Plenary

We'll now move to the business statement and announcement from the Trefnydd, Jane Hutt.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. There are several changes to this week's business, as set out on the Plenary agendas. Business for the next three weeks is shown on the business statement, which is available to Members electronically.

Trefnydd, I’d like to request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales on the delivery of rail services in west Wales, especially given that we heard from the First Minister earlier that she wants to talk about rail services at every opportunity. Well, let’s talk about rail services, because, unfortunately, rail services to and from Pembrokeshire continue to be a huge problem for many of my constituents. And in one particular case, trains were cancelled from Haverfordwest with no replacement buses to transport travellers at all, which caused utter chaos.

In another case recently, a constituent informed me that their train was terminated at Carmarthen, and that Transport for Wales paid for a taxi to transport her for the rest of her journey. The people of Pembrokeshire deserve better, and it’s vital that there is an urgent review into the delivery of services in west Wales, so that action can be taken to ensure that people living beyond Carmarthen are actually able to rely on local rail services.

Therefore, I’d be grateful if we could have a statement from the Welsh Government outlining what action it intends to take to improve the delivery of rail services in west Wales.

Diolch yn fawr, Paul Davies. And, of course, rail services in west Wales, as the First Minister has said, in terms of the delivery of rail services, particularly from Transport for Wales—. And you've seen the good ratings and outcomes in terms of the delivery of services, and the punctuality and timing of services from Transport for Wales, which I know is very welcome as well, and I'm sure that your constituents have travelled on those new routes. But you do have an opportunity to raise this, specifically in relation to west Wales, with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, as it is his oral Senedd question time tomorrow.

Trefnydd, I'd like to request two statements from the Welsh Government. The first is regarding Grok, which is X's artificial intelligence tool. We've heard of the horrific manipulation of images. I would like to know what discussions have taken place between the Welsh Government and the UK Government to safeguard the citizens of Wales from this platform.

I would also like to request a statement regarding the recent announcement on Consumer Energy Solutions entering administration. Obviously, the impact has been immense in terms of job losses—I know that's a concern of constituents of mine—but also I'm increasingly being contacted by those who had work undertaken through CES and who are now concerned because the work is not of the standard and whom they should go to for support. So, in terms of a statement, I think there are a number of Senedd Members who would like the opportunity to raise these concerns, but also to hear how the Welsh Government will be supporting both the workers and also those impacted. I know my colleague Siân Gwenllian has put in a topical question, but I think this is an issue that is wider, and we do require those answers from Government as well.

Diolch yn fawr, Heledd Fychan. Can I join you—and I'm glad you have raised the issue—in my huge concerns about Grok? The fact that a social media platform such as X is allowing users to create abhorrent and illegal content, largely focused on women and girls, is utterly unacceptable. It is important that we, as many of us who can today, across this Chamber, say that X and Grok AI must take immediate action to end this function, to stop these images from proliferating further. This morning, the Cabinet Secretary for Education met with Ofcom Cymru and expressed deep concern about this abhorrent issue. Ofcom outlined the investigation that they announced yesterday and the need to follow due process, of course, to determine whether X has failed to comply with its legal obligations under the Online Safety Act 2023. So, we welcome this investigation and look forward to swift and decisive action. We also welcome the new legislative action set out by the UK Government to clamp down on this. Ofcom must conclude their investigation as quickly as possible. Obviously, we are awaiting the outcome of Ofcom's investigation and any enforcement action taken. It is important that we recognise this and express our opinions and views on it strongly today—this important opportunity that we have throughout our parliamentary session.

On your second point, in terms of Consumer Energy Solutions, I acknowledge that a topical question has been tabled on this. I can say at this stage today that my understanding is that Consumer Energy Solutions has been reliant on, as I'm sure you and colleagues know, the UK Government's energy company obligation scheme to promote and fund its services. This will close at the end of March. This is going to have significant consequences for the company. Officials are due to meet the company today; we will be able to feed back in terms of the outcome of that meeting. Our employability teams and Careers Wales are being put on notice to work with the company and the workforce. I think it's very important also, because, obviously, the company has got to enter into consultation regarding redundancy with the majority of its employees, that you've drawn attention to the concerns about the work that was undertaken for the consumers, as well as the workforce. So, I'm grateful that you've raised both those issues in the business statement.

I'd like to ask for a statement on how the Welsh Government is working with partners like Show Racism the Red Card. I think all Senedd Members probably had information from Show Racism the Red Card, which shows that they worked with 797 schools in Wales in 2025, to help foster equality, inclusion and community cohesion. So, it seems to me that it's absolutely essential that this sort of partnership is continued. So, could the Cabinet Secretary tell us how she plans to continue working with organisations like Show Racism the Red Card in order to make an anti-racist Wales?

Thank you very much, Julie Morgan. I think everybody, I'm sure, in this Parliament, in the Senedd, received information from Show Racism the Red Card, and also inviting us all to an awards event that's forthcoming. I think we have to show our strong support for Show Racism the Red Card. I recall, many years back, going and joining one of the workshops in a school. It had such an impact on the school students. It's good to hear that they've reached out to over 796 schools in Wales. More importantly, not just because of the implementation of our 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'—and they are a key partner in terms of delivery of that plan—but also because the teaching of stories, contributions and histories of people from black, Asian and minority ethnic backgrounds is now compulsory throughout the revised Curriculum for Wales. This is also another contribution to that, because what's very important as well is that we are putting resources into the teaching and learning. Many of you will also know about the pioneering work of DARPL, the diversity anti-racist professional learning team, based at Cardiff Metropolitan University, working with schools across Wales, making a huge impact and helping the teachers as well as the learners. I very much welcome the contribution of Show Racism the Red Card.

Can I call for a statement, Trefnydd, from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on access to PET scans and CT scans for patients in north Wales? I've been alerted by constituents to the fact that the contract that was in place with a third party provider to provide these scans for north Wales patients expired at the end of last year. There's nothing new yet in place. It appears that the tendering process to replace those services has collapsed and, as a result, there are scores of patients who are desperately in need of scans, some of whom are cancer patients and cannot start their therapies and treatment until those scans have taken place. It's putting patients at risk of harm. The health board tell me that they are doing their best to find alternative arrangements in the short term before a scanner is available in Wrexham at the Wrexham Maelor Hospital, but this situation is very concerning to patients and their families. I do think that we need an urgent statement on what action is being taken to resolve this matter, given especially the governance and leadership concerns that we have more widely in this Chamber about the Betsi Cadwaladr health board.

You're right to raise this with Betsi Cadwaladr. Thank you for raising it as well here in the Chamber, but it is for Betsi Cadwaladr to answer those questions, which I'm sure you've raised. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, I'm sure, will also want to clarify the position and ensure that you have that feedback.

I'd like to call for a statement, please, setting out how dignity and tolerance are being taught in schools. Since the Caerphilly by-election, I've been made aware twice of incidents where children have been taunted and physically attacked on their way home from school. In one instance, the child who was attacked was Ukrainian. This was reported in the press. Lindsay and I have been contacted separately about another incident, the details of which I won't go into because they're not public.

Lots of us are increasingly worried about how even children now are responding to the vile and racist rhetoric we're hearing in political debate. No child should be told to 'Go home'. They are home. Wales is their home. Yuliia Bond, a Welsh Ukrainian living in Caerphilly, has pointed out that this abuse doesn't start on the street. It starts with words, with lies, and with hatred that is allowed to fester. Can updated guidance please be given to schools setting out how to tackle this ongoing and increasing problem? Because our children deserve for all of us to be so much better than this.

Thank you very much, Delyth Jewell. Isn't it regrettable that you have to raise this? This appalling feedback affecting the mental health and well-being of our children and the children and young people that we welcome to Wales, who are part of Wales. Can I pay tribute to Yuliia Bond, who has made an enormous contribution as a Ukrainian coming to Wales? We were able to meet with her, and I've certainly met with her on many occasions. I think this goes back to following up the question from Julie Morgan about Show Racism the Red Card and the fact that we are implementing the 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan'. I know that the education Secretary will be very worried to have this feedback, but this is about community cohesion. It's about travelling to school as well, and it's about the fact that we need to now recognise that this is a challenge that we all need to take responsibility for, but particularly our schools, local authorities, and all of us as elected Members, and I'm grateful that you've raised this. I can absolutely condemn the way in which this misinformation, disinformation and corrosive discourse now is affecting our young people.

Trefnydd, I want to add my voice to the concern and condemnation we've already heard regarding recent reports about the use of X social media platform AI tool Grok, and I ask Welsh Government for a statement and, perhaps, an update regarding the Government's approach when it comes to tackling the abuse of women and girls online and the use of certain social media platforms. I am going to just share a little bit about what has happened on Grok, and I issue a warning because some of it is deeply unpleasant. It began with what people allegedly called a 'put-her-in-a-bikini' trend, which began at the end of last year, and apparently really exploded at the beginning of this year. Within days, hundreds of thousands of requests were being made to the Grok chatbot, asking it to strip the clothes from photographs of women. The fake sexualised images were posted publicly on it, freely available for millions to see. That evolved into increasingly explicit demands for women to be dressed in transparent bikinis, then in bikinis made of dental floss, placed in sexualised positions and made to bend over so their genitals were visible, and it gets more extreme. Some users, mostly men, began to demand to see bruising on the bodies of the women and for blood to be added to the images. Requests to show women tied up and gagged were instantly granted.

I am sure all of us in this place condemn such use of social media. I know you have said Ofcom was investigating and the UK Government yesterday committed to expediting the implementation of legislation to tackle some of this. But the response of X was to change it so that anyone that wasn't a subscriber couldn't access it, so essentially making the abuse of women a premium service. So, Trefnydd, can I ask for an update on the Welsh Government's own continued use and approach of X, and a statement on how the long-lauded Welsh Government's violence against women strategy will incorporate online harms, because we need to call this what it is? It's technology-facilitated violence and abuse against women.

Thank you very much. Again, it's very important, although gruelling, absolutely horrific, to listen to that description of abuse as a result of the misuse and abuse of social media, so thank you, Hannah, for drawing this to our attention today and revealing this across the Chamber. I won't repeat the points that I made earlier on in response to Heledd Fychan, but I think we all today would acknowledge that the way that X, that social media platform, is still allowing users—and you referred to the fact that they are now saying 'subscribers'—to create that abhorrent and illegal content is utterly unacceptable. But it adds to the strength of our concerns that we raise with the UK Government, that we're raising with Ofcom, and which the Cabinet Secretary for Education raised this morning.

But, just to link it to our VAWDASV strategy, actually, it was at last year's White Ribbon event that it was revealed how much online abuse now is affecting women and girls. Women and girls face disproportionate risks online, including misogyny, co-ordinated harassment, image-based sexual abuse, as we've now heard so clearly today, and cyber stalking technology-facilitated abuse. This is clear. Online violence against women and girls isn't separate from other forms of abuse. It's part of a wider continuum and we must address it as that. So, just to reassure our colleagues that, with the VAWDASV blueprint, online harassment and digital harm is integrated into our broader approach to tackling gender-based violence and harassment through the blueprint. We are challenging harmful attitudes and behaviours to prevent violence, but we do now have the Online Safety Act 2023, and Ofcom has got that role as formal regulator. They're going to produce guidance shortly for providers on tackling harmful content and activity. And there is this new offence on sexually explicit deepfakes to address tech-related abuse and recognise the efforts made to address such abuse. We must make this public, we must make this very clearly expressed in this Chamber and outside this Chamber. But we do have to ensure that people are aware of this, because the Online Safety Act 2023 does recognise that the sharing of abusive images is a crime. So, I would like to bring an update on these discussions to the Chamber in due course.

Trefnydd, I'd like a statement from you, please, on what work the Welsh Government is doing to support white, working-class men and boys across Wales. Recently, a Plaid Cymru candidate took to X to call a panel I sat on 'pale, male and stale'. This derogatory and offensive language has no place in our society. We know that white men—and this is a fact—and boys face some of the biggest challenges in our society. They have the lowest educational outcomes, the lowest job and employment prospects and the highest suicide rate of any group of people, and the offensive language thrown at white men and boys is wrong and, I believe, has no place in this Chamber or wider. So, I hope, Trefnydd, that you will condemn the comments of that Plaid Cymru candidate and show that this Welsh Government supports our white men and boys across Wales.

Thank you, James Evans. I do recall the really important debate that Sam Rowlands promoted in the autumn, last term. It was a very important discussion about the role of men and young men in society and the community, and their role and contributions and opportunities. We, of course, condemn derogatory and offensive language of any kind.

I also am going to follow up on the issue of X and ask specifically questions both of us and also the Welsh Government. I've made the decision to come off X, and I would urge everybody here to come off X. I'd also like to ask you for a 'yes' or 'no' answer: will the Welsh Government be coming off X? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Jane. It is an important question. I can only say that this is something where the Welsh Government, of course, is communicating across a range of channels, and we do recognise and share the concerns raised about X, and many of us have come off X anyway. But, at the moment, there is a presence still on the platform, but it's under review. And it's important that you've raised this today, so that we can look at it again. There have been steps taken to reduce our activity on X during recent months, and you will probably have heard from the UK Government, the Secretary of State, Liz Kendall, about this. It's still being used by millions of people in the UK. We do need to look at this, so I'm glad that you've raised it today. We also do, I think, need to await the outcome of the Ofcom investigation in relation to X, which I'm sure will have a bearing on this.

I call for an urgent statement at this eleventh hour before the final Welsh Government budget on support for third sector providers of key health and care services. As I've repeatedly warned, the Welsh Government's failure to support the increased costs imposed on them will cause further contraction in these services and far higher costs for under-pressure statutory NHS and care providers in consequence. Last week, a support worker for Mencap Cymru in north Wales wrote to north Wales Members, stating:

'We need to see a firm commitment made clear before the final budget in January to show that the work that we do as support workers is valued and we're paid fairly for the incredible jobs we do.'

Similarly, hospices in Wales already facing cuts have stated that £3 million does not constitute the sustainable funding settlement promised by the Welsh Government. Last week, the UK Minister for Care announced the addition of a further £25 million to the £100 million capital funding available for adults' and children's hospices in Wales, on top of revenue funding, including an additional £80 million for children's hospices over three years, dwarfing the Welsh Government's hospice funding here in Wales, where healthcare is being shifted out of the community into hospitals in direct contradiction of stated Welsh Government policy. I therefore call for a very urgent Welsh Government statement before it's too late, accordingly.

Well, thank you for raising that issue, and of course this is something that is our responsibility, and a responsibility that has been taken very seriously. In fact, the First Minister responded to it through questions earlier on today, in terms of our commitment to those services that you have identified in terms of direct funding to organisations, but also to the services that are provided by local authorities and the wider third sector.

Can I ask for two statements, please, Trefnydd? Even though I raised this issue last year, I would like to once again strongly urge you, Minister, to ensure that we get Welsh Government clarification regarding conversations that you’ve had with the UK Government in regards to the Pathways puberty blocker trial, which would enable experimenting on children as young as eight. Serious safety concerns have been raised following the Cass review about potentially damaging and life-changing decisions for all the children involved, some, as I said, as young as eight, who are clearly not ready at that stage to make a decision of this kind. With now over 120,000 people signing a petition to force the UK Government to debate this, to try and stop this abhorrent trial from happening, it is clear that many people are against this. So, why is the Welsh Government so reluctant to speak on this and to act to safeguard Welsh children in this regard? I’d like an update, please.

Also, the UK Government has now talked about ending the use of migrant hotels. I would like a statement on what discussions the Welsh Government is having with the UK Government about where these people would be placed in Wales instead. It’s not exactly as though we’ve got a surplus of housing, is it, because of the abject failure of Labour and Plaid to build those houses in Wales. Already we are seeing houses given to illegal immigrants as a priority over our veterans and our Welsh families, so what are we going to do about this? Our communities deserve to know.

Can I just say, on the first question that you raised, we’re committed to improving the gender identity development pathways and support available for young people in Wales. I’m particularly committed to ensuring that our young people themselves will be engaged when we develop services for Wales. Also, as part of our LGBTQ+ action plan, we are committed to reviewing provision of healthcare, particularly for trans youth in Wales. We continue to develop a pathway for young people to access services.

It's important, and I’ve responded and it has been made very clear, that referrals from the waiting list are now being seen by three regional providers in England, which includes a service in Bristol. There is now work being done with the joint commissioning committee. I’m concerned about looking at what we are doing for our young people in Wales. That is why I’m answering your question in this way. It is important that we try and have commitment to services closer to home.

I utterly and totally reject your second question. People who come here for sanctuary are supported, in line with the numbers who come here as a result of those who the UK Government deem appropriate in terms of dispersal. It is very important that we recognise that, when people do come to Wales, if they are seeking sanctuary and then they have been awarded the right to remain, they integrate into our community. Those kinds of questions draw attention to the fact that young people in Wales are experiencing the kind of disrespect and racism, I would say, that has been highlighted this afternoon.

Today I would like to share the voices of some very thoughtful young people from my constituency, the pupils of Ysgol Bodfari, who took the time to write to me before the Christmas recess about protecting our seas, beaches and wildlife. Their letters were heartfelt and incredibly well informed, speaking about plastic pollution on our beaches, discarded fishing nets and the harm caused by the wrong items being flushed down toilets and which end up in the sea. They drew attention to the 8 million tonnes of plastic going into the seas and oceans each year and the harm that this causes to marine life. The pupils showed a real sense of responsibility, understanding that caring for the environment is something that is beneficial to us. The Welsh Conservatives support efforts to conserve our environment in ways that are manageable and sensible. The pupils also highlighted the role that we can all play through small actions like picking up litter or thinking carefully about where we throw each of our items away that can make the real difference.

I'd like to ask on behalf of the pupils of Ysgol Bodfari if the Welsh Government would provide a statement outlining what action is currently being taken to reduce plastic pollution, protect our marine life and keep our beaches and oceans clean, and how the Welsh Government is helping to educate the public on how they can be more mindful to avoid contributing towards plastic waste finding its way into our waterways in Wales.

Thank you very much, Gareth Davies. I think we would all want to congratulate the young people who you engaged with and recognise their awareness, their sense of responsibility, and the fact that this is about marine conservation and preservation, and also recognising the scourge of plastic pollution. Many of us I think have been involved in schemes and initiatives to remove plastic from particularly our coastal areas and our rivers, but it's the young people today we must congratulate. You can send my thanks back to them, and recognition from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, who I know will be very interested to hear this news of those young people's contributions.

Business Minister, can I please request a statement from the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs about the ongoing issues at Ty Llwyd quarry in Ynysddu? Serious concerns remain about an apparent illegal discharge at the woodlands immediately below the Ty Llwyd quarry site. Local councillors Jan Jones and Janine Reed recently recorded a video showing leachate flowing under the green metal boundary fence and directly into the woodland. The source appears to be an overflow from the aeration chamber located just below the quarry. This material was visibly entering the unprotected area of the community woodland, which is entirely unacceptable in itself.

Natural Resources Wales has been formally notified of the incident. However, despite the clarity of the evidence and the obvious environmental risks, there is a growing concern locally that the response has lacked urgency and a thorough investigation. The community woodland is indeed a valued local amenity used by residents, families and children. Any uncontrolled discharge of leachate into such areas raises serious questions about environmental protection, regulatory oversight and public confidence in enforcement.

Will the Cabinet Secretary please investigate whether this incident constitutes a breach of permit conditions, what enforcement action is being taken, and what measures will be put into place to prevent any recurrence, before bringing a Government statement forward? Thank you so much.

Thank you very much, Natasha Asghar. I am sure that you have raised this with NRW, and I would also suggest that you write to the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs about this. I am sure that already NRW are looking into it, and also looking into it with the local authority as well. Thank you for raising it today and drawing attention to it.

Thank you, Trefnydd.

Item 3 is next, the motion to suspend Standing Orders to allow items 4 and 5 to be considered. The Counsel General to move the motion formally.

Formally.

The motion is to suspend Standing Orders. Does any Member object? No. Standing Orders are therefore suspended, which allows us to move on to items 4 and 5.

Unless a Member objects, the proposal is that both items should be grouped for discussion but with votes taken separately.

The motion under the Standing Order is that the Bill to be called the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales (Membership) Bill be treated as a Government emergency Bill. And there's a motion to agree the timetable for the Bill to be known as the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales (Membership) Bill. Having said all of that, I invite the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery to present the motions. Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thank you very much. Today, Members of the Senedd are being asked to consider and vote on two motions. The first is whether the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales (Membership) Bill should be introduced as an emergency Bill, and the second is to agree the draft timetable we have proposed for its passage through the Senedd, should the first motion be agreed.

It's very rare that we as a legislature consider introducing Bills using the emergency procedure. It has not happened this Senedd term. I want to reassure the Senedd I have very carefully considered whether this Bill should be introduced as an emergency Bill. I make this proposal because there is a real risk that without passing this Bill, the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales will no longer be able to fulfil its statutory responsibilities.

