Plenary

The next item will be the questions to the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution. The first question is from Carolyn Thomas.

Thank you for your question. There are a number of elements of an electoral system that influence its perceived fairness. Through our programme of Senedd reform, we are strengthening some of these, for example, by removing the disproportional first-past-the-post system from our electoral arrangements.

Thank you for that answer, Counsel General. The UK Government has used a statutory instrument to increase the spending limit of the next general election by an amazing 80 per cent, to £35 million, with no parliamentary debate. Only the Conservative Party has ever come close to the previous spending cap and the Electoral Commission has said that it has seen no evidence to support the increase. Do you agree with me that the Tories' decision undermines the fairness of our democracy and is trying to bring us closer to a situation where who has the most money wins?

Can I thank the Member for that supplementary? You raise a number of very important points. Changes to donations and campaign expenses at UK parliamentary elections have been described by the Electoral Commission as 'dangerous'. This is exactly what the Electoral Commission says:

'We have not seen evidence to support these changes.'

They say that they are concerned that the proposals are damaging

'the transparency of political donations, and give significantly more scope for higher-spending parties to campaign.'

Of course, it's being done by statutory instrument, so effectively it has bypassed any real parliamentary discussion. The rates that are increased are candidate expenditure, up from £8,700 to £11,390; by-election expenses, from £100,000 to £180,000; party expenditure per constituency from £30,000 to £54,000; as well as donation thresholds being increased. To put it frankly, this is a shameless attempt by the Tories and their millionaire donors to buy the next UK election. Changes have been introduced to bypass that. That is not something that we're doing within Wales. Here in Wales, Ministers' powers to amend the limits on constituency and individual campaign expenses have to go through a proper parliamentary process, not the process that is being used by the UK Government to bypass and attempt to buy our democratic system.

To bring this question back to Senedd elections, which is what the tabled question initially submitted was about, I'm concerned, as my party has been for a long time, about the Welsh Government's plans as they relate to the reform of the Senedd: the increase to 96 Members without a referendum is anti-democratic in my view, but the closed list system, which the Government seem to be pursuing, puts a disproportionate amount of power into the hands of those political party managers.

What I would hope is that, if the Government is going to pursue that process, each political party undertakes a democratic process in order to select those candidates. That has not happened recently. In the Labour Party, four police and crime commissioner candidates were recently selected without a vote, without a hustings. One south Wales Labour councillor called it a 'stitch-up, without so much as a hustings, let alone a vote'. Those are that councillor's words.

So, what steps are you taking to ensure that all political parties, including your own, adopt a democratic process to select those candidates and not just a back-room deal in the headquarters of the Labour Party?

Can I just say that the practice of the Labour Party is that we always adopt a democratic process in respect of the selection of our candidates? Can I also say that, in terms of Senedd reform, I do not consider that the fulfillment of manifesto promises can in any way be conceived to be undemocratic? The points that have been raised, I think, in this question, with regard to the electoral expenses issue, is that you have a Conservative Government at the moment that is heading for disaster in the elections and is, basically, working out how it can actually buy votes, either through the use of the levelling-up and shared prosperity funding being targeted in specific ways, or with an undemocratic reform of allowances and expenditure that can be incurred by candidates in the forthcoming general election.

I find myself being on the same side as Tom Giffard here, because the question is actually about Senedd elections and Senedd reform; it is not about, as I understand it, election expenses in Westminster.

Counsel General, you'll know that I'm going to be asking about Senedd reform and the proposal for closed lists, on which, again, I am on the same side—I am absolutely opposed to closed lists. I would like to just give you a quote:

'Closed lists put more power into the hands of party bosses, risking rewarding loyalty and longevity, rather than calibre and contribution. Closed lists promote conservatism and conformism, risking a race to the bottom.'

That's Professor Laura McAllister. Is she right, or is she wrong? Thank you.

She has an opinion, and I disagree with that opinion. I'll first of all say that the system that is being incorporated within the legislation is a proposal that's come from a special purpose committee, and has already received the support of a two-thirds majority in this Senedd, which is key, as you know, in order to achieve it. I think what the reforms actually do—. And of course, there are very many differing opinions in terms of different voting systems; I have to say that all have advantages, all have disadvantages. But what I would say in terms of the proposals is that they will result, firstly, in a better system than we have at the moment, they will result in a more proportional Senedd, they will ensure that all votes actually count, it will get rid of the iniquitous first-past-the-post system, which means you can get elected on a third of the votes, and it provides a basis for facilitating greater gender balance and diversity. Those things are clearly things that are improvements and better than the system that we have. There will of course—and this is included within the legislation—be a review, and the next Senedd will also have an opportunity to assess how the reforms and changes have operated. But it seems to me disingenuous to be criticising a system that is certainly an improvement, and a significant improvement, on the system that we have at the moment.

Thank you. The Welsh Government is keen for Welsh businesses to benefit from convenient and secure data sharing arrangements with other territories. At the same time, we are clear that citizens should be entitled to expect their data to be protected and used only for the right purposes.

Diolch, Counsel General. On 12 October, the UK extension, the data bridge, to the EU-US transatlantic data privacy framework came into force. This is a voluntary scheme that US companies can use to share personal data freely with the EU, and it was introduced after the European Court of Justice found that the previous framework—the privacy shield—did not provide sufficient protection against unlawful surveillance by US state agencies. Open Rights Group has still called this, though, a global privacy race to the bottom. Because whilst the UK Government argues that the new regime would not differ substantially from the one inherited from the EU general data protection regulation, the decision to adopt the EU-US data privacy framework tells us a different story. There is certainly a lot of evidence to say that there are not the same safeguards against state surveillance—ours or others. Therefore, Counsel General, can you confirm what discussions you've also had with the UK Government regarding the framework, to ensure that our data does continue to be protected, safe and our own?

Thank you for your comments. You raise a very important point that arises in the way in which data is now a global asset—it's important to trade, and so many areas of activity, of research, and so on. There has been engagement, and, of course, there are concerns that are identified, not just in terms of the EU-US data privacy framework, which is a set of rules and binding agreements that govern the transfer of information between the EU and the US, but also in terms of our own specific arrangements that are in place, whereby US companies can receive UK personal data through a framework, but it's not a reciprocal arrangement, meaning that US personal data transferred to the UK doesn't flow in exactly the same way. There obviously are benefits to be able to have that transfer, but there are, equally, a number of concerns that the Information Commissioner has identified—I think there are eight particular concerns. So, there is work that is ongoing on this. Officials met with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology in November to discuss the data bridge in more detail. No information had been shared with us prior to the UK Government announcement, and officials are establishing regular meetings to check on the developments and the risk monitoring activities.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. Rejecting a bid by the Welsh Government to overturn a Court of Appeal decision that a judicial review would be premature 16 months ago, the Supreme Court concluded there is no useful purpose in ruling on potential conflicts between the powers of the Welsh Government and provisions of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 until such time as a specific case arises. Lady Justice Nicola Davies stated that

'it would be unwise for this court to address the issue identified in the declaration in the absence of specific legislation'.

What advice did you receive and provide before pursuing this legal action? What lessons have you learned in respect of future legal challenges, and what was the cost of this to the public purse?

Firstly, the legal issues that we have, I think, quite rightly raised in terms of our devolved settlement—our statutory rights as a devolved Government, as opposed to the internal market Act—have not been determined one way or the other. Our position has always been that our devolved statutory constitutional settlement overrides the internal market Act, which impliedly attempts to suggest otherwise. We think we're on very solid ground there. Of course, what the court has actually said is, 'Well, we can't really determine that, because we need to actually see a piece of legislation that actually introduces alternatives that we can actually assess and judge'.

One of those that we were looking at was, of course, the single-use plastics legislation. Within that legislation, the UK Government had the opportunity, if they had chosen to do so, to challenge it. That legislation was based on and supported our interpretation of the constitutional position. The UK Government Attorney-General chose not to challenge that. I take that very much as being that the UK Government accepts the primacy of our constitutional position. On that basis, I took the position that there was no need to pursue and bring the matter before the court, because the UK Government had decided that it was within our competence, and, therefore, our position has been upheld by the Attorney-General.

As I said, the Supreme Court ruled that your action was premature, and, yes, went ahead nonetheless, at, no doubt, a significant expense.

In January, the First Minister stated that Wales should have a gender self-identification system similar to the one approved in Scotland, and that although Wales does not have the same powers as Scotland, he would seek them from the UK Government, and if these were obtained, he would put them to work in Wales. However, it turns out that Scotland did not, it appears, have the powers to do this either, with Edinburgh's Court of Session ruling last Friday that the UK Government acted lawfully in moving to block Scotland's plans to make it easier to legally change gender. The UK Government have blocked this from becoming law over fears it would adversely impact on the Equality Act 2010 applying in Scotland, England and Wales. What lessons have you learnt from this ruling in respect of future costly Welsh Government legal challenges regarding the operation of the law as it applies to matters constitutionally reserved to the UK Parliament and Government?

As far as the Scottish judgement is concerned, what the court did uphold was that the legislation passed in Scotland was in competence. That was agreed by the UK Government. The issue was whether it impacted on the Equality Act and modified it, and that was the area where the court has ruled. But equally so, the issue is also to do with the exercise of the particular powers that the Secretary of State for Scotland had under the Scotland Act 1998. Gender recognition is not a matter that is devolved. It is a reserved matter. So, the issue of any legislation within that context as far as Wales is concerned is not relevant until such time as the matter is within competence.

Nonetheless, the Welsh Government had said it would seek the powers that Scotland has, so this ruling is significant in that context.

Two weeks ago, plans for the Welsh Government Bill intended to create gender quotas for Senedd elections were withdrawn. It's understood that the Presiding Officer received legal advice that it would not be within Senedd Welsh Parliament competence. However, it was already abundantly clear from the legal advice previously given to Senedd committees that the Senedd does not have the competence to introduce this Bill. What advice did you, therefore, receive and give regarding this? Why did you pursue this when there was evidence it would fail? How much has this cost the public purse? And isn't it the case that Welsh Government Ministers should stop wasting taxpayers' money pursuing fruitless legal action and instead focus on the powers it has and the services it is actually responsible for?

Well, can I, firstly, correct the Member? Firstly, no Bill has been withdrawn. In order for a Bill to be withdrawn, it actually has to be tabled. The Senedd Cymru (Electoral Candidate Lists) Bill was scheduled to be introduced on 4 December. However, further work is being undertaken on the Bill and a further update will be provided in due course.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

A number of experts have recently warned about the potential threat that new, artificial intelligence technology represents in terms of the integrity of our elections and our democracy more broadly. Already this year, we saw in Slovakia, for example, the spreading of a deepfake recording that may have contributed towards the victory of the populist candidate, Robert Fico, in that country, and we’ve seen similar examples this year in the US and even in the UK. Does the Counsel General share these concerns, and what work is the Welsh Government doing, or has done, in order to see how we can safeguard our democratic system from this threat?

Well, thank you for, I think, what is an incredibly important issue, one that we have seen developing over the past years, and that is the way in which artificial intelligence and digital technology can be used to undermine democracy. And if that is being used to undermine democracy, it is a significant part of the major warfare that is going on between Ukraine and Russia at the moment, and it is also something that we see as being a very significant element in US politics, but we do see it internationally as well. I think the first point is that the Member is absolutely right—it is a threat to democracy.

Now, the attempts to actually deal with harmful digital information and also false information is an incredibly difficult area; it is global. Certainly, the EU has passed legislation in respect of a Digital Services Act, which seeks to attempt to do that, and, of course, we have the Online Safety Act 2023 from the Westminster Parliament. I would say that none of those yet have the capacity to properly deal with the actual proper regulation and control of digital information. It is something that we do monitor. We monitor, for example, the importance of our own data that we have and how that is used.

All I can say, I think, at this stage, is it's something that is very much on the political radar. It is something that is massively important to our democratic structures. Many of the areas, of course, in which regulation takes place is reserved, and, in fact, is almost reserved in terms of globally—that is, it can only be dealt with on a global basis. I'm just glad the Member has raised this, and I hope this is a matter that will be pursued as time goes on, because I think it is something that will impact on all of us and has consequences for the integrity of our electoral and our democratic systems.

The Electoral Commission has asked for further powers in order to enable them to regulate in this area to prevent misuse of AI. But, they’ve said that if they don’t get those additional powers early in the new year, it’ll be impossible to prevent misuse in the context of a Westminster general election, whenever that comes. But, we do have the powers to regulate elections in Wales, and there are examples in the United States where there hasn’t been legislative action at a federal level, but where two states—Minnesota and Michigan—have legislated to prevent the misuse within the context of the state and local levels. Wouldn't the Counsel General be willing to look at those examples to consider whether an amendment to the elections Bill would at least be a means for us to ensure that this misuse doesn't happen in the context of elections for Senedd Cymru or local government?

I think any things that we can do within legislation and within competence that enable us to minimise the impact of attempts at misinformation are things that are well worth considering. The issue of digital controls and digital management is in a fairly complex area; it is predominantly reserved. There are areas within our own electoral system where we've looked at those issues in terms of things like imprints, and so on. In fact, that was the one area that we actually gave legislative consent to the UK Government for in terms of their Elections Bill. So, it's an area that I think we're aware of. But I'm certainly happy to look at any realistic proposals, not just in terms of our existing legislation going through, but in terms of having a better understanding of potentially what we can or might be able to do. I have to say that my biggest concern at this stage is that most of the areas I think do fall within the reserved area. As I say, the use of misinformation is very much global, rather than local, but there clearly are things we can do in terms of information that goes out during our elections and in terms of identification of that and imprints. And, of course, there are regulations that cover misinformation, to an extent. Is it adequate? No, it isn't. Is the threat growing? I think it is a threat that is growing. But, again, I very much welcome the input on this and would be happy to look at any recommendations or proposals that are put forward, not just for now, but also for the longer term political agenda.

Welsh Ministers have assessed the legal implications for Wales as the Bill has progressed through the UK Parliament. The First Minister has laid three legislative consent memoranda on devolved matters.

Diolch, Counsel General. Just to lead on, really, from what my colleague Adam Price has been referring to, there have been many absolutely awful pieces of legislation that have gone through the UK Government. We've had the Nationality and Borders Bill, the Human Rights Act reform, we've had the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, the Elections Bill, the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill and the Online Safety Bill. All of them, to echo what you've said previously, have been inadequate, and all of them aim to have more control and less transparency for our citizens. Then, bringing you on to the Data Protection and Digital Information Bill that has been piloted by the UK Government, which wasn't satisfied with overstepping the mark with a ban on disruptive protests last year, this Bill, unfortunately, marches in lockstep with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 towards an increasingly Orwellian future. The Bill creates powers to snoop on the bank accounts of anyone receiving a benefit, including the state pension. It makes it harder to access your data by giving organisations more power to refuse requests and increases political interference from the Information Commissioner's Office. Counsel General, this is not just concerning, it is alarming. I know that it's non-devolved, but it will impact the people of Wales, so what discussions have you had with UK Government surrounding this Bill? And do you agree that this increasingly concerning trend towards authoritarianism should be halted? Diolch.

I certainly agree with the concerns that the Member has raised. Those concerns include, I think, the undermining of individual rights, potential loss of, for example, engagement with things like the EU adequacy, which have a significant commercial effect, and the dilution of the independence of the Information Commissioner's Office. There is ongoing engagement, because, as you'll know, having had three legislative consent memoranda, it means that what is a very changing situation all the time, with continuous amendments in terms of the legislation, and understanding precisely what it is going to do and how it is going to work—. It is indeed a very complex Bill; it's taking time to get through Parliament. We are continuing to work with the UK Government in monitoring any proposed amendments and understanding. We welcome the intent of the Bill, but there is a need for much greater clarity and also there is a need for greater attention to those concerns that have been raised. We are absolutely clear that citizens should have the expectation that any data relating to them is protected and can only be used for the right purposes, and, as I've said, there have been three legislative consent memoranda and there is probably likely to be another one.

