Plenary

The next item is questions to the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution, and the first question is from Rhys ab Owen.

Thank you for the question. We set out principles for a devolved justice system in our publication recently, ‘Delivering Justice for Wales’. We will use this to co-produce a vision of how justice can be delivered better, through conversations with those with expertise in the justice system. Considering resources will be an important element of that.

Despite a recent tweet from Andrew R.T. Davies declaring that the Welsh Conservatives would never support the devolution of justice, I, and, I know, you too, Counsel General, would agree with the words of Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd that it's a matter of when rather than if justice is devolved to this place. With things moving very quickly in Westminster, the devolution of justice could happen sooner than we might expect. To do that, we will need a fair transfer of funding, although personally I think that devolving justice to Wales would save money for taxpayers. But does the Government know—and if they don't know, when will they know—how much money they will need from the Treasury in the UK?

Well, thank you for your supplementary. I certainly agree with you that it was disappointing that, at the Conservative Party conference, a statement was made that there would be no devolution of justice. This was before they'd even had an opportunity to read the document, to read the arguments that are set out within that document. I think that is a very disappointing approach, because it always seems to me it's important to consider the evidence before having a knee-jerk reaction. That being as it is, one of the issues of course in terms of the devolution of justice is that there are certain areas where there is ongoing work with the UK Government. And, of course, as you know, there are the Law Commission's proposals in respect of tribunals, which is an important element of our justice system, which will be the subject in due course of legislation.

Knowing the cost of the justice system is actually very complex. It's one that would depend, really, I think, on negotiations with Government, negotiations over the transfer of responsibilities, what we mean by justice. We know that when the Thomas commission considered this, when they looked at all the aspects of justice, whether it be the tribunals, the areas of social justice that we're involved in, the areas of police and crime commissioners and our contributions to policing and so on, it was estimated at around £442 million. So, we already spend and contribute an enormous amount towards that.

Considering the development of justice and considering how those negotiations will develop in due course—. And I agree with you that, even if it is not this Government that is agreeable to the devolution of justice, I'm fairly certain that it will certainly be on the agenda of the next Government to consider the devolution of justice, and certainly all the implications of that will be under consideration.

Thank you for that question. The enforcement of fisheries legislation is vital for the sustainability of our fisheries and the protection of the marine environment. Although I'm unable to comment on specific, ongoing cases, I confirm we have successfully prosecuted illegal fishers over the past year.

Okay. Thank you for the answer, Counsel General. Illegal fishing is not only damaging to the Welsh economy, but is also costly for our coastal environments. Unregulated fishing techniques impact on biodiversity and marine habitats, leading to overfishing, which undermines attempts to secure sustainable fish stocks. What steps are the Welsh Government taking to crack down on illegal fishing in north Wales to protect our fish stocks and sustainable practices in the industry? Thank you.

Thank you. It is an important area of work and of Welsh law, and it is of course an area where I oversee the prosecutions in that area. The over-exploitation of our fisheries will lead to unsustainable fisheries, as you've said, and will result in damage to our fisheries and marine environment. So, it's for this reason that the Welsh Government ensures stringent enforcement on any illegal activities within its waters. So, we have marine enforcement officers, who continue to ensure that the fishers comply with the relevant legislation in place and appropriate action is taken against a vessel owner, master or fisher who contravenes that legislation. And, as Counsel General, I particularly take the enforcement of fisheries regulations very seriously. I'd recommend that all the vessel owners and fishers operating in Welsh waters comply with the relevant rules and regulations.

Since 2021, I can tell you that there have been 11 infringements investigated. Cases are assessed and dealt with by official warnings or prosecution. There are seven ongoing cases that are being prosecuted by my office. The prosecutions taken to date I think should serve as a very clear warning to fishers that the Welsh Government takes its enforcement of fishing offences in Wales seriously, and I as Counsel General will take the necessary steps to uphold those laws.

Questions now from party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Minister, now that the Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform has published its report, what consideration have you given as to whether the Senedd has the powers to deliver on the committee's recommendations?

Well, the first point I would make is that, of course, there will be a debate—I think two hours have been allocated for this afternoon—where I'm sure all the issues in respect of the special purpose committee's report will be considered. My role and that of Welsh Government is, if the proposals that are in that report are accepted by the Senedd, then to consider those in detail carefully and to look at the best way of implementing those proposals into viable and robust legislation.

Given that your First Minister wrote the executive summary, effectively, along with the leader of Plaid Cymru, I'd have thought that you'd have done a bit of work already, frankly, to consider whether the Senedd had the competence to implement these recommendations. Because, as a former member of that committee, I can tell you that, in our deliberations, the legal advice was absolutely clear: the field of equal opportunities is a non-devolved matter; the Senedd does not have the powers to impose statutory gender quotas to tackle discrimination against women. That legal advice was clear to us, and it said that, effectively, if we took any action to address discrimination or the less favourable treatment of women, then it would be firmly outside of the Senedd's competence. So, regardless of the merits of any action being taken to address a lack of diversity in the Senedd, do you accept that, if your Government presses ahead with statutory gender quotas, it would actually jeopardise the whole Senedd reform agenda, and fail to deliver it by 2026?

I thank you for that question, and I'm sure it's a matter that will be raised again later on this afternoon. Can I just say firstly, though, in terms of the report of the special purpose committee, I don't presume the outcome of the decision this afternoon; it is a matter for the Senedd? And it is a very important matter that whatever decision is taken in respect of proposals for reform is taken by the Senedd and not taken by the Government, and that distinction is an extremely important one. All the legal issues that may arise out of the consideration of whatever is passed by the Senedd this afternoon, if at all, are ones that will be taken into account when it comes to constructing legislation to implement the decisions or the recommendations of the Senedd.

I'm sorry, I didn't actually hear any clarity in your answer as to whether you believe that the Senedd has the competence to be able to introduce gender quotas at present. It's a very simple question. I know that you keep referring to the debate that is going to be taking place in two hours later on. I suspect you don't have an answer in your response to that debate either on this issue. If you have, perhaps I could press you on the matter again. Do you accept that the Senedd doesn't have competence at the moment, because of the equal opportunities reservation, to actually implement gender quotas, and that if you do press forward with a piece of legislation—if the Senedd presses forward with a piece of legislation—that could jeopardise the whole of the Senedd reform agenda? Because if you do accept that—and from the evidence that we received from not just our own lawyers, but from pretty much everybody else bar one individual witness, it seemed to me, we don't have that competence—and if you press ahead on this basis you're effectively setting up the Senedd reform agenda to fail. Perhaps that is your intention; I don't know. I would hope not; I would hope that you don't want to waste everybody's time—[Interruption.] [Inaudible.]

What I can tell the Member—and I say in this in two capacities; one as a Government Minister, but also in terms of my law officer responsibilities as Counsel General—is that I will give very detailed consideration, and the Government will, to the recommendations that are put forward, that are passed by the Senedd, and that I will work then to see how robust and viable legislation can be constructed to implement those recommendations from the Senedd.

I'm afraid we're going to need to take a technical break. At the moment, only the Minister's microphone, mine and Carolyn Thomas's is working. Darren Millar's was not working, but I'm reassured that your voice is loud enough to be carried on the broadcast, but that may not be the case for all Members, so we're going to need, unfortunately, to take a short technical break.

Does that mean we have to listen to him again? [Laughter.]

No.

Can I welcome everyone back? I thank the technical team for resolving the problems we were facing. Hopefully, we will be able to continue for the rest of the afternoon without any more difficulties. We move on now to spokesperson's questions from Plaid Cymru—Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Cwnsler Cyffredinol, you'll be more aware than any Member here of the grim milestone passed over the half-term recess of 100 days since Putin's senseless attack on Ukraine and its people. As the Welsh Government's law officer, what work have you undertaken with other law officers across the United Kingdom to investigate the war crimes and human rights atrocities perpetrated against the Ukrainian people by Vladimir Putin?

Thank you for that question. It is an issue that is very much coming to the fore across the world now—the commission of war crimes and investigations by the International Criminal Court and, indeed, by the United Nations themselves. The evidence there is extremely overwhelming. I have had a meeting with the law officers—the Attorney General, the Lord Advocate for Scotland and the Advocate General for Northern Ireland—and we have discussed the approach that's being taken in respect of the support for the investigations. The investigations are, of course, brought by the prosecutor general in Ukraine. I have suggested that there would be benefits to a four-law-officers approach in terms of the support for the work. I know that a special adviser has been appointed by the UK Government to assist the prosecutor general in Ukraine.

There, of course, have been two war crimes trials already of individuals, and there are a large number of others that are under investigation. The numbers are in the thousands. There are lawyers, of course, whose services are also being directed towards supporting those investigations. I will be approaching the prosecutor general myself in respect of any specific work and support that we can provide from Wales, whether it be moral or whether it be practical in terms of engagement with members of the legal community in Wales who have expertise in this area. That is something where I would like to see a very specific area of Welsh support if it is considered to be beneficial to the important work that is going on—now, during the war, but equally so for the many years after that that these sorts of cases inevitably involve.

Diolch yn fawr, Cwnsler Cyffredinol. You'll be aware that, recently, the Ministry of Justice announced that they've bought an office block next to the Old Bailey for £111 million. As a baby barrister in 2009, people were complaining then about the inadequate state of the civil justice centre in Cardiff. People have continued to complain about it ever since. In fact, when the Supreme Court visited Cardiff for the first time, they were hosted in Tŷ Hywel, which causes a lot of other questions, rather than in the civil justice centre. The Ministry of Justice response is, 'We'll provide an extra water fountain and we'll finally fix the broken lift.' It's a bit like Del Boy's flat, rather than a civil justice centre. So, when, Counsel General, will the Ministry of Justice take Welsh justice seriously and ensure a civil justice centre that befits a capital city like Cardiff?

Thank you for that. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the civil justice centre is not fit for purpose. There is absolutely no doubt as well that the Ministry of Justice are aware. Myself and the Minister for Social Justice met with Dominic Raab, the Lord Chancellor, and we raised this particular issue with him. We raised it also in terms of meetings on several occasions with Lord Wolfson, who subsequently resigned—not because of the question but for other matters. So, they're well aware of the concerns. Also, I've made it very clear, I think, in answers to questions in this Chamber that it is wholly unacceptable for the capital city of Cardiff to be treated in this particular way. If justice were devolved, we would not tolerate such facilities being there, which are not only inadequate for those users of the court—the citizens, the lawyers, and the judiciary—but are also not appropriate in respect of the image we want of the Welsh legal system and the way in which we want to see the legal economy in Wales actually grow.

I can tell you, though, that I'm in the process of writing to the UK Government specifically on this particular point—how bizarre it is, after being told there isn't sufficient money, that millions of pounds are being made available for another centre in London, whilst the civil justice centre in Cardiff is being totally ignored. I am pleased to see, of course, that Lord Wolfson has now been replaced. The new justice Minister is Sir Christopher Bellamy, who of course was involved in the recent legal aid review. I will be seeking to have discussions with him alongside the Minister for Social Justice as well, where this will also be one of the items on the agenda. I have to say, one of the things I'm thinking is that perhaps we ought to have our next face-to-face meeting actually in the civil justice centre.

Thank you for the question. The Public Order Bill includes provisions that impact on people’s right to protest. The Welsh Government will continue to make clear to the UK Government its opposition to this attack on domestic rights.

I thank the Counsel General for his answer there. I don't think anyone in this Chamber could reasonably deny that protest or protest movements have changed Wales and the United Kingdom for the better. I know you yourself, Counsel General, have a history of challenging the powerful when it needs to be done, including your inspiring work with others to challenge the horrors of apartheid in South Africa. We should all be worried about the motives of any Government that seeks to challenge the right to protest. Counsel General, to what extent does this Bill, brought forward by the UK Conservative Government, restrict people's right to protest, and what is your assessment of its impact on our democracy?

Thank you for that. It's very disappointing that, within this Bill, it resurrects a series of clauses that were rejected in the House of Lords for, I think, the very reasons that the Member has just raised today. The proposals, in my view, are a dagger to the heart of the right to protest and a direct attack on democracy and freedom of expression. The Welsh Government fundamentally stands against them. I make the point—and I don't make it tongue in cheek at all—that the right to protest, the right to challenge authority is so fundamental to our democracy, and this may only be the thin end of the wedge. When you look at the way in which similar legislation has been introduced in Putin's Russia, where even standing with a placard, even pretending to hold one, can lead to penalties almost equivalent to what is being proposed in this particular legislation, then that is a threat to all of us, and it is a threat to democracy. In its current form, the Bill is reserved to the UK Government, and we will not be looking to lay a legislative consent motion for that reason. However, if there are amendments that are tabled, then we will analyse those closely to ensure that the voice of the Senedd is heard wherever relevant. We will continue also as a Government to make our objections to the Bill clear in our liaisons with the UK Government and officials. The Minister for Social Justice has laid a written statement yesterday that highlights our objections to proposals in that Bill.

Thank you for the question. We are committed to ensuring that the Welsh tribunals have adequate facilities, both now and in the future, and as we take forward structural reform of the devolved tribunals to create a modernised tribunal system for Wales.

Thank you very much, Counsel General. It's fair to say that the facilities of the Welsh tribunals are not adequate. I remember speaking to one judge and she said that her first task every day was moving the tables and chairs in order to ensure that the room was ready for a case. With the lease in Oak House in Newport coming to an end next year—the only designated building for Welsh tribunals—what are the Welsh Government's plans to ensure that there are adequate buildings for our tribunals?

Thank you very much. It is a very important point that you do raise, because as we work and look to legislate with regard to the recommendations of the Law Commission on the reform of tribunals, we have to look at a number of issues, one of which of course is ensuring the independence of the judiciary, but also ensuring that there are proper tribunal facilities available for use, and with the proper status and recognition of the importance that those tribunals actually play.

With regard to the point you raise with regard to Oak House, I do recognise the importance of the tribunal room at Oak House, because it is the only dedicated tribunal facility that we have available to the tribunals. There is an issue that has arisen; the landlord has gone into administration, but our rights as tenants there do remain the same. Our lease is due to come to an end, but there is a view to renew that. So, I think that is an issue that will be resolved. But you are right in terms of the broader issue in terms of the way we want to look at the future independence and the future facilities. If we had a new civil justice centre, that potentially might even be a resource for that, and that may be one of the points that we wish to make in due course.

Counsel General, good afternoon. I'd like to ask a question with regard to the UK Government's policy on sending asylum seekers potentially to Rwanda. I really wanted to concentrate on children who are incorrectly age assessed as adults. We've heard worrying concerns on top of that, which is that police, doctors and police stations are actually undertaking something called sexual maturity tests. These are both worrying concerns, and I'm sure you would share with me and join with me in condemning both, because they potentially mean that children are assessed as adults and could be part of that cohort being sent to Rwanda. Counsel General, I wonder if you can take up this issue with the UK Government and raise your concerns in relation to this particular issue. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you.

Thank you for that question. I certainly will do, and I certainly know the Minister for Social Justice has very much been raising these particular issues. They are of concern. The UN Refugee Agency has, I think, been clear that its own view is that the measures in the Nationality and Borders Bill, which include sending asylum seekers to Rwanda to process their claim there, are at odds with the refugee convention. I think it's also accepted that this callous approach is really undermining the standing of the UK in the world. It's a great regret that that Bill has now received Royal Assent. As a nation of sanctuary, these issues have been raised. I know the Minister for Social Justice wrote to Kevin Foster, jointly with the Scottish Government, on 19 May, to express the Welsh Government's concerns for the Rwanda proposals, and to ask for a four-nations meeting to discuss this issue. There has been no response to this request to date, but I know that the Minister for Social Justice will continue to pursue the point. She's obviously heard the points that you have raised. On the approach to visas and to immigration and so on, you only have to look at the difficulties that there have been with the visa situation with regard to Ukraine as well, all of which I think erodes the standing of the UK in respect of its international reputation as a world leader in respect of human rights protection.

Question 5 [OQ58127] is withdrawn. Question 6, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you for the question. The composition of a legislature is a matter for that legislature to determine. Wales must be fully and fairly represented in the House of Commons to ensure that its interests in reserved—and, where appropriate, devolved—legislation are properly reflected.

Thank you for that response. I have a feeling that elements of this discussion will be aired again soon in this Chamber, but as we see a large decline in the number of our Members in Westminster, and hopefully more responsibilities coming over to this legislature, does the Minister agree with me that we need more elected Members here in order to scrutinise and to ensure that we get the best possible legislation to serve the people of Wales, and, in reality, that it's not a referendum on increasing the number of Members in this Parliament that we need, but rather, when the time comes, a referendum on independence for Wales?

Well, can I thank you for the supplementary question and the points you raise? Perhaps if I take the last point first, I mean, it's interesting, isn't it, that the line of criticism that's being pursued is one in terms of a referendum. I'm very clear in my own view, and I've checked there and the Welsh Labour manifesto 2021, the Welsh Liberal Democrat manifesto 2021, the Plaid Cymru manifesto 2021, and manifestos earlier to that, I think, give a very strong mandate in terms of reform. If there were to be a referendum on constitutional change, as such, and the number of Members, it's very interesting, isn't it, that there's been no referendum in the appointment of 84 new Lords by the current Prime Minister since he came to office not long ago. Changes to the voting system of mayors in England to make it easier for the Conservatives to win seats—there was no referendum on that. The introduction of voter ID and other restrictions to voting—there was no referendum on that. And, of course, there was no referendum on the reduction in the number of Welsh parliamentary seats—no referendum on that. At least we have a mandate and an entitlement to pursue those mandates on which we were elected.

But can I take on the important points in terms of scrutiny? The scrutiny role of a legislature is absolutely vital to a healthy democracy, so increasing the number of Members of the Senedd reflects, I think, the role and responsibilities of the Senedd, which have grown considerably since it first opened its doors in 1999. This institution now is a Parliament. Its responsibilities and its functions go way beyond those that existed when it was originally established. What I would say is that the value of democracy is something that we all have to take account of ourselves, and the importance of it. Unfortunately, with the Conservatives, they know the price of everything, as Aneurin Bevan said, but the value of nothing. And I value our democracy very strongly, but I'm sure that these points are all going to be made in the not-too-distant future.

Thank you for the question. The UK Government has, on a number of occasions, demonstrated an unacceptable disregard in observing the Sewel convention. We have forcefully expressed our concerns about these breaches and we will continue to push for the convention to be placed on a proper footing.

Thank you, Counsel General. I agree with what you've just said there. I was also pleased to hear that the Welsh Tories have abandoned their determined attempts to defend the UK Government's decision to withhold funding linked to HS2 from Wales. Now, we know, don't we, Counsel General, that the current settlement, however, still allows the UK Tories to pretend that a line from London to Manchester benefits Wales, so that no funding, therefore, is required. A simply bizarre position to take. Counsel General, what difference would codifying this convention make to this obviously ludicrous position?

Thank you for that supplementary. Can I just say, in respect of the latter point you made about HS2, how pleased I am that the Welsh Conservatives now actually agree with the point we've made that there should be funding? I'm sure that their considerable influence will be listened to in Westminster and we look forward to the cheque arriving in the near future [Laughter.]

With regard to the Sewel convention, this is something that myself and the First Minister raised at the inaugural meeting of the Interministerial Standing Committee. We drew the committee's attention to the report by the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the 'Respect and Co-operation: Building a Stronger Union for the 21st century' report, in which they call for the Governments of the United Kingdom to respect the Sewel convention. We also called for the codification of the Sewel convention and the strengthening of reporting mechanisms to respective Parliaments. Consequently, officials from each of the Governments have been looking at the Sewel convention and principles for future working, and those discussions are ongoing. As a Government, we remain of the view that placing the Sewel convention on a statutory and a justiciable footing remains the most appropriate way to protect the devolution settlement and to safeguard the United Kingdom, and we will continue to press this point.

And finally, question 8, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you for the question. I issued a written statement on 13 May that contained my analysis of the UK Government's legislative programme, and particularly on where the consent of the Senedd would likely be required.

Thank you for that response. The Queen's Speech mentions legislation on issues that are within the competence of our Senedd, such as the genetic modification Bill, for example. This will certainly mean that we will see more LCMs here, but as we know from experience, the LCM system is entirely inadequate. We don't have time to scrutinise, never mind consult, and bit by bit, as the LCMs go by, Wales loses a few more of our devolved powers, as Westminster takes this power back a little bit at a time. So, what steps are you taking to ensure, first of all, that we have sufficient time to scrutinise, and, secondly, do you agree that the system would be far better if these issues had been devolved fully to Wales?