We are proposing to move this short Bill through the Senedd as quickly as possible to minimise the impact on the tribunal's important work and the very vulnerable people it seeks to protect, because this is not just a matter of statutory functions and deadlines; at the heart of the tribunal's work are some of the most vulnerable people in our society. The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales has hugely important responsibilities. It seeks to safeguard the rights of people who have had their liberty restricted under the Mental Health Act 1983. It reviews the cases of people who are detained in a hospital or living in the community subject to a conditional discharge, community treatment or guardianship order. It does all these things at great pace. If you are detained on mental health grounds, which could hardly have a greater impact on your life, this tribunal will review whether that decision was appropriate. And because of the importance of that review, it is mandated this takes place within seven days of the date of detention.

The tribunal's ability to deliver on those responsibilities is now at serious risk. The reason for this is because of the identification of a technical issue in relation to the definition of 'registered medical practitioner' in the Mental Health Act 1983. It has come to light that medical members of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales must hold both General Medical Council registration and also a current licence to practice. All medical members are GMC registered, but there are just 19 who have both GMC registration and a licence to practice who are available to sit at this time. The president of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales has stopped non-licensed members from sitting on cases until this issue can be resolved. While the 19 members have been asked to make themselves available as much as possible, the clear advice of the judiciary is that there not enough medical members to cover the volume of cases listed in the coming weeks. Members without current practicing licences, who are often retired from practice, have sat on a disproportionately high number of the tribunal's cases.

Despite its reduced capacity, the tribunal has continued to meet its statutory duties so far. They've done so thanks to significant additional workload on tribunal staff and because the cohort of medical members who do have a licence to practise have been willing so far to sit on additional hearings over and above their availability. In some cases, they have only been able to do this by postponing clinical duties, which is of course unsustainable and counterproductive in the longer term. I am very grateful to the staff of the Welsh Tribunals unit for their effort. I pay tribute to the medical members who have increased their tribunal work to get the tribunal through this period. I recognise that doing so has taken them away from other duties, and I'm very grateful. We have brought this Bill forward at the fastest possible pace to ensure this period lasts only as long as it absolutely must.

I'd like to thank the Counsel General for her time yesterday and for the time of officials. The Welsh Conservatives will be supporting this emergency legislation on its two-day journey through the Senedd. I do have some broader policy questions, but they're obviously not for you, Counsel General; they'll be for the Minister for Mental Health. As I said, we support this Bill in principle as it goes forward, and we look forward to the debate as it progresses.

We will also be supporting this emergency Bill and the motions to facilitate it this afternoon. We do have some issues that we'd like to raise later, if the Senedd is minded to support these motions, in the fundamental principles debate. I'd just like to confine my comments now to some questions.

I'm grateful to the Counsel General for meeting with us yesterday morning. Having had some further time to reflect, I was wondering whether you could say a little bit about what, if any, additional information will be provided to us in the form of, I suppose, an explanatory memorandum, anything in the way of human rights or justice impact assessment or something along those lines, and any advice that she's able to share in terms of European convention on human rights compatibility and these matters, seeing as we are discussing, obviously, issues that are relevant to article 5 in terms of liberty.

I was wondering as well, given the compressed timetable, whether the Counsel General is able to commit to, so far as it's possible, and I realise that we are within those confines, answering questions that will be raised during the various stages; principally, I'm thinking tonight, because, obviously, by tomorrow we'll have run out of time. So, if there are questions, and, certainly, I'll have some questions that I’ll want to raise, to the extent that it's possible, will the Government provide those answers before tomorrow's stages so that we can deliberate in that context?

There are just a couple of them that I'll share now, if you like, because they are more technical. One relates to the issue of live cases in two regards. First of all, are you able to confirm, if not now, then during the later stages, whether the Welsh Government, Welsh Tribunals or the tribunal itself has received any pre-action correspondence or issued previous claims relating to the central question here of the licence-to-practise defect? Are there ones that are likely to start within this period now, up to Royal Assent, or have there, indeed, been previous actions brought on this very point at the heart of the Bill?

The other question is more in relation to the tribunal case load, and, again, I appreciate that this is more a matter for the policy Minister, but if the Counsel General is able to raise this with colleagues, can you give a greater sense of the current case load over the next four to six weeks, which, I suppose, is the pertinent period that we're talking about? What does that mean in terms of the potential risks, and what contingency plans are being put in place in regard to that current case load in this interim period, if I can describe it in that way? What guidance has been issued to the tribunal itself, for example, and to health boards, where that's relevant, to ensure that patients' article 5 rights that I referred to, to the maximum extent that it is possible, are protected during this period of potential delay?

Of course, I do agree with this, and I will be voting in favour. But, Counsel General, I am questioning how we've arrived at this situation here today, where Commission staff had to work over Christmas. It's not fair, because in 2008, we saw the introduction of the Qualifications for Appointment of Members to the First-tier Tribunal and Upper Tribunal Order 2008. This dealt with this problem in England back in 2008. How have we reached this situation in Wales in January 2026? How is it that the Welsh Government, it appears, is around 18 years behind the UK Government on this issue? Following on from Adam's question, how was this issue drawn to the attention of the Government? Was it the appointment of the new president of the tribunal and that the new president saw that? Well, it comes to something that it was just an individual who saw this. Where has the broader support been to ensure that that wasn't a problem for such a long time?

The current situation is having a very detrimental impact on access to justice. Could you tell us whether there are any cases that have been adjourned to another date because of this decision from the president? Why did she make this decision to do this now, before we pass the emergency Bill, given that it's been going on so long? I would liked to know what the great urgency is to do this now.

You've heard me say repeatedly here that a very strong argument for devolving justice here to this place is that we deal well with what is already devolved. You've heard me say repeatedly in this place that I do not believe that that is true for the tribunals, and that they are often forgotten in this place. I feel that this is another example of this happening. The truth is that, for decades, it seems that decisions have been made by the tribunal, which is the busiest tribunal by a long stretch when it comes to tribunals in Wales, where the medical member was sometimes not qualified to sit on the panel. And these are such important decisions relating to individuals and their families and the liberty of those individuals.

While I do understand that Part 1(3)(3) does protect previous decisions made by the tribunal—this part specifically refers to 'appointment' and 'membership'—could you outline any information that you've received that could assure you that this vocabulary is clear enough to avoid any situations in which cases arise where members who weren't qualified were sitting on those panels, and then those decisions being seen as unlawful?

Of course, the Counsel General will know that I'm very disappointed that we are not considering a much broader law for the tribunals at present at present. You know that this is one of a number of problems that the tribunals in Wales face. We had an excellent report from the Law Commission that was published back in December 2021, which made clear recommendations on what should be done. But time has passed us by in this place, in terms of this Senedd term, and has defeated us in that sense.

The Minister now to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are a number of issues there that we'll deal with, assuming this vote is passed, during the general principles point later. If this is passed, then the documents necessary for Members to be able to scrutinise properly will then be circulated, but we've got to get the procedure in the right order. Everyone will receive the small suite of documents if this passes, so you will have that.

I can answer a couple of those questions now, just for the sake of it. Some of them I will make sure that I can answer by the time we get to the next stage, assuming we do get to the next stage. The case load is about 2,000 a year. There are about 700 cases we've been able to list, because we have members who are fully qualified in the sense that they have practising certificates. The rest have not been able to be listed. There's a very strict statutory deadline, and that's why we are doing it by this emergency route, because we would very much like to list them. The tribunal, as I said in my opening remarks, is in danger of not meeting its statutory obligations if it cannot list them, and we just don't have enough people to be able to do it.

In answer to your question about why are we doing this now and so on, the incoming president clearly reviewed all of the legislation, as you'd expect her to do, and she has drawn it to our attention. I can't honestly tell you whether we were consulted on the legal change that came into effect in 2009. We have tried to find out, and I don't know. I wasn't here then, and we haven't been able to find out. So, we were unaware of the situation until it had come to our attention. This is slightly speculative by me. It appears that the word 'Wales' was left out of the original legislation by mistake, and nobody noticed that.

This Welsh Government, the Welsh Ministers, do not appoint these tribunal members. They are appointed by a judicial appointments committee recommendation to the Lord Chancellor, so we would have been utterly unaware of any issues around the lawfulness of it. We have explored whether this could be done, therefore, by the UK Government to correct that, and it takes many, many months. This is the fastest way to do it, and I think, in the interests of the individuals in question, it's the best way to do it, although I absolutely accept your point about the difficulty of emergency legislation and scrutiny.

In terms of the more general points, Rhys, you know I agree with you on all of that. A tribunals Bill is being prepared. The draft, I hope, will be ready before the end of the term, and we very much hope that any incoming Government will use it as one of their year 1 legislative provisions because it's not controversial and it will sort out a load of things. Many of the things you've mentioned would be things that that tribunals Bill would deal with.

Thank you, Minister. The proposal is to agree the motion under item 4, to allow the introduction of an emergency Bill. Does any Member object? No. So, that motion under item 4 is agreed.

The next proposal is under item 5 on the timetable for the Bill. Does any Member oppose this proposal? No. That is therefore also agreed.

And Stage 1 of that emergency Bill will be taken later this afternoon.

We can therefore move on to item 7, which is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on NHS winter pressures. The Cabinet Secretary, Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm pleased to provide an update to Members of the Senedd in this first session after the Christmas break about how our health and social care system has performed during what is historically one of the most challenging times of the year.

This time of year consistently brings a distinct combination of pressures caused by the weather and an increase in common winter viruses, which can make existing and underlying health conditions worse.

As I informed the Senedd last year, the NHS and social care began the process of planning for winter in March, learning from the experience of winter 2024-25. I was determined that health and social care organisations would work together to plan earlier and more rigorously than before to provide a more resilient system-wide service offer. This year's winter plans have focused on prevention and on building community capacity, on resilient, urgent and emergency care services and improving the flow of people through and out of hospital. These were catalysed in a national early discharge winter sprint fortnight in the two weeks leading up to Christmas Eve. This was a Wales-wide concerted effort from all health and social care partners to improve discharge arrangements, to support people to be discharged from hospital earlier in the day and over the weekend.

Over the course of the winter and the festive period, we've seen an increase in the number of people seeking care from GPs, the ambulance service and hospital emergency departments. This demand has been driven by a combination of winter illnesses, such as flu and respiratory syncytial virus and the cold weather, including last week's storm Goretti.

The surge in respiratory illnesses, including flu, placed a strain on both health and social care services in the run-up to Christmas. In the week to 21 December, there were 284 in-patient cases of confirmed influenza, 11 of whom were in critical care. We hope that we've seen the peak of the flu wave, but the latest data shows there were 261 people in hospital and eight in critical care in the week to 28 December.

Staff shortages, whether due to illness or well-deserved holidays, have compounded pressures on services. Considering all these challenges, Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to put on record my thanks to all NHS and social care staff for their work over this demanding period. Their dedication, professionalism and compassion has been extraordinary.

I'm encouraged to report, Dirprwy Lywydd, that despite the high level of demand, our health and social care services have broadly remained resilient. Essential services have been maintained. The Welsh ambulance service has reported increased levels of emergency calls, especially for breathing difficulties and falls, driven in part by the colder and icier conditions. Following changes to its clinical model, more people with breathing problems are being successfully and safely managed at home or in the community, unlocking more ambulance capacity to respond to other 999 calls. Operational information suggests that by reducing the time ambulances wait to hand over patients at emergency departments, these improvements have released more crews to respond more quickly to new calls.

There have been spikes in demand at hospital emergency departments and reports of an increase in more acutely unwell patients. This has meant, on occasion, that some people have spent longer than we would want in emergency departments. However, staff have worked tirelessly to triage and treat patients as quickly and safely as possible, prioritising those with the most urgent needs.

I'll begin, as always, by placing on the record my thanks to NHS and social care staff across Wales—doctors, nurses, paramedics and care workers and the support staff who have once again carried the NHS through one of the most pressurised months and periods of the year. But gratitude alone cannot compensate for a system that is repeatedly pushed beyond safe limits. The Cabinet Secretary describes services this winter as broadly resilient and tells us that essential services have been maintained, yet, for patients across Wales, the lived experience this winter has been one of overcrowded emergency departments, ambulances outside hospitals, and waiting lists that are continuing to grow. When resilience is claimed so confidently, is it reasonable to ask whether the description reflects the operational reality or simply the absence of a complete system failure?

According to the latest statistics from StatsWales, NHS performance reports for December 2025, over 28 per cent of patients who attended A&E waited more than four hours. And I was recently in Prince Charles, where someone was asked to wait up to eight hours, and someone had been there over 12 hours. So, I'm not quite sure where we're getting waiting list time data from.

Category A ambulance response times are nine minutes and 43 seconds, missing the Government's own eight-minute target. More than 750,000 people remain on an NHS waiting list, and bed occupancy has remained close to 95 per cent—well above the 85 per cent threshold identified by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine as the point at which safe and elective care begins to break down.

Cabinet Secretary, if these figures represent resilience, then what do you consider to be system failure, and how much further must performance deteriorate before that description changes? You tell us that winter planning began last March and that lessons were learned from the winter of 2024-25, yet the same pressures reappear with remarkable consistency: delayed discharges, escalation areas becoming routine, and staff stressed to breaking point. If planning is generally improved, why do front-line pressures still peak at unsafe levels every single January?

The statement places significant emphasis on short-term winter sprint measures, including a pre-Christmas discharge push, and a further sprint planned later this month. These initiatives may improve flow temporarily, but they also raise a deep concern: why has the NHS in Wales become so reliant on repeated emergency sprints just to cope with predictable winter demand? How do you, Cabinet Secretary, intend to move the system away from this start-stop model towards genuine year-round resilience, and do you think this model is stopping transformation of the service?

I agree the people of Wales are entitled to honesty. Can I take the opportunity of correcting some points the Member made in his questions? Whilst it is correct to say that demand is up to very high levels in certain parts of the system, it is not correct to say that there are more ambulances waiting outside hospitals this year than last year. In fact, there have been considerably fewer. That matters a lot, because people are spending less time in the back of an ambulance and are being admitted more quickly, and those ambulances are available to transport other people to hospital. That has not been without its challenges, but that is absolutely the state of affairs on the ground, and that is positive from patients' point of view. It's still far too high, but it's markedly less than it was last year, and I'm sure he would want to welcome that when he has an opportunity to put the record straight.

He also made the point that waiting lists are going up; waiting lists are in fact going down. We've published data that shows you they're going down. It's really important that, when we have these exchanges, they are premised on the facts and the data. I think that is important to put this issue, serious issue, in context.

He made a very important point about bed occupancy in hospitals. He is correct to say that the levels of occupancy are above where we want that to be in the system. He's also correct to say that obviously causes challenges in terms of flow through other parts of the hospital. I have been pleased to see, at parts of the festive period—not consistently, but—there has been evidence of a reduction in corridor care. It hasn't been maintained, but there have been times when that has been reducing. I think that is a positive sign for work that can be, as he says quite rightly, continuous throughout the year.

I don't think it's fair to say that the system is dependent on stop-start interventions. This is the first time we've had a second sprint. It's quite difficult to do a second sprint because of the resource allocation that goes with the first sprint, but the truth is it has meant there's more capacity in the system. It has taught all parts of the system that, by behaving in certain ways, we can get patients flowing through the hospital safely more quickly, there can be fewer people waiting in corridors, and we can discharge people more quickly before midday—all of the things that we want to see, all of the things important to make sure that the system comes back into balance.

Finally, he made two important points, one in relation to staffing. There has been a very creative approach to redeploying staff over the last few weeks in order to manage peaks of demand, but, on a more sustainable basis, also to deploy more senior clinical decision makers to emergency departments so that they can make decisions about discharge or admission in a more effective way, and I'm pleased to see that.

We are, of course, all aware of the specific and significant challenges facing the NHS during the winter months. I, like the Cabinet Secretary, want to start by paying tribute to those committed staff within our NHS across the country, who have been working so very hard during this time.

On a personal level, I was at the emergency department at the university hospital in Cardiff and then the Maelor hospital last week, as my wife broke her wrist. So, I was very grateful to the staff for the hard work that they did in helping her during that period.

Sadly, the workforce's dedication is frequently undermined by a system whose elements simply don't function together as effectively as they should. This is typified by the persistent issue of delayed hospital discharges, itself a reflection of Labour's long-term neglect of community care. Last year, the Cabinet Secretary announced his 50-day challenge to address this issue. However, while this did lead to some promising initial gains, sustained improvement has proved less apparent. In the 12 months since the start of the challenge in November 2024, there has been a net reduction of 18 in the total number of delayed pathways, a less than 2 per cent decrease from the original baseline, while such delays have again been on the rise in north Wales over recent months. Meanwhile, total days of delay have increased by over 7,500 since last July. So, why has the Government found it so difficult to embed these early gains on a more permanent footing? Does this speak to the need to better co-ordinate and disseminate best practice on a more systematic basis across health boards and local authorities?

This is the first winter during which the new ambulance performance framework has been in operation. While we do welcome the principle of shifting towards clinical outcomes, recent trends that show the return of spontaneous circulation—ROSC—rates at their lowest level since the introduction of the framework are concerning. Can I ask, therefore, what were your expectations of the new framework during the first six months of implementation? Are the ROSC levels where you expected them to be by now? You also committed to reducing the number of people who are taken to hospital without injury or with a partial injury by 10 per cent by the end of 2025. Can you confirm whether this was achieved?

Comprehensive vaccination coverage is, of course, the most effective preventative method of easing pressures on our health service, and emphasising this message is all the more important now when we consider the reckless anti-science discourse of far-right parties like Reform. This winter has also seen important changes to the delivery of the national immunisation programme, which included the central procurement of the inactivated influenza vaccines by NHS Wales Shared Services Partnership. Can I ask what positive difference has been seen as a result of these changes? And how confident are you in the robustness and legal rectitude of the relevant governance arrangements given the allegations raised by the former chief executive David Donegan?

Finally, managing winter pressures sustainably means ensuring patients are both aware of and able to access the level of care that is most suitable for their condition. Unfortunately, the shrinking capacity of both community and primary care has led to disproportionate demand on emergency care. Last year, there were almost 60,000 recorded attendances at EDs in which the patient was ultimately referred for treatment in primary or community settings. Meanwhile, 54 per cent of total nationwide attendances required no follow-up. This isn't to say they were all unnecessary, but we know that in many cases the relevant issues could have been resolved without recourse to emergency services. It reflects the reality that, for many people in Wales, A&E has become an extension of the GP surgery. Do you, therefore, have confidence that services such as NHS 111 are effective in directing patients to the most appropriate setting? And if so, why aren't we seeing the results on the ground? Furthermore, do you believe that expanding access to GP services, including extended surgery opening hours, should be a specific and key consideration of preparations for next winter?

I thank the Member for his questions. There is a range of important points that he makes in the contribution that he has made. I send my best wishes to his wife as well for a speedy recovery.

He is right to say that there needs to be a rebalancing in the approach and a focus on enhancing care that can be provided in a community setting, so that the public don't feel that they need to be transported or conveyed to A&E. The work that the Welsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust has been doing to make sure that people with breathlessness can be treated in community settings or in their own homes, I think, is making a contribution to that.

He made an important point about conveyance due to injury. I'll provide the data that he requested; I don't have it in front of me. But health boards have been implementing, in that context of a community service, a community-based falls response service. And that's allowed, I think so far, 77 care homes to receive equipment and almost 1,000 staff to receive training, which has meant that there's been a significantly lower level of conveyance to hospital compared to last year for patients with falls. There is more to do in relation to that, but clearly there are signs of positive development in that space, together with the establishment of a falls co-ordination desk, which again enables people to be managed more quickly and avoids unnecessary ambulance transport. So, I think that's part of the shift that I know he supports as well, to see those services provided outside hospitals, wherever that is possible.

I think he made an important point in relation to the pathways of care, delayed discharges from hospitals. There has been year-on-year improvement, but it hasn't been to the extent that I know that he and I would both want to see. I don't actually think it is about dissemination of best practice. I've spent much of the last year making sure that the system is disseminating as much best practice as possible, but there is evidence of variability in how it's being applied. For example, we've commissioned an audit of the adoption of the trusted assessor model, which enables a much more streamlined assessment of the needs of individual patients. That is still too inconsistently applied. In the last few weeks, we have set out additional expectations of health boards and local authorities in being able to implement that trusted assessor requirement. We'll continue to make sure that we set clear expectations of all partners in relation to implementing the 10 measures that we established, as he acknowledged, successfully, as part of the 50-year challenge last year.

In relation to the vaccine procurement, I think what we've seen this year is positive in terms of the increase in vaccine take-up. Just before Christmas, there were 70,000 more vaccinations that had been given in Wales, compared to the same time last year. So, that shows some increase, and vaccine uptake in NHS staff, which is absolutely critical, both in terms of staff attendance but also infection, was at least 4.5 per cent higher than at the end of last year's programme. There has been a concerted effort since the start of December to identify cohorts of people where, although there has been a higher take-up, it isn't as high as we want to be able to see. So, in particular, among older people and some in more deprived communities, there has been a particular focus on providing vaccinations in that context. Just to confirm, I am confident in the legality of the governance arrangements in relation to vaccine, as are the regulators, and that is also known to Velindre.

Nine other Members wish to speak on this item, so please stick to the minute available to you. John Griffiths.