Can I just congratulate the Member on the fact that you've focused on this, and you are specifically raising this? Even though it is predominantly in a reserved area, it impinges, certainly, on the operation of Welsh institutions and also has an impact on Welsh citizens. So, it's really important that this matter is being raised here and that you will continue to do so.

The Welsh Government has repeatedly expressed concerns about women who had their state pension age raised without effective or sufficient notification. We continue to make representations on behalf of these women who have suffered such injustice.

Diolch for that. WASPI doesn't only stand for Women Against State Pension Inequality, it also stands for waiting and still pleading for integrity—integrity from a Westminster Government that has abandoned all sense of fairness, of decency in how it deals with these women, these millions of women who have been denied the money that is rightfully theirs. I want to thank you for meeting some of the brave, dedicated WASPI campaigners with me over the summer. I'm sure you can understand the frustration of these women, particularly when they have seen some of their fellow campaigners die before this dispute has been resolved. What more can the Welsh Government do to help women born in the 1950s who have been robbed of their pensions, and will you state again your solidarity with these brave women who are still pleading for that integrity to be shown to them?

Can I, firstly, thank you for the determination with which you continue to raise this particular issue? I doubt whether there's anyone in this Chamber who doesn't know someone who's been affected by changes that were not about, necessarily, the equalisation of retirement ages, but the way in which it was actually done, the promises that were broken and the lack of communication that enabled people to potentially prepare for changes.

The Minister for Social Justice and the Chief Whip and I recently wrote to the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to express our concerns at the length of time the investigation was taking, and we did, indeed, highlight the frustration and suffering that affected so many women, which is impacting on, I think, their physical and the mental health, and, of course, there are those who may never attain justice because of the time that has gone on. In the ombudsman's response—we received this on 5 October—the ombudsman recognised the frustrations felt by the Welsh Government and other Members of the Senedd and the affected women. Assurances were given that the investigation is a priority, provided with sufficient resources and that the ombudsman remains committed to concluding the investigations as quickly and efficiently as possible. The ombudsman did confirm that, as the investigation must take place in private, it wasn't possible to comment on the detail, but assurances were made that the ombudsman was committed to concluding the investigation as quickly as possible. I'm sure you will be continuing to raise this issue with me, and we will do all we can to make sure that the views of the Welsh Government are known to the ombudsman as often as is necessary.

Thank you for the question. Officials have met with UK Government counterparts on a number of occasions. I have raised key aspects of this Bill with UK Government Ministers. We continue to seek to ensure that provisions within this Bill meet our aspirations in Wales.

I thank the Counsel General for his answer. Can I also thank him for his consistent leadership and support for the Hillsborough Law Now campaign? Counsel General, the Victims and Prisoners Bill simply does not go far enough to protect families who've experienced tragedy and deserve answers. Does the Counsel General agree with me that only a Hillsborough law will offer that protection to families and it is a UK Labour Government who will enshrine that into law?

Thank you for your supplementary question, and I was grateful, really, with your facilitation, to be able to meet with the Hillsborough victims in Liverpool several months ago and it was a very moving meeting.

I think what was disappointing is that the implementation of a Hillsborough law is not actually something that's that complicated. It's been called for, really, because of the steps—because of the limitations that have been posed in the availability, really, of independent legal advice and assistance. I know the Hillsborough campaign and many others have actually significantly criticised the UK Government in, I suppose, purporting to introduce a Hillsborough law, but a law that is really regarded, or the proposals that are there are regarded as very ineffective. I'm very, very impressed with what Steve Reed, who is the Shadow Labour Minister on this, because he just said this recently—this is in the recent response—he said:

'Labour is committed to real change. In government, we will establish a fully independent public advocate that is accountable to survivors and victims’ families. We will arm it with the power it needs to access documents and data to expose the truth'.

I think that's a very strong and a very important statement and commitment to legislating in that area.

Can I say there's one area that I'm particularly concerned about within it as well? And that is what the role is of an independent public advocate; it's totally unclear from the UK Government's proposals. But equally so, what's very important as well is that if this is the adviser to Government in terms of triggering legal advice and assistance et cetera through the legal aid system, there needs to be specific account in terms of the role of Welsh Government and what would happen within Welsh situations were there to be a tragic event, and those are things where there are ongoing engagement between Welsh Government and with UK Government on this particular legislation.

Thank you. The Welsh Government has repeatedly expressed concerns to the UK Government about women who had their state pension age raised without effective or sufficient notification, and will continue to do so. The ombudsman's revised investigation report is needed as soon as possible to recommend remedies for the injustices found.

Thank you once again.

I appreciate that you and your Government are constrained by the Welsh Government's powers, but could you commit today to contact the UK Government to ask for their response and for them to outline what compensation package they'll be putting in place to resolve this long-overdue issue and compensate all 1950s women fairly?

Could you request that the UK work and pensions Secretary should attend a mediation session with representatives from across all groups to agree a compensatory package? And I wonder whether you agree with me that this idea that they've put forward of fraudulent claims is misleading? All of the women affected will be on the UK Government's own database; they all have national insurance numbers. What could make it so difficult to deal with this? Is it possibly Westminster looking for a convenient excuse? Why do you think the Westminster Government is still avoiding sitting down with these women and listening to them?

Well, I think it's because UK Government made a very major mistake and doesn't want to do what is necessary in order to rectify it. What we have to recognise is these women have endured gender inequality throughout their lives. They're women born in the 1950s. They had very different lives and employment opportunities to those that we take for granted. So, many in this group will have worked part-time, they've had low-paid roles, they'd have taken time off. They've worked, they've paid their national insurance contributions, they've raised children, they contributed fully to society and then they find themselves being disadvantaged by virtue of their gender. So, it's vital that the inequality that they have experienced throughout their lives isn't compounded as they enter into later years.

Can I just say: we will take it and do everything that we can within our powers and competence to keep this on the agenda? It is an injustice—one of a number of injustices—that needs to be rectified, and what I would hope is that we move into an environment where, when we clearly recognise there are injustices, we take the necessary steps to rectify them as soon as possible. We don't want the situation we've had, for example, with the contaminated blood, which is now coming to a head, but after how many years and after how many people have passed away before justice is resolved.

The default sunsetting of retained European Union law was replaced with a specific list of redundant legislation in Schedule 1 to the Act to be revoked at the end of 2023. We remain concerned about how UK Government Ministers might use powers under the Act, including to legislate in devolved areas.

Thank you, Counsel General, and I agree with your assessment. It is a concern.

The sunsetting of the EU law at the end of this year will cause disruption. Doctors in the NHS have raised concerns about the future of working time directive and the rollback of workers' rights. It will also undermine the devolution settlement. Section 4 of the Act abolishes the general principles of EU law. Now, to some, certainly on the Tory benches, this might invoke a sense of power and sovereignty, but the reality is very different. It removes the principles of equal treatment, proportionality and respect for fundamental rights from our law. Does the Counsel General agree with me that these principles need to be recodified through regulation, and will he put pressure on the UK Government to do so? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you for that supplementary question. It's something that we do at every stage possible in terms of the engagement that we have. As you know, we were firstly opposed to the retained EU law legislation and, of course, the further legislation that has since come into being, the revocation and reform Act 2023. One of the reasons we were concerned about it is because we were concerned, firstly about the ability to actually look at making changes to a whole raft of legislation within a time period that was sunsetted. Fortunately, I think even the UK Government came to recognise that what was being proposed was actually unachievable. So, other arrangements have been, actually, put in place. These changes were made at a late stage by the UK Government to replace the original automatic sunsetting provisions with a new Schedule 1, and what that did was to list almost 600 pieces of legislation to sunset on 31 December. And although this Schedule didn't contain any instruments of retained EU law that were made in Wales, it did include instruments in devolved areas.

We were also unhappy in terms of the legislation because it also included concurrent powers for the UK Government to be able to legislate in devolved areas. We did want changes on the face of the Bill. We were not able to secure that, but we have secured commitments in writing that there is no intention to basically use concurrent powers to change devolved areas without consent. So far, I am satisfied that that is actually being abided by. The main area of change that has been taking place actually relates to a lot of pieces of legislation that are basically technical and consequential changes. But it is one that we are monitoring very, very closely.

We have had discussions with UK Government officials on the various areas of concern that we've had. We have a dual approach to it: any area that involves the use of concurrent powers into devolved areas is something that we will focus on very closely et cetera, and we will also hold up, where we think it's not appropriate, to not consent to changes, particularly where there might be deductions or variations in the standards that we want to uphold. But in terms of the efficiency and the economy of using the resource we have with the very many pieces of legislation, which are really just technical and consequential changes, we adopt a relatively light touch, in terms of that process, to really be able to focus on the areas that we consider are most important.

As is the case with any question on legislative competence, context is key. Whilst employment and industrial relations are expressed as a reservation in the government of Wales Act 2017, whether any aspect relates to that reservation or not depends on the purpose and its effects in the circumstances.

I thank the Counsel General for that response. The Counsel General will be aware that the inhumane legislation of the Conservative Government on striking is now law. The Government in Westminster does everything within its powers to withdraw rights from people, all because they want to maintain their privileges and the privileges of the rich and preventing people from living with dignity so that others can benefit financially. If employment law were devolved, then we here could give the vital powers to the workforces of Wales. Will you take the vital steps to initiate that process of devolving this area to Wales?

Well, thank you for those supplementary comments. Of course, on a number of occasions in the past, we've used the powers that we've had, for example in the Trade Union (Wales) Act 2017, the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023 and in other legislation, to try and protect employment and organisation rights. And, of course, we've had recently the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023, which puts the social partnership on a statutory footing.

In terms of the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Act 2023, which is the one that you've raised—and there was recently a Trades Union Congress conference specifically to discuss that—we expressed our opposition all the way along that we opposed this legislation because it undermines social partnership. But you're right that industrial relations, employment law, is not a devolved area; I think there is certainly scope for far greater devolution in those particular areas. Where we have also, though, made representations on the strikes Bill is, for example, in the code that is being developed. I think there's been agreement now that our representations that ambulance services should not be included has been accepted. Unfortunately, other areas that we also argued should not be included because they are devolved matters have been overridden and legislation will proceed. Quite frankly, what is needed, really, is a change of Government, and I'm very pleased that the UK Labour Government has given an absolute commitment that this is legislation that it will repeal within the first 100 days of a Labour Government.

And finally, question 9, Janet Finch-Saunders.

The Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill will significantly increase the scrutiny capacity of the Senedd. It will enable Members in whom the public have placed their trust to more effectively scrutinise policy, legislation and spending plans, and to hold Ministers to account.

Thank you. As our colleague Jane Dodds has already mentioned, Professor Laura McAllister has already said that the closed list system puts too much power in the hands of parties, with voters choosing between them instead of candidates. To quote her, she says:

'It seems odd to me that at a time when there's such a disconnect between the politicians and the public, we're disconnecting it further'.

Now, we all know that turnout at Senedd elections is considerably less than at UK parliamentary elections, so I actually agree with her. The Senedd has been warned that the public will very quickly get aggrieved when they realise that they won't be able to vote for their own chosen candidate. Will you be acting on the concerns of Professor McAllister and perhaps scrap completely the closed list?

Well, can I say how surprised I am that the Member is so concerned about turnout and hasn't spoken out when we had the discussions here on the introduction of ID cards, which were essentially about voter suppression and actually restricting entitlement to vote? I notice that the Member has not spoken up yet—[Interruption.]—has not spoken up yet in support of our proposals for automatic registration, which would increase the number of people—the 4,000 people who are not on the electoral register, giving them the opportunity to vote. And when you talk about trust in politicians, I think what you should really be concerned about is your Government's record of 13 years in office, which, it seems to me, year on year, have undermined trust in politicians. Your former leader, Boris Johnson, was a serial liar who was found to have misled Parliament.

On a point of order, you're not supposed to use the word 'liar' in proceedings, I understood.

You can ask for a point of order, but please don't stand up and give one without asking, okay.

Okay, I'll ask for the point of order.

That will be afterwards. Let the Counsel General answer his question.

The subsequent leader crashed our economy and still fails to take any responsibility for the pain this caused to families. The current leader and Prime Minister is now looking to undermine international law again, as he is completely beholden to the extreme right in his party. So, we can't really take any lessons in terms of trust, and, if you want to look at one area that has really undermined trust in politicians, it was the Tory COVID VIP corruption lane during the COVID pandemic. So, I think, really, the best way of actually restoring trust in politicians is to get rid of this ineffective, corrupt and broken Government and to get a Labour Government in place.

I thank the Counsel General.

Janet, I'll let you ask your point of order.

Okay. So, today, now, the Counsel General has used the words 'liar', 'corruption' and 'corrupt' about other politicians and other political parties. We have people in the audience, in the public gallery. We also have people, I hope, watching this on television. This is a time of goodwill to all men and women, as we approach the Christmas season. Do you really think that this is a good example for people—

The point of order is to me, not to the Counsel General.

Well, I actually would ask, as a matter of some respect for our proceedings here, whether the Counsel General will withdraw those words—'liar', 'corruption' and 'corrupt'.

Well, I—

Counsel General, I will respond, not after you. We've reviewed this, and the Member did actually not refer to any other Member in this Chamber, when you can't use those words, and that is what the code of conduct will require of him. Therefore, whilst Members may not like his terminology—[Interruption.] Whilst Members might not like his terminology, he did not break the rules on this occasion, and therefore I will not ask the Counsel General to withdraw, but Members may, as you have already done, point out his use of those words.

He called the previous Prime Minister a liar. [Interruption.] This is appalling conduct.

The statement and my decision has been made. Thank you.

Item 3 is next, questions to the Senedd Commission, and the first question is from Carolyn Thomas.

The Commission supports the Senedd to continue to meet in hybrid format, in accordance with the decision of the Business Committee, by ongoing investment in our technological infrastructure.

Diolch. I was pleased to represent our Senedd Cymru at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association event in Ghana, and attended workshops on e-Parliaments and gender quotas, and there were compliments on how we are being progressive and leading the way here in Wales.

Through COVID, we saw changes in working patterns. My staff work from home; they've continued to do so, and they work hard to support my constituents right across north Wales. I don't have an office. Do you agree with me that, due to the cost-of-living crisis and soaring household energy bills, the current working from home allowance paid by the Senedd is vital to ensuring that staff can continue to work at home and aren't disadvantaged by that? Thank you.

Well, yes. Providing the ability for both staff and Members to work from home, work from constituency offices or work from the Senedd building here is an important aspect of the flexibility that we all now have in our working lives. I think it's been useful and appreciated during the times of COVID, and we have learnt very positive lessons from that very difficult time.

Question 2, Sarah Murphy.

Pardon. My apologies. No, my apologies. Tom Giffard.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. I accept the arguments in favour of the hybrid proceedings here in the Senedd, but I do think the public send us here. They expect us to be here in Cardiff Bay. You've obviously been elected, Llywydd, far longer than I have, but you'll know that the work of a Senedd Member doesn't just exist in this Chamber, but in the building more generally, in the corridors and all the other meetings that we attend. I think the public will find it difficult to understand that there are some Members who are very rarely here at all. The particular thing I think that irks me, and the public will find difficult to understand, is those Members that will be here on a Tuesday afternoon for First Minister’s questions, and we'll see them back at home voting later that same day. So, what consideration have you given to a slightly different style when it comes to those Members being allowed to participate virtually, perhaps on a case-by-case basis presented to you around need rather than about convenience for those Members?

Well, I'd hate to be the Presiding Officer who would need to take individual decisions based on individuals' specific cases on whether they should be working from home or working from here in the Chamber. I don't think it's an appropriate use of my time or my judgment to decide on other people elected here to this Chamber—to decide on how they undertake their work. Their constituents will look and will question all Members, as they do, on our performance and our presence, both here in the Chamber and online.

And now, question 2, Sarah Murphy.

Well, thank you for the question. Of course, it's the independent remuneration board that determines Member support staff salaries, and the chief executive and clerk, as accounting officer and on behalf of the Commission, has engaged already with the remuneration board on the staffing budget requirements included in the determination budget for 2024-25.

