National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to this Plenary session. Before we begin, I want to set out a few points. This meeting will be held in hybrid format, with some Members in the Senedd Chamber and others joining by video-conference. All Members participating in proceedings of the Senedd, wherever they may be, will be treated equally. A Plenary meeting held using video-conference, in accordance with the Standing Orders of the Welsh Parliament, constitutes Senedd proceedings for the purposes of the Government of Wales Act 2006. Some of the provisions of Standing Order 34 will apply for today's Plenary meeting, and those are noted on your agenda.

The first item is questions to the Minister for Finance and Local Government, and the first question is from Peter Fox.

Yes. As part of our £380 million cost-of-living support package, we have provided £152 million to local authorities to make payments of £150 to households living in properties in bands A to D and to all households in receipt of our council tax reduction scheme.  

Thank you, Minister, for that response. Minister, a number of constituents have contacted my office recently and have asked whether the Welsh Government would consider extending the council tax rebate scheme to those households living in homes that are energy inefficient. For example, two elderly residents have explained that they live in older, stone properties that are cold and draughty, but currently cannot afford to pay for energy-efficient improvements. Neither of them receives pension credit and are not eligible for the council tax rebate as their property is above band D threshold. Yet, in the case of one resident in particular, they pay £300 a month in council tax, which is more than half of their monthly income. 

As I mentioned previously, there are a lot of people, especially in rural communities, who are asset rich and cash poor, or live in family homes, who may not be covered by current support schemes. Minister, how would you respond to these residents who have asked whether the council tax rebate could be expanded so that more people can receive the support they need? And how is the finance ministry working with the climate change department to specifically help people on lower incomes and who live in older, inefficient homes to improve their energy efficiency? Thank you.

Thank you very much for the question, and, of course, our scheme here in Wales is already more generous than that being offered across the border in England, because we do have the council tax reduction scheme element of it, which is available to people in properties bands A to I. So, that obviously goes much further than the support available elsewhere. But we do recognise that there will be people struggling who are not automatically entitled to that support, which is why we've included a £25 million discretionary fund for local authorities so that they can support individual households who they know will be struggling but are not otherwise eligible. Each local authority will be publishing their discretionary scheme notice so that they will demonstrate which households will be considered within that local area. So, I know Monmouthshire would intend to do so shortly. Over 20,000 properties in Monmouthshire have already been identified as eligible for the support and, of those, 16,900 have already received their payment. So, there is considerable support for your constituents, but I would absolutely recommend that those constituents in the first instance explore with the council whether they are eligible for support through the discretionary scheme.

Yes. As part of our £380 million cost-of-living support package, over 200,000 households have benefited from our winter fuel support scheme. Additionally, payments totalling over £60 million have been made to over 410,000 households as part of the £150 cost-of-living support scheme.

I thank you for you answer, Minister. The Welsh Government is of course using every tool in its box to put money back into people's pockets, but the UK Government doesn't seem to realise or care about the scale of the emergency my constituents and people up and down the country are facing. Do you agree with me that it should bring forward an emergency budget now, including a windfall tax on oil and gas profits and a VAT cut on home energy bills, and focus their minds as much on helping people through this crisis as they have on arranging illegal partying in Downing Street? The Welsh Government of course is giving a £150 payment to people and I understand that, as you said, more than 332,000 households have already received it. When can all the others expect to receive that payment?

Thank you for raising that question. The Prime Minister was asked almost an identical question this afternoon in Prime Minister's questions, and his response was completely inadequate—it just smacked of arrogance, and demonstrated how out of touch the UK Government is in terms of the challenges that people are facing. It is high time that the UK Government took some action in this space. They had the opportunity in the spring statement to do something; they did almost nothing. And I do hope that the UK Government will decide to put in place a package of support that includes those kinds of things that Joyce Watson has been calling for for a long time, like the windfall tax to which she's just referred. And there are other things, I think, that the UK Government could practically do, such as paying the £200 electricity bill rebate as a non-repayable grant to all bill payers, and introducing that lower energy price cap for low-income households so that they're better able to meet the costs of their energy. It's a really worrying time for families, but I think that things are going to get more difficult in the period ahead. The UK Government does have that fire power that's needed in order to address these issues, and I do hope that they will take action as soon as they possibly can.

In addition to the largest ever financial settlement from the UK Government, the £25 million extra household support funding and £180 million extra funding for cost-of-living support, so far received by the Welsh Government from the UK Government in consequence of its funding announcements, which the Welsh Government would not otherwise have had, the UK Government has said this week that a new package to fight the cost-of-living crisis is imminent and that no option is off the table. However, how do you respond to the call by Age Cymru for extension of the Welsh Government's winter fuel support scheme eligibility criteria to include older people in receipt of pension credit, and to concern raised with me on behalf of disabled people in north Wales, who need to use extra energy for the equipment that keeps them alive but are ineligible for the Welsh Government's discretionary assistance fund? And how will you deliver on the Welsh Government's acceptance of the recommendation in the 2020 Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report, 'Benefits in Wales: Options for Better Delivery', that it establish a coherent and integrated Welsh benefits system for all the means-tested benefits for which it is responsible, co-produced with people who claim these benefits and the wider Welsh public?

I'm glad to see that Mark Isherwood is confident of further imminent help from the UK Government. I'm sure that will provide comfort to his constituents, as long as it is real, and as long as it does come soon enough to support them with the challenges that they're facing ahead. And, yes, we have had a better settlement in this financial year, but let's remember that the cost-of-living crisis means that our budget over the next three years is now worth £600 million less than it was when this Senedd voted on those budget plans just three months ago. So, I think that that just demonstrates the level of challenge that is facing the Welsh Government, but also the entire Welsh public sector as well. So, I hope that the UK Government recognises that when it brings the immediate and imminent help that Mark Isherwood is anticipating.

