you engage positively with this, both to this end and to ensure synergy with devolved services, maximising the strengths of both Governments to a common end?

Well, I thank you for the question and I do support the proposal that has been made and welcome the statement that's been made. I can inform you, in fact, that myself and the Minister for Social Justice met approximately several hours ago with Lord Wolfson to actually discuss the very announcement and what the implications would actually be. These, of course, aren't new jobs, but they're jobs that, as individuals retire or leave, will be transferred to seven new regional hubs.

I think what is unclear is the timescale over which this will happen, because it seems that there are a number of factors. The point I made is: well, of course, if there are going to be significant numbers of Ministry of Justice jobs transferring to Wales, there might be opportunities in terms of doing something about the appalling state of the Cardiff Civil and Family Justice Centre—an issue where there are real concerns in terms of the facilities that are available, but just the very message that is sent out by the state of that civil justice centre and the need for a new purpose-built civil justice centre in Cardiff. And that would be an opportunity, wouldn't it, to actually look at where Minister of Justice facilities are placed. Unfortunately, it doesn't look as though there is going to be any significant progress on the civil justice centre, but, in terms of the jobs, we will of course give every co-operation and liaise and engage over how best to facilitate this, as we are doing in fact over other areas of co-operation within the justice field with the Ministry of Justice and with the various areas that are within Welsh Government responsibility.

Thank you, and, of course, a new collaboration centre will also open in Cardiff. But responding to your statement, 'Legal Aid and Access to Justice', here three weeks ago, I referred to that week's UK Government announcement of additional funding into the family mediation scheme to help thousands more families avoid the courtroom to last July's House of Commons Justice Committee report on the future of legal aid, which identified a real need for a more flexible scheme that allows anyone with a legal problem who cannot afford a lawyer to access early legal advice, and to the UK Government's legal aid means test review as part of its broader legal support action plan, and asked what engagement you've had with the UK Government regarding these matters and the consultation that will follow. Your response then, unfortunately, failed to answer my question and made no reference to the actions regarding legal aid currently being taken by the UK Parliament and current UK Government. So, therefore, how will you engage positively with this to ensure synergy with devolved services, maximising the strengths of both Governments to a common end?

Thank you for the question. There is no doubt that, the last decade, the legal aid cuts have had an absolute disastrous impact on our communities and have disenfranchised many of our Welsh citizens from access to justice. In terms of the review—the two reviews, of course—the one review is in respect of criminal legal aid, with Lord Bellamy. I, in fact, met with Lord Bellamy to discuss that; I again raised the issue of Lord Bellamy's proposals with regard to criminal legal aid, and, in particular, some of the recommendations that are being made on the need to properly fund to deal with the issue of some of the advice deserts that we actually have. And we're still awaiting a decision from UK Government as to what they intend with that.

As important, if not actually more important, is actually the civil justice review, that I believe Lord Wolfson is engaged with at the moment. And obviously, there are significant areas there of concern to us, which are with regard to socioeconomic issues and legal aid, and generally other areas with regard to civil justice access. So, we look forward to really seeing what the proposals are that will be forthcoming. Obviously, means testing is relevant in both criminal legal aid and indeed in civil legal aid. As things stand at the moment, though, in terms of the massive cuts that there have been to legal aid, and the impact on our communities, an important lifeline is, of course, the single advice fund that the Minister for Social Justice is responsible for, and which has helped in the region of 250,000 cases for 130,000 Welsh citizens over the past couple of years.

Thank you. Thank you very much for acknowledging that. Well, last week, the UK Government announced that it will be bringing forward a Brexit Freedoms Bill—[Laughter.]—to end the special status of EU law, to make our businesses more competitive and our people more prosperous. I didn't make up the name of the Bill; that's the Bill's name. This Bill will allow EU law to be more easily amended or removed in the future. The UK Government also published a 'The benefits of Brexit' White Paper, setting out how regulations will be reviewed to, for example, create a fit-for-purpose regulatory framework for artificial intelligence, and to deliver cleaner air, create new habitats and reduce waste. Responding, you stated that you want to engage with the UK Government constructively regarding the Bill, but expressed concern that it might lead to reductions in farming and fishing standards, as well as environmental protections.

However, at the time of the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill, the UK Government agreed that UK-wide frameworks to replace the EU rule book would be freely negotiated between the four UK Governments, in areas such as food, animal welfare and the environment, setting standards below which none can fall, with the existing common arrangements maintained until these are agreed. And of course, a number of these frameworks are being considered by Senedd committees currently. So, how will you therefore engage positively with the proposed UK Bill to ensure synergy with devolved powers, maximising the strengths of both Governments to a common end?

Well, thank you for the question. And you do raise a valid point, and that is: how will we engage, what will the synergy be, what will the principles be of that particular engagement? The problem with the document you refer to is it really is a number of headlines—there isn't anything you can take within there that actually gives you any indication of what the direction the UK Government might be. They may say, 'Well, maybe that isn't the purpose of the Bill', but I'll give you a 'for example'. It refers to EU law, and says how wonderful it is that we've taken back control and the supreme court is now the Supreme Court in the United Kingdom as a result of our leaving the EU. But then, at the same time, the UK Government wants to introduce legislation that actually debars the Supreme Court from actually dealing with the issues of judicial review, the rule of law and so on. So, on the one hand, it's about empowering the Supreme Court, on the other hand, 'Well, we'll only empower it insofar as it doesn't interfere with what we want to do and the way in which we choose to operate.' So, I think there are a number of principles and contradictions that exist within it. Certainly it would be relevant in terms of looking at how that interacts with the frameworks. Now, of course, the frameworks were massively intruded upon by the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, and, of course, there are still outstanding legal issues in respect of that. But all I can do is repeat to the Member again that, of course, we will seriously engage; we will engage as a responsible Government on the basis of the principles that have been agreed between us. I just hope that the meeting we had last Saturday was an aberration and not a reflection of the way in which the UK intends to proceed in the future in those discussions.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. At the end of January, my Scottish National Party colleague, Kirsty Blackman, asked a question about post-legislative reviews within the Wales Office. In response to that question, Simon Hart, the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, according to the Brexit opportunities Minister, answered that work was under way to assess the Wales Act 2017. As you know, Cwnsler Cyffredinol, this is a key piece of legislation with regards to the devolution settlement. In addition to that, the Welsh Government is suggesting that we consent to the Health and Care Bill, which will give UK Ministers power to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006, another key piece of legislation with regards to our devolution settlement. Given all the other steps that the UK Government are doing to undermine devolution, are you concerned about handing over that power? Also, were you aware of the review of the 2017 Act? And, if so, when were you going to notify the Senedd? Diolch yn fawr.

Well, thank you for the question. The first thing is, in respect of all UK Government legislation, the Member is aware of the principles that are applied. One of the difficulties that arises, and particularly in the Bill that he's mentioned, is that there are a number of issues where there are issues of competence, there are cross-border issues that come into play and there are issues of disputed competence. The process, it has to be said, of engagement over what will be consented to, what will not be consented to, is certainly taken very, very seriously, and the issue of devolution integrity is right at the fore. We do not consent to something unless ultimately we accept that Wales will be better off as a consequence of the outcome of whatever is consented to, and, of course, it's not the Welsh Government that consents; the Welsh Government recommends to the Senedd to consent through the legislative consent motion process.

In terms of the Wales Act 2017, I think there are likely to be a number of issues that are going to emerge as a result of a series of future reviews with regard to that particular Act. I think there are issues that are going to arise with regard to the review of the Human Rights Act 1998, for example, and I think there are other areas as well that we will be concerned with. But, any developments that do take place that engage me, I will certainly report back to this Senedd on developments.

Diolch yn fawr, Cwnsler Cyffredinol. Now, we've had the long-awaited inter-governmental relations report, which sets to build a better relationship between the UK Governments, based on principles of mutual respect and to build and maintain trust. But the truth is, Cwnsler Cyffredinol, there is intense mistrust between the Governments, fundamental competing outlooks about the future of the constitution and the politics of the United Kingdom, and also attempts to reassert the sovereignty of the UK Parliament over devolved nations. Therefore, what is being done to implement the machinery and processes set out to assert mutual respect and trust into a positive and constructive inter-governmental relationship? Further, will discussions regarding the machinery and process involve us here in the Senedd? Diolch.

Well, look, can I say that, firstly, the inter-governmental review, and the process that the Member has seen, is an important one? It is certainly, in my view, a significant step forward, but it's a cautious step forward, because we have to see how it will work. It does certainly outline the issues of respect and integrity that should apply constitutionally in terms of devolved government. And it's interesting to note the review actually uses the term 'devolved government', as opposed to 'devolved administration', of course, until you start looking at the Treasury part of it, where it reverts back to 'devolved administrations', but that's as may be for the moment. I know that officials are working together and looking at the issue of the creation of the independent secretariat and the structure that will take place, and also, I think, the schedule of meetings and so on that will take place. The fact that there will be a forum for inter-ministerial meetings is obviously important, as will be the meeting of the First Ministers and Prime Minister within this process. In terms of the Senedd, yes, as a result of the inter-institutional agreement—. Well, of course, there is already an agreement that the details of meetings that will be taking place and so on will be informed, and I would hope that there will be open discussion here. I think the whole process is one where, I think, there is even written into it a commitment to openness and transparency, and that is something that I will do everything I can to uphold, because we do want to make this new review work. It is to the benefit of the people of Wales if it does work, but we're not going to make assumptions on past practice that it necessarily is bound to work. Its one core flaw, of course, is that it does not have a constitutional status. It does not have a judicable status. But maybe we're on the way towards that. I think it is actually also the first indication of a federalised constitutional structure in terms of engagement. Now, there is a long way to go, but I will of course update Members on important issues as they do arise.

Thank you very much again. I am satisfied that the constitutional implications of the Bill have been appropriately scrutinised and evaluated. Powers included in the Bill as currently drafted are subject to four purpose tests, which may only be used where the Welsh Ministers consider it appropriate. These powers are sufficiently constrained.

Diolch yn fawr, Cwnsler Cyffredinol. You're quite right about the wide-ranging powers when Ministers feel that it's appropriate, but I'm sure you also remember, back to your student days, Cwnsler Cyffredinol, being taught that, generally, laws should only be applied prospectively, rather than retrospectively. And I'm also sure, in constitutional lectures, you were taught about the importance of parliamentary scrutiny. Now, whilst this Bill has many sensible features, such as the ability to change the tax process quickly to comply with international obligations, it limits the scope of scrutiny by removing the Senedd's lock. The Senedd lock is important, where power to change the Act was only contingent on Senedd approval. That's gone. Now, the broadness of the Bill fundamentally alters location of power in the Senedd to Ministers, and additionally it grants Ministers the powers to alter Acts retrospectively. That's clearly undermining the rule of law by creating uncertainty within the law. Now, we often criticise the Westminster Government for undermining the rule of law, but it is true about the Welsh Government in this case. In light of that, what safeguards will you introduce in this Bill in order to prevent the erosion of scrutiny and to prevent the erosion of the rule of law? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you for the question. The Member raises a very important point and it's a point that has been very carefully considered; I've applied my mind to it and I know the Minister for finance has as well. And, of course, the Bill is, I think, at Stage 1 of the scrutiny process. I know the finance Minister gave evidence to the Finance Committee in the first session, I think, last week, and certainly there's another session next week, and I think is due to give evidence to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee.

The first thing is really what the Bill is about. What the Bill does is it enables changes to be made to the Welsh tax Acts by regulations where Welsh Ministers consider that those changes are necessary or appropriate, and where they're required to have effect immediately or shortly thereafter. So, basically, where there are a number of external circumstances that can happen, it's about protecting the integrity of the Welsh tax system to changes that may occur.

And you're right—the issue of the lock is an important one. I can't remember discussing anything like this when I was a student. Mind you, that was over 40 years ago, so perhaps your memory is a bit fresher than mine. But it is an important constitutional point, and I know it's one that's been the subject of a certain amount of commentary—that is, that a change would have to come before the Senedd for the power to be unlocked to enable it to actually be used. I think the difficulty with that is the immediacy of a change that might need to be made, and I think there's broad recognition that there is a need to have the power. But, you're absolutely right that, of course, it is a significant power. Any power to a Government to make changes, and potentially retrospective changes, is significant and requires significant scrutiny.

The approach that is being taken in respect of the way to do it is really to have a four purposes test to it so that it is there to ensure that it can deal with issues that arise unexpectedly, suddenly et cetera with regard to tax avoidance, or to comply with international obligations, or to respond urgently to court or tribunal decisions, or in fact to things that happen at a UK Government level that mean we need to actually respond. And, in some ways, it's a little bit like the COVID regulations, isn't it, in that they're made, they take effect et cetera, and so you have the made affirmative procedure or, potentially, the draft affirmative procedure being looked at.

I think what I can say is that you are absolutely right to raise the point. It is a matter that has to be very carefully examined. The finance Minister is attending the various committee scrutiny sessions in order to do that. And, no doubt, this will come back before this Chamber. I think, in terms of the balance and my understanding of what is needed and the urgency with which it is, from time to time, necessary to act, what is contained within the Bill I think recognises those significant constitutional issues that have to be addressed. But, of course, the scrutiny process will continue and the Minister for finance will obviously engage within that.

