Plenary

Item 2 is questions to the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, and Trefnydd. Question 1, Huw Irranca-Davies.

I work very closely with the Minister for Climate Change in addressing water pollution affecting the environment across the whole of Wales. This includes working in partnership on relieving pressures on special areas of conservation river catchments, to protect these important habitats and support the delivery of affordable housing.

Thank you, Minister. On 10 October 2023, you issued a written statement, Nutrient management'—Managing the application of livestock manure sustainably'. It's fair to say—. I mean, I've read through that statement, and I've had a lot of correspondence now from not only farmers who are very committed to reducing livestock, but also from environmental organisations saying that—I'm trying to state this diplomatically—they have a high level of concern that what we've done is kicked things further down the road once again. And we've even diluted the approach to tackling what is a clear issue that we need to do, alongside sewage outfalls, alongside many other sources of river pollution, but we need to tackle this.

I wonder, Minister—you do state within that statement that you will continue to welcome proposals to deliver the outcomes we seek at any time. So, can I ask you genuinely, for those out there who are concerned that in delaying and diluting some of the measures here—which is what is proposed as a result of the co-operation agreement discussions, I've no doubt, and we want to see farming on a sustainable footing for the future, of course, but we need to see our rivers having a sustainable future as well—how do those organisations now seek to influence these proposals, and how long-lasting are these proposals? Can they be strengthened? Can they, working with farmers and others, actually be strengthened so that we save the rivers that we all love?

Thank you very much. Obviously, we have been out to consultation, and the written statement to which you refer, and the enhanced nutrient management approach announced within it, is consistent with the proposed licence conditions that we did consult on. So, anybody—any stakeholder, any partner, any environmental non-governmental organisation—could have, obviously, put a response into that consultation. What we want to do is absolutely minimise the environmental risks associated with higher levels of manure being applied to our land, and, as you say, I'm working in close partnership with Cefin Campbell as part of the co-operation agreement in relation to this.

I think the principles that we did consult on were overwhelmingly supported by those responding to the consultation, and that did include the majority of environmental sector representatives. I took on board the feedback that we had via the consultation and enhanced the environmental controls, where appropriate. Farms applying higher levels of livestock manure will be required to notify Natural Resources Wales of the intention to do so, and submit supporting evidence to demonstrate the crop need for nutrients within the manure. I think that's a much more pragmatic approach. It does ensure that resources are dedicated to the enforcement of the regulations, rather than having to look at issuing licences.

So, in my mind, I think that will help things along the way, but you're quite right—I'm very interested if there are alternative proposals. Officials have had a few submitted and have worked through those, but we are open to any ideas, because, as you say, the outcome that we want is better water quality; that's what we all want. So, I'm very keen to continue this conversation.

We're all wanting better water quality. However, though—and it's a result of this co-operation agreement—it's disappointing that a Member of the same party of our Government brings into question the actions of our farmers, who are facing a really tough time at the moment. Now, I've had some of my farmers raise concerns with me about the frequency of the closed periods for—I know it as muck spreading. So, from 1 August 2024, the spreading of slurry will be prohibited during the following periods: on sandy or shallow soil, grassland, 1 September to 31 December; tillage land, 1 August to 31 December; and other soils, grassland, 15 October to 15 January; and tillage land, 1 October to 31 January—quite a lot of that out of the calendar year. Now, we all know that as a result of climate change, arbitrary dates such as this, for what is important work for our farmers, are impractical and not based on any science. So, Minister, we can't judge the seasons now with climate change. Will you look again at the requirements of these closed periods or, better still, could you perhaps adopt a more balanced approach and work with our farmers better to allow greater flexibility in the spreading of manure? Diolch.

As Huw Irranca-Davies alluded to, there isn't one area that causes pollution to our waters. I think you were implying that we are picking on farmers. I will just say we are still getting just under three substantiated agricultural pollution incidents a week—a week. Three a week. That hasn't improved over a decade. So, I absolutely recognise that water pollution comes from many different sources, and that's—. I think the original question did ask me what discussions I have with the Minister for Climate Change because, obviously, it's really important that we work together. So, as you say, it is part of the co-operation agreement, and I do work very closely with the designated Member in this area. We have looked very closely at closed periods, and these are the regulations that have now been brought forward.

Our priorities for animal welfare are set out in 'Our Animal Welfare Plan for Wales'. We are working to launch a 12-week public consultation before the end of the year to fulfil a programme for government commitment to develop a national model for the regulation of animal welfare.

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. Now, last week the UK Government provided an update regarding the banning of American XL bully dogs across England and Wales, confirming that it will be illegal to own a dog of this breed unless it has exemptions that are applied for and followed from 1 February 2024. Now, this has come following many abhorrent attacks and deaths involving this breed. Considering the brutality of these attacks, I believe the steps taken by the UK Government are appropriate and necessary to safeguard the public and other animals. The exemption list needed to be allowed to keep an XL bully is that they must be microchipped, neutered and muzzled. This will allow them to see out the rest of their lives. However, it is sadly likely that many owners may choose to abandon their dogs rather than comply with this new law. So, Minister, what additional resources are being made available to ensure that, when the new law is enacted, it is enforced here in Wales, and if we see this likely rise in abandonments, that local authorities and charities such as the RSPCA are supported by the Welsh Government accordingly. Diolch, Llywydd.

I should point out this is a wholly reserved matter, and you may have seen the announcement that was made by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last week, that they are offering £200—I think the word they use is 'compensation'; I don't particularly like that word in relation to this—towards the cost of having a dog euthanised. There is no funding, as far as I know, that is coming forward in relation to enforcement. Whilst I do welcome this announcement—it’s something that you know very well I have been lobbying for for a long time—because we have seen, as you say, very brutal and sometimes fatal attacks in relation to XL bullies, I was concerned that the announcement came—. I met with the DEFRA Secretary of State, I think, on the Wednesday of the week that the announcement came from the Prime Minister on the Friday, back in September. It’s really important that our officials work closely together on this, because obviously, as you say, it’s going to have a massive impact on Wales. I do have a meeting in the diary—I don’t think it’s until the beginning of next month—with Richard Benyon to discuss this, because I am concerned about unintended consequences, and you’ve just related some. There are others as well. What about puppies? What about breeding bitches that are currently pregnant? I’m not sure it has been thought through in the way it should have been, and it has all been very rushed, I think it’s fair to say.

So, whilst I do welcome it, I am concerned about unintended consequences. Both the chief veterinary officer and his other officials in his office try and attend as many meetings as we’re invited to to discuss this further, but I’ll be very happy to keep colleagues updated on this very important issue.

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

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I thought someone would come in with a supplementary on the question on dogs.

Minister, my analysis of the Habitat Wales scheme, the replacement to Glastir, hasn’t changed since I questioned the First Minister on it a couple of weeks ago. It has been a shambles. That certainly was my takeaway, too, from the NFU Cymru conference last week. This has been further backed up by the fact that, in a written answer, you confirmed that no economic modelling was done to inform the development of the scheme—pretty poor, really, if you ask me. But what really caused me concern was the reference made in the same written question to the apparent engagement your officials had with stakeholders during the development of this scheme, something that is fiercely contested by stakeholders. So, Minister, can you confirm what engagement you or your team had with the farming unions not after, but during the development of the Habitat Wales scheme?

So, I disagree with you completely that it's a shambles. This was something that, actually, the farming unions, particularly NFU Cymru, wanted me to bring forward, and I remember having an initial conversation when we all recognised—and everybody in this Chamber recognised—that Glastir would be coming to an end on 31 December this year. I haven't withdrawn it, I haven't cancelled it: Glastir came to an end, let's be very realistic here, because we left the European Union, and that funding ended. If people wanted a seven-year predictable budget, then they should have stayed in the European Union, because that's what we had when we were in the EU and we had that funding year on year, and I could roll it over, and I could extend it. That's gone—that flexibility has gone.

So, the reason there was no economic analysis was because we did it very quickly, because I was asked to do it very quickly. It was in discussions with NFU Cymru that the idea for the Habitat Wales scheme—I don't think that was the name of it—came forward. So, I believe that officials engaged frequently over the summer recess period. I certainly had discussions with the farming unions over the summer during the agricultural show season and those conversations carried on into this term of Government. It closes on Friday, the applications. I think it's really important to say we've had over 1,600—I think it's 1,600— applications now. What really pleases me is that 40 per cent of those applications are from farmers who were not in Glastir. Over the past few years, I've heard a lot of, 'We haven't been able to join Glastir'. Everybody can try and join this scheme and, as I say, we've had over 1,600 applications.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. You mentioned that Glastir couldn't have been rolled over. Within your powers, you could have continued Glastir. We've seen that in Scotland; we've seen that in England. That post-EU funding—okay, not maybe available from the EU, but the scheme itself could easily have been rolled over maybe at a 50 per cent, 60 per cent, 70 per cent funding rate. And that's something that the unions were actually calling for.

You mentioned that 1,600 farmers have signed up. Three thousand Glastir contracts in Wales; 17,000 registered farms in Wales—1,600 applicants is a damning indictment of the status of this Habitat Wales scheme at the moment. And what I think really happened, Minister, was that your officials presented a scheme as a fait accompli to stakeholders, having not actively worked with them to design something that would have avoided some of the glaringly obvious mistakes that we’ve seen, such as the mapping errors. And I know that this is a feeling that is shared by the farming unions.

But I’m really worried, Minister, by that low amount of farmers who’ve signed up to the scheme, firstly, because of the lack of support Welsh agriculture will have to achieve agri-environmental targets, but also that the Welsh Government may use this perceived lack of interest and lack of take-up as a reason to further cut the agricultural budget in the future. And because we’ve yet to see what the final budget will be for the Habitat Wales scheme, can you confirm today that you will allocate at least as much funding to the Habitat Wales scheme as was allocated to the Glastir schemes that preceded it?

So, I completely disagree with your assessment of what took place. I told you what took place. If you don’t choose to believe me, that’s your choice. But I am telling you what happened. I cannot confirm the budget yet—you’re aware of the budget and the financial difficulties we have as a Government—I will only be able to do that once discussions with my Cabinet colleagues have finished.

It's depressing, really, the situation that Welsh Government have put farmers in. I mean, if the Welsh Government want to achieve their own targets around climate, nature and biodiversity restoration, then they need to support farmers accordingly to achieve this. The irony is that, by not supporting farmers, Welsh Government will fail to meet the targets that it has set itself. And it's not just the environmental benefits of supporting farmers; it's supporting the highest quality food producers here in the United Kingdom and the wider economic benefits that come from a vibrant agricultural industry. Every £1 spent in Welsh agriculture is worth £9 to the wider community, and I challenge anyone to find a better return on public investment than that.

So, Minister, you've been unable to commit to the Habitat Wales scheme having the same funding as the Glastir schemes that came before it, but can you provide at least some certainty to the industry by confirming today if the basic payment scheme budget for next year, 2024, will be maintained at current levels?

Well, let's look at your perceived lack of support, shall we, for farmers. So, I've protected the BPS. What have they done in the UK Government? [Interruption.] What have they done in the UK Government? They've cut BPS by—[Interruption.] They have cut BPS in England by 55 per cent.

Now, you were at the NFU conference last Thursday where you heard farmers say how glad they were that they were in Wales, not in England, so, let's just think about that, shall we? What about the number of schemes that the UK Government promised to open for farmers that have now been just quietly shelved, to one side? So, this perceived lack of support for farmers, I really don't recognise.

I have protected BPS. I know—[Interruption.] When discussions have finished—[Interruption.] If you let me answer the question, I will answer the question, rather than shouting more questions at me. Next year's BPS is obviously subject to next year's budget, and I am doing all I can to make sure that we can protect BPS, because that, I believe, is the best way of supporting farmers, because farmers tell me that that's what they look to for that stability and that security that, frankly, leaving the European Union has taken away from them.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, you've disputed the earlier description of the Habitat Wales scheme as a shambles, so, let's be kind: you have to admit that it's been rather discombobulated, shall we say, certainly in terms of the way that some of the mapping issues have played out; there have been concerns about the levels of funding, and all that. And frankly, one person's shambles is another person's non-shambles—that doesn't work in my book, really. We know, just working it out briefly from the figures that you've quoted in terms of applications—the 1,600, 40 per cent are from outside of Glastir—that means, I think, that around about only a quarter of those currently in Glastir have applied to be in the Habitat Wales scheme. Now, we know that the potential income from that will be 45 per cent lower, but it actually means that three quarters of those who are currently in Glastir are not applying to the Habitat Wales scheme. What does that tell you about the Habitat Wales scheme, and what impact will that have on the decades of investment in agri-environmental work that has happened previously, that is now, clearly, just going down the pan?

Well, I think there are two ways of looking at it. What you have to remember is that farmers are very aware that their Glastir contracts, which they signed whenever they took them out—so, seven years ago, we rolled them over a few years, so maybe they've had it for eight years, maybe they've had it for 11 years—they knew that that contract was coming to an end on 31 December 2023. So, it could be that that's all been part of their business plan. So, I think that that's one way of looking at it. I'm very pleased that 1,600—. I absolutely take on board what you say about the criticism about mapping. We could have paused it, but I thought it was really important to continue so that we can open the windows and look at that in the beginning of January, so we don't have that gap between Glastir finishing and the Habitat Wales scheme beginning in January, because you'll be very well aware that UK Climate Change Committee, that was one of their recommendations to us.

The question in my mind is: where does this leave us now in terms of the sustainable farming scheme? Because the FUW have told us that they estimate that 70 per cent of the Habitat Wales scheme forms that they've analysed include serious errors in terms of habitat mapping, and there are serious capacity issues, I believe—and you can correct me if I'm wrong—in terms of being able to process those contracts, in terms of correcting some of the errors and faults that have been discovered. So you can tell me whether it's capacity or incompetence that has led us to where we are in relation to much of this. But what does that tell us, or how does that give us confidence, moving forward? Because the sustainable farming scheme, of course, is 12 months away from being, or needing to be, operationally ready. So, can I ask how confident are you that we won't be facing similar discombobulation, or shambles, depending on which way you want to look at it, when it comes to the sustainable farming scheme? What additional capacity, if any, will you have, because obviously the scale of that is going to be considerably more substantial than what you're struggling with at the moment? And when exactly will we see the long-awaited next consultation, which is to be launched before, I believe, the end of this year?

So, in relation to the second part of your question, we will be launching the final consultation, I'm hoping, mid December—certainly before we finish for the Christmas recess. I've had several meetings, just in the last week, around making sure the consultation document—again, speaking with Cefin Campbell, as the designated Member. I think, in some ways, we need to learn lessons from what's happened with Habitat Wales, and, as you say, the mapping. I don't think it's incompetence. When you say about capacity, obviously, we can all have bigger capacity, can't we, we'd all welcome bigger capacity, but I've been reassured that that is not an issue. But I think that we do need to learn lessons, because, as you say, SFS is going to be so much bigger, and I think that's what officials will do.

Thank you. The Habitat Wales scheme is available to all eligible farmers to apply. Scheme payments will support them to maintain and protect key habitats already under management, as well as new areas of semi-natural habitat not previously under active management. I encourage all those interested to apply by 10 November.

Thank you, Minister, for your reply. I met with FUW officers and officials last week, and the frustration and concerns around the Habitat Wales scheme were made clear to me. Additional to some of the other points that have been raised today, issues were raised around mapping errors, reduced payment rates, and, as they put it, a cliff edge for organic producers, making it difficult for farmers to make use of this scheme. Now, those in Glastir are facing cuts in their payments, I'm told, of between 65 per cent and 90 per cent if they decide to apply to the scheme, which, as you just pointed out, must be done by 10 November. So, with that in mind, Minister, how will the Welsh Government ensure that farmers in Montgomeryshire are offered effective support to continue with their environmental work and sustainable farming practices ahead of the launch of the sustainable farming scheme?

Thank you. Well, I don't think I can say any more on the mapping issues; I think I answered both Sam Kurtz and Llyr Huws Gruffydd in relation to that, and on the budget also. I think the point you raise about organic is a fair one, and I've asked officials to look to see what we can do specifically for organic farming. I'm trying to identify a separate pot of money, if you like, specifically for organic farmers to apply for, and I'm very hopeful that that will happen, because I've been able to find some funding for that.

I think it's fair to say—and our farming unions recognise this—that we all knew Glastir was ending this year. I've made no secret of that. You will have not heard me say anywhere that Glastir wasn't ending. We couldn't extend it; we didn't have the European funding. And, as I say, if people wanted to stay in Glastir, then they should have stayed in the European Union.

Good afternoon, Minister. I'm afraid it is the Habitat Wales-fest this afternoon, because I did want to follow up on the question asked by Russell George. Many of us living in rural areas have had the opportunity to hear from farmers. I've met quite a few; they've asked for a meeting. I met one female farmer and her daughter, and she was in tears, because she and her daughter are really not sure how they're going to keep the staff and the community that they live in, given that they are losing such a high degree of funding. I have to say that that farmer volunteered to me how she had voted in the EU referendum, which was to remain, and how frustrated she felt that losing the EU funding meant that she was going to be significantly affected.

You've answered a lot of questions on this, and I've been crossing out a lot of my questions to you as we've been going along this afternoon. But the one thing that I have raised previously is that my understanding is that you can't amend the expression of interest that farmers have put in. It's a very complex scheme. It's a significantly lengthy document, and, as well as the stress that farmers are feeling, to then commit themselves to what they understand may now be a permanent scheme going forward is a significant stress for them. So, I just wonder: are there any flexibilities? Is there anything that, certainly cross-party, we could be thinking of, working with you, within the constraints, to really help those farmers, some of whom are really feeling that they are going to lose their business and are going to be laying off quite a few people? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you. I don't underestimate the issues. Everybody's facing financial difficulties—it's every Government, it's every individual, I think it's every business. Obviously, everybody is affected by it. And I'm afraid, coming out of the European Union, this is the new world we're living in, and I've been trying to ensure that everybody within my portfolio, all the stakeholders, absolutely recognise the difficulties that we're all facing. But this is the new world and we have to get on with it. So, I'm very sorry; I can only imagine—. And I've had farmers say the same to me, 'We now recognise'—whether they voted leave, whether they voted remain, they absolutely recognise that this is the new world we're living in.

As I think I previously answered to you, there is no flexibility. This is a scheme we've had to bring forward very quickly. We tried to make it as simple as possible, but, when you come to allocating public money, you know yourself, it's a very complex area; you have to make sure that every 'i' is dotted and every 't' is crossed. But I think the simpler—. One of the things that farmers said to me was they wanted to leave the European Union—not all of them, obviously—when we had the vote back in June 2016 because of the bureaucracy. So, I really believe it's imperative that we as a Government make life simpler when it comes to form filling et cetera. But I'm afraid—. This is, hopefully, a scheme that will help with that gap, and I do hope that the farmer and her daughter that you referred to do apply to be in this scheme.

Thank you. No assessment has been made on the impact of the end of Glastir on farmers who receive funding from it, because Glastir participants signed a contract with the Welsh Government with an end date aligned to the end of the rural development programme, and we are adhering to those contract terms.

Thank you, Minister, and you've answered lots of questions already on this today, and I want to pick up on the theme that my colleague Russell George made. Minister, I wrote to you in September around one organic farmer. I'm yet to receive that reply, but I'm sure it's on it's way. But I've been in contact now with another constituent, who farms organically, striving to deliver everything you wanted for a sustainable farming system, and he's been adamant to do that and he's done a brilliant job. Now he feels this is totally under threat. He's broken on it. The financial support that Habitat Wales is offering him he feels is just an insult—an absolute insult. His farm will receive around £700 from the Habitat scheme and you've got to jump through hoops to get that. Whereas, prior to this, on Glastir and Glastir Organic, he would receive £16,000, so being paid out at about £69 per hectare. How can this farmer afford to continue as an organic producer and keep his employee? Minister, I'm pleased to hear that there will be some sort of funding possibly available for organic farmers to bid for, but what this farmer told me is it takes at least two years to turn the ship around. And, whilst there is an end to the contract, it's been accepted that it's being rolled on, and not enough notice—. This guy is switched on and he just feels so let down. So, Minister, given your environmental commitments, what advice can you offer an organic farmer in Wales who faces a cliff edge, especially when his neighbours in England still get organic support and he has to compete against them?