Thank you for the question. I think much of the comments I agree with. Just in respect of the Queen's Speech, I mean, you're right, there are a whole number of pieces of legislation that we have to consider, some of which impact on devolved areas. In accordance with our own Standing Orders and constitutional obligations, we have to consider those and decide whether or not we will agree to consent to that legislation, and this inevitably results in often very torturous processes of discussion and negotiation. Certain areas are clear as to whether they're devolved or reserved, some may have cross-border issues and so on. So, there are many issues there. One of them will be, for example, the issue of the so-called Brexit freedom Bill and the issue of EU-retained law, and, of course, in that instance, we have at least been promised that we'll be involved in the early construction of the legislation or the identification of those issues relevant to Wales.

One of the problems, of course, in terms of resources, is if you are only given a day's notice for a piece of legislation, the ability for this Parliament to be able to properly consider those issues becomes very, very limited. It's a wholly inadequate process, one that has been subject, I think, to considerable abuse. There have been examples where there's been very co-operative and productive working, such as, for example, on the common frameworks. But the Queen's Speech involved a large number of pieces of legislation. I think the ultimate point that really arises from it is that in order to deal with those responsibilities, we need a sufficient number of Members in this Chamber who actually are able to develop the levels of expertise and specialism in those areas. Because it is not only the work we create ourselves in terms of our own legislative programme, but the way in which we have to engage with the other Parliaments of the UK, including the Westminster Parliament, in respect of their legislation and the impacts that has on Wales.

I thank the Counsel General.

Item 3 is next, questions to the Senedd Commission, and all the questions this afternoon will be answered by the Llywydd. I have agreed to group questions 1 and 3. Question 1, Jack Sargeant.

The support staff pension scheme is run by Aviva. The Commission is not involved in deciding how the assets are invested. Decisions on the investments of support staff pensions rests with Aviva’s specialist investment advisers, who engage with companies on environmental, social and governance issues. Support staff can also select the funds in which to invest.

The civil service pension scheme, which is available to Commission staff, is an unfunded scheme and therefore has no assets to invest. Benefits are paid from tax revenues rather than from assets set aside to pay them.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Members will be aware of my campaign to disinvest public sector pension funds from fossil fuels, and I'm grateful to Members who supported the motion, which means Wales will lead the way in this arena. I too would like to thank Heledd Fychan for raising the matter of our own support staff's pensions during the debate I tabled a few weeks ago.

Now, Llywydd, I've spoken to a few support staff who are very keen to have their voices heard to disinvest their fund from fossil fuels, both those in the Senedd building themselves and including those in our regional and constituency offices. I've heard what you've said in your response to my initial question, that it's not the Commission's job to do so, but how can the Commission support our own support staff to make sure their voices are heard by their pension fund investors? Diolch.

Thank you for that supplementary, and it's my understanding that the support staff scheme does have a governance group that has lead staff of the Commission available to advise, and, therefore, it's the most appropriate way for either constituency staff or staff based supporting Members here in the Senedd building to approach that governance group to raise any issues that they have on how their assets are invested.

Thank you, Llywydd. My question is very similar. Clearly, Jack Sargeant and myself are pursuing the same point. I think the concern that we have is that there is no formal support, and I was wondering whether there was a role for the Commission to assist these staff members. Certainly from the experience of a member of staff in my team, he has had to campaign alone and has found that he's had to work on this alone and that information isn't transparently available to staff. It's also difficult for us as Members when it comes to recruitment to provide that information to staff. So, just to echo Jack Sargeant's point, is there anything that the Commission could be doing to emphasise that this does need to be looked at and to support staff, rather than it being up to every individual to pursue this?

Thank you for that question, which is asking about the transparency of the information for support staff members. I will ensure that we look again at the availability of that information in terms of where to look for support and advice on pensions for Members' staff. As I mentioned, there is a governance group on the pension scheme for Members' support staff, and there are specific members of Commission staff available to provide advice on any issues relating to this for support staff. The finance director of the Commission and the head of pensions are two of those. I have that information at present and I will ensure that, after we complete these questions today, that information is clear and available to all the support staff of the Members.

In the Members' pension scheme, decisions are made by the pension trustees following professional advice. The current representatives on the pension trustee board are Nick Ramsay and myself, representing Members, and, obviously, I'd be happy to answer questions on the Members' scheme from any Members who wish to raise them. The Commission have two representatives on the Members' pension scheme, but currently not one of those posts is held by a Commissioner. Would the Commissioners consider putting one of their members onto the pension scheme or would the Presiding Officer—and when I wrote this, I didn't know you were going to be answering it, so I can ask you directly—would the Presiding Officer like, on an annual basis, for me to answer questions on the Members' pension scheme at what are, effectively, Commission questions?

If I've understood you correctly, you're volunteering yourself to answer questions on the pensions aspect for Members—

Yes.

—I'd love for you to be answering questions on pensions rather than myself, and I think you would be far more informed, obviously, and expert on these matters than I am. I'm more than happy to look at that as a way forward that would lead, I suspect, to more meaningful answers on pensions than the ones you may have heard already this afternoon.

The Commission catering contract specification contains sustainability and environmental objectives. The catering contractor holds ISO 14001 accreditation, relating to enhanced environmental performance. They also have bronze accreditation from the Soil Association's Food for Life catering mark. This is an independent endorsement of food that is healthy, freshly prepared and sustainably sourced. The catering service aims to only use products that contain sustainably sourced palm oil. A recent review of catering supplies, including ingredients for food cooked on site, identified one ingredient for cakes that contained palm oil unsustainably sourced. This ingredient will be discontinued. And, for the record, it was chocolate chips. [Laughter.]

Thank you. That's really good to hear, actually—it was a great answer. I've been fortunate enough to hear from pupils at Ysgol Cystennin in Mochdre on several occasions, and their passion for tackling the climate crisis is inspirational. The pupils gave an insightful presentation during Climate Change Week about the devastating impact unsustainable palm oil is having on our planet and the wildlife we share it with. They are working alongside Chester Zoo on an initiative that has so far seen Chester become the only sustainable palm oil city in the world. And Ysgol Cystennin are the first Welsh school and community to get involved with the project. And it's wonderful that the Senedd are already doing this, which is great, and I wasn't expecting it, so that's wonderful. Because I was going to ask—it would be lovely if the Senedd would be the first parliament involved in this project. But would the Commission agree to still meet with the pupils, just to hear their passion about this, and so they could actually hear as well from you about what the Commission are actually already doing, which is fantastic?

Well, I can confirm that the sustainably sourced palm oil Senedd would be more than happy to meet with the sustainably sourced palm oil school in order to discuss this matter. I'm sure that we can, as a Commission, ensure that we are able to meet with representatives from the school, and thank you for all the work that they're doing as young people to lead the way on these matters.

The Commission is committed to the health, safety and well-being of its workforce. Pastoral care is provided in line with the Commission’s health and well-being strategy. Examples range from occupational health support, awareness raising, to dedicated health and well-being pages on the staff intranet. The impact is reviewed regularly. I'm advised that over 90 per cent of Commission staff report that their line manager cares about their well-being.

I thank the Llywydd for that response. As you know, the nation is facing a very difficult time, as the cost-of-living crisis has an impact on people, pushing people into poverty, and terrible poverty in some cases. There will be increasing pressure on staff to respond to some of these cases, bringing emotional pressures in their wake. Is the Commission prepared for this scenario, and could it be made clear to all staff as to what support is available for the emotional challenges, which are likely to increase?

Thank you for that very timely question. And this is a new aspect of the Commission's work, in preparing financial guidance, which will be a characteristic of the support that will be available from the Commission. And advance payments and additional occupational health support are already in place, to ensure that the support that's appropriate for this period that we are living through is available for all of our staff—in your constituencies, and also the staff working in the Senedd.

You're getting closer, aren't you? [Laughter.]

During the last and current Senedd, the Commission has supported Members to press for a role for devolved legislatures in the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly. These discussions have primarily been taken forward by committee Chairs, supported by Commission staff. Following this, the Senedd was invited to send two observers to the inaugural meeting of the PPA in May, and we were well represented, apparently, by Alun Davies and Sam Kurtz. On 26 May, the Chairs' forum agreed that engagement with the PPA should link closely with the work of relevant committees, and future delegations will include the Chairs or nominated members of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. And I was very pleased to hear, first of all, that Alun Davies and Sam Kurtz had represented this Senedd with honour. But I was also very pleased to read their letter, having represented us. It's good that we were represented, particularly by two such honourable Members, but, certainly, we need to be more than seen and not heard, and it must be very difficult for Alun Davies to be seen and not heard. It makes no sense whatsoever that representatives of this place can't contribute to debates related to devolved areas. So, has the Commission put forward that view to the PPA, and when will this rule change?

As I mentioned in the original answer, the representatives of the Senedd have observer status at present, and that does have its restrictions, as the Member has mentioned. As a Commission, and Commission officials, we'll be very willing and ready to work with the Members who represent us, and the committees that I mentioned, promoting once again additional rights for our representatives as a Senedd, so that we can play a full role in the work of this specific assembly.

And, finally, Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and yes, being seen and not heard is something of a difficulty. But it was more difficult, of course, for Northern Ireland, because in the long debates, which were reported in the media, about the future of Northern Ireland—and people spoke from all parts of Europe, from all parts of the United Kingdom—there was nobody there to represent Northern Ireland. And that really crystallizes the crisis, I think, we have in UK representation in these matters. We should pay tribute to Sir Oliver Heald and to Hilary Benn, the chair and vice-chair of the UK delegation, who did their best to ensure that we were made very welcome and a part of the UK delegation, and I'm grateful to Sir Oliver particularly, as chair and as leader of the UK delegation, for the work he did in doing so.

But there's a real issue when Parliaments that have the capacity, the competence and the right to speak on particular issues are not represented when those issues are debated and discussed. And I think it's a wider issue of the parliamentary assembly that we're debating this afternoon. It was a particular issue, but it is a wider issue about the structure of how the United Kingdom works, and I'd be grateful if the Presiding Officer and the Welsh Government could work together on looking at those issues to ensure that this place is properly represented as full members of UK delegations where that's appropriate in the future.

Well, you can have the assurance from this Presiding Officer that I would be more than happy to see us as full members and having full speaking rights on many of these partnership organisations that we as a Senedd are involved in. Both Alun Davies and myself were agriculture Ministers within the European Union. Hilary Benn, in fact, was the Secretary of State for Agriculture when I was agriculture Minister. Even at that time, there were issues around speaking rights for Ministers within the European Union. Those issues continue to this day, and I'm sure that, across this Chamber, whatever our political differences may be, we believe that it is right that, where there are areas that are the responsibility of Senedd Members and Ministers here, those people representing us have the right to speak and make the representations that need to be made on behalf of the people of Wales.

Thank you, Lywydd.

We'll move on now to the topical questions, and the first question this afternoon will be answered by the Minister for Climate Change, and will be asked by Rhys ab Owen.

The renting homes Act will considerably strengthen tenants' rights. The short delay is in response to the unprecedented pressures facing social landlords. We have in place a raft of measures to support renters, and this will remain a priority for the Government.

Diolch yn fawr, Weinidog. Following the written statement made over recess, which announced the short delay, I've received correspondence from constituents who are concerned about the issue. I'm also concerned about those who think they are already protected, and they were concerned that the delay appeared to be addressing the concerns of landlords, rather than the protection of renters. This Act—we need to remind ourselves—was passed months before the Brexit referendum, at the beginning of January 2016. In October 2019, the Commission on Justice in Wales highlighted the long delay in the implementation of the Act, and highlighted it as an example of the lack of leadership and accountability by Welsh Government in justice areas. So, how would you answer the concerns of renters, Minister? And do you agree with the tweet of a backbench Labour Member that there needs to be an inquiry into the six years' delay in implementing this Act?

Thank you. This is, of course, part of the co-operation agreement. Wholesale reform of the type that the Renting Homes (Wales) Act is bringing about happens very rarely, and, against a backdrop of absolutely unprecedented pressures, we want to do all we can to ensure that social landlords in particular have adequate time to make the necessary preparations to comply with the requirements of the Act and get it right for their tenants. We understand, of course, that the delay is a source of frustration, and I share those frustrations, as I pointed out in my written statement. However, I absolutely recognise that preparing new occupation contracts and ensuring that properties meet the fitness standards set out in the legislation are major undertakings, particularly for our social landlords, who are responsible for a large number of properties and tenants.

I'm particularly concerned about the deferral of the Act on private tenants. Last year's report by the Equality and Social Justice Committee into debt and the pandemic was unanimous on the need to avoid any gap between the end of the current temporary regulations, which protected tenants during the COVID lockdown, and the coming into force of the renting homes Act. So, deferring implementation leaves a gaping hole in those protections and, as my constituency has the largest proportion of private rented households in Wales, I am seriously dreading the flood of evictions that could result from this deferral. So, landlords have had six years to get ready for the renting homes Act, as has already been said by our colleague Rhys ab Owen, but what representations have you had from tenants? And what plans do you have to reintroduce the ban on no-fault evictions shorter than six months until such time as we are able to implement the renting homes Act?

Thank you, Jenny. So, obviously it's a matter of some regret that we've had to take this step, but we are in unprecedented times. In particular, social landlords across Wales are helping us with the Ukrainian refugee crisis and we have a large number of presentations of homelessness across Wales, which we're having to deal with at the same time. Landlords have not had six years to implement the Act. The Act was passed into law six years ago, but the regulations that went with the Act, not all of those are in place at the moment; we will have them all in place by the end of this Senedd term. Those regulations are the ones that set out the form and content of the occupation contracts, for example, and we rightly gave landlords six months from the point of passing those to implement the Act.

Nobody could be more disappointed than I that we were not able to continue the COVID regulation protections seamlessly into this Act, and we've actually tried very hard to do that and it has not been possible. But I want to reassure the Member that there's no benefit in landlords evicting tenants now and then starting up a new occupation contract, because, of course, they then would be caught by the Act when it comes into force. So, it's very hard to understand why they would be doing that, unless they wanted to come out of the PRS altogether, because they wanted to occupy the house themselves or they wanted to sell it on, in which case they would be doing that anyway, regardless of the implementation of the Act.

We are working very hard with Shelter Cymru to make sure that we get the right advice to all of our renters. We grant fund Shelter Cymru £1,491,847 on an annual basis to cover housing advice and information services, and an early prevention service, an LGBTQ+ aware service and Take Notice. We've also provided extra funding for Citizen's Advice to establish the private rented sector debt helpline, where tenants can speak to independent, trained advisers who can help them maximise their income, support them to claim benefits they are entitled to, and undertake an assessment of affordability to help with rent arrears or other household debt.

I've also, of course, written to the UK Government to complain about the fact that they have by stealth, it seems, frozen the local housing allowance, which reduces the amount of money that people on universal credit in the private rented sector get for their housing costs. We are working very hard with a number of councils and social landlords to make sure that we take on board any property from a private sector landlord who is prepared to hand it over to us for the long term in accordance with our leasing strategy.

So, whilst nobody could be more frustrated than I am at the need to do this, I absolutely accept that the social landlords in particular are really struggling to implement this alongside assisting us, in particular, with the current Ukrainian refugee crisis. In those circumstances, we reluctantly agreed to the delay in implementation.

It's all too apparent that a scenario has been created where there's a gap in protection from no-fault evictions between the emergency COVID regulations and the protection offered by the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016, which has now been delayed, as we've learned, until the end of 2022, offering even more time for unscrupulous private landlords to evict tenants before they're tied into new contracts under the Act. Tenants need protection now more than ever, especially with rent increases and the cost-of-living crisis. No-fault evictions are currently occurring in Shelter Cymru's casework at treble the numbers that they saw before the pandemic. Almost all are now with a two-month notice period, which leaves very little time for homelessness prevention. Many are concerned that this insecurity will be continuing until December. Many landlords are selling up due to high house prices and the economic uncertainty ahead, making the renting homes Act's delay very poor timing indeed for homelessness services. The supply of social housing is nowhere near meeting the demand, waiting lists are enormous and tenants are facing serious threats. So, can I ask the Minister how the Welsh Government aims to safeguard tenants from eviction until the delayed implementation of the renting homes Act, and how they aim to ensure the supply of social housing meets demand with urgency?

Thank you, Mabon. I think I answered a substantial part of that in my answer to Jenny Rathbone. We fund a large range of advice agencies, more specifically Shelter Cymru, to give advice and support to tenants who find themselves in a position where they may be being evicted. We also supply, of course, a large amount of grant aid, including grant aid for tenants who were affected by rent arrears as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, and that mandate remains in place. We also are in a position where we are assisting a number of councils, in particular, and social landlords to take over PRS properties where that's appropriate.

Mabon ap Gwynfor says that a number of landlords are selling up. There's no evidence of that from the registrations of private sector landlords. We have a number of private sector landlords coming off the register of Rent Smart Wales, but we have an equal number joining. We keep a careful eye on that because we're constantly being told that the PRS is shrinking as a result of various interventions we've made, including the renting homes Act, I might like to say, but actually there's no real evidence of that at the moment.

I am acutely aware that tenants are facing rising rents, however, particularly in areas of high demand like the centre of Cardiff, as Jenny Rathbone made plain, and indeed in the centre of my own constituency, in Swansea. We are very aware of that and we have, as I said, made a number of representations on the local housing allowance, and we continue to make efforts to ensure that landlords are aware of our leasing schemes to give them a guaranteed income if they are prepared to give their house over for a period of time for us to bring it up to standard. So, we make a number of arrangements already to protect renters, it remains a very high priority for the Government, and of course we want to implement the renting homes Act as soon as possible.

However, we want to implement it in a way that allows renters to have security once it's implemented, and for them to understand exactly what their rights and entitlements are. This is a seismic shift in the balance of power between landlords and tenants and we absolutely want to get it right for those tenants to give them the protection that the Act will afford, and we want to do that in good order and so that the Act is sustainable longer term.

I would like to thank Rhys ab Owen for tabling this topical question because I think it really is an important issue. I'm very disappointed, but I will say not surprised, that the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016 implementation has been deferred. Will the Minister produce a voluntary code including implementing a rent cap until the Act is eventually implemented? Private landlords have got a pecuniary interest in evicting, then increasing the rent for the next tenant, and that happens far more often than many of us would like to see.

Thank you, Mike. So, one of the obvious things that the renting homes Act does when implemented is it has a number of measures aimed against retaliatory evictions of the sort that you've just described. At the moment, renters do not have protection from that, nor do they have protection from some of the other aspects of the Act. I remain as frustrated as everybody else that we haven't been able to implement this Act as fast as we'd like. Members—longer serving Members in particular—will remember that we had a major issue relating to the updating of court IT systems, which prevented us from setting a date for implementation. That has been successfully resolved, but it is one of the most significant and detailed passed by the Senedd ever.

The radical nature of the Act has also entailed carrying out a thorough trawl of all primary and secondary legislation to ensure implementation takes place as smoothly as possible. For one example, changes are being required to the Family Law Act 1996 regarding the treatment of a tenancy in a separation, which clearly requires careful analysis to ensure a fair outcome is achieved for both parties. There are a number of very complex provisions of that sort that we require certainty of to implement, and we have one lot of regulations still to go.

I thank the Minister. The next topical question is to be answered by the Minister for health and to be asked by Jayne Bryant.

I can confirm that the parent company of the Rutherford cancer centre in Newport has filed for insolvency and, as a result, the centre's likely to close later this week. The NHS in Wales is ensuring that patients who have started their treatment can complete their treatment.FootnoteLink

Thank you for that answer, Minister. The Rutherford cancer centre in Newport was the first in the UK to offer high-energy, proton-beam therapy, a state-of-the-art private facility that also treats NHS patients. The company has cited a number of reasons for appointing a liquidator, however it will be an enormous shame to lose this facility here in Wales. The facility provides cancer diagnostic and cancer treatment services at a moment in time when we need the staff and equipment to clear the cancer backlog as quickly as possible. Can the Minister assure me that none of the locally commissioned NHS patients will be compromised by the company's decision to appoint the liquidator? And while I realise there will be a process involved in finding a new buyer, will the Welsh Government leave no stone unturned in looking at the business case for using this centre for tackling the cancer backlog, in the first instance as a diagnostic centre, but possibly in terms of cancer treatment too?

Thanks very much and, obviously, this news is desperately sad for the staff at Newport and the patients who are undergoing treatment there and, of course, for the local economy. Now, our priority, first and foremost, has been to ensure that people who are midway through their treatment can continue their therapy, whether they're NHS or whether they're private, as, obviously, patient safety is our primary concern. Thankfully, the number of patients who will not have finished their treatment by the time the centre closes is very, very small. I can't say exactly how many patients are affected because, frankly, the number is so small it might be easy to identify them. But, the important point is that the NHS is repatriating any patients if they've been referred there, and we are also looking after private patients that have started radiotherapy but haven't completed it. And just in terms of the future of the centre in Newport, the NHS in Wales is considering options to make use of the facility, but I'm afraid I can't comment any further at this time.

