Plenary

Over to you, now, Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales. The first question is from Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you. Under our new domestically funded programme, a raft of new schemes have opened for farmers, foresters, land managers and food businesses. This package of support is worth over £227 million, supporting agriculture and the rural economy. This is in addition to the support available through programmes such as Farming Connect.

I refer Members to my declaration of interest. Minister, one of the key things that does need to be invested in here in Wales is the processing sector, so that the produce that our primary producers—i.e. our farmers—produce can have as much value added to it here in Wales, so that the gross value added of agriculture lifts across the board. I have asked you several times over the course of your tenure as Minister what tangible increases we have seen in processing here in Wales, namely in dairy and red meat processing. Are you able to update us as to the level of investment that the Welsh Government is making in those key sectors, to add value to that primary product, and ultimately sustain a vibrant agricultural community because they are achieving the maximum value of the produce that they are producing?

Thank you. Well, we certainly have put specific support into both dairy and meat processing here in Wales. I am thinking particularly in relation to dairy. In north-west Wales, we have put in some significant funding. I can't give you the exact figure, but I would be very happy to write to you on that.

Thank you. Promotion of responsible dog ownership is a priority for the Welsh Government. Our code of practice for the welfare of dogs outlines the obligations on owners to keep their dogs under control. Our programme for government includes measures that will improve standards of dog breeding and keeping in Wales.

Minister, a Welsh Government report in 2018 estimated that some one in three households in Wales have a dog, and their estimate said that there are some 600,000 dogs in total. Thankfully, most dog owners are responsible, but too many do not exercise proper control. As a result, we see dog attacks, sometimes fatal, on children, adults and the elderly, as well as other dogs.

There is UK legislation, of course, such as the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 and so-called 'dog ASBOs', as well as the Welsh Government measures that you touched upon—and I know that you are considering the reintroduction of dog licences, Minister. But, given the ongoing incidents that, unfortunately, we see across Wales, I do believe that our communities expect more action, and they expect it right now, in order to protect life and limb. So, what more can you say in terms of what the Welsh Government will do, Minister, to address these very real concerns in our communities?

Thank you. You are quite right: we have seen a recent spate of injuries and deaths as a result of dog attacks on people across Wales. The primary legislation is, as you referred to, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. I believe that that needs to be strengthened. I have made representations previously to both the Home Office and to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and my understanding was that they weren't inclined to review the Act at the time. I'm in the process of writing again, because I think we have seen, as I said at the outset of this answer, a recent spate of injuries and deaths, and I do think that the Dangerous Dogs Act is not fit for purpose. Certainly, the rural crime teams that we have here in Wales—I recently attended their conference. I don't think that the police think that the legislation is fit for purpose either. There are other pieces of legislation that are appropriate that are even pre 1991 and even pre the twentieth century. So, I do think that we need to look very carefully, and I'd be very happy to do that with the UK Government.

Dogs bring a lot of pleasure to many, many people, but responsible ownership is something I think—. You asked specifically what Welsh Government can do, and I think that's where we can have the most effect, as well, and make sure that people do understand that even the most docile of dogs can sometimes react in a way that is unexpected. So, I think responsible dog ownership is something that we do as a Government very well, and we will continue to do so.

I'm pleased this subject has been raised this afternoon, as what causes me and a lot of people that I've spoken to a lot of anxiety is dog attacks and, obviously, dangerous dogs, which we've discussed. I think there were six deaths in 2022, and there was the young lad in Caerphilly who was mauled to death a couple of years ago. But the common theme here is that they were all subject to one breed, and that's the American bully. That didn't exist in 1991 when the Dangerous Dogs Act was last reviewed, because they were genetically bred through the 1990s and 2000s, and we're in the situation now where we've got a dangerous dog that is effectively unregulated. In that sense, I'm pleased that you've called for a review of the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991, but specifically what can we do to exhaust all levels at a devolved level to make sure that the Welsh Government is adequately reflecting this fact in Wales, particularly in relation to genetically modified dogs that we perhaps didn't see 32 years ago?

Thank you. I think you've explained very well why we do need to have that piece of legislation reviewed. As I say, it's not just that piece of legislation; I think there are other outdated forms of dog legislation as well. Certainly the discussions I've had with our rural crime and wildlife commissioner are that there needs to be a holistic view to make sure all the pieces of legislation do what we want them to do.

I mentioned in my earlier answer what we can do as a Welsh Government. We do a great deal in relation to responsible ownership. I think we had a renewed focus on this following the pandemic, where we saw a significant increase in the number of households, not just in Wales, but across the UK, with pets. As I say, they bring a lot of joy, don't they, to a lot of people, and companionship and support, and I think what really is Welsh Government's responsibility is working with people to understand, when they do purchase a pet, just what is entailed. We have several campaigns to make sure that happens. We also have our social media campaign Paws, Prevent, Protect, and that just reminds prospective purchasers of the need to do their research before buying a pet. I think, again, that's very important with breeds that perhaps they might not know much about, and you referred to new breeds as well.

I think we should also encourage the adoption of dogs and cats from rescue centres. I think our rescue centres have seen a significant increase in the number of dogs and cats that they've had to take in. Again, that's all part of that responsible pet ownership that we promote as a Government.

I echo John's comments from earlier. Last week, you may remember, I raised this issue with you of the third serious dog attack in Penyrheol in 18 months. The Westminster legislation in place for protecting the public when it comes to dangerous dogs is not fit for purpose and needs to be, in my opinion, replaced, or at least changed, and you intimated last week that you tend to agree with that opinion. But you also added that various Home Secretaries have ignored your attempts to correspond on the matter. While it may be difficult to have those conversations or dialogues with Westminster counterparts on the matter, one thing you might possibly do is raise awareness of what is acceptable and what is not acceptable when it comes to dog behaviour. It's also important to educate people about the appropriate channels where they can raise concerns, and also lower-level incidents that don't warrant a 999 call. In their ward, the Plaid Cymru councillors in Penyrheol have been proactive on this matter, and firmly believe that there needs to be a national strategy and a national awareness campaign on the matter, so that early-warning signs about dangerous dogs can be recognised and reported. Do you agree with that, and, if so, would you consider implementing such a campaign?

Thank you. I think you do raise a very important point. It is vital that people do know where to make complaints et cetera, and you'll be aware of the Welsh Government scheme that we had with our local authorities around enforcement. We've put funding into training to make sure that all local authorities are aware of what's expected of them, and what more we can do to help the general public too. On the back of our exchange in the Siambr last week—I think it was in the business statement—I did commit, as I say, to writing again to the Home Secretary—I've not given up—and also the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because I've raised it with my counterparts in DEFRA on many occasions over the years. It might just be that, because, unfortunately, we've seen this increase in the number of dog attacks and fatalities, maybe they will wake up and think this is now the time to look at this very outdated legislation. So, I am hopeful that, if we write again, something might happen. But as a Government, we can do more, and I'm very happy to look at any campaigns that we can do, either on our own or in conjunction with Scotland, England and Northern Ireland, to promote responsible dog ownership.

Questions now from party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Samuel Kurtz.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, a fortnight ago, you released a written statement in relation to the Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021, much more snappily known as the NVZ regs, following a joint initiative between the Government and Plaid Cymru. In that statement, you announced that you're extending the implementation date for the 170 kg per hectare annual limit from 30 April to 31 October, later this year. Whilst this delay was welcomed, it was announced just six days before the regulations were due to be implemented. For the past several months, the agricultural community have been left to scramble, as they attempt to meet these regulations, only to be told at the eleventh hour that you were delaying the start date. Why was this decision left so late, why are the concerns of the agricultural community not being listened to, and why not just follow the lead of other countries and increase the threshold to 250 kg per hectare, so you don't leave Welsh agriculture at a competitive disadvantage?

Well, I certainly don't snappily refer to them as NVZ regulations, because that's not what they are, so it would be good if you could perhaps use the correct title at all times. I extended the implementation date for one measure of the control of agricultural pollution regulations, to give some certainty to the agricultural sector. As you know, I've extended it until 31 October. The reason why it's taken time, and it's still taking further time, is because of the responses we had to the consultation—it's very important that they're given the level of attention that's needed. Obviously, there is a great deal of lobbying going on, on both sides. But what I want to do is absolutely get it right. I think it's very important that we fully consider all of the issues that were raised in response to the consultation, and take that time to ensure we reach the right decision, both for the environment and for the agricultural sector.

I'm grateful for that answer, Minister, but you will forgive me and Joe Bloggs for continuing to refer to them as NVZs when sections 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 of the regulations are directly lifted from NVZ regs. But I do appreciate the concerns around the consultations, and the efforts that are being put into respecting the answers to that consultation. But staying on time frames, you'll be aware that regulation 45 of the NVZ proposals requires any proposals for an alternative measure to be made within 18 months of the regulations coming into effect. I believe, if I'm right in my thinking, that that deadline has now passed. So, by the standards set by yourself and this Government, should any alternative proposal now be brought forward, you will not consider it. Technology is key to improving water quality throughout Wales—technology that is advancing, developing and improving all of the time. Gelli Aur's Prosiect Slyri is just one example, but other groundbreaking technological solutions might now not see the light of the day, thanks to the insistence of a hard and fast deadline within the regulations. With regulation 45 in black and white, what incentive is there for a company, or a team of academics, to come forward with an alternative solution, if you insist that a deadline has passed?

I've said that we will consider that. On the 18-month deadline, I suppose I set that on myself. I think I was being very hard on myself, to make sure that, if anything came forward, we would have to consider it within that time. We haven't seen many more. I hear about what you say about Gelli Aur, and I've been there, along with Cefin Campbell, to have a look at it. I've been a couple of times now, and it is very clear that progress is being made, just not as fast as I think we would want it. But certainly, we have encouraged other people to come forward if they have any ideas. I've made it very clear that I do not want to extend the timescale again from the end of October. I've made it very clear to officials that we need to look at this now as a matter of urgency, and set out our response to the consultation as quickly as we possibly can, and well before that new implementation date that you referred to, in order to give that certainty to everyone.

That begs the question why was regulation 45 so necessary, if you're saying now in the Chamber that you will look at future alternative measures if they do come forward. That's the bit that I couldn't get when we were questioning you in committee. I still can't quite understand today the insistence on having regulation 45 within the NVZ regs. But I'm not trying to give opposition for opposition's sake here when I'm challenging these regulations and their appropriateness for tackling a problem—a problem that we all want to see fixed. Water pollution from any source needs to be stopped. But given the delay to the implementation, the rigidity in accepting an alternative solution, the problems within the planning system in actually getting storage facilities built, not to mention the inflationary cost of materials, and the analysis of the Irish Environmental Protection Agency, which has shown that nearly half of sites under NVZ regulations actually showed an increase in nitrates, isn't this whole policy just a thinly veiled attack on Welsh agriculture, and a way to destock our countryside by the back door?

Absolutely not. I think we've made it very clear as a Government that—you're absolutely right—every form of pollution needs to be stopped, absolutely every form. And that's why the First Minister has had two water quality summits that he has chaired, along with myself and the Minister for Climate Change, because it's not just one sector; it's lots of sectors. What the First Minister wanted, and what happened, was a variety of sectors came forward to that water summit with solutions to these problems and what action they would take. It was not just agriculture; there were many other sectors there. So, to say that just one sector is being picked on is absolutely incorrect.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I was very concerned to hear last week that new bird flu protection zones had been enforced around a large game breeding farm in Powys. This is a concerning development given that the Government had lifted the poultry and game bird housing order on 18 April. The number of birds recorded as suffering bird flu is at its highest now, with some 330 cases recorded in the UK over the past two years. Over half of the cases recorded in Wales have been recorded in Powys, with poultry farms being particularly badly hit and almost 4 million birds being culled. The order for keeping birds indoors was introduced at the beginning of December last year, before being lifted four months later. I would, therefore, like to understand the efficiency of this order in terms of preventing the spread of the disease among birds in Wales. Will the Minister outline the Government's assessment of the efficiency and effectiveness of these measures? And if no assessment has yet been made, I would like to know when the information will be available, please.

Thank you. As you know, we have seen a significant number of avian influenza cases in Wales, and far more across other parts of the UK. For about 20 months, we have not seen any respite, really, from that. As you said, on 18 April, we did lift the mandatory housing measures for birds, which I introduced, I think, on 2 December. I did that because the advice I was given from the chief veterinary officer, and the advice we were given from other areas, was that that was the right thing to do. There was a reduction in risk to poultry and captive birds. Alongside that, the avian influenza prevention zone remains in force across Wales until further notice. I think it's important to say that. And, also, we are encouraging all bird keepers to abide by the mandatory biosecurity measures and complete the mandatory biosecurity self-assessment checklist, which we introduced back in December, and which helps us monitor efficiency and effectiveness of the various measures that we bring through. I mentioned the all-Wales avian influenza prevention zone. We put that in place back in the middle of October, and, as I say, that does still remain in place. But there is constant monitoring going on not just here in Wales, but obviously across the UK. The chief veterinary officer meets with others on a regular basis—I think it's still weekly—around the AI outbreaks that we've seen across the country.

I thank the Minister for that response. The Minister will be aware that the numbers of cases of AI increase during the winter months. These are very challenging months in trying to prevent the spread of the disease, with wild birds, who are most likely to carry the infection, migrating over the winter months, and likely to take AI to new areas. Because of this, it's important that biosecurity measures are strengthened in order to prevent the spread of avian influenza. Responsible governments ensure that appropriate biosecurity steps are taken to prepare for the risks, but in order to ensure that these are effective it's important to support poultry farmers and keepers in their attempts to implement these measures. Such support can be in the form of training, as well as financial support for providing the necessary infrastructure, and the Government here, in fairness, has already taken some steps to this end over the past 12 months and supported the industry. The summer months are going to be crucially important, therefore, if we're going to prepare effectively for what could be a very difficult winter for the sector. Could I, therefore, ask the Minister what work is in the pipeline or being planned at the moment in preparing for the possibility of the spread of avian influenza this winter?

Thank you. You are quite right; normally it is the winter months where we see the majority of AI outbreaks. But really, we haven't had a respite. We had it all through the summer last year, and, as you say, we need to prepare. We have a cross-Government and industry avian influenza taskforce looking at vaccination, for instance, now, because I think that's something that we need to be looking at, whether that's good for the future. Obviously, biosecurity is very important. We have a register of bird keepers here in Wales, and you had to have 50 birds to be on the register. What we're encouraging is for everybody, even if you've only got one in your back yard, to register, so we know where we are and we know how we can get that information to you as quickly as possible. You'll be aware of the work that we've done on banning bird gatherings. Unfortunately, we haven't seen birds at the Royal Welsh Show and other agricultural shows, but that is, I think, really important, because we know there are certain higher risk species of birds where we have to keep those preventions in place.

I think we all have a responsibility in helping to prevent the spread of AI to protect the health of all birds in Wales—our kept birds, our national flocks—and, of course, our trading position. It's really important from that point of view. So, I would urge everybody—. It's a good opportunity—and thank you for raising this today—to tell everyone it's really important that they comply with these measures. We also work with public health agencies. Whilst, obviously, from a public health point of view, the risk remains very, very low, it is really important that we work with them. Also, the Food Standards Agency is advising on the risks from AI. The risk is very, very low from a food safety point of view as well, but obviously it is there. It's about making sure that you properly cook your poultry and properly cook eggs, for instance.

As the Minister for north Wales, I have regular discussions with all Cabinet colleagues on how portfolios work together. Every effort is made to ensure north Wales reaps the benefits of all our sporting successes.

Thank you very much for your answer, Minister. The reason I ask this question is because of the recent success in your constituency, which is the success of Wrexham football club winning the National League and returning to the football league after a 15-year absence. I don't pretend to be a Wrexham fan, but I know they've had some dark days over that period of time, and it's great to see them back to their former glory anyway. Plenty of my constituents are also Wrexham fans as well, as you can probably gather. But in terms of looking at how the whole region can benefit from this, obviously with the investment from Ryan Reynolds, Rob McElhenney as well, and the success that they’re having down there in Wrexham, how do you think that the region as a whole can benefit from that investment and create not just an area of sporting champions, but indeed a region of champions to go with that as well?

Thank you, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to again raise the success of Wrexham football club—both the men and the women, and, of course, the youth teams as well. I think it’s very important to remember all four teams gained promotion this year. But I do think you make a very good point—the profile of the club and that of Wrexham has obviously been built on these successes and the number of global visitors we’re getting to Wrexham. I rarely go to a home match now where you’re not approached by an American fan who’s probably never been to Wrexham before and probably never heard of Wrexham before the Welcome to Wrexham documentary and, as you say, the input from Ryan Reynolds and Rob McElhenney. So, I do think it is important for not just north-east Wales, but the whole of north Wales. And you’re quite right—there are people from Anglesey, there are people from Llandudno who sit behind me at the football, and they’ve been there for many, many, many years, including those dark days.

You’ll be aware of the significant funding that’s been given by the Welsh Government to the Wrexham Gateway, and some of that money is going towards the redevelopment of the stadium to ensure that we can have a stadium where international matches can be held, because that hasn’t been possible for many, many years. As a child, that’s where I saw my international football; I couldn’t possibly have come to Cardiff. So, it’s really important for north Wales that we have that ability to host international matches at the Racecourse stadium.

I made an oral statement in March, updating Members on the TB eradication programme. During my statement, I set out the progress made and launched our new delivery plan, which sets out a course of action for the next five years.

I’d like to thank the Minister for her answer. There is obviously one way, the most effective way, of dealing with bovine TB, and that would be to have a targeted cull of infected badgers across Wales, but that is something that the Welsh Labour Government won’t even entertain. So, I’d like to know where you are with the vaccination programme, and is there any more money being made available for that? I know we had the pilot project last year, but I’d like to know whether more money is being made available for a pilot project this year so we can actually start getting on top of TB across Wales.

Thank you. I do think we've made significant progress in relation to TB eradication. You're quite right—there is a very, very clear programme for government commitment not to cull badgers. That was in the manifesto on which I and my party were elected two years ago. And as I say, we have seen some steady progress and we continue to build on that.

You're quite right about a vaccine—there’s been some significant progress taken. I think, if you ask any academic, they always say, 'It’s 10 years in advance, 10 years in advance', but it is becoming much closer now; it's certainly not 10 years away. And we did have some pilot projects. Unfortunately there were no farms in Wales that put themselves forward for that project. And then we've just gone into the second phase now, and I've asked officials to work with some farms here in Wales to see if they would be part of that pilot, and I think there are a couple farms that we've identified that hopefully will take part in those pilot schemes. But I think, certainly from the last meetings I had—probably last summer—with academics in Aberystwyth University, they're very hopeful that, before the end of this decade, certainly, and probably a bit closer to where we are now, we will see a cattle vaccine.

Thank you. Our animal health and welfare plan details how we deliver our programme for government commitments. This includes developing a national regulation model for animal welfare, which we will consult on later this year.

Thank you for that response, Minister.

