Plenary

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

The general medical services contract agreement, which I announced in January and which will apply in Blaenau Gwent as elsewhere, has resulted in investment by the Welsh Government of over £52 million into GP services this year, which is the single biggest annual investment since the pandemic.

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for that response, and very much welcome both the new contract and the investment that the Welsh Government is making in primary healthcare services. But one of the more shocking aspects of the recent eHarley Street fiasco was the fact that both the Welsh Government and the health board made the point that, despite all of the service failures we'd seen with eHarley Street, the contract hadn't been breached. Now, that tells me not that eHarley Street were delivering good services, because we know they weren't, but that the contract isn't fit for purpose.

So, my question to you this afternoon, Cabinet Secretary, is twofold. First of all, can we ensure that the contract is fit for purpose and does guarantee basic primary care services for everybody who's a patient at a particular practice and in a particular area? But, secondly, it also tells me that the model that we've relied upon since Aneurin Bevan established the national health service, the independent practitioner, is no longer fit for purpose itself. It can no longer guarantee comprehensive access to primary care services across the face of the country, and that's been my experience the whole time I've been a Member here. So, will the Welsh Government look at those two aspects of the contract? First of all, guaranteeing minimum services to ensure that where we do have service failure, as we saw with eHarley Street, that that can be demonstrated, a breach of contract. And secondly, to look at a new model for primary care, so where the independent practitioner service doesn't exist or doesn't deliver the care we need, that there is an option with the Welsh Government and health boards to actually deliver primary care in a different way.

Well, I'm grateful to the Member for raising these matters in the Chamber, as he has with me previously and outside the Chamber as well. I hope I can give him some assurance in my answer today. He knows, obviously, that health boards are responsible for managing the GMS contract with their practices, but the Welsh Government's role is, alongside that, to make sure the contract delivers what we want it to do.

Two years ago, we introduced a unified contract, as he will know, and alongside that a contract assurance framework to guide health boards in how they manage those contracts. And, to be clear, I expect a thorough process of due diligence to be carried out, and obviously for health boards to monitor the provision of those services through those established procedures. There are mandatory standards around the expectations of practices in place, but I have asked officials to look at the generally used contract processes, and that contract assurance framework that we put in place in 2023 to guide health boards in managing those contracts, to ensure that health boards have the levers they need to ensure the quality of the service that we want provided by practices. I don't want any unintended consequences from the way that the regulations are written, and I would want any areas that we might need to revisit in light of this experience to be looked at as soon as possible.

Cabinet Secretary, it's very good news that the new GP contract has the support of GPs, but may I reiterate the concerns that the Member for Blaenau Gwent has already outlined? I would also say: the original contract was overwhelmingly rejected by GPs back in December, after that negotiation resumed and a new contract was brought forward, the British Medical Association says that it doubled the initial investment provided in the original offer. These contracts have a huge impact on primary care provision and retention and recruitment in Blaenau Gwent, but, for some reason, the Government held back half the investment that they could have given back in December, until GPs rejected that initial offering. I'm just wondering: why is that?

The Member will recall that we had the election of a Government in Westminster more inclined to invest in public services. It's a simple matter of mathematics, I'm afraid, which should be obvious to the Member. And so, with that additional funding, we were able to bring further funding to the negotiation. But in addition to that funding, we were also able to negotiate with the BMA additional things that GPs would be able to deliver for us in return for that funding. So, one of the key things that we've been able to agree relates to the NHS app, so we can speed up the roll-out of an app, which will help patients, but also will end up helping GP practices as well.

So, I'm really pleased that we were able to find a way of resolving the discussions with GPs in a way that works both for Government, but for patients, critically, and for general practitioners. And one of the opportunities that we have in the months ahead, which answers the second point that Alun Davies put to me, is how we can work with GPs to develop a model across clusters that is more resilient, that has more secure foundations, so that we can provide more services in a community setting, which will benefit patients in not having to travel to hospital for diagnostics and so on, but will also benefit GP practices as well.

I wanted to ask you some similar questions to what Alun had asked about failures in GPs contracts locally that were highlighted by that fiasco. The private company, eHarley Street, may have given up the contracts for a number of GP practices in Blaenau Gwent, and indeed the Rhymney valley, but patients are still left in limbo. We know of some practices where the health board will be taking over the management of services from 1 April—that effects Bryntirion in Bargoed, for example—but at others enhanced monitoring is apparently going on. Patients though are still finding it difficult to get appointments, staff aren't getting the support they need, and many doctors, who were left being owed thousands of pounds by the company for shifts that they were never paid for, are still awaiting their money.

So, what discussions are you having, please, with the health board to ensure the necessary support is put in place to solve all of those issues, because this has been dragging on for such a long time? Even though it's not attracting the headlines anymore, it is still affecting people's lives.

That work, as I have reported on previously in the Chamber, is work that is subject to continuous ongoing monitoring now between the health board and the practices. As of 1 March, Brynmawr, Aberbeeg and Blaenavon medical practices are now being directly managed by the health board, and as the Member correctly says, from 1 April, that will apply to Bryntirion and Tredegar medical practice as well. Where there are matters that still require resolution, those will need to be pursued in the way they are currently by the health board.

One of the reasons for the change in our performance framework is that the existing approach is encouraging a use of resources that doesn't work equitably. The changes to be delivered by the Welsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust are intended to improve experience and outcomes for all service users, including those with stroke symptoms.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. We already know that stroke patients are at a disadvantage in getting emergency treatment. The research shows that patients wait on average an hour and a half between the first onset of symptoms and dialling 999. After an ambulance is requested, it can take many hours for an emergency response to arrive. While every stroke is different, recovery depends on early intervention. Without early care, the likelihood of lifelong disabilities increases. Not only does this have a huge impact on the individual and their families, but it also means that the NHS has to provide long-term support. From a purely financial point of view, it makes sense to provide early intervention, to say nothing of the moral and ethical imperatives. Cabinet Secretary, what consideration have you given to the creation of specialist stroke first responders in order to provide care while waiting for an ambulance?

Thank you, Altaf Hussain, for that question. As he may recall from the discussion we had in the Chamber last week, under the current arrangements around 34 per cent of those people in the red calls who have breathing difficulties end up not being transported to hospital, whereas we know people in stroke absolutely do need specialist care in the way that he was alluding. So, that is actually very much at the heart of the changes that have been introduced. The group of clinicians and system leaders who helped formulate that new approach as part of the review took evidence both from the national clinical lead for stroke and the Stroke Association, to help shape the context for their discussions. He will maybe recall that, in my statement last week on the changes that are coming in in July for the red category, I said that I've asked for a rapid review of the amber category as well, over the course of the next two months, so before the new clinical model comes into place, so that the conclusions of that review, which will affect stroke patients and those suffering from suspected stroke, can be taken into account in advance of the new clinical model, which is due to come into place later this year.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. First of all, the Welsh Conservatives spokesperson, Joel James.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister, as you will know, studies have shown alarming rates of stress, depression and anxiety amongst the farming community. You will be well aware that, as a profession, it has some of the highest suicide rates in the country. It is an often brutal job, fuelled by isolation, long hours and harsh working conditions. Yet not only do our farmers have to contend with these conditions, they also have to deal with the almost never-ending conveyor belt of anti-rural and anti-farming legislation coming from your Labour Government. Not only has the Welsh Government cut the rural affairs budget by over 30 per cent in real terms, then doubled down on this with further cash cuts to the tune of £37.5 million, it has also taken away the ability of farmers to manage their land properly, has tried to blackmail them into giving up their land in return for financial subsidies, and you now fully support the UK Government's ruthless changes to agricultural property relief. I would argue that the Labour Party, both here in the Senedd and at Westminster, are fuelling the mental health crisis that is affecting the farming community. So, Minister, when will the Labour Party realise that pushing farmers to the brink of financial ruin and their own mental health collapse is not only going against your own legislation for improved health and well-being for future generations, but it's also risking the collapse of the rural economy and our food security? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Joel James, for that very comprehensive question, covering many parts of different portfolios. But when it comes to my own portfolio, as the Minister for Mental Health and Well-being, I want to say to all farmers out there that improving mental health and well-being continues to be a priority for the Welsh Government. We know that farmers face many challenges, including, as you mentioned, the uncertainty, isolation and loneliness, which can have a detrimental impact on their mental well-being. I met with many charities who are working in this space and receive funding from the Welsh Government at the Royal Welsh Show last year, and I intend to do the same again this year. It's very important, as it is with every part of my portfolio, to listen to people who have lived experience.

It is also essential that we do all we can to raise awareness of the importance of maintaining mental health, and physical health as well, supporting the help available and how to reach it. And I strongly encourage anyone experiencing stress or mental health issues to ask for help. The Welsh Government supports several important activities to aid mental health in rural communities, and this includes the Wales farm support group, which brings together farming charities to share knowledge and expertise.

Thank you, Minister. The tourism industry in Wales is extremely worried about the recent changes the Welsh Government have made with the introduction of a tourist tax. Although it may be considered by supporters to be a relatively small amount, actually it has a huge negative impact. It turns away potential customers, and it also makes it difficult for businesses to plan for the future, because they simply don't know how customers will react. The arbitrary 182-day minimum for self-catering letting is also a huge worry.

A recent survey by the Professional Association of Self Caterers has shown that 95 per cent of self-catering property owners now feel considerably more stressed about the profitability of their business in the future, and only 26 per cent of operators in Wales feel that they will hit the 182-day threshold this year. Reports from PASC regarding the mental health of operators makes for some difficult reading. Instead of business owners enjoying a happy and productive life, they are now suffering nervous breakdowns, living with constant worry about their bills, and they live with a blanket of anxiety and depression constantly over them, as they fear losing their businesses.

Minister, the Labour Party are directly responsible for this arbitrary 182-day minimum let target, and directly responsible for the detrimental health impact it is having on operators. What are you going to do about it?

Well, again, this is not my portfolio, the tourism levy. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t be able to answer directly to that, other than to say, as I do with every policy that we introduce across the Welsh Government, that we do thorough consultations with our stakeholders, with people with lived experience, and that we take into account what people say. I would also say that, once again, we are absolutely committed to supporting people’s mental health and well-being across Wales. If anybody is in distress, please reach out to the services that are available.

I would also just like to mention something that is important to my portfolio, which is that we have two mental health strategies that are coming out in the next few months. The first one is going to be the suicide prevention and self-harm strategy. The crux of that, and the most important fundamental part of that, is the understanding and listening to people. Actually, this is something that’s very important to those parts of the rural community that you’re referring to. Then we’ll also have the mental health and well-being strategy, which is going to make it much easier for people to have that single-session conversation with somebody exactly when they need it.

So, these are the things that Welsh Labour, myself and the Welsh Government are focusing on to improve people’s access to the mental health support that they need when they need it.

Thank you, Minister. Hopefully you'll be able to answer my next question. As you know, Wes Streeting, Labour’s health Secretary at Westminster, believes that mental health conditions have been overdiagnosed. Do you agree with this, or will you join me in condemning such ignorant remarks?

Another political hit here, Joel, but I will answer it. I think that there's a huge awareness growing around mental health issues. I think that people need the support and the listening when they need it—no wrong door. I will also say, though, that I listen to many people, as I've already mentioned multiple times, who have lived experience. It's not always helpful to have a diagnosis and a label, and I think that when you see my mental health strategies, you'll see that that's very clearly come through in the co-production and the working across Government that we have done on this.

Ultimately, people just want to be able to see somebody when they want to see them, and it's not necessarily about the diagnosis. I don't think that people are being overdiagnosed with mental health conditions; I just think that people need more support, and I think that when they go and see somebody, they don't want to be put on a waiting list to have a conversation with somebody—they need that initial conversation and then to be signposted. I think that mental health can be very complex, but I also think it's a life-course approach—as we do with many of our policies across the Welsh Government. I think it's really important that we accept that you can have issues with your mental health and that you can recover, you can have issues with your physical health and you can recover, and both of them are often intertwined. So, that's what I would say in response to your question directly. Diolch yn fawr.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. This month is Brain Tumour Awareness Month. I'd like to pay tribute to Brain Tumour Research for their sterling work in this area and for their highly informative stall in Y Farchnad yesterday. They rightly highlighted that brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under the age of 40 and that research into these conditions is underfunded and suffers from a lack of policy prioritisation more generally.

This is especially apparent when it comes to accessing clinical trials in Wales, which can provide a vital source of hope for patients. Part of the problem simply relates to the acute paucity of trials based here in Wales, resulting in those who have the means travelling, often long distances, to participate in trials. This is compounded by low public awareness of the few trials that are held here, despite a strong appetite amongst patients to participate.

Could you explain, Cabinet Secretary, whether the Welsh Government has a strategy to boost clinical trials held in Wales? What are you doing in terms of outreach work to enhance awareness in the meantime? Would establishing a one-stop digital portal where patients can access the availability of such trials and register their interest in good time be an option worth exploring?

The Member asks an important question. On a recent visit that I was able to make with Julie Morgan to the Velindre Cancer Centre, I was able to discuss with them the work that they do in relation to trials in Wales, but also participating and leading on trials that have an impact across the UK and indeed globally. It is important that we’re able to make sure that we bring all our resources as a health service in Wales to bear to support trials and to lead those trials whenever we possibly can do that.

The Welsh Government, via Health and Care Research Wales, does already facilitate research trial options for individuals in Wales in a range of areas. There is, in fact, a Health and Care Research Wales delivery hub that provides national-level support so that we can set up effectively studies so they provide opportunities for patients to take part and to do that as quickly as possible. The hub also provides a horizon-scanning function for all studies that are open across the UK, because where there are conditions that may not be particularly common, those trials may be in other parts of the UK.

I think that joined-up approach is really important, making sure that Wales is playing its part in making sure trials are provided and led from Wales, whenever we can do that, whenever we’ve got the expertise and skill set to do that, but also making sure that UK-wide set of trials is accessible is obviously important.

The availability of specialist services is another area where rare and less survivable cancer patients in Wales are particularly disadvantaged. The All Wales Medical Genomics Service actually predates devolution, having been established in 1987, but it remains considerably underpowered compared to equivalent services in England. For example, the service here in Wales lacks a next-generation tumour sequencing service, which can test for several thousand mutations within each tumour, rather than the mere dozens that the existing technological capacity can manage. Moreover, as of the end of January, there was no set pathway to refer Welsh patients to Genomics England for more advanced treatment, despite ambitions to have one in place by Christmas of last year.

In fairness, the Cabinet Secretary has previously mentioned the Welsh Government intends to introduce a next-generation service in Wales to plug this gap. So, could he provide an update on when it is likely to be operational? And in the meantime, could he confirm whether there will be a bespoke pathway put in place to expedite referrals to Genomics England until a Welsh service is established?

Actually, I think that genomics is an area where Wales has a very, very good track record in terms both of investment and of delivery. I think that would be a fair assessment, which I think genomics facilities in all parts of the UK would recognise. It is really important that we’re able to continue the progress that we’ve made. Genomic research and the application of research offers opportunities for faster and for more accurate diagnoses and treatments for individual patients as well. The Canolfan Iechyd Genomig Cymru, which was opened in 2023, which was funded by the Welsh Government, does provide a state-of-the-art facility for NHS Wales to work with industrial partners, which is quite often where the research is most successful, that joint collaborative research, and it’s also actually a very welcoming environment for patients. I think there is a range of ways in which the genomics offer in Wales is already very strong. Clearly, as the Member mentions, there is more that we plan to do, and that work is under way.

Thank you for that response. It’s regrettable that we haven’t had a date as yet as to when the Welsh Government intends to introduce that next-generation genomics service, but we await and 'Watch this space', I presume, is the message.

Unfortunately, children are even more disadvantaged when it comes to cancer. Whilst cancer amongst adults is generally caused by environmental factors, cancer amongst children is mainly unusual, or they have less chance of survival. But because of an absence of specialist services here in Wales, almost three quarters of patients have to travel outside Wales for at least some of their treatment, with some having to go into debt in order to afford travel costs and accommodation costs.

In addition to this, an Audit Wales report has emphasised that the Government's cancer improvement plan is insufficient because of the lack of consideration for the needs of children and young people. This is a reflection of a broader trend where children suffer comparatively worse outcomes than adults in engaging with the health service, particularly in terms of waiting lists. One of the main duties of society is to protect future generations, and, at the moment, Wales is falling short in that regard. So, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary to consider establishing a fund in order to support the travel and accommodation costs of young cancer patients who have to travel outside Wales for treatment, and to explain whether he believes that we need to develop a specific cancer strategy for children and young people in Wales, as is already in place in Scotland?

I thank the Member for another important question. In terms of the question of a specific strategy, I think that that is something that is led clinically, as a decision for clinicians. My personal view is that it’s not a lack of strategies that we have when it comes to cancer, and we have to ensure that there is better alignment in terms of all of the activity on cancer amongst children, and cancer more generally too. I think it’s inevitable on one level that there is an element of travel, as the Member acknowledges, where some forms of cancer are rarer. People travel from afar, including from England, to come to Wales for some treatments too. So, that relationship is an established one. I would like to see more being done locally, of course, but an element of that travel is inevitable.

He referred to the Audit Wales report in this regard, and I have made a statement as a result of that, accepting that we need to ensure that there is clearer guidance, in terms of the work of the executive, to ensure that the demands of the system are clearer. That work is now in train, and also the leadership board I’ve established across all of the programmes, to ensure that they collaborate more effectively as well.

Health boards are responsible for planning and delivering services to ensure there is sufficient capacity to meet the needs of the communities that they serve. In doing so, they'll need to consider a range of options to make best use of the available resources.