Aneurin Bevan University Health Board's Grange Hospital, Cabinet Secretary, as you know, has been subject to considerable issues around its accident and emergency department and waiting times since that hospital opened. I'm very pleased that you've been able to visit a couple of times to see the winter pressures first-hand, and phase 1 of further investment to increase capacity within A&E took place in the middle of December. But obviously the pressures and the concerns that come to me from constituents very much continue, and I know that a critical incident was, in fact, declared just yesterday at hospitals across the health board's area, reflecting the winter pressures, I guess, that we're very familiar with. I just would like reassurance from you, Cabinet Secretary, that you will continue to work very closely with the health board around these pressures at A&E at the Grange, given that there will be further investment following on from that phase 1 development, to make sure that that investment really does deliver the intended benefits for patients.

Yes, certainly. I was able to visit between Christmas and the new year, and I was able to see at first-hand the result of the investment into the expanded emergency department waiting area, which was making a difference in terms of patients' experience, certainly of being in the hospital. And I was hearing some first-hand indications there that there was capacity to enable discharge, but that patients were too acutely unwell to allow that to happen at the scale at which, certainly at that point in time, the hospital was expecting to be able to do.

There has been significant investment. We will continue to support the health board, as the Member will be aware. I mentioned in my answer to James Evans the expansion of senior decision making in the ED in order to be able to make sure that patients are either admitted or discharged more quickly, and there's been an implementation of that approach in the Grange Hospital, and a therapist-led front-door frailty model as well, which I think will make a difference to some of the reasons why people are ultimately admitted. People who are admitted because of causes to do with frailty are often admitted and then other challenges develop, as he will know. So, having a more appropriate intervention at an earlier stage to support those patients is really important.

Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. I just really wanted to focus in on social care. I know that Mabon has done that as well. It's really critical, isn't it, that we get social care right in order to ensure that people don't go into hospital in the first place and then can leave hospital as well. I'm aware of the Powys model, which has benefited from the £30 million funding that was agreed between us. Some £1.3 million went into the pathways of care transformation grant, which is about accelerating hospital discharges, and I'm pleased to see this reflected in the statistics, that in November, 37 per cent of patients in Powys were still in hospital, which had dropped from 42 per cent in October. But the national average in Wales is 16 per cent, so you can see how wide the situation is in Powys. So, I would just like to know what you're planning to do in relation to our rural areas, to support them in relation to the pathways, and to allow those patients to leave hospital, because we know that actually staying in hospital is a harm in itself. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

It is, and I think it is very important to identify it in that way. People who are ready to be discharged and are well enough to go home should not be in hospital. That is not the best place for them, it’s not the safest place for them. So, I think it is important to see it in the way that the Member puts it. She’s right to say that the pathways of care transformation grant, which we were able to agree with her as part of the agreement last year, has made a difference, and it has enabled a step change in ways of working in Powys and in other parts of Wales as well. I think one of the key elements is strengthening the community offer, isn't it? So, enabling people to be discharged more safely and to have the support that they need, and I’m pleased as well to see the expansion, the significant expansion actually, in reablement support right across Wales, which is making a real difference in enabling people to be discharged safely more quickly.

I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for outlining the pressures facing our national health service at this time of year. He will be aware, and we’ve spoken over recess, about some of the pressures facing people in Blaenau Gwent, and he’s aware of my concerns about ambulance response times in the borough. He’s aware that there have been some instances of some very vulnerable people who’ve been waiting simply too long to receive the care that they need at that time, and I’d be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could outline how the Welsh Government will be providing additional support to the ambulance service to ensure that vulnerable people can rest easily knowing that help will be provided when they need that help, particularly at this time of year when our services are under such enormous pressure.

The Member makes an important point about ambulance response times. There has been a difference in the performance of the service depending on the level of acuity of the patient. At the most critical end, median response times have been positive, and within the range that we expect. At that end of the acuity range, if I can use that language, the system has performed well. I think there have been examples, as he has raised with me, about people waiting too long whose vulnerability may not be the same at the point where they call the ambulance, but clearly by waiting for an ambulance too long that can get considerably worse. There have been, certainly last year, colleagues will remember, particular pressures at the Grange, with ambulances waiting outside for very, very long periods of time. The most recent information I’ve seen is encouraging; not anything we’d be content with, but encouraging. There were 37 per cent fewer lost hours this year than last year in terms of ambulances outside the Grange, which I think shows a level of progress, but we do need to see a focus at the hospital level on improving handover, making sure that the ambulance service is able then to be released to pick up patients in the community. The health board is developing an improved Gwent telehealth service and response, which will support a better response for people who have fallen in the community, who may not need to be taken into hospital, but may not be aware of that themselves.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the winter pressure statement this afternoon, having experienced some of that pressure first-hand after rupturing my patellar tendon just before Christmas. I spent a little bit longer in the Grange than you did, Cabinet Secretary; I spent 36 hours in a chair at the Grange before a bed became available. I was then sent home overnight a day later, and had surgery the following day at another hospital.

It was clear throughout that staff were doing everything possible in extremely difficult circumstances caused by systematic capacity failures. They did the NHS proud, but both staff and patients are being let down. I'd like to thank all those members of staff that helped me out. They're working really, really well.

I did note what you said about the Wales-wide concerted effort to improve discharge arrangements, but we must guard against unsafe discharges driven by a scramble to create that capacity. I'm supporting a constituent discharged back to a care home with no notice, no handover, no paperwork, no belongings and a cannula still in situ. I'm sure you'll agree that's not acceptable. Can you clarify what action the Welsh Government is taking to stop these situations from happening and to put safeguards in place for further sprints? Diolch.

I wish the Member well in his recovery. I agree with him that the staff at the Grange, and the other hospitals that he will have had the benefit of care from, have been playing a remarkable role in recent weeks and months.

We want to make sure that people are safely discharged home as soon as they can be. It's absolutely unacceptable if someone is discharged home in the way the Member described. There are clear protocols in place that should prevent that. The health board will want to know about that example, I'm sure, in order to be able to address that specifically.

I don't want to diminish that point at all in saying I think it's also really important that we, in the way that Jane Dodds was pointing out, also regard someone waiting too long in hospital as being unsafe as well. We know that causes deterioration. Wales is actually leading the way in the UK on a new tool to measure the deterioration of patients whilst they're in hospital, and so I think that will help us really bring a laser-like focus to how we can support more rapid discharge.

I do want to say that I think Aneurin Bevan health board in particular are working on the optimal hospital flow framework across all of their sites. We do want to see that embedded fully. We have to see it implemented completely so that we can get patients moving safely through the hospital and home.

Does the Cabinet Secretary think that it's important to remember that while the winter pressures are undoubtedly putting a great deal of pressure on the NHS in Wales, there's also essential fundamental work that is still carrying on? I think he said in his statement that essential services have been maintained. I'd like to highlight an exceptional example of NHS care delivered here in Wales amidst the winter pressures. My constituent has asked me to raise this publicly so that you hear it and other MSs hear it.

My constituent Jane Williams has written me a letter describing the excellent care she received at the neurology department at the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff. She was diagnosed with a rare tumour in her thoracic spine and had to experience long, complex and high-risk surgery. She praises the surgeon and his team for a life-changing outcome. Her post-operative care on the neurology unit was, in her words, 'world class'. She speaks of a culture of compassion, professionalism and teamwork that extended from senior clinicians to every member of staff involved in her recovery. She describes seamless, proactive care delivered with calmness, respect and humanity. She has asked me to bring that up in this debate. We are aware of the great pressures on the health service, but this is happening at the same time.

I thank Julie Morgan for that. I think it is important. Necessarily in these discussions, we focus on the challenges in the NHS, and that's very appropriate, but it is true to say that most people's experience of the NHS most days is positive. The overwhelming commitment that people show in the NHS to delivering that care is appreciated by people right across Wales. I'm very pleased to hear of her constituent's experience.

Cabinet Secretary, can you confirm that the Welsh Government collects data on corridor care within Welsh hospitals, and if the Welsh Government does collect that data, how many today are being cared for in a corridor across hospitals in Wales?

Secondly, I understand that many hospitals are affected by a norovirus outbreak that has resulted in ward closures and the loss of hospital beds. Are you able to update us on how many hospital beds are currently unavailable to the Welsh NHS, to relieve some of the winter pressures you've touched on, because of the norovirus outbreak that hospitals are enduring at the moment?

On the latter, I don't have the data in front of me, but I'll certainly write to the Member with that figure for the beds today.

On the first point, he'll be aware that in previous discussions in the Chamber I've said that we will be using the winter sprint to be able to develop a way of recording corridor care, as we describe it, so that it then could be published. We have been trialling approaches, which is what's enabled me to say that I've been able to see a reducing trend in parts of the last few weeks. Having got that for the first sprint, we'll be testing that in the second sprint, and then we'll be in a position to make routine publication of that. But I'm happy to share with him the information that I have available to me.

I'd certainly be grateful for that information, because you mentioned, in your statement and in your responses, things broadly remained resilient. But where that wasn't the case, I think it's really important that we understand how those lessons are being learnt for this next winter. I had to go into A&E with a family member and, I have to say, I was horrified by the conditions that I saw there. You talk about corridor care—there were people on the floor for hours, denied water, no blankets, no pillows, actually deteriorating, and it was heartbreaking to see the impact, not only on the patients, but on staff and their morale. To see that first-hand is quite something, and you do wonder, when people don't have a family member or someone to support them, how they get through that, without someone advocating for them to try and get a bed. People were waiting well over 30 hours for a bed, having being admitted by ambulance, and I just want that assurance of how do we ensure those lessons are learnt so that things are progressing, for the sake of staff as well as patients.

I can hear the distress in her voice, and I share it. I've seen that first-hand myself, and I agree with her, it is unacceptable. None of us want to see a friend, a family member, or a neighbour treated in an inappropriate setting. So, it's our approach as a Government, it's our expectation as a Government, that that is exceptional. But she is right to say that's happening more than any of us would want to see.

I think the crucial aspect of focusing on early discharge and on improving the application of the flow framework is that we have seen it reduce examples of corridor care. One of the things that we've been focusing the service on during the sprint periods, but since then as well, is increasing the number of patients that are safely discharged before midday. We know that creates much more capacity in the system than discharging later in the day. It's about how you operate ward rounds and how you allocate clinical resource in order to be able to make that a more routine part of the discharge process.

We have seen improvements. They've been variable, but there have been improvements in that level of discharge. That will be fundamental to how we can tackle corridor care. And as I say, we're working on how we can get that data into a position where it's shareable in a way that we can then all scrutinise that together. I think that's critical in having an eye over the system overall.

Of course, we're all grateful for the work that people are doing at the front line, and also the admin staff behind them, who are enabling people to leave hospital in a timely fashion. I also want to give a shout-out for the night shelter service that's operating in Cardiff, operated by the churches, which has prevented people being taken into hospital who are on the verge of death because of the cold weather we had at this time. This is a service that's going to be running until the end of March, so anybody who wants to get involved should do so, because it's a critical service for those who are homeless.

I want to understand why we have this winter sprint fortnight, rather than holistic appropriate discharge every week. I wonder if you can just say a little bit more about that.

Yes, certainly. The winter sprint fortnight was implemented this year as a means of focusing the entire system on a small number of metrics that we know can make the biggest difference to improving capacity in hospitals and the flow of patients. It has had that effect. It created more capacity going into the winter. We heard in the statement about the number of people transported out of hospitals in the last week of that sprint, for example.

One of the challenges in implementing that protocol on a continuous basis is that it involves quite significant allocation of staff resourcing from elsewhere. So, it's difficult to sustain that particular way of working, and it's quite unusual to do a second sprint, but we’ve seen the benefits so clearly in the first that I wanted to make sure we were building in that second opportunity. However, it is also true to say that many of the approaches that we've seen work during those two weeks—we are expecting and will continue to expect those to be applied on a continuous basis. That metric of the number discharged before midday, for example, is one of the key indicators of how much capacity there is being created in hospitals, and I'd expect to see that continuing to improve.

And finally, Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, on 5 January, Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board declared the emergency unit as 'extremely busy'—hardly surprising. But there, NHS staff don't only have to cope with busy times and more patients, but working with a deteriorating hospital infrastructure, including sewage leaks, water damage, and poor cleanliness. Has the UHW 2 project been cancelled, and if so, how will you address the formal concerns of 300 senior medics about the health board's ability to deliver safe and modern healthcare services?

And finally, I'm aware that at a Cardiff and Vale board meeting in November they heard how the Welsh Government had, by that point, sent them seven letters with regard to winter planning. The board heard how some actions remain unachievable due to short notice, complexity, and significant investment required. What lessons can be learnt from that feedback for next winter? Diolch.

Cardiff and Vale has been involved in the planning with every other health board since March of last year, so it's a collaborative process and it's been ongoing for a long time and earlier than in other years in order to be able to create more capacity. There will be things that emerge during the course of the months that do have a fast turnaround. I'm afraid that's sometimes how the system has to work. Health boards have significant capacity, which, at this time of year, does need to be deployed to the most urgent priorities.

On the point that he makes about the letter, he'll know that I raised that with the board in the public accountability meeting very recently, and I know the health board has responded to the letter with some detailed commitments and offers to continue discussing some of the particular concerns.

On the issue of the estate, he'll know that we are funding a survey for future investment purposes. There has been some intervention, some funding available, but the Welsh Government is supporting the health board to get an overall estate assessment for future purposes.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Item 8 this afternoon is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning: progress and future delivery of the Welsh economy. I call on the Cabinet Secretary—Rebecca Evans.

Diolch. Wales is emerging from an unprecedented period of challenges, from Brexit and the aftermath of COVID to the chaos and the austerity of 14 years of a Conversative Government. But even in the face of these pressures, this Welsh Labour Government has remained steadfast in our economic mission: driving growth, resilience, and fairness. Today, I will set out how this Government has shown clear and unwavering direction, how we have delivered in difficult circumstances, and how we are positioning Wales for long-term success.

The First Minister has been clear: creating good jobs and opportunities for people in every part of Wales is our top priority. Everything we do in economic policy is driven by that ambition: jobs with fair work at their core—secure, and future ready. We have committed to working hand-in-hand with businesses, unions, across Government portfolios, and in close partnership with the UK Government. Wales is fully connected to major UK-wide initiatives. From pioneering AI growth zones to developing a defence cluster, these collaborations are driving innovation, creating jobs, and positioning Wales as a dynamic, forward-looking economy that competes on a global stage.

I want to highlight the progress that we're making across the four national priority areas set out in our economic mission. First, a just transition and green prosperity. We are accelerating decarbonisation across industries, embedding fair work, and helping businesses cut energy costs permanently. Through the Welsh Government energy service, £270 million has been invested since 2018, installing nearly 50 MW of renewables and avoiding over 1.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions, reducing bills for schools and hospitals whilst creating skilled local jobs. In 2024-25 alone, the energy service delivered a record £107.7 million in support for 233 projects, from heat pumps, to solar, to zero-emission fleets.

Our optimised retrofit programme is transforming social housing with a whole-home, fabric-first approach, improving affordable warmth and building the workforce and the supply chains needed for net zero. We are also targeting transport emissions through practical measures, with pathways for electrification, low-carbon fuels, and hydrogen projected to save 8.4 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent by 2050.

Offshore wind is moving from planning to delivery, with over 15 GW in the pipeline and a £4.8 billion opportunity for Welsh businesses. This is supported by the UK Government investment in Port Talbot to anchor supply chains, regenerate and create jobs for coastal economies. And finally, our beyond recycling strategy is embedding circular economy principles, turning waste into wealth and reinforcing Wales's global leadership in recycling.

Our second national priority area is a platform for young people, fair work, skills and success. We've delivered on our commitment to create employment, self-employment and training opportunities for young people in Wales, ensuring that they have clear pathways to securing meaningful futures. At the heart of this is our young person's guarantee. Since its launch at the end of 2021, the guarantee has supported 64,000 young people, 10,000 of whom have already moved into employment. Our Communities for Work Plus programme is piloting innovative approaches in Neath Port Talbot, Denbighshire and Blaenau Gwent, to support people who face additional barriers. Together, these programmes are ensuring that no-one is left behind.

We also know that skills excellence is a cornerstone of success. We're investing £144 million in apprenticeships, from foundation to degree level, towards our target of 100,000 new apprenticeship opportunities, so employers in priority sectors can recruit the talent that they need as well as supporting 5,000 young people via Skills Competition Wales.

Our third national priority is stronger partnerships for stronger regions and the everyday economy. We're strengthening regional leadership and delivery. Corporate joint committees are working with the Welsh Government and the UK Government to co-design interventions that reflect local strengths and ensure accountability. These include two investment zones, in Cardiff and Newport and Wrexham and Flintshire, each backed by £160 million over 10 years, prioritising advanced manufacturing, semiconductors, clean energy and innovation. We're leveraging major place-based opportunities through the Celtic and Anglesey free ports, and these are now live, with tax sites designed and seed capital on course to be released. They're focused on floating offshore wind, hydrogen, carbon capture and advanced manufacturing, delivering high-quality, union-recognised jobs consistent with our fair work policy.

Our four regional economic partnerships continue to align investment to sector priorities like compound semiconductors, life sciences, digital and clean energy, with city and growth deals accelerating cluster development and infrastructure. And the local growth fund in Wales of £547 million over the next three years will further drive economic priorities. Crucially, we're valuing the everyday economy, social care, childcare, retail and hospitality. Our approach embeds fair work and social partnership, improves pay and standards, and treats these foundational sectors as engines of local prosperity.

Our final national priority is investing for growth, innovation, research and development and entrepreneurship. Our mission-led innovation strategy aligns research and commercialisation to national outcomes. Through the SmartSuite and partnerships with Innovate UK, we're backing R&D and industry research collaborations. Our collaborative innovation plan connects Welsh businesses to UK funding, shares data and strengthens the pipeline from university research into high-growth companies. To drive entrepreneurship and scale, Business Wales has supported almost 34,800 businesses and entrepreneurs since the start of this Senedd term, helping create 4,700 new businesses and sustain over 21,600 jobs. Our export action plan delivers tailored programmes to build export capacity and access overseas markets, generating over £400 million in new export sales. The Development Bank of Wales provides patient capital to boost productivity and innovation, investing £1 billion since 2017, supporting over 4,600 businesses. We're also investing in strategic employment sites through our property delivery plan, delivering over 1 million square feet of new or refurbished floor space and 850 acres of land, unlocking private investment and creating thousands of jobs across Wales. Our mission is clear: to futureproof Wales's economy and position our nation for sustainable growth. By investing in skills, innovation and green prosperity, and by working in strong partnership with Governments and regions, we're building an economy that's fair, resilient and globally competitive.

Well, the Cabinet Secretary presents a narrative of economic resilience and momentum here in Wales. However, the narrative is not supported by the reality facing Welsh workers, Welsh businesses or communities across our nation. There was no mention of some of Wales's key economic industries such as oil and gas, agriculture and tourism. After years of claims about fairness, resilience and partnership, Wales is now performing worse than every other part of Great Britain on the fundamental economic indicators that matter most to working people.

The most recent labour market overview for Wales, published only last month, shows a continued and worrying decline in paid employment, with approximately 2,000 jobs being lost each month. The employment rate stands at just 70.8 per cent, almost 4 percentage points below the UK average. Unemployment in Wales has risen to 6.1 per cent, the highest rate anywhere in the UK, increasing by 1.4 percentage points in a single quarter alone.

Even more alarming is the level of economic inactivity. At 24.5 per cent, Wales has the highest inactivity rate in Great Britain, significantly above the UK average. And these figures aren't abstract. These figures represent real individuals excluded from the labour market, employers unable to recruit and communities falling further behind. At the same time, Welsh businesses, the engine of our economy, the wealth creators and the employers, are burdened with the highest business rates anywhere in Great Britain. Business confidence is at a record low and closures are rising. This, I'm afraid, is not the sign of a thriving or resilient economy.

This decline is taking place while the Welsh Labour Government continues to support decisions made in Westminster that actively undermine economic growth. The UK autumn budget, endorsed here by Welsh Labour, removed £26 billion from the economy through tax rises, including a substantial increase in national insurance contributions. That decision has driven up costs for Welsh businesses, increased the risk of job losses—and we've seen the statistics that back that up—and forced many firms into downsizing or closing altogether. It has compounded pressures on GP and dental practices that were already struggling to cope.

At a UK level, the outlook is deteriorating further. Gross domestic product growth is forecast to be lower in every year of the forecast period. Inflation is now higher than it was when Labour took office. The tax burden has reached a historic high of 38.3 per cent of GDP, and unemployment is projected to rise in the coming years. Borrowing is increasing, debt interest is rising and the size of the estate continues to expand. This is not a credible plan for economic growth. It is a recipe for stagnation.

Are you going to ask a question now?

Wales deserves an economy that works for everyone, not one—

You need to ask your question, Samuel. I haven't heard one in five minutes.

I'm sorry, Dirprwy Lywydd, but that statement didn't deserve any questions. It's abysmal, the Welsh economy, after 26 years.

Luke Fletcher. [Interruption.] There was no question. Do you want to answer anything?

