Plenary

The next item will be the questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. The first question is from Jenny Rathbone.

Well, 53 years on from the establishment of the concept of the inverse care law by Julian Tudor Hart and also Brian Gibbons who, of course, went on to become a Member of this Senedd, very sadly this law remains too often a reality right across the UK. The Welsh Government wishes to work for a Wales where this law no longer applies.

Thank you, and I absolutely endorse your remarks about the importance of Julian Tudor Hart's work in getting this at the forefront of most clinicians' minds. But I was therefore very sad to read research by Cardiff University with Public Health Wales, published this August, which suggested that GP surgeries in the poorest places are being disadvantaged financially. So, I wondered if you could tell us what action the Welsh Government is taking to ensure that health boards are funding primary care teams equitably so that those serving the poorest, and therefore the most sick, communities get the most support.

Well I, too, read the report to which the Member refers in her question, and I welcomed its publication because it casts a light on the question of funding allocations on practices that serve more deprived areas. We will as a Government continue to engage with new evidence on the health impacts of inequality and primary care funding and how we can ensure that resources are distributed fairly. One of the authors of the report was a former chair of Deep End Cymru, and I'm pleased that, in the context of primary care, we are contributing to the funding of that project during this financial year, and I very much look forward to the insights that the project will generate as to how we can best support GPs working in challenging circumstances in communities with the highest levels of deprivation. In addition to the formula, which accounts for probably two thirds of the funding for GP practices, good work is happening across GP clusters to identify the further interventions that can be funded that will assist, through that accelerated cluster development set of arrangements, in making further investment into services particularly of value to the communities to which the Member refers in her question.

International evidence suggests tackling the underlying causes of early years poverty and the inverse care law are key to improving short- and long-term health outcomes. In fact, poverty in childhood can and does lead to poor health outcomes into adulthood such as asthma, obesity, poor mental health, all of which fundamentally require much-needed primary care.

As you are aware, poverty rates have remained high in Wales over the past two decades, with children consistently at the highest risk of living in poverty of any age group. The evidence is clear that children in poverty are more likely to require intensive medical support. What steps are you taking as the health Cabinet Secretary to try and tackle one of the underlying fundamental factors that result in some of the most vulnerable in our society requiring this intensive healthcare?

The Member is correct to say that the effect of poverty, especially on the early years, can very often cause lifelong challenges and the NHS is there to support those individuals, but they are broader societal challenges in the way that the Member acknowledges, I think very fairly, in her question. That is why our commitment as a Government to Flying Start and to the first 1,000 days of a child's life is so important, because we recognise that it's by making sure that we give every individual the best start in life, the most supportive context, that we can make the biggest difference.

We expect higher education institutions to put learners' needs at the centre of the system to protect their mental health and well-being. There is a range of mental health support available to students, which is provided by universities, the third sector and NHS health services.

Okay, thank you for that. However, I think it's fair to say, sometimes things go wrong, and it's how they're picked up and lessons learned going forward. I by chance met the parents the other day of Mared Foulkes, the grieving parents. They're still grieving now after the shocking scenario there, where the wrong exam results were given, and she lost her life as a result.

I'm aware of the consultation on the strategic plan of the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research. As it states in the plan, 'terms and conditions of funding will become the vehicle through which we exercise our regulatory powers.' Now, what upset me was that the parents are working very hard right now to ensure this doesn't happen to anybody else, and so they've written a paper. They've distributed that paper to Parliament—every Member of Parliament, every Member of this Senedd. The response, however, has not been great. I just find it unbelievable that somebody could write in, pointing out their own evidence of what they've come across—. Even Cardiff University has been accused by the parents—and they've said I can raise it here today—of a lack of compassion, of a lack of response to what happened to Mared. Here is a young lady who will not see the life that she should have had and lessons have to be learned from a situation like this.

So, what steps are you taking to co-operate with the Cabinet Secretary for Education to ensure that every university in Wales has stronger measures in place to care for those with mental health issues, to ensure that the wrong results for exams never, ever happens again, and that—? I just find this really difficult. This is a death that could have been prevented, and lessons have to be learnt, and I would just reach out to Cardiff University, using this forum: please respond to this family, work with them to ensure that no other university in Wales, or in fact the UK, loses a student in this way. Diolch.

Yes. Thank you very much, Janet Finch-Saunders. You are right—this was a preventable death that should not have happened. My thoughts are with Mared's parents, who have written to the Welsh Government and have, in the interim whilst we prepare the response, been written to by my Welsh Government officials as well to really thank them and acknowledge them for all the work that they continue to do to make sure, as you said, that this never happens again. I'd also like to point out that the Cabinet Secretary for health now, in his role as Cabinet Secretary for education, met with the family—met with Mr and Mrs Foulkes—to discuss this as well and to assure them too that this will absolutely make a difference. I am now responsible for the suicide and self-harm prevention strategy that will be coming out in the new year. I can assure you that what they have shared has played a huge part in this.

I've also met with my colleague the Minister for Further and Higher Education, as well, in the last few weeks. It was the first question that we discussed: how do we ensure that these things don't happen? How do we ensure that students, when they're usually away from home, have the support that they really need? And that's, I think, always a worry for parents—always a worry.

In terms of Cardiff University, they have now put themselves forward to be a part of a UK-wide research project that will be looking at what interventions really make a difference. It's being led by the University of Exeter. I'm really pleased to see that they've put themselves forward for this, I think, acknowledging that they really need to learn from this and see what works. But you are right—we have got the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 now, and we do have the Medr project. There will be funding going towards this, but we also expect to see results and we expect for this not to keep happening. Diolch.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Gareth Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Firstly, I’d like to address the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010 and how this interreacts with the Mental Health Act 1983. There is, of course, uncertainty regarding the Mental Health Act, as Keir Starmer’s Government has promised to reform the Act in a phased approach, but there is no timeline set for this yet. But an issue that has been raised regarding the mental health Measure, after 14 years on the statute book, is that there is no enforcement of the Measure and there are no real consequences to contravening its edicts as opposed to the Mental Health Act, which has more bite. Given the length of time it will take to legislate for a Welsh mental health Act, it would make more sense to amend the mental health Measure to include a new code of practice that would strengthen the Measure and would ensure compliance. The Measure is also 14 years old and there are no supplementary amendments to it that have been suggested, such as those put forward by my colleague James Evans, which include removing the age limit upon those who can request a reassessment of their mental health, and amend the Measure to extend the ability to request a reassessment to people nominated by the patient. So, can the Minister outline whether the Welsh Government will reassess the mental health Measure to consider elements that may be outdated and to consider strengthening the code of practice to ensure that the Measure carries more weight than in a clinical setting?

Thank you very much for that question. Interestingly, I actually met with the UK Government Minister who has responsibility for this, Baroness Merron, this morning. It is absolutely still happening. It was in the King’s Speech. We are thrilled that it’s going ahead because so much work had been done on this by stakeholders, by politicians. There’d been so much really constructive debate about this in Westminster, and, honestly, it was almost very much ready to go and I think it was a shame that it didn’t. So, I think that many people have welcomed, and are absolutely thrilled, that this is one of the first Bills that the incoming UK Labour Government picked up, because that’s how important they know that this work is.

So, we had a very constructive conversation this morning about it. I’m afraid, though, that I’m not going to be able to comment on a Bill that I haven’t seen. So, I agree with you—many of the things that you’ve highlighted I would also expect to see in it, and have been in initial drafts, but until we see the final draft, which I hope will be coming very soon, I won’t be able to comment on the detail of it. But I think this is an excellent Bill to be beginning with. I also met with James Evans just this week as well. It's not my place to discuss James's own Member's Bill and the future of that, but we have had some very, very constructive conversations, and I admire everything that James has done.

I appreciate that response, and I understand the remarks you make in terms of the Act, but my question is more along the lines of the Measure and what we can do as a Welsh Parliament, and, indeed, you as a Welsh Government, in order to expand what was passed here 14 years ago, and how we can enhance that and move that across into a broader suite of modern measures that we can incorporate in the existing things that were agreed 14 years ago, but then also to incorporate it and it can, indeed, move with time. So, it's in terms of conversations, in terms of the Welsh Government and your work in terms of the Measure and what is devolved to Wales, and how that can work with the existing Mental Health Act of 1983, and how that can coincide and work together in a streamlined way, because, often, in mental health practice there's an internal debate among mental health professionals, who say there's confusion on how to interpret the Act and, indeed, the Measure as well. So, how can those streamline together in a more succinct way, which would make life easier for professionals, and, indeed, get the right care for the right patient at the right time?

Thank you. I agree with everything that you're saying, and I think we're not disagreeing here. We're very much on the same page, as that's where we want to get to. The reason why James Evans's Bill had Government support was because it was going to achieve many of those things. As it stands, it is still a legislative proposal, on the time frame that we have. So, that is very much—. That's why we supported it, because that's what it was going to do—everything that you've just laid out, that's what it was going to present, and what the Welsh Government then would have done is to look at all those things that you've pointed out. So, at the moment, unfortunately, whilst we're in this place where James's Bill is still going, that is for James to discuss and to share, and we are trying to get to the same place, absolutely. So, that's where we are. I've met with James Evans this week to discuss that.

I'm pleased you've had those discussions with James Evans regarding his legislative proposal, but, again, the question is about the Measure. The Measure has been in place for 14 years, and it compels healthcare professionals, mental health practitioners to honour what was agreed in this Senedd 14 years ago. And that's embedded in Welsh practice across all of the health authorities, and all, indeed, of those local authorities and tertiary sectors that work with mental health professionals. So, it's really important, I think, that there's a recognition from the Government, in your context, to recognise the role of the Measure, understand that it's been in place for 14 years, and how that can, indeed, move fluidly, given that it's been embedded for so long, be updated and work in a streamlined way, as mentioned, with the Act. So, in terms of the political element to it, now that we've got a Labour Government in Westminster and there's a Labour Government here in Wales, what conversations can you have with your counterparts down the M4 to make these decisions streamlined in a way, like I say, that is right for the patient, right for the delivery of care and right for the mental health professionals as well?

Thank you very much. Okay, well, just to prove that we're very much on the same page here, I do recognise the role, I do recognise that it's been 14 years, I do want it to move forward, I do want it to be updated, and we do want it to be streamlined. On all of those things, we absolutely agree. At the moment, what we're looking at is that we've got a Member's Bill that aims to achieve many of those things, which is here, which I've met with James Evans about this week. So, I've looked at it in a Welsh context, with my officials, and that's exactly what we're seeing if we can achieve. And on the other side of it, as you've just asked, about what we're doing with the UK Government, I've also met with the UK Government this morning to discuss what they are looking at doing with their mental health Bill and how that would be able to work with both Governments together, so that we can achieve all the things that you've laid out. Diolch.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you, Llywydd. Llywydd, during the Cabinet Secretary's appearance on one of the weekend's political programmes recently, he described the new partnership between the NHS in Wales and the NHS in England as a new way of working, before going on to say that all that partnership entailed, really, was a way to learn good practice. Is the Cabinet Secretary, therefore, telling us that the NHS in Wales wasn’t learning and looking at good practice from England before now?

The Member’s interest in the process at the expense of output is rather striking. [Laughter.] But, to answer his question, what was new was the willingness that we see from a Government in Westminster to work with a Labour Government here in Wales in an open, co-operative manner. That’s what’s changed in this regard. That’s what’s new. It’s always important to look at good practice from wherever it may come, including in the health service here in Wales and across the United Kingdom, but what is new is the enthusiasm on behalf of the new Labour Government in Westminster to work with us.

Thank you for that response.

Now, I and, indeed, many people in Wales are unclear about the impact that this will have on waiting lists in Wales. When asked if the plan is to send Welsh patients to England, the Cabinet Secretary has said that, in his words,

‘It isn’t what we’re talking about’.

Yet, the Welsh Secretary is adamant that Welsh patients will receive elective care in theatres in English hospitals. So, how many patients from Wales, over and above those receiving elective care in England already, will receive treatment in hospital theatres in England?

I refer the Member to the publication that the Government made—I think, probably, two weeks ago, or a little under that at this point—which sets out the level of activity in terms of people from Wales treated in England and people from England treated in Wales. That is a very pragmatic set of long-standing arrangements, which are in place for very good reasons—for reasons of geography, reasons of the existence of specialisms—and I’ll be working with the Secretary of State for health to explore whether there are opportunities, as I’m sure there will be, to work more closely together. And this will of course build on that existing partnership between the two NHSs, which already see thousands of people from England receive their care in Wales and vice versa.

So, if I can sum up what you’ve said, and my understanding, then, it’s that best practice was, essentially, you’ve told us, already being shared between the Welsh NHS and English NHS anyway, but you’re looking at maybe a better way of working openly and together. There’s no extra capacity in the English NHS to provide more treatment to patients from Wales, but you’re looking at exploring these possibilities, and health boards and health trusts on both sides of the border have not received any correspondence regarding any form of mutual aid partnerships or any other agreements. So, the only thing to actually have come from this new policy is an advisory group to help the Cabinet Secretary deliver better policy, while patients will see no tangible benefits. Is that a fair summary, or can the Cabinet Secretary elaborate on exactly how waiting lists will fall as a consequence of this headline-grabbing policy?

Well, the Member will know that I made an announcement, probably three weeks ago, which set out the arrangements that we are putting in place for a group of people with significant experience in reducing waiting lists. They will be tasked with identifying the arrangements we currently have in place, and they will also advise us on arrangements that we might consider putting in place to improve performance right across the NHS, including in relation to waiting lists. I’m expecting to meet them in the next few days as they start their work, and I will be publishing the terms of reference once they’ve considered them at their forthcoming meeting. I think it’s really important that we allow that group of people to do its work. Now, we have got a number of initiatives already in place in order to reduce waiting times, and I’ll be making announcements about more very shortly. But this group of people will bring the best knowledge, the best experience, the best practice to bear on what is a very persistent challenge. I hope they will encourage us to be bold in our response and to draw from the widest possible body of experience, because we want the NHS in Wales to be able to be inspired by good practice both within Wales and beyond.

Yes. Our vision in 'A Healthier Wales' is for people to have equity of access to an increasing range of community services to support them to stay well and live independently. We expect local partners to collaborate to build community capacity and design and deliver integrated and preventative services.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Concerns have been raised with me regarding the ease of access to home adaptations and funding for people in Wales living with disabilities. The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 stipulates eligibility as meeting the set of national criteria for adults, children and carers. There are many constituents I’ve met who have faced difficulties in accessing funding for home adaptations and NHS-funded disability equipment, as there is a rigid set of criteria to meet. Four conditions are set by the legislation that must be met in order to have access to the funding, but many disabled people with restricted mobility do not meet every condition. For patients with rare conditions who only meet some of the conditions, they find accessing the funding for the correct equipment for their home difficult, and what is offered to them does not meet their requirements. The red tape can also be tricky to navigate, but having access to funding for accessibility equipment can massively ease the burden placed on the health service by allowing those with disabilities to have the facilities to live at home. So, how does the Welsh Government respond to feedback from people with disabilities to simplify the process of applying for home adaptations and equipment on the NHS that will, in the long run, ease the burden on NHS service provision? Thank you.

The Member raises an important question, and I absolutely agree with the thrust of his question, which is, we know—. In fact, we’ve seen this most recently with the Darzi report for the NHS in England, haven’t we, that the increasing ability of the NHS to provide care for people in their homes or in the community is an absolutely critical part not just of making sure that the service that the NHS can provide is robust, resilient and sustainable, which is obviously crucial, but also most people would prefer to be getting appropriate healthcare as close to home as possible. So, that is absolutely the thrust of this Government’s policy. If there are particular obstacles that the Member has identified that we can help with resolving, if he could identify those to me in correspondence, I will look into what more can be done to address those particular points.

Our approach is set out in the quality statement for cancer, and the NHS set out what action it will take in the cancer improvement plan. For example, this includes our investment in a new breast centre of excellence at Ysbyty Ystrad Fawr.

Thank you so much, Cabinet Secretary. Every year, nearly 20,000 people in Wales are diagnosed with cancer. It is a truly cruel condition, with one in two people in the UK being diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. My region of south-east Wales used to be home to a pioneering cancer centre that used proton beam therapy, a more targeted form of radiotherapy. The Rutherford centre closed its doors in 2022, which was a huge blow to cancer patients and the wider community at large. There were reports following the centre’s closure that a Government takeover might be on the horizon, but it doesn’t look like that materialised into anything.

Cabinet Secretary, from my understanding, all of the centre’s pioneering lifesaving equipment remains in a derelict building as of today. This equipment could indeed be put to some really good use within our health service to treat Welsh cancer patients, instead of simply gathering dust. Has the Welsh Government had any conversations about acquiring this equipment for use within our NHS? And if not, Cabinet Secretary, will you commit to looking into this matter further to see if it can indeed be done? Thank you.

Thank you for that further question. I’m not myself aware of any discussions of that sort. The Government does invest heavily in cancer services, as the Member would expect, given the level of priority that we attach, and I know that she attaches, to good cancer services. Tens of millions of pounds for equipment, facilities and training, as well as modernising and expanding screening programmes, and, crucially, introducing rapid diagnostic centres of the sort that I referred to in my initial question. So, we will always be looking for what more we can do, what more we can do to bring together the kinds of expertise, the kinds of innovation that are required, so that we can provide the best possible service to patients in Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, there is a campaign called Claire's Campaign, which collates women's experiences of gynaecological cancer and campaigns for service improvement. Their testimony is that too many women have their initial cancer concerns dismissed by their GP: cancer isn't suspected, other conditions are proposed and, over time, they're ruled out, and, far too often, their pain and extreme discomfort is dismissed or overlooked. This is not bashing GPs, they do a wonderful, wonderful job, but in terms of the training and support that is offered to them, perhaps that needs to be looked at. Because, for too many women, their cancer progresses before suspicion, even, let alone diagnosis and treatment starts, and too many women die as a result. We are letting women down and the whole system can do more to diagnose and to treat these women's cancers earlier. The women's health plan presents a huge opportunity here. What can women expect, please, from the plan to say and do to improve the NHS's culture of listening to women who are experiencing pain and symptoms that might be gynaecological cancers?

Well, I thank Delyth Jewell for the question and for the way that she's highlighted the work of Claire's Campaign, which I would absolutely wish to associate myself with, and the work that Claire and her colleagues are doing to highlight challenges in the system, which we would absolutely acknowledge. I was very struck by the evidence given to the Senedd committee as well in its recent inquiry.

I had a conversation this very morning in relation to the importance of responding at that first consultation to symptoms, as they're presented, and to really making sure that that is taken at its most serious, so that we can make sure that people get the rapid care that they need. I know, from discussions with the Minister, that we are looking very closely at making sure that the plan, when it is published in December, is as robust and as supportive as it possibly can be, and, actually, some of that thinking has certainly been shaped by Claire's Campaign.

Men concerned about their risk of prostate cancer should request an appointment with their GP to discuss their concerns and come to an informed decision about further investigation. There is publicly available guidance to support men and GPs to have that discussion.

Thank you for the response. Since tabling this question, Sir Chris Hoy has confirmed his own terminal prostate diagnosis, and prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, and it's risk increases with age and a range of other factors. But, caught early, it is possible to live a long and positive life. Like me, the health Secretary is over 50, which is one of the factors when men should consider seeking advice and the possibility of a test. I have the additional risk of being mixed race with black African heritage. My own experience of contact with general practice on this issue has been a positive one. What steps is the health Secretary taking to make sure that more men understand the risk factors and are encouraged to act early on them? And can he confirm what progress is being made in Wales towards more accurate testing for prostate cancer?

I thank the Member for those remarks and that question, including his reminder to me of my age. I thank him for that. It is absolutely critical in the way that the Member identified in his question to recognise how important it is to detect cancer early. There is clear national guidance in place, which is based on symptoms and risk factors, for GPs to follow when referring for suspected prostate cancer. We've augmented this with digital training materials for GPs, detailing how to assess people. If people feel that they may be at risk, then they ought to see their GP. There is clear national guidance on that to support those conversations. I think it's also important to look at approaches that are developing constantly in this space. As he will know, there is no current recommendation in relation to screening—population screening—in this space, but I'm also aware of the work that Prostate Cancer UK has been undertaking with the UK National Screening Committee, and I will be interested to look at the developments in that space.

Llywydd, I declare an interest, as someone living with prostate cancer, and, clearly, as someone else who is over 50 as well. Now, my understanding is that, at the moment, doctors cannot proactively offer prostate-specific antigen tests to high-risk men with no symptoms, such as men over 50, black men and men with a family history of prostate cancer, and so more clearly needs to be done in this area to address that.

Now, last week, I took part in a Prostate United walk with Haverfordwest County Association Football Club, an initiative that is raising funds for Prostate Cancer UK by encouraging people to walk, run or cycle every day in October. So, Cabinet Secretary, will you join me in celebrating the efforts of everyone who has taken part in the Prostate United challenge so far? Can you also tell us how the Welsh Government is working with health boards to be much more proactive in reaching out to men at the highest risk of prostate cancer?

I will absolutely celebrate the work that he is referring to in his question, and it is really important that we use those opportunities to highlight the risks in the way that this set of questions is doing today, and that that happens at a local health board level as well. As I mentioned in my response to Vaughan Gething, the work that Prostate Cancer UK is doing around alternatives to testing in this space and the developments in testing in the future is absolutely a critical part of that landscape.

We owe a debt of gratitude to our veterans. This is reflected in our policy, which provides priority access to NHS treatment for health conditions that are a result of their time in military service. We also provide access to Veterans' NHS Wales for service-related mental health issues.

Thank you, Minister. According to the recent Veterans' Commissioner for Wales's report, Veterans' NHS Wales spends around £1,600 per veteran seeking mental health services; in England, the figure is over double that at £3,400. There, veterans receive support with substance misuse, addiction and complex post-traumatic stress disorder therapies. This is unavailable here in Wales. Here, veterans are referred back to non-veteran mental health services for any issues not considered directly related to their time in service. Now, as you indicated at the beginning of your answer, these individuals have faced circumstances that we cannot begin to fathom. They have often put their lives on the line. Yet, I meet veterans on the streets of Cardiff, homeless. We are letting them down. Do you know why we have such a huge gap here in Wales compared with England, and do you think there is sufficient spend in Wales to provide the services they deserve? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much, Rhys ab Owen, for this question and for highlighting the veterans' commissioner's report that came out, the annual report, which I feel is a very helpful personal assessment of the key issues affecting veterans in Wales, many of which you have touched on just now. I also just wanted to say that we continue to invest in Veterans' NHS Wales, and mental health is one of the First Minister's four priority areas, so I will revert back to what my colleague Jack Sargeant said earlier on, in that I cannot pre-empt what will be in the upcoming budget.

However, I would say that some cross-border comparisons do need some qualifications, and the veterans' commissioner recognises that, in relation to crisis beds and specialist substance misuse services. So, yes, our mental health service for veterans, Veterans' NHS Wales, is funded by Welsh Government and it is meeting its targets with some local exceptions, where a post is gapped or recruitment is taking place. This service is now also supporting veterans in prison in Wales.

I think it's also worth mentioning as well, though, that you are right, a lot of this is centred around the NHS veterans in Wales service, but we also have a fantastic range of third sector organisations who are doing tremendous work on the ground in people's communities. So, the work of TGP Cymru includes a specific focus on restorative approaches for veterans and family services, so that's really helping them to reconnect with their families and to have a really positive, healthy family life. We also have Adferiad as well, which has a Change Step programme that works with veterans, and they're doing tremendous work again with the Places, Pathways and People programme, which is making a big difference.

So, please continue to raise it. I'm very proud to have veterans' mental health in my portfolio, and I will continue to communicate with the community as well and ensure that they're getting everything that they need. Diolch.

The first thing I'd like to start with is by thanking Lisa Rawlings from the Female Veterans Alliance for raising a very important issue in our recent Senedd armed forces cross-party group. She pointed out that female veterans face unique challenges, both during and after service life. Great strides have been made, of course, in veteran care since the introduction of the armed forces covenant under the previous UK Conservative Government, but way more needs to be done here in Wales particularly. One of the major barriers to supporting female veterans is that we have no dedicated female veteran peer mentors in the NHS veterans service.

In 2021, servicewomen were 10 times more likely to experience sexual harassment. A study of UK female veterans found higher rates of mental health difficulties among female veterans, compared to non-serving females. Wales having no dedicated female veteran peer mentors creates a barrier of access to the service, meaning that many are not wanting to explain issues that perhaps involved a male to a male veteran, which is currently the only offering in Wales. Feedback suggests that there is a clear need for more female veteran support in the NHS. So, Minister, could you please assure us that you'll look into this and perhaps meet with the Female Veterans Alliance so that this can be addressed with some sort of urgency? Thank you.

I really welcome your question today, Laura Anne Jones. It's very important. I'd also like to put on record my thanks to Lisa Rawlings for sharing her lived experience. I always hugely appreciate and admire anybody who can do that, especially when there can be a stigma associated with it, when it can be traumatic, when it can be painful, in the hopes that, truly, they'll make a difference for other people. So, I would like to assure you that I will, absolutely, agree to meet with the Female Veterans Alliance. I would like to hear more. I'm a big believer in the peer mentor support; it's going incredibly well. There is one Veterans’ NHS Wales embedded peer support mentor in almost every health board that we have now. However, if none of them are female, that is a huge issue. So, I would really welcome that meeting and I will absolutely go away and look into this more. Diolch.

Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Reducing waiting times is a priority for this Government, and we are working with the health board to ensure that they prioritise cancer and urgent referral for gastroenterology and then focus on the diagnosis and treatment of the longest waiting patients.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Early diagnosis of gastroenterological issues and access to treatment to get symptoms under control is essential for people living with Crohn's and colitis. Delays to diagnosis and treatment increase the risk of serious complication and increase the likelihood of surgery. In the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board area, the number waiting over a year for their first gastroenterological outpatient appointment has risen from three people in July 2023 to 449 at the end of July this year. With a median wait for a gastroenterological appointment of 37.6 weeks at the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, how is the Cabinet Secretary working with the health board to prevent people living with Crohn's and colitis from having no choice but to present at A&E? Thank you.