The Commission will be consulted, as will Members and stakeholders, on the annual review of determination for the next financial year, which includes staffing matters, which the board has stated will be issued later this week. The board has commenced its staffing pay and grading reviews as well ahead of the seventh Senedd. Commission officials are fully engaged in this review, and all Members and their staff will be given the opportunity to input into it.

Thank you very much. Yesterday, the remuneration board published its November update to Members and their support staff. I'd like to welcome the recommendations made in this update as they are deeply needed, especially during the cost-of-living crisis, and especially the update made to band 3 pay point 1, allowing all those who are employed by the Senedd to remain on a real living wage. I'd also like to place on record my thanks to the work of the trade union representatives and members in successfully negotiating an uplift for all staff of 5.7 per cent, and securing a cost-of-living payment this spring. They, along with the rest of the Senedd support staff, Commission staff, all of them who—. Without them this Senedd would not be able to run, nor be as transparent or engaged with the citizens of Wales as it is. Considering all of this, would you be able to confirm for me what further work you are doing to work with the unions and other members of the workforce to ensure that the Senedd remains a real living wage employer? Diolch.

We're absolutely committed to remaining a real living wage employer and to ensuring that we support all staff, whether it's support staff or Commission staff, as best we can, and that we remunerate them correctly and appropriately. And, as I said, the remuneration board is undertaking a review of support staff pay and grading. It's due be made public by the end of March, and this sort of review hasn't been undertaken for quite some time, so it's vitally important, and Members will be given the opportunity to provide input into it. Commission officials as well have been involved as part of this piece of work.

Of course, the remuneration board itself is independent of the Commission, but we're looking, as a Commission, at how we can ensure that there is greater transparency and understanding of who is responsible for what—who’s responsible for determination of Member's salaries, support staff salaries, Commission staff salaries, who's responsible for the day-to-day running of the Senedd. That work has begun, and we hope to be able to present those clearer demarcation lines to Members in the not-too-distant future.

Well, can I thank Delyth Jewell for the question? It's an excellent question. There are actually three pension schemes connected with the Senedd. There's the civil service pension scheme, which is available to Commission staff, and that's an unfunded scheme, and therefore it has no assets to invest. Benefits are paid through tax revenues rather than from assets set aside to pay for them. And then there's the second scheme, which is for support staff. Now, the support staff pension scheme is run by Aviva, and the Commission is not involved in determining how the assets are invested. Now, the third pension scheme is in relation to the Members of the Senedd, and the Commission has no means to influence the allocation of the Members' pension scheme assets. The power to do that sits entirely with the pension board, which is independent of the Commission, but, of course, there are two sitting Members and one former Member of the Senedd who sit on the independent pension board.

Thank you for that response. I'm sure that you saw the research by Size of Wales and Global Canopy, which was published last month, that £14 billion, or 55 per cent of the investments made by eight public pension funds in Wales, they are in danger of funding deforestation, and this can be a hidden thing sometimes. So, thank you for setting out more certainty and assurance on this issue. Would you agree with me that other pension funds in Wales could look into what happens, with the global responsibility that we have in Wales, to ensure that we take every possible step that that isn't something that's just done by the Senedd, but for the whole of Wales, so that we can show leadership across the public sector?

I'd very much agree with the Member. This is something that I know Jack Sargeant has taken up on several occasions as well, and I've had many discussions with Jack. I have to say and put on record my thanks to my colleague and friend Mike Hedges, who has been a pension board member for quite some time and has been at the forefront of pressing for ethical investment. I'm pleased to say that, in terms of the environmental, social and governance credentials, we use Aviva, who are market-leading in this regard, and implementing their principles in their pension investments is hugely important. We scrutinise that every time we meet as a pension board. But I think that Delyth Jewell makes an incredibly important point that best practice in regard to how investments are made does need to be shared across the public and the private sector to ensure that, whether directly or indirectly, we're not harming our natural environment through the process of what we invest in with our pension funds.

I agree with Delyth Jewell that the Senedd Members pension fund should not be investing in deforestation, and we're working hard to reduce our oil investments. It's not as easy as just saying, 'We don't want to do it anymore'; you've got to come out of it, and we've made substantial progress on that. But the pension fund is managed by trustees. I represent you as the Members; Ken Skates represents the Commission; Nick Ramsay, a former Member, is a member of the commission and an independent chair, completing the list of trustees. Would the Commission consider someone on behalf of the pension board taking questions under an agenda item after the annual pension report is provided to Members, giving Members an opportunity within this Chamber to raise questions like the one that Delyth Jewell just has?

Well, can I thank Mike Hedges and say that's a superb suggestion that I think I should take back to the next Commission meeting? I'd have no objection whatsoever; I think that would certainly help in terms of scrutiny and transparency, and so I'll raise that with my fellow Commissioners.

Diolch, Ken and Llywydd.

Item 4 is the topical questions, and Peter Fox will ask the question. Peter.

The Office for Budget Responsibility provides forecasts of the devolved tax revenues in Wales, which represent an important element of the Welsh Government's budget arithmetic. It will publish its latest edition of the Welsh taxes outlook alongside the draft budget on 19 December.

Thank you, Minister. You would have received a letter I sent to you on 1 December asking you to contact the OBR to review your current memorandum of understanding with them to include a wider economic and fiscal outlook for Wales based on your budget proposals. When I wrote, I was conscious that the budget was to be announced in just three weeks' time, but I genuinely felt that the OBR would already have a general overview of all devolved fiscal positions and it should be easy to glean an assessment, and that should have been pretty straightforward and certainly advantageous for us.

Minister, an independent assessment of your budget would be key to enabling effective scrutiny as well as assessing the long-term impact of policy making, as we don't want to see a repeat of the inter-year budget panic that we saw just recently. We simply cannot afford another year where we see knee-jerk reaction to a projected £900 million deficit, which shouldn't have happened, recognising that all inflationary pressures were known about well before the budget was set.

With all of this in mind, can you inform the Senedd of your consideration of my request, and if it's not to be pursued, can we expect a review of the memorandum of understanding with the OBR ahead of future budgets?

Well, obviously, I would disagree with the Member's characterisation of the in-year activity that we've undertaken to respond to the impact of inflation on the budget, but I appreciate that's not what the question today is about, and I do have the Member's letter and I will be providing a response within the next week to that.

In terms, though, of the OBR's role, it really is about providing those independent forecasts of our devolved tax revenues in Wales, and that is in accordance with the Welsh Government's fiscal framework agreement. The OBR produces forecasts of equivalent taxes in England and in Northern Ireland, and they underpin the calculations upon which the block grant adjustments accompanying tax devolution are determined. And of course, the vast majority of the Welsh Government's budget does depend on the block grant and those changes that are as a response to UK Government decisions about funding. And I think it's important to recognise also that, at the UK level, the OBR provides forecasts for the economy and public finances, together with assessments of whether the UK Government will meet its fiscal targets, unless of course you're Lizz Truss and you're introducing one of the mini-budgets. But I think that that really sets out the important role of the OBR in terms of the overall position for the UK.

The OBR itself has said that it's not clear that producing any Welsh macroeconomics forecasts would substantively improve its ability to forecast here in Wales. There's little evidence of convergence or divergence in per-capita growth between Wales and the UK as a whole. Instead, when forecasting Welsh taxes, adjustments were made to UK tax determinants where there is specific evidence of divergence in those particular determinants in Wales.

So, I'm not sure what the activity that has been described would present as a benefit to the budget, particularly because, as noted in the charter for budget responsibility, the OBR should not provide normative commentary on the particular merits of Government policies. That would apply to Welsh Government policies in the same way as it would to UK Government policy. So, I'm not sure what the work that is being asked for would add, given the fact that our overall position doesn't diverge very much from the position that they described in the autumn statement, in their work there.

Thanks for that answer, Minister. I'd like to fully acknowledge the difficulties facing the Welsh Government. The Tory-driven austerity and economic incompetence has left public finances in a ruinous state. This has resulted in a significant erosion of the spending power available to Wales.

In these times, scrutiny and accountability of budgetary matters is becoming more and more important. Yesterday, my colleague Heledd Fychan requested for the Senedd to reconvene next week for Members to debate the budget, but was turned down. Could you elaborate on the Government's decision and explain why you don't think that the situation is sufficiently serious to justify meeting in a special Plenary next week?

I'd also like to know your thoughts on the imminent financial position of local authorities across Wales. The Local Government Association have said that as many as one in five councils in England are facing bankruptcy. Do you expect any councils in Wales to face bankruptcy next year and, if so, what contingency measures does the Welsh Government have in place to mitigate this eventuality?

And, finally, do you agree that the scaling back of local government services to the bare minimum will create a vicious circle that may cause irreparable damage to our communities? Diolch.

I'm very grateful for that series of questions. So, in relation to any request to recall the Senedd, there's this process now set out in Standing Orders, which has been undertaken. My own view is that there is ample opportunity to scrutinise the draft budget. Of course, we'll be reconvening—myself and Finance Committee—next week to scrutinise the budget, and then we have many, many, many hours of detailed committee scrutiny, in each of the portfolio areas, which is undertaken. And then, there are a number of opportunities to debate the budget—the draft budget and then the final budget—in the Senedd as well. So, I do think there are absolutely ample opportunities for scrutiny. I'd also remind colleagues as well that none of this will come into force until April of next year in any case, so we have time as well, so I don't believe that this necessarily meets one of those urgent and emergency situations that you would normally expect the Senedd to be recalled for. But those are just my views, and I know that there's a proper process set out in Standing Orders to deal with that.

We'll shortly be publishing of course the local authority draft settlement for next year, so I don't want to pre-empt anything that's going to be announced in that process. But of course, local authorities can't technically go bankrupt in any case—they have to issue the requisite notices. No authority wants to be in that position, and every authority will do everything it can to manage its budget, to present a balanced budget to be voted on locally. I don't for a moment underestimate how hard that is going to be for some local authorities in particular, especially given the extreme pressures that there are on our budgets and local authorities' budgets. The Member described local authorities really just providing the bare minimum. I think, for some time, local authorities have been in a space where they haven't been able to do lots of the things that they would like to do, because they have so many statutory duties that they're attending to. So, unless there is improvement overall in public finances, and unless we have a UK Government that wants to invest in public services, I think that we are in for some difficult times ahead.

I was just interested to be thinking about the figures that we had in the autumn statement. And in health, for example, the additional funding that came through from health, I think, provides less than five hours' worth of the NHS here in Wales. And I think that, when you think about that kind of level of disinterest from the UK Government in public services, it really does set out how difficult the challenge is ahead of us. [Interruption.] I hear the chuntering coming from behind me, but I think the important point here to remember is that our budget next year is worth £1.3 billion less than it was at the point of the spending review. [Interruption.] That might be boring to the Conservatives, but it's not boring to those of us who care about public services and want to see investment in public services.

I thank the Minister.

Before moving on, and for clarity following the point of order by Janet Finch-Saunders, I just want to highlight that the Counsel General did not refer to any Members of the Senedd as lying to or misleading the Senedd, and thus did not breach the expected conduct. However, I would hope that all Members reflect upon their use of such terms prior to their contributions, and after, to ensure that words used are not unparliamentary. I will ensure that the Counsel General is made aware of this statement too.

Item 5 is the 90-second statements. There is only one today, and I call on Sarah Murphy.

Thank you. Since 1985, Rotary's key humanitarian priority has been to rid the world of polio. Rotary spearheaded the campaign at a time when there were over 1,000 polio cases a day, in 125 countries, paralysing and even killing children. Today, the number of cases is down by 99.9 per cent. Over the last 35 years, Rotary members, working with communities around the world, have contributed more than $2 billion, and countless volunteer hours, to the fight to end polio. And inspired in part by Rotary's volunteer commitment and fundraising success, the global polio eradication initiative was launched in 1988. And because of these efforts as well, nearly 19 million people, who would otherwise have been paralysed, are walking, and more than 1.5 million people are alive who would otherwise have passed away. Despite there only being a handful of cases left in the world, they continue to campaign, and Rotary members continue to be key players in many aspects of the polio programme. The failure to eradicate polio could result in as many as 200,000 new cases worldwide every year, within a decade. That's why we have to stay on it, and I want to thank Rotary members in Great Britain and Ireland who have played a huge part and been supporters of End Polio Now. Thank you very much, and to everybody else who has played their part in this. Diolch.

Thank you.

Next, we have a motion under Standing Order 17.14 to elect a Member to a committee. And I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion formally. Darren Millar.

I move.

No others.

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

Item 6 is a motion under Standing Order 26.91 seeking the Senedd's agreement to introduce a Member Bill. This is the mental health standards of care (Wales) Bill. And I call on James Evans to move the motion.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move the motion tabled in my name. Today, we are here to discuss a matter of great importance: the development of my mental health standards of care (Wales) Bill. Before I start, I want to say a few words about the people who have helped me to get to this stage in the Bill's development.

I first wish to pay tribute to the Deputy Minister, Lynne Neagle, who has worked with me in a very collaborative and constructive way to develop this proposal. And I did feel at one time that I spent more time on the fifth floor than Government Ministers, and I was looking forward to having my own desk there at one point. But I do look forward to working with you, Deputy Minister, and your officials, if this is granted leave to proceed today.

I also want to thank Oliver John from the Royal College of Psychiatrists. The knowledge and expertise of the royal college have been key in formulating this Bill. And I'd also like to thank my team, and also the team here in the Senedd for their assistance. I've engaged with charities such as Mind Cymru and Adferiad, and I'm encouraged by their support and positivity for the Bill. And it was only yesterday that the Children's Commissioner for Wales also indicated her support for this Bill, which is very, very welcome.

Mental health is an integral part of our overall well-being, and it is heartening to witness the commitment of many people in this Senedd, who I have worked with on the development of this Bill, to address the needs of those who are struggling with their mental health here in Wales. First and foremost, let us acknowledge the social shift that has brought mental health to the forefront of public discussion. Gone are the days when mental health conditions were shrouded in stigma and secrecy, with people far too afraid to often seek help. What we are witnessing is a collective awakening, a realisation that, for far too long, mental health is not only a personal matter, but also a societal one that needs addressing.

The Bill I propose to introduce is a response to this cultural evolution, representing a commitment to ensuring that the mental health needs of every individual are met, in a rights-based approach, and treating the person as an individual. This takes forward some of the key findings of the great work undertaken in the Wessely review. It was a matter, however, of deep personal regret for me that the UK Government did not decide to update the mental health legislation in Westminster. However, we have the powers here in Wales to make a positive change, and I believe we have a duty to act in the best interests of our citizens. The foundation of this Bill lies in a collaborative effort, the coming together of myself, the Welsh Government, healthcare professionals, charities, and, most importantly, the voices of those with lived experience. The very framework of this proposed legislation has been woven with the threads of empathy and inclusivity.

One of the foundational pillars of the mental health standards of care (Wales) Bill is choice and autonomy. In this Bill, I intend to replace the nearest relative provisions in the Mental Health Act 1983 with a new role of nominated person. This nominated person will be able to represent that person and exercise relevant statutory functions on their behalf. This introduction is informed by the 2018 independent review of the Mental Health Act, which highlighted that service users and stakeholders consistently found that the current models of family and carer involvement were outdated and insufficient.

Another key element of the Bill is to make amendments to the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010, which was introduced by a former Member here, Jonathan Morgan, to ensure that there is no age limit upon those who can request a reassessment of their mental health, and to extend the availability to request a reassessment. Currently, the opportunity to request a reassessment is only available to adults. This puts young people and children at a disadvantage. This change will bring about both parity within service, and look to address the stigma that's often felt in seeking and receiving mental health support. This amendment will also bring the Measure in line with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, where children have the right to the best possible standard of healthcare, the right to express their views and have those views taken seriously.

Furthermore, the Bill is changing the criteria for detention. The Mental Health Act code of practice for Wales already sets out that services should be provided in line with the presumption of capacity, be the least restrictive option, serve a person's best interests and maximise a person's independence. It is very, very important that this is present in legislation here in Wales.