I'd like to reply nonetheless, because there are several things, I think, in that statement that I think do deserve a response, not least my offer to the Member to have a session sitting down with the chief economist, the chief statistician and a representative of the Office for National Statistics, because I come to this Chamber week after week to hear data that is no longer considered formal national statistics being rehearsed by the Conservatives. So, I think that a session setting out the challenges with the data, and setting out the real basket of data that should be looked at in terms of the economy, I think might be helpful and useful to the Member in order to get that picture. [Interruption.] Because, actually, when we talk about GDP, as the Member has talked about—

Wait a minute, Cabinet Secretary. I would expect Members of the Government to allow the Cabinet Secretary to actually answer and respond, if she wishes to.

We had talk of GDP this afternoon. So, in historical terms, GDP per person between 2010 and mid-2024 saw the worst performance in GDP per person since records began in 1955 on the watch of the UK Government, which was the Tory Government at that time. And if we look at the overall performance of the economy here in Wales, actually I think there is an awful lot that we can be positive about. The latest data shows that earnings growth continues to outstrip inflation. That's helping many households right across Wales to cope with the cost-of-living pressures. Also, over the last 10 years, median gross weekly earnings for full-time adults in Wales grew by 47.2 per cent, exceeding the increase for the UK as a whole. And, of course, the annual growth estimate of labour productivity, as measured by gross value added per hour worked in Wales between 2022 and 2023, the latest I have figures for, shows a 14.1 per cent increase in productivity here in Wales, compared to 10.5 per cent elsewhere across the UK. So, I think that there is an awful lot to be said about the improvements that are being made within the economy here in Wales, making Wales a fairer and more equal economy.

Now I call Luke Fletcher.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I do think this statement was a missed opportunity. There is a lot of self-congratulation, which is disappointing. It's very rich in rhetoric. It's poor in reflection. I think what we needed today was a genuine assessment, warts and all, of where the economy is at. And, yes, talk about some of those positives, but also talk about what some of those negatives are. Let's take apprenticeships as an example. There's a lot to be proud of when it comes to apprenticeships here in Wales, but there are a lot of things that we need to improve on as well. So, will the Cabinet Secretary at least admit that there are some deep-rooted issues within the Welsh economy that need to be resolved, that not all is as rosy as she says?

When the Government declares that it does remain steadfast, it's earned trust and it's laid a robust foundation, it invites, actually, one very simple question, and that is: for who? It's not what I'm hearing when I'm out and about talking to businesses across Wales. The claim that Welsh Labour has earned trust on the economy doesn't seem, actually, to be backed up in practice. After a quarter of a century in charge of Wales's economic levers, the outcomes speak for themselves: one in three children in Wales growing up in poverty; the highest proportion of young people not in work, education or training of any UK nation or region; productivity, wealth and incomes remain low, while economic inactivity remains high. These are not the hallmarks of an economy that is thriving, resilient or fair.

Turning to the Cabinet Secretary's claim to be working hand in hand with the UK Government, unfortunately I think this jars badly with reality as well. The First Minister said recently that Keir Starmer is not on the ballot paper. Now, that's a line designed precisely to emphasise distance rather than closeness. 'Hand in hand' suggests partnership, but what we're seeing instead looks far more arm's length. Just look at the top-slicing of £86 million from the local growth fund to the Pride in Place fund, which the Welsh Government has no involvement with. This is using the post-Brexit settlement to claw back devolved powers. Now, Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government condemned this behaviour when it was carried out by the Conservative Government, and the Welsh Government itself launched a judicial review against the Tories for doing exactly this. So, where's that condemnation now? It's not only constitutionally wrong, it's a deeply inefficient and sub-optimal way of delivering economic development.

Now, it's also extraordinary, I think, that a statement about the Government's delivery of the Welsh economy makes absolutely no reference whatsoever to Tata Steel, one of the most catastrophic industrial episodes in modern Welsh history and in this Senedd term. What lessons has the Government learned? What does this say about industrial resilience, about ownership, about the state's role in protecting strategic capability? These are questions I feel that the Cabinet Secretary should be tackling head-on in a statement like this. Where's the reflection in the statement? It simply is not there—no reference to what Professor Calvin Jones describes as the heart of Wales's economic weakness: the endemic lack of Welsh ownership.

I would begin by acknowledging that, absolutely, there are deep-rooted issues facing the economy here in Wales, one of which is productivity, and it gives me the opportunity to clarify some of the statistics I used in response to the previous contribution, and it is around productivity. The annual growth estimate of labour productivity, as measured by gross value added per hour worked in Wales between 2022 and 2023 was higher for Wales than 11 of the 12 countries and English regions within the UK, and Wales's productivity grew faster than the UK since 2009, at 14.1 per cent for us and 10.5 per cent for the UK.

Both of those things, I think, are very impressive. They do show us leading the way, but, actually, we recognise, absolutely, that productivity is a real challenge for us here in Wales, and it is a challenge for a number of reasons, partly because of our geography, our lack of large conurbations and so on. We know that and we understand that, so that’s one of the reasons why we have identified productivity as being one of the key aims that we want to achieve now through the local growth fund. So, through the local growth fund, we've said that we really want to focus on productivity and also tackling economic inequalities in Wales, and having that kind of laser-like focus, I think, on those things through that local growth fund of £0.5 billion over the next three years is really, really important. So, our consultation has recently closed on that and that focus, I think, was really welcomed by many respondents in that. Actually, some respondents wanted us to focus even more closely on things, so we're working through those consultation responses at the moment, and we'll be publishing a report on those very shortly.

And the local growth fund, I think, is a really good example of the UK Government and Welsh Government working closely now, because, of course, the UK Government has passported that or has provided that funding now for the local growth fund to the Welsh Government. It will be for us to determine the allocation of that funding, and, as I say, we set out our proposals in the consultation and we will be making some decisions on that shortly. I'm having really good meetings with local government and the economy spokespeople very regularly on that, and I'm really grateful for their input as we seek to navigate our way through the local growth fund.

Other areas where the UK Government and Welsh Government have worked really closely together would include the AI growth zones, of course. We really made a strong case to have two here in Wales and the UK Government agreed to that. I think both of those now will help us really be able to magnetise growth in AI and the associated innovation in those particular parts of Wales. That's really to be welcomed. Again, free ports, the city and growth deals—really good examples of UK Government and Welsh Government working really closely together.

I was pleased to hear what you had to say, Cabinet Secretary, regarding Tata. I was at the Llanwern site just last week, actually, looking around the Zodiac plant, which is state of the art in terms of providing steel for the automotive industry. I was very struck by the commitment of the workforce, trade unions and management at Llanwern to the future of Llanwern, not just in terms of conserving what's there, but developing the steel activities. The workforce now, I think the average age is in their early 30s, so it's very different to what we, perhaps, have been accustomed to in the past, and, obviously, the workforce want to see a long-term future for the steel industry at Llanwern. Part of that, Cabinet Secretary, is looking to further investment. There is a memorandum of understanding between the trade unions and Tata, and that does seek further investment at the Llanwern site in processing lines to build on what's there and to help be part of that transition to green steel. So, I'm sure, Cabinet Secretary, you'll be working with Tata, with the trade unions, with the workforce, with UK Government, Newport City Council and other key partners to make sure that that investment happens in a timely fashion and really does deliver a strong future for Llanwern.

I absolutely want to see that strong future for Llanwern, and am really interested to hear about the relatively young age of people working there as well. I think that that is really exciting, and those young people should be able to work with confidence that they have a long-term and exciting career ahead of them in Tata in Llanwern. So, I think that that's really important, and we can help ensure that by having those really collaborative relationships with Tata, with the unions, with the local authority and with yourself, of course, as the local representative, to ensure that we are hearing directly from people working in Llanwern.

I think that the fact that the UK Government has recognised steel as being a foundational part of its industrial strategy is really important. It does demonstrate the national importance of steel to the United Kingdom, so I think that that's really positive. Of course, the steel strategy, which we've been working alongside the UK Government on, will be really important, ensuring that the funding that will come from the national wealth fund, for example, is enabled to be invested in the steel sector here in Wales. So, we want to work with Tata, with others, to ensure that projects come forward to make the most of that really important and exciting opportunity for investment.

Good afternoon, Cabinet Secretary. I just really wanted to pick up an issue that Luke mentioned, which is about how do we have an economic policy and an economic approach that benefits everybody here in Wales. We need to support those businesses that are socially responsible. We need to look at how we manage a just transition to net zero, and surely our focus should be on economic growth not as an end in itself, because it needs to lift people out of poverty and it needs to protect our planet.

In your statement, which I thank you for, there is nothing there that refers to the issue around poverty and child poverty, which Luke referred to. We know that one of the key issues there is about providing free and affordable childcare, which lifts people out of poverty, because we can get parents back to work and we can ensure that those children have the opportunities to do as well as they can at school and those families can get more income in. So, I'd just be really interested to hear where you see childcare and the issue around child poverty fitting into a model of economic prosperity here in Wales. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you for those questions. Whenever the First Minister talks about economic growth and jobs, she always talks about good jobs and growth with purpose. So, it is about socially responsible growth. It's about making sure that, when we grow the economy, we're doing it in a way that has people and the planet at its heart. That's very much our approach, which I hope is demonstrated through our economic mission, which sets out the importance of decarbonisation and the importance of opportunity for everyone.

Some of the work that we're doing with the UK Government again on those pilots, in terms of getting the people who are furthest from the labour market supported into work, I think is really, really important to make sure there's opportunity for everyone, alongside, of course, the work that we're doing on the young person's guarantee, again, really important to make sure that young people have the opportunity to go into employment. Actually, we have some really, really good examples of some innovative things that we're doing with young people, particularly to make sure that they don't find themselves at a young age leaving school or college and finding themselves out of work, because that's going to be very difficult then after a period of time to start a life of employment.

So, the Big Ideas Wales programme is really exciting; that's helping young people develop their big ideas as to what their careers might look like in future, but also helping with some of their most innovative ideas. Also, we're able to provide young people with grants of up to £2,000 if they're seeking to become self-employed, potentially to get some of the kit or the experience or training that they need as well if they've got a particular career in mind, which would require some additional help just to get that business for them off the ground.

Also, that critical point around childcare is absolutely central to ensuring that people are able to get into work. We know one of the most important things we can do in terms of raising children out of poverty is to make sure that they grow up in households where their parents have a good income and are employed, are able to inspire those young people then to employment in future as well. So, we recognise it for all kinds of reasons in terms of why it's so important. We've always been really proud of the work that we've been doing here in Wales to prioritise our childcare offer, but we definitely know there's more that we need to do in that particular space. But we don't see it in isolation; we see it very much as part of our strategy for the economy overall.

I very much agree with the Cabinet Secretary's analysis of the economic inheritance. The previous UK Conservative Government was one of the most economically incapable and incompetent that I can remember in my lifetime. Together with the disaster of Brexit, we've been bequeathed a very, very serious economic outlook.

And we've seen investment from the Welsh Government in the Heads of the Valleys in Blaenau Gwent. We've seen the investment of £2 billion, of course, in the new dual carriageway connecting Blaenau Gwent and the Heads of the Valleys region with important markets across the United Kingdom. But what we haven't seen from the Welsh Government has been a jobs plan to maximise the value of that investment. As you know, I'm not convinced that either the northern Valleys initiative or Tech Valleys have been delivered sufficiently well by Welsh Government. We haven't seen sufficient drive, we haven't seen sufficient ambition, and we haven't seen sufficient delivery from Welsh Government.

So, what I would like to ask you this afternoon is: will you work with me and other members in the Heads of the Valleys to deliver a jobs plan that will empower the communities in the Heads of the Valleys and ensure that we benefit from the investment that Welsh Government has made, and that we can create jobs and careers and a vibrant economic activity environment in the Heads of the Valleys to challenge that of other parts of Wales and the United Kingdom?

I'm really grateful for those points, and as the Member was speaking, I was hearing the Conservative spokesperson shouting, as they always do, about leaving Government with the highest growth in the G7. But actually the International Monetary Fund data shows that the UK had one of the weakest economic performances of any G7 country between 2019 and 2023, and those were the last four full calendar years that were presided over by the previous UK Government. I think that's much more representative of growth rather than a particular quarter as well, so I think that we can bear that in mind as well.

So, the important points that the Member was making were very much about the Welsh Government's investment in the Heads of the Valleys road. I think that that has been really important in opening up strategically that part of Wales for employment, and I do take the challenge that has been set down in terms of the work that's been going on. Clearly, there's been a lot happening, particularly looking at what more we can do in terms of property, because we know that we need those commercial-ready sites, property sites, for businesses to locate on in order to create those jobs in the area, and it's something that we are looking really closely at.

The Member will know that I've asked for some work to be done at his request, which looked at the northern Valleys initiative and Tech Valleys, and what we can do, working with the Cardiff capital region, to bring that work more closely together in a coherent way. But I'm very, very happy to have that further discussion about what more we can do to unlock jobs in the Heads of the Valleys area, both with Alun Davies and other interested Members.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

Items 9 and 10 are next. The general principles of the Senedd Cymru (Member Accountability and Elections) Bill and the financial resolution related to that Bill are items 9 and 10, and in accordance with Standing Order 12.24, unless a Member objects, the two motions under items 9 and 10, the general principles and the financial resolution, will be grouped for debate but with votes taken separately.

If there is no objection to that, I will invite the Counsel General now to move the motions. Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm very pleased to open this debate on the general principles of the Senedd Cymru (Member Accountability and Elections) Bill. I move the motion to agree the general principles of the Bill, but after careful consideration, I will not be moving the financial resolution today. The recommendations of both the Member Accountability Bill Committee and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee that I have accepted would result in significant changes to Part 2 of the Bill.

In particular, the provisions that currently set the parameters within which lay members of the standards committee must operate would be removed and left almost entirely to the discretion of a future Senedd through Standing Orders. Amendments on this basis create significant additional uncertainty about the estimated costs currently identified in the regulatory impact assessment. I believe that more work is needed to provide assurance in respect of the accuracy of those figures in advance of agreeing the financial resolution. It's my intention to table the financial resolution motion for debate at a later date, to allow Stage 2 proceedings to take place as currently scheduled on 12 February.

So, turning to the substance of the legislation, this Bill will strengthen our standards processes and enhance the accountability of Members to those we represent. As I said several times during the Stage 1 scrutiny process, while the Welsh Government has brought this Bill forward, it is, at its very heart, a Bill that has been delivered on behalf of the Senedd. The Bill reflects the significant cross-party work that has been undertaken through the Standards of Conduct Committee's two reports on individual Member accountability, published last year, and represents a further evolution in our parliamentary democracy.

I would like to place on record my thanks to the Member Accountability Bill Committee, the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the Finance Committee for their thoughtful consideration of the Bill and the recommendations set out in the reports. I am also grateful to stakeholders for their engagement with the scrutiny of the Bill.

The Government has faithfully sought to translate the recommendations of the Standards of Conduct Committee into legislative provisions. However, I have been and continue to be open to the views of committees and Members during Stage 1 scrutiny, and it is on that basis that I have responded to the committee reports. I am therefore pleased to confirm that I have been able to accept or accept in principle the majority of the committees' recommendations. Whilst I have noted certain recommendations, this is in order to give further consideration to them ahead of the amending stages. A number of the recommendations made by the LJC and Bill committees cover the same or similar issues. Therefore, in my remarks today, I will seek to draw those matters together rather than cover the reports separately.

So, Llywydd, turning to the specific recommendations, I will begin with those in relation to Part 1 of the Bill on recall. I've accepted the recommendation of both the Bill and LJC committees that a duty should be placed on the Standards of Conduct Committee to issue recall guidelines. However, I wanted to highlight a technicality, given that guidance can only be issued following a resolution of the Senedd. I will prepare an amendment to place a requirement on the committee to lay draft recall guidelines before the Senedd. Both the Bill and LJC committees also recommended reducing the threshold for the Senedd to approve the recall guidance from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority. Having discussed both options at length during scrutiny, I made it clear that I would be led by the committee's views and would therefore bring forward an amendment on this basis.

Recommendation 6 of the Member Accountability Bill Committee makes clear the importance of consultation with the Electoral Commission and electoral stakeholders on the format of the ballot paper for a recall poll. In accepting this recommendation, I note that section 11 of the Bill requires the Welsh Ministers to consult the Electoral Commission in advance of making the recall regulations, which will include a sample ballot paper for returning officers to use at a recall poll. We will also undertake wider public consultation on those regulations, and I will also consider how best user testing can be undertaken to ensure that the ballot paper is clear and understandable for voters.

Llywydd, I have accepted the recommendation of the Member Accountability Bill Committee to extend the role of the electoral management board to cover recall polls, noting the evidence provided by the EMB to the committee. I will work closely with the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government to prepare amendments on that basis.

Members will know that the Bill does not currently provide a Member with time to have an appeal heard in order to overturn a conviction prior to a recall poll being triggered. I've noted the conclusion of the Bill committee on the basis of the range of evidence they gathered, and highlight to Members that the committee appreciate the logic for aligning this provision with a mechanism for automatic disqualification of a Member. This was the rationale on which the Bill's provisions were drafted, striking a balance between maintaining fairness towards the Member, whilst ensuring that the recall system is workable and effective. On the basis of the Bill committee's conclusion, I have rejected recommendation 6 of the LJC committee, which recommended allowing for criminal appeals to be exhausted before triggering a recall poll.

There are also a small number of other recommendations with regard to recall that I have not been able to accept. I have noted the recommendations relating to section 4 of the Bill. I recognise that both the Bill and LJC committees have concluded that consistency between the consequences of criminal conviction in the courts of England and Wales and the courts of Scotland and Northern Ireland is of greater importance than creating notification requirements on courts where it was in the competence of the Senedd to do so. I remain of the view, however, that a notification system for the courts in England and Wales is appropriate in relation to recall trigger event A, but I will give further consideration to this ahead of Stage 2.

Recommendation 13 in the LJC committee report would place the duty on the Welsh Ministers to conduct a full public consultation on the regulations under section 11. Given that there is already a public law obligation on the Welsh Ministers to consult on such regulations, as evidenced by the public consultation on the conduct Order passed by the Senedd last summer, I do not believe it's necessary to create a statutory obligation on the same basis.

Both the Bill and LJC committees recommend that the Welsh Ministers be required to make regulations under section 11. I'm conscious that placing the Welsh Ministers under a duty to make the regulations may create a tension between the need for Ministers to comply with the duty and the discretion of the Senedd to approve draft regulations laid before it. Therefore, I do not consider it necessary or appropriate to amend the existing power to a duty.

Recommendations 10 and 11 of the LJC committee report propose that any criminal offences in relation to recall polls should be placed on the face of the Bill or limited to those that currently exist in law. I'm not able to accept these recommendations. The rules for a recall poll will not be developed until the regulations under section 11 are made, so it is not possible at this stage to determine the specific criminal offences that will apply. However, I do consider it's very likely that many of the existing criminal electoral offences will be applicable.

Diolch. The Counsel General has said that she will not be moving the financial resolution. This debate is now therefore on the general principles motion only, though Members can, of course, refer to the financial resolution should they wish to do so. If the general principles are agreed this afternoon, the Bill will enter Stage 2 tomorrow and amendments can be tabled. However, no proceedings may take place until the financial resolution has been agreed.

As you have just heard the Counsel General confirm, completion of the Stage 2 proceedings is still envisaged as 13 February, and the financial resolution will need to be agreed or not before that date. That’s for all to be clear on this. As made clear, I am merely supporting—. Not ‘supporting’, necessarily. I'm explaining my interpretation of what was just said by the Counsel General.

We’ll go to the debate. Where am I going first? David Rees, how could I forget you? The Chair of the committee, David Rees.

Diolch, Llywydd. Before I focus on the committee's report following our scrutiny of the Bill, on behalf of committee members I want to place on record our huge thanks to the committee team for their hard work in supporting our work, particularly within the tight timescales we were working to. Without their efforts, we could not have undertaken our duty to the level we have. And also to those witnesses who gave evidence to the committee.

On to the Bill. It’s important to start by stating that the aims of the Bill, which are to improve accountability of Senedd Members to those who elect them, and to ensure that candidates in the Senedd elections provide truthful and honest information, are things we should all seek to achieve and support. Thus, as a committee, we all agree that strengthened mechanisms to enhance that accountability should be supported, not least because of the effect this could have on public trust in the Senedd.

Nonetheless, the committee is concerned at the pace at which the Bill has been developed and its speed in going through this Senedd. Indeed, we wrote to the Business Committee twice expressing concerns over the challenging timetable.

Additionally, comments we heard that a large number of things in the Bill are a place to start the conversation are far from the best legislative practice, and only serve to demonstrate that the Bills brought before this Senedd must be as a result of those conversations, not as the starting of those conversations.

Daniel Greenberg, the UK Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, placed great emphasis on the importance of public confidence and involvement in reforming the standards regime, but the proposals in this Bill were not subject to such public consultation by the Welsh Government, and our own engagement was limited by the time available for Stage 1 scrutiny.

Looking at the report, as has been highlighted, we made 11 recommendations and 18 conclusions, which demonstrates our position that the Bill needs significant improvement. I thank the Counsel General for her response to our report and her willingness to make some of those changes we seek. As the Counsel General has already stated, Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill focus upon the introduction of a recall system and the strengthening of the Standards of Conduct Committee.