As you will know, Cabinet Secretary, unfortunately the capacity of the health service in north Wales isn’t right, and that is why many patients do not get the level of service that they deserve, particularly in terms of our emergency department at Glan Clwyd Hospital in Bodelwyddan. I know that this is a concern for you and the Welsh Government too. Now, one of the solutions that was proposed, over 12 years ago now, by the Welsh Government was the establishment of a brand new hospital in Rhyl, in order to take pressure off Glan Clwyd Hospital by having extra bed capacity and a new minor injuries unit. I understand that some progress is being made towards that, but one major concern about the progress being made is that the number of beds in the new facility has been drastically reduced from that which was originally envisaged, and this is in spite of the fact that the performance of Glan Clwyd Hospital, particularly in its emergency department, has further deteriorated over that 12-year period. Why is the Welsh Government supporting a proposal that is less ambitious, given that the pressures are more acute?

Well, the question of capacity is important, and I think, in terms of the broad point which the Member makes, I’m sure the health board would recognise some of the challenges around capacity to which he is referring in his question. We’ve provided particular funds in order to tackle capacity challenges in a range of areas—so, a range of planned care areas, diagnostics, but also, specifically, in the way that his question was focused, in relation to reducing pressure on emergency departments as well. There has been progress, I think it’s fair to acknowledge, in relation to Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. Nobody would think that there isn’t further to go; clearly there is. But I think it’s important to acknowledge that there has been progress there.

In relation to the other proposal that he is referring to, that proposal is, at this point, being developed. So, I’m not in a position to comment on the detail of it, because we aren’t at that point in the process. But I’m confident that the health board will be putting together a proposal that reflects the current needs across north Wales and manages the pressures of demand on the one hand and resourcing on the other. And we will have a constructive discussion with the health board both about the proposal and how it’s taken forward quickly.

Improving cancer outcomes and reducing cancer waiting times is a priority for this Government. We are investing in cancer services and working with the health boards, supported by the NHS executive, to drive sustainable improvement for cancer waiting times, through implementation of the national optimum pathways.

Thank you for the response, Cabinet Secretary. I was contacted by a constituent who had received a devastating diagnosis of breast cancer. My constituent, having waited a total of 107 days for treatment, as opposed to the 62 intended under the suspected cancer pathway target, then discovered that she would need a mastectomy. She’s unsure to this day whether this might have been avoided had the target time been met. But after that incredibly mentally and physically challenging surgery, she was then told she’d suffered nerve damage as a result of the surgery and is now on another waiting list with an expected wait of two years for a second operation. When my constituent asked Swansea Bay University Health Board why she had had to wait 107 days rather than the target 62, she was told that it was down to, and I quote, 'bank holidays'. I’m sure you’ll agree with me, Cabinet Secretary, that that is a completely unacceptable response and a devastating situation for my constituent. Cancer doesn’t take bank holidays. So, how is the Welsh Government ensuring that all health boards are meeting that 62-day target, rather than hiding behind lame excuses, because lives are on the line?

Well, I’m sorry to hear about the experience that your constituent has had. Clearly, that is not good enough. I’m not in a position to comment on the response from the health board, because I don’t know the context to what was said. What I know is that, in relation to breast cancer specifically, four health boards achieved the cancer waiting time target, including Swansea bay health board, which achieved a performance of over 80 per cent. Of course, we would want to see that even higher, but that is the situation at the moment. We have a national programme, which is supported by the NHS executive, to work with health boards and NHS trusts to recover cancer waiting time performance for the five cancers with the lowest performance rates.

I would say that, in relation to breast cancer, there is, in parts of Wales, an extremely strong track record, where health boards have been able to develop one-stop-shop approaches, and parts of his region will be served by such a facility. And we know that, in those areas it’s a much better experience for patients, because it’s a faster experience, frankly, but also it enables the health board to reach much, much higher levels of compliance, as much as 89 or 90 per cent, with the target. So, it’s more of that innovation in service delivery that we want to see, to make sure that women, like your constituent, don’t have to have that experience.

Rare cancers are less frequently diagnosed, but collectively they account for almost one in every five of all cancer diagnoses each year, and include gynaecological cancers, and some of the less survivable cancers, such as stomach and oesophageal cancers and blood cancers. The earlier diagnosis of these rare cancers will be critical to meeting the 62-day waiting time target. Last Friday, the Rare Cancers Bill, a private Member’s Bill, progressed through its Second Reading in the UK Parliament, and it hopes to make provision to incentivise research and investment into the treatment of rare types of cancer and for connected purposes. And so, while the focus of the Bill is England, its effects may be felt here in Wales, as so many patients do travel to England for their cancer treatment, as was mentioned earlier in discussion. So, has the Welsh Government given any consideration to the effects and the consequences for Wales if this Bill does become law?

Thank you for that important question. The Rare Cancers Bill was introduced, of course, as a private Member’s Bill, but the UK Government has confirmed its support for the legislation, as the Member obviously knows. A date for Committee Stage will be confirmed; it hasn’t yet been allocated. There has been correspondence between us—between the two Governments—in relation to the Bill, and there have been discussions at official level with Department for Health and Social Care counterparts on the potential implications and opportunities that might arise in the Bill. There is support for improving research into rare types of cancer here in Wales. We’ve agreed that officials will work closely to make sure there is a co-ordination and a join-up across the UK in relation to the objectives of the Bill.

I mentioned in my answer to Mabon ap Gwynfor the work of the Health and Care Research Wales delivery hub, but it’s also perhaps worth noting in the context of rare cancers specifically that Health and Care Research Wales has also recently appointed a research speciality lead for rare diseases, and their role is to increase and accelerate, frankly, the uptake of research across NHS Wales for rare diseases, including cancers.

Thank you to Tom Giffard for raising this question, but, unfortunately, there are far too many examples of constituents not receiving treatment within 62 days—the expected target. Tom referred to a constituent in his area, and I literally have just received a message from a constituent from the Dinas Mawddwy area who received a lung cancer diagnosis back in November. She continues to wait for treatment and she was told that the next step will be radiotherapy, but there is a problem with the boundaries. She understood that she would have to travel down to Singleton in Swansea from Dinas Mawddwy, but then that that wouldn't be possible because she lived in the Betsi Cadwaladr region. Her life is literally on the line, with the cancer perhaps growing and spreading while the health boards argue over who should take responsibility for her treatment because of where she lives. This is true of a number of patients. Now, the Cabinet Secretary has said previously that the Government has tackled the postcode lottery, but it is clear that that isn't the case, and patients are still suffering as a result. Does the Cabinet Secretary believe that the situation facing my constituent is acceptable, and what steps are being taken to prevent this from happening?

Well, I'm not in a position to make specific comments on the position of the constituent. The situation doesn't sound acceptable from his description. If he could send me a letter with details, I would be happy to look into that.

The Welsh Government has supported the health board to make improvements in waiting times with additional finance, direct intervention and support from the NHS executive. Improvements across planned care and children and adolescent mental health services in particular were recognised in the escalation announcement, which I made last week.

Cabinet Secretary, you may be aware that there has been a twelvefold increase in the number of children waiting more than a year for an autism assessment in the Hywel Dda University Health Board area. Indeed, over 1,000 children are waiting for a diagnosis in Pembrokeshire, and, as you know, while those children are waiting for a diagnosis, they are without the right support. Now, I was told, when my autism Bill was rejected by your party, that it wasn't required because measures were being brought in to improve things anyway. Clearly, that hasn't happened, and if my Bill had succeeded, then perhaps we wouldn't be in this position today. So, Cabinet Secretary, what urgent action is being given to Hywel Dda University Health Board to specifically target waiting lists for an autism diagnosis? And, in the meantime, what support are you offering families and local charities in the area so that some support is available for children and their families whilst they wait?

I thank the Member for that question. I recall the discussions around the Bill, and there was a good debate about whether we felt it would have achieved the objectives that were set. The point that he makes in his question—[Interruption.] The point that he makes in his question is an important point—[Interruption.] The point he makes—

Can we avoid conversations across the Chamber, please? Let the Minister answer.

I'm seeking to do justice to the Member's question. He will know that to my colleague the Minister for Mental Health and Well-being has announced a programme of support to reduce the waiting times for young people in relation to a range of diagnoses, including of autism. That has funding attached to it and it will benefit those waiting the longest. There is absolutely a recognition that that funding on its own will not meet the scale of the challenge in the system, including in the Hywel Dda University Health Board area. Alongside that, there needs to be a transformation of assessment and diagnosis more broadly. There is work under way. There was, I think, a very helpful summit at the end of last year around redesigning pathways to support assessment and diagnosis, and so, as those are able to be rolled out, we are confident that, across the system, there will be an improvement in waiting times. In the meantime, that funding is there to reduce the longest waits, and I hope that will benefit his constituents as it will other parts of Wales.

Question 6 [OQ62464] has been withdrawn. Question 7, Peter Fox.

Improving access to healthcare and reducing waiting times is a priority for this Government. Health boards across south-east Wales are working hard to deliver good-quality and timely services, and we are taking clear and decisive action to reduce all waiting times, including orthopaedics.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. It's good to hear that it's a priority. Knee and hip replacements have been a constant issue for my constituents and I'm sure most Members here have had it raised with them. The wait from GP to clinician takes far too long, and that is even before the patient can join the waiting list, meaning that typically people are waiting up to three years before getting a knee or hip replacement, and this is devastating for them. Sadly, though, even after this wait, people are being called for operations only to have them cancelled the morning of the operation. One constituent I have has had this happen three times and, of course, she had to put arrangements in place for care and had to cancel. And that's constantly happening. We've heard this a few times. So, what action is the Welsh Government therefore taking to ensure that people do not have to suffer like this for years and face the emotional distress of last-minute cancellations?

Well, people should not have to wait in pain for a long time to have their orthopaedic surgery. I absolutely agree with that. I would say that, in the south-east in particular, we've seen a 73 per cent reduction in the over two-year orthopaedic rates from its peak. But, clearly, that is a start; we need to go much further. And significant additional funding has been provided to the south-east region in relation to its longest waits, and that will support those patients waiting for orthopaedic surgery. I think that he's right to say that we need to make sure that there is a consistency in the offer, if you like, to patients. He will maybe recall from previous discussions in the Chamber that the planning guidance that I issued to the NHS before Christmas has very specific requirements in relation to orthopaedic targets, the numbers of procedures on a list, to ensure consistency across the piece. There is a very, very well established Getting It Right First Time-driven approach to efficiency in orthopaedic surgery, and we have to see that delivered consistently in all parts of Wales. There is far too much variation between practitioners and between sites.

I would like to ask about knee and hip replacement waiting times in the Aneurin Bevan health board area, Cabinet Secretary, and particularly on the transparency and clarity of information. So, on the NHS 111 Wales planned care website, with regard to trauma and orthopaedics at Aneurin Bevan, it tells us that the average wait time for a first out-patient appointment is 26 weeks; that 10 per cent of people are waiting 61 weeks or more—this is for a first out-patient appointment; the average waiting time to start treatment is 33 weeks; and 10 per cent of people are waiting 85 weeks or more. So, it doesn't break information down by type of surgery, and I think it would be much more helpful for patients and their families in terms of being able to plan and get on with their lives and knowing what to expect if they could, for example, with regard to a hip replacement, go on the website and find out, in terms of patients receiving hip replacements this week, when they were referred—how many weeks ago they were referred for treatment. I just think that, in terms of transparency and usefulness of information, we could do much better than what is currently on offer.

I thank John Griffiths for that question. I agree with him, we can do better. I don't think it is good enough that it's just provided on a health board average basis. The information by specialty is generally provided, but the level of detail that he refers to is, of course, available to individual health boards. They have that information, which they can make available. I hope it gives him some reassurance to know that, in April, we'll be issuing refreshed guidance to the health boards for them to provide more detail on expected waits in their acceptance letters on an individualised basis, or to be able to signpost to web pages that have more detail in the way that he's describing on expected waits. They will then be able to tell patients their average waits by condition, such as knee surgery or hip surgery. This, obviously, will vary by health board and by complexity, so the information needs to come from health boards. But that information will be refreshed in the new guidance in April, and health boards should then be putting this level of detail on their own website and sharing that as well with GP partners.

There are times when a smallish number of non-emergency patient transport service journeys can't be accommodated. The service completed in excess of an astonishing 500,000 journeys to and from hospitals and clinics across Wales and the wider UK last year.

Thank you. I apologise to my constituents having to raise this matter again with you, having raised it previously with your predecessor.

Now, according to the trust’s latest published annual report, the non-emergency patient transport service’s ambulatory transport performance has improved and been stable, as you’ve rightly pointed out. Increases in demand, in particular for renal patients, does impact on the amount of available resource for out-patient activity. The centre was to be re-rostered during 2024-25, which is expected to help with the increased demand, along with an ability to reconsider the performance metrics around how rosters are designed. However, on a regular basis now, Cabinet Secretary, I have constituents contact me advising that, at the very last minute, their non-emergency transport service has been cancelled. This leaves highly vulnerable and unwell residents frantically trying to find another way to reach their appointment. But also, too, it leaves the consultant often waiting for the patient who then doesn’t turn up, and they get told that they’ve failed an appointment. This cannot be right.

So, what steps can you take to work with Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board to at least see better communication, and just try and ensure that when someone has prepared themselves, an elderly person, ready for an appointment, to go for treatment or diagnosis, they’re not let down so badly in this way. Diolch.

Well, I think it is reasonable to say that there are sometimes unexpected changes that—

This is happening a lot.

There are sometimes unexpected changes that would lead to cancellation at short notice. I think it’s also fair to say that this mostly happens when resources are having to be redirected where there is a more urgent demand elsewhere, and that’s often emergency ambulance service responses. Where there are consultations, the provision of transport is prioritised to those patients with the highest level of needs, so as she mentioned, renal patients, but also cancer patients when they’re travelling for life-sustaining treatments. WAST aims to give patients at least 24 hours' notice wherever they can and to try and provide support in terms of signposting to other providers, perhaps community transport providers. I think it’s important to bear in mind that out of the 0.5 million—500,000—journeys that are made each year, on a monthly basis, last year, the average number of cancellations that came from the service itself was running at around 600 a month, out of 500,000 patient journeys. Last year, more than 70,000 journeys, so almost 10 times as many, were cancelled on the day of travel by patients themselves. Now, the consequence of that is that that really does cause challenges in terms of rostering, so it’s a more complex picture, I think, than perhaps the question suggests, although I recognise it’s a question in good faith.

She asked about what’s happening to try and address some of these challenges. There’s a demand and capacity review under way this year. That will be completed later this year, 2025, and the expectation is that that will help to deliver some additional capacity to reflect the growth in patient volumes as the planned care activity increases across the system following our investment.

Finally, question 9, Russell George.

I am of course aware of the challenges of delivering GP services to a dispersed rural patient population. Rurality is taken into account as part of the funding formula for practices, and our investment in multidisciplinary teams helps to support access to a wider group of health professionals, including nurses and pharmacists, to ensure care closer to home.

Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. Of course, you will know that some medical practices have more than one surgery location because they're trying to provide services to a very large geographical area, and that does bring an additional cost with it. Some rural practices are reporting to me that they can no longer run their practices viably under this existing model. So, I'm concerned that some practices may hand their contracts back to the health board, which, of course, would, in turn, bring additional concerns and costs. Now, when I raised this with you in a letter last month, you did respond to me about the additional funding the Welsh Government has provided to general practice. But I don't think your response really recognised the issue of rural practices. Funding models, I think, need to better recognise the distinct challenges of providing care rurally and allocate additional funding resources to support the higher costs of the complexities of running a surgery on split sites where there are no other medical services nearby as well in a very large geographical area. So, can you set out why this isn't adequately reflected in the funding formula and what plans do you have to address this?

As I say, it is reflected in the funding formula. Rurality is one of a set of criteria; it isn't, obviously, the only criterion that is used to weight funding through the general medical services contract. He will also be aware that recognising some of the cost pressures on GP practices, both rural and otherwise, at the moment is part of the settlement of the funding—the contract negotiations, rather, this year, including a £23 million stabilisation payment to enable GP practices to address some of the additional cost pressures. Obviously, for rural practices, that will go to support some of the particular challenges that they face and that I acknowledge in the Member's question. I think part of the solution, as well, lies in the point I was making in response to Alun Davies's question earlier, which is delivering more services on a cluster footing, so to provide a greater resilience, if you like, and more flexibility for those practices, as he describes, which are sometimes providing services for more than one location. That would benefit the resilience of those practices, but also benefit his constituents and mine who are having to travel further than we would like to get some of the services that they need.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Item 3 is next. There is one topical question that has been accepted, and the question will be asked by Sioned Williams.

Thank you very much for your question.

Welsh Government will carefully consider the implications of proposed welfare reforms and respond to the consultation on the Green Paper to ensure that the voices of disabled people in Wales are heard.

Diolch. Now we have a UK Labour Government, are things different for some of the most vulnerable people in Wales? Are they different for the Welsh Government, who still have to fill in the holes that Westminster tears in the safety net that is meant to keep people in Wales from suffering hardship? We have higher rates of disabled people of working age than the UK average, and five of the UK's 10 local authorities with the highest rates of economic inactivity because of long-term illness. So, the impact of these unprecedented cuts to disability benefits on Wales will be devastating. Disability charities have called the plans immoral, unethical, short-sighted. Disability Wales said the £5 billion cuts

'will leave many disabled people in Wales considerably worse off'.

People on the personal independence payment could lose support of between £4,200 a year and £6,300 a year according to the Resolution Foundation. This cut to the income of Wales's poorest citizens is what you and your Government spent the last 14 years denouncing.