Finally, the Bill will look to introduce remote virtual assessments and specific provisions relating to second opinion appointed doctors and independent mental health advocates. This is an area that was not included in the UK draft legislation. This is a uniquely Welsh development that requires primary legislation to deliver, and that is something that I believe would improve support for the patient's choice and autonomy.

The policy areas that I have outlined today are deliberately focused and narrow in scope, in order to achieve deliverable and realistic outcomes. I did look at other areas in which the Bill could make changes. However, due to the complexity of the devolution settlement and the need to work with the UK Government on these matters, the Bill is not the mechanism to pursue these. I have also been reassured by the Deputy Minister's commitments in meetings that we have had to develop these areas via regulation-making powers at the Welsh Government's disposal. And I would not, personally, want to see some reforms slowed down when those reforms can be delivered by another legislative mechanism.

In conclusion, the development of a mental health standards of care (Wales) Bill, I believe, is a beacon of hope to many people, a testament to our collective dedication of fostering a healthy Wales for the present and the future. By prioritising a rights-focused approach and destigmatising mental health, we are laying the foundations for a future where every individual can thrive. So, I ask everybody in this Chamber, let us stand united in our commitment to this work today, ensuring that the steps we take in the development of this Bill translate into meaningful actions that touch the lives of those in need. I look forward to hearing other Members' contributions as we go through this debate this afternoon, and I would encourage every Member across this Chamber to support my proposal today.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Mental Health and Well-being, Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. I'd like to start by thanking James Evans for bringing forward this proposal today. I particularly thank James for his very collaborative approach in developing this legislation and for his constructive and helpful engagement.

I've said before in this Chamber that we all have mental health. Sometimes, it will be good; sometimes, it will be poor. So, this is something that impacts on each and every one of us. But nowhere is our responsibility greater than to those whose mental health is so poor that they depend on our most specialist services, and, in particular, those whose liberty is restricted through the Mental Health Act. That's why, as a Government, we were committed to working with the UK Government on the reform of the Mental Health Act, and we were deeply disappointed that a Bill was not published in the King's Speech in November. I am, therefore, really pleased that the Member is seeking to use his legislation to implement some of the reforms that were anticipated at UK level.

We have looked very carefully at the measures that the Member is proposing. They are positive steps, and are consistent with this Government's policies and our overall aims of ensuring a rights-based approach to ensuring that everyone has the best mental health possible and that care and support will be person centred, compassionate and recovery focused, with an emphasis on improving quality, safety and access.

A change to a 'nominated person' in place of 'nearest relative' would support our goal of greater control and autonomy, by supporting people to make their own choices about who they would like to exercise rights on their behalf. We must never forget that those detained under the Mental Health Act are some of the most voiceless people in our society, and I welcome this step to enhance their voice and control.

Second opinion doctors are a vital safeguard for people to ensure care and treatment is appropriate and to ensure that the individual's views and rights have been considered. Enabling remote assessments would support our goal of improving access and ensuring person-centred care, with the aim of making service provision more efficient. Likewise, widening entitlement to request reassessment under the Mental Health (Wales) Measure would support our goal of extending choice and autonomy and improve access to timely support. I'm particularly keen to extend the opportunity to request a reassessment to children and young people, giving them parity in law with adults.

We do, however, of course, need to be cautious about how we take forward reforms to a system that currently operates on a Wales-and-England basis. There are consequences to creating an increasingly divergent system, which may add complexity in a system that, at the moment, is generally the same between Wales and England, and involves both devolved and reserved functions. And in legislating to change parts of the system and not others, we will need to avoid fragmenting an already complex landscape and causing confusion for professionals and those receiving care. That complexity could increase if there's wider UK legislation about other parts of the system in the future.

I'd like to thank James Evans for bringing this proposed Bill before the Senedd today. Changes in the Mental Health Act are long overdue. The Mental Health Act is now 40 years old, and we need to bring mental health laws into the twenty-first century, so I congratulate James on his endeavours and his championing of mental health in the Siambr.

As I've mentioned many times here, getting to grips with mental health is one of the major policy challenges of our age. A survey released by the Mental Health Foundation in Wales in May laid bare the scale of the issue across Wales. It found that six in 10 Welsh adults experienced anxiety that interfered with their daily lives at some point during the preceding fortnight, and that over a quarter of Welsh adults who felt anxious did so to the extent that it stopped them from doing what they like or need to do most or all of the time.

The impact of the pandemic has predictably exacerbated these issues. A study by the Wales Governance Centre revealed that the share of people experiencing severe mental health issues increased from 11.7 per cent during the period immediately before the pandemic to 28.1 per cent by April 2021. We should also consider the particular barriers facing young people, who currently face waiting times for local primary mental health support services that are significantly longer than those for adults. Given that the Government's target to provide 80 per cent of children and young people with an assessment within 28 days of referral has not been met for some time, it is unsurprising that the 'Wellbeing of Wales' report for 2023 has shown a downward trend in the life satisfaction of 11 to 16-year-olds from 2017-18 to 2021-22.

Thankfully, in recent years we have witnessed the long-overdue shift in societal attitudes towards mental health. There is now a greater willingness to openly discuss mental health issues in a non-judgmental manner, and to challenge harmful societal stigmas that are frequently preventing people struggling with their mental health from accessing necessary support. As politicians, it is vital that we harness this positive change in attitudes to deliver tangible practical benefits, and thanks to our co-operation agreement with the Welsh Government, Plaid Cymru is doing just that.

For example, we've delivered the first ever 24/7 mental health hub in Wales at Carmarthen, which is providing bespoke support for young people as and when they need it, thus going some way towards addressing the problems with long waiting lists I referenced earlier. On the back of the success of this scheme, we're also expecting similar projects to be implemented across the other health boards in Wales during the new year. But we fully acknowledge that this is one step forward in a long journey, and that much more can and should be done.

As the explanatory memorandum to this Bill rightly alludes to, addressing the shortcomings in the UK Mental Health Act is an obvious place to start. This echoes what Plaid Cymru have been saying for some time regarding the outdated state of mental health legislation, which doesn't fully serve the needs of the people of Wales.

I therefore commend James Evans for bringing this matter forward today. It stands in stark contrast to the failure of the Westminster Government to include a specific commitment to reviewing the Mental Health Act in the current legislative agenda. Indeed, the devastating impact of 13 years of austerity on mental health services emphatically underlines the sheer neglect of Westminster on this vital issue. To quote an article in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,

Thank you for your patience.

I’d like to first congratulate my colleague James Evans on his pragmatic and timely Bill, which seeks to safeguard the future of mental health provision in line with modern therapeutic understanding. My constituency of Monmouth, much like the Member’s own constituency, is distinct in many ways due to its rural geography. Most notably we have a significantly higher proportion of people who work in the agricultural sector against the Welsh average. There is a breadth of research that tells us that those in farming and rural communities are likely to face higher than average rates of depression and suicide, with the Farm Safety Foundation reporting that one farmer a week in the UK dies by suicide.

I’m pleased that this Bill seeks to introduce virtual assessments for mental health support, as I feel that this will go a significant way in tackling the access issues faced by so many in the rural community. When you live rurally, things such as travelling to medical facilities are far more challenging, so by ensuring that mental health assessments can be done remotely, this opens up the pathway for so many across Wales. This simple change extends far beyond just supporting the rural community. Access to mental health diagnosis will be made far, far easier for disabled people, those with 24-hour caring duties and the elderly—again, all groups who are disproportionately susceptible to poor mental health.

It's also undeniable that the rising rate of mental health issues amongst our children and young people is nothing short of alarming. Just today, following her 19-day trek from Chepstow, Emma Webb arrived in London with her model horse to raise awareness for mental health in young people. Her 16-year-old daughter and keen equestrian, Brodie, sadly took her life in 2020. Throughout this journey Emma highlighted the stigma that young people face with asking for support. This Bill, by ensuring that there is no age limit on who can request a reassessment of their mental health, will ensure that our young people get parity in care. This will go a considerable way in ensuring that our young people in Wales have agency, that they will not be met with doubt.

I would like to again congratulate James and put on the record my support for his truly beneficial Bill. This Bill does not just ensure that mental health is fit for today, but also preserves the future of our Welsh citizens for years to come. We have a duty in this Parliament to put legislation in place, or amend existing legislation, to protect those that find themselves vulnerable for periods in their lives when dealing with their mental health. I encourage all Members to allow this draft Bill to proceed and hopefully develop in a way that improves how we support those suffering. Thank you.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to say a huge ‘thank you’ to James for doing this. It means an awful lot to many, many people. A significant amount of work has been undertaken in recent years to review the way in which the Mental Health Act of 1983 operates, including listening and responding to a significant range of lived experience of being subject to detention under the Act. It really is the lived experience that is so vital. I don’t think that, unless you’ve ever had a loved one or yourself ever come close to being sectioned under that Act, you can ever really understand how terrifying it is, and, as you’ve mentioned, Mabon, how removed from your own advocacy and agency you are in that moment.

Despite a lot of talk—you are right, James—about mental health, and a lot more, I think, now, about anxiety and depression, I do think that some of the more serious cases of mental health and wellness are far less talked about, and there is still too much stigma around that. I am a big believer that you can recover from that moment of crisis. I think a lot of it can sometimes be down to substance misuse, which, again, I’m a big believer that you can recover from if you have the correct care and support. I think this is an opportunity for all of us, really, just to say to people that you should never be worried about reaching out for that help, you should never be worried about needing to take medication, if that's what you've been advised by your clinician, and that we want to live in a world where you are heard, you are listened to and you are still treated like a human being. I think that's what is really summed up in all of the principles that you have here: the choice and autonomy, least restriction, therapeutic benefit and the person as an individual. I agree with all of them, and as chair of the cross-party group on eating disorders we touched on this last week and many of them could relate to what you're trying to achieve here. Many of them have been detained, of course, inside and outside of Wales.

It is the criteria for detention that I did want to focus on. The Bill will enshrine a change in the criteria for detention to ensure that people can only be detained if they pose a serious risk of harm to either themselves or others, and there must be a reasonable prospect of therapeutic benefit to the patient. I know myself—I have a constituent who has been detained outside Wales—it's been almost impossible for myself or her family or anybody in Wales to find out exactly what the long-term plan is. Is she just locked up forever? Or is there, actually, a clinical therapeutic plan that one day she will be able to come home and live a fulfilled life. This is crucial.

Also, the code of practice for Wales already sets out that services should be provided in line with the presumption of capacity. It should be the least restrictive option. It should serve a person's best interests, and it should maximise a person's independence. I have young people who contact me on a regular basis on my Instagram messages—they're probably watching today—who say that they've been put on a general ward in one of our hospitals because they needed some—usually—energy feeding. Completely inappropriate and they were like:

I am really pleased to see this Bill put forward by James Evans. I think one of the first conversations James and I had after being elected was around mental health, and in particular male mental health. I think the person-centred approach is the right way forward here, and what I'm hoping, actually, we're able to discuss further as this Bill progresses is the challenge there is around, actually, reaching out to those who find it difficult or are reluctant to seek help in the first place. And I'm particularly talking here about my generation. You know, I grew up in a society that told me that it's important to discuss how I'm feeling, to be in tune with my emotions, but I was brought up by a generation that doesn't know how to do that. And so it's almost a paradoxical state of being. I can't tell you how hard it is, actually, to be sitting or standing somewhere knowing that I need to get stuff off my chest, but then having just that little reluctance within me that is ingrained. And I think that is truly a cultural hangover. I think it's particularly prevalent in working-class communities as well.

So, what I really hope that we get out of this Bill and discussions around this Bill is how we reach out to those people. Because I know I've had to work through it; I know a lot of my mates have had to work through it as well. So, I really do hope that the Senedd looks to approve this Bill today—[Interruption.]—so that we can have a further discussion on this issue. I will give way to Jack Sargeant.

I'm grateful, Luke Fletcher, for taking the intervention. And it's the comment where you said that you have struggled sometimes to open up and speak about mental health. I've had many conversations with James Evans as well about my own struggles with mental health. Do you think that the very reason someone like James can talk to me and talk to you about our own struggles just proves the importance of this Bill going through today?

Yes, 100 per cent. I think that's why it was important, or I felt compelled at least, to speak in this debate today as well. Because I think having people like me, like you, Jack, like James being able to discuss these issues right here on the floor of the Senedd,in what is a very public place as well, is very important in terms of, actually, showing those people who are reluctant to reach out for help, particularly who are of our age, that it is okay to do it. The stigma is still there. We hear constantly that the stigma is gone or is going, but I can tell you now that, especially in working-class communities, that stigma is still there. So, I really do hope that this Bill allows us the space to discuss this, and allows the Senedd as well to debate these issues, so that we can further improve mental health services for people across Wales.

Congratulations to James Evans for tabling this important Bill proposal here today. I’m really pleased to be able to stand in support of this really important Bill that’s in front of us, and also to reflect on my own time in the last 18 months with a Member’s Bill, and to wish you all the best for the 12 months ahead—12 months of hard work. I’m sure that you and your team will put your shoulder firmly toward it and see it progress well. It’s pleasing to hear such good cross-party support in the Chamber here today.

Of course, attitudes towards mental health have changed so much over the years, and Luke Fletcher pointed to some of that change. There is more to be done, of course. The way we talk about mental health and awareness throughout society has evolved a lot. It is good to talk, but it is even more important that those positive messages and nice things to say are backed up through hard, effective legislation. I guess that that’s the point of what James Evans is bringing forward to us here today. With my own Member’s Bill going through the process at the moment, that’s something that I keep coming back to. We legislate for what we think is important. We legislate when we want to guarantee something to be in place for the people of Wales. And as the Minister pointed out, the vulnerability of many people suffering either an acute crisis or something more prolonged—we have to reflect on their vulnerability and ensure that legislation is in place to give them the best chance possible. That group of people is growing as well. More and more people are sadly suffering with mental health issues in Wales. So, this is certainly a timely Bill that James Evans has brought forward for us here today.

So, this Bill will be a big step towards seeing that improvement in our services, enshrining a set of principles throughout our health service that would guide care provision for decades to come. We all know that mental health provision can always be better, none more so than in my region of North Wales, where we have seen, sadly, for far too long, far too many gaps in the system that people are falling through. So, anything, in my mind, that is going to help those mental health services, whether it be legislation or otherwise, is a good thing.

There are a number of provisions in the Bill that colleagues have already mentioned, but I’d like to underscore the importance of them here today. The nearest relative provision in the Act means that a patient would be able to personally select a nominated person to represent them and exercise relevant statutory functions. I think that that’s really powerful, giving those patients more choice and ensuring that they have the most important person available to represent them at a difficult time. It’s really important.

Thank you to James Evans for bringing forward this proposed Bill this afternoon. It's very welcome, and it's a pleasure to follow Members across the Chamber in their contributions, and to hear the cross-party support that James has built around this Bill.

Mental health affects us all, and as we become more aware of our own mental health and seek support when needed, this Bill is a clear step in the right direction to further improve the delivery of mental health plans, by helping to improve the outcomes and experiences for people suffering with their mental health.

I want to focus my contribution this afternoon on the proposal to amend the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010, to include children and young people in the ability to request a reassessment. We are 13 years on from the Measure as introduced. We have lived through a global pandemic and, as we look ahead and continue to recover and rebuild from the pandemic, it's only right to reflect on the impact of the Measure and consider what more could be done to improve support.

Research has shown that, whilst the Measure has undoubtedly improved mental health services, there is still much more to be done to deliver the changes that the Measure intended, and this is especially true for children and young people. Currently, the opportunity to request a reassessment is only available to adults. Adults who have previously received secondary mental health services within the past three years have the right to refer themselves back to those services if they feel that their mental health is deteriorating. The introduction of Part 3 of the Measure has seen thousands of people access an assessment in a timelier way and without having to get a referral from a GP. Children and young people should be afforded the same right, and extending the ability to request a reassessment to people specified by the patient further strengthens that support. The needs of children and young people have changed and the number of children and young people experiencing mental health problems is growing, and therefore it's only natural that support offered should change with it.