Thank you for the question. The appointment of lay magistrates is actually undertaken by the Judicial Office, not the UK Government. I have not personally had any discussions about magistrates specifically, but it is something we will consider with partners as we take forward the Welsh Government’s race equality action plan.

That's good to hear. You'll be aware that the UK Ministry of Justice is presently undertaking the largest recruitment effort in its 650-year history to find 4,000 new lay magistrates. This step has been taken to combat the fact that the number of magistrates has fallen over the past decade from 25,170 in 2012 to 12,651 last year. So, of course, a lay magistrate, technically, is a voluntary position, with individuals expected to dedicate a minimum of 13 days per year, meaning many can look to fulfil this crucial role alongside their employment and their own caring responsibilities. The recruitment drive comes at a most pressing time, as statistics for November 2021 showed that 372,000 cases were outstanding in the magistrates' courts. It also provides now for an opportunity to diversify the magistracy, given that, as of last April, just over eight in 10 were aged over 50. Counsel General, what assistance can the Welsh Government provide on promoting this voluntary opportunity amongst our young people, and particularly so in our Welsh first-language communities, to ensure that those making these decisions are actually becoming more representative of the communities that they actually serve?

Thank you. It's an important question. It does beg the question why it is that, in 10 years, when you've had almost a halving of the number of magistrates, it is so late in the day now that action is being taken and also in such a minimalist way. Why are there so many fewer magistrates than there were before? But I do welcome the step to recruit 4,000 more magistrates and, of course, as a result of COVID, steps are being taken also to extend the capacity of magistrates in terms of dealing with more cases.

Can I also say that I think the magistrates perform an essential role, I think, in allowing our underfunded justice system to operate? And we do owe all these people who give their time and their expertise a debt of gratitude. I think one factor that may have contributed as well to the reduction is the closure of so many magistrates' courts. People identify with their communities, with their local courts, and the magistrates' court system has always been part of a localised justice system. That link between justice and the community has been very badly broken.

One thing I can say in terms of one of the things I think we can do and where we can work with UK Government—and, again, it's a matter that I and the Minister for Social Justice have actually been working on and discussing—is with regard to the disaggregation of data so that we actually know what the make-up is. Now, we know the age profile. We know also that about 55 per cent of magistrates in Wales are female as opposed to male. We also know that around about 5 per cent are from a minority background, but we don't have much more detail than that. We don't know whether some ethnic groupings are under-represented. We don't know where they are particularly located, and we also don't have the data that we need, I think, in respect of the ability to use Welsh language. And as we want to encourage and see a greater usage of Welsh within our courts system, I think that is something that's important to know.

I can say that discussions that we've been having I think have been very positively received. We will be writing to the UK Government to set out the criteria of the data that we do need, and I think that is an example of positive and constructive co-operative working that is taking place and that we have been developing.

Thank you for that. Inter-parliamentary arrangements are a matter for the Parliaments themselves. We are committed to strengthening transparency, scrutiny and accountability for inter-governmental relations. We have a formal inter-governmental review agreement with the Senedd, which includes the publication of an annual report.

The inter-governmental reforms do hold out some positive news, I think. If they can be made to be embedded in both the tone of respect but also the machinery of Government that they genuinely are meaningful between Governments, then they hold out some real hope for the future. But what we do know, of course, is that that strengthening of the inter-governmental machinery means that there is a need to have greater scrutiny of what's going on at that level. So, I wonder—and I do accept entirely what the Counsel General says, that this is a matter for Parliaments—would he personally, with his experience, support the concept that there now needs to be an equal focus on inter-parliamentary reform so that the scrutiny is up to the job of the inter-governmental reform? And that could be taken forward by intra-committee work across the nations, by the intra-parliamentary fora that we are reconstituting or, indeed—and with great respect to my colleague sitting opposite—by the Speakers' convention as well if they wanted to turn their attention to inter-parliamentary reform.

Thank you, and you're absolutely right, and I'm glad that the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee is paying close attention to this, because, as these relations develop and deal with really significant matters that impact on people's lives, it is very important that there is solid, constructive and strategic scrutiny. The one side to it here, of course, is that there is the inter-institutional agreement between the Welsh Government and the committee that you chair. That is important. I think there's a recognition from Welsh Government of the importance of transparency and scrutiny of these issues as well.

But, can I comment then on the inter-parliamentary forum, because I actually think—? As you know, I was previously a member of that, and I know it came into existence in connection with Brexit, and so on. It seems to me that is a potential forum that offers the opportunity for the creation of a pan-parliamentary scrutiny committee that could actually operate very constructively across the constitution committees and legislation committees, whether it be the House of Lords, whether it be the constitution committees, and so on. I think that is a very interesting possibility, and I'm sure that's something that I imagine the inter-parliamentary forum, which, as you say, is being reset up, is going to look at how it would fit within that particular role.

I thank the Member for the question. We are still going through the detail of the levelling-up White Paper, but through their use of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, UK Ministers continue to override the devolution settlements and the democratic oversight of this Parliament.

Thank you very much for that response. These levelling-up proposals look to co-operate directly with local authorities across the UK. There is talk of devolution in the White Paper, but it's devolution in the context of England, of course. The spin put on it is that they intend to reduce this gaping gap and the inequalities within the UK. But, working directly with local authorities here in Wales will undermine the devolution process, as you have just said. Do you believe that this programme, and the White Paper if it becomes law, will meet its objectives of reducing inequalities, or will it fail in this regard and, rather, be detrimental to the efforts of the Government here in Wales?

Thank you. I can tell you that Welsh Government officials have had no engagement from the UK Government on the levelling-up White Paper, despite economic development actually being a devolved competence. Our experience of this sort of inter-governmental partnership working on these particular matters has been, I would say, wholly unacceptable.

Delivering the levelling-up agenda in Wales without any partnership with the Welsh Government not only disrespects the devolution settlement, but it also badly weakens the potential of any investment programme. It is recognised, the need to actually respect devolved Governments in terms of the implementation of the use of funding. The Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee noted:

'the apparent absence of any meaningful strategic engagement with the devolved administrations around the levelling up agenda, amplifies the lack of clarity and focus around this major policy.'

And don't forget: the UK Government commissioned the Dunlop review to actually look into these issues and so on. The Dunlop review noted that

'funding by the UK Government in devolved areas must not replace core funding and must be applied with the support of the devolved governments.'

I can only say that, so far, there has been a total failure in that particular respect, and we've seen that also by the examples of the use of levelling-up funding. The fact that we are certainly not receiving the level of funding that we were promised: the Welsh budget is set to be nearly £1 billion worse off by 2024 as a result of the UK Government's failure to honour its commitment that Wales would not lose a single penny as a result of the UK leaving the European Union.

Question 9 [OQ57624] is withdrawn. Therefore, finally, question 10, Delyth Jewell.

I thank the Member for the question. Four years since beginning the process to devolve new powers for a vacant land tax, we have still not been able to secure these powers. It is quite clear now that the process is not fit for purpose.

Thank you for that answer. On a recent visit to Wales, Counsel General, the Prime Minister said that

'devolved governments had to take more responsibility on raising their own finance.'

Could you therefore tell us which new taxation powers the UK Government has offered the Welsh Government? And, if none have been offered, what do you, Counsel General, think that the Prime Minister meant when he said that the Welsh Government should take more responsibility for raising its own finance?

Well, I think that the best answer to that question is that I think that I will have to ask the Minister when I meet with him because, at the moment, as far as I'm aware, the discussions on the issue, for example, of a vacant land tax—. We want such a tax because of the potential of such a tax to deliver our housing and regeneration ambitions.

The crux seems to be that, what should be happening is that the engagement with the UK Government in respect of the devolution of tax powers in certain areas should be a matter of which taxes are appropriate for devolved Government. Well, that has already been established. Where the UK Government now seems to be heading is that it wants to know how we intend to use them. Well, quite frankly, if the power is appropriate to be devolved, it is for this place to determine the best way of using that particular power. Consequently, the discussions go around in circles and the powers, which I think come from the 2014 Act, really are not fit for purpose, and there is a desperate need for change.

There are other areas of taxation, of course, that would assist us, whether it is to do with value added tax, whether it is to do with air passenger duty, and of course there's a lot of talk by the UK Government about air passenger duty. Well, we've been asking for levelling up on the air passenger duty taxation side for quite some time, and it's still not recognised.

I thank the Counsel General.

The next item is questions to the Senedd Commission, and they will be answered by the Llywydd. Question 1, Jack Sargeant.

Thank you for the question. The Welsh Youth Parliament continues to be a key priority for the Senedd. We were delighted with the success of the first Welsh Youth Parliament term, and with the enthusiasm and passion that the first group of Welsh Youth Parliament Members showed. We have recently elected our second cohort of Members and I'm looking forward to chairing the first full meeting on 19 February. That meeting will be held virtually, but I very much hope that there will be a meeting of the Youth Parliament very soon after that in this Siambr.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and I look forward to the outcome and the update from the first meeting of the newly elected Youth Parliament. Like many of us across here, I'm really keen for Members of our Youth Parliament to be given the opportunity to make a real lasting difference, to leave their mark on Welsh politics and to leave their mark and positive change on Welsh public life. One of the issues that's continually raised with me in my community of Alyn and Deeside by young people is the use of single-use plastics. Can I ask the Commission what thought they've given to facilitating the handover of this important policy area so that progress can be made by these passionate individuals on behalf of the people of Wales?

Well, it was a matter of great joy that the youth parliamentarians in the first Youth Parliament selected as one of its three areas of priority three very relevant, modern issues to be focusing on. One was, of course, the single-use plastics and environmental concerns that they have. The new Youth Parliament will decide of itself in a few weeks' time what its priorities will be for the next two years, and it is a matter of—I think—challenge for all of us that, as we listen to the voices of our Youth Parliament—. And I hope that Members will be able to join us on 19 February to join the meeting at some point. It's not a day when the six nations are playing, deliberately chosen for that reason. We made that mistake the first time around; we won't make it the second time around. So, please listen as they decide for themselves what their priorities for the next two years will be. I would be surprised if environmental concerns and climate change did not feature in there quite heavily.

The Commission is committed to providing opportunities to young people and any others who may wish to access the workplace and to familiarise themselves with the activities of the Senedd through a variety of short-term work experience opportunities. The Commission operates a formal work experience scheme twice annually, and that's an opportunity for anyone above the age of 16 to engage with the work of the Senedd. Recruitment to established jobs within the Commission are advertised on a broad range of platforms and are promoted in line with the principles of fair and open competition.

Thank you very much for that answer.

This is a genuinely open question, because I'm impressed, to be honest, at the extent to which the Senedd is opening up to people—young people and others—across the country in terms of saying, 'Come here and experience—get work experience,' or, 'Apply for work here, right at the heart of our national democracy.' And if you look at the website, it's very well signposted and so on. But my question, as a follow-up, is whether any analysis has been done to see where people who come here are from—whether they come from work experience in schools or whether they apply through open recruitment here to various roles. What parts of the country do they come from? Which offices do they go to work in? What socioeconomic background are they from? Are they from rural Wales and the Valleys and from the coastal areas? Do they tend to congregate within certain geographic areas or certain strata of our society? That would also be very interesting to know. But I commend the work that's been done, actually, as a very open recruiter and also to give work experience to young people in our schools.

Those are very interesting questions. We come here to this place from all parts of Wales, but where do the staff that serve the Commission and also our party political staff also come from is a good question to know the answer to. I don't know the answer to it as I stand here before you at this point, and I suspect that we do collect some of those statistics, but I'll certainly look into it and ask for some clarity on that to be shared with all Members. I suspect that there is an interest from around the Chamber to know how and whether we do that.

Question 3 [OQ57625] has been withdrawn.

Item 4 on the agenda is next, but no topical questions have been accepted.

So, we move on to item 5, the 90-second statement. I call on Jack Sargeant.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This week is National Apprenticeship Week and it's not an exaggeration to say that apprenticeships change lives. Deputy Presiding Officer, I'm proud to have served my time as an apprentice engineer in DRB Group in Deeside. Apprenticeships deliver the skills necessary for individuals to embark on their successful careers. At the same time, they benefit employers, helping them to find the relevant skilled people they need to help meet the current and future needs of their businesses and the Welsh economy. Institutions like ColegauCymru and Coleg Cambria do fantastic work, working with over 1,000 employers locally and nationally to deliver apprenticeship and traineeship opportunities for the people of Wales.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I want to see apprenticeships flourish here in Wales, and be an even bigger part of our national life. I encourage all people of Wales, of all ages and all backgrounds, to consider an apprenticeship, and as we look forward to the future, who would not welcome seeing more trained apprentices sitting in this very Chamber and adding in their experience gained from the work industry to shaping policy and making decisions on behalf of the people of Wales? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. We will now suspend proceedings to allow changeovers in the Siambr. If you're leaving the Siambr, please do so promptly. The bell will be rung two minutes before proceedings restart and any Members who are arriving after the changeover should wait until then before entering the Siambr.

We move now to item 6, a debate on a Member's legislative proposal on rent control. I call on Mabon ap Gwynfor to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. [Interruption.] Thank you for the welcome. I have to declare an interest at the beginning of the debate as someone who owns another property occupied by a tenant. So, why am I, of all people, putting forward a motion to control rents? Well, simply put, because this is the right thing to do.