Peredur Owen—. Natatsha Asghar, first. Natatsha Asghar.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, as my colleague just mentioned, news that the Rutherford cancer centre in Newport is to close is deeply disappointing and will be met with great concern by cancer sufferers in Wales. We all know the benefits of proton-beam therapy, which kills cancer cells using pencil-beam scanning that allows treatment to be delivered to the exact shape of the target area and, unlike conventional radiotherapy, this precise targeting spares healthy tissue beyond the tumour itself. The Rutherford Health group has said that their business was adversely impacted by the coronavirus pandemic, with delays in people being diagnosed with cancer and, ultimately, being referred for treatment. In an attempt to alleviate this, the company says it made several offers to the NHS, and whilst they secured some contracts, they were insufficient to save the company from going into liquidation.

So, Minister, can I ask: when were you first made aware of the financial problems threatening the viability of the Rutherford cancer centre? Secondly, what action did you take to increase the number of cancer patients referred to the centre for treatment to protect the Welsh Government's £10 million investment in the business itself? And lastly, will you commit—and I apologise for reiterating what my colleague from Newport West has just said—to leaving no stone unturned in seeking a company to take over the running of the centre to ensure proton-beam therapy continues to be available in Wales for the benefit of Welsh cancer sufferers? Thank you.

Thanks very much. Well, this is an issue that I was made aware of several weeks ago, so we've been, obviously, following the issue very closely and with the utmost concern for the people who are receiving their treatment there. Proton-beam therapy, as both speakers have been clear, is a very specialised approach to cancer treatment. The Welsh Government has no intention of intervening to purchase the facility. Obviously it's extremely specialised, and the reason we're doing this is because we don't think it's in the public interest. We simply don't have the population base to maintain that.

So, we will keep an eye on the situation, of course. The company has five main centres. Four of these centres are not in Wales, so obviously it would have been difficult for us to go riding in on a white horse when actually there were much greater issues at play than simply saving the Welsh branch of Rutherford.

I echo some of the questions from Jayne Bryant and Natasha Asghar, and I was also very concerned to hear about the news of this development this morning. I'd like the Minister to inform the Senedd about the extent of the due diligence that was conducted before a considerable sum of £10 million was invested. Was the Government not awake to what had been described, in a statement by Schroder UK Public Private Trust, as a 'flawed expansion strategy' that was pursued by the company from the same year of the investment? And do you think there's any prospect that some of the public money can be clawed back and be reused in cancer treatment here in Wales?

Thanks very much. Well, the investment made into Rutherford was undertaken by a fund manager who was operating under contract to the Development Bank of Wales, and obviously that's at arm's length from the Welsh Government. So, in terms of due diligence, that would have been their responsibility. The fund is a portfolio fund and, of course, there are investments where there are high risks, and of course we can't expect every one of them to deliver. The fund achieved its first exit in 2019 and it did return nearly £20 million to the Development Bank of Wales.

I thank the Minister.

We move now to the 90-second statements, and the first statement is from Jenny Rathbone.

Today is the fortieth anniversary of the biggest loss of life of the Falklands war. Most of the 48 killed and over 150 injured from the bombing of Sir Galahad were Welsh Guards. And unlike the hand-to-hand fighting that occurred in battles like Goose Green, the casualties on board the ship anchored at Fitzroy bay occurred in plain sight, which I'm sure those who are old enough will still be able to remember on our television screens.

The Welsh Guards had been taken round under cover of darkness to the other side of the island to bring them closer to the next impending assault on Port Stanley, but by the time they arrived at Fitzroy bay, it was daylight. And it was a beautiful, clear day. They could see and be seen for miles, including by the Argentinian troops occupying the hills above them. They were a sitting duck for the Argentinian air force. Their arrival was unexpected and the officers in charge of the Welsh Guards were insisting on being taken further round the coast to Bluff cove, to join up with the rest of the Welsh Guards battalion that was already there. But that was considered far too risky by the experts at the scene, and so, whilst they were awaiting further orders, the single landing craft available in the bay completed offloading another ship stuffed with ammunition before starting to bring the people onboard the Sir Galahad ashore. Six hours after Sir Galahad's arrival, disaster struck, and it is only the heroism of those on helicopters who flew into the black smoke, the efforts of doctors and crew to rescue the wounded, that prevented an even greater loss of life.

Good leadership, good logistics, good luck as well as bravery are all needed to win military conflicts, and this tragedy unfortunately illustrates how easily the outcome of the Falklands could have gone the other way.

As most of the Members in this Siambr will know, this week marks NFU Cymru's Celebration of Welsh Food and Farming Week, a fantastic celebration of Welsh agriculture, our world-renowned produce and climate-friendly credentials. Welsh farming is the cornerstone of Wales's £7.5 billion food and drink industry, employing over 229,000 workers and contributing millions of pounds to Wales's economy year on year.

Our fantastic food and produce has reached every corner of the world. From Gower salt marsh lamb to Pembrokeshire's very own multi-award-winning handpicked early potatoes, our farmers work 24/7, 365 days a year to put world-class Welsh food on our tables. This week marks the perfect opportunity for us all to take a moment to thank our hard-working farmers for all that they do. It's our farmers who are the natural custodians of our land, taking the lead with celebrated animal welfare standards, developing climate-friendly initiatives to protect our planet, and it's our agricultural community that does so much to safeguard and enshrine our beautiful Welsh language and culture.

And with that, Dirprwy Lywydd, all I ask is for Members to join me in taking the opportunity and saying, 'Diolch yn fawr iawn' to our farmers in recognition of their unwavering commitment and vital contributions to Wales. Diolch.

The next item is a motion to elect a Member to a committee, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion formally. Darren Millar.

I move.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 6 this afternoon is a debate on the report of the Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform, 'Reforming our Senedd: A stronger voice for the people of Wales'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Huw Irranca-Davies.

First of all, I would like to say how much of a privilege it was to be invited to chair the Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform. It has also been a great pleasure to chair a committee where the individual members—Jane Dodds representing the Liberal Democrats; Jayne Bryant on behalf of Labour; Siân Gwenllian on behalf of Plaid Cymru; and, until we lost him in the last few weeks, Darren Millar representing the Conservatives, too, and we thank him for his many thoughtful contributions to the committee's discussions over the past seven months; along with Elin Jones in an observational role—have studied the evidence and listened to each other's views, have often found common ground and established areas of nuance or full disagreement at other times, whilst maintaining respect for one another's views and respect for the importance of the work that we were asked to do by the Senedd. On behalf of the whole committee, I would also like to thank the integrated team of officials who have provided us with an excellent service. Our task could not have been accomplished without the invisible support of these distinguished public servants. I would also like to thank those who engaged with the committee, who have challenged us and who have shared their ideas, evidence and experience with us.

If I do not take interventions on this occasion, Dirprwy Lywydd, it's out of courtesy to what I suspect will be many speakers who want to contribute today, not out of disrespect to those who want to intervene on me.

We began our work last autumn, and we've now fulfilled our task, which you, the Senedd, gave us, to bring forward recommendations for policy instructions for a Welsh Government Bill on Senedd reform by the end of May 2022. Our committee will be dissolved following this Plenary debate on our final report. Our hours are therefore truly numbered.

Our committee's report sets out an integrated package of proposals for a strengthened Parliament to better represent the people of Wales, and a route-map for getting us there. We believe that our proposals can command the support of at least the 40 Members necessary for a supermajority here in this Senedd. As we state in the report, we firmly believe that these reforms are essential and they are achievable before 2026, but to do so, we cannot dither or delay.

Today, we in this Siambr can choose to send a clear message to the Government that there is now a consensus that we should move forward. In presenting this report, I and the members of the committee are conscious that we do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants, and not just one or two giants either: the late Lord Richard, Sir Paul Silk, Professor Laura McAllister and the members of the independent expert panel, the former Chair of the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform, our own Dawn Bowden MS, to name but a few. And as we heard in exchanges yesterday during First Minister's questions, the architects and exponents of a strengthened Parliament and a stronger voice for the people of Wales go back even further into our history.

And yet, the history of devolution is peppered with reports that sought to move the devolution story forward, to move this Parliament forward. Most recently, our committee's report drew on the foundations established by the expert panel on electoral reform, and the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform, but we did not seek to replicate the evidence previously gathered through their public consultation and expert deliberation. None of those more recent reports and inquiries had the immediate impact that their authors would have wished, though they have stood us in good stead.

Today, in debating our committee's report, entitled 'Reforming our Senedd: A stronger voice for the people of Wales', we also have a moment in time, possibly a moment in a generation, where we can choose to move forward and instruct Government to bring forward legislative proposals. So, we look forward to hearing Members express their views on the proposals today, and Members will quite rightly want to express their own views on their own preferred or even ideal system, on their best way forward.

In doing so, two points, I would suggest, are worthy of your consideration. Firstly, there is no one single unadulterated perfect package of electoral reform that will satisfy everyone. Yet, there are some systems, or combinations of systems, that potentially seek more perfectly to achieve multiple aims, such as different expressions of proportionality, simplicity, diversity, and so on. Secondly and unavoidably, the odyssey that our committee set out on was to find proposals that must also win support across the whole Senedd—that supermajority of myths and legends—not to seek some vision of perfection, and thereby sacrifice practicality and delivery by 2026.

Therefore, in looking forward to Members' contributions today, let me conclude by saying that this report is far from the end of the journey to delivering Senedd reform. The Welsh Government Bill to make change happen will need to be addressed without delay. We will then have further opportunities to scrutinise that legislation, but today we must take the first step.

Today, we can provide a clear mandate for the Welsh Government to deliver the legislation needed and to set out a clear pathway for reforming our Senedd. We can choose to give the people of Wales a stronger voice and include diversity, representation and inclusion at the heart of this Senedd, where the votes are more equal. We can make a Senedd that is fit for today and, also, fit for the future. The case for change is urgent; it is essential and it is achievable before 2026. Dirprwy Lywydd, I look forward to hearing from other Members.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on Darren Millar to move amendments 1 and 2 tabled in his name.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to the Chair of the committee for his kind words about my participation in it. I do move the amendments, which have been tabled in my name, and it will come as no surprise whatsoever to anybody in this Chamber that we will be voting against the motion before us today, because we cannot countenance, on the Welsh Conservative benches, supporting an increase in the number of Senedd Members, and a significant reform to the change in the way that Members of this Senedd are elected, without the people of Wales clearly having a say. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again—I said it earlier on today—Wales needs more doctors, dentists, nurses and teachers, not more politicians, and we need a Welsh Government that is focused like a laser beam on addressing the pressing issues that we have in our health service, our education system and our economy, helping people with the cost-of-living challenges that they are facing, supporting businesses as they recover from the pandemic, and helping people get access to the medical appointments that they need. [Interruption.] I'll happily take an intervention.

I believe the Chair was very generous about your numerous, I think he said, interventions in the committee. Those of us who've sat on committees with you are used to your interventions in these matters, of course. How many times did you argue for a referendum?

The issue of a referendum comes at the end of the discussions and deliberations, does it not? And we are at that point where recommendations have been made by the committee, and it's at that point, when you look at the significant changes that have been recommended, that you have to accept that the public of Wales have not had their say.

Now, we acknowledge that there is a majority in this Chamber in favour of Senedd reform. We've been honest enough to accept that that is the position, and it's on that basis that we took part in this committee's proceedings, that I was appointed to that committee in order to represent the Conservatives. We took part in that process because we were told that there was a genuine opportunity to shape its work, to shape the recommendations that would emerge from it. But it became abundantly clear to me, on 10 May, following the publication of a statement by the First Minister and the leader of Plaid Cymru, which was issued to the press first before it was circulated to Members of this Senedd, entirely disrespectfully, that the faith that we had placed in that process was utterly misplaced, because the conclusions in the report before us were effectively the same set of instructions that were issued by the First Minister and the leader of Plaid Cymru. They simply regurgitate, effectively, in the executive summary, the list of requests and demands that were made in the, frankly, grubby backroom deal that the leader of Plaid did with the First Minister.

I ask everybody in this Chamber: what on earth is the purpose of this Senedd setting up committees, appointing Members, appointing clerks, appointing legal advisers and researchers, taking oral and written evidence from people, carefully considering that evidence, fleshing out some ideas, and then not being able to complete its work because the rug is pulled from under your feet right at the end of the process? Because that is what happened, and it was despicable, frankly, in terms of that behaviour. It was disrespectful to the committee, an insult to this institution, and in fact, the behaviour of the First Minister and the leader of Plaid undermines the very Parliament that they are saying they want to strengthen. What on earth is the point of that?

Now, we all know, in this Chamber, that the overwhelming majority of members of the public do not support an increase in the size of the Senedd. That is why you guys are so terrified of having a referendum on this matter. If you really believed that the public would support this package of reforms, you would put it to the people and allow them to have their say. The Labour Party wasn't even brave enough to set out its ideas in its manifesto. I'll read the quote on Senedd reform from your manifesto to you, to remind you, because I know that, probably, most of you didn't read your manifesto yourselves. It said this—. It said this and I will quote. It's on page 64. This is what it said:

Is he aware of the turnout? What was the turnout for that AV referendum?

I haven't got a note of the turnout.

Forty-two per cent.

What I do have a note of—[Interruption.]—what I do have a note of is the result, and two thirds of people in Wales rejected wholeheartedly abandoning the first-past-the-post system. Two thirds of the people who voted rejected that idea, and that is why they must have the opportunity to vote and say whether they want to reject first-past-the-post here in the Senedd. Because the ability for people to vote for a person, not just a party, is very, very important, and that's why these closed list systems, frankly, are inappropriate. There are other ways—there are other ways—assuming that you want to introduce a list-based system, and we explored these in the committee. We explored these in the committee. If you want to introduce a list-based system, then why not introduce a flexible list-based system? There's a slight reference to it in the report. There's no explanation as to why that system was abandoned. I'll tell you why it was abandoned, because that was not the deal that was struck between the two individuals that seemed to be instructing their party members on the way that these things are going to work out. It's not a good system for democracy; flexible lists allow people to vote for either a party or a person. They are much, much better.

We also have concerns about the recommendation in this report for gender quotas, and I have concerns for two reasons: (1) it could scupper your Bill completely, because it could well be—. In fact, we were told—the legal advice to us was that it would be outside the competence of the Senedd to be able to legislate for gender quotas. That's one reason why that shouldn't go forward in any package of reforms, because equal opportunities are an entirely reserved matter to the UK Parliament. The second reason that we do not support or advocate gender quotas is because they promote one aspect of diversity over another. It doesn't address issues of diversity—[Interruption.] It doesn't address issues—. I'm happy to take an intervention. Would you like to make an intervention? [Interruption.] Would you like to make an intervention? Yes.

So, if there were no compulsory gender quotas in our Bill, would the Conservative Party consider following the example of the Labour Party in Wales, which is to have had gender balance ever since the Senedd was first founded?

The Conservative Party is a meritocracy. We believe—[Interruption.] We believe—[Interruption.]

I would like to hear the conclusion of the Member's contribution, and he is aware of the timescale as well.

We believe—[Interruption.] I've taken a number of interventions.

I am aware of the interventions, Darren.

We believe that people should be selected as candidates not because of their gender, or their race, or their religion, or their disability, but because of their qualities and merits as candidates. That is our firm belief. And I ask the question as well: why do we actually need to take any action on that front when you look at the fact that the Senedd actually had 50:50—[Interruption.]—actually had 50:50 representation?

I would like Members to be a little bit more quiet, please. I like to listen to the contributions. We have a very long debate and lots of Members wishing to speak. The longer you take in making such noise, then fewer Members will be able to speak.

We must remember that the existing system of elections has delivered 50:50 representation on a gender basis in this Senedd in the past. And on that basis, there's no actual need to take this particular action. So, why on earth would this Welsh Government want to embark upon a journey that is going to end in the Supreme Court on the current basis of the devolution settlement? Because that's where it's going to end up, and it could scupper completely any delivery of Senedd reform in the future.

So, in summary, I just want to say this: there is no public mandate for these changes. The financial costs are likely to be very significant. The proposals will curtail public choice at elections and sever the direct accountability between named individuals and their constituents. It will amount to a power grab by political parties, because, at the end of the day, the candidates will be more accountable to them because of their position on the list than the public that we are here, supposedly, to serve. And these proposals will pit, I regret, one aspect of diversity against another. And for these reasons, I urge Members to vote against the proposal and to support the amendments tabled in my name.

This Senedd is younger than all of its elected Members. And yet, in that short space of time, this institution has developed significantly. We forget that the first Assembly had fewer fiscal responsibilities than community councils. Thank goodness, we have moved away from the early Senedd models that saw Ministers sitting on committees. And yet, despite this, the Senedd is still smaller than eight of our local authorities. Cardiff Council, for example, has 79 members—19 more members than our national Parliament.

Or let me put it in a different way. There are over twice as many Tory MPs without confidence in the Prime Minister than there are of Senedd Members sitting here.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd never refers to the devolution settlement in Wales because its been anything but settled. We've had at least four different versions. There are only two constants in the history of Welsh devolution. One is sitting next to me: the continued presence of four of my esteemed colleagues. Llywydd, if you'd served in each iteration of the Icelandic Parliament, you'd be over 1,000 years old by now. The other constant, of course, is the Senedd size. Despite the development from a glorified local government into today's modern Parliament, we have seen the Senedd remain exactly the same size. I could bring all the reports that Huw Irranca-Davies mentioned to this Siambr that have demonstrated the need for more Members, for proper scrutiny, but I wouldn't be able to carry them all in, they'd be too heavy for me. But they all agree that a larger Senedd is necessary to make life more difficult for people on those benches—to scrutinise the Welsh Government more effectively and more efficiently.

Now, some people have criticised my party that these proposals do not go far enough, and they are right—they don't go far enough. We would prefer a single transferrable vote system. However, as Huw Irranca-Davies said—[Interruption.] No, I won't take an intervention; you'll have plenty of time to talk. As Huw Irranca-Davies said, this is work in progress, as the story of Welsh devolution has been from the beginning.

The ability of the closed list system to ensure gender equality is an excellent step forward. Our Senedd was the first legislature in the world to have gender parity and I look forward to that happening again in the next Senedd. And I hear the Conservatives talking against gender quotas—looking at those benches, I wonder why they are against gender quotas. And whilst the reforms may not go as far as we would like, sometimes, one needs to compromise to move things forward. If Members—well, some of us who can remember; maybe Luke Fletcher can't remember—cast their minds back to 1997, Plaid Cymru wanted to go much further than the proposals put forward by the New Labour Government, but we were willing to compromise, because we had to acknowledge that the people of Wales had voted for four Plaid MPs rather than the 40—Alun Davies was not successful for us in Cynon Valley in that election. [Laughter.]

It's worth reminding my friends on the benches opposite of some historical facts. The Conservatives were wiped off the electoral map in Wales in 1997—the first time since the Liberal Party landslide in 1906. They were good days, weren't they, Jane Dodds? The Tories did not stage a comeback at Westminster until eight years later in 2005, and a great help for that comeback were the Tory Members who were elected in the first two Assembly elections in 1999 and 2003. At that time, the Conservatives welcomed their Welshness and its unique nature and they supported devolution through words and also through deeds.

Andrew R.T. Davies recently said in the Conservative Party conference that they need to put on the red jersey in Wales. Well, Andrew, backing a stronger Senedd would be a good start for that.

Before long we will lose 20 per cent of our representatives in Westminster. Back in 2016, one of my predecessors, the Conservative David Melding, launched a pamphlet on the opportunity to create more Assembly Members by cutting the number of Welsh MPs in Westminster.

The report argued that, because of a cut in the number of Westminster Members, we could increase our numbers here without a negative effect on the public purse. Professor Russell Deacon went forward and he said, as one of the authors of the report, that there's a potential Brexit bonus in this—that truly elusive creature that you lot haven't been able to find yet—a Brexit bonus that the loss of Members of the European Parliament could provide a fiscal bridge to ensuring more Senedd Members. It's therefore disappointing that the Conservatives, who must hear 'Brexit bonus' and 'levelling up' in their sleep by now, aren't behind a potential Brexit bonus here that would actually make a difference. Perhaps if we put the financial benefits of scrutiny into shillings and farthings, you might actually understand.

If we want to discuss in more detail the cost of politicians, maybe the Conservatives can have a word with their friend the Prime Minister—well, the Prime Minister for the time being—Boris Johnson. As we heard, more than 80 appointments to the House of Lords, and some of those against the advice of the appointments commission—that is what we have now in Westminster.

We all know that the scrutiny role of the legislature is vital to a healthy democracy. I'm very fond of the wise words of Sir Paul Silk:

'Good scrutiny means good legislation, and good legislation pays for itself.'