Data shared by Public Health Wales has shown that adolescent girls aged 16 to 19 are the most likely to experience a mental health crisis. These studies have also highlighted the real statistics that children and young people living in the 20 per cent most economically disadvantaged areas in Wales have almost double the rates of crisis events, compared with those living in the 20 per cent most affluent areas. My constituency of Newport West has some of the most economically disadvantaged areas in Wales, and it's crucial that we seek to ensure that these young people are more empowered, have more choice and influence over their treatment and receive the dignity and respect they deserve.

Can I thank James Evans for bringing forward his motion today? The words of the Minister indicate that your motion will be successful today when it comes to the voting stage, James, so I'm really, really pleased with that, and to hear the cross-party support today.

Last December, the Health and Social Care Committee published its report, 'Connecting the dots: tackling mental health inequalities in Wales', and it was debated here in this Chamber in May, and I know that you, James Evans, took part in that debate as well. So, I'm really keen that, when committees do reports, once they've been debated in this Chamber, they don't just gather dust on a shelf somewhere. So, I really hope, James, that you can have a look at this report, because not only was it backed by many health professionals, we also, through the Senedd's engagement team, had an advisory group that supported the work of this report as well. So, a lot of work went into this, not just by the committee, but by many others as well, so I hope that this will be helpful to you as, hopefully, your Bill proceeds.

We've heard from others—Mabon ap Gwynfor, Peter Fox, Jayne Bryant—in terms of the health inequalities that exist in particular sectors of the community, and the central message in our report that the mental health and well-being of the population will actually not improve and may actually get worse unless effective action is taken to recognise and address some of the impacts of trauma and tackle those inequalities in society and wider causes of mental health. Our report very much also didn't want to duplicate the work of former committees, like the former Health, Social Care and Sport Committee—I think the Deputy Minister may have been a member of the committee, yes—and other work on mental health as well. We didn't want to duplicate that, so this is very specifically about tackling some of the inequalities that exist, James, and I hope that, as your Bill proceeds, you'll take a look at our report and its findings and the work of the advisory group that supported the committee as well.

Congratulations to James on your Bill this afternoon, and specifically receiving cross-party support in the Senedd. I wasn't originally going to speak, but I just wanted to raise one point and just ask whether there's anything in the Bill that we can look at for Welsh patients who are detained in hospitals outside of Wales, in England and Scotland, and just look at whether we can—. I'll give you one example. I've got a constituent at the moment who is, sadly, detained in hospital, but they're being cared for in Nottingham, and she's currently desperate to get home. She understands that she needs to be in hospital, but wants to be in a hospital closer to home so that she can get visits from parents, family et cetera. So, is there anything that we can look at in the Bill to incorporate that, because I'm sure it's happening on a wider level as well, so we can get patients back into Wales and cared for in Wales under the powers of this Bill? So, I'll leave my remarks there; I just wanted to raise that one point with you this afternoon. But congratulations and well done this afternoon.

I call on James Evans to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I say I'm a bit shaken, actually, because I'm a little bit overwhelmed by the support I've had here today? So, I'll try and get through this without getting a bit emotional, I don't really do emotional, very often, but I'll try my best.

I just want to start by thanking the Deputy Minister for her endorsement today of this Bill, and her commitment to work with me in its development. I know it's not just the Deputy Minister, but also the wider Welsh Government and the Ministers that you sit around the Cabinet table with, and also the First Minister. I'd like to just thank the Welsh Government for your support of this Bill. I know, Lynne, of your personal commitment from your time in the Senedd when you were a committee Chair and now, as a Deputy Minister, to really forward this work, and I really look forward, if I do get leave to proceed today, to working with you. Also, we had those discussions around the wider reforms that you're bringing forward in the mental health sphere here in Wales. We've talked about those, and I'm very supportive of what you're bringing forward, and we'll discuss those at a later date. I don't think there's time to discuss those today.

I'd like to also thank Mabon for your contribution and your endorsement of this Bill today. You were talking about those six in 10 Welsh adults now who face anxiety right the way across Wales. That's something that I hope to do in this Bill, is to actually break down those barriers, break down the stigmas around mental health here in Wales. You did ask some specific questions, how this works with the mental health Measure that we have now and the future generations and well-being Act. Obviously, with the future generations and well-being Act, it is about creating a healthier Wales, which is a key part of that, and that's something that we can look at together with Government if it gets leave to proceed today, how it can work and how that interacts with the mental health Measure, because I agree with the Minister; I don't like legislating for legislating's sake. If we can do things in other ways, I don't want to overdo that.

You also talked about people who have got trans, young people with trans. Nobody, regardless, of if they've got trans or LGBT or anything across Wales—if you are suffering with your mental health, you need to get the support you need. I think, sometimes, as a society, we need to be more tolerant of those people who are suffering across our society and make sure that we support them as much as we can.

Peter Fox, I'd like to thank you for your contribution, talking about virtual assessments. It's something that was very key for me; I've had case work on this, myself—I'm sure as a lot of Members will have—on who can't access that support. I think it's very important, especially for those people in rural areas who do struggle to actually see people. So, that's something I'm keen to bring forward. Also, you mentioned the priority in care and support for young people. That's something that was very key for me in my role as a member of the Children, Young People and Education Committee—I'll come on to that in a bit, when I talk about another Member in this Chamber—and how we can actually help the lives of our young people across Wales.

Thank you, James. I'm glad that the nearest relative provision is being replaced by the nominated person, as you've just said. It's important that mental health patients have a say in their primary contact, as we know. It can not only help them feel more comfortable and supported in their journey, but help in cases of domestic violence and coercive control. Does the Member think that this change is going far enough?

I think this change is going far enough and the conversation, what we've just mentioned, about domestic violence is one of the reasons why I want to change this. There are those people who have suffered domestic violence at the hands of their partner and when those people are seeking help and support from mental health services that abusive partner is in control of their care, and I think that person who is suffering should be able to nominate someone on their behalf to make choices who actually can represent them and not somebody who is trying to coerce and control them. So, that's why I'm very keen that this measure needs to be changed.

But Sarah also talked about principles of this Bill and it's something that I think we can look at, perhaps not on the face of the Bill, but look to put in regulation-making powers how that can change, but I'm very keen that the principles are enshrined here in Wales to make sure we give everybody that chance to get the help and support that they need.

Luke Fletcher, it is true that the first conversation we had was in my office upstairs, actually, about what we could do to destigmatise male mental health here across Wales, and I think, collaboratively in this Chamber, as a few others have talked about, what we can actually do—Jack Sargeant, yourself, and others who I talk to about my own mental health struggles, and I know other Members have talked about their struggles, and I think it's really important that we do talk. It is very important that, when we are struggling, we do reach out, we do talk to other Members and we exchange our views, and how we can actually use ourselves as role models as well to try and encourage people to come forward who are struggling. As I say, Jack Sargeant made an intervention as well and Jack is probably one of my best friends in this Chamber—cross-party, but Jack and I look out for each other a great deal and I'd like to thank him for his endorsement of this Bill as well, and I know he's been very supportive of me over these last weeks with the stress I've been under trying to get this through.

But Sam Rowlands also talked about changing attitudes towards mental health and, as I've said previously, I think this Bill can do that. I think we can change attitudes towards mental health. This is just one step in a big cog of changing attitudes. We can change it here, but it is through other measures and interventions that don't need legislation sometimes that we can change, and that's something I know that the Deputy Minister will be bringing forward in her strategy.

Jayne Bryant, my committee Chair in the Children, Young People and Education Committee and also a friend of mine in this Chamber, thank you for your support, and I know the work you do representing children and young people right the way across this country and giving them a voice. As you said, those thousands of young people who can benefit by changing that Part 3 of the mental health Measure—it's going to open it up so they can actually help their young people's mental health and support. You said about that 20 per cent of people in the least deprived areas. If we can help them improve their dignity and respect and their mental health, that's what we're here to do; we're here to help the most vulnerable people in our society, and I think that's what this piece of proposed legislation is going to do.

Sounds familiar. [Laughter.]

But, on a serious point, though, it is important that we do just care, but not just about patients here in Wales, about Welsh patients who are in Scotland, who are in England as well, and make sure that their mental health is protected, because we have a duty of care to all Welsh citizens right across the country.

So, just to conclude, I'd like to obviously thank everybody who spoke in this debate. As I said, I'm truly humbled and quite overwhelmed with the support it's got. As I said, this is a development that I've brought forward, but I will pay tribute again to the Deputy Minister. This has been a collaborative effort between my team and the Welsh Government, and I hope that we can continue with this engagement, continue with the collaboration we've had together, to create a meaningful piece of legislation here that can really improve the lives of those people here in Wales. Diolch.

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

Item 7 this afternoon is a debate on a Member's legislative proposal: a Bill on the regulation of debt collectors. I call on Jack Sargeant to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr, Deputy Presiding Officer. The idea for this proposal has developed since I watched with absolute horror last winter's exposé from The Times, showing debt collectors working on behalf of British Gas laughing and joking as they forced themselves into the homes of vulnerable customers. And the more I read about the behaviour of debt collectors and bailiffs, the more determined I became to do something. The purpose of this debate today is to explore how we can use the levers available to us in this Senedd to protect Welsh residents.

There is often confusion about the specific difference between bailiffs and debt collectors, and for the purpose of this debate, I want to explore how we can use our powers to protect Welsh residents from the poor behaviour of both. Presiding Officer, I would like to thank Citizens Advice Cymru for their support and the support they have given me in researching this topic. The examples of poor behaviour I am about to give have been sourced from their work supporting people in times of need.

Llywydd, one in three people who have been contacted by bailiffs during the cost-of-living crisis have experienced behaviours that broke the rules. Many have faced intimidating behaviour. For instance, a single mother was woken up at 6 a.m., whilst it was still dark, by male bailiffs knocking on the door. Her children were scared and she became, then, too anxious to sleep during the following days.

And, as we saw throughout the prepayment meter scandal, the use of misinformation is also common. For example, Presiding Officer, a company working in Wales continues to say to its clients that they can be imprisoned in the letters they send to them. We know, don't we, Presiding Officer, that this hasn't been the case since April 2019.

In another incident, bailiffs clamped a client's car that was on a neighbour's drive. They had hired that car through the NHS. This stopped her getting to work at the ambulance service. And this was despite the fact that she had paid the original council tax debt with money left over from her late husband and that the amount due was for the bailiffs' fees alone.

Presiding Officer, last winter, we became aware of the scale of the prepayment meter scandal, with thousands of vulnerable people having prepayment meters forcibly fitted despite needing constant connection to electricity due to illness, medical equipment and the presence of small children in the household. And what became quickly clear is that it was debt collectors who were being trusted to make this judgment of vulnerability.

This situation isn't unique, and debt collectors seem to be empowered to make this judgment on behalf of a whole host of other organisations, including local government. In reality, half of the residents turning to Citizens Advice for help with debt collectors do so as a result of council tax arrears. Citizens Advice Cymru are calling for the Welsh Government to set up a statutory code of practice governing council tax debt collection in Wales. This should set out steps to be taken by local authorities before a liability order can be made, such as attempting to establish an affordable repayment plan and assessing vulnerability.

What we do know about poverty and debt is that it disproportionately impacts vulnerable individuals, that indebtedness and, in particular, the involvement of debt collectors and bailiffs, takes a huge toll on people's physical and mental health. Presiding Officer, I could stand here for some time and give you many more examples of that poor behaviour. In fact, after reading through all of the evidence available to me, it is not difficult to conclude that bad behaviour is the norm and good behaviour is the exception, and that local councils and many other institutions here in Cymru trust these people to act on their behalf. Presiding Officer, it's clear to me there is a need for more regulation; I hope today's debate is the start of that process. And, as my good friend, our First Minister, said in the committee session a few months ago, this Senedd could and should do more with regard to the regulation of debt collectors. I agree with him, I hope our colleagues do too. Diolch.

Given the horror stories we've all heard, we fully share concern about the issue that this proposed Bill seeks to address and clearly support the intent behind it. However, Senedd lawyers have advised that a Bill to regulate debt enforcement agents would be outside the legislative competence of the Senedd. This is on the basis, they say, that the enforcement of orders of the court is a reserved matter. Senedd lawyers additionally advise that a Bill to regulate debt collection agents would also likely fall outside the competence of the Senedd. They say this is on the basis that aspects of debt collecting are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority, and therefore would likely relate to the reserved matter of financial services. They also noted that a general restriction on modifying the private law of contract in certain circumstances may be engaged to some extent by the proposed Bill.

Beyond that, the devil is in the detail and it's difficult to assess when we only have, at this stage—this isn't a criticism—but generic ideas or topics for debate, although points 2(a) and 2(c), I'm advised, seem fine in the motion. However, in terms of 2(a), which seeks to place a duty on public service providers to only use debt collectors who sign up to a code of conduct that protects vulnerable people in a cost-of-living crisis, I venture that we need to protect vulnerable people at all times. But in terms of the code of conduct, Senedd lawyers added that in order for this to be within competence, it would have to be a voluntary code and could not be enforceable as this would amount to regulation. I.e. it couldn't be statutory. I would therefore be grateful if the Member could explain how he would ensure such a code of conduct was within Senedd competence, and, if it's intended only to be voluntary, how effective or workable that would be. I refer, for example, to the mortgage code introduced in the 1990s, in my previous employment, which enabled the very people who ultimately caused the 2008 banking crash to register.

It should also be noted that it's already a legal requirement for a debt collection agency to register as a debt collection agency that is legally able to act and recover debt on behalf of a creditor. Further, once they've registered, they must follow the guidelines set out by the Financial Conduct Authority, the Financial Ombudsman Service and the Competition and Markets Authority, each of which may also supervise those businesses. Recovery actions that could be deemed harassment or abusive and are not permitted already include entering a debtor's home without consent and pressuring a debtor to make payments they cannot afford. The real issue, it seems, is therefore one of enforcement, not unfortunately largely unenforceable legislation, which this Bill would introduce.

I think if you can legislate that Rwanda is a safe country, you can probably find a way of legislating to protect vulnerable people.

I’m grateful to Jack Sargeant for bringing this motion before the Senedd, and I hope that it will receive unanimous support. Plaid Cymru supports these calls to ensure that some of the most vulnerable people in our society don’t face further harm as a result of the actions of bailiffs and debt collectors and that variation that there is in the debt collection system, which includes the practice of adding to debt, which makes it evermore difficult for people to repay that debt and find their way out of that debt.

We are almost at year's end and there can be no doubt that 2023 has been the year of debt, as I've heard it being dubbed by Citizens Advice Cymru. Debt was the focus of the first committee inquiry I participated in as a new Member of the Senedd, as a member of the Equality and Social Justice Committee, and the evidence that I heard with regard to the need to do more to support families to keep their heads above water, so that they aren’t swamped by the debts that push them into ever-deeper waters, has really remained with me. That inquiry considered the impact of the pandemic on debt, and it became clear that these debts had been exacerbated, rather than caused by the pandemic. One of the central calls made in our report, almost exactly two years ago, was for the Welsh Government to assess whether the council tax protocol should be strengthened, including putting it on a statutory footing. This was accepted by the Government, yet the motion makes it clear today that this hasn't been followed up with sufficient action.

And now, with Wales in the midst of another crisis, as the motion mentioned, namely the cost-of-living crisis, which is again impacting the most vulnerable people in our society just as disproportionately as COVID did, the evidence is just as frightening. And the warnings in our report in 2021 unfortunately proved to be correct. People have been pushed into Victorian levels of poverty. The committee's follow-up report on debt was published in September this year, and it painted a similarly bleak picture. What is frustrating is that the urgent steps needed to prevent people from falling into the debt trap, outlined in a number of our most important recommendations, haven't been taken yet.