We are doing everything that we can within our resources to support people. So, it is quite right that we have indicated that we will again run the £200 winter fuel support scheme, which has been successful at the start of this year. We'll be doing it again at the end of this financial year. And I can confirm that we are looking to explore how we can extend that now to a wider group of people to ensure that more people are able to keep their homes warm over the winter. And in the region that Joyce Watson represents—because she introduced us to this question this afternoon—I can confirm that 16,105 applications were paid at the start of the year, and I would expect that to be greater at the end of the year.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Peter Fox.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, the £150 council tax rebate we've just been talking about—the repayment scheme that you're implementing—made possible, as Mark Isherwood said, thanks to the UK Government, is indeed welcome here. However, what is seriously concerning are the multiple reports of families in Wales being stuck in limbo with no access to this support. Online comments to a recent article highlighted the extent of this ordeal, where families in Newport, Carmarthenshire, Wrexham, Caerphilly and many other places stated that they are yet to receive the rebate. Minister, do you know how many people in Wales have received, and are yet to receive, the council tax rebate? I know you've just quoted some figures for Monmouthshire and other parts of Wales. And for those who haven't yet received the funding, can you provide them with the assurance that there will not be any further delays in providing the money?

So, I would question whether or not we could refer to delays in providing the money, because this is a rapidly designed and rapidly delivered piece of support to families. And let's remember that we're talking about a million households receiving funding from this pot across Wales. I can confirm that, as of 16 May, which is the date for which I have the most recent figures, almost £61 million has been paid out, and that's to over 410,000 households. So, they have received their payments. And 13 authorities have started that payment process, but all should have started it and started making payments by the end of this month. So, we do expect things to ramp up quickly, but I have to say local authorities, I think, have been doing a very good job getting the funding out to households. 

And let's remember again that local authorities can do this easily where they have the bank details of those households—so, people who pay their council tax through direct debit, for example, are relatively easy to pay. Lots of people don't have that function set up, so we have to get individual data from those constituents who then have to fill in just a short form on the council's website, but, of course, that takes some extra time and resource to deal with. But we are working as fast as we can, and local authorities are, to get the money out. 

Thank you for that answer, Minister, and I also concur that local authorities do indeed work hard in getting these things out. But what families now need is for the Welsh Government to finally prioritise them by ensuring that that support reaches them extremely quickly. As I'm sure Members from across the Chamber will agree, families should not have to be subjected to continued uncertainties, so it's important that we make progress. I know councils have had to adapt to be able to provide this new scheme, but they already have the systems in place to collect council tax, and so people certainly do deserve answers as to why this process has been so slow, and I accept that you've tried to explain that.

There are also concerns, as you've just mentioned, about those people in society who are the most vulnerable, who probably don't have access to the internet, and are very worried that they are not going to be able to access this rebate and they may not know how to find it. Minister, can you outline what measures were adopted by the Welsh Government to ensure what should have been a smooth delivery of the rebate? Did you thrust the announcement onto councils, or did you ensure that they were fully equipped with the resources that they need to co-ordinate the supply as efficiently and effectively as possible? And, finally, how are you working with councils to ensure that everyone who is eligible can receive the support they need?

So, I'd repeat again that I don't think that this is a slow roll-out. And let's remember that this £150 contribution from the UK Government is coming at the start of the financial year; it's coming as we start to move into the spring and the summer, when bills and the pressures on households aren't going to be as acute as they are later on in the year. So, I think that households will be remembering that as they consider their budgets for the year ahead. But there are immediate things that the UK Government can do right now to support your constituents and mine with the cost of living. For example, they could reinstate the £20 a week uplift to universal credit—an immediate thing the UK Government could do to put money into the households that need it most. And they could also remove all of the social and environmental policy costs from household energy bills and instead meet those from general taxation—again, something they could do immediately and quickly to support households that are struggling. 

So, Welsh Government is absolutely playing its part. Local government is supporting us in the delivery of the schemes that we have introduced. But, we can only do so much with the resources that we have available to us. It is for the UK Government to start doing the things that only it can do—for example, introducing that lower energy cap for low-income households. We have worked really closely with local authorities on this, providing the guidance and working with them on the scheme. But let's remember, the UK Government announced its rebate scheme—which isn't actually a rebate scheme, but that's for another day, I suppose—without any discussion with the Welsh Government, without any prior notice. So, we then immediately get asked by the media, by the opposition, 'What are we going to do about it? How are we going to use this consequential funding? Are we going to offer the same package of support?' So, we have to work very rapidly then with local government, and there's no reason why the UK Government can't engage with us when it's developing these proposals, so that we can do the background work in advance with our local authorities so that they have a greater lead-in time for delivery. 

Well, thank you, Minister. I want to change tack slightly. Minister, Wales is now at a critical stage, and what comes next will determine the future and shape of the country. We're currently suffering the triple whammy of inflationary pressure, the pandemic and now the Welsh Government's—and I have to say it—kick in the teeth to our fantastic tourist industry. Your statement yesterday on self-catering properties sent shockwaves through the tourist industry in Wales. Despite what your statement says, Minister, you have chosen not to listen to the industry. I and the tourist sector fear the Welsh Government's position will wreck a crucial pillar of the Welsh economy. The priority needs to be supporting business and creating well-paid jobs, not putting people out of work, which this will do. Will you, Minister, meet with the industry leaders and listen once again to their concerns and pleas? These are unprecedented times, and the industry doesn't need the Welsh Government piling additional pressures on to it at a time when it's trying to recover. 

Well, it's Welsh Government's view that the changes are intended to ensure that those self-catering businesses are making that fair contribution to the economy in which they're situated. And where a property is let on a commercial basis for 182 days or more—it's only half the year—it will be making a contribution to the local economy, and it will be generating income and it will be creating jobs. Where those thresholds aren't met, we're only asking that the property pays council tax, like every other property in the community. And I have to say that it shouldn't have come as a shock, because I did announce this on 2 March, more than a year before these measures will be coming into force, taking practical effect, and we did publish the technical consultation on it, and that followed a huge consultation, where we had over 1,000 responses. So, we've had a good level of engagement.