I disagree that they didn't get enough notice. As I say, this was a contract that every farmer will have signed with the Welsh Government and the end date was 31 December this year. So, I completely disagree with you that not enough notice was given. There will be some specific funding for organic farmers. I absolutely recognise the case that they put forward to me, and I have been able to identify a small pot of money, which I do hope will help. But, as I say, the assessment—you asked what assessment had been done about the end of Glastir—was done at the beginning when we signed those contracts with farmers and they all knew, unfortunately, when they were going to end. I wish I had the same amount of money that we had when we were in the European Union; I simply don't.

I receive a lot of contact from farmers in Anglesey who are so concerned about the new scheme that they're considering not applying at all. So, what's the Minister's message to them to persuade them that there is a means of saving this scheme? But this is my main question: we hear from the Minister once again today that farmers knew that Glastir was coming to an end, and we're also hearing the Government saying that they had to introduce this change in a hurry. Well, surely then the Government had enough forewarning in order to put a better scheme in place. The Government can't have it both ways.

Well, it's not a matter of having it both ways, is it? If I had the same budget, I could have done it. I have had to identify that budget from somewhere else. There's no funding. There's no domestic funding, is there, because the UK Government didn't give us the same amount of money. You remember 'not a penny less'—[Interruption.]—not a penny less. No, that wasn't your question. Not a penny less. I'm telling you, and you know, the UK Government did not give us the amount of funding that we would have had had we remained in the European Union. So, I accept what—. I said that we had to do the scheme quickly over the summer; we didn't have to do a scheme at all. I was asked to do a scheme and we did a scheme—[Interruption.] Well, I didn't, did I, because I have prioritised the basic payment scheme. I wish I could have carried on with Glastir with the amount of funding—. And if the UK Government had given us the funding that they promised they would, I could have done it. So, this is the issue. We did it quickly because we were asked to do something, so as not to have a gap between Glastir and the sustainable farming scheme coming in. I really wish I could have that same funding to carry on. I simply don't have it, and I don't know why nobody recognises in this Chamber on the opposition benches that that is the case. If we'd stayed in the European Union, we would have had that funding: predictable, every year, seven-year budget—every year. And I'm sure you recognise it on this side, but they don't recognise it over on the Welsh Conservative benches.

I've had to find that funding, and what we all have to realise is that predictability of budget has gone. And any domestic funding that now comes through for the agricultural sector will be on a year-by-year basis. We are completely beholden, aren't we, to the UK Government giving us the funding. They've let us down in the first few years. Who's to say what the funding will be next year? I have to work out my basic payment scheme budget on what I assume I'm going to get. I don't know yet what I'm going to get, and this is why I'm having those conversations. But, this is the reality. This is the new world, and the sooner people grasp it, the better.

Thank you. I speak regularly with the Minister for Climate Change about a range of issues, including the impacts from recent storms across Wales and the support available to local authorities to reduce the impact of flooding.

Can I thank the Minister for her answer and the conversations that she does have with Cabinet colleagues? The Minister will be well aware that, three years ago, homes in Sandycroft, Mancot and Broughton in my constituency were flooded, and, following that, a series of steps were agreed from various agencies including National Resources Wales, including the local authority as the risk management authority, and including Welsh Water, and they were agreed to ensure work was carried out to protect these communities. But last month, sadly, again, during storm Babet, these communities were flooded for the second time in three years. At the public meeting that followed storm Babet, residents expressed their frustration that the work that was previously agreed by these various agencies had not been fully completed in the time necessary. Minister, will you, or will the Welsh Government—if it's not your portfolio, but the Minister for Climate Change's perhaps—contact all key stakeholders, including NRW, and express the need for this work to be carried out as quickly as possible?

Thank you. I know the Minister's officials are in regular contact with risk management authorities to provide that advice and guidance on the application process, for instance, for Welsh Government funding. It is for each RMA to put forward proposed schemes for that funding. As you know, the Minister for Climate Change provided significant funding and almost doubled revenue funding for each local authority to £225,000 each, and I know that she's maintaining that amount again. It's very distressing when you're flooded and I can only imagine, when you're flooded for the second time in three years, how distressing that is.

Ground-floor flats in Mold were affected by storm Babet, roughly the seventh flood in seven years, with the most recent in 2021. Yet, a 2017 Mold flood alleviation scheme study, commissioned by Flintshire council, recommended that the report be submitted to the Welsh Government for confirmation that £5.5 million of funding was available. When I raised this at the Broughton flooding public meeting 11 days ago, a council official stated that they'd broken this down into modules on which they were working, prior to submitting bids to the Welsh Government. After I pursued flooding issues in Broughton on behalf of affected residents in 2021, I had to wait 19 months for a full response from Flintshire council. But that included, and I quote,

'Where possible, the Council will give priority to elderly and vulnerable residents, and to known flooding black spots'.

However, after storm Babet, I was contacted by, and on behalf of, elderly and vulnerable residents living in known flooding black spots who'd been unable to get through to the council or to access resources, including sandbags, who'd been flooded again. At the public meeting,a council official stated they were now working with other agencies to develop a section 19 flood investigation report prior to submitting a bid to the Welsh Government. So, what discussions, following my question to the finance Minister earlier, have you had with the climate change Minister regarding how timely and promptly the Welsh Government will respond to such bids, and the sufficiency of funding for them?

Well I haven't had a specific discussion with the Minister for Climate Change on the points that you raised, but I will certainly bring your question to the Minister for Climate Change's attention and ask her to write to you. I think that's probably better than me giving you the answer that's in front of me. I think it's a very specific question you ask, so I'll ask her to write to you.FootnoteLink

The Welsh Government prioritised the £238 million basic payment scheme budget, which supports over 16,200 farmers in Wales. Funding reprioritised from rural affairs budgets relates to updated forecasts, resulting in minimal implications to the delivery of current established schemes, and no impact to any beneficiary where an agreement is already in place.

Thank you, Minister, for that initial response. We've already heard this afternoon a number of concerns about budget cuts more generally. You mentioned the rural affairs budget cut there, which is going to be a £37.5 million cut, and there are farmers in rural communities out there who are concerned about this £37.5 million cut. Naturally, this risks having a negative impact on relations within communities and puts pressure on farms and farmers. And, as you would acknowledge, certainly, they do a huge amount of good work not just in feeding our nation, but also managing about 80 per cent of the land area of Wales. I had some other questions, perhaps, but just taking into context some of the questions that have already been asked today and the overall picture around funding that you are dealing with, and absolutely understanding some of the difficult decisions that Government is having to take with competing pressures, are you comfortable that our rural communities and our farmers seem to be disproportionately affected by Welsh Government funding decisions?

Well, I really don't think that's the case. Do I want to make cuts in-year in my own budget? Absolutely not. Do any of my colleagues want to make in-year cuts to their budgets? Absolutely not. But I think the First Minister and all of my ministerial colleagues have been very open about the serious financial situation that the Welsh Government faces. It's not just the Welsh Government; the UK Government will be making the same decisions and the Scottish Government will be making the same decisions as well. I think this is the toughest financial situation we've had since devolution back in 1999.

So, absolutely, I don't want to make cuts to my budget—of course I don't. I've only been able to do it by reprioritising funding, looking at our capital funding, and you heard the Minister for Finance and Local Government say in her questions that we still don't know if that's possible yet; it's up to the UK Treasury to decide on that. But this is the way I had to look, to make sure that not just farmers, as I've got fishers in my portfolio—. You know you can have an animal disease outbreak very quickly, and I have to always make sure that there is funding in that area. I've got food and drink in my portfolio, and we've seen the success that we've had there and that needs supporting as well. So, it's not just farmers; it's all parts of my portfolio. Where would I take that funding from? I had to find it. We have a collective responsibility as Ministers, each of us, to find reductions in year. It's very, very difficult. I've never had to make in-year cuts to my budget in the way that I've had to this year.

The Welsh Government continues to work with Natural Resources Wales to implement a plan of action to restore salmon and sea trout stocks. Building on recently introduced adaptive management measures, the Welsh Government has embarked on an ambitious programme of fisheries management plans, the first of which we plan to publish before Christmas.

Thank you, Minister. Of course, the best action the Welsh Government could take would be to clamp down on untreated sewage entering our waterways. The fact that Welsh Water has been able to continually release sewage into rivers such as Towy and Ogwr is bad enough, but when they get away with it scot-free, with no enforcement by the Welsh Government, what kind of message does that send? Minister, what assurance will you now give to the people who fish the rivers and beaches of my region that you're doing everything in your power to stop discharges and protect our fisheries?

Well, this matter falls within the Minister for Climate Change's portfolio. I don't think she will let them get off scot-free; we all know the Minister for Climate Change and I don't think that that will happen. I will continue to have discussions. You heard in my earlier answer to Huw Irranca-Davies that pollution of our waters is cross-Government. I work very closely with the Minister for Climate Change, and it's really important that we treat every source of pollution.

Finally, question 8, Rhys ab Owen.

Full details of how the ban will be implemented by the UK Government are yet to be finalised. I am aware there will be an impact on rescue centres, and my officials will work closely with the third sector in Wales to minimise the impact of any unintended consequences of this legislation.

Diolch, Gweinidog. As you're well aware, animal rescue shelters, local authorities and police forces are under increased financial pressure. As you're also aware, last Tuesday, it was announced that these pressures were going to get even worse with the XL bully ban by the end of this year. It's the statutory duty of local authorities to pick up stray dogs, and with this ban coming into force, we can probably expect more abandoned XLs roaming our streets. Many dog shelters are already full, they have little space to expand, to have larger kennels to accommodate the size of this breed. This probably means that many local authorities may be required to euthanise these dogs. Is the Minister aware that either the UK Government or the Welsh Government will be providing extra resources for animal rescue shelters and local authorities to ensure that they can continue with their duties and support them during the introduction of this ban? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. You will have heard me say in my earlier answer to Sam Kurtz that I am very concerned about the unintended consequences of this legislation, and the last thing we want is XL bullies roaming the streets because they've been abandoned. So, it is really important that the UK Government work out the details of this ban. As I say, I very much welcome the statement, but I would have liked a bit more contact between myself and Ministers. The DEFRA Ministers, clearly, I think, were caught by surprise as well. It is a wholly reserved matter, and they will be bringing forward the £200 support cost or compensation. I think we need to have further conversations around will they be giving further funding so that this can be enforced, because any new piece of legislation—when the Welsh Government brings forward a piece of legislation, you look at the enforcement costs.

You may be aware, I know many colleagues attended and are also very aware, I had a summit on responsible dog ownership a couple of weeks ago, and speaking to the police who were present at the summit, speaking to our rural crime and wildlife co-ordinator, these are real concerns now going forward. So, I do have a meeting with Richard Benyon, who's the Minister in DEFRA in relation to this matter, next month, where I will be pursuing these points. They are bringing forward statutory instruments; I think they're bringing forward three statutory instruments, and each one will set out far more detail about the ban, but the devil as always is in the detail, isn't it, and we really need to see that.

I can just squeeze in question 9. Joyce Watson.

The Welsh Government does not have legislative competence over the Hunting Act 2004; it is a non-devolved issue and a matter for the UK Government. The Welsh Government would strongly support strengthening the Act to tackle its known deficiencies and enable it to succeed in preventing unnecessary and cruel hunting.

I thank you for that answer, Minister. It's nearly 20 years since the UK Labour Government banned fox hunting, but all the evidence suggests that some hunts circumvent the law behind the smokescreen of trail hunting. Because of this loophole, chief superintendent Matt Longman, the National Police Chiefs Council lead on fox hunting, has said that

'The Hunting Act is not working effectively and illegal hunting is still common practice.'

Wales and the Welsh Government, of course, have a proud and progressive record on animal welfare, and trail hunting has been banned on land owned by Natural Resources Wales for two years. But do you agree with me, Minister, that all persecution of animals in the name of sport should be banned, and will you therefore urge the UK Ministers to strengthen the 2004 Act to end hunting with hounds in Wales for good?

I certainly would urge the UK Government to strengthen it. The deficiencies of the Hunting Act are quite often brought to my attention, and I'm sure that Joyce Watson is aware that the Hunting with Dogs (Scotland) Bill was passed in January 2023, and it became an Act, I think, two months later. I have asked my officials to liaise with Scottish officials to discuss the process that was undertaken.

I wish I had the powers to strengthen the Act. I go back to the conversations I had at the responsible dog ownership summit, where we talked about the too many livestock attacks we've had, and then it always goes on into hunting as well; it's just a natural progression. And I don't think there was anybody in the room that didn't think that the Act needed strengthening. So, I will continue to speak to DEFRA Ministers—I think Michael Gove was the first Minister I raised this with—because they do have the powers to do it; I wish I did.

I thank the Minister.

I only wish that the rural affairs Minister of 2009 could have foreseen this session when she introduced Glastir nearly 15 years ago, and was given a pretty rough time in this Chamber, only to have, 15 years later, its demise decried in such a way in this session.

That's politics for you. [Laughter.]

Yes, indeed.

So, topical questions now. Russell George, who has the first question to be answered by the Minister for health.

Diolch, former Minister—[Laughter.]—and Presiding Officer.

Yes. Cardiff and Vale University Health Board yesterday reported a business continuity incident. This was triggered by increases in demand for patients with complex needs and challenges with patient flow. I made an unannounced visit to the site last night, and saw first-hand that the organisation is managing the position well and they will de-escalate when ready.

Thank you, Minister, for your answer, and of course this is, I’m sure you would agree, an extremely concerning situation, because we’re not yet in the depths of winter and perhaps we would have expected this to happen later in the season, so there is, of course, that concern. And it would seem that staff will now be diverted away from planned operations to support the current position. So, I wonder, Minister, if you could outline what that actually means in practice. And of course, we’re aware of the wider issues here: we’ve got one in four patient pathways already on an NHS waiting list, so how will that impact in that regard?

But also, Minister, the health board has said itself that prolonged patient stays in hospital are contributing to the adverse demand on services at the hospital. So, it’s clear that that situation does need to come under control. I was pleased to hear that you did pay that unannounced visit to the health board. But can you set out, Minister, specifically what does it mean in this regard for this situation? What does a black alert actually mean? How is the Welsh Government supporting the health board? What demands are there on other organisations, either being made by the Welsh Government or the health board, and, for example, will the military be asked to assist in some way, either by you or by the health board, or will other organisations be called in to help with this situation?

Thanks very much. Well, I was very pleased to see last night that, actually, the situation was relatively calm, but in fact, there were only about 80 or so patients, which was in contrast to the about 160 waiting in the emergency department the previous evening. The situation was quite calm; there were only two ambulances there. One had only just come in, so a very, very different situation from I think what they'd had the previous day.

What they are obviously doing is following an escalation framework. That’s done for a reason: it’s done in order to make sure that you don’t get to a place where the system falls over. So, what you do is you make sure that you pull people in and divert them from perhaps other work that they were doing. So, the health board is obviously considering a number of elements. They still haven’t de-escalated and they won’t de-escalate until they are confident that they won’t revert to that escalation any time after that.

So, the kinds of questions that they’re asking are: do the predicted discharge levels allow them to stop the prolonged waits in the emergency unit, and to de-escalate the volumes in the emergency unit? Can they maintain sufficient specialist capacity to admit patients like stroke patients and vascular patients? Have they got a line of sight in terms of a robust weekend plan? So, it is not unusual to have more pressure on a Monday, so they just want to make sure that they don't see a repeat of this the following Monday. So, they just want to make sure it's all belt and braces, so you don't bounce straight back into that. And, have they put in place sufficient changes to ensure reverting to business as usual doesn't result in the same outcome? So, those are the kinds of issues that they are considering before they come out of that business continuity situation, and there is no plan at all to involve the military.

At the end of December last year, we witnessed the unprecedented situation whereby all seven Welsh health boards were at the highest level of escalation. It's no exaggeration to say that our health service faced an existential crisis at that time, from which it has yet to fully recover. As such, the declaration of a black alert at the University Hospital of Wales—the first such incident of the winter—should act as a clear warning sign to the Government of the inevitable and profound challenges that lie ahead in the coming months. Yesterday, we heard Judith Paget, the NHS Wales chief executive, predict that winter pressures could reach similar levels to those experienced last year. Rowena Christmas, the chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners in Wales, has echoed this by expressing her fears of a brutally hard winter for our NHS.

We've known for some time about the scale and complexity of Wales's particular health needs—our ageing population, the high prevalence of long-term sickness rates and the gaps in the workforce. What the people of Wales expect and deserve is a response from the Government that's proactive in mitigating these challenges and which shows an awareness to learn from previous mistakes to ease the immense strains that are being imposed on front-line services. On this basis, I'd be grateful therefore if the Minister could give an update on the roll-out of urgent primary care centres and same-day emergency care services across Wales. How many have been established so far and what is the expectation of the total number that will be in operation by the end of this year?

There's also the issue of finance. We've learned today that as part of the Welsh Government's re-budgeting exercise, health boards have been asked to make further cuts of £64 million to the current spending levels. As the health Minister has readily acknowledged, this may have a knock-on effect on the availability of extra beds at hospitals, which was a contributing factor to the declaration of the black alert at the University Hospital of Wales yesterday. So, what is the Minister's assessment of the impact of the re-budgeting exercise on the capacity of front-line services to manage workloads over the winter months?

Thanks very much. Well, what we know is that there is a huge pressure on the NHS, and we're expecting that pressure to be great again this winter. There was a time, for one week in December last year, where we saw GPs and GP practices seeing 400,000 people in one week; so, the pressure is intense. Let's not forget that, actually, huge and significant measures have already been put in place to try and divert people away from accident and emergency. So, the 111 service, for example, has diverted 75,000 callers directly away from A&E; about 15 per cent of those are then sent to A&E, so that's a huge number that are diverted. We know that about 15 per cent of ambulances now do not convey people to hospital, but they treat them and they deal with them in their homes.

We know that those urgent primary care centres are also making a difference. What we know is that activity has gone up by 9 per cent since last year, so I think that is significant. Ten thousand people a month are being seen in those urgent primary care centres. There is one, at least, for each area. I think it's a different model in the rural areas, though, because they are not necessarily appropriate in the same way in rural areas, so they have a different kind of system, but they're not necessarily—. They're just not called urgent primary care centres.

In terms of the same-day emergency care centres, there are 16 hospitals that now have same-day emergency care centres. There are 24 of them in total across Wales—that's two more since April last year—and two more are opening in November this year. And the great news is that what we're seeing—. One of the things that we did explicitly say that we wanted to see this winter was an extension in terms of the opening hours. I'm pleased to say that, now, we have got 91 additional hours of SDEC open since April 2023.

These were some of the questions that I was asking to them in the emergency department in the Heath yesterday: what difference is SDEC making? What difference is the urgency department making? What difference is 111 making? They were all united in their view that they are making a difference, and that they acknowledge that people are being diverted. But there are still a lot of sick people in our communities. What we do know is that respiratory viruses increase during winter, and we do have to take account of that.

Minister, I'm very pleased that you went to the hospital of Wales yesterday in Cardiff. I'm sure that that was much appreciated by all of the dedicated staff. I am alarmed, I have to say, that the Heath hospital is getting into this much difficulty, given that they have done brilliant work on not keeping ambulances waiting in the past. Also, the patient flow has, in the past, been assisted by the pink army of social care workers, both in the emergency department and on the wards. So, are you able to shed any further light on why the patient flow has suddenly become so sclerotic?

Thanks very much. You are quite right. I think that the Heath has been an exemplar in terms of emergency department activity. They have been occasionally getting below the four-hour target in terms of the numbers of people being seen within that target. So, they have been really impressive. We have been sending people in there, but there has obviously been something going wrong with the flow in relation to this particular weekend.

It is something that, I think, hospitals are going to need to think about, recognising that flow out of hospitals on the weekend, because local authorities are not there to support that flow out of hospitals—that, actually, you do need to recognise that you do need to try and get more people out at the beginning of the weekend, in the knowledge that it is going to be difficult to maintain the position until Sunday.

I think that there will be some lessons for Cardiff to learn as a result of this. Certainly, what I can tell you is that the executive board have decided to remain in business continuity for the remainder of today and tonight. So, I would encourage the public not to use the emergency department in Cardiff unless it's absolutely necessary.