We've all heard Liz Kendall and our own First Minister yesterday defend this by trying to accentuate the positive, and we'd of course all welcome any reform that helps tackle the barriers that disabled people who are able and want to work face in finding and retaining employment. But for a Government always eager to emphasise that it listens to those with lived experience, which you've just reiterated again, the First Minister and the Government don't seem to be in listening mode. Are you really, Cabinet Secretary, as the Minister responsible for tackling poverty and supporting the rights of disabled people? The mental health charity Mind said that these cuts would exacerbate the mental health crisis. The Child Poverty Action Group said that it will undermine efforts to tackle child poverty. The Trussell Trust said that it will undermine Labour's promises to cut foodbank use. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation said that it'll make it harder for people to qualify for support. Oxfam Cymru called on the Welsh Government to demand that their colleagues in Westminster tax the wealthiest to help combat poverty and inequality. The Bevan Foundation has said that the plans will have a huge and concerning impact on the 275,000 people in Wales receiving PIP. This raises challenges for the Welsh Government in terms of the need for additional intensive support for young people who will lose out on a large amount of benefits and then will be put at a further disadvantage if they don’t get that support.

We've seen part of the letter sent by the First Minister to Liz Kendall and heard her answers to the questions posed by Rhun ap Iorwerth yesterday. What wasn't clear was whether the Welsh Government had been consulted on these plans. What did you disagree with? What changes were asked for in that letter, and what changes were made? What impact assessment was shared, if any? Could you provide a clear answer on what your concerns were? And what assessment have you made as to the impact on people and the services you provide—the demand for welfare advice, for devolved grants and allowances such as the discretionary assistance fund, for social and health services? They're all going to be disproportionately higher in Wales than in England. So, do you agree also that additional resource is therefore needed for these services, which will obviously need to be higher than a Barnettised uplift? And will you be asking that from your partners in Westminster?

Well, thank you very much for your very important questions.

Thank you for those questions. We will carefully consider the impact of the proposed welfare reforms on people in Wales, and we will provide a cross-Government response as well. You referred to the fact that the First Minister has written to the Department of Work and Pensions Secretary of State asking what analysis has been done or will be done on the differential impact of any proposed cuts in welfare in Wales compared to England.

It is important that we do all we can within our powers to support people in Wales, and we will continue to do so. We want to make sure that people who can work are able to find employment and receive the support that they need. But we absolutely agree that the social security system needs to ensure that it's effectively supporting people into work but offering an effective financial safety net for people who are unable to work. As I said, I've urged and I continue to urge disabled people and their organisations that support them in Wales to ensure that their voices are heard by responding to the consultation, which closes on 30 June. As you know, I chair a disability equality forum, and I will be holding a meeting with the forum to discuss this.

I'm very pleased, also, that the Equality and Social Justice Committee has produced a really important report, which you also, as a member of that committee, contributed to, 'Anything’s Achievable with the Right Support: Tackling the Disability Employment Gap'. But also I would say that it's important that the work that the disability rights taskforce has done in Wales has demonstrated our commitment to listening and collaborating with disabled people. So, it's a 10-year disabled people's rights plan that's going to be published very shortly. It aims to remove barriers and create long-term positive change for disabled people. And one point I would make—and I'm sure you would agree—is that we need to place the social model of disability at the core of the response to the UK Government's welfare reform proposals, but also at the core of our vision and response in Wales.

Thank you, Sioned, for raising this issue. And thank you, Cabinet Minister; we will wait for the response. Cabinet Secretary, I welcome the move by the UK Government to tackle the ballooning welfare Bill. In one of the most widely trailed announcements in recent times, Rachel Reeves and Liz Kendall came to the same conclusion as successive Conservative Secretaries of State, namely that action was desperately needed to ensure the long-term sustainability of the welfare system and to restore fairness. As health-related benefits for people of working age reach a staggering £71 billion a year, far more than we spend on the police and defending our nation, it has been clear for some time that a reform is no longer optional. Cabinet Secretary, do you regret that the UK Government criticised and then abandoned Conservative plans only to have to reintroduce welfare reforms because they crashed the economy with their jobs tax and now have to fill the resulting financial black hole?

I think, in terms of crashing the economy, we know who did that, in terms of Liz Truss's time in power and 14 years—

Can I ask Members to stop shouting across the Chamber, so the Minister can answer?

—of austerity. But I absolutely thank you, of course, Altaf Hussain, for your important question. Can I say that, of course, we need to influence—[Interruption.] Obviously, we need to influence the response to this consultation on welfare reform. And what is important is that we do have a four-nations inter-ministerial meeting with the UK Government Department for Work and Pensions—four nations. And it is four nations, so it will be Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England, the UK Government. It's really important to get that four-nation engagement. It's been set up to discuss areas of mutual interest, such as how to reform the benefits system and to ensure that work always pays. This is where we can contribute in terms of the work that we've been doing to ensure that we can help address that gap, the disability employment gap, which we know exists. Of course, that's something where I think the work that we've done, particularly in terms of our employment support programmes, where we seek to establish a seamless and integrated employability support system, tailored towards fair work jobs—. We focus on those closest to the labour market, the short-term unemployed and redundant people.

We also, of course, employ five disabled people's employment champions, and they each bring lived experience and in-depth and practical understanding of the social model of disability. They are working, engaging with employers, employer representative organisations and trade unions across the public and private sector to promote recruitment, retention and progression of disabled people. Support for this has come from our disability rights taskforce, and, of course, they are helping us move forward in terms of our disabled people's rights plan, based on the social model of disability.

I think it is important that we look at some of the proposals in the announcements yesterday in relation to the opportunity of establishing a right-to-try principle, which would mean that work will not lead to reassessment, which, of course, causes great insecurity for disabled people. The intention is to legislate as soon as possible, so it can apply to the current system as well as the reformed system. I do note that, from many of the responses—concerned responses—from disability and social research organisations, there is a recognition that the right to try is important, so that—. And I think this was from the Bevan Foundation:

'And the proposal to clarify the work that claimants can undertake and guarantee that they can try a job without jeopardising their benefits should help to support people into work.'

One of the things we've seen over the last few decades, of course, is that, when the Conservatives have been in power in the UK, child poverty has increased, and, when Labour have been in power in the UK, child poverty has decreased. The rates of child poverty in Wales doubled during the 1980s and have been increasing constantly since 2010. So, we do need to address the issues of poverty in this country. Do you agree with me, Minister, that the way to address poverty in this country is not simply to respond to relatively short-term issues around public spending, but to set a clear objective of Government that we will eradicate poverty, that we will reduce inequality, and that all Government policy, whether here in Wales or in the United Kingdom, should be driven by that objective, and that is the test by which we will test all policies that come out of either Government: how will this impact poverty, how will this impact the most vulnerable and how will this impact the poorest and the weakest in society?

Thank you for that, and thank you for restating the principles of this Welsh Labour Government, Alun Davies. Actually, in a short time I'm joining a four-nations child poverty taskforce meeting, which has been called by the UK Government this afternoon, where I will be pressing these points in terms of tackling child poverty, and it's important that Senedd Members are aware of that. I think it is really important that we understand how it is that we can support those who can work, how we can support them into employment, and we know that that is a huge issue for many, as the Equality and Social Justice Committee pointed out—the title, ‘Anything's Achievable with the Right Support’. We need to make sure that we get the funding for the right support for employment programmes. We need to ensure there's an effective, safe financial safety net for people who are unable to work. That's got to be recognised. And we will be carefully considering the proposal for a new health element, which will provide additional financial support for people claiming universal credit who are unable to work.

Well, I can't believe what I'm hearing today, to be honest with you. Here, we have a branch of the Labour Party that has been going on and on about these issues for decades, pointing the finger at the Conservatives, saying that they are the enemy in all of this and that they force people into poverty. But George Osborne himself has said that he wouldn't have gone as far as Rachel Reeves and Keir Starmer are doing in Westminster at the moment. Yet we have a Labour Party in Wales that is so servile, so lacking in backbone, that they will not stand up to these people in London who will force our people in Wales into poverty—into extreme poverty. We've heard Save the Children say today already that, if we think that child poverty is bad in Wales at the moment, it will get worse in the next year or two or three because of your decisions, your Government's decisions. This will be on your shoulders.

You mentioned, Cabinet Secretary, that you will do everything within your power in order to tackle and address this. Well, you will have to work within a very tight budget. You will have to do everything within your budget, and that budget is already stretched to the point that it's not possible to do everything.

Now, we know that austerity, what the Conservatives did, has prepared the ground for Farage, for Reform and that lot. It’s austerity that has caused this situation where we see the extreme right wing on the rise, because we're seeing services being cut. Now Labour, Labour in London, your Labour Party, is going to force more austerity on the people of Wales. This will push more and more people into the arms of those like Farage because they are losing all hope.

Now, we must have an understanding of the impact of this policy on Wales. It's going to impact your colleague next to you there. [Interruption.] I will come to a question. It's going to impact health and social care. So, what assessment will you make and has been made of the impact on the health and social care budget and how local authorities will cope with these cuts?

Diolch yn fawr, Mabon ap Gwynfor. You referred to the Conservatives; well, they, of course, left a dreadful legacy of 3 million people across the UK out of work for health reasons, and failing to tackle the root cause of economic activity. But it is important, as I said in answer to the questions today, that we do respond to these proposals, and that we engage with the disabled people's organisations, those who are affected by this, and that we contribute—and I've mentioned the four-nations ministerial meeting with the Department for Work and Pensions—and engage as well.

But can I go back? Just in terms of the assessment, you will know, and I will repeat, and you heard yesterday, that the First Minister wrote to the DWP Secretary of State, asking what analysis has been or will be done on the differential impact of any proposed cuts in welfare on Wales compared to England. In fact, yesterday, I recall she said she'd been in touch with No. 10 as well, to make those points. We need to make sure that we then work together, so that we can understand the impact of this, in terms of the people that we serve.

But I do want to also make one point that I think is very important. I've talked about the work that we're already doing in terms of our disabled employment champions and the fact that we have our disability rights taskforce. We have demonstrated our commitment to listening to and collaborating with disabled people and disabled people's organisations, and to look at all of those key issues that affect them: independent living, health, social care, employment and income, travel, children and young people. These were all work streams that we worked on together, to listen to them, to work with them, to come up with recommendations for this Government.

And I think it is important, in terms of the needs of young people, for example, that we actually do have a young person's guarantee here in Wales. That young person's guarantee means that our young people who are under the age of 25 can have—. And we have those lower youth unemployment figures, which are really critical, compared to the rest of the UK—6 per cent compared to 11.5 per cent—because we have provided the job guarantee, supporting over 48,000 young people. It is about a job, training or an apprenticeship. So, I think the work we're already doing—and of course that is funded within our budget—will also ensure that we have a robust response to this. We want a compassionate, person-centred welfare system, but a welfare system that enables people who want to work to work. Diolch yn fawr.

I've been contacted by so many constituents, really concerned about this. I don't know what to tell them, and I don't know what to tell them the Welsh Government's position is, which is a sorry state of affairs, and shows that the partnership in power is nothing more than rhetoric. I know how different your comments would be if we still had a Conservative Government implementing these changes. And what I would like to know is: what is the Welsh Government's position on these changes? Now that you know the details, what will be in that letter to the UK Government? I hope there will be a letter. What do you disagree with, what are your concerns, and, also, what will you do about it?

Well, I think I've answered those questions more than once this afternoon. We've already raised this; the First Minister raised it before we'd even had the proposals yesterday. She raised it—[Interruption.]—she raised it—[Interruption.] If you want to see and respect the fact that we have a First Minister who raised these questions directly with our colleagues in the UK Government, and recognise the influence that our First Minister has—[Interruption.]—and that I will have—

Members need to allow the Cabinet Secretary to respond.

—I'm sure, when I meet with this four-nations inter-ministerial group with the UK Government. It won't just be myself as Cabinet Secretary; it will also include the Cabinet Secretary from the Scottish Government, who will also want to take the opportunity, as will the Ministers from Northern Ireland. This is important in terms of our responsibilities in Government.

But I do want to assure you that the most important point for me today is to say that I will be meeting with disabled people here in Wales, and talking to them about the impact. I will do the analysis, but also I look forward to responding to the really important Equality and Social Justice Committee, and I hope that you will be able to welcome the 10-year disabled people's rights plan. That's what our plan has been called. It's a disabled people's rights plan because we believe in the social model of disability. We want to remove the barriers to disabled people, and of course, those disabled people who want to enter work and need the support that we can give them, that's where we will play our part.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

No 90-second statements were submitted.

So, I'll move on to item 5, which is the motion to suspend Standing Order 13.6 to allow multiple contributions from individual Members during item 6. And I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion formally, Heledd Fychan.

Formally.

The proposal is to suspend Standing Order 13.6. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

And that brings us to item 6, the open debate: can renewables alone meet the energy needs of Wales? And I call on Carolyn Thomas to open the debate.

Thank you. I'd like to thank the Business Committee for selecting this important topic as the Senedd's first open debate. I hope the question—can renewables alone meet the energy needs of Wales—will spark an in-depth discussion about the future of our energy sector here in Wales, and I look forward to hearing the ideas and contributions of Members from across the Chamber, and I may be coming out with some provocative ideas as well.

Wales has an abundance of natural elements—wave, wind and solar—that can create energy and power our homes. We can store it with batteries, by creating green hydrogen and by using interconnectors, moving it around to where it's needed and where the wind might be blowing. The cost of gas continues to rise rapidly and we rely on importing it at high cost, and we need to move away from harmful fossil fuels.

North Wales has the highest standing and unit energy charges in Great Britain, because of the network, I'm told. And the UK's energy charges are the highest of any developed nation, because we don't own and we rely on imports, yet we have three huge windfarms off the north Wales coast—that is our view out to sea. But how do we benefit from it? Is zonal charging the answer, as was raised earlier?

We need to achieve energy security for the people of Wales. That means an end to relying on foreign imports or fossil fuels and instead putting the focus on producing energy here in Wales for people at a fair price. At present, Wales is a net exporter of electricity. In 2022, it generated twice as much as it consumed and around a third of its generation currently comes from renewables, with the remaining coming from fossil fuels, mainly gas.

We need to tip the scales in favour of clean, green energy that benefits local people. More European and global businesses would like to invest in renewables in Wales, and we're seeing so many applications coming forward for onshore wind as well as many offshore solar farms, battery storage, and a proposal for a tidal lagoon, I heard, off Swansea bay, seeking UK and Welsh Government funding.

Developers demand that action is required to address key barriers, such as delays to planning applications, but often, policies clash. I hope that we will be designating a new national park in north Wales, but what does that mean for onshore wind and its infrastructure? Can it still be built? We need to restore peat, but are building onshore wind turbines in peatland areas, impacting on that. What takes precedence? We are in a nature as well as a climate emergency.

I raised issues on behalf of Mostyn docks, the birthplace of the Welsh windfarm. Planning issues raised by Natural Resources Wales were eventually overcome, and previously with Coleg Llandrillo in Rhyl, they wanted to go ahead with building a wind turbine maintenance engineering facility in Rhyl, but NRW said 'no'. Rhyl is classed as a flood-risk area. They were saying 'no' because of that, but we need skills for green energy to address climate change. Thankfully, it was overcome, because reason saw through.

There needs to be a joined-up strategy across Government departments that balances the costs and benefits of large-scale projects. The EU have passed a new law requiring solar installations on new commercial and public buildings, on every one undergoing a relevant renovation by 2027, on new residential buildings by 2029, and existing public buildings by 2030. Those are the targets that are being set for solar photovoltaics on every building. I'm told that Welsh Government sees mandatory photovoltaics as a blocker to innovation, but I'd like to know why. What sort of domestic energy policy innovation is being developed in Wales that PV would block? I don’t understand.

At present, the national grid cannot cope after years of underinvestment and is in need of major renewal, which will take years. A solar farm is being built at Saltney and they were told they couldn’t connect to the grid until 2038, but solar farm developers are quickly learning and incorporating battery storage as well. A north Wales council was told by Scottish Power, after 60 months of asking and waiting, that they couldn’t connect the solar panels on their sheltered accommodation to the grid and to their local network—it couldn’t cope—but they did get around it with battery storage. That’s what we need to be thinking about.

We must also recognise that an increase in the number of renewables and a move away from a reliance on gas will mean more visible infrastructure, including pylons and cables, in our countryside and on hilltops, as that is where the wind blows the most. We need to ensure that these communities impacted benefit from lower tariffs and the undergrounding of cables wherever possible.

The UK Government has looked to address this. They’ve announced a Bill on a discount scheme to ensure households near new or upgraded pylons will save up to £2,500 on bills over 10 years. Is that enough? And there will be legal requirements for communities to directly benefit from hosting grid infrastructure, to be introduced through the Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

Ynni Cymru has funded smart local energy projects, creating energy and using it where it’s needed, helping leisure and community centres, theatres and other public buildings with solar PV to create the energy, batteries to store where needed, low-energy lighting and electric vehicle charging. That’s a proper little circular economy going on there, where it’s needed. And as the Cabinet Secretary explained earlier today, 32 out of 100 applications were successful for the Ynni Cymru grants, which goes to show the need is there if there’s more money. There is £10 million in the budget for next year, but can we get more in the pot from some of these large developers?

I also believe that the Crown Estate should be working for the benefit of people in Wales. Its functions in Wales should be completely devolved to a new body that has as its principal aim the reinvestment of all funds in Wales for the long-term benefit of the people of Wales, in the form of a sovereign wealth fund. Wales is the poorest constituent country of Great Britain, despite its abundance of natural resources. The current system sees a transfer of wealth from fees arising from the Crown Estate’s commercial activity in Wales to England—an illogical and bizarre outcome.

Thank you, Carolyn. So, I suppose, really, I could say, 'Can renewables alone meet the energy needs of Wales?' and I’ll say, ‘Not now, no’. Wales needs a reliable supply of energy, full stop. We’ve got an energy security crisis as we speak. That needs to be provided by the renewables we’ve already got, those that we’re already working towards obtaining, such as Awel y Môr, Morlais, as you’ve mentioned, and other renewable energy sources. But we also, let’s face facts, still need our gas. We still need LPG for some houses in our rural communities that just cannot access any other forms of energy. We still need log burners and oil.