I did meet with the Wales Tourism Alliance, and had a really useful discussion with them, and, as a result of that, I did indicate that I would go away and take some further advice on those properties that have planning restrictions attached to them, whereby they're not allowed to let for the full 12 months of the year. And I have indicated that I'm looking at how we can make exemptions for those particular properties, demonstrating, I think, that we have been listening to those concerns raised by the industry. But I think that we're only asking that businesses make a reasonable contribution to the economy in which they're sited. 

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd. 

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Minister, you will recall, I know, in 2020, Audit Wales found that a third of town and community councils in Wales had their accounts qualified—deemed unacceptable, of course—and in the 2017 local elections over two thirds of seats for town and community councillors went uncontested; 80 per cent of wards didn't actually have an election. Now, we await an analysis for the most recent local election, a few weeks ago, although anecdotally I think we can safely say that the situation certainly hasn't improved, possibly even gotten worse. So, that said, what is your assessment of the state of town and community councils as a tier of local government in Wales? 

I think that my assessment would be that the tier is mixed. I would say that there are some incredibly vibrant local authorities—excuse me, town and community councils—which are doing great work within their communities: they're ambitious, they have good plans to improve the area, they engage well with the communities around them, they put on events, they improve the local environment and so on. But then there are other town and community councils that are, I have to say, much less ambitious and deliver much less for their communities, and I suppose the overall vision, really, is to bring those community councils and support them to come up to the level of the best, and we do have some excellent town and community councils across Wales.  

We do, indeed, but you're right to say there's huge disparity, isn't there, not only in terms of performance and ambition, but certainly in terms of the coverage to start with, where some areas have a town and community council, others don't. I think about nearly 30 per cent of the population of Wales don't even have a town and community council. Some are very large—Barry Town Council, for example, is very nearly representing a population the same size as Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council—but then you have others who maybe represent just a few hundred people in their community, and, collectively, they represent a precept base, assets and reserves worth over £0.25 billion. So, taking all that into consideration, would you accept that maybe it is time to take a step back and to look at the situation more holistically and to maybe consider whether we need greater consistency in terms of provision and coverage, in terms of size, in terms of functions? And it might be an opportunity to look at strengthening responsibilities as well so that we can actually create a more sustainable tier of provision and make this key tier of local government more fit for the future?

I'd absolutely be keen to explore with the spokesperson what ideas we have in terms of driving forward improvement in the sector, because I think we're in agreement that the sector is very mixed in terms of both the practicalities of it but then also what they're delivering. I'm keen to have that discussion about how we strengthen powers for the best. We do have the additional powers through the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 that look to support town and community councils with their ambitions, where they are ambitious to do more. But I think that the discussions I have with One Voice Wales are important in terms of exploring, really, how we do raise the sector up more generally. I have provided support via the chief digital officer for town and community councils to explore what more they can be doing in the digital space, because I think that modernising town and community councils is very important as well in terms of helping them engage better with their local communities. But I absolutely agree that there's plenty more to be done in this area, and I'm keen to have any discussions with any interested colleagues on ideas for the future.

Yes. The UK Government has deliberately bypassed our devolution settlement and is running both the levelling-up and shared prosperity funds from London. The last-minute offer of an advisory role in the shared prosperity fund was wholly inadequate and symptomatic of the UK Government's botched approach to post-Brexit funding.

Well, thank you very much for your response. It's a reflection of the situation. But, of course, the situation is disappointing, isn't it? Because, back in 2019, Wales was a net beneficiary of funding from the European Union, receiving hundreds of millions of pounds every year, and that drove economic programmes and also attracted match funding from private and public sources. But, as you've said in your response, the Welsh Government is now being shut out of this process. We're moving from a holistic, strategic approach to a competitive model that sets local authorities against each other instead of bringing them together, and which elevates the role of Members of Parliament to some kind of adjudicators who almost have some kind of veto on these schemes. It takes us in the wrong direction. Instead of Wales coming together to pull in the same direction with complementary investments, now we see everyone being encouraged to go their own way, often at the expense of others. It's also an intentional step to cut out the Senedd from this process and to undermine the mandate and the democratic oversight that we have here. So, in light of all that, do you agree with the calls of Plaid Cymru that all responsibility over post-Brexit funding sources should be devolved to Wales?

Thank you very much for raising that, and also for the motion that Plaid Cymru have tabled for later on this afternoon, when we can explore this together in further detail. But I share that concern that it does potentially pit local authorities against each other at precisely the time when we're trying to encourage collaboration and working together. But it's not even just local authorities, of course; previously, you would have had higher education, further education, the private sector, the third sector, all benefiting significantly from EU funding. But now, in terms of making local authorities administrators in the SPF, that's causing, I think, potential challenges with that relationship as well. So, you know, I think that—. I referred to it as 'botched' in my original answer; I think that that's being polite.

I think that the point about bypassing the Senedd is also really important as well, because the UK Government has said that they'll be devolving more locally, but that's absolute rubbish, because no funding or decision-making power at all is being devolved. Because Welsh local authorizes have to prepare plans but then they're assessed by Whitehall officials and decisions are made by UK Government Ministers in London, so there's no devolution of these things to that kind of more local level that the UK Government refers to.

And then of course there's the important point about the loss of funding. We will be facing a loss of £1.1 billion in unreplaced structural and rural funding between 2021 and 2025, and that of course includes a £243 million loss in rural funding. I can hear the Member who is a farmer himself talking about this as we discuss this question. So, clearly, Wales is absolutely worse off and the promises made to us have been broken.