We need a Senedd with the appropriate resources to scrutinise—to scrutinise over £17 billion of expenditure every year, to scrutinise significant legislation, and to conduct inquiries into the issues that matter to the people of Wales.

This is a case of levelling up the Senedd so that it fits the modern, confident, self-governing Wales of today. The number 96 will be futureproof, as Huw Irranca-Davies alluded to. Whilst Andrew R.T. Davies performedly announces that Welsh Conservatives will always—will always—oppose devolution of justice, we know that his bosses in London will be happy to overrule him at any point. Indeed, Boris Johnson, when he was the London mayor, wanted greater powers over criminal justice devolved to him.

It was disappointing to hear the comments about a referendum from the Conservative benches. Haven't they heard of another democratic tool, a well-used democratic tool over the years—elections, the ballot box? And in the last Senedd election, the Welsh public overwhelmingly supported parties that wanted a larger, stronger Senedd. Andrew claims that his party's standing up for democracy. Well, I think it's very odd that standing up for democracy involves limiting the number of elected Members, limiting the amount of scrutiny in this place and preventing a more representative Parliament. That's a new one for me.

What is being proposed today is not perfect, but the nature of devolution in Wales since 1997 has not been perfect. In 1997, some in the Liberal Democrats, and some in my own party, argued that what was being proposed by Labour wasn't good enough and that we shouldn't support that, while others said, 'Well, we will take hold of this, this imperfect proposal, in order to try and refine it and build on it.'

With hindsight, the latter group were correct—thankfully, Dafydd Wigley and Richard Livsey put their full force behind the most meagre of proposals, but one that, within a few years, had built this Parliament.

If our nation had voted against devolution for a second time, we would have spent the last two decades as a voiceless periphery, unable to address the pandemic in a community-centred way, unable to act to protect our most vulnerable citizens, unable to withstand the full force of the disjointed, expensive and disastrous privatisation of the public services that our friends in England have suffered. The lesson, therefore, for all of us, is that, if we want to move our country forward, even if it's not the strides we want to take, we need to grasp it. Because do we want an undersized Parliament? And if 'no' is the answer, if we want to see a more progressive, a more proportional, a more diverse Parliament for Wales, then today we have a chance to take a great step forward. I, for one, despite the imperfections of Huw Irranca's report, in the new proposals, am excited and I'm honoured to vote for the new Senedd of tomorrow, not dwell in the old, inadequate one of today. Diolch yn fawr.

In 1997, my mother was one of the north Wales representatives on the National Assembly advisory group. She talked then—and I concede that I wasn't really paying much attention—about the importance of a real democracy for Wales. So, 25 years later, I stand here to say that now is the time for us to refresh that vision of a real democracy for Wales; a democracy that is connected to the people, that can do the job we need it to do and that is reflective of the population. We can't afford to stand still. So, I would like to thank the First Minister for his vision and drive in pushing this through, and I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to take part in this cross-party process. Thank you, also, to Huw Irranca-Davies for his leadership of the committee, to my Senedd colleagues, to Commission staff and external organisations, some of whom I know are in the gallery today, for their advice and support.

You all know the areas on which I agreed and disagreed. Firstly, the areas on which I agreed. I am pleased to see the need to increase the size of the Senedd. The Welsh Liberal Democrats have long made calls for a larger Senedd, elected through a fairer voting system that ensures greater diversity, accountability and transparency. The fact is that, if we want to ensure that the Senedd does its job of scrutinising legislation and public expenditure, the Senedd and Members need the capacity to do that justice, especially given the significant shift in the lay of the land in recent years.

Secondly, I am pleased that the committee has been able to navigate the issue of gender representation. We need to bake into the legislation measures that act as a stop-gap to ensure that we don't fall further behind. This also gives us the opportunity to put forward on other equality issues.

Now to the areas of disagreement. As the committee report makes clear, I differed on two areas from the majority of Members, including the preferred boundaries and the voting system. And this is where I also want to learn more from the Counsel General, who I believe will be responding, about the timing of the announcement from Plaid Cymru and Labour. The morning the committee was due to meet, I was very sad and disappointed that a press release was made with a totally new proposal on preferred boundaries that had never been discussed before, and, it seemed, the proposed and agreed voting system. This really undermined the cross-party work that I happen to hold very dear and which, to that date, I felt very privileged to be part of. And I recognise the sentiments of the Conservative amendment. I pay tribute to Darren Millar for staying on the committee until 10 May. Thank you, Darren. Diolch yn fawr iawn. The surprise announcement by Plaid Cymru and Labour did the committee a disservice. It prejudged the debate here today and the legislative process that will follow. It looks like a stitch-up and it feels like a stitch-up. To make an announcement before the committee published its report, and to favour proposals so different from what the evidence tells us, was a very disappointing approach.

Jane, would you take an intervention?

Of course I will.

You say they're Westminster-imposed boundaries, but, of course, they are the consequence of the work of the Boundary Commission for Wales. They're not imposed by anybody; they're designed to represent people, and it makes more sense to use boundaries that will become, or would become, understood, than to impose another set for no apparent reason.

Thank you for that intervention, and my response to you is that, actually, people in Wales know their local authority very, very well, and that's what the committee had been considering to date. That's what the discussions were focused on. There was no mention at all of the proposal to bring forward Westminster constituency boundaries.

Will you take an intervention?

[Inaudible.]

Oh, sorry. I thought it was 10 minutes that—

No, the Member doesn't have 10 minutes, but she is being allowed to extend a little bit longer than normal. But no more interventions, I'm sorry.

The other issue where I differed with the majority of the committee was on the electoral system. The Welsh Liberal Democrats have long argued for elections to be held using the single transferable vote method, giving meaningful power and choice to voters, ending party control through closed list elections, and ensuring that Members are more accountable to their constituents than to their parties. The committee considered several electoral systems, including D'Hondt and Sainte-Laguë. The expert panel's findings, which the committee considered in detail, found, and I quote,

'that the D’Hondt electoral formula generally produces outcomes which are less proportional than those using the Sainte-Laguë formula, and sometimes less proportional than the current electoral system.'

Unquote. The proposal before us hands power to parties rather than voters, and what concerns me is the very different track we're going down to that proposed by the expert panel and the Senedd committee on reform. Both recommended, based on the available evidence, how to deliver very clear principles of reform—a very different model to that proposed by Labour and Plaid Cymru. So, I do really have to question the rationale behind going in a very different direction to the evidence, and I would ask, Counsel General, that you give clear reasons why the previous expert panel recommendations were rejected.

I'm going to finish very soon. I would urge Labour and Plaid Cymru to look again at the electoral method and make at least provisions for flexible lists to give voters greater choice. I don't just worry for the sake of the technicality of the proposals: this is our opportunity to kick-start a new deliberative, proportional, diverse politics, driven by accountability and transparency.

To conclude, Dirprwy Lywydd, I do support the principle behind reform. The Welsh Liberal Democrats and I are committed to delivering a Senedd that can support a vibrant democracy, a confident self-governing Wales and a thriving Wales today and in the future. I do have reservations about the detail, and I hope that the Senedd can work together—let's revert to that real cross-party working together that I hold so dear—and collectively build on and adapt these early proposals to ensure that this package of reform truly delivers real democracy for Wales, as my mum would have wanted. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

For clarity, for Members' purposes, I gave flexibility to the Member for Mid and West Wales, because she is the leader of one of the parties represented in this Senedd. Other Members are not in the same position, therefore, I expect them to keep to their five minutes, please. Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you very much. I think no change is not an option, not least, as already outlined by Rhys ab Owen, because we simply don't have enough Members to make proper, good scrutiny decisions. I used to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee, so I was never short of examples from the Auditor General for Wales of things that had gone wrong that might have benefited from better scrutiny at an earlier stage. I think it's absolutely clear that bad decisions cost money and nowhere is that clearer than in the finangles around the M4 relief road. Members of the Senedd had ample opportunities to scrutinise the decision by the then First Minister in 2014 to use new borrowing powers not to build more homes, hospitals or schools, but to have another stab at tackling congestion via the M4 relief road—

Will you take an intervention?

I will in a minute, but not quite now. The Tory benches are never slow to come forward to remind us of the millions that have been lavished on trying to reinstate this most extensive strip of proposed road, led by your good self—

Sorry, you made reference to the former First Minister wanting to max out the borrowing, effectively, on the M4 relief road. Of course, the finance Minister was the current First Minister at the time; he was the one that signed the letters requesting that that money be made available for a road.

Okay. I'm sure the finance Minister can speak for himself. But I wasn't in the Senedd in 2014—

You were, I remember it.

Well, I was in the Senedd in—. I wasn't in the Senedd in the earlier, third Senedd, but I'm not aware of any proper scrutiny of decisions by either Andrew Davies or Ieuan Wyn Jones approving and then scrapping plans, and I can't recall any proper scrutiny of a decision to spend £1 billion and then £1.5 billion and then what would certainly have risen to £2 billion by the fourth Senedd. I can see a brief reference to it in a Finance Committee report in relation to the budget, but nothing really substantial on whether this was a suitable way of spending £2 billion. With the benefit of hindsight, how lucky are we that we made a decision in 2019 not to go ahead with this road? Because in the context of the climate emergency, we'd all look completely stupid to have spent money on such a futile project, when we actually have to reduce our emissions from vehicles, not increase them.

So, the size of the Senedd is too small and something that Welsh Labour—as Darren Millar pays such attention to it—has already voted on, both in 2019 and earlier this year, about increasing the size of the Senedd. I do have some concerns about the method of voting, because I think closed lists could be used by party machines to get rid of members of the awkward squad, and members of the awkward squad are the best scrutineers, because they are prepared to think outside the box and question the rationale of long-held holy grails that may have outlived their usefulness.

So, I find STV quite an attractive option, because it does enable voters to cast their vote for a worthy candidate who may have no hope of being elected, but without feeling that this would be a wasted vote, because they can then have a second choice about the person they think they would have as their second-best choice. So, I do want to question the Chair of the committee. When discussing the limitations of STV, there's a phrase that found its way into page 29 of the report, saying that the limitations were:

'It can be argued that this could lead to an imbalance in Members' focus on constituency matters to the detriment of other elements of their roles.'

Well, I regard focusing on the needs of my constituents as essential to doing my job in all aspects of it, and I have to admit that it is one of the challenges of necessarily having to have larger constituencies to make any PR system work, because you've got to—. Obviously, if you're going to apportion based on the proportion of the vote, you're going to have to have constituencies of more than one Member. But I think there are ways around it and ways in which people can agree amongst themselves, once they're elected, that X is going to focus on the north of the area and Y is going to focus on the south of the area. So, I think there are ways around that problem. But I recognise that STV is not the choice of many people, and I know there are other opinions for and against.

Jenny, please conclude now.

I think this idea of having a referendum on the method of election is completely ridiculous, because I recall in 2011 people asking me, 'How should I vote on this referendum?', because they absolutely did not understand what it was about.

Please conclude now, because I have a lot of speakers and the time has gone.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

Natasha Asghar.

I'll come back another day.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. A stronger voice for the people of Wales. I have no doubt in my mind that anyone here is going to disagree with this sentiment, and I commend the hard work of everyone who's taken part on the committee. And I also have no doubt that your heart was in the right place. However, I do believe that the proposal within the special purpose committee report was severely flawed and could impede the very aims that it sets out to achieve.

Let me be crystal clear amongst you all today, as a woman who made history here in Wales last year, I genuinely want to see a Senedd as diverse and as inclusive as possible, and I don't think anyone can comprehend how much, and without sounding like Martin Luther King, I dream of seeing a Senedd that has more women, more people of colour, more members of the LGBTPQ community, and more disabled people sitting right here amongst us every single day. And I sincerely appreciate the Senedd's desire for inclusion and variance. However, the introduction of a gender quota, in my opinion, could result in an increasing number of women at the expense of other minority groups, who I'm sure would make an invaluable contribution to the make-up of the next Welsh Parliament. As a person of colour, I'd like to share something very important with you all today: the pursuit of gender balance should never be at the expense of genuine diversity and equality.

I am proud of the fact that I am the first woman of colour to be elected here to the Welsh Parliament, but I did not get here and stand amongst you all today due to the colour of my skin. I am humbled every day by the fact that I got here on my own merit and through equal competition with some very hard-working and capable Conservative candidates. No gender balance, no all-women shortlist, no positive discrimination. The people of Wales need to be convinced that Members of this Senedd are not here merely because they 'tick all the boxes' or fulfil some artificial quota.

There is no guarantee that such a gender quota or positive discrimination is even legal. In March this year, the Huffington Post reported that the Labour Party is dropping all-women shortlists to choose candidates for the next general election after receiving legal advice that continuing to use them for Westminster seats would be unlawful. In 2018, a group of Labour Party members began legal action over proposed changes to the party's policy on formal inclusion of self-identifying trans women on all-women shortlists. The power of the Welsh Parliament to legislate in certain areas has already been tested in the Supreme Court with three Bills in the past. Any legal challenge to this proposal could cause significant delay and mean it would not be in place for the Welsh parliamentary elections in 2026.

I am very pleased to contribute to this crucial debate as a member of the special purpose committee that has been working on the report that is the subject of today's debate. The committee's task was to look at the conclusions of previous reports on parliamentary reform and then to make recommendations for policy directions for legislation by the Government to reform the Senedd. The backdrop to this was the co-operation agreement between my party and the Welsh Government, which agreed to create a Senedd that is more aligned with our modern democracy.

On Sunday evening, I had the incredible privilege of watching the Welsh men's national football team reach the World Cup finals. The players and crowd were as one—confident, excited, and eagerly awaiting what the future holds. Today is also an important day in our nation's history. This is an opportunity for the Senedd to give its seal of approval to the committee's recommendations and take the first step on the journey to creating a larger Senedd and an equal Senedd. That would be an exciting step forward in terms of the growth of our democracy, in terms of creating a nation that has confidence in its own future, a nation that is becoming more and more eager to take control for the benefit of all who live here.

The Senedd has made great strides over the last 20 years with its powers having greatly increased in terms of legislating and tax setting. The next sensible step is to increase the size of the Senedd and move us closer to the size of other similar Parliaments around the world. There is no doubt in my mind that the COVID period has convinced the people of Wales of the value of having a strong Parliament that can plough its own furrow in respect of important policies, and support was garnered for the cautious approach of the Government elected by the people of Wales to the health crisis, and there was a realisation that our Senedd is important. More and more of our constituents were turning to us as Members of the Senedd for help and information during the pandemic, as more and more of them realised—some for the first time—that the Senedd has discrete powers and that we use them in a different and better way than the Parliament at Westminster. That creates a new backdrop for the reform that is afoot, and people will welcome the move to a larger Senedd, a strong Senedd, with enough Members to scrutinise and challenge and hold our country's Government to account on the issues that matter in the lives of our citizens.

I mentioned that today is an exciting day for our nation. I am extremely excited about the recommendation to create mandatory gender quotas as an integral part of our electoral system. Establishing gender equality has been one of my political priorities over the years, and that's one of the reasons why I decided to try to become a Member of the Senedd six years ago, because I believed that we needed many more women in influential roles in public life. I also believe that we cannot reach gender equality at the speed required without direct intervention and without specific mechanisms to achieve equality.

It's been a bumpy ride getting to this point, and I think the length of time given to this debate and the number of people speaking in it perhaps raises what is really, as Siân Gwenllian said, a sensible approach above the level of salience with which people in the general public hold it. I think people generally don't feel that strongly about the arrangements of a Parliament. The House of Commons changes its composition regularly, the House of Lords has 771 Members, which is probably about 571 too many, and this debate today is probably longer than required. Perhaps I should just sit down now, but I do want to make my point. [Laughter.] I thought that would go down well in the Chamber.

I do want to make my point, though. I thought the strongest speech I've heard so far has been from Jane Dodds, and she provided a very strong perspective as a member of the committee. It was very odd that the Government and Plaid Cymru presented their view at the point at which they did. I think it would have been better, actually, for the Government and Plaid Cymru to have set out their view a lot earlier, at the very beginning. I think part of the problem is it took Plaid Cymru far too long to come to the co-operation agreement. Seven months after the election, the co-operation agreement was published. That was far, far too long. I think if they were serious about Senedd reform primarily, they would have had that co-operation agreement under way within at least a month of the election. So, I think they have some responsibility for undermining the committee today. I do have some sympathy—[Interruption.] They don't want to hear it, but it's the truth. I have some sympathy for Darren Millar's position, but I wouldn't vote for the amendment because he resigned from the committee. If he'd stayed on the committee, he could have stayed there to make the point, as Jane Dodds did.

With regard to referendums, I've long argued in favour of the reform of this Chamber, I've long argued in favour of more Members, I did before the Senedd election, and I've also argued against referendums. I think referendums represent a failure of democracy. The alternative vote referendum in 2011 had a 42 per cent turnout. People weren't engaged with that. The reason they voted against, and the reason I voted against AV, was nothing to do with AV, it was because of Nick Clegg. Sorry, Jane, but it was against Nick Clegg at the time, the same as my colleague from Blaenau Gwent. [Interruption.] I will take an intervention. It seems I've only used a minute so far.

Of course, I think we should all remind ourselves it was a referendum that established this place. You can't govern without referendums when you have significant constitutional change. We had referendums on further powers. I campaigned for further powers for this Senedd back in 2011. When you have change, you have to have referendums to give the public their say.

The referendum for this place was very narrowly decided on. There was no guarantee there was going to be a referendum for this place. It came about because Tony Blair and Ron Davies had a conversation. I don't think we needed a referendum. The Labour Government had just been elected with a massive majority, the Liberal Democrats were supporting the Senedd, Plaid Cymru were supporting the Senedd, what was the point in a referendum in 1997? I didn't support it then and I don't support referendums now. They represent the failure of democracy. Why didn't we have a referendum for police and crime commissioner posts? Why didn't we have a referendum for the transferrable vote system used for them? We didn't because we didn't need one, and we don't need a referendum for this.

Any arguments that you have against reforming a legislature, based on the arguments that have been put forward by Darren Millar today, and particularly with regard to calling for a referendum, are fatally undermined by support for the House of Lords. The House of Lords is an institution—[Interruption.] I'm not going to give you another intervention. The House of Lords is an institution that is continually growing, and it is time for that to be reformed. If you got rid of 571—[Interruption.] No, I'm not giving you another intervention. If you got rid of 571 peers, and directly elected them, you'd have plenty of room for 36 more Members. You've already got rid of Members of Parliament from Wales. That gives you plenty of room for more Senedd Members. You've got rid of Members of the European Parliament from Wales. That gives you plenty of room for more Senedd Members. So, I don't believe that that is a fair position to take.

Coming to Jane Dodds's two points, on the single transferrable vote, I agree with her. I think she's right, the single transferrable vote would be better, but if you want to do that, I don't think that would be achievable by 2026, to be frank. I think what we've got here is a compromise. I know people on these benches who I've spoken to privately are compromising on their beliefs. I suspect a lot over there are compromising. The Conservatives are being unwilling to compromise here, which is unfortunate. If we are going to get this through by 2026, then we must vote in favour of this report today. I would prefer to see a single transferrable vote. The boundary issue, though, I'm not so bothered about, because that has already, as Alun Davies said in his intervention, gone through a boundary commission process.

My final point is that if scrutiny is to be improved, what we need to have is the politicians in this Chamber scrutinising properly this Government. That means coming into this Chamber not with a speech that was written by an adviser 24 hours before, but actually coming in here and speaking to the debate. But it also requires us to have a civic society, a public sphere, that challenges Government too, and we need support for that. [Interruption.] Dirprwy Lywydd, can I take that intervention?

You're out of time.

I would have taken it, but I'm not allowed to.

This is just a step towards a mature and sensible democracy that scrutinises Government well. It is not controversial and it should go forward.

For the purposes of Members, the clock unfortunately was reset after he had started, and therefore he had additional time. James Evans. [Interruption.]

You might not like to hear what I've got to say, but I'm sure some of the people of Wales will.

Well, well, well. It's been almost a year to the day since I stood in this Chamber and I delivered a speech against, then, Labour, Plaid and the Lib Dems' calls for more powers to this Senedd. Now, we're back here again discussing having more politicians. No wonder people out there think politicians have lost touch with the public. So, don't even try to pretend that you are genuinely going back to your constituencies and are hearing a groundswell of support for this ridiculous proposal, that people are singing and dancing down the streets saying that the way to sort Wales's problems out is by getting more politicians. [Interruption.] No, not yet.