The Welsh Government, of course, launched its voluntary code of practice for animal welfare establishments back in 2020, and it was a welcome step, but research from RSPCA Cymru suggests that this has never been referred to by approximately half of animal welfare establishments, and, worryingly, they also found that none of Wales’s local authorities promote the code of practice on their websites. This, I think, speaks to a need to regulate beyond a voluntary code of practice. We know that there are, of course, plans to introduce registration for animal welfare establishments in the animal welfare plan. The plan itself suggests that consultation and priority documents are due to be published this year. Are you able to tell us when this year, and can we expect any future plans to introduce stringent staffing requirements, species-specific guidance, and adequate funding and training for Wales's 22 local authorities that ultimately will need to deliver on these regulations themselves?

As I said in my earlier answer to you, later this year, so I guess it will be before the end of the calendar year. If I say 'autumn', does that go into November? But probably towards the latter part of the year. I'm very concerned to hear what you say around local authorities not promoting the code of practice on their website. With the work that we've done with local authorities around enforcement projects, for instance, I would have thought that local authorities would perhaps marry the two together and think about promoting those codes of practice a bit more. I shall certainly take that forward with officials to see, because, for me, that's a very simple thing to do. It doesn't even cost anything, does it? So, I think we should look at doing that as quickly as we can.

Riding schools, cat boarders, dog breeders and pet shops are all subject to regulation in Wales, but animal welfare establishments or sanctuaries are not. We must never take away from them the hard work they do, but anyone—literally anybody—can set themselves up and call themselves an animal rescue or an animal sanctuary. Really, there's no inspection process or any regulation. So, again, I don't believe that the voluntary code of practice, as Luke has said, has actually been effective. So, it's good to hear, Minister, that you are considering bringing in more regulations towards the end of the year, and I look forward to that.

Thank you. Well, I don't think it's been ineffective. I think we should be looking at mandatory, though, and yes I certainly hope to go out to consultation by the end of this year. I think it's a good opportunity to thank them. Many of them, as you say, bring forward really hard work, protecting so many animals, and I go back to what I was saying—it's a good opportunity to promote the adoption of pets.

Farmers throughout Pembrokeshire received over £18 million from the basic payment scheme during the past year, and our Farming Connect service continues to provide crucial support and advice to 441 businesses in Pembrokeshire.

I'm grateful to you for that answer, Minister. Next week is Mental Health Awareness Week, and I want to put on record my gratitude to organisations like the DPJ Foundation, the Farming Community Network and the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution, who all support people in agriculture and rural communities with mental health problems. Now, as my colleague, the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, said, challenges like bovine TB continue to be a major issue for farmers in my constituency, and the Welsh Government's refreshed TB eradication plan for 2023-28 recognised deep-seated levels of infection in parts of Pembrokeshire where TB herd-level incidence and prevalence have worsened against the overall improving backdrop in Wales. Minister, I know that you recognise that dealing with bovine TB can have a huge strain on farmers' mental health and well-being, so can you tell us why, therefore, your refreshed TB eradication plan does not recognise and prioritise farmers' mental health and well-being, because the Welsh Government needs to be doing everything it can to support farmers that have to deal with this dreadful disease?

Well, I think we need to support farmers' mental health around a variety of issues, so we do do a significant piece of work with third sector groups—and you mentioned the DPJ Foundation, which we both know very well—along with other charities, such as Tir Dewi and the Farming Community Network. Just last week, I met with my official who liaises with those charities, to see what further funding we could perhaps find to support them. I meet regularly with the charities, and certainly during the COVID pandemic I met with them probably monthly, because they were seeing an increased number of calls to the charities because of a variety of issues that, obviously, the COVID-19 pandemic brought as well. So, I don't think it's just around TB, although I absolutely recognise the distress it causes, but I think there are many issues that mean, sometimes, perhaps, farmers feel more isolated than other parts of our communities, where these charities are there for them, and I would urge anyone, if they need to seek that support, to do so, because the charities offer a range of support not just to farmers, but to farming families as well.

Thank you. The review of our code of practice will remain on hold while we examine the evidence around the use of cages for breeding gamebirds. There will not be any changes to the code of practice, or to welfare legislation, without consultation with stakeholders.

Thank you very much for that response. The killing of animals for sport is something that I oppose, and that includes the shooting of any birds as well. I do realise I'll be out of lockstep with many people here who cover the same region as I do. Many people have said it brings a lot to the economy. Well, that, for me, doesn't make it right. The killing of animals for sport is not something that I would support. And therefore, with the Welsh Government's stated intention to restrict the use of cages for farm animals, it makes little sense for legislation to lag behind for gamebirds. The code of practice as it stands does not advise against the use of enriched cages for gamebirds, an oppressive and distressing method, which the farm animal welfare committee advised was unlikely to meet the birds' needs. In my region, we have Bettws Hall, one of the largest gamebird farms in Europe and, by industry standards, has up to 90,000 gamebirds confined in cages for breeding purposes. There is an opportunity for the Welsh Government to lead the way and take a compassionate stance against the caged breeding of gamebirds. So, does the Minister agree that any update to the code of practice on the rearing of gamebirds for sporting purposes must correct this oversight and help work towards ending this callous practice? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you. Our code of practice that we have at the moment for the welfare of gamebirds reared for sporting purposes explains what a person needs to do to meet the standards of care the law requires, and it encourages all those who are responsible for rearing gamebirds to adopt the highest standards of husbandry. As you know, our animal welfare plan includes an action to establish a review cycle for all our codes of practice, with updates scheduled as far as possible to reflect our policy developments. So, as I say, unfortunately, it's not possible at this stage to provide a timeline for the review of the code of practice for the welfare of gamebirds reared for sporting purposes, but I have committed to restricting the use of cages, as you mentioned, for farmed animals. We're working with other UK administrations to look at how and where they're used, alongside the welfare impacts of existing and alternative systems. And I should just say, if anyone’s got any concerns about a specific gamebird rearing premises, they should be reported to the Animal and Plant Health Agency or to the relevant local authority, and that goes back to Peredur Griffiths's question about making sure that people know where they should report anything to.

It's such a shame to hear Jane Dodds turning her back on those many people who are employed in the shooting industry right across my constituency and across the region which she represents. Minister, the shooting industry employs thousands of people. It also benefits huge amounts to the economy and also to conservation. So, with this review, I hope that the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales will put science and people at the heart of their decision rather than ideological views spread by some people.

Well, the NRW consultation is open at the moment. It closes on 20 June, and that provides an opportunity for anyone with an interest to express their views.

Thank you. I regularly discuss the performance and improvement of important transport links in north Wales with my ministerial colleagues. I am pleased Transport for Wales has introduced new class 230 trains on the Wrexham to Bidston line and have committed to delivering a half-hourly service on the line later this year.

Thank you for that, Minister. I'm grateful for your answer. Passengers on the Wrexham to Bidston line are becoming increasingly frustrated with the regular use of rail replacement services on the line. I've had a number of constituents get in touch with me, and I've previously written to the Minister responsible for transport about this matter. Could you outline the support the Welsh Government can give Transport for Wales to resolve this issue and get the line back up and running as soon as possible?

I mentioned that Transport for Wales has now introduced these new trains. They did have to temporarily withdraw a number of trains for urgent repairs. That had a severe impact on services and, unfortunately, services on the Wrexham to Bidston line were cancelled with, as you say, replacement buses put in place. But I think they have now fully restored the hourly service on the Wrexham to Bidston line. I think, as a Government, also, we're very keen to work across to the north-west of England. Transport for Wales, I know, engage regularly with the Liverpool city region; I myself am meeting with the mayor next week, Steve Rotheram, to see how there can be more improved links between our two areas, and obviously work very closely with Merseyrail as well to make sure that improvements for passengers are there on the Wrexham to Bidston line.

Finally, question 9, Carolyn Thomas.

Thank you. The economic policy and fair work division meet approximately monthly with the retail forum to discuss a range of issues, including energy use and efficiencies. The retail action plan is a product of the partnership’s work, and the plan will be published on 18 May.

Thank you. Following the publication of the consortium's shared strategic vision for the retail sector last year, myself and representatives from Friends of the Earth Cymru presented to the group our campaign for the retail sector to adopt a target date for the retrofitting of doors on supermarket chillers and fridges. If this change is made throughout the whole of Wales, it could save the equivalent energy usage of 50,000 homes, helping to lower fuel bills and reduce carbon emissions. Minister, I'd be grateful if you could provide an update on what progress has been made by the retail consortium towards setting such a target, and what support Welsh Government has offered in order to make this a reality. I do believe that there was some capital funding being made available that we could use to borrow against.

Thank you. Well, the plan I referred to is being launched on 18 May. I know that fridge doors are included in the resilience chapter of the plan, and that will continue to be part of the work with the retail consortium to meet our objectives in combating climate change, for instance. Welsh Government does provide support for businesses that are looking to reduce their carbon emissions, manage energy costs and increase business competitiveness through initiatives such as the green business loan scheme, and that scheme offers capital funding, which small and medium-sized businesses often need to make those investment decisions.

I thank the Minister.

The next item, therefore, will be the topical questions. The first is to be answered by the Minister for Economy, and is to be asked by Alun Davies.

I thank the Member for the question. Officials from both the Welsh Government and Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council have been engaged constructively with Tillery Valley Foods for some time. Our key objectives are to secure a future for the workers, their families, and ideally to retain the business as a going concern. However, to develop solutions with the business, we require information that, to date, has not been readily forthcoming. I would take this opportunity to urge the business and its stakeholders to work with us to jointly consider what options are available to protect the jobs at stake.

I'm grateful to the Minister for that response. I should also put on record my gratitude to him for the way in which he's led the Government response to the issues around Tillery Valley Foods for many months now. I'm grateful to his officials for the willingness that they've shown to work hard, all hours of the day, through weekends, to ensure that this business is given every support it needs to get through these times.

Tillery Valley Foods is one of the biggest employers in Blaenau Gwent, and it's an enormous employer in the community of Cwmtillery and Abertillery and that part of the Ebbw Fach valley. It's part of a business ecosystem that won't be easily replaced, and as we go through these coming weeks and months, I'd be grateful if the Minister could outline how he believes that the Welsh Government, working with Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council, can continue to provide support to the business and to secure all the jobs that are associated with that business.

Yes. I thank the Member for his follow-up question. I should acknowledge that this is, of course, an area that crosses between two Government departments, because the food division is, of course, within the responsibility of my colleague, Lesley Griffiths, so we've been working across different portfolios to try to get answers and then to try to provide the right response to do what the Member says, about wanting to maintain employment in this part of Wales. I recognise completely what he says: the challenge of replacing employment in this part of Wales is not the same as if it were in, say, one of our three cities in the south of Wales; the access to employment is not the same.

The current situation is genuinely concerning, and I understand that it must be very distressing for the workforce and the wider community. We have been proactive with the council since the end of last year—and I remember the conversation I had directly with the Member at that time—both working with the council and the business, and we reached out proactively to creditors and the bank. We've also worked with the Development Bank of Wales to try to understand if there are alternative options for a future. We continue to explore options available to help secure a future for the business, and we're also having to consider what might happen if that isn't possible. You'll be aware that the administration notice has been served and we're now looking to work with the administrator to understand what we can positively do. We will establish a taskforce with the local authority, and I'll make sure that, once that taskforce is established, the Member, as a constituency Member, is properly engaged within that. We'll look to bring together a strategic group to be operationally focused on what we can do, to help co-ordinate action, dealing with the council and the Department for Work and Pensions, if required, as well as Careers Wales and, indeed, Community, who are not the recognised union but have a membership on the site as well. So, we'll look to prepare communications with and for the workforce, to look at options to safeguard jobs, and to make sure that we understand what might be possible, if required, with our ReAct+ programme, and others too.

I should say that we have, in the work that we've done, sought to engage directly in opportunities for the business to survive, not just looking at NHS Wales supply chains, but also the cash flow problems the business has that leads it to this point, but in particular the work we've done with some of our specialist advice areas that look, for example, in investor-ready approaches. That's work we've done together with the Wales Co-operative Centre as well, to look for alternatives. To date, it hasn't worked, but I continue to be focused on what we can do, and I continue to be focused on wanting to get the business to engage with us as openly and as constructively as possible, and we stand ready to work with them, with all the levers that we do have available, together with partners. And I'll make sure that the Member's informed. If there is more I can do, I'll write to the Member with a further update.

Minister, it's not often I do this, but I'd like to concur with everything that Alun Davies has just said. It is absolutely critical that this Government does everything in its powers to save the potential loss of these jobs. We are talking about Tillery foods, which is one of the biggest employers in that area of Abertillery, within my region. We're talking 310 jobs—that's a significant amount of jobs—and it would be a massive, massive loss to them. I, like Alun, also recognise the complexity of this case, of course, and I recognise the work you've done to date, but it would be good if you could possibly come back to the Senedd and update us on what has been done and what your plans are, should you have any action plans going forward, and any progress that you do make, if you could be forthcoming with that information, because of the severity of this to the people of my region. Thank you.

Thank you for the follow-up question. As I said in response to Alun Davies, when he raised concerns with us last year, we also had direct engagement with the council, who'd been engaged around the business, to want to understand what could happen. That was relatively late in the day. We understand that they've got challenges about cash flow, and we're not able to inject a large amount of cash into the business. And the Member will understand that there's a challenge about both the budget position and wanting to make sure that any injection of cash actually secures a future for the jobs. But also, we understand that a significant leap in energy costs and wider inflation is part of the reason for the challenges that the company faces. So, we'll continue to engage with them, we continue to want them to engage as constructively and openly as possible with us, and we will carry on working with the council. And I think I should make the point again: I think the council have been genuinely positive and constructive and wanting to find an answer for this business and the jobs that it provides in the local communities. That continues to be our focus, and as I'm in a position to write to interested Members, I will do so. And, as I say, I'm particularly grateful for the very constructive way in which the Member for Blaenau Gwent has not just made the case, but has made clear that his interests are in the jobs and the families that are directly affected.

Thank you for the update, Minister. I also want to express my grave concerns about the future of Tillery Valley Foods Ltd, and, as Alun said, it's one of the biggest and best employers that we've had in the wider area. One company employee, who has been in touch with my office, described the factory workforce as one big happy family. As well as expressing their utter devastation about the turn of events, they said that the majority of the workforce live within walking distance of the factory, and are without the option of driving to another place of work. Therefore, the closure of this factory would lead to a very grim future for many of the dedicated and long-serving workforce of Tillery foods.

I understand that the loss of some major contracts has promoted these financial difficulties for the company. It’s also my understanding that, while a big part of their business comes from supplying NHS England with food, they don’t seem to have the same relationship with NHS Wales. As well as offering direct financial help, is there any way that we can increase public procurement opportunities for companies like Tillery foods—a policy that Plaid Cymru has been pursuing for many, many years now, to ensure that Welsh public money recirculates around the local economy? Diolch.

That is exactly what we have been doing, and there have been direct conversations that we’ve had as the Government with the council and with Tillery Valley Foods, and again, the points that the Member makes around the direct answers that we need on the financial position of the company, the ownership structure, including the ownership of assets, and understanding the value in the business and what we’re able to do, has been a key—. It’s partly that we reach out to creditors and others to want to accurately understand what we’re all being told, and what we can then do to try to support the business to maintain its activity and to maintain the employment.

Now, we have, as I’ve said in earlier answers—and I think as I said in the initial answer to Alun Davies—looked at procurement issues within NHS Wales, but it does mean that we still need to understand whether we can help the company deal with its immediate cash flow issues or whether we can actually have a stable ownership and investment structure, and actually, the time frame for all those things to happen. But we have been proactively looking at each of those areas, including NHS Wales procurement.

I want to strike a note of some optimism about what we can do, but it has to be balanced with the realism that we’re not in control of the company and we need the business to work with us to be able to map out a sustainable future for the hundreds of jobs and families that are reliant on it.

I thank the Minister. The next question is to be answered by the Minister for health, and is to be asked by Darren Millar.

The four vascular cases referenced by the Member’s question were referred to His Majesty’s Coroner by the health board itself last year as part of its vascular quality review panel process. This, I think, shows openness on the part of the health board, and whilst I am unable to comment on individual cases, I would like to inform the Member that the health board are acutely aware of the challenges relating to vascular services at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. Patients and their families have paid a very high price for the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board’s bungling of the centralisation of vascular services in north Wales. It is a disgrace that these deaths were not referred to the coroner until an external review of their clinical records earlier this year, and I cannot, frankly, imagine the anguish that the loved ones of these individuals must now be experiencing, given that the coroner has confirmed that an inquest is now appropriate. Families will obviously be very concerned, and members of the public will be, too. And they’ll rightly have many questions that they will want this inquest now to answer.

Now, clearly the senior executives who are responsible for letting patients and their families down must not be let off the hook, and the health board and the wider Welsh NHS need to learn lessons to prevent people from coming to harm again in the future. So, will you ensure that this is the case—that those lessons are indeed learnt? And, given the fact that three of these deaths occurred shortly after the health board was removed from special measures in November 2020, does the Welsh Government itself accept any responsibility for what has happened?

I’d like to reassure members of the public in north Wales that these are not recent cases. Now, that doesn’t make it any easier for those families, but the reason why these cases have come to light is because, following the investigation by the Royal College of Surgeons, which, of course, was the report commissioned by Betsi Cadwaladr. After the publication of that report in 2023, the health board decided that they wanted to go even further and wanted to set up their own vascular quality panel. It was while they were investigating those 47 cases that they realised that there were four cases that should have been referred to the coroner. Obviously, and understandably, that does cause anguish for the families, and I was very pleased to see that the medical director apologised to those families back in January this year. What we do know is that there were 27 recommendations in those reports, and I can assure you that the health board has taken those very seriously.FootnoteLink

My thoughts certainly are with the families of these four individuals, who have to relive their period of profound grief once again. But I am very pleased that the coroner has provided an opportunity now to look at the unacceptable risks that patients had to face after services were centralised in Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. That decision was a mistake—that is my firm belief. The previous chief executive and previous medical director at Betsi Cadwaladr couldn't even tell me why they decided to centralise in Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. I remember asking, 'Why Glan Clwyd?' They said, 'Well, it happened before our time.' Even if you believe in centralising, surely it should have been in the centre of excellence in Ysbyty Gwynedd that those services should have been centralised.

A couple of questions. Firstly, the coroner is reported today to have said that there would be an examination of all cases of a similar nature in relation to vascular services. Can the Minister tell us how Welsh Government will help ensure that examination of those cases is able to take place effectively and in a timely manner? And secondly, can the Minister update us on what she thinks the state of vascular services across the north is? Because concern is still enormous and has been strengthened again today.

Thanks very much. Well, I think that what is important is that we do learn the lessons from the past. What I can give you is an assurance, as I said, that the health board has taken this very seriously. There were 27 recommendations that the vascular quality panel made, on top of the nine key recommendations that the Royal College of Surgeons made. Now, it is the health board that is responsible for ensuring the safety of the services in Betsi Cadwaladr. It was an issue that I know I brought up with the chair and executives of the board in my meeting with them last week, to make sure that they didn't lose focus on this. In terms of assurance, what I can tell you is that the service is now stable. We're in a situation where we had a new consultant appointed this week, which takes us up to nine consultants. There are regular surveys of the staff in terms of morale, and training. And there are very strong working relationships between the health board and Liverpool and Stoke in relation to vascular services.