Of course, levelling-up funding is crucial to how we will work in the future here in Wales, because there's so much that can be done to help regenerate our high streets, our town centres, tackling crime, antisocial behaviour, and this money can make a real difference in those communities. And of course, one of the aspects, actually, we on these benches do support, and actually local government does support, is that funding being in the hands of those local authorities, because this is devolution, and this is where it doesn't stop here at Cardiff Bay, and despite your concerns, Minister, local authorities that I know and work with are excited about the opportunity to feed into this process directly, rather than being dictated to from Cardiff Bay. So, in light of this, Minister, what discussions are you having, and what ongoing discussions are you having, with local authorities to ensure that levelling up is made a success?

I would be very surprised indeed if local authorities are referring to our regional funding approach previously as 'being dictated' from Cardiff. I would be very surprised indeed, because our approach has always been incredibly collaborative. It's about trying to ensure that decisions are taken in partnership. And let's remember that the levelling-up fund has been—. It's just sprinkling tiny, tiny bits of money across Wales. Let's remember the first funding round was launched in March 2021, and successful applicants weren't notified until October of that year, and, in the first round, only six local authorities in Wales received funding. That was for 10 bids, worth £121 million. Unsuccessful bids across Wales were worth well over that—£172 million—so, I think that there would be more disappointed local authorities than pleased by this particular scheme, and I see absolutely no prospect of this tiny amount of money the UK Government is providing contributing to any kind of levelling up in Wales or elsewhere.

It was fascinating at the weekend to see a little evidence of blue water appearing in the leader of the Conservatives' speech—it wasn't so much an ocean or even a river, nor a stream; it was more a rivulet, or perhaps a rill, a tiny little trickle—in terms of HS2 funding. But, of course, we've also seen the announcements on Crossrail in recent years, and the Victoria line this weekend, and, you know, it's fantastic to see all that investment going into the south-east, but this has an effect in Wales; we've been starved of funding for levelling up in our railways over decades. I can actually say that we're finally getting the Tondu signalling getting done—15 to 20 years after it should have been, because it was taken away to the south-east of England to do investment there, but we're finally getting it done.

So, Minister, do you have any idea what sort of figure you could hand to the Conservative leader to say, 'In addition to HS2, here's the sum of money we need to level up investment in the railways in Wales'?

It's really pleasing to see that scales have fallen from the eyes of the leader of the Conservatives in respect of HS2 funding, and I hope that he has similar revelations in respect of the £1.1 billion that has been lost to Wales—and this is a fact—as a result of the UK Government's approach to Brexit. So, our approach to rail infrastructure funding has been a result of consistently being shortchanged by the UK Government. Over the past 20 years, we've received less than 2 per cent of the £102 billion the UK Government has spent on rail enhancements, despite us having 5 per cent of the population, but, worse than that, 10 per cent of the tracks. And we don't have fair funding in respect of rail infrastructure at all. Despite Network Rail's Wales route having 11 per cent of the route length, 11 per cent of the stations and 20 per cent of the level crossings across in England and Wales, only an average of around 2 per cent of that money has been spent on network enhancements since 2011. So, that's clearly extremely disappointing.

What could we have instead? We could be decarbonising our rail network in Wales; we could be addressing the disparities created by the cancellation of electrification to Swansea; we could be implementing the recommendations of the Burns commission more quickly in south-east Wales; we could be delivering that north Wales metro more quickly, including improved links, I have to say, to HS2; and we could be investing in important local schemes such as increased frequency on the Maesteg line and reopening of the Abertillery spur. These are things that we could have had had we had fairness from the UK Government.

I will continue to ensure fair funding for all authorities in Wales through a transparent, equitable and jointly produced distribution formula for the local government settlement with our local government partners.

Thank you for that detailed answer, Minister. I do briefly want to touch on two issues with the Welsh Government's local authority funding formula. The first is the disparity between the funding per head of an 84-year-old in comparison to that of an 85-year-old. Minister, you'll be aware that the former receives £10.72 per head and the latter receives £1,582 per head. Now, how can it be that someone who presents with the same health issues, at roughly the same age and very similar environmental and social circumstances, receives £1,571.28 less than someone who is only one year older?

But that's not the only issue, Minister. You'll also be aware that much of the data captured and subsequently used to calculate funding allocations is dated as far back as 2001. Given these issues, can I urge you to review the funding formula for our local authorities, and ensure that each of my constituents in Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire are getting their fair share of funding? 

On the first question you raised in respect of age bands, this is something that the distribution sub-group has been asked to take a look at following questions raised by your colleague Sam Rowlands in this respect. So, that piece of work will be ongoing. But I have say that the vast majority of funding, and those indicators for funding, are updated annually. So, at the moment it's 72 per cent, but, as a result of the pandemic and the staggered roll-out of universal credit, a number of the indicators have been frozen and are undergoing investigation by the distribution sub-group at the moment. But once those issues are resolved, over 80 per cent of the funding formula will be relying on data that is updated annually, so we will have more up-to-date information. Of course we've got the census data coming out later this year, which, again, will be very important in giving us that more timely data.

Whilst this is a matter for the Deputy Minister for Climate Change, I understand his officials have been in contact with the local authority, which has responsibility to maintain and ensure the resilience of such assets. There has been no formal bid by Denbighshire council to Welsh Government for funding.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. As you can imagine, my constituents are extremely frustrated by this situation. Almost a year and a half after the destruction of the historic Llannerch bridge, the communities of Trefnant and Tremeirchion remain isolated from one another, forcing long detours by car and leaving no active travel routes. My constituents don't care about the argument over who is going to pay for the bridge rebuilding. They are the ones ultimately footing the bill through their taxes, regardless of whether the council or the Welsh Government pays for the repairs. Other schemes to repair the damage caused by storm Christoph have already been agreed by Welsh Government. So, Minister, will you work with your colleagues in Welsh Government and Denbighshire County Council to seek an urgent way forward, and speed up the process, so that my constituents can be assured that Llannerch bridge will be replaced sooner rather than later as this has gone on for way too long?