The motion before us today specifically mentions the need to ensure that there is consistency and quality control in terms of the practices of debt collectors, as well as the imposition of a duty on public bodies to use the services of debt collectors who comply with these requirements. The committee, in both of our reports on debt, raised this issue, because we too heard evidence on a lack of consistency and the use of heavy-handed methods, as you, Jack, mentioned, in terms of the collection of council tax debt, for example. Although we welcomed the fact that the Welsh Government announced a review of the council tax protocol as a result of our recommendation, it was concerning to see that the step of introducing the protocol in 2019 on local government enforcement and debt collection practices had had precious little effect. Again, what we need to ask is—

Sioned, you need to finish.

—we need to ensure that we prevent these groups from falling into the debt trap in the first place. We need to ask ourselves for how much longer we will accept this unsustainable situation, the imbalance in the union that means that the incomes of too many of our people are insufficient and their treatment unjust. That's the question that casts such a long shadow over this motion.

Could I start by congratulating Jack for bringing forward this Member's legislative proposal today, and also pay tribute to Citizens Advice, for the very good work that they do with so many people who rely on their services, particularly during this time of a cost-of-living crisis? It's quite clear that there are real problems here that need to be dealt with.

The one aspect I'd like to concentrate on is the Enforcement Conduct Board, and having schemes in place to make sure that councils in Wales are signed up to that board, yes, perhaps on a voluntary basis, but I think it's quite clear that there needs to be statutory underpinning for that, and certainly that's the view of Citizens Advice as I understand it. At a recent meeting, I think they clarified their position on that. So, whatever means are available, I think we should provide that statutory underpinning. We certainly can't rely on the UK Government to do that for us, and I do believe we need to explore ways in which Wales can be in the lead in ensuring that that happens, and I hope that that's something that Jack can respond to as he sums up. Diolch yn fawr.

Jack, you are a champion of this particular issue, and I do pay tribute to you. You are raising this with us on a constant basis, and it's really important. I wholeheartedly support your approach to this, but I just want to say that people who are poor, who have debts, have debts from a number of people, unfortunately. I've supported the concept of a debt bonfire, and in fact the Equality and Social Justice Committee—two years ago, unbelievably, it was—made a recommendation that the Welsh Government look at how we could look at a small fund to actually address that, again, very small number of people who have significant debts. Those debts cause immense mental health issues, immense stress, and actually if we were able to look at some of the practice and innovation around a debt bonfire, then actually that would help. So, I do hope that we're able to hear from the Minister about the progress of the review that the Government has undertaken on debt bonfires, in order to ensure that we have a much more rounded position in relation to the poorest of our families. Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd.

I support the Bill brought forward by my colleague Jack Sargeant. Why do people end up in debt, and what can be done to help them? Some end up in debt due to substance abuse or gambling compulsion. What these people need is help and support, not debt collection. Most end up in debt due to a catastrophic occurrence in their lives. The funeral of a close family member, even at its cheapest, is costly. One of the most common causes of debt is a sudden and unexpected drop in income, allied to loans taken out when income was relatively high and steady. This can be caused by sudden ill health, such as a stroke, where, for many people, they end up on statutory sick pay and are unable to work until they recover. There are also those on low guaranteed hours, who see their hours cut to the contractual minimum. You can also meet these people at local foodbanks. Then there are those who unexpectedly lose their employment. What all these people need is support and advice. For many, it is the first time they've had to navigate the benefits system. They need help and support.

To launch a debt collection agency, you need a professional office space, office equipment and technology infrastructure, including computers, phones, office furniture and debt collection software, and to register. I could do it tomorrow if I wanted to. America often provides more accurate studies into these areas. In America, companies routinely overlook the criminal history of their employees. One major debt collection company is accused of having at least 81 employees with convictions on its staff. From the findings of the commerce department, it appears that background checks are virtually non-existent when it comes to getting employment with some debt collection firms. In 2017, the Daily Mirror highlighted the problem of UK rogue debt collection firms that purport to be professional, yet harboured a dark and seemly criminal agenda.

Finally, I'll end with a case study from Citizens Advice: Maddie in south Wales, vulnerable circumstances, unaffordable repayment plans. Maddie lives locally. She had recently left an abusive relationship when she was contacted by a bailiff over council tax arrears. Worried about bailiffs visiting where she lived, she agreed to a repayment plan of £200 a month, although she knew she would struggle to afford this. Maddie came to see a Citizens Advice adviser as these repayments were leading to a lot of anxiety, and she was worried about what would happen if she couldn't keep up with them. When the adviser ran through the financial statements with Maddie, she had a deficit of more than £80 a month. An adviser called the enforcement agency, requested her account be put on hold to reflect her extremely vulnerable circumstances, but was told that, as their system is automated, this would not be possible. This is not a world I want to live in, and I very strongly support Jack Sargeant.

The Minister for Social Justice now to contribute—Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Llywydd. I do welcome this opportunity to respond to this debate and thank Jack Sargeant for tabling the motion. As the cost-of-living crisis continues, I know debt levels in Wales are growing, including debt owed to public sector creditors. I also know that the impact of problem debt upon the well-being of individuals, as has been described today, and their families can be negative and long lasting. This is why we cannot allow enforcement practices to cause even more harm to people struggling with debts. Last winter, we all saw the distress caused to thousands of people by the shocking behaviour of energy suppliers and their agents, with the forced installation of prepayment meters, so ably brought to our attention by Jack Sargeant.

The regulation of the enforcement industry isn't a devolved matter, but the Welsh Government is doing all it can to ensure this type of situation never happens again, and I'm pleased that energy suppliers are now required to follow strict rules before a prepayment meter can be installed involuntarily. These rules will ensure energy suppliers act in a fair and responsible way, and only use involuntarily installations as a very last resort. I recently met with Ofgem and made it clear that the Welsh Government will monitor the situation closely to ensure the rules are being followed.

I also recognise the important role now being played by the Enforcement Conduct Board, as has been highlighted today, in ensuring enforcement practices do not cause any further harm to people who are struggling with debts. The ECB know that they have the Welsh Government's full support in this endeavour, and I welcome the recent introduction of their accreditation scheme, which aims to raise standards and improve accountability of enforcement agents. The scheme is also encouraging creditors to drive good practice by ensuring that they can only contract with accredited firms, and I'm pleased that all local authority leaders in Wales have given their commitment to only using ECB-accredited firms to collect local taxes, making Wales the first nation in the UK to adopt this approach.

Llywydd, we cannot underestimate the financial challenges now being faced by households across Wales. People are struggling to pay their bills, but we will continue to do everything we can to stop people falling into debt. One of the most important actions we can take is ensuring people in Wales are claiming every pound to which they're entitled. Maximising household income helps people to stay out of debt, and is a key priority for the Welsh Government. I recently approved additional funding that will keep 71 'Claim what's yours' advisers in post until March 2024. These advisers are helping to meet the demand generated by the cost-of-living crisis and by our successful benefit take-up campaign, which has gone live again this winter.

Jack Sargeant now to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'm grateful for Members' contributions and the Minister's response to today's debate. I should also say, as John Griffiths pointed out, again, thanks to Citizens Advice Cymru, who have researched this topic for me and with me, and I look forward to working with them on this matter in the future.

I'm grateful for the support of colleagues, particularly Mike Hedges, Jane Dodds, John and Sioned, who speak about these issues, I think, as much as I speak on these issues; I'm not the sole person in this Senedd who is a champion on these matters. I think that's recognised in the contributions that you make, particularly Mike Hedges: 'Why do people get into debt, and how can we help them?' should be a question we all ask ourselves. Sioned Williams: 'We need to prevent groups of people falling into debt. But, where they do fall into debt—and that will happen—how do we protect them?' Jane Dodds spoke about the inquiry of the social justice committee about some of the steps that may be able to help with that. Again, I think, John Griffiths, the ECB have a role to play. The Minister's response to us today said that councils have signed up to only use accredited debt collectors through the ECB, but you're right; a statutory footing might be an angle in which we would seek to achieve that, and I would agree with him.

I do want to thank Mark Isherwood as well for his support for the principles of this Bill, and his work on these matters, too, as chair of the fuel poverty cross-party group. He says, in his remarks, that the devil is in the detail, and he wanted to note some of the competence of the proposal in front of him. What I would say to him is that I agree. I think the Minister said this is not a devolved matter, but, actually, there are areas in which we do have the competence, and if we look particularly at local government, we have power over our local authorities. And of course the devil is in the detail; I'd be very honoured, if this proposal passes today and has the support of the Senedd, to come back, in detail, with how we can bring forward a Bill, as we've just seen from the Member before this item today.

Presiding Officer, I finished my starting contribution with a quote from the First Minister in the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister some months ago, where he said that this Senedd could do more and should do more with regard to the regulation of debt collectors. I find myself, as many have today, reflecting on the words of the First Minister in much of what he said. One of his other famous speeches from this year, in fact, was where he said he feels a sense of moral purpose and a sense of duty when he wakes up in the morning. I commend this proposal to the Senedd with those words in mind. And after seeing the videos where we saw debt collectors laughing and joking while breaking their way into vulnerable people's homes, we, as Members of the Senedd, have a duty, have a sense of moral purpose, to protect Welsh residents. I hope this passes. I hope to be able to come back to the Senedd in detail with a Bill in the future. Diolch.

The proposal is to note the proposal. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will take a vote under this item at the end of today's proceedings.

The next item, therefore, will be the Welsh Conservatives debate on agriculture, and I call on Sam Kurtz to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. It's a pleasure to open this debate and move the motion in the name of my colleague Darren Millar—a motion that recognises, that shows appreciation for, and looks to support the essential role that farmers play in our economy and in our wider society. Farming is the silver thread running through the fabric of Wales's national identity. Welsh agriculture is not only a vital part of our economy but it is part of our rich culture, protecting both our language and our environmental beauty, whilst also producing food of the highest quality.

Having grown up on the family farm in Pembrokeshire, I have seen first-hand the amount that goes into a day in the life of a farmer, day after day, year after year. The incredibly long hours and strenuous work, often working with the seasons, although often battling against them—this is a norm for farmers across Wales, yet this dedication must not be taken for granted. Our farmers work day in, day out for the benefit of our land and our people. This job is not just an occupation; you can't just clock in or clock out whenever you feel like it. It's a lifestyle. A calling that requires dedication, sacrifice and stability. Without this stability, this certainty and support, this industry will suffer, the evidence of which we will surely see right across the communities of Wales.

Whilst farmers battle the unpredictability of the weather, they too are now battling the unpredictability of this Welsh Government. One possible negative impact from the lack of certainty and support for the industry from the Welsh Government is a decreasing incentive for young people to join the industry or, in some cases, continue the legacy of their family farms. An organisation that I have spoken about previously in this Siambr is the young farmers club, an organisation that has personally helped me and thousands of others across Wales in developing critical life skills and providing fantastic opportunities to boot. Without a resilient, attractive farming sector supported by the Welsh Government, we will simply lose our next generation of farmers to other industries.

In Wales, we are proud of our rich agricultural heritage, with farmers cultivating the land and herding animals for over 4,000 years. Our mountainous terrain, steep slopes and high rainfall may pose challenges, but farmers have adapted and thrived, shaping our landscape and producing the food that sustains us. Recent statistics highlight the importance of Welsh agriculture. Ninety per cent of Wales's land area is used for agriculture. The agricultural sector generates a greater percentage of Wales's total gross value added than the UK-wide average. Despite their significant contributions, Welsh farmers earn the lowest average profit of all four UK countries.

On average, 67 per cent, two thirds of Welsh farm income comes from subsidies, and from the £238 million given to farmers in support via the basic payment scheme in 2022, a gross output of £2.1 billion was generated. That is a staggering nine to one return on public investment. These figures underscore the importance of supporting farm businesses towards sustainable farming practices and ensuring the long-term viability of Welsh agriculture.

The uncertainty surrounding the upcoming budget for the rural affairs portfolio is deeply concerning for farmers and environmentalists alike. We've seen an in-year cut to the budget worth £37.5 million. The Habitat Wales scheme contracts are due to commence in just two weeks and after the draft budget is laid, leaving our farmers in limbo. The Welsh Government's reluctance to commit to protecting the basic payment scheme for 2024, while allocating funds for other priorities, sends a worrying message about their commitment to Welsh agriculture. Let's be clear, the Welsh Government has access to the £339.6 million in funding from the UK Government needed for next year's BPS, yet they have failed to confirm whether this will be fully allocated to the BPS. This suggests that cuts to the rural affairs budget will be a deliberate choice. The safety and security of our Welsh food and farming sector should be a priority for this Welsh Government, but slow progress is making crucial decision making for farm businesses very difficult to manage.

This sector has so much to offer. Welsh rural communities are custodians of our language and culture. Census figures have shown that 43 per cent of people in agricultural communities speak Welsh, compared to just 19 per cent in the wider Welsh population. Our Welsh soils hold a significant amount of carbon, making them valuable tools in our fight against climate change. The Welsh food and drink industry, the largest employer in Wales, relies heavily on the raw ingredients produced by our farmers, and the list goes on and on.

In concluding the opening of this debate, Llywydd, the Welsh Government must recognise the invaluable contributions of Welsh farmers, and commit to spending the £339.6 million on BPS next year. This is essential not only for our food, farmers and rural communities but also too for our history, our culture and our economy. Welsh farming needs a friend and they have that friend on this side of the Chamber, but I would urge all Members to support our motion to stand with Welsh farmers in their fight for a sustainable and secure future, so that they can find a friend in this whole Chamber. Diolch, Llywydd.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Minister to move formally amendment 1.

Formally.

The amendment has been moved. Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. Plaid Cymru is pleased to support this motion to protect basic payments for next year. It echoes what we've been raising here in the Senedd regularly over the past few weeks and months. Only last week, the leader of Plaid Cymru raised this need directly with the First Minister to safeguard the rural budget for next year, and I raised with you directly last week, Minister, the need to ensure that there was an adequate budget available. And I will echo the point I made then. You, through the agriculture Act, are calling on the sector to deliver beyond the production of food when it comes to public goods that we're all eager to see delivered, but there's a risk on the other hand that the resources available to deliver those higher objectives are being reduced. That isn't sustainable. It’s an unfair situation, and that trajectory, as I said, is unsustainable. And the risk, of course, is that ultimately farmers will turn their backs on programmes such as the sustainable farming scheme, which will replace CAP after next year. The upshot of that, then, will be that it will undermine the ability of the agriculture Act to deliver the aims and objectives stated within that legislation, and that would be a huge shame, of course, because it undermines something that this whole Senedd has supported in the legislation, and we’re very proud of the elements that we’ve managed to strengthen in that legislation.

There is recognition of the broader economic impact of the sector—things that we’ve already heard about this afternoon. We know about the return on investment. Well, that is recognised in the agriculture Act now. There is recognition of the cultural and linguistic impact of the sector. There’s now agreement that there will be a multi-annual settlement, but that isn’t particularly meaningful unless what is provided in the first instance is worth while for the sector to participate in.

So, the risk is—and I do feel that next week’s budget will be some litmus test when it comes to this—that protecting direct payments to the sector will set the tone for the sustainable farming scheme for the future. It will set out the expectations in moving forward in terms of the level of support to the sector, and I think as a minimum the Government should be looking to protect the BPS.

I tried to question you this morning in our scrutiny session on what your priorities were. What do you want to protect most? Now, I think I understood that you recognised that direct payments to farmers was that priority. Perhaps you can confirm that, because it was a little ambiguous in terms of how you responded to that question.

So, we of course will be supporting this motion. In looking at the Government’s amendment, it’s a ‘delete all’, and you know after those two words—well, here we go again. Perhaps we’ve been guilty of that in the past, I don’t know, but I do feel on occasion that, if you don’t agree, then vote against it, and that’s it. Don’t try and rewrite it. But to be honest, there’s nothing to disagree with in the amendment, more than the fact that, of course, you have deleted that central element of the motion, namely to protect the BPS for 2024. But I do feel that it’s right that you do highlight aspects such as the fact that there has been such a significant reduction in the support from the UK Government in terms of what’s provided to Wales to safeguard agriculture, that there are significant challenges in terms of the implications in terms of immigration, when it comes to the food supply chain and the detrimental impact that that’s going to have on the agricultural sector in Wales. We also see, or are starting to see, the direct negative impacts from some of the trade deals signed by the UK Government, and that is a cause of concern.