I disagree with you about nuclear. Certainly, Virginia Crosbie, the previous Member of Parliament for Ynys Môn, worked really hard, and the UK Conservative Government saw considerable progress towards seeing a new nuclear power plant developed on Ynys Môn. We’ve also got Trawsfynydd, and there’s scope there for that to be part and parcel of this model. [Interruption.] You can intervene if you want, Rhun.

You can carry on, Janet Finch-Saunders. Ignore mutterings.

We introduced a new financing model, and even bought the Wylfa site. Eight months on now, under this new UK Labour Government, momentum on nuclear in Wylfa seems to have been lost. This Senedd, and indeed the Government, should send a clear message today to the UK Government that we need a clear update as to what steps they have taken to attract investment to Wylfa.

I believe, just to get planning through, it could take 15 years. Hinkley and Sizewell are so far behind, and so over budget, taking years to build, and it’s costing, I think, £43 billion now, just for one plant. So, it could take 20 years, 25 years, to actually get operational, and billions of pounds of money that we don’t actually have. EDF are subsiding that build as well. Do you think that’s a barrier, going forward?

Certainly, it’s not just about providing the energy, is it? It’s about providing the much-needed jobs on Ynys Môn. But anyway, I do believe we need to send a clear message today—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Just on that point, it really is important to remember what happened here. There are different views on nuclear, but that project collapsed because of a Conservative UK Government failing to deliver it. And Carolyn’s quite right—it had taken such a long time to get to that point. That has all been undone, which makes it more and more important for us to be focusing on all those other aspects of how we can create jobs and generate energy at the same time, in a green way, whilst absolutely keeping an eye on what can be done on Wylfa. But it collapsed on the Tories’ watch.

It didn’t collapse on the Tories’ watch. It collapsed because we weren’t re-elected to actually carry on with the scheme. [Interruption.] No.

Alongside the base load provided by nuclear, we can and should embrace renewable opportunities. With all the rivers and streams in Wales, we should be seeing small and micro hydro projects appearing across the nation. However, private investment into these schemes is being deterred because of the rug that Welsh Labour pulled from under those wanting these schemes to go ahead when they started charging business rates.

In January, Rhondda Cynon Taf council submitted planning applications for two hydroelectric schemes in Treforest. Such applications are inspirational and show what can be achieved across Wales. Details as to how the Welsh Government are co-operating with all authorities in Wales to bring forward new hydro schemes would be much appreciated.

There is huge potential with solar too. I do agree with you in terms of the buildings. I've got headteachers who have asked me in Aberconwy, 'Why can we not have solar panels on our roof? That would then give us a very cheap form of energy for the school'. But there's no enthusiasm from this Welsh Government or local authorities to allow those—[Interruption.] It's going to be fun, this.

I was just going to propose that if there was some grant funding available from these big developers for the big projects, that could go towards community schemes such as putting solar PVs on our public buildings, towards homes maybe on a grant funding basis—that might work. Do you think that's a good idea?

Yes, and do you agree with me, Carolyn, that all new housing should include solar panels on their roofs? I've seen two new estates go up recently—not a single solar panel on them. It's just a wasted opportunity.

Japan is requiring solar on new houses built by large-scale home builders after April 2025. What more can we do to see solar on all new properties in Wales? Solar will be compulsory for new public and commercial buildings larger than 250 sq m in the European Union, and the Institute for Applied Ecology has identified capacity for solar along roads, over car parks and in industrial areas in Germany. And I notice now that Japan, instead of using fence panels, are using solar panels. If we could get the skills in Wales—. Obviously, we need to upskill our workforce before any of this is achievable, but that's where our goal should be, that's where our ambition should be.

They need to be beside roads, railways and over car parks, not necessarily green fields. Beautiful rural areas from Ynys Môn to the Gwent levels are now considered by many people in the local community to be under threat from large open-scale fields covered in solar panels. They don't want that. There is a real risk that food production capacity will be hampered, increasing reliance on imports. Is that really what we want for rural Wales? The Welsh Government should pause applications for solar on farms. They need to undertake a review of solar and they need to develop a solar strategy.

We need to be more ambitious in terms of a tidal lagoon scheme. I know that there are lots of talks going ahead in north Wales and an ex-councillor that I know there has done a lot of work on this, but again, finding the difficulties of connecting with this Welsh Government. That's what devolution was always going to be about—that Ministers were more accessible. But those people that come up with good schemes are finding it problematic, and so we need to be more business minded as a Welsh Government in terms of the renewables.

We need to look at the opportunities out at sea. The progress made with wind is commendable. The UK actually leads this sector globally. Central to this is the professionalism with which the Crown Estate is run. Plaid Cymru, of course, want the organisation devolved and they have succeeded in getting a few local authorities to agree with them. [Interruption.] Anyway, thankfully the Welsh Labour Government are actually sensible in this approach because some things are best left. If it isn't broke, why try to fix it? Do they really think it's wise to set up another organisation in Wales that would, based on the cost of the management and board members in Scotland, cost over £0.5 million annually?

What do you have against Wales having control over its own natural resources?

At the end of the day, we are getting money in to Wales through the Crown Estate, so why would you—? Personally, I wouldn't be wanting to devolve it to this Welsh Labour Government.

Rather than devolving for the sake of devolving and putting the role Wales plays in the renewable revolution at risk, what we should be doing is co-operating with the Crown Estate to create a national spatial marine development plan for Wales. As the Senedd has heard me say before, such a plan would be like local development plans on land, and as such, we would see a detailed map of the sea bed created, making clear which projects can go where and where we can then have areas of protection for our nature recovery and our natural species.

I've talked about Morlais, but I'll just elaborate. Last month, they had fantastic news, as the Cydnerth project was approved. It will futureproof the Morlais tidal energy scheme by investing in its infrastructure, enabling the scheme's 18 MW grid capacity to increase, over time, to allow the full 240 MW. The expansion will create up to 230 new jobs and supply chain opportunities, cementing the region's position in the tidal energy sector. One of the key strengths of Morlais is the 'plug and play' model they've developed. For tidal stream energy to become commercially viable, developers need certainty.

Without Morlais, individual technology developers would have to navigate the complexities of planning permission, marine licensing, electricity grid connections, on their own. By securing these permissions in advance, Morlais have now removed many of the risks that could otherwise slow down or even deter investment in the sector. This means that developers can focus on innovation, scaling up their technology, rather than having to manage complex regulatory processes from scratch.

I hope that this Welsh Parliament and, indeed, the Welsh Government, can learn and encourage more plug and pay models like this. Indeed, there are several sites around Wales with similarly strong tidal currents, including St David's head, Bardsey island and parts of the Severn channel. I hope that I've managed to highlight that the opportunities for renewables in Wales are significant, and they should be developed alongside a base load from nuclear. But right now, we are in an energy security crisis, and we do need our fossil fuels. Diolch.

This is a welcome debate. I think we saw in the previous session, in questions to the Cabinet Secretary for economy, the interest that the Chamber takes when it comes to energy. In particular—and Carolyn mentioned it in her opening remarks—the zonal pricing element of UK Government policy now actually does provide us, I think, with an opportunity to get this right and to actually do something that is going to benefit consumers and industry through cheaper electricity bills. But that's the important thing here: we need to get it right.

At the moment, the risk is that we'll see places in Wales paired with some of those high energy demand areas like London and Birmingham, which actually won't benefit people in Wales and we'll see energy bills being more expensive. So, I again would make the point that there is a need to maybe think about this in a bit more depth. I understand, of course, what potentially some of the unintended consequences might be that the Cabinet Secretary referred to of a Welsh-only zone, but I think it's important we have that discussion and get it right.

Jenny Rathbone, in her question to the Cabinet Secretary, raised a very important point, and that is that, when we look at the pricing of energy, having it pegged to fossil fuels, in our case gas, is restricting our ability to show the benefit of what renewable energy means for people when it comes to their energy bills. So, again, here comes an opportunity for us to get this right, but we really do need to get this right. But on, specifically, the renewable—

Will you give way?

Yes, of course.

Just building on that, I mean, one of the perverse things about the current system, which is a highly centralised system, is that what happens is, when demand in the centre, you know, reaches a certain level, then energy generation that is further away from that is actually switched off. So, they actually switch—. A renewable energy capacity that is generating in Wales is switched off rather than it being made available to local consumers at a cheaper price. It's absolutely bizarre. So, you know, effectively, the value of hundreds of millions of pounds of wasted energy generation, currently, because of the centralised system, isn't available to be used to the benefit of Welsh citizens.

Yes, I completely agree. I mean, again, it comes to the point that I was making about the need to actually address some of those structural issues within the energy system as well. I mean, the fact that you turn off renewable energy generation for extended periods of time just simply doesn't make sense. All that investment being wasted, and the fact that that energy, then, could have been given to people locally and at a cheaper price—it simply just doesn't make any sense.

Can I—?

Carolyn, of course.

Can I just ask you, you know—? We're looking at zonal pricing, but already, in a way, we've got different prices, haven't we, with the standing charge that's paid—a really high standing charge—in north Wales? And then, you know, the unit price as well. So, I'm interested to know how we can do it, because we need to benefit the people that are impacted as well. So, I hope that we will be able to discuss this in the future and that decisions aren't going to be made for us, so that we can have input. And this is why I wanted to bring the debate today, you know, this afternoon, to you. So, I would be interested to know how we can have that communication going forward regarding that—an input into any discussions.

Yes, and I hope the fact that we've spent the first four minutes of my contribution talking about zonal pricing and energy pricing is proof to the Cabinet Secretary that, of course, there is great interest in this and that there's a lot of scope here, I think, in terms of her negotiations with the UK Government to have conversations, not just within Government, but outside of Government, about how we get this right, and I look forward to those conversations. To be fair, the Cabinet Secretary has committed to keeping us updated with those conversations, so I look forward to that element of it.

Specifically on the renewable energy side of things, though, one of my concerns, I'll be honest, around seeing this debate being tabled is that we were going to hear the same sort of stuff being said time and time again. I mean, we heard it in the first contribution from Janet Finch-Saunders, we are likely going to hear it with other contributions as well. And that's us saying, 'Well, we need to do this, we need to do that' and so on. I think we need to move on from that now and say, 'Well, actually, how do we do the things that we say we need to do?', because that hasn't happened.

I think we do need a clearer sense of direction or strategy from Welsh Government about what exactly it is that we're trying to achieve with energy policy. Now, of course, we've got the central principle, which is decarbonising Wales and decarbonising the economy. That's all well and good, great, but perhaps we need to start thinking a bit deeper now. You know, what are we going to do with the fact, for example, that Wales is an energy exporter? How does that play into our energy policy and energy strategy going forward? And to be fair to Welsh Government, I mean, resources are really restricted. You know, we've heard again in the previous contribution, and in Carolyn's contribution, about all these different projects that are out there—the Swansea bay tidal lagoon; we've talked about hydrogen, nuclear. But to be fair to Welsh Government, the Government can't step in on every single one of these projects. So, I actually think there's merit in perhaps a wider conversation about, 'Well, what do we want to specialise in? What do we really want to focus on?' Do we want to focus on offshore wind, for example, and make the investments there and become the first movers when it comes to offshore wind generation and all the benefits that come with that on the international stage? Do we want to focus on hydrogen? There's great potential for hydrogen, specifically in west Wales, with the projects that are in the pipeline there, as well as the pipeline that would go down the M4 corridor, which actually would have an impact, then, on places like Port Talbot, where we could then explore some offshoots like hydrogen steel, as an example. So, I think there is a case, actually, in us actually thinking about, 'Well, do we want to specialise in something? Do we want Wales to be known for a specific type of energy generation and development of that technology?' I would be interested to hear the Members' views.

When we talk about panels—and I absolutely agree that we should put them on buildings—I think there's an opportunity here to make use of grants to businesses so that when businesses apply for grants to extend their business, we put alongside that a requirement that that is a capital bid to put solar panels on it. I'm mindful here of covering a rural community. So, very often we give grants to businesses operating in those rural communities; they could be farms, they could be other buildings that go up, and there's a real opportunity, in my view, that you put alongside the success of that grant a focus on actually putting in some green energy solutions. And that will do many things. It will help the business to have really cheap energy to run their production, particularly in rural areas, and farming, I think, is a really good example of that, and also, perhaps, to run their vehicles, their cars, their other equipment. So, we're getting better use of the public funds that are going into that, because it's public money, at the end of the day, when you give a grant, and also better solutions for the people who require that help.

Yes, and I think that one of the best things about the fact that we can help businesses generate their own energy on-site or domestic properties generate energy on their own site is that, actually, we're insulating them as well from some of the price shocks that we've seen over the last couple of years. I know of a couple of businesses, not just in my region but outside of my region as well, who have high energy demand in manufacturing, some of them in food and drink, that would have benefited massively and would have liked to have seen some form of grant or some form of support from Government to be able to generate their own energy to offset their energy bill prices. As we know, energy pricing has been one of the largest overheads of business over the last couple of years; we haven't done enough to address issues around that.

Again, I'm looking at the time, Llywydd. I'll end just by saying that I was slightly confused about the comment made by Janet Finch-Saunders when it came to the Crown Estate and the sensible approach of Welsh Government, because last time I checked, Welsh Government supposedly support the devolution of the Crown Estate. If only UK Government would come along with Welsh Government on that journey.

When it comes to the community fund that I mentioned and using them in a better way, well, the sovereign wealth fund that we could have from the devolution of the Crown Estate I think is really important as well in terms of addressing some of those wider issues within society. And we, again, could look at retrofitting. We could also look at the skills agenda, because, again, in delivering a lot of the renewable energy projects that we want to deliver, we need the people within Wales to have the skills to be able then to work on sites of that nature. So, on that note, Llywydd, I'll end. Diolch.

I'm really pleased that Carolyn Thomas's motion on how we meet the energy needs of Wales has been chosen as our very first topic for the open debate, and I think it's already been a really worthwhile and thoughtful discussion of what is a complex and timely issue. Only recently we've seen the impact that being dependent on the global price of fossil fuels can have on our households and on our businesses, and that's why having a reliable and green source of energy is absolutely crucial for our energy security, and it's fundamental to the future stability of our economy and our wider society.

We've set the vision for Wales to transition to a net-zero energy system in a way that generates greater benefits to our economy and our society than the system that we have today, and an essential element of this is the transition to and the scaling up of renewable energy. So, we've set the ambition for Wales to host enough renewable energy to meet our electricity consumption by 2035, and then to keep pace with the growth in demand thereafter. And this is a really ambitious target, because we know that demand for electricity is set to grow significantly as our homes, our transport, and our businesses and industrial processes shift away from fossil fuels. We also know that we'll need a range of technologies to meet this target. We'll need more onshore wind, more solar, and we need to continue to see the rapid deployment of offshore renewables, both wind and tidal.

The First Minister has made the green energy revolution a priority. In the last six months alone 10 developments, generating over 459 MW, have received approval. That's enough to power 230,000 homes in Wales. So, we're absolutely in the delivery zone. We are making things happen. As other colleagues have set out, Welsh Government can't do all of this by itself. We definitely need the input from the private sector. So, that's why we're establishing an environment that is conducive to development, but one where we can keep the benefits in Wales, and where our communities have a say. So, those are some of the reasons why we've streamlined the planning process, and we've provided additional resources to consenting bodies. I've also set up the offshore wind task and finish group to identify the actions that we need to take to secure lasting economic benefits for Wales from the considerable opportunities that offshore wind affords us.

But we also know that our future energy system in Wales can't rely solely on renewable energy, and we've been working with the UK Government to deliver the ambition for clean power by 2030. The analysis that the National Energy Systems Operator, NESO, has undertaken shows that, similar to our target, we can deliver enough renewables to meet our needs, but we also need dispatchable capacity for when renewable sources can't generate enough supply for times of extreme peak demand. So, on Monday I was really delighted to visit SAE Renewables and their 120 MW battery storage project in Newport, and this facility has the potential to provide a pivotal role in managing peak demand by storing renewably generated electricity to be dispatched onto the grid when needed. The NESO analysis has shown the requirement for a considerable increase in storage to help manage a renewable-based energy system.

Thank you. The Welsh Government's made very good progress working with local authorities to develop a set of local energy plans to map out, in detail, demand and supply at a local level. I wonder if you could update us on progress to covering the whole of Wales with those local energy plans. And there was a commitment as well to develop a national energy plan by the end of last year. Can you update us on where we're at with that as well, please?

So, we do have, now, full coverage, in terms of those local energy plans, and I think that really makes Wales the envy of other parts of the UK, and we are certainly working to ensure that our national plan is aligned to the plans that we've set out through our planning process and so on, to make sure that the two things are complementary. I think that the regional approach has to be considered as well, to explore what more we could be doing in the future through corporate joint committees, in terms of understanding their potential role in this space in future as well. So, I think there's an awful lot more we can be doing in this space, but in terms of our local plans, I do think that now we are in a good space, and that is because of the good work that we've been doing with our local government partners, who are absolutely committed to this particular agenda as well.

As we're fundamentally changing the way that we generate and use energy, we have co-commissioned the NESO to develop the strategic spatial energy plan. The aim of that plan is to develop the least-cost system to meet net zero, and that's important for all of us, to ensure that we have an efficient system that takes into account the cost of generation, but also our wider spatial priorities, including nature restoration, and that speaks to the point that's just been made by Lee Waters. So, whilst we will see big changes in Wales, we also know that we'll still need that dispatchable power from gas power generation. But what we want to see in Wales is the investment that will support the decarbonisation of those facilities, and that's why we've consulted on our approach to carbon capture, usage and storage in Wales, and we agree with the Climate Change Committee that CCUS is a necessity in our future, and that's why our approach provides a clear framework that does support CCUS, but—this is the important part—only in situations where it contributes to decarbonisation.

We also want to see investment in low-carbon hydrogen in Wales, and we have some fantastic innovation in hydrogen deployment going on across Wales, including hydrogen home trials and our hydrogen hubs in north and south Wales. Hydrogen will have an important part to play in decarbonising industry and other key hard-to-decarbonise sectors, and we want to attract that investment to Wales. We want to see—

Sorry, it took a second for me just to process what you said about CCUS. You said only when it can be shown to be contributing towards carbon reduction. But, of course, you could argue that none of it does, because carbon is still being produced.