Well, I can only repeat what my colleague the Minister for Climate Change told you in January, and that is that, of course, we appreciate the difficulties that have been caused to your constituents as a result of the work that needs to be done, but that is a responsibility of the local authority to maintain and ensure the resilience of those assets. But, as you were told in January, and it remains the case, we haven't yet had a funding bid from Denbighshire regarding the bridge.

My priorities are set out in our programme for government and the recent 2022-23 budget, which deliver on our values and provide the foundation for a stronger, fairer, greener Wales.

Minister, the one project the Welsh Government has committed to is reducing the speed limit on the A40 in Scleddau in my constituency in this financial year, and yet the Government has recently made it clear that current capital budget allocations for trunk-road network operations in 2022-23 require all projects to be re-evaluated. Minister, I can't overemphasise the importance of road safety, which I hope is still a priority for this Government, and I urge you, Minister, to ensure that this funding is made available for this work, given the original commitment. So, can you tell us what discussions you've had with your colleague the Deputy Minister for Climate Change about the funding of road safety projects? And will you now look to commit to providing funding for this important scheme as soon as possible?

So, Llywydd, this is really a matter for my colleagues the Minister for Climate Change and the Deputy Minister for Climate Change in respect of their budgetary responsibilities, but I will, perhaps, take an update from my colleagues on this, because the speed limit on the A40 is not within my responsibilities.

Question 7 [OQ58079] is withdrawn. Question 8, Heledd Fychan.

Our approach continues to embed the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 at its heart. Alongside our 2022-23 budget providing the foundations for a stronger, fairer and greener Wales, the Act is central to the improvements to the budget and tax processes contained within the budget improvement plan.

Thank you, Minister. I welcome the fact that the Government published the well-being statement to coincide with the programme for government, and stated in it that you will, and I quote,

'use our budget process to ensure that resources are allocated to deliver the well-being objectives'.

I was also very encouraged to find the word 'future' appearing 46 times in the draft budget for this financial year. However, despite the strides that have been made, public bodies tell me time and time again that they still feel that budget decisions are taken in silos, and that even though they receive remit letters stating how they need to work to support well-being objectives, they are still finding it difficult to access funding to help deliver on important Government objectives if they are seen as being outside their traditional remit areas—for example, art organisations that deliver on health and well-being programmes, including social prescribing. Also, some feel that some public bodies are not delivering as they should on the Act and yet continue to receive sustained funding without any more than encouragement to do more.

I'd be interested to know if this is something that is also of concern to you, Minister, and whether there are plans to move to more impact or prevention-based budgets as you monitor how the well-being objectives linked to the budget are progressing over the course of this Senedd.

That's a really interesting question and I think that it speaks to the importance of our budget improvement plan, which I first published back in 2018, but it's become a rolling document, taking a five-year look ahead to the ways in which we improve the budget process. And that really is about exactly what you've described in terms of thinking about how we maximise the multiple gains that we get for our investments. And the example that you gave about art being so crucial for health and well-being is a really good one. I will consider that further as we start our first round of budget bilaterals with our colleagues in the Cabinet, as we start to think about the next financial year's budget—the process actually starts now, so we've only had a couple of weeks off since the last one. But that will certainly be a question that I'll explore with all of my colleagues as we start to think about the next steps.

The Future Generations Commissioner for Wales's analysis suggests that, despite declaring a climate emergency, public bodies in Wales are still not building decarbonisation targets into their procurement requirements. What is the Government doing to rectify this and to recognise the additional costs that come from this? Thank you.

Well, public bodies in Wales should be looking at everything through the lens of the well-being of future generations Act, and certainly exploring what more they can be doing as organisations to help us deal with the climate and nature emergency. So, that should be part of the core way in which organisations are working now, across Wales. The well-being of future generations Act and the requirements on them in terms of the legislation, I think, are quite clear. So, I would be disappointed if public bodies weren't considering the Act and looking at all of their decisions through that particular lens. But if there are specific examples that you wanted me to look at with my colleagues, I'd be very happy to do so.

Support for local authorities' statutory air quality duties is provided through the £5.1 billion unhypothecated annual settlement. We awarded £355,000 in grant last year to increase authorities' capacity to tackle air pollution in their areas, and we're reviewing this scheme and considering future funding requirements to support the clean air Act.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. We know that the dangers that air pollution poses to people's health and well-being, both short and long-term exposure to air pollution, can lead to a wide range of diseases, including stroke, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, trachea bronchus and lung cancers, and many other infections. The new website tool, addresspollution.org, has shone a light on the pollutants that people may be experiencing in their postcodes. Sadly, it shows air pollution levels in parts of Newport are among the worst in the UK and greatly exceed World Health Organization targets. Residents are obviously very concerned and there's no one solution to tackling air pollution, but they will require national measures and local ones to bring levels down. What long-term funding strategy does the Welsh Government have to tackle air pollution, and how does it plan to support local authorities financially in addressing local pockets of particular concerns?

Thank you for the question. Last year, our local air quality management support fund did support local authorities to deliver some innovative projects that can prevent or mitigate air pollution issues, and bids from Newport City Council, as well as Swansea Council and Neath Port Talbot Council, were successful in receiving support through that scheme. And I know that the funding awarded to Newport City Council is supporting the installation of monitoring sensors in their air quality management areas, and I think that the description that you've just given of the kind of data that you're aware of just shows how important that kind of monitoring is in terms of how we move things forward on this particular agenda.

I think that the clean air Act is going to be absolutely pivotal in terms of how we look at these issues in the future. And, of course, we've consulted on the White Paper for the Clean Air (Wales) Bill between 13 January 2021 and 7 April 2021. I'm aware that my colleague will be publishing the summary of responses shortly; that's currently being drafted at the moment. As you can imagine, there was a lot of interest in this, which is wonderful. So, our aim, really, is to ensure that we continue to have that evidence-based process to set effective targets, for example, being realistic about what we can achieve, but also considering robust science and expert advice. So, I think that when we start to align our budgets in future, it will be through that lens that we will do so.