So, there is a huge amount of work being done in relation to the effectiveness of clinical pathways, clinical governance, consent, accountability, person-centred care, team working. All of these things are being worked through by the health board. Look, I don't think that we are out of the woods yet, here, and, certainly, I do hope that the new board will ensure that they keep a focus on this, and that is certainly something that I underlined to them recently.

I thank the Minister.

There are no 90-second statements today.

So, we will move on to item 5, which is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv) on incontinence. I call on Jenny Rathbone to move the motion.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. On behalf of the three co-sponsors of this motion and myself, I want to thank Julie Cornish, the colorectal surgeon at Cardiff and Vale health board; Laura Price, physiotherapist at Hywel Dda health board; and Amy Marshall, an expert patient on incontinence, who volunteers for Fair Treatment for the Women of Wales, whose presentations to the women's health cross-party group in March alerted us to the extent of the incontinence challenge and the inadequate prudent healthcare response, both in terms of prevention and early intervention and the long waiting lists and gaps in secondary health services.

This is a problem that affects women and men across Wales in every constituency and every community. Nine out of 10 first-time mothers experience perineal trauma after childbirth. Four out of 10 women get urinary incontinence and over one in 10 suffer anal incontinence. And it isn't just a women's problem; three in five men over 50 are affected by prostate problems, frequently needing to pee, as well as pain when urinating. Despite this very universal problem, it's a taboo subject, rarely spoken about, which society largely chooses to ignore, thus three quarters of women affected by incontinence do not seek medical help, and they go to endless lengths to disguise their embarrassment.

Despite having had two vaginal spontaneous deliveries myself, I know that jumping on the trampoline with my grandchildren is completely out of the case, and I regularly have to track where I may be able to go to the loo when I'm out and about. Cardiff Council is making a modest contribution with its handy loo guide, but it's less than comprehensive, and the retail and tourism sector could be playing a much bigger part in helping people get to the loo wherever they are. How many dedicated volunteers invited to the coronation of the King did not attend, once they realised they would be stuck in their seats for five hours with no access to a loo?

This isn't just an older person’s problem. Anyone giving birth is in their prime of life by definition, so why does it nearly always lead to perineal trauma? The perineum holds our bladder, our bowel and our uterus in place, so it's a pretty fundamental part of women's anatomy, and it's under a lot of strain when you're carrying around a lot of extra weight from a growing foetus. Why is it that 90 per cent first-time mothers have at least a first-degree tear, and 70 per cent require stitches to the area around the birth canal? We really do need to give women advice and help about perineal care, both before and after the birth. Brutally, I don't think it's available. It wasn't when I was giving birth 30 plus years ago, and I'm sure it isn't today. For example, people could be advised to massage their perineum with oil to make it stretch more easily when the baby is making its way down the birth passage, and this simply doesn't happen, as far as I'm aware.

Every year, millions of women worldwide suffer trauma to the perineum when giving birth, and, as far as I’m aware, there’s only one country—France—which has consistently taken this matter seriously. Every new mother is prescribed 10 sessions of pelvic floor rehabilitation after she delivers a baby—so, pelvic floor exercises provided by physiotherapists or midwives eight weeks after the birth, regardless of symptoms. It's a common misconception that women who have a caesarean section will be free from pelvic floor problems; this is simply not true. And so, everybody gets this service. They're advised to eat food that doesn't cause them to have constipation, which obviously causes more perineal problems. And pelvic floor exercises—just telling people to do it doesn't make it happen. You need group sessions where people actually have to get out and do it, because it's not something—. We can all get told about it, but we don't necessarily do it. So, I don't know of anywhere else where this is happening, although I know some providers in Australia I've read about are fully aware of the problem. And the cost-benefits of doing this are huge in terms of healthy life expectancy, pain-free sex, and preventing women of working age from dropping out of the labour force.

I was honoured to be a co-sponsor of this debate today. Sadly, incontinence remains something talked about only in hushed tones, if at all. Jenny has ably highlighted how widespread incontinence is in women and the impact it can have, but, as our motion alludes to, men can leak too—four simple words, but, when spoken, they have the power to tackle a taboo that impacts the lives of hundreds of thousands of men across the UK every year.

One in three men over 65 are estimated to have an incontinence problem, and one in 25 men over the age of 40 experience incontinence issues each year. Yet it's not discussed and no Government, of any colour, has taken steps to address this issue. For such a widespread issue, it is shocking that it still remains shrouded in secrecy and shame. The NHS estimate that between 3 million and 6 million people suffer from some form of urinary incontinence, or UI, and as many as a third of men over the age of 65, as I said earlier, are affected. But it remains a hidden subject, and, while it remains in the shadows, there is less likelihood of any Government taking action to make life better for those suffering from UI.

We need a clear strategy that not only helps raise awareness, improves diagnosis and treatment pathways, but also helps address daily barriers faced by people living with UI—barriers such as the lack of public toilets. It’s surprising to me that we are still discussing the availability of public toilets. When I was first elected to this place, in 2015, I remember Darren was raising this issue every time, while travelling from north to south. I remember, further, working with the Senate of Older People and their 'P is for People' campaign to improve public toilet provision. Yet here we are, eight years later, and it is estimated that we have around 40 per cent fewer public toilets. Public toilets across Wales have been turned into shops, cafes, even homes and a theatre. Welsh Government-run trains are removing onboard toilet facilities, making it even harder for people suffering from incontinence, as well as other bladder and bowel issues, to use public transport.

But even when people suffering from UI do find a toilet, the chances are they don’t find suitable facilities to meet their needs, particularly for men. Men suffering from UI have said they avoid going out at all because they know that public toilets will not have a place to dispose of incontinence pads or provide facilities for men to clean up. This often forces men to carry the used pads with them or ask a partner to put them in their handbag, adding to the embarrassment and sense of shame. There is no need to be ashamed or embarrassed, but, unfortunately, it has become ingrained in us.

We need to change our attitudes to incontinence. Hopefully, this debate will be the catalyst for change, raising awareness of what is, after all, a common ailment, and forcing Government to take a lead in ensuring that people living with UI are fully supported, urging the public and private sectors to make simple changes, such as providing incontinence bins in all male lavatories. I urge members to support this drive to change by backing our motion today. Diolch yn fawr.

I'm glad to speak in this debate as a co-submitter of the motion and a member of the cross-party group on women's health. I want to thank Jenny Rathbone for bringing this debate forward, and I also want to thank the contributors to the cross-party group for bringing this issue to the attention of the Senedd.

As a society, we now talk so much more about issues that used to be hidden, but there was a time when childbirth, periods, menstrual health, the menopause were only mentioned through euphemisms or in whispers, when women were made to feel that they had to hide the physical effects of these natural parts of their lives. Thankfully, these matters, which affect the whole population, not only women themselves, but also of course their partners, their families, their friends, their colleagues, have now become much more talked about, in workplaces, in places like this Siambr, in schools and colleges. And it's of course a good thing. It's also an essential thing, because there are still too many taboos that we find as a society difficult to talk about: issues that affect women uniquely, but not solely, issues that have a significant impact on a woman's life, and are yet not being wholly or effectively addressed, in terms of healthcare or education, issues such as incontinence and its causes.

When I gave birth for the first time, although I knew about it, I wasn't completely prepared for the pain. But what I wasn't at all prepared for in any way, by any prenatal class or midwife, was the huge and distressing physical toll that giving birth took on my body, in the days, weeks and months after giving birth—the injury it caused to me, specifically my ability to control my bladder. Coughing too hard, laughing too hard were now a problem, and this was a shock. I remember thinking, 'Why don't women talk about this?' But what was more shocking, and also distressing, was that it was never addressed by the doctor who stitched my torn perineum, or by the midwife who inspected those stitches, or by the health visitor, and it elicited no more than a sympathetic smile from my GP when I hesitatingly mentioned it when I was being tested for an infection.

But I was lucky; my body recovered. The injuries I had suffered because of childbirth healed well, and fairly quickly, and my bladder control returned almost to normal. But, now, in my 50s, I'm facing the same problem again, and the symptoms of menopause, although now being talked about more, are too often reduced to hot flushes, night sweats, brain fog. The more taboo aspects, such as bladder weakness and incontinence are still not commonly known, discussed or treated. Incontinence appears to be still one of those issues that women are expected to just put up with. We are thus led to think that urinary incontinence is an inevitable part of the ageing process, or of giving birth.

Sioned, you have gone over your time quite a bit.

It's my last sentence, Diprwy Lywydd. I also urge Members to speak up about this issue with your constituents, with your family and friends, to ensure women know that it is not something they must simply put up with.

I want to thank you, Jenny, for bringing forward this really important debate today. As a co-submitter and member of the cross-party group on women's health, I fully support discussions on topics like incontinence, which are all too often avoided, as people find it embarrassing. This is of course despite, as has been said today, a significant number of people living with urinary or bowel incontinence, or, in some cases, both.

I'm going to focus my contribution today on bowel incontinence following childbirth. Bowel incontinence can occur as a result of injury to the anal sphincter during childbirth. Whilst the majority of women will fully regain normal bowel function following repair post birth, many women still experience issues with bowel incontinency years later. It's such a taboo subject that it can take a long time for some women to come forward and seek help. Bowel incontinence can have a profound impact on the lives of those living it. It can affect their ability to work, their relationships and their everyday life.

Last October, I attended a meeting at the pelvic health hub in Barry, where I had the pleasure of talking with an inspiring ex-patient turned volunteer and advocate. She had lived experience of bowel incontinence caused by severe injury from childbirth. At the meeting, I also had the pleasure of meeting Julie Cornish, who is a colorectal surgeon based at the University Hospital of Wales, and she has a special interest in colorectal cancer and pelvic floor surgery. Mrs Cornish also headed up the Welsh task and finish group for faecal incontinence, which produced its report in 2019. There were a number of issues highlighted in the meeting. One was regarding the 'Bump, Baby & Beyond' leaflet, which is given to expectant mothers. They felt that it should be updated to include some detail on what to expect regarding bowel function post birth and when and where to seek help. I noticed that this was also mentioned in the Welsh task and finish group for faecal incontinence in 2019. I am keen to know, Minister, if this is something you may consider discussing with Public Health Wales, who I believe produced that leaflet.

Another key takeaway from that meeting was the lack of education regarding what is right and normal when it comes to bowel habits. As I mentioned, some women may have been living with symptoms for many years before approaching their GP. Some women may think it's normal to have a bit of incontinence; that it's a normal consequence of being a woman who has had a child. It's crucial that there is information out there letting them know that this is not normal and that there is help available. This, of course, applies to anyone who is experiencing bowel incontinence not just following childbirth. The help available can include a range of therapies, including physiotherapy, advice on diet and sometimes surgery. Ensuring that GPs are fully aware of how to signpost patients to the appropriate care was another key point. So, I'm keen to know what work is being done to ensure that this is the case.

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate this afternoon. I thank Jenny Rathbone for tabling this motion, and I will be voting for it later on this afternoon or this evening. I think it's such an important issue, and I just wanted to share a bit of my background and the reasons why I've decided to speak on this debate today. I worked for the NHS for 11 years: I supported clients with learning difficulties, some of whom were doubly incontinent; it was the same case in mental health; then latterly, before I was elected to the Senedd, I worked in physiotherapy on the ward. And I've got a three-year-old son and a 10-month-old baby, so I've had a lot of experience in this area.

There are just two things that I think could be practical to help in this debate and in expansion to what Altaf said and what Joyce has also mentioned as well, around public toilets. I think what we can do further in that case is to have the expansion of Radar keys. And if you're thinking, 'Gosh, what's a Radar key?', well it's a universal key that can make disabled toilets and public toilets accessible, whatever time of day or night. So, if somebody is suffering from incontinence, then they can feel a bit more assured, if they're in possession of a Radar key, that they could have their needs dealt with in a more timely manner. They're usually given by social services or occupational therapy, but I think, in terms of the topic of the discussion today around women's health, there is room for that to be expanded into wider society. I can't see any reason why it can't be, because it's quite a cheap method and quite a practical method in achieving some of those aims.

Secondly, because I'd just like to speak on two issues that I think would be really helpful to the debate, is the allocation of incontinence pads in health and social care settings, both in the setting itself and in the communities as well. They're assessed on a needs basis, but the nature of incontinence and bowel and urine habits suggests that no two days are the same. Our toilet habits change for many reasons. I think what would be helpful is if service users had better access to incontinence pads if they need them, and they can have those issues addressed in a timely manner and in a way that isn't too costly. Incontinence pads are very expensive, but I think if they can be assessed better and incorporate some of the realities around people's toileting needs and that they do change on a frequent basis, then I think that could be something achievable.

I'll leave my comments there, because I just wanted to raise those two specific issues. And just to say again that I'm happy to support this motion, and to thank Jenny Rathbone for bringing this important discussion to the Senedd today. Thank you very much.

I would also like to thank Jenny Rathbone for tabling this debate and use the opportunity to highlight an issue that I was naive to until a chance meeting and conversation on the train back home to north Wales. There was couple who boarded the train from Cardiff, and they were unsure if it was the correct one, so we started a conversation. They were going to Cwmbran, and I reassured them it was. I noticed he had a prostate cancer brooch on. He was really open about living with the condition and told me that he needed to wear pads, but it was really awkward for him going to the men’s toilets in the station as there were no bins, and he asked if I could do something about it. He had to carry the soiled pad out of the toilets in a bag, pass it to his wife, who then had to carry it in her handbag to the ladies toilet. He asked if bins could be provided in the men's toilets at railway stations. He said he had asked, but nothing had happened, so asked if I could follow it up for them.

The NHS estimates that around 6 million people across the UK suffer with some degree of incontinence. I raised the issue at a transport focus group I attended as chair of the cross-party group on public transport, and Michelle Roles, who is the stakeholder manager for Wales, raised it with Transport for Wales's stations director. They agreed it's something that they could accommodate. So, they went out to contract and it's being trialled at a number of stations, including Cardiff and Chester. Last week I received an e-mail from Prostate Cancer UK regarding their Boys Need Bins campaign that I hadn't heard about before. This campaign puts the needs of incontinent men at the forefront, and the daily challenge that they experience in finding a male sanitary bin to dispose of their products.

Prostate Cancer UK has been contacted by Transport for Wales following our conversation and they've had conversations now about the recent implementation of bins in both Chester and Cardiff train stations, which was a consequence of the issue being raised by myself via the constituent. And now, I've been asked to support the campaign further. So, thank you, Jenny, for tabling this debate. Unfortunately, I've lost the gentleman's contact information, but he permitted me to take a photo of him and his badge, because he was really proud to stand up and be an advocate for this. I salute him for being so open with me on the train. It goes to show the importance of chance conversations we have with people in the community, on trains or wherever, and that we can make a difference, which is why I got involved in politics in the first place. It's good to have an outcome.

I hadn't intended to speak in this debate, but I felt compelled to do so. We're fortunate in this Parliament that we have, over the years, had a number of Members who are willing to speak from personal experience. I pay tribute today to a number of Members who have spoken about the most personal and have shared their experiences, but we can't allow that to have happened for its own sake. When people do speak out and speak from their own experiences, it has to be in order to pursue change.

I know the health Minister is somebody who has made it a determined effort of her own to embrace the challenges that we face in the area of women's health in particular, although this afternoon we have made it clear that we're not only talking about women's health. So, I just want to take this opportunity to make it clear that, given the cross-party spirit—the unequivocal cross-party spirit of what we've heard in the Chamber this afternoon—we will offer the Government support to take whatever action to make those sometimes small, sometimes greater changes that can make a difference to the lives of people, such as Members of this Parliament. But we're just representatives.

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

Diolch yn fawr. I'm hugely grateful to Members for introducing this really important topic of debate for today. As so many have said, incontinence is an issue that receives disproportionately little attention, so it's absolutely worthy of this Chamber's time and focus today.

Many Members have underlined quite how common this issue is, affecting one in five people in the country. And of course, as so many people have said, it's not just women who are affected, it's men and women of all ages, but also children, and there are others who are affected as well. And yet, none of us talk about it. It's still a hugely taboo subject. We've broken the barrier on periods, we've broken the barrier on menopause; I don't think we've really started this debate and we've got to get started on it. If we do nothing else today, we have started this debate in earnest, and I want to give you a commitment today from the Government's perspective that we are going to take this out to communities—we need to get people talking about this. It's got to be a subject that people understand is not something they should be embarrassed about.

The example we were given was that 75 per cent—as you suggested, Jenny—of women won't seek medical attention for their incontinence, irrespective of the severity, despite the fact that it impacts on their life. The stigma around this issue, which makes patients hesitant to seek medical help, I'm afraid, also worsened during the pandemic—people were thinking, 'I don't want to bother them now; we know the pressure they're under'. That means that thousands of people in Wales will be suffering in silence and can be at risk then of secondary infections, and a real danger to their health as a result.

Incontinence is incredibly debilitating for those affected by it, both in terms of the physical limitations and disruption it can place on their work and on their social life, but also the mental suffering and that sense of humiliation and indignity. We know there's an association also between incontinence and dementia, and with an ageing population, there's likely to be a growing number of our population suffering from these double health challenges. So, the taboo and social silence around incontinence compounds the dangers, as the lack of spotlight means that people are largely unaware of how to prevent or to mitigate it. For that reason, public awareness is key, and I think it's a key element of today's motion, from my perspective.

For individuals diagnosed with continence issues, care delivery in Wales is, I think, reasonably effective, and well delivered. We had a national forum that was created in 2006, after the launch of the all-Wales bladder and bowel pathway, and this group has been crucial in establishing a standardised approach in Wales over the last 17 years through publishing and updating national guidance on the provision of incontinence care and representing the issues on numerous national boards. The problem is not enough people are coming forward who need the support. So, the support is there, but they're not coming forward.

I completely support, of course, the points being made, but you referred to public toilets. Last November, I led a debate here calling on the Welsh Government to ensure the provision of Changing Places toilets in each county in Wales, and the motion was passed unanimously. Could you incorporate that into the actions you're proposing?

I can't do that because it's not my area, but what I will commit to do is to make sure that I communicate with the relevant Minister to see what follow-up has happened as a result of that debate.

Thank you, Jenny, for giving me homework; I always like Jenny to speak, because I always learn something new from Jenny. So, I'm going to go and have a look at the French model to see what they do there, if there's value for money—let's have a look at that. I'm going to also look at sacral nerve stimulation and what's happening with that. So, thank you for that.

Joyce, I happen to have been sent yesterday an updated version of the Public Health Wales leaflet in relation to pregnancy, so I'll have a look to see if it's there, and if it's not, I will write to Public Health Wales and see if it can be in their next iteration.