There are pressing crises that have happened throughout history that lead to a financial squeeze that in turn leads to poverty. This is true without exception, and history is testament to the fact. At times of pressing crisis, Governments take action to show that they are there to protect and help, through providing a shield against the worst impacts.

Let us take one example from history. Following the second world war, what did Clement Attlee and Aneurin Bevan do? Well, they went about implementing the recommendations made in the Ridley report and strengthened rent controls, and embarked on a major programme of building public housing. Aneurin Bevan himself spoke about the need to safeguard tenants. And the people of Wales look to us today to do what we can to prevent them from falling into poverty following the huge post-COVID challenges. We don't know what the full impact of COVID will be yet—the picture will become clearer as time goes on—but we are starting to see its detrimental effect already, on top of over 10 years of stifling austerity. Wages have failed to keep up with inflation, inflation is about to hit its highest level for 30 years, and the cost of living is on the rise. But, on top of all this, rents have increased more in Wales than in any other part of the United Kingdom, with an increase of almost 13 per cent in the past year alone.

Over half the children who live in rented homes live in poverty. The percentage of people who live in poverty in the rental sector is higher in Wales than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Cardiff is having a particularly hard time, with the Joseph Rowntree Foundation estimating that many spend 35 per cent of their income on rent alone. Young people can't afford to buy homes in their communities and waiting lists for social homes are very long. So, the only option is to rent privately or, for some, unfortunately, to live with their parents. It's little wonder that ONS figures show that a third of people between 20 and 30 years of age live with their parents here in Wales. Shelter Cymru has seen rents doubling in a month in some cases, and Acorn in Cardiff has seen landlords demanding more than an extra £100 per month in rent from their tenants. Without intervention, we will see more and more people finding themselves living in poverty or even becoming homeless.

I know that some will take fright at reading the motion and will instinctively oppose it, referring to examples where policy under the heading 'rent control' has failed. And that's true; some experiments have failed. But when they are designed in the right way, when they're targeted and when they dovetail with other successful policies, then rent control is a policy that succeeds and is popular. And they're popular today, with over two thirds of people supporting a policy of this kind in the United Kingdom, according to a recent YouGov opinion poll. Note that the motion does not propose a particular kind of rent control system, but it does note the need to impose controls on rents to a level that meets the ability to pay.

Let's look at some examples. The Government of the Republic of Ireland is not known for being particularly left wing; indeed, it is a more right-wing Government. But there, they have taken steps to control rents, with a rent review no less often than every two years and a 90-day period of notice of change. They have rent pressure zones in areas where the pressure is particularly high, which mean that rent cannot increase above the rate of inflation in those areas. In Catalunya, the Government there has introduced a regime that limits rents for specific cohorts of people, for example if rent equates to 30 per cent or more of their income. And, of course, rent controls exist in different states across the United States, having been introduced in a targeted manner.

I refer Members to my own declaration of interests, and indeed will be declaring an interest on this debate. I will also be voting very firmly against this legislative proposal, and it doesn't take away the fact that I know the work that you've put into this. There is actual clear evidence that rent controls can have large negative effects, both on landlords, tenants and, indeed, the quality of housing stock. San Francisco's 1994 rent control law led to a 5.1 per cent increase in overall rents over the course of the next two decades. The overall rise in rents created a cost of £2.9 billion accrued to current and future renters, and landlords substituting to other types of real estate, which then lowered the housing supply, shifting it towards less affordable types of housing.

Now, we're already seeing a pattern that's quite worrying in Wales. Private landlords, financial brokers, are telling me that they or their clients are fed up now with so many controls being placed upon them, when all they want to do is provide good-quality accommodation for a fair rent in return. Many are now selling up their stock or moving over to the holiday let. In fact, between 2018-19 and 20-21, Wales has seen over 4,500 private landlords leave the sector. And, Minister, you can shake your head, but I have that figure, firmly, provided to me by Rent Smart Wales themselves, in black and white.

Now, last week, I chaired an estate agents round-table, and it was made clear that there is an agent in south Wales that manages over 4,000 units, and they know for a fact that owners are voting with their feet and actually leaving the rented sector. Your proposal, Mabon, would make that wave a tsunami of landlords leaving, and the casualties will be the very people that you actually think you're trying to help. Studies have shown that rent controls lead to a deterioration in housing quality, resulting from landlords' reduced income and an inclination to keep the upkeep of the housing. Germany introduced a nationwide system of rent controls in 2015, but according to research, this had no persistent effect on rental prices, instead resulting in reducing housing quality.

Now, Dr Simon Brooks has made it clear that providing a sufficient supply of rental accommodation is particularly important in towns such as Llangefni, Holyhead, Milford Haven, Haverfordwest, and Caernarfon and Bangor in Gwynedd. There is no greater example of the failure of socialism in Wales than the absolute carnage that Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru are making of our housing sector. As was made clear in my estate agents round-table, they believe that you are just driving the quantity of stock available for tenants to rent—

Janet, can you conclude now, please?

This legislation will be the final straw, and will see the very people that you think you are trying to help worse off. I would ask all Members to support tenants themselves, landlords, and to ensure that our housing stock doesn't deteriorate further, and vote firmly against this. Diolch.

I actually believe in rent control, and I don't own any houses apart from the one I live in. With a shortage of rental properties compared to demand, then without controls, rents will increase continually. With large-scale council house building pre-1979, the private rented sector declined. The private rented sector began to grow again after 1989 and is now the second-largest tenure in the UK after owner-occupation. Increases in the private sector rent levels and a focus on reducing housing benefit expenditure have led several commentators, and I agree with them, to call for the reintroduction of some form of private sector rent control. The Rent Act in 1965, introduced by the Labour Government led by Harold Wilson, regulated tenancies, with fair rents set by independent rent officers. That ended with the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, brought in by the Conservatives, and we mentioned 1989 earlier, as the date at which the increase in private rented accommodation started to go up.

What are the benefits of rent control? Affordability, it prevents displacement, neighbourhood stability. The argument that is made—Janet Finch-Saunders made it, which I voted out before she even spoke—I expect is that it reduces availability of rented property for stock renovation and improvement. Firstly, the high rent of privately rented properties has driven out first-time buyers. But I'll just talk about the area I come from of Plasmarl in Swansea. Initially, it had large numbers of privately rented properties, but, as council houses became available, my family, like many others, moved to these new council houses, and the housing left behind was sold, and many people, via a mortgage, became owner-occupiers and then undertook improvement of those homes. Now, these properties are bought and made available for private rent. I must have missed the large-scale renovation of the cheaper privately rented properties in east Swansea.

Alongside rent controls, we do need the large-scale building of social housing. In fact, I talk about that probably more often than people would like to hear it from me, but we need to build council houses at the rate we built them in the 1950s and 1960s. Rent control increases the availability of houses to be bought by people to live in, reduces the cost of rental, gives security on rental costs, removes the incentive to move one tenant out to bring one in paying a higher rent. I urge everyone to support this today. This is, effectively, a Labour policy; it's something that the Wilson Government brought it, which worked very well at rolling back the tide of fairness to poor and less well-off people, but the Tories in the 1980s got rid of it. We've got an opportunity to bring it back in now for the benefit of all the people renting in Wales. I urge everybody, especially my Labour colleagues, to support what is effectively a socialist solution.

The need for shelter is one of the most basic human needs, but this need can be exploited. Many of the problems that we discuss day in, day out with our constituents are related to the housing emergency that has engulfed our communities. Because be in no doubt, this is an emergency, and it is hitting the poorest and most vulnerable in our society the hardest. We must act to protect them.

Housing is the single largest living cost faced by most families in Wales, and uncontrolled increases in rents are forcing too many tenants to pay landlords an unreasonable and ultimately unsustainable proportion of their limited income. The picture painted by the statistics quoted by Mabon ap Gwynfor reveals the extent and deepening negative effect of unaffordable unfair rents, which disproportionately hit those on low incomes, deepening inequality, exacerbating already too high levels of poverty. And we know that women, people from ethnic minority backgrounds, young people, refugees, migrants, disabled people and LGBTQ+ people are all disproportionately affected by economic structures that penalise those on low incomes, whilst also facing discrimination as regards access to housing.

As we've heard from Mabon ap Gwynfor, rents have increased by almost 13 per cent in Wales over the last year. Shelter Cymru's casework has seen cases of severe increases, in one instance by as much as 100 per cent per month. And the consequences for those unable to afford these increases are dire, often leading to problem debt, eviction, homelessness. Wages have not increased accordingly, and with fuel prices skyrocketing, as well as the rising cost of everyday essentials, the need to act to ensure an end to the way uncontrolled rents are contributing to the cost-of-living crisis and wider social inequality is urgent.

Economic justice is an equalities issue. The actions of those of us on the progressive wing of politics must match stated ambitions. As Mabon mentioned, we have an opportunity here to put in train the first steps of meaningful action to help tenants, such as considering targeted rent controls, and supporting the Government's White Paper on housing, and, in doing so, carry the mantle of the giants of Wales's radical tradition. Fellow Members, let's show we are the inheritors of that radical tradition.

Poverty limits your freedom to enjoy an enjoyable and authentic life, but even the possibility of being plunged into poverty or losing your home is enough to curtail your freedom. So long as landlords continue to have the capacity to arbitrarily raise rent, tenants will continue to live under a dark cloud of economic uncertainty. This motion is an indication that we as a Senedd would stand up for the rights and freedoms of ordinary people to be able to live their lives without that constant threat. The housing crisis is the result of an economic system that is designed to protect the wealth of the few not the needs of the many, and without mitigation, such as a form of rent control, the system will remain intact. Diolch.

I should declare an interest as somebody who's currently renting a property.

Well, comrades, I never thought I would see the day that I would stand here this afternoon to fight against rent controls. Where have they worked? Where have they been a success for the people you claim they would help? No-one's told me so far, because the answer is they don't work. No-one is denying there are significant pressures for the housing market and there is a lack of homes for young people. However, the answer cannot be more red tape and more regulation because we are in this position now because of red tape and regulation. Across the whole of Wales in 2021, under this Welsh Labour Government's watch, your own draft budget highlighted a measly 4,314 new dwellings were commenced, and it's not going to get any better with the Natural Resources Wales's phosphate guidance stopping people building houses.

Rent controls and more red tape will not address the housing crisis, but they may make the housing crisis worse. There are landlords in this room today and wider who know that, if rent controls are introduced, some of those people may struggle to pay mortgages on those properties, they may struggle to pay the upkeep of properties, tenants will be evicted as those homes go on the open market and, yet again, we'll see more homes going on Airbnb. Rent controls pose a real risk to destabilising the market, and you all know it. Policies like these are just headline grabbers, they don't work, and people always find a way around the regulations.

Young people need access to affordable homes, and we need to do that by deregulating and lessening the burden on the house-building sector, Minister, and let's get building, building, building.

I have long supported rent controls and I back any move to address the poverty caused by unreasonable rent increases. The UK's housing market has been in crisis for decades. The fundamental foundations of the system have been broken. The idea that everybody should be entitled to a roof over their head, like so many other areas of our economy, is now subordinated to the whims of market forces and the pursuit of profit.

When Margaret Thatcher came to power her Government withdrew funding for councils to build economically productive housing, instead choosing to support rents and mortgages instead. The disastrous right-to-buy further entrenched market dogma into UK housing policy. Most of the houses sold under this policy were never replaced. It represented a mass sell-off of state assets into the private sector. This ripped up decades of mainstream political agreement on the need for councils to provide social housing.

Starting with Clement Attlee's Labour Government, the state provided funding to councils to invest in increasing social housing and, for decades, hundreds of thousands of social rented houses were built on average every year. Economically, the justification was obvious, mass scale home building meant that house prices and rents remained affordable because of high supply. When housing is viewed as a financial investment, the opposite is true. There is pressure to restrict supply in order to drive prices up, maximizing the profits of those who own the assets. Where house building does take place, it is now largely left to private property developers whose prime motive is to make profit for their shareholders.

The rapid and unsustainable growth of a class of buy-to-let landlords since the 1980s has not only undone much of the progress in conditions of tenants but has driven an explosion in house prices. The increased prices combined with the low supply lead to ever-increasing rents. Rent controls offer one of the most potent tools we have to address this situation. They aren't without precedent, they are fairly common across Europe. In 2016 the Scottish Government brought in the power to impose controls on rents, and in Wales we must learn the lessons of the failings of the Scottish approach, which were caused by a disappointing timidity and lack of ambition. The aim of rent control should be, first and foremost, to protect tenants. As a longer term aim, it should discourage the hoarding of property by buy-to-let landlords and increase those looking to sell. This will provide an increase in supply, allowing tenants to buy their own houses. The Welsh Government's ongoing expansion of social housing will ensure a home for those who do not wish to buy or who remain unable to, and I look forward to the White Paper and I'm pleased the Welsh Government will be embracing rent controls, as promised in the manifesto. The effects of the housing crisis are felt most acutely by the young and the working class. If we fail to act, we will consign tomorrow's young to a future without housing security. Diolch.