I thank the Minister. The next item will be the question from Heledd Fychan, to be answered by the Minister for Education and the Welsh Language.

This is very disappointing indeed. Increasing the use of the Welsh language has been a clear priority for me, as it has been for the Member, from the very outset. We have been in contact with the office of the Welsh Language Commissioner, and I understand that the commissioner will write to HSBC today in order to see what can be done about this situation.

Thank you very much, and I appreciate that we speak with one voice on this. Clearly, it was very disappointing to receive an e-mail this morning, in English, from HSBC, that stated also:

'We have confirmed that all customers are able to bank in English'.

Bearing in mind their website, which states the following—

'We're committed to the life, culture and people of Wales and our aim is to embrace the Welsh language throughout all our branches in Wales, and, by doing so, provide the highest quality of service to our customers'—

I think that the letter shows, entirely contrary to that, that there is no understanding among HSBC in terms of what offering a bilingual service entails, and what the rights of people are to use the Welsh language here in Wales. So, I do hope that we, as Members of the Senedd, can speak with one voice in terms of writing and speaking to HSBC, to ensure that the views of all those whom we represent are firmly shared in that regard.

I'm sure that you will be aware, Minister, of the report by the previous Welsh Language Commissioner in 2015, in terms of the statutory review of Welsh language services at high-street banks in Wales. Although they aren't subject to the standards regime, clearly, there have been a number of conversations over the years with this sector in terms of the importance of the Welsh language.

One of the things that the commissioner said back in 2015 was that these changes that are taking place within the sector—. Clearly, in closing more branches, and with more people using apps and so on to contact their banks, there will be fewer opportunities for customers to use the Welsh language as they deal with their banks, and a number of recommendations were made in that report to increase the use of Welsh digitally, but also to ensure that they promote the services that they provide.

I think it's important to note, interestingly, that the majority of complaints received with regard to Welsh language telephone services were related to HSBC back in 2015, so there are questions to be asked about how they responded to that. But specifically, may I ask whether there have been any conversations between the Welsh Government and the banking sector as a result of the recommendations made? And may I ask, therefore, whether you feel that there is a clear case to extend the statutory responsibilities with regard to the Welsh language to private businesses such as banks?

I thank the Member for those supplementary questions. She knows that banks can't be subject to standards—they're not listed in the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 as a sector. She also knows that a work programme has been agreed with Plaid Cymru on extending the standards regime more generally.

What I would say is that this is not good enough from this particular bank. There are developments happening in terms of how services are provided. That is something that happens as a result of socioeconomic changes. But, as it happens, digital developments provide further opportunities to provide the kinds of services that are suited to individuals. That is an opportunity rather than a threat, and I would expect to see businesses of all kinds looking creatively at how they can use those developments to support people's banking choices in this context.

I am shocked, as it happens, that the numbers using the Welsh language phone line are as low as the letter states. I got the same letter this morning in light of my role as a Member of this Senedd rather than as Minister, and I was surprised to see that the numbers are so low. I wonder if that tells us something about how the service is being promoted and provided. Is it as easy to access the service through the medium of Welsh as it is in English, for example?

So, we need to be creative in this context. It doesn't cost more to employ someone who speaks Welsh and English than it does to employ someone who works only through the medium of English. The letter says that half the branches in Wales employ Welsh speakers. Can we look creatively at the contribution that they can make, perhaps? So, there are a number of things, and I would hope that a company with the kind of capacity and reach and resources as HSBC could look creatively at the way that they can reverse this decision, and look creatively again at how they can meet the needs of Welsh-speaking customers.

Thank you, Llywydd, for allowing this question. Minister, I'm very disappointed with the announcement today that HSBC will be closing its Welsh language customer telephone service in January, providing a call-back service alone. The closure of bank branches has left holes in our high streets and has posed many challenges for customers, particularly for those older people and those in rural areas of Wales, and now, it appears, for those who wish to use the Welsh language. For a bank that once described itself as 'The world's local bank' and which provides services in a range of different languages worldwide, the decision to target the Welsh language for cuts could be considered insensitive. The proposal of a call-back service, which could take up to three days after the initial call is made, could be seen as nothing else other than a token gesture.

What powers do you have as a Welsh Government, perhaps through the office of the Welsh Language Commissioner, to ensure that HSBC continues to offer a service to customers who wish to bank through the medium of Welsh on an equal basis to those who wish to bank through the medium of English? Also, was the Welsh Government aware of this decision ahead of time, and if so, what discussions have you had with HSBC to ask them to change their minds? Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd.

I received the letter this morning, as did everyone else. So, that was the first I'd heard of the decision by HSBC. Other organisations—. We've had a recent discussion in the Chamber on Duolingo. As it happens, they've agreed to a meeting in light of a letter that I wrote, to see what we can do in order to review that decision. I'd be happy to provide a report to the Senedd in due time once that meeting has taken place. But we do want to see as many opportunities to use the Welsh language in all aspects of our lives as possible. We must bear in mind that many of us find it easier to use the Welsh language in the context of something as important as our home finances, so there's a particular responsibility to provide services in that context. Setting standards on the banks isn't an option in terms of the Welsh language Measure, but the commissioner has a relationship with the sector in this area, and she will be writing to the bank.

Weinidog, I am extremely disappointed in this decision by HSBC. It's one that they should reverse immediately. In their announcement in their letter to Members of the Senedd today, they have single-handedly failed to understand the importance of Cymraeg to the people of Cymru. Cymraeg is a living language. It's the preferred choice of many when accessing banking services. Weinidog, do you agree with me that this is another example of high-street banks letting communities down, and it should be a wake-up call to them? And our message to the banking sector should be that we expect more service in Cymraeg, including in person, online and phone services. And do you agree with me further, Minister, that this makes the case stronger for a fully bilingual community bank for Cymru?

I certainly agree with the last point that the Member made about the importance of a community bank for Wales able to provide the needs of customers in both languages in Wales—indeed, in a multiplicity of languages in Wales, as it happens. I do agree with him that the letter is disappointing. I think there's a challenge, isn't there, for banks to think imaginatively about how they can apply in a national context within the UK that which they are rightly so proud of delivering internationally—an ability for customers right across the world to have services in the language of their choice. That applies equally within the UK, in Wales, as it does in any of the many, many countries in which these banks operate very successfully and are very proud of the work that they do there. I think the challenge is for the bank to look again at how it can deploy the existing Welsh language workforce that it has, what thought has been given to the contribution that might be made in that context. If it is true to say, as the letter sets out, that they are getting 22 calls a day, one would not have thought that the requirement to resource that was so burdensome as to put it beyond their capacity to think creatively about this.

I'll declare an interest as a customer of HSBC and one who uses the Welsh language line. In my constituency, as across Wales, banks, including HSBC, have turned their backs on their communities in terms of the physical presence. But no matter, the banks say, you can bank online or by phone. As it happens, my branch is still open. Over the years I've always banked there through the medium of Welsh, and that's very important to me. I can't bank online through the medium of Welsh. I've asked HSBC why not. The suggestion is that they're working on this. But I have, to date, been able to bank by phone through the medium of Welsh. Not enough of us do that, according to HSBC. But in response to the Minister, no, it isn't as easy. There's a number on my bank card for how to contact HSBC. That's not the Welsh language line, but the English language line. So we need to work on that. But the service is closing in this way:

'We have confirmed that all customers are able to bank in English'.

(1) it's not true—there are some people who are far more confident banking through the medium of Welsh; and (2) if that's the attitude, why do anything through the medium of Welsh if we can all speak English? And this comes from a bank that has a very strong tradition of support for the Welsh language. The Midland, I think, the predecessor of HSBC, was the very first advertiser on S4C, and Emrys Evans, behind his desk, saying 'The Midland Bank has done its best for Wales over the years', if I remember that rightly. I'm quite sure that Emrys Evans would be very disappointed with this decision today. Does the Minister agree with me that this is a step that is contrary to the message the banks want us to hear, namely that when they close branches, that they do continue to serve the communities in alternative ways?

I do agree with that. It is also contrary to our aim as a Government, which is shared widely across this Senedd, that the Welsh language belongs to us all, and that people should have the opportunity to use the language in doing something as personal as banking.

Like Rhun ap Iorwerth, I'm a customer of HSBC, and I'm disappointed with the letter that we received this morning—as the commissioner was before the committee answering questions on all of this, as it happens. I think we need to respond in two ways. First, as has been mentioned already during this session, the main method of banking at the moment is through apps and online and I think that we do need to emphasise the need for bilingual provision in the apps that we use. I think that's more important in a way than the telephone line.

And secondly, we need to have a discussion amongst ourselves as Welsh-speaking Welsh people to use more of the services that are currently available. Because one of the issues that we see, and you'll understand this, Minister, is that organisations provide a Welsh language service, but it isn't being used. And that's happened time and time again, because, as Welsh people, sometimes we choose to use the English language, and sometimes we feel more comfortable speaking English, and other times we don't know that the Welsh language provision is available. So, I do think we need to think about that and to ensure that the technology that we currently use is available through the medium of Welsh, and the apps, telephones and so on don't care what language you use, of course, and that's where the future lies.

Well, I agree with the Member on that and his commitment to Welsh-medium technology is well known and clear, and I share that commitment. We talk regularly, don't we, about usage, usage, usage being the way to ensure that our language prospers, and we have to look at that in the broadest sense, and what the Member said is quite right in that regard. We perhaps need, not just to use the Welsh language in our communities, but make the conscious decision—each and every one of us who can—to choose to use services in the Welsh language so that we show that the type of demand that is certainly true on the ground—that that happens in these services as well.

And finally, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, I too bank with HSBC, and I and my family went to the Midland at that time because they provided services through the medium of Welsh and because they were supportive of the Welsh language. So, I've been very disappointed by this announcement on a personal level. But as you can imagine, Minister, in Dwyfor Meirionydd, there are Welsh-speaking communities with people who want to bank and want to live their lives through the medium of Welsh.

We've heard about banks closing time and time again, with HSBC coming to us to say, 'Well, don't worry, you'll have this provision on the phone, you'll have this provision through several other ways.' And now, the only provision that they have through the medium of Welsh, namely the phone service, is being closed, so they're letting our communities down once again.

I, as it happens, am one of those who banks with an app too. There is no Welsh-medium service there, so I would urge you to have a conversation with the bank to put pressure on them to provide these services through the medium of Welsh and to maintain that telephone service, particularly for those older people who feel far more comfortable banking through the medium of Welsh and who need this service.

But further to that, doesn't it show that the 1993 Welsh Language Act originally, which includes public services, is insufficient and that the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 isn't sufficiently robust and that we need to adapt this legislation to include essential services provided privately, such as banking, and ensure that banks are included in legislation to ensure that they provide Welsh-medium services and bilingual services?

Well, regulation is one approach. We have a joint programme to extend standards. I should declare that I don't bank with HSBC as it happens. [Laughter.] Everyone seems to be informing us of who they bank with, but just to be clear on that.

I would also say that what's encapsulated in the Member's question is this: there are changes happening in our communities and some of those changes are detrimental to people's relationship with their high street and with their wider communities, but there is also a broad understanding that changes at one level are inevitable. But in order to maintain people's faith in the commitments that companies and organisations make as a result of those changes, we must ensure that the promises made, in terms of service provision, are kept, and also, in going through that process, that these companies should seek creative, alternative ways of continuing to meet the needs that are so apparent, and they should do that by using technology and other approaches. So, I do hope that the bank can look again at this decision. And I will be having further conversations with the commissioner on that issue.

I thank the Minister.

Item 4 is the 90-second statements, and the first statement is from Jane Dodds.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Malcolm Eager, known as Mac, has just retired after 34 years as a street cleaner. He joined Brecknock borough council in 1989, which then became Powys County Council. Mac's jobs were varied—he would cut grass, wash down the cattle market, put up and clear up after the market, empty our bins, grit our pavements and clean our streets. Every morning, he would get up at 5 a.m., and worked one weekend every month, whilst in work. This Christmas, following his retirement, will be the first Christmas he has had off. The Hay literary festival would bring extra challenges. He has worked every single festival, and extra hours, to empty the bins and ensure the town of Hay looks its best.

Mac has taken pride in his work, wanting to make sure the streets are clean and safe—in making sure, for example, broken bottles are cleaned up as quickly as possible. He has been trained in first aid, which meant that, early one morning, he was able to save the life of a gentleman who had collapsed, and he administered cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Mac has been awarded the citizen of the year award, shortlisted for the above-and-beyond award, and, in 2013, he switched on the Hay Christmas lights. Two years ago, he attended the royal Christmas carol service at Westminster Abbey. Today, I am pleased to thank Mac, on the record of the Welsh Parliament, for his public service, after 34 years as a street cleaner. Thank you, Mac. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

This week is Living Wage Week. By paying the real living wage, employers are voluntarily taking a stand to ensure their employees can earn an amount that is sufficient to live on. It is calculated now to be £12 per hour, for 2023-24, up from £10.90 for the previous year, based on the rising cost of living. The rates were announced on 24 October, and employers have six months, until 1 May next year, to implement them. Here in Wales, this has meant that over 22,000 people will receive a pay rise, from 561 accredited employers, including 327 private sector companies, 49 in the public sector, and 185 in the third sector. As well as it being the morally right thing to do, there is a growing body of evidence demonstrating the business benefits of becoming a living wage employer. In 2018 analysis by the Smith Institute found a subsequent increase in wages, productivity and spending, delivering an economic boost. When workers earn enough to live, they have more income to spend in the local economy. I am proud that, in Newport East, there are a number of employers of all sizes who voluntarily pay their staff the living wage, including Newport and Monmouthshire councils, Shine Catering Systems, and Alliance Marketing Agency, to name just a few who go above and beyond to support their workforce.

A stone’s throw from the Dulas river, in a former quarry on the western fringes of beautiful Montgomeryshire, lies a small centre of international renown. I refer, of course, to the Centre for Alternative Technology—CAT—which is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary this month. I remember visiting the site decades ago, as a child, seeing with my own eyes the strange, unfamiliar concepts being demonstrated there by an alternative group of long-haired eco-activists—much to my own initial suspicion, and, to be honest, that of a number of others in the wider Dyfi valley community.

But little did I know at the time how advanced and innovative these ideas about the environment, sustainability and renewable energy would prove to be. And over the decades, it has been wonderful to see the centre, its ideas and its work going from strength to strength, earning its place in Montgomeryshire, and developing as a progressive cornerstone, not just in Wales, but the UK and the world, in striving for a greener future.

Today, as the climate emergency intensifies, and with the pressing need for us to decarbonise at an ever faster rate, the centre’s work is more important than ever, and it's responded by developing a wide range of training opportunities and innovative courses. The centre is also a very important employer and a major tourism resource for mid Wales, welcoming tens of thousands of visitors every year.

So, simply put, heartfelt congratulations to the centre on reaching this milestone, and the very best of luck to it in its future work.

I thank the Members.

Item 5 is the debate on the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee report, 'Post-EU regional development funding'. And I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Paul Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I move the motion tabled in my name. Dirprwy Lywydd, examining how regional development funding is being delivered following our exit from the EU has been a big priority for our committee. Our report follows on from work by the Finance Committee to look at the quantum of funding coming to Wales under the shared prosperity fund, and other support programmes the UK Government has introduced as part of its levelling-up agenda.

Now, we made 24 recommendations, and notably, although a number of these were referred to the Welsh Government for a response, all 24 were also directed at the UK Government, given that post-EU funding is now being provided to Wales from a UK-level. We had invited a UK Minister to give oral evidence to our inquiry, and although this did not happen, we received written evidence from the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for levelling up, Dehenna Davison MP. Members can see that both Governments have responded to our report, and I welcome the Minister for Economy accepting those recommendations directed at the Welsh Government, and note he supports our findings.

We're all familiar with the arguments in this Chamber, and beyond, about whether the funds Wales is receiving through the shared prosperity fund match what we would have received if we were still in the EU. Like the Finance Committee before us, we were not able to fully answer this vexed question on which the UK Government and Welsh Government disagree. We heard a wide range of views on this issue. In the words of Professor Steve Fothergill, an expert in economic regeneration who gave evidence to us, and I quote:

'It's a very odd situation to be in, to say that both parties are right in all of this, but they are, because they're looking at rather different things. One's looking at actual spending in financial years, and, in that sense, the UK Government is correct; the Welsh Government is looking at financial commitments, which is a different measure, and Vaughan Gething is correct on that front.'

Our first recommendation was that before any further funding rounds are announced, both Governments seek to reach a common position on the timing of the roll-out and the quantum of funding. The UK Government’s response says that the terms for any future iteration of the UK shared prosperity fund will be guided by the development of the UK Government’s next spending review, and that the evaluation exercise for the current round, and the experiences and perspectives of local partners in Wales, will be taken into account. The response also says that the UK Government will engage with the Welsh Government on future decisions.

Our inquiry did not just look at the amount of money, we examined how the funds are being delivered. We wanted to know what has worked well and what hasn’t, and how we can be assured of efficient and effective delivery of future rounds of regional funding. We identified some teething problems with these first funding rounds, and some important lessons to be learnt for future rounds.

Now, one of the key themes emerging from the evidence to us was the need to make spending decisions at the right level. Welsh local authorities were pleased with the opportunity to decide priorities locally and to have control over delivery. However, tight timescales to develop investment plans, delays to approving these and the short time frame to spend funds have hampered their ability to plan and deliver projects that will transform their areas.

However, we also heard strong evidence from the Institute of Welsh Affairs, Universities Wales, Cwmpas and others that there is scope for greater collaboration to spend funds more strategically. We heard of the difficulties that organisations operating across more than one local authority area were facing in applying for funding. To strike a balance between these differing challenges, we recommended that both Governments review which elements of the shared prosperity fund should be delivered at a local, regional or all-Wales level. In response, the UK Government has pointed to its evaluation strategy as a tool for this, and to the autonomy of local authorities to make decisions on this.

We heard widespread concerns about the lack of Welsh Government involvement in the design and implementation of the funds, and the impacts this has had on delivery. Concerns were particularly focused on duplication, for example, with the Multiply programme, and in policy areas such as business support and skills. We recommended that the UK Government looks at how Welsh Government can aid in the design and delivery of future funding rounds to help address these issues, and the UK Government’s response recognises the Welsh Government’s role in that process. There are good examples of joint working between the two Governments, such as city and growth deals and free ports. That should be the starting point for determining future arrangements.

We made a number of recommendations relating to the importance of being able to plan on a regional basis, to allow for partnership working, prevent duplication and make the money work hard to address the key challenges. The importance of proper consultation with Welsh Government and between partners is something our report highlights. We heard concern about local authorities prioritising their own projects in some parts of Wales, and the ability of other organisations to effectively engage in the process of applying for funding. We want to be sure that all organisations have a fair chance of accessing future funds.

Recruitment and retention of staff in smaller organisations, due to the narrow funding windows, was a major concern. And the higher education sector and trade unions also expressed grave concerns about bridging the gap in funding after the European social fund programme ends, citing significant job losses and a loss of expertise. The UK Minister’s evidence pointed to the need for the higher education sector to adapt to a new funding landscape, but Members shared the concerns about potential job losses, and we recommended that both Governments work together, and, indeed, with the sector, to address concerns and to safeguard research and innovation here in Wales. Both Government responses on this last point are generally positive, pointing to the memoranda of understanding between Innovate UK and the Welsh Government. The committee will also be examining support for research and development in more detail at our next formal meeting.

While much of the evidence focused on the shared prosperity fund, the levelling-up fund was also raised with us. We recommended that it move away from an inefficient competitive approach to bidding, and that, if the fund continues, then future funding should be allocated to those areas that need levelling-up the most.

It is important that all levels of Government work together to contribute to a successful Welsh economy. To help deliver this, we also call for certainty about whether these programmes will continue beyond 2025, and for clarity about how much funding will be made available. So with that, Dirprwy Lywydd, I’d like to thank everyone who engaged with the committee’s inquiry, and also thank the team who supported Members with it, and I look forward to hearing Members’ views, and I commend this report to the Senedd. Diolch.

I'll start by thanking, of course, Paul Davies, who chaired our inquiry, managed to keep us all in line a bit when we went a bit off track, and, of course, thank you to the clerks for putting this together, and all those who gave evidence.