Whilst our public health work is relevant to preventing incontinence—anymataliaeth is the Welsh word for incontinence; so, a new word for all of you today—this work is just as relevant to a number of other health conditions. Despite this, because of the taboo and the social silence on this, which we've discussed today, the public might not perhaps be aware that it's also relevant to incontinence. Bearing in mind the national structures that have been established and the amount of work done in this area, I don't think that we need an individual strategy document for this, but I do agree with the motion that we need a more strategic method of raising public awareness of incontinence. Effective communication about cases and the results of incontinence and the steps to prevent and manage the condition will decrease the social stigma and will improve the health of those who have been suffering in silence. So, I want to let you know today that we will be looking at how we can raise that awareness. So, I will be asking my officials to work with the Wales bladder and bowel forum and its stakeholders to draw up options for a public awareness campaign for incontinence. I will be more than ready to write to Members, to share the latest information, as that develops. Thank you very much.

I call on Jenny Rathbone to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much. Thank you, all, for your contributions. I think we have managed to put incontinence onto the map, and this needs to be as big an issue as period dignity, as we need to have incontinence dignity. And it really is a very small ask to ensure that we have bins in every men's toilet, as well as in every female's. It's really not that difficult. They're being collected, in any case, from the women's toilets, so it seems to me that we need to really press on that—that seems to me an early win.

I think the bigger issue around the closure of public toilets, as local authorities have suffered from budgetary cuts, is a much more difficult one, and that's why I think we must involve the wider society, the leisure industry. How can you have a church without a toilet? How can you invite people to go and attend a match or other event that people go to without adequate numbers of toilets? This just has to be a pretty basic thing when you're applying for a licence to lay on an activity. So, I think that it's a whole-system approach to it rather than relying on public services that are only open part of the time, whereas the night-time economy is open all over the place, wherever people are going out.

I was delighted that Joyce has actually visited the pelvic health clinic in Barry, and it sounds amazing, and it's really important that there are these centres of excellence for this level of care, particularly for people who have anal incontinence, because that's such a difficult issue to deal with, and I think if we can get 'Bump, Baby & Beyond' updated, that would be amazing.FootnoteLink

Thank you for making the point about the Radar key, Gareth. Yes, it's one issue, and it certainly would be in a place like a railway station, where people could be going there at all hours, and they might not be open if it's unsocial hours. But I think that's quite a clunky solution in the sense that, instead, why can't pubs allow anybody to use the loo? It really isn't a big ask. So, we really do need—. I think Gareth made a really important point about incontinence pads not being available, and people can be caught short. And I know it's more expensive than having period products available, which is widespread now in our schools and other public venues, but, clearly, there are some issues to be worked out around incontinence dignity, particularly in places like hospitals, where people who have those issues go. But you also make a very important point about people with learning difficulties who may never be able to get the continence that most children get, so thank you for that.

Thank you, Sioned, for sharing your personal experiences and really emphasising the importance of educating women on what's going to happen to them when they're about to give birth, because I'm afraid a lot of women think either it's a walk in the park, or it's something they've seen on the television, where you've got a woman up in stirrups—a disaster zone that absolutely should never be happening. But we do need a lot more support for women when they give birth, because that will lead to better outcomes, and we also need a lot more physiotherapy for women, and I know that that's something that can only be done with intervention from the Minister. We had an excellent contribution from the member of the physiotherapy department in Hywel Dda, who are leaders in many of these things. But we need everybody to be operating that level of good practice.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? There are no objections, and therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 6 is the debate on the report by the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, 'Annual report on the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales—2022-23', and I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion, Llyr Gruffydd.

I am pleased to open this debate on the first annual report of the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee on the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales.

As Members will know, the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales was established in 2018 as an independent, non-statutory advisory body to the Welsh Ministers. Its primary purpose is to make recommendations to the Welsh Government about Wales's long-term infrastructure needs, initially over a period of five to 80 years. Now, the period covered by this report also marks the first year of the infrastructure commission under the leadership of Dr David Clubb, who was appointed as the new chair in September 2021.

Dr Clubb admitted to the committee that this first year had been a year of two halves. His initial focus was on understanding the brief, developing a strategic approach for the commission's operation, and then setting up the process for recruiting new commissioners. Once appointed, the new commissioners focused on understanding how to work together effectively.

According to Dr Clubb, one of his achievements in this first year was securing the extension of the commission's remit from 30 to 80 years. He told us that this change allows the commission to consider the long-term impact of infrastructure and climate change, ensuring better decisions that will benefit the people of Wales for generations to come.

According to the chair, incorporating the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the climate emergency, the nature emergency and the socioeconomic duty into the commission's remit reflect his commitment to considering the needs of the most vulnerable in society when making infrastructure decisions.

During his first year, Dr Clubb also reduced the number of commissioners from 12 to 8 and established a new deputy chair post. The chair told the committee that the current commission consists of generalists, namely, those who don't have sectoral expertise, but have a general set of skills and can focus on understanding complexities and being reactive to Government and, of course, Senedd consultations.

With a budget of £400,000, the commission has been allocated funds for the first time, and the chair gave some challenging commitments to us around demonstrating value for money. As we continue our scrutiny of the commission, we will examine in detail how the commission can deliver on the chair's commitment that it will make recommendations that will save Welsh society more than the budget allocated to the commission.

We were pleased that the commission has started to develop a strong relationship with its UK-level counterpart, namely the UK National Infrastructure Commission. This collaboration is vital for influencing UK infrastructure investments in Wales and working together on non-devolved economic infrastructure.

Over the next three years, the commission plans to focus on specific themes, such as renewable energy, flooding, and climate resilience. These projects will tackle some of the most pressing challenges facing Wales today and will provide valuable guidance, or course, to the Welsh Government on infrastructure development and environmental concerns.

Now, Members will have seen that the committee's report does not contain specific recommendations for the commission. We felt, as a committee, that it would be premature to do this, and that the committee was not yet in a position to make meaningful recommendations to this new regime. However, of course, we do expect that next year's report will be a different matter, when the work of the commission will have been developed and will have matured. So, with those few comments, I look forward to hearing further comments by Members. Thank you.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Of course, we know that the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales’s primary purpose is to make recommendations to the Welsh Government about Wales’s long-term infrastructure needs over a five to 80-year period. But, one question I have is: how truly independent is this advice? The chair of the commission has been appointed directly by the Deputy Minister. Welsh Government officials provide secretariat support. And the commission’s remit letter offers support from Welsh Government officials to scope out the commission’s work on renewable energy. So, that evidence points to the fact that the commission cannot be regarded as completely independent.

Now, the Chair has explained that many advisory groups in Wales are funded or supported by the Welsh Government in the same way, but there’s no justification to compare. It highlights that the commission is part of a wider problem that we have with Welsh Government-backed groups. We cannot expect any Minister to be the master of all knowledge, so it is fair to seek some expert advice. However, this isn’t quite what we are looking at here. You are paying £400,000 a year for recommendations from a commission that includes people who are not even sectoral experts. The chair has told us, and I quote:

‘We are more generalist, and that was deliberate’.

Dirprwy Lywydd, it is not in the best interests of Wales. For the Welsh Government to be given advice on renewable energy from experts in the sector, or advice on flooding from experts in the sector, or advice on holding a national conversation on climate-related risks by communication experts—. A commission of generalists are not those experts.

In fact, in the year that it is spending £225,000 on a renewable energy project, it is seeing the appointment of Mace Consult to work on maximising the co-benefits of and managing any tensions that arise from a 2050 renewable Wales; the Centre for Sustainable Energy, the Centre for Alternative Technology and Dulas to work on mid-Wales community engagement; and Arup to work on net-zero infrastructure and strategy—research consultants.

The commission is simply appointing research consultants to do the work for it. The commission is running a single project every year—one that is supposed to be focused on identifying critical issues that need to be addressed by infrastructure in Wales over the long term. Infrastructure is considerably more than flooding and climate change; it is transportation, health services, schools, sewage systems and much more.

The commission could be considered by any business organisation, or by constituents, really, who will look at this and should actually be asking: how much value for money is this commission actually providing, for the benefit of the Welsh Government, for the benefit of us as Senedd Members, and indeed, for the people of Wales? Diolch.

Just to make a few comments, picking up on some of the observations made by our excellent Chair of this. It is a very short report, it doesn't have any recommendations within it, because we didn't feel—. This is very much a work in progress, but it was a worthwhile session that we had with the commissioner in front of us to understand some of the changes that he and his team are already putting in place, which I'll remark on in a moment, but also the future direction of this commission.

But before I begin entirely, just to pick up on the points made by my fellow committee member Janet Finch-Saunders on independence, because it is touched on in the report. The commission here, like several organisations, receives funding from Welsh Government. Well, I used to be the Minister who paid for the entire running of Natural England. Natural England were not shy of directing pointed criticism at me for my decisions, at DEFRA at the time and the whole UK Government. In fact, that's what we set them up to do, so simply because this commission or other agencies are funded by Government does not lead to the conclusion that they have to do the bidding of us. In fact, it's quite the opposite, and I do note, Janet, just to say, that what you've just said is not reflected in the report or the evidence that we heard—the report that we all collectively signed off on—so, I don't want people to think that what you've just said reflects the report that my name is on and your name is on as well.

But just to go on a little bit here, a couple of things that I really welcome in the commissioner's changes that he's already made. He committed to the idea that he wanted to see a change in the make-up of the commissioners, and that he wanted to see greater diversity. In fact, that's been delivered on. It's 50 per cent now women now represented on it, but greater diversity is a good thing. He's also done some changes so it's not too unwieldy. He's actually reined in the number and he's looked for a mixture of the more traditional infrastructure-type people along with some people who, as he described, think out of the box. I think that's very, very welcome, because, as the Chair was saying, and as we heard in evidence, there's quite a dramatic change in the thinking here, to think ahead now for 80 years. Now, the big risk with that, of course, is 80 years is the never-never; things will change. But his justification for that was quite interesting. He doesn't want to get directly drawn into the things that Janet was just saying, about individual planning issues and so on. What he wants to think is, 'Well, what is the nation, the country, the type of place we want to be looking like not in 10 years or 15 or 20 years, but in that long, long term?' The risk with that, of course, is it's the never-never. The actual benefit of doing that is it's even more of a challenge to Government in how we do transport and planning and the whole provision of well-being and all of that. It's much more longer sighted.

But, when we have him back in front of us next year, we'll be looking for more meat on the bone, particularly on the three areas that we know already that they're going to focus on, and that's renewable energy, right at this moment. I have to say, I welcome very much the focus, the three things underpinning that, so looking at how you maximise the co-benefits and manage tensions that arise from becoming a renewable Wales—very much those issues of how do you deal with those local communities and so on, and the engagement with them so on and so on. That's the second point, particularly in terms of mid Wales community engagement and how this contributes to net-zero infrastructure strategy.

I'd like to start by saying I welcome this annual report on the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales. It's been around one year, as you said, Llyr, since Dr David Clubb took over as the Chair, and it is clear that a lot has already been achieved. I would also like to thank the other commissioners, Dr Jenifer Baxter, Helen Armstrong, Stephen Brooks, Aleena Khan, Dr Eurgain Powell, Eluned Parrott and Nick Tune for your commitment to this vital work and your absolute wealth of experience, which—as you said, Huw Irranca-Davies—we are actually very fortunate to have.

I'm pleased to see the focus on combating the climate and nature emergencies that we are facing as a society and global community, and I welcome the report's insistence that Wales must reach its net-zero target whilst also working with local communities to ensure that their concerns are properly addressed. As stated in the report, the commission pushed to have the scope of its work extended from 30 years to 80 years, and I don't even know how we're saying this—a twenty-one hundred vision? Two one—. How? I don't know, has that been decided? Two-thousand-one-hundred vision? Which sounds quite strange, as we are all likely to be gone by then, but this is the strategic—[Interruption.] Okay, Alun's still going to be here. But these are the strategic, forward-thinking decisions that we need to be considering, and I'm pleased that you've secured this change. It's positive to see that one future project will be flood mitigation and procuring research to support the commission in providing recommendations for improving the resilience of Wales's infrastructure to flooding by 2050. As the MS for Bridgend, I know first-hand how vital this planning is. In Porthcawl, in my constituency, we are fortunate to have received £6.4 million of Welsh Government and Bridgend County Borough Council funding to defend Porthcawl from flooding and any potential future rise in sea levels. It's going to keep more than 500 homes and over 170 businesses safe as part of the coastal risk management programme. We need to see this addressed and prevented and prepared­ for across Wales.

And finally, I would like to thank the national infrastructure commission for making the work that they do as accessible to the public as possible via your website, by demonstrating innovation in transparency, governance and using open-source software to engage people in challenging topics; for example, your engagement around the roads review, which was particularly popular and saw a lot of people go to your website.

I would also like to commend the commission on using an open-source messaging app that allows the commissioners to communicate very frequently outside of meetings. I'm sure Members from across the Chamber will agree with me that, very often, the work of commissions and committees happens too often outside of their official settings, and that is why I welcome an open-source messaging app that allows for greater transparency between those who hold power and those who do not. I am a big fan of free and open-source software, and I believe that the website exhibits good practice in maintaining information provision whilst respecting user privacy, using no cookies and collecting no user data, by not embedding any commercial feeds or other tools that allow third parties to track visitors, as well as visitors to the site having access to the same analytics that NICW has. I believe that this should be standard practice for citizen inclusion and engagement, and it is clear from the findings of this annual report that the use of this open-source technology has allowed for much more information flow when compared to traditional organisations, and I think that a lot can be learned from this approach. Embracing and promoting innovation, collaboration and transparency in the infrastructure for the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales, and weaving it through all aspects of decision making in Wales, including digital, is crucial, and I believe that this is also demonstrated in the report. I, for one, am very keen to see what the commission does next. Diolch.

I was really pleased to read the changes that had been made to the commission's remit by the Chair to incorporate the future generations well-being Act, the climate emergency and the nature emergency, as well as the socioeconomic duty. It was also reassuring to read the acknowledgement in the introduction to the report from the chair and deputy chair that highlights the impact human activities have had on our ecosystems, with insufficient regard for our future generations.

I'm pleased that the Chair said he wants to improve communications and public profile, so that people out there know about the commission and that they can represent their issues, and I'm grateful that it's come to the Chamber today, so I heard more as well about it, so I really appreciate that.

I hope the commission can influence UK national infrastructure investment in Wales, as, so far, Wales has not had consequential funding from HS2, Northern Powerhouse, or broadband infrastructure funding, which could be used to roll out developing technologies such as the Bangor consortium for fibre, and I was wondering how it would connect with those projects that are almost ready to go. Also, in north Wales, there's the priority of railway funding; applications for levelling-up funding to get freight off at Hanson Cement and to build the Deeside industrial station have been rejected twice, so I was wondering how they would connect and know about all those schemes as well. And there is no funding for major asset renewal, and the A494 Dee bridge crossing is also in dire need. I think greater clarification of how the commission relates to other infrastructure bodies would be beneficial, and I'd be grateful if the Deputy Minister could set out how the commission will link into the North Wales Transport Commission, led by Lord Burns, as well as the roads review and major assets review.

There's no mention of the local network, which is the majority of the network, in any document. Public rights of way, pavements and road bridges are all maintained by local authorities, with a backlog of £1.6 billion, according to a 2020 County Surveyors' Society Wales survey, and small businesses also have a necessary dependence on Wales's infrastructure and especially road-based transport, so reliable, well-maintained infrastructure across the whole of Wales is a key concern for SMEs and the wider Welsh economy. These highways are also part of public transport, as they are used by buses, cyclists and pedestrians as well as cars. I think it's vital that these roads are given as much attention as any other part of our infrastructure here in Wales connecting people, as well as broadband and the major infrastructure as well.

Today, I've heard that they're going to look at one topic at a time, so climate change and then looking into flooding, so how will they be looking at all these other aspects as well? Is all that going on in the background while they just concentrate on others each year? So, I'd just like to know more about that as well, if that's possible. Thank you.

I welcome this report, and I actually really do welcome the long-term thinking, because what we build or don't build today, how we construct things, actually will impact on those people who come behind us, picking up on the comment that was made that we might not be here when those structures are built. I don't think Christopher Wren is around any longer either, as a case in point. So, it just gives an idea of the longevity of structures that we leave behind. So, in terms of flooding, and I'm going to focus on flooding, the infrastructure that actually might be needed isn't necessarily any hard structure at all, but we did hear—and you hosted it, Huw, last week—from the Nature Friendly Farming Network about using land in the right way to prevent the water run-off in the very first place. It's about farming practices, where you don't destroy the soil in such a way that it all ends up in the sea, and I'm sure some of you will have seen the videos last night in the Wye. So, it's about all of those things together, Minister, and how you work in partnership to prevent those things that can be prevented, rather than just a focus on hard structures. I'm really pleased to see the mid Wales community engagement on here, because I'm sure it's crossed your desk, as it has mine, Minister, that there is a need to look at whether we do, or whether we don't, and how we do, put a windfarm across that area. That community engagement about going forward is of critical importance. Those are the things that I particularly wanted to say, and I look forward to the next report, but I absolutely support the long-term vision.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Climate Change, Lee Waters.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I'd like to thank all Members who contributed to that thoughtful discussion about the progress report on the infrastructure commission's work. I think it's fair to say that the overall theme is of a cautious welcome, and I think that is a judicious response. The early signs are encouraging, but of course the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, and I think the commission are acutely aware of that, and I'm pleased to hear the positive comments of Huw Irranca-Davies and Llyr Gruffydd on the early work and engagement and evidence given by the commission and the account they've given of themselves.

I'd like to engage, if I might, with Janet Finch-Saunders’s criticism, because I think they're worthy of a proper discussion. I think some are fair, some are not. So, her first question is: how independent is the commission? She cited as her evidence that she thought it was a Welsh Government-backed group, which I thought was a curious categorisation, that the chair was directly appointed, and the commission gets support from Welsh Government officials and the secretariat. Well, some of this is pragmatic. We simply don't have the budget for a large stand-alone organisation with its own experts, its own secretariat, creating another arm's-length body. We just don't have the resources to do that. So, a pragmatic way forward is to set up a sort of brain trust and then use Welsh Government officials, and supplement that with outside expert help as and when needed. I think that is the right approach we have taken, given the resources that we do have, and I think, often, what Janet Finch-Saunders says is somehow divorced from the budget settlement.

On the question of the independence of the chair, I directly appointed Dr David Clubb for two reasons. One was speed. I wanted this commission up and running and urgently getting its act together and looking at the long-term challenges facing us. And secondly, it was because I knew him to be an independent-minded critic, not just of the Welsh Government, but generally he's somebody who has, through a series of posts, I think earned respect right across the political party spectrum and civil society for being somebody who is intelligent, who is expert, and who is willing to push and challenge, and that's exactly what I wanted. So, I did not see the merit in going through a long open competition when I thought, in David Clubb, we had somebody who would give us a hard time and not be afraid to do so. I think that is vitally important. And I would say to Janet Finch-Saunders, if she takes the trouble to look at the direct appointments I've made since becoming a Minister, I have consistently appointed people who are going to be difficult and challenging. I think that is vital, not least because of some of the poor scrutiny we get from the opposition in this Chamber. The Conservative opposition, I should clarify for the record.