On Part 1 of the Bill, there is general support for a recall procedure to be available to Welsh voters should the behaviour of Senedd Members fall short of what is expected of them. However, many stakeholders raised concerns about constraints on the operation of a recall system as a result of the closed list proportional representation electoral system we will be operating, in particular the way the recalled Members will be replaced by the next eligible person on a political party's list, rather than through a by-election, which is currently the operation in Westminster. The committee believes guidance for recall polls must balance flexibility with a need for certainty and transparency. To improve clarity, issuing such guidance should be mandatory, which is captured in our recommendation 3. I'm very pleased to hear the Counsel General intends to bring forward an amendment to place such a requirement on the Standards of Conduct Committee to lay draft recall guidance, leaving the final decision on the Senedd.

The Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee next—Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee reported on 23 December, drawing five conclusions and making 18 recommendations.

This is a Bill of considerable constitutional significance and importance. Its overarching aim of improving public confidence and trust in the conduct of elected representatives, and therefore the democratic process, is welcome. However, for those reasons, significantly more time should have been made available for Stage 1 scrutiny. Given the Bill's aim, it's regrettable that there's been limited public consultation by the Welsh Government and insufficient time for committees to engage the public through the Senedd’s legislative process.

In seeking to proceed quickly, the Welsh Government has brought forward some provisions that it has not fully thought through. This led us to express concern with the approach it has taken and with some of the approaches to legislating the Bill adopts, such that it risks breaching what the committee considers to be the principles of good law making. In our view, a laudable policy aim should be translated into legislation that delivers that aim effectively. Simply having legislation on the statute book, irrespective of its quality or effectiveness, to promote that aim would not be responsible and risks being counterproductive.

If the general principles of the Bill are agreed today, we believe the Bill should be substantially amended to mitigate some of our concerns and to bring it closer in line with established constitutional principles. In that regard I would like to focus on sections 11, 18 and 22 of the Bill.

Section 11 is essential to the operation of the Bill’s recall system. The committee is concerned at the breadth of the regulation-making power it contains, making seven recommendations as a result. Their purpose was either to strengthen section 11 or seek an explanation on how the powers could be used, a key consideration for this committee and one of considerable importance given the power will be exercised in the next Senedd. Specifically, section 11(3)(c) permits the creation of new criminal offences by means of regulations. This is not appropriate. New criminal offences should be created through primary legislation, a view consistent with those of distinguished parliamentary practitioners. We therefore recommended that the Bill should be amended to include on its face any new criminal offences that would apply in relation to recall polls. If the intention is not to create new criminal offences, we recommended that the offences referred to in section 11(3)(c) should be limited to criminal offences that already exist in legislation. We are disappointed by the Counsel General’s response to these recommendations and do not find her arguments persuasive.

The Chair of the Finance Committee now. Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to today's debate. I note that the Counsel General has confirmed that a review of the costs is going to take place before the financial resolution and, as a committee, we would look to hear about the implications of that as soon as possible, so that we can consider that and the implications of that and of those costs.

But we explored the financial implications of the Bill with the Counsel General on 20 November and our report makes five recommendations. Of the four recommendations to the Welsh Government, I'm pleased that the Counsel General has accepted three recommendations in full and one in principle.

The Bill's aims of enhancing public trust in introducing a recall mechanism and strengthening the standards process are important reforms, but they come with inherent challenges. In particular, estimating costs for a new recall system with a reformed electoral framework is complex. The Counsel General told us that the assumptions underpinning the cost estimate of approximately £275,000 per recall poll are informed by stakeholder engagement, but constrained by limited historical data. We recognise the uncertainty, but believe the broad cost ranges set out in the RIA are a reasonable starting point.

The Bill's permissive provisions for appointing lay members to the Standards of Conduct Committee also create significant uncertainty in terms of measuring the financial impact. The RIA includes a wide annual cost range of between zero to around £87,000, reflecting unknowns regarding the use of the power, how many lay members may be appointed and their remuneration. While we consider the risk appropriately mitigated for now, we would expect revisions to the RIA, should the Bill be amended during the remaining legislative stages, to include a mandatory framework for lay members. That is why we are recommending that the Counsel General continues to work closely with key stakeholders to ensure that the RIA remains accurate and reflects any amendments to the Bill, and I note that the Counsel General agrees with this approach.

Written evidence from the Chief Executive and Clerk to the Senedd also identified an induction on ongoing support requirements for lay members. We would like to understand the financial implications of undertaking these activities, and recommend that the RIA be revised to include associated estimated costs. The Counsel General has committed to work with the Senedd Commission to assess these costs and amend the RIA accordingly.

To provide maximum transparency, we also call for costs associated with lay members to be recorded under a distinct budget line in the Senedd Commission's budget, separate from the commissioner for standards. This will enable the Finance Committee and other relevant committees to monitor expenditure and facilitate effective scrutiny of costs associated with the Bill's implementation. We welcome the Senedd Commission's positive response to this recommendation.

Turning to the new power for the commissioner for standards to initiate investigations without a formal complaint, we note that the RIA identifies no additional costs, and although we accept that these investigations are likely to be rare, this could still require staff time and the displacement of other work. We are pleased that the Counsel General has accepted our recommendation to work with the Senedd Commission and the commissioner for standards to assess the opportunity costs associated with this power, and update the RIA accordingly.

Llywydd, we are concerned about the exceptional timing of this Bill. The Counsel General has made clear that any delay could jeopardise its passage through the Senedd. While we recognise the importance of meeting the legislative timetable, the compressed scrutiny period may compromise the robustness of the Bill, including its supporting financial estimates, which may lead to challenges during its implementation. We believe that a structured post-implementation review is essential to ensure that the legislation operates as intended and delivers value for money.

That is why we recommend that the Bill be amended to include a statutory requirement for such a review, triggered by the first use of the recall poll. This review should include an assessment of both the actual costs and the benefits arising from the legislation. While the Counsel General agrees with the principles of reviewing the system, it's disappointing that she doesn't consider a statutory review to be necessary. Thank you very much.

I thank the Counsel General for her statement in moving this Bill today. I'm also grateful to the Chairs who have spoken in this debate so far, and I certainly want to support the comments made by the Chairs of the committees, in particular on the challenges in drafting together a response to this legislation in such a tight time frame. I would encourage Members, if you haven't had a chance already, to read the reports produced by the committees on this legislation, because with the time constraints we did have as committee members, I think what's been pulled together is pretty remarkable, actually. I'm grateful to the clerks and Senedd staff for their support through this.

But I think in saying that, it's a real shame that this has been rushed, quite frankly, because this legislation is worthy of the full scrutiny, public consultation and preparatory work that any piece of legislation should be due. It's a shame that this hasn't been able to take place to the level that usual legislation would have—[Interruption.] And fast-tracking—. Certainly.

Just on the point the Member made about it being rushed, this Senedd has been discussing the issues around this for some two years. The standards committee took quite a considerable series of evidence sessions, which I sat on as an observer. The process is an iterative one, as in all legislation. We're, today, halfway through passing a Bill in 48 hours. Parliaments all the time pass Bills at varying timescales, so I think it's overstating to say it's being rushed.

I think that's what surprising about the fact that, as you say, there has been discussion for a long time, but the Government's chosen, at the very last moment possible, to introduce this legislation, considering, then, the timetable in terms of amendments thereafter. I agree on the point that I'm surprised that the Government chose at the very last moment possible to introduce this Bill, and it should have been introduced sooner, because the formal consultation has not taken place on this legislation, as you would and should expect it to. And the risk, of course, of this is that it then undermines the good, well-intentioned part of the Bill. At its heart, this Bill seeks its simple but crucial aim, which is to strengthen the trust between us here as Members of the Senedd and the public that we serve, and we all want to see that trust strengthen.

There are elements of this legislation that this side of the benches certainly support and have called for, in particular around the introduction of the recall mechanism. As I say, it's something we've called for previously. It gives constituents the power to remove a Member from office in case of conviction or a serious misconduct, and it's a significant and welcome step. It's true that the electorate should be able to hold Members who represent them to account when that trust is broken. Of course, there are amendments that should be made to that part of this proposal, but, broadly, what's been laid out before us today is welcome.

And the second Part, broadly, around the introduction of the standards committee as a statutory committee—again, there's broad support for that. There are some significant elements of that, though, that I think—. And I'm grateful to the Counsel General for taking notes and certainly accepting a number of those recommendations around the types of lay members and the restrictions on lay members. I think there could be a real risk if former politicians sit on that committee as lay members in terms of showing true independence of thought and moving away from political interference as to the behaviour of politicians of this place. Members will note recommendation 8, in particular, in the Bill committee's report about those who should not be appointed as lay members, and I'm grateful to the Counsel General for her consideration of that.

There is a significant concern, though, around the third Part of this Bill, section 22. This aim of protecting voters from deliberate misinformation is absolutely understandable, but these measures could inadvertently restrict legitimate debate and political discussion. We've heard that already. The LJC committee highlighted the need for clarity on legislative competence and human rights implications, particularly regarding restrictions on speech in the context of candidate conduct. And, of course, the introduction of any new criminal offence, especially one that relates to freedom of speech and the proper functioning of our democratic system, is an extremely serious matter. There's a long-held constitutional principle that new criminal offences should only be introduced via primary legislation, where they can be subject to that full consultation, that full scrutiny, full assessments and appropriate amendments. And that simply has not taken place with what is in front of us today.

We are fast approaching a transformative moment in the history of devolution, which will see the foundations of our democracy finally coming of age. It is vital that this process of constitutional reform is not simply a matter of updating structures and electoral systems, but is also used to reinforce the trust of the people of Wales in our Senedd. Plaid Cymru, therefore, warmly welcomes the overarching intention of this Bill to strengthen the accountability of Welsh politicians, something that is more important now than ever, during a period when faith in our democratic institutions is in decline and amid attempts by some on the right to undermine their legitimacy and worth.

However, while this Bill certainly represents a positive step forward in principle, there is a nagging sense of a missed opportunity here too, because we won’t see its impact until after the next election, with a considerable level of detail in terms of its implementation still to be worked out. It's deeply regrettable, therefore, that there has been considerable delay in bringing this Bill forward, which in turn has led to insufficient time being set aside for consultation. That’s why we are urging the Government to bring forward robust amendments to section 22 of Part 3 of the Bill, so that its pledge to create an offence of deliberate deception is honoured in full and in a satisfactory way. This should include provisions to address the use of technologies such as deepfakes, which, as we know, are having an increasingly malign and dangerous influence on politics and the public discourse.

And while we fully appreciate the complexity of legislating in this area, as we’ve mentioned several times, we cannot afford to wait when it comes to futureproofing our Senedd, because the threat posed by the demagogues of the far right, and the billionaires who support them from the shadows with no accountability, and who have weaponised misinformation and disinformation—to a terrifying extent in recent years—is now a significant threat to our Senedd. They will not hesitate for a second before poisoning our political discourse in their efforts to undermine our democracy. So, we should not hesitate in countering their lies and deceit with firm guardrails, thereby reassuring the Welsh people that we treat the principles of truth, honesty and transparency with the utmost gravity in this place.

Turning to other aspects of the Bill, I welcome the fact that the Counsel General has agreed to amend the threshold for issuing recall guidance from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority. Given the very real prospect that a far-right party with a track record of flouting standards in public office could have a sizeable presence in this Senedd after the next election, it is essential that they are not given any opportunity to block the effective mechanism of these new accountability arrangements.

Hannah Blythyn, Chair of the standards committee.

Thank you, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I'd like to thank the committee for their work.

I want to make it clear that I'm contributing in my capacity as Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, and, in that role, I was grateful for the opportunity to give evidence to the Member Accountability Bill Committee, however brief that was. My contribution today will focus predominantly on the recall part of the proposed legislation and, as Members will likely expect, the aspects of the Bill that seek to strengthen our Senedd's standards process more broadly. Acting to ensure that the Senedd has the processes in place to maintain both individual and institutional integrity is central not just to the work of the Standards of Conduct Committee; it is a crucial cornerstone of our devolved democracy. That's why, in past months, and in the weeks remaining in this Senedd, as a committee, we are committed to what is a package of reform aimed at building trust and transparency in our processes, in our politicians and in our politics. We recognise that change is needed to create confidence in the political system, and proper processes are pivotal to this.

Turning first to the recall aspect of the legislation, the committee was in full agreement that a system of recall should be introduced in time for the seventh Senedd and that this should be tailored for Wales and the system we will have in place at the next election. This power would be a key part of the standards regime, allowing the people of Wales a say in whether an individual who has acted in a particularly egregious manner should be allowed to carry on representing them. It's integral to any strengthened standards process, and I would strongly urge all Members to not just support this, but to continue to work collaboratively to ensure that we have this provision in place in time for the next Senedd. The Standards of Conduct Committee will have a role in issuing recall guidance, as we have heard, which Members will be consulted on, but, given the importance of this, it should not be left to chance nor delay, and I also welcome the recommendation to change the approval threshold for the recall guidance from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority, as it brings it into line with other standards matters.

I'd like now to focus on some welcome and well-warranted proposals in the Bill that will serve to strengthen the Senedd standards process as a whole, and, importantly, sit alongside the work that my committee is currently undertaking to both reinforce aspects of the code of conduct and the tools we have here in the Senedd to better tackle matters around dignity and respect. With that in mind, the committee welcomes the provision for lay members on the Standards of Conduct Committee—something we recommended as part of the work we've been tasked to do on individual Member accountability. Once again, this is an improvement to our system and one that I believe we should all support and that should be ready to hit the ground running early in the next Senedd.

Would the Member give way?

Absolutely.

Sorry to interrupt you towards the end of your speech. I just want to test something with you, as this is a Stage 1 debate. Specifically on the proposal to give the standards commissioner the freedom to launch their own investigations, which I supported as an observer on the standards committee, it does raise the question of what controls does the standards committee have on the commissioner were they to go rogue. There have been concerns about this current commissioner sometimes not conducting themselves in a way that the committee themselves are comfortable with, and that's been reflected in reports. If we're going to extend the power of the commissioner even further, what safeguards are there existing and what ones might we consider to make sure that this is done in a way that is within the comfort levels of Members?

I thank the Member for his contribution when I was in mid flow, then, towards the end of my—. I think it's—. It is something that was discussed during the standards committee evidence, and I think it would be helpful at the starting point, before I talk about, perhaps, the guardrails that are in place, to state the rationale behind this recommendation. I remember, in discussions in the standards committee, there was a vision of, perhaps, a standards commissioner, or any standards commissioner who is in an independent position to be stalking the corridors of the Senedd, looking for cases to take up. But the rationale in reality behind it was that we'd found in previous cases, perhaps in the course of an investigation, that something else was brought to the commissioner's attention and they were unable to investigate it, because there hadn't been a separate complaint about that matter.

The standards committee is able to question the commissioner on any approach taken, and the committee is not compelled to agree with the findings of a standards commissioner. The independent standards commissioner, although independent, also does need to have the confidence of the Senedd, and there is a mechanism for a motion to remove from office that could be tabled if six Members supported that. If I go back to the provision around lay members, I think that is also a really crucial point in terms of strengthening that process and the mechanisms of accountability there.

Just to go back, Llywydd, if I may, and wrap up in terms of that responsibility as both employers and as representatives here, I think we only make this place a beacon of best practice by all playing our part, not simply in the way that we conduct ourselves and the contributions we make, but in resolving to collectively strengthen our politics through those processes in place, and we call for those other significant wider steps to solidify our Senedd standards system, which are absolutely critical to achieving this. Diolch.

Firstly, I'm grateful to the committee and the Chair and the clerks, and the Counsel General as well for your time in meeting with myself and Adam and other Members as well. We spoke last December about how misinformation undermines community cohesion and how deliberate deception leads to tinderboxes and bonfires. That has happened—thankfully not here in Wales, but it has happened in our country, in the UK.

The need for speed, therefore, is that we face a significant threat, a significant threat here in Wales to our democracy with the Senedd elections. Lying flourishes in politics because we can get away with it, because we face no real consequences. If we wish to heal our democracy and stem the growth of distrust, we must first set our own house in order.

I do recognise the serious concerns raised by the committees about this Bill and the frustration expressed about leaving key decisions to secondary legislation. I agree that we need a clear definition of what constitutes a false or misleading statement, one that allows for no fudging of excuses and one that is clear about the consequences for breaching it. I also sympathise with comments made about how much detail the Welsh Government is leaving to secondary legislation, meaning that committees have not been able to scrutinise it as they would wish. It is encouraging to hear that many would have no objections to elements of this Bill if this detail was on the face of it. These are concerns that we cannot dismiss.

Freedom of speech is fundamental, but freedom of speech is not freedom to lie. We must ask ourselves what is the chilling effect of unchecked political deception on democracy itself. Fresh polling conducted by Compassion in Politics last year found that nine out of 10 people support the idea of making it a criminal offence for politicians to mislead the public.

For too long, across political parties, we have tested the public's patience on this. I was privileged to listen to some of the Radio Wales phone-in at lunch time today, and to hear voices from the public and from Dai Rees as well. [Laughter.] Well, you are—[Laughter.] May I set on the record that Dai Rees is a very important Member of the Senedd and a member of the public as well? But to hear members of the public phoning into that phone-in, and what we heard was incredulity that this wasn't already a law. I heard one man talking about how it put the icing on the cake that the Senedd was agonising over the terms of this Bill—the absurdity of doing so whilst politicians continue to avoid accountability. Another stated that if politicians had been fired for lying in Wales in the past we wouldn't be in the mess we're in.

This, for me, is a no-brainer, as many of you will know. In finance, in medicine, in law, when you sell a car, you can't deceive a customer. We're not talking about rhetoric or opinion; we're talking about factual matters, something which courts judge on every day of the week. The safeguards are there; the provision is tightly drawn. There are already laws against vexatious complaints and lying about the character of another politician during an election. The Bill simply extends that protection to the public, preventing politicians from deceiving them.

I fully appreciate what you're saying, and it's not the principal point here, and you've already highlighted the importance of having it on the face of the Bill, and the evidence we received was very much that it must be primary legislation. This will not be enacted in time for this election. Therefore, do you agree that what we should be doing is making sure that there is one in place for the election in 2030? And if we want something on the face of the Bill and it's not in this particular Bill at the time that we discuss Stage 4, then it should be deferred and the next Welsh Government should bring forward primary legislation that deals with that specific issue.

Thank you so much for that point. My very clear point is that if we pass this at Stage 1, then there is an opportunity at Stage 2 to debate whether this comes in earlier, which some of us actually feel very strongly that it should. So, thank you for the opportunity to clarify that.

Leadership—and we are leaders—requires more than bold statements. It requires follow-through on commitments, even when that path is difficult. So, I do urge Members to support the general principles of this Bill, whilst committing to the hard work of amendment and improvement that must follow at Stage 2. Let us prove that we can hold ourselves to the standards we expect of others. Let us show that, when people demand accountability, we have the courage to deliver on it. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I very much welcome today's debate on the general principles of the Senedd Cymru (Member Accountability and Elections) Bill. As always, it was an interesting experience to sit on the committee scrutinising Stage 1 of the Bill, and, like others have said, I'm very grateful for the support given to us by the committee staff.

As you stated when you gave evidence to the committee, Counsel General, this Bill is unusual in that it's not a policy Bill, but it is a legislative proposal where the Welsh Government is actually the enabler to ensure that the Parliament is able to manage issues around matters to ensure our democracy is as robust as possible. The Stage 1 report that's before members from our committee was based on the limited scrutiny we as a committee were able to hear due to the very tight time frame imposed upon us. I personally believe this Bill would have benefited from much wider pre-consultation and hearing more views from a wider civic society, but, unfortunately, time did not allow for this.

However, as you yourself have said, Counsel General, we are where we are, and this is an opportunity to bring forward a coherent Bill. It is good the Welsh Government have accepted the majority of our committee's recommendations, but what happens next is crucial. We need this legislation in place. I would not want our Parliament to be one of only a very few Parliaments, I think, without a recall system.

Ahead of Stage 2, the amendments that are brought forward need to be considered and well thought out to ensure the legislation is the very best it can be. You did say in your opening remarks that you'd instructed officials to look at amendments being brought forward, but I think that it would be good if you could confirm that you're very content to work with our committee to bring forward those amendments. Any recall system must be pragmatic and it must work with the closed list system that will be used from now on in the Senedd Cymru elections.

A standards of conduct committee should be mandatory, and the inclusion of lay members will, I believe, enhance it. We heard very different views about lay members, and of course there are parliaments that have lay members already, from which we can learn. I'm strongly of the opinion that certain individuals—and that's set out in our recommendation 8—should be disqualified from being a lay member, and I note your comments about further consideration of the criteria and also the consequences of having very strict criteria, because we all recognise the difficulties often faced in recruiting to public appointments here in Wales. Perhaps you could expand a little in your closing remarks on your thinking around the criteria.