The report really does set out, I think, that disagreement between the Welsh Government and UK Government around the quantum of funds made available to Wales through post-EU regional development funding. And I think the evidence we've received was interesting, to say the least, especially from Professor Steve Fothergill, who told the committee, as we've already heard, that both Governments were right in their views, because they were talking about different things and measuring in different ways. But, I think, whatever way you slice it, it is clear that Wales will lose out from the end of EU structural funding.

Even if we take what the UK Government is saying as right and we take them at their word that annual spending through the SPF will eventually match annual average EU funding in Wales, a key advantage of EU structural funding was its multi-annual frameworks, thereby allowing for longer term planning and budgeting. Now, as it stands, SPF funding doesn't act in the same way. It doesn't allow for long-term or strategic project design, and Universities Wales agreed, saying available grants were too small with too tight a timescale to allow for meaningful, strategic and joined-up bids to be developed. So this, for me, is a key point in our findings and a key takeaway. How can we best utilise funding meant for, at its base level, economic development, if we are running said funding on an annual basis? It doesn't make sense. And the reality is that we're already seeing the impact of the end of EU structural funding; it's meant, for example, the end of Fflecsi Bwcabus services in Ceredigion, sir Gâr and sir Benfro, which was previously in receipt of rural development funding. Now, governance and structuring are absolutely a critical issue with post-EU development funds. The roll-out of the schemes has been haphazard and delayed, with knock-on consequences for project timetabling, and, of course, the lack of role for Welsh Government in funding decisions has meant no capacity for joined-up approaches at a regional level, or even an all-Wales level. A competitive rather than a purely needs-based approach to funding applications has led to hours wasted filling in rejected applications, duplication of projects and poor value for money, and, crucially, the way the SPF and levelling-up fund has overriden the devolution settlement in Wales is nothing but a scandal. It's a demonstration in its purest form of the muscular approach to the union that has been taken by post-Brexit Governments, and which, according to recent polling, has, if anything, made the union less secure.

I'd like to begin my contribution today by also thanking everyone who has supported this inquiry, and all those who took the time to give us such valuable evidence. Along with other Members, I know I found this to be a really useful piece of work, and, when we consider some of the sums involved, it's also a crucially important area for us to be considering, to make sure the most effective use of this funding is found, to boost our economy, create jobs, and enhance the prosperity of Wales, and, of course, to do this in some of our most economically disadvantaged communities in particular, such as some of the ones that I represent in Cynon Valley.

What did our inquiry tell us? Well, many of our findings were well rehearsed, yet, in light of their critical nature, it's only right that they're stated and explored again. For example, the inquiry highlighted that use of this funding should be shaped and guided by the Welsh Government, who should have a key role in governance and allocation. This is, after all, the devolved Government that is accountable to us here in the Welsh Parliament. It's only right that any future delivery model hears and respects this voice and our priorities. If the devolution settlement is to be respected, decisions as to how this regional funding within Wales is allocated should not, and must not, solely be the preserve of MPs from Surrey and Yorkshire, especially when we've seen such ministerial churn in Westminster: four different Secretaries of State for levelling up since September 2021, supported by four different junior Ministers for levelling up over the same period, giving an average life expectancy in post of a little over six months.

Disappointingly, it was also clear that funding that had been allocated may not always have been used in a way that would deliver the greatest impact or in the way that would have delivered the most beneficial outcomes. Indeed, sometimes it was clear that our most disadvantaged communities, who were most in need of this spend, and should have really benefited from its allocation the most, often seemingly were afterthoughts in the allocation process, or even missed out altogether.

Witnesses told us about local authorities who weren't awarded any funding under the levelling up. That is shameful. Partly, it was due to rushed funding arrangements that did not always have the transparency we should be able to expect, and it was concerning that a paucity of information is also something that affects our understanding of how future funding schemes will work. Indeed, this was another point that came through clearly in our inquiry. I was very struck by some of the evidence from the stakeholders around the point of how accessible they found the funding process, particularly in terms of meeting need. On a scale of 1 to 5, with 5 being very accessible and 1 being the most inaccessible, the average score was a little over 2. Now, that is clearly problematic and needs addressing.

I would like to start by thanking my colleague, the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, for his excellent chairing of the inquiry, and all those who gave evidence.

Over the course of the inquiry, we received some very good evidence, provided in a balanced manner, which helped to set out, in a clear and understandable way, the route forward for post-EU regional development funding. In previous rounds of EU funding, Wales received more per person from EU structural funds than any other UK nation or region, with nearly a quarter of Wales's small and medium-sized enterprises receiving support from EU funding streams. This money has been spent on providing skills training, business support development, and research and development, all of which, according to Federation of Small Businesses research, have a net positive impact on Welsh businesses and the local area. Money allocated by the European Union during our period of membership has benefited Wales. But, taking off our rose-tinted glasses, we must not pretend that all was hunky-dory with EU funding or that it always delivered value for money.

The Welsh Government, in their response to the report, have managed to target their fire on the UK Government, claiming that schemes such as the shared prosperity fund and the levelling-up fund have undermined devolution and resulted in growth and job creation in Wales being put under threat. This conveniently ignores the problems that they are currently experiencing with the introduction and management of post-EU agricultural support schemes, which, whilst being designed and run in Wales, seem to have united the agricultural community and environmental lobby against them. It's worth drawing reference to the comments of Professor Steve Fothergill, an economist from Sheffield Hallam University, who, in evidence to us in June, said, and I quote, continuing the quote that the Chair of the committee said:

'By the time you get to the next financial year, the amount that the UK Government is putting into the shared prosperity fund does pretty much match what the EU funds were previously worth, with a tweak for inflation.'

I know the Minister disputes this, and it falls down to different ways of calculating the funding, as we've heard, and whether legacy funding is included or not, but, as I'm a born optimist, I would rather remain hopeful that Professor Fothergill's assessment is correct, and the Welsh Government need to exercise caution when bandying around the figures that are disputed.

The same evidence session saw mention of £0.5 billion of underspend in structural funding that was at risk of being paid back. Both the Minister and his official disputed this would happen when the evidence was heard, and it would be interesting to hear from the Minister if this has been ratified or concluded. The Welsh Government were careful to pick which recommendations they would respond to in our report, keeping their counsel on solely UK Government recommendations and maintaining a theme throughout that they should have more, and, at times, full, involvement in the decision-making process of where and how money is spent. Whilst I do feel that there are shortcomings in the Westminster Government approach, it does frustrate me how the Welsh Government thinks that it is they, and only they, that can serve the best interests of the people of Wales. I'm a devolutionist, a proud Welshman and a unionist, and I see no issue with the UK Government spending UK taxpayers' money in the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

I'd like to start by congratulating the committee on this report, but also by congratulating the Chair on his leadership of the committee. I think the Member for Preseli, whom I've known for many, many years, has always been a very impressive committee Chair and leader, and I think we should across the Chamber recognise his leadership role here as well. And it's a very timely report, of course, because it was published in September, just weeks before the United Kingdom Government cancelled the second part of the HS2 project. Now, there are many of us who believed that levelling up and the whole agenda of levelling up had died long before then, but even if it was potentially on life support, it was certainly buried by the HS2 decision. And it would be useful, I think, for us to revise our thinking on many of these regional policy issues in the light of that.

I'm always interested to take part in debates on this because I think there's always been this idea that EU funding—the structural funds, the cohesion funds—were some sort of panacea to all our economic illnesses—that, in some way, the funding we received through the EU sources would transform the Welsh economy in a matter of months or years. I remember the former First Minister, back here 20-odd years ago now, Rhodri Morgan, who always had a very good turn of phrase, but sometimes, unfortunately, it would come back to perhaps be remembered too literally. He said it was a once in a lifetime opportunity. I think that was back in 2000. The EU funding arrangements were put in place and the west Wales and the Valleys region was created in order to create the opportunity to achieve European funding through these particular mechanisms. There was never a belief that, in a seven-year period, you could change the economy of Wales, re-engineer a century of decline. That was never the belief, but somehow in public debate people believed that was going to be possible. And then, believing this false prospectus, we've had analysis after analysis explaining why this false prospectus, which was never going to succeed, hasn't succeeded, and the Member for south Pembrokeshire gave us an example of that muddled thinking earlier.

In terms of where we are, I believe that we need to think hard about how regional policy works. The fundamental part of European regional policy and of UK regional policy was always that of additionality, that this funding isn't provided to do what Governments were already going to do and should be doing, providing public services and the rest of it, but additionality, providing additional funds to do additional projects that would invest in additional wealth creation projects, whether that's infrastructure or investment in people, or other things. What we've never done is learn the lessons from that effectively, because the committee report says that there were teething issues in the shared prosperity fund, and that the UK Government response says lessons should be learnt. Lessons have been learnt, and this is what I find so extraordinary about this debate that we’re having today, as if we haven’t learnt any lessons over the years. And this is the real tragedy that the UK Government has made in terms of its approach to policy.

The Member needs to conclude now.

And I hope that what we'll be able to do with an incoming Labour Government is to have a respectful relationship across these islands, delivering resources and funding to where they're needed, managed collectively for the greater good. Thank you.

I would also like to thank the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee for an excellent report. Wales was a net beneficiary of EU funding, an estimation of £79 per head. Of course, not all benefits were monetary. There was also smooth movement and less bureaucracy as well. I'm pleased that the ETRA committee have recommended greater involvement for the Welsh Government and noted that stakeholders believe that the absence of Welsh Government-level co-ordination in the development of delivery of the shared prosperity fund has led to a negative impact.

Local authority officers I've spoken to have said that it has been like going back years to the start of European funding and starting all over again, as my colleague Alun Davies just mentioned. The SPF has led to issues with planning and delivering projects due to the short timescales put in place by the UK Government and concerns about the duplication of efforts by local authorities and Welsh Government. Higher education are concerned about missing out altogether on schemes such as the TRAC scheme, delivered across local authority boundaries in north Wales. Other regional and Wales-wide projects have been particularly affected. We recently heard of the collapse of Chwarae Teg and community buses, as Luke mentioned earlier. Universities are suggesting that around 1,000 jobs are at risk. Lead local authorities receive the funding, but then each local authority has its own priorities and delivery plans, and then it's divided up amongst themselves, so it's not working very well. A whole sector is missing out.

Regarding the levelling-up fund, the competitive bidding approach was criticised as being inefficient and not targeting areas most in need of support. There were two high-priority bids rejected in Wrexham and Flintshire. They were told they were excellent, but the funding was restricted and very competitive. It had taken a lot of valuable resources and collaboration with partners, including Transport for Wales, but they were rejected twice.

I am a member of the culture committee, which includes international relations, and we've been doing some investigations into post-Brexit impacts—and we have the Chair, Delyth, also sitting here—on relations between Ireland and Wales, and also on artists travelling across Wales, the UK and Europe. There are more trade barriers between the UK and EU post Brexit and, at the same time, EU funding programmes have ended, with the exception of Horizon, causing issues. Witnesses have told ETRA and the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee—long title—that replacement funds don't have an international dimension that supports collaboration, and amounts are much less, so only allow for small-scale cross-border and international collaboration. The UK is no longer part of the EU's INTERREG funding, which the Welsh Government says poses a considerable threat to the sustainability of many networks. All these need addressing so that Wales is not left behind, and important relationships and programmes can continue. We need long-term, fair funding, including all levels of government in partnership together. Thank you.

I call on the Minister for Economy, Vaughan Gething.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to start by thanking the committee for their work and their report on post-EU funding in Wales and, of course, our partners across Wales who provided evidence to support the inquiry.

We accept the report's recommendations aimed at the Welsh Government and share the committee's concerns about the UK Government's approach to post-EU funding in Wales. Regrettably, many of the report's recommendations and acknowledgements echo points that we have been making for several years about the consequences of chaotic and unwelcome decisions made by the UK Government.

I'm pleased that the committee concluded that the Welsh Government should have been involved in developing and delivering this funding. Regional economic development and adult numeracy are plainly devolved areas. The UK Government's deliberate and unacceptable entry into this space, without the involvement of the Welsh Government or this Senedd, has created a fragmented and complemented funding landscape, as well as a host of other problems we've heard about in this debate and in the report that I am afraid will create lasting damage to important sectors of our economy.

Indeed, many of the problems highlighted in the report would have been avoided if the UK Government had respected the work undertaken in Wales and allowed us to manage full replacement funding through the framework for regional investment with scrutiny by this elected Parliament. That framework was developed in consensus with our partners and the OECD for the very purpose of delivering post-EU funding and it was supported by a public consultation.

I welcome the committee recommendation that there should be a review of whether the shared prosperity fund should have been delivered regionally and nationally as well as locally. Whilst the SPF has supported some positive local initiatives, there is no doubt that regional approaches to economic development have been set back by the fund's design.

Due to UK Government delays, of which there have been many, chaotic design, unfeasible timescales and annualised allocations, local authorities have been under pressure from the very beginning. They had to prepare investment plans quickly with funding rounds open at different times, with different arrangements, assessment criteria and decision-making timescales, and often then, as I said, a significant delay for a UK Government decision. And in this, Alun Davies and Carolyn Thomas are right. All of the lessons learned from previous EU structural funding rounds have been thrown overboard with the SPF. This has made Wales-wide, regional or cross-border projects virtually impossible, and that is not a mistake, it is a UK Government design choice.

I call on Paul Davies to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank Members who contributed to this debate this afternoon? We've heard some really interesting contributions from Members and indeed from the Minister today.

Luke Fletcher, first of all, talked quite rightly about planning ahead and how important it is to have much more certainty when it comes to planning and about how financial planning on an annual basis is not good enough, because that creates financial uncertainty.

Vikki Howells's contribution emphasised the importance of Welsh Government involvement in the future delivery of these funds. She made it clear that it's not good enough that the engagement of these funds is just left to UK parliamentary MPs.

Sam Kurtz referred us back to the delivery of previous funding under EU schemes and he went on to say that there should be much better engagement between the UK and Welsh Governments. He again reiterated that both Governments can work well together, because we've seen that with city and growth deals and, indeed, with free ports.

We come to Alun Davies. I thank him for his very kind words, but I'm always nervous when he congratulates me, because I'm not sure if I'm doing my job properly. Alun went on to talk about the UK Government's approach to policy and how we are, once again, discussing lessons learned when these lessons should have already been learned in how we deliver these funds.

Carolyn Thomas also talked about the committee's recommendation around involving the Welsh Government in the future delivery of these funds. She also went on to talk about long-term and fair funding and how that is so important to the sustainability of projects going forward.

Can I also thank the Minister for accepting the committee's recommendations that are relevant to the Welsh Government? He clearly set out the Welsh Government's position here this afternoon, and, again, he echoed that lessons should have been learned in delivering these funds.

To summarise, Dirprwy Lywydd, Members have talked about the design and implementation of funding, and the committee report makes it clear that we believe a review should take place to examine the different elements of the shared prosperity fund and look at which should be delivered at local, regional or an all-Wales level based on what works best. We are united in wanting to ensure that future shared prosperity and levelling-up funding drives economic growth and prosperity across Wales.

I've heard Members' views about the Welsh Government being excluded from the delivery of these funds, and the committee report makes it crystal clear that the UK Government should consider how the Welsh Government could aid in the delivery and design of the next round of funding. Through partnership working, we can better ensure that future funds are spent with maximum efficiency and effectiveness. Both the UK Government and the Welsh Government have important roles to play, and the committee's report does call for a constructive relationship going forward.

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 6 is next, the Welsh Conservatives debate on water quality. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. What better sign of our collective passion for our environment than the interest shown by this Senedd, its Members and, indeed, our country in water pollution? Currently, there is real public dissatisfaction with water quality in Wales, and that is no surprise. Just think, in the last two weeks, headlines have included,

'People warned not to go in the sea at 16 Welsh beaches'

from WalesOnline,

‘Welsh Water boss defends company over Teifi sewage spills'—

that was the Western Telegraph—

and

‘Welsh Water admits illegally spilling sewage for years’

from the BBC.

There were over 83,000 spills in Wales in 2022, accounting for 592,569 hours of spillage. The number of sewage spills in Wales accounted for 25 per cent of all discharges across Wales and England, yet we only have around 5.5 per cent of the population. And some of the UK’s most polluted rivers are here in Wales. They are the River Teifi, River Usk, River Wye, River Tywi, the Menai strait and the River Taff. This isn’t good enough when water customers in Wales are facing high bills. Dŵr Cymru customers are experiencing the second highest average bill in Wales and England at £499 a year, with the average bill across England and Wales at £448.

However, there is room for some optimism. Welsh Water’s proposed increase by 2030 is actually below the average sector price, and is projected to be the seventh highest going forwards. Wales’s largest water company has submitted its proposed business plan for 2025 to 2030 to Ofwat, and if approved, the plan will result in the company’s biggest-ever investment programme, worth £3.5 billion over the five years, and that will be equivalent to a 68 per cent increase on the investment between 2020 and 2025. Welsh Water is committing to invest nearly £1.9 billion in the environment between 2025 and 2030. That is 84 per cent more than across 2020-25. This will include substantially reducing phosphorus discharges from wastewater treatments to rivers in special areas of conservation, and starting on a multi-AMP programme to stop its network of 2,300 storm overflows causing ecological harm to rivers in its operating area.

Now, this sounds really positive. However, it does remain the case that the water company’s own aim is to only reduce the total number of pollution incidents by 24 per cent by 2030. And for all of us sat here, when we’re challenging these kind of pollution incidents, of course we want the highest possible reduction in these pollution incident numbers. Welsh Water has claimed that to get storm overflows down to 10 or 20 spills a year would cost between £9 billion and £14 billion. So, when so much more investment is needed, I have real concerns about the bonuses paid to this organisation. So, I’m pleased, as our group, to support the amendments by Plaid Cymru.

A number of wastewater treatment plants under Welsh Water have been found to have been operating in breach of their permits for years, and it does question, again, our enforcement procedures, the work of NRW and the work of the Welsh Government in holding these people to account. Now, I do understand the Minister’s position on this, whereby if you keep on expensive enforcement and the penalty costs could actually then be being spent defending these enforcement measures, and the fines that follow, when really, we all want to see that money reinvested to the company so that they can actually do what we want them to do, and that’s to spend on the infrastructure and maintenance to ensure we’re not seeing shocking numbers of pollution incidents.

When we see regular media coverage of water quality and receive concerns from constituents, ultimately, the aim is the same: for pollution to stop. I believe that Welsh Government is currently undermining that process. So, firstly, as I've said before many times, enforcement is ineffective, so it would be good to see a better way forward where, when these incidents occur, there is a way that the Welsh Government can work with NRW and the water company to ensure that you get some obligations on their behalf that this is going to stop. And I'd be wanting to know exactly what caused it. In one instance, there was reported pollution in my own constituency, and people were making me aware of hundreds of dead fish in a particular river. Anyway, I went along to the water company. I reported it to them and they said, 'Yes, we've self-referred to NRW.' I contacted NRW at the time and I wasn't really convinced—well, it doesn't take much to not convince someone when you don't get a response. So, I went along, and I was shocked. It was out of the hands of Welsh Water in terms of plastic wet wipes. They'd completely brought the whole system of the treatment works to a halt in this particular aspect, and that is what had caused it to back up and cause pollution, killing hundreds and hundreds of fish. So again we, in our own human behaviour, should be doing all we can to ensure our waters are not polluted. It's no good us all moaning about these pollution incidents and then flushing down the toilet plastic wet wipes—although our Minister has been very proactive. We all need to see alternatives to plastic in wet wipes now.

In England, in the event of an environmental permitting regulation breach, the Environment Agency can accept an enforcement undertaking. So, that's an undertaking—that's a commitment to address the conduct causing the breach, to rectify it and to restore it back to normality. However, in Wales, that is not currently an option open to NRW, and there is little opportunity for Dŵr Cymru to offer environmental undertakings. Welsh Government should use its powers to enable NRW to allow companies such as Welsh Water to accept an enforcement undertaking so that they improve the environment local to the harm. As it stands, whilst it is shocking that Welsh Water was fined for just 1 per cent of permit breaches investigated in the past five years—I didn't know this, but the money they have paid has actually gone to the UK Treasury. So, we need to look again at how that works in terms of enforcement, because what incentive is there if that money is not going to be allowed to be put back into the system to ensure that pollution incidents don't occur.