I thank the Member for that important question. I think it is absolutely fair to say that the health board have found diagnostic waiting times a real challenge. In my periodic meeting with the chair, we discussed that very question and I'm absolutely clear that the health board recognises the need to make real progress as quickly as possible, for the reasons, partly, that the Member sets out in his question. I know that the health board have secured a mobile endoscopy unit, which was used until recently, and are now increasing capacity through additional insourcing. It is a significant challenge, it is one that, unfortunately, will take some time to resolve in its entirety, but I hope I can give the Member the assurance that I raised that in my meeting with the chair and there's an absolute recognition on the part of the health board that the service needs to be improved.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary and the Minister.

The topical questions are next. Two have been selected today. The first is to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for climate change and to be asked by James Evans.

Diolch, James. Thank you for the question. The Welsh Government has increased its engagement with NRW to monitor progress in resolving the matter and to learn lessons from the how the position came about. This is an operational matter for NRW, as it continues in its discussions with HMRC to bring about resolution.

Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. It is deeply troubling to learn that Natural Resources Wales has been under investigation by HMRC, and it has been estimated in the press that Welsh taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as £19 million. That's a truly staggering figure.

And yet, this isn't the first time that NRW has misled the public when it comes to its financial competencies. The Countryside Alliance has previously accused Natural Resources Wales of misleading the public during its public consultation, following the organisation's purchase of land in Carmarthenshire.

Cabinet Secretary, looking at the numerous finance-related controversies that NRW has created since its creation in 2013, it is clear that it is incapable of managing its finances. So, I ask you: what is the total liability anticipated from this latest fiasco at NRW, and how much more Welsh taxpayer money are we going to have to fork out to cover for NRW's mess?

I would also like to ask you a question in your role as the Deputy First Minister. What work is the Welsh Government doing to look across Government and public organisations in Wales about the IR35 rules, to make sure that no other organisation, whether that be Welsh Government or local authority, has fallen foul of the rules and is going to owe HMRC millions of pounds of taxpayer money?

Well, Llywydd, first of all, let's acknowledge that this is a significant issue that NRW needs to resolve in its discussions with HMRC. But one thing that I will not do is engage in political attacks on the organisation, which is the principal environmental guardian and regulator within this space. As we just saw, it has expanded into a larger attack on NRW, the organisation.

Just to make crystal clear, NRW is not the only organisation that has been subject to IR35 investigations by HMRC. Indeed, under the UK Conservative Government, the MoJ and DEFRA—I’m sure there might be others as well—also have been in this predicament. But it is for NRW—a Welsh Government-sponsored body, but not run by Welsh Government—to actually engage now, as it is doing, with HMRC to resolve this.

Just to make clear—contrary, by the way, to some of the suggestions made on the Conservative Twitter pages and by the leader of the opposition during this week in the Senedd—this is not the taxpayer opening a cheque book to NRW. In fact, the reason that the Welsh Government has made, I think, the right decision to enable NRW to enter into those negotiations with HMRC with a loan was to avoid, actually, higher costs that could accrue through interest rates on that.

So, in fact, this is wise use of taxpayers’ money to avoid it getting into a more difficult situation. And, by the way, the £19 million is an indicative amount, and I made a written statement on Monday, James, as you know. I have been making great efforts, by the way, to engage with the shadow spokespeople on this issue, but unfortunately, I have had no response—

I've not had an e-mail from you.

—and that's disappointing, because I would have liked to have gone through the real detail of this.

However, let me just say, NRW's annual report and accounts include details of HMRC's investigations into what is a historic compliance issue with IR35 rules and the extent of a potential liability—watch those words: a potential liability—that may be owed. Llywydd, we laid the written statement on Monday, as you know. They are discussing this matter, between NRW and HMRC, to bring forth a resolution.

We are continuing to work with NRW to provide necessary support as it goes through the process. I have discussed this with NRW's chair regularly since it has come to my attention, including as recently as Monday. I have asked my officials to work with NRW to develop enhanced monitoring arrangements and further support for capacity and capability, as is required.

But let's be clear as well: when we put these political attacks on NRW that go beyond this IR35 issue, as we saw earlier this week in this Senedd—. We are facing a climate and nature crisis. NRW's work as a regulator is of the utmost importance to us all, and the professional and passionate NRW staff work day in, day out to help protect nature and people in Wales. The Welsh Government does indeed have a clear role, Llywydd, in supporting NRW in fulfilling those responsibilities and ensuring that its vital work will continue, and we will support NRW in its discussions with HMRC.

Point of order—

Delyth Jewell. No point of order.

Diolch, Llywydd. This payment to HMRC does raise serious concerns about management and compliance, but it also, surely, prompts questions about what processes are in place to support staff in this position. I don't know the details of what's happened here, but my instinct would tell me that no-one would have wanted things to get to this stage, that this wouldn't have come about through deliberate deception, but inadequate safeguards and, who knows, maybe staff fear. I'd like to know what support is currently being given to the staff affected by this, and I'd like to know what steps the Government took to monitor NRW's financial practices, again, yes, to hear assurances, of course, that similar failures won't happen again in public bodies under its remit. Processes have to be strengthened, clear lines of accountability have to be clarified if need be, but NRW does do hugely significant important work. My view on this is that we should be focusing on the future, ensuring that this doesn't happen again, to protect staff, as well as finances. Just focusing on calling for heads to roll doesn't get us anywhere, does it? A mistake was made, it was a very serious mistake, but surely the blame needs to be placed on processes not people.

Delyth, thank you very much for that. You raise some really important points here, because, at the heart of this also—. This is a historic compliance issue that they're dealing with; it goes back several years. They are undertaking proper scrutiny of what happened in order to learn those lessons going forward—to avoid it. They have indeed, and I've met with the chair of the board frequently on this, put in place now strengthened governance and oversight, and risk analysis, to make sure that this doesn't happen again. I would expect that of them, and they are doing it. But right at the heart of this are people who are passionate about the work they do, at all levels, within NRW. And that's why I say very strongly, 'Let's not look at pointing the finger at individuals or NRW as an organisation', and actually say to NRW that they need to sort this out in terms of their relationship now with HMRC, this potential liability needs to be resolved, we need to see the exact quantum of what it is, and then the Welsh Government stands by to help support in one way or the other, in a responsible way, with our own proper responsibility as the sponsoring body for NRW, but not stepping into that space that they have to resolve.

And just one thing to clarify as well, Delyth, and Llywydd: whilst this is a matter for NRW itself and the board, rather than the Welsh Government, NRW has made clear that it is no longer using off-payroll contractors, and its default position is that it will not use them in the future, and that is good to hear. So, there are historic issues to deal with, to understand, to learn how this can be avoided in the future. I think that NRW have to be very frank and honest in their internal analysis of that. We are also, as the Welsh Government, in that space, trying to understand exactly what has got on in a body that we sponsor, but it is now for them to sort out. And meanwhile, they have to get on with their essential day job as a regulator of the natural environment here in Wales, and also all the work that they do on flood defences, the work that they do with communities throughout Wales. And I know this is definitely not where you were heading, but let's not try and drag them down and use this as a political opportunity to undermine them as an organisation; they've got a critical role to play.

Just for clarification—I don't know who you were referring to—I haven't had an e-mail about this particular issue from you. I know we spoke outside, but that was about your statement yesterday and nothing to do with NRW.

I've got to be honest, this is yet another inadequacy on the part of NRW. Even your own statement yesterday, Deputy Minister, following the bail-out, was a clear admission that NRW is not only struggling, but is in need of greater oversight. This latest scandal highlights the poor—incredibly poor—leadership within NRW. Week after week, we hear many failings of this organisation.

I feel really sorry for the hard-working staff, who I work with regularly, and they feel let down by constant management inadequacies. They do a fantastic job, but they're being let down. Serious questions should be asked. I make no apology for going a step further than you: if this was a private company, people would be on notice. Why should the public sector, this Welsh Government or NRW be any different? Who was appointed to audit these accounts? Why did they not highlight this situation earlier, when it talks about NRW's historic compliance with off-payroll working? I would never get away with that in business, nor would many within the private sector.

In the Welsh NHS, we have an oversight and escalation framework. Have you never thought of having such a similar process for other public bodies, to include NRW? But I have to tell you, if I had my way here today somebody in senior management would be asked to consider their position. Diolch.

Llywydd, there is a genuine and serious point within this about NRW taking responsibility for how this came about, actually learning the lessons and being transparent as well, and that process is under way, Janet. But, just to be clear, you've just thrown on the line there, if I heard you correctly, incredibly poor leadership, inadequate management, whilst paying tribute to the passion of the front-line workers. Actually, there are people in NRW at every single level that are passionate about protecting our natural environment, and—[Interruption.]—and to use this as an opportunity to undermine and denigrate the organisation and those people within it—

No, I've actually—

—I think is a poorly placed attack.

So can I just say as well, just for clarity, Llywydd, during the course of the last few days, including Monday, but actually prior to that as well, I as the Cabinet Secretary made approaches to every frontbench spokesperson. Janet, you mentioned the approach that I made to you yesterday in person wasn't on NRW. No, it was. This is NRW. [Interruption.] This is NRW and IR35, and we've made, just for clarity of purposes, on the record, Llywydd—[Interruption.]

I'm allowing the Cabinet Secretary to conclude his comments.

In trying to be absolutely clear, we made repeated overtures by e-mail, telephone and indeed direct personal message to say could we speak about this, if you wanted to, to go through this in detail before we brought it to the floor. So those have been done to every single political party without fear or favour in order to explain this. We'll keep on trying to do that in future as well, but part of this is because of the detail behind it. Because I think what we have here in front of us is an organisation with a historical compliance issue with IR35. The organisation is working with HMRC to resolve this. There is a potential liability of up to £19 million. Welsh Government is standing by the organisation in a responsible way to make sure that that doesn't increase and to provide support where appropriate. But that is our role as the sponsor of this body, and I will not join in attacks on an organisation that is established to protect the very best of our natural environment, our rivers, our seas, our soil, everything else, and to deal with flood protection for individuals throughout Wales.

Of course, IR35 issues aren't new in terms of public sector bodies. We remember the BBC being caught up in this many years ago, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as well on a UK Government level a few years ago. But it would be interesting to understand what if any advice the Welsh Government issued to its own departments or to sponsored bodies as a consequence of those issues in the past, flagging up risks for those organisations that come within the Welsh Government's remit. You've now asked NRW to increase capacity and capability, particularly on financial risk and management arrangements. Is that a slight admission that they are struggling with capacity more generally? Because we as a Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee have long warned of our concerns in that respect. Is this one of the kinds of consequences that we're now seeing as a result of that unsustainable trajectory of increased duties and diminishing resources? And finally, are you expecting NRW to pay back any money out of that £19 million at the end of the day?

Llyr, thank you very much for those questions. First of all, there's an awareness of this issue right across Government. So, every Cabinet Secretary is aware of this and every sponsored body is aware of their direct responsibilities. I should say very, very clearly, whilst it's for HMRC to assess compliance or non-compliance on IR35 across all organisations, we are not aware of any other live cases in relation to Welsh Government sponsored bodies.

But you mentioned the issue of support on capacity, so one of the things we've done in this situation, which I think is a responsible way forward, is, in our engagement with NRW and the repeated meetings that I've had with the Chair and senior management, to say if they need additional support in terms of supporting their discussions with HMRC, to enable them to go ahead—. We want this to be resolved as soon as possible; the worst thing is this hangs over the head of the organisation. So, we've tried to work with them to say, ‘Let's get some timescales here’, bearing in mind that it's up to HMRC how fast they want to evolve it, but I think HMRC are also aware of a desire to get to a completion on this to see what the potential liability is. You ask pertinently as well: does this mean NRW will need to pay back any money to us? Because we have, indeed, stepped in, and I say, again, I think it's a responsible way to step in, because we're avoiding interest and other costs accruing. Now, on the basis, if we can first determine—. Sorry, 'if we can'. If NRW can first determine with HMRC what its potential liability is, then at that point I, along with the finance Cabinet Secretary here and others, will have those discussions with NRW to talk about how, actually, the taxpayer's money can head back to the place that it came from. We're not at that point yet, but it's a very pertinent question.

Just one other thing is to say this is very different from the wider pressures that some people are trying to conflate the issues into with the 'Case for Change', with the well-known budgetary pressures that NRW are facing, over recent years as well, which the Environment Agency in England is also under pressure with. This is separate from that entirely, but we are conscious that we don't want this to be an issue that detracts from, then, proceeding with the unions through the 'Case for Change' consultation, determining how they focus on their statutory responsibilities and also being fit for purpose for today and for the future.

So, we're keen to stand in the right way with support for NRW and its engagement with HMRC but, just to be clear, this is a matter for them to resolve with HMRC.

Minister, thank you for your responses this afternoon. I've listened intently and I was grateful for the leader of the house's response yesterday, which I think was very insightful, especially as you agreed to keep the Chamber updated.

Thank you.

A couple of points, if I may. I was of the understanding from the reports that I've read that the £19 million is the quantifiable amount of money that's owed to HMRC at the moment. It is not the totality of the liability and the discussions are ongoing, and certainly that liability could increase. Could you confirm that that is the case?

And secondly, are these employees, a number of them having taken redundancies, being put back onto the books of NRW via the self-employed route and subcontractor route, and therefore that is how this liability has arisen? Because, obviously, all public bodies have been reducing headcounts, but, ultimately, when you go into some of these organisations, they've re-employed the individuals as subcontractors or on a self-employed basis, and this is where the liability has obviously manifested itself. Because £19 million is a considerable sum of money in anyone's context, and it is our job as the opposition to hold the Government to account as to why that liability has crystallised.

Indeed, and, listen, thank you for the way in which you've phrased those questions, Andrew; that's really helpful. First of all, one thing to be very clear of—and this is a genuine point—is we don't comment in detail on discussions between a sponsored body and HMRC, okay. We don't, and there are good reasons why we shouldn't do that, because those discussions are ongoing. But the headline figure of £19 million—. Let me stress again: potential liability is exactly that; it's potential liability. But I don't comment on where that figure might end up; those are exactly the discussions that are currently ongoing. It's for NRW to have those discussions with HMRC.

Just to make it clear, the issue of redundancies and so on is wholly and entirely separate from the IR35 issue. This is separate from the 'Case for Change', it's separate from the wider pressures on this and other public sector organisations. So, we need to unpack it from that. And as I mentioned earlier on, it's been made clear by NRW that neither do they have any currently, or intend to have any going forward, off-payroll contractors. But, as I say, as I mentioned before, Andrew, NRW is not the first organisation to be in this territory and in discussions with HMRC, either in terms of Government departments or others. I don't think they'd want to be here, neither would we as their sponsor for them, but they're going to have to get on now at pace with those discussions with HMRC so that they can get to what is the figure, and then how do we as Welsh Government actually help them through this particular issue. But I come back to the point that they've got a job of work to do as well on their day to day, and we need to make sure that they're focused on that as well.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary. The next question is to be answered by the Minister for Further and Higher Education, and is to be asked by Cefin Campbell.

We are absolutely committed to supporting a sustainable higher education sector. The sector will receive £197 million in grant funding this financial year from Medr, previously the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The Welsh Government has increased the tuition fee cap to £9,250 in 2024-25, and an additional £20 million in capital support will be made available to tertiary education providers for decarbonisation.

Well, thank you very much for that response. It's all a mystery, isn't it?

In response to a question from me last week regarding the financial crisis facing Welsh universities, you stated

'Medr is going to have its own funds to support our institutions.... It will be called a transformation fund'.

But, lo and behold, within 24 hours, we then received a letter from you backtracking on this commitment of support to Welsh universities. In that letter, you wrote:

'the policy in this area remains at a very exploratory stage, and we are still working through what, if any, potential support mechanism may look like, in partnership with Medr and institutions.'

So, I'm just wondering, at that stage, whether you were making things up as a Government as you went along. Just as your Government has given false hope to patients with non-existent cross-border health plans, you've also misled the higher education sector last week by spuriously raising expectations.

Now, Minister, Welsh universities need a cast-iron guarantee from you that they will be given the support they need not just to survive but to prosper. Now, you also reiterate that you don't think any Welsh universities are at risk of failure. Now, however, at least five Welsh universities are running, or have just completed, further voluntary redundancy schemes. And as I've mentioned previously in the Siambr, the collective deficits are now spiralling north of about £100 million. So, do you agree with me that giving the false impression that support is imminent erodes the confidence of the sector? Now, this can't continue. It's not sustainable, and Welsh Government needs to get a grip on this.

So, I have two specific questions: firstly, since taking post, have you or the Cabinet Secretary for Education actually had discussions via official correspondence with HEFCW, Medr, or individual Welsh universities regarding this transformation fund? And secondly, when will you make a decision on what, if any, support will be provided further to what you have just outlined today? Diolch.

Thank you, Cefin Campbell, for your supplementary questions there. I'd like to start by saying that I am absolutely committed to supporting a sustainable higher education sector, and by that I mean strong institutions that are able to deliver not just on our ambitions for students and for research but for driving economic growth across Wales as well.

I recognise the financial pressure that our HE institutions in Wales and across the UK, and, indeed, across the globe, are under, but you'll be well aware that, as universities are independent organisations, they are managing their budgets in a range of ways. And I'd add that our student support package for student living costs remains the highest in the UK, which is something I think we should be really proud of here, and that the income that that generates for Welsh institutions per student remains comparable with England and actually higher than that in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well.

You ask if I've had discussions with HEFCW. Well, no I haven't, because they don't exist any more. I've had discussions with Medr, which is the body that's been set up to replace them, and those discussions have been really positive, including a meeting with staff on the ground and a meeting with the board as well as with the chair and the CEO.

You ask if I’ve had discussions with institutions. Yes, I have started that already. As I said in the Chamber just last week, I think it’s really important that I get out there and visit each HE institution in Wales. I’ve started doing that already. I’ve been to the University of South Wales already, and I’m looking forward in the coming weeks to meeting with both Cardiff University and Cardiff Metropolitan University as well.

The conversations that I’ve had so far have been really constructive and there has been a lot of desire for further collaboration within the sector as well, which is something where I see lots of positive work already. And I explained to the Senedd that the Welsh Government is continuing to explore what, if any, potential support mechanisms are feasible to support the sector in Wales.

It is important as well to add that we do not believe that any Welsh institution is at immediate risk of failure. Medr closely monitors institutional finances and advises that there is appropriate liquidity to manage ongoing risks while those important strategic decisions are taken within each independent institution to ensure their ongoing sustainability.

And just to add there, as a final closing remark, I did say that I felt that the sector was really exploring lots of constructive ways forward. And I think that that is summed up by the fact that we’ve got this £20 million decarbonisation fund for the tertiary sector. And we’ve already received £33 million in bids for that. So, I think that that just really sums up how hard the sector is working within these new areas in order to enhance their sustainability.

I think Cefin is right: you did give false hope to universities and other institutions across Wales with your statement last week. Within about 24 hours, a fund

'to support our institutions here in Wales, and I'm pleased to say it's going to be a more positive kind of fund...a transformation fund,'

within 24 hours, became

'that the policy in this area remains at a very exploratory stage, and we are still working through what, if any, potential support mechanism may look like...with Medr and institutions.'

And those institutions, obviously, are very clear about the scale of the funding challenge that they face. Cardiff University mentioned a £30 million black hole that it needs to address; Bangor University, a £9 million deficit; Aberystwyth, £15 million; Swansea University is going through 240 voluntary redundancies at the moment. So, it is a sector—I’m sorry to agree with Plaid Cymru—that you have given false hope to.

It is a mess, quite frankly, Minister, and it is a mess that happened just days after the education Cabinet Secretary changed three times in three weeks what the Government’s guidance was on reading in Wales. It does beg the question: does anybody in the education department of the Welsh Government know what they’re doing?

Well, thank you, Tom. You may be in the business of hyperbole and cheap political point scoring, but I can assure you that myself and the Cabinet Secretary are in the business of delivering for students across Wales at all ages.

And there is that £197 million of grant funding that we are providing this financial year via Medr to our Welsh universities. You’ll be aware that 90 per cent of university income comes from sources outside of the Welsh Government, and that’s why I’ve already reiterated how important it is that the sector are working within those areas that they have control of, and I do see lots of green shoots there for lots of positive interventions.

The additional £20 million that we’re putting forward for decarbonisation as well, all of that is really important, and so I am quite happy with the direction of travel that we are taking and I look forward to engaging further with the sector in the months to come.

I thank the Minister.

Item 4 this afternoon is the 90-second statements and the first statement is from Hannah Blythyn.

This week, Mold is celebrating the Daniel Owen Festival—a week-long bilingual arts and literary festival held in Mold to celebrate the author Daniel Owen. The festival is held every year around the end of October. Daniel Owen is the foremost Welsh novelist of the nineteenth century, and was born in 1836 in Mold. Earlier this month, it was a privilege to join the mayor of Mold, and a whole host of other people, to unveil a blue plaque at the house where he once lived.

Daniel became an apprentice in a tailor's shop, and is said to be a youth who loved literature. Having spent time studying at Bala College, he later returned home to Mold. His first novel, Y Dreflan, was published in 1881, and Rhys Lewis, perhaps his most famous novel, followed in 1885, and tells the story of a minister’s life. Today, the Daniel Owen Festival includes walks, talks, singing and dancing, and more. It was wonderful to watch some of the performances at Daniel Owen Square over the weekend. Indeed, my puppy enjoyed it too—she wagged her tail along with the music. It was fantastic to see such a cultural celebration in the heart of the town. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to every volunteer, and I look forward to seeing the festival going from strength to strength.

In 1790, a group of people met at the Castle Hotel in Neath, and resolved to build a canal, stretching from Glynneath to Neath. It opened in 1795, and was quickly extended through to the Brunel dock at Briton Ferry, and, in 1824, it was connected to the new Tennant canal, which allowed goods to reach Swansea docks. The Tennant canal celebrates its two-hundredth anniversary this year. At its height, some 200,000 tonnes of coal were carried along this vital artery. However, following the development of the Vale of Neath railway in the mid-nineteenth century, Neath canal steadily lost out and ceased to be used as a means of transporting goods. Revenue for the owners was maintained by supplying water to local industries, but, slowly, parts of the canal were filled in, built over and faded from memory. And now, even those industries have gone.

Today, the Tŷ Banc Canal Group, an amazing volunteer group, have begun working with the owners, St. Modwen, to ensure the canal is preserved for future generations as a vibrant, sustainable, community asset and resource. The Neath canal predates the creation of the modern postage stamp and even the United Kingdom itself. It has seen the industrialisation and de-industrialisation of the communities it runs through. But it has been a constant through centuries of revolution, war and discovery. As Neath canal is about to reach its two-hundred-and-fiftieth birthday over this next year, ours could be the generation to see the canal fade away completely, or ours could be the generation to see the canal renewed and repurposed. Diolch to all the volunteers and groups who are working so hard to ensure that the right choice for the future of the canal is taken.

Twenty years ago, a group of us, led and inspired by Rob Nicholls, assembled in the vestry of Tabernacl chapel in Cardiff to form Côr Meibion Taf. Since then, the choir has been victorious at the National Eisteddfod, local eisteddfods, and in several music festivals. The multitalented musician Steffan Jones now conducts the choir, and, under his baton, it has gone from strength to strength, with around 70 members. Key to the choir’s success is Lowri Guy, the accompanist for almost the entire period.

Although the choir hasn’t had to listen to my attempts at singing for several years now, I can still attest, on a personal level, to the kindness and care the choir offers, in good times and in bad—in major and minor keys. Côr Meibion Taf is more than a group learning notes. It’s a community of people, from teenagers to pensioners. It creates confident Welsh speakers, its members support each other and their families, and it has supported a host of good causes and charities over the past 20 years. Côr Meibion Taf has enriched music-making in Wales, but, more than that, it has enriched the lives of hundreds of its members, former members, and their families. Thank you for the past 20 years, Côr Meibion Taf. Congratulations to Steff, Lowri and all the lads, and onwards to the next decade. Thank you.

Thank you, all.

The next item is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv): assisted dying. I call on Julie Morgan to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm very pleased to bring forward this Member debate on assisted dying to the Senedd here today, submitted jointly with my cross-party colleagues, James Evans, Heledd Fychan and Adam Price. It’s been 10 years since assisted dying was last debated in the Senedd. A lot has changed since then, so now that the national conversation is ramping up about this, I think it’s absolutely right that we debate this very important issue here in the Senedd, in our Welsh Parliament today. It is a matter of great consequence, and I’m so pleased that we’re able to do this here this afternoon.

And, of course, it’s particularly important in view of the fact that Kim Leadbeater MP’s private Members' Bill on assisted dying has been introduced in Westminster and will be voted on in November. If the vote is won there, the Bill will then go on to the Committee Stage. So, we have no power here to change the law on assisted dying, but because we are responsible for health and social care, we will have to deliver any new law, so we have a big stake in this debate here in this Chamber.

As well as Kim Leadbeater’s private Members' Bill in the Commons, Lord Falconer has a private Members' Bill in the Lords. There’s also one in the Scottish Parliament, introduced by Liam McArthur MSP. The Isle of Man also has a private Members' Bill going through, moving to the upper chamber this autumn, and plans for legalising assisted dying were approved in principle by the Assembly in Jersey earlier this year. So, this debate is coming up everywhere. And, of course, there are 31 jurisdictions around the world that have already legalised assisted dying. From Australia, the Netherlands, to Canada, more and more countries are taking this step forward. So, this debate cannot be ignored.

So, why am I supporting assisted dying? I believe we need to show more compassion to those people who are suffering intolerably from an incurable illness and who have a settled wish to die. At the moment, one person, every eight days, goes from the UK to Dignitas or somewhere similar in Switzerland. Under the present legislation, any relative or friend who assists them are liable for prosecution; they are criminalised. I listened to Sir Max Hill, former director of public prosecutions, who said it was very clear to him that the law is not working. During his period of office, he had 27 people referred to him—relatives of people who had died—and, in 26 cases, he took no further action. These were elderly people, usually in their 70s and their 80s, who had just lost someone very close to them, and he said it took sometimes up to two years for a decision to be made not to prosecute. Imagine having that hanging over you at a time of great loss. What a cruel law. Surely we can do better than that.