Over the last week, I've been around every corner of Brecon and Radnorshire, and I was overwhelmed with comments from my constituents who are outraged by these proposals and the huge cost associated with expanding this Senedd, when people in my constituency can't even access a dentist for 12 months. At a time of a cost-of-living crisis, when Ministers in here regularly berate everybody on this side of the Chamber for saying it's a choice between heating and eating, now you want to go and spend millions of taxpayer money that could be spent helping people on electing 36 more politicians, plus the extra money for support staff, plus the extra money for Commission staff, Members' expenses, structural changes to this Chamber and Tŷ Hywel, all because you and left-wing academics and think tanks think we don't have enough resources. Your excuses for political expansion just don't cut the mustard.

You say that the people of Wales need more representation to get things done. Let's just see how much representation we're going to have in Wales: thirty-two paid Members of Parliament, 96 paid Members of the Senedd, 1,242 paid county councillors, one thing that the Labour Party has never been able to deal with. I'm sure that people on the streets outside here would rather see the Government of the day cracking on with the day job, fixing the crumbling NHS in Wales, helping build the economy and providing excellent education for our children; that's what the public pay for and that's what the public deserve.

Let's be very clear: I'm a very, very proud Welshman. I love my country and I love democracy; it is one thing that I do think unites us in this Chamber from time to time. I believe that the public should have a say on reforms in a referendum on the number of politicians in this place. Every major constitutional change to the Senedd and Wales has been done via a public vote, and the people have a right to have their say on these changes.

If you truly believe that you have the confidence of the Welsh public for these changes, let's have a referendum. This underhanded back-room deal struck between the First Minister and Adam Price goes against everything this socialist coalition claim they stand for. They say it's progressive; it's not—it locks out a field of wider political choice, like Jane Dodds has said. You say it's equal; it's not equal—it doesn't recognise everybody from every diversity. And you say it's fair; it's not fair—it makes Senedd Members here servants of political parties and unions and not the people, and that is fundamentally wrong.

Tell Suzy Davies.

No, thank you.

You say the public voted for this in your manifestos, but there is nothing in your manifestos to say that we're going to have 96 more Members. Plaid Cymru came third in the last election—not first, not second, but third—so I don't think anybody on that side of this Chamber has got a mandate for change. We, on these benches, trust the public to make big decisions. We believe in empowering the people of Wales, and we believe that the public want and deserve a say on these matters. So, I say to Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, 'Pull the cotton wool out of your ears, stop hiding behind the sofa and let's have a referendum'.

Let me start by thanking the Chair of the committee, members past and present, and the Commission staff who worked to produce the report and recommendations for today. I thank also the expert panel chaired by Laura McAllister, commissioned five years ago by the Senedd Commission to bring forward recommendations on Senedd reform. One of those recommendations has already been enacted in enabling 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in 2021, and the remainder of the recommendations in general will take a major step forward today if this motion is approved. If there was ever a report that did not lie idly on a shelf collecting dust, then it may well be Laura McAllister's expert panel report.

That's part of the short history of why we're here having this debate today, but, of course, there's a longer history too. Sometimes, we make the mistake that devolution—our Senedd—belongs exclusively to us, the generation that spans from the class of '99, from the Icelandic 1,000-year old me and Jane Hutt, to the class of '21, but it belongs to so many of our political predecessors and to our successors too, from the class of 2026 to the class of 3026 and beyond.

Neither does devolution belong to one political tradition in Wales, but to many political traditions; to those predecessors, from S.O. Davies, Jim Griffiths and Elystan Morgan, to Megan Lloyd George, to Gwynfor Evans and to my uncle Jack—J.B. Evans—the lifelong Carmarthenshire Conservative, both parliamentary candidate and agent, and pro devolution. He was solely responsible for giving the 12-year-old me a 'Yes for Wales' sticker to wear on my school uniform in March 1979.

Political debate on devolution spanned the entirety of the twentieth century, but devolution's actual starting point was not democratic devolution in 1999; its first building blocks were administrative devolution. I was reminded of the importance of this when listening to Lord John Morris a few weeks ago in the Senedd speaking about the first Secretary of State for Wales in 1964, Jim Griffiths—such an important appointment by the new Labour UK Government at the time, but preceded by the appointment in 1951 by the Conservative Government of the first Home Office Minister for Welsh Affairs, itself preceded by the creation of the Welsh board of education in 1907 by the Liberal Government. The Secretary of State's executive powers in 1964 were initially limited to responsibility for housing, local government and roads. Over the course of the next 10 years, responsibilities for health and education, agriculture and the environment were added—areas of responsibility that ultimately became the democratic responsibilities of that first elected Assembly in 1999.

In this Chamber, we've heard today, we are familiar with what has happened since 1999: the significant increases and transfers of powers and responsibilities by successive UK Governments from Westminster to Wales. We would not be here today discussing Senedd reform were it not for the transfer of responsibility for Senedd elections by the UK Conservative Government via the Wales Act 2017 from Westminster to this Senedd. Why, then, my trip down devolution's memory lane? Well, it's to remind us all that we've reached this point today because of a wide array of actions and decisions by people of varying political persuasions over a century and more. And we are faced now, in this third decade of the twenty-first century, with the question of whether we finally want to equip our Parliament with the tools to do the job properly, with our current set of powers, and with the tools to take on more powers, if and when they are devolved or demanded.

Firstly, I would like to put on record my thanks to Huw Irranca-Davies, as Chair of this committee, and all other committee colleagues. Our discussions in the committee were positive and constructive, and I'm grateful to the range of organisations and experts that came and gave evidence to us, and for the work of the expert panel and the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform in the previous Senedd.

Our work on this committee was not the start of the journey, as Huw has already said, and it was really helpful to be able to build on the evidence and efforts that others had already done. The recommendations in our report are far-reaching and significant. It is right that they should proceed on the basis of cross-party agreement. There is no doubt that there has had to be compromises, but this is the kind of mature politics that the people of Wales have come to expect.

On the size of the Senedd, this has been the subject of debate and discussion for 20 years. We all know that this institution has changed beyond recognition since the Assembly was founded in 1999. Therefore, it's right that we're finally taking action to make sure that the Senedd is properly equipped to do the job.

There will always be a range of views on voting systems, but the proposal is for a system that is both fair and proportional. It will ensure that every MS is elected with the same mandate, and it enables parties to take action on gender equality by zipping the candidate lists. This is an action that Welsh Labour takes at present and it has been an important way of ensuring gender parity amongst our MSs.

Action to ensure the diversity of this Senedd was an important part of the committee's discussions. It is essential that the Senedd is truly representative of Wales, and the committee has made a number of recommendations to advance this important objective, and I'm really excited to see this develop. There are a number of detailed implications that will need to be considered by both the Welsh Government and the Senedd. Indeed, there is much work to still do. But this is a defining moment in our history, and if we decide, we'll ensure that whatever comes our way in the future, our Senedd is equipped in the best possible way to work for and to serve the people of Wales.

One in five on a waiting list in Wales; more than 10,000 people waiting 12 hours in A&E; our education system failing children, with Programme for International Student Assessment rankings at the bottom of the UK league table; a tourism tax on the horizon, penalising businesses after they've suffered tremendous losses over the last four years; the latest Office for National Statistics's statistics showing Wales is the only UK nation that's seen its economy shrink; and failing to support the next generation of home owners by building new homes. But yet, here we are this afternoon, talking about ourselves. Labour and Plaid Cymru would rather spend £100 million to increase the size of this place than on the priorities of the people of Wales. Instead of focusing on recruiting more doctors, nurses, teachers and dentists, this Welsh Government are hellbent on avoiding the scrutiny of a referendum and instead are hiding behind their nationalist friends' support. They'd prefer to see more of their friends elected to this place under the guise that it would better scrutinise the Welsh Government, but when it comes to scrutiny, and a Wales-specific COVID inquiry, the Welsh Government wasn't interested in scrutiny at all. But we all know today the real reason why we're talking about these proposals: it's more jobs for the boys for the Labour Party, and it's about ensuring a Labour Government here in Cardiff Bay for the foreseeable future.

We heard from Darren Millar earlier about Labour's manifesto, and we heard that there was no direct mention of the fact that there would be an increase in the size of this Senedd. I wonder why that could have been. It's because the Labour Party knew that opting for more politicians while people have been rallying around our NHS during the COVID pandemic would surely get people to sit up and listen.

Yes, there is an argument for Senedd reform—as put so vaguely in your manifestos that got you the most votes—but I'm afraid what was not in the manifesto were the costings, the number of politicians, the voting system that would follow in the announcement between the First Minister and the leader of Plaid Cymru. That's why this significant constitutional change should be put to a public vote. But we all know—all of us know—Labour and Plaid Cymru have a terrible record when it comes to trusting the people of Wales by asking them what they think. The amount of time they both spent in this place trying to block Brexit after the people of Wales voted for it is evidence enough of that. And any constitutional change of this significance, and where a change to the voting system's being proposed, has previously been put to a public vote. Look at that AV referendum in 2011; that precedent is already clear. We need to show the people of Wales that we trust them to make these decisions and not some cosy Cardiff Bay cartel that drags us towards independence by the back door. Because that could be the result here: Plaid Cymru, in their own social media post after the co-operation agreement was signed, stated that this was their aim. They said that Senedd reform would provide a Senedd fit for an independent Wales. We know that's not what the people of Wales want. That's why we need to put it to a vote.

Simply, the Senedd should reflect the Wales that it serves. Its Members, those who speak for their communities in this place, those who scrutinise the impact of policy and legislation, and the way in which our nation is governed, must be representative of those communities. Currently, only 26 of the 60 Members sitting in this Chamber are women, although over half the population of Wales is female. Plaid Cymru has long argued for gender quotas as one approach that we can use to create a Senedd that is truly representative of the people of Wales. And the committee's recommendation for statutory gender quotas, given that this is the best way to promote gender equality among the elected Members, within all parties, is therefore to be greatly welcomed.

So, why are gender quotas a necessary step? How will they be effective? Well, gender quotas will provide a quick and simple solution to the unjustifiable fact of women's under-representation, or potential under-representation, in elected politics. International research shows that they are the single most effective tool for fast-tracking women's representation in elected bodies for Government, and they are used worldwide by over 100 countries. They are backed by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and, of course, the findings of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform. So, the question, really, is: why aren't we doing this already, if we believe in equality?

Will you take an intervention?

No, you've had enough say this afternoon, Darren. Well, there are those who believe that the playing field—[Interruption.] There are those who believe that the playing field is already level—

We don't have the powers.

—that structural inequality, which we debated in this very Chamber yesterday, doesn't exist, although report after report points to the contrary, and the make-up of this Senedd proves it beyond a doubt. There are those who feel that we don't need statutory measures to ensure better representation. After all, we wore our early gender balance achievements as a badge of pride and patted ourselves on the back for leading the way. But when we look around this Siambr, we can see that voluntary party measures, or trusting to luck, so far have proven ineffective in maintaining balance or inspiring further diversity. Internationally, the impact of gender quotas is wide-ranging and often has positive, indirect, effects, with other under-represented groups becoming empowered to enter politics. This is why we need, as Women's Equality Network Wales puts it, to bake in gender equality into our electoral system through legislation. And the way in which any quota is legislated for is important. The Bill should state that at least 50 per cent of candidates must be women. The purpose of the quota is to put a floor below women's representation, a floor below which it shouldn't fall, rather than put a ceiling upon it.

And then there is, of course, as we've heard this afternoon, the 'best person for the job' argument against all forms of positive discrimination. Dirprwy Lywydd, quotas can help us advance towards a true meritocracy, rather than being an obstacle to it. There are societal biases and obstacles that prevent more women from becoming politicians, from being in the room where decisions about their lives are made that only leads to more structural inequality. This is also the case for disabled people, black, Asian and minority ethnic people, and people from the LGBTQ+ community.

It is true that gender quotas are not enough on their own to ensure the equal and diverse representation that could be achieved for our Senedd, and Plaid Cymru support the committee's recommendation that further work on diversity quotas, other than gender, be undertaken. This should be done swiftly, and I would have liked to have seen timescales attached to that recommendation. Reform of the mode of election, however, is only the start. To ensure the Senedd fully reflects the society it represents, the Senedd must be a workplace that works for women. Recommendations 13 and 14 of the report, which refer to the further work needed in order to enable job sharing, should be taken forward with urgency, because, as the committee says, job sharing

'could enable a greater diversity of candidates to stand for election, including those with family and caring responsibilities; those with disabilities; and those who are geographically based further away from the Senedd.'

Can the Member conclude now, please?

Again, we need timescales for this crucial work. It must not be swept aside. Hybrid working is also a key component of workplace practice, and it isn't mentioned, unfortunately, in the committee report. So, I would like to hear if the Government would consider addressing this as a part of Senedd reform.

Can you conclude, because I have many Members who want to speak?

Yes. I hope this is only the first step of many towards a Senedd that truly reflects and represents the citizens it serves. As Mary Wollstonecraft said, 'The beginning is always today.' I'm glad to see that today is dawning.

I would like to start by paying tribute, as others have, to the committee, to Huw and his colleagues, to Mark Drakeford for his leadership and the way he's driven this forward, working in partnership with Adam Price and Plaid Cymru, but also to pay tribute to all of those who campaigned for a parliament for Wales for so many years—generations who had that as an objective, as an ideal, because they wanted the people of Wales to have that strong voice and they wanted the people of Wales to be served by a strong parliament to represent their interests and look after those interests. There is such a long history, and for people like me who've come to it more recently with the campaign 'Yes for Wales' that preceded the Assembly, which I was so privileged to become a Member of at that first election, as did others who are here in the Chamber today—we were privileged, and we've been privileged to see this institution grow and develop. And we've done that, we have grown, and the depth and the breadth of powers of the Assembly, now a Parliament, has been very impressive over that period of devolution. But it hasn't been matched by an increase in capacity and resource to enable that job, that bigger job, to be done as effectively as it needs to be done, and that is the point, isn't it? It's about powers for a purpose, not powers for the sake of having those powers, but powers to deliver better for the people of Wales.

And I would like to say as well, Dirprwy Lywydd, that I do believe, from a Labour and Welsh Labour point of view, that we do deserve some credit—I would say that, wouldn't I—but, actually, the Labour Party and Welsh Labour have moved a long way on devolution, and the people of Wales, I think, have come along on that journey as well. And it is Labour that had the opportunity and the power to deliver and I'm so proud to say that that challenge was accepted and that delivery did take place, and I think we've got a very positive story to tell. And as I say, we have developed within Wales on that journey, as a political party, as a Labour movement.

We're trying to deliver on the powers that we currently have, those increased and developed powers that I've described, with fewer Members than some county councils. It's just not tenable, is it, to scrutinise legislation and policy properly, to have a big enough pool of talent, really, for Ministers, for backbenchers, for committee Chairs. We all know that the more you widen the pool and the more diverse it is, then the better the delivery, the better the performance that will result. It's not to criticise anybody here—of course it's not—it's just recognising the reality, and we do need that diversity. And it is, I must say, so demoralising, really, I would say, from a Welsh Conservative point of view, to see how they will continue to be left behind by history, by modern history in Wales. Wales is developing, Wales is moving on; the Welsh Conservatives are left behind. And look at the benches over there—you know, to oppose measures to improve representation of women, for example, over half of the population of this country—. And we look at the benches over there—. It's great to see Natasha here, but there is obviously a dearth of representation, a dearth of diversity. [Interruption.] Andrew.

I've heard the diversity put to me. I turn around and look at the diversity on the backbench of the Conservative benches, and, I have to say, two female Members who occupy the frontbench here are away sick today and they have permission to be away sick. So, when you look at your own benches, where is the diversity there from ethnic minorities? Where are they? Where are they, John?

There is further progress to be made, Andrew, but, come on, if you look at the diversity on the Labour benches now and throughout the history of devolution and compare it to your benches now and before, there's absolutely no comparison. [Interruption.] Darren, there's no point labouring the point, just look to your own performance and your own party, organisations and structures.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I know that we only have five minutes, so let me just say again that this is about better strategy, better policy and better delivery for the people of Wales. It's about better outcomes. There's a huge job to be done. I believe we can be a lot more radical—a lot more radical—in Wales. I believe we need to be, I believe we can be, but we need the resource to do that, and this further step that we will be taking today, and building on what I hope is the vote that will approve this next stage of Senedd reform today, will give us new opportunities to be that radical, reforming force and body that can properly deliver for our people in Wales.

It's no surprise this afternoon that I cannot support the expansion of the Senedd, and therefore I'll be voting against the motion before us tonight; it's not the afternoon now, is it?

So, what we have before us tonight is a plan for more politicians, not a plan for better democracy. And we're a young Parliament, and the paint is barely dry on the walls marking our change from the National Assembly for Wales to the Welsh Parliament, yet here we are being asked to expand the number of politicians by more than 50 per cent. For what purpose? Why do we need a bigger Parliament? I'm not convinced we need a bigger Parliament, nor are the vast majority of the Welsh public.

Just over a decade ago, in 2011, the Welsh public were asked to devolve more powers to Wales, more powers in order to enable us to make laws, to improve the lives of Welsh citizens. After all, that is the purpose of this place. I will read out the description of the Senedd that takes pride of place on our website:

'The Welsh Parliament is the democratically elected body that represents the interests of Wales and its people.

Commonly known as the Senedd, it makes laws for Wales, agrees Welsh taxes and holds the Welsh Government to account.'

It's there in black and white. We are here to represent the interests of our citizens and our nation. How does creating another 36 politicians represent the interests of the people of our great nation? I would strongly argue that it does not. Will more Members tackle the appalling state of the NHS, cut waiting lists, ensure my constituents get face-to-face meetings with their GP? No, it won't, nor will it do anything to improve transport links, grow the economy, tackle the global cost-of-living crisis or improve educational achievement.

Our nation is facing real problems and needs us to focus on delivering solutions, on delivering real improvements to the lives of our constituents, not debating the make-up of this Chamber. We need more politics, not more politicians. This place failed to deliver improvements to people's lives, and the public was told it needed more powers. More powers were delivered, but improvements were not. Now we are told we need more Senedd Members, and it doesn't wash, not with me or my constituents in the Vale of Clwyd. We need to walk before we can run. We need to deliver on the promises we all made to our constituents before we even consider any expansion of this Parliament. Maybe when we have a Government that governs rather than acting like an opposition party, and opposition parties that hold Government to account rather than holding on to their coat tails, we will fulfil the promise of this place. When we deliver on the compact made with the citizens of Wales in 1997 and 2011, maybe then we can discuss any expansion, but only if that is the declared will of the people of Wales. Thank you very much.

I wasn't going to start with this, but I have to say that I'm saddened and quite sickened by some of the fake anger that I'm hearing from some contributors to this debate, where they berate increasing the size of the Senedd and the cost that comes with that. Those very same politicians don't bat an eyelid when the British Prime Minister wholesomely swells the ranks of the House of Lords. No calls for a referendum there, of course. And those, of course, are unelected representatives—

Llyr, will you take an intervention?

No, I won't, sorry, because people have had their opportunity to contribute. They're unelected and, of course, many of them are appointed against the recommendation and advice of the appointments commissioner. Well, who was on about jobs for the boys five minutes ago? Who's been on about backroom deals and dark corridors? And when it comes to cost, we know that the House of Lords costs taxpayers £15 million a year in daily allowances alone. 'How many doctors and nurses is that?' I don't hear you say. You know, the refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster is going to be in the billions—some figures up to £18 billion. Eighteen billion pounds. That's eighteen thousand million pounds. And you're not bothered by that, but yet, when we talk about strengthening Welsh democracy, 'Oh, no. No, no, no. We can't have that, it costs too much. We need a referendum.' Come on. Your hypocrisy absolutely turns my stomach.

Right, I'm going to say what I was supposed to say now.

I just want to expand on the point that the Llywydd made on lack of capacity within the Senedd. You will know that I chair a committee in the Senedd, the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee. The remit of that committee is very broad indeed, as the title suggests. We are talking about the environment, climate change— which is a key agenda for us as things stand—energy comes into it, retrofitting homes, the planning system, spatial planning on land and sea. Infrastructure—we're talking about transport in all its aspects. We're talking about rail, buses, roads. We're also talking about connectivity in terms of broadband and so on. You have a number of committees in Westminster and in other Parliaments around the world dealing with those issues, but they are all within the remit of one committee here, and there are just six Members on that committee. Six Members who have to have the depth of knowledge and understanding of all of those areas to work effectively. Add to that the fact that most members of that committee sit on other committees too. That's the kind of capacity issue that we have. I'm also my party's spokesperson on finance and local government. That's an additional responsibility again, never mind the work that we all do in our constituencies in case work, in representing our constituents and so on and so on. We know this, but it's important that people hear this too.