Another step that is required to help stop pollution is the setting of ambitious targets for water companies. For England, the UK Government's storm overflows discharge reduction plan outlines that, by 2035, water companies will have to improve all storm overflows discharging in or near designated bathing water and improve 75 per cent of overflows discharging into high-priority nature sites. And by 2050, that target is to extend to all remaining storm overflows. I believe we should be following that lead, and we need to impose legally binding targets on Dŵr Cymru and Natural Resources Wales to improve our overflows.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. And I call on the Minister for Climate Change to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths.

Formally.

I call on Delyth Jewell to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to move the amendment and encourage Members to support the amendment 2. The amendment calls for sufficient resources to be made available to enable Natural Resources Wales to discharge their responsibilities effectively. It calls for mechanisms to be put in place to prevent bonus payments to executive staff if Dŵr Cymru cannot fulfil their responsibilities in terms of water quality, and, finally, it calls for the work of implementing robust environmental governance frameworks in Wales to be accelerated to ensure that cases of future non-compliance are dealt with as soon as possible.

Now, concerns have been raised over the past few years regarding NRW's limited resources and their ability to fulfil their responsibilities effectively, particularly with regard to the issue of illegal sewage discharges by water companies. Now, Natural Resources Wales are responsible for an environmental oversight and environmental regulations, including those related to sewage discharge and water quality. When water companies discharge sewage illegally, they contravene these laws, and NRW are expected to take legal action to hold these companies accountable And a lack of resources and capacity within that body could lead to delays or insufficient enforcement action being taken.

To move on to the second point of our amendment, last year it was reported that Dŵr Cymru had awarded bonus payments related to performance worth almost seven figures to three chief executives over the past two years, despite the fact that the company had pumped raw sewage into the waterways of Wales on thousands of occasions. Now, I welcomed the news today that Ofwat has announced an assessment with regard to how some of these performance-based payments awarded to executives at water companies align with their duties to customers and the environment. But bearing in mind the size and scope of the environmental cuts and the increasing costs of improvements to water infrastructure, whether we're talking about water treatment works or eradicating combined storm overflows, we must ask whether it is appropriate that such executive officers receive bonus payments in these circumstances.

I think it's important to note, on this point—as we did a few weeks ago with regard to NRW—that Dŵr Cymru has staff members who are committed, who are hard-working, who feel passionately about improving these standards. It must be so difficult for individual staff members to hear some of these issues being aired. I would like to say that we do see your commitment to your work. It is appreciated, so thank you to those staff for that work.

What’s clear, of course, is that infrastructure improvements need to be delivered, and these will be costly. We need to ensure that the burden does not fall on customers, who find it difficult to pay their bills already. People in Wales already face increased costs, and higher bills during a cost-of-living crisis are difficult to justify. We believe that the polluter should pay to clean up our waters.

I read this report commissioned by the Welsh Government with great interest, because it contains some quite scary numbers. I think that there are several issues here. Janet is, of course, right that we, the users of water and sewage, have a duty not to chuck wet wipes, sanitary applicators and all manner of other stuff down the loo. The cost of doing the wrong thing is huge. So, to refer to what Delyth says—that the polluter should pay—obviously, it’s pretty challenging to identify who has caused the fatburg.

In terms of going back to what Janet was saying, it is not the job of consultants to produce recommendations. It’s the job of Government to take the recommendations and the analysis from the consultants and work out what to do. I think it’s very useful to have this quite technical report in front of us today—not to look at the detail, because we can look at that in the climate change committee tomorrow, but the figures are quite frightening. One of the things that was pretty alarming for me was the fact that Dŵr Cymru had to take over a whole pile of assets in 2011, without any idea of exactly what they were, what state they were in, whether they were about to collapse, whether they were legal or illegal. It would be good to know from the Minister as to whether any money went with this transfer of assets. [Interruption.] Oh, apparently not. There’s a surprise. So, you can see the level of the challenge there is for Dŵr Cymru. On top of this transfer of assets, you have all of these people who are putting in new extensions with bathrooms that they then decide not to add in to the sewerage system, and then they pollute the waters directly. It is hugely, hugely complicated. But the money—. Of the nine options, only option H, the third most expensive, would bring us up to the standard that has been established by the Environment Agency in England. Anything less and we are obviously making compromises on the grounds that we can't dump too much money on consumers' bills. So, the fourth least expensive option would cost between £7 billion and £12 billion. These are huge figures when you think about the total annual revenue that the Welsh Government has to deal with and the almost non-existent capital budget. So, that, in itself, would increase bills by between £215 and £390 a year if it was a Dŵr Cymru account, or less if you are with the other water provider.

The benefit-cost appraisal shows that benefits never outweigh costs. So, I think the dilemma is huge. I'm very keen to hear what the Minister has to say as to what we should do about this. But the idea that we can just simply wave a flag and say, 'Well, we've just got to bring our water up to the standard that everybody expects'—it's way more complicated than that. And where are we going to get this money? Who's going to pay for it? At what point do we have sewer collapses, as I recall happening when I worked in Manchester? I know there's one that could happen in my constituency, because I see all the warning signs of roads that go like that. So, I think this is a huge problem and one that we need to deliberate on very carefully and see what is going to be possible, given our limited resources.

Water quality in Pembrokeshire continues to be one of the most frequently raised issues by my constituents, and recent reports that water companies have knowingly illegally spilt sewage into our water sources for years has understandably angered and upset many people. I want to make it absolutely clear that access to clean, good-quality water is a basic human right, and no stone should be left unturned in ensuring that we can all access good-quality water.

Now, in the case of Pembrokeshire, Afonydd Cymru, which represents the Rivers Trust in Wales, commissioned Professor Peter Hammond to review spill data from the Cardigan works nearby, along with a number of other waste water treatment works in Wales. Professor Hammond's report found significantly high spill numbers at the Cardigan site, and showed spills occurring frequently before flow levels met the criteria for a storm discharge. Now, my understanding is that this is because sea water from the estuary is entering the works and damaging the treatment process, and so, to avoid further damage, waste water is regularly being diverted to spill through storm overflows. Investigations are now under way and enforcement notices have been issued, but that will do little to reassure my constituents that this is being dealt with seriously enough. Tougher action is needed, and needed quickly.

The reality is that without substantial investment and upgrading of the current infrastructure very little will change, and I've heard the Welsh Government talk about the need for multimillion pound investment to come from the UK Government, and I don't disagree that we need to see greater investment, but we must remember that water companies need to make further infrastructure investment too. Therefore, instead of putting the blame squarely at the UK Government's feet, the Minister should be doing more to ensure that that investment takes place. Indeed, in responding to this debate, perhaps the Minister will tell us what representations have been made to the UK Government on this specific issue. And as far as Natural Resources Wales is concerned, it's simply not good enough to only issue enforcement notices. The Welsh Government has said that it expects regulators to take the appropriate action where there is evidence of non-compliance. There is evidence that this has been knowingly done for years. Clearly, enforcement notices have not been a sufficient enough penalty for water polluters, and, as I said earlier, tougher action is needed and needed quickly.

Now, in fairness to Dŵr Cymru, it's not disputing Professor Hammond's analysis, and it has accepted that significant changes need to be made. When the company was downgraded for the second year running in July, after a rise in pollution incidents, it quite rightly said its performance is not where it wants it to be, and I know from my own visits to Welsh Water sites that they are making investments to improve services. However, it remains the case that water companies are continuing to illegally spill untreated sewage, and that is not acceptable. The effects on inadequate water quality are huge. It can affect our health, it can affect our environment, and it can affect our wildlife too. The Cardigan treatment plant spills into the Teifi, which is home to Atlantic salmon, lamprey and otters. Indeed, the River Teifi is meant to be protected as a special area of conservation, and located there is one of Europe's largest populations of bottlenose dolphins. Professor Hammond tells us that there are dolphins only in two places regularly in Wales and Scotland, and yet water companies are illegally dumping on one of their few British habitats.

I've always been a champion of the Glas Cymru model of not-for-profit ownership for Welsh Water. It was a Welsh institutional innovation, which even became a Harvard Business School case study at one point. In theory, having this hybrid of a private company without shareholders should have meant we in Wales were shielded from the worst excesses of water privatisation in England. I don't think we can come to that conclusion anymore.

Ofwat has rated Welsh Water for two years running now as one of the worst-performing water companies in England and Wales—'a laggard', in their terms, that is letting down consumers and the environment. Here at home, NRW has downgraded Welsh Water twice in two years, from the highest four-star rating now to just two. NRW's reasons are both rising pollution and under-reporting of that pollution, because these privatised monopolies—because that's what they are, in both England and Wales—they deal in murky waters, both literally and metaphorically. That's why there is a class action at the moment being taken against water companies in England, for now, for the under-reporting of pollution at the expense of both the environment and water consumers. And we've heard reference to Peter Hammond's work, which is central to this, and his expertise in big data and in artificial intelligence, which has helped uncover unreported pollution here in Wales, working with Afonydd Cymru, and forcing Welsh Water itself to admit spewing sewage illegally at dozens of waste water treatment centres for years.

Now, Welsh Water now finds itself under investigation, simultaneously, for these breaches by both NRW and the interim environmental protection assessor for Wales, at the same time as being investigated by Ofwat for leakage and per-capita consumption miscalculation, and by the Environment Agency for failures at waste water treatment centres in England. Surfers Against Sewage have drawn attention to the fact that Welsh Water had the highest number and duration of sewage discharges of all UK water companies in 2021. Five of the top 10 worst constituencies for sewage pollution of waterways in the UK are in Wales. My own constituency of Carmarthen East and Dinefwr is the worst of all, with over 60,000 hours in which raw sewage is released into our watercourses. The Carmel waste water treatment centre spills untreated waste into the River Marlas just under four and a half times a week, on average, throughout the year. If you really want to go down to the absolute micro level, then the pipe that spills the most sewage in Britain is in Wales, dumping sewage for the equivalent of 325 days a year at the River Ogmore in Pontyrhyl. The second worst pipe is also in Wales, located just three miles away.

How could it possibly be justifiable, given everything that I've just relayed, that the chief executive of Welsh Water was paid, in a total remuneration package, £675,000 a year last year, when the chief executive of publicly owned Northern Ireland Water earns less than a third of that? I put it to you that this isn't a company run in the interests of the people of Wales, according to its charter; it's increasingly being run in the interests of its management. NRW has called for a step change in the company's performance; Afonydd Cymru say they believe it's time for a full review of both the regulation and operation of the water industry in Wales. I agree, and I'd go further. This Senedd has the power to bring Welsh water into public ownership. With no shareholders to compensate, it wouldn't cost the public anything, and we would, at long last, have a water company here in Wales that was directly accountable to the people of Wales, which is the ultimate guarantee, surely, that the quality of our water and our environment will be given the protection that they deserve.

I want to begin by highlighting the fact that water cleanliness in Wales is the direct responsibility of Welsh Government. I know that's obvious in here, but, to a lot of people out there, they don't always see that, and it is disappointing to see the current state of water in Wales as a result of Labour's inability to effectively protect our waterways. The Welsh Government claims to be concerned about environmental issues, but it doesn't always feel that way. Yes, the Welsh Government has finally published the storm overflow report—yes, it's seven months late, but it's here—this report fails, though, to provide recommendations or targets, and only explores different policies relating to the control of storm overflows in Wales. We now have to wait for the taskforce to consider the report and identify steps, resulting in further delays to tackling water pollution in Wales.

As many across the Chamber will be aware, my own beautiful constituency of Monmouth has some of the most picturesque scenery in Wales, with the beautiful countryside teaming with biodiversity and blessed with two of the most wonderful rivers, with the Wye and the Usk. However, these waterways are being severely let down by this Government's lack of regulation. Sadly, out of the 20 most polluted rivers in the UK, the River Usk comes in at No. 12, and the River Wye at No. 14. This isn't acceptable, and more has to be done to address all sources of pollution. We know 28 per cent of the pollution comes from sewage. The save the river campaign have discovered E. coli levels in the River Usk at nearly 300 times higher than the minimum bathing standards, after taking samples from effluent discharge of the Usk and Brecon sewage treatment works.

Whilst I welcome the significant investment by Welsh Water in these treatment works, it's just a great shame that that forward planning hadn't happened earlier and been pre-empted and the works carried out much sooner. It's also incredibly concerning that NRW sets the standards for sewage treatment through the distribution of permits, but do not have any requirement to remove this harmful bacteria. The group also found that between 1988 and 2022 salmon numbers have decreased massively as a result of this pollution.

This Welsh Government rightly raises concerns surrounding the climate emergency. However, its failure to acknowledge a biodiversity and ecological emergency is severely damaging. Of course, climate change has devastating impacts, but so does our dwindling biodiversity here in Wales. Wales is the only country in the United Kingdom with no environmental watchdog, which has resulted in sewage being dumped illegally for years. We need that watchdog putting in place. I find it also ironic that many Labour MPs have been up in arms surrounding the Conservative approach to tackling storm overflows, yet they have very little to say about the state of water in Wales, where it is the total responsibility of the Welsh Labour Government. To make matters worse, the Welsh Government has not introduced nor announced their intention to create legislation to address the requirement to reduce discharge from storm overflows.

Having been one of a very small group of Senedd Members, supported by anglers and environmentalists, concerned about river pollution, it is nice to have a debate on the subject today.

Water is uniquely vulnerable to pollution. Known as the universal solvent, water can dissolve more substances than any other liquid. It is why water is so easily polluted: sewage, toxic substances from farms, towns and factories readily dissolve in the water, causing water pollution. Around the world, agriculture is the leading cause of water degradation. Data from the USA shows agricultural pollution is the top source of contamination in rivers and streams, the second biggest in wetlands, and the third main source in lakes. It is also a major contributor of contamination to estuaries and groundwater. Every time it rains, fertilisers, pesticides, animal waste from farms and livestock operation wash nutrients and pathogens, such as bacteria and viruses, into our waterways.

Will the Member give way?

Certainly.

I'm just wondering, the report you mentioned there with regards to America, is that specifically looking at agriculture as a whole or just American agriculture? Because it's important to note the difference that we have in standards compared to American agriculture and domestic agriculture here in Wales.

It is looking at American agriculture, and I'd be happy, outside this meeting, for the Member to explain to me how we deal differently with sewage and animal waste being washed in and nitrates being washed in.

Nutrient pollution caused by excess nitrogen and phosphorus in water is the No. 1 threat to water quality worldwide and can cause algal bloom, a toxic super blue-green algae harmful to people and wildlife, which eventually kills everything in the river, and we've all seen that.

In the nineteenth century, waste was put into rivers, killing all things in the water. In the second half of the twentieth century, rivers started to be cleaned, but we are now returning to polluting rivers again. I have regularly raised concerns over raw sewage and other pollutants in Swansea's River Tawe and asked what Welsh Government is doing to tackle pollution problems affecting Wales's waterways, with untreated sewage discharging into rivers such as the Tawe by the Trebanos treatment works, phosphorus pollution leading to eutrophication in the River Wye, and microplastics having ended up in the water everywhere. We then drink this water after water treatment has taken place. River pollution is a problem across Wales, but I'm just talking about the River Tawe, which is within 50 yards of where I live. We have raw sewage discharge, agricultural pollution and microplastics. Storm water mixes with sewage at the Trebanos treatment works; it is then discharged into the river and then into the sea.

Ofwat and Natural Resources Wales have been clear that the current use of storm overflow discharges is unacceptable and needs to change. People are concerned that overflows are operating too frequently. NRW say that they are taking steps to ensure that the regulation of overflows responds to the needs of the environment and the public. I would say they should have done that a long time ago. They say they continue to challenge water companies to improve their performance across all assets, to ensure overflows are properly controlled. They have said they will issue new permits that will require water companies to submit annual flow compliance data, to significantly improve flow compliance regulations. NRW also say they are overseeing a programme of investment of £20 million by the water companies to further reduce the impact of storm overflows, prioritising high spillers. I'm afraid I see no evidence of anything actually of any good actually happening. It's the same now as it was five years and 10 years ago.

Things that I believe that could help stop storm overflows getting into the sewerage system include the planting of trees and bushes, making it a planning condition on new developments that impervious coverings are not allowed, and to have greater control over the use of fertilisers. Both phosphorus and nitrates play a role in river eutrophication, although the main limiting nutrient in freshwater river systems is usually phosphorus.

I live in Hay-on-Wye. I live on one of the most polluted rivers in Wales. I represent Mid and West Wales, where the three top polluted rivers are. They are in the following order: the Usk, the Wye and the Tawe. Before half term in the Siambr, I raised an urgent topical question with the Minister around the appalling revelations that have been spoken about here today—the dumping by Dŵr Cymru, the illegal dumping of untreated sewage in the River Teifi. I called for a full review of Dŵr Cymru to uncover the true extent of these failures because there is much that we do not know. It seems from what we're hearing this afternoon that there is cross-party agreement for a review of Dŵr Cymru. They are not performing to the level that we need them to.

We do hear, though, from Dŵr Cymru repeated claims that they are improving, and in relation to the spillage at the River Teifi, I'm sure many of us received an e-mail to tell us that the bathing water at Poppit Sands still met Natural Resources Wales's 'excellent' quality for bathing. But this glosses over the truth once again, that our water infrastructure remains inadequate despite repeated warnings. Are we really willing to accept a water industry that remains, since 2016, the largest single polluter of incidents in Wales?

The scale of the challenge that storm overflows represent for our water cannot be overstated. Since 2016, storm overflows recorded by event duration monitors have nearly quadrupled to over 2,000 recorded overflows in 2020. Similarly, the number of spills has skyrocketed to over 105,000 in 2020, representing a sevenfold increase. We really need to take urgent action to avoid this issue spiralling out of control.

Let's stop blaming each other. I do thank the Welsh Conservatives for bringing this debate here today, and I do think that we all need to work together here. Our water is too precious for us to take sides. We need to find common ground to move forward our concern for water. The key word is 'urgency'. Our precious waterways and ecosystems cannot afford to wait years and years for companies to fix faulty treatment plants and end polluting practices, when actually they're doing that off the back of rising consumer bills as well. We are paying for their complete and utter disregard for our water.

I want again, to finish, to restate my call for an immediate full review of Dŵr Cymru, no executive bonuses until improvement, and tougher regulations with harsher penalties for illegal dumping. Without action at scale and pace, the health of our waterways hangs in the balance. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what we can do about Dŵr Cymru. I realise we've heard before that there is very little, but now is the time, and we've heard from Adam Price what we can do. Our rivers, our seas, our streams cannot wait any longer. Our fish, our biodiversity also cannot wait any longer. The Welsh people cannot wait any longer, and I hope this Senedd cannot wait any longer, either. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

As some of you may already know in this Chamber, I’ve recently been named the Senedd species champion for seagrass, and as such I’d like to highlight the negative impact of storm overflows that release untreated sewage into our rivers during heavy rainfall are having on our marine habitats. Unfortunately, seagrass just can’t withstand and survive the poor water quality it is exposed to during these overflows, and this is not only having an impact on seagrass colonies, but also marine biodiversity and the fish populations that use seagrass beds as nurseries. The simple truth is that, whilst water companies in Wales are polluting rivers and coastal regions with untreated sewage, we are never going to regenerate seagrass beds and we’re going to continue to lose our much-needed marine biodiversity.

As I and many others have highlighted in this Chamber before, blue carbon ecosystems such as seagrass have been identified as having enormous potential to store carbon and exhibit carbon burial rates of up to 30 times higher than forests. They can even help mitigate sea erosion. Yet if the rates of sewage discharge continue, any potential that can be achieved will be lost, and it will make a mockery of the Welsh Government’s priority desire to protect and enhance our seagrass meadows.

Addressing another aspect that deeply concerns me is our shellfish water bacteriological standards. The Welsh Government hopes to double the amount of—why am I suddenly not able to pronounce simple words; sorry—shellfish produced in Wales, and we have the potential to create fisheries for scallops, oysters, abalone, shrimp and considerably improve our market output and demand, yet we allow water companies to continuously pollute our waterways.