Many of you will have spoken to Sue Lawford, who’s spoken publicly, and has vividly described police action taken against her after she accompanied Sharon Johnston from Cardigan to Dignitas—Sue Lawford from Cardiff, who vividly describes the horror and the upset she experienced after she helped Sharon Johnston to go to Dignitas. This, I believe, must be a decision by Parliament rather than by an individual director of public prosecutions, which happens at the moment. The law is not clear, and I want to have a more compassionate law, so that families do not suffer in this way, that we do diminish that suffering. I think it is our duty to look at doing this.

I have many Members who wish to speak in this debate. I hope to call all Members, but I ask each Member speaking, first of all, to ensure you keep to your time, please, and I will not be accepting any requests for any other Members to speak, because the list is already full.

I’d like to start my contribution to this debate by highlighting in the strongest possible terms my deep concern and opposition to this motion. It has been repeatedly proven that assisted dying laws, when introduced, descend quickly into a range of problems, from coercion by relatives to the hand-picking of specific doctors willing to euthanise. It would, I believe, set a dangerous precedent and lead to a catalogue of unintended consequences if it was introduced into the UK. I appreciate that this is a very emotive subject, and I, therefore, want to focus my contribution on the evidence.

Unlike many other countries, every person in the UK has the right to high-quality palliative care, and the right to express their wishes about how they wish to receive it. There is a clear difference between what we have here in the UK and what other countries offer in terms of palliative care. I believe that this very much skews the thinking and, perhaps, the reasoning in support of assisted dying. For instance, we find that in Canada less than 30 per cent of Canadians have access to high-quality hospice palliative care, and that access to hospice palliative care is not considered a fundamental healthcare right. In the Netherlands, palliative care is not a distinct medical speciality, but it is incorporated into general hospital care, which is typically focused on diagnosis, treatment and discharge. Studies of this system have shown that the needs of dying patients are unmet, and that there are serious deficiencies in the quality of their care. In New Zealand, the right to access palliative care has only now, in October 2024, been introduced by a private member's Bill.

In terms of unintended consequences, one of the outcomes we cannot prevent is that once this door of assisted dying is open, there's no stopping future generations of politicians from adversely reforming the legislation. Evidence has shown that in those countries that have introduced assisted dying there is a trend to broaden the eligibility criteria. It has been expanded in the Netherlands and Belgium to include children, and, in Canada, from 2027, they will allow people suffering solely from mental health issues with no physical condition at all. According to data from Canada, 17.1 per cent of those assessed for assisted dying in 2022 cited loneliness or isolation as the reason for their suffering.

There's growing evidence that people are gaining access to assisted dying because of financial issues. It was revealed in post-assisted dying investigations that a 41-year-old woman who was euthanised in 2021 after telling doctors she could no longer stand the pain caused by her fibromyalgia had told friends in private that she actually wanted to die because she was so poor. There's another case where a 61-year-old man was euthanised even though the only health problem listed on his application was hearing loss. That should be a massive red flag to the dangers of introducing assisted dying legislation. [Interruption.] People are accessing it for the wrong reasons—

Joel, will you give way to Lee Waters?

Thank you. These examples you're citing are not examples that would fall within the legislation that's being discussed in the UK at the moment, are they?

Thank you for that intervention, Lee. What I'm trying to highlight, regardless, is that, at one point, the legislation was different to what has now happened in those countries. At every opportunity, that has changed, and my concern is that if this legislation was introduced into the UK, at some point, 10 years, five years or 20 years down the line, that criteria would be broadened.

However, my biggest concern and one that has been frequently communicated to me by constituents is that by introducing assisted dying you change the narrative from how we can provide the best possible care for someone dying to at what point do they become a burden, financially or otherwise, to the state, to their family or to their carers. Those with disabilities are often and frequently forgotten about—I've had to remind Government Members here in this Chamber to even mention them in their statements—and are terrified by the prospect of assisted dying being introduced here, because society would instinctively move to make a value judgment on their life, which is something they've already had to contend with when trying to find employment or access to services.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the internal feeling of being a burden is what elderly and disabled people have to live with on a daily basis. The external pressure they would feel from others to decide what the value of their life or death would be would be unbearable. It would be presumed that those with disabilities, particularly cognitive disabilities or those who are old and infirm, are better off dead. Evidence from other countries where assisted dying has been brought in shows that many disabled and older people fear that to show any signs of weakness, melancholy, frustration with their condition, or the fact that they may be struggling, affirms that they are no longer of any value and that they wish to die.

We all want the same for those who are suffering: dignity and compassion. But euthanasia is not the way, when there's so much evidence showing that not only eligibility criteria but the value society places on our most vulnerable quickly changes. Whilst I support the Members in raising this debate, especially given an assisted dying Bill is to be debated in Westminster, I cannot disagree with it more, and I, therefore, encourage everyone here to vote against it. Thank you.

This is, I know, a debate prompted by compassion: the desire not to see someone we love suffer. It's an instinct I understand utterly, and I empathise with those proposing it, but I will be voting against the motion. I too am motivated here by compassion, I think we all are, because nearly everyone who approaches this debate will do so through the lens of the last moments of someone they love, someone they've seen suffer, someone whose pain they've wanted desperately to lessen. How could anyone disagree with that?

My contention, though, is that we must also look at this through the lens of those not surrounded by people they love: those marginalised, pushed to the sidelines by society—those people who could be placed under pressure in a future that is horrifyingly near at hand to end their lives because the necessary palliative care is not available, or because they feel themselves to be a burden.

My fear with this motion—well, my terror, really—is not so much with how it will begin as with how it will end. There are safeguards in what is being proposed in Westminster, indeed there are, but every precedent we see internationally shows that no safeguard is sacrosanct; the experiences of Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and some states in the US show what can so easily, so inevitably, happen. Laws are first introduced for people who are terminally ill, as is being proposed in Westminster, and bit by bit, the safeguards have been eroded so that now people with depression, with anorexia, and many other non-terminal disorders can qualify—disorders from which people can recover, lives that will have been ended that might have got better.

But more worryingly than that normalisation is how quickly the vulnerable in those societies felt and were at risk. In the US state of Oregon, over 47 per cent of people who ended their lives cited as a reason the fact that they didn't want to be a burden on their families or care givers, and I fear those changes will be inevitable if the Bill in Westminster passes, because courts in those places have felt obliged to extend the rights given to some citizens. To others, it becomes a macabre certainty; there will be no turning back from it.

The debate around assisted dying is often presented understandably—utterly understandably—as a way of offering people a choice, but for many disabled people or people who are not close to their family, people who are worried and anxious and lonely, it would lead to them feeling they have no choice but to end their life. That's exactly what Tanni Grey-Thompson has warned about: the sense that some people will get that their lives will matter less, or that because of the high costs of their care, it would be selfish to stay on. I do not mean this as scaremongering; it is a reflection of what has happened in other parts of the world that have opened the door a crack and have had it blown open, never to be able to close it. It's why Nicola Sturgeon said earlier this year she'd moved away from supporting assisted dying because of all these quiet, terrifying inevitabilities.

Ten years ago, I was involved in the debate that we had then on assisted dying in this Chamber, and I put my name to that motion at that particular time to support it. And during the course of the debate, I actually changed my mind. Not in terms of the principle of this, but in terms of whether there had been sufficient thought to how we might be able to implement this in society, how legislation might be designed and focused to enable it to happen, to enable the principle to be implemented, without all the concerns that I'm sure we all share with this. And it's right, it is extremely difficult legislation.

But I think during the course of those 10 years—. During that debate, I changed my mind on it, and I then voted against it, but, 10 years on, I think we've now reached a crossroads. There has been a lot more thought, a lot more analysis, a lot more research, but I think also we've reached the stage where Parliament really needs to take a decision on this, which is why I welcome the private Member's Bill, and I welcome the debate in this particular Chamber. The legislation is a very focused piece of legislation, and it's focused on a very specific description of terminal illness and, of course, there are many differing views, very sensitive and emotive views, and I respect all of those particular views that are made within here. But I believe we've reached a stage where we do have to take a decision. Can I also say that this is a matter—? Although the criminal aspect of it, which is what the legislation is about, is not a devolved matter, the implementation of what happens in this legislation clearly is a devolved matter, and perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm whether he agrees that this is a matter that will come back to this Chamber, that the issue of legislative consent will actually be required, because it does specifically engage the delivery and the implementation by devolved services.

But, for me, this is really about choice, and I can summarise them in just three or four points, I think. Firstly, I think it is about the dignity of choice, and indeed about the dignity of death. Secondly, it would be about, in certain circumstances, my right to be able to choose. It is also, I think, very clear that the role of Government is not to deny me that choice, but to set the legislative framework within which that choice can actually be exercised. I believe that I have the right to make that choice, to make that decision myself, but within the narrow confines and focus of the legislation itself. I support the Bill that is going through Westminster. I would support the idea of a debate in this Chamber in terms of legislative consent, specifically in terms of some of the details of it. But I don't believe it is right now for Parliament to continue to deny me that choice within certain, very specific circumstances. Diolch.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to contribute in this important, emotional, emotive debate in this place today. I also absolutely accept the sincerity with which the Members who have proposed this motion here today, the sincerity with which they do, but I will be voting against the motion here today. And the reason why I fundamentally find this a motion that I cannot agree with is, I think, because, for me, this motion centres on how we value people in our society and all people in our society. No matter their current physical health situation, no matter their current mental health situation, no matter the stage in life in which they are, all people are precious, all lives are precious, and we should show that value to them at all times. And for me, this motion and what this motion implies is a message that says that not all lives have the same level of value in our society. That's not something that I could sign up to. I believe that the proposals within assisted suicide and within the motion before us today undermine the belief I think we'd all have in this Chamber that all lives are equal and equally precious—

Would the Member give way?

Absolutely.

If we value all lives, surely we value the right of individuals to make choices about their lives and how their lives end.

And that argument is similar to how Mick Antoniw in his contribution spoke a few moments ago. But we heard from Delyth Jewell, actually, and others in the Chamber so far, that, sometimes, whilst it may be a theoretical choice, because of the burden that some people may feel, that isn't actually a real choice that they have. Because actually what happens in situations as outlined in Oregon, where a significant proportion of people feel that they are a burden to those around them, it moves from a right to die to actually a duty to die, because of the situation, and then people feel they have a duty to no longer be on Earth for the sake of those around them. That, then, is no longer a choice. It becomes a perceived duty. So, I think that argument falls down at that stage.

And when the state sanctions this, and, in some cases, as we've seen in other countries and other states in the US, when the state sanctions this, that takes it to a whole new level, and, in some instances, the state is encouraging this as well. We know that—. We could all bat around examples, I'm sure, around the Chamber this afternoon, but we know of examples where people are offered, in very much recoverable situations, as described earlier, in that perhaps people may be suffering with anorexia, where, with the right care, with the right support, with the right love and attention, people can work through those extremely difficult circumstances. I'm not undermining or trying to take away from the difficulties they are going through. People can work through those. But very sadly, far too often, in other countries where this is taking place, people are offered the option of ending their lives. For me, that does not value them in the right way in the circumstances, in the sanctity of life that they hold in that moment.

We're talking about the terminally ill.

Sorry, do you want to make an intervention?

Sorry, thank you, yes. We're talking about the terminally ill here, not people with anorexia. You're twisting the debate.

Okay. I'll address that point as well. I feel that that has already been commented on in this Chamber here today. I know you perhaps don't accept this phase of a 'slippery slope' but it really is, because, once a law is passed in this area, with certain criteria by which some people may be able to access this, that will inevitably be challenged in the courts, as has been done in other countries, because it becomes an issue of equality—equality of access to that same level of what may be determined as a health option. So, it becomes an issue of equality, which will be challenged in the courts, and that is when it gets expanded, as it has in other countries, and most notably in Canada, and I'm sure, on that instance, you therefore would not agree with what's happening in Canada, where, in 2027, people with mental illnesses will be able to access or will be offered—not even just able to access; they will be offered this—as a way out of their situations. So, that slippery slope is not just a philosophical idea. It's a very, very real situation in other places all around the world, and I fear that that would be exactly the same in this country, because there would be a challenge in the court of law.

I will wrap up, Deputy Presiding Officer; I'm aware of time. I haven't been able to get through the points that I perhaps would have wanted to, but I'll just wrap up in my closing comments by saying that whether it's through effective mental health support or making spaces more accessible for people with disabilities, the way that we should be working through this is by properly funding, properly supporting, whether it's humane palliative care support, or ensuring that we're valuing all people in our society. Life is precious no matter the situation that you're in, reminding people that there is care, we have compassion, we have love, and there is hope, and that hope is found amongst us, and we should be sharing that, and not offering death as a way out through legislative proposals. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

As a point of principle, I'm a supporter of legalising assisted dying. I believe that individuals facing unbearable suffering and pain at the end of their life should have the right to choose how and when their life ends. However, I do recognise that many of the concerns of those who are opposed to this proposal are valid and they deserve thoughtful consideration. And rather than dismissing those concerns, what I want to focus on in my remarks is how a well-designed policy framework could address them. By building a system, a policy, around certain key principles, I believe we can bring forward legislation that combines care and compassion, not just for individuals but for society as a whole.

The first principle, for me, is the key one. It is autonomy and consent. Assisted dying must be based on the foundation of individual autonomy, the right of people to make decisions about their own bodies, about their own lives and, yes, about their own deaths. For those facing terminal illness and intolerable suffering—and let's keep them where they should be, at the centre of our focus in this debate—the decision to end their life must be theirs and theirs alone. And to protect that autonomy, it's essential that the decision is based on fully informed consent. Individuals must be given clear information about all options, including palliative care, which doesn't work in all circumstances for all people. And consent must be confirmed at multiple stages. And this should ensure that the decision is thoughtful, voluntary and made by somebody that fully understands the implications.

A second major principle is the need to safeguard the vulnerable, as we've heard—the elderly, the disabled—who might feel pressured to choose assisted dying out of a sense of obligation or duty, as others have remarked. That's a valid worry, but it can be addressed by strong protections. The system, drawing on the experience elsewhere, must include independent assessments by multiple professionals—doctors and psychological evaluators who can confirm that the decision is made freely without external pressure. Mandatory waiting periods will also prevent decisions made in haste. These safeguards will ensure that vulnerable people are protected and supported.

Another key principle: medical integrity. Some fear that legalising assisted dying could undermine the ethical responsibilities of healthcare professionals, especially the principle of 'do no harm'. But I believe that a system can be created that maintains the integrity of the medical profession while also allowing for compassionate care. Participation in assisted dying must be voluntary for healthcare professionals, and clear ethical guidelines should be in place. Doctors must be supported in their role to alleviate suffering, confident that they are acting in the best interests of patients. And there should be a proper oversight system that would ensure that the moral foundations of medicine are upheld. Accountability and transparency are critical. A system involving life-and-death decisions must be open to scrutiny. An independent body should oversee all cases of assisted dying to ensure that they meet legal and ethical criteria. Regular audits and public reporting would provide transparency, ensuring that the system is used responsibly and fairly for its intended purposes.

I have very mixed feelings regarding this very complex matter. Truth be told, who am I to have a say? I don't have a terminal diagnosis. I don't live every day in appalling pain and I'm not dependent on others for my care. On one hand, medicine ensures that people live longer; antibiotics mean that people with a fatal illness can survive diseases such as pneumonia that would previously have been fatal. Pneumonia is noted on the death certificate of my grandfather, who suffered from lung cancer; that additional morphine to tackle the pain also helped him on his final journey from this world.

As you will know, this year I lost Dad after he suffered for 12 years with Alzheimer's. Over that period, Dad went from being a man filled with enthusiasm and energy for Wales and the Welsh language to not being able to do anything at all. He wasn't able to speak, he couldn't eat, he couldn't go to the toilet; those were his final years. Apart from his close family, Dad was forgotten entirely during those final years. They were cruel years. They were cruel to us as a family, and there are no words to describe how cruel the experience was for him. Who am I to force any person to live through that experience if they don't wish to do so? I wouldn't wish that experience on any individual or family.

Yet again, on the other hand, even in those final weeks, his smile was still there, and that meant the world to us. It's a very complex matter. Families are very complicated things, aren't they? And the death of a partner or parent often highlights many previous tensions. The addition of assisted dying would be sure to increase familial problems following loss. The impact on the medical profession, the police and the courts would have to be considered. Is the impact on our health and care service in Wales being fully taken into account by going through Westminster and by going through a private Bill?

Will assisted dying happen in a hospital, where a life is saved in one bed with assisted dying in another? Over the past year, I've lost a number of people in that very special hospice, Holme Towers. Will that hospice, which is in such a beautiful location, become a setting for assisted dying? Palliative care in one room and assisted dying in another. And do we intend to deliver a proper health and care service, an accountable, better service, before implementing this law? Nobody should have to face the choice between spending thousands of pounds per week on a care home or assisted dying. That choice just isn't fair.

Finally, I'm concerned about people changing their minds. A number of us have been through very dark times, and at those times have considered doing things, have even planned to do things, have even taken the initial steps towards ending our lives, but looking back, we're very grateful that that didn't happen. Well, a terminal diagnosis, a diagnosis of a painful illness will also take one to a very, very dark place. It's going to take time come to terms with that news and perhaps that might lead to some people changing their minds.

I don't think the use of the words 'state-sanctioned killing' helps anybody, as some have described it as such. Of course, some here who described it as state-sanctioned killing can justify the state-sanctioned killing of others, including innocent people during war.

I will be voting in favour today—just. I do have major concerns. I believe that it's an important debate for us to have, and I thank you, Julie Morgan, for bringing forward this important debate. For me, it's mercy that wins the day, but the dangers are also very clear. Thank you very much.

I'd like to begin by acknowledging that assisted dying, or assisted suicide, as I think that's a more accurate term for what we're discussing, is a very sensitive and emotive issue. Many of us do have family, friends and loved ones who we've seen suffer, and, of course, it is those experiences that motivate us to want to prevent that from happening to other people. But the question before us today is how should that pain and suffering be minimised. Should we, as suggested by the motion before us, change the law to support people who want to end their lives prematurely, or is there another way forward?

Now, let me be clear from the outset that my views are informed and underpinned by my Christian faith, by my faith in Jesus Christ. I regard all life as sacred, I believe that all human beings are made in the image of God and that no matter what our age, circumstances or social status, every single life is precious, it has equal value and dignity and is worth living. But it's not only my faith and it's not only my conscience that draw me to the conclusion that assisted suicide is wrong. It's also the fact that legalising assisted suicide is fraught with dangers that no change in the law will ever be able to mitigate.

It's important to state this: the motion today, before us, goes far beyond the scope of the legislation that's currently being considered in the UK and Scottish Parliaments. There, proponents of a change in the law are seeking to restrict access to assisted suicide to those who are terminally ill, but here we are being asked to subscribe to the view that assisted suicide will be available to anyone of sound mind and settled will who is intolerably suffering, whether terminally ill or not. That phrase 'terminally ill' features nowhere in the motion before us today. Now, 'intolerable suffering' is a subjective term. Where it's been used in other nations, as we've already heard, assisted suicide is being granted for all sorts of conditions, even those such as tinnitus, anorexia, as we've already heard, bedsores and even blindness.

It can also be very, very difficult to determine if someone is of a sound mind and has a settled will. The Royal College of Psychiatrists have told us that evidence is limited as to whether psychological assessments and psychiatric assessments of sound mind and settled will are actually an effective safeguard in the process at all. And coercion, of course, is almost impossible, actually, to detect. The reality is that people's attitudes towards terminal illness can and often do change. Many people who feel anguish and despair at the point of a diagnosis or a significant and sudden change in their health may well feel at that point that they want to end it all, but they go on, often, to find capacity to adapt and to cope as they go on in their journey.

Darren, you need to conclude, please.

That has been the experience overseas and it would almost certainly be the experience here too. So, what is the answer? The answer, in short, is investment in palliative care, investment in end-of-life care. We know that Hospice UK have told us that they are facing a fundamental finance crisis at the moment. And together, I hope that one thing we can all agree on, even if we might not agree on this motion, is that we must do more to make sure that they get the funding they deserve.

Thank you to Julie Morgan for bringing forward this important debate. Although death comes to us all, we as a nation aren't particularly good at discussing death, and I think the fact that we don't discuss the issue then means that we don't always listen to people. We will all have our own views, but, for me, this is about the right of every individual to make that choice. Because we can imagine what it would be like, but until you're in that situation of being in appalling pain, even with the best palliative care, I cannot say that you must seek to survive. And I also want to bring a little bit of—well, I want us to remind ourselves as to why people have made this case, and to go back to those initial points made by Julie Morgan.

If I may, you reminded us that people are already making this choice. They are leaving the country, without the support of loved ones, or if their loved ones are with them, risking prosecution. People are making that choice by committing suicide. And we know that that happens. I'm sure I'm not the only person here today who has received correspondence from constituents where, perhaps, their parents have committed suicide, or a loved one, because assisted dying wasn't an option. So, let's not pretend that this isn't happening. What is extremely sad in that correspondence that I've received is that people have said that they didn't know that they were intending to commit suicide, because they were afraid of what that would mean in terms of that individual knowing their plans, et cetera, and that, actually, there was no dignity in death, no farewell in that sense, as if you'd made the choice, an informed choice, with all the safeguards that my colleague Adam Price has outlined. I think those are logical steps forward. And, yes, I am scared and terrified as well, when I read about those slippery-slope situations, where people have got it wrong in terms of how this is implemented. But, at the end of the day, there are frameworks we can put in place.

I absolutely agree with Darren Millar in terms of investment in palliative care and end-of-life care. We have to be honest that end-of-life care and palliative care aren't properly funded here in Wales currently, and that people are dying without the support that they deserve. People are dying without that dignity. I absolutely also believe that, in terms of people with a terminal illness, some people can live fully supported, full lives and have a peaceful death, but not everyone has that peaceful death; not everybody has that nice death that we all see in movies as the thing that we all want to happen at the end of our lives.

Would you take an intervention on that point? We heard, in some detail yesterday, about the methods used in order to bring about an assisted death in some of the countries where it is legalised—that's not a pretty death, either. Many people struggle for many hours. In fact, we were reading reports from Oregon of 137 hours before they expire. Some people were reviving after having taken the poisons and other pills. That is not the Hollywood glamorous death either, is it, that some proponents and supporters of assisted suicide might suggest will be the case.

No, and that's why you need to get it absolutely right. But I believe that someone has the right to choose when their suffering comes to an end. I don't feel that I have that right to force that person to carry on suffering. So, I think that those safeguards, those concerns, are all very valid, but this is about compassion and people having a dignified end and having that choice.

I believe that our role here is to listen to all of our constituents. Some of them are terrified by the proposed changes, and I absolutely understand. Some do come at it from a religious point of view, but others have the reality of seeing people choose to end their life in a way that isn't of their choosing. This would allow people to have that dignity in death. I am certainly not going to stop in their way, but we do need the safeguards in place. That's why I feel that we need to have that conversation about death, but allow people to make that choice, which doesn't exist at present.

I first of all want to talk about palliative care, because I had a terrible experience about nine years ago, which I absolutely vividly remember, which was a distressing conversation with a recently widowed constituent. Her husband had been diagnosed with terminal cancer some months earlier, and the support that both of them had had from family and friends, as well as the local doctor and the pharmacy, was absolutely excellent. So, I was really unprepared for the description of his last five days in a hospice, particularly his last night.

According to his widow, he was racked with pain, crying out throughout the night, bringing up black bile all the time. This was hugely distressing to his wife, as well as other family members who were present. I apologise if this is distressing to anyone who is listening to this debate, but unfortunately, death is not always, as others have said, the peaceful experience that we would all wish for. And that includes in the setting of a place that is a respite for the terminally ill, as well as a place to die.

Assisted dying was never discussed in the case of this couple because they wanted to spend as much quality time together for as long as possible. They certainly wouldn’t have had the money to get on a plane to go to Zurich had that been the husband’s wish. So, we have to recognise that, for many people who do have the money, they already have this option to take their life if they think—. And one of my closest friends did take this option and went to Dignitas, but she had to hide it from many other people because of the implications of them being prosecuted for having assisted what was her absolute wish.

I agree with Ilora Finlay that the complexities of the issues that we are debating today are not covered adequately in the headlines or the soundbites. That’s because, as a society, we have a reluctance to discuss the event that awaits us all. Contrast that with the culture in Mexico, where, next week, because it is the two days of the dead—1 and 2 November—loved ones will be gathered around the graves of the deceased with their favourite food, their favourite drink, as well as mementoes and photos of them, and a discussion takes place about what they miss about that individual.

I’m sure that there are other cultures of the world that deal better with death than we do. Unfortunately, because we don’t discuss this absolute umbilical cord between birth and death, between loss and renewal, we fail to have those discussions with our loved ones in time. I still feel guilty about the manner in which my father died because I had failed to discuss it, either with him—it was questionable whether he still had that capacity—or with my siblings. Was he terminally ill? He was certainly coming to the end of his life because he accelerated it by eating all of the wrong things, drinking far too much, never taking any exercise, and having a series of strokes.

Of course, as has rightly been pointed out today, assisted dying is complex and emotional, with significant concerns against its legalisation. The changing of law in this regard is a matter for the UK Government. I can understand the Member bringing this forward, but as has already been said by my colleagues on these benches, the proposal we have before us today, the motion, does not reflect exactly what they will be asked to vote for in the UK Parliament. It is ambiguous. I would like to ask what is meant in point 3 by

'intolerably suffering from an incurable, physical condition and have a clear and settled wish to die'.

Well, we know, from evidence—. And I'd like to thank Baroness Finlay and Julian Hughes for providing all Members with a copy of this book. It's a lot of reading, and I've read it, and, I have to say, there are numerous examples of where those such complexities that we've discussed—. It's not scaremongering, they're situations that have happened in countries where this has been allowed.

We note point 1 that this is not a devolved issue and is still governed by criminal law. Let's not forget the Hippocratic oath that those in the medical field take. To me, it just seems bizarre that we're asking somebody whose main role is to help the sick to the best of their ability and judgment and abstain from harming or wronging any man by it—of course, now it's 'and women by it'—. That orders doctors to do their best in their job, and not use their skill or knowledge to harm or kill patients. This is what we're talking about.