So, the consultation that I put out—I think it was back in November—set out our proposed policy approach. The consultation is now closed, and we're considering those responses. But the consultation was very much about only using this technology in circumstances where it leads to decarbonisation. So, we know that there are some sectors that are very hard to decarbonise—the production of cement, for example. Now, cement is a foundational substance that we will need for investment in infrastructure and so on. And if we want cement for the infrastructure, then we have to do it in a way that leads to it being decarbonised. So, that's an example of one of the hard-to-decarbonise sectors.

Cement is used for concrete, but we now have technologies coming forward where you can use cement-free concrete. There's a factory just been built in Wrexham. To do carbon capture and storage, you're going to have to build big facilities at the side of new ones, and to build those factories at the side, the chimneys to capture carbon, is going to take a lot of planning and a lot of infrastructure build, and will take time. And then in some instances, such as with HyNet, they're going to have to build a pipe, which will go through communities—I think that one's 32 km long—to connect with the other one. So, that's going to release carbon as well. Again, it's releasing carbon to build, and then to put the pipe in is going to have an impact as well with carbon. So, is that part of working it all out, regarding the carbon being produced? Is that part of the calculations—all that building work—as well?

Just yesterday, we had the launch in the Senedd of the Milford Haven carbon dioxide project, and that looks at how RWE can decarbonise its operations through the use of carbon capture and storage, but their model very much looks towards non-pipeline solutions. So, at the moment, we're working to seek commitments from the UK Government in relation to those non-pipeline approaches, which would be the priority in that particular area, and we hope to have a response to the UK Government from its call to evidence on this very shortly.

So, just moving on to wanting to see the transition that accelerates growth in Wales and also brings new jobs and opportunities for future operations, this really is about maintaining that benefit here in Wales. Our policies have long supported an approach where energy infrastructure is developed with communities, and it does explicitly favour local ownership. That's why I'm pleased that we've already achieved our local ownership target of 1 GW by 2030 and we want to achieve at least 1.5 GW of locally owned renewable energy generation by 2035. We also recognise that individual businesses and households have their role to play and the opportunity to benefit from renewable energy on their premises. Through our building regulations, we do have a requirement for homes and non-domestic properties to reduce their carbon emissions in future, and we will look to increase that in future years.

You mentioned the 1 GW local ownership target, but alongside that, in 2020, you brought forward a policy that said that every renewable project in Wales must include an element of local ownership. Can you give us a sense of how successful you have been in that regard? What proportion, roughly, of renewable projects have had a proportion of local ownership since the introduction of the policy five years ago?

Unfortunately, I don't have those figures at my fingertips, but I'll certainly make sure that I do update Adam Price on that as soon as I can, because, as I said, local ownership is very much something that we've explicitly favoured for a long time.

I'm wondering how generous the Llywydd is going to be in terms of—

I'm feeling extremely generous this afternoon, so you carry on until you've run out of things to say.

Well—

Okay, be careful what I wish for—be careful what I wish for. Okay. You carry on until I say so.

Okay. So, I'll carry on, but I won't refer to things that I've already talked about during oral questions this afternoon, because I know that, in questions this afternoon, we did have quite a thorough discussion about Ynni Cymru, for example. But I would want to draw attention to the work of the Development Bank of Wales. They are piloting a loan scheme to support households in Wales to decarbonise their home, which I think is really positive. And colleagues will be very familiar with the work that we're doing through Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru as well to try and ensure that we make the most of our Welsh Government land assets and explore how we can de-risk, if you like, the opportunities for investment on the Welsh Government estate by ensuring that sites are ready to go and that we maximise the value that we keep in Wales. And Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru have already been doing consultations about what communities would see as acceptable in terms of community benefits, because we think that we can take a fresh approach to community benefits in that space. And there's some thinking to do about whether that is the specific very local community or if there are benefits that we would want to see Wales-wide from a Wales-owned company. So, all of those things are exciting developments going on at the moment.

And of course, we've got an opportunity to deliver green jobs. The regional energy strategies have identified over 200,000 new jobs all across our regions from the investment opportunities. The work on the local area planning, which we talked about earlier, has now identified the projects and the actions that we need to take in order to deliver those jobs in every single local area. So, again, that's really exciting stuff.

So, in addition to jobs, bringing the lowest cost energy will also be crucial as we tackle fuel poverty and ensure a sustainable economy. And we are acting now, so the things that I've talked about are actions that we're taking now. We're delivering on the ground to ensure that current and future generations benefit from the investment that's required. And also, through our approach to the management of our natural resources, we also want to ensure that we address both the climate and the nature emergencies facing Wales.

In 2015, I and other members of the then environment committee visited Baden-Württemberg. I think Llyr Gruffydd was one of them. And amongst the wonderful community energy schemes we saw, we visited a tiny village outside Freiburg of maybe 300 or 400 citizens at the most. They had 50,000 customers for the renewable energy they were generating from wind, hydro, solar and biomass. That simply isn't possible under the regulations that we are still living under. It is made super difficult for any small enterprise to get going along those lines. And we saw it in other villages as well, where there were hydro schemes and other ways in which we could be addressing this. So, we are a very long way from where we need to be on that front. But it is ironic that, nevertheless, despite all of those efforts at a community level, Germany has been unable to turn off its coal-fired power stations. Because it turned off all its nuclear power stations after Chernobyl—for very good reasons—it simply isn’t able to turn off its coal-fired power stations unless it can source really significant areas of energy to keep its industry going.

I went on a visit just a few weeks ago with Llyr and the committee to Stuttgart and we had a meeting with EnBW, who are looking to do the Mona windfarm off north Wales, actually. I was very interested to hear that they are looking at putting solar PV on all new builds going forward and they’ve actually invested in the grid as well. So, they have got plans in place to rapidly change things, which was really interesting, and I think we do have a lot to learn from other countries that are doing this, progressing forward, and I still would like to know why we’re not doing it here in Wales, putting solar PV on buildings.

Okay, thank you for that. I think the point I wanted to make is referring back to the discussion we had earlier about zonal pricing systems and the way in which they suppress enterprise, because there’s a price set on the most expensive, gas. When the wind is blowing hard, a lot of the arrays are told to close down, because they don’t want to be having to pay them for energy that they don’t think can be consumed in this country. But it’s blindingly obvious that we could be increasing our exports of energy if we had a different system, and we really do need to adjust that.

One of the ways in which we can achieve net zero is through the conservation of energy, and I think it’s one of the ways in which Wales has been very successful, and I want to give a big shout out to the sustainable energy institute attached to the architecture faculty at Cardiff University, who have certainly been one of the main drivers of the net zero energy building schemes that we now have, using timber-framed construction built in factories and that then are very, very quick to be erected, without all the problems you get with weather.

So, I think that there are two things I want to see from the UK Government. One is that they’ve got to revise their building regulations, because they are still allowing the big six house builders to build rubbish housing that is going to then dump onto the people who are going to have to take out mortgages to buy these places; they’re going to then have to retrofit the net-zero adaptations to enable them to not have to spend so much money on energy. So, every time I hear Keir Starmer or Angela Rayner talking about these wonderful 1.5 million homes they’re going to build in the south-east of England, I feel like screaming, because it is a disaster and it's a rip-off for people who would desperately like to have their own home and are going to have to live in a home that is substandard in terms of energy conservation.

The second thing I’d like to see UK Government do, and this is one for Rachel Reeves, is to reverse the disastrous decision by George Osborne in 2015 to abolish tax incentives for the private sector for renewable energy, because it really did close down a pipeline of capital to generate much more activity in this field.

I want to thank Rebecca and Lee for highlighting the local energy plans, because I was still wondering what Cardiff Council was getting up to, and I just quickly looked up Cardiff Council’s one. It’s obviously just hot off the press, because the space at the beginning for the foreword just says ‘a note from councillor’. [Laughter.] But nevertheless, despite all that, I’m sure excellent work has gone on, and the executive summary has some really interesting facts. Their overview is that Cardiff’s net-zero future could be achieved with the equivalent of 12 Lamby Way solar farms—and, for those of you not from Cardiff, Lamby Way is our recycling centre—and there are plans to build a large solar farm on this floodplain—an excellent idea, we've been talking about it for many, many years, and I can't quite understand why we haven't done it yet—as well as the equivalent of 115,000 domestic roofs with PV. This very much interests me, because I'm astonished that people who own their own homes, who decide that the roof needs re-tiling, don't put solar panels on their roofs. These are people who, in most cases, own their home outright, so they have the money to do it, and why are they not doing it? This is a conversation I've had with lots of people. 'Why have you got the roofers up there and you haven't got the solar panels going on on the south-facing roof?'

[Inaudible.]—to put solar on all new houses and they said it's because it's going to make the unit price too expensive for people. Most people have a mortgage they pay over many years, so adding an extra £20,000 on to a house's sale price, or £10,000, when it's a big mortgage, is worth it in the end, because it will be soon paid back, surely. What do you think? Is that something you would think about?

I appreciate that some people are mortgaged to the hilt and they can't take on any more, but I'm not talking about—. There are plenty of people—. About 40 per cent of people own their home outright, and so it is very interesting to understand why people aren't doing what is the blindingly obvious, because the payback can be achieved within 10 years, particularly with the rise and rise of energy prices, fossil fuel prices. That is the right thing to do both for the environment and for their pocket.

Cardiff is beginning to think about combined heat and power. I don't know how many years Celsa has been in operation, but we are finally now getting combined heat and power for a lot of the homes in what used to be called Tiger Bay and are around here. I'm sure many of you will have seen all the building works going on, and that is all to do with the combined heat and power, and that's absolutely to be welcomed. But it's taken this long.

I forgot to say at the very beginning of my remarks that I need to refer Members to my declaration of interests, because I am a supporter of Awel Aman Tawe, I'm an investor in that, for which I get a small remuneration, and also my partner is an adviser to Bute Energy, which is, obviously, one of the larger companies operating with a view to developing renewable energy across Wales.

The issue, going back to the zonal pricing, as well as the community energy challenge we have, is that we have to be able to explain to people that this isn't just good for the planet, this is good for all of us in terms of it's going to cost a lot less, as long as we can ensure that we can prove that. So, it is absolutely vital that we get this zonal pricing scheme right, so that people, when they're complaining about the disruption caused by the erection of renewable energy, can see that there are going to be benefits for them, both by joining community energy schemes in their local areas, as well as being able to be certain of getting a much better price for their energy in Wales, because we are going to be a major contributor to renewable energy, which will benefit the whole of Britain and could also improve our balance in terms of imports/exports.

I'm very glad that we now have all 22 local authority signed up to local energy schemes. So, well done to Rebecca for that, because we can now scrutinise that and try and find out exactly what they're doing. One of the frustrations I've had in Cardiff has been the lack of any ambition to put solar panels on schools, because the answer was always, 'The schools are not in occupation in the summer when the sun is shining the most', but that's misunderstanding the problem, because with batteries, obviously, you can sell it to the grid at any time, whether you need the energy there that day or not. So, to my knowledge, the only solar panels that have been put on schools in Cardiff are the ones that are on the four Catholic schools—St Illtyd's Catholic High School, Mary Immaculate High School, Corpus Christi Catholic High School and St Patrick's RC Primary School—because they joined the Egni solar co-operative, which is part of Awel Aman Tawe.

Thank you very much to Carolyn Thomas for putting forward this motion today. As the Member of the Senedd for Ynys Môn, you might imagine that I feel very optimistic about the potential offered to us through renewable energy.

We have a long, long, long-standing history of generating and using renewable energy on Ynys Môn. I think that the reports of the first windmills in Ynys Môn go back to something like 1303 in Newborough. And, of course, in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, there was this huge growth in the development of windmills across the island, with each one able to see the next so that they could decide when to put the sails up and so on, and that was driven by drought, which meant that the watermills didn't work as well as they used to, and the corn laws and so on increasing the price of grain. And we saw on the island the value of generating energy and using that energy ourselves. And what we saw over a period of time was the growth of fossil fuels and mills being driven by steam, driven by coal, taking away the need for that use of renewable energy on a local basis on Ynys Môn. I think there are many lessons to be learned from that for us in terms of energy independence: looking at what our own needs are and trying to fulfil those needs ourselves.

Today, we have the modern versions of wind turbines. I will declare an interest that one of the three windfarms on Ynys Môn were developed partly on land that's owned by my family. But, there is so much more, of course, by now, across the island, where we can see the possibilities. Morlais, which has been mentioned already, is a scheme that I'm very proud of because of its innovation in the way that it generates energy, but also as a model of developing a new sector as a social enterprise. It's a model for how we should be developing things in future. Offshore wind energy: there are so many possible benefits for our communities from developing the port of Holyhead as a hub for the next generation of offshore windfarms. Floating offshore wind is the next generation again, then, larger and further away from land.

If we look at Wales more broadly, there are other technologies, of course. I take a great deal of interest in the proposals that were discussed this week for the Severn estuary. No, the Swansea lagoon didn't proceed and it's a shame that the UK Government failed to see the clear potential there, but let us look at what can be done in the Severn estuary now. An area where I have a great deal of interest is hydrogen and green hydrogen generation, and possibly finding hydrogen under our own land here in Wales. What we're seeing here is that there is a very, very, very varied landscape.

I agree with you regarding solar; we should be putting it on buildings, on urban land rather than agricultural land, but developers will develop, do you agree, where it's easiest and where it's cheapest? That's why it's happening on our green fields. So, do you agree that maybe we need that national plan, a strategy going forward, so that it happens not on our agricultural land?

I agree entirely. The Cabinet Secretary, I believe, mentioned the need to tie in the planning and the objective in terms of energy generation. It all needs to be dovetailed, and ensure that thousands of acres of agricultural land on Ynys Môn are not the easiest and cheapest place to install solar. That's extraction—major corporations from outwith Wales making a huge profit out of our communities. I asked one company why they chose agricultural land on Ynys Môn. Yes, that it was the cheapest way for them to do it. But then I asked, 'Well, give me one benefit of using this good agricultural land for a solar farm', and the answer I received was, 'Less agricultural traffic.' That agricultural traffic supports agricultural jobs. Those agricultural jobs sustain rural communities. Those rural communities are the warp and weft of our nation and make it what it is. So, we need to be so much more innovative. And we need to remember, of course, who is at the heart of any plans and developments: the people and communities of Wales. We need to remember what the benefits are for them.

Energy connectivity needs to be part of the Welsh Government's strategy, too. Not connecting in the cheapest way but connecting in a way that recognises the need to bring people with us. Not installing pylons across Wales or through the Tywi valley or across Ynys Môn. That's not the way to encourage people to come with us on this journey. But to make those investments to share the cost across energy users more generally, to make the investment where we can in undergrounding, and so on. I'm keeping an eye on the clock.

But there are huge opportunities in front of us. The economy can benefit. Communities can benefit when we do it in the right way, and the environment too can benefit. We're doing this. We'll need so, so, so much more energy in the years to come. That's why the discussion on nuclear in the green context is an important one to have. That is, meeting those huge future needs that will develop in coming years. That's why that discussion is an economic one and an environmental one in places such as Ynys Môn.

But there are so many layers to this. What's important is leadership from the Government, a strategy from the Government. In a debate like today's, which is a new kind of debate in the Senedd, what we need to do is to ensure that the Government hears these common themes that arise: the need for a strategy, a need for innovation, a need to maximise the opportunities that we have in terms of energy.

Firstly, can I welcome the introduction of this longer debate format? I hope this will continue. Secondly, I would like to thank Carolyn Thomas for bringing this debate forward. I think we've had a very good debate so far, and I hope people will think that after I've given my contribution.

The most widely used renewable energy types are solar energy, wind power and hydropower. We're in early days. If you compare to steam, for example, it took almost 200 years from the first steam being produced to James Watt producing something that was efficient. Bioenergy and geothermal power is significant in other countries.

I do not consider nuclear power a renewable power source. Nuclear energy requires mining uranium, which is obviously a non-renewable source. I have other criticisms of nuclear power, but I'll just leave it at that.

Renewable energy installations can be large or small and are suitable for both urban and rural areas. Renewable energy is often deployed together with further electrification. There are several benefits. Electricity can provide heat and power and it can be used to power vehicles. The aim is to replace fossil fuels with renewable energy sources in order to slow and eventually stop climate change. Climate change is caused mostly by greenhouse gas emissions, and this is having a serious effect on the environment and on weather patterns.

Look at steam power. It developed slowly over a period of several hundred years, progressing through expensive and fairly limited devices in the early seventeenth century to useful pumps in the 1700s to Watt’s improved steam engines in the late eighteenth century—260 years from the start to getting the improved version.

I'm going to look at each form of renewable energy in turn now. First, solar power. Solar power is not new, in the sense that it dates before the Christian era, when mirrors were used to light fires. Today we have solar powered heating and powerful electric vehicles. Today we capture sunlight to produce useful electricity. Solar energy involves using radiation from the sun. It can produce heat, and that heat can be used to generate electricity. It is carbon free and does not produce greenhouse gas emissions.

Solar energy is created by the nuclear fusion in the sun's core, and we get the benefit of it. Solar panels rely on sunlight. They only generate electricity during daytime, when sunlight is shining on them. Solar panels create no harmful gases, so they are environmentally friendly. If the sun is shining on a solar panel, you are able to use the electricity for your own power needs, reducing your electricity bill, and any excess can be sold to the grid. If it is cloudy, they are less effective and at night they don't generate any electricity at all.

So, where next? Japan has developed transparent solar panels that can use UV light to generate electricity. These panels could be an energy-efficient replacement for windows and they would generate electricity 24 hours a day. Research in America has contributed to designing solar panels that can take heat energy from infrared radiation from the sun, which would also work 24 hours a day. So, we've got a way to go, but we're going in the right direction.