Data from the 'Storm overflow evidence for Wales' report shows that there are 2,142 storm overflows in Wales, and the average number of sewage spills from these was almost 41 per year in 2021 and 2022, which means that there are over 87,000 overflow incidents per year. I am frankly bewildered that water companies in Wales have been allowed to continue this practice and have not been forced to invest in this area and prevent this overflow mechanism being utilised to the extent that it is. Members might not be aware, but Welsh Water in 2022 had 77,000 significant sewage spills, and released sewage into our waterways for almost 600,000 hours, which is equivalent to more than 68 constantly releasing sewage outlets operating all day, every day. This was actually down from the previous year of 2021, when 94,000 sewage spills were reported with the discharges lasting for more than 785,000 hours. In 2020 there were 106,000 reported sewage spills, with 872,976 hours of discharge.

The fact is that we have Welsh Water, who collect the second highest water and sewage bills in the United Kingdom, and for the year ending in 2022, it had £515 million in cash and undrawn credit facilities of £200 million, yet it still doesn’t invest sufficiently to reduce the astronomical number of pollution incidents in our waterways. Regardless of the explanations as to the causes of these pollution occurrences, we have to consider that it’s not a matter of if there will be, but when there will be, a major public health outbreak caused by sewage dumping. It is not just our marine biodiversity and food supply that are suffering because of this, but as we have seen in the media, it is people who want to swim and bathe in Wales who also run the risk of coming into contact with human waste and the issues that it can bring.

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

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm very pleased to be able to respond to the debate today. There are indeed an important set of challenges around storm overflows, but sadly the motion fails to recognise they cannot be separated from the wider issues of waste water and surface water management. The opposition motion does not properly reflect the nature of the challenges we face, nor the tools ready at our disposal to address them. If we were to follow the approach proposed in the motion, the ecological condition of Wales's water bodies simply would not improve. Dirprwy Lywydd, I would like to reassure the Senedd that a better way is possible.

Some of the actions needed require a degree of change, which people find difficult. Discussions with sectors like house building and agriculture about what is actually needed to improve water quality are not easy conversations. The most important safeguard is indeed setting a robust regulatory framework and, crucially, agreeing those priority actions across all sectors that will make the most direct difference, which is already under way as part of the summit process that Members are very familiar with.

In typical deregulatory fashion, the UK Conservatives, of course, propose that they will relieve the impact of water pollution by removing the neutrality rules, allowing higher levels of pollution in areas where severe problems already exist. Dirprwy Lywydd, we do need to relieve the impacts on the planning system that have come about because of pollution issues, but I would call on Members of the Senedd to agree with us that the way to deal with that is to address the pollution, not cast aside the regulations.

The water infrastructure of which storm overflows are part of was an extraordinary feat of early modern engineering and saved countless lives through the prevention of communicable diseases. In the second half of the twentieth century, whilst it has remained very effective at protecting human health, the infrastructure has just not kept up with the growing pressures placed on it. Now climate change is heightening those pressures to levels never previously seen.

We all know that areas on the west of the British isles experience high levels of rainfall. In fact, the amount of rainfall in Wales helps with water quality. It is part of the reason why more than 40 per cent of water bodies in Wales are in good ecological status, with only 16 per cent in good ecological status in England. But it does also mean that storm overflows are needed more often to prevent sewage from backing up into people's homes and streets.

I can reassure Members that, as the ecological status of water bodies shows, Wales's rivers are not the most polluted simply by virtue of the use of storm overflows. If we spent the entire Welsh Government budget on addressing storm overflows, not one river in Wales would be improved to the degree that it would achieve good ecological status. In fact, other pressures bear down far more strongly on our water infrastructure, and there are many actions we can take that stem pollution long before it reaches the sewer.

Sam Rowlands to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. It's a pleasure to be able to close this debate this evening. I think what I've summarised from hearing the debate and trying to wrap this up is that the numbers are quite stark. A number of items were shared, but what struck me most is that people in Wales are facing some of the highest water bills in the UK while seeing a quarter of all discharges across England and Wales happening here in Wales. Members in their contributions have been concerned at this disparity.

Janet Finch-Saunders pointed out in a thorough opening of the debate the huge problems with inaction from the Welsh Government on this issue. The Welsh Government storm overflow report was referred to by a number of people. Concerns were expressed about it not containing a single recommendation, whilst the Minister and Jenny Rathbone sought to explain why that was the case. But Jenny Rathbone also pointed out the stark information in this report and the challenge that it clearly presents.

We heard from Paul Davies, who shared the situation his residents face in Preseli Pembrokeshire, and he called for tougher action on water polluters from Natural Resources Wales. It's clear that simply issuing enforcement notices is not enough, especially when we know that Welsh Water admitted illegally spilling untreated sewage at dozens of treatment plants over a number of years. We heard also from Delyth Jewell on this point around the role of Natural Resources Wales, and Delyth Jewell also reminded us of some of the importance of capital investment as well as the robust environmental governance framework that Plaid Cymru supports as well.

We heard from Adam Price and Jane Dodds, who both shared their concern with the performance of Dŵr Cymru and the multiple investigations under way from various agencies, coupled with huge financial rewards being paid to those in the most senior levels of management.

Peter Fox reminded us of the Welsh Government responsibility for water quality here in Wales and explained the impact that these sewage discharges and unclean water has on biodiversity in our waters. He quoted the Save the River Usk campaign, which showed the significant drop in salmon numbers, a fish that Mike Hedges had a concern about as well, where he shared that in the River Wye numbers had dropped by 94 per cent. Mike Hedges also pointed out his concern about the impact of farming and agriculture on our rivers and water quality, a concern that others in the Chamber also shared.

We heard towards the end from Joel James, who shared his passion for seagrass, as the Member species champion for seagrass, and how poor quality on biodiversity impacts not just the fish in the sea and the fish in the rivers, but also things like seagrass, which are particularly susceptible to poor water quality.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Therefore, will vote on that motion during voting time.

Item 7 is next, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on conflict in Israel and Gaza, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'll begin, if I may, with some personal words, some personal reflections on what we have witnessed over the past month. We have watched with horror. I mourn the deaths of all those who died in the heinous attacks by Hamas on 7 October. I mourn the many thousands who have died in Gaza since, the thousands of children. As a parent, I can't fathom the scale of it. I can barely imagine the anguish of the families of the hostages taken against their will, held as prisoners in fear.

I feel the need to speak today as a member of humanity. We are human. The pain of loss is felt equally by an Israeli and a Palestinian mother. Today we speak up for peace for all mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, sons and daughters. We speak today in pursuit of unity. We reject division. We take a stand against those seeking to encourage division. To those seeking to provoke anti-Jewish or anti-Muslim sentiment, we say, 'Stop now'. In fact, Jewish and Muslim representatives here in Wales have told me in recent days how support for each other means so much to them. This is the Wales we seek, based on harmony, a community of communities.

But just as anything that threatens the harmony here in Wales must stop, so must the killing in this awful conflict. I hope we can all agree on that. Every Senedd motion has to have a proposer, but my sincere wish is that we can all own the spirit and the substance of what is before us today. We are at our best as parliamentarians when we speak with a united voice, and sadly, for too many today, we’re also a voice for the voiceless. It’s in that spirit that we sought cross-party support for the motion, and can I place on record my heartfelt thanks to all those who have signed the motion, indicated their support for it, or who will be persuaded to do so?

My limited time will not allow me to adequately reflect the complex chronology of the Israel-Palestine conflict, neither will it allow me to set out the detailed context to a conflict that long predates 7 October, but let me set out again what all of us have responded to with absolute unity: the horrifying, unspeakable attacks by Hamas and loss of innocent lives in terrible circumstances, the sheer fear felt by Israelis, and the taking of hostages must be condemned and has been condemned by us all in the strongest terms. When Hamas attacked that music festival in southern Israel, bringing an end to life as it was only just beginning, it left one survivor recounting how she prayed to die quickly. I heard directly myself this morning the experience of one Israeli family: sheer helplessness. We can all surely sympathise with and understand Israel’s anger that day. The motion today, condemning as it does the horrifying attacks, calling for the immediate release of hostages, notes clearly that Israel has a duty to ensure the protection, security and welfare of its citizens. But in the war that ensued after 7 October, the response that ensued—inevitable as a response was going to be, so there has to be a duty to be proportionate. International law is clear on that. There can never be justification for the collective punishment of an entire population.

The United Nations reports that the overall death toll currently stands at over 10,000 as a result of the relentless bombardment—10,000 people, who leave behind widows and widowers, grieving parents, lost orphans; 4,500 of the dead are children. And whilst we may be looking on from afar, it’s important to remember that there are families in Wales who are directly impacted. The grief isn’t confined to Israel or to Gaza. Aymen Aladham is an information technology consultant and engineer from Swansea. In three separate air strikes on Gaza, he lost 18 members of his family. In the first air strike, four of his nephews were killed. Nine days later, his uncle and extended family were killed. Last week, his cousin and family were killed by Israeli air strikes.

I have selected the amendment and I call on Darren Millar to move amendment 1.

Diolch, Llywydd. As a follower of Jesus, I've been blessed to visit Israel and Palestine on many occasions. The Holy Land is a remarkable and beautiful place, and I still get a thrill every single time I visit the Nativity Church in Bethlehem and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. On my visits, I've had the privilege of making precious friends—Jews, Muslims and Christians, Israeli and Palestinian. My dearest friend in the Holy Land is Raed. He's a Palestinian Christian. He lives in Bethlehem with his wife Mary, from Nazareth, and they've got three beautiful children, Jolien, Jonathan and Jivan. The past month has been terrible for them. They've been living in fear, they've been anxious about the future, and all of the hope that they have had has drained away.

My last visit to the middle east was in June of this year. I visited Amaan, Bethlehem, Ramallah and Jerusalem, with Russell George. We met there with Israeli, Palestine Liberation Organization and Palestinian Authority representatives and church leaders, and without exception, every single one of those that we met wanted peace and stability. None of them wanted violence. But on 7 October, we woke to the dreadful news that Hamas had unleashed a deadly, indiscriminate terror attack on Israel and Israeli citizens from Gaza, a Palestinian territory from which Israel withdrew in 2005. And earlier today, many Members of this Senedd attended a briefing by the Israeli Embassy, and we were shown chilling images filmed by the terrorists themselves. They were very deeply distressing and painful to watch. The severity of the indiscriminate physical and sexual violence inflicted on Israeli citizens old and young was so shocking that I dare not repeat some of what was shared. It was the worst atrocity committed against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. And then there are the hostages—at least 240 people who have now been held by Hamas for a month. And let us be clear, Hamas is a racist, genocidal, misogynistic and homophobic organisation that is hellbent on terror. And we all do stand united in this Chamber in condemning their actions on 7 October.

And Israel, as is the case for any sovereign state, has the right to defend itself and its citizens in the face of such barbarity, and that is why Israel has set out on this mission to dismantle Hamas in a bid to prevent similar attacks in the future. But it's important to draw the distinction here: Israel is at war with Hamas, it is not at war with the Palestinian people. And of course it must conduct that war in accordance with international law, including avoiding civilian casualties. Yet, in recent weeks, we have all looked on in horror at the growing humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza, with more than 10,000 killed so far, many of them innocent women and children; whole families—sometimes with a number of generations—wiped out in an instant, some of them while taking refuge in churches, mosques and hospitals. Many were killed by Hamas as they sought to evacuate after warnings from the Israeli defence forces; others because they were used unwittingly as human shields by Hamas, which we all know operates from tunnels beneath hospitals and fires rockets from locations next door to schools and places of worship. Because, let's be clear, Hamas doesn't care about Palestinian civilian casualties. A Hamas official, Mousa Abu Marzouk, was asked in a tv interview just last week why the organisation's more than 300 miles of tunnels in Gaza couldn't be used to shelter civilians. He responded, and I quote:

'The tunnels are for us'—

Hamas—

'The citizens in the Gaza Strip are under the responsibility of the United Nations.'

The closed borders around Gaza have also added to the crisis: they've prevented civilians from fleeing to safety; they've stopped vital food, water and medical aid from getting to those in need; and it has severely hampered humanitarian aid efforts. Now, I thank God that the Rafah crossing has now been reopened, and it must be kept open, and more aid must be allowed to cross. But that crossing, while being open, must not be open to abuse. And it's a concern that just this weekend, the US authorities confirmed that efforts to bring injured civilians out of Gaza were being disrupted because Hamas was attempting to sneak its wounded fighters out instead of civilians.

Hamas was also found to be smuggling equipment into Gaza to provide oxygen into its tunnel network in a shipment of cookies. Yet, in spite of these challenges, we need urgent action. The situation is heartbreaking and it cannot be allowed to continue. It risks further escalation of violence in northern Israel with Hezbollah and in the West Bank, where we already know that scores of innocent Palestinians have also been killed. And, Llywydd, Palestinian lives matter just as much as Israeli lives, and that's why all of us in this Chamber want to see an end to the violence and an end to the carnage. But Hamas has vowed to never lay down its arms. And by the public admission of one of its own senior leaders last week, Ghazi Hamad, and I quote, 7 October was

Too many of my constituents are feeling the pain of personal loss or anxiety about what horrors will happen next in Gaza, Israel, the West Bank of Palestine, or even here in Wales. Modern communications mean none of us can ignore this tragedy or say we didn't know about it. Thanks to the bravery of journalists, we are hearing and seeing daily and in real time the trauma of the bereaved, the agony of the wounded, the cries of the starving and sick, as well as those desperately trying to get back their relatives who were taken hostage by Hamas on 7 October.

This unsolved conflict has been going on for over 75 years. We cannot wind back the past, but we must now look to the future. After the horrors of two world wars in the twentieth century, the United Nations was set up to resolve disputes through negotiations and compromise. Britain was one of its founding members. While this more or less kept the peace in Europe in the twentieth century, there was no let up in the wars that were waged elsewhere—Afghanistan, Angola, Cambodia, central America, the Congo, Iraq, Korea, Lebanon and Vietnam, to name but a few. We cannot afford to continue like this in the twenty-first century, when the challenges we face from climate change pose an existential threat to our very existence on this planet.

As Sioned Williams said yesterday, we have a moral duty to stand up for the cause of peace. We have to heed the call for a ceasefire from the United Nations, the United Nations Refugee Agency, UNICEF. I just do not see that we can ignore them. They have to be part of the solution. But a ceasefire is evidentially not the holy grail nor the extent of our ambitions for peace. How can ceasefire be achieved while neither Hamas nor the current Israeli Government continue to say they're having none of it? Functionally, both these protagonists are led by people who've invested in prolonging conflict, rather than seeking peace, as we heard so graphically from Darren Millar. But we also know that Netanyahu himself in 1989 urged Likud party members to back Hamas in order to block any path to a two-state solution to the conflict. Therefore, the intervention of other players needs to be involved. Indeed, the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, has been tireless in his attempts to broker a deal. Qatar, Egypt and other countries in the middle east and in Europe must also play their part, if we are not going to see an absolute apocalypse.

The war crimes of Hamas cannot justify similar breaches of the Geneva convention by the Israeli Government, and the UK Government cannot be complicit, or they too could end up in the International Criminal Court. An eminent group of British lawyers, led by Lord Neuberger, former president of the UK Supreme Court, warns that, just as international law provides the means for categorising and criminalising the barbaric acts of Hamas, so too does it provide a framework for governing how Israel must respond. Any nation conducting any armed conflict, no matter what the provocation, is bound in law to comply with all the laws of war.

Sioned Williams.

Thank you, Llywydd—[Applause.]

We don't have a tradition of clapping every contribution in this Chamber. I'm happy for that to have been clapped now, but I do want Members to be able to speak—that's why we're holding this session—so I can call as many Members as possible to speak this afternoon. Diolch yn fawr, anyway. Thank you for your interest in our work this afternoon. Sioned Williams.

Diolch, Llywydd. At the heart of this conflict, we must remember that it is the overwhelmingly innocent who are suffering—in the abhorrent violence and hostage taking by Hamas and the indiscriminate attacks on Gaza by the Israeli Government, which has caused the suffering of innocent civilians, a suffering that cannot be denied and cannot be tolerated. The World Health Organization has said the level of death and suffering is hard to fathom—160 children now being killed each day in Gaza. Of those 10,000 people that is being reported to have been killed since Israel's retaliatory bombing began, 40 per cent of them are children. We must think of the children. Save the Children have stated that more children have been killed in the Gaza strip over the last three weeks than in every other armed conflict annually since 2019. Those are the figures. But we must also respond to those images we see each night on our television screens. Those horrendous injuries on the little bodies. The terrible anguish on those small faces. The tears of confusion and pain and terror, night after night. The tiny shrouds. Save the Children state that one child is being killed every 10 minutes in Gaza. Think how many children will have died while we are holding this debate. This cannot continue. As you said, Jenny, we cannot be bystanders.

A further 1,000 children have been reported missing, and more than 6,000 children have been injured. And the mothers, the poor mothers. I know how vulnerable I felt when I gave birth. I was in a well-equipped hospital, I had my mother with me, I was going home to a nice well-heated house, with a husband to look after me, plenty of equipment, things to sterilise everything I needed to sterilise, and a health visitor to come and make sure I was fit and well. A hundred and sixty Palestinian women will give birth every day in Gaza as this fighting continues. Perhaps you saw that new mother on the BBC News at Ten last night who could not breastfeed because she had not had bread for five days. And the fathers—helpless and heartbroken as they bury their children.

Hundreds of thousands of people are facing terrible living conditions. The UN reports suggest that 42 per cent of housing in Gaza has been completely destroyed. People are living on the streets, in tents, overcrowded in buildings, and never safe. The ongoing conflict is exacerbating an already very serious refugee crisis in the region. Currently, the number of internally displaced persons in Gaza is estimated at around 1.4 million, which is more than half the population, with a large part of that population living in overcrowded, undersupplied shelters, with food, water and fuel running out, and basic, life-sustaining services becoming more inaccessible by the hour. A pause is not sufficient to address this, and international, multinational aid agencies agree.

Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Presiding Officer. Like others here, I've been a visitor to the middle east over a lifetime. I've visited and worked both in Israel, in occupied territories, in Jordan, in Lebanon, in Syria. I've sat in the coffee shops of Amman and spoken with refugees who lost their homes in the Nakba. I've spoken with children in Lebanon who have been made homeless by successive wars. And over that time, you speak with all these different people, and you learn—you hope you learn—certain things. One thing I've learnt, which stays with me very, very clearly, is that there's no hierarchy to suffering; there's no hierarchy of pain, of grief, of loss. I've spoken to Israelis who have lost family members, and I've spoken to Palestinians who have lost family members, and I see the same pain in those eyes. Surely, our purpose here today is not simply to rehearse the old arguments, but to seek to build and to contribute towards building a new peace, a sustainable peace, a durable peace, an enduring peace. What happened on 7 October cannot simply be seen as a single instant in a cycle of violence; it was an attack on Israel in a way that hasn't been witnessed for many decades. More Israelis died last month on a single day than died since the Holocaust. You can't walk away from that. You can't walk away from what happened. You can't walk away from what was done to those people, and neither can you pretend that wishing for peace will create the conditions for it.

Let me say this: if I believed for a moment that a ceasefire today would create peace tomorrow, I'd vote for it. Good God, I'd vote for it. Of course I would. Do you think that, as a parent, I don't see the same images that you see? Do you think I don't see my children in those faces? Do you think that I don't go to bed with those faces in my mind? And don't you think that all of us don't share that same sense of humanity? But I'll tell you one more thing. In my life, I've witnessed genocide and I've seen the reality of these things with my own eyes. You talk about the images you see on your tv; I can tell you what it smells like. The one thing you don't see on the tv and you don't hear on the tv is the sheer noise around you. You can't smell what it's like after an attack or after people have been killed. And when you see the images of bodies on the ground, it stays with you. I saw some of these things 30 years ago and I can still see them today.

Don't believe for a moment that I laid this amendment, that I supported this amendment, because I don't want to see peace. My God, I want to see peace, but I want to see real peace, and that means that we have to support the people of Israel in taking away the infrastructure of Hamas. There will be no peace with Hamas in Gaza. The people of Gaza will have no peace. Hamas knew what would happen when they attacked Israel on 7 October. They knew that there would be deaths in Gaza. They knew there would be a retaliation. They knew what would happen, but they did it nevertheless, and then they use the people of Gaza as a human shield. These are people with no interest in peace, and you cannot make peace with people with no interest in peace. You cannot create a ceasefire with people who want to eradicate not just the state you happen to live in, but the people that you actually are. Hamas do not want a ceasefire. They want to eradicate not just the Israeli state, but the people of Israel as well. And we cannot stand by and see that happen—we simply cannot.