There's the point that Darren Millar made about the fact it's not a Hollywood death here. If I was subject to assisted dying now, I could take more—. They can give you a cocktail of pills, or perhaps an injection. It could take longer, and, in some instances, up to 137 hours—from 3 minutes to 137 hours, depending on your own individual body. And, in some instances, as has already been said, people have ended up being—. What's the word when they can't move? [Interruption.] Paralysed, yes. They can be paralysed during this. I think we've got to be quite realistic about what we're asking Government to take responsibility for.

A key issue is the link between terminal illness and mental health, as emotional distress, like depression, may drive the desire to hasten death. I can tell you—we've used personal examples—my father would often say, 'I'm tired. It's time I went home.' On the night he died, he was refused resuscitation. He had no DNR on his record, and he was asking me, shouting out for me to help him, but he was not resuscitated. My own mother, 20 years ago, was given five times the amount of diamorphine, and she ultimately died as a result of this injection, and yet, on her record, no diamorphine. She was terrified, having lived through the Harold Shipman murders.

Janet, you need to conclude now, please.

Yes, I will. I'll conclude by saying we shouldn't be talking about the reality of assisted dying. We should be talking about the reality of assisted living. Diolch.

As stated in the book The Reality of Assisted Dying, co-edited by Professor Ilora Finlay, Baroness of Llandaff, and Professor Julian C. Hughes, both advocates for a change in the law, those opposing such change are motivated by compassion. But the complexities of the issues involved are inadequately covered in the headlines or soundbites of modern media. These complexities and the unintended consequences of a change in the law are of critical concern to those responsible for designing legislation and implementing change.

When we last debated assisted dying here a decade ago, Baroness Ilora Finlay, who worked as a palliative care consultant for 40 years, told me that those of us who care for terminally ill people day in and day out are all too well aware of the vulnerability of people who are dying, how they can be prone to depression, feel a burden on those around them, be pressurised by the unscrupulous, and veer from hope one day to despair the next and back again. This is not to mention the fallibility of medical diagnosis and prognosis. That is why, she said, the majority of doctors and especially those of us who treat dying patients are opposed to a change in the law. Legalising assisting dying might meet the wishes of a small minority of highly resolute, determined people, she said, but it has the potential to put many more vulnerable patients in harm's way.

When I spoke with her last week, she told me that she stands by what she said then. And as she stated only yesterday, one in six people over 65 are affected by abuse and there's a real danger of coercion. The Journal of Pain and Symptom Management has published evidence showing that countries that have introduced assisted dying have fallen in the global rankings for end-of-life care. And although this motion states that up to 88 per cent of the public favour a change in the law, the polls do not consider the practicalities of this. In contrast, in 2019 the Royal College of Physicians found in a poll that 80 per cent of palliative care physicians, those working with dying people, remain opposed to medicine's involvement in ending patients' lives, with only 4 per cent in favour.

Baroness Grey-Thompson, the decorated wheelchair athlete, has stated that she's really worried about proposals to legalise assisted dying and warned that many disabled people could be classed as terminally ill, potentially making them vulnerable to the changes. Disability Wales and All Wales People First have warned that the implications of the private Member's Bill are far-reaching with serious potential consequences, adding that this is why no deaf and disabled people organisations in the UK are in favour of legislation.

As the Royal College of Psychiatrists Wales states, a person who has a terminal physical illness is more likely to have a mental illness and people at end of life deserve high-quality psychiatric treatment, and research suggests that, if depression is treated in people with a physical terminal illness, their wish to hasten death lessens. The recommendations of the House of Commons Health and Social Care Committee inquiry into assisted dying/assisted suicide are also relevant to the assisted dying debate in Wales, where they state:

And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Jeremy Miles.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to begin by thanking Julie Morgan for tabling this important debate today and, if I may, everybody who has contributed. It's almost a decade since we last discussed assisted dying in the Senedd. It is a topic that is as complex and emotive as it is important, but it is a timely debate. A new private Member's Bill was introduced in the House of Commons by Kim Leadbeater MP last week, and Lord Falconer's latest Bill is at the Second Reading stage in the House of Lords.

As Members will be aware, assisted dying is not, of course, devolved to Wales but, should either of these backbench Bills become law, they will, of course, have huge ramifications for Wales. As a matter of conscience, I can confirm that on these benches both Government members and backbenchers will have a free vote on today's motion. As a Member of the Senedd, I have a view, which I will reflect in my vote, but, in my role as Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, I will not be speaking about the case for or against assisted dying today. I intend to focus in my response on behalf of the Government on the practical context of the two Bills in front of the Houses of Parliament and what they could mean for Wales.

The UK Parliament last voted on assisted dying in 2015, when it rejected a private Member's Bill by 330 votes to 118. The latest attempt to change the law came this summer with the introduction of Lord Falconer's private Member's Bill on assisted dying for terminally ill adults in the House of Lords. This Bill seeks to give terminally ill adults with six months or less to live medical help to end their lives through the self-administration of a prescribed medicine. This would apply only to people who are mentally able to make the decision. The decision of the terminally ill adult would need to be approved by two doctors and the High Court.

MPs will also have a vote on assisted dying, as we have heard, after Kim Leadbeater won the right to introduce her own private Member's Bill on assisted dying. We will not know the precise details until next month, when it has its Second Reading. We'll continue to closely monitor the passage of both Bills through Parliament, and we are in regular contact with the UK Government to understand and plan for the implications for the people of Wales.

In response to the question by the former Counsel General, if an assisted dying Bill were to proceed, we would continue that engagement with the UK Government to determine which aspects of the Bill were devolved. This decision would establish whether we would need to proceed with a legislative consent memorandum, but, naturally, the area of health is largely devolved and therefore it is likely that there would be devolution implications.

I call on James Evans to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I personally would like to thank and pay tribute to Julie Morgan for bringing this crucial debate forward to the Senedd today, and for her insightful contributions. I know Julie was a champion of this both when she was in Government and also when she was in Westminster as well, and I want to pay true homage to Julie for all the work she's done on this issue over the time.

I want to talk about the reason why I support this motion today. We've all gone into politics for certain reasons—. I'll try not to get emotional. We all enter politics for certain reasons. I got into politics because I gave my grandmother a promise that I would never let anybody go through what she went through at the end of her life—never. My grandmother had really bad dementia, and my grandmother and grandfather discussed her care, and they decided between them that, if anything bad happened, my grandfather would make the decision that my nan would not suffer. My nan had a really bad stroke. It left her incapacitated. She couldn't talk, couldn't open her eyes, but she was still alive. She had no life or quality of life. The doctors told my grandfather that they could keep my grandmother alive by introducing a feed PEG into her stomach. My grandfather took the decision, based on the conversations he had with my grandmother, that he wouldn't do that to her, and he decided that she should have the option to end her life naturally. The hospital came to my grandfather and said, 'If you do this, we're going to have you done for manslaughter.' My grandfather regretted that decision that he had to make then to extend my nan's life for the rest of his days. I made a promise to both of them that I would never let anybody suffer like that again, and that's why I support this today.

As Julie has said, 31 countries across the world have brought this in. It's because of compassion. It's because of care. Adam Price talked about compassion and care and putting the safeguards in place to look after people. That's why we're doing this; this is why this has to come forward. We owe people the right to make their own decisions. People can make decisions about their lives on a daily basis, how they choose to live it, who they choose to love, who they even vote for, but we're not giving people that right at the end of their life to make a choice about whether they wish to end their life in dignity or in pain. Some people may decide they don't want to choose the assisted dying route—they'll go down the palliative care option. It's so important that we do fund our palliative care properly. But we have to give people the right to choose. Yes, I'll take an intervention, Darren.

Thanks, James, and thanks for sharing the family story that you have. I know that that's a difficult thing for you to share, and I appreciate you giving us that insight into your own experience. I think one of the challenges here is we assume that a lot of the discussion and debate around this issue is because of pain towards the end of life. One thing that we do know from the Oregon experience is that only 28 per cent of people who choose to end their life via assisted suicide cite pain as a reason, or future pain as a reason—only 28 per cent. Don't you find that an extraordinary statistic, and, given that we're all wanting to be here today supporting the need to alleviate suffering, wouldn't it be better to be able to continue to support the existing law, which allows the withdrawal of treatment, but doesn't allow the deliberate ending of a human life?

The problem we see is that the withdrawal of treatment is given when people have reached the end, after they've gone through immeasurable suffering, and it should be that person's right—that person's right to choose. It's not policy makers' right to choose; we should enable people to make their own decisions. We do that on a daily basis, and we should be doing that more. We talk about compassion. Julie Morgan mentioned that one in eight are going to Dignitas. That's people who feel they have no other option in this country, and that's only for people who can afford it. There are people who are suffering because they can't afford to go there. Is that right? I don't think it is. I don't think it's right for anybody.

And I do understand there are concerns around safeguarding. I really do understand that, and I recognise that myself, but if we took the view on any piece of legislation or law that it's a slippery slope, or the safeguards aren't in place, we would never legislate for anything. There are always going to be pitfalls, and that's why we legislate, that's why we have scrutiny, to go through a process to get to the right outcome in the end. We can't dismiss something because it's at an initial stage. That just isn't right. If we did that, we'd never achieve anything. We'd be an inept Parliament and never deliver anything for the people we represent.

But I talked about palliative care earlier, and I think this is an area where I think government, all Governments, of all colours—that's in Westminster, Scotland, here in Wales—all need to step up and do more. We need more money in our palliative care. Palliative care is mainly funded by charitable donations, and, if we don't have charitable donations, that palliative care treatment isn't going to be there. And as Julie did say, in some countries they've actually seen more money invested in palliative care since these laws have been introduced. I think these debates put a focus on end of life; it's not something as British people, Welsh people, that we like to talk about a great deal, but people need to die in dignity and respect, and I think, however people choose to end their lives, whether that's through palliative care or through assisted dying, we have the right to make sure that's in place.

I talked about my personal story, but I do just want to mention something that someone asked me to raise specifically in closing this debate today, and they had permission off their wife, before she passed away, to do this. He said, 'I watched my wife starve to death', because she did not want to see her husband prosecuted if they went to Dignitas. She suffered for about a whole week, starving herself, not drinking, because she wanted to end her life. There's nothing religiously moral about that: that's suffering. And I'm sorry, I don't prescribe to the fact that—. Yes, all life is sacred, we have to understand that, but people have the right to choose. No-one should have to end their life in that way. No-one should have to end their life that way. And anybody who thinks they should end their life that way, shame on you. Shame on you.

The question is whether the motion should be accepted. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, so the vote on this item is postponed until the voting period.

Before we move on to the next item, can I thank all Members for their thoughtful, compassionate contributions to the debate today? I think it's reflected very well upon the Senedd to have that discussion.

Item 6 today is a joint debate on committee reports: the sustainable farming scheme and Farming Connect, and I call on the Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee to move the motion—Paul Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I move the motion tabled in my name. Today's motion asks the Senedd to note three committee reports: two published by the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee and one published by the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. The two committees have worked together in the past, and given that many of the themes and issues contained in the committee reports cover the remits of both committees, it made perfect sense for the committees to work together again. Now, the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee has published reports on the sustainable farming scheme and Farming Connect, and we are debating these reports together because Farming Connect or its replacement will play a key role in supporting farmers to understand and adapt to the sustainable farming scheme in the future.

At this point I'd like to thank everybody who took part in the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee inquiries. The evidence that the committee received from stakeholders was essential in helping Members fully understand what the industry's concerns were, and it helped us as a committee to reach the recommendations that we did. In a nutshell, the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023 set out a new direction for agricultural policy, and the sustainable farming scheme, as it's called, is the Welsh Government's new approach to supporting farmers and rural communities. However, the development of the sustainable farming scheme has been plagued with setbacks, miscommunication and uncertainty. Members will remember the protests across Wales, the wellies on the Senedd steps, and the vocal criticism the scheme received from both agricultural and environmental stakeholders. And so, in May, as we know, the then newly appointed Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs decided to delay the introduction of the sustainable farming scheme from 2025 to 2026. Next year will now see a preparatory phase to develop the proposals further, which will be informed by a sustainable farming scheme round-table of stakeholders.

The Welsh Government's decision to pause the implementation of the scheme was, I believe, the right thing to do. I hope this pause has given the Deputy First Minister time to reflect on the concerns that have been raised because it's absolutely crucial that the Welsh Government gets this policy right, as it will shape the agricultural sector for generations to come. At the moment, Members are still unsure how the balance is being struck between protecting the future of the farming industry and food production with tackling the climate and nature emergencies, and that's not the only concern that the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee has raised. It is still unclear how the Welsh Government will ensure the scheme is accessible to all farmers, whether they are upland or lowland farmers, tenant farmers, owners or commoners. Professor Janet Dwyer of the University of Gloucestershire told the committee that it was an important principle that the scheme was available to all farms in Wales, with options for different types of farms and the markets they feed into. And the Cabinet Secretary told Members that the first principle was to make sure that the universal actions were genuinely available to every farmer who wants to be part of this. The committee heard that 30 per cent of Wales is farmed by someone other than the landowner, and if those farmers are unable to access the scheme, then the Welsh Government is unlikely to meet its sustainability objectives. And so, it's crucial that the Welsh Government understands that it could be taking one step forward and two steps back if they continue to push ahead with the sustainable farming scheme without significant changes being made.

Some of the most powerful evidence the committee received came from the Wales Federation of Young Farmers Clubs, which argued there was insufficient support for new entrants and young farmers, and they had not been meaningfully consulted. The committee's first conclusion in our report is to reinforce the fact that the needs of new entrants must be front and centre of support schemes for farmers, to protect the future of the industry. The committee heard that there was not just a lack of meaningful consultation, but also a failure to even establish a next generation working group. Now, this just reinforced the wider concerns the committee has had about how the Welsh Government's policy proposals had been communicated to stakeholders, and so I look forward to hearing what progress has been made by the Welsh Government to address just this.

The committee's second conclusion is in relation to the lack of information for the industry on payment methodology and rates. All stakeholders told us they thought the costs incurred and income foregone payment methodology would be an insufficient incentive for farmers to enter the scheme, and, frankly, if farmers do not join the scheme because of a lack of detail around payments, then the scheme will not work. Indeed, the committee's report makes seven recommendations, and over half of the recommendations are requesting further detail on the work the Welsh Government is undertaking to develop the scheme.

Now, I am pleased to say that the Welsh Government has either accepted or accepted in principle all our recommendations in the report. However, I am concerned that some of the responses to our recommendations either miss the point that the committee made or did not fully address the concerns voiced by stakeholders. For example, the Welsh Government's response to the committee notes that it is not aware of any unique impediment to tenant farmers. But we heard that tenant farmers would face challenges meeting the required actions under the scheme as their tenancy agreement could restrict their ability to change their land. For example, they may not be able to plant trees. Therefore, I hope the Welsh Government will reflect on the recommendations that have been made. The committee's intention is to drive improvements and encourage change where it is needed.

Now, the third committee conclusion was to recognise the desire of stakeholders to review and repackage the scheme's universal actions and the piecemeal introduction of different actions in the optional and collaborative layers of the scheme. NFU Cymru described 17 universal areas as totally impractical, and the Nature Friendly Farming Network and the Wales Environment Link suggested the universal actions could be packaged differently to make them less onerous. There was consensus that delaying the introduction of the optional and collaborative actions would disadvantage those currently doing more for the environment, such as common land farmers, those managing land designated as a site of special scientific interest, and organic farmers. We know that about 40 per cent of Welsh commons are designated as sites of special scientific interest, and 50 per cent fall within the protected landscape of Wales. And so, given the amount of common land in Wales, perhaps the Deputy First Minister will tell us a bit more about how the Welsh Government will ensure that these valuable habitats are included in the scheme so that they can be brought into management and restored.

Now, as I said in my opening remarks, this is a debate on two Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee reports, and that leads me nicely into the committee's report on Farming Connect. For Members who are not familiar with the programme, Farming Connect is the Welsh Government's programme for delivering a co-ordinated package of knowledge transfer, innovation and advisory services for farming and forestry businesses, and it's generally held in high regard by farmers. For this reason, it's disappointing that the Welsh Government has not better used Farming Connect to communicate with the industry about the sustainable farming scheme in the first place. Farming Connect, or its successor, will play a pivotal role in ensuring that sustainable land management objectives are met, and it's vital that it's also able to continue its important work in supporting and protecting farmers' mental health.

The committee's report draws six conclusions and makes one recommendation, but above all, I believe, is the need for absolute clarity on what the new Farming Connect contract is intended to deliver and why. The committee heard quite diverse evidence from different stakeholders about what the future role of Farming Connect should be and how it fits with other support available to farmers in Wales. Therefore, given the range of views on Farming Connect's future remit and functions, the Welsh Government must set out its mission and its role very clearly.

Now, the committee also heard that Farming Connect could play a vital role in the transition to the sustainable farming scheme, and we even considered demonstration farms as a way to take away farmers' nervousness about the incoming sustainable farming scheme changes and to show how production and habitat management can actually work together. We have recommended that Farming Connect set up demonstration farms to show how a farm could operate under the sustainable farming scheme. Farmers could then visit these pilot farms, learn from their experience and envisage how their own farm may look in the future. It's all about sharing best practice. Of course, the committee understands that Farming Connect does not have infinite resources and capacity, and so I urge the Welsh Government to reconsider the funding that it receives, because Farming Connect will need to help support farmers to transition to the sustainable farming scheme and continue its work in promoting awareness of mental health care in our rural communities. Farming Connect also has an important role in signposting to mental health support, particularly in light of high levels of anxiety and disquiet in the sector about the challenges that farmers face and the uncertainty of the transition period that the industry is in. The Welsh Government should ensure that there is a robust evaluation of whether Farming Connect services are sufficiently geared towards supporting mental health and reducing pressure, rather than adding to it in any way.

The Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you to the Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee for opening this debate. I’m very pleased to put forward the views of the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee on the sustainable farming scheme, which marks the beginning of a new chapter for Welsh farming, because it makes fundamental changes to the way in which farmers receive financial support for managing their land. It will shape the future of Welsh farming for generations to come, and during that time as well, Wales will need to deliver on its global and domestic commitments to reach net zero by 2050, as well as halt and reverse the loss of nature by 2030, and then achieve recovery by 2050. So, this will require a monumental collective effort to achieve this and it demands action from every sector of society, and indeed from every individual in society to deliver upon that objective.

We’re all aware of the strong reaction from the farming community to the scheme's proposals, as the Chair of the economy committee has mentioned. In taking evidence to inform our work, we found that while contributors' views differed on the design of the scheme, there was one thing that they agreed on, namely that the scheme will only deliver the necessary environmental outcomes if there is sufficient take-up of the scheme. Now, that means that the scheme must be attractive, and it must also be workable for farmers in Wales.

To be clear, this is not a choice between supporting farmers or supporting the environment. The scheme must do both. The Welsh Government truly has an opportunity to design a scheme that puts Welsh farming on a truly sustainable footing and ensures that farmers take a lead role in the fight against climate change and nature’s decline. However, there is still some way to go before we reach that point.

As we were preparing our report in May, there were several key announcements made, including a one-year delay to the scheme’s introduction, and while that decision to delay the process was clearly well-intended, we shouldn’t forget that the process of developing the proposals took seven years. And by the time the scheme is introduced, it's likely that there'll be just four years remaining for Wales to meet key climate change and biodiversity targets.

The committee’s current inquiry into halting and reversing the loss of nature has served as a stark reminder that time is rapidly running out if we are to bring biodiversity back from the brink. For many contributors, the scheme that we're discussing today is one of the most powerful tools, if not the most powerful tool, that the Welsh Government has at its disposal to set Wales on a path towards nature recovery. And for them, of course, the scheme can’t come soon enough.

James Evans.

Diolch, Llywydd, it seems very quick to be back at the despatch box again. I'd like to thank the committees, chaired by Paul Davies and Llyr Gruffydd, for the work that they have done on scrutinising the Welsh Government around its sustainable farming scheme, because Welsh farming is at a crossroads, and it's deeply concerning, the Welsh Government's handling of the sustainable farming scheme, because it does threaten the future of an industry that is crucial both to our economy and our environment. As Conservatives, we firmly support a farming model that protects our landscape whilst securing the livelihoods of all Welsh farmers. But what are we seeing from the Government? A worrying mix of delays, poor communication and a failure to engage meaningfully with the farming community.

The Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee's recent report, which we've talked about today, on the sustainable farming scheme makes it clear that there are serious gaps that remain in the Welsh Government's approach. Despite multiple rounds of consultation, the scheme, in its current form, fails to address the fundamental concerns of farmers. NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales have both expressed disappointment that the key issues raised during the co-design discussions, particularly around the financial stability and the complexity of the scheme, have been ignored. The Government has once again pushed ahead with its policies that do not reflect the real reality of those on the ground. What's worse, the committee notes that the sustainable farming scheme proposals have not kept pace with the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023, which was supposed to deliver a sustainable outcome whilst securing economic stability for farmers. Instead, we have a scheme that threatens to overwhelm farmers with red tape, that's creating more bureaucracy rather than practical solutions.

Recommendation 2 from the committee is particularly damning. They call for a complete rethink, urging the Government to go back to the drawing board and co-design a scheme that works. But will the Government listen? I know they've had a lot of round-table discussion events. The proof will be in the pudding, Minister, and I'm sure you'll make an announcement at the winter fair.

But let's talk about the 10 per cent tree cover requirement—a central element of the sustainable farming scheme. While we all support efforts to tackle climate change, the current proposals show how out of touch the Government is. The farming unions of Wales have made it clear that this requirement could see valuable agricultural land lost without sufficient financial compensation or flexibility. Yet, despite these concerns, the Government pressed on. We need policies that enhance biodiversity without penalising farmers for doing their job of producing the food and managing the land.

I can't. I'd like to, but I've been out and they won't let me intervene.

You'd like to. There we go. Okay.

Stakeholders, from tenant farmers to young entrants, have repeatedly stressed that their input has been sidelined. We've seen the round-tables; not many young farmers on those round-tables. It seems as if everything is done to them and not with them.

Could I intervene?

You can, Minister. Yes.

I'm just really interested in the point that there's been no meaningful engagement. After the Conservative Party were urging me to take some time to go through this properly and to meaningfully engage, how does he explain that to the NFU, the FUW, the Country Land and Business Association and the Nature Friendly Farming Network, all the people who haven't had holidays this summer, who've been actually doing this piece of work and doing the meaningful engagement? Have you missed something, James?

Well, farmers never take a holiday, Minister. Perhaps you should take a leaf out of their book, because the average farmer never takes a holiday; they work 365 days a year. And actually, the proof is in the pudding, isn't it, so we will see what you come out with at the winter fair, to see whether you're going to listen to those farmers—

Will you take an intervention? That is absolutely not true; of course farmers take holidays, just the same as everybody else—and so they should. But they pick the time of the year when it's possible to do that. That's absolute nonsense.

As somebody who was involved in the agriculture community, Jenny, I didn't go far when I was a child. But there we go.

But there has been an issue of timing. On the Government's decision to delay the introduction of the scheme until 2026, as has been said, it needs to be got right and I do agree with that point; we do need to get things right. We do need to make sure it's right, but the reality of the delay in itself comes from mismanagement and a lack of preparedness from the Government. Farmers need certainty from the Government about what it's failing to provide. So, how can farmers expect to plan for the future, Minister, when they're left waiting for more detail? I think the committees' reports highlight that all the way through, and I think it's time that this Government supported our farmers and supported rural communities. And I think the work that the committees have done on this scheme is excellent. Diolch, Llywydd.

Thank you to both committees for these reports on the sustainable farming scheme and Farming Connect. They are very important reports that will steer our response, hopefully, for the future of agriculture in Wales, particularly as we tackle the challenges of climate change and the economic challenges facing our rural communities. As it happens, this morning, I launched a strategy related to rural poverty, and securing economic support for our family farms is a central part of securing a prosperous economic future and reducing poverty in rural areas.

In thanking both committees for their work, they also highlight a number of concerns that some of us who live in rural communities are very familiar with. The Plaid Cymru response is that we need further action and greater clarity, for example in relation to the sustainable farming scheme. As we have heard from everyone who has spoken, there is very strong opposition to this requirement for 10 per cent tree cover on agricultural land. This is hugely problematic for very many farms.

Plaid Cymru welcomes the committees’ recommendation that the Welsh Government should review the tree cover requirement and explore alternative ways to meet environmental goals. Farmers are not opposed to contributing to climate change action, but mandating a blanket 10 per cent tree cover will be a deciding factor for many on whether to engage with the scheme or not. And if they don’t engage with the scheme, then there is no future—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course I will.

Just on the use of 'blanket', which we hear again. It sounds familiar, in another context. There have been many statements about the requirement for tree cover on farms over, probably, the last nine months or more. What is clear—and I don't want people outside to go around the route of misunderstanding terminology that's used here—is that it's a maximum of 10 per cent, as I understand it, but taking account of what's already there.

I think that there has been a whole area of misunderstanding that has arisen from this. People have felt—the people whom we are asking to deliver this—that they have to do an additional 10 per cent wherever they farm. I'm also quite aware that there were other statements about the right tree in the right place, where that's appropriate. I just wanted to clarify those points, because I think that they are important points.

Thank you for the clarity, because the lack of clarity is what has caused many of the problems that we have seen and the anger shown by farmers in recent protests that we have seen outside here a few months ago. For many farmers, they can meet those requirements. Other farmers can't. I think that we need to recognise that each farm is different, and the point that you make about the right tree in the right place is absolutely right, so I agree with you on that.

Clearly, the 10 per cent mandatory requirement has become toxic, so we need to detoxify that by being clearer about what we expect and whether current tree cover is acceptable or not, because that wasn't clear in the first consultation that was engaged with. So, we need to broaden the engagement with the stakeholders involved with the SFS. That is being done but, obviously, we await the outcomes of that engagement process. Concerns also remain regarding the sheer amount of universal actions and how achievable they are for farmers.

Within the context of decarbonising the farming sector, one set of solutions that's been largely omitted from the discussion is around renewable energy. If farmers are to play a role in reducing carbon emissions, there must be a greater emphasis on such alternatives. Therefore, I'd ask for the Cabinet Secretary's considerations in this regard. Renewable energy could provide a more flexible and practical solution, enabling farmers to meet sustainability targets while maximising land productivity. We've heard already about the tension around the need to grow our own food sustainably, rather than importing that food, if we lose valuable land to trees.