We remain committed to supporting reforms to improve delivery and increase the sustainability of the whole social care sector. In 2022-23 alone, we are providing over an additional £250 million for social services, including £180 million within the local government settlement, £45 million to support reforms, plus £50 million of social care capital.

Thank you, Minister. I was quite shocked very recently to find out that Care Forum Wales have revealed that fees paid by local authorities in north Wales are up to £11,000 a year less per person than those on offer from their counterparts in south Wales. The reality is that a 50-bed care home in Torfaen will receive £546,000 a year more for providing residential care than a similar sized home in Anglesey, Wrexham and Flintshire, for exactly the same level of care, and £444,600 more than a home in Conwy. CFW have resigned from the north Wales fee-setting group in protest at local authorities deprioritising care.

Now, as I have explained to you—I've written to you about this—part of the problem is the local authority funding formula. The current system provides local authorities with the funding of £1,500 per resident aged 85 or over. However, for those between the ages of 60 to 84, only £10.72. That huge gap shows a flawed assumption that only those 85 years plus require council-funded care and support. Minister, several Members have asked over many years here for this Welsh Government to look at the funding formula in Wales. It isn't working. In fact, it's working against my older population and my vulnerable people in Aberconwy. Would you please, please look at the funding formula again, so that we can definitely have a system that is fairer to all those requiring care across Wales? Diolch.

As I described in a previous answer to one of your colleagues, we did have a discussion at the most recent meeting of the finance sub-group where we did consider the formula and we said that we would come back to it again at our first meeting following the local government elections. So, we'll be exploring that further. Of course, the settlement is unhypothecated and it's for local authorities to determine their priorities and local need as part of their own budget-setting process. In that sense, care commissioning costs aren't related to the settlement formula. However, I have read your letter with interest, and I know my colleague the Deputy Minister for Social Services responded, because the issue did lie within her particular portfolio. As I say, we do intend to continue those discussions relating to the formula with the new group of colleagues who'll come into the finance sub-group at our next meeting.

Thank you, Minister.

The next item is questions to the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, and the first question is from Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch. Local authority farms represent less than 1 per cent of agricultural land in Wales. They are a small but important asset and can offer a point of entry into the industry. The management of local authority farms is ultimately a matter for Welsh local authorities. 

I don't like the way you've brushed that aside, saying that it's only 1 per cent and a matter for local authorities. I think you do have an important strategic role as a Government here, because we know that financial pressures are going to cast a shadow over the future of many of these council-owned farms, and the number of farms has reduced over the years. I do think it's time now for the Government to bring all relevant partners together in order to create a meaningful strategy to protect, yes, but also to strengthen the role of these council-owned farms. The agricultural colleges could play an important part in that, for example, by trialling new ideas, using opportunities for students to innovate and so on. We remember the work of the National Trust and young farmers clubs in relation to Llyndy Isaf and the possibilities there. There are other partners that I also feel should be part of discussions. So, may I ask: will you as Minister and as a Government bring together a summit to look particularly at protecting our council-owned farms and to make them more meaningful, purposeful and creative for a more sustainable future for the sector?

I certainly didn't sweep it under the carpet in the way that you suggest; I said it was a small but important asset. You know through discussions that we've had how much importance I do place on local authority farms. I asked Powys County Council to do a piece of work for me, because I was concerned about the number that seem to be being sold off. I don't think we've seen a huge number of local authority farms sold off, but I do think the ones that have been sold off are the bigger ones, which I think is a cause for concern. I think there's been a loss of land, rather than a loss if you just look at the number that have been sold off. Certainly for new entrants and young farmers as well, I think it is a way of entering the industry that isn't open to them down other avenues.

I don't think it's necessary to have a summit. I do think it is important to keep talking to partners and our stakeholders. For instance, I'm just thinking now about a group that could help us. I've asked my officials to set up a tenant working group to look specifically at the sustainable farming scheme, going forward, because, obviously, tenants are a very important part of our agricultural sector, and the scheme really needs to work for them. So, that, perhaps, is something that we could ask them to help us with as well.

From a policy position, the Welsh Government has a policy to plant more trees, and Natural Resources Wales actively acquire land to plant those trees on, which is obviously a Government agency. The Government have just recently acquired Gilestone farm for £4.25 million in Powys. Would you consider a policy position to reinvigorate the council smallholding estate across Wales by making a request to the finance Minister and the Government as a whole to allocate this sum of money from central resources to reinvigorate the council holding estate across the whole of Wales, and, indeed, actually, actively acquire additional land so that you could create a new bank of council smallholdings to be an entry point for many people into the agricultural sector?

I go back to what the Minister for Finance and Local Government just responded to—that this part of the local government settlement isn't hypothecated. I think what is really important is that we support our young farmers, if they do want to look at a local authority tenancy, for instance. You'll be aware of the Venture scheme that we have where we look at both ends—the younger entrants and people who are looking to leave farming. It's not something that I've considered speaking to the Minister for finance about at all.

Thank you. Last November, I published the Welsh Government's five-year animal welfare plan. The plan sets out how we will deliver our programme for government commitments and other priority work through a range of policies to build on our high standards of welfare for dogs and all kept animals. 

Thank you for that answer, Minister. Although you'll never guess it by looking outside, we're moving into the summer months and the weather is going to be getting hotter, hopefully. As such, it's a crucial time to highlight the RSPCA's annual campaign that dogs die in hot cars. Dog ownership increased during the pandemic, and with up to 30 million people expected to holiday in the UK in 2022, the message must get out there that dogs aren't always welcome everywhere, so people need to plan their outings carefully. Dogs and other pets left alone in cars on a hot day can quickly become dehydrated, develop heatstroke, or even die. When it's 22 degrees Celsius outside, the car could reach an unbearable 47 degrees Celsius within an hour. I'm very proud of my successful campaign, along with the RSPCA, to get messages displayed on signs across Wales's trunk roads reminding owners of the dangers of leaving their pets in their cars—the first UK country to do so, but there's always room to do more. What communication campaign will the Welsh Government pursue over the summer to inform owners of the real risks of leaving their pets in cars, so that we can make sure that we have done all we can to protect animals from suffering through no fault of their own? [Interruption.] 