Tonight offers Wales a chance to say, 'The killings must stop, hostages must be returned and an urgent ceasefire be declared'. This is a conflict we cannot understand without the perspective of history, that long history of two peoples wronged by the world, sharing the same small stretch of desert land, where peace has never bloomed. Deep and ugly wrongs have been perpetrated throughout their histories, but just as those histories inform our today, we must reckon with what the future will bring for that region. The consequences of what the world does now, as states look on and the catalogues of the dead grow longer, those consequences will be colossal. When did 'ceasefire' become a tainted word? When did it become controversial to call for an end to killings? If ceasefires had not been declared in Northern Ireland, in the Basque Country, the tales of the last century would have had a far darker ending. Those ceasefires on their own did not solve their problems, but they were a first step and created a space, a gap in the earth where a seed of peace could be sown. If that chance is not taken here, if that gap in the earth closes up, the collateral damage will be counted in bodies buried under rubble.

I used to work for ActionAid and I had colleagues in Palestine. Last week, I was horrified to learn that my old office had lost all contact with my former colleagues in Gaza. That torture went on for a full two days, and they remain trapped in what is quickly becoming a graveyard in Gaza. I've been sent some words from Rihan Jafari from ActionAid Palestine, who said many families are separating themselves, staying in different places just to avoid all of them dying at once. Hospitals are on the brink of darkness. Thousands of patients' lives, including newborn babies on incubators, hang in the balance. All those lives suspended between death and life, and thousands of children who are dying. In this debate already, three children will have been killed, and those hostages remain trapped in harm's way. The weight of history hangs heavily on this conflict, but it's the eyes of the future that are staring at us, willing us to do all we can to prevent further torment. A ceasefire is needed and a space cleared amidst the rubble for that fragile seed of peace to be planted and to bloom at last, or in the words of Isaiah, 'Peace, peace to the distant and the close'.

It is heartbreaking to see the media coverage of events in Israel and Gaza, as many Members have already mentioned, and particularly, as Sioned said, the impact on children, mothers, expectant mothers, newborn babies. It's an awful, terrible, horrifying situation. We had the attacks on Israel and the taking of hostages, horrifying events that we rightly all condemn, and now the bombardment of Gaza and the siege preventing vital humanitarian supplies, that terrible toll on innocent human life.

As with other Members, Llywydd, I visited the West Bank—for me, it was some 20 years ago—and saw first-hand at that time the tension and conflict between Palestinians and the occupying Israeli armed forces and settlers. It was a time when the separation wall was being built, checkpoints were in place, illegal settlements were happening. That situation and that of Gaza has been allowed to fester and indeed worsen over the intervening years. Ultimately, there are no military solutions to conflict and war, only political ones. Sooner or later, the bloodshed has to stop and will stop. The sooner it does, the greater number of innocent lives that will be saved. On Monday, a joint statement of major United Nations bodies made a united call for a humanitarian ceasefire, saying

'An entire population is besieged and under attack, denied access to the essentials for survival, bombed in their homes, shelters, hospitals and places of worship. This is unacceptable.'

The United Nations' General Assembly has voted overwhelmingly for an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. The Secretary General, António Guterres, has, I believe, shown humanity and concern for the sanctity of human life on all sides of the conflict. He calls for a humanitarian ceasefire, release of hostages and delivery of life-saving supplies, stating

'Everyone must assume their responsibilities. This is a moment of truth. History will judge us all.'

I would like to thank constituents and organisations who have contacted me to make clear their moral outrage at the senseless loss of life in Gaza and Israel. In e-mails, at marches and rallies, and in mosques, they have made their voices heard. I am grateful to Members from all parties for supporting the statement of opinion, putting the concerns of the Senedd representing the people of Wales on the record, expressing grave concern at the continuing tragedy, deepest sympathy to Welsh citizens who have lost loved ones, calling for vital humanitarian supplies, an immediate ceasefire and release of hostages, and urging the international community to renew commitment and action to achieve a two-state solution and lasting peace. I hope this motion will be passed unamended to reinforce that position.

Llywydd, the madness, carnage and inhumanity in Gaza and Israel has to stop. The daily bombardment of Gaza causing the deaths of over 10,000 people, including over 4,000 children, must end. And so too the destruction of homes and the blockade of life-saving supplies. The hostages must be released. Llywydd, we are one human race. Life is precious everywhere. Humanity has to be restored and prevail. Please support the motion.

If the world does not succeed in facilitating a ceasefire over the next few days or weeks, then there are three likely outcomes, one inevitable and two probable. The inevitable outcome is further civilian deaths, probably in the many thousands, because there is little sign so far that Israel is prepared to obey international law in terms of either necessity or proportionality. The second probable outcome is a regional escalation, starting first in a third intifada in the West Bank, followed by Hezbollah opening a second front along the Lebanon border, leading in the worst-case scenario to a full-scale regional war involving both the United States and Iran. The third probable outcome is the military occupation of Gaza by Israel and its eventual withdrawal, leaving a power vacuum that will be likely filled by the return of Hamas or even something worse. Avoiding these three outcomes is, to me, why a ceasefire is not just a moral imperative, it is a pragmatic necessity. A ceasefire allows us the chance to de-escalate and to begin the process of negotiation—in the first instance, to free the hostages, secondly, to demilitarise, including the withdrawal of Israeli forces and the dismantling of Hamas military infrastructure, and thirdly, to kick start the peace process with the aim of finally achieving a two-state solution.

To get from here to there, the international community needs to come together, to demand a ceasefire, to exert pressure on both sides, to broker a series of agreements, and then to oversee their implementation. Difficult? Yes. Impossible? No. We've done it before. In 1948, the UN created the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization to supervise the observance of the then armistice in Palestine. It's still in existence today—380 UN skilled negotiators, 75 years of experience. It was they that persuaded the PLO actually to leave Palestine—all the fighters—in 1982. Nobody believed that that was possible then. Let's give them, let's give that organisation, based in Jerusalem, a new mandate. And as South Africa and others have been arguing, let's back that up with a UN protection force to protect civilians in Gaza and in Israel.

In November 1956, when the Security Council, at that time as well, refused to intervene over a war in the middle east, the General Assembly stepped in, stood up and created a UN emergency force to oversee a truce, and did it successfully for the time of its existence. If the international community does not act now as decisively as it did then, then not only will more civilians die needlessly, but the United Nations will have proven itself to be as pointless as the League of Nations was, sadly, in the run up to world war two. We know what happened next, so we should surely know what must happen now.

I welcome the speeches that have been made so far from across the Chamber. I think they've been made with sincerity and have been made well.

I'm old enough to remember Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat at the White House shaking hands. I remember the Oslo accords. And I also the remember the assassination of Prime Minister Rabin and the Israeli Governments that followed, that paved the way to the Government of Benjamin Netanyahu that we have been critical of today. And also I remember the tragedy of the international community turning their eyes away as these things happened. I think the greatest tragedy then was Prime Minister Rabin leaving the stage in such a brutal way.

But we should try and remember the hope that we felt then, the hope that we felt when we saw those handshakes on the White House lawn. And I think we should remember that throughout this debate, that that hope is still possible, and that hope can happen, and I hope we can unite again after this debate has taken place.

So, what I'd like to do is to explain perhaps why I supported the amendment, why there is an amendment here. And it isn't primarily about the issue of the ceasefire in my view. Although I fully support the First Minister's words in his letter of 30 October to the Muslim Council of Wales in which he said,

'actions need to happen, including the immediate restoration of aid, electricity, fuel, food and water to Gaza, but that cannot happen while hostilities continue, which is why I have already joined others in calling for an immediate pause in hostilities to ensure that desperately needed supplies enter Gaza and are distributed widely to help create the conditions for a full ceasefire. In the urgency of today's desperate circumstances, I believe that the quickest and most effective way to assist those in overwhelming need is to join others in the international community by calling for an immediate pause. And I do so in my belief that this is the step which has the greatest practical chance of leading to peace.'

And I support our First Minister in those words in his letter to the Muslim Council of Wales. The intention of section 7(b) of the amendment is to allow those of us who agree with the First Minister, and those wishing to call for a ceasefire, to support the amendment. And Darren Millar is nodding. That is what the intention of the amendment is.

The issue in my view with the motion is more to do with the framing of the rest of the motion. As Alun Davies said this morning, an equivalence between Hamas and Israel appears to exist in the motion that is just not the case. On 7 October, says the motion, there was an attack on Israeli civilians. My argument is that it was in fact an attack on the state of Israel itself, with the violence and terror of Hamas ultimately aiming to wipe out, wipe out the state of Israel. And again, as said by my colleagues earlier, Hamas do not care how many Palestinians are killed in achieving that aim.

I stand here in humility, in a spirit of sheer sadness. I cannot imagine how raw and painful it is to be affected by this conflict. This conflict has deeply personal and tragic dimensions for many individuals in Wales and across the UK who have loved ones both in Gaza and in Israel. Our hearts go out to everyone. I condemn the reprehensible terrorist attacks by Hamas in the strongest possible terms and them as an organisation.

The abduction and degradation of over 200 hostages including children is appalling. We stand in solidarity with the Jewish community around the world, who feel and face such fear and grief. Palestinian and Israeli civilians face unimaginable horrors of war. I echo the words of the UN high commissioner for human rights, Volker Türk, when he said,

'It has been one full month of carnage, of incessant suffering, bloodshed, destruction, outrage and despair'.

I am proud to be here in the Senedd, where we can debate and listen in silence and respect. That feels so important to me. Our priority as politicians and as a nation must be about alleviating suffering. That is why I am calling for and supporting the immediate need for a ceasefire. It's not because nations do not have the right to protect the security and welfare of their citizens, but to stop the humanitarian disaster that is playing out before our eyes. I call for a ceasefire.

A temporary pause, to me, simply does not make sense. Such a pause would not offer the time and security needed to meet even basic civilian needs in Gaza, and would be, in my view, rendered pointless once the hostilities resumed and infrastructure was again destroyed. Civilians would be left scrambling for survival almost immediately.

We must not accept either reverting to the status quo. The United Kingdom, especially, must spearhead the pursuit of lasting peace. This peace must provide statehood to the millions of Palestinians currently deprived of it and guarantee safe, secure borders for Israelis. Only by tirelessly championing a just peace can true progress be made and reconciliation follow. I humbly pray for that peace to come now. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I just want to start by saying I am dismayed by pundits obsessing over so-called party divisions on this issue, when the focus should be on how we all want to achieve peace in Palestine and Israel and what is the best way to achieve that. Under Welsh Labour, we strive for Wales to be a nation of peace, of sanctuary and of community, living together and embracing the amazing diversity of our nation.

It's difficult not to recoil in shock at the images and videos on our television screens and social media feeds. I'm turning on the news halfway through, because I can't face it all myself, at the moment. Those images and videos are now the lived daily reality for Palestinians in Gaza. Millions of people living in constant fear that the residential building in which they live or the school, hospital, mosque, church or refugee camp in which they are sheltering could be bombed by an air strike at any moment. This, for me, is the reason why proposing humanitarian corridors, as opposed to a ceasefire, while no doubt well-intentioned, is misguided.

When Israel has bombed hospitals and refugee camps, they have done so under the claim that it is proportionate because Hamas are using these places to shield their commanders. If it is the case that Hamas use hospitals and refugee camps to shield military personnel and equipment, then why would they not also do so to weaponise humanitarian corridors in the same way? And if that does indeed happen, it will provide a green light for the bombing of humanitarian corridors, rendering them useless. Indeed, we have already seen that the Rafah crossing itself is unable to act as a sufficient gateway for aid because the south of Gaza, including Rafah, is being subjected to extensive bombing campaigns.

As Sioned Williams said earlier, more than 10,000 have already been killed in the space of just three weeks, and 40 per cent of them children. What crime did these children commit? Every one of those children represents a stolen future: artists, teachers or engineers of the future, whose work and creativity we will never know. Their life extinguished for something they played no part in.

For those lucky enough to survive, a life of trauma awaits. Survivors will have been touched profoundly by death with many losing close family members, or in some cases their entire family. I saw a heartbreaking video of a young Palestinian girl whose most treasured possessions were her school books and certificates. This little girl dreamt of being an engineer, and because of that dream, she'd made sure to keep her school books and certificates close to her during the bombing, so that she would have evidence of her education. I truly hope that that girl grows up to be one of the engineers who help to rebuild her homeland as part of the internationally recognised and viable Palestinian state.

Whatever the question that's being asked, killing and the suffering of hundreds of thousands of people, children and vulnerable people, is not the answer. When Israelis go to bed living in fear that a missile will hit their homes, then, clearly, something is wrong. When parents in Gaza feel that they must write the names of their children on their bodies so that they can be identified after air strikes, then it's clear that there is something amiss in the world.

The middle east has seen many a dark hour over the past 75 years, and one of the darkest was seen 28 years ago to last Saturday when the Israeli Prime Minister at that time, Yitzhak Rabin, was murdered viciously by a right-wing extremist who didn't want to the peace process, which Rabin began through the Oslo accord, bearing fruit. Rabin wasn't a pacifist. He was the leader of the Israeli army in the Arab war. He was also minister for defence at the time of the first intifada. But Rabin saw the need to build peace and to do so by collaborating with Mahmoud Abbas and Yasser Arafat at that time. Who would have thought in naming these individuals that we, today, would desire to see statesmen such as them today? But let's follow the example of Rabin and not let the extreme right wing that led to his murder to gain the upper hand. Let us also not forget that the peace process through the Oslo accord encouraged the development of the Good Friday agreement in the six counties of Northern Ireland. So, it is possible to achieve long-term peace. But the dark shadow of the murder of Yitzhak Rabin is cast over us today, and we must not let that coward who murdered him win. Let us remember Rabin today and fight to achieve the peace that he instigated.

I know that there has been some discussion on the word 'ceasefire' and that a pause is what is needed, as we have heard this afternoon, but all a pause would do is to enable people to start killing each other again after a set period of time. That isn't, and cannot be, a solution. The only thing that killing will do and does do is to create a generation of people who live with appalling trauma, and it will lead to more people wanting to seek revenge in future. The eye-for-an-eye approach makes us blind to the suffering and pain of so many other people. The desire for revenge is understandable, but it doesn't solve anything. Working for peace is far more difficult and that's why the international community must come together to show support for those voices within Israel and Palestine who are calling for peace.

I very much hope that the voice of Wales, despite being small, will contribute to this demand for peace, and will give strength to our brothers and sisters in Israel and in Palestine who are calling for and working for peace. That's why we must support that demand for a ceasefire here today. Peace, heddwch, salaam, shalom.

The contributions today have been exceptional, and I'm very grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly. I think it's important to stress that across the Chamber there is universal desire to see lasting peace as soon as possible for Palestinians and Israelis. Nobody in this Parliament has a monopoly on grief or cares more about ending the conflict than any other Member. We all want to see an end to the bloodshed immediately. And I'm also certain that we all wish to see a ceasefire as part of a pathway to peace. But the question for us and the international community as a whole is how we can encourage both sides to begin pursuing a fresh peace process.

I'm no expert in peace mediation and I don't think any of us can claim to be, but from what I've been able to ascertain from organisations such as the International Crisis Group, the pathway to peace will most likely begin with a humanitarian pause leading to a ceasefire. And, as Alun Davies said, if a ceasefire was the most likely and viable first step to be agreed by both sides, then I think every single one of us would support the call for it to happen immediately. But many experts see this as unrealistic and identify a humanitarian pause as bringing about the necessary first stage in the peace process as fast as possible. Someone who does know quite a bit about achieving peace is national security adviser Peter Ricketts, who said:

'If your interest is in practical proposals as a first step to a ceasefire, then a humanitarian pause has to be the priority'.

Llywydd, I'd like the sponsors of both the motion and the amended motion to be clear with the people who are watching today that we all want an end to the conflict as soon as possible, and that how Members vote purely reflects their judgment of how to help the process begin immediately, not whether we back one side over another, or whether some in this Chamber feel stronger about the horrific loss of life than others.

The Minister for Social Justice, Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Llywydd. I am very thankful and glad to have the opportunity today to respond to the motion tabled by Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Conservative amendment, because it does provide me with the opportunity to confirm our position and to report to Members on the action we're taking as a Welsh Government, within our powers and responsibilities, with our work to reach out, to listen and to learn from those people and communities most affected by this horrific war.

It's clear from this debate that this Senedd is united in our horror at the events that have unfolded in Israel and Gaza over recent weeks. The appalling attack by Hamas on innocent civilians in Israel and their capture of civilian hostages has shocked us all. It's left a nation in mourning and families desperate for the safe return of their loved ones—rightly condemned around the world and again here today. The unimaginable suffering of so many innocent civilians we are now witnessing in Gaza and the resulting humanitarian catastrophe are an affront to our common humanity. Every human life is of equal value and the number of lives being lost in Gaza every day, with thousands of children among them, as has been said, is utterly heartbreaking.

We are clear about the horror of this humanitarian disaster, but I believe that we're also clear about the urgent need to ensure that aid can reach the people who desperately need it, including the restoration of electricity, fuel, food and water to Gaza. And that's why the First Minister has joined with calls for an immediate humanitarian pause as the quickest and most effective way to allow this to happen, but also, crucially, as the most realistic route and platform for reaching a full ceasefire as soon as possible.

We are clear that finding a way to end the violence, suffering and death is absolutely essential and it must remain the focus, above all else, to find that pathway to peace. As many have said in this debate, the international community must commit itself to achieving the clear end goal—a lasting peace for all in the middle east. And we believe that this can only be achieved through political agreement based on a two-state solution, where people in Israel live in security and the Palestinian people realise the independent statehood to which they have long aspired. And the Welsh Government shares in this commitment to achieving this lasting peace.

We also endorse—and it's been expressed today—the widespread calls for international law to be respected by everyone in order to give every possible protection to civilian lives and facilities. Human rights, international law, the rule of law and the illegality of war crimes are universal and they apply to us all. No Government, no individual, no organisation is exempt or above the law, and, of course, everyone should be accountable for their actions.

Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

May I thank everyone who has participated in this debate today? I'd like to thank also those who have come to the Senedd today to listen to the debate and to participate in a vigil earlier on. Some of course will be asking why we tabled this debate—what right, even, we have to table such a debate; why we are discussing the horrors 3,000 miles away in a Parliament that has no direct responsibility for foreign affairs. Well, the answer for me is clear: isn't that what we are, as a nation? The Wales that I know is that Wales that has taken a stance time and time again for peace and for human rights.

There's another reason too: the suffering in Israel and Gaza is being felt in communities across Wales. I know that all of us in the Senedd today will stand with the Jewish and Muslim communities who are experiencing what hatred can mean, and we in this Senedd will stand against hatred in every way.

As I said in my opening remarks, we tabled the motion in the spirit of being able to achieve the broadest support possible. I'm grateful to those who answered that call for unity by either signing or supporting the motion; that’s what we sought. We've heard today arguments for the alternative to the ceasefire that we proposed in the motion, and it's very, very important in a democracy that people are able to express their own views. Of course, we have to keep this an open debate and an honest debate. I have to comment on my disappointment in the Member for Blaenau Gwent, who despite us discussing this very matter in a conversation yesterday, told BBC Radio Cymru this morning, and I quote:

‘Plaid Cymru say nothing in the motion about the hostages being held.’

That's patently untrue, as evidenced by the very first line of the motion condemning Hamas and calling for the release of the hostages. We're united on this; there's no need to look for that kind of division.

But what we have before us now in reality are two in many ways not dissimilar motions: the original and the amendment. But there is one very noticeable and significant difference: the former is centred around the call for a ceasefire; the latter omits the call for a ceasefire. Now, of course a pause or a suspension of hostilities is better than nothing, but to me, to us, that isn't the answer, and as I said earlier, implicit in it is an acceptance that the killing will, or can, then resume. Under international law, we shouldn't have to depend on a pause to protect civilians and allow aid to flow. Pauses and ceasefires can both be fragile, but the experience of aid workers from other conflicts is that pauses to create safe corridors can fuel rather than de-escalate a conflict.