The committee's report also highlights concerns about tenant farmers—and we've heard that already—and those farming common land. This is an area we, as Plaid Cymru, strongly support, and we've consistently called for greater consideration of tenant farmers' needs, particularly their limited ability to undertake some scheme requirements due to leasing conditions. So, the Welsh Government, we believe, must ensure that tenant farmers are not penalised in any way.

We welcome the recommendation that the Welsh Government update the committee on how it plans to include tenant farmers in the scheme and protect also county council farms, and also support for new entrants and the next generation of farmers.

You'll need to bring your contribution to an end now.

Yes, okay. I'll just quickly turn, to finish off, to Farming Connect.

Very briefly, both reports have raised serious concerns about the disconnect between Farming Connect and the policy objectives in agriculture from Government, so this is something that needs to be considered. Sustainable land management objectives—this is another area where we need greater clarity on the role of Farming Connect, and also the role of Farming Connect in providing support to farmers who have mental health issues. So, I will leave my comments there. Thank you very much.

This is a very important debate. The sustainable farming scheme has to be aligned with our need to adapt, to become more resilient to the climate change that is inevitable. Given the deplorable state of our rivers and seas, why are we continuing to pay businesses to spread fertilisers, rather than rotating their crops, to nourish their land? Why on earth would we give planning permission for intensive chicken farms unless they have a credible management plan for disposal of the inevitable phosphates created? So, no change is not an option.

Of course we have to have a just transition and to support family farming businesses to adapt to the new reality, just as any other businesses or activity in the private or public sector will need to be supported to change. But it's very unfortunate that opposition to the sustainable farming scheme proposals has focused so much on the suggested 10 per cent tree cover, as if this would somehow interfere with the business of farming.

As the Climate Change Committee has said very clearly, increasing tree planting is essential if Wales is to meet its climate change targets. As well as afforestation being an effective means of increasing carbon sequestration, it also has the potential to deliver wider benefits, including livestock welfare, pollution reduction, flooding and soil erosion prevention, as well as protecting biodiversity.

I visited Hywel Davies's farm in Carmarthenshire over the summer, following the presentation he made at a seminar here in the Senedd earlier this year, which was organised by Wales Environment Link. He has way more trees than 10 per cent, and they provide essential shelter for sheep and cows against the rain, as well as the sun, and it is inevitable that we will have more rain, more intensive rain, as well as a lot more heat generated by a hotter climate.

Just on that point, do you think that the arbitrary figure of having 10 per cent tree cover on all farms doesn't fit into the narrative, when someone like Hywel has more than 10 per cent, but farms on the coast of Wales can't grow a single sapling?

No, I don't think it should be arbitrary. I think we need to shift from blanket, which was never, I don't think, the policy, to default. I appreciate that in coastal areas it is very difficult to produce any trees because the westerly winds make it really challenging to do that. We need to absolutely—and I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary would agree with this—look at the reality of the topography of people's farms. But to say that trees are a bad thing in general, when animal welfare is at stake—

I didn't say that.

I know you didn't say that, but that is what some people are suggesting in the way they approach this.

Can you understand why some farmers have scepticism around trees? Because when we were in the European Union, you were being penalised for having ground underneath trees that had been taken off your basic payment. And we had stock-excluded woodlands then as well, where people had woodland and they weren't even allowed to graze under it. It was all going back to rack and ruin underneath them. So can you understand why farmers are a little bit sceptical about tree planting? Because the position on what we do with trees keeps flip-flopping all the time.

I absolutely agree with you, James. You make a really important point. Because I am old enough, and you are not, to remember the days when people were paid to grub up their trees and their hedges, and it was devastation time as far as trees were concerned. We have to learn from our mistakes and realise that trees are an important part of the landscape. As well, I would make a small plea for orchards, of course, for food production. Nobody ever seems to think about orchards when they're saying, ‘I can't possibly have trees on my farm’, because orchards can actually produce produce that people can sell.

I think we really have to look at this holistically in relation to the way we manage our land, given the challenges we face. So, we need to have a land management strategy. This became absolutely clear to me when I chaired a seminar a couple of weeks ago on the next steps for climate change adaptation. It was so powerful to hear the concerns and priorities of the Farmers Union of Wales, the Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board and the Wildlife Trusts, and hear how the actions they wanted to see were so interlinked. For example, reintroducing beavers to slow the flow of excessive rainwater would benefit the 50 per cent of houses in Bridgend that are at risk of flooding, as well as a very large number of health facilities, which people won't be able to get to if we don't do something more imaginative than simply trying to pretend the problem doesn't exist.

Lastly, I just want to say we absolutely have to include a strategy on improving our food security in all this. I remember visiting a farm shop in Treorchy the other day, which was excellent for the business of selling the meat of the local farms, but they weren't able to provide any fruit and veg other than stuff that had come from Holland, which had been injected with horrible substances to prolong their life. We need local food production. This is something that I am very pleased to hear about going on in Powys, where there are three new farms being developed—I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary knows about it. They've identified that there are markets locally for this food, because there is such a lack of it in so many rural areas. So, we absolutely have to change, we have to do things differently, and we can't ignore that we have a different landscape than the one that we were designed for under the European scheme. We cannot just repeat what has gone before because it hasn't produced the security we need.

I'd like to start by paying tribute to the Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, Paul Davies, and thank the committee staff and those witnesses who gave evidence to us. I'm sure I can extend those tributes to Llyr Gruffydd as Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. Although I don't sit on that committee, I did contribute, and Janet says you're a wonderful Chair.

But I am very pleased to contribute today on this debate. I won't be focusing on all three of the reports published, I'll be focusing on the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee report on the sustainable farming scheme. I don't have enough time to go into depth on the Farming Connect or climate change committee reports, so I'm glad that there are many speakers here this evening.

My primary reason for welcoming this debate is that it's necessary. The recommendations of both committees must be heard and, crucially, acted upon. I want to see agriculture thrive, Welsh agriculture thrive, as the highest quality, environmentally sustainable, food-producing industry that it already is and know that it can continue to be. It's evident from the ETRA report that there are serious issues with the sustainable farming scheme, many of which my colleagues have already highlighted. I would like to focus on certain aspects that, in my view, demonstrate a lack of forethought in the scheme, particularly the wording around social value.

Recommendation 4 of the report makes this abundantly clear, urging the Welsh Government to work swiftly, through the round-table, to define the social value element of the scheme. I find it quite hard to believe that this even needs to be stated. Surely, it shouldn't be the requirement of a committee—a recommendation—to compel the Government to clarify a key term of its own that will form part of crucial agricultural support going forward.

However, clarification of the terminology is only one aspect. The lack of adequate financial support for farmers is another. Looking at recommendation 2 of the ETRA report, there has been a failure to include tenant farmers and those working on common land in the SFS. The previous agricultural Minister, rural affairs Minister, repeatedly said that if it doesn't work for tenants, it doesn't work. Well, by that definition, the scheme does not work.

This leads me to a broader point, encapsulated in conclusion 2 of the ETRA report, which addresses both of the issues I've already touched upon: communication with farmers and the payments they will receive. There has been an alarming lack of information provided to farmers about payment methodology and the rates they can expect. While the preparatory phase allows some time for details to be worked out, it is vital that this work is completed without delay, with the Welsh Government giving full consideration to stakeholders' views, noting as well that not all farmers are members of farming unions. How can the message and that information get to them and vice versa?

Well, Brexit has a lot to answer for. We've heard a lot of rhetoric surrounding the sustainable farming scheme, with impassioned voices on both sides of the debate and a lot of disinformation as well. I welcome the round-table events and all the discussions that the Cabinet Secretary has been having with farmers and environmental groups trying to find a pragmatic way forward. The reality, however, is that the science and evidence are very clear: the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world and one in six species are at risk of extinction. Unsustainable land management is the biggest driver of nature loss here in Wales, going back from the 1970s onwards—the way that we've lost our wildflower meadows, and hedges have been ripped up et cetera. When this is coupled with the fact that 90 per cent of land area in Wales is used for farming, it's obvious we need to work closely with farmers to reverse the nature crisis we face. Without nature, we have no economy, we have no food. The sustainable farming scheme is by far our greatest opportunity to take decisive and meaningful action to halt nature loss and actively restore habitats.

Central to the criticisms of the SFS so far has been the 10 per cent tree cover, which has been mentioned quite a lot already. This part of the scheme was drawn up because, without farmers playing their role, we will never be able to achieve our tree planting and carbon sequestration targets. On the face of it—

Will the Member give way, just on that point?

Yes.

Sorry, Carolyn; I appreciate you giving way. The First Minister, a couple of weeks ago, mentioned how seagrass is far more efficient at sequestering carbon. Why then is the Welsh Government persevering with a policy on carbon sequestration that doesn't work as well as other available technologies and nature-based solutions?

Yes, seagrass is really important, wildflower meadows—I'd like all that to be incorporated. Planting trees as well. We need to do an awful lot, because we need to halt, reverse, the decline of biodiversity and—. I'll carry on with the benefits of tree planting, if that's okay, and I will actually cover what you're going to say, if I carry on.

Please do.

Okay, yes. So, on the face of it, 10 per cent seems a high number, but when you take into consideration that the average tree cover on farmland is already at 6 per cent to 7 per cent, you recognise how achievable this can be on many farms. I understand, though, that the topography and geography have to be taken into consideration, but it's amazing how different trees can be planted in different areas; it's just that we need to educate as well. But I agree; it shouldn't just be a numbers game. And I know that the Cabinet Secretary, through his meetings, he's taking all this into consideration, going forward.

We need to show that tree planting brings numerous benefits to farmers themselves, improving soil health, bringing animal welfare improvements by providing additional shade and shelter to livestock—they are happier and more productive when not overheating—and trees provide a natural flood defence. Hedges and edges of fields are so important as well, as nature corridors. They hold the moisture and nutrients in the earth, as they are not disturbed. Soil nutrients are being eroded by intensive farming and water run-offs, which then causes flooding onto the highway and then flooding impacts on homes. Extreme weather and climate change is impacting and will become the norm. It will pose a significant risk to food production security in Wales and the viability of farming. But those edges that aren't intensely farmed retain that moisture and the nutrients, so it just shows how different things could be if areas were managed differently.

Across Wales, the evidence shows farmers who adopt regenerative and organic practices enhance land resilience and enable them to better mitigate and adapt to droughts or floods. They're the most resilient, then, to the impacts of climate change. And we know the biggest medium- to long-term risk to food production in Wales actually comes from climate change. And, as WWF rightly pointed out, farmers who actively engage with nature restoration, nature-friendly or more diverse farming practices are more resilient to extreme weather events. For example, land is less scorched during periods of extreme heat and water stress, and less prone to flooding. We have to futureproof our farming systems to allow us to be more resilient to the impacts of climate change.

Over the years, intensive farming has been increasing, but with fertiliser and food being so expensive, those that have reduced head of livestock and reduced spend on food and fertiliser have realised they can still make a profit but with less outlay and less work under nature-friendly farming. It's like reversing and going back over many generations. The Nature Friendly Farming Network Cymru highlighted, during committee evidence sessions, that managing land for habitat does not have to come at the cost of productivity, and that integrating a diverse range of habitats and features on farmland can maintain and even increase yields. In fact, the majority of farmers who have developed nature-friendly practices say they are now more profitable.

Many of the points that I wanted to make have already been made, but I want to say 'thank you' to both of the committees for focusing on the sustainable farming scheme, and some really key points in that. I want to begin by reaffirming my belief that the sustainable farming scheme represents a really vital step forward for farmers and communities here in Wales, aiming to build a sustainable, progressive and prosperous farming industry. But it definitely has failings. Aspects of the SFS are deeply unpopular amongst farmers, and for good reasons, but I do know that the Cabinet Secretary has been working hard to engage with those farming unions, and I have heard that directly from them.

Farmers want a sustainable future. They do want to deliver on sustainable farming, and they are key allies, as has been said by the Chair of the committee for climate, environment and infrastructure—they are key allies in climate change, and they produce high-quality food for our tables. But, throughout the consultations on SFS, we keep hearing the same thing over and over again from farmers: that this scheme is too complicated, too demanding, and too unwieldy. Professor Dwyer from Cardiff University summarised it really well when she said that what's being asked of farmers is

'an awful lot of extra work for unknown but potentially insufficient reward'.

So, there are just five specific issues from me that I'd quickly like to canter through. Much can be said, of course, in relation to the reports, but I just want to concentrate on these five quickly, and I hope they're constructive.

Firstly, the baseline payment: it's obvious that, when we look at how feasible the scheme is for different farming systems, I welcome the report's recommendation that the Welsh Government should keep the committee updated on how it proposes to include support for tenant farmers and farmers on common land. We've heard from other contributors how important tenant farmers and common-land farmers are. They are farmers, they produce food, and they should be treated exactly the same as any other farmer. The NFU and FUW are demanding that no farmer is left behind, and so I do ask that the universal baseline payment is extended.

Secondly—and I put my tin hat on here—tree coverage. This is a very cumbersome requirement, and I would urge anybody who talks about this and maybe doesn't agree with this to really think: is it that you want every single farmer to have their land—some of the land would be used in food production—to be planted with trees in order to meet that requirement? If it is indeed not a minimum requirement—and we'll hear from the Cabinet Secretary later on—then please can this be clear in your response? I would welcome that, please. No-one—no-one—is denying that we need to plant more trees, but we need to be flexible and we need to be clear with our farmers that this is not a demand for a minimum of 10 per cent on their land.

Yes, you continue.

One more sentence. I hope that I can hear from the Cabinet Secretary that there are no barriers in the SFS to farmers who may not be able to provide 10 per cent trees, to tenant farmers, to young farmers, and to those who are common farmers as well. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I first refer Members to my register of interest as a farmer and a recipient of the basic payment scheme? I'd like to thank both the ETRA and climate change committees for their work on the sustainable farming scheme, and I agree with many of their findings and recommendations, and they have got well under the issues, and we thank them for that.

Their recommendations need to be taken on board, as we've already heard, as a future sustainable farming scheme will shape the future of many things. It will shape the agricultural economy. It will shape how our wonderfully diverse countryside will look. It will, as a result, shape our rural communities and, as such, our future culture and the language that thrives within those communities. All of these things make up the very fabric of Wales as we know it, so it's crucial we get these things right.

When the SFS consultation emerged last year, none of us could have envisaged that the Government could have got things so wrong and were so out of touch with rural reality, and this is, in my experience, often the case when people who design policy don't understand the subject matter enough. The raft of universal actions and expectations on farmers were unworkable, unfair, and some unachievable. The 10 per cent tree cover, the 10 per cent habitat, the ponds and scrapes were just a few of the case in points, which we've already heard today. Things weren't helped by the lack of that payment structure for farmers to consider. The concerns also around the devaluation of their own capital asset weren't addressed, and they've raised fear.

The scheme was branded 'Keep farmers farming', and the thousands of farmers that marched on the Senedd told us different, and they told us it was the opposite. And we know, and it's worth reminding ourselves, that it would have led to a 122,000 reduction of livestock units, in effect, about 10.8 per cent of the Welsh livestock numbers, and a 11 per cent cut in labour on Welsh farms, which is the equivalent of losing 5,500 jobs, based on the current employment levels of Welsh farms. And we know it would have brought a £125 million hit to output from the sector and a loss of £199 million to farm business income.

Now, I was really pleased that the new Cabinet Secretary—. Oh, sorry, Jenny.

These sound interesting figures. Where did you get them from?

They're actual factual figures that have been produced and repeated many times in many documents that have been background to the evidence for this, and from the Government itself, I think, many of them, actually, Jenny.

As I was saying, I was very pleased the new Cabinet Secretary decided to take a breath, and it was refreshing, and take a period of time to listen—[Interruption.] You took a breath, and you took time to listen, and thousands of farmers and rural businesses are banking that you have listened. The industry knows it needs to change. It has always accepted this, but whatever the final schemes looks like, it has to be truly co-created, and I sincerely hope that is happening now.

The Petitions Committee recently considered a petition—it was number P-06-1461—that asked to scrap the universal actions and payment reductions in the proposed sustainable farming scheme. It had about 16,000 signatories and it was submitted by a Mr Jethro Small. And the committee agreed to close the petition, knowing that the petitioner's concerns would be raised on the floor of the Senedd during today's debate, and I'm pleased to be able to bring those concerns to Members on behalf of the petitioners. The petition stated, and these are their words:

'The proposed "compulsory" 10% planting of trees & 10% reverting productive land to habitat, will lead to an obvious 20%+ reduction in food produced in wales, jobs losses & businesses overall turnover in an already struggling industry, this will have a huge knock on effect'—

[Inaudible.]

Sorry. Yes, Lee.

You can't come in when you haven't been here for the whole debate.

I obviously have very able lieutenants who watch who has been in and who has been out during the whole debate. Have you been here for the whole debate, Lee?

No, I haven't—

Okay, that's fair enough. Carry on, Peter Fox.

I'm currently quoting what—[Interruption.] I'm currently quoting what the petitioner—[Interruption.] I'm currently quoting what the petitioner has said. These are not my words; these are the petition's words:

'jobs losses & businesses overall turnover in an already struggling industry, this will have a huge knock on effect to rural businesses & communities & families overall living standards.

'Every universal action increases labour/paperwork & costs to an already strained occupation, yet this is not reflected by increased payments.

'Unworkable!'

So, I wanted to share those, because we promised the petitioners that we would put those to the Chamber. We know things have moved on since the petition opened, but the underlying sentiments that drove it still remain in the minds of farmers throughout Wales, and that's why it's fundamental to get things right. It is clear we need the creation of a scheme that will be accessible to all farmers, tenants and owners, on all types of farms in all locations. There needs to be clarity soon on potential payment structures that can offer the security going forward in the same way as the industry has benefited, over many years, from the current BPS. The Government's final sustainable farming scheme, in my view, has to recognise the value of food production, as well as creating the conditions of increased biodiversity and environmental benefit. Llywydd, I hope that the industry finds a scheme that can work, and I hope that those who strive for greater environmental benefits will also have the confidence that what comes forward will achieve what it needs also. Diolch.

We have to, of course, look at the fact that the first word in this is 'sustainable', and it has to be sustainable for everybody—those living off the land, obviously, and those who will be coming behind them. One area I think that really needs a focus is the intensive farming practices, particularly poultry and dairy, and they must be considered in relation to the management of slurry and whether you use that for energy production, or whether you have the right storage. But my contention about this is that if you have dairy farms, particularly, that are so big that they can't possibly manage those storage mechanisms, they shouldn't have the planning in the first place. The planning should address these issues at the point of allowing expansion, because, otherwise, what you're risking is the pollution of rivers, or the piling up of slurry, which is not good. And I'm going to quote Peter Fox. He said that this scheme will 'shape' the countryside and he is right—it will shape the countryside—but the sight of large barns isn't exactly the shaping of the countryside that the next generation will necessarily want to view. So, that is my starting point and, of course, what also happens with large intensive farming is the acquisition of the land next to it and the land next to that and the land next to that. So, you don't necessarily have the diversification that we're all hoping for, and I think everybody here would hope for that.

Would the Member give way on that?

In a minute. I'm going on to the next round of farms, and those are council farms that particularly are in rural areas. I understand that they're under local authority control, but I do feel that the Welsh Government can and definitely should influence the retention of that land for those communities that they serve and prevent the large-scale sell-off that has been happening. Investment in council farms should happen, and those farms can be used to trial methods and to promote sustainability in the nature-friendly farming that would give an idea of how we could roll that out even further. I'll take your point.

Thank you, Joyce. I appreciate that you've given way. On your point about intensification, that is a direct result of following the common agricultural policy. We're trying to handbrake-turn on 40 years of European policy in this swoop. But the other point is that more farmers will go down an intensive route if they don't sign up to this. If the scheme isn't attractive enough for farmers to say, 'Yes, I will become a sustainable farming scheme farmer', more people will go down the intensive route, exactly as you've described, and don't you think that's to the detriment of the countryside?

I definitely think that intensive farming is to the detriment of the countryside because I've just stated it. So, I have no argument with you there.

The other area I would like to move on to, which somebody briefly mentioned, and I think it might have been Jenny, is the use of beavers. I was at the Dyfi Osprey Project just this week—in fact, I'm there fairly regularly, I have to say—and what they're doing, again, is managing at a small scale and observing and monitoring the use of beavers for the eco management of their land. And it will prevent the wetlands drying out and also flooding. And I think, if we're talking about sustainability, we have to be talking about sustainability that uses all the tools that are in the box, and beavers have to be part of that—[Interruption.] Just a second. And I'm also really, really pleased, when we talk about land management, that the National Trust isn't any longer allowing large-scale production of foreign birds on their land—pheasants we're talking about particularly—that clearly degrade the soil, and yet somehow others are claiming, and I don't know how, that they're custodians of the land. That is clearly not the fact and the evidence says it. I'm sorry I'm out of time now.

The Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to contribute to the debate—Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you to the committees and thank you to everyone who has spoken in today's debate.

This has been a fascinating debate. I think we've had more than 10 contributions. If this was in Westminster terms, that would be over 100 MPs speaking in a debate of this nature. It's quite a testament to the importance that Members put on the committee reports but also to the future of SFS and the role of Farming Connect as well. So, I genuinely want to say 'thank you' to everybody, including those two Conservative colleagues here who have teased me and pulled my leg for the delay, having previously urged me to take some time, think this through, get it right, engage with all the stakeholders, which is exactly what I'm doing, and now they're telling me, 'Don't delay, get on with it.' This is genuinely being damned if you do and damned if you don't. [Interruption.] I will give way.

Thank you. The delay in rolling out the SFS after six years of consultation and five consultations within those six years, and the delay to implementing the SFS, is welcome, but why did it take so damn long to get the scheme into the position that it is already?

Well, Llywydd, I'm really worried now that, with my use of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't', we've now had—one, two, three, four—five uses of that word in this and we're going to be reprimanded. But, look, we are actually working forward very much in the spirit that has been said, with the breadth of the contributions, a genuinely sustainable farming scheme in all the sustainable land management objectives. But let me say in layperson's terms what that means. That does mean, as I've repeatedly said, sustainable farm businesses, viable farm businesses, keeping farms on the land in all their great diversity, but also sustainability in terms of the nature and climate challenges that we face as well. And in fact, if you want genuinely to make farms resilient for the future in the climate challenges that we face, then you will build in climate resilience, and that's part of what we're trying to do with the SFS. And can I just say my thanks to all of those people, having been chastised by one notable speaker here for no meaningful engagement—? Well, there were 25 meetings, some of which were full-day meetings, not an hour here or there, but full days going on into the evening, that we've had, including, by the way, James—

Will you give way?

—on the officials group—I will give way in a moment, to see what your interesting riposte to this is—including on that group, the Tenant Farmers Association, or on the officials group and the ministerial round-table, the young farmers' clubs, the ones you said weren't represented on this: well, they're actually in the officials group. They directly input into this. I can go through the others if you want to as well. All of those people who have been, all the way through the summer, on the carbon sequestration group, on the ministerial round-table, and on the officials group, doing what we said we would do originally, which was after the biggest consultation response this Welsh Government has ever seen, to take the time to go through it in detail and to get it right going forward.

We're not quite there yet, but it's progressing well, and there are going to be bumps in the road as well, but we will get through that, I'm convinced, because of the collaborative approach there. My approach all the way through this has been to listen, to engage, to bring people together in the same place, in the same room, and work through some really tricky issues about genuine sustainability, in all the things that the Chair, Llyr, has just described, and others have described, making this work for farmers, who have to be integral to taking this forward, but also for our nature imperatives, our climate imperatives, as well as that wonderful food production that we are excelling at in Wales: 10 per cent growth in the last year in food and drink in Wales. We are doing well not only domestically, but also in terms of what we're exporting. It's based on the fact of the highest standards of what we do environmentally and with animal welfare and so on, as well as the quality of the food production.

Now, the reports that have come forward, Paul and Llyr, thank you very much indeed; we read them with interest and I hope you'll agree that we've given a broadly positive response to the recommendations and the thoughts. They were actually brought forward in the summer, as we were engaging; we were in the midst of engaging and doing some of the things that you've highlighted in your reports, indeed.

Now, so far, what we've been doing, to give a brief update here, is to review all the universal actions, the key scheme rules, working through some of those tricky issues as well, including the work of the carbon sequestration evidence review panel. They will be reporting their findings to the ministerial round-table any time soon. We're waiting for it.

The work of the group is founded on the structure of the scheme, as was set out in the consultation, as was backed by stakeholders. What we're looking at doing is trying to bring forward something that is—as in the reports is touched upon—supporting the resilience of all farmers in Wales through an integrated whole-farm approach, and also the universal baseline payment. This is based on the completion of a set of universal actions. Those who want to go further will have the opportunity to do so, and we're in those discussions as well, either with the optional or collaborative actions as well, and receive additional financial support.

Can I thank the previous First Minister for telling the Cabinet Secretary I wanted to make an intervention? You did say about getting things right and you did talk earlier about bumps in the road, and maybe I was a little bit unfair on you earlier—

Yes, you were. [Laughter.]

—Cabinet Secretary. But then you have misquoted me twice today, so there we go.

There are going to be bumps in the road, as you've said, but if something isn't right and, say, the farming unions cannot agree with your final position, where do we go then? Where do we go if the farming unions say, 'Well, we're sorry, we don't agree with this. We don't think this is right for the industry, we're stepping away'? What's your position then? I don't want to see that position happen, because, as Sam said earlier, my colleague, if people don't buy into this scheme, we're going to see more and more intensive farming across Wales, which goes in contradiction to everything you're trying to do.

Look, ultimately, James, in my ideal scenario, we get to a point where—it's not quite a rose garden moment, because there are some infamous rose garden moments—we all walk out together and we say, 'This may not be perfect—.' This is the classic Churchill, second world war, 'Give me radar.' 'I can give you three options. One of them will be ready, it'll be perfect in two years' time.' 'No, give me the one that's ready, because they're coming across the channel.' So, what I'm hoping we get to is a point where we have support from all the people who have been involved in this process, and they can genuinely say, 'Go out there. It's accessible to all farmers. It will do the nature and climate imperatives as well.' That's my ideal.