I think the criticism of the fact that they're employing experts and they are themselves generalists—I think that's a fair point. It's a point of view. There are a number of models available. I've explained the pragmatic reasons for that. This is a model the commission themselves have decided upon. I think there is merit in it, but I respect the fact that she takes a different view.

I think Sarah Murphy's points on transparency and innovation on engagement are really well made, and tying it to Huw Irranca-Davies's point about the works that the commission have said they're going to be doing in year 3 on a conversation with the public, particularly in areas that are facing coastal erosion, on what the future for those communities is. And I think this is something that NRW and the audit office have called for in the past, and I think this is a really difficult conversation to have with communities under threat, and I think it shows the value of having this infrastructure commission, to play that broker role, that of honest middleman, if you like, to build up a trusted conversation with citizens about some of the choices that we face.

I call on Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to everyone for this very beneficial discussion. I'll also start with opening remarks with regard to questioning the independence of the commission. The situation of the chair and the commission is no different to many public bodies in Wales, and we all have a view on how appropriate that is, of course. But in terms of the integrity of the chair himself, from my knowledge of him, he is someone who I'm confident will provide challenge to the Government. His background suggests that. We also had a pre-appointment hearing; the Government didn't have to provide that opportunity for us as a committee, but we did accept that, and there was an opportunity there to tackle some of these issues. But, as everyone recognises, time will tell, of course. There will be further scrutiny that takes place over the coming years, and it's 'through their actions we will know them', is it not? Sunday school children might be able to confirm whether that's the right verse. So, we will see what comes, but, speaking as the Chair, I'm confident that we have to be careful, of course, but that's just as valid in this context as in any other context with regard to public appointments in Wales.

And on the point in terms of generalists, there are members from various backgrounds who have been appointed, and the chair explained in his evidence to us as a committee the rationale for having people who would be considered to be, perhaps, traditional infrastructure participants as well as those who come from slightly less traditional backgrounds, but they can always draw in expertise, of course, where it is required.

Huw Irranca-Davies is correct: this is the long-term view here. We're looking beyond today; looking beyond the electoral cycle—'horizon scanning' was the term that the Deputy Minister used—and that goes hand in hand with a clear work programme for the more immediate term. The three major focuses in the first year are on renewable energy, for example. And there are gaps, aren't there, in terms of co-benefits, in terms of managing tensions and community engagement. Our inboxes as Members, I'm sure, reflect a great deal of that. So, there is an important contribution to make in that space.

Other Members—Sarah Murphy, Carolyn Thomas, Joyce Watson—talked about coastal infrastructure; roads infrastructure; railways; bridges; public transport; flood infrastructure. That, of course, very quickly reminds us of how wide-ranging the remit of the commission could be, and the need to focus and to have priorities. Focus is very important, and the relationship and the collaboration with other bodies is vitally important there to ensure, instead of the commission doing everything, that they use the expertise and that they use the information that they have to support, to influence, and to work with a wider range of bodies. That adds value, and it ensures that everyone who's active in this field will keep a weather eye on the future—this futureproofing that sometimes gets forgotten when we're embroiled in dealing with those daily decisions that we have to make.

The proposal is to note the committee report. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 7 today is a debate on the Petitions Committee report, 'From Five to Four? P-06-1247 Support trials of a four-day week in Wales'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Jack Sargeant.

Diolch yn fawr, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'm delighted to be able to have the opportunity to lead this debate today and to speak to the Petitions Committee report looking into a four-day week trial.

The report follows a petition submitted by Mark Hooper from 4 Day Week Cymru. The petition calls for four-day working week trials in Wales in order to explore its impact and whether this could be considered as a possible approach in the future. The report built on the work being done by businesses and campaigners who've undertaken and supported trials. While this petition specifically called for a public sector trial, it is in fact the private sector that have carried the torch for a four-day week, with trials already taking place in companies across the UK. Deputy Presiding Officer, we took evidence from the 4 Day Week Campaign, which has supported those private sector and third sector trials, and the standout fact was that a four-day week had a positive impact on productivity.

Now, it is important, especially for policy makers, to come to any subject with an open mind and to listen to the evidence in front of us. Many sectors across the United Kingdom are saying the same thing: staff retention and recruitment is a real problem. This cannot be ignored and the solution cannot lie in pushing workers to do more hours for falling real-terms wages. It is my view, Deputy Presiding Officer, that we should be brave enough and bold enough to follow the evidence and be part of the growing moves to start a four-day week trial. We don't have all the levers to do this, but we are able to conduct a public sector trial to help further this conversation.

I would at this point, Deputy Presiding Officer, like to mention that, on this occasion, we have not, as a cross-party committee, been able to reach a cross-party consensus, but have included, in our report, a minority view from Conservative Member Joel James. And I'm grateful to Joel for raising those concerns during our inquiry, and I'm sure we'll hear more during his contribution today. But, as a student of history, Deputy Presiding Officer, they struck me as being remarkably similar to those concerns by those who opposed the introduction of a five-day week and paid holiday leave, to name a few. Maybe these similarities are something those opposing a four-day week trial should reflect on, and I would urge them to engage with those private sector companies and employers who have carried out successful trials across the United Kingdom. Deputy Presiding Officer, the well-being of the people of Cymru is, and should be, always a priority for us as Members of the Senedd.

During our inquiry, we also heard how Iceland trialled a reduction in working time back in 2015, and the results were described as an overwhelming success. Alongside better work-life balance and better mental well-being, reducing the number of days at work also reduces air pollution and carbon emissions and contributes to our response to climate change. It also can enable better shared childcare and improved gender equality for women, who traditionally undertake more childcare responsibilities in families.

Deputy Presiding Officer, as a committee, we recommended that the Welsh Government conduct a pilot, liaising with organisations that have undertaken pilots to reduce working hours and that have implemented them for their own staff. This is a bold step, but one we should not be afraid of. The world of work is changing, and while change is sometimes hard, hard is not a reason to not do it. I am pleased that the Welsh Government has responded positively to our recommendations and is working with the workforce partnership council to consider the issue in hand.

This is the right approach, Deputy Presiding Officer. We have embarked on a social partnership model in Wales, and we should be using it to discuss this and any other changes to the way we work. There is a need to challenge our current work practice and culture and explore new ways to improve productivity and quality of life for our workforce. We cannot face the future saying that we are unwilling to change and respond to the challenges of the labour market.

I very much look forward to hearing the contributions of other Members this afternoon, both of the committee and of the Senedd, and, of course, the Minister’s response. This change is growing in momentum, not only in Wales but across the world, from Iceland to New Zealand. It was only last week that Senator Bernie Sanders called for a 32-hour week in the United States.

Dirprwy Lywydd, Cymru cannot fall behind and should be bold enough to change. I am delighted that the Welsh Government are taking this to the workforce council and look forward to its progress. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

In the first instance, I find it very difficult to justify going forward with this pilot, because I cannot see why potentially tens of millions of pounds of public money should be spent on something that the Welsh Government does not have legislative competence to roll out wholesale. As we all know, we have some very big challenges here in Wales that, in my mind, are much higher priorities to spend public money on. Do we really want to spend this money on helping a select few when we should be looking at improving educational attainment, improving access to hospital, dental and GP appointments, and improving employment outcomes? Indeed, Dirpwy Lywydd, two of the major issues for residents living in my region are air quality and chronic illness, and spending money on pet projects such as this, when we have so many other pressing needs, is ridiculous, and, quite frankly, a dereliction of duty.

What is more, if a four-day working week was actually implemented without a cut in pay in the public sector in Wales, it would simply be a 20 per cent pay rise for a third of the in-work population in Wales at the expense of the rest of the working population in the private sector, who actually generate the money to pay for public services. This is grossly unfair and it would also create a two-tier working environment, where private companies—primarily small and medium-sized businesses that could not afford to match these working hours—would find it disproportionately hard to recruit and retain staff.

I can see how working fewer hours can be positive to some people's personal health and well-being, but the idea of imposing a strict four-day working week is extremely limiting, because it cannot be rolled out across all sectors without taking on more staff to keep the same level of public service. The cost to the public purse, as already highlighted, would also be truly enormous. Studies have shown that, where four-day working weeks have been adopted, a 20 per cent drop in availability of public services causes more harm than good for the rest of the population. Proponents of the four-day working week, in my mind, are blinded to the negatives of such an approach because they can only perceive overwhelming positives.

We have to bear in mind that the four-day working week approach has been trialled extensively, and, whilst it has worked for some, it most certainly hasn't worked for everyone. Indeed, I think I could spend the entirety of the time allocated to this debate explaining why introducing a four-day working week trial is not only short-sighted, but doesn't achieve the outcomes that it claims, and cite studies right across the world, including Japan, Belgium, the United States, where these trials have categorically failed. But unfortunately, Dirprwy Lywydd, I only have five minutes.

Thanks for giving way. I just wonder what your thoughts would be on Sony Pencoed. Sony Pencoed don't operate a four-day week—they operate a four-and-a-half day week. They finish early on Fridays, and always have done for years, because they've seen the increase in productivity and the attraction in terms of recruitment to young people. Do you think they are missing something here?

My view has always been that if the private sector want to do this, they're fully entitled to, but if it's the public purse, I think there are higher priorities that we should be spending our money on.

While the loss of those soft skills may seem like a negligible point to some people, they are in fact essential for workers in many industries. It seems obvious to me that this drive for wholesale shorter hours has many potential disadvantages that are just being ignored.

Furthermore, I find two aspects of the justification for introducing a four-day working week quite bizarre—firstly, that it should be introduced because high numbers of workers would support such a change. This is specious reasoning. Who in their right mind wouldn’t take a reduction in working hours for the same pay? This is ultimately an invalid argument to justify a four-day working week.

Secondly, there is the idea that this productivity gain will essentially allow workers to reduce their hours, but there are so many different ways of measuring productivity depending on the type of work people are doing that there’s no standardisation across the workplace, so a trial will not accurately produce any meaningful data that could be extrapolated across all sectors. What I mean here is that the productivity of a teacher would be measured differently to that of a nurse, and this would be measured differently to a council employee processing job applications, for example—and so on.

In addition, there are also many external factors that affect productivity that cannot be controlled by an organisation, which means that 90 per cent workforce productivity one week could easily look like 60 per cent productivity the following week. What also concerns me is that higher productivity for prolonged periods also leads to burn-out and people enjoying their jobs less. We have seen this in the NHS with the COVID pandemic; this drive to work people harder for shorter periods is just not conducive to a healthy working life.

I’m conscious of the time, Dirprwy Lywydd, so I’ll just close. Whilst I and my group will note the report today, in truth I believe that what we need in our workforce is additional flexibility given to employees throughout the working day to help them better balance the needs of family and health and to make work and the working environment a more positive aspect within people’s lives. Thank you.

First, I'd like to thank the clerks for putting the report together, to thank the Chair for his diligent chairing of our evidence sessions, as well as the petitioner, Mark Hooper, who I know is really passionate about this particular cause.

There have been a number of changes and considerations in recent years around why we need to rethink the world of work. COVID, of course, was the biggest influence, but even post pandemic we see emerging challenges through automation and artificial intelligence. These are changes that are coming, they're going to happen, so it's important now for us to rethink our day today, and it's important that everyone benefits from these changes to the workplace, not just the companies who will ultimately benefit on the back of reduced labour costs and, therefore, the workers. I know it's a scary proposition to have to think about a different way of doing business, but the Chair pointed out that doing something that's hard isn't a reason not to do something, and I'd add to that that doing something scary is not a reason not to do something. Let's be clear: no move to a four-day work week should mean a reduction in pay or workplace rights.

The benefits of reorienting to a four-day working week are becoming ever more apparent. It is unsurprising in this respect that the model has become increasingly popular since Plaid Cymru led a debate on this issue back in September 2021. For example, we've heard about Iceland—well, on Iceland, following a nationwide trial from 2015 to 2019, nearly 90 per cent of the working population are now on reduced hours or other accommodations. A 2022 trial involving 12 Irish companies yielded similar positive results. Nine of those 12 companies have committed to continuing with a four-day work week schedule, while the other three have provisional plans to follow suit.

In the UK, a recent trial of the four-day working week, involving 2,900 employers in a wide range of sectors, led to 91 per cent of the participating organisations opting to continue the arrangements, and a 35 per cent average boost in revenues. The feedback from employees also conclusively affirmed the well-being benefits that can arise from the four-day working week model. Those surveyed as part of the Irish scheme reported significant reductions in stress, burnout, fatigue and work-family conflict.

Thank you for taking the intervention. I think that you cited the Iceland trial, but also the UK trial. But you know that, with the UK trial, those companies—. You mentioned that there was a wide range of companies. I would hasten to add that I don't necessarily think that there was. They were all in similar employment areas, in terms of financial services, IT industries. Don't you foresee that there is an issue, then, in rolling that out into other companies—small and medium-sized enterprises? With the Iceland model, that wasn't necessarily a four-day working week. That was just bringing their hours in line with the rest of Europe. So, I think that there's an issue, to be using that as a four-day example.

Thanks for that intervention, Joel. It's for the exact reason that you set out there that we are asking for a pilot here. We are asking for a pilot in the public sector. There also is further work that needs to be done around a pilot in other sectors as well, in the private sector. The challenges are going to be very clear as these pilots roll out. As I mentioned before, yes, it is a scary concept to move to something that we are not used to. But again, through the pilots, we can understand whether or not this is the right way forward for us. I tend to believe that it is.

Those surveyed, of course, in the Irish scheme reported significant reductions in stress, burnout, fatigue and work-family conflict. They also reported, actually, an increase in average sleep, from 7 hours a night to 7.72 hours a night. That might not sound like a massive increase, but I think that a lot of us in this Chamber would appreciate an extra 0.72 hours of sleep. There was more time spent doing hobbies, which includes exercise, and a greater inclination for pro-environmental behaviour. The UK trial also demonstrated potential benefits in terms of workforce retention, with 50 per cent of employees indicating that they would be less likely to quit their jobs if a four-day working week was implemented on a permanent basis. And in terms of productivity, there was a 49 per cent improvement across all employees.

The case for introducing a pilot scheme here in Wales is overwhelming, and we wholeheartedly support the recommendations of the Petitions Committee to the Welsh Government in this respect. We hope that a pilot among the public sector can inform more comprehensive initiatives, which can extend into the private sector in future. I think that it is promising that the Government is going to explore the possibility of a pilot via the workforce council, and rightly so. It's important that we have trade unions feed into this particular project, but the work needs to happen sooner.

I will end, Dirprwy Lywydd, by not only reiterating the call for a public sector pilot. I would also like to see a particular move by us here in the Senedd to look at our own offices. I am now currently exploring the opportunity of piloting a four-day work week in my office, and I would welcome Members' support in doing that here today as well.

In an article for Nation.Cymru before I was elected, I suggested that we should think about the new Wales that we wanted after the lockdown and how we could go about creating a fairer society. A number of people often talk about John Maynard Keynes's views back in the 1930s, that we would be working far fewer hours by the year 2000 because of technology. But that didn't happen. It happened until the 1970s, but then it came to a sudden stop. Post-COVID-19, it appears that a number of people are working more hours than they were before the pandemic.

During the pandemic, what was considered unique beforehand became the norm, and what was considered ordinary became otherwise. History has shown that things considered unthinkable can quickly become the status quo. We must take this opportunity, in 2023, to consider and discuss what appeared impossible at the beginning of 2020. This is why I believe that the Welsh Government must develop a pilot to reduce working hours within the devolved public sector, with no loss of pay for employees. This isn't a revolutionary concept, despite what others across the Siambr feel and say. This week, everybody across the UK had a four-day week. The only times that the Tories haven't complained about a four-day week are when we have royal celebrations. Well, if it's good enough for then, what about good enough for every week?

The Tories have opposed many improvements that we now take totally for granted. They opposed the expanding of the vote to the working classes, they opposed weekends, they opposed bank holidays, they opposed minimum wage, and now they are trying to restrict the right to strike after already restricting the right to vote in England. So, it is no surprise that the Conservatives should oppose this common-sense approach. However, it is a real shame that the Welsh Government, in their response to the petition started by Councillor Mark Hooper, have said that they have no plans to develop a pilot. This pilot would include a reduction to the maximum working week from 48 hours to 32 hours.

Gweinidog, is it time now to think differently about this issue? Think of the contrast you will make with Conservative Ministers in Westminster, those who, according to the right-wing press today, want to overhaul the EU working time directive that limits many workers to 48 hours a week on average.

The minority report by the committee argues that the Senedd does not have the legislative competence to legislate in this field. This surprises me a great deal. And, has the Minister received legal advice on this matter? The minority report states that:

'The arguments for the four-day working week are not supported by sufficient research data on improving productivity'.

But without a pilot, how can we secure these data? What do we have to lose from not holding a pilot? I can't understand the argument that a small pilot could cause division and injustice in our society. I don't understand the argument. And, as the Chair of the committee suggested in opening the debate, the same argument could have been deployed against weekends and bank holidays.

As Luke Fletcher said—he organised a panel event back in March, and the event was very interesting—the statistics shared by Dr David Frayne from Cambridge University were staggering. These results showed that 56 of the 61 companies that took part are continuing with a four-day working week—92 per cent of those companies. The four-day working week can succeed in every sector, including the care sector, where there is a need for care to be provided 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Indeed, a four-day working week could make certain sectors much more attractive than they currently are.

To return to the public sector, a recent trial in South Cambridgeshire District Council saw performance being maintained over the three-month period of the trial. The survey data has also shown that the trial has been overwhelmingly positive for staff. If the public sector can do it in South Cambridgeshire, a district council with far less power than the Senedd, why not Wales?

The status quo is not sustainable for improving productivity, to deal with the recruitment crisis and retention issues within many sectors in Wales. Indeed, we are often reminded of these problems by Conservative colleagues in the Siambr. Why not support, therefore, a small trial to see if a four-day week can be part of the solution?

The workers in Ebbw Vale paved the way for the NHS and inspired Aneurin Bevan. They didn’t wait for a pilot elsewhere. Robert Owen from Newtown started the co-operative movement—

Rhys, you have to conclude now.

—he didn’t wait to see if others succeeded first. And the same is true about Lloyd George and Jim Griffiths. What we are suggesting, as a committee, is not radical, it is a pilot, it is a trial—a trial that I am sure will spark many more debates, but would, at the very least, give the data that the Tories are requesting. Diolch yn fawr.

Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's always a pleasure to follow on from Rhys ab Owen, and the arguments that he was making. I think it's important—I don't often contribute to many of these debates on a Wednesday afternoon—but I think it's important that we actually use this opportunity to share some experience and to share what we have found in our lives and the experience that we bring to these things. And one of the things that I've found, living through the pandemic and the changes that we've seen to the way in which we work, is that, when we look at the future, it's going to be very different to the past, and we need to be far more flexible and far more creative in how we meet these new challenges.