Making factually incorrect statements to intentionally mislead the electorate is deliberate deception. As to whether the offence should be placed in primary legislation or dealt with by the current system, i.e. secondary legislation, again there was conflicting evidence on this and also concerns regarding there being little detail on all aspects of the new criminal offence. And again, I heard your remarks regarding bringing forward an amendment at Stage 2. As others have said, political integrity is so important, and if it's lost it's very difficult to recover. We see that in other parts of the world. So, this Bill in its entirety is being brought forward to ensure that there is more trust in our politics and I am pleased to support the general principles and look forward to Stages 2 and 3. Diolch.

You wait for an accountability Bill to come along for 20 years and now, like re-regulated buses, two arrive simultaneously, because while we're discussing Stage 1 of this Bill here, next week is the Report Stage of Westminster's accountability Bill. This is no accident. Both Bills respond to the great crisis of our time, the crisis of trust that has hardened into a crisis for democracy itself. Both Bills contain proposals for a new criminal offence of politicians misleading the public. And I think that it is really important, as Westminster moves forward with their proposal, that we should not move away from ours, because as we've heard, the public will not understand—they will not understand—and they certainly will not accept it, when a promise has been made by the Government to bring forward this legislation.

The UN says that misinformation and disinformation are the biggest threats the world now faces after pollution and climate change. And it's getting worse by the hour, because an army of bad actors now have the most sophisticated tools of deception in human history at their disposal. NewsGuard has found a network of TikTok accounts posing as media brands using AI to produce deepfakes of Keir Starmer announcing bogus policies. In the first week of December alone, these accounts produced 197 videos garnering 943,000 views. Reset Tech found 150 YouTube channels had used cheap AI to produce over 56,000 political deepfake videos in the UK. Those videos were viewed—and wait for it, this is not a typo—1.2 billion times in 2025.

Lying in politics is the wild west of impunity at the moment. George Freeman, the Conservative MP, found that out when he complained about a deepfake video just before Christmas showing him defecting to Reform—one of the few where this actually wasn't true. The police told him there was no law against it. There was nothing they could do, despite the Representation of the People Act, despite the Online Safety Act, the Electoral Commission and everything else. That is the accountability gap that democracy, if it is to survive, must fill and must fill quickly. Because democracy is a machine that runs on truth. Thomas Jefferson, no less, understood this when he wrote to Richard Price, our very own constitutional guru of the Garw valley. He said,

'wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government'.

Without truth, no trust; without trust, no democracy. So, that's why, in order to defend democracy, we persuaded the Government to make the pledge they did make, and I quote—I remember negotiating with the former Counsel General Mick Antoniw and with the Trefnydd—that,

'the Welsh Government will bring forward legislation before 2026 for the disqualification of Members and candidates found guilty of deliberate deception'.

Thank you for giving way. I don't think it's a question of the Senedd lying in this situation. I think it's important that—and my point is this—the Senedd gets the law right, and that it's good law. That's important, and if we rush this and don't get it right, then I think we'll be held accountable for that as well.

Now, on the point you made about taking section 22 out, what we've highlighted as a committee is that if the amendments you're talking about aren't brought forward, there's a risk you could lose the recall element, because this element is not good law.

Well, I'll respond to you, if I may, in quoting Thomas Jefferson a second time. In the very same year he wrote to Richard Price, he also famously wrote to James Madison about the Bill of Rights, and what did he say?

'Half a loaf is better than no bread.'

If we cannot secure all our rights, let us secure what we can. That's how democracy works. There will be an opportunity in the later stages of this Bill to improve it, not to remove the commitment in terms of deliberate deception; improve it. And yes, the next Senedd, I hope, will go further again. But to do nothing while we face the crisis of these times, I think, is to abdicate our responsibility, and I believe that the public will rightly hold to account a Government that reneges on the promise that it has made, and I hope that the Counsel General will confirm that she intends, and the Government intends, to keep that pledge that was made on the floor of this Senedd.

I think one thing that unites everybody in this Chamber, no matter what they might feel about this particular Bill, is a great deal of sympathy for the Counsel General, who finds herself in this situation this afternoon.

The Bill seeks to do a number of different things, of course, most of which were certainly not referenced in the previous contribution. I think there is unanimity in this Chamber that we do need to have reform to the standards committee, that we do need to have a recall process, and whilst there will be debate and discussion, as there should be, the principles of these things are established and, I think, accepted by all political parties here this afternoon, and Members across the Chamber.

But I also think that what is important is that we pass legislation that is fit for purpose and actually delivers on the promises made. I always enjoy listening to Adam's contributions, but he himself has misled everybody listening to him as to what this Bill will achieve. I agree with what's been said. I agreed with what Jane Dodds said earlier. I agreed with what Members across the Chamber have said about deeply misleading information that has become the common currency of social media. We heard, just before Christmas, 'rage bait' created as a word of the year, because people see information on social media, they've got no reason to disbelieve it, and they accept it as being true. And what happens is that you have the infection of misinformation and disinformation at the heart of our democracy, at the heart of our political and national discourse, and that is a disaster for us. It is an absolute disaster for us, and it needs to be regulated, and I've made that case over many, many years. But this Bill, of course, doesn't do that. This Bill doesn't do any of that, because the powers don't exist here in order to do it. This Bill seeks to do something different.

I believe that Members in this place should be subject to higher standards. I believe that Members in this place should be subject to a code of conduct that demands that we tell the truth, not just during an election campaign, but 365 days of the year. I believe that we do need a standards process that holds Members to account if they fall below the standards expected of them, and that's what we have at the moment, and that's what we're seeking to reform.

But this Bill doesn't do any of the things that the people here this afternoon have been claiming that it does do. It doesn't address the cesspit of X. It doesn't address the disinformation on Facebook. It doesn't address the fact that billionaires can buy our democracy. It does none of these things. It does none of them at all. It doesn't create an offence, and that is, in itself, offensive. It should create an offence. If you want to create new law, you have to do this properly—I will give way—but this Bill does not do that.

If, at a later stage in this Bill, an amendment was laid down, along the lines that the Criminal Bar Association in Wales actually did present to the committee, which does do exactly what you've just outlined, that deals with the cesspit of deliberate deception in politics, will you support it?

I described the cesspit of X. Now, don't try to misrepresent in this debate what I just said. You can't actually tell me what that amendment is, but you're asking me to support it. Now, let me say to you, Adam, let me say to you—[Interruption.] Let me say to you, you cannot argue about honesty in politics in that way. That's just a parody; it's not a reality of a debate. So, I believe—[Interruption.] I've given way to you once, I won't give way again.

I believe that we need to have good law passed in this place that does what we claim it's going to do. Section 3 of this Bill is not good law. It doesn't do what it claims to do. It is bad law delivered in a bad way—[Interruption.] I think my time is up, actually.

So, you won't give way.

I will give way. I'm happy to give way if the Llywydd allows me to.

Yes. [Laughter.]

Good answer. The right one. Thank you.

You didn't know the question either.

Don't give me the option, Alun Davies. [Laughter.]

You've made the point that this, in your view, is not good law. But you've heard the point that Adam made about half a loaf versus no bread at all. This is about changing the culture and the way we operate. And there is an opportunity to bring amendments at Stage 2. That's the point that we actually have the full debate. So, actually passing it now, will you agree to vote for this at this stage?

I never argued that I'm not going to take this forward to Stage 2. I actually started my contribution, if you were listening, saying that we needed large parts of this Bill, and you don't suggest that you need large parts of this Bill and then vote against it at Stage 1, which would prevent you from amending it to get the sort of Bill you want. Of course I'll be voting for it at voting time because I want to see amendments to this Bill. And I want to see parts, certainly Parts 1 and 2, passed into law. So, I will be voting for it.

But let me say this, and I will try to conclude my remarks now, unless there are any further interventions. Let me say this: there are significant challenges facing our democracy at the moment, really serious challenges facing our democracy, and misinformation and disinformation. The impact of social media on our public discourse is at the heart of all of that, and we need serious regulation to deal with that. That is a matter for the United Kingdom Government. I very much welcome the legislation, which has been passed with cross-party support over recent years, to deliver some of that regulation. I believe it needs to go much, much further, and I very much welcome the more muscular approach adopted by UK Ministers since the beginning of the year.

So, I believe that we do need serious regulation of social media, particularly to ensure that we are able to take back honesty as part of our political and public discourse. I also believe that we need to address issues around artificial intelligence, which Adam Price has rightly identified as a serious threat to our democracy. This Bill does none of those things—none of those things at all, none of those things. And I'll say this to Jane Dodds: you might fool yourself, and you might fool Members in this Chamber by making the argument that this Bill will fundamentally change the culture of where we are, but what will seriously affect the culture of where we are today is serious regulation of social media, and I believe that we require that. What we don't need is bad law passed in a poor way, rushed through in order to make people feel good about themselves whilst not addressing the fundamental issues that this society has to face.

The Counsel General to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, that was extremely interesting, and I very much welcome all the comments that have been made by the Chairs of the committees, members of the committees, and other Members today. Llywydd, I'll try my best to respond to most of them, but I'm under time constraints, obviously. I will try my best to do that. So, in no particular order, because I've written them down as people said them, as Lesley Griffiths acknowledged and David Rees skirted around in his contribution, this is not a Government policy Bill. This is a Bill where the Government enables the Senedd and parliamentary authorities to change the way that that parliamentary authority regulates Members and, potentially, candidates in an election. So, it is not a Government policy Bill. So, some of the comments that have been made stray across, in my view, into thinking it is a Government policy Bill, but it absolutely is not. So, the Government very much feels that the parliamentary authority should be in charge of its own procedures, and the Bill seeks to enable the parliamentary authorities to do various things in order to be able to regulate the conduct of Members in the future. So, I just wanted to start from there.

And then, as I say, in no particular order, I was very happy to accept the recommendations made by both the Bill and LJC committees to reduce the two-thirds majority threshold to a simple majority for the approval of the recall guidance that the Standards of Conduct Committee will devise, and also to change it to laying draft recall guidance so that the Senedd can go through the approvals process. But I am slightly baffled by the fact that the committee goes on to recommend moving all of the sections on lay members and the establishment of that process into Standing Orders, which require a two-thirds majority. So, I think the Government is going to have to think carefully about how that would work, because I'm not sure that was the intended outcome, but it would be the intended outcome if that's the route we went down. So, again, it's not for the Government to say what the parliamentary authorities want to do, and, Llywydd, I hope you don't mind my saying so, but I will want to have a conversation with you about some of those and the way that those flow together, because some consistency in the way that the rules are outlined will be important to the parliamentary authorities. So, I accept that recommendation, but I do want to look very carefully at the issue about moving all of the lay members and everything else into Standing Orders, which would then require a two-thirds majority in order to even get off the ground. And then that's because, as I said to Peredur, that changes the financial composition of the Bill, because if that's what we do, we have no way of knowing whether lay members would ever be appointed, or whether such a majority could ever be found in the ensuing Senedd. So, I just wanted to make that point very clear.

I understand what you just said about the conduct Order, but those offences were actually in an Act within Parliament, in primary legislation. So, whilst the conduct Order might introduce them for the first time here, they are primary legislation within Westminster.

Yes, but they're not primary legislation here, David, and the Senedd accepts the conduct Order and secondary regulation as the way that we conduct our elections. The Bill proposes a consistent approach to that in terms of that all criminal offences affecting an election should be contained in the conduct Order, because otherwise you face the spectre of having to look in several different places for things that affect you. Similarly, we have sought to make sure that the disqualification regime and this regime match, so you don't have—. I had a long conversation with Jane Dodds and Adam Price, if you don't mind my mentioning it, about making sure that the flow-through of disqualification into election, and so on, made sense and coherence with this. It's quite important to make sure that we do not flit about with different standards depending on which part of the cycle we're in. So, that's why I have noted those recommendations; I think we need to think through what that flow looks like.

My own view is that if the Senedd—this is a personal view, not the view of the Government; I too am a Senedd Member as well as a member of the Government—my own view is that if you don't put the lay members, the changes to the standards commissioner's functions and all the rest of it on the face of the Bill, you will find that this isn't done until towards the end of the next Senedd, if it's done at all. So, for those of us who very much want to see that in place—I speak as an individual Senedd Member here now, not as a member of the Government—I would very much urge that those provisions should be on the face of the Bill. And, Llywydd, I would very much like a conversation with you about how the parliamentary authorities want the Government to enable those kinds of things to happen.

I want to finish by reiterating that we feel very strongly that the Welsh Government should not tell the parliamentary authority how to conduct its proceedings; that this is an enabling Bill, that it enables the parliamentary authorities to do the right things that they wish to do. May I remind you, Members of the Senedd, we are then all going to vote on what is a Senedd Bill? So, just to be really clear, that would then become a Senedd Bill that regulated the parliamentary authorities and their conduct. So, I just wanted to be very clear that that is where we were coming from.

A couple of other things I just wanted to run through, Llywydd, if I still have a little bit of time to do so. A few people mentioned—. Sorry, I’ve lost my space in my scribbled notes now. Give me one moment. Peredur, I really wanted to just thank you for the sensible approach that the committee have taken and to pledge—. I think you asked me to say that I would come back to you with various details, so I just wanted to say that of course we will do that. We will try and make sure that we keep in lockstep, and to assure the Llywydd that we will lay the financial resolution in time for Stage 2 proceedings, once we understand what we’re talking about. So, I need to have that conversation as soon as possible. I just wanted to be really clear about that.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 9. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed.

And as we know, the motion under item 10, on the financial resolution, was not moved by the Counsel General. Therefore, there will be no vote on that, clearly. So, we will move now to item 11.

As to item 11, the proposal, under Standing Order 12.24, is to hold a debate on items 11 and 12 together. Unless a Member objects, both motions will be debated together but will be voted on separately. I see no objection to that.

So, the general principles of the Development of Tourism and Regulation of Visitor Accommodation (Wales) Bill and the financial resolution in respect of that Bill are the two items. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language to move the motions.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'm pleased to propose that the Senedd agrees the general principles of the Development of Tourism and Regulation of Visitor Accommodation (Wales) Bill. As you would expect, I want to thank the Chairs and members of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, the Finance Committee and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their detailed scrutiny work on this Bill. I also want to thank all of those who have taken time to share views and expertise in evidence. If the Senedd agrees that the Bill should move forward today, then I look forward to further engagement with them as the scrutiny process continues.

Llywydd, all three Senedd committees have made detailed recommendations about different aspects of the Bill. Where committees have asked for information in advance of today's debate, I have done my best to provide it. There are, of course, other aspects that will also be addressed this afternoon. I should also say at the outset that, of course, I welcome the recommendation of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee that the Senedd should agree to the general principles of the Bill.

At the start of my contribution, I want to highlight just three key purposes that lie at the heart of the licensing scheme that the Bill seeks to establish. The Bill begins from a commitment to the promotion of tourism in Wales, strengthening its worldwide reputation for quality of product and experience, endorsing the work of our many excellent providers, while requiring their competitors to meet the same standards. In doing so, the Bill creates a clear, modern, bilingual code of Welsh law to support the industry and to make the law accessible to Welsh citizens, and, in doing so, to build on the register created under the Visitor Accommodation (Register and Levy) Etc. (Wales) Bill passed by this Senedd last year. Thirdly, the Bill is predicated on a determination to put the experience of the visitor at the forefront of this new legislation, providing visible reassurance to visitors within and to Wales that any regulated accommodation they book will meet the standards they expect.

In order to put these principles to work, the Bill creates a licensing scheme for self-contained self-catering accommodation, and it provides a way in which that licensing scheme can be extended to other types of accommodation in the future. The system created strikes a balance between light-touch obligations for those providers who are already doing the right things, while being robust in requiring others to meet their obligations. In those residual cases where there is a clear refusal to meet those obligations, the Bill puts in place procedures to stop those providers from operating.

How then does the Bill propose oversight of the system and how should it be exercised? Early in its development, and drawing on experience elsewhere, we concluded that it would not be proportionate physically to inspect all accommodation before awarding a licence. In the early stages of Bill implementation, those who are already operating will be enabled to continue to do so while the evidence needed by the new system is assembled and approved. For new entrants, that evidence will have to be provided in advance of opening, so that visitors can be confident that the necessary standards are being met.

The Bill divides these standards into specific and general requirements. The specific standards very largely reflect obligations that already exist for providers, things that they should already be meeting, in relation, for example, to gas, electrical and fire safety. The Bill adds in a new requirement in relation to public liability insurance. In all these cases, the intention is to make it as easy as possible for providers to demonstrate that they have these requirements already in place, providing reassurance to visitors in the process. The general standards apply if accommodation, despite having a licence, nevertheless proves unfit for visitors. In those circumstances, the Bill ensures that robust action can be taken to ensure that a property is safe and of a standard that visitors are entitled to expect and enjoy.

For the tourism sector to thrive in Wales, it has to do so in a sustainable partnership with its host communities. In addition to reassuring visitors and other operators, the Bill will help to support this relationship by showing that providers meet the standards it sets out.

The advertising requirements in the Bill were subject to scrutiny by both the ETRA and LJC committees, with recommendations made by both. I want to be clear that advertising requirements are a key part of the Bill. Where a potential visitor is attracted by an advert, it is right that they are able to see in Wales that the premises is registered and that registration provides a clear and simple pathway through which the visitor can establish whether that accommodation needs to be licenced, and, if so, whether a current licence exists.

The Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to speak in the debate today as Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, which has undertaken Stage 1 scrutiny of this Bill. I would like to start by thanking all of those who contributed to our inquiry, including everyone who provided written evidence and came to the oral evidence sessions. I would also like to thank the committee staff, who, on a very tight timeline, turned around much of the evidence that we were able to consider in formulating our report.

Before I go into some detail of our conclusions and recommendations about the Bill, I would like to put on record the committee's view that the timetable allocated for Stage 1 scrutiny of this Bill was not sufficient. While we took a relatively broad range of evidence in the time given, seven sitting weeks—yes, seven sitting weeks—is simply not an appropriate form of scrutiny for non-emergency primary legislation.

The curtailed time frame meant that we could only run a very short consultation; it meant that we only had three weeks in which to take oral evidence, including a first and final session with the Cabinet Secretary; and it meant that we were not able to follow up as thoroughly as we would have liked on particular issues that were raised. Several stakeholders impressed upon us the challenges of contributing evidence within the time available, and we understood their frustrations. It is vital that future Senedds and Governments do not take the timetable afforded to this Bill as a precedent for making and scrutinising non-emergency legislation.

That said, having considered the range of evidence presented to us, we concluded that we do support the general principles of this Bill. It was obvious that the sector has been taken by surprise at the speed of this Bill's introduction. Witnesses made it clear that they were feeling policy and legislative fatigue following the Cabinet Secretary himself saying that it had been a relatively busy period. However, we agree that this Bill has the potential to strengthen the sector, the quality on offer to visitors and the confidence in Welsh standards. We therefore recommend that the general principles are agreed by the Senedd today.

Nonetheless, there are a number of areas where further work and detail are required. Strong engagement with the sector will be vital to ensure the Bill's successful implementation and will help regain the confidence of stakeholders.

Our report explores some of the key issues raised by those who contributed evidence, including remaining question marks over the data behind the scheme and the role of other public bodies in both administering the scheme and its enforcement. In light of the uncertainty about aspects of policy proposed in the Bill and the early stage of plans for its implementation, as a committee we agreed that it would be important for a future Senedd to have a role in scrutinising the future of Welsh Government continued policy development linked to the licensing scheme. We therefore recommend that the Bill should be amended to make the commencement of the licensing provision in the Bill subject to approval of the next Senedd.

As noted by the Cabinet Secretary, the Bill provides for the creation of a code of Welsh law. This is a welcome step to make tourism law more accessible. The code of practice provided by section 3 will be a vital tool for the industry, and it is essential that it is offered through guidance to support the sector as the legislation is implemented.

A lack of data to inform the scheme was widely acknowledged by those who gave evidence, including the Cabinet Secretary himself, although he assured us that the forthcoming implementation of the register of visitor accommodation providers in 2027 will solve those data problems. It is important that the sector remains dynamic and we agree that the Bill provides the necessary flexibility for future Governments to respond to the data as and when it becomes available.

We noted the Bill's initial focus on self-contained self-catered accommodation and the Cabinet Secretary's rationale for this focus. While we welcome the flexibility the Bill allows by providing for the scope to be widened via regulation, we think that these regulations should be subject to a minimum period of scrutiny to ensure that a future Senedd has the time to consider the potential sector impacts of any such change.

With regard to enforcement, there is clearly much work to be done. We found it disappointing that there is not yet a clear position on who will be the enforcement agency and which bodies will undertake this work. This work needs to be starting at pace to ensure that there is adequate time for the planning of resources, capacity and any necessary data sharing between the bodies involved.

There was clear scepticism from many witnesses about the assumption of a £75 fee for a licence. We recognise the Welsh Government is bound by a duty to set up a fee for cost recovery purposes only, but we know this can only be determined at a later date when further information about the sector and the processes for implementation are available. We are mindful of the concerns that this uncertainty might cause operators. The Cabinet Secretary told us that he was considering an amendment to the Bill, so that the first time the fee is set there would have to be an affirmative vote on the floor of the Senedd. We would welcome and agree with this approach.

I call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I will begin by highlighting some of the challenges that the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee has faced as it's carried out its scrutiny of this important piece of legislation.