That's just a glimpse of the capacity issues that we have now, and that does have an impact on our ability to scrutinise with the depth and detail that we should be scrutinising in terms of policy, legislation and so on. So, when people talk about cost, well, yes, we can describe it as a cost, but we can also describe as an investment, an investment in capacity that would then mean that the policies, the regulation, the legislation that are scrutinised and passed in this Senedd would be more effective, more efficient and would have fewer unintended consequences, which would mean fewer additional costs ultimately. So, I see this as an investment rather than a cost. More than that, of course, it's an investment that brings other positives, such as expanding representation to ensure that there is more balance and more diversity among those who are representing in this Senedd.

Now, I'm not supporting additional Members because I want to see more politicians, but we all have to accept that we need greater capacity to deal with the increased powers and responsibilities that we have. It stands to reason that additional devolved powers and additional law-making powers and additional tax-varying powers mean that there will be a greater pressure on existing capacity, and if you don't increase capacity to deal with that then what you're doing is you're diminishing the ability of the Senedd to use those powers effectively. I don't want a diminished Senedd. I don't want a Senedd that's less able to maximise its potential to improve the lives of the people of Wales. I want a Senedd that's firing on all cylinders and that's able to turn every stone in its scrutiny of Government, in its fulfilling of its legislative and fiscal responsibilities and, of course, in its ability to articulate the voices of the people of Wales in all of its diversity. So, less of the fake anger—support these proposals, because that is the way that will make all of that happen.

According to my calculations, we are coming close to the end of the time. I have three speakers left. I intend to call all three speakers to have a full debate on this report, so I do apologise if we go over, but that is my intention. Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer and, like others this afternoon, I'd like to start my contribution by thanking all the members of the committee that looked at this and thanking Huw Irranca-Davies for his leadership of that committee. I'd even extend my thanks to Darren Millar. I accept he was placed in a difficult situation, but I know he also sought compromise on these matters over the period within which he served as a member of that committee, and I think in sometimes quite fractious debates we should always seek to recognise that contribution made by Members with whom we will disagree.

Like others, I also am compromising in my support for these proposals. Members who know me know that I would prefer single transferable vote. It's only the Labour Party that can have a debate where 87 per cent of its delegates vote for something and that proposal loses. Most members of the Labour Party will support STV, in my view. The majority—the vast majority—of our conference in Brighton last year voted for STV. It is the view of most party members, and I wish it was the system that we were moving forward with with this proposal.

Let me say this: I have also, again, like Darren, struggled with the issue of open and closed lists. I'm astonished by regional Conservative Members arguing over this matter, because they were all elected on closed lists. They didn't seem to understand that. It's quite something, actually: you don't even understand the system that you were elected under. But I've struggled with this, and let me say this, let me say this—. They're also elected under D'Hondt by the way—you don't understand that either.

But let me say this, let me say this, and I think Mark Drakeford said this very clearly, and he spoke of me when he was saying it, but it's a matter of head and heart with me as well, because I do believe—and I think Sioned Williams spoke on this very persuasively in her contribution—that we need a Parliament that doesn't just do the job, but a Parliament that speaks for the nation and the country, and that means a Parliament where diversity and gender don't happen by accident or because one political party determines it has to happen, but it's part of the DNA of who and what we are. And I was persuaded over closed lists because I believe it is the most effective way of ensuring that we have the gender balance and the diversity that make our Parliament truly representative of our nation. I'll give way.

When we considered these matters as a committee, it was actually the case that flexible lists could also allow for the zipping of candidates whilst still giving that direct accountability link. So, you could still have gender quotas if that's what people were persuaded that they wanted, but you could also have the opportunity to give that direct link to an individual to their constituents. Don't you think that that is a better system than closed lists?

Look, I said at the beginning of my contribution that I was also compromising in supporting this, and that is the compromise that I'm making.

The reason that this is important, and this is the reason why I'm astonished by the Conservative response to it, is that this is about holding the Government to account. Now, all of us in this Chamber learnt at the beginning of this Senedd that the Conservatives had given up on any pretence of wanting to be in Government, but now we learn they're giving up on opposition as well. It's not a matter for Government to be held to account, it's us in this Chamber holding the Government to account, and what these reforms do is to empower the opposition and backbenchers, and yet the primary opposition party don't want it. It's astonishing, it's astonishing, and it's something you need to think seriously about. Because let me say this, let me say this to you, it is important that we are able to scrutinise Government and do it effectively, and that means that we need a culture of scrutiny and not just the numbers to deliver that scrutiny. And we don't have that at present and the way in which you're approaching this debate is not going to deliver that either.

And, do you know, I've heard Conservatives argue this afternoon that we don't want to give the power to parties to determine who stands and what is done here, but they've all read out the same speech. Now, whatever you might think about the contributions that we're making here from the Labour backbenches and from Plaid Cymru and Jane Dodds as the Liberal Democrat, at least we've written our speeches and we've come here thinking about these matters. What you've done is read out the speeches—

Will you take an intervention?

No, I've listened to you too much—is to read out the speeches that were written all for you. And Darren Millar accepted in his introduction that he didn't really think about a referendum. It hadn't occurred to him that it was important until he was told it was important by the Secretary of State. And let me say this, and let me say this in closing—

Alun—

I can see the time. The Conservatives have never ever recognised the democratic mandate of the people of Wales. When the people of Wales—[Interruption.] When the people of Wales—[Interruption.] When the people of Wales—[Interruption.] When the people of Wales—[Interruption.] I'll carry on, I've got the microphone working now.

I want to hear him finish so that we can get other speakers in.

When the people of Wales voted for devolution in September 1997, the Conservative Party in the Westminster Parliament voted against the legislation in December 1997, and you need to remember that. And the people of Wales also elected a Government and a Parliament committed to reform. You can either come down the route with us and ensure that that reform is agreed across the whole of this Chamber—

Alun, you need to finish now.

—which is what I would prefer, or I'm afraid you're on the route to irrelevance.

I want to express my absolute disappointment at the proposals of Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru to increase the number of Senedd Members in this place, and I want to do so for three main reasons.

Firstly, you have to be well aware that the UK Government is not going to increase the Welsh Government budget to reflect this increase in Members, so what Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru are proposing is to take an estimated £100 million out of the funds available for healthcare, out of the funds available for education, and out of the funds available for far more vital services, to pay—and let's be honest—for more politicians. It is incredible that this Government's response to the worst education standards in the UK, the lowest pay for people in every sector compared to the rest of the UK—and even before COVID, almost a quarter of the population of Wales were in poverty—is to take £100 million off these people so that this place can presumably talk more about how they can try and help them.

Secondly, I'm appalled that the First Minister would not even consider giving the people of Wales a say on this matter. Yesterday the First Minister, in response to my colleague Darren Millar, said that the people of Wales had chosen this when they voted in the last Senedd elections, but this is simply not the case. There was no mention whatsoever in the Welsh Labour manifesto, and let's be honest, this was not even widely discussed as an issue during the campaign on the doorstep. This Government needs to ground itself—

Joel, will you take an intervention?

How long—? No, sorry. Go on, yes.

Please be brief, because we are going beyond time.

I've listened with interest, as I always do, to the Conservative Members, but can I ask, if it is your view that it is not legitimate to introduce a change to the electoral system without a referendum, why did your Conservative Government at Westminster not introduce that clause into the Wales Act 2017? What you did was you said that it was subject to two thirds of the Members of this Senedd voting in favour. Why didn't you do it then, if it's such an important principle now?

Thank you for that question. I fear that's a question to be asked of the UK Government in Westminster rather than myself, I'm afraid.

This Government needs to ground itself in reality. Even though a 50-year-old report, as mentioned yesterday, may have recommended two to three Members per parliamentary constituency, that doesn't mean it is right. It doesn't mean it was right then, and it certainly doesn't mean it is right now. My fellow Member Alun Davies remarked yesterday, and today in this Chamber, that Conservatives were not interested in Welsh democracy. May I remind the Member that under a Conservative Government the Minister for Welsh Affairs was created, the Minister of State for Wales was created, the Welsh Grand Committee of the House of Commons was created, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs was created, and the historic Welsh Language Act 1993 was created? Indeed—

Will you take an intervention from me?

No, sorry—

You did mention me by name.

You don't have to take the intervention if you don't wish to.

Sorry. Indeed, nearly every major form of devolution of power, with the notable exceptions of the 1979 and 1997 referendums, and every form of devolution of central services to Wales has come from Conservative Governments in Westminster. So, I would thank the Member if he could refrain from spreading such Trumpian disinformation in his future remarks.

Finally, I want to say this: the increase in Members in this place is entirely pivoted on the fact that this Government believes that it is not scrutinised enough, as has been discussed in this debate. But may I remind the Government, and those who want to support these proposals, that we are always standing here telling you how bad a job you are doing? Your commissioners are writing report after report telling you that you are failing. So, why do you think another 36 Members queuing up just to tell you what everyone else here is already telling you is going to change that? Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd.

And the last backbencher, Peter Fox.

Thank you so much, Deputy Presiding Officer, for allowing everybody to contribute—I appreciate it. And Alun, I will be talking about democracy as a Conservative on this backbench, and the link between an elected representative and a constituent is a cog that makes democracy tick, because democracy functions quite simply by elected representatives being held to account. Our actions, our words, our deeds are rightly scrutinised by those we represent. This allows us to build a rapport and a relationship with constituents. Many Members in this Chamber, I'm sure, enjoy a bond with their constituents, and that link cannot be underestimated, because it means constituents know who their representative is, they know who to go to, they know who to speak to in times of hardship and need. But I fear that the Labour and Plaid and committee reforms will rip that up.

We're now in a precarious situation where random areas in Wales with absolutely no connection could end up being mashed together with little thought. For instance, there is a real risk that constituents currently in the South Wales East constituency could end up coming under mid Wales, and vice versa. How on earth does that make sense? The answer is that it doesn't. And such a scenario is totally wrong and unjustified anyway.

Monmouthshire, Pembrokeshire, Swansea, the south Wales Valleys and many other areas in Wales rightly boast of their uniqueness, a uniqueness that is entirely understood and profoundly important to those who live in those respective areas. So, who are we to alter something as precious as that? There is enough confusion as it is regarding the differences in local authority boundaries compared to the Senedd and parliamentary ones—

Peter, will you take an intervention?

Sorry. Yes, Jenny.

Is it not the case that half the people on your benches are constituency representatives and half are list Members? So, whilst I applaud the virtues of the constituency link, you already have half your Members who are list Members.

Well, let's not lose the other half of constituency Members, then, Jenny. This is all I'm talking about: democracy.

As I said, there is already enough confusion about the boundaries. I believe that, should these plans be implemented in their current state, the level of confusion and anxiety caused will be on a mammoth scale. The people of Wales, who have put each and every one of us here, in one way or another, deserve to know the truth, not be kept in the dark. They deserve a right to have a say.

I believe the plans also cause another serious concern for me: where will reform stop? Is this announcement a precursor to something more sinister—Alun Davies—such as a Welsh Government reorganisation of our vital local authorities? As a past leader of a council, I know how important our local authorities and their identities are to our citizens. Any reorganisation as a result of future boundary commission changes will remove local accountability, local identity and local sovereignty, things that are so precious to our local communities. Therefore, any theoretical boundary changes or further reorganisation must, for the sake of our democracy, be published to the people of Wales immediately. The committee may not know what those future plans are, but I'm sure the Government and Plaid Cymru are fully aware. So, I support the amendments. Thank you.

I call on the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution, Mick Antoniw.

I'd like to start by thanking the Chair and members of the committee and their staff for the hard work carried out in drawing up this comprehensive report. The publication of this report is an important step on the journey to creating a Senedd that represents the diversity of the people of Wales and has the appropriate resources to deliver its responsibilities in terms of policy, legislation and fiscal issues.

The co-operation agreement between the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru commits both partners to working towards Senedd reform. This commitment was recently reinforced by the position statement jointly published by the First Minister and Adam Price, the leader of Plaid Cymru, to support the work of the special purpose committee.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the fact that the report has been agreed by the Welsh Labour, Plaid Cymru and Welsh Liberal Democrat members of the committee reflects the cross-party support that has been established for taking action to reform the Senedd. Llywydd, it is vital that we invest in our democratic processes and institutions. Investing in this institution will improve the governance of Wales, enhance the scrutiny and oversight of Welsh Government business and lead to more effective policy, more efficient spending and better legislation. If we do not act now, we run the risk of our legislature not being able to continue to deliver effectively for the people of Wales.

I'd just like to turn to some of the specific recommendations made by the committee, particularly on size, electoral system and measures to support diversity. I welcome the recommendation of the committee for 96 Members. The idea of a larger Senedd is not a new one and has been recommended by both the Richard commission in 2004 and the independent expert panel in 2017. In their 2017 report, the independent expert panel on Assembly reform recommended that the institution should increase in size to ensure that it has sufficient capacity to fulfil its policy, legislative and financial scrutiny responsibilities, and that Members can also undertake their representative, campaigning, political and other roles.

This Senedd is the smallest of all the devolved legislatures and still has the same number of Members as it did in 1999 when the National Assembly for Wales was created. Since then, Wales has taken on new powers, including primary law-making and tax-making powers. By comparison, there are 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament and 90 Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. So, increasing the size of the Senedd will require reform of the Senedd's electoral system. Different electoral systems have strengths and weaknesses, and there is no one ideal answer that can achieve every objective. However, the majority of the committee favoured the introduction of a closed list proportional system.

I also welcome the committee recommendations relating to the introduction of gender quotas, and its recommendation both in terms of the collection and publication of diversity data, and diversity and inclusion strategies. Such proposals have the potential to lead to real and visible change here on the floor of the Senedd. Who would not want a Senedd that is truly representative of the people in Wales? Improving equality and diversity and ensuring an acceptable gender balance is a key part of that. Our track record in terms of equality in the Senedd is better than many other Parliaments could claim, but there is much more we still have to do.

The special purpose committee's recommendation—

Minister, will you take an intervention?

Yes, I will.

It's just on this matter of gender quotas. Do you accept that the Senedd currently does not have the powers to legislate in the equal opportunities field at the moment, and that, on that basis, we cannot introduce gender quotas?

The assurance that I give to this Senedd is that I will work to create legislation that implements the recommendations of this Senedd, and that that legislation will be robust and competent.

The special purpose committee's recommendation for gender quotas echoes much of what previous independent expert panels and committees have been calling for, and it has been argued time and again that gender quotas, integrated within the electoral system, have the potential to make a real difference. I'll just refer to those figures. If we look around this particular Senedd, on the task ahead of us, if we look at the Labour Members, 60 per cent are women. I mention that because the reference was made earlier that this is all about jobs for the boys. Well, 60 per cent of the Labour Members are female. Thirty per cent of the Plaid Members are female, 18 per cent of the Tories are female. If we turn that figure the other way around, 82 per cent of that side are male. I suppose the exemplar goes to the Lib Dems, who are 100 per cent female. [Interruption.] That may come with its own challenge. I've made reference already to the issues of diversity.

Finally—[Interruption.] Well, as someone who is a member of an ethnic minority, I think it's rather inappropriate that you make that comment to me. Finally, I welcome the challenging timescale recommended by the committee of implementing Senedd reform in time for the next scheduled Senedd elections in 2026. The committee also recognises that this may mean some aspects will need to be delivered on an interim basis.

The Government will not be supporting either of the amendments tabled. We have every confidence in the process followed by the special purposes committee and support all of its recommendations. It is reasonable to expect that there will be differing views on the details of how best to take forward this package of reforms, but there is a consensus that there is an urgent need to create a Senedd that is fit for purpose. There is also a clear and undeniable mandate for reform. The case for Senedd reform has been accepted by the Welsh Labour Party, the Welsh Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru, and it featured in all three of the parties' manifestos. Each party will have its own internal processes for agreeing this reform package. Members will be aware that my own party will be putting the proposals to a recall conference in the coming weeks. Our support, as the Senedd Labour Party, is therefore contingent on the agreement of our conference.

If the special purpose committee's recommendations are endorsed today, the Welsh Government stands ready to prepare and introduce a Bill to implement these recommendations. Through scrutiny of that Bill, there will be an opportunity for every Member to contribute to creating a Senedd that truly reflects the people who live here in Wales. As part of that, there will, of course, be an opportunity for any costs associated with this reform package to be carefully scrutinised. I intend to publish the Welsh Government's formal response to the committee's recommendations in the coming weeks.

I call on Huw Irranca-Davies to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's a pleasure to follow the balanced and constructive comments of the Counsel General, but can I also thank every Member who's contributed today, regardless of the different views and different opinions? It has been a lively—argumentative at times and passionate at all times—debate, and I think that's what this place is for. I think the reforms we're talking about today, we'll probably see more of those delivered, should we choose to take them forward.

The task we were set I've described previously, Dirprwy Lywydd, as being both divinely simple and devilishly complex. The divinely simple thing is coming up with a utopian plan of what we can take forward; the devilishly complex bit is actually getting something that would command a supermajority within this Senedd, which, as the leader of Plaid Cymru has pointed out, was set out in the Wales Act 2017, which gave us the power to do exactly this—not subject to a referendum and so on, but for us to do the jobs that we are paid to do: to measure, in our judgment, the balance of the interests of Wales and the people whom we are sent here to represent, and to make those hard, tough decisions.

Will you take an intervention on that?

I probably haven't got time, Alun, I'm afraid, unfortunately—I'm really sorry to Members on this.

We have heard from Conservative Members a consistency, and it's a consistency that was clear as well in their leadership even while the committee was sitting, I have to say: no more Members et cetera, et cetera. It's been repeated and repeated, and here we are today.

What was also mentioned today, interestingly, was some comments against positive discrimination. But, that's as it is—that's a point of disagreement. This is very strong in terms of measures that will need to be taken, including legislative measures here.

The arguments against more politicians have been, I have to say, regardless of the evidence for what that does for improved scrutiny, and I'll turn to some of those in a moment. From those who had different opinions in terms of support for this today, I welcome that strong support that we've heard evident today. Yes, there are different views on the shape, the form, the nuances, the detail and so on—I get all of that—and so there should be. I have my own personal opinions, which I've struggled to avoid putting into this report and to hold back from it; one day, I'll be allowed to say them. But, I do think that this is a major step forward in terms of the quality of scrutiny here. It was Silk himself who said that you can't actually cut corners on scrutiny; you need the right number of Members. Simply to say to my colleagues on the benches, I've come to this place because I believe firmly in this place and I believe in the voice it gives to the people of Wales, but we're not doing it well enough. I sat on, I presided over and I chaired a committee in Westminster that was 17 strong. It was the only one I sat on; I didn't have to do anything else—one committee. On that committee, I had the most green of Conservative Members—on the Environmental Audit Committee—the most green, attacking the Government. I had the most climate-change-sceptic attacking the Government. There were 17 members—there were mavericks and there were outspoken individuals. We don't have the capacity to do that deeper dive, that hard-nosed scrutiny, and that's what this is all about.

So, I would simply say that if this does go through today, then be constructive and engage with it, because what this is about is genuinely, as we've titled the report, a stronger voice for the people of Wales. It's not to do with more politicians; it's to do with holding this lot to account, from all of us—from all of us.

Let me just turn very briefly, Dirprwy Lywydd, to some of the detailed points. First of all, on the issue of cost-effectiveness, we deal with a £20 billion budget here—the Welsh Government does. That needs to be scrutinised effectively. As I've mentioned already, it was the Silk commission itself that said that good scrutiny means good legislation. Good legislation pays for itself—a point that has been made by other Members.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I heard an objection, and therefore I will defer all voting on this item until voting time.

Item 7 today is the Welsh Conservatives debate on Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. I call on Sam Rowlands to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm grateful, today, to be able to move our Welsh Conservative motion on Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar. Now, when Betsi was put into special measures in June 2015, no-one would have believed that, seven years on, we're still debating severe failings at the health board. As we know, Betsi serves around a quarter of the population of Wales, and it is they who have been let down, time and time again, and are rightfully angry and frustrated. We in this Chamber, too, are tired of the same old underperformance and same old excuses.

Before I move on to the experience of patients, I want to put on record my thanks to the great staff at Betsi, and also put on record that my brother and sister are both nurses in the NHS as well. When I speak to staff—whether it be doctors, nurses, midwives, support staff, admin staff—the story is always the same: they are trying their level best, day in and day out, but they're just not being supported by this Government, who have not taken the drastic action that we need to see in north Wales. For example, healthcare professionals who work at Wrexham Maelor have said, and I'll quote:

'There just aren't enough people on the rota. The choice is between going into clinic or leaving very junior doctors to cover a ward on their own.'

The front-line staff in our hospitals continue to do their best under difficult circumstances every day. Minister, I urge you to give them the support they need to do their job well.

In my contribution today, Llywydd, I'd like to focus on three issues that I believe are the drivers behind today's debate, the first being patient experience. The fact of the matter is that the lack of support from the Government means that the health board can't deliver services properly. Anyone who's visited healthcare settings in my region in north Wales and sat down with patients knows just how bad things can get.