If we don't get to there, ultimately, that's what I take the paycheque for; I have to make the calls on this. I have to make the calls for all the imperatives that the two committees and other Members who have spoken in this debate have spoken about. I need to make the calls if there is disagreement, and I accept that entirely. But I want us all to be behind this, because the criticality, actually, of getting farmers behind this is to have the CLA, the farming unions, the Nature Friendly Farming Network and others saying, 'On balance, this is right. Get in there, get involved,' as opposed to, 'I'm not sure about this,' the cold shoulder or whatever. We've done so much work, we need to see this right through to the end and bring it forward.

Can I turn to Farming Connect and the work that has been done on analysing that as well? Just to say that one of the suggestions in there is that we should actually demonstrate on farms. Well, indeed. The Farming Connect programme now has 220 farms across Wales. They're all involved in different types of on-farm trials and projects, focusing on innovation, new technologies and, indeed, to help them and other farms reach net zero by 2050. This helps to build resilience and sustainability in this changing climate. Across 220 farms, the programme has delivered 94 sustainable land management projects. The best are being shared as best practice examples, farmer to farmer, shared, discussed, demonstrated during open days, case studies and publications.

Just to turn briefly to conclusion 2 as well, the need to explore the use of farmers as mentors, we absolutely agree. This has got to be part of the way forward. It's well catered for as part of the programme we're currently on, and it has to be going forward in the future, because some of this communication is not going to be done, and shouldn't be done, by Government saying, 'Look at this wonderful stuff.' It needs to be farmer to farmer, peer to peer, saying, 'Look what works on this type of farm. Look what works on that type of farm.'

You have a minute to conclude.

A minute to conclude. Well, let me just say that I will be coming back. I hope to come back in fairly short order to provide a further update, not in response to the committee reports, but just to give an update on as far as we've got.

I genuinely think that the wide range of ideas that we've had put forward today are really helpful. We're trying to take them on board, but the point was made, quite rightly, in this debate that ultimately we have to make a call, because we need to give certainty to farmers, we need to give certainty to those out there who are very focused, amongst other stakeholders, the environmental NGOs and so on, that we have a clear direction of travel and we have to go for it. But we're not quite there yet, we're working hard on it, and I appreciate the patience of people want to see what the final design of the scheme comes forward with: design, methodology, economic impact analysis, and then we go. We have to go for this because this is a genuine opportunity. It's possibly a once-in-a-generation opportunity to get it right for all the farmers, but also everybody in Wales who wants to see the multiple benefits delivered through the SFS. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Paul Davies now, the Chair, to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Can I thank the Deputy First Minister and all Members for their contributions this afternoon?

We know that over 90 per cent of Wales's land area is farmed and, as such, it's important that the sustainable farming scheme is workable and has real buy-in from the farming industry. The Welsh Government has recognised that changes need to be made and the Welsh Government has made it clear that it's committed to delivering a scheme that is accessible to all farmers and farm types. The Deputy First Minister has referred to the sustainable farming scheme's official and ministerial round-table groups and sub-groups, and I understand that they are considering all aspects of the sustainable farming scheme.

Members have raised some very important aspects of the scheme this afternoon, and I hope that the Deputy First Minister will take on board the points that have been made here today. Members, such as the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire and the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire raised the problems with communicating to farmers throughout this process, and the lack of clarity and certainty over some of the sustainable farming scheme proposals. We've heard how Farming Connect should have been better used and still needs to be used to help farmers transition to the sustainable farming scheme. Farmers must be able to follow the development of the sustainable farming scheme and understand exactly what is expected of them by the Welsh Government. And Farming Connect can play a very important role in this area.

Members, such as the Members for Mid and West Wales, Cefin Campbell and Jane Dodds, and the Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire have also raised payment methodology and rates here today. I'm pleased that the Deputy First Minister has reaffirmed that the Welsh Government is committed to considering how payment rates can include factors beyond costs incurred and income forgone. Our committee has recommended that the Welsh Government should work at pace to determine the social value element of the scheme and communicate clearly what this means for farmers as part of the sustainable farming scheme payment methodology. Therefore, I look forward to further updates on payment methodology and rates in due course.

We've also heard Members' concerns regarding potential tree cover. The Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee, the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, the Member for Mid and West Wales, Cefin Campbell, and the Member for Monmouth have all, again, raised these concerns here today. During the inquiry, both the Nature Friendly Farming Network and Wales Environment Link emphasised the value of trees for both the environment and agricultural productivity. Farming representatives were also quite clear that there must be more flexibility on the tree planting targets, and the practicalities of achieving sustainable and permanent change need to be considered further. The Member for Cardiff Central was right to say that planting trees in coastal areas is more challenging than in more inland areas, and therefore, we need to see that flexibility. Therefore, I hope the round-table groups that the Member for North Wales, Carolyn Thomas, mentioned are looking at these matters and reflecting on the feedback that the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee received.

The proposal is to note the committees' reports. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

Item 7 is the next item. A debate on the Petitions Committee report, 'A cashless society? P-06-1335: Welsh Government should take steps to ensure vulnerable adults without bank cards can pay with cash'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Carolyn Thomas.

On behalf of the Petitions Committee, thank you for the opportunity to introduce this debate today. The petition was submitted by Mencap Cymru and closed on 15 May, with 2,504 signatures. The petition reads:

‘Welsh Government should take steps to ensure vulnerable adults without bank cards can pay with cash'

'the move to a cashless society will leave behind disabled people who cannot have access to electronic forms of payment.

'In recent months people with a learning disability have been unable to pay for goods and services and have had to leave businesses empty-handed. Support workers are not permitted to use their own cards, and nor should they be.

'This means they do not have equal access to goods and services with many businesses and organisations moving to cashless transactions.’

I would firstly like to thank Mencap Cymru for raising this vital issue via the petitions process and prompting the committee’s inquiry. The committee took powerful evidence from Mencap Cymru last October on the barriers facing vulnerable adults in being able to pay for goods and services with cash. Members heard about a young person who couldn’t buy a rugby shirt with his birthday money because the shop was cashless. I met Steven McGee who was unable to go into a cafe and buy a coffee with cash. Just two examples of people being denied their basic rights to be financially independent and to socialise. This is very distressing for vulnerable adults striving to live independently.

Our commitment to the social model of disability requires us to do everything possible to overcome barriers to full and equal participation in society, but access is about more than just physical entry to a building or having an accessible toilet. We cannot allow the rush to embrace new technology to create new barriers that exclude people. Mencap Cymru and other advocates have engaged with the Welsh Government’s disability rights taskforce on this issue, but the response to the committee’s report highlights that it’s far from resolved. Although some of the levers are reserved to the UK Government, it’s still disappointing that we are far from solutions.

Access to cash is not just an issue for vulnerable adults, of course, it affects the elderly and business owners. The older people’s commissioner has raised concerns about exclusion of older people. A 2022 report by UK Finance, the trade association for the banking and finance industry, found that almost 40 per cent of people still use cash to pay for something at least once a week, and a third of them said they had a cash payment refused.

Following the independent access to cash review, the introduction of banking hubs was seen as an important step in the right direction. Of the 11 hubs listed around Wales, six are open, two are listed as temporary and five are still in development. The Welsh Government says that enhanced deposit facilities have been recommended in 11 communities, including Ystrad Mynach, Cowbridge and Mumbles.

The committee’s report identified the need to clearly communicate whether a business or organisation accepts cash. Something as simple as that would save the embarrassment of going in and not being able to use cash. Prominently displaying a sign with, ‘We accept/don’t accept cash’, similar to the food hygiene rating signs, would help alleviate some of the anxiety and distress experienced when cash payments are not accepted at the payment point.

The Government response says that it does not accept the inevitability of a cashless society, and it has rejected the first recommendation calling for all public bodies funded by the Welsh Government to be required to allow cash payments, as it says it does not have the legal levers necessary. We speak about businesses that are funded through Government money having ethical procurement and ethical employment, so I don't understand why this couldn't be part of it. Mencap Cymru says that the Welsh Government does have the power through the public sector equality duty to insist that organisations that receive public funds accept cash, so I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could respond on that point, or come back to us on that.

I welcome the work that the Welsh Government is undertaking with the Financial Conduct Authority and LINK to address access-to-cash issues, and to consult the unique viewpoints of third sector organisations in Wales. Asking the FCA to use more than just straight-line distance measurements to show the proximity of free cash ATMs is a good example of making sure that UK-wide measures take account of Wales-specific needs. This was implemented in the FCA's new rules, which came into force last month.

The report’s final recommendation is on community banking facilities, and the response states that this is a reserved matter. However, Members will be aware that there was a programme for government commitment to set up a community bank, but those plans were put on hold after Monmouthshire Building Society pulled out. They cited unpredictability in the UK economy—that's why it was all put on hold—which was disappointing, and the Government’s response focuses instead on new banking hubs and the work of its responsible lenders network.

The ongoing work within the disability rights taskforce to address practical access issues is also very welcome, although I’m sure Members are keen to see concrete changes resulting from this engagement work. We are certainly a long way from addressing the ability of Steven, who gave evidence to the committee last October, to spend his own cash as he wishes. That's what we're asking for. I thank the petitioners. This a hugely significant issue to Members, so we thank you for bringing this to our attention. I look forward to today’s debate on this issue. Thank you.

Can I also thank the petitioners for bringing the petition forward? The use of technology when it comes to paying for everyday items may seem to make our lives easier, and it is something that many of us take for granted—many of us don't even use cards anymore, do we; we can buy most things we want with our phones, or even our smart watches—but with the increasing number of businesses being card only, there is the very real risk that members of society are very much being shut out.

The committee heard some incredibly sad stories, as we've already heard, of people feeling left isolated after being told they could not purchase products, ranging from a cup of coffee to a rugby shirt. One young man with learning disabilities became so distressed when he was told that he we was unable to purchase a magazine that the police had to be called. It is not just those with disabilities that struggle, as we've also heard, to pay for goods and services. Older members of society can also struggle to have access to online banking and feel more comfortable paying with cash.

The use of cash only has widely been used as effective financial advice for those trying to budget, as we can easily lose a sense of the value of money when it comes to simply using a card. This is especially true for those in society who really are living pay cheque to pay cheque, making sure that every pound counts. There is clearly a lot of work that needs to be done to ensure that these members of society are not left behind. So, I hope the Welsh Government works with businesses and banks to ensure that more is done to accommodate and that there is more awareness of those who rely heavily on cash to ensure that no-one is barred from buying goods and services.

The Government must also ensure that there is greater access to community-based banking facilities to ensure that businesses can continue to access and deposit cash, and to ensure that the banking needs of those with learning disabilities are met. Thank you.

Sioned Williams. You caught me out there, Peter.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to thank Mencap Cymru for bringing this petition to the Senedd, and all those who’ve contributed to the inquiry. This is such an important matter because I think it goes to the heart of equality and what we mean by equality, because I think this is a plain and simple matter of fairness and inclusion. And it's a clear demonstration of what failure to practise the social model of disability looks like in day-to-day life. It's yet another example, unfortunately, of how changes and processes are put in place without consideration of the impact on disabled people, because in plain language, this is about discrimination.

Over a year ago, I raised this very concern—the detrimental impact a cashless society could have on citizens with a learning disability—with the Minister for Social Justice, and it's disheartening that little has changed since then. I'm hopeful that today's debate will compel the Welsh Government to take action and they will rethink some of their half-hearted, illogical and disappointing responses to many of the report's recommendations.

We constantly hear how the Welsh Government say they want to see a fairer Wales. Well, that has to mean something, in practice, in everyday life. And allowing organisations who receive funding from the Welsh Government to follow practices that exclude people with learning disabilities, that discriminate against people with learning disabilities, that cause distress to people with learning disabilities, is simply not in keeping with that. Words really have to mean something, especially when faith in politicians' words is at an all-time low. And so the Welsh Government just has to put its money where its mouth is on this, quite literally.

It's extremely disappointing that they've rejected recommendation 1, which asks them to do just that. As chair of the cross-party group on learning disability and as Plaid Cymru spokesperson on social justice, I've continued to hear examples of this happening. I attended the launch of the report in the Senedd, with people directly impacted by these exclusionary practices.

I've heard about how people with a learning disability can't buy food or drink on a Transport for Wales train. They can't buy what they want from a shop or cafe and can't buy an ice cream or a programme at a theatre, even if they manage to buy tickets in the first place. Because the Welsh Government help to fund the Hynt card, the access scheme that allows cardholders to a ticket free of charge for a personal assistant or carer at theatres and arts centres participating in the scheme, but then the Government won't mandate that those venues, which are in receipt of public funds, must enable people with learning disabilities to be able to buy a ticket with cash. It just doesn't make sense.

Sioned, you need to conclude, please.

Yes. In your response to recommendation 3, the work of the taskforce is mentioned, but could you detail specifically how the forthcoming disability rights action plan will address this issue?

This is an extremely important matter. It's about making fairness and equality that we all say we want to see a reality.

Thank you to Carolyn Thomas, the Chair, for opening the debate and to Jack Sargeant who was the Chair for the majority of the period that we took evidence on this issue. And the evidence was very powerful from people living with disabilities and owners of small businesses, and on the impact on charities. I'm not going to repeat what you've said and what Sioned Williams has said very powerfully about the impact on people living with disabilities.

There are a few comments from me. We do have to accept the fact that the use of cash has changed entirely over the past few years, from 50 per cent to just over 10 per cent now. From a nationalistic and republican perspective—bear with me on this one—it may be a good thing that we don't use cash or have money in our pockets. Along with a decline in stamps, phone kiosks and post boxes, it's one less symbol of the English monarchy around us.

But what about the practical point, the practical impact on people? I'm sure that we all remember using fake money at school to help us learn to count, but, whilst playing shop recently, I noticed that Esther, my young daughter, made a bleeping sound when pretending to pay for something. Of course, she was paying for goods with her phone, because that's what she sees us doing—we use our mobile phone. Cash is a very strange concept for her. But paying with a phone isn't going to help Esther learn how to add, to subtract and to budget.

And what about the impact on charities? A charity box by the till was a very familiar sight at one time, and we'd put our loose change in these boxes, and during internationals and concerts in Cardiff city centre a bucket would be passed around in pubs and on the street, and people would throw loose change into the bucket. Now, of course, it's possible for us to make a bank transfer or set up a standing order, but that's very different, isn't it, to getting change and putting it straight into a charity box. I'm sure that this is having a particular impact on smaller charities and more local charities.

And then what about homeless people? We didn't hear a great deal of evidence on this matter, but a number of homeless people are entirely dependent on the change that they receive on the street, and as we know opening bank accounts continues to be challenging for homeless people. Surveys have shown time and time again that deprived areas are most likely to use cash, and often areas where there's a large multi-ethnic community. So, we need to remember those people who continue to be highly dependent on cash.

Now, we aren't going to arrest the decline in using cash. That trend will increase, I'm sure, but we must remember that the end of the cheque book has often been predicted, and I received a cheque on Sunday. People continue to use cheque books. Cash isn't going to disappear. We're not going to have a cashless society for decades to come. It's been a part of our history as humans for centuries before the birth of Christ, and will continue to be part of human history. But what's important is that, as society changes, as technology develops, we must strive to ensure that we don't leave anyone behind. Changing habits and technological developments can never, ever be an excuse to ignore the needs of the people that we need to safeguard most, namely the most vulnerable in our society. Thank you.

First, I'd like to recognise the work that's been done on this important issue.

Can I thank Carolyn too in her capacity as Chair of the Petitions Committee for her thoughtful and thorough letters recently sent to me in response to some of my constituents' queries on this very matter that we're discussing today? Like many people here, it's something I've had conversations with individuals and organisations about in the past. More recently, it was raised with me when I went to speak to the wonderful women of Caerwys Women's Institute during August. They actually have an active campaign at the moment to raise awareness about moves to make communities cashless and how that has been impacting on people who don't have access to banking facilities and the like to make this possible. In fact, they're on the ball—they turned up at my funding fair on Friday and were gathering support for their petition whilst they were there as well, and talking to people about the campaign. Because we know not everybody, like we've heard, in my corner of the country, in north Wales, can go cashless, and many people find online banking difficult to use or are perhaps suspicious of it. And then, compounded with that, we know there have been regular closures of banks in communities right across the country, which risks leaving many sections of society behind.

And whilst I do recognise that the ability to legislate on this matter remains very much reserved in many ways to Westminster, I think there are opportunities for Welsh Government, by working in partnership with organisations across Wales, to consider further what we could do here in Wales with those levers we do have, whether that's thinking a bit differently around our public funding provisions, on procurement, through remit letters, or even very simply through how our social partnership, our partnership working, approach can be applied to bring organisations and businesses with us, whether there are things we can use around taxation, around business rates, to incentivise some things too. So, I think there are opportunities to do things differently and think differently, and we also, obviously, need to make sure that this is on the agenda of the UK Government as well and we don't just go with the assumption that everybody is comfortable, confident and able to move with the times. Because if we do that, we are not going to be an inclusive and accessible country here in Wales. Diolch.

I'm glad to have the opportunity to speak in this debate today on the back of this very important petition. I concur with a lot of what's already been said, particularly by the Plaid Cymru Member for South Wales West; I thought it was very poignant what you said. And I thank the petitioners for bringing the opportunity for us to debate this today.

We live an era of rapid change, with more people using cards and phones to pay for almost everything. The shift, accelerated by the COVID pandemic, feels inevitable. However, it is so important, and it's been said numerous times today, that we don't leave people behind. According to the 'Financial Lives' 2022 survey, 3.1 million UK adults, 6 per cent of the population, still heavily rely on cash. In Wales that figure stands at 5 per cent. These groups include, as has been said, the elderly, the vulnerable, and those unable to access online banking, with some people uncomfortable with going online—26 per cent use cash for almost every transaction—while 19 per cent of those aged 85 and over depend on it as their main payment method.

One of those significant groups affected, as has been said, is those with learning disabilities. Mencap Cymru has raised concerns that, as businesses move to card-only payments, these individuals face exclusion. For them, cash offers a manageable way to handle finances; without it, they risk humiliation and are often unable to make basic purchases. Support workers cannot use their own cards on behalf of individuals, compounding the issue. The Welsh Government acknowledges the challenge, but emphasises that these payment methods are largely a commercial decision. However, there needs to be a commitment to engaging with stakeholders, to retain cash systems and ensure inclusivity.

For many elderly people, cash is more than just a way to pay—it's a means of maintaining financial independence. As bank branches close, accessing cash becomes harder, further isolating those who rely on it. As has been said, families on tight budgets also find cash helps control spending. Small businesses, especially in rural areas, like my own, benefit from cash transactions, as they avoid card payment fees. I can think of a few businesses just off the top of my head. With unreliable internet in some regions, cash remains an essential option for both businesses and customers.

While the move towards a cashless society may seem inevitable, it's clear that it doesn't work for everybody. Incidentally, I too saw an elderly gentleman miss out on buying food and drink on a very long train journey from Cardiff to north Wales, and that's just not good enough. This isn't about halting progress; this is about ensuring fairness and compassion. We must protect the right to use cash for those who need it most, building a society that works for all, and not just for those who can easily adapt to a cashless world. I urge the Welsh Government today to take heed of this position and make these concerns heard in Westminster. Thank you.

May I thank the Petitions Committee, but mainly thank Mencap Cymru, for bringing this case forward? It's a shame that we have to have this debate, because the argument's been made in terms of why this is so very important, and it's very disappointing to see the Welsh Government rejecting what, basically, makes sense. We are talking about ensuring that everyone can contribute, participate and be part of society, something that the Welsh Government is committed to, something that we hope that we are all committed to. And the question that I have is: why can't the Welsh Government, through remit letters, ensure that this is included? This would actually deal with recommendation 1, because, after all, I've been going through the remit letters of a number of these organisations, such as the arts council, and one of the shared goals is:

'Improving access and participation for all'.

And one of the main objectives set out in that letter is to:

'Celebrate diversity and move to eliminate inequality in all of its forms.'

So, I would like an explanation as to why you can't specifically note, in those remit letters, that every organisation in receipt of funding from the arts council and through Welsh Government funding directly—. Why can you not say that they would therefore have to take cash?

May I briefly interject?

Of course.

I just want to draw attention to the fact that we have Neil here, a young person from Newport, and he's here with his mother. He went to the Wales Millennium Centre. It's a huge concern; the turnover must be in the millions. He wasn't able to buy himself an ice cream during the interval, because he didn't have the means to do it. They don't take cash—you know, the distress that that causes. As you say, when the arts council, who are managing these huge national institutions and venues, say that they want to see inclusivity and then something like that happens, it just doesn't make sense, does it? So, I just wanted to raise Neil's case with you.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Sioned, and thank you to Neil for being here today, because for every story behind that petition, there is someone who has been turned away. I've heard it from constituents. It is something that happens so, so frequently. It's not a one-off every now and then; it's something that happens day in, day out.

I was also pleased, Carolyn, that, in your introduction to the debate, you mentioned that it's not just this specific group of people. I think of children as well, many of whom are not old enough to have cards. I don't know about you, but children are still obsessed with cash. Maybe you've not reached that age yet, but, once they understand what cash means, I promise you, they are obsessed with spending their own money. And it is about independence, but learning responsibility as well, and that's much easier to do with money rather than online. So, I do feel that that's another element. Also coercive control. Many people, we hear, their spending is monitored, and, if it's online, that can be extremely difficult. So, there are many, many people who would benefit from this, as well as the arguments already made.

So, for me, I would just like clarity: why can't we use the remit letters to ensure that this change happens? It's not difficult, it's something that could be simply put right, but it would make a massive difference to so many people we represent. And if we are serious about ensuring equity to everyone here in Wales, equity of participation, let's remove this one small but significant barrier, so that people can use cash and aren't turned away from having an ice cream or being able to participate in the things that we all enjoy in life. Everyone should be able to enjoy them.

I support the petition. I will try and avoid repeating anything anybody else has said. But the Welsh Government should take steps to ensure vulnerable adults without bank cards and other electronic means can pay with cash, and also those who do not want to use cards can use cash. There are many things, such as home working and the move to virtual meetings, that are a post-COVID dividend; one of the disadvantages is the move to a cashless society. While many retailers, mainly larger retailers, want people to use a phone, a watch or a card, which makes keeping their accounts easier and avoids giving change, many smaller retailers prefer cash. Card processing fees can typically range from 1.5 per cent to 3.5 per cent of the cost of an item. This eats into the profits of small retailers. What we can do is use cash whenever making a purchase from a small local retailer. It will help them, and it will cost us the same.

The advantage of using cash is that you can budget and control your expenditure. How many times have people only realised how much they've spent when they look at their bank or credit card statement, or when a payment is declined? Using a card means you can easily overspend. Cash gives you control over your expenditure. When it's gone, it's gone. You can avoid interest by paying with cash and save money. It promotes careful spending. Swiping or beeping a card is easy, but withdrawal and handling physical cash can make you more aware of your spending and how much is in your bank account.

I'm now inviting Members into the world of people with limited income. There's the tin system, where people put money in tins for every regular payment, ensuring they can pay their bills when they arrive. For those with limited income, this can only be done with cash. When you use cash, you can appreciate how much an item costs. There are people who want to use debit and credit cards to pay and to order online, but others want to use cash. The choice needs to be there to use cash or card, not being forced into using card.

Finally, the Welsh Government can, and not necessarily in a remit letter, make a statement that it would like all public bodies in Wales to collect and to take cash. Remember that comprehensive education came in from a Department of Education and Science circular. An awful lot can be achieved by Government saying something without actually needing to bring in legislation.

And I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Jane Hutt.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd, for the opportunity to respond to this very important debate on the Petition’s Committee's report.

Let's again state what this is about—a cashless society: 'Welsh Government should take steps to ensure vulnerable adults without bank cards can pay with cash'. This has been an excellent debate, hasn't it? It's really been important. The Petitions Committee, I have to say—. I do welcome, of course, the new Chair of the Petitions Committee to the role and for addressing us today and giving us such insightful recommendations, and also talking about the evidence that you received. So, I do thank the Chair and the members of the committee for your hard work on this important issue, and the evidence that you gathered. Of course, it's very good that we've got some of those who influenced the committee here today in the public gallery. We really welcome you and recognise that there's lived experience here, isn't there? And not just here today, listening and sharing on this occasion in terms of this debate, but also giving that evidence of how their lives have been affected, how they've been disadvantaged by the access-to-cash deficit, which I would call it.

I remember not only meeting with Mencap Cymru and colleagues, but that this came up in the disability rights taskforce, as you asked the question, Sioned, about how we engage with these issues. We heard first-hand, as we have done today, examples of where disabled people had been excluded from accessing businesses and services because of cash refusal. So, yes, in terms of financial inclusion, yes that is devolved, and we do work very closely with LINK and Cash Access UK to ensure that cash continues to be available in communities, through banks and, increasingly now, of course, through post offices in areas where banks have closed, and also ATMs, some with deposit facilities. We have got the OneBanx kiosk in the Principality Building Society, in the Cowbridge branch, but also they're rolling that out, and I regularly meet with ethical finance responsible lenders through their network.

But I'm very mindful of the concerns raised about that recommendation 1 today. That actually did say, 'Couldn't we do something as a Welsh Government to ensure that, particularly those we fund, should accept cash?' I think the concerns raised that business, sporting venues and art centres don't always accept cash payments at their venues are very clear from the debate today. So, I'd like to say today, as Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, I would like to follow this up. I'd like to seek a meeting with Mencap to discuss this further, but also look at it in terms of what we could do.

I think, Chair, you mentioned the public sector equality duty. Well, of course I want to look at that. Hannah Blythyn mentioned the campaign from the Women’s Institute, so I would probably want to engage with other campaign groups as well, and maybe you can draw attention to the ones who gave evidence, because I think this is something where, okay, we might not have all the powers, we might not be able to mandate, but ask what is it we can do. And I actually think that recommendation 1 is very reasonable, because it actually says that some organisations will no longer have facilities to accept cash or deposit cash, and therefore will require support and guidance. So, we do need to talk to organisations. This is about us working together in social partnership as well, of course, with businesses and employers.