As the Cabinet Secretary stressed to us, the intention to introduce a licensing scheme for tourism in Wales has been a Welsh Government policy intention since the co-operation agreement in 2021. Yet, despite those long-term policy intentions, the Welsh Government was unable to introduce this Bill earlier than November 2025. As a consequence, committees were given just six weeks to carry out Stage 1 scrutiny. We have no reason to believe that the Bill was introduced so late in the Senedd as a result of particularly rigorous policy development, neither did the legislation benefit from being consulted on in draft form before being introduced. It is not possible for committees to carry out high-quality and detailed scrutiny of a Bill in such a short period. The committee's view is that the Stage 1 scrutiny should be undertaken over a minimum of 12 sitting weeks. We note the comments of the various stakeholders that have made it clear that their ability to consider the Bill's provision in sufficient detail has also been significantly impeded by the Stage 1 timetable. Our report therefore concludes that the Cabinet Secretary did not make a convincing case for a curtailed Stage 1 scrutiny period. It also concludes that the quality of the legislation itself and its ability to meet the Welsh Government's policy objectives may be negatively impacted as a result.

In a further challenge to the committee's scrutiny capacity, the equality impact assessment for the Bill was published on the working day prior to our evidence session with the Cabinet Secretary. Consequently, we were unable to draw on the equality impact assessment to inform our lines of questioning. Some stakeholders have raised concerns about the potential non-compatibility of the provisions in the Bill with the European convention on human rights. The committee has since determined that the assessment contained in the equality impact assessment is of insufficient detail to satisfy us that the Welsh Government is mindful of those concerns.

Our report makes two recommendations and asks the Cabinet Secretary to publish more detail about the Welsh Government's assessment of these issues. We note the Cabinet Secretary's letter dated 9 January, which outlines in more detail why the Welsh Government believes that this Bill is proportionate in this regard. In its general conclusion, the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee concluded that the Bill provides for an inappropriate delegation of powers to Welsh Ministers at the expense of clarity and detail on the face of the Bill. It has called for the Welsh Government to review the appropriateness of those powers. The broadest of those powers in the Bill is a regulation-making power in section 5, which enables the Welsh Government to extend the licensing regime to types of visitor accommodation such as hotels, bed and breakfasts, spare rooms and campsites that do not currently fall under the scope of the Bill subject to the Senedd's approval. Stakeholders and the Cabinet Secretary himself have indicated that extending the licensing regime to different types of tourist accommodation would have significant implications for the sector. The committee was therefore not persuaded that it is appropriate to enable such significant changes to the scope of the Bill by regulations.

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to today's debate, and I'm pleased to note that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted all of our recommendations, either fully or in principle.

As a committee, we broadly support the financial framework underpinning the Bill. However, we have identified areas where greater clarity and assurance are needed. Our primary concern relates to the lack of data to inform the cost assumptions in the RIA. In particular, the absence of reliable baseline information on the size and composition of the self-catering accommodation sector introduces uncertainty and risk, undermining confidence in the cost projections. We believe this must be mitigated through ongoing monitoring and a robust post-implementation review, and we welcome the commitment to review costs and benefits within five years. But we would like the Cabinet Secretary to go further, which is why we have recommended that this review also quantifies the benefits arising from the Bill, which are currently only described qualitatively in the RIA. I'm pleased to see that he has responded positively to this recommendation.

We also consider concerns about the proposed licence fee level in Wales compared with other UK schemes, and expect caution about the assumption underpinning the current estimates. Like-for-like comparisons with other models elsewhere in the UK are problematic, but it is essential that fees are set at a level that is fair, sustainable and reflective of actual costs once better data becomes available.

Turning to licensing authority functions, the RIA does not confirm who will undertake these responsibilities. In evidence, the Cabinet Secretary suggests that the Welsh Revenue Authority will manage the automated aspects of the process, given its responsibilities for the visitor accommodation registration system. He also suggested that local authorities or Visit Wales may be responsible for managing more complex cases requiring an on-the-ground judgment. We support integrating these functions within existing Welsh public bodies to avoid unnecessary cost escalations, but we believe that further information is required in this area, and ask the Cabinet Secretary to clarify the proposed delivery model and to conduct an assessment of the financial implications of the delivery partners in a revised RIA after Stage 2.

In response, the Cabinet Secretary has committed to updating the RIA to better reflect his assumptions about who may undertake some licensing authority functions. The Cabinet Secretary told us that £430,000 has already been allocated to the WRA in this financial year for discovery work to ensure alignment between the register and the licensing systems. We ask for further clarity on what this funding will cover, and recommend that the RIA is updated accordingly. Again, the Cabinet Secretary has accepted this recommendation.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, I would like to reflect on the estimated enforcement costs. The RIA assumes that only 10 per cent of the 1,000 compliance cases annually will require full inspections. This assumption strikes us as low, and we are concerned that enforcement costs, particularly during the early years of implementation, may have been underestimated. To provide assurance, we recommend that the Cabinet Secretary conducts a sensitivity analysis in relation to the number of compliance cases per year that will require inspection to show the potential range of costs in a revised RIA. We welcome the Cabinet Secretary's commitment to update the RIA to highlight how administrative costs may vary with changes in assumptions. Thank you very much.

I'd like to firstly associate myself with the comments of the Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, and the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. I'll place on record that, in principle, the Welsh Conservatives support the general principles of this Bill.

Tourism is a vital part of the Welsh economy. Clear standards, good data and public confidence matter, and a national system of registration, done properly, can help us understand the size and nature of the visitor accommodation sector here in Wales, something that, as committees repeatedly heard and has been echoed here today, we simply do not have at present. However, as both the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee concluded, support for the principle of this Bill must be clearly separated from serious concerns about how it has been developed and how it is intended to operate.

One of the clearest findings from the ETRA committee, set out starkly in conclusion 1, was regret at the short timetable for Stage 1 scrutiny and the negative impact that this has had on stakeholder engagement. That concern was echoed more strongly by the LJC committee, which concluded that the Welsh Government had not made a convincing case for curtailing scrutiny and that the quality of the legislation itself may suffer as a result. This matters because rushed scrutiny does not produce good law, especially not in non-emergency legislation of this scale. I mention that as a member of both the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee and of the LJC committee at the time that evidence and scrutiny was undertaken.

Turning to the substance of the Bill, I want to focus first on registration and licensing. The Conservatives support registration, but we have consistently raised concerns, shared by witnesses and reflected in the committee reports about the decision to bring forward registration and licensing together, rather than sequentially. The ETRA committee explicitly noted reservations about this approach and went on in recommendation 3 to call for the commencement of the licensing scheme to be made subject to further Senedd approval. That recommendation, Dirprwy Lywydd, exists for a reason. The evidence base for licensing is, at best, incomplete. As both committees recorded, there is a lack of reliable data about the sector, including compliance levels with existing health and safety requirements. And yet, licensing is justified partly on health and safety grounds. But where is the evidence of these failures? Where are the reports of widespread electrical or fire incidents in self-catering accommodation units here in Wales? Thankfully, and proudly, our tourism accommodation is of a high, safe standard. So, if licensing is the answer, we must first be clear about the question. Otherwise, we risk imposing unnecessary cost and bureaucracy without clear public benefit.

Like Sam Kurtz and Andrew R.T. Davies, I would thank the clerks on ETRA for their quick turnaround in the evidence sessions in Stage 1 of this Bill. I would also thank as well the Cabinet Secretary for the number of conversations we've had around this Bill. I've really appreciated, as always, the engagement that he has had with me in trying to find consensus on different issues, and, when we do, that that is constructive and well-meaning.

Firstly, I would say that Plaid Cymru welcomes the attempts here to develop our tourism industry and the importance that this Bill actually places on ensuring that people staying in short-term accommodation in Wales are safe. I think it's vital for the health of our tourism industry that, when people come to Wales, they know that their accommodation has a high safety standard, and this Bill is an important step in making sure that that is the case right across the board.

I also think that it's fair to say that the tourism sector has dealt with a number of Bills in this Senedd term and, of course, reflected in our committee evidence, this has been of real concern to the sector. So, in progressing on this Bill, it's important that the processes being established are easy and simple as well as making sure then that costs are kept to a minimum. In committee, for example, we heard some horror stories coming out of the Scottish experience, and witnesses were right to highlight the need for us to learn from those Scottish experiences so that we do not repeat the same mistakes here in Wales. Separately, what would, I think, be helpful for Members to see is a clear road map for this Bill, so building on its start with self-catering premises to ensure that any risks then of piecemeal regulation and inconsistencies are addressed. Clarity on the next steps of this Bill, clearly outlined, would, I think, provide some certainty not just for the Senedd, but the wider sector as well.

Now, the Cabinet Secretary would have also noticed, of course, the recommendation from the economy committee on the commencement of this Bill—it's been referred to several times in the Chamber already. Witnesses to the evidence sessions often expressed the view that the Bill was based on very little data. There was uncertainty as well on the purpose of the Bill and its plan for implementation, leading then of course to the committee recommending that the commencement of this Bill should be voted on by the next Senedd.

Now, on balance, my view would be that delaying commencement isn't necessarily the best way forward, especially from the perspective of the visitor. That all important word that I've used several times already 'clarity'—clarity, as I've mentioned, is important for both visitor and the sector, so I'd be very interested to have on record the Cabinet Secretary's view in particular on that point. But otherwise, in this important Stage 1 of this Bill, Plaid Cymru will be voting in favour of the general principles and I look forward to further engagement with the Cabinet Secretary as this Bill progresses.

I note the concerns about the brevity of the timetable, but I think there are huge risks in decoupling licensing from registration and therefore, whilst I agree absolutely with the recommendations of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee—I don't have any disagreement on our recommendations—I do think that the emphasis on the timetable doesn't capture some of the risks of not legislating.

As somebody who represents an urban constituency in the capital city, I want to just lay before us some of the risks that we would run if we don't manage to get this legislation on the books before the end of this Senedd. Last June, a man who deliberately rammed two people with an SUV vehicle after a row about a double booking at an Airbnb in Cathays was jailed for 10 years. He sent these two pedestrians into the air following an altercation at this rental property because of the double booking at the same Airbnb accommodation. This dangerous driver, in my view, was lucky to get away with a sentence for attempted grievous bodily harm rather than attempted murder.

Over 2 million people visited Cardiff—

Sorry, Jenny, would you give way? That's a really interesting case, and I'm very sorry to hear about that—that's the first time I'm hearing it. How does this legislation prevent that in your view?

Well, because, if there is proper licensing, it would prevent Airbnb from taking a double booking of that particular accommodation, in a very small street so that there was no confusion about it being the wrong number or anything like that. Anyway, that is my view.

When you're getting over 2 million people visiting our capital city, and that was back in 2023-24—. I can't yet find the figures for 2024-25, but it's a racing certainty that they will definitely be on the increase, particularly given the growth in demand for visitor accommodation due to high-profile outdoor concerts last summer and also other sporting events that take place, which make this not just a seasonal problem, it is a practically an every weekend problem. And we know that the Airbnb costs are exploding the market around major events, like the Oasis concert that took place in the summer, jacking up visitor prices by over 70 per cent, whether or not the individual was attending the concerts. And we're talking about somewhere in the region of between £500 and £600 just for one night's accommodation for two people. So, in an inadequately regulated market, we are always going to get the problems of unscrupulous landlords who cancel bookings without explanation so that hosts can raise their prices again in the run-up to an event. That happened to me personally in another city in England, and it's certainly the case that that has happened in other parts of the UK.

For example, in north London, a landlord was found guilty of illegally letting two party flats on both Airbnb and Booking.com after neighbours had had their lives made hell by excessive noise, not just occasionally, but practically every weekend. The landlord only had planning permission for use as a self-contained single household. However, the planning enforcement team found that both of these online agencies were offering short-term stays for large groups, who often used these flats for parties. That happens in Cardiff as well, and it's seriously impacted on the ability of residents to be able to enjoy their own home with tranquillity. I haven't had that level of abuse of the law to date, but, if we do not legislate, you can see how greed amongst some individuals will cause serious problems around the cancellation of properties at the very last minute, leaving people stranded, possibly in Cardiff, without any understanding of where else they can get accommodation. So, I wasn't convinced by the arguments from Airbnb and Booking.com and one or two other witnesses that this legislation should wait for the bedding in of the registration system. For Cardiff constituents, this regulation of visitors cannot come too soon.

I do not share this argument by Airbnb and Booking.com that it's technically difficult to check the accuracy of registration numbers of businesses that they pick up. As long as we can make it a simple process, using AI, similar to the vehicle registration that we all are familiar with, where you can check on any vehicle as to whether or not they've had their MOT and they are licensed—. That is the sort of legislation—

Jenny, you need to conclude now.

—I hope we can deliver, and obviously we look forward to hearing from the Cabinet Secretary in that regard.

Cabinet Secretary, I wish to start by quoting some of the evidence heard with regard to this legislation, firstly by the Professional Association of Self-Caterers UK Cymru. They say this:

'No cumulative impact assessment has been carried out, despite 19 concurrent interventions affecting the sector, and despite ministers being fully aware of the "scale of the attack" on Welsh self-catering businesses.'

Now their use of the word 'attack' is extremely strong. It represents that body's perception that this Bill is another hit on self-catering businesses, and a further erosion of trust in the Welsh Government and in this Senedd. And that negativity is not isolated. North Wales Tourism wrote

'significant concerns persist regarding the cumulative regulatory burden on an industry already facing unprecedented challenges.'

And West Wales Holiday Cottages explained that this Bill

'does not reflect the current downturn (29% fall in overnight stays 2022–2024) or the fragility of sector confidence.'

Now, Cabinet Secretary, such evidence does give us pause for thought, when considering that one of the main aims of this Bill is to promote tourism. I am concerned, as the Chairs of the committees have already mentioned, about the legislative process followed up to now. The accelerated timetable for Stage 1 scrutiny limited, as Andrew R.T. Davies said, the opportunity for thorough consultation and evidence gathering. In fact, so short was the public consultation that representative bodies such as the National Residential Landlords Association and the Short Term Accommodation Association say that they were unable to undertake detailed consultation of their members. And in fact, nobody here today knows how many short-term lets are there in Wales. We have no clear picture of the level of compliance, only anecdotal reports.

Further evidence of this is that the Bill is yet another piece of Welsh legislation that relies heavily on regulations. For example, it is left for a future Welsh Government—and, as Alun Davies mentioned, an unelected future Welsh Government—to regulate on informing visitor accommodation providers in advance of their intention to give a vacation notice. It is also left for a future Welsh Government to decide on allowing licences to be considered as having effect until a decision on the application is made. And it is left for a future Welsh Government to decide whether provisional licences will be allowed. In fact, this legislation even leaves it for a future Welsh Government to decide on provisions about deaths, incapacity, insolvency and the sale of a business to another visitor accommodation provider.

I am also concerned that the legislation does not achieve the aim of the Bill, and that is to create a more level playing field. For example, why is the Bill excluding people renting out spare rooms? As Travel Chapter and Sykes Holiday Cottages highlighted, they will be higher risk than traditional short-term operators. Across this capital, there are 335 private rooms, spare rooms, listed on Airbnb. As it stands, these 335 rooms will not need a licence. I believe this is a gap in the legislation. I'd like to know more about that, Cabinet Secretary.

That was an extremely powerful contribution there. I agree with every single point you make. Obviously, being the Member for Aberconwy, tourism is our vital industry. It's practically our only industry, and I'm really proud of the standard of accommodation that we have in Aberconwy.

The points you make about renting rooms and a level playing field—. I am not convinced, as it stands, that that's even been considered. I know of people in Cardiff who actually will go away when these concerts are on, leave their homes. And, as Jenny pointed out, if they can charge £600 or £700 a night, and you're moving into someone's home who may not have passed through any legislation and have those safety initiatives in place, it's pretty worrying.

We know that tourism is the backbone of our economy, but too often in this place, certainly during the Plaid Cymru and Welsh Labour co-operation agreement, it's fair to say that our tourism industry, and our hospitality businesses, feel well and truly under the cosh from this Welsh Labour Government. You know, 159,000 working in tourism, accounting for around 5.1 per cent of gross value added in Wales. We're all receiving e-mails now, currently, from the hospitality sector, really, really crying out for help and support with business rates. All the negative things that have been put before them, they just feel this is another, 'Gosh'. While some like the licensing idea, and the registration, it really can be seen as another knock for our tourism industry, and this needs amending tremendously. We’ve got to do whatever we can, and when I say 'we', it’s up to you as the Welsh Labour Government to really prove that you actually support this already struggling tourism and hospitality sector.

The Bill does introduce a licensing scheme for visitor accommodation, starting with self-contained and self-catering properties. It will ensure that property fitness is a contractual requirement, and we would expect that, wouldn’t we? Too often, I hear of the silent killer—carbon monoxide—where people have gone into properties and there isn’t a detector there, and we often hear of really sad incidents. And I’ll be pushing to ensure that those are fitted in all rented-out accommodation.

We will support—the Welsh Conservatives will support—the general principles of the Bill. But it is fair to say that our vital tourism and hospitality sector has faced some very poor decisions made by previous Labour Governments, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrat, such as the 182-day threshold, the tourism tax. With all of the additional strains and concerns that have been placed on our tourism sector, it is essential that any further policies are very well considered. We need the full views of the sector heard, and, as has already been said, it’s being rushed through to such a degree that there’s still not the relevant data available for us to actually be even embarking on this.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

The information on registration will be available next year, so I think we can confidently pursue this, because it can’t be complete at the moment because it’s something that’s live.

Well, we’ll see if that pans out. I’m not as confident as you. I also share the concerns of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, chaired by no less than Andrew R.T. Davies, on the timing of this Bill, with the committee setting out that it regrets the short timetable allocated to Stage 1 scrutiny of the general principles of the Bill, and a recommendation that this shouldn’t be a precedent going forward. This Bill follows the intentions of the former UK Conservative Government, who started work on similar legislation that would create a mandatory national registration scheme as a means of balancing the challenges and opportunities of short-term accommodation. It is specifically targeted at self-contained, self-catering dwellings. This means—. And whilst you don’t feel that £75 is a lot of money, it’s just another blow, isn’t it, for our tourism industry. And there would be fines for non-compliance, and a requirement to pay a fee for their licence, with a public register of all licensed properties also set to be established.

We do have concerns, though, on the practicalities of the implementation of this Bill. We’re calling for greater clarity regarding what safeguards will be in place—who’s going to enforce all this—as well as calling for reassurances that the proposed directory, which brings together the Welsh Revenue Authority register and the new licensing register—. And we don’t want to see booking platforms made legally liable for mistakes made by hosts when inputting their data. I feel there’s a lot more education needed for an industry that feels well under the cosh. It just sees this as more regulation. I look forward to hearing some clarification from the Cabinet Secretary, and I'll certainly be wanting to put some input to this Bill as it progresses. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

And I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. The future for Welsh tourism has to be to move up the quality threshold. That is its great strength, when it's able to provide a quality product, that people know when they come to Wales they will get what they have paid for, they will get an experience that they want to repeat, and they'll want to come back here and visit again. And so many providers in the industry do exactly that.

What this Bill does is to protect their interests, to promote their efforts, by making sure that those providers who do not meet their obligations, who undercut those who do so by saving costs, by not having the things in place that they need to have in place—. It guarantees that the good players prosper and the industry isn't blighted by having people who don't do the things that are required of them.

I'm grateful to you, Cabinet Secretary, for giving way. You mentioned there the difference between the good actors and the bad actors. How many bad actors are there? Because without that data to understand the problem, where that problem exists, it's hard to progress this. While we agree with the general principles, that's with fundamental data and making legislation off the back of good data.

I think the argument that the Member advances is that you've got to wait for something to go wrong before you act. Now imagine that. Imagine that you have to wait until somebody books somewhere that turns out not to have a fire certificate, not to have a gas certificate, not to have fire protection in place, for something to go wrong, and then you say, 'Oh well, where was the Welsh Government? Why didn't Government act to prevent that from happening?' That's what this Bill does.

The requirements that are asked of self-catering providers, apart from one, all of them are things that they are legally obliged to have in place already. That's what people are being asked to demonstrate, that they are meeting their existing legal obligations, and then that they will have in place proper public liability insurance.

I think the Bill supports the industry, supports those people in the industry who believe that meeting your obligations is a way of demonstrating to people that if you come to Wales, you can be confident that the accommodation that you have booked will have the things that you have a right to expect. Siân.

On that point on improving the visitor experience—and this is the core of this Bill, to improve the visitor experience—do you agree with me that it would be a mistake to accept recommendations 3 and 4 made by the ETRA committee, which mention not commencing the licensing system until the next Senedd, and to actually give that decision to the next Senedd? Doesn't that delay the creation of those improved experiences that we want to see visitors to Wales having?

Well, I thank Siân Gwenllian for that. Llywydd, I’m going to accept nine out of 10 of the recommendations in the report by ETRA, but I don't accept recommendations 3 and 4 because I don't want a greater delay. There are good things that we can do here, and it's important that we press ahead in doing them when that responsibility is in the hands of the people in this Senedd.