Referral to treatment times in north Wales are among the worst across the country. One in four patients are waiting over a year for treatment, with 18,000 patients waiting more than two years. I'll take a constituent case of Mrs Jones from my region; Mrs Jones has been waiting for a hip replacement for more than a year. In that time, she's received little to no communication from the health board, and during this year, Mrs Jones has suffered with substantial pain. She's had to give up driving, she is stuck at home in pain. Had previous health Ministers gotten to grips with the issue, Mrs Jones would not be in the situation she finds herself in now.

Secondly, I'd like to focus on ambulance and A&E waiting times. The performance at A&E waiting rooms across north Wales is simply not good enough. In April 2022, Betsi recorded the worst A&E waiting times in Wales, with just over half of patients being seen within four hours. And the story's even worse at specific hospitals, at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd and at Wrexham Maelor, where the figures are below 35 per cent of patients seen in four hours, and 40 per cent respectively at Maelor, with one in five patients—listen to this; one in five patients—having to wait for more than 12 hours. Twelve hours in A&E; that's an emergency. Twelve hours.

The failure to deal with the pressure on our A&E departments adds significant pressure to our ambulance services. In April 2017, 79 per cent of ambulances would arrive within eight minutes for those important red calls. Five years on, in 2022, after years of special measures and intervention from this Government, that figure now is at 46 per cent, a dramatically worse position than in 2017. And these are real people, waiting for those ambulances, in need of emergency medical attention.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I'm very pleased to move the amendment formally. We've been here before, haven't we? We've been here so many times previously, and it saddens me. There's no criticism of staff here; indeed, in the face of all the questions about the health board, we need to do more to support them. We thank you for your tireless service, and that goes for front-line staff, clinical staff and those who manage and who share our concerns. But our amendment today says this, to all intents and purposes: are we asking them to do the impossible? I'm speaking on behalf of Plaid Cymru today, but we all, as residents in north Wales, speak as services users, we speak as parents and children to older parents perhaps, and we speak as those who know and who are friends with dedicated staff, and we've all had a gutful of the failure of the Welsh Government to resolve the situation in north Wales.

Yesterday, a suite of interventions, too weak, too late, were announced by Welsh Government—a Welsh Government that has failed to address the problems of Betsi Cadwaladr time and time again. The suite of interventions was in response to more damning reports—hugely damning reports. But where's the next report? Experience tells us that it may not be very far away.

Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was established in October 2009, the largest of Wales's new health boards, both geographically and in terms of population. It's a complex health board. But it was only a little over five years later that it was put in special measures. As we moved into the 2020s, the board found that it had been in special measures for around half of its existence. After five years and more of special measures, those measures cease to be special. They become the normal state of affairs. I and many of us question how ready it was to be brought out of special measures then, conveniently in the approach to the last election. But even then it was only a move to another lower level of targeted intervention, extended yesterday, though, as I say, not far enough. There's continued intervention for mental health services—not surprising after the scandals of Hergest, of Tawel Fan, the suppression of the Holden report. Vascular services at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd are under targeted intervention. What on earth took the Minister so long, waiting three months to see if something might happen? Even a glance at that damning report published in February told you that urgent action was needed.

Another critical report leads to placing the emergency department at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd in special measures. Of course, there's been criticism of services elsewhere, not covered by targeted intervention. There's a report from the ombudsman saying that Betsi Cadwaladr caused injustice to eight prostate cancer patients after failing to undertake appropriate monitoring of their care and treatment. I recently raised concerns about intimidation or bullying of nurses at Ysbyty Gwynedd; nurses being moved away from their areas of expertise, concerns that triggered an immediate review. And, of course, I hear regular concerns of patients and staff worried about the unsustainability of services. I was discussing a constituent's case this morning. Her son had a fit, she couldn't get an ambulance, she couldn't praise staff enough as they treated her son in the corridor in the ED whilst 13 ambulances waited outside—I think it was 14 yesterday according to a physician. Are these Betsi Cadwaladr problems or are they just wider NHS issues? You see, the problem we have is that we have a fundamental lack of confidence that this cumbersome health board is the best way of delivering healthcare in the north of Wales. And it gets worse, that lack of confidence, with every report. At the end of the day, it's about patient safety. Staff leave, recruiting is difficult, patients complain.

Russell George.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I wasn't expecting to be called just at that moment. Thank you, Darren Millar, for tabling this debate today. Since Betsi was suddenly taken out of special measures in 2020—and it was suddenly, as Rhun ap Iorwerth pointed out—by the then health Minister, Vaughan Gething, significant failings have, of course, continued to occur, ranging from mental health services to vascular services and emergency departments across the board. For me, it's repeated errors that have been continued since 2015 that is the issue here. I'd have some more understanding if these were new failings, but they're failings that have been repeated for the last seven years and I think that that is what the frustration is that you hear in the Chamber today, and you have heard, Minister, for some time.

We have poor communications—there were a couple of examples in Sam Rowlands's contribution—and lack of escalation for staff to air their concerns. Continuing mistakes leading to a risk to patient safety and even death have been highlighted over and over again by independent reviewers. As was discussed yesterday, we're all too familiar, of course, with Ysbyty Glan Clwyd's emergency department—waiting times have not improved since the report was published. You've heard specific examples from Members across this Chamber a number of times—I listened to Sam Rowlands's examples, specifically, as well—and very often, it can be said, 'Well, these are just one-off examples', but that is, of course, not the case. We know that two in three patients are waiting more than four hours—that is completely unacceptable. The Minister, in fairness, has accepted that that's unacceptable, but the failings are still happening, and what the Minister does fall short of is putting the board into special measures. These are continuing over seven years of special measures and targeted interventions and this continues to be the case. It's worth saying, of course, that it's not just Ysbyty Glan Clwyd's emergency department that is failing, it's Wrexham Maelor also failing as well—60 per cent of patients waiting over four hours there.

Now, I listened to the statement yesterday and Members asking questions and the Minister responding—I didn't ask any questions myself; I listened carefully to the questions and the responses. The Minister wants to move at pace and improve services, and that's all good to hear, but the Minister's proposals, I suggest, suggest otherwise. The tripartite group will not meet until not just—and I can see the Minister looking at this—will not meet perhaps next month or this summer, but not until October. Now, yes, I heard your response to this yesterday, Minister, but four to five months away, that doesn't show any kind of urgency. Now, the Minister said yesterday that, 'Oh, there are going to be meetings every two weeks', but staff and patients are crying out for more swift and decisive support. What actions will be taken every two weeks? What will the level of transparency be in those meetings that are taking place every two weeks in those monitoring—? What kind of monitoring will take place in those two-week meetings? So, I'll be interested if, in the Minister's response, the Minister deals with some of those issues.

There is no doubt that health provision is the single biggest issue of concern to people in north Wales right now, and by some distance. And whilst the vast majority of people in the region would doubtlessly applaud the phenomenal and tireless efforts of the healthcare workforce, there is considerable concern over service provision and outcomes.

Now, the Conservative motion sees a different set of special measures as the answer to the health board's failings. The Plaid amendment offers reorganisation as the answer. I've considered both really, really carefully, and I do feel that both are worthy of further investigation and also an open-minded response from the Government. But I can also appreciate the likely response to both, that now is not the right time to reorganise, and that we have an established process for placing specific services and entire boards into special measures. And so, in considering today's motion, also Plaid's amendment, and further, yesterday's statement, I'd make the following suggestions: firstly, conduct some form of a truth review to completely—with an independent and authoritative review—to completely look at the special measures process as a means of delivering improvement. If special measures oversight arrangements are found to be deficient in any way, then let's move to revise them. Secondly, conduct a truly independent assessment of the real and likely short-term impacts of reorganisation on service outcomes. Let's have our eyes opened to the likely short-term consequences before examining the long-term possible benefits of reorganisation. Deciding on whether to embark on such a journey should be informed by the long-term potential benefits, but also by the short-term likely impact on services and outcomes. Thirdly, I'd recommend establishing, without delay, to be honest, a people's panel in the north, to interrogate the challenges and all possible solutions—without limits, without fear, without boundaries. A people's panel could offer, I think, an objective, informed, depoliticised and citizen-led view of what needs to change. And fourthly, let's improve communications and transparency, establish an easily accessible online data dashboard for the seven health board areas, so that the public can see how their services compare to other parts of Wales in terms of outcomes.

Now, I'll support the Government today, but we can't be back here again in six or 12 months having the same debate. I'd implore the Minister to consider all constructive suggestions, such as those that I've offered, in order to restore public confidence in health services in north Wales and to restore—

Can I just cut across Ken Skates for one second? There's an intervention request for you from Rhun ap Iorwerth, would you accept that?

Of course, yes.

Thank you very much for taking the intervention, and can I thank you also for making that series of very constructive suggestions? I'm particularly interested in the second of those, which seems to me to mirror exactly the kind of conversation that we are asking to take place on potentially how reorganisation could work and the benefits that could come from that. Can you confirm that you are minded to support that amendment from us today?

Actually, Rhun, it's very close, but I think, first of all, what we need to do is look at the short-term impact of reorganisation. We've got a huge backlog at the moment that Betsi Cadwaladr are facing, we would need to understand before we review and appraise the potential benefits, long term, of reorganisation—. I think we do need to be informed as to what the short-term impact could be in terms of service provision, waiting times and outcomes. So, they are two different reviews, I'm afraid, and I believe that the first review should be to assess what the short-term impact would be in terms of outcomes in service provision. If it were to be found that those short-term impacts are very minor indeed, then I'd suggest moving on then with the second review, the review that you propose in your amendment today. I hope that clarifies my position and my recommendations.

I know that Ministers are always being advised that now is not the right time to reorganise any organisation, regardless of the time and events of the moment, and Ministers are often overwhelmed by the voice of the organisation facing reorganisation. But how much of the patient's voice actually gets through? I do think that a people's panel, reporting directly to Ministers, could ensure that future solutions, no matter what they may be, have the backing of the people that we serve.

Speaking of the citizen's voice, I've today tabled a statement of opinion that I'd invite all Members to support. It's a statement calling for the citizen voice body for health and social care to be headquartereded in north Wales. In my view, it's essential that that body is based in the north, where we have the largest population under a single health board and, arguably, the greatest challenge faced by any of our seven health boards.

Finally, may I ask that health matters in north Wales continue to be a core consideration of the Cabinet sub-committee for north Wales, chaired by my friend and colleague Lesley Griffiths, and that, through that Cabinet sub-committee, the views of key stakeholders, such as our six local authority leaders, are fully considered? Diolch.

Healthcare, unfortunately, in the Vale of Clwyd, is a real mess and has been for many, many years now, as successive Labour Governments have failed to get a grip on recruitment issues. You only have to look at the Betsi Cadwaladr website. I think, currently, it's about seven or eight pages of job vacancies, and most of them, to be honest, are front-line staff who make the change to people's lives day in, day out. We're very good at creating managers and red tape in the NHS, but really bad at putting staff on the front line.

Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, as I said yesterday, used to be one of the best hospitals in the United Kingdom in the 1980s and the 1990s, until the Welsh Government got their hands on it. Now the hospital needs external, clinical and organisational development expertise in order to provide a safe working environment and safe treatment for my constituents.

The issues facing healthcare in the Vale of Clwyd are not new, they have existed ever since Jane Hutt's disastrous reorganisation almost 20 years ago, and Edwina Hart's reorganisation in 2009. It has caused many to question whether the creation of Wales's largest health authority was a sensible approach, to ask whether Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board is fit for purpose. After all, the board has required some form of Government intervention for most of its life. It spent five years in special measures before it was taken out of direct Government intervention just before the last election, as Sam Rowlands alluded to in opening the debate, a move of political expedience rather than a sign that everything was rosy at the top. I know from personal experience it wasn't, as I worked for Betsi Cadwaladr for 11 years, between 2010 and 2021, when I was elected to the Senedd. I worked in YGC, Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, for many of those years, and many of my friends still do. We knew things were wrong at the top, yet, despite the culture and bad leadership, our patients continued to get excellent care. But fewer and fewer people wanted to come and work for what they perceived to be a failing health board, because it doesn't exactly look good on the CV, if you're looking for some career progression, that you've been employed by a failing health board for many a year. So, the problems became entrenched as there were fewer and fewer staff working on the front line, and the pressures placed upon staff became unbearable and unsustainable. And that's when patient safety starts to suffer, really.

My mailbag is overflowing with issues from YGC and, like I've said before, Minister, you're more than welcome any time to come up to my office and view my inbox to see what I deal with every day, and I'm sure Darren in Clwyd West and Sam Rowlands, Mark Isherwood, Janet Finch-Saunders all have the same experience, and other Members too of other parties. One of the most recent cases I had was a constituent that had a fall at home just before 10.00 a.m. They were advised by ambulance call handlers to remain on the cold floor for ambulance attendance, despite advice that the ambulance would take an hour. An ambulance only arrived at 3.30 in the afternoon, but its lifting aid was not functioning. A further ambulance arrived an hour later. Paramedics advised that although they did not suspect any fractures or bleeds, her blood pressure and blood sugar were now so low that, after so much time on the floor, she would therefore require hospital admission. After arrival at the hospital, a further six hours passed before admission into YGC. The patient was eventually moved to the acute medical unit ward. Finally, the family received a call three days late advising them to come to the hospital quickly. They arrived too late—their family member had sadly passed away. It was therefore of little surprise to me when the Healthcare Inspectorate Wales report was released. It was still shocking. The most damning line in the report points to the crux of the problem—leaders for the department had attempted to raise concerns about issues of patient safety, however these had not been listened to or acted on.

I have resisted commenting on the concerns raised to date, and I'm always wary about discussing the reform of health boards, particularly mindful of the significant disruption that reorganisation would have in the aftermath of COVID-19. Betsi is one of three health boards that are in our region, and although I do get casework from the other health boards, it has to be said the ones from Betsi are extremely serious in my view. Here's one I had only yesterday. Mr Jones said, 'My condition was urgent. After seven months of a referral by the GP for an urgent appointment, I still have heard nothing and there's no forward plan. Personally, my confidence in Betsi is zero.'

There is never a good time to reorganise. There are never the right situations or conditions for a massive review. But, reluctantly, it feels to me like this is the only time, because, as has been said, when is the right time? I've heard that time after time here in this Chamber, and that's why I've been reluctant to comment, but in representing the views and the experiences of the people that I represent—and I know you do as well, health Minister, and others do—it feels like they cannot be ignored any more.

I really do want to put on record my thanks to you, Minister, because I know you've been dedicated to this issue, and I did read your statement yesterday in detail. I do want to put on record my thanks as well to the staff at Betsi Cadwaladr—it is the staff and patients who are being let down right now. Staff have been working hard in difficult circumstances and it is important that we have a frank and honest conversation about the failings and what must be done to provide confidence to the staff and the public we all represent. Therefore, I will be supporting the Plaid Cymru amendment and the motion when amended. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you to the Conservatives for bringing this debate forward; it's a very important debate. Back in 2013, I, Mark Jones and campaigners from Blaenau Ffestiniog, Prestatyn, Llangollen and Flint established the north Wales health alliance to oppose the changes that were being forced on the people of north Wales against our will. It was all put forward under the heading, 'Healthcare in North Wales is Changing'. Yes, our health service changed, but not for the better. Two years later, the board was placed in special measures.

In the nine years since then, the board has had four chief executives. Indeed, Betsi Cadwaladr could challenge any Premier League club for the longevity of their managers. What we're seeing is an urban model of service provision being forced on a rural area without any consideration given to the needs of isolated and remote communities. Why should people in the Dysynni area, for example, see their doctors leaving, their dentistry being lost and their pharmacy closing? Why should my constituents in Dwyfor Meirionnydd have to have just two community nurses on call in such a vast area at night, with one occasion where they had to go from Tywyn in the south of the county to Morfa Nefyn in the north in one call? Why should an 82-year-old woman have to wait 13 hours in A&E before being seen, without food or drink, never mind the vascular, urology and mental health problems, all of these things that we are aware of?

But I'm sad to say that, along with all of these individual problems that we all no doubt are aware of, I also have little faith in the stats and the data and information provided by the health board. For instance, the health board have informed the ombudsman that blinds with ligatures were taken down in 2010, but we know of patients who tried to strangle themselves there later than that date, and they were in fact taken down in 2018. So, people were misled by their health board. In their own annual reports since 2012, Betsi Cadwaladr have told the board that they've had 1,021 referrals to the ombudsman. But, in a freedom of information response last week, the ombudsman confirmed that the correct figure was 1,579—500 more than they've declared publicly. But, most damningly, the Minister must also explain to us why it is that Betsi Cadwaladr has more recorded severe patient safety incidents recorded every year than the rest of Wales combined, and more deaths recorded in this one health board than the rest of Wales combined. According to the national reporting and learning system, there were 239 severe incidents and 12 deaths recorded between December 2020 and September 2021, while the figures for the whole of the rest of Wales were 113 severe incidents and eight deaths.

Finally, we heard yesterday that now is not the time for costly reorganisation. I'm afraid that that's a naive and blinkered view. If reorganisation improves the health outcomes for the people of north Wales, then surely it should be considered. And how much more money has the Government had to spend on Betsi Cadwaladr because of special measures and targeted intervention since 2015? We need this solved sooner rather than later.

It's more than regrettable that the Welsh Government has failed to deliver promised improvements at Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board and that successive health Ministers, term after term, have failed to address serious issues regarding the health board that I and others have raised with them on behalf of constituents. It would be a dereliction of duty if this Welsh Government rejects our call today for it to impose a reformed special measures regime to provide the health board with the leadership and resources necessary to address failings and deliver the high-quality healthcare that the people of north Wales deserve. In saying this, I note that the special measures regime introduced in England after the Keogh review requires intervention by an external team to make the necessary improvements.

Further, the Minister's statement yesterday that new targeted intervention need only be extended to include Ysbyty Glan Clwyd is contradicted by my constituent casework, and challenged by the evidence received by the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee. After the health board attended the committee on 9 March, I wrote as committee Chair to their chief executive and chairman regarding Members' concerns about some of the responses they had provided, and seeking clarity on certain points. As our letter said, overall, there appeared to be no firm action plan for securing the improvements required within the health board, no sense of the scale of the problems, or urgency to address these. There was no clarity provided on what the priority areas are for the board, and the evidence lacked sufficient detail, including no set timescales, particularly in respect of the transformation of vascular and mental health services. We were disappointed by the lack of ownership and responsibility taken by the executive of the problems at the board. There were many references to what staff across the organisation are doing, rather than what senior management are doing to set strategic direction and take responsibility.

In terms of mental health services, our letter asked them to provide a detailed response about how they intend to address issues in this area, with timescales for implementation, and to provide us with details of their objectives and priorities, and how they are measuring performance against these, including any benchmarking activity to compare the board's performance with similar health boards. Although their response was 235 pages long, I stated on the record at the committee's meeting on 25 May that the letter notes that the BCUHB board has approved its integrated medium-term plan, IMTP, for the next three years; it also notes that the health board has engaged external support to give an impartial view of their evidence gathering and progress assessment, but provided no further details. The planned stated priorities don't include mental health services, but do include some general information about the work under way in this area. The plan doesn't mention accident and emergency services. The letter and plan note that BCUHB must make £105 million in savings over the next three years. The letter and plan don't detail how these savings will be achieved, although a broad set of opportunities for savings are listed in areas such as planned care, unscheduled care, mental health and other. And in terms of mental health services, many of these areas of concern remain unaddressed, despite recommendations and conclusions made in various reports over the past decade, including the Holden, Ockenden, Health and Social Care Advisory Service and Public Accounts Committee reports.

Can I just start by saying that I support Ken Skates's proposals that he made earlier? I thought they were really good. I welcome the interventions that Welsh Government are making: training new nurses, providing bursaries, building a new medical school in Bangor, trying to overcome the shortages in staff that Brexit and the pandemic have brought about, including complications with visa applications. And the interventions are really welcome. We need to retain our existing good staff—

Will you take an intervention?

—and build a steady workforce if we are to build an organisation capable of self-improvement.

The feedback I have been having from health professionals is that morale is low, they are exhausted, and that there is a vicious cycle where, as soon as more staff are recruited, existing ones are leaving because of the long hours and pressure. This is recurring across many areas of employment where people have increasingly been expected to work longer hours and unrealistic shifts over the last few years—I think about the last five to 10 years, in fact—where productivity and efficiency have been driving the workforce in a race to the bottom. And now, following Brexit and the pandemic, people are re-evaluating their lives and saying, 'Enough is enough', across the UK.

I'm worried that, until working hours and wages are addressed, not just in the NHS but also the social healthcare sector, which is at breaking point—and these are intermingled—we are going to continue to have issues. This is not just here in Wales but also in the UK. Minister, could I ask what conversations you've had with the UK Government to properly fund the public sector, following years of cuts under austerity, and ensure that adequate funding is made available to fund decent wages and working conditions for those in the health and social care sector?