Can I just ask you, as well, to have conversations with the Minister for transport, because the issue around trains, and Transport for Wales, is a very real one as well, especially with this introduction of the fining system? I know we're always thinking of accessibility in terms of physical accessibility; this is just as much of a barrier, and so, in the same way we had to fight that fight years ago, when people said, ‘No, we can’t widen doors because the building would fall down’, this is the same kind of issue. We have to say, 'Transport has to be accessible and you're able to use cash.'

I will obviously take that up as well; thank you for that. And an example was given, anyway, of an elderly person who wasn’t able to buy a cup of tea. Now, this should not be the case. So, we will look at that as well.

So, finally, really, from me, Dirprwy Lywydd—you’ve been very generous with time—just to reassure you, I see this as a key social justice issue, and I will take this up in the way that we need to do. We need to also work across Government to raise awareness of the issue. Service providers, businesses, equality groups—I will meet with you. It has got to be a collective effort, cross-Government, cross-sectoral, and it also involves the new UK Government, so I want to engage with them as well.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to respond to this very important debate.

Thank you for this debate today. I think we can open doors to address this issue here in Wales. Diolch.

And I call on the Chair of the committee, Carolyn Thomas, to reply to the debate.

Thank you. I’d like to thank all the Members for their contributions today. Peter spoke about the sense of value of money, so did Rhys as well, and Heledd, especially for children, learning about the value of money. Sioned spoke about equality, fairness and inclusion, and highlighted the need for businesses that receive public funds to abide by their ethical social value and allow people to use cash, and I am really pleased that the Cabinet Secretary will be taking that forward.

Rhys also spoke about the declining use of cash and the impact on charities as well, with collection boxes, and homeless people as well, for those on-the-go donations—it’s really important. And deprived areas are more likely to use cash. Hannah spoke about procurement and remit letters, and taxation and business rates, and writing to the UK Government as well, and so did Heledd.

Laura Anne mentioned that we mustn’t leave people behind. Decisions shouldn’t just be based on commercialism, and Heledd also mentioned coercive control for people who just use online banking rather than cash. And Mike spoke about how cash is king, and the importance of it for budgeting as well, especially, like I said, in deprived areas.

So, I find this has been a really good debate, and thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your positive response, and agreeing to meet with Mencap as well to go through everything—that’s really good—and talking to the Cabinet Secretary for transport as well.

I thank the Business Committee for granting time for this important debate, and Mencap Cymru, and all those involved in that piece of work. It shows that speaking out, having a petition, can make a difference, and we're all here to listen and work through this. So, thank you so much. We have been trying to tear down the barriers that prevent disabled people from living their lives to the full. It's clear that the growing reliance on cashless transactions creates a new, unforeseen barrier. So, I hope people across the room and across Wales have maybe listened to this debate and that businesses will think long and hard about this and change the way that they're behaving. It shouldn't just be based on commercialism; we've got to think about people, too. So, thank you very much for having this debate.

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

We'll move now to item 8, the Plaid Cymru debate on the UK Government budget. I call on Heledd Fychan to move the motion.

The purpose of today’s debate is to give this Senedd a voice in terms of the budget that will be presented next week by the UK Labour Government. Considering the implications for Wales, for the Senedd and for all of the bodies we fund, it’s important that Wales’s voice is clearly heard, which is why the motion today focuses on five asks.

In the run-up up to the general election, Wales was promised change. For years, we have heard Government Ministers in this Chamber say time and time again that once we had a Labour Government in Westminster, it would be different for Wales. To date, the so-called partnership in power has underdelivered for Wales, and we hope that by putting forward this motion, which demands fairness for Wales and fairness for the people of Wales, we as a Senedd can unite, and in some cases reaffirm demands we have previously, and across the party divide, agreed on.

In response to Rhun ap Iorwerth’s questions yesterday, the First Minister told us that she is having direct conversations with the UK Government and has stated that she’s made clear the priorities of the Welsh Government. But what are those priorities, because they seem very different now to what they were prior to the election? If we are to take that at face value and to look at what's in the Government amendment, they're vastly different. Take, for example, our first ask in the motion, relating to HS2, where we call for the reclassification of HS2 as an England-only project and that Wales receives the £4 billion HS2 consequential previously demanded by the Welsh Government as well as the now Secretary of State for Wales as recently as 2022. Now, the Government’s amendment waters down those previous demands and states that the Welsh Government is now requesting a commitment to further discussion about funding in relation to HS2. So, let’s break that down: a commitment to further discussion. I’d be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could clarify today if that is the ask from the Welsh Government in relation to HS2 in those direct conversations, and if so, then why that ask has been diluted. After all, we previously heard from the Welsh Government that this funding was something Wales was plainly entitled to. Surely, as a Senedd, we should be united in reiterating calls we made to the previous UK Government in relation to this. Requesting a commitment to talk is not the same as demanding what is rightfully ours.

Our second ask is also one that the Welsh Government supported: a commitment to devolve the Crown Estate. This ask is missing from the Welsh Government’s amendment. Why? Do we take from this that the First Minister isn’t making that ask by now? After all, it is only a few months since the now Deputy First Minister said that he looked forward to a future Government of a different colour making sure that the benefits in Wales from Crown Estate assets are retained here within Wales. What’s changed? Do Welsh Labour no longer support this call, which would guarantee that profits from our wealth of natural resources go directly into the Welsh budget? And if you do, then why has it been deleted?

And that then brings us to our third ask, namely a commitment to replace the Barnett formula as soon as possible, along with the relevant timetable. The Conservative amendment retains this demand, but what of the Government amendment? Once again, no reference made to reforming the Barnett formula. And why water down the calls that you made so robustly when another party was at the helm in Westminster? But perhaps we shouldn't be surprised by this amendment, with the First Minister having confirmed in written correspondence to Rhun ap Iorwerth that she intends to work towards a fair application of Barnett. But how can we deliver fairness through a system that is fundamentally unfair? Even in May, you voted in favour of replacing the Barnett formula in the Senedd; what's happened since then?

And when it comes to our fourth and fifth asks, namely a commitment to restore the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and a commitment to abolish the two-child benefit cap, once again these have been deleted by the Government's amendment. Why? In terms of the two-child benefit cap, something that the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice has described as a shameful betrayal of the 30 per cent of children in Wales who currently live in poverty, why are you now so quiet on this point?

And the same is true in terms of abolishing the winter fuel allowance. If it was the previous Westminster Government doing this, you would have been unstinting in calling out the cruelty of this policy. So, why this unwillingness to speak out for the people we represent here? As the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales warned, this will lead to some of our constituents dying. But again, this isn't one of your asks.

Wales has been short-changed by Westminster and we can see the direct impact of this on our public services and on the people of Wales. As a Senedd, it is our duty to work cross-party and stand up for those we represent by demanding the funding owed to us, irrespective of which party is in power in Westminster. This isn't about party politics; it's about putting people before party, and ensuring we have the resources needed to do our job here in Wales. And whilst Labour used to be united with both Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats in opposing austerity, why are you now allowing the UK Labour Government to continue with austerity?

So, I urge those Labour backbenchers who have been vocal in supporting the demands of our motion previously to stand up today, so that this Senedd can send a clear message to Westminster about what we want to see next week's budget delivering for Wales. Putting out messages on social media or writing articles for Nation.Cymru outlining your opposition to cuts to winter fuel payments and so on is meaningless if you then proceed in this Chamber to vote down motions that oppose them.

I look forward to the debate and hope that all Members read in detail the motions put forward, as well as both amendments, and vote according to their values and with the people of Wales in mind, by supporting our motion today as it is and without being amended.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected, and I call on Peter Fox to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Yes, and I move the amendment in the name of Darren Millar. I want to begin by saying there is much I agree with in this motion. It is clear that Labour in Westminster and Labour here in Wales are not working for the people of Wales. However, there are a couple of elements—or certainly one element—within the motion that we don't agree with, and that's the devolution of the Crown Estate. Wales is on the cusp of being a global leader in the renewable energy sector and has so much potential, devolving that responsibility would simply throw this into doubt, and it would not be in the best interests of Wales at this time. Next week—[Interruption.] Well, that's our position. [Interruption.] Because it's our position. [Interruption.]

We don't know why.

It is our position.

The Member has given an answer.

It's not a very good one, is it? Come on.

And it's the Member's choice.

It's our position. [Interruption.] That's right.

So, next week, we finally get to see the long-awaited budget from this new Labour Government in Westminster. I would like to say I'm hopeful, but it really seems that this is set to follow in the incredibly disappointing footsteps of the first 100 days of Labour. We have seen nothing but spin, deception and u-turns from Labour Ministers in Westminster, and sadly their colleagues here in the Senedd seem to be jumping into line.

The older people's commissioner has said that the axing of the winter fuel payments could lead to 4,000 excess deaths. Why are Labour Ministers here not up in arms about this? As Heledd pointed out, I guarantee that if it was the Conservatives who were taking this measure, they would be bouncing up and down, shouting at us constantly.

Sadly, it looks like the Chancellor is set to break a manifesto promise next week by raising national insurance on employers. And I want to be clear: this is a breaking of their manifesto promise. It's not just me who is saying this, but the director of the Institute of Fiscal Studies, and the Federation of Small Businesses have said so as well. This breaking of a promise is going to have a profound impact on businesses and taxpayers here in Wales. When it comes to the public sector alone, if national insurance on employers were to rise by just 1 per cent, then the bill for local authorities as employers of some 140,000 people would be set to rise by tens of millions on top of the current eye-watering £540 million-worth of pressures that they currently face. As shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves argued that the national insurance on businesses will

'make each new recruit more expensive and increase the costs to business'.

She went on to say that national insurance contributions from employers and workers

'takes money out of people’s pockets'.

Labour Ministers here in Cardiff Bay and Westminster both say they want to see economic growth, yet businesses here in Wales pay the highest levels of non-domestic rates and will now have to pay more tax on hiring employees. If this is what Labour thinks is the best way to get economic growth, then I despair.

This isn't the only case of Labour MPs performing a u-turn following an election. Before coming into power, as we've heard already today, the shadow Welsh Secretary argued that Wales was owed billions of pounds from HS2 and then changed her position with ministerial resistance from Labour Ministers here too. We used to hear from Labour Members, shouting about the billions that were owed, but now the same voices seem to be happy to settle for comparative pennies, simply because their colleagues down the M4 are now in power.

Will you take an intervention?

Sorry, yes, I will.

Just briefly, I agree with many of the points that you're making on rail, but the first railway lines were electrified in the UK in the late nineteenth century. Do you agree with me that successive Labour and Conservative Governments have failed Wales over rail?

I've just forgotten your question.

Rail—

Rail.

Underinvestment in rail.

You haven't much time left—

No, I haven't got any time left. But, clearly, we do want to see that. I can't make excuses for what's gone on before, but what we need to see in the future is that main line electrified, and that's one thing we will be asking for. Dirprwy Lywydd, it is the responsibility of elected representatives here to stand up for the people of Wales, and it is what I and my colleagues are doing on these benches. We now need Labour Members and Labour MPs to do the same. Diolch.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language to move formally amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Formally.

It shouldn't be a surprise to see that in the motion we have yet again called for the devolution of the Crown Estate. For anyone elected to the Senedd, I find it hard to understand how you would argue against control over the wealth potential here in Wales. Surely it is our role to ensure that profits from resources in Wales benefit the people of Wales, not just the UK Government and the monarchy. This is a matter of natural justice, a matter of fairness predicated on a fundamental principle that those who produce the wealth should also benefit from that wealth. It's long overdue for us to have control over the wealth generated from our wind, from our seas and our land, because currently the Crown Estate's assets in Wales generate hundreds of millions in revenue annually, yet none of that wealth actually stays in Wales, instead it flows directly into the UK Treasury, with a cosy 25 per cent of the profit set aside, by the way, for the reigning monarch, including a 10 per cent uplift to refurbish Buckingham Palace—by the way, at a time when we know that our social housing stock in Wales is in desperate need of retrofitting.

In 2007 the Crown Estate assets in Wales were valued at £21.1 million. Fast-forward to 2023-24 and that figure has soared to over £853 million, largely driven by offshore wind and marine energy. An independent study also revealed that the Crown Estate's planned 4.5 GW offshore wind project in the Celtic sea alone could generate £1.4 billion in gross value added and create 5,300 jobs. Yet, unless action is taken, the bulk of that economic benefit will bypass Wales entirely, just as it did during the era of coal. It really is, I think, a sad reality that Wales has been treated as little more than a resource provider for centuries. It really is, I think, a sad reality that we're still debating and calling for parity with Scotland. You know, it's good enough for the Scots, but it's not good enough for the Welsh. And this extractive model has failed to benefit the Welsh economy and our communities, and—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Do you recognise that the Crown Estate, managed by the Scottish Government, has been massively undersold, and Audit Scotland pointed to the billions of pounds that the Scottish Government is missing out on in revenue, because they just weren't capable of being able to auction the rights of the sea bed and maximise their value? I think they put a value, over the lifetime of the licences, of £60 billion.

Well, I think that's a question more for the Scottish Government than what we would be doing in terms of the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government could make its own decisions, separate to what the Scottish Government has done, so I really think that's a question for the Scottish Government there.

I mean, look, let's be totally honest here, the renewable energy potential in the Crown Estate is substantial. A renewable-based energy system over which Wales exercises full control would allow us to decarbonise our power, our industries, our heating and transport, whilst supporting the development of local infrastructure, supply chains and jobs. It is a fundamental step towards a green future, but also towards a future where the wealth generated by our natural resources stays in Wales, to benefit its people.

I think we do also need to touch on an issue caused by this UK Labour Government. The Crown Estate's recent partnership with the proposed Great British Energy has done little to quell concerns about extractivism. In fact, it threatens to deepen the problem with the Crown Estate profiting from leasing Welsh lands and sea for offshore wind, while the economic returns are siphoned away to benefit other parts of the UK. The National Infrastructure Commission for Wales described the current situation perfectly: a transfer of wealth from Wales to England with

'no guarantee that Wales receives an equivalent amount back.'

The revenue generated by the Crown Estate activities in Wales must be invested back into Wales. That should be the bottom line for any Welsh Government, and this is why Plaid Cymru proposes the establishment of a Welsh sovereign wealth fund, ensuring that the profits from the renewable energy sector and renewable energy projects in Wales's waters are reinvested for the long-term benefit of the Welsh people. But the opposite is being proposed by the UK Government, with seemingly little resistance on this side of the M4.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the economic prize is far greater than what is currently on offer. The devolution of the Crown Estate is not just a step towards a more prosperous Wales, it's a step towards a fairer and more just Wales, where the wealth of our land and seas is finally put to work for the people of this nation. Now, this is an opportunity before us and it's one we must seize.

A commitment to devolve the Crown Estate as soon as possible, with relevant timescales, will not generate any extra money. It will come off the block grant. How do I know that? This is what happened when income tax was partially devolved and when stamp duty and landfill taxes were devolved. I actually support the devolution of the Crown Estate, because there are many good reasons why it would benefit Wales, but I do not believe that it would bring any additional money—

Will you take an intervention?

Please.

To me, it's not about the money going to London now coming to Wales, it's about us making more use of the potential that we have in our resources.

That's quite interesting. I'm not quite sure how it takes us any iota further forward. I mean, the point is that it would come off the block grant. I actually support it coming to Wales, because there are things we can do with it, but I don't think that money is one of them.

HS2 is an England-only project; there's no rational argument to describe it as an England-and-Wales project. It goes between London and Birmingham. Any future expenditure on HS2 should generate a Barnett consequential. Wales should get its share of the expenditure. Unfortunately, it’s a Treasury decision. As we go forward, we need a mechanism to allow arbitration on expenditure such as HS2. The same happened with the London Olympics—the clue is in the name. This was a regeneration project in east London, and we should have had a Barnett consequential from it. We did get some, but it amounted to about 2.5 per cent of what we should have got.

The Barnett formula is a mechanism used by the Treasury to automatically adjust the amount of public expenditure allocated in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales to reflect changes in spending levels allocated to public services in England. The formula applies to a large proportion but not the whole of the devolved Governments’ budgets. The city and regional deals in Wales, for example, are outside the formula. Northern Ireland has regularly got additional money beyond its Barnett consequentials. Barnett is the minimum, it’s not the maximum. The Barnett formula has no legal standing and the convention can be changed by the Treasury at any time. There’s been near-universal opposition to the Barnett formula as a means of determining annual increases.

There are three ways of changing it. The Scottish National Party proposed full fiscal autonomy for Scotland, which would end up giving the Scottish Parliament full control of Scottish taxation. The results would have been a reversal in the current funding, with the Scottish Parliament paying the UK Government a grant to cover the Scottish share of reserved issues spending. This option was rejected by the UK Government. Do Plaid Cymru support this option for Wales? I take that to be a ‘no’.

Another way would be to give Wales its population share of the expenditure in devolved areas. This would also have a catastrophic effect on the Welsh budget. In 2009 the House of Lords Select Committee on the Barnett Formula concluded it should no longer be used to determine annual increases in the block grant for the United Kingdom’s devolved administrations. A new system that allocates resources to the devolved administrations based on explicit assessment of their relative needs should be introduced. Who could disagree with that?

From 2018, a new needs-based factor was included in the Barnett formula to determine changes to Welsh Government grant funding in relation to spending. It’s possible to produce a needs-based formula. The local government formula is a needs-based formula, but it’s not without controversy and opposition to it. The formula is exceedingly long and complicated, and everybody thinks they’re being done down by it.

Wales is being denied billions of pounds from the spending on HS2 in England. This is not just the view of Plaid Cymru, it’s the view of many transport experts that I’ve spoken to recently. It used to be the consensus view in this Senedd.

The HS2 project has been mismanaged and funded unfairly by the previous Conservative Government, but disappointingly the new Labour Government in Westminster is happy to perpetuate this unfairness. Whilst Scotland and Northern Ireland are set to receive additional funding as a result of HS2, Wales is left with nothing even though not a single inch of track is being laid in Wales. Let’s call this what it is: it’s the great Welsh train robbery.

Before Keir Starmer became Prime Minister, Welsh Labour had been calling for Wales to receive the billions it is owed from HS2. The Senedd, the democratically elected Welsh Parliament, had demanded a fair share, and the current Welsh transport Secretary had specifically called for £5 billion. Even Jo Stevens, now Secretary of State for Wales, had once advocated for Wales to receive what it deserves from HS2. But now that they are in power, they have backtracked. It’s clear that Welsh Labour is willing to short-change Wales to appease Keir Starmer.

Whether it’s a Conservative or Labour Government in Westminster, Wales is being neglected by a Westminster Government that will never prioritise our needs. Just imagine what we could achieve with the money for a transport system. With less than 4 per cent of our railways electrified, and no direct rail connection between Aberystwyth and Cardiff without going through England, the billions owed to us could transform our bus and rail networks. This investment could boost our local economies, create jobs and attract new businesses and industries, bringing prosperity and opportunity to communities who desperately need it across Wales.

This is not just about transport, it's also about tackling climate change. Fair funding from HS2 could help Wales make significant progress towards achieving net zero. Improving public transport is one of the most effective ways of reducing carbon emissions. By enhancing our train and bus services, we could encourage more people to choose sustainable transport over cars, reducing our carbon footprint and protecting our environment for future generations. This is clearly not a priority for the Labour Government in Wales. By refusing to fight for fair funding, you are leaving people in Wales without access to the opportunities they deserve. Our communities remain isolated, and our transport network is left to crumble. It's time for change; time for Wales to get the investment it's owed and the future it deserves. Diolch.

There is no doubt that the Conservatives' legacy in Government is one of economic devastation: our public services in tatters, our finances decimated, mortgages spiralling out of control and families forced to choose between heating and eating. I was left speechless by Peter Fox saying that the Welsh Labour Government had failed to stand up for Wales, when the Welsh Conservatives for 14 years did nothing to stand up for Wales. The people of Wales—[Interruption.] No, I'm not going to. The people of Wales rightfully expect—[Interruption.]

I think it's fair to allow the Member to speak and contribute to the debate without interruptions.

Thank you. The people of Wales quite rightly expect that a Labour Government in Westminster would forge a meaningful and challenging partnership and relationship with the Welsh Government—one that would secure the funding and the co-operation needed to reverse the years of decline that we've been left with.

Their decision to cut winter fuel payments and continue with the damaging two-child benefit cap policy introduced by the Conservatives is outrageous and punishing. At a time when people need more support, not less, these measures only increase the hardship faced by vulnerable families. Within my own home region of Powys, this means more than 30,000 people facing the harsh reality of cold homes, and 2,200 children continuing to suffer.

Equally concerning are the rumours that Labour will increase national insurance contributions. With 99.3 per cent of businesses in Wales being small and medium-sized enterprises, these businesses cannot suffer; they remain the key to driving growth in our economy. Keir Starmer has said that this budget would be painful and part of a shared struggle. This is really insulting and rings hollow for so many across Wales. I want to ask why there is a war on the poor. What we need to do is to tax the rich.

Britain now has one of the highest wealth gaps in the developed world—only the United States fares worse. The gap between the wealthiest and the poorest 10 per cent has ballooned by 47 per cent in 10 years. We need to be clear that there is plenty of money out there. The richest 10 per cent of households own 57 per cent of the wealth in the UK, and a modest 2 per cent wealth tax on the very richest, just 0.04 per cent of the population, could raise up to £24 billion annually, which is what we're hearing all the time, both from Welsh Labour and from the UK Labour Government, is what the hole is that they need to fill. Just tax the rich, that's what we need to do.

Our biggest four banks—Lloyds Bank, NatWest, Barclays and HSBC—reaped £40 billion in profits last year, yet they continue to benefit from Conservative tax cuts. By reversing these tax cuts, we could help fund our public services and prevent the closure of high-street banks in rural areas, which is what the four banks are doing constantly. This is why we, the Liberal Democrats, have put forward a bold but fair plan. By reversing the cuts for big banks, closing the loopholes in capital gains tax and ensuring that companies pay their fair share, we can create a tax system—

Will you take an intervention?

Of course I will.

I do agree with some of the sentiments that you say about taxing the rich, but would you agree that has to be done in a fair and proportionate way so that we avoid a system like the 1970s, when we had a mass exodus of wealth and talent that contributes such significance to the economic profile of our country?

Thank you for saying that you would tax the rich. I just want to respond to that by saying I looked at a very interesting website. It was called Patriotic Millionaires. They say very clearly that they want to be taxed more and they will not leave the country. So, this is a clear myth that's being peddled all the time. A millionaire businessman called Phil White has said:

‘We're not about to give up on this country. We need a wealth tax now.’

I urge everybody to consider how we are going to help the poorest here in Wales, and we need to tax the rich. The burden of cleaning up the Tory mess should not fall on ordinary people. It should fall on those with the broadest shoulders.

Let me finish by focusing on an issue close to my heart, and that is child poverty. I urge Welsh Labour to stand up and challenge the UK Labour Government to act decisively. This head-in-the-sand attitude around the two-child benefit cap is really appalling whilst our children suffer. So, Cabinet Secretary, will you commit to challenging this cruel policy, and call on the UK Government to act now to scrap the two-child benefit cap? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Our motion calls on the Welsh Labour Government to make urgent representations to the UK Labour Government to request a commitment to two measures in the budget that would protect some of the most vulnerable Welsh citizens from hardship and would also alleviate the certain added pressure on Welsh services and finances that would stem from that hardship. No-brainer, right? No-brainer, you'd think, for the party of Attlee and of Bevan, the party that so many Welsh people who believe passionately in social justice support and campaign for. And actually, it's a no-brainer for a Welsh Government of any colour who want to see less pressure on already-strained budgets. Because restoring the winter fuel allowance for pensioners and disposing of the two-child limit and benefit cap would do just that.

Limiting the winter fuel payment to pensioners receiving pension credit has raised wide concerns. As we heard, the older people's commissioner warned it could cost thousands of lives. The UK Government's own figures show that 83 per cent of people over 80 would lose the payment and 71 per cent of pensioners with disabilities will have to face the winter without the payment. This just as winter is approaching, just as energy prices have risen and remain far above pre-crisis levels. And this when both the south and north of Wales remain in the top three most expensive regions across the UK for energy prices.

I don't really have to rehearse again the reasons why this is a shameful decision, do I? Because Welsh Labour politicians know this is a disaster for Wales. But they put party before country. What they must do is put the people they represent before that—the almost half a million pensioners who will now be at risk this winter—before the interests of those who can afford to make sacrifices if needed. They should push for the right choices to be made when there is a need to make tough choices.

Taking money off Welsh pensioners, so many of whom will always be on the edge of poverty, while the 50 richest families in the UK own a combined £500 billion, is obscene. And who's going to pick up the tab when there is a need for increased health and social care support due to this cut? I've asked this many times. I've never had an answer. What assessment has the Welsh Government made of the financial impact of the inevitable increased demand on the services they fund?

I know what we'll hear in response, because we will inevitably hear them parrot the UK Labour lines, the lines written in London, the lines we hear from Sir Keir: ‘Oh, but the triple lock’, that increase in state pension that will offset the winter fuel payment losses. Well, a quick fact check for you: according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, it's not as simple as that. Not everyone gets the same amount of state pension, so whether or not this outstrips the loss of payments would depend on their pension entitlement. The amount people get for the winter fuel payment also varies. For example, single people above state pension age—66—and couples where at least one person is above state pension age but both below the age of 80 will lose £200 this winter. But single people above the age of 80 and couples where at least one person is above the age of 80 will lose £300 this winter. And, of course, the state pension uprating takes place in April next year; changes to the winter fuel payments are happening this year. Winter fuel payment is also a tax-free payment, whereas state pension is subject to income tax.

I think it was Willie John McBride, wasn't it, the 1974 Lions, who advised us to get our retaliation in first, and it's certainly good to see Plaid Cymru registering their disappointment at a budget that hasn't yet been delivered. I would certainly advise anybody today to listen to the budget before they condemn it. Where we are today is not where any of us would wish to be, except, potentially, the Conservatives. Austerity has been a disaster for the United Kingdom. It was a disaster in 2011, it's a disaster today, and that disaster has been further strengthened by Brexit, which has undermined our ability to trade and to promote growth. And the one advice I would give to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is this: if you want to see growth in the UK economy in the next few years, rejoin the single market—that will deliver some growth and that will deliver what the people in Wales want to see. [Interruption.] They might not like it, but I think people on this side of the Chamber certainly would.