On wind turbines, wind is a growing source of reliable and clean energy around the world, and a crucial part of the journey to net zero. It has been used for thousands of years. In 200 BC, wind-powered water pumps were being integrated in China and windmills have been used throughout the world, including in the middle east, Europe and Britain.

In Denmark, wind power was an important part of decentralised electrification in the first quarter of the twentieth century. By 1908, there were 72 wind-driven electric generators from 5 kW to 25 kW. Major progress took place in 1978, which is less than 50 years ago, when the world's first multi-megawatt wind turbines were constructed. It pioneered many of the technologies used in modern wind turbines. Especially important was the wing construction, and it used help from German aeronautical specialists. The power plant that was capable of delivering 2 MW had tubular towers, pitch-controlled wings and three blades. That looks familiar.

Danish commercial wind power development stressed incremental improvements to capacity and efficiency, based on extensive serial production of turbines, and the practical consequence of this was that all commercial wind turbines use a lightweight three-blade upwind design. Offshore wind power began to expand beyond fixed-bottom shallow water turbines in the first decades of the 2000s. The world's first operational deep-water large capacity floating wind turbine became operational off Norway in 2009. That's 15 years ago.

Two myths exist about wind turbines. The first is that they're very noisy. They click when they come on but otherwise they are silent. They want them to be silent because they want to turn the wind energy into electrical energy; they don't want to turn it into noise. The second is that they are a bird graveyard. I've visited several windfarms and I've never seen a dead bird.

Turning to tidal lagoons, the Swansea bay tidal lagoon is a potentially groundbreaking renewable energy project located in Swansea. It's designed to be the world's first energy-generating tidal lagoon with a capacity of 320 MW, capable of powering approximately 120,000 houses for 120 years. The lagoon features underwater turbines and aims to contribute significantly to the UK's energy strategy, providing a sustainable energy source while helping to reduce carbon emissions.

I'm grateful to Mike for that tour of the technology horizon, both currently and in the near future. I think if I can summarise most of the contributions we've had so far, really, I think we can answer the exam question that we've been set by Carolyn Thomas: yes, Wales can; Wales can achieve an all-renewable energy position, eliminating fossil fuels completely from our total energy usage, and without recourse to nuclear power either. And that's largely because we're a windy country, both onshore and off, so we have access to that very mature technology. But also photovoltaics, of course, has got to the point where solar works perfectly well in Wales as well.

We have some additional advantages to get there earlier, possibly, than other countries because of our unique geography, and so we can solve one of the problems, the core problem of intermittency—the dunkelflaute, as they call it in Germany—which is what you do in those dark, windless periods when neither solar nor wind power can meet demand. Well, we have lakes in mountains in Wales, so we have exceptional storage capacity, and not just batteries, which are still an emerging and experimental technology; we have natural batteries in Dinorwig and Ffestiniog, and possibly we're going to add to that at some point soon with the Glyn Rhonwy project—massive storage capacity there.

And also, as we've heard in a number of contributions, across our extensive coastline we have a remarkable potential—almost unique. There are few other places with the tidal potential that we have, and it's a source of renewable power that is predictable. So, you put those together, you solve the intermittency problem. And it's not just us saying that. We look at the National Energy System Operator projections for 2050, when the UK is set, according to their projections, to reach net zero—from renewable sources in Wales's case—and they predict total energy need in Wales of 41 TWh per year, and total energy production from renewable sources of 71 TWh. And indeed, if you add the bit of production that is halfway between Devon and Wales—and I think we can take half of that, can't we—it's over 80 TWh. So, 100 per cent more renewable energy produced by 2050 in Wales compared to our energy consumption. The future looks pretty positive if we realise our potential.

I think the question is how do we get there. There are different pathways, and I think's it's useful, in having that conversation, to go back to one of the original pioneering papers by Amory Lovins, one of the great thinkers of sustainable energy and the founder of the Rocky Mountain Institute. He wrote a paper in 1976 setting out what he called the hard and the soft energy paths. The hard path he described was relying on complex, large-scale electricity generation technologies, distributed through high-voltage grids using institutional machinery that confers power on centralised bureaucracies in corporate oligopolies while marginalising citizens. It kind of sounds familiar, and he had a particular view. The hard path emphasised scale, standardisation, centralised control. The soft path prioritised, yes, energy efficiency—we've already heard reference to that in Wales's case—but also, distributed renewable energy, so community scale, locally tailored energy systems, local ownership, community ownership, and greater citizen control and community involvement.

You've seen across Europe different countries following, you know, different paths. So, essentially, in Denmark and in Germany, they've followed a much softer path. So, you've got, you know—. Nearly half of Denmark's renewable energy capacity is community owned, or co-operatively owned. In Germany, the Energiewende, the energy transition, is very much influenced by soft-path thinking. And you've got 40 per cent of renewable energy capacity, with over 60 per cent of wind energy in Germany not owned by corporations, but by individual farmers or communities. France: very much a hard path, based on nuclear. The UK: a hard path—the Central Electricity Generating Board privatised, but still, really, an incredibly centralised system. The hard path—for a period, the dash for gas, and now a hard path, but using renewable and nuclear.

I think the problem for me with the hard path is the issue of energy justice. So, with a hard path, the benefits and the costs are unevenly distributed, if you like. The benefits are very much with the owners of capital. They make huge profits. The same companies that—. I mean, you know, downstairs, in our car charging, it's BP Pulse. The same companies that were running the fossil fuels are now basically carving up, in many cases, renewables. Making the profits, and yet the community is having to bear the costs, in terms of landscape impact. I've had e-mails only today from constituents who can't sleep because of warrants that are being issued by Green GEN to build pylons across their land et cetera. So, the costs are—. And the costs are particularly concentrated in particular areas like Wales, which has renewable energy, but yet we don't get the benefit.

So, I think that there's a question here for us: which path do we want to follow? And I think that, in terms of onshore, really, if you think of Wales's energy needs, we're locked into this hard-path UK system, but really we should be following that sort of Nordic model of a softer path onshore—community scale and community owned. So, taking the community with us, so that people can see the benefits rather than following the extractive economy model that we've had a bitter experience with in Wales for too long. And if we want to choose that soft path, there are things that we can do. We could provide permitted development rights to make it easier to get community scale and community-owned developments. We could set limits on developments in terms of their scale and density, so that we could prevent the sort of corporate green rush that we're seeing. The figures are quite incredible. At the moment, applications are in for 700 turbines in Wales, and 46,000 acres of solar and battery storage development across Wales. It's not the people of Wales that are going to make most of the benefit from that. So, we could mandate solar on roofs, as we've said. We could use those local energy area plans, couldn't we, actually, in a concerted way, to develop that kind of soft path?

I'm very pleased to follow that very thoughtful speech by Adam Price, and I too agree that the answer to the question of, 'Can Wales alone meet our needs through renewable energy?' is self-evidently, 'Yes, it can.' We do not need nuclear for baseload, we need innovation. I don't agree with the Government's equivocal position that we need blue hydrogen as a transition for industry, or carbon capture and storage for the production of concrete. These are delaying tactics—delaying tactics advanced by the fossil fuel industry because of enormous economic vested interests. I think one of the most depressing things over the last few years is how this agenda has been set back. We've seen yesterday the right in the UK following the right in the US in turning its face against net zero as an achievable goal, with Kemi Badenoch, the leader of the Conservative Party, saying it was not achievable and it would damage the economy. Well, that is just simply not factually true; it is achievable. She may not want to confront what is involved in achieving it.

And in terms of damaging the economy, I don't think people are facing up to the scale and the pace of the change coming at us and the economic impact that's going to have. I think it was back in 2007 that Lord Stern produced his review for the Treasury in which he said that unless we got carbon emissions down to net zero, then the annual economic damage to our economy would be a 5 per cent—5 per cent—drop in GDP every single year. Now, that's not a recession, that's an ongoing economic depression if we fail to get carbon emissions under control. So, when we hear the leader of the Conservative Party saying that it's economically damaging to get to net zero, it is ignorant of the facts and it is irresponsible of the science and the failure to face up to what the world's scientific community is saying loud and clear. When scientists, who are cautious types, use the word 'catastrophic' to describe the climate change coming at us—. That's what the UN panel on climate change says—we face catastrophic climate change. Now, let's each of us think of what 'catastrophic' looks like in the communities we represent.

Now, I know tackling climate change is a very complex political science issue as well as a climate science one, and we don't think enough about the fusion of the two. Change is difficult, and there are trade-offs, and there are people who don't want land to be used for solar, and those people who don't want pylons near where they live, but that's, in part, because we're not projecting to them an honest conversation of what not doing anything looks like. Because catastrophic climate change in each of our communities is going to be devastating for the economy and the society and the future of our communities. Janet Finch-Saunders is tutting. Do you know, I've sat through so many speeches of hers calling for us, when we're going to the Conference of the Parties, to take bold action, stand up for the nature emergency, and there's this cognitive dissonance, this profound disconnect between what that means in the abstract and what it means in practice, and that's what I find depressing about this debate. We are not facing up to the scale, the pace and the severity of not confronting this at the scale that we need to.

There's so much that I agree with. What I would push back on a little is that we do have to take people with us on this journey, and it's a narrow line between pushing hard and dragging people with us. And at times, I think we have to be pragmatic in that regard. But I agree 100 per cent on the scale of the challenge and the response that's required. And let's remind ourselves of where we are: 34 per cent of all Welsh electricity is produced from renewable energy at the moment. That's up from 27 per cent in 2022, but, of course, as we know, our reliance is far too great on fossil fuels, particularly gas, of course, with major plants in places like Pembroke and Connah's Quay being central to that.

And that comes back to the points that have been made on this choice between the hard path and the soft path. And I do feel, although we can perhaps ride two horses in different contexts—offshore and onshore—if we don't see that fundamental shift away from the hub-and-spoke model, where we have these major centres that produce a great deal of energy that is then distributed ineffectively and inefficiently across the country, with transmission loss and so on and so forth—unless we move to a model that is more of a spiderweb network, where there is far more production happening at a lower rate in more places—which is a far more resilient system, by the way, because if some of those elements go down, then you do have that connectivity and the interdependency to rely on others to produce; in the hub-and-spoke model, if one of the major centres goes down, half the country is down; we do have to have that decisive shift in the grid, to all intents and purposes, because the grid is essentially the problem here—we're not going to achieve the aim that we all want to achieve. And the other major frustration for us here is that the grid is not devolved. So, we can have these debates as often as we like, but unless there is that decisive shift coming from the UK Government and the National Grid, then we are going to be swimming against the tide far too often.

Now, there are opportunities, of course. There are risks, as we've heard. But what we have at the moment, I fear, is a situation where there are multiple companies—large multinational companies—who are just landing on communities uninvited across Wales, looking for consent to develop these major projects, some of them appropriate, and some of them entirely inappropriate, in my view. And what you will then have is communities reacting to that—communities who are perhaps frightened by those developments and hit back. And that's a regime problem that creates that conflict, and of course it isn't something that we want to see. There are 126—. I referred to these statistics earlier. There are 126 renewable energy projects with the National Energy Systems Operator at the moment—so, they are applications from the energy sector for connection to the national grid here in Wales. They are major projects, significant projects—not small-scale projects like community energy or small solar farms or small windfarms, and neither are they projects, as we've heard, that are going to meet local need, but they are nationally important projects that need connectivity to a substation, then, to export that electricity on high voltage 400 kV or 132 kV lines—this extraction that we heard about earlier.

Now, the total proposed output of these schemes is 40 GW, which is 25 times the electricity needs of Wales at the moment. So, if we succeeded in decarbonising our economy entirely and moved towards an energy, transport and heating system that was zero carbon, if all that were achieved, we would have more than enough available to us. But I think it's a lack of regulation, a lack of planning and a lack of co-ordination that opens the door to this. Much of the technology, of course, is new—battery storage, of course, is one that is becoming more and more of an issue in many communities. The regulatory system is not adequate to meet the scale and number of projects being brought forward. And that, to an extent, is why we are seeing so many projects being thrown into the pot by these companies; it's a speculative punt, in many cases. There are 79 projects for major battery storage that have applied to the National Grid here in Wales in one form or another. Some of them produce electricity on the same site and store it, but most of them—over 40—are simply storage projects. And I mentioned earlier that one of them, just one of them—Ynni Celyn in my region—is going to cost more or less as much as the investment in the electric arc furnace in Port Talbot, in the small village of Gwyddelwern, where a few hundred people live. What we're seeing is a new Klondike. There's a gold rush happening before our eyes, and there are companies rushing into these communities, looking for their opportunity to make a great deal of money very, very quickly. And we're back into the territory of coal and slate, of course, as we've heard in several contributions this afternoon already. So, the planning processes, the regulatory processes and the policy of Government need to keep up with all of this, or, as we know, the communities, at the end of the day, will react, and then we will all lose that battle in terms of the shift towards more renewable energy.

I was very interested to hear what you said about the Clocaenog project and people thinking that they've run out of things to ask for. This takes us back to the role of local authorities, because you can't expect the town council or the village community council to be saying, 'Right, this is how we're going to decarbonise all the housing in the area.' You've got to have some leadership, surely, from the local authority to say, 'Yes, we are generating this much community benefit money, now we need to have a bigger plan.' And that is one of the weaknesses of this situation. So, local authorities have got to step up to the plate. You cannot expect ordinary citizens to know, 'This is how you are going to develop renewable energy.' This is a new technology.

Indeed, and that's why I feel sometimes that some of these large multinational companies are running rings around us here in Wales when it comes to these kinds of things. And one of the questions I ask some of these companies—. When they talk about, 'Do you have any suggestions about where we could invest our community fund?', well, the first question I ask them is, 'Well, look, tell me first: what percentage of your projected profit is this?' Tumbleweed. It's a question that they don't want to answer. Now, that's not to belittle the fact, of course, that they do in other ways create jobs and bring in investment et cetera, et cetera, but it really does feel—. It's that whole extractive thing. There's a feeling that, you know, where is the real community stake in this? Where is the real buy-in from the community? And we're just not seeing it.

We're just not seeing it. So, yes, we need a mix of large-scale and small-scale projects, and of course Wales lends itself perfectly to that, as we've already heard. But public buildings—I've seen twenty-first century school plans that say that they're going to meet BREEAM standards, and you see the designs showing solar panels and so on; six months down the line, of course, 'Well, the cost has gone up. We have to remove something', and, all of a sudden, the building looks nothing like what I saw in the consultation that was held. So, we need to try to move away from that too. But, at the end of the day, our communities must come first in this equation.

And we must take inspiration from people such as Ynni Ogwen, Ynni Padarn Peris. There is more that our communities could do, and not just at a small scale, because Morlais is an example, isn't it, of what can happen at a far greater scale, but in the context of a community initiative and a social enterprise. So, we need a reset when it comes to this mindset; we need to move away from the hub and spoke towards something that is far easier to incorporate into our communities but is also far more resilient when it comes to ensuring that the provision is sustainable.

Joyce Watson is the last speaker I have as having asked to speak before I ask Carolyn Thomas to respond. So, Joyce Watson.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm really pleased to take part, and I thank those who brought this debate here today. I referred to us, before, moving towards a third industrial revolution, the first being steam, then gas, then renewables, but I wonder whether we're actually going back to the first revolution, where the power was all naturally produced in the first place.

I think I'm right in saying that, for the first time ever, renewable energy, mainly wind and solar power, generated most of Britain's electricity last year. At the same time, according to the Severn Estuary Commission, whose report hit the headlines today, demand for electricity in the UK is likely to more than double by 2050. So, they are the parameters, really, for this discussion this afternoon. It's clear, and everybody agrees, that there is a case for more renewables: the environmental benefits, of course, greater energy security, economic investment, and renewable sources generate electricity more cheaply than gas-powered stations.

So, if we look at the environmental benefits, they have been mentioned several times today, but it's the decarbonisation of the way that we get our energy and also it can be the environmental benefits of—and it's been discussed—having your energy produced and delivered locally.

The energy security is pretty clear; the fact that our energy has shot through the roof is all down to the insecurity of our energy supplies as they currently are. And the economic investment is multilayered in terms of training, in terms of jobs, and in terms of reinvesting the gains from producing green energy directly into those communities. But we have to be clear here—and I heard what Llyr said—we have to be clear about investing in how we produce the energy. It is pretty certain that we're going to need more green energy much more quickly than it's currently being produced. Somebody will have to invest in that to make it happen, and it's also clear that the finances of the UK are not in a place, necessarily, to fund that, but GB Energy will be coming online.

We also know, if you look at the analysis that's been done by Rystad, that, by 2030, it will be 10 times cheaper to generate electricity from solar power than it will be from gas. So, that's another huge thing to think about, going forward. But the scale of investment, the development and the technology will lead to greater benefits in the end. And I've already mentioned Great British Energy; others have mentioned Ynni Cymru here in Wales, and we do need to benefit, but what are the benefits, really? Well, if you look at the displacement of people over the last year, it's greater than it's ever been, and partly as a consequence of climate change. I heard those figures yesterday. Now, if people can't live where they are and they start moving—and this was a point that Lee started to make earlier on—then we're going to have another additional layer that is coming down the track in how are we going to be able to help people. Are people prepared to help people if they're displaced? And if we carry on producing energy in the way that we are—if you like, accelerating the change in the weather patterns—that is going to happen pretty quickly, and you don't have to go very far—you only have to look at Europe at the moment; it's on our doorstep, when you look at the fires that have been raging in Greece, in France, in Italy, and then the consequential flooding that happens as well. Some of those places are becoming uninhabitable now in the way that people used to inhabit them. So, there's urgency behind this.