We have seen that, where there has been improvement, such as in mental health, this is incredibly fragile, because we don't have that long-term commitment from the people who have driven it. Retention is a huge issue. I know of senior clinicians who are committed to the NHS, committed to Betsi, but who are unable to commit the hours they would like to because of pension tax implications brought on by the UK Government. Fundamentally, employees need fair tax—sorry, fair pay—flexible working conditions and continuing professional development, for their own health and well-being. We're seeing this right across the UK.

The workforce need to be heard and know they are being listened to. In my humble opinion, from what I've heard from staff, I don't believe putting Betsi Cadwaladr into special measures will improve the situation, where morale is low and the health board is trying desperately to recruit and retrain. I welcome the decision to intervene in a way that works, alongside the staff in Betsi, to build capacity and capability, to build teams that deliver in the short and long term. However, targeted interventions with definitive measures and timelines in place, so that they know improvements have to be made in a timely measure this time, would be most welcome.

The Minister said in the statement yesterday that the tripartite body recommended not to put the health board in special measures and that there would be a review in October, and that she will be keeping a fortnightly eye on progression. Would the Minister tell me what will be the trigger for intervention? How will Welsh Government and the health board communicate to staff and residents what the interventions are, to give some level of reassurance that something is happening now? I heard that communication is poor. Staff need to be empowered, valued and listened to. So, how will communication be improved?

I think you're going to have to bring your contribution to a close now.

Okay, thank you. I'd just like to end by thanking all staff that have worked really hard during the pandemic and continue to do so now. Thank you very much.

As the Member for Arfon, which includes Ysbyty Gwynedd of course, I have been very concerned about the health board for some time, and I fear that yesterday's announcement will not move us on to better days. Over the years, constituents have highlighted their concerns, some of which relate to the loss of services from Ysbyty Gwynedd. We had to fight a threat to maternity services. The case was made for retaining and building on the vascular service, but it was moved eastwards, destroying a unit of excellent quality, and we are well aware of the damning and shocking consequences of that decision for all patients in north Wales. Serious concerns were also raised about the Hergest mental health unit, but there was an attempt to bury the Holden report.

These concerns have come to my attention mainly through the staff of Betsi Cadwaladr health board, the wonderful workforce that we have, and the people who are battling against these significant challenges on a daily basis. I'm very grateful to them for their work, but I'm also grateful to those who have brought their concerns forward. It is through them that I have been able to understand the true nature of the problems.

Staff have come to me recently again for other reasons. I've received complaints about a culture of bullying at Ysbyty Gwynedd—very serious complaints—and I'm very pleased that Rhun ap Iorwerth has pursued this also and has secured a review of that situation.

Each time a member of staff comes to me, he or she emphasises that I should not mention their names when discussing issues with the health board. For years, there has been a culture of brushing issues under the carpet; of a lack of transparency; of intimidating staff who wish to speak out, and, unfortunately, this seems to be getting worse rather than getting better, despite all of the interventions that have been made over the years by the Welsh Government. And yesterday's announcement is not going to improve that culture, and that culture is at the root of many of the problems.

The organisation needs wholesale change in order to drive the massive change that's needed. We need urgent action across the organisation to create an open culture that welcomes the input of staff, not one that seeks to silence them, and certainly, we need to give serious thought to whether the current model is fit for purpose. And that's the purpose of our amendment, and I'm very pleased to have cross-party support in this Chamber for that. So, I do urge you to think seriously about the suggestion that we are putting before you together today. I urge you to leave no stone unturned—no stone unturned—in search of improvement. Listen to what the front-line staff are saying. And, please, will you recognise, unconditionally, that the situation is a very, very serious one?

The Minister for health to contribute to the debate. Eluned Morgan.

Diolch yn fawr. Yesterday, I gave an oral statement concerning the escalation status of the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, in which I advised that I had received and accepted advice from Welsh Government officials that targeted intervention arrangements at the health board should be extended to include services at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd.

I would just like to make it entirely clear that I do accept that the situation is very serious indeed, and that's why we are taking these steps.

I was accused yesterday of deliberately pushing in a statement to undermine today's debate, and I'd like to assure you that that was not the case. On the afternoon of 26 May, the tripartite meeting took place. On Friday 27 May, I was given a briefing on the recommendations. On Monday 30 May, at 2.25 p.m., my oral statement was commissioned from lead officials. And at 5 p.m. that afternoon, the motion for the Conservative debate was published. I had a meeting with the chair and chief executive of Betsi, along with the NHS Wales chief executive, on Wednesday, 1 June, and I apologise that yesterday I suggested this was a Tuesday. And of course, we informed the Plenary agenda on 1 June that things would be changing in terms of the agenda. Yesterday, therefore, was the earliest opportunity for me to bring the recommendations of the tripartite committee to the Senedd.

Now, the decision, as I highlighted yesterday, reflects very serious and outstanding concerns about the leadership, governance and progress, in particular in Glan Clwyd, including the vascular service and in the emergency department. And I'd like to make it absolutely clear that experiences like the one referred to—Reverend Jones, for example—are absolutely unacceptable. The example given by Gareth—again, all of these things are unacceptable, which is why we're putting these measures in place. I also have serious concerns about the allegations of bullying and harassment amongst staff that have been raised by Siân Gwenllian and others. This has not been ignored in the widening of the targeted intervention, and I have instructed the health board to review their approach to staff engagement, to ensure that these issues are addressed as part of their current targeted intervention escalations. And Carolyn, you're absolutely right that the voice of the staff needs to be heard.

Now, in taking this decision, I reflected on whether or not the health board should be escalated into special measures. I've decided that special measures, at this time, is not appropriate, and this is because the board and the chief executive have highlighted their determination to make progress, and have committed to addressing our concerns, and have already started to do so. I'm also mindful of the impact that the special measures status previously had on the health board's ability to recruit and retain staff—an issue that many of you have highlighted today—and the importance of being able to attract the right people into the organisation.

Special measures had a negative impact on the culture within the organisation, as they relied on others to make key decisions, rather than the health board developing their own solutions. And while we and the health board recognise that there are significant and serious failings, it is important to build confidence and support the organisation to be more aspirational, to be more ambitious, and to look forward to a better future. It's important that we support the health board to continue its improvement journey, and to promote an open culture, where problems are acknowledged and investigated, and we want to promote learning. A special measures designation will not achieve that. But, of course, if we don't see improvement, then that is still on the table as an option.

What will the trigger for that be? An example, for example, is the non-implementation of the action plan around vascular, and, therefore, building upon the existing programme for targeted intervention, as described in my statement yesterday. And, Russell, I'll tell you that I will be monitoring. I'm monitoring already on a fortnightly basis the action plan on vascular and we'll be watching for the impact of Improvement Cymru and the difference it can make in accident and emergency.

Yesterday, I explained the significant interventions that are being made, and I won't rehearse those now. Significant improvements have taken place across the health board over the past seven years and the institution is fundamentally different from the one that was placed under special measures. The executive team has been renewed, including a new chief executive and medical director, among others. The way that the health board engages with staff, partners and the public does demonstrate that there is greater maturity and increasing efficiency within the board. That can now support their work in delivering the long-term strategy for clinical, integrated services and the service transformation related to that.

The health board has demonstrated the ability to drive improvement that enables services to be taken out of special measures. Maternity services and out-of-hours services have achieved this progress and they are now part of a continuous improvement campaign by the board itself.

We must bear in mind that over 19,000 members of staff care for the population of north Wales every day and, for the majority, the care is good, be that in a GP surgery, in out-patient clinics, in the community or in hospital. Although the institution is now under a higher level of targeted intervention, I would like to reassure the patients and communities served by the health board, and the staff who work in that health board, that services and day-to-day activities will continue as usual. However, there are significant areas of concern that must be carefully addressed by the board, and I will ensure that they are monitored.

I call on Darren Millar to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Betsi isn't working. You've heard it time and time again in this Chamber over a number of years now. Patients are being let down. Patient safety is being compromised. Some patients have come to harm; others have even died as a result of what has happened in the health board.

We know that the working environment for staff is unacceptable. Staff are under huge pressure. There are significant shortages of nursing staff in particular at the health board, and indeed some consultant posts as well have not been filled. And that pressure leads to mistakes. And this is why we're in the position that we are. We know that staff also have been discouraged from speaking out when they have concerns. We know that when they do speak out and raise concerns, they've been ignored. That's effectively what the Healthcare Inspectorate Wales report said about the situation in the emergency department. And we know that there's been intimidation and bullying of staff, not just in Ysbyty Gwynedd, but frankly in every hospital across the whole of the health board and in most of the departments—I wouldn't say all, but certainly in most.

Workforce planning, of course, has been the responsibility of the Welsh Government for 20 years. They're nothing new, these pressures, in terms of our hospitals. They have been the responsibility of the Welsh Government for 20-odd years. So, it's not actually Brexit or visas that are causing these issues; it's a failure to plan for the workforce effectively and to train sufficient numbers of people to go into these very important health professions.

It's also not just about funding. There is a health service across the border in England that seems to have better performance. It's difficult to compare directly, but it seems to have better performance when it comes to emergency departments and other aspects of care—waiting times—and it spends less money per patient in order to get there. We spend more money per patient and seem to have worse services and it's a postcode lottery within Wales of course, because not everywhere, thank God, is as bad as the Betsi Cadwaladr health board in terms of the services that are being delivered.

But it's because it's nothing to do with money, and it's something to do with workforce planning, and we know we've got these issues, and we know what the issues are, that I was a bit disappointed by your response, Minister. How many more reports are we going to have to receive before the Welsh Government as a whole wakes up to the fact that Betsi is broken? I have always defended the Welsh Government's position, for many years, that the last thing that the health board needs in north Wales is reorganisation. I've defended that. I'm no longer convinced that that's sustainable. I think it might be the right answer, and that's why we're prepared to support the Plaid Cymru amendment today, to say, 'Let's have an independent person to look at the structures to see whether they're right,' because if that is part of the problem, then I want it sorting.

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

And we now reach voting time. We will now take a short break to prepare for that vote technically.

That brings us to voting time. The first vote will be on item 6. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Huw Irranca-Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 40, no abstentions, 14 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

We'll now move to the vote on the Welsh Conservatives' debate. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. If the motion is not agreed, we will then vote on the amendment tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, 13 abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, no abstentions, and 27 against. As is required under Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, in favour 27, no abstentions, and 28 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

As the Senedd has not agreed the unamended motion or the amendment proposed to the motion, the motion is therefore not agreed. And that brings voting time to a close for today.

We'll move now to the shorts debates, and I call on Joel James to speak to the topic he has chosen.

And if Members are leaving, please do so quietly. Joel.

Thank you, Dirprwy Llywydd, and I'd like to confirm that I've agreed to give my colleagues Altaf Hussain and Russell George a minute each. As many here will know, the subject of deafness and the issues facing the deaf community are very close to my heart, and I wanted to take the opportunity of—

Joel, just before you continue, just confirm: Altaf Hussain and Russell George.

Yes, a minute each.

Thank you.

As many here will know, the subject of deafness and the issues facing the deaf community are very close to my heart. I wanted to take the opportunity of my first short debate to highlight some of these issues. I will cover three main points, namely the effect that hearing loss has within employment, the British Sign Language Act 2022, and the inability of private audiology practitioners to carry out NHS work and the implication this has for waiting lists and the subsequent impact on people's health and well-being. I want to focus on these points because I believe there needs to be a better, more intuitive understanding by the Government of the wider deaf community, particularly of the hidden aspects of hearing loss and how this has a profound effect on people's lives.

In terms of employment, we know that at least 4.4 million working-age people in the UK have hearing loss. We also know that the employment rate for those with hearing loss is much lower compared to people with no long-term health issues or disability, typically 65 per cent and 79 per cent respectively. On average, people with hearing loss are paid at least £2,000 less per year than the general population, meaning that those with hearing loss can expect to earn considerably less over their lifetime, which has a knock-on effect in terms of providing for their families and enjoying the same lifestyle as people with no long-term health issues. A recent survey of those suffering hearing loss by the Royal Association for Deaf People found that those with hearing loss face a tougher working environment, and the majority felt that they had not been given equal opportunities, that they did not feel supported, that they felt excluded from conversations with colleagues, that they were lonely at work, that they had been left out of social events, and that they had experienced bullying or acts of unkindness at work because of their condition. These issues of exclusion and a lack of support play out detrimentally in the long term.

When it came to career progression, the majority—60 per cent—of respondents said they had not been given progression opportunities during their career, with several people citing a lack of deaf role models within work as a key barrier. Unfortunately, there is a sense in the deaf community that despite numerous Government programmes created to remove the effect of disability from the job market, there were still many examples of difficulty accessing the correct type of support, and sometimes accessing any support at all. The most glaring evidence that Government programmes were ineffective was that those who are deaf or have severe hearing loss are still regarded as expensive employees because of the limitation to the roles they can carry out and the additional support that they require.

This brings me to my second point, the BSL Act. I, like many others, were very pleased to see that, at the end of April this year, the UK Government's BSL Bill received Royal Assent, passing into law as the British Sign Language Act 2022. For those unfamiliar with the Act, there will now be recognition of British Sign Language as an official language of England, Wales and Scotland. Whilst this is a huge milestone for deaf people, we are not out of the woods in the devolved nations. In England, the law requires the Secretary of State to report on the promotion and facilitation of the use of BSL by ministerial Government departments, and guidance must be issued in relation to BSL, setting out how Government departments and public bodies must meet the needs of deaf people in the UK. Based on those aims, the Act should improve access to interpreters, as well as enhance general awareness, and help develop BSL education. It should also help improve access to employment for deaf people. Because of the devolution settlement, Welsh Government Ministers are not subject to the reporting duty of the Act, and therefore it is entirely on the shoulders of Welsh Government Ministers here whether or not we see this benefit in Wales. I believe, in this instance, the Welsh Government needs to recognise the Act in its entirety, and take on its full reporting duties, and I would hope that all Members here in this Chamber would encourage the Welsh Government to adopt this approach.

In my final point, I want to discuss audiology services in Wales, and the potential role and impact that private audiology practitioners can make. We have an unprecedented need to clear audiology backlogs in Wales. Cardiff and Vale health board has almost 1,500 people waiting for treatment, with over 800 having waited 14 months or more for NHS audiology services. There are a further 5,000 more waiting across Wales for much-needed treatment to hear well again, and these figures have only increased since the pandemic. This particular waiting list is significant. Whilst it can be said that hearing loss is not immediately life threatening, it has a massive impact on the lives of those who are suffering, especially since age-related hearing loss is very common in Wales, with 1 per cent of the population per year of age suffering from it—that means 70 per cent of 70-year-olds and 80 per cent of 80-year olds et cetera.

The impact of age-related hearing loss goes far beyond just not being able to hear well. It leads, tragically, to social isolation, loneliness, mental ill health, dementia, and these conditions then give further rise to other health issues. Waiting more than 14 months for an assessment and hearing aids is no trivial matter if you are 80 years old with increasing cognitive decline. It places you in a highly vulnerable situation, which I have no doubt is truly terrifying for them. There is strong evidence to show that mild hearing loss doubles the risk of developing dementia, moderate hearing loss leads to three times the risk, and severe hearing loss increases the risk five times. Hearing loss is estimated to account for 8 per cent of dementia cases, as well as other long-term health problems. People with hearing loss have, over a 10-year period, a 47 per cent increased rate of hospitalisation because of increased risk for falls and depression. What stands out even further is that, if there is a timely diagnosis, then declining cognitive function can be stopped, so the 14-month waiting list to access audiology services, without a doubt, is harming people.

Thank you, Joel, for this debate and for giving me a minute—I may take more. In many cases, people with hearing loss are forced to wait significantly longer for an appointment with their GP. Many GP surgeries can't offer same-day appointments because they lack staff who are trained interpreters or can use sign language. Patients could wait two weeks or more as they wait for an interpreter to be arranged. This is a significant time for a vulnerable person who needs to see their doctor. At a cross-party group, a person with hearing loss described how they were cut off during a 111 call, as it took so long to find someone who could communicate with them over the phone. If this was a 999 call, this could have been catastrophic. Regulations need to be tightened by the Welsh Government for over-the-counter hearing aids, as users could experience further isolation and hearing loss due to overamplification. The Welsh Government needs to invest in hearing loss services so that all people receive equal treatment. Ultimately, this could save lives. Thank you.

Can I thank my colleague Joel James for his contribution and for giving me a moment of his time as well? In Wales, hearing loss services are exclusively provided by NHS hospital-based services. We also know that there is a huge unacceptable level of waiting times for some patients, forcing patients to either go private, or if they can't afford it, to suffer or not know where to turn to. When I go for my appointment for an eyesight test, I also get offered a hearing test, as well, at Specsavers in Newtown. They offer a hearing test and also—[Interruption.] A two-for-one—absolutely. But my colleague Joel James has pointed this out and I would put to you, Minister, that there's an opportunity here to save the NHS money, to improve access to services and also to take the pressure off the NHS, and that is by commissioning existing providers of community services in Wales to provide NHS services using a model based on existing primary care optometry in Wales. Optometrists play a huge role, of course, in reducing the burden upon GP primary care services and the NHS as a whole in Wales, so I would ask the Minister to consider this as a similar model for NHS hearing loss services in Wales.

I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to reply to the debate—Eluned Morgan.

Diolch yn fawr. I would like to pay tribute to Joel for bringing this matter to the attention of the Senedd. I also want to pay tribute to the Tory group, because it's so lovely the way you all support each other in these short debates. It's a real example to the rest of us, so well done, you. You'll be pleased to hear that my 15-page speech has now been cut down to five. [Laughter.]

The Welsh Government's programme for government set out the actions we'll pursue over this Senedd term to ensure that nobody's left behind through a shared commitment to ensure that everyone reaches their potential. And that includes, of course, people who are deaf or living with hearing impairments. The Welsh Government recognises being deaf or having a hearing impairment can sometimes negatively impact levels of communications, as has been set out by Joel. This may leave people feeling isolated, detached from the world around them and feeling depressed. Everyday barriers in respect of public services, transport, health, social care, entertainment and leisure may hold them back. Early intervention and diagnosis is absolutely paramount for health and the well-being of these individuals.

Wales is actually a leader in the development and provision of hearing healthcare, through our hearing plan, 'Framework of Action for Wales, 2017-2020: integrated framework of care and support for people who are D/deaf or living with hearing loss'. It is a first for the UK, and our framework for action outlines the service redesign required to meet the needs of the current and future Welsh population. The framework for action has been extended to 2023, in recognition of the remaining challenges of the work still to do, to ensure that we do everything we can to prevent ear problems. This includes ensuring people are diagnosed and treated in a timely manner and receive the ongoing care and communication support that they need.

People who are deaf or are living with unmanaged hearing impairment or diagnosed with hearing loss and dementia, or mental health problems, are more likely to need care and support if they are to reach their full employment, education and social potential. The framework for action aims to follow the life course from newborn screening and children to adults and older people, to ensure that appropriate services are developed and individuals are signposted to those services when they're needed.

In the time I have today, I can't do justice to the range of policies under way to address hidden issues affecting deaf people and those living with hearing impairment, but I will just highlight a few little areas of activity. I would like to say that I will look into the opportunities to see if there is any opportunity for us to work with the private sector to expand and to speed up the process. Hearing loss can't be cured, but its negative effects can be mitigated through hearing aids and equipment and support from multi-agency professionals. In April, I published our programme for transforming and modernising planned hospital care and reducing waiting lists. Importantly, the plan signals the transformation of community-based services to offer different options designed to support individuals. This will remain our key way of addressing the issue.

All-Wales standards give guidance to health service staff on how to ensure that patients' needs for support and communications are met, and that includes BSL. Every health board and every trust is expected to put arrangements in place to deliver the standards in order to ensure that all services are available and are accessible, including for those experiencing hearing loss.

If you remember in December of last year, when we marked International Day of Persons with Disabilities, Jane Hutt, the Minister for Social Justice, had made a statement in the Senedd, highlighting the way the COVID pandemic has had a very negative impact on disabled people. The lack of equality, which already existed, had contributed to that, and that lack of equality was intensified during the pandemic. The 'Locked Out' report focused on the clear unfairness faced by disabled people and highlighted the barriers for those experiencing hearing loss, and this has encouraged the Welsh Government to establish a disability rights task force.

To conclude, I think we can be agreed that a broad range of activities are in place in order to tackle the hidden issues impacting those experiencing hearing loss. However, there is more to come, and I will continue to welcome innovative solutions to support these citizens in Wales. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, all. That brings today's proceedings to a close.