I call on the Minister for Climate Change, Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. In noting the proposal in the motion for a Bill on rent control, I think it is really important to set out the commitment in the programme for government. The commitment in the programme for government reflects the commitment in the 2021 Welsh Labour manifesto to develop a national scheme restricting rents for families and young people priced out of the private rental market and those who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. The programme for government commitment now also reflects the inclusion of rent control in the co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru.

Our commitment is to publish a White Paper on fair rents and new approaches to making homes affordable for those on low incomes. In line with the co-operation agreement, that will include proposals on rent control. As many of you know, though, rent control does have a somewhat chequered history, with many previous interventions not having had the planned benefit, or indeed having some serious negative impacts. We know, for example, that the rent pressure zone legislation introduced in Scotland has not yet been used, and measures introduced in Ireland have had to be substantially redesigned, as they've been criticised for having led to rent increases and a contraction in supply.

However, there are good examples around the world of rent controls working in the right way for the right purposes. I have to say to the Conservatives opposite that their 'phosphate crisis', as they call it, that is preventing the build, build, build approach is in stark contrast to their stated commitment to climate and nature emergencies.

No, it's not—[Inaudible.]

How on earth you think that we can have rivers full of phosphates and build substandard housing all over green land in Wales and have a coherent approach to the climate and nature emergencies, I really cannot understand. So, you just really need to take a good look at yourself and get a coherent approach to this.

I have met with a large number of interested private sector investors who really like the approach that we have here in Wales. They want, of course, because they are decent human beings, to make sure that they contribute to ensuring that everyone in Wales has access to a decent, affordable and safe home, because they are very well aware that housing is not just about profit. So, I think you are hanging out in the wrong crowd entirely over there on the very right-wing Conservative benches.

So, we think the approach set out in our programme for government is the right way forward. We will be shortly commissioning independent research so that we can all understand what measures have the best chance of success. Building on that research, we will then produce a White Paper containing the policy proposals, which will be the subject of a consultation.

We are, of course, wholly committed to ensuring that everyone in Wales has access to a decent, affordable and safe home. Pivotal to this is ensuring that rents are affordable, and we are, of course, acutely aware of the cost-of-living crisis facing so many people in Wales. As I said in a debate, Dirprwy Lywydd, only yesterday, the Tories on the opposite benches, whilst shouting from sedentary positions at me are also the party that have frozen the local housing allowance, making sure that people do not have access to affordable rents in the private rented sector if they're on benefits. Really, you need to take a good look at yourselves.

We are putting a raft of measures in place already, including our commitment to building 20,000 new low-carbon social homes for rent. In terms of the private rented sector, I've already referenced the national leasing scheme. This builds on our successful pilot to enable local authorities to lease properties from private property owners for between five and 20 years. We have a large number of private investors interested in this. Local authorities will provide these homes at affordable rent to those who would otherwise face potential homelessness. They will provide the support tenants need to sustain their tenancies and thrive in their homes.

More broadly, of course, and I just remind Mabon, who didn't quite remember this in his speech, implementation of the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 will transform the landscape for tenants and considerably strengthen their rights. Providing they don't breach their contract, tenants will have a right to six months' notice if the landlord seeks to end the contract. That notice cannot be served in the first six months, so they'll have security of at least a year after moving into their home. The renting homes Act will provide greater security than elsewhere in the UK for all tenants. There are, of course, many other important provisions in the Act, including around improving the quality of rented homes and making sure that they are fit for human habitation.

I call on Mabon ap Gwynfor to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you to everyone who has taken part in this discussion. Thank you to the Minister for her comprehensive response.

I'm interested, I have to say, in the responses of the Conservatives. I'm thinking sometimes that they have written a speech ahead of time and haven't paid any attention to what has been said, because whilst one acknowledges—the Minister herself has acknowledged—that there are weaknesses with rent controls, and I've said that, in some cases, there are examples of rent controls succeeding, and very prominent examples of that.

And we know that, in order for rent controls to succeed, they have to be coupled with a range of other policies, not least of which is build, build and build, as Mike Hedges said too. But, in talking about building, we have to accept that your friends in the Conservatives in private sector construction wouldn't meet demand, of course, because they are interested in creating profit only. We have to ensure that public housing is built once again, empowering our local authorities to enable them to rebuild council homes once again to meet the demand, because the lack of stock at present means that some of the rogue landlords, who want to take advantage of people, they know that they can increase rent levels consistently. James.

Do you not agree with me, then, that the Welsh Government's phosphate guidance is going to stop council house building and social house building in certain parts of Wales?

Well, that is a concern, that that policy does mean that a number of social homes down in the Teifi valley and in Monmouthshire won't be built at the moment, but it's a matter for the Government to respond to that point.

But I am very pleased to hear that the Government has commissioned a consultation into this, and I very much welcome that, because, if the policy is going to succeed, as we've learnt from Clement Attlee onwards, if it's going to succeed, it has to be a policy that's been investigated thoroughly and is dovetailed with other policies. So, I'd very pleased, Minister, if I could see the terms and guidance for that work. But let us today declare our support for this policy in its wider sense, that we want to see steps being taken, support that the Government is doing this with this research and will bring forward a White Paper and ensure that there are affordable homes for people in our communities here in Wales. Do support the motion. Thank you very much.

The proposal is to note the proposal. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. I will therefore defer voting until voting time.

We'll move now to our next agenda item, the Welsh Conservatives debate on cancer services, and I call on Russell George to move the motion tabled in the name of Darren Millar.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd, and I move the motion tabled in the name of my colleague, Darren Millar. For some people in Wales, they worry that they will die without ever getting the cancer treatment they need, and that's the view of the board of community health councils and Andy Glyde from Cancer Research UK. Today's debate, of course, is extremely important for many people across Wales, and our motion calls for a number of measures, such as support for cancer patients through their treatment, by, for example, introducing free dental care during radiotherapy or chemotherapy. We're also asking the Welsh Government to urgently publish a workforce recruitment and retention plan for cancer specialists, and to publish a full cancer strategy that will set out how Wales will tackle cancer over the next five years.

Current cancer treatment times suggest that Welsh cancer services are not catching up with diagnosis and treatment. Last November, just 58 per cent of patients newly diagnosed with cancer started their first definitive treatment within 62 days of first being suspected of cancer, far below the target of 75 per cent. Meanwhile, the cancer waiting lists in Wales continue to rise, with nearly one in three patient pathways taking over a year to treat, while the national cancer clinical director for Wales has said that services will have to work at 120 per cent to 130 per cent of previous capacity to deal with the increased numbers of patients.

Welsh cancer survival rates have been stalling for many years. Prior to the pandemic, the Welsh cancer intelligence unit data showed that Wales had the lowest survival rates for six cancers, and the second lowest for three, across the UK. So, although the pandemic has, of course, caused more strain on the system—that's understandable, of course—the system was already broken, I would suggest, before the pandemic.

Every other part of the UK has committed to implementing a robust cancer strategy, and it is sad to see that, soon, Wales will be the only UK nation without a definitive cancer strategy. Welsh cancer services are struggling to cope with a tsunami of missed cancer diagnosis and the appearance of later stage cancers as the direct result, of course, of pausing NHS services during lockdowns. And added to this, we've got five years—or many years—of chronic understaffing.

Now, the Government seem to think that their cancer quality statement is a strategy. Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Minister will no doubt confirm at the end if I've analysed that correctly, but cancer charities say themselves that the cancer quality statement lacks both detail and ambition and is not a national strategy. Wales needs a cancer strategy. Unfortunately, cancer workforce is also an issue in Wales. A specialist cancer workforce that is able to cope with demand and an increasing backlog should be a priority for the Welsh Government in order to prevent cancer survival rates from slipping further back. Wales already has a severe shortfall of cancer specialists—we know that, sadly—with some areas of Wales experiencing significant gaps across, and that's according to many, including the Royal College of Radiologists. Shockingly, despite these grave concerns, the latest 10-year NHS workforce plan fails to include a specific workforce plan for cancer specialists. In fact, the joint Health Education and Improvement Wales and social care strategy from October 2020 fails to mention cancer at all. Instead, the strategy has broad aims, including—I'm quoting here—to

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services, Eluned Morgan, to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths.

Formally.

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much, Deputy Llywydd, and I'm very pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to this important debate and to formally move our amendment. In terms of the main motion, we will support the motion today, of course. As well as being a statement of very real concern about the state of health services in general after two years of pandemic, there are elements of the motion that I have certainly been emphasising over a period of years: how inadequate the cancer quality statement is as a way of driving improvements to cancer services, and the need to invest in the cancer workforce to support patients through their treatment, and so on and so forth.

But there are two things that I want to cover in the next few minutes. First of all, our amendment and the need to complete that work, as a matter of urgency, of establishing multidisciplinary diagnostic centres across Wales in order to ensure that that infrastructure is in place in order to diagnose and treat cancer as swiftly as possible. We can't overemphasise the need for swift diagnosis and the benefits that come from that, and of course the pandemic that we have lived through has created a broader crisis, possibly. According to the statistics, some 1,700 fewer people than we would have expected have started cancer treatment in Wales between April 2020 and March 2021.

Wales was the first nation—and we can take pride in that fact—the first nation in the UK to trial these diagnostic centres. There are some in existence, others are in the pipeline, and there are two other areas—Powys and Cardiff and Vale—where there are no plans in place. I would appreciate an update from the Minister this afternoon on the work to ensure that those centres will be available to serve the whole of the Welsh population. There is no room for any sort of postcode lottery when it comes to cancer services, and that is the emphasis of our amendment today.

The second element that I want to mention—and it is referred to twice in the original motion—is the very clear absence of a national cancer plan or a national cancer strategy that could ensure that the Welsh Government could build the kinds of cancer services that we need here in Wales. We should bear in mind that we are facing huge challenges here in Wales. Some 20,000 people are diagnosed with cancer in Wales on an annual basis, possibly 170,000 people living with cancer, and the level of health inequalities and social inequalities—things that we have discussed very recently in this Chamber—mean that the survival rates for certain kinds of cancer are worse in Wales than in the rest of these isles, and across Europe.

And in England, Scotland, and in Northern Ireland very soon, there are cancer plans, cancer strategies in place that set clear targets and give a clear focus to the development and support of services. So, in Wales, we have a collection of plans and frameworks, and it's simply not good enough. If we are serious about tackling cancer, then we need a strategy. What we got from the Welsh Government in March of last year, once the cancer delivery plan came to an end a few months before that, was a cancer quality statement. Not a plan or a strategy to improve diagnosis, treatment and research in Wales, but something that doesn't have that detail that we need, doesn't provide the accountability that we need, or the action plans, or the objectives, or the timetable that we need, and which doesn't have the vision that we needed, never mind the vision that's needed now to restore services post pandemic.

I want to thank Russell George and my Conservative colleagues for bringing forward this important subject for debate today. Cancer is something that, unfortunately, touches everyone in society, whether it be through a family member, friend, someone where we live, we all have a story of how cancer has affected us or someone we love in one way or another. My own family has been affected by breast cancer and skin cancer, and my two best friends have lost their fathers to prostate cancer. So I, like many others in this Chamber and in Wales, know all too well the toll it takes on a family and how crucial it is to get that diagnosis early so that everyone has the very best chance of survival.

Cancer is the leading cause of death in Wales, with around 19,600 people tragically diagnosed with cancer every year. We all have a responsibility to stand up for our constituents and ensure that cancer services in Wales are the very best that they can be. Whilst survival rates have vastly improved in recent decades, the UK still lags behind some comparable countries in Europe and internationally. The same can be said here in Wales. Survival rates have improved in recent decades, but they're still not good enough, with one-year survival rates for stomach, colon, pancreatic, lung and ovarian cancers well below the UK average. The challenges facing cancer services in Wales have, of course, been compounded and exacerbated by the pandemic, but we now know that, in the year between April 2020 and March 2021, as has been said, 1,700 fewer people began cancer treatment in Wales.

The challenges that cancer services are facing need this Government to respond and require urgent and decisive action, not just to recover services to where they were pre pandemic, but to completely transform our cancer services so that they're fit for the twenty-first century—services that are digitalised, online where possible, responsive and accessible—in order to improve cancer outcomes and survival in the future. To achieve this, as cancer evolves, we need to evolve too and we need to heavily invest in new technologies and treatments. We need to make sure that Wales, perhaps, is the leader in some areas of this, that we are the ones that develop these new treatments and new technologies. Innovation is absolutely key in tackling cancer and improving outcomes, and we also need to invest properly in funding and expanding the access to treatments fund here in Wales. The pandemic has shown us what we can achieve. We need to make sure that we think more ambitiously to fight this big killer.

In my own region of South Wales East, we are seeing waiting figures for cancer treatment that are the worst on record. My constituents feel let down. I am pleased to see the announcement, though, in my region of a new breast cancer centre for excellence, which is very, very welcome. This will be a vital step as we all know that, without access to timely diagnosis and the use of the most up-to-date and effective treatments, outcomes for cancer patients in Wales will not improve. Accessibility is key, so we need to see more announcements like this, with centres equally spread across Wales, as has already been said from the other benches, but I feel it needs reiterating: we need access to treatment equally across Wales, particularly in rural areas, which are so often left out.