Yes. Well, I think we are in a better place than in England, certainly on that front, but we do have to decarbonise very large numbers of our homes, and, as you say, many of them are 100 years old and they're stone built and very difficult to retrofit. But do you therefore agree with me that we need to put a lot more money into the Warm Homes programme, particularly area-based schemes, so that we can get a lot more of the poorest communities retrofitted and then releasing money for them to spend on other things? Obviously, I see the Cabinet Secretary for finance is with us in the room, so I think this is something—. I wondered if you'd agree that we really do need to invest much more money in that.

I think it goes without saying that we definitely have to put some more money into Warm Homes, and it isn't just about the carbon, by their not having to burn more fuel to keep them warm; it's also about a level of justice for those people and a human right to live in a warm home and not have to heat just one room in an old home because they can't afford the electricity. So, there's a much wider impact from simply warming up a home.

We've looked at many things here today. I've brought in the displacement of people. We really need to seriously think about that. We've heard about transition, and I do live in Pembrokeshire. We can't turn the tap off overnight, because people would become pretty destitute if their jobs disappeared overnight, but we do need a just transition, but a transition that is timely too, not one that goes on and on and on.

We do need to invest more in the skills, Jenny, as well, and the grid. Who owns the grid? We all know who owns the grid. What do we do about it? What do we do about the distribution of the energy that we're all hoping that we will produce, and who will own that distribution network? Those are key questions that we have to ask. Those are key questions that we'll have to find the solutions for, because what I've heard a lot of in the room is that we don't actually want to export our energy—that's what I understood from Plaid and maybe I've got that wrong—but it seems a very odd thing to me that if you can produce surplus energy and export it, but at the same time make some money to reinvest in your country, why wouldn't you?

I've had two requests for additional contributions. I've agreed the two: Lee Price—. 'Lee Price', that's the combination of the two. [Laughter.] Lee Waters.

What a horrific image that is, Presiding Officer. I just wanted to take advantage of the novelty of our rules for this debate to come in just to respond to two really important points that Joyce Watson made in her contribution. First on the issue of the displacement of people, I think this is an underdiscussed point. We're all seeing and feeling the impact of a backlash to the large movement of people because of wars and because of economic forces. That is going to be nothing compared to the climate-based migration and asylum we're going to see as a result of uninhabitable lands that we know is baked in because of already existing climate change in the atmosphere. We're not on course to meet 2050 across the globe, so this is coming at us and it is going to make far more people move northwards and move towards Europe and the UK, and that is going to cause huge social unrest and dislocation. That's going to happen. So, that is a further reason why we need to make sure that we mitigate this as quickly as possible. All other things are not equal; there is rapid change coming at us.

And to Joyce Watson's second really important point, which is about the increasing electricity demand that we face, there are two different visions of future energy demand. There are those like Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos, who want to use plentiful energy, as they see it, to send us off to Mars for having wrecked the planet here, and power flying cars. And that is a view on the techno right, who have all sorts of fantastical ideas of using energy to do more things. And then there are views like in this very thought-provoking book by Professor Gareth Wyn Jones, based on his Nation.Cymru lecture here at the Senedd some months ago, who makes the point that, actually, as a planet, we need to get by on less energy, because the ecological impact of producing more and more and more is going to be catastrophic to our biodiversity, and that simply will not support human life. Even if technology manages to find a way to produce all this extra energy, the ecosystem will not be able to support it. And I think we don't talk enough about using less energy. It's often said that the cheapest form of energy is the energy not used; it's energy conservation. [Interruption.] I'm happy to give way to Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you very much. I was just looking at Dŵr Cymru's zero-energy plans. Only 3 per cent of rainfall is consumed, so we allow it to go into the sewage system, where it then has to be treated and then pumped back into people's lives. So, there's a huge change that's got to happen in the way we value and manage water, because at the moment, we're absolutely hopeless at it.

Absolutely. Just to briefly conclude, we have huge waste; we have huge resource waste and I think the vision Joyce Watson described, which, accurately, is what we're currently heading towards, of just extra consumption, is not sustainable. It's not that it's just undesirable; it simply will not be able to be sustained. And we should be thinking and arguing very carefully about how we reduce energy use, how we increase innovation and efficiency, before we start looking to produce extra generation.

I'm very grateful, Llywydd, to use this parliamentary innovation. I just wanted to respond particularly to Lee Waters's earlier important reminder of the importance of urgency. I thoroughly agree with him there, and I'm an accelerationist—you know, I think that we need to move far faster than we are. I think, when thinking about these two models, as I describe them, the soft and the hard, the corporate versus the community scale and community owned, often, the argument is used, especially by the corporate sector, that, 'We are the only game in town if you want to get there rapidly.' Now, there are reasons why the way that we currently design the system, of course, which is based all around complex corporate large-scale investments, why they're able to make that argument, but the evidence points in a different direction. So, when we look at countries where there is very substantial local ownership, we've seen those countries arrive at far faster energy transitions, particularly the Nordic countries, for example. So, I think, if we want to be urgent, then actually we need to detach ourselves from the corporate models, and we need to do it ourselves. And then you align local ownership, local support, and you actually get there quicker, because any of the opposition that is there, concerns et cetera, you lose that. So, I think there's a strong case for us pivoting to the kind of model that's been more successful precisely because we need to get there earlier.

In terms of this question on export, I think, absolutely, if we have an energy abundance, then why not export, but you should start with designing your local energy system around your local needs. Particularly, this issue has arisen in Scandinavia recently, where they've had very low energy prices, and interconnectors have threatened to drive the energy price up, because the owners of the companies would rather sell into Germany and get a far—. So, you've got to base your energy design in local ownership and local needs, and then, in a fair way, in a way that actually delivers benefits to your own communities, then look at energy export.

I think it was very striking, in the context of the zonal pricing discussion that we had earlier, to look at the different voices of the corporate sector. So, Octopus Energy, kind of socially minded, saying, 'Look, absolutely, go for zonal pricing, so that you can share the benefit of locally abundant renewable energy with local people.' The corporate renewable sector say, 'No, don't do that. Don't do that because that ruins our financial model, because we base it on predictability of price.' Those corporate renewable companies are not fundamentally driven by local need and delivering local benefit; they're basically based around their balance sheet. So, we need to listen to the voices of the likes of Octopus Energy and build that kind of softer path, rather than the corporate model that, I think, takes us down a dead end.

Carolyn Thomas now to reply to that debate. Carolyn.

I'd like to just thank everybody who has taken part today in this debate. It's really wide-ranging, isn't it? It covers so much, and I think it's been really important. I'm going to try and sum up as best as I can.

We need to act quickly. We have an energy security crisis. We have lots of big developers coming along now with lots of planning applications, and a lot of these big companies are reaping the rewards, as has been said. We need to make sure that we bring the community along with us, and hopefully we can make sure that we have more community-owned energy schemes, more community investment and community benefit, with lower bills, maybe, as well.

We also need to consider the impact on the climate, as was raised by Lee. If we don't, it could be catastrophic to our climate, to our nature. One in eight houses in Wales are at risk of flooding, but there's also that global impact as well on people. It needs to be a just transition, making sure we bring people with us and making sure that the skills are in place as well. I was very interested, like Janet and others, in making sure we have solar PV on all buildings, on houses, going forward. I'd like the Welsh Government to take that forward, to really look at that again, incorporating it in. Other countries, other European countries, are doing it now. Joyce said, when we give grants to businesses, why don't we make sure—it's public money—that they invest in solar and renewable energy?

Having energy costs pegged to gas just seems wrong as well. We should be trying to get to renewable energy. Just switching to gas is wrong. And also turning off our renewable energy when we could be making sure it's available to local people as well in local schemes; that really needs to be looked at.

We need a strategy, I think, as well. We've discussed so many different elements today. We need a national strategy going forward, and to work with GB Energy so that we've got a strategy that is the best for Wales, for Welsh people, and working with GB Energy, making sure it fits in. There is a national energy plan, as the Cabinet Secretary said, but I'm not sure whether that's the same thing.

Looking at building regulations was mentioned, for new houses that are being built, to make sure that they're up to a good standard, because we don't want to be retrofitting those in the future, which is really important. And we need to invest in the Warm Homes fund for people with existing houses that aren't up to standard, so that we can invest and just help people locally get their energy bills down, have warm homes and invest in solar.

That brings today's open debate to a close. Thank you very much, Carolyn and everyone.

Item 7 today is the Welsh Conservatives debate, on employer national insurance. I call on Mark Isherwood to move the motion.

Diolch. I'm pleased to open this debate on a motion that seeks to address a matter that presents a clear and present danger to people and services across Wales. We also support the amendments tabled by Plaid Cymru, but nonetheless urge them to vote for the original motion rather than see Labour's spoiler amendment voted on before their own.

Let's be real. Gordon Brown was the architect of austerity. The 2008 financial crash was not made in Downing Street. However, Labour's policies gave us the biggest bust. Speaking here in 2004, I warned the economic reality is that Wales is living on the never-never, and if Gordon Brown keeps increasing public spending faster than economic growth, as more than a short-term measure, there will be a day of reckoning for us all. That is why the International Monetary Fund criticised the Treasury's approach to public finances and called for fiscal consolidation, meaning spending cuts or tax increases, in 2005.

In 2010, the UK coalition Government inherited the biggest peacetime budget deficit in a century, double any previous deficits and the largest of any major economy. They therefore had to perform a delicate balancing act, both managing this down and avoiding far higher cuts being imposed by those funding Government debt, mindful that numbers in severe poverty had risen by nearly 800,000 under Labour, with child poverty in Wales having reached the highest level in the UK before the financial crash in 2008, at 32 per cent. Now we have Rachel Reeves, whose debt-driving, tax-hiking, job-destroying budget remains the No. 1 barrier to economic growth and the No. 1 domestic contributor to cost-of-living increases. It's back to the future with Labour.

Across Wales, charities, not-for-profits and voluntary organisations play an absolutely crucial role in delivering the public services that the most vulnerable in society depend upon. Labour's cruel decision to increase their employer national insurance contributions will have a detrimental impact on them and their work with individuals and families from the ground up, delivering key services that improve lives whilst also reducing demand on statutory services.

I've repeatedly raised how the significant hike in national insurance announced in the UK Government's autumn budget will impact the service delivery of charities and community organisations, and asked what is being done by the Welsh Government to mitigate this. To date, the finance Secretary has stated that this is a matter for the UK Government, which is why our motion calls on the Welsh Government to make urgent representations to the UK Government to address this.

The finance Secretary has also responded to attacks on his own Welsh budget by asking us what we would cut to protect funding for vital third sector services, refusing to recognise that the false economies in his budget will create additional demand on public services that will more than swallow up any funding increases he has given them. This is dumb economics.

In response to this debate, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action have stated they're deeply concerned about the impact of increased employer national insurance contributions on voluntary sector organisations across Wales. Many of these organisations, they say, already face significant financial pressures and this increase threatens to put additional strain on their resources and potentially jeopardise vital services delivered to communities. They have strongly urged both the UK and Welsh Governments to recognise the invaluable role the voluntary sector plays, especially in partnership with public services. They believe it is critical for voluntary organisations delivering public services to be treated equitably and included in any financial support measures, ensuring they are not disproportionately disadvantaged by these policy changes.

Cancer care charity Tenovus have called the rise in national insurance contributions 'devastating' and urged Welsh Ministers to mitigate the impact. Mental health and addiction charity Adferiad told me that this will cost them £600,000 a year and, without mitigation, they will have to let staff go and reduce services. Shelter Cymru state that this will increase the costs of housing support and homelessness prevention providers by £117,000 in the first six months alone, directly impacting staffing and their ability to prevent homelessness.

The Carers Trust's recent report 'National reach, local impact' highlights the need for assurances of uplifts to contracts for local authority, health board and regional partnership board carer services commissioned from charitable local carer services in order to meet the increased cost of employer national insurance contributions, where they estimate that the combined additional cost to their local care organisations in Wales of meeting these is around £300,000 in 2025-26.

The 16 charitable hospices in Wales operating in every Welsh health board are having to consider significant cuts, which would leave huge gaps in provision for the communities they serve that the health boards will not be able to replace. They provide essential care to more than 20,000 children and adults in Wales affected by terminal and life-limiting illnesses each year and provide a huge cost saving for the NHS, with over two-thirds of hospice care delivered through charitable fundraising, rising to over 85 per cent for children's hospices. However, every hospice in Wales is forecasting a deficit for this financial year.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice to move amendment 1, tabled in her name.

Formally.

I call on Heledd Fychan to move amendments 2 and 3 tabled in her name.

Clearly, there is huge concern in this Chamber about these changes. That's why, in November, we brought forward a Plaid Cymru debate on this very issue, and we haven't changed our view one bit. We emphasised at that point how much of an impact this was going to have on so many different sectors, on so many different people, on so many different services. That came through very clearly during the scrutiny of the budget, with so many committees noting their own concerns about this change to national insurance contributions.

So, I very much hope that we can be united as a Senedd that this is a change that will have a great impact on Wales, that this is a change that will have an impact on the Welsh Government's budget, and that's why I am disappointed to see the Government's amendment today. Yes, it recognises that charities and not-for-profits and voluntary organisations are concerned, but I would've hoped that the Welsh Government would also be very concerned about this, particularly because, even where there is a repayment, the Barnett formula will be used to calculate it. We've heard from the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language that this is not going to be sufficient, that it is not going to cover the entire cost. So, there will be a deficit, and this is going to have an impact on the Welsh Government's budget.

Clearly, earlier today, Sioned Williams asked a topical question on changes to welfare, another issue that's going to leave a gap in the Welsh Government's budget, if you actually act in order to support those people who so badly need our support in our communities. So, if you consider what's likely to happen in terms of national insurance and the proposed changes to welfare, then the situation is very grave indeed.

I would also argue, in terms of the charities, not-for-profits and voluntary organisations, that it's not just concern they're experiencing, they're already having to cut services. They are cutting jobs. I know about people who have worked for many years in my own community, supporting the most vulnerable people, who have had to support more and more people because of the austerity policies that we've seen in recent years, and their services are under huge pressures already. If those services shrink and there is greater demand for them, then this is a very serious situation indeed.

It is a situation that will have an immense impact on so many people in our communities, and I want to see more action from the Government than we're currently seeing. Corresponding simply isn't enough. Making calls is not enough. We have to be united, and we have to be honest in terms of the funding gap and the impact that it will have on the funding available to us. Beyond the headlines of the budget, we have to start asking how much of that money will have to be used in order to maintain current service levels. So, it is a very grave problem.

Today's debate is one that we simply shouldn't be having. Once upon a time, we had a shadow Chancellor that promised that they wouldn't raise taxes on working people. In fact, I'll quote her directly when she said,

'we certainly will not be increasing...income tax or national insurance'.

Well, what happened the second the shadow chancellor became the Chancellor? You guessed it, national insurance contributions were increased, putting additional costs on businesses, leading to a slowdown in the number of jobs available and resulting in lower wages in people's pockets. Who was it that said Labour just don't know what they're doing on the economy? The poverty that the Labour Party cry crocodile tears about is literally the result of their own actions and they won't take a shred of responsibility for it. They claimed there was an economic black hole in their inheritance, but that wasn't true either. The Office for Budget Responsibility literally couldn't find it. Yet more Labour mistruths to justify their socialist agenda.

And we hear a lot from them, don't we, about their inheritance? But what inheritance did they really get? They inherited the highest growth in the G7 from the last Conservative Government and they've managed to lose all that progress in eight short months. In January, the economy shrank under Labour, while the economies of comparable countries across the world grew. We know that higher taxes lead to economic disaster; we get that, but they don't get it and the results speak for themselves. That's why Labour's national insurance rise—the one that they promised that they would never do—is so damaging. And it doesn't just damage businesses and our economy, it's damaging our charities too. The rise in national insurance is estimated to cost the third sector a whopping £1.4 billion. Think about the impact that that will have on the services on which so many people across the country rely. Some of our poorest, some of our sickest, some of our least fortunate people will lose out. Crucial community campaigns will see cutbacks and those that need the support that only charities can provide will literally have to go without.

The leader of the opposition in the UK Parliament, Kemi Badenoch, asked the Prime Minister earlier today whether he would exempt hospices, or even just children's hospices, from his jobs tax. The Prime Minster shamefully refused. Ordering his Labour MPs to block it, forcing that tax on children's hospices. Llywydd, we should never let Labour lecture anyone about social justice ever again. That's why we have tabled this motion today—to back those businesses that will literally go bust, to back those workers who will see their wages depressed, to back those without work but looking for it, who will see the jobs market shrink, to back those charities that provide essential services on which people rely in their time of utmost need, and to back those that need charities because none of us know when it will be us that needs them ourselves. Labour's jobs tax is a kick in the teeth for all those groups and more. It's time we shelved it and shelved the shower of a Labour Government too.

Well, this is a breathtakingly cynical motion by the Conservatives, and it started in classic form by Mark Isherwood, who, again, blamed everything on Gordon Brown and then went on to quote one of his own speeches from 2004. One thing I would say about Mark Isherwood, after 20 years in this Chamber, is that he is consistent at least. The record shows that, in the term of the last Conservative Government, austerity was a political choice. Every year, spending fell in real terms, per person, every single year between 2010 and 2020, unlike other Western economies, whereas the crash that he referred to in 2008 is recognised as a global slump. So, nice try, but the economists simply do not recognise the picture you paint.

Now, I do have some sympathy with the arguments about national insurance contributions. I think it's the wrong tax to be raising, and I regret the fact that other taxes have been ruled out, and this is then left as one of the few remaining that can be used. I don't think it's the right call. But, there is a significant deficit in public spending. Now, every few weeks, we get calls from the Conservatives in this Chamber to spend more money on various programmes, and they never tell us how they will fund it. So, let me ask them this: the 40 per cent rise in the capital investment in the NHS in this year's UK budget, where would you raise the money for that from? If not from national insurance contributions, where from? You have no answer. The £235 million of extra capital in the Welsh Government budget that the finance Secretary has announced: where would they get that from if not from national insurance? And they have no answer, because their position is utterly incoherent and entirely opportunistic, and completely at odds with their own record.