Yes, well done. I think it's really important that those messages on trunk roads and motorways continue; they've been very positively received as well. During the summer months, you asked what I'll be doing—we'll be continuing to support that work; we'll be continuing to issue tweets and put out press releases about people leaving animals in their cars. We've also got our Paws, Prevent, Protect social media campaign. That's been running since 2019, and depending on what time of year it is, we adjust that campaign to give such messages out. 

Minister, I recently visited the Llys Nini animal sanctuary near Swansea. It was amazing, and they are all dedicated to providing a second chance to the animals in their care. But, this should not need to happen. Can the Minister confirm how the Welsh Government will support local authorities when it comes to protecting the welfare of the animals in their communities, in particular with regard to enforcement?

Thank you. I agree; I've been very fortunate to visit many animal sanctuaries and rescue centres, and it is a shame that they're needed, but they are, and, as you say, the level of care that they give is outstanding. You'll be aware of the three-year programme we had to support our local authorities around enforcement. We put some substantial funding into a campaign whereby more people could be trained to enforce our animal welfare regulations, and we're now in the third year of that programme. 

There are a number of dog welfare issues that are concerning in Wales, such as illegal breeding and the issues shelters are having with capacity. In fairness, I know the Minister is across these issues and I know she takes a keen interest in the welfare of dogs here in Wales. I do thank her for that.

On Monday, the Petitions Committee held its first evidence-gathering session on greyhound racing, where a number of concerning welfare issues were brought to the committee's attention. The Minister, I'm sure, knows that I take a keen interest in this particular topic. So, I was wondering if the Minister could provide an update on including greyhound racing as part of the future licensing scheme set out in the animal welfare plan. I understand that she was unable to provide a date to my colleague Jane Dodds last week in the Chamber, but there are a number of organisations that are keen to see some movement from the Government on this as soon as possible.

Very quickly, I just wanted to thank the Minister as well for coming to Hope Rescue's Paws in the Bay event last Wednesday. I think we were very close to getting you to adopt a little Pomeranian called Bunny. [Interruption.] Thank you again for coming. Hope Rescue were very grateful, not just for your engagement, but Members across the Chamber's engagement as well. 

Thank you. It was certainly not Boris—it was Bunny.

Thank you very much, first of all, for organising that campaign. I didn't see anybody not smiling throughout the whole time we were outside walking the dogs, but it was a very serious point that Hope Rescue Centre brought forward about illegal breeding, about the number of dogs that they currently have that they're looking to rehome.

You asked a specific point around greyhound racing. I'm very aware of the petition that Jack Sargeant's committee is looking at, and I look forward to receiving correspondence around it. Unfortunately, I can't give you a date any further on than the information I gave to Jane Dodds last Wednesday, but it is absolutely part of our animal welfare plan, and we're certainly looking to see what we can do in relation to greyhound racing. You may be aware I met with the Greyhound Board of Great Britain to discuss the concerns, because I think greyhound racing—. Certainly the more we look into it, the more concern I have about the injuries that, unfortunately, some of these greyhounds have had. There's only one track in Wales, but you'll be aware of the specific concerns, particularly around one bend. I have written to the owner to ask for a meeting with him. I haven't had the courtesy of a response yet, so I've chased it up. But, please be assured this is something I'm looking at very seriously.

Questions now from party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson first of all—Samuel Kurtz.

Diolch, Llywydd. I refer Members to my register of interests. Minister, some two months ago, on Wednesday 23 March, Andrew R.T. Davies and I called on the Welsh Government to convene a food summit with all stakeholders to discuss global supply chain food shortages triggered by the current events in Ukraine. In response, you said, and I quote,

'I recognise the Tories here don't understand how Government works, but we do not need a food summit.'

Trust me when I say there's nothing that would give me greater pleasure than having a Welsh Conservative Government here in the Senedd with Andrew R.T. as our First Minister. Yet, the First Minister confirmed that your ministerial colleague Jane Hutt had in fact held a food summit over two weeks ago. However, no written statement has been published and no oral statement has been made to this Senedd. In fact, this Government has let this completely go under the radar. I'm more than happy for you to take our initiatives, and for this Welsh Government to pass them off as their own, but I would appreciate a statement, Minister, on the outcome of this summit, from either you or your colleague, outlining what steps you intend to take to safeguard Wales from global supply chain food shortages.

Well, the Welsh Conservatives still don't understand what it is to be in Government. Fortunately, the Welsh people don't want you to be in Government here in the Senedd. I have seen a response to a written question—I think it might be Andrew R.T. Davies who asked it—clarifying that it wasn't a food summit, it was a food poverty round-table. I did attend it, but it was led by Jane Hutt. So, obviously, I can't clarify what you've just said to me. If you're referring to the food poverty round-table, that did take place, I think, a fortnight ago. I still stand by what I said—you still don't understand how Government works. We don't need a food summit. I meet regularly with our stakeholders who you want me to have the food summit with—the processors, the trade unions, food supply, et cetera, et cetera. I meet with all those people regularly. I don't need a summit to bring everybody together. I meet with my counterparts from the UK Government, and from Scotland and Northern Ireland, where we discuss food supply and food security. It's very much a UK integrated position, and it's really important that we do it on a UK level.