It's a pleasure to take part in this debate this afternoon, and I'm proudly wearing my Marie Curie badge, the daffodil, in support of their work. Sadly, 50 per cent of the population will receive a diagnosis of cancer at some point in their lifetime, and we all know someone who has had cancer, and tragically, far too many of us know someone who has passed away. Wales has some of the worst cancer survival rates in the western world, which is why we have to ensure that our cancer services are world beating. Our population can't afford a cancer strategy that lacks ambition. As my colleagues have alluded to, the problems in our cancer pathways predate the pandemic, and like many of the issues facing our NHS, many of these problems could be put down to staffing issues, or rather the lack of coherent workforce planning.

We all know that early diagnosis is key to long-term cancer survival, yet we have the lowest numbers of consultant radiologists per 100,000 patients of anywhere in the UK. And what is worse is that, according to the Royal College of Radiologists, we are due to lose as much as one third of that workforce over the next three to four years due to retirement. I can't imagine the impact this will have on existing staff as they will be expected to pick up the slack in the system. We know that the national cancer clinical director for Wales has stated that the service will have to run at about 130 per cent of capacity just to catch up to where we were pre pandemic. But, we don't want to return the service to pre-pandemic levels and, to coin a popular phrase at the moment, we want to build back better.

In order to achieve that, we have to urgently address historical staffing shortfalls. We have critical shortages across the field, not just in diagnostics. We have gaps right across clinical oncology; nearly one in 10 posts remain unfilled. As a result of shortages, one in five cancer patients in Wales lack specialist cancer nursing support during diagnosis or treatment. This means we are struggling to provide proper care now, let alone allow for new or expanded services. Macmillan Cancer Support suggests that Wales will need to increase its specialist cancer support nursing workforce by a staggering 80 per cent by the end of this decade in order to meet the demand. And Cancer Research UK highlight that these gaps in the NHS workforce are a fundamental barrier to transforming cancer services and improving cancer survival rates. Yet, despite the well-founded concerns raised by the third sector and clinical cancer leads, the Welsh Government has no plan for the specialist cancer workforce.

In fact, the workforce strategy for health and social care fails to even mention cancer. One of the biggest health issues facing our nation and this Welsh Government has no plan to tackle it. Unless Ministers grasp the nettle and address these concerns, then cancer will continue to be a death sentence for far too many. Our cancer survival rates will continue to plummet, and Welsh citizens will continue to lose loved ones needlessly. It's time we had an ambitious cancer strategy with the aim of eradicating needless cancer deaths, and a plan to deliver a workforce to meet the future needs of cancer patients; a plan to support patients throughout their cancer journey from diagnosis to cure; and a plan that builds in capacity to meet the challenges of the COVID backlog and for future pandemics. I urge Members to back our motion today.

Minister, we all know that the battle against cancer will often be the most difficult battle that any person and, indeed, their family will face in their lifetime. It is society's solemn responsibility to provide them with the best care, treatment and support possible, in order to have the best chance of beating and surviving this truly devastating illness. However, on the watch of this Labour Government, thousands of residents across Wales have been let down in their time of need. We are seeing a tsunami of missed cancer diagnoses, and a growing number of later stage cancers as a direct result of pausing NHS services during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Ultimately, though, this issue has not crept up on the Welsh Government, with cancer waiting targets not met since 2008 and with only 56 per cent of patients receiving treatment within 62 days across Wales. Additionally, Wales cancer intelligence unit data shows that Wales has the lowest survival rates for six cancers, and the second lowest for three across the UK. The Welsh Government's failure to address this matter pre pandemic has only served to compound the issue. Alarmingly, just four months ago, it was reported that only 57.9 per cent of patients newly diagnosed with cancer started their direct definitive treatment within 62 days of first being suspected of cancer. That's far below the 75 per cent target.

In that same month, it was reported that over 27,000 people were waiting for radiology services after being referred by the consultant for cancer diagnostic work, with one in eight of these people waiting more than 14 weeks. A further 30,000 people were waiting for radiology diagnostics after being referred by their GP. As it stands, Wales will soon be the only country in the United Kingdom not to have a cancer strategy. I urge the Minister to ensure fast implementation on this. Furthermore, it is recognised that radiotherapy and chemotherapy can have a detrimental impact on dental health. However, free dental medical assistance is not currently offered to these patients, leaving these individuals in more pain and feeling rather unsupported. As we emerge from the COVID-19 pandemic, this is a golden opportunity for the Welsh Government to review, and for you to amend your approach.

Cancer Research Wales has highlighted that Wales needs a futureproofed, sustainable cancer workforce. They highlight the significant gaps and variation within the diagnostic, treatment and nursing workforce. Consultant radiologist posts remain vacant. They advise that developments such as the single suspected cancer pathway are welcome, but can only achieve so much without the right staff in situ. So, Minister, will you listen to these organisations that work extremely hard, trying to support people with cancer? Will you publish a workforce recruitment and retention plan for cancer specialists? And will you publish a detailed and comprehensive cancer strategy to set out how Wales will tackle cancer over the next five years, aside from bringing the relevant legislation before this Senedd to provide free dental care to patients undergoing radiotherapy and chemotherapy? I think that we all know, stood here today or sat here today, that considerable change is required, and urgently. The people battling cancer now and their families do not have the time to watch this Government continue to fail to meet its targets.

I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services, Eluned Morgan.

Diolch yn fawr. I'd like to thank Russell and the Conservatives for bringing forward this important debate about cancer services and outcomes. I can tell you that I've listened very carefully to everything that's been said and I will go away and I will consider your deliberations and make sure that I give some serious thought to what you have been talking about this afternoon. I'm afraid I won't be able to support the resolution on a number of grounds, and I'd like to explain why. But I do acknowledge that we need to do better on cancer. It is genuinely a matter of life and death. I accept that the quality statement has got to be the start of the story, not the end of the story, and certainly there's a lot more work to do in this space.

One of the problems with the motion is that it conflates overall waiting times with cancer waiting times. The waiting time for normal elective care is very different from the 62-day cancer pathway. Cancer patients have always been treated with clinical urgency in Wales. Cancer was designated an essential service at the start of the pandemic, and, whenever possible, we've maintained and we've prioritised cancer services throughout. This has resulted in new pathways and seeing patients differently. Some of those lessons are genuinely positive and we need to embed them.

The motion also implies that a cancer strategy is the only way to improve cancer outcomes and alleges that Wales is an outlier across the UK. But I'm afraid that that's just not the case. At the moment, England includes cancer in its long-term plan, Northern Ireland doesn't have a strategy, and Scotland's strategy predates the pandemic. It is self-evident that in order to recover cancer services we will have to deliver more cancer treatment than we have historically, but the difficulty is that we're still in the middle of a pandemic where productivity is reduced by infection controls and by staff having to isolate.

Nonetheless, I don't wish to dismiss the concern that we all feel about how the pandemic has impacted on cancer services. I've said on many occasions how concerned I am about the impact on cancer services. That's why we brought forward our new approach to cancer services during the pandemic. That's why cancer was the only disease that was singled out in the March 2021 recovery plan. It's why I'm making recovery in cancer services a key focus of health board planning. It's why I'm investing in recovery activity, new equipment, training more cancer clinicians and new facilities across Wales. It's my intention to publish a planned care recovery plan in April, and this of course will include a range of actions and measures that will support cancer patients.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course.

Thank you. I do appreciate your willingness to take into account the debates and the conversations this afternoon, and your openness to what's been said this afternoon, Minister. I think, on the quality statements, the issue is that—tell me if I'm wrong—there are no targets in there. There is no vision in there. It's just a series of statements. Surely you recognise that that is needed if we're going to have a—. I'm just asking: do you accept the need for a cancer strategy above and beyond the cancer quality statement?

Thanks very much, Russell. What we don't lack is a target. We've got the target; we're just not meeting the target yet. What we need is a mechanism to reach the target, and that's certainly something we need to make sure that we can deliver on. Many people have talked today about the need to make sure that staffing is in place, for example, and training is in place. Before Christmas, we announced £0.25 billion to focus on training within the NHS. It has been interesting to look at the English planned care proposals that came out yesterday. A massive criticism of that is: where's the plan in terms of training? Well, we've got training plans in place; Health Education and Improvement Wales is on this, they know what needs to be done. I can give you chapter and verse in terms of how many people are going to be trained in each different area of cancer.

So, we are doing quite a lot of work. The difference is that we haven't packaged it up, in a way, and there's a reason for that, and the reason for that is because what we've got is an integrated set of policy commitments that were described in the national clinical framework, and what you need to understand is the context in which this cancer plan needs to work. Let me remind you what we're trying to do: we want a clearer, more effective, less duplicative set of policy arrangements that our NHS bodies who actually plan and deliver cancer services can then respond to effectively. I understand the attraction of setting out minute detail in one document on how we're going to solve cancer, but that's just not how a really complex health system is delivered. We've heard today about the need to look at prevention. Well, do you want a whole obesity strategy set out within the cancer plan? It doesn't seem to make any sense to me. We've got a smoking plan as well; we've got lots and lots of different plans that all contribute, so I think we've got to understand how complex this is.

At the heart of improving cancer outcomes is identifying someone at risk and getting that diagnostic test done. If we look at who delivers that part of our cancer pathway, they're not cancer services. So, where would we put those? Do we put them in the cancer plan, or do we not put them in the cancer plan? Because they are not cancer specialists; they are general practitioners who first identify whether it needs investigation. They're dentists, they're opticians, they also include screeners and outpatients and emergency department teams. This is where that initial clinical suspicion of cancer arises, and from where people are referred. And when they're referred for an investigation, where do they go? They go to pathologists, they go to radiologists, they go to endoscopists. Do you want all of that? Your plan is going to be massive, Russell. So, I do think that there was an approach that was clearly set out in 'A Healthier Wales', and that's why we've taken this approach.

But, Minister, it's not just myself and other opposition parties calling for a cancer plan. I appreciate the detail that you mentioned—that not all this can be included in a plan—but you're also saying that the 20 charities that have also suggested that there should be a cancer plan are wrong as well and have misunderstood the approach. I'm just trying to grasp the opposition to having an overarching plan here.

I'm trying to explain to you that, actually, the system—. Why should all that be set within a cancer strategy, if, actually, it could be something where there could be implications for stroke? What are we going to do there? Do you separate them out? Do you put everything—? It's about duplication; I think we've got to be very careful not to duplicate different strategies. What we can't hope to improve is cancer outcomes unless we see the recovery and transformation of all of those different services, each of which is subject to important national policy programme support and local planning arrangements.

A similar story could be told for access to surgery, the dominant intervention for curative treatment, and for our vital palliative care services, all of which sit alongside specialist cancer parts of the pathway such as radiotherapy and chemotherapy, which are clearly areas of specialisation for cancer. Once we understand the breadth of the wider services involved in the cancer pathway, then I'll hope you understand why I think we need to take a more nuanced approach.

The quality statement for cancer is not some sort of lightweight delivery plan; it's an entirely new construct that is designed to work within the Welsh context, and its rationale is described in the national clinical framework.

It's worth noting that the quality statement for cancer includes 19 care paths for different kinds of cancer. So, truth be told, there is a great deal of ambition and detail here, more than we saw in the previous delivery plans, and in that regard, we're further ahead than the United Kingdom. We have more to do, and we do need to go further; I accept that. We will be updating the quality statement, adding pathways, details of service and metrics as they are agreed, and we'll be working on a national level through the new cancer network to focus on the cancer workforce that so many of you have mentioned—

Minister, you need to conclude now. I've given the additional time for the interventions.

Diolch yn fawr. I'll just finish by saying that I accept that, actually, there's a lot more we need to do in this space. I don't accept that, actually, a cancer plan is the answer, but what I do accept is that we need to provide some real focus to lots of the areas that you've touched upon, but actually we need somebody to make sure that the delivery of that statement, that quality statement, is driven much more readily. And, of course, that hopefully will be easier, as we come out of the pandemic.

I call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate.

Diolch. I've been busy scribbling notes. I thank everyone for their contribution and the Minister for her response. The Minister told us that she had listened very carefully, doing lots of work because it's all very complex, but, as Russell George pointed out, there's no targeting, no vision. Twenty expert charities are also calling for a cancer strategy. At least the Minister accepted, quote, 'There's a lot more we can do.'

Having listened to the Minister, I have to say it is scandalous that they're seeking to delete a motion calling on them to urgently publish a workforce recruitment and retention plan for cancer specialists and to publish a full cancer strategy, setting out how Wales will tackle cancer over five years. Instead, they offer us a quality statement for cancer that lacks detail, sets only minimum standards for cancer services and avoids quantifiable monitoring and accountability. It also avoids public understanding. The public understand words like 'strategy', but nobody understands what a 'quality statement' is, unless you're in the upper echelons of, for instance, human resource management or setting corporate goals for publishing at the front of your annual accounts and reports to your shareholders. That is not a term that is accessible to the people we're trying to help.

As we heard, Wales will soon be the only country in the United Kingdom without a cancer strategy—will soon be, Minister. The public understand a strategy, but, as I said, a quality statement is a cop-out by those who wish to avoid accountability. Despite progress in recent months, the Welsh Government's targets remain unmet and waiting lists continue to rise. Even before the pandemic, cancer waiting times had not been met since 2008 and four times the number of people were waiting over a year for treatment in Wales than the whole of England. Even before the pandemic, the Welsh cancer intelligence unit's data showed that Wales had the lowest survival rates for six cancers, and the second lowest for three, in the UK.