And if any of you have put yourself through the discomfort of reading Simon Hart's diaries, which, I must say, I have done on your behalf, the decision to call the general election at the time it was was a very cynical one, made in the full knowledge of the hole that was being left for an incoming Government. He goes on to say, in fact, that the prisons were about to collapse. They knew the mess they were leaving behind. And it may be that, as they say, the OBR said that they couldn't find a black hole, and that's simply because the assumptions that the Conservative Chancellor made for that budget, on which the OBR based its forecast, were completely unrealistic, and the Resolution Foundation has said that, had a Conservative Chancellor returned, they would have had to find £20 billion to fill in the spending that had been committed.

I thank Lee for being one of the only Labour Members here to defend their terrible record. I thank you, Lee, for actually standing up for your decision. There is no better example as to how little idea Labour have about economic growth than this rise in national insurance. Throughout the general election, and subsequently, we heard from Sir Keir Starmer that he wants to see economic growth, yet we've heard no details as to how he was to achieve this, and what little action has been taken has been completely counterproductive and counterintuitive. Not only was this rise in employer national insurance a blatant breach of a manifesto commitment, it's a direct tax on growth, preventing many small businesses from employing new staff or increasing existing staff's wages. Our businesses have been battling a cost-of-doing-business crisis for too long, and now they have been slapped with this tax on growth. How does this make any sense? I've said it before: growth is not a policy in and of itself. We all want growth, of course we do, but it can only be achieved through sound economic policy—something both Labour Governments on either end of the M4 clearly struggle with.

Dirprwy Lywydd, this tax hike affects every sector in society, as we've heard—our healthcare practices, our businesses, charities, our key care providers who work closely with those local authorities. As we all know, the majority of businesses in Wales are SMEs, who simply will not be able to afford to expand, thanks to this economically illiterate policy. Many of our SMEs are on very tight profit margins and just about making ends meet. Farmers, freight businesses and hospitality businesses in particular will struggle. There really is no reason today for Labour colleagues here not to support this motion. It's sad that they're not going to be listening to what we're trying to say. It is as clear as day that this tax hike is having a detrimental impact not just on businesses, but also on charities and, as we've heard, not-for-profit organisations, as well as many other voluntary organisations. We've heard in the Chamber how local authorities already are pressed for finances, and they will feel the effect of this tax hike. We are told there is money coming from central Government to make up for this, but it's still not clear how much. And, of course, our local authorities deal with the private companies who are fundamental in delivering statutory services, like social care, like domiciliary care. Their national insurance increases will end up being passed down through increased cost to our councils and, ultimately, to hard-working families across Wales through council tax increases. That's how it goes around. There’s only one set of money.

According to the Wales Council for Voluntary Action, which is the national membership body for voluntary organisations, 84 per cent of such organisations are concerned about their ability to afford the increase in employer national insurance contributions, 34 per cent report that they are considering decreasing the number of full-time staff, while 14 per cent are considering winding up their services. And this would have far reaching implications for some of the most vulnerable people in our society. I've been drawing attention to the problems facing two organisations in my constituency, namely Antur Waunfawr and GISDA, after they got in touch to voice their concerns. There are many more who've contacted me since then. Housing support services have been expressing their concerns, and this is a sector that supports some of the most vulnerable people in our society, such as those people who face losing their homes, those who live in temporary accommodation that is completely inappropriate for far too long, and also women taking refuge from abuse and violence in their home. These are the people who will be impacted by this increase.

Although the increase of £21 million in the housing support grant is welcome, witnesses told the Local Government and Housing Committee recently that significant financial deficits face the sector across Wales. Cymorth Cymru told us that the increase in national insurance contributions poses a risk to the sustainability of services and could lead to redundancies or to contracts being returned. And Platfform said that, if housing support projects were to come to an end, then every person in receipt of support would have to turn to statutory services that are provided by local authorities, and we know how challenging it would be to find funds to meet that demand.

And that's why our amendment does regret the intention to allocate Treasury reimbursements to core public services on the basis of the Barnett formula. That would leave Wales facing a shortfall compared to England. And our amendment also regrets the lack of clarity as to the full extent of the costs to local government, less than a month before the start of the next financial year and after the passing of the Welsh budget. Therefore, we do call on the Welsh Government to do everything it can do now to call upon the UK Government to ensure that the cost of the increases to employer NI contributions will be covered in full by the UK Treasury. And moreover, the third sector must be informed as a matter of urgency of what funding will be available to it to mitigate the impact of increased national insurance contributions on the vital services that it provides.

The increase in employer national insurance contributions from 13.8 per cent to 15 per cent this year in April, announced by the Chancellor, is an absolute disgrace. It has caused great concern for employers, small businesses, non-profit organisations and charities, as well as many local authorities. And I have to say, Jane Hutt, I have always held you in such high regard, but you've done it again:

'Delete all after point 1 and replace with

'Recognises that:

'a) national insurance is not devolved;'

What a weak and poor cop-out. And that you recognise

'Welsh charities, not-for-profits and voluntary organisations are concerned about the impact of increases to employer national insurance contributions'.

And you recognise that

'the Welsh Government has made and will continue to make representations to the UK Government on behalf of public services and Welsh charities, not-for-profits and voluntary organisations'

about the NI. But nothing whatsoever about the increases to the pay bill for our public authorities, and, very importantly, our hard-working private sector employers. And then, of course, the cop-out you've done again as regards the cuts to welfare benefits. Little wonder that now you are being referred to as 'the really nasty party'. While measures have been put in place to help shield some of the very smallest microbusinesses, such as the employment allowance, the UK Labour Government's budget has heavily leaned on smaller businesses, and at a time when they are really, really vulnerable. This increase also comes at a time when businesses have such low confidence in the economy here in Wales. This is mirrored by the latest gross domestic product data, which showed only a small increase of less than 0.2 per cent in the three months leading up to January 2025. Wales, we know, has the lowest employment rate in the UK, at 70 per cent; and the highest number of young people not in education, training or employment; the highest business rates in Great Britain, with the multiplier for businesses of all sizes in Wales set to increase to 56.8 per cent in April 2025-26; and the second lowest business survival rate in the UK. You can sigh, but you cannot hide or deny what you are doing to Wales and its business sector. This is extremely concerning and shows that the increase in employer NI will only add further stress and impact to an already struggling economic and business environment in Wales.

This impact will also be felt by the Welsh third sector. A leading Welsh charity has warned it will have to pay an extra £250,000 a year due to the increased national insurance contributions. That isn't very charitable of this Welsh Government, is it? The cancer care charity, Tenovus, gave evidence to the Finance Committee at the start of this year, noting that this increase will be 'devastating', and they were urging UK Ministers to reconsider, or for the Welsh Government to mitigate the impact in some way. This follows a very weak and pathetic statement from the First Minister when challenged by my colleague Darren Millar last week: oh, that they'd had informal discussions with the UK Labour Government about this. Well, I'm sorry, I don't believe it. I would love to see some correspondence where the First Minister has actually really, genuinely shown concern for the people of Wales.

You need to conclude now, please, Janet.

—and hospices. It is simply unacceptable that any of these organisations, any of these businesses that I've mentioned, are now being asked to pay for this. Does the Cabinet Secretary not agree that there is a significant and strong call for greater clarity and reassurance regarding reimbursement for employer NI contributions?

Janet, you need to conclude, please.

And frankly, as I said, it just gets worse by the day, since your Labour Government became the UK Government in Westminster.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip, Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr. I'm very pleased to respond to this debate and to take the opportunity, as I'm sure we all would around this Chamber, to celebrate and acknowledge the role of the third sector—I think we all have done so today—in Wales and Welsh life. And we're proud of the relationship that we have with the sector. This year actually marks the twenty-fifth anniversary of our unique third sector scheme. And it's because of our scheme that the Welsh Government has well-developed relationships and routes by which the third sector can raise their concerns directly—directly with me, as they did during our recent third sector partnership council meeting. This is the way in which we have engaged with the third sector, have that open, honest relationship so that stakeholders can feed back to me, to us and to Welsh Government and colleagues any issues and concerns, as well as opportunities that lay ahead.

And, of course, we recognise that a sustainable third sector means better support for those most in need, as is their ability to respond to both demands on their services and unexpected financial pressures. So, we recognise—of course we recognise, and we've stated that quite clearly—that changes by the UK Government to national insurance contributions have caused concern. And, Dirprwy Lywydd, during the third sector partnership council that I was chairing last month, specific concerns across the sectors were raised with me about the impact of national insurance rises on the public sector, who commission services from the third sector. Now, it is important to put on the record as well today, in this debate, that the UK Government recognised the need to protect the smallest businesses and charities, which is why it has more than doubled the employment allowance to £10,500, meaning that more than half of employers with national insurance contribution liabilities will either see no change or will gain overall in 2025.

But because we recognise the concerns raised, not just at the third sector council, clearly, but in representations made and in debates in this Chamber, we recognised that we needed to also engage on this directly with the UK Government, because everyone in this Chamber is clearly aware that national insurance is not devolved. And that's why our Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language wrote to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury regarding both the allocation of this funding and the additional costs for employers of contracted services that deliver on behalf of the public sector. And of course he reiterated these concerns when he met with the Chief Secretary on 27 February. He was clear that the UK Government should fully fund Welsh public sector employer national insurance contributions in the same way as English public services. And in addition, the First Minister raised her concerns directly with the Chancellor in writing, and then when she met with the Chancellor last month, in February, regarding the anticipated allocation of funding for public service employees.

Diolch for taking the intervention. You say that representation has been made by the Welsh Government to ensure that the public sector are fully covered for the increase in national insurance contributions. You mention how smaller charities were being thought of. Has the Welsh Government made any representation about the larger charities, people like Women's Aid, people like Tenovus? Have you made any representation about them? We know, and you recognise in your amendment, the impact it's going to have on the work that they do to protect the most vulnerable in our society. Have you made any representations about the larger charities?

[Inaudible.]—representations have been made, I've already outlined, by the finance Cabinet Secretary and the First Minister across the board, but I also would say that, in response to your question, the UK Government has confirmed it will provide funding to public sector employers to cover the increased costs of employer national insurance contributions, which is important in terms of those bodies that are also commissioning services from the third sector, and, importantly, that the UK Government has confirmed it will provide funding using the official Office for National Statistics definition of a public sector employer, and we are in discussions with the UK Government on how that funding will be calculated. But our initial estimate of the additional national insurance cost to devolved public sector employers in Wales is £253 million.

So, I want to also say, Dirprwy Lywydd, that national insurance is one challenge that has been raised in the debate today, but, of course, I was aware through the third sector partnership council of broader issues facing the sector, like an increased demand for their services, fundraising challenges, and they have been reflected upon today, as well as recruitment and retention of both staff and volunteers. And I do want to report back to the Senedd that this is something where we are strengthening our relationship with the third sector, and last month the Cabinet agreed a revised funding code of practice for the third sector, which sits under our statutory third sector scheme. This is our powers and responsibilities that we are addressing. Now, that revised code recognises the importance of multi-year funding—really important to the third sector—and the importance of ensuring full cost recovery. So, this code will be published next month and will shape our funding relationship with the sector for years to come.

Dirprwy Lywydd, across my portfolio, in line with the code, I increased budget lines by 3 per cent for 2025-26, and I've provided multi-year funding where possible. An example of that grant funding awarded to the third sector will be to deliver the single advice fund services, and this will be a three-year period from April 2025 to March 2028, and will make a total of £36 million available to those key advice services, helping people in need and across a range of circumstances and characteristics. So, I'd like to take the opportunity to encourage all public sector bodies to adopt the code of funding for the third sector, and I'm sure you will be raising that in your engagement with the public sector as well.

And the Welsh Government continues to invest in the sector into areas such as Newid, which aims to provide the sector with digital skills, Tempo Time Credits, encouraging volunteering, community asset loan fund. And also let's recognise that Third Sector Support Wales supports 40,000 third sector organisations. [Interruption.] A very quick intervention, if that is coming—

Thank you. We've heard a lot of representations from you in terms of the representations you have made to the UK Government around the importance of them funding the increase in national insurance for both the public and the third sector. We were, of course, told, weren't we, in the general election that two Labour Governments would work together in the interests of Wales, but yet, you've outlined a £0.25 billion bill that the Welsh Government has been left to pick up. Is that partnership really delivering for Wales?

I think the time has come for me to actually address some of the opening remarks made by Mark Isherwood at this point. I have to say, after 14 years of austerity, leaving us with this black hole, Mark Isherwood chose to rewrite history rather than using this as an opportunity to genuinely challenge and scrutinise—which is quite right—the ways in which we are addressing—[Interruption.] I won't take an intervention from you, Mark, no; I'm sure you're going to respond. To the very point that you made, Tom, about us engaging with the UK Government, the Conservatives crashed the economy, left that £22 billion black hole. And thank you, Lee Waters, thank you for correcting the record; thank you for, again, reminding us all in this Chamber of the mess that the Tories knew that they were leaving—the mess that they knew that they were leaving. That was their legacy. Have you forgotten the strikes? Have you forgotten, under your management—? And when the Labour UK Government came in, they uplifted the public sector pay over and above inflation, and it was our First Minister who was able to announce that when she became First Minister. And also the UK Government has helped us deliver a £1.6 billion budget for 2025-26, which you failed to support. You are failing—. You failed to support the third sector, which we are now supporting in our way.

So, we will continue to work with our third sector partners, as we have over the years, to deal with pressures, build a sustainable sector, support people across Wales, engage with the UK Government in terms of the pressures—

Cabinet Secretary, I've given you additional time for the interventions.

—recognising their role, but also to say, in conclusion, I'm happy to support both amendments tabled by Plaid Cymru in line with the response to the issues raised in the debate today.

I call on James Evans to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to thank everyone who has talked in our very important debate today on national insurance rises; the jobs tax, as I like to call it, which has been imposed by the Labour Party.

Mark Isherwood opened this debate with a very comprehensive opening, as we've come to expect from the Member. And he outlined how Gordon Brown was the architect of austerity, and this all started under Gordon Brown. And we can all remember back to 2010, Liam Byrne, can't we? They all don't like to hear it, but there was no money left. And it is back to the future with Labour, isn't it? Pay more, get less; that's what you get with Labour.

Mark Isherwood, as well as other Members, highlighted the impact that the national insurance rise is going to have on the third sector—and I know from all the organisations I meet from the health side of the portfolio just how this is going to impact them. And I know, Mark Isherwood, the champion you've been on social justice matters in this Chamber, and all the charities that are going to be affected there.

You did talk about the Welsh Government's budget and the bonkers economics that the Welsh Government is having here, because they're not funding the national insurance rises and the pressures this is putting on our systems. You—[Interruption.] Do you want to make an intervention, Mike?

I'm not allowed to, because I haven't been here, but I—

Oh, well, there we are, then. [Laughter.]

And Mark Isherwood listed a number of charities: Tenovus, Adferiad, Shelter Cymru, Carers Trust, and all of them raising the issues about the higher national insurance costs and the pressures that, actually, these rises are going to have on our wider NHS system, because they save an awful lot of money for the NHS and this is going to impact them.

Heledd quite eloquently outlined her concerns and her party's concerns about these proposals. Like Mark, she outlined her concerns about the changes, and our parties stand together on this matter—that this is a cruel tax imposed by Labour on our charities and on the hard-working people of this country. And she also highlighted that charities are having to make cuts now. It's not cuts for the future; these people are reducing services now. We can have warm words from the Government, but, without action, we're going to see these public services leaving us.

Tom Giffard raised the comments made by the now Chancellor when she was shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, saying she wasn't going to raise taxes on working people. It's like the same promises they made to farmers, isn't it, that they weren't going to make any changes there. I'm sorry, Labour lied to the electorate and they're going to be punished for it at future elections. He highlighted that the UK Conservative Government left our country a growing economy and it took Labour to crash our economy, and they're pushing to another financial crisis. And he also highlighted all the millions of people that work across the country who are going to be impacted by these changes.

And then, Lee Waters, the former Deputy First Minister, made his intervention about the spending cuts that the Conservative Government had to make. And, as I made the point earlier, we would not have had to make those difficult decisions, would we, if his party had been a bit better with financial control back before 2010. And he said, 'Where would the Conservatives find the money to actually make some of the changes we'd like?' Well, I'll tell you what to do: why don't you move aside and let a party that wants to fix Wales come in? And we'll soon tell you how we'll make the changes to Wales. And he also mentioned Simon Hart's book. I can say it was about as good a read as listening to his podcast, but there we go. [Interruption.] Peter Fox—. I don't think he'll like to hear that.

Peter Fox highlighted about how important it is, how having a stable economy supports our public services across Wales, and especially your experience, Peter, within local government, and the impact this is going to have on local government. And what will happen is our local government and councils across Wales will end up pushing this tax on to working people in the form of rising council tax. That's why we on these benches want to have referendums on council tax, to make sure that we don't push more taxes onto working people. But he also mentioned about the businesses and other charities that are going to be affected by this.

James, you need to conclude now, please.

—yes, I'll conclude now, Deputy Presiding Officer—the arguments against our party and our record in Government. I'm proud of the record that the Conservatives had, and I always think, when they start attacking you, it’s because they're losing the arguments. Two Governments working together, 26 years in power—I'm afraid to say the game is up. It's time to fix Wales, and there's only one party in here who can fix that, and that's the Welsh Conservatives.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] 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 will move directly to voting time.

[Inaudible.]

I know, I'm just getting my screen up, Lee.

I call for a vote on item 7, the Welsh Conservatives debate, and I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. If the motion is not agreed, we will then vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 36 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 24 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 3 in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 49, no abstentions, and one against. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Agor y bleidlais. Cau’r bleidlais. O blaid 36, neb yn ymatal, 14 yn erbyn. Felly, mae’r cynnig wedi ei ddiwygio wedi ei dderbyn.

And that brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.