Thank you, Minister. I understand that we're a very integrated UK market here, but there are many levers that this Welsh Government can have in convening a food summit. The First Minister then, I take it, misspoke when he said there had been a food summit—it was a food poverty summit. Yet, I really do think it's imperative that we do bring these people together at one opportunity to discuss what we can do to help our agricultural community and ensure that the people of Wales continue to have food on their tables.

Moving on to the next point, in the face of all these challenges, we must be innovative. That's why I was incredibly disappointed to hear of your resistance to the UK Government's Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill—a piece of legislation that is set to transform the potential of new farming technologies across the UK. This draft paper will seek to cut red tape and support the development of innovative tech to grow more resistant, more nutritious and more environmentally friendly crops, notwithstanding the fact that this introduction will be a key tool in our chest in our fight against food supply chain shortages. Given this, I can't fathom to understand why the Welsh Government is refusing to adopt this important piece of legislation, especially given its backing from key stakeholders and the scientific community. Minister, there are plenty of opportunities on the table to scale up our food production and embolden our food security. Given this, why are you content with keeping Welsh food off the tables of Welsh people?

Well, that's completely incorrect. The UK Government have rushed this Bill through. It was published today. It's an England-only Bill on genetic technology and precision breeding. If I tell you—and this is what I mean by 'you don't understand how Government works'—the draft was shared with my officials yesterday very late in the afternoon. Now, you might find that funny, but the lack of engagement at a UK level to us is absolutely appalling and very disrespectful. The Bill contains detailed measures that will require careful consideration. You can't just do these things like that overnight. Late yesterday afternoon, we received a copy of the draft Bill and that includes all the possible impacts relating to the operation of the UK internal market. I agree, those techniques are powerful tools, but you have to use that power responsibly and you have to really, carefully consider these. So, this part of the Bill that you've referred to will be led by the Minister for Economy. I assume he will be responding when his officials also—because I guess they had it yesterday—will have had the chance to consider it.

Thank you, and I do wish to thank you, Minister, for attending the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee's latest session on investigating the nitrate vulnerable zones that Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru have endorsed. However, I was left with real concerns with the quality of the evidence. You've stated that the 170 kg per hectare derogation limit was established to tackle phosphorus pollution in Wales. However, this limit is completely unrelated to phosphorus; it's actually in place to control the derogation of nitrate levels—not what you stated in the evidence session. Later, you made reference to the required slurry storage, post introduction of your NVZ regulations. However, you failed to reference that Welsh Government guidance states that storage calculations are not comparable, based on rainwater derivation. And lastly, when questioned about stakeholder engagement and the submission of alterative water regulatory measures, you and your officials stated that the deadline for such is 1 September this year, presumably meaning that any submission on or after 2 September would not be considered. However, this isn't correct. The deadline for submission is a month later, on 1 October, a date that both you and your officials gave incorrectly. 

In total, there were 21 instances, here in black and white, where colleagues and I were left with more questions than answers, stretching from paragraph 13 of the transcript all the way through to paragraph 129 of the transcript. In the five years that you have been Minister, these regulations have been in the pipeline throughout that period and yet basic facts in basic evidence are incorrect. You've flip-flopped over the Government's intention to hold a food summit, only to do so three months later. You blocked a landmark piece of legislation, which was set to scale up our food production and strengthen food security, and your submission to the committee was littered with inaccuracies. Tell me why, Minister, Welsh agriculture should trust you?

Well, let me point out your inaccuracies: we have not held a food summit. I have not changed my mind. I have not flip-flopped, as you refer. There will not be a food summit in the way that you want. What I said had been held was a food poverty round-table. And again, if you don't know the difference, there's nothing I can say about that.

And, secondly, I don't know how many times I have to tell you: NVZs are no longer in Wales. These are agricultural pollution regulations—NVZs are no longer in Wales, so I think you need to get your facts right too.

Around the date of 1 September, I did find out yesterday it is 1 October, and I will be writing to your Chair, Paul Davies, to correct that. I thought we had a very good evidence session. I am pleased that we discussed how people, if they think they can come together with a proposal that will give us a better or the same outcome as the regulations, they will be considered. We've already got one in and I do hope there will be another one that we will be able to consider soon. 

Questions now from the Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. We've heard today already about food safety and security, and during the current food crisis that is worsening on a daily basis, the EU and the United States want to launch a new joint platform to secure food supplies and agricultural produce, improving global access to core crops and fertilisers from Ukraine and Russia. Of course, the EU plays a central role in ensuring food security, but the UK Government, and as a result we in Wales, don't have a voice in this because we have now exited the EU.

Farmers across Wales, who are already facing higher prices for feed and fertilisers, have warned that they will have to offset these prices by buying less fertiliser, which could lead to reduced crop production at a time when cereal supplies are already under threat because of the war.

Now, specialists from the sector have told the United Kingdom Government that they need to consider urgently ways to increase and redirect the production of domestic fertiliser. So, what discussions are you as a Welsh Government having with the UK Government in terms of food security and the effect of the lack of fertilisers on the agricultural sector in Wales?

Thank you. Well, this was an agenda item when we met as four nations—our Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs inter-ministerial group—a week last Monday, I think it was. And you're quite right, the UK Government—. I'll give you an example: they set up a fertiliser taskforce and really didn't want the devolved administrations involved at all. They have backtracked now, and I'm really pleased that my officials are able to sit on that taskforce, because I do think it will help us have a voice in a way that we haven't before. So, I think the first meeting was last week and another one is planned.

It is really important. I've got a call later on this afternoon with the DEFRA Secretary of State; we are keeping in touch very closely around all the concerns. We talk about the three Fs—feed, fuel and fertiliser—as they're having such a negative impact on the agriculture sector at the moment. I think we should add 'finance' and 'future impacts', because this is obviously a long-term matter now that we are having to address. So, I think it is really important that we continue those conversations. There are several groups that my officials do sit on with the UK Government and Scotland and Northern Ireland, where these discussions are ongoing, and they're certainly weekly at the current time.

I thank the Minister for that answer.

It