But let's look at what we need to do. I would say in this debate that we can all agree or disagree on certain individual issues. It is clear that HS2 should deliver a consequential to Wales. Now, that consequential should be delivered to this country. It is unacceptable that a railway that will deliver economic disadvantage to Wales, which we've seen from the UK's own analysis, will then not deliver a consequential to this country. I give way.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Why is it, therefore, that Labour have taken out of our motion today, by seeking to amend it, that call for the full consequentials to be given to Wales? And isn't the truth here that we have an admission in that Labour amendment today that, now that we have a UK Labour Government, the Welsh Labour Government will pull its punches and will not roll up its sleeves prioritising the best interests of Wales? And it is Labour interests before the interests of the people of Wales.

As I tried to say in my introductory remarks, Rhun, wait for the budget before you condemn it, right. Now, I do believe—[Interruption.] I do believe—. I will carry on, if you don't mind, because we also need to look at the future of the shared prosperity fund. There are some investments that have taken place in my constituency in Blaenau Gwent, where there are organisations employing individuals whose contracts will be running out soon. We need the certainty to know what is going to happen in the next financial year. We need to ensure that there is a successor to the shared prosperity fund that will deliver the funding that people are relying on today.

But we also need—and I agree with my friend Mike Hedges and others—to see the devolution of the Crown Estate because of the opportunities that that will provide to us.

But all of these individual things, by themselves, are not good enough. The United Kingdom, if it is anything at all, must be an engine of redistribution of wealth and the eradication of inequality. Those are the fundamental things that we should keep our eyes on. All the different items that that have dominated so far this debate this afternoon are important as individual things—I don't disagree with that—but what we actually need to see, and this is what I would like to see over the next few years, is a redesign and a re-engineering of the financial structures of the United Kingdom. What we have seen in too many parts of the United Kingdom—Wales suffers from it, my constituency suffers from it, but so do other parts of the United Kingdom as well—is that they suffer from structural inequality, where, as a consequence of policy that has been pursued for decade after decade after decade, we've seen the City of London dominate the UK economy as a matter of policy. And what I want to see is a redistribution of wealth that is created throughout the United Kingdom, and that that wealth is distributed fairly amongst the countries of the United Kingdom and the communities of the United Kingdom. We need to see financial equality across the United Kingdom. Darren.

I'm grateful for you taking the intervention. Would you also agree that we need to see financial equality within Wales: instead of all of the investment going to certain parts of Wales, that places like north Wales, which have missed out significantly on capital investment in recent years, get their fair share too?

If you have the analysis that supports that, I will support you, but, in 15 years in this place, I've never seen the analysis that actually delivers that sort of conclusion. [Interruption.] Show me the analysis, Darren, and I will support you, right. But you haven't got the analysis.

So, let me conclude—[Interruption.] Let me conclude, let me conclude. I believe that we need a new financial structure, new financial engineering within the United Kingdom. We need to replace Barnett; I do believe that a needs-based formula will deliver the sort of equality that we're looking towards. But, more than that, we need a United Kingdom that is committed equally to all parts of the United Kingdom, that doesn't prioritise one part over another, where Wales plays its full part, and where everyone in Wales has the equal treatment as we have elsewhere. And I hope that, whatever happens in one or two single financial events or fiscal events—next week's budget and subsequent budgets—what we'll actually see is something more important and more fundamental than individual shopping-list items, that we will see a United Kingdom that generates wealth, that redistributes wealth and has the objective of eradicating inequality, which applies to every single one of us.

I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language, Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, I listened carefully to the debate. The Government will oppose the motion and the Conservative Party amendment. There are aspects in the original motion with which we would agree, and I'll try and return to those later. What we can't agree is the underlying assertion of the motion, repeated time after time by Plaid Cymru Members, that the election of a Labour Government in Westminster—a preference endorsed in 27 of the 32 constituencies in Wales—makes no difference, and that all those Welsh people who did so much to secure that Government simply got it wrong.

Now, I will demonstrate, Dirprwy Lywydd, that there is, for this Labour Government, on the basis that Alun Davies has already set out, a different political economy, a different approach to the way in which the economics of the United Kingdom will benefit people across the United Kingdom. I'm not interested, as Luke Fletcher is, in a nationalist approach to the Crown Estate, in which money cannot be spent anywhere else in the United Kingdom, even when that is to the benefit of people who have needs that need to be satisfied. We will show that a Labour Government in Westminster, working with a Labour Government in Wales, really will make that difference. And we wait for the budget to see it.

The motion, and those who support it, are a mixture of the student union debating society—. I lost count of the number of times in which Plaid Cymru Members used the word 'demand', as though the volume of our voice mattered more than the quality of our argument. And alongside that student union approach to debating, you have a sort of Mystic Meg approach to the construction of propositions for debate. We don't know, and, actually, you don't know, what is going to be in the budget next week, and yet your motion tells us already that it's let Wales down.

Will you take an intervention? Thank you. This is a very, very clear motion put before the Senedd today. This is asking what the partnership in power brings us in Wales, what the benefits are. And, no, we don't know what is in the budget next week, but we should surely be able to know what it is that this Labour Welsh Government has as a set of expectations that have been made to UK Government about the kinds of things that would really make a difference to communities and individuals in Wales. That is what we have today, and we're seeing in Labour's amendment here a very clear indication that this Labour Welsh Government will not stand up for the people of Wales in making those, yes, demands, asks, call it what you like, to UK Government.

Well, of course, I completely reject that. I'll come, in a few moments, to the things that we have already said to the UK Government. It's there in the letter that I wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the first week that I became the Cabinet Secretary for finance. I'll come to those issues in a moment.

I would simply say, Llywydd, as far as the Conservative amendment is concerned, it is the product of collective amnesia. Who would have believed, reading that amendment, that the finances of the United Kingdom had been in their hands for 14 long years? I agreed with everything that Jane Dodds had to say on that. And I was reminded earlier this afternoon—. My colleague the Deputy First Minister referred to Winston Churchill. Churchill was asked, after the defeat of the Conservative Party in 1945, what message he thought that the people of the United Kingdom had given to the Conservative Party, and he said he thought that the message was that the people of the United Kingdom would appreciate a lengthy period of silence on the part of that party. And if the party were to reflect—[Interruption.] Yes, of course. Of course. A lengthy—[Interruption.] I'll just repeat: a lengthy period of silence is what Sir Winston recommended.

Of course, the lengthy period of silence we've had from the former First Minister and finance Minister and all those Members is not one criticism of the failure of the Labour Government to deliver the winter fuel allowance for pensioners that will see 4,000 pensioners die, in your own figures. That's where the silence is, and that's why you should hang your head in shame.

There we are. Well, Llywydd, I'm afraid I think that the leader of the opposition draws attention to the wisdom of what Sir Winston Churchill had to say.

Look, what I'm going to do next is I'm going to set out briefly four key ways in which a Labour Government will make a difference to the UK economy and to the economic prospects of Wales.

It was surely one of the more shameful legacies of Jeremy Hunt that, when he left his responsibilities of Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had a five-year plan to reduce capital investment in the UK economy from 2.4 per cent to 1.7 per cent of GDP. You cannot grow an economy like the United Kingdom's unless you have public investment there to crowd in private investment and to create the conditions for growth. That, I believe, will start to be put right on 30 October. It will be a Government for investment, an investment for growth, and that agenda will make an enormous difference to Wales.

Secondly, it will be a Government that pays its bills. If Jeremy Hunt had no ideas on the capital side of his responsibilities, he left a £22 billion black hole on the revenue side of the Government. I know—[Interruption.] I know—. I know you think that if you shout loud enough—

I would like to listen to the response from the Cabinet Secretary in some silence, please.

There is absolutely no doubt at all, Dirprwy Lywydd, that the £22 billion black hole is the irresponsible result of a decision to reduce taxation with no plan at all of how to deal with the consequences. And £19 billion—£19 billion—of that £22 billion goes on recurring year after year after year. Now, I think that the incoming Labour Government will take those difficult decisions to make sure that the revenue side of the responsibilities of that Government are put right. And it will do it, I believe, in the way that Jane Dodds has suggested. Because the Government is committed not to raise the burden of taxation on working people who are already, as a result of Jeremy Hunt’s decisions, taxed at a level that is the highest in the last 70 years. It will be done by raising taxes on the shoulders of those who are able to pay for it.

And a third way in which this Government in Westminster, working with a Labour Government, is so very different to what has gone before is that it will begin to repair the damage done to our public services. You see, for the Conservative Party, public services are a luxury—they're what you get when you squeeze out a bit from the dividend of growth. What a Labour Government understands is that public services are not the product of growth—they are the precondition of growth. You cannot have growth in the economy unless you have public services that deliver a workforce fit to be in work, and a workforce with the skills that are needed to be there. I think the budget next week will make a start on repairing the damage of those 14 years of the starvation of our public services.

And, finally, in a final contrast, a final reason why people in Wales will know why they voted for that Labour Government, it will be a Labour Government that delivers on our commitment on workers' rights. Fourteen years of Conservatives' attack on the precious resource we have in our economy, the people who work in it, will be put right by that Labour Government, because the result of 14 years of sustained attack on workers' rights is that we have a stagnant United Kingdom. Social mobility is stagnant. Geographical movement is stagnant. Our economy has been stagnant for 14 years. Why would you, as a worker, take the risk of moving with your family to another part of the United Kingdom to take up a better job and to promote growth when you know that, in doing so, you will lose all the rights that you have accrued in the workplace in which you have made that start? [Interruption.]

Cabinet Secretary—

A Labour Government will put that right, and when it does that, alongside all the other things it will do, we will have a platform, a platform that Ministers here, Labour Ministers here, will, of course, stand up for and fight for—

Cabinet Secretary, I have given additional time.

—the interests here in Wales. That's why I urge Members to vote against the motion, vote against the Conservative amendment, support the Labour amendment, and create that platform for future success.

I call on Heledd Fychan to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. Well, we've been criticised for our motion, and I don't quite understand why, because the premise of this debate, as I set out at the very start, was to try and influence the budget. It wasn't predicting, but it was making sure—cross-party, on the things that we previously agreed on, especially the majority of us—that we were reaffirming our commitment as a Senedd to those so that we could influence the budget. And, quite frankly, we just heard a robust defence of a budget that we haven't seen. The First Minister said last week that she doesn't know what's going to be in the upcoming budget. So, which is it? Do you, by now, know what's going to be in it and, therefore, you've got this robust defence? We weren't criticising a budget that we haven't seen—we're trying to influence it. And what we want to be clear on here is what are the Welsh Government's demands, calls, and the substance of them. And I asked a number of questions about why certain things have been deleted from the amendment. I asked if these were still your commitment as a Welsh Government. I received no response. It seemed to be a speech written by 10 Downing Street, putting this Welsh Government in its place. [Interruption.]

As I asked for silence for the Cabinet Secretary, it is fair also that we have silence for the response.

You talked about those voters that voted for change only a few months ago. They voted change for the better, not change for the worse. And I'm sure they would like to see us united in standing up for our communities, calling out any cruel policies that are going to directly impact on them. Whilst I welcome some of the comments made by Peter Fox in his contribution, I too have to say it has been quite a turnaround after the election. I do recall, only a few months ago, you saying, Peter, that we had ample funding here in Wales. Well, which is it? And I think we do need to work cross-party here to make sure that we serve the people of Wales. After all, we all see the devastating impact of austerity. And the fact that there’s been—. Alun Davies is criticising austerity, whilst we see the UK Labour Government perpetuating austerity with the policies, and this is something we should all be united in calling out. The people of Wales have had enough of excuses, the delays, the u-turns. They are crying out for a Welsh Government that can actually punch above its weight and hold their Westminster partners to account, to demonstrate that it has real power in this partnership.

We haven’t seen the letter that was written by the Cabinet Secretary to the Chancellor. We don’t know what those demands are. So, we have to take it on face value that this amendment reflects the Welsh Government’s priorities. One thing I clearly asked was about HS2 funding, and I’m happy to take an intervention here. What are the Welsh Government’s demands? Is it really requesting a commitment to further discussions about funding in relation to HS2? A commitment to further discussion—isn’t the time for talking over? It’s time for delivery of what is owed to Wales. No intervention—okay.

So, by supporting this motion, we can, cross-party, send a strong message to the UK Labour Government that Wales cannot be taken for granted. This is about influencing next week’s budget. It’s about delivering fairness for the people of Wales. We should be united in standing up for everyone we represent. The fact that Labour will not condemn the continuation of the two-child benefit cap, and have deleted from our motion in terms of what will happen to pensioners here in Wales, is not just disappointing, it’s astounding, and so far removed from what people in Wales voted for when they voted for that change.

So, can we, please, put the people of Wales and those we represent first, not party before people, not party before Wales? We are elected to this Senedd. We should listen to the people of Wales, not the masters of this Welsh Labour Government who are in London?

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

And that brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I’ll proceed directly to the votes.

The first vote this afternoon is on item 5, the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv) on assisted dying. I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Julie Morgan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 19, nine abstentions and 26 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on item 8, the Plaid Cymru debate. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. If the motion is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 42 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, 10 abstentions, 29 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied and, as required under Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote to vote against the amendment. Therefore, the result is that there 27 in favour, no abstentions and 28 against. Amendment 2 is, therefore, not agreed.

As the Senedd has not agreed the motion without amendment and has not agreed to the amendments tabled to the motion, the motion is, therefore, not agreed.

And that brings the voting to an end today. Please leave quietly as the short debate is about to start.

We'll move now to the short debate, and I call on Mike Hedges to speak on the topic that he has chosen. Mike.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I have given a minute to Tom Giffard.

The Welsh economy is performing poorly compared to the rest of Great Britain and has done so for many years. GVA per head in Wales in 2021 was £22,380, which was 74.1 per cent of the UK figure, the second lowest of the UK countries and English regions. London had the highest GVA per head at £54,686, which was significantly above the UK average. These figures highlight the economic disparity, with London being much wealthier than the other parts.

The economic differences between regions, such as those observed in the UK’s GVA per head, can be attributed to a variety of factors: industrial structure, investment levels, workforce skills, economic policy and geographical factors. But, the development of fast broadband reduces the need for proximity to markets for many areas of the economy. Wales has a greater proportion of its population working in manufacturing, public administration, health and social services, agriculture, forestry and fishing than either the UK as a whole or the south-east of England. Wales has a smaller proportion of its workforce in ICT, real estate, administrative and support services, professional, scientific and technical activities, arts and entertainment and, crucially, life sciences than either the UK as a whole or the south-east of England. That identifies where our problems are with our economy. There is a shortage of employment in higher paid sectors such as ICT and life sciences, and that is one of the major causes of our GDP and GVA being low.

The most successful regions in Europe are based around capital cities, and that is also true of Wales, with the area around Cardiff the most successful. But, this success does not go as far as the Glamorgan and Gwent valleys that are part of the Cardiff city region or as far as Swansea. Outside capital cities there are successful regions in and around cities such as Hamburg, Bavaria, and Salzburg. In all three, life sciences and ICT, both via inward investment and, more importantly, growing companies with support from universities, are a major part of their economy. They’ve decided that their key are life sciences and ICT. We’ve never done that. I keep on asking for it, but we’ve never done that. And I think that if you look at successful economies throughout Europe, those are the two driving factors. I could talk about Ireland, but Ireland is even more complicated because of the way that they deal with tax and headquarters. But, in general, those are the two industries that really do drive economies.

From the 1940s to the 1970s, British Governments steered manufacturing businesses to peripheral regions designated as needing more employment. In the 1930s, we had the Treforest industrial estate. We had lots of things coming into Wales, but the most successful Government regional policy was in the 1960s, when it brought various Government bodies to Wales, such as the Royal Mint to Llantrisant, Companies House to Cardiff, the Office for National Statistics to Newport and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre to Swansea. DVLC has now become the major non-local authority and health employer in the whole of west Glamorgan, and that's a role that used to be held by Tata Steel, but unfortunately, due to changes that are taking place there, we're now highly dependent on the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

In the early 1980s, enterprise zones were created by the Conservative Government at Westminster in order to stimulate the economy. Wales had three such zones, at Milford, Delyn and the largest in Britain in Swansea. Initially, retail was excluded from enterprise zones, but in many, including Swansea, it became a significant part of the zone. And as the Minister knows, in Swansea, the term 'enterprise zone' is used for 'out-of-city shopping centre'. Their purpose was to stimulate private sector economic activity, thus creating employment in less well-off areas. The report from the Work Foundation stated that 80 per cent of the jobs created in enterprise zones are displaced from other places; the prosperity they bring is short-lived; and each job costs £23,000 to create. It has been suggested that many of the new jobs were displaced from within the same town or city, and actually, quite often, from an industrial estate nearby.

In the 2011 budget, a new round of enterprise zones were created. Wales swiftly followed, setting up enterprise zones across Wales. Whilst the Cardiff Central enterprise zone and Deeside enterprise zone have been successful, having been based in growth areas, the other zones have been much less successful, and I think there needs to be review of whether we are actually getting economic benefit from the other enterprise zones. I would say, 'no'. I’m sure the Minister will go and tell me, 'yes'. But if you look at the number of jobs created in those enterprise zones, they are pitifully small.

The Welsh Development Agency was established in 1976, set up to improve the Welsh economy by encouraging business development and investment in Wales, clearing areas that had previously been used for industry, and improving the environment. Those were some of the aims, and it got a lot of credit back in the 1970s and 1980s. It brought in, secured and safeguarded investment from major companies such as Ford, Bosch, Panasonic, Sony, Hoover, TRW, Anglesey Aluminium, Toyota and British Airways. The question is: how many of them are still here?

And I think that’s been one of the things about our inward investment: they come, they take, they go. And that, to me, is a serious cause for concern. It costs us a lot of money in the short term to attract these companies and we really feel pleased, and everybody goes and gets a photograph with it being opened, and then, it closes very quickly. I mean, Bosch is the classic example, and I think Bosch has opened and closed during the time I’ve been a Member here. You cannot be a successful economy on branch factories. And those that survived, are the employment levels anywhere near what was promised or what was achieved at the beginning?

We also had financial service companies such as Legal & General and Lloyds Bank. And we’ve never really been very good at getting them in large numbers. The one great success, South Glamorgan County Council and the WDA helped establish Admiral Insurance, which is now a FTSE 100 company and one of the few major start-up successes in Wales. I think we really need to see how we can create more Admiral Insurances, because that is really important to us. It’s something that was a start-up here, and not only was it a start-up here, a number of other companies spun off it, so that it isn’t just Admiral Insurance, it’s some of the other companies that have spun off it and also been very successful.

The most recent innovation was the Sêr Cymru programme, which was designed to build a strong and dynamic scientific research base in Wales. Phase 4 of the programme is now focusing on inspiring the next generation of scientists and developing innovations to help solve the socioeconomic challenges faced in Wales. The Sêr programme has adapted to align with changing research developments and innovation drivers, which, in turn, have responded to economic and health issues.

We know that the Welsh economy is doing less well than the British economy. One development that I would like to highlight, and which I'm very supportive of, is M-SParc in the Bangor area. Part of Bangor University in Menai Science Park, or M-SParc, is where exciting and cutting-edge companies in the science and technology sectors, particularly low-carbon, digital and life science sectors, are making their home, and receive support to develop their businesses. The thing to note about this is that it came from Bangor University; it wasn't a Government initiative. It had Government support, and a former Government Minister became head of it at one time, but it was being supported by the Government, but driven by the university. It wasn’t that the Government decided to plonk a building down there and said, 'This is going to work', because it doesn't; you need the university to buy in.

Bangor University has been very supportive of it, with industrial collaboration, whilst providing opportunities to graduates and to people who are underemployed or who wish to upskill and those wanting a career change. It's starting to make a difference up in north-west Wales. It's only a small development, but I think it's got to grow organically. The worst thing we could do is if the Welsh Government and the Senedd were say, 'M-SParc is going really well; if we go and build them two more buildings and tell them that they can have some money, then they're bound to grow two or three times as fast.' It has to grow organically. That's how successes happen. It's not by somebody saying, 'We've got a great idea. This is bound to work.'

The skills academy at M-SParc has been built to bridge the skills gap in north Wales, particularly in digital science and technology and the creative fields, providing opportunities including degree apprenticeships, work placements and career opportunities. M-SParc is the ecosystem that brings academia, business, industry and enterprise together. Bangor University students are encouraged to take work placements and internships there, with their tenants, and over 70 per cent of internships become careers at M-SParc. So, you've got the university, the university is churning out graduates, they're then going to work in M-SParc, having gone through internships there. That is a virtuous circle.

I will call Tom to reply. [Laughter.] Tom Giffard.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you to Mike for bringing this debate to the floor of the Senedd on the structural issues in the Welsh economy, and for his usual unvarnished assessment, I think, of the economy here in Wales. I just wanted to use my minute to make the case for our planning system, which I think is something that we know does hold back economic growth in this country. I welcome the fact that the UK Labour Government has made noises about working in this space. The two biggest things I think that hold us back are housing and transport. For too many people my age and younger, housing is an aspiration not a reality. We know that the planning system is both burdensome, it’s time consuming, and adds expenses, which frankly, in lots of instances, don’t need to be there, onto the cost of buying a home.

Then secondly, to look at transport, we’ve debated at length in this Chamber, including today on HS2, only to see European neighbours like France and Italy and others build high-speed rail infrastructure at a fraction of the cost that we are doing it in the United Kingdom. That is also because of our planning system. So, I welcome the warm words from the Labour Government in this space at a UK level, and I hope that that is met with action and the reality that we deserve, because we know that we are wilfully, if you like, being held back by the constraints that we put on ourselves as a consequence of our planning system.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning to reply to the debate. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, and also thank you, of course, to Mike Hedges for bringing forward this important short debate today, but also for the thought pieces that he regularly produces as well. And thank you to Tom for his contribution in relation to planning.

Of course, the economy touches every part of our lives, and we do have many levers across Government in areas such as finance, skills, education, procurement, economic support, transport, health, and of course planning, which we want to fully utilise to help create a more vibrant economy and a prosperous nation. We’ll work right across Cabinet, but also crucially with partners across the private and public sectors, trade unions, academia, and of course the UK Government, to look at how we can continue to create the environment that we need for economic growth.

We’ve faced the ongoing challenges of public finance and investment, and the austerity measures of recent years have strained public finances and they have hindered our ability to invest in essential infrastructure and support programmes. However, we have been able to work collaboratively in the development of our economic mission to set out a compelling and focused way forward to utilise the levers at our disposal.

Work has now commenced on the Welsh Government spending review. That’s an exercise that will consider the longer term fiscal planning for Wales. Extending beyond the next budget period, this is an opportunity to look at all of the fiscal levers that we have available to us, but the size of that task can’t be underestimated. The shift from the short-term tactical decisions and the crisis response that have been a necessity over recent years, towards that longer term strategic planning through a more preventative lens, will ensure that we make the most effective spending decisions within the challenging fiscal climate that we have ahead of us.

The global economy continues to change, and we have to embrace the challenges and the opportunities that this brings. We do need to look at the industries of the now, but also the future, to ensure that we have the right jobs, the skills, the infrastructure in place, to make Wales the best place in which to live and work. We’ll demonstrate that we’re pro-business and pro-worker, building on our reputation for and commitment to fair work and well-being.

I really welcomed Mike Hedges’s really thoughtful research paper, which he published in August, and we’ve heard some of that informing the debate this evening, particularly the recommendations at the end. The paper was called ‘The Welsh Economy and Improving GVA’. I absolutely recognise some of the challenges around economic growth, but also welcome the consideration of potential solutions that are made in the paper, especially those relating to life sciences and the digital economy. We've got some important opportunities to consider how these areas can help grow the economy, and we'll continue to draw upon our regional strengths to focus our approach to economic growth.

In relation to GDP, we don't currently get quarterly estimates for Wales; they've been paused by the ONS for over a year now. So, the latest data that we have is from April this year, which shows that, in 2022, economic growth per person in Wales was broadly similar to the rest of the UK, and that reflects the close integration between the economy in Wales and the rest of the UK. Welsh annual growth in real GDP per head outperformed Yorkshire and the Humber, Northern Ireland, the west midlands and the east midlands, but I do want to stress that economic output is only one dimension of economic performance. And on measures such as household income, which might actually be a better measure of economic well-being, Wales is actually much closer to the rest of the UK.

In relation to economic growth, we do have opportunities to strengthen future delivery, but to do so in partnership. The UK Government's Green Paper on the industrial strategy, which was just published last week, points to eight growth sectors, and it's a 10-year plan offering the certainty and stability businesses need to invest to drive economic growth. So, we'll work with the UK Government and other partners on several complex issues that are barriers to investment across the eight priority sectors. Those include areas such as skills, recruitment of talent, data, research and development, technology adoption, access to finance, competition, regulation, energy prices, grid connections, infrastructure and, of course, planning, all through the lens of promoting investment.

We'll also work really closely with the UK Government to consider further job growth and creation across the industrial strategy, and that will consider where we can continue to grow a basis for public sector job creation across developing sectors highlighted across those eight priority areas. And we already have some really significant sector strengths in Wales. For example, our life sciences are absolutely critical for economic growth and for delivering better patient outcomes, and I'm really grateful to Mike for the recognition of that, in the paper but also in the debate today.

During the period 2021-22, this sector employed more than 13,000 people over 300 companies, ranging from SMEs and start-ups to large blue-chips, with an approximate turnover of £2.8 billion. The skills and recruitment opportunities in life science companies can provide chances of shared and degree apprenticeships, and also, co-ordinating activities can help to build on our approach to the foundational economy. So, we're working really closely with the Office for Life Sciences to determine how we can place a focus on growth, and we'll also look at how we can bring increased investment in.

In regard to digital and technologies, our digital strategy for Wales is aimed at anyone creating, designing, providing or using digital tools and services. We want to use the opportunities that technology can bring, where, for example, I've established a short-term review, looking at artificial intelligence, to see where we can harness the impact and look at the economic opportunities, and that's going to commence in the autumn.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary, and I also thank Tom and Mike. That brings today's proceedings to a close.