I listened to Joel James speaking in his remarks earlier. I thought that he was going to end his speech by opposing the 1833 factory Act, because he seemed to object to every single progressive piece of legislation that we've seen in recent years that improves the lives of people. And, do you know—I don't know what experience you have, Joel—but I've been a senior manager in businesses, I've been a senior manager in public bodies and I've run my own business, and I've had to recruit people, and I've had to demonstrate why they should work for me and with me rather than working for them, or our competitors. I've had to actually demonstrate how we can build a business and run a business. I don't know what experience you have, but let me tell you this: the most important resource any business has is the people that it employs, the knowledge they acquire and the productivity that they deliver. And when I've been recruiting people—in the real world, Joel—when I've been going out to adverts and asking people to work with me, for me and employ people, what I've been trying to do is to put together a package that provides them with the opportunity to do what they wish to do as well as delivering for the business that we are running. And what that tells me is that the package that you put together—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, I will take it, but allow me to finish the sentence.

The package that you put together today will always include flexibility, it will always include hybrid working and it will always include potential for people to live their own lives in the way they choose, as well as contributing towards the business.

Thanks, Alun. I appreciate you giving way. I think what we're talking about here is piloting a four-day working week within the public sector—that's what we're talking about. Do you realise that a lot of public sector workers are on flexi time and that, sometimes those hours that you're advocating to be implemented can actually be achieved under the current flexi-time scheme that a lot of local authorities offer? And, of course, you are a former Minister of that department.

Well, of course I know that the public sector operate flexi—I've done it myself. The emphasis for me in this debate is actually on flexibility, rather than saying, 'Rather than a five-day week, you'll do a four-day week', for example. Certainly, I know many people—many constituents of mine—who would prefer to work shorter hours for five days a week in order to pick up children from school, for example. And that sort of flexibility enables them to live their lives as well as to contribute towards a business.

So, for me, the emphasis here isn't simply on a dogmatic four-day week, it's on a level of flexibility that enables people to make the choices that they require in order to live the lives they choose within the structures of running a business and enabling that business to function. And I think one of the key things that, frankly, successive Labour Governments here, as well as Conservative Governments elsewhere, simply haven't addressed in recent years is that of productivity. Productivity is the biggest crisis facing the Welsh economy at the moment, the same as it is across the border in England. And I think, in addressing issues of productivity, we need to be far more creative, and simply coming to this debate this afternoon and saying, 'We are going to do nothing to move this debate forward rather than restate the experience of past generations', is an inadequate response to the challenges that we face and the opportunities that we have.

What I want to see is an emphasis on the sort of society we want as well—a society—. Last week, the Conservatives were speaking about the importance of volunteering, the importance of people giving back to their communities, the importance of spending time as part of a community. Well, of course, you can only do that if you have the time available to do it, and by creating the time available to do it, you are enabling people to live in different ways and contribute more, but you recognise as well that a four-day week isn't suitable for everybody, for every business, for every employee and for every worker. So, what we need to do, and this is what I want to see—[Interruption.] If the Deputy Presiding Officer will allow—

The Member's already out of time. I've allowed a little bit of flexibility because of the first intervention. So, sorry, Joel.

Okay. I would have taken the intervention—I'm sorry. But the point I would make, in conclusion, is that we've seen a revolution in working practices over the last three or four years. I believe that we need to invest in a sort of creative response to the challenges we will face in the future, and the creative response to respond to those challenges isn't delivered by restating a prejudice from where we were decades ago in the 1950s. We need to be far, far more creative in responding to where we're going in the future than the Conservatives have been in this debate, so a very disappointing contribution.

I'm sorry that Alun Davies is disappointed; he might get even more disappointed by the time I've finished. But I'd like to thank the committee for—[Interruption.] I'd like to thank the committee for the report. I normally agree with Jack Sargeant on a number of issues, but I'm afraid I think he's a bit off the mark on this one, because I do not support a four-day working week.

Joel James highlighted some of these points earlier in the debate. Some sectors, if this went wider than just a public sector pilot, could not operate. There are huge issues with retention and recruitment of staff across industries; I pick construction as one of them. That industry is under a massive amount of pressure to get more people into that, but operating on a four-day working week, if it went wider than a pilot, I don't think is addressing that. What we need to see is the Government being more flexible to bring more people into the workforce—I see the Minister for Economy here—by offering more opportunities for young people to get into different sectors, to boost employment and opportunities, and also educational opportunities for people. That's how you address workforce challenges. You don't address them by making the working week shorter and putting more pressure on existing staff.

If this was in the public sector, I think our NHS would struggle if it went into there. We've heard Members from across the Chamber, from the Liberal Democrats, myself and others, saying about people getting a dentist appointment. If dentists had to operate on a four-day week, we would see fewer and fewer people being seen. We have people on waiting lists who cannot get operations, so we would have fewer operations being done if the NHS operated on a four-day working week. And also, what about GP appointments? You can't even get a GP appointment in Wales. We're going to see even less access to those vital public services that we need, and I see you sniggering, Alun, but that is the state that Welsh Labour have left our country in. You want to look at our schools; you'd put a four-day working week into schools. Our children lost enough time during the pandemic with not being in the classroom, and we cannot see a four-day working week with our teachers; we need our young people in the classrooms, learning those skills that will actually help them into employment, not implementing a four-day working week. It's just narrow-mindedness. The hospitality industry would massively struggle. This Welsh Labour Government seems to have an issue with the hospitality sector. They seem to tax them to death and bring rules and regulations in to hurt them, and a four-day working week would do exactly the same, and for an industry that is struggling, I don't think putting more barriers in place when it needs help is an opportunity to bring that. But—

James, are you willing to take an intervention?

I will take an intervention from you, Mabon—why not?

You're talking there about taxing the hospitality sector. Do you think that raising and increasing VAT from the UK Government has helped the hospitality sector?

I'm in the Welsh Parliament, Mabon, as you are quite keen on, and I like to talk about Welsh issues, unlike the Welsh Government and yourself, who spend more time talking about issues on the other side of the M4. It's about time you started scrutinising this Government that's in front of you, rather than the one that's up in Westminster.

VAT is in Wales too.

Anyway, I'd like to thank the committee for all the work that they've done. I don't agree with a single thing that's being recommended in this report, but as I said, our group will support and note it, but we do not support a four-day working week. I want to commend Joel James for standing up for those businesses on there, and the people who do not support this silly, socialist policy.

Thank you to the committee for bringing this debate forward this afternoon.

It's great to have a chance to speak in this debate on a subject that is close to my heart. Last summer, thanks to Luke Fletcher's friend getting married and him having to attend that, I was able to attend a conference on his behalf in Valencia, funded by the local Valencian Government, on the merits of a four-day week. The evidence, drawn from local examples in Valencia as well as from other countries, like Iceland as we've heard earlier, was clear and compelling. I was left in no doubt that a four-day week was a win-win situation. It led to greater staff satisfaction, increased productivity, and improved welfare. What I was left lamenting was the lack of any examples from my own region.

I'm pleased to say that in the intervening period, I've been able to visit a workplace where a trial is currently being undertaken. Merthyr Valleys Homes began their trial some time ago, and the trial has recently been extended to gather more robust data over a longer period of time. The early indications are that the trial has, overall, been a positive experience for staff and tenants alike. Staff have been empowered to make more decisions on the best use of their time, and this led to greater efficiencies in the workplace, for both office and those working on the tools.

I therefore want to echo my support for the recommendations in this Petitions Committee report, and declare my hope that Welsh Government can respond in a positive manner, therefore catching up with some of our international counterparts, who are a few years ahead of us.

Minister, I have one question: do you agree that productivity is not the same as attendance? And that is the crux of a four-day working week.

As we've heard, the five-day work week was invented a century ago by the Ford Motor Company in 1926. At the time, the move to a five-day work week from a seven-day work week was seen as a lofty ideal that would negatively impact productivity. Well, it didn't. We are a century on and having that same debate now about things that, actually, we need to see as important in our lives, because productivity and making money is not everything it's supposed to be. Productivity and making money is not necessarily about happiness. That's about time spent with family and friends. It's about trust between each other. It's about working together. It's about well-being. And in many ways, I think the Welsh Parliament is about this, and I think the Welsh Government is about this, which is why I hope we will see a pilot for a four-day working week.

I welcome the report. I thank the Petitions Committee for it. It sets out clearly the support for a four-day week, or reduced hours, and the results also, as we've heard in the evidence, of the world's biggest trial as well. The fact that 56 of the 61 companies that entered the UK trial have extended or even made permanent the new arrangements shows how popular it is. And it's important to dispel myths as well. This isn't just about office work that is used to a 9 to 5 pattern. The companies engaged in the trials included hospitality, care services and healthcare. So, it can work everywhere and anywhere. And I do thank my colleague, James Evans, for mentioning the work I've done on dentistry. That's really kind of you; thank you so much. But many dentists don't even work five days a week. Many of them work far, far fewer days, and it's surely about just increasing the pool of people within that sector—and including other health sectors as well—by attractive things that they can actually look at and think, 'I'd like to go and work there because they're offering this as an incentive for me to go', including the four-day working week.

In Cardiff, refuse collectors now work a four-day week. So, it's important to dispel that myth that it will only benefit the few. And the case is well made when we look at the world of work and the pilots that have happened. We see record levels of sickness, stress and burnout. Many people are, sadly, working longer hours, with more stress, and more work-related illness, and this is not what this is about. It's clearly about us reducing those. And I was glad to see and hear mention of South Cambridgeshire District Council being the first public sector organisation that has actually introduced it. I'd just like to remind everybody that South Cambridgeshire District Council is a Liberal Democrat-led council, so we are leading the way in the Liberal Democrats, in a progressive—[Interruption.]—in a progressive way of working, which is actually looking at not just extending the pilot, but making it more permanent and introducing it to other sectors in the district council as well.

I'd like to thank Jack and the Petitions Committee for bringing this important debate to the Senedd today. At one time, the average working week was 37 hours a week, and, over time, it crept to 42 hours, then 47 hours a week. And over the last 12 years, the race to the bottom has continued, both in the public and private sector, pushing for further productivity while squeezing workers to their limit. I'm aware some people have 60- and 72-hour contracts in the health profession, and nurses told me they are doing 12-hour shifts, some day, some night, in the same week, with no consistency or flexibility, all of which negatively impacts on their health and also their sleep patterns and trying to cope with childcare. Royal Mail has shifted post delivery jobs so that rounds have been expanded to an average 13 miles a day, with no extra time added on, minimum contracted hours, with overtime frowned upon, and sick pay no longer automatic but challenged. It's no wonder they're leaving in droves. A family friend, a policewoman in England, has retired from that job because of the 12-hour shifts. They actually ended up being 14-hour days when she included driving to and from work, and impacted on her mental health.

The strikes have not just been about pay, they've been predominantly about working conditions and working hours, which has all been part of the race to the bottom to improve productivity and efficiency and keep prices low, but at what price to health? And it's not working. It is failing. People are now retiring in their 50s because, during COVID, they had time to re-evaluate and realise they'd had enough. And the UK is now a country that works some of the longest hours in Europe, but lags behind on productivity and fails to put the well-being of workers first. It needs to change. It's obviously not working. We're losing people from the public sector, so we need to have a change. We need to make jobs more attractive, as Jane Dodds said earlier.

Last year, the UK's four-day week trial showed that the well-being of workers dramatically improved, with levels of burnout reduced by 71 per cent. Business productivity and performance was maintained or improved, and job retention improved by 57 per cent. In Flintshire, street scene staff do a four-day working week, and, during COVID, it actually went to a three-day working week. Despite COVID, attendance was high, sickness was reduced, and the use of agency was cut down. Normally, they rely heavily on agency, because of sickness and impacts on their health doing 12-hour rounds—[Inaudible.]—sorry. So, financially, it actually made sense to cut even from four days to three days a week. So, I would support a four-day week trial in the public sector, and it would be lovely to see in the private sector as well. I would support reduced working hours as well for the same pay. After all, a happier workforce is a more productive workforce, which then impacts on families, health and society as a whole, and it needs to change. Thank you.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership, Hannah Blythyn.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I welcome this debate and I'm grateful to Members for their contributions.

I'm also grateful to my colleague and constituency neighbour Jack Sargeant and the Petitions Committee, which he chairs, for their considered interest in this issue, their informative report and the recommendations made by the majority of the committee. My response to those recommendations has been published by the committee, so the Deputy Presiding Officer and many others here will be relieved when I say I will not repeat in great detail the Government's response to each recommendation in the limited time I have available today.

What I do want to do, though, is emphasise the importance of social partnership in informing our approach to any pilot of a four-day working week here in Wales. This debate takes place during a second shorter week in a fortnight. Last week we marked May Day, an international recognition and a celebration of better working conditions. Indeed, workers helped win the weekend that many of us now take for granted, and workers, through their trade unions, should be front and centre of any future changes to working practices. That's why, with the agreement of the workforce partnership council, we have established a working group of that council. The working group has been tasked with exploring the issue of the four-day working work in social partnership, and brings together representatives from Government, employers in our devolved public services, and trade unions. I think it was Luke Fletcher who said this needs to happen sooner rather than later, and I'm pleased to report back that the group actually met for the first time on 26 April for what I believe was a very productive meeting, and it will meet again later this month.

It would be remiss of me to take any policy decisions on a pilot that would effectively pre-empt the group’s work, but Jack Sargeant said, in his opening remarks, about the importance of keeping an open mind on issues such as this, and I'd like to reassure that we genuinely have an open mind on this issue and will be guided by the work of the group.

Will the Minister give way on that point?

Sure, yes.

One of the things, of course, that the social partnership looks at, and the overall procurement framework that we have in Wales, is ethical and responsible employment beyond those who are within the public sector, but those who trade with the public sector and who are in the supply chain. I just wonder whether she'd encourage that group to look at the potential of those private sector organisations who wanted to, in an enabling framework, because we'd want to see people who took a progressive approach to the workforce and productivity.

Yes, absolutely. When we talk about fair work in Wales, that encompasses a range of factors, and I saw my colleague the economy Minister listening to your contribution with great interest then, and I'm sure it's something that we can explore further as a Government. But, just to reiterate, the workforce partnership council very much focuses on the public sector, but, clearly, there are other opportunities as we move forward. I wouldn't want to pre-empt any of the work of the social partnership council, but that might be the sort of thing they'd want to explore as part of looking at the future of fair work and working practices in Wales as part of that.

In terms of the pilot we're looking at and the work of the workforce partnership group, I very much recognise that colleagues in the Siambr want to see us move quickly to establish a pilot, but we're very much committed to this social partnership way of working, and I know Members here agree that it's vital that partners have a voice on issues like the four-day working week, given what it potentially means to both our public services and those who work hard day in, day out, to provide those services.

So, the intention is for the working group to report its findings to the workforce partnership council before the end of this year, however I very much recognise the level of interest in this issue for many, many Senedd Members, and indeed from other interested parties and organisations outside this place. So, that's why today I want to commit to continuing to work very closely with Members, and also to making a written statement before the summer recess. The hope is that this will provide a progress update on the work of the working group, and that, alongside that written statement, I will publish the group's terms of reference and membership in the hope that Members will welcome that transparency and that ongoing dialogue and input into the work of the group.

Finally, I want to make it clear that there is no question of a four-day week being imposed on employers and workers. We believe in social partnership and an equal voice for employers and workers in influencing these key decisions. Likewise, while there are, of course, no immediate pilots in the pipeline in Wales, it should not be taken that it's something that has been ruled out, but it's something that will rightly require consensus and that collective commitment to move in that direction. So, to do this, the working group will need to consider the opportunities, the risks, the barriers to a four-day working week pilot, and this could include issues around productivity, but also well-being, any potential unintended consequences, but also what that means for roles and resource in moving forward as well, and so delving really deeply into these issues will be key to the group making recommendations on both the feasibility and suitability of a four-day working week pilot in a devolved public service or services in Wales.

I call on Jack Sargeant to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. Can I thank Members for their contributions, and particularly the Minister for her response? I think I speak for the majority of the Chamber by saying that I'm encouraged by the work that the Minister is doing, particularly with the workforce partnership council, and I look forward to hearing their conclusions later this year, but I'll also watch with interest the written statement, and I very much welcome that transparency that the Minister has agreed to do today.

I'm trying to touch on as many comments as I can, Presiding Officer, in the time that I have. Joel James: I do understand—perhaps I don't have the lottery numbers, Presiding Officer, but I predicted rather well the contribution of the Member—I understand fully that he has different views. I perhaps don't understand the rationale behind them and don't agree with them, but do want to thank Joel for his consistent collaboration as a member of our committee. In fairness to Joel, he does always put his points across.

Luke Fletcher, touching on the challenges that are in front of us with automation and AI—very real challenges, and, if we don't embrace the challenges ahead of us, we'll be very much behind the curve. I look to my constituency, Alyn and Deeside, which is the most at threat when it comes to automation and AI. We have to be very much alive to that issue.

Diolch yn fawr iawn to Jane Dodds, Carolyn Thomas, Peredur Owen Griffiths, and I think Huw Irranca and Mabon also made interventions in this debate as well. And the gist of those contributions, I think, was, 'Why not? Why not trial a public sector trial?' The Confederation of British Industry, actually, have said that, and that's very welcome to hear from the CBI.

Moving on. James. James, James, James, James, James. Construction. I'll pick on the point—. And, actually, James, I don't disagree with you when you say we should look for more opportunities, particularly for our young people, when it comes to the world of work. I don't disagree. That's an issue in front of us. What I separate from the issue is, I don't think introducing a four-day work week is a barrier for introducing opportunities for members. One could argue it's actually the other way around, and it's certainly two things that could work in partnership together. But just on your point, James, on construction—and I'll send you this after the debate—there's a blog by a director of Autodesk Construction Solutions, where she says, in the blog, Amanda Fennell:

'we're at a turning point to change perceptions of the industry. Now the only question is when, not how.'

And that's referring to a four-day week, so I think it would be of learning for you.

I can see we're pressed for time, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I will just end on the two contributions from Alun and Rhys. This is about the opportunity in front of us, this is about people. The former Minister told us about his experiences and said the most important resource for a business is its people. Well, this is a matter that could potentially benefit the lives of many workers in Wales, many people in Wales in more ways than we can imagine, and I would encourage everyone here to keep the well-being of our public at the heart of what we do and embrace the change in front of us. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 8 today is Welsh Conservatives' debate on tourism. I call on Tom Giffard to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr iawn ichi, Dirprwy Lywydd, and it's a real honour and a real pleasure, really, for me to be opening this Welsh Conservative debate ahead of Wales Tourism Week, because for me personally and for my party, tourism is something that we are incredibly passionate about here in Wales.

We know the huge economic contribution that it makes to our country. We know that one in seven jobs in Wales rely on the tourism industry. We also know that it's responsible for 17 per cent of our GDP. But what we can say in addition to that is almost more important: I don't think there's a bit of Wales that you can't go to and not have a great day out. I think every single corner of our fabulous country has something positive and great to offer somebody either coming to our country for the first time or, indeed, things on our doorsteps that we may never have experienced before. Because, ultimately, we are tourists as well, and we're so fantastically lucky, I think, to live in Wales and have those opportunities, have those resources on our doorstep as well.