It is disappointing when we bring forward, as the official opposition, important debates, particularly so when this particular motion today shows support for our hard-working farmers—. In fact, the majority of the five points we were calling for are indisputable facts, which I would have thought you could have actually supported, Minister. As it stands, your decision to 'delete all' reads as follows. My colleague Sam Kurtz has put on record our support as a whole group for the farm industry, and your decision says it all—it says that the Welsh Labour Government does not recognise the exceptional role that the agricultural sector plays in Wales, with agriculture contributing to over 222,000 jobs. It says that Welsh Labour does not acknowledge that, for every pound invested in the agricultural sector, £9 is generated for the local and wider economy, and that Welsh Labour does not celebrate the role that family farms play in supporting the Welsh language and the social fabric of rural Wales. Clearly, your response to the motion is as careless as the words uttered in this Siambr recently, and they were just so unnecessary by Joyce Watson. To be fair, she has since apologised, however at the time—and it caused much upset in the farming community—she did say, she suggested that farms with perpetual tuberculosis infection status may need to find another business. We are talking about generations of hard-working farmers throughout all weathers, all year round, to go out and find another business. Well, I don't want them to. I want them to stay doing exactly what they do well. We've seen how you have a different approach here in Wales to TB, and we've seen how, in England, their model is working. And yet, you actually don't do anything to change your approach to testing.

We move on to lamb. I've raised this several times. The average shelf life for Welsh lamb is now 36.5 days, whereas New Zealand remains the global standard with over 60 days for vacuum-packed chilled lamb and up to 110 days for carbon dioxide gas-flushed lamb. Doesn't that say it all: gas-flushed lamb, when we've got the magnificent product that we have, and all this—[Interruption.]—sorry—and all this at the hands and work of our hard-working farmers.

It is common sense to make it a Welsh Government mission to ensure that Hybu Cig Cymru delivers the same rates as New Zealand lamb. Alongside promoting Welsh meat abroad we need to address the serious matter that it is actually very difficult now to find Welsh lamb on the menu in Welsh restaurants. As the Minister, what are you doing about that?

I've previously received cross-party support for my proposal of introducing a local food charter, ignored by Welsh Labour. It would be like the food hygiene rating 'score on the doors' which would empower customers to know whether the business they are about to enter procures and sells local Welsh produce. There is no better way to support farmers, Welsh produce and the environment than us, the people of Wales, buying Welsh where we can. Data shows that 70 per cent of people in north Wales want UK food production to be as self-sufficient as possible and of those who do, 71 per cent think Wales can play a leading role or have a major role to play in self-sufficiency. In fact, 83 per cent of people living in north Wales would also support the Welsh Government providing this extra financial support that farmers need to produce our food.

Going back to the TB—addressing the apparently illogical insistence that the annual TB test must be undertaken between 7 July and 8 September, when many farms have their cattle out on the land with calves, and enabling the test to take place between January and March, when stock are in, would be far more practical and would be really helpful to our farmers. Common sense is also needed with the implementation of the Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021. As you know, from 1 August 2024 the spreading of slurry will be prohibited for different periods, such as between 1 September and 31 December, on sandy or shallow soil. Neither Welsh Labour nor Plaid Cymru have the ability to predict the weather or the changes that we are now seeing in our seasons. So, your insistence on pursuing arbitrary dates lacks common sense.

I spoke yesterday about the risk of limiting productivity in Wales and increasing reliability on imports. So, I agree with the vast majority of people who say that they really want to see more local produce on our shelves. Minister, you are a Member for a north Wales constituency, so will you take the common sense move of backing our farmers and our constituents by ensuring that no cuts will be made to the basic payment scheme budget for 2024? Will you look again at the woodland creation planning scheme? Ten per cent of tree-planting schemes on some of my farms in Aberconwy will mean that farm will be unviable.

A disappointing debate from the Conservatives, because I really don't think that you're keeping up with what's going on in the world. The UK, last week—I think it was last week; it could have been the week before—signed a COP declaration on sustainable agriculture and resilient food systems. So, we are committed to delivering on this, collectively across the UK, and that, of course, includes the Welsh Government, as well as ourselves.

So, in case you haven't read it, it enshrines

'the right to adequate food in the context of national food security'

and

'to ensure access to safe, sufficient, affordable, and nutritious food for all'.

In the context of some of the debates that we've had in recent weeks about how many people are not getting adequate food, and we're not able to provide that food security, we absolutely have to change. We can't simply be just going on with the same old, same old. We are committing ourselves so that agriculture and food systems must urgently adapt and transform in order to respond to the imperatives of climate change.

One of those imperatives of climate change is that the food that we have been content to import from southern Europe is no longer going to arrive. It is 29 degrees in Spain in December. Therefore, we are absolutely certain that it's not going to be possible to produce foods that we have become used to from those sources. We need to become more resilient and more reliant on our own food systems.

I absolutely understand that two thirds of farm income comes from subsidy, and I don't at all have any difficulty about continuing to subsidise this important aspect of our food security. But we have to ensure that it is doing what it says on the tin, when we're talking about sustainable land management objectives, No. 1 of which is the sustainable management of food. So, we have to—. Our sustainable farming practices have to include action to enhance soil health. Continuing to chuck phosphate on the land in a desperate bid to compensate for soil depletion and exhaustion is only causing problems elsewhere, in phosphate building up in our waters and killing our fish. So, we absolutely have to do different things in order to restore our soil health, which is also one of the bullet points that was mentioned in this COP statement.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I appreciate the points that the Member is raising there. But do you not recognise that, given that the sustainable farming scheme—exactly the points that you are relating to—starts in 2025 and there's no transition from BPS to the sustainable farming scheme, the need to support farmers fully financially next year, for the final year of BPS, to ensure that they're ready for that change to the sustainable farming scheme, is an absolute necessity?

We clearly don't want people moving off the land, and then us having to rebuild that. We have interim arrangements in place, but, in the meantime, we've got a very, very short window of opportunity to get the sustainable land management right. We simply haven't done the work so far, and there's a hell of a lot of work that needs doing on this.

In the response to the Climate Change Committee report that was published by Julie James last week, there are some things in there about how we need to transform our agriculture, but it is thin, and we need to do a great deal more work. It isn't just the job of the Welsh Government to do this. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we get this right and that we are putting money into the right things.

We need to talk to all our farmers, and all our farmers' organisations, to ensure that everybody understands that no change is absolutely not an option. We cannot go on the way that we have been before. We can continue to have subsidies for people to do the things that we now need them to do, and that needs to be within a coherent sustainable land management scheme.

Can I start by declaring my interest as an active farmer? I'm proud to be able to contribute to this debate on agriculture today, something close to my heart. Our farmers are absolutely fundamental to the preservation and sustainability of this country we all love and are so proud of. Not only are our farmers the custodians of the landscape that makes Wales the place it is, they play a huge part in feeding us, as we've already heard, three times a day, every day of the year. And we mustn't forget that and the fact that the industry employs over 50,000 people directly.

In Wales, we can genuinely boast of having the highest quality locally produced food, delivered to the best standards in the world, underpinned by first-class traceability and the highest welfare standards. What an asset that is—something often forgotten by so many and taken for granted. Farming is a way of life. The work is hard, the returns are small, and the expectation on our farmers is huge already, but is increasing, as they are expected to continually do more, having to satisfy one initiative after another, initiatives that are often not thought through properly or lack common sense or practical application. New expectations bring with them ever-increasing levels of bureaucracy, leading to untold pressure, stress and anxiety to many in the farming community. Many farmers are practical people; they didn't learn to do—. It doesn't come naturally to deal with legislation and all of the bureaucracy that flows through it.

Will the Member take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

I'm just wondering, obviously, with Christmas on the horizon, people are looking at that Christmas turkey, and they'll often go to the local butchers to fulfil that function. I wonder whether you agree with me that people should be visiting their local butcher all year round, in fact, to support local farmers, buy local and support local businesses as well.

Absolutely, Tom, I agree. It was Small Business Saturday recently, and we encouraged people to go out and support their local businesses and local butchers, and that then supports our local farmers. That is absolutely fundamental. So, yes, I absolutely agree.

If you add all of that bureaucracy, and add pressures like TB, you can see why so many family farms are calling it a day, and surely none of us wants to see that. We need to see our farming businesses thrive, nurturing the next generation of farmers and Welsh custodians.

Would you give way on that point?

Yes, I certainly will.

Peter, you make a very good point and I agree with you on the necessity of maintaining small and medium-scale family farms because of all the reasons that have been laid out. Something is broken in the market, where, increasingly now, we see the consolidation of farming units. Something is going wrong with producers, with retailers and others that the financial imperatives mean that you sell up and you consolidate. We've got to find a way to break that as well, and that means discussion with banks and producers, processors and retailers.

Huw, there is something fundamentally wrong. A lot of the small family farms are run by an elderly farming population. There is little to retain that young, dynamic blood in the farming community, because it's lost the support that it needs. Young farmers feel that they need to create a life for themselves somewhere else, even though they don't want to leave, and that's why it's so important that the Government gets behind them, that there is access to cheap capital. There are ways to do things, like my food Bill was trying to do, trying to create a future, a diversification.

My point is exactly that. There is access to cheap capital for some farmers, but that cheap capital lines them up in a certain direction and that direction is consolidation, rather than succession to family members or others, a tenant farmer who wants to come and take that on, because it's more profitable to consolidate.

There is a dilemma for the small family farm and this is something that the Government have to grapple with, and the additional extra initiatives and pressures and bureaucracy and those things are actually driving people to give up. And that's what we've got to review and think about, and we want our Government to be pragmatic.

Agriculture is a good investment for the Government and we've heard that, for every £1 invested, £9 is generated. We know that for the BPS that was invested—. The Government invested in BPS last year £238 million; it drove £2.1 billion. That demonstrates that BPS is a crucial lever in driving the economy here, so it's therefore crucial that the Welsh Government continues to provide the support that our farming community so desperately needs, especially if we want them to continue to deliver all they do currently and everything the Government now expects of them.

In last year's budget, as we've also heard, the Welsh Government cut the rural affairs budget by over 30 per cent in real terms, and this was followed, then, we know, by further cash cuts to the tune of £37.5 million. This amounted to an almost 8 per cent cut to a budget that hasn't seen an increase for a decade. Our farming industry mustn't be seen as an easy target for continued efficiencies. Many people in the industry, including the farming unions, are deeply concerned and fearful of further cuts or the rowing back of financial support. I can understand why; indeed, I've raised the genuine worry of organic producers in this Chamber from my own constituency who are facing a real cliff edge of funding as Glastir and Glastir Advanced support finishes. This is so difficult for them and many others like them across Wales, especially those who farm on the borders, where similar organic farms in England are still getting support.

As has been said many times, agriculture in Wales is fundamental to the country's economy, it's fundamental to the preservation of our Welsh culture and our Welsh language. However, whilst it's so important for these and many other reasons, the latest data highlights the fact that farms in Wales had the lowest income out of all of the four nations. Our farmers don't ask for much, but they need Welsh Government to support them through continued financial support and through standing shoulder to shoulder with the industry, working with them, not against them, as it too often feels. Llywydd, I certainly hope that Members across the Chamber will support our motion today, particularly ensuring that no cuts will be made to the basic payment scheme next year, an incredibly important fund that provides crucial support for farmers across the country. Thank you.

I firmly believe we need a fair and rapid transition to sustainable and regenerative farming methods to strengthen the economic position for Welsh farmers and agricultural workers and to avoid the worst impacts of the climate and nature emergencies. In Germany, farmers are foresters and foresters are farmers; they use that word on the farm. I was interested to visit a local farm where a young farmer is actually using herbal ley and was talking about carbon sequestration, which gives me hope for the future.

We talk about food security—Jenny Rathbone does—but cereals grown in Wales account for less than 3 per cent of the total agricultural area, and one of the best areas for crop production in north Wales is Sealand. However, as the name suggests, it is low lying and increasingly susceptible to flooding under climate change. Within 20 years, it could be underwater permanently. Eighty per cent to 90 per cent of land is given over to farming, but mostly for cattle and sheep. The UK is the world's third largest exporter of sheep meat. It's worth a lot to the economy, as we've heard, but at what cost to nature and the climate and to the farmers themselves? Who are the real profiteers of that economy? Not the small family farm.

Locally grown, properly valued seasonal food that has not travelled massive air and cargo container miles is the way forward, as I think we all agree. We need to optimise soil health, biodiversity protection, water capture and retention for those ever-increasing dry spells, along with monsoon rainfalls that are becoming more frequent.

Almost 50 per cent of the UK's hedgerows were removed between 1945 and 1990, resulting in the removal of important habitats, resulting in a decline in farm population. Removal of those hedgerows resulted in increased soil erosion, as there were no longer hedgerows to act as windbreaks. The increased use of pesticides and herbicides has increased water pollution, as they're washed from fields in run-off and leaching. We have lost 97 per cent of wildflower meadows since the 1970s, again, loss of habitat for essential pollinators, which are all part of that farming ecosystem. There's a greater understanding now that we cannot survive on massive intensive farming of monocultures; we need an ecosystem approach.

However, change takes investment, and we need a UK Government Treasury that believes in the benefits system and public funding for subsidies, especially now Wales has lost out so much following leaving the EU. Of course, the real living wage for agricultural workers in Wales, they're often employed on low wages and seasonal contracts, and in the autumn statement we heard that the UK Government has cut holiday entitlements for part-time seasonal workers, which will deal a further blow.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this evening's debate. Due to my role as a designated Member, I will have to limit my comments to one or two key areas, but these are issues that are relevant to farmers, residents and communities across Mid and West Wales.

It will surprise no one in this Siambr to know that the sustainability of our rural communities is something that is very close to my heart. I must say that there is much in the wording of this evening’s motion from the Tories that I would agree with on the face of it. But I must also add that I find it entirely ironic that these words originated on the opposition benches. I say this for three specific reasons, and these are issues that are raised with me time and time again when I speak to farmers across the region: the first is the impact of Brexit on the sector; the second is the financial cuts from Westminster to the agricultural sector; and the third is the trade agreements that Llyr has already mentioned.

The negative impact of the Tory-imposed hardest of hard Brexit on farming is real and damaging. Like so many across Wales and the UK as a whole, farmers and others in the agri-food supply chain and related hospitality sectors right across my region have raised with me the often devastating impact that the Conservatives’ oven-ready Brexit deal has had on the cost of their imports, their ability to recruit and retain the staff they need, and their ability to sell into the European market. The extra cost and paperwork associated with selling to Europe has squeezed profit margins terminally, unfortunately, for some producers. This particular form of Brexit was a choice made by the Tories to the detriment of Welsh farmers.

It bears repeating, of course, that were it not for Brexit, we would not be having a discussion now about a post-Brexit funding squeeze on Welsh farmers. That would have come automatically, as it had for many, many years. This on top of the top of the devastating impact that more than a decade of Tory-imposed austerity has had on Welsh budgets and our rural communities. The approach adopted by UK Government in subsequent spending reviews since 2021 will have seen the Welsh agricultural budget lose around £248 million by 2025, a staggering amount of money lost to the Welsh economy and Welsh farming in Wales.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Thank you very much. Would you accept, though, with Brexit, that it's opened up opportunities to trade with other countries, such as Welsh lamb being exported to America even? Huge food economy in America, and the benefit that can bring to Welsh farmers, and also other countries across the world. The world's bigger than just the EU, isn't it?

Gareth, thank you for that. [Interruption.] Thank you, Gareth. On cue—I'm coming to that point next.

So, the final related issue that farmers from south Pembrokeshire to the tip of Pen Llŷn have raised with me is the consequences from new Tory trade deals. Deals with Australia and New Zealand saw lamb imports into the UK from those countries rise by 17 per cent—17 per cent—in late 2022, while the price paid to domestic producers of prime lamb, Gareth, fell by 90p a kilo. That's a direct result of those trade deals that you're trumpeting. And although trumpeted as a great success at the time of their signing by Tory Ministers, in the months since, even they have conceded—including a former environment Minister, George Eustice—and admitted that those trade agreements represent a terrible deal for our farmers. That is the legacy of dud deals done with other countries over the—

Cefin, would you give way on that point?