Last month I hosted the online Wales ovarian cancer awareness meeting, organised by Target Ovarian Cancer and the National Federation of Women's Institutes, where we heard that, prior to the pandemic, only 37 per cent of women with ovarian cancer in Wales were diagnosed at an early stage. And I acknowledge and thank the Minister for the letter I've received today from her regarding that. And, yes, the number of women diagnosed with the condition has fallen, but it is still scandalous that 63 per cent of women were only diagnosed at a later stage, reducing their chances of survival.

Two weeks ago I met with Macmillan Cancer Support. Our discussion included the increase in benefits applications by people who are terminally ill, reflecting both increased later stage diagnosis during the pandemic and forecasted future growth in demand. We discussed the need for the Welsh Government's quality statement for cancer to include milestones and community services.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, therefore I will defer voting on the motion until voting time.

Item 8 this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on Welsh resources. I call on Delyth Jewell to move the motion, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. This debate is focused around possibility, about how much potential is embedded in our nation and natural resources, but a potential kept tantalisingly out of our reach. I'll focus my remarks, in opening our debate, on actions we could take to address the climate and nature emergencies and fulfil our energy potential.

Let's consider the Crown Estate. There's a theme that will come up repeatedly in this debate that things are different in Scotland. In that nation, the Crown Estate was devolved to the Scottish Government in 2017. Were we to follow the same path, lucrative revenues from Crown Estate leases would go to the Welsh Treasury instead of Westminster and, indeed, the Queen's coffers. Instead, the Crown Estate's control over our sea bed and large tracts of land means Wales could lose out on a green goldrush that's currently benefiting Scotland. Some estimates show that the UK Government could raise up to £9 billion over the next decade alone from auctioning sea bed plots to windfarm developers—all potential, all money that is passing us by. The Crown Estate's lands generated £8.7 million in revenue last year, and the valuation of the Crown Estate's Welsh marine portfolio has increased from £49.2 million to £549.1 million. This is money that would enable Wales to build and develop our own Welsh renewable energy industry and retain wealth to fund public services rather than selling off our precious assets to the highest foreign bidder. It's outrageous that these resources are locked away from us and benefit others instead, because not only is the Crown Estate preventing local ownership of Welsh land and taking revenue out of Wales, it's also supporting other economies to profit from Welsh assets.

The Crown Estate paid the UK Government £345 million in 2019-20. The estate's net revenue fell by 29.9 per cent in 2020 because of the pandemic, though the monarch did not see a decrease in the sovereign grant, as the grant does not fall when profits decrease, even though it does go up when profits increase. And all the while, the people who are suffering as a result are the people of Wales. It follows, Dirprwy Lywydd, that we should renew calls for the full devolution of energy powers, since we're currently stymied by an inadequate grid infrastructure and a regulatory regime that demands more strategic thinking. We need to control and to benefit from our country's natural resources and have the ability to develop larger projects if we are to deliver on net zero and deliver for our people and our communities. Because even the cost-of-living crisis that's on the horizon will be made worse in Wales by the fact that we lack powers over natural resources. One of the core ironies of the UK new liberal energy market is that it sees state-backed energy companies from across mainland Europe earn revenue using Wales's resources, which, in turn, helps to fund their public services back home. Wales as a proxy place, an entity that benefits others, not itself.

And on this same issue, I'll close by saying a word about tree planting. Wales's route to net zero includes a target of planting an additional 180,000 hectares with trees by 2050, but concerns have come to light about Welsh farms being purchased by multinational corporations from outside Wales to plant trees as a way of offsetting their carbon emissions. Again, this locks our landscapes under the control of people who may never set foot in Wales. And this tree planting may impact gravely on food production, social considerations and the wider environment. George Monbiot has referred to it as the great climate land grab, while the academic Dr Thomas Crowther describes it as mass corporate tree planting damaging nature. It's like something out of a dystopian novel. The Welsh Government has acknowledged that there's a problem here. It's a phenomenon that's part of a wider global trend. And surely, the environmental impact assessment requirements need reviewing to strengthen protections for human, agricultural, social and even linguistic considerations. In Wales, Dirprwy Lywydd, we are as rich in natural resources as we are with our culture and history. Those natural resources are currently being used as a means of impoverishing our potential. We cannot let this great gains grab continue. I look forward to hearing the debate.

I now call on the Minister for Climate Change, Julie James, to formally move the amendment.

Formally.

Diolch. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd. Of course, our Welsh resources play a crucial role in supporting Welsh jobs. For example, RWE, which operates around 3 GW of energy generation in Wales across 12 sites, has a diverse portfolio of onshore and offshore wind, hydro and gas, and directly employs around 200 people at their offices in Baglan, Llanidloes, Dolgarrog and the port of Mostyn. In fact, the Welsh Conservatives want to build on the benefits of making Wales net zero by creating 15,000 new green jobs.

Now, we believe that the Crown Estate plays a major and key role here in Wales, such as management of around 65 per cent of the Welsh foreshore and riverbed, and this includes a number of ports, such as Milford Haven, ownership of over 50,000 acres of Welsh uplands and common land, and they're responsible for around 250,000 acres of mineral-only interests and manage the rights to deposits of gold and silver.

Now, as the Secretary of State for Wales has stated last month—and I agree with him—'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' So, I would be grateful if, today, Plaid Cymru could actually provide any meaningful evidence that the Crown Estate is not operating effectively.

Now, I have done my research on this, and highlights that I've taken are this: for example, during 2021, thanks to the Crown Estate, the cumulative operational capacity in the offshore wind sector increased to 9.61 GW. The outcome of round 4 provided the potential for up to 8 GW of capacity. The valuation of the marine portfolio increased significantly—[Interruption.]—you'll have your turn in a minute, Minister—from £49.2 million to £549.1 million. A milestone moment was achieved for the Welsh offshore wind sector, through the signing of an agreement for lease for the proposed 96 MW Erebus floating wind demonstration project.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, go on.

Why does it work for Scotland and it wouldn't work for Wales?

Well, let's be honest, the Welsh Government don't really—. If you think about it, you quite often—. Here, we hear so much against the UK Government, we even hear things against the Crown. So, for me, why is it that you think because it's working in Scotland it would work here? It is—. Rhun, please tell me: where is it not working here?

Well, if you will take another intervention, Crown Estate Scotland has just issued leases for 25 GW—a staggering amount of offshore wind generation—because they're driven to do it because they have the ultimate gain out of that. You're driven to do it because you have the initiative and you have the powers to do it. That's why it works.

Where I would agree with you is that Welsh Government are not particularly driven to do anything as regards this, but there we go. [Interruption.]

A milestone moment was achieved for the Welsh offshore wind sector, through the signing of an agreement for lease of the proposed—. Oh, I've already said that. Continuous opportunity to access the sea bed for wave or tidal stream projects have been offered, and 683,000 tonnes of marine aggregates delivered to our Welsh ports. In fact, there is actual real and documented evidence of the Crown Estate absolutely working for the best interests of Wales. They grant landowners rights over the foreshore at Rhyl to Denbighshire County Council to assist in a 600m £27.5 million seafront flood defence scheme to protect 1,650 homes in the east of the town, and work, for example, with the Welsh Government to support its work on the implementation of the Welsh national marine plan.

The Crown Estate is making an invaluable contribution to the management of our resources in Wales, so why risk that success by burdening this failing Welsh Government administration that obviously is propped up by Plaid with even more responsibility? Your coalition should focus on a mess of the Welsh Government's own making. You target to plant 43,000 hectares of new trees by 2030, rising to 180,000 hectares by 2050, and yet that could see the afforestation of 3,750 Welsh family farms.

Now, when I raised concerns about this in the Senedd, Jeremy Miles MS, Minister for Education and the Welsh Language, advised that meeting woodland creation targets should not affect communities nor change the type of landowners, yet it is. The proof is piling. Valleys are shifting to vegetation, forests are forcing out farmers. Figures obtained by the Farmers Union of Wales have shown that 75 per cent of the afforestation applications in Wales for over 50 hectares of planting are from charities and private companies based in England. There has been a 450 per cent increase in afforestation environmental impact assessment applications to NRW from 2015 to 2021, and yet only 20 per cent of applications were from private individuals or businesses based here in Wales.

We are heading in the same direction as New Zealand, where their emissions trading scheme led to a rapid surge in the purchase of good farmland by carbon investors seeking to sell carbon offsets in the future through forestry creation. I understand that, within a three-week period, 80,000 stock units have been lost in the southern part of the North Island to tree planting, two thirds of which is owned by foreign companies and will cost the area in the region of $35 million due to lost productivity. That is not the future I want for Wales, so we will be voting against the motion and amendment today. But I would conclude by asking this Senedd to work cross-party to pursue the idea of establishing a just transition commission, to ensure the burden of decarbonisation does not fall unequally on our rural communities and have a negative impact on the historically thriving Welsh language in rural Wales, and I will repeat: we are much better off to leave the Crown Estate looking after us in Wales, as they do so well.

May I start by declaring an interest that I am a county councillor in Carmarthenshire? I'm extremely pleased to contribute to this debate. The exploitation of Wales's natural resources by Westminster is an emotional and historic issue. That kind of extractive economy has been in place for centuries: our coal, slate, water, electricity, homes for tourists, and, more recently, our agricultural land for tree planting. The physical scars of this destruction still scar our landscapes through the coal tips, the slate piles, the reservoirs, the empty, unlit holiday homes, and in the trees were once there were communities.

In all of these examples, the wealth of our natural resources has been extracted from Wales, whilst leaving us one of the poorest nations in Europe. But think how rich Wales could be if we had legislative control over these natural resources. As a matter of principle, in my view, at the core of all of our policies as a Senedd, we should build community wealth and community ownership of the natural economy and capital of Wales.

Let us consider the Crown Estate resources, as we've heard already, as an example. In my view, the territorial assets of the Crown Estate should be devolved to this place, bringing our natural resources and the rents charged closer to home in order to generate income that can be used for the benefit of the people of Wales. We could then use those profits from the estate to respond to the economic and social priorities of Wales.

The Crown Estate, as we've heard, owns some 65 per cent of the sea bed and coastal lands in Wales. According to a recent estimate, these resources are worth some £600 million. Imagine, for just a second, the profits that could be generated to Wales through investing in exciting green energy proposals such as tidal lagoons and offshore wind turbines and so on. At the moment, it's the Crown Estate that holds the rights to these sites. It's only when they are managed by Wales and its people that we can distribute and use the Welsh natural resources and economic rents accruing from their use in a way that would benefit our communities.

After all, the Crown Estate is already devolved to Scotland, and has been since 2017, and they benefit from some £12 million per year to spend on health, education, public transport, green energy and so on and so forth. The Crown Estate in the hands of the people of Wales would give us a long-term source of funding that would allow us to invest in our future and to deliver our climate change objectives.

Let me next turn to water, which is an exceptionally emotional issue for us in Wales. I need only refer to Tryweryn to understand the impact the drowning of Capel Celyn had on our psyche as a nation. Millions and millions of litres of water are extracted from Wales and sent over the border every day. The current water protocol, which outlines the relationship between the Welsh Government and the Westminster Government ensures that Westminster has a veto over decisions relating to water in Wales. We cannot and we should not settle for the empty pledges of Westminster, and with fears of water shortages growing and periods of drought likely to be more common in the future, then it's very possible that water will become a very valuable resource to us. We must, therefore, have a legal agreement that we should never destroy Welsh communities again for the water needs of elsewhere, that any decisions on meeting those needs should be made here by the Welsh Government in consultation with local communities.

When I travel along north Wales, either by rail or road, walk the coastal path or visit the beautiful seaside resorts, the view out to sea is of wind turbines, and those turbines are owned by German company RWE, who generate a third of all Wales's renewable electricity. They lease the land from the Crown Estate. BP have won the right to develop more wind turbines on the Irish sea after the Crown Estate auctioned off more of the area, making millions of pounds in rent over the next decade. Unlike in Scotland, the Crown Estate is not devolved in Wales, and so this money, generated by Welsh natural resources, is not reinvested directly into the delivery of improved infrastructure that will benefit the people of Wales, nor is it used to ensure prices are kept at a rate ordinary people can afford. French publicly owned EDF sells electricity to the UK at a high price. That is about to increase by 54 per cent. But, in France, the Government has ensured it is capped by 4 per cent. In Europe, and in countries that have their own nationally owned companies, the price is a third lower than in the UK.

We are surrounded by companies making profit for shareholders, but, sadly, this follows a long history of Wales's natural resources being plundered whilst the interests of the Welsh people are cast aside. Whether it be coal, water or wind, this is a pattern that must come to an end. The energy crisis we now face demonstrates how a total imbalance exists in the system. How can it be right that, whilst people across Wales struggle to heat their homes, BP and Shell continue to make billions of pounds in profit and their North sea operations paid zero tax for several years? The entire system benefits a few very rich shareholders at the expense of the many.