Some Members may have wanted to use different words in the motion, and I understand that. In fact, 60 Members could probably come up with 60 different ways of finding the wording for exactly the same intention; I know we did express our willingness to look again at the wording, but (1) I realised that it can be sometimes difficult to align things, and (2) we couldn't compromise on that call for a ceasefire.

What we ask all Members to do is support the overarching aim of that motion—that this Senedd representing the people of our nation takes a stand in the cause of humanity, that the killing must stop, that all lives are precious, and that a ceasefire is the precursor to peace talks, to bringing an end to the deaths of civilians in Israel and in Palestine. And we've heard views expressed today about the hopelessness of the situation; it's easy to feel hopeless. Darren Millar said that Hamas doesn't care about Palestinian civilians. Well, we can show that we do care about Palestinian civilians. We've heard expressions about how difficult, impossible, it may feel to achieve that ceasefire that we aspire to achieving. But we can't afford to turn our backs on any chance to promote peace. We shouldn't give up as lives are indiscriminately lost. We can't lose hope. We shouldn't be afraid to speak up.

It doesn't matter how hopeless the situation feels, we have to stand up for peace, for international determination to bring the suffering to an end. We have to stand up for the ceasefire that we are calling for in this motion.

I urge you all to support the motion.

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

And that brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will proceed immediately to voting time. The first votes are on item 6, the Welsh Conservatives' debate on water quality. 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 16, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

We'll now vote on amendment 1, and if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. A vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied, and therefore I will exercise my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed—28 in favour and 29 against.

The next vote will be on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. This vote is also tied, so I will exercise my casting vote against amendment 2. The result of the vote is therefore that there were 28 in favour and 29 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

Therefore, the motion and the amendments to it have been rejected and nothing is agreed under that item.

We now move to item 7, the Plaid Cymru debate on the conflict in Israel and Gaza. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, 13 against and 19—. I do apologise. In favour 24, 13 abstentions and 19 against, and therefore the motion is agreed, and therefore there will be no further voting. [Applause.]

That concludes voting time.

We have one remaining item of business, and that, of course, will be the short debate, to be introduced by Sioned Williams. Before Sioned begins, some Members may wish to leave the Chamber.

Some Members may be leaving. If you are doing so, can you please do so quietly and quickly? [Interruption.] I'll ask Sioned Williams to start on her short debate on carers when Members have left. Sioned Williams.

Diolch, Llywydd. This debate will ask can carers afford to care, and it will focus on how the cost-of-living crisis is disproportionately impacting unpaid carers in Wales and eroding their rights. My aim is to highlight the scale and impact of this issue and offer some solutions that I hope the Government will consider. I will also be giving time to Sarah Murphy, Gareth Davies, Jane Dodds and Mabon ap Gwynfor to speak.

'I cannot afford to live. Sometimes I feel it would be less stressful if I wasn't here, but then I think, what would my adult child do?'

These are the words of an unpaid carer. Words included in a new report by Carers Wales, a report that has identified that 76 per cent of unpaid carers receiving carers allowance are struggling with cost-of-living pressures, while almost half are cutting back on essentials, including food and heating. As Plaid Cymru spokesperson on social justice and social care, and as a Member of the Senedd that represents and lives in Neath Port Talbot, the local authority area that has the highest proportion of people who provide any amount of unpaid care, the highest proportion of people who provide 50 or more hours' care a week and the joint highest proportion of disabled people in Wales, I feel passionately about improving support for unpaid carers. I also have personal experience of being a carer, and have seen at first-hand the struggle and strain that caring and a lack of support can inflict on a family.

In the 2021 census, over 311,000 people in Wales said they provided unpaid care to family members or friends; people who require care due to age, a disability, an illness, because of a mental health condition or an addiction. A hundred and seven thousand people in Wales provide unpaid care for over 50 hours a week. All unpaid carers will find their lives changed because of their caring responsibilities, and the majority of unpaid carers are women.

People care out of love, out of duty, out of compassion for their family and friends, but unpaid carers are so exposed to the cost-of-living crisis as the additional costs of caring pile on top of the usual costs experienced by most people, and this has not been sufficiently addressed. Energy bills are often higher as they have to run equipment, such as hoists or sleeping aids, and many conditions can only be managed if the home is consistently heated to a suitable temperature. Carers also face higher transport costs through additional use of fuel or spending on taxis or public transport to take the people they look after to frequent medical appointments or to support group activities. Carers may also have to pay for certain medicines and treatments out of their own pocket and can even face higher food bills to provide appropriate food for the person they look after. And, of course, these higher costs have been experience for many years, but the present economic crisis has worsened this situation and savings are already depleted. Fuel costs and food costs remain much higher than they were.

This summer, over 1,000 unpaid carers in Wales responded to the Carers Wales 'State of Caring' survey and the results are stark: 60 per cent are worried about the impact of their caring on their finances; 34 per cent said they were struggling to make ends meet; 58 per cent said they needed more financial support; 17 per cent are in debt as a result of caring. And, of course, many unpaid carers find it difficult, if not impossible, to work alongside their caring role, with many feeling forced to cut back their hours or give up their jobs completely in order to provide care.

'If you have already received a Welsh Government Carers Support grant from us since December 2022, please do not to apply again.

'The restrictions that we have been given are that this is a one application per household fund'.

'We have been receiving multiple household applications and applications that do not meet the criteria'.

So, the need is obviously there, but the support isn't sufficient. This pressure on finances is also responsible for eroding and undermining carers' rights, because carers have rights under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, which was supposed to improve the well-being of service users and carers, but, unfortunately, there is much evidence to suggest the legislation has not delivered. This was highlighted by the inquiry of the 2019 Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, which called on the Welsh Government to follow the legislation up with

'prompt and decisive action that ensures the rights and support promised by the Act are delivered.'

'Track the Act' evaluations conducted by Carers Wales, and the Welsh Government-commissioned independent evaluation of the Act, published in March, also show that carers' rights are not being adequately supported. The Act says all persons and bodies, including Welsh Ministers, local authorities, health boards, and other statutory agencies exercising functions under the Act, have an overarching duty to promote the well-being of carers. This well-being is defined as including physical and mental health; emotional well-being; domestic, family and personal relationships; recreation and social and economic well-being. But a host of evidence, including from the state of caring survey 2023, suggests the cost-of-living crisis is eroding these rights in Wales by making it even harder for carers to maintain their own health and well-being. Seventy per cent of carers said the increase in the cost of living was having a negative impact on their physical or mental health. Eighty-one per cent of carers said they were struggling to make ends meet, and they've cut back on hobbies and leisure activities. Two thirds have cut back on seeing family and friends.

So, what needs to change? I'm sure many of you have visited carer support groups in your areas, and, hopefully, heard directly the challenges facing unpaid carers, or perhaps you saw the messages embroidered on the dusters recently displayed in the Senedd as part of the Oxfam Cymru 'Caring Craftivists' event. We must act on what we have heard, and we must respond to those messages. So, to start, unpaid carers should be recognised as a priority group in the design and delivery of all future anti-poverty policy interventions, and these interventions must be co-produced properly with unpaid carers and their representative organisations. Carers allowance could be added as a qualifying benefit for the home energy efficiency improvement schemes and the next iteration of the Warm Homes programme, which should be operational by the end of this month. To address and prevent carers reaching crisis point, the Government could prioritise reaching unpaid carers as a specific target group in existing financial advice and debt management information campaigns and advice services across Wales. Getting money to those who need it is the best way of preventing crisis. We must have simpler and more consistent ways of supporting unpaid carers.

Thank you very much, Sioned Williams, for allowing me to speak for one minute today. I wanted to focus on young carers. Many of you have met Ollie Mallin, who is a member of the Youth Parliament—a lot of you are nodding here. He is a wonderful young man—absolutely incredible—and he obviously spoke in our Chamber at the Youth Parliament, and he represents the Carers Trust in Wales. And I just wanted to read out what Ollie has said about his own experience of being a young carer. He said:

'I care for my younger brother who has many complex additional needs. I've cared for him since I was five. I wouldn't say that my caring role impacts my life; I would say that it is my life.

'However, caring does put a strain on other parts of my life. School has always been hard for me, teachers haven't always understood my experience and my caring role has made it very hard for me to stay up- to-date with coursework or to focus on lessons.'

So, in the theme of the Welsh Government this year—making time for young carers was the theme of the Young Carers Action Day for Welsh Government, encouraging more adults and professionals to listen to the challenges facing young carers. So, what I've done in my own office in Bridgend, with the help and support of Ollie and his advice on this, is that I run a work experience programme now specifically for young carers. So, it means that we work around their timetable. If they can't make it, then that's absolutely fine. They can come in, and sometimes they want to focus on being a young carer, and what they would like to do for other young carers; sometimes, they want to come in and they don't want to talk about being a carer whatsoever, they just want to be themselves. I've actually just had a follow-up e-mail from somebody who did the work experience programme with me, who wants to do an interview with me next week about digital policy; that's the direction that he's going in with this.

So, I just wanted to bring some kind of, I suppose, hope to this as well, because young carers are absolutely incredible, and we couldn't do without them. It does take over their entire lives, but I think that they look to us to see what is possible and that they can speak up. And I would encourage everybody, really, to reach out and see if they can help young carers be able to access some work experience programmes, because often they cannot, because of the time restrictions that they have. Diolch.

Thank you to Sioned for the opportunity to speak for one moment.

I also want to talk about young carers, and I want to inspire them, because I know a young carer who is now the leader of the Liberal Democrats—the federal Liberal Democrats. That's Ed Davey. Ed Davey's mother contracted cancer when he was eight. His father had already died, sadly. When he was 13, she was hospitalised and sadly died. And I remember this story: the story was that Ed, who also looked after his younger brother, was the only person sitting at her bedside when she died. Imagine that: you are a 13-year-old and your mother is dying and you are the only person there. Ed has gone on to do—whatever your politics, I think you'd agree—fairly amazing things. He is now the leader of the Liberal Democrats. He is now a carer again. His son John is 13, and his son John has severe physical disabilities. His wife, Emily, now has multiple sclerosis and she uses a wheelchair. So, Ed has the experience of being a child carer and an adult carer, and what he talks about, in terms of the cost, is the emotional cost it has, and the need for support, and the need for us all to get around carers, to make sure that they are supported, that they are not isolated, that they are part of our community, and that we regard them as really valuable, both in financial terms, but also in emotional terms. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you very much to Sioned for bringing forward this debate this afternoon. I want to make a very brief contribution, speaking about the value of carers to the health service specifically, and the wider value that they bring. We know from the statistics that Carers UK and Sheffield University have demonstrated that the work that carers do on an unpaid basis saves £10.6 billion to the health service and local government, and that was back in 2021 alone, because of the unpaid work that they do. We know that without them the health service would be on its knees, would collapse, truth to be told. So, we are so grateful to them for the work that they do.

And beyond that, the caring work that they do saves and prevents their loved ones from having to go to hospital because of the love and care that they provide at home, which ultimately saves even more for the health and care services. So, we have to recognise and acknowledge the work that carers do through their love for their loved ones, but we have to acknowledge that through an increase in the financial payments that they receive. And I do look forward to hearing whether we are going to have more recognition for carers, because they are saving our health service at the moment. Thank you, Sioned.

Thank you very much to Sioned Williams for raising this important topic today and for kindly giving me a minute tonight to speak on this matter. I also want to thank Carers Wales for their communications and support over this debate over the last week or so. And I have been reading their state of caring survey 2023 report, and I was alarmed to read the stats for north Wales and the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board jurisdiction, that 37 per cent of carers are cutting back on essentials such as food and heating; 11 per cent of carers have fallen into arrears with utility bills; 35 per cent are struggling to make ends meet; a staggering 56 per cent of carers cutting back on seeing friends and family; 62 per cent cutting back on hobbies and leisure activities; and 72 per cent concerned about the future generally. These are concerning figures facing carers in north Wales and a sad reality for people who sacrifice so much to care for the most vulnerable. It's important that we continue to do all we can to improve the lives of carers and that they feel valued and can maintain a good standard of life. Let's step up to the plate and do all we can for our carers.

And I call on the Deputy Minister for Social Services to reply to the debate—Julie Morgan.

Thank you, Sioned, for the opportunity to discuss unpaid carers in the Chamber today.

The challenging financial climate and how we are supporting unpaid carers to continue in their vital role is of huge importance to me. Unpaid carers provide an enormous contribution to the people they care for and to our communities across Wales. I feel immensely proud of all the work that unpaid carers do across Wales, and I'm absolutely committed to doing all I can to ensure that unpaid carers in Wales get the support and recognition that they need and that they deserve. And we do know that there are challenges that disproportionately impact unpaid carers.

The COVID-19 pandemic increased the pressure on unpaid carers and reduced the support available to them and their loved ones, due to the restrictions in place at the time. And I've had many meetings with unpaid carers who have spoken about the strain of not having any services to help them during that period, and, in some cases, there has been a very slow return of services. And that's one of the issues that has been brought to me a lot from unpaid carers, that the services have not come back in the way that they were there before the pandemic, and that's something that I'm trying to address.

Local authorities and health boards are working with the Welsh Government to alleviate the pressure in adult social care, because we know staffing issues and waiting lists impact on those needing care services and unpaid carers. So, the wider issues that we discuss often in this Chamber have this disproportionate effect on unpaid carers. The cost-of-living crisis has had a significant impact on unpaid carers, who are more likely to be in low-income households. They are faced with additional costs associated with those people they care for well: higher energy costs, food bills and transport costs, which Sioned mentioned in her speech. She also mentioned that we distributed a payment of £500. This went to nearly 44,000 unpaid carers in Wales, and that was intended to ease the financial hardship that unpaid carers experienced as a result of the pandemic and the cost-of-living crisis. So, that did reach 44,000 unpaid carers.

We're also continuing our carers support fund, and I intend for that to continue, as long as we're able to afford to continue it, because I think unpaid carers are a priority, as you say. And since its launch, the fund has helped 24,000 unpaid carers on low incomes to buy basic essential items and to access financial information advice. And, of course, accessing this fund is not dependent on being in receipt of the carers allowance, because, of course, the carers allowance is, as you've said, pretty low, and it does give you access to some other benefits, but it isn't—. There are a lot of people who don't qualify for the carers allowance who equally need help, and I've seen that having this additional scheme has been able to reach them. And more widely, we have provided a range of measures since the start of the cost-of-living crisis, and these are intended to target those who most need support in these very difficult times, and obviously that includes unpaid carers. Over £3 billion has been allocated to help with the cost of essential bills, such as food and fuel, as well as emergency help for households in financial crisis.

As you know, the inflation shock last October means that our Welsh Government settlement in 2023-24 is up to £900 million lower in real terms than expected at the time of the 2020-21 spending review. So, we're under great financial pressure. But, despite budget pressures, we continue our support for the social wage, those policies and programmes that help keep money in the pockets of Welsh citizens, and this includes initiatives such as our £244 million council tax reduction scheme and our commitment to free prescriptions, which, of course, are not provided over the border. For people experiencing extreme financial difficulty, this year we've provided £38.5 million from our discretionary assistance fund, and we're also supporting the Fuel Bank Foundation to help households that prepay for their fuel.

One of our key levers for supporting households affected by the crisis is income maximisation, helping people to find out about and access all the financial support that they're entitled to. In December last year, we launched our third benefits take-up campaign to raise people's awareness of their entitlements. Since then, 'Claim what's yours' advisers have helped over 32,500 people with over 76,800 issues, and supported people to claim over £11 million in additional income. I think these campaigns to ensure that people maximise the income they are entitled to are extremely important. The Minister for Social Justice and Chief Whip has recently approved additional funding that will keep 71 'Claim what's yours' advisers in post until March 2024 to help meet the demand generated by the cost-of-living crisis. The services delivered through Welsh Government's single advice fund are making a real difference to people's lives. Last year, over 83,000 people accessing the fund's services came from a priority group, with 64,000 self-reporting they were a disabled person or had a long-term health condition.

We are working with our statutory partners and the national carers organisations to drive further support and improvements in our offer to unpaid carers. And, of course, the role of the unpaid carer is absolutely vital when the person they care for is admitted to or discharged from hospital. When I first took up this job, I met with a group of unpaid carers and that was one of the big issues they raised with me—the transition of their loved one going into hospital or coming out and that that was an absolutely crucial time for them. So, our guidance sets out the engagement, the information and the support that unpaid carers can expect at these times. Obviously, the active involvement of the unpaid carer is crucial to the well-being of the patient, and to ensure flow through our hospital system to allow timely discharges. We've provided further support of £1 million to health boards this year to ensure that this support for unpaid carers is in place. We also know it's so important that carers can have a break from their caring role, because the other issue that has been constantly raised with me by carers is that they need a break. And so, as part of our programme for government commitment, we've established an innovative short break scheme. We've invested an additional £9 million for the period 2022-25, and this aims to support 30,000 unpaid carers to take a break from caring and have more opportunities to relax, socialise and pursue their own interests, because a life alongside caring I think is essential for carers and also enables them to carry on caring, enables them to keep going, because, like you, Sioned, I have had the experience of being a carer and I know how crucial it is just to have those breaks.

Deputy Minister, will you take an intervention?

I just wanted to ask you specifically, as you mentioned 'Amser' there and, again, when I was looking at some of the websites that deliver these grants, the applications were all closed—all the forms were closed. And, as I mentioned, the carer support grant, that application was closed. I would appreciate it if you could perhaps just take a look at that. I know that they are demand-led grants. So, I'm presuming, that—. It was £4 million or so, wasn't it, only announced in July. So, has that money run out, or why are these grant applications closed?

Well, I didn't know it had run out, but I will certainly take that back and come back to you with the information. Thank you for drawing that to my attention.

So, in any case, we asked the Association of Directors of Social Services to undertake a rapid review of unpaid carers’ rights during and after the pandemic, and the report, which is now published, highlights the relatively low take-up of carers needs assessments, which you mentioned again in your speech, and the waits experienced by many unpaid carers who have accepted the offer of an assessment. The report makes clear that professional and unpaid carers are not always fully aware of carers’ rights and entitlements, and that includes professionals as well as unpaid carers themselves. I absolutely accept that not all unpaid carers want an assessment, but I also accept that those who do want an assessment are often not able to get it in a timely way. Some of this is to do with the shortage of social workers to do assessments, and one of the ways we’re trying to address this—there are hopeful signs—is we’ve put £10 million towards getting increased bursaries for student social workers, and it does look as if more people have applied to take up the course in September this year, so that is very encouraging. We’ll see how it goes. I know it will take some years to train as a social worker, but that’s one of the ways we’re trying to address getting more social workers in, because it is a lack of social workers that has caused some of these difficulties.

In any case, I’ve asked the ministerial advisory group for unpaid carers to establish a working group to map the findings from the review against our current Welsh Government carers delivery plan. So, I want to make sure that what we’re doing is the best that we can do with the resources that we’ve got, so we’re going to look at all that again and review it. And the advisory group provides invaluable professional and lived experience, because I think another point that Sioned made was how important it is, with young carers, the carers and the cared-for, that their voices should be absolutely centrepiece in what we do, and I am very determined that we work in a co-productive way and that the advisory group is one of the key ways of doing that. And the working group that we set up will assist us in any necessary reprioritising of the activities and work streams we support.

I want us all to raise our awareness of carers, enabling them to identify themselves, helping them to find out about their rights as unpaid carers and access to the support they’re entitled to. Again, the young carers are often in households that are dependent on welfare benefits and may have a greater role in managing finances than other children and young people of their age, maybe. There’s no doubt that they have to take on responsibilities in a way that other young people may not have to. Carers Wales and Carers Trust Wales have been awarded funding of £1.4 million between 2020 and 2025 to jointly run the Carer Aware project. This project focuses on carer recognition, respect and support across health and social care settings in Wales. It's also vital that unpaid carers are supported to take care of their health and well-being. I think the health and well-being of the carers themselves is something we have to concentrate on. We're funding Carers Wales to deliver their carer empowerment and well-being project, with £1.3 million awarded for the period of 2020-25, and this project will inform, support and empower unpaid carers to manage their caring roles while they also look after their own health and well-being.

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