Sorry. Yes, of course.

I think I'm hearing an extremely good point, but would you note as well that the opening up of some of these trade deals completely undermines the approach that we've been taking in Wales, which is to say to our farmers, 'If you invest in higher standards of animal welfare and husbandry, you'll be rewarded'? Now we've got a Conservative Government in Westminster who open up trade deals with lower standards of animal welfare, big impacts on climate change and importing them onto our supermarket shelves.

And that is true. When you look at the standards in Australia and New Zealand, they're inferior to the standards set by our Welsh farmers here. So, you're absolutely right on that.

To conclude, Llywydd, I must say that I find it difficult to take seriously the concerns expressed by the Conservatives for farmers and rural communities in Wales, and I would ask them very kindly to have a period of self-reflection and to consider seriously the damaging impacts of their policies on the agricultural sector in Wales. Thank you very much, Llywydd. [Interruption.]

I think he's just finished his contribution. Huw Irranca-Davies.

I thank the Conservatives for introducing this debate and, Minister, I'd say to you that, probably, the first three points there I'm broadly in agreement with, particularly point 3 of the motion:

'Celebrates the role that family farms play in supporting the Welsh language and social fabric of rural Wales.'

And it's certainly true, as Sam said in his opening remarks, the dedication and commitment of farmers. My wife's mother and father didn't, genuinely, take a holiday for 30 plus years, except for those organised by the National Sheep Association, when they went on a busman's holiday to see what the practices were in other countries and then came back and tried to put them into place. The problem with it is that the last two parts of your motion are divorced from the reality, as we've heard in the contributions from Cefin and others, of the real financially imperilled situation we now find ourselves in and the uncertainty over future funding. And the Minister has to wrestle with this, because she has no guarantee at the moment.

And do you know, I agree with you in what you're saying? Ideally, as we try to do exactly what Carolyn was saying, which is to transfer to a new model, which is summed up, actually, in the fourth part of the Labour motion:

'Agrees that a fair and rapid transition to sustainable farming methods across the whole of Wales is needed, to strengthen the economic position of Welsh farmers and to avoid the worst impacts of the climate and nature emergency.'

And in an ideal world, Llywydd, we would be putting reams of funding into that. In an ideal world, we would have the UK Government supporting us to do exactly that, and for not just one year, but two, three, four years and five years hence. For all the criticisms of the old common agricultural policy—and there were many and they were valid—what you did at least have was certainty over multi-annual periods. We now don't have it. We're living from hand to mouth from year to year, not knowing.

So, the big question for us in terms of securing a farming future with small and medium-scale family farms that protect the fabric of our local schools, our local shops, our Welsh language and so on, is: how do we get there? Meanwhile, the Minister is faced with an absolute predicament. I wouldn't want to be in her shoes at the moment, because she is trying to work with the farming community to say, 'Well, how do we get there?' Now, in getting there, we do have to deal with some difficult stuff as well. I won't go into it in detail today because I'm sure there'll be another opportunity, but we have parts of the farming system that are broken badly. They're not serving the farmers nor the environment.

We went recently on a visit, where we looked at some of the impacts of intensive dairy farming, and in that intensive dairy farming, we have soil degradation. Well, you can't call it soil anymore, because what it is is mud: mud with glyphosate, mud with no crop cover whatsoever, running straight into the streams, where there's overfilling of the slurry ponds, and it is going straight in those streams and the streams are dead. The farmer isn't winning because the farmer is now tied into cheap deals with the bank that are forcing him down a certain direction, consolidating, building massive barns, where the cows never actually see not only the light of day, but the grass—they never see pasture. And those streams are dead. And because those streams are dead, then the Atlantic salmon, which I champion, doesn't get to see the future success either, and we know the predicament that that is—and sewin and so on and so forth.

Thank you very much, Huw. Would you accept, though, that the nitrate vulnerable zones, introduced by the Welsh Government on an universal level, actually penalised some of those good intentions that you do raise? But the NVZs—you mentioned chemicals going into streams—you've got to remember that a lot of farms and agricultural land don't have streams, and farms in my constituency feel like they've been penalised because they live on land and they're not subject to nitrates, but they feel penalised by that system in achieving some of those objects that you've raised.

Let me put my cards on the table: I've firstly got to say that every single farm is different, every single farm and every water catchment is different and so on, but what we've now got put forward—it'll come forward in regulations as well—those regulations need some real, hard, detailed, evidence-based scrutiny. Because if we fail to do this, we'll have the continuation of that, actually. We've got to make sure that we protect particularly the smaller and medium-scale farms that have difficulty in investing in slurry containment and so on and so forth, but we cannot allow what is currently going on: that farmers now can self-refer themselves forward, if they think they've actually put too much on the fields and so on. We need to think about this as the regulations come forward, collectively, for the good of farming, but for the good of the environment as well.

Now, let me just say this: I've got background with family in farming as well, this is not a Conservative versus Labour, versus Plaid Cymru, versus Uncle Tom Cobley and all; we should all be focusing on what's good for the environment and good for farming. And we can do it as well, but to do it, we'd need some frank conversations, and we cannot simply point at the Minister and say, 'Get your wallet open and give us all the money you can', because every Minister sitting on that top table is being asked at the moment to make cuts; and they will be cuts in education in rural communities and they will be cuts in health in rural communities and they will be cuts in other areas. So, if we throw everything at sustaining the farmers because of the problems that the UK Government have created now for multi-annual settlements, then what else for the rural communities? And this isn't just about farming: those farmers have members of their families who teach, who work businesses on the high street and so on. We've got to get this right for the whole of the rural communities, as well as getting farmers through to a new future, and it could be a very exciting future as well.

The Minister for rural affairs now to contribute. Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm grateful to the Conservatives for tabling the motion today, which celebrates the economic contribution of Welsh farming and the importance of publicly funded investment in the sector. As set out in the Government amendment, I invite the Welsh Conservatives to take the opportunity of this debate to register their opposition to the policies of the Tory UK Government, which has done so much damage to Welsh farming and to our Welsh communities.

The Welsh Conservative motion calls for sustained public investment in farming and the reversal of reductions in the budget. It notes a £37.5 million reduction in the rural affairs budget in Wales, although it fails to observe this is less than 20 per cent of the £243 million removed from that very same budget by the Conservative UK Government over the previous two years. What the Welsh Conservatives should do today is call on the UK Government to reverse that decision and to provide the Welsh agricultural sector with the funds they were promised in the Conservatives' own election manifesto in 2019. Should the UK Government do that, we would have more than enough additional funding to deal with the very significant shortfalls in my budget.

In fact, whilst they regret the Welsh Government policy that has maintained levels of direct financial support for farmers, their party in England has made very large reductions in budgets for farm support. Just across the border in England, farmers will receive payments of direct financial support up to 55 per cent lower. The UK Government has brought forward piecemeal agri-environment schemes for farms to bid into for individual projects, many of which have been difficult to access and undersubscribed. Farmers in Wales have said to me very directly how pleased they are that these policies do not extend to Wales, and how pleased they are they live in Wales and not England.

Whilst we were a member of the EU, farm funding followed a seven-year budget process, enabling the kind of long-term planning that land management demands. Since we left the European Union, the UK Government has decided to subject farm funding to annual uncertainty. The reality is that Conservative mismanagement has eroded our economy and our public finances to the extent they are barely able to give financial certainty until the end of the week, let alone the end of the decade.

Our approach in Wales is fundamentally different, because we start from the principle of the need to keep our farmers on the land. Policy in England deliberately pursues an approach of land sparing, removing farming from the land through intensification, on the basis they believe this to be the cheaper option. We believe the Conservative approach is the wrong economic prescription for Welsh farming. This Welsh Labour Government sees a bright economic future for our Welsh farmers, in securing the current patchwork of small and medium farm enterprises by supporting them to produce food in ways that are sustainable—economically, environmentally and socially.

Thank you. You keep saying how Conservative ideas and Conservative policies in England aren't welcome, so why do farmers feel like the Welsh Government aren't on their side and generally don't tend to vote Labour in elections?

Well, that's not my experience. I said before that so many Welsh farmers have said to me that they're very pleased we're not following land sparing, that we're not following the policies of the UK Government, and that they live here in Wales.

I say to the Welsh Conservatives today that now is the time to stand up for Wales. It's time to stand up for Welsh farmers and join with us in making the case that Wales needs to follow its own path, and one that keeps our farmers on the land. Today, I'm giving you on that side of the Chamber the opportunity to distance yourselves from the misguided, free-market policy experiment taking place in England. You can call on your friends in the UK Government to replace the EU farm funding in full, as the Conservatives themselves promised in the manifesto upon which they stood. And most importantly, you can tell your colleagues in Westminster that the game is up and they should face the electorate now, not dragging it on for another 12 months, so that our farmers in Wales, and all our communities, can have the opportunity for the change that the majority of people in Wales feel is now very long overdue.

Mark Isherwood to respond to the debate.

It's hard when you're scribbling notes and trying to catch everything everyone said or summarise. But I'll begin by referring to Sam Kurtz's opening. As he said, the motion looks to support the essential role played by our farmers in producing food, supporting local economies and safeguarding culture. He talked about the decreasing incentive for young people to enter the farming industry, and the fantastic role played by our young farmers. He pointed out that two thirds of Welsh farm income comes from subsidies, generating a gross 9.1 per cent return on public investment. But then we've had an in-year cut to budgets, and a failure to confirm whether funding for the basic payment scheme will be fully allocated to the scheme next year. As he said, the Welsh Government must recognise the invaluable contribution made by Welsh farmers and allocate the full £339.6 million to the basic payment scheme next year.

Llyr Gruffydd—and I welcome his comment that Plaid Cymru will be supporting the motion—said there's a risk farms will turn their backs on programmes such as the sustainable farming scheme. He referred to the cultural and linguistic impact of the sector. He talked about how protecting direct payments for the sector would set the tone for the sustainable farming scheme in the future, and that the Welsh Government's 'delete all' amendment was a case of 'here we go again', detailing the central element of the motion, which is protecting the basic payment scheme for 2024.

Janet Finch-Saunders quite rightly said it's disappointing when we bring forward important debates with motions based on indisputable facts and the Welsh Labour Government seeks to delete them. She talked about generations of hard-working farmers working all year round, and the Welsh Government's different approach, which is leaving Wales lagging behind. She referred to having proposed a local food charter, but this was ignored by the Welsh Government, and that 83 per cent of people in north Wales would support the Welsh Government providing this extra financial support to produce food. People want to see more locally produced food on the shelves.

Jenny Rathbone and her 'disappointing debate' contribution—[Laughter.] That's what she said; I'm just commenting. That's exactly what she said: 'disappointing debate'. She referrred to the COP climate change conference agreement enshrining the right to food, but failed to note that our motion supports this, and the Welsh Government is the potential threat to the sustainable farming scheme if it does not respond positively to this motion.

Peter Fox referred to the expectation—

I just want to point out that we cannot be doing one thing at COP and doing another here. We absolutely have to put our own house in order, in order to then go on to support the rest of the world who are so impacted by climate change.

I think a number of speakers made the point that, if you don't support the core of this motion, particularly its central elements, and delete them, you will actually be damaging the potential for the sustainable farming scheme to be a success in the future.

Peter Fox said expectation on farmers is increasing as they're continuously asked to do more, with ever-increasing levels of bureaucracy and pressure. He said this is why so many family farms are calling it a day when we need to see them thrive. He said agriculture is a good investment for the Welsh Government, and it's crucial that the Welsh Government supports the industry. He said our farms don't ask for much, but we need the Welsh Government to work with them, not against them, and ensure no cuts to the basic payment scheme next year.

Carolyn Thomas: I'm pleased to hear her again reiterate her firm belief in transitioning to sustainable farming methods, but that is what our motion seeks to support, and what a vote against it would jeopardise. She otherwise, sadly, recycled tired old Labour deflection attack lines on the UK Government.

Cefin Campbell talked rightly about the importance of the agri-food supply chain. He reminded us in depth that he remained a Brexiteer. He referred to the impacts of Tory-imposed austerity. I would remind him that the outgoing Labour Treasury left the note, 'No money left'. I would remind him—and this isn't a joke—that the UK deficit was the highest in the G20. In the EU, it was only behind Ireland and Greece, and both of them followed the policies that you advocate, ended up having to be bailed out, with massive cuts imposed on them. So, what you're advocating would have generated bigger cuts than anything you could ever have contemplated.

Huw Irranca-Davies chose to speak about the future funds, which are not guaranteed—[Interruption.] I haven't even got to what you said yet.

You can just say 'disappointing' and sit down.

I'm sorry?

Just say 'disappointing', and sit down.

Well, that is a very disappointing intervention, Llywydd. [Laughter.] The disappointing intervener chose to speak about future funds, which are not guaranteed, rather than loans, which are coming this way. He said parts of the farming system need fixing, but of course that's something that farmers and the farming unions never cease to remind us of.

The Minister, Lesley Griffiths, again deflected attention away from matters the Welsh Government is responsible for by focusing on the UK Government and the next UK general election. She sees a bright economic future for our Welsh farmers, which is exactly what our motion seeks to support, because now is the time to stand up for farmers.

A failure by the Welsh Government to respond positively to this motion would also further exacerbate the particular issue of rural poverty. We must recognise the evidence that rural poverty could be masked by the perceived affluence of rural areas, and by a culture of self-reliance in rural communities. Key contributory factors include the fragility of some rural economies, poor access to employment opportunities and public services, low pay, a lack of affordable housing, and social isolation.

The low skills base of some rural economies is known to act as a barrier to economic growth and limited employment opportunities, which can result in the out-migration of skilled workers. A lack of training opportunities can also contribute to keeping incomes low. The prevalence of low-paid and fragile employment contributes to the risk of in-work poverty. A lack of access to services makes it difficult for some individuals to secure employment. Public transport in many rural areas is infrequent, inadequate and more expensive than elsewhere. This means that it's difficult for those without private transport to travel for work. A lack of affordable and available childcare in rural areas and limited access to the internet are also barriers to employment opportunities.

There is a rural premium on some key goods and services because of a lack of competitive markets for food, fuel, energy and transport, contributing to rural poverty. Rural households are known to be susceptible to fuel poverty. Fixed housing costs can absorb a large proportion of low household incomes, and many rural areas have a lack of affordable housing. In 2020, 19 per cent of domestic properties in Wales were not connected to the gas grid. These are the key factors behind rural poverty in Wales that need to be tackled after almost 25 years of continuous Labour or Labour-led Welsh Governments, and let that be a warning to the voters in England.

I'll conclude by reminding Members that central to our motion is the key call for the basic payment scheme to be protected next year in full, without which the protestations, commitments and opinions expressed by everyone in this Chamber today will generate the opposite of the intent that everybody seems to aspire towards, which is a successful, thriving, modern and sustainable farming industry and rural economy and community across Wales. If you believe in that, you should not be supporting that lot's delete-it-all motion, you should be following the intent of the motion, which is unifying behind it and voting for it. Diolch yn fawr.

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

And unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will move immediately to voting.

The first vote this afternoon will be on the debate under item 7, which was a Member's legislative proposal on a Bill on the regulation of debt collectors. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jack Sargeant. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, 25 abstentions, none against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next votes will be on item 8, which was the Welsh Conservatives' debate on agriculture. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. I will exercise my casting vote against the motion and, therefore, the result is that there were 26 in favour, no abstentions, 27 against. The motion is, therefore, not agreed.

We will now move to a vote on amendment 1. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 14 against. Therefore, the amendment is a agreed.

We will now vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 14 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

That brings voting to a close for today and for 2023. May I wish you all a merry Christmas? And I hope to see you all back in the new year after recess, where you can relax and enjoy a bellyful of food produced by Welsh farmers. Thank you.