But the point, I guess, of our motion today is to say, 'Could we do more? Could we do more to sell ourselves not only to the world, but could we do more to sell ourselves within the United Kingdom?' And the thing that struck me more than any other statistic I've read, when looking at tourism, is, in the year before the pandemic, 1 million people visited Wales compared to 3.5 million people visiting Scotland. Now, I don't know about anybody in this Chamber, but I would contend that we've got as much, if not more, to offer than Scotland does. But it's a question about marketing. It's how do we market ourselves, how do we sell ourselves to the world.

I think the most important measure to do that is through Visit Wales, it's through the Welsh Government's promotional arm for tourism. And I'm pleased that, before the recess, the Senedd voted for my Member's legislative proposal to make Visit Wales—or to call on the Welsh Government to make Visit Wales—independent of Government. And there's a reason for that, because that happens in Scotland, that happens in England, that happens in other parts of the world. Because, for as well intended as Ministers can be, and civil servants can be, sat in Cardiff Bay, they'll never understand the way the tourism industry works as well as people who are involved in it every day, as well as the people who are really passionate about it and want to see it succeed.

And it goes back to marketing. Who knows better how to market everything that Wales has to offer than the people who are literally involved in it every single day? Those are the people who we, as Welsh Conservatives, want to see driving forward Visit Wales, driving forward our marketing and the way we look at ourselves internationally and across the world.

We've talked about visibility as well. I think one of the most visible incidences, I suppose, of Welsh Government policy that we've seen over the last few weeks and months, and years even, is the introduction of a tourism tax here in Wales. VisitEngland, because of its independence from Government, said that the tourism tax wouldn't be a good move, wouldn't be a good idea for the economy there. Visit Wales, because it's constrained within the confines of the Welsh Government, is unable to do that. It's unable to be an advocate for the tourism sector because there's obviously going to be a natural competition between the Government policy of the Government of the day and the tourism economy as well—there's a natural tension there. So, what we want to see is a Visit Wales that will advocate for that.

But we're going back to visibility: what message does that send? What message does that send not only to people within the UK, but people elsewhere, that we see tourism in Wales as something to be taxed, not to be enhanced? It doesn't exactly scream 'Welcome to Wales'. And in fact, what it does do is actively discourage the people that we want to come to Wales. In the region that I represent, I fully accept that there are pockets that really struggle with a lot of tourists on certain days of the year—I understand that. But a lot of those tourists will be people who come for the day, not for a series of days and overnight stays. But what we know is that the people who stay overnight will spend up to 14 times more in the local economy than people who just come for a day. And, unfortunately, the Welsh Government's proposals are to tax those people specifically—exactly the people we want to come, to spend money in local businesses and contribute to the local economy as well.

What we also know is that, obviously, we're living through a cost-of-living crisis at the moment, and people will make choices based on the amount they think it will cost. We're not sure where this tourism tax will be pitched, but we estimate it may be about £70 for a family of four for a trip away. So, if you're making a decision, 'Do I go to Porthcawl this year, or do I go to Weston-super-Mare?', that additional tax, actually, skews the balance between one over the other. And what we do know as well is that tourism taxes, where they've been introduced elsewhere, have specifically been designed to suppress tourism in certain instances: look at Venice, look at Costa del Sol. Well, Venice introduced it because of over-tourism; Costa del Sol looked at a tourism tax, and thought it would be damaging to their tourism economy, so they decided not to proceed with it.

The one sort of advocate, the one thing the Welsh Government will say is in favour of a tourism tax is the idea that it will be somehow ring-fenced and spent on tourism and improving the tourism offer in a local area. But I haven't seen—I'm very happy if the Minister wants to clarify this in her remarks at the end—how that will work in practice. I've been a councillor, and many of us here have been councillors, and we will know that any additional revenue stream often gets sucked up and spent in other priority areas. Unfortunately, I fear that an introduction of a tourism tax will do exactly this. We've heard from Adam Price—I was going to say, 'the leader of Plaid Cymru'; maybe I shouldn't—in the past, saying that he would want to spend that on free school meals. A totally noble aim, but that wasn't the purpose stated behind the introduction of the tourism tax as well.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Deputy Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths.

Formally propose the amendment in the name of Lesley Griffiths.

Formally.

Llywydd, tourism is very important to Wales. It makes a significant contribution to our economy, and of course it's of great interest to our coastal and rural areas. And of course, as we've heard already in the opening of this debate, we have so many advantages here in Wales when it comes to attracting tourists and having a strong tourism industry. Our natural beauty, heritage and culture are great attractions, and I think if we look at all we have to offer here in our country, we should be very ambitious for tourism in Wales. We should take steps to make sure that it makes an even bigger contribution to our economy, to our coastal and rural areas, and that we get the balance right in terms of sustainable tourism, benefiting the local area in terms of drawing in wealth, job opportunities and hopefully increasingly good-quality job opportunities, while at the same time understanding some of the pressures it brings to local communities. If we are to be ambitious for tourism and our tourism sector in Wales, Llywydd, we should want to grow and develop our tourism offer. And if we do that, we’ll improve the quality that’s available and the revenue that results. We should provide more support for tourism operators, and we should be about increasing the number and quality of jobs as well as the wealth that exists in our more popular tourism areas particularly.

So, if we look at the investment that’s needed, and if we are ambitious for that investment, Llywydd, we have to look at where resource will come from, and I would say that a very obvious candidate is a visitor levy. It would produce moneys for investment in that tourism product, just as it does in so many other countries across Europe and across the world. A small charge multiplied by millions of visitors annually equals a very valuable resource to invest in the tourism product, and the better product that would result from that investment, in turn, attracts more visitors paying the levy to enable more investment still. It creates a virtuous circle, Llywydd. Countless countries realise that and ensure that their tourism industries benefit from a levy. Here in Wales we should ensure that tourism does not miss out on these benefits, and we should definitely introduce a levy to provide that tourism, increase the quality of the product, and take our offer forward here in Wales.

It is, of course, very good to be able to contribute to today's debate, and I'm grateful to Tom Giffard for opening. There are a couple of thoughts that I want us perhaps to consider in my contribution today. The first is the positive impact of tourism in our local communities, so perhaps the microconsiderations, and then, on a wider scale, the importance of tourism to Wales beyond our shores and beyond our borders.

Firstly, on the boost that tourism trade brings to rural areas—and those areas really are big beneficiaries of tourism from our visitors that come into Wales—it's really important to remember that the tourism sector is so often rooted in our rural communities. People come to our rural areas because of the idyllic nature and the scenery. We often hear about some of the risks and issues around jobs and economic growth in some of our rural communities, but it's tourism that's able to provide those jobs and economic growth in spades. Tourism certainly helps these communities. It strengthens them. People in rural areas provide fantastic holiday experiences and attractions and visitors should be strongly encouraged to visit these areas. Of course, the rural offer is a distinctive one. We've seen this through previous Visit Wales campaigns, with themes like Year of Adventure in 2016 and the Year of the Sea in 2018, which were focused on the assets of our non-urban areas throughout the country.

But more broadly, beyond our communities and the benefits that tourism provides to our communities, I believe that tourism in Wales provides a greater role for us in terms of our sense of a nation and what we can provide as an insight into Wales around the world, because Wales, by any metric, is a special place. And I would argue that north Wales in particular is probably one of the most special places when it comes to the visitor economy. The natural beauty of our land can compete with the finest in Europe and our long and storied history is imprinted all over Wales in the form of some magnificent castles as well. I would argue perhaps that one of the best ones is Conwy castle, finished in 1287. UNESCO calls it the finest example of late thirteenth century and early fourteenth century military architecture in Europe. It's a place where you feel seven centuries of Welsh history in every step, from Edward I to Owain Glyndŵr to the English civil war. I am, of course, biased towards the greatest region in Wales—north Wales—but we have these locations all across the country, places and sites that other nations can only dream of. This story is all part of exporting Wales to the world. When we attract people from around the United Kingdom and across the globe, they go back home and spread the word of what Wales is and can be about. And we know that international visitor spend is worth around £500 million a year in Wales. It's a very important part of our economy.

I'm pleased to contribute to this debate. It's entirely right that we mark the importance of Wales Tourism Week. Tourism is an important contributor to the Welsh economy; there is no disagreement between us in on this. However, although we can fully support the first five points of this motion, we disagree with any move from the recent measures introduced as part of the co-operation agreement to develop a more sustainable tourism model here in Wales. Tourism in Wales should not be at the expense of local communities. The truth is that, at the moment, we are too tied to an extractive model of tourism that prioritises external interests over those of local communities.

Let us consider housing in the motion. I was speaking to a crowd of 1,500 people in Caernarfon on Monday, who saw their communities becoming empty because there was so much holiday accommodation, and young people particularly were suffering and having to leave their communities. The most recent statistics show that over 24,000 second homes exist in Wales, with 11 per cent of the Gwynedd housing stock being holiday accommodation and 9 per cent in Pembrokeshire, as well as 22,500 vacant properties too, which contribute to a substantial increase in house prices here in Wales.

As a party, therefore, we are very proud to have played a part in bringing measures into place to try and start to resolve this crisis. It's good to see that where Wales leads, England, under Conservative administration, is following. Cornwall, under the Conservatives, wants to double their council tax on second homes, and Michael Gove wants to bring in new regulation on short-term holiday accommodation such as Airbnb. Perhaps we will hear the Conservatives complaining about Michael Gove during this debate.

In terms of a tourism tax, the idea is simple: this will enable us to reinvest in our communities, strengthening the infrastructure that supports the industry without being a barrier to attracting visitors. At a time when local authorities across Wales are suffering huge financial pressures, it's difficult to argue against raising a small fee that could have a major impact on whether people will continue to enjoy what Wales has to offer many decades hence.

Promoting tourism requires investment in new infrastructure and local services. A tax could help to fund this necessary investment. Being administered locally, the tax could be used in the short-term for training and dealing with the shortage of staff in hospitality. Surely, the long-term aspiration must be to ensure that tourism adds to, rather than compromises, local communities.

A tourism tax is common in countries across the globe. I was in Lisbon in the autumn and had to pay a tourism levy there. I had no complaint at all, and myself and my family enjoyed ourselves greatly. Look at Switzerland, where the cantons and even the towns have the ability to charge their own different levies. The same is true in Canada. In Canada, the hospitality sector were calling for the introduction of a tourism levy. New Brunswick was one of the last, and this is what the tourism sector in New Brunswick said in 2016:

'New Brunswick is one of the last jurisdictions in North America without the ability to create a hotel tax. We’re leaving marketing dollars on the table that would grow the tourism industry from the inside. We could do better marketing, better tourism product development, better growth of festivals, better sport tourism events'.

That's what they understood from the introduction of a tourism levy there. The number of hotel stays has increased there by almost a third from 7.1 million in 2013 to over 9 million in 2019, and that is after the introduction of such a levy. It's difficult, therefore, to argue against charging a small fee that could have a huge impact as to whether people will continue to be able to enjoy what we have here in Wales. Asking everyone to make a small contribution through a tourism tax will be one part alone of a far broader effort to help to ensure that we can continue to welcome the world to Wales sustainably and safely.

Finally, it's worth noting the point Tom made earlier about self-catering accommodation. We've seen a huge increase in that sector over the last few years, particularly through Airbnb. That's what's undermining the sector, and that's what's causing these problems, but I do recognise that we need to see an increase in serviced accommodation. Sam mentioned Wrexham earlier. I don't know if people are aware, but thousands of people came to the Wrexham area to see the game recently, and because of the lack of serviced accommodation, had to stay Liverpool and Manchester, because of the shortage here in Wales. So, we do have to see investment at that level. Thank you very much for listening, and I hope you will support the amendment and reject the motion.

Tourism, the hospitality sector, and the retail sector on our high streets are very much an important part here in Wales. In fact, tourism is the backbone of Aberconwy. Apart from the public sector, the third sector, tourism is now one of the most prolific industries; it's the only real industry that we have. The sector here is worth over £900 million per annum to the economy of Conwy county.

In co-operation with North Wales Tourism last year, and Go North Wales, I undertook a review of the potential impact of a tourism tax on the hospitality and tourism industries of Aberconwy. I have a formal report, so it's all there evidenced, and the outcomes were clear: levying additional tax on a Welsh Government priority sector would be counter to policy in most other European countries. They have actively sought to cut tourism tax to stimulate tourism growth, tax revenue, GDP, and employment. Across Europe, of course, VAT is levied around 5 to 7 per cent on tourism, as opposed to 20 per cent in Wales. In north Wales, there were around 22 million day visitors and 3.7 million overnight visitors; the evidence being that overnight visitors spend on average £187, with day visitors spending £31. But they are all very, very important to us. Spain and France have four seasons of tourism; Wales has 1.5 seasons. Spain had 300 days of sunshine a year; Wales has an average of 60 days. Wales has around 34 million total overnight stays; France and Spain have 433 million and 471 million.

I was concerned—. I enjoyed Mabon's contribution, and I was waiting for it when he was saying about how important tourism is. I thought there was going to be a 'but' or a 'however'; well, today, it was a 'however. I do get really fed up with Plaid Cymru in their attempts to mask it as trying to sort out the housing issue. They appear to be having targeted second-home owners and people visiting. I have been asked on more than one occasion, 'What is it about Plaid Cymru that they don't like English visitors?' And I just say, 'Well, you'll have to ask them.' We really value visitors from anywhere. If anyone looks at the programme for Go North Wales, we have Conwy castle now twinned with Japan. We have several town twinning projects. It is really, really important. Of course, tourism anywhere is heavily weather dependent, particularly so here in Wales between April and October. It costs more, however, to get a train from London to north Wales than to fly to Spain. The sector is clear that domestic visitors are more likely to choose Spain or France if a tax is introduced. So, really, I can't understand why this agreement—. I just keep forgetting, thinking it's the coalition, but it's the co-operation agreement. Bad move to try and sort housing out and link it in, because there's this feeling of anti-business, anti-tourism, and anti-English, which is not a good look for Wales.

Janet Finch-Saunders, are you taking an intervention from Cefin Campbell?

Absolutely, yes.

Thank you very much, Janet. I'm just wondering whether you think that the visitor levy in Manchester is anti-English, or is it just anti-English in Wales?

To be honest, I was elected to represent the people in Wales here in the Senedd, and that's what I'm doing here. So, to be honest, whatever they decide in Manchester or Luton or Cornwall is not relevant to this debate here today.

In 2014, of course, we have record here of Plaid Cymru and Labour being anti-tourism when they dumped thousands of tonnes of oversized and untested quarry rocks onto North Shore. We are now working together—not with Plaid and Labour—with the community, and thousands and thousands of petitions are coming in, because we now do not have a sandy beach. The number of visitors who actually value Aberconwy and Llandudno, and what they do for the economy and the jobs they provide—. As well as Plaid Cymru being negative to tourism, I was very disappointed in some evidence gathering last week in the climate change committee, when the unions came to discuss Tata Steel, and for one of the unions to quote that those working in the tourism and retail sectors were in 'exploitative' roles. Through the chairman, I was able to ask them to correct the record, because we've got to be really careful—these are very good jobs and I will not stand by at any time and have jobs in tourism or the retail sector belittled, and certainly not by Labour-supporting trade unions.

In everything I have said, and the work that we have done here, we can prove that the tourism tax would be a bad move. At some stage, it's time for Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru to value this industry as it deserves to be valued, and also to value the workers who work so hard to actually represent Wales. They are the face of the tourism industry, and I, for one, would like to thank each and every one of them. Diolch.

[Inaudible.]—fantastic contribution that I don't quite know how to follow. I had Alun Davies in the last debate and Janet in this one—I am very privileged today. But it is an honour to take part in this debate that the Welsh Conservative group have tabled on tourism, because tourism is central to my community. Many people flock from around the world, and I'm sorry, Sam Rowlands, the best part of the world is my community. [Interruption.] Sorry, Llywydd, have we got a problem?

I think your mike's off.

Right, okay. Here we go. Move around—changing rooms.

Yes, the best community is Brecon and Radnor, Sam, I'm sorry, and mid Wales, so you are slightly wrong in talking about north Wales. Many people flock from around the world to visit my part of the world. They come to see the Hay Festival, the Royal Welsh Show, certain music festivals, food festivals, and also the countryside that is the crown jewel of Wales, which is the Brecon Beacons—world renowned and a fantastic part of the world. And I'm proud to call it the 'Brecon Beacons', somewhere that we all love and cherish in this Chamber.

As others have said, tourism accounts for 17 per cent of Wales's GDP, and 137,000 people are employed in the tourism sector in Wales. So, I don't quite understand why Welsh Government, Plaid Cymru and the sole Lib Dem, who isn't in the Chamber, support tourism taxes—a tax on genuine tourism businesses, as well, because they are the backbone of our economy in rural Wales. It would be about time that we have a Government here in Cardiff Bay that actually supported our tourism sector and didn't neglect it and use it as some sort of cash cow for socialist projects. What we do need is a government that supports tourism, that prioritises businesses, that prioritises jobs and puts investment into our tourism sector, because that is how you develop industries to become better and more profitable, not by using them, as I said, as a cash cow for projects.

As I've said, tourism employs hundreds of people across my constituency, and I'm very proud of the part tourism plays in Brecon and Radnor. I'm going to sum up, because I don't think I can follow the previous speaker and go on for that length of time. Tourism is an absolutely phenomenal part of what we do here in Wales. It is the fabric of Wales, and that is why it's about time the Government here supported it instead of using it to fund its socialist ideological projects.

The Deputy Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Dawn Bowden.

Thank you. Diolch, Llywydd. I'm certainly grateful to Members for contributing to today's debate. But, Llywydd, I'm going to focus my response in the order of the Government's amendment to the motion, and I'll start by mentioning Wales Tourism Week. I'll be speaking at the annual reception planned at the Senedd next week. I attended the event last year and found it an invaluable opportunity to meet with many industry representatives, and Visit Wales is once again pleased to support that event. Of course, I also meet with sector representatives throughout the year, and you may well know that the Wales Tourism Alliance and other industry stakeholders are part of the visitor economy forum that I chair.

But let me start, Llywydd, by agreeing with Tom Giffard about the value of the tourism sector as part of the visitor economy for Wales, which is recognised as a priority by the Welsh Government. That recognition and support is clear from the Visit Wales tourism strategy, 'Welcome to Wales: Priorities for the visitor economy in 2020-2025'. That strategy, published shortly before the first lockdown in 2020, highlights that, in 2019—and I think this is the point that you were making, Tom—more than a tenth of the Welsh workforce were employed in tourism-related industries, with expenditure reaching more than £6 billion. And that's probably about as far as I'm going to go in agreeing with any of the Conservative contributions this afternoon.