Privatisation of the UK's energy grid, the national grid, is ripping off customers. Twenty-five per cent of energy bills are paid out to network companies. This is used to line the pockets of shareholders, with over billions of pounds paid out in dividends. We need to be harnessing our own natural resources to create renewable energy for the people of Wales, and I firmly believe that public ownership will be necessary to address this imbalance, and preferably direct energy, and not sleeving it into the national grid for them to make profit. And we know this is possible. In my region of North Wales, energy projects in Abergwyngregyn have a social element built into them to ensure profits from the hydroelectric scheme benefit the local community, and the award-winning Swansea Community Energy and Enterprise Scheme is a community-owned solar project, working to provide cleaner and more affordable electricity for each building, as well as a valuable education resource for the local community, and it's a shining example of what can be achieved.

No matter your economic theories or beliefs, I think it's difficult to argue that Wales doesn't have an extractive economy. There are historic and contemporary trends of economic extraction and exploitation of Welsh resources by outside interests. The coal industry is a perfect historical example of that resource extraction. Wales powered the world, the first £1 million cheque signed around the corner from this Senedd, but all that coal shipped out and the money made elsewhere. We are poorer now because of the systems that allowed for economic extraction and left behind little wealth for the people of Wales. The Institute of Welsh Affairs has called this an economic coma that Westminster has created. George Monbiot has previously described Wales as a classic extractive economy, as our infrastructure maps resemble a series of drainages that flow towards the ports and borders that ultimately empty Wales of its wealth for the benefit of another.

We can see as well that Westminster still handles 45 per cent of Welsh expenditure, with no guarantee that it will be spent in line with the needs and desires of the people of Wales. And there are many more examples, more contemporary examples, where wealth is being cultivated from Welsh resources, but then enjoyed outside of Wales, with little to no benefit to Welsh people or the Welsh economy, whether that's through the Crown Estate, renewable energy extraction or food production and tree planting on agricultural land. And here's some food for thought: Wales represents 4.7 per cent of the UK population, but in 2020 we only received 2 per cent of the UK research and development budget. We also represent 6 per cent of railway track mileage, while receiving only 1 per cent of the current Network Rail budget. This is before even considering the impact of HS2. And the list goes on. Letting this tradition of an extractive economy continue will only be of further detriment to our economy and the livelihoods and living standards of Welsh citizens.

Many Members in this Chamber will also be aware of another form of extraction that is happening right now. We've spoken about it in this Chamber, and the economy Minister recently produced a strategy to tackle it, and that is the brain drain. We must improve our efforts to retain our young people and skilled talent in Wales and the assets they bring to the country. We cannot thrive if we cannot remedy the brain drain. There has been a historic trend and ongoing problem of out-migration of young people and talent from Wales into England, other parts of the UK, and the rest of the world. The 'Strategy for Rural Wales', written by the Welsh Council 50 years ago, in 1971, discussed the need to address the out-migration of young people from rural Wales.

In 2017, Wales was tenth out of 12 UK regions in terms of graduate loss. For example, it is thought that roughly 75 per cent of all young people in Wales that want to go into medicine will end up working for NHS England. When ambitious young people and talent are continually migrating from certain areas in Wales or Wales as whole, it makes it harder to pursue economic recovery, and it threatens Welsh access to skills and talents that would help build a sustainable economy. Addressing this issue is nuanced, however, as much of the data collection on the brain drain, such as graduate surveys or NHS patient data, do not detail why people have moved out of Wales, and out-migration from rural Wales is likely to be motivated differently to out-migration from Cardiff. To tackle this issue, we must improve our understanding of the causes of out-migration.

The Minister now to contribute to the debate. Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate.

As a Labour Government, we believe that the state has a vital role in making sure wealth in the economy is distributed fairly. A more equal distribution of wealth goes hand in hand with prosperity and fair work. We do not believe in casting outside interests as a convenient enemy, however. We live in an interconnected world where many of the most pressing challenges we face can only be addressed through exchange and co-operation between people and nations.

It is deeply damaging to the interests of working people for public figures to cultivate a sense of grievance and division for the purpose of short-term political advantage. We should instead be offering real and practical solutions to the disadvantages people face, because ultimately those solutions will benefit us all, both here in Wales and around the planet we all share.

We absolutely share the concern expressed in the original motion that Welsh communities have been disadvantaged economically, including through the extraction of wealth from natural resources, and that such disadvantages require Government action to address them. We do not, however, believe it is right or responsible to seek to suggest that the fate of Welsh communities is determined by historic patterns of sectarian conflict, or that such claims reflect the complex history of Wales in any meaningful way. Nor do such claims offer any practical solutions to the issues raised.

The specific examples of wealth extraction raised in the Plaid Cymru motion are real issues on which the Welsh Government is taking action, as recent publications and statements on energy, forestry and net-zero have all been put before the Senedd. The challenge we face in delivering the change we wish to see does not come from hostile foreign actors, but from deficiencies in the current devolution settlement, the impact of the wide-ranging changes in the policy environment created by the exit from the European Union, and chaos in both of these and many other areas being inflicted on this country by the inept and disgraced Conservative Government in Westminster.

A sense of victimhood or a close-fisted economic policy and hostility directed towards others will not secure local ownership and control of natural resources, nor fair work and prosperity for our communities. Nor will it attract and retain the local or the global talent that we need here in Wales.

My colleague the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution has put forward radical, practical proposals for constitutional reform to the United Kingdom, so that more of the decisions affecting Wales, such as how to distribute the revenues raised by the Crown Estate in Wales, are made here in Wales. These could, of course, be taken forward now. Just to explain to our colleagues on the Conservative benches, our relationship with the Crown Estate here in Wales is very good, and they do indeed manage a large number of resources here in Wales. What they are not able to do is give us back the revenues generated by that resource, nor take direction from the Welsh Government about the exploitation of that resource. So, Janet was right to read out the large number of things the Crown Estate does well; what she fails to understand is that all of the profit from that goes straight back to Westminster and none of it comes here. That is clearly what we want devolved to Wales, so I think that's just an essential misunderstanding in the research the Member says that she has done.

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

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you for all of the contributions. I will process the comments made by the Minister and return to those perhaps towards the end of my contribution here.

I and my fellow Members on the Plaid Cymru benches believe in Wales. We are ambitious for Wales, and I hope that everybody in this Siambr would say that they, too, agree with that aim. But what differentiates us on these benches here, I think, is our vision for a confident, fair and prosperous Wales that is normally independent, that can do what is usual in terms of using its strengths and its resources as the foundation for its future. But the final point there is one of those topics of discussion as people weigh up their relationship with this debate on the future of Wales. Some will ask with genuine interest, in seeking a response, 'What are our resources? Do we have resources of value here in Wales?' Others—I'm looking at the benches opposite, unfortunately—will use it as a statement more often than not. They will say, 'We have no resources', or to put it plainly, 'We don't have anything worth having, so forget about a better future.' The debate this afternoon, I think, has been a way for us to discuss what our resources are and what our potential is, as Delyth Jewell said in her opening words, and in identifying some of those resources, how they can be managed for the benefit of the people of Wales and to prevent the kind of exploitation, yes, that we have unfortunately experienced far too much of over the years.

This wasn't tabled as a debate about independence. Yes, we on the Plaid Cymru benches are crystal clear in our version of an independent Wales, and our resources, the careful management of those resources for the benefit of all the people of Wales, form a big part of that. But, of course, controlling those resources as best we can, stopping exploitation, often by others outside Wales, of the resources that we have, I'd argue, is a pretty important element, even in the sub-optimal constitutional position that we find ourselves in now. And I'd hope everybody would agree with that, too.

But how interesting it is that, in its 'delete all' amendment, Welsh Government decides to pitch in with a defence of the current constitutional position, welcoming, in effect, the limiting of control over our resources. It's a topsy-turvy statement, that amendment, saying that the way to get most control over our resources is by not being in ultimate control of them. They say we're best served in the UK, with decisions affecting Wales made in Wales, when the same amendment says how appallingly badly the UK Government does things.

Only today in the House of Commons, the UK Secretary of State for Wales said there's no public appetite for devolution of the Crown Estate in Wales. I know devolution of the Crown Estate is something the Minister now warmly supports, and I appreciate her comments on that today, but let me tell you—let me translate for you, perhaps—what the Secretary of State meant today. What he meant was that the UK Government has no appetite for devolving the Crown Estate to Wales. As we've heard argued today, devolution of the Crown Estate would bring huge benefits to Wales, as Scotland is seeing—that staggering 25 GW of leased energy recently published by Crown Estate Scotland is quite remarkable.

I think it's very revealing that what I took out of the Member for Aberconwy's comments was that she believes we are not capable of being in control of those resources. I'll welcome it if she wants to put up a defence, but what I heard was that she does not believe we are capable of making good use of the devolution of Crown Estate powers.

Thank you for taking an intervention. Isn't it a fact that where we have devolution on all the powers with this Welsh Government here now—health, education, transport, infrastructure; I could go on, Rhun—if you have a look at how we have gone backwards in many of those, the failings are evident for the people of Wales, and indeed Aberconwy, to see?

I'll immediately ask if you want to come back on this. Are you saying now that you would like to get rid of devolution because you don't like some things another party over there does? I'm not in that party either. I'd love to get rid of them out of power, but we have the power in our own hands in Wales and we have that potential, and that is what we are seeking always. Carry on.

Listen, we've had devolution for 22 years. We've also had a Labour Government propped up by Plaid Cymru and the odd Lib Dem, and what have we achieved? It's time for the people of Wales to allow the Conservatives to be here and have the levers of power and the finance to go with it. [Interruption.]

You wouldn't believe that we were four and a half years away from an election, would you, at this point? Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Isn't it again revealing that when we're talking about something so fundamentally important to the future of Wales, you cannot help but take up the temptation of politicising this in that way? When we are looking at releasing our potential, you need to be a little bit more serious in your politics.

The motion, as well as looking at the control that we could bring through the devolution of the Crown Estate, looks at other elements of control. We have mentioned the loss of hundreds of acres of land for forestry, planted by investors from outside of Wales to be used as carbon credits. It strips us of carbon credits that we need as a nation, and strips us too of the integrity of our communities—opportunities for our young people in farming, undermining of language. We're seeing the same thing with solar developments on Anglesey now. Solar can be a really important part of our renewable energy production, but let's be innovative in the way that we do it. What we have on Anglesey is proposal after proposal for thousands of acres of agricultural land earmarked for solar development by companies from outside Wales. 'Why here?' we ask. 'Oh, your land is cheaper than brownfield sites, thank you very much'. They'll wrest over farmed land, we're told, in Môn Mam Cymru, the mother of Wales, which has fed the nation for countless centuries. 'What about construction traffic as it's being built?', asked one constituent in another public meeting. 'Oh, don't worry, there'll be less farm traffic after it's built', came the unbelievable response. And the financial community benefit proposal from that particular solar farm was £50,000 over a 30-year life span of a solar farm. It's insulting and typifies the exploitation that we face.

Let me deal with the Minister's comments to close, and whether she'd add 'exploitation' to the list of words that she's not comfortable with. She felt that we were too ready to bear a grievance, to be victims. Listen, this is about saying, 'Let's move on from the past'. Let's look at a way of dealing with our own resources in a way that enables us to plan our future as a nation around it—not as victims, not with a grievance, but with real positivity. And let's build a partnership within this Senedd that can help deliver that better future.

We have, in the past, for whatever reason, not felt confident enough to challenge the exploitation—and I do use that again. Let's say that those days have now passed, and what we need to do now is look at our resources in the round, and how to make sure that they are used properly—yes, internationally, in partnership with partners from around the world, but for the benefit of our communities and our population.

Llywydd, we as Plaid Cymru Members are very pleased to have the opportunity to put forward a debate like this one in our nation's Parliament, our Senedd. We've had an opportunity today to outline some of the fundamental issues that we believe could enable us to strengthen Wales's future foundations. But, this Senedd needs to take action, ultimately, to realise that we, as the representatives of the people of Wales and its communities, have the responsibility to demand the right to safeguard our priceless resources. There are no political thresholds or boundaries that should prevent us from trying to achieve that aim.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. Therefore, I defer voting until voting time. That brings us to voting time, but we will need to take a short break to make technical preparations for the vote. So, a short break.

That brings us to voting time. The first vote this afternoon is on the debate on a Member's legislative proposal put forward by Mabon ap Gwynfor on rent controls. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Mabon ap Gwynfor. Open the vote. In favour 14, 22 abstentions and 14 against. Therefore, in accordance with the guidance, I will cast my vote against the motion, given that the vote was tied, and therefore the motion is not agreed.

The next vote will be on the Welsh Conservatives debate on cancer services. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. In favour 15, no absentions, 35 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We'll move therefore to amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 25 against. Therefore I exercise my casting vote against the amendment, in line with Standing Orders. So, the result is: in favour 25, no abstentions, 26 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

We'll move now to amendment 2, in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. The result of the vote is: in favour 25, no abstentions and 25 against. And therefore I exercise my casting vote against amendment 2, and the final result of the vote is: in favour 25, no abstentions and 26 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is also rejected, and as the motion and both amendments have not been agreed, then nothing is agreed on that particular motion.