I've heard lots of comments about the time, the timetable and so on. This was a Bill signalled in the early part of this Senedd term. It was there in the co-operation agreement. We brought forward the registration Bill, a companion Bill to this Bill, earlier in the process. There has been ample opportunity for the industry to engage in what the Bill sets out to do, and there are many Members here who've taken part in earlier scrutiny of tourism-related legislation who've been able to bring that expertise to bear in the debate and in the scrutiny process.

And to echo something that the Counsel General said in the last debate, if you have a five-year legislative programme, some Bills are going to be in year 5. And that means inevitably that there are timetable constraints and pressures on committees and on the Government. And it means, to answer Rhys ab Owen's recital, that there will be some things left to a future Welsh Government. That is just inevitable in a five-year Bill. I want to thank the—[Interruption.] Yes, of course.

The committee has found it very challenging, this piece of legislation, given the time constraints on it. I hear what you said about the Counsel General's comments about a five-year legislative programme. The governing party does have to take some of the blame here, in that a year of this Senedd term was basically lost to the Government through its own internal fighting of establishing three First Ministers in one calendar year. Do you accept that that's caused a logjam in the legislation, and that's why so much is being delivered at the back end of this term?

No, I don't agree with that. There is an explanation why so much of the legislation has been end-loaded, and that's because the first year of this Senedd term was a year still caught up in the COVID crisis, when it was very difficult to bring forward legislation with the speed that we would normally have expected. Where I do agree with the Chair of the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee is that this timetable doesn't create a precedent for future timetables. Timetables have to be drawn up in the context of the specific Bill and the specific part in the timetable of a Senedd term.

I much appreciated the report of the ETRA committee. As I said, I intend to accept nine out of 10 of the recommendations made in that report. I'm happy this afternoon to confirm that there will be a post-implementation review added to the face of the Bill. I do intend that the first time that fees are set that they should be subject to an affirmative vote. As I said in my opening statement, there will be an amendment to put a minimum scrutiny time into any future extension of the licensing scheme to other parts of the tourism sector. So, I hope that shows that we've listened very carefully to the committee, enjoyed the engagement that we've had with it, and are taking its recommendations very seriously.

In relation to the Chair of the Finance Committee, I'm happy to confirm that we've agreed to a revised regulatory impact assessment, as the committee proposed. I'm happy to say again this afternoon that my view of the future is that the Welsh Revenue Authority will be responsible for the more mechanical end of the licensing process, and most providers will get their licence in exactly that way. It's a difficult balance, when you're bringing forward a Bill that hasn't gone past Stage 1 yet, to be too definitive in some of the ways in which the Bill will be implemented. If we do get past Stage 1 today, there will be further thought and detail we can provide.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we're accepting seven out of 10 of the recommendations made by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. I was pleased to write to the Chair with a greater explanation of the human rights issues. The issues that we don't agree with the LJC on are the ones we always disagree on, because we have a different view as a Government to the one that the committee has persistently taken and on which the Government has equally regularly set out our own views.

I'll deal with one final point, Dirprwy Lywydd, and then I'll conclude. [Interruption.] I'm only trying to respond to points that Members have made.

[Inaudible.]—three interventions, I'll give you the time.

Thank you. And that was the issue of spare rooms. To be clear with Janet, if somebody lets a whole house out, they will be required to register it and they will be required to have a licence, even if they only do it for a week. The point that Rhys ab Owen was asking is why aren't single rooms in houses subject to this licensing scheme. There's nothing in the Bill that prevents it being extended in future to it. It is complex. What are you licensing? Just the room itself that somebody occupies—not the kitchen they use, not the bathroom they use, not the sitting room they use, just the room? If you decided to do that, I'm not sure what benefit you are particularly gaining. If you wanted to do the rest of it, then it's quite complicated and would require more detailed work than was possible for this Bill. What the Bill does, it allows a future Welsh Government, should it wish to do so, to extend the Bill in the way that the Member proposed.

I thank Members for the many suggestions we've heard this afternoon. I look forward to the Bill, if it passes today, moving to Stage 2, and I'm sure there'll be further debate as we seek together to improve the legislation. Diolch yn fawr.

The proposal is to agree the motion under item 11. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next proposal is to agree the motion under item 12. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 13 today is the general principles of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales (Membership) Bill. I call on the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery to move the motion—Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Earlier today, the Senedd agreed the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales (Membership) Bill should be treated as an emergency Bill, and the Bill was introduced following the debate.

The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales plays a vital role in safeguarding the rights of people detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. Its panels must include a legal member, a lay member and a medical member. As I set out earlier this afternoon, this Bill is necessary because a technical issue has been identified in relation to the definition of 'registered medical practitioner' in the Mental Health Act 1983. This means that medical members of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales must hold both General Medical Council registration and a licence to practise. As a result of this, the president of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales made the difficult decision, shortly before Christmas, to stop members without a current licence to practise from sitting on cases. Members without current licences to practise are often retired from practice. They sit on a disproportionately high number of the tribunal's cases—in the region of two thirds. So, the consequence of this issue is that it has put the tribunal's ability to meet its statutory time frames for hearings at considerable risk. This Bill seeks an urgent solution to this issue and enables the tribunal to continue its important work.

It makes two provisions, both equally important. The first changes the qualification requirements to enable individuals who are fully registered within the meaning of the Medical Act 1983 but who do not hold a current licence to practise under that Act to sit as medical members. This brings eligibility for the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales into line with the equivalent tribunal for England. The purpose of this provision is to restore the operational capacity of the tribunal as soon as is possible, and to enable existing medical members, who are GMC registered but do not have a licence to practise, to once again sit on cases.

The second provision is as essential as the first. It provides that people who were previously appointed as medical members but who did not hold a licence to practise, whether at the time of appointment or at any other time, were validly appointed and were valid members of the tribunal at all times.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I recognise that retrospective provision should be used sparingly. It is one of my functions as a law officer to look very closely at any proposals from my ministerial colleagues to bring forward legislation with retrospective effect. In this instance, though, without such provision, existing medical members who do not have a licence to practise will be unable to sit on the tribunal without going through a costly and time-consuming reappointment process. This would mean that the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales would not be able to fulfil its statutory functions in a timely manner. But, Dirprwy Lywydd, much more importantly, those people most in need of this service will suffer. It would also provide them with legal certainty about the validity of previous decisions. I urge Members to support the general principles of the Bill to help avoid the consequences of inaction and to secure its swift passage onto the statute book. Diolch.

I'd just like to say to Members—apologies in advance—my speech won't be as short this afternoon as it was earlier today. I do speak in support of the general principles of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales (Membership) Bill. This is a tightly focused emergency Bill, and it's right it is treated as such. The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales plays a vital role in safeguarding the rights of people detained under the Mental Health Act, ensuring the detention remains lawful, necessary, proportionate, and any threat to the tribunal's ability to operate effectively is therefore a direct risk to patient rights and patient safety across Wales.

The evidence before us is clear: the tribunal is currently operating within a critically reduced pool of medical members, with just 19, compared with more than double the number only a year ago. The situation is unsustainable. When hearings cannot be convened in a timely way, individuals may remain detained longer than clinically necessary, causing distress, delayed recovery and undermining confidence in the system.

I note the strong support expressed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Wales, which represents over 600 psychiatrists across the country. They are clear that the prompt action is required to restore the tribunal's operational capacity and avoid further delays that could compromise patient safety. It is particularly important that the Bill safeguards the status of existing medical members. Without this reassurance, experienced clinicians who no longer hold a licence to practise would be unable to sit on panels without undergoing lengthy reappointment processes, further reducing the capacity at precisely the moment when it is needed the most.

While this Bill is necessary, it also highlights some wider policy issues within the system, and these cannot be ignored. The pressure facing the tribunal sits within the broader context of workforce fragility in psychiatry in Wales. There is currently no dedicated workforce plan for psychiatry, despite increasing demands, legislative reform and the growing complexity of tribunal work. Those challenges will not be resolved by this emergency legislation, and I'd be interested to know from the Counsel General what discussions she's had with the Minister for Mental Health and Well-being about how we can improve the efficiency of the tribunal. The royal college has also raised serious concerns about the recent operational decisions affecting the tribunal, particularly the lack of meaningful engagement with clinicians and the impact this is having on patient care and clinical safety. These issues merit urgent attention, but once this immediate risk has been addressed and dealt with under this legislation.

However, Deputy Presiding Officer, none of those wider concerns detract from the core purpose of this Bill. On the contrary, they reinforce the need to act now to prevent further harm while longer term solutions are developed. For those reasons, I and my group will be supporting the general principles of this Bill and will be voting in favour of it as a necessary step to protect patient rights, maintain legal safeguards and ensure the continued functioning of an essential part of our mental health system here in Wales.

Let me start by reiterating again that Plaid Cymru understands the urgency, and we'll be supporting the Bill. The Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales is not an administrative add-on; it's a safeguard for people whose liberty has been taken by the state. If the tribunal cannot sit, people are left waiting, sometimes detained in hospitals, sometimes under other restrictions, without the timely, lawful, independent scrutiny the law intends. So, we will approach this Bill constructively, but urgency does not cancel scrutiny. And the question is: how have we ended up needing emergency primary legislation for a problem flagged years ago?

Now, we were told earlier today that this came into sharp focus after a leadership change, with the incoming president last year identifying the issue and rightly stopping unlicensed members from sitting. But this issue was identified long before last year. Richard Jones, one of the most authoritative commentators on mental health law in Wales, set it out in the eighteenth edition of the Mental Health Act Manual in 2015—10 years ago. In Wales, he pointed out, the definition of 'registered medical practitioner' imports a licence to practise requirement, unlike England, where that was removed. In March 2021, he wrote,

'The difference between the English and Welsh positions was pointed out by me to the Welsh tribunal many years ago, but no action was taken. This does raise the question'—

he goes on to say—

'of whether a proportion of tribunal hearings in Wales over the last decade or so have been properly constituted.'

In April 2021, he went further again, saying,

'For Wales: A legal representative who is concerned about a decision of the MHRT not to discharge the patient should check whether the medical member has a license to practice...If it transpires that the medical member does not have a license to practice, the MHRT was not properly constituted and an application for the judicial review of the decision could be made.'

So, my questions to the Counsel General are these: who exactly was warned? When Mr Jones says he raised this many years ago, who was told—tribunal leadership, the Welsh Tribunals unit, officials, Ministers? What did the system do with that warning? Was it logged as a legal risk? Was counsel instructed? Was legislative time requested? If a decision was taken not to act, who took it and on what basis? When did the Welsh Government itself first become aware? If it was only last year, when precisely? And why did it take until now to come to the Senedd? If it was earlier, why did it drift? There's a linked question. As we heard earlier from Rhys ab Owen, when England dealt with this through secondary legislation in 2009, why was Wales not aligned at that time? It seems a mystery still at the moment, but it could have been fixed calmly and routinely rather than becoming an emergency as it is now.

Now, this is not about blaming individuals, but it is about governance—how devolved tribunals in Wales identify, escalate and resolve legal and operational risks. Without personalising it, I think it is legitimate to ask whether a lack of renewal in this case might have played a role. We had a presidency of this tribunal lasting over a quarter of a century. Will the Counsel General share her view as to whether part of tribunal reform needs to look at term limits or expectations in that regard? Which brings me on to the wider point, and I agree with Rhys ab Owen, that this is a textbook case, isn't it, for the need for a tribunals Bill, and I'm sure the Counsel General would agree with that general sentiment—clearer governance, accountability, oversight, workforce planning and a culture that fixes known defects before they become crises.

Now, let's turn to the retrospective validation clause that was touched on earlier. It does raise some thorny legal questions in terms of compatibility with convention rights. Article 5 of the European convention is the right to liberty and security, which is, obviously, directly relevant in this case. Article 6 is the right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal properly established by law, and it's that last point that is pertinent here. So, can the Counsel General share with us in greater detail how the retrospective validation clause in relation to tribunal membership is, in her view, compatible with article 5 and article 6?

Can I press her a little bit further about live cases, because courts have warned about legislatures intervening to affect the outcome of live proceedings? The Counsel General said this afternoon that, as far as she's aware, there are no existing cases challenging decisions on this ground because the president has already stopped non-licensed members from sitting, but there still is the issue of previous cases—of historic cases or past cases, if you like. So, has she been able to find out what the status of any challenges are, and if she cannot answer now, is she able to provide us that information tomorrow?

The Counsel General has told us that she has legal advice that decisions cannot be impugned, but the retrospective clause is included to put the matter beyond doubt. Can she say whether that advice relies on what is described as the de facto officer analysis or on some other basis, and if decisions cannot be impugned, why is retrospectivity through this legislation still necessary? And the practical question remains, I think: what happens to cases that may arise between now and Royal Assent if a claim is lodged? Does the Government intend the retrospective clause somehow to extinguish those challenges as well?

Stakeholders have said that they support the aim of this emergency legislation because nobody wants hearings delayed, but they do raise wider concerns. The Royal College of Psychiatrists in Wales supports swift action, yet warns about decision making, planning and limited engagement with the psychiatric workforce. Mind Cymru asks how the tribunal ended up here, and what safeguards exist if Wales is relying heavily on retired and licensed doctors, especially to keep clinical knowledge current, and calls for clearer oversight to prevent crises like this happening again.

I thank the Counsel General for her responses to my contribution earlier on in relation to the emergency element of the Bill. I’m not going to repeat my concerns that I did earlier on today about why it has taken so long for this to be brought to the attention of the Senedd—nearly 18 years. I wasn’t going to talk tonight, but since then I have had the opportunity to read the summary of legislative competence considerations, and understandably, some of the issues we raised earlier on today and that Adam has raised this evening have come up in that. The retrospective confirmation of a medical member's appointment and membership may, as Adam has said, engage article 5, article 6, right to a fair trial, article 8, right to respect of private and family life, and also article 1 of the first protocol of the European convention on human rights, protection of property.

It is quite clear that they are engaged. Despite that, the explanatory memorandum, in section 9.4 entitled ‘Impact on equalities’, and section 9.5 entitled ‘Impact on children's rights’, makes no reference to the ECHR at all. Why is that the case? Whilst the Llywydd did conclude that these ECHR rights were found to be engaged, but they are either not infringed or, if infringed, any infringement would be likely to be justified within the terms of the 1998 Act, I would be grateful to hear further thoughts from you, Counsel General, on this matter. Indeed, what work has the Welsh Government, in what I acknowledge has been a very rapid process, been able to undertake to test whether the retrospective provision could lead to infringement of ECHR rights? Because as you quite rightly said in your opening, Cwnsler Cyffredinol, we should be very slow to make these retrospective changes. Diolch yn fawr.

I want to start by confirming my support to the general principles of this emergency Bill. It’s clear that we need to close that legal gap in order to ensure the continuation of the work of the tribunal and the safety of patients. But let us be clear that this situation is the direct result of governmental failings. Why was this technical issue only raised now? Why weren’t steps taken when there was time to act in full? How can the Government justify introducing such a Bill without any adequate scrutiny period? This raises fundamental questions about accountability, transparency and the competence of the Government in planning responsibly.

I wonder whether the Counsel General could confirm whether any assessment has been made of the impact of the new mental health legislation on the number of tribunal cases that are anticipated. If the number increases, what steps are in place to recruit and plan the workforce? There are serious concerns about training and professional development, too. How will psychiatrists who have retired keep up with changes? There are not only NICE guidelines but also moral oversight and unconscious bias. How can we ensure that clinical practice is current, particularly as some in-patient hospitals in Wales are already facing challenges in terms of quality of care? People's lives are at stake, but the Government has chosen to rush through legislation without giving a full opportunity to scrutinise in order to prepare for any consequences.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in Wales has given a clear warning that decisions affecting the tribunal are being made without adequate planning or meaningful engagement with the clinical workforce. Without a meaningful workforce plan for psychiatrists, the current pressures are likely to become unsustainable. I wonder whether the Government could commit to commissioning a clear assessment of the current deficiencies and those that are anticipated in the psychiatric workforce in order to develop a sustainable plan to recruit and retain psychiatrists here in Wales to ensure meaningful clinical engagement in all decisions affecting the tribunal in order to safeguard patients. The position will not improve unless we see these meaningful steps taken in order to strengthen the workforce.

This brings me to my final point: I anticipate that the Counsel General will say that she can't respond to most of these questions in full as they are issues related to health service policies—an issue for the Cabinet Secretary for health rather than the Counsel General. They are questions that deserve responses, but this process denies the ability for us to scrutinise to this level and to get those necessary answers in order to understand the full implications of what we will be voting on. I and we will be supporting this emergency Bill because of the critical nature of the situation that we find ourselves in, but the situation is far from ideal. Thank you.

I call on the Counsel General to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I said a little bit about this earlier on, but I'll set it out again just for completeness. We understand that prior to 2008, a licence to practise was not required in either the Welsh or English mental health tribunals. The change to the qualification requirements in Wales flowed from the introduction of the licence to practise regime established by a 2002 UK Government Order. This amended the definition of 'registered medical practitioner' in the Interpretation Act 1978 to include a requirement to hold a licence alongside the existing registration requirement. While primarily aimed at regulating practicing doctors, it had the, we think, unforeseen consequence of also changing the qualification requirements for the medical members of the Mental Health Review Tribunal for Wales.

The English qualification Order, which was referred to in the earlier debate, was made under powers that apply to England only. It would not have been possible to rely on this power to make an equivalent change to the qualification requirements in Wales. I don't want to speak on behalf of the president of the mental health review tribunal about how she came to understand the issue. It's not for me to say. I can tell you, though, how I came to understand the issue, which is that she proactively drew it to my attention.

I just want to repeat again that these appointments are not made by the Welsh Government. They are made by a judicial appointments committee recommendation to the Lord Chancellor. So, these are not things that the Welsh Ministers routinely deal with. They are dealt with by the UK Government. We explored the UK Government route to correcting it, but it would have taken many months more than an emergency Bill here. And whilst I absolutely accept Members' concerns that emergency legislation should only be used very sparingly and it does absolutely restrict scrutiny, we felt that the well-being of the individuals caught up in the tribunal system justified the use of the emergency legislation. It should be very rare. It's the only one we've done this Senedd term. That's not a mistake. It's because it should be very rare and only in cases where you absolutely do need to have an emergency fix to something.

I've been in contact with the Lord Chancellor and various other UK Government Ministers so that Royal Assent can proceed quickly. We will have letters from the UK Government during the intimation period to say that they will not refer the Bill, so that we can proceed much more quickly to implementation. It will be as short a time as is humanly possible, so that we can get the tribunal back into the position it was in previously.

Yes. Thank you for taking the intervention, Counsel General. I did raise a very specific point where a senior consultant at Blake Morgan, Richard Jones, has said that he alerted the tribunal to this very problem many years ago. I understand that the Counsel General maybe is not able to address this now, but is it possible for you to ask the Welsh Tribunals unit to investigate this matter at some pace, so that we can have that information as to whether that information was provided to them and what happened as a result of it?

You'll not be at all surprised to find that I've already asked that question. The first we knew of it was when the new president of the mental health tribunal raised it with us in mid to late December, so we've worked very quickly since then. As I said in the earlier debate, I really do want to thank the staff, the civil servants and the Commission staff, who worked right through the recess to make this possible. They have really pulled all the stops out, and I've taken part in a fair number of meetings myself over the recess, so it has been a full-out effort to get this corrected.

I have asked repeatedly whether we knew before, whether we should have known before, and so on. The answer is, 'We didn't know before.' I will continue to ask that question and we'll do a review. As I say, we have already done a review of the support to the tribunal internally, so there is a better support unit for the tribunal under my auspices than we had previously. That's as a result of conversations I've had with Sir Gary Hickinbottom and with the new incoming president, who's been immensely helpful, I have to say, about how we can get this back on a more even keel. We've done some of those things. These are all administrative things. These are not mental health policy things. These are simply administrative issues around the tribunals. The tribunals Bill will put some of that on a much better footing when it goes through.

There has been no patient impact to date. I'm going from what the president is telling me. They've pulled out all the stops. They don't think there's been any patient impact to date. Following the president's decision, all scheduled panels were reviewed. Members who are currently licensed to practise were swapped in. It required a significant amount of manual work from the tribunal and goodwill from the members. It's just not sustainable longer term, which is why we need to do the legislation. I think the president of the mental health review tribunal has acted swiftly and should be commended for that. She's been immensely helpful to me. She has been very proactive in reviewing it, and I think she's to be commended for that, and all of her staff.

The Judicial Appointments Commission still is the appointments panel for that, and we'll want to make sure that the statutory eligibility requirements are correctly interpreted by the judicial appointments committee. We will make enquiries as to why we've got into this position, because the judicial appointments committee should have known that as well, and 'I have no idea' is the honest truth as to why they didn't. I didn't know anything about this myself until very recently. My understanding is that this happened before I was even elected, so we haven't been able to trace it, Adam, but if we can, we will. I mean, we'd like to know. But I think it's much, much more important for us to correct it and then make sure it can't happen again, which is why you do an inquiry. Obviously, it's not about trying to find people to blame, it's about making sure that we have the processes in place to make sure that we have the best appointments system. So, that will also be done as well.

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

In accordance with Standing Order 26.68, the Llywydd has determined that a financial resolution is not required for this Bill. Therefore, item 14 has been withdrawn, and that brings today's proceedings to a close.