Now, like many destinations throughout the UK and the wider world, tourism of course is still recovering from the impact of the pandemic, and we appreciate that although they're now operating and have been for some time, other elements, such as the rise in energy costs, have put pressures on day-to-day trading and delivery. Now, while Wales's principal visitor market is domestic, our international visitors are also very valuable to us, and we look ahead to the Rugby World Cup as part of Wales in France in 2023, planning our presence both physically and virtually, informed by the success of the FIFA World Cup in Qatar. And to address Sam Rowlands's challenge, a priority this year is to do all that we can to encourage international visitors to choose Wales for the first time or to return again, and that will be done, of course, by celebrating and shouting loudly not only about our world-class destinations, but also our world-class businesses, because the depth and the breadth of high-quality products in Wales, from accommodation and attractions, to foods and festivals, is something that we promote with confidence on the world stage.

An exceptionally important thing that Visit Wales aims to convey in promotional activity is the unique welcome and culture found in our country. It helps that, over the last week, of course, and Mabon has touched on this already, that a great example on that international stage has been expressed by the warmth of the Wrexham Association Football Club celebrations. The US visitor market will be an important one for us this year, and the millions that watched the Welcome to Wrexham series and followed the story on social media will have a much greater awareness of Wales as a result. And Visit Wales will be seeking to make the most of that opportunity, to encourage visitors to start planning their trip and to experience Wales at first hand.

When those visitors arrive, it's vital that their experience also includes good-quality tourist amenities and facilities. One of our schemes is Brilliant Basics, and it provides just that, investing in the basic elements that are fundamental to the enjoyment of a destination—infrastructure improvements that may be small in scale but big in impact, such as inclusive changing place facilities and sustainable transport options that benefit not only visitors, but communities.

Are you taking an intervention?

Sorry. I'm sorry, Andrew.

I'm grateful, Minister. We disagree on the visitor levy, and that's fair enough; that's political debate, that is. But there are concerns from the tourism sector that, on the introduction of this, actually this levy might not be used for specific tourism improvement in various council areas. We've had it from your co-operation agreement partners in this—their leader, Adam Price, is on the record and a public broadcast bas been put out—that the money could be used to pay for free school meals. So, could you confirm categorically that this money would be ring-fenced, despite the political differences we have, and can only be used to be spent on tourism-related improvements in local areas?

That is certainly the direction of travel that we are looking at, and that is where Ministers are minded to look at hypothecation of the visitor levy for those purposes. And I'll tell you for why—because it is well known that there are public costs associated with tourism. Having visitors contributing towards those costs isn't controversial in my view. It's fair, and our research shows that most people agree with that, in principle. So, our intent with the visitor levy is to provide a tool for destinations to help fund and sustain vital local services and infrastructure that are integral to the visitor experience. And, as I said, hypothecation is one of the things that we are considering in terms of ensuring that that happens.

Now, finally, the powers that we are proposing will be discretionary, empowering local authorities to make their own judgment and to decide what is best for their communities. There will be a careful, deliberative process of passage of legislation through this Senedd, within this Government term, and, subject to approval by this Senedd, it will be many years before the levy actually takes effect. And any introduction would follow a process of local consultation and decision making.

Llywydd, I hope the Members will support our amendment, and join us in celebrating Wales Tourism Week 2023, to raise awareness of tourism's value to the economy and society, and celebrate Wales as a world-class tourist destination.

Samuel Kurtz now to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I'm very pleased to be able to close today's debate on behalf of the Welsh Conservatives, as next we do indeed celebrate Wales Tourism Week. What an opportunity it is for us to stand up and advocate for the great and good of tourism here within Wales.

In opening the debate, Tom Giffard spoke passionately. He’s been a passionate advocate for the tourism industry here in Wales, speaking up for the one-in-seven jobs, the 17 per cent GDP that the tourism trade and industry brings here to Wales, and used the phrase, which I've quoted to you: 'we are tourists'. Yes, we are tourists as well here in Wales. We can go to other parts of Wales, we can go to somewhere where Sam Rowlands was advocating, north Wales, to experience the great there, or even come to west Wales, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, to see the real pinnacle of what Wales has to offer.

But Tom previously has mentioned and spoke at length with regard to the independence or potential independence of Visit Wales, and the benefits that that could bring, and I think that that's something that really needs to be explored and have further eyes looking at it to understand exactly the benefits that can be eked out from having an independent Visit Wales, and what that can bring to improve the offer of tourism here in Wales.

And something else that Tom mentioned, which I thought was quite a staggering figure, was that overnight stays spend 14 times more than those day trippers. Those are the real people who come into our communities, who spend money at our local artisan bakeries, at our butchers, going on the boat trips out on the Pembrokeshire coast—they're the people who are spending the money, supporting the jobs that are integral to the Welsh industry, buoyed by a tourism industry.

Tom, again, acknowledged the problem with second homes, which was a theme of Mabon's contribution as well, and the Deputy Minister made this point as well. There's no dissent from these benches that there is a problem with honey-potting in certain areas. I represent a part of the world where that is absolutely true. We do have problems. However, the proposals brought forward by the Welsh Government aren't proposals that will solve the problem of honey-potting in these certain areas, and I think that's the real dissent that you'll find from our benches—it isn't on the problem, but the solution to the problem itself.

John Griffiths on Zoom contributed, talking about balance—let's get the balance right. Well, I would argue again that the balance has swung too far the other way by the proposals of the Welsh Government, putting a more difficult chain around the neck of tourism industries here in Wales. We want sustainable tourism, yes, we want to benefit from tourism, yes, but again, I come back to the point in terms of what the Welsh Government have brought forward wouldn't do what it's saying on the tin.

On hearing from Mabon—

—the importance of tourism. Yes, absolutely, that's a common theme amongst all of us here. I think that's great that there is unanimous agreement in terms of the importance of tourism, but it is the point that you made as well around exploitative tourism—nobody wants to see this. Nobody wants to see communities overrun and overshadowed by people coming in and being exploitative. But again, I come back to the point that the policies that are brought forward by your party, through its co-operation agreement with the Welsh Government, won't bring about the changes that you so desperately seek. Because if we're looking at second homes, for example, there's the inability to differentiate between a self-catering holiday unit and a second home. A legitimate business, which brings people into the community, and a property that does lay vacant for too many weeks of the year—being able to differentiate between those two parts is vacant in the policy that you're discussing, because I speak to estate agents in Pembrokeshire and in Carmarthenshire where properties are now going onto the market because of these change of rules. Who's looking to buy them? People with deep pockets who can afford to pay the council-tax surcharge, not first-time buyers, not people looking to get on to the property market, so it's failing on a real core element of what you're building this policy on, and I think that's something that the general public are starting to see on this point.

Moving forward to Janet Finch-Saunders, well, her contribution spoke for itself, didn't it, ladies and gentlemen? Aberconwy: £900 million comes to the local economy through tourism to Aberconwy, and Janet is a proud and passionate advocate for tourism in her part of the world, and long may that continue. But, something else she spoke about was the value of the workers—those who work in our tourism and hospitality sector, the great job that they do. Too often—[Interruption.]

For low pay.

Well, too often, Mike—. This is a good point, Mike: too often, it is seen as just a little job that they do on the side. Let's turn tourism and hospitality jobs into careers. Let's invest in those sectors to make them really viable—that, 'I am proud to work in the tourism industry', 'I am proud to work in the hospitality industry, because it's a career, rather than a job'. [Interruption.] I'm very happy to give way to Mabon.

You're right: we need to see investment in the sector. Don't you agree, therefore, that, in raising a tourism levy, we could use that money to invest and to improve the sector?

Well, the fact is, from what the Deputy Minister has said now, that the sector isn't going to ring-fence that funding so that we can have that investment in jobs.

Okay, you're looking—[Interruption.] Yes, the Deputy Minister said that they're looking, and that's the direction of travel, but when the leader of Plaid Cymru has stood up and said that there could be something to fund free school meals, and that's part of the co-operation agreement, it's really difficult for us to understand, and for the sector itself to understand, the trajectory in terms of where this is going.

Minister, just to close, I'm conscious that my timer has gone red and I don't want to test the Llywydd's patience, so I will wrap up. I think it's really important that we understand and remember, as the Deputy Minister rightly said, that the tourism sector is recovering from the pandemic. The Federation of Small Businesses have stated quite clearly that,

'this is not the time to raise the prospect of more costs and tax on a key Welsh industry that is particularly vulnerable at present'.

The sector is saying it. Those stakeholders representing the sector are saying it. It's just really disappointing that, when evidence is put forward, evidence is ignored for the benefit of the Welsh Government and their co-operation partners. With that, Llywydd, I would really urge Members to support our motion this afternoon. Diolch.

The proposal, therefore, is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. Therefore, we will defer voting until voting time.

We now move to voting time, and unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will proceed directly to the vote. So, the only vote this afternoon is on the last item, which was item 8, the Welsh Conservatives' debate on tourism. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Sorry, there are a lot of pauses this afternoon. I'm sorry for that. It's not for dramatic effect; I must be distracted by something. [Laughter.]

So, the motion—. Close the vote. The motion is not agreed: in favour 15, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We will move next to amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, no abstentions, 15 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

Which brings us to a vote on the motion as amended.

So, we'll move to a vote on the motion as amended. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, no abstentions, 15 against, therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

That concludes voting, but it doesn't conclude our business for today. We will move now to the short debate.

The short debate is in the name of Huw Irranca-Davies, and I call on Huw Irranca-Davies to speak to the topic that he has chosen.

Diolch, Llywydd, and just to confirm, I've agreed to give a minute of my time to Joyce Watson and to Cefin Campbell in this debate.

So, today's debate addresses the paramount importance of salmon to the ecological balance and sustainability of rivers across Wales and, indeed, across the UK too. The salmon, the king of fish in Welsh legend, a wise old fish as found in the Mabinogion, indeed, which helped Culhwch release Mabon, is part of Welsh history and culture, but we do face a future where the salmon could be nothing more than a name on paper, a story, a distant memory; we need to avoid that.

We as Members, as the people of Wales, need to work together to ensure a future, hand in hand, or hand in scales, with salmon.

A recent report from Natural Resources Wales on 'The identification and characterisation of small salmon populations to support conservation and management' is nothing short of alarming. It states that the species is indeed under threat here in Wales. And, by the way, the report is very highly detailed, more than I can go into today, but go online and look at it. It is shocking.

This report, and others, look at what is termed the 'catastrophic decline' of salmon and sea trout populations across Wales, and it considers whether and when they may become critically small and also what is needed to support their conservation and their management. 'Critically small', by the way, is beyond the levels of sustainable restoration. The report confirms that Atlantic salmon are under threat, not only in Wales, but throughout most of its range, and it suggests that salmon may disappear completely from Welsh rivers within the next few decades. Atlantic salmon stocks on the great majority of rivers in Wales, and in England too, are currently well below the conservation limits. Egg deposition levels in Welsh rivers were at a historic 20-year low during 2021, with half of the rivers being at just 20 per cent of their conservation limits. The Institute of Fisheries Management, which represents professional fisheries managers across the UK, has also made it clear that the salmon is in crisis and close to extinction, and they've written to all UK fisheries Ministers, calling for urgent action. And we shouldn't forget that the Atlantic salmon also has an economic value. It's estimated at around £100 million across the UK and Ireland, so it's therefore also an economic necessity to ensure that species thrives and survives for many years to come.

Now, both NRW and IFM have identified causes and factors at play in the salmon crisis. Contributing factors consist of things such as climate change—it's a major factor; high water temperatures and changing flow patterns, including floods and droughts; physical barriers to migration from and to spawning and rearing habitats—dams and weirs and culverts and so on; habitat degradation—this being river excavations, loss of bankside vegetation, siltation of spawning gravels, and the list goes on. So, we know what we need to do. A radical plan for salmon and, indeed, sewin, is therefore required, and it's absolutely necessary—urgently necessary—for the conservation of these species. This plan must be prioritised and the outcomes measured, but not just at a Welsh level, but at a UK level too, and indeed, many of our rivers flow across the borders there. And it also must be implemented at real pace, as time is not on our side.

We must understand the methods and the reasons behind population decline, including whether it occurs uniformly or disparately or through a combination of factors, and many of the experts in the field will say that it's river by river that we need to look at it. Some of the studies show that, for example, partial synchrony suggests that salmon and sea trout respond to a blend of shared factors, such as climate-driven influences and local catchment-specific pressures. And furthermore, it's important to grasp the process of population recovery for smaller groups and determine whether recovery is more probable between populations within a metapopulation. And this may be influenced by factors such as dispersal patterns, source-sink dynamics, which can impact on reproductive rates.

Current research attributes around 40 per cent of the salmon's reduced survival to freshwater impacts, so we must, therefore, do what we can to prioritise our actions on this element. And we note the interlinkage with other Welsh Government priorities—so, for example, the First Minister's welcome commitment on phosphates and water quality. That will help, if it's carried through. And we must recognise the significant impact of agricultural pollution on our salmon and our sewin rivers and the populations. And we need to work with a high level of ambition with our farmers; it's going to be tough to shift, but some of the solutions in this may indeed be at Welsh Government level, such as taking forward with farmers the response to the impact of spreading digestate from anaerobic digestion plants.

River restoration in Wales is currently hindered by the mechanisms under which organisations like Afonydd Cymru and other third sector bodies deliver their actions on the ground. So, funding programmes, whilst they're very welcome, are constrained, and it's part of the wider constraints on public budgets and lack of being able to look beyond one year. A major source of funding is the strategic allocation funding from Welsh Government, discharged by NRW. It is, however, based on one-year funding, and Afonydd Cymru have worked hard to advocate for this being extended to a multi-year programme; they succeeded in getting it up to 18 months. But this doesn't allow long-term prioritisation of those long-term schemes we need.

Now, I notice that, recently, the Minister for Climate Change met the Wye and Usk Foundation and Swansea University to see some schemes funded under the nature networks fund. The Minister, I understand, was very impressed by the visit and seeing the work on the ground. And I'm happy to see that funding has been allocated for projects to help curb the decline of Wales's wildlife and salmon. The Minister said:

'Whilst we must do all we can to protect our precious Atlantic wild salmon—healthy, free-flowing rivers will benefit all'—

all of us—including

'our physical and mental wellbeing.'

She went on to say:

A thriving population of salmon indicates a clean and well oxygenated river where other species can flourish and tourism can boom. Whether you’re a bather,'

she said,

'toe-dipper, twitcher, angler or kayaker—a healthy river means a more enjoyable countryside experience.'

I agree with her entirely. Those are the words of the Minister. I can't declare an interest as somebody who fishes, but I am a keen paddler, but not a bather, definitely—not in the cold waters. But it is reassuring to see that the Welsh Government and the Minister sees the bigger picture—that it's a benefit not just for present and future salmon, but for all of us too.

Let us ensure a clean Wales, a prospering Wales for our children and for their children. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Huw, for tabling this very important and timely debate. Salmon do face an uphill battle in more ways than one. The Welsh Government has just announced £11 million to curb wildlife decline, including the Atlantic wild salmon, as you say, and I'm sure we'll hear more about that in the future. I certainly look forward to seeing the improvement to the west and the east Cleddau rivers, the Usk, the Tawe and the Teifi, removing physical barriers along those crucial migration routes. The new report that you've mentioned on salmon population commissioned by NRW sets out in stark detail—and you've explained that—why we must act now and why we must act decisively. River health remains paramount, especially when you consider that sea survival rates for salmon are around a fifth of what they were 50 years ago. In other words, our rivers need to support more fish, not fewer.

At the moment, as we know, only 40 per cent of our rivers are in good ecological status. That's why, as I said here in the Chamber—you mentioned it now—we must get to those nutrient management targets and we must get those over the line. If we continue to delay the 170 kg per hectare nitrogen whole-farm limit we're never going to meet our environmental goals. We've seen the progress that can be made when all sides pull together with the First Minister's river pollution summit at last year's Royal Welsh Show and the recent phosphorous summit in Cardiff. We must continue that team Wales effort. So, I would urge Members from all sides to support this going forward.

I'm grateful to Huw for allowing me a minute of his allocated time. And, as species champion for the sewin, the sea trout, I would echo the call for a radical, measured plan to protect our freshwater fish stocks. But, unlike the salmon, which die once they spawn, sewin typically make repeated migrations between the sea and our rivers, and can, surprisingly, show a longevity that actually means they return to spawn as many as 10 times during their lifetime. So, although officially listed as a species of least concern, the sustainability of the sewin stocks in Welsh rivers certainly does give cause for concern, and I can speak from my own experience, living near the River Towy and being a keen angler on the River Towy, seeing these stocks depleted over recent years. But, indeed, from NRW's assessment of 33 main sea trout rivers, 88 per cent of stocks were assessed as 'at risk' or 'probably at risk', with 12 per cent 'probably not at risk'. So, it's clear that many of the remedies already identified by Huw to protect and enhance salmon populations, from tackling climate change to river pollution, addressing the barriers to migration, will also benefit the sewin as well, which migrate far more often during their lifetime, as I mentioned. So, let's do what we can to protect these iconic species so that they're no longer under threat. And I'll work with Huw certainly, as two species champions, to achieve that. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Climate Change to reply to the debate—Lee Waters.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's excellent to hear from two species champions, of the sewin and of the salmon, to inform this debate, and, clearly, there's a strong theme in the contributions of all three speakers today about the threat to a number of species, to our habitat and biodiversity in this ecosystem, indeed. The Atlantic salmon, as Huw Irranca set out so clearly, is under clear threat and we are working hard with a range of partners to do what we can. We've already, in Wales, ended catch-kill fisheries for salmon, introducing catch and release in all of our rivers, and action now needs to go beyond fisheries measures. In recognition of this, Natural Resources Wales, at the request of Lesley Griffiths, developed a salmon and sea trout action plan for Wales, which sets out actions that NRW would take that were broader than fisheries management to address the decline in salmon and sewin. And, as has been said, we need to consider the multiple benefits of the actions that we deliver. Healthy, free-flowing rivers will be of benefit not just to salmon but to other species and to our own species, to our physical and mental well-being, which is why protecting and enhancing our water environment is a priority for this Government.

Our programme for government commits us to improving water quality by beginning to designate inland waters for recreation and strengthening river water quality monitoring. We've provided almost £9 million for water quality improvements, removing barriers to fish migration and remediating metal mines across Wales, and we've committed to provide £40 million of additional funding between 2022 and 2025 to address water quality problems, including funding for nutrient management boards, established to address special areas of conservation river catchment challenges. And we've taken steps, of course, to reduce discharges from overflows. This includes making SuDS—sustainable drainage systems—mandatory on almost all new building developments and this will help relieve pressure on the network by redirecting and slowing down the speed at which surface water enters the sewer system. It'll also help ensure storm overflows are only used as a last resort. And we're working to tackle the many reasons for river pollution in Wales, from agricultural pollution, where we've introduced new regulations to help manage nutrients, and also continue to provide financial support for tackling the issue of abandoned mines, where we are at the forefront of developing innovative solutions, and, in fact, are hosting the International Mine Water Association conference this summer to showcase these solutions. Reducing impacts from storm overflows is a priority and we need a cross-sectoral approach to this, and we are making progress.

I thank the Deputy Minister, and thank you, everyone. That brings today's proceedings to a close.