We'll see how things go on the Plaid Cymru debate on Welsh resources, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We'll now move to a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. 25 in favour, no abstentions and 25 against. And therefore I exercise my casting vote to vote against amendment 1. Therefore, the final result is that there were 25 in favour, no abstentions and 26 against. The amendment is therefore not agreed. The motion was also not agreed, and nothing has therefore been agreed.

And that concludes voting time for today, thank goodness. So, that concludes voting time for this afternoon.

And we will now move on, because we do have an agenda item remaining: the short debate to be introduced by Mabon ap Gwynfor on the topic, 'The more I practice, the luckier I am: sports facilities in our rural communities'. And I call on Mabon ap Gwynfor to speak to the topic he has chosen, and I urge Members, if they are leaving the Chamber—

If Members are leaving the Chamber, do so quietly. Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you, Llywydd. I have agreed that five other Members should take part in this discussion. James Evans, Sam Kurtz, Jane Dodds, Sam Rowlands and Laura and Jones have expressed an interest in contributing, and I'm very grateful to them for that.

Llywydd, it isn't every day that a Member has an opportunity to put forward debates in our Senedd, and today I have the honour of putting forward two debates on very different issues, yet very important issues for my constituents in Dwyfor Meirionnydd and, indeed, to people across Wales. I'm grateful that there isn't a vote at the end of this debate, following what happened with the previous debate. [Laughter.]

But to go on to the title of my short debate: 'The more I practice, the luckier I am'. That's the title of today's debate. I'm sure that you will have come across this expression in some form or another over the years. Its origins are unclear, truth be told. Some say that Gary Palmer is the true author. But whoever coined the phrase, its message is perfectly clear: if we are to succeed in any field, especially sport, we must practice, practice and practice to perfect our craft. That brings me to the thrust of this debate, which is the lack of resources in our rural communities to enable people to refine their talents and to go on to compete at the very highest level.

To be able to practice and perfect talent, resources must be available; that stands to reason. Now, some will point to athletes from disadvantaged backgrounds who triumphed in their fields, despite their backgrounds, and there are laudable examples of this, of course. But, on the whole, they are exceptions to the rule. It's no surprise that it's the countries that invest most in their resources and athletes that succeed in winning medals in whichever field that might be. The same is true on every level, be it international sport or on a more local level. To anyone who doubts the value of small investments, you only have to follow the successful cycling coach from Deiniolen, David Brailsford, who promoted the marginal gains. The little things, as St David said, make a difference.

I had the pleasure of going to speak to a group of pupils at Ysgol Glan y Môr, Pwllheli, about 10 days ago—talk about informed, curious and welcoming young people. It was a pleasure to be in their company. Anyway, one of them, Elan Davies, asked me the following question:

'I love sport'—

Elan said—

'but I see a lack of equal opportunity for young women. What opportunities do you see for girls in Wales in the world of sport, and beyond this, in their daily lives?'

Now, this isn't a political point or political point scoring, but these are the real lived experiences of our young people in rural Wales today, and it speaks to the amendment put forward by Heledd Fychan in a debate here at the Senedd on sport back in June. And Elan is speaking the truth. Shortly after being elected, Porthmadog women's football club contacted me to ask for any support possible to improve the resources available to them in Porthmadog, as they didn't have a 3G pitch, and very often during the winter they had to cancel training sessions and had to go play elsewhere because the pitches were far too muddy.

What about swimming? We have excellent swimming clubs in north Wales, and some of the coaches have spoken to me about the incredible talent we have there. But if one reaches the highest level of competition, they have to travel down to Swansea, and their families have to take time off work and pay for accommodation in Swansea for that period of training. And why? Well, because we don't have an Olympic-sized pool in the north of Wales, and such a resource is vital to be able to progress and compete at the highest level.

Dwyfor Meirionnydd, and indeed Wales, are very fortunate to have many beautiful beaches, with tides that produce waves and surf that are recognised as being amongst the best for surfing. But to ensure that this local talent can reach the next level, and to see more surfers from Wales competing on the international stage, we must ensure that the coaches are here and that people of all backgrounds can access the sport.

The same is true for cycling, be it road cycling or mountain biking, and every other kind. We have a record to be proud of, with new cycling clubs burgeoning following Geraint Thomas's success. I had the privilege of visiting the wonderful Beicio Dyfi centre, Athertons, in my constituency recently, which attracts thousands of people from across the globe, not to mention the excellent work being done by Antur Stiniog or Coed y Brenin in Dwyfor Meirionnydd.

We have an extraordinary landscape and natural resources, but it is an expensive process, and many people cannot take up cycling because of their financial circumstances. We must ensure that people can access these sports at an early stage, so that they can try them out, or practice before going on to bigger things having perfected their talent.

Mabon has agreed to share his time with five individuals. If you could all be brief and keep to a minute, then I can call all five. James Evans.

I'll try, Llywydd. Diolch. I'd like to thank Mabon ap Gwynfor—

You will do more than try. [Laughter.]

I'll try. I thank Mabon ap Gwynfor for bringing this debate forward. The more I practice, the luckier I am, but as somebody who practices darts a lot, I'm not sure that's quite true on a Friday night. [Laughter.] But in our community, our sports facilities are the heart of the community, whether that be rugby clubs, football clubs, netball clubs, cricket, bowls—you name it, they are the heart. I was very fortunate to be a part of Gwernyfed RFC in Talgarth, the great community sports club that has a women's side and all the junior sides and does fantastically well. That club taught me a number of things: it taught me respect, it taught me team work, it taught me to appreciate other people and also how to have a very good time.

Our clubs provide the opportunities for young people to come together. They build community cohesion and help the well-being agenda and help improve the health and well-being of the nation. And I agree with you, Mabon, that more resources should be put into rural communities, because we've all seen how our young sports stars have to go to the towns and the cities to actually access the sports facilities they need to reach their potential. And I do urge the Minister, as you have done, to make sure that those resources make their way to rural communities so that those young people there can reach their potential. Diolch, Llywydd.

Thank you to the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd for the opportunity to contribute.

As someone who's played a whole host of sports throughout their life, from football, golf, tennis, rugby, cricket and everything else in between, this debate got me thinking back to what it was like growing up in rural west Wales. And it was often more jumpers for goalposts than Millennium Stadium—Principality Stadium, forgive me—or Celtic Manor or Lord's cricket ground. And one thing that really struck me is that what facilities clubs do have they take great pride in, and I think that that is something that is really a testament to the volunteers, without whom many of these community clubs wouldn't exist. Volunteers who give up their time for free, mowing pitches, sweeping changing rooms, washing playing kit or even ferrying kids around the area so that they can go and play sport and keep fit. Without these volunteers, we wouldn't have grass-roots sports here in Wales, so I'd just like to take the opportunity to thank every volunteer from every corner of Wales for everything that they do in ensuring that grass-roots sport in Wales is as strong as it can be. Diolch.

Jane Dodds.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you to Mabon, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate.

Just another angle—I won't repeat what's been said and I have no claim to any sporting abilities either—I asked a young person in a little village called Llandinam, which has 911 people, in Montgomeryshire, what would help him and what did help him when he was growing up in terms of involvement in sports activities, and he said 'youth workers'. And so I'd just like to pitch here for more youth workers. We've seen a massive decline in youth workers across Wales, and it does make a difference in order to engage young people from different communities in order to be able to take part in sports. I was very lucky to visit Shedz in Blaenau Ffestiniog where they've got an amazing set-up there of youth workers who are engaging with young people. So, let's move forward as soon as we can, but let's look at how we can also get more youth workers to engage with young people to allow them to take part in sports activities. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you to Mabon ap Gwynfor for submitting this really important debate and allowing me to speak. It's great to have a ringside seat on the issue of sports facilities in our rural communities.

As outlined so far in debate, sport is so crucial for rural communities, especially at grass-roots level, including the region that I represent in north Wales, and we know that sport is vital for people's mental and physical well-being. It brings communities, friends and families together; for some, it simply provides purpose. But, without these suitable facilities, it's either impossible for people to take part or, as we know, they have to travel many hours to simply enjoy a sport they want to partake in. Of course, on top of the grass-roots benefits to having good rural sports facilities, we must be looking to inspire a generation who are our future sporting stars—the ones who will win us the six nations, the ones who will win the world cups and Olympic medals, or even become crown green bowls champions. So, to conclude, Llywydd, it's vital that we don't miss an open goal here, that we hit the back of the net in ensuring sporting facilities are made available in our rural communities, ensuring Wales continues to punch above its weight in sport.

The Chamber's not taking all that well to all your puns and jokes there. Laura Jones.

Thank you, and thank you, Mabon, for raising this important subject. It's something I've raised continually ever since I've been a politician. And, as chair of the cross-party group on sport, I want to reassure you that there's complete consensus across this Chamber that facilities are an absolute key priority for all of us. They need to be changed. They are in disrepair, they are completely out of date or they're non-existent, particularly in rural areas. It's an absolute must that we look into it.

I was secretary of a junior football club, and literally everything closes down in the winter, because the pitches are so bad. There are no 3G facilities within a 20-mile radius, for example. It's not good enough for our young people, or any age, really, to have that lack of facilities. If we are serious about creating future stars, then we need to be serious about improving our facilities. I swam for Wales in Pontypool Dolphins, as it happens. So, seven days a week I was swimming, and my parents had to take me from Usk to Pontypool and back seven days a week. That's a massive commitment, and I was lucky that they were able to do that, otherwise I would never have had the opportunities that I had. So, travel is something that we absolutely need to look into in terms of getting people to these things if we can't place those facilities on doorsteps. I just want to say thank you for bringing—. I think it's just a perfect subject to talk about, because practise, practise, practise does make perfect, and it will create our future stars. And without anything to practise on, we won't create them. So, thank you for bringing this debate.

And the Deputy Minister to reply to the debate. Dawn Bowden.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you, Mabon, for bringing this debate forward. This is a subject very close to my heart, and what I would say, I love the title of the debate: 'The more I practise, the luckier I am', because all I can think is that all the teams that I support clearly don't practise very much because they're not very lucky, that's for sure. But it is an important debate, Mabon, and it was a very thought-provoking debate, and it was good to hear so many contributions in a cross-party debate where I could agree on virtually everything that was said. So, thanks to everybody for that.

So, can I start by saying I want to state very, very clearly at the outset that investing in our nation's sports facilities that are accessible and enhance the opportunities to participate in sport and physical activity is a key priority for the Welsh Government? And I would be absolutely delighted to come and visit your constituency at some point and see some of the facilities that you already have and that we potentially can develop in the future. Now, this commitment is a key strand of the programme for government and a personal commitment of mine. Investing in our facilities is a key to unlocking so much of the potential as a nation. As we turn our sights to our recovery from the pandemic, expanding on the opportunities to increase participation to support our mental and physical health will be more important than ever.

We must have a clear approach for delivering on that commitment. I'm focused on investing at both elite level and at the community, grass-roots level for all the reasons that you set out in your speech. Our investment at elite level, investing in world-class sports facilities to support our nation's sporting success on the global stage, is key to inspiring the next generation. We know that Wales already punches above its weight on the sporting front, and we have to maintain and ensure that that grows and develops as we go forward.

And an even more important commitment, in my view, is to support and enable that next generation now. Our commitment is to invest in new and existing facilities that really improve the foundation of our community sports. Without attractive and accessible facilities, we cannot hope to grow participation across sports, particularly amongst underrepresented groups. This is the key to supporting our children's development and taking forward access to sport, such as investing in girls' and women's sport, which, again, is very close to my heart.

And can I thank Mabon for reminding everybody of my recent announcement of a further £4.5 million capital funding this year to support that commitment? That brings our total investment in 2021-22 to more than £13.2 million. And looking to the future, Llywydd, we've already committed £24 million of capital funding to Sport Wales over the next three years. From my perspective, that is only the starting point. For our ambition, we will be looking to build on that initial investment year on year.

But it's not just about the scale of our investment; a key consideration for us and Sport Wales is how and where we invest. As Mabon has highlighted, we must ensure that facilities are accessible to all of our communities, including our rural communities. We know that we have that commitment from our national sport governing bodies, whether that is the Football Association of Wales, the Welsh Rugby Union, whether it is Hockey Wales and so on; they are ready to work with us on that national effort.

When those facilities are further afield, as we do recognise that a football, rugby, cricket pitch or a climbing wall may not be available in every community, and may not be realistically available in every community, we must ensure that the means are there for enabling access, whether that is through public transport or active travel, which I think is what Laura was alluding to. But that wraparound support for the facilities must be there, and I call on all our sports organisations, local authorities and educational establishments to forge those links and become enablers for our sports and leisure.

Llywydd, I must draw the attention of Members, however, to the disappointing and frustrating approach that the UK Government has taken of late in sidestepping the important principles of devolution. Whilst all investments are, of course, welcome, such as recent football and tennis investments, the UK Government has been using the UK internal market Act to provide direct funding to sport organisations in Wales, and that is not, in my view, the right approach. It sets a worrying precedent, taking accountability away from the devolved institutions, and adds a further layer of complex bureaucracy. It means that we have to work harder to ensure alignment of investments that align with our programme for government to avoid duplication of effort and ensure funding is distributed fairly and evenly across the country, using established devolved institutions.

I thank the Deputy Minister and I thank everyone for that debate. That brings today's proceedings to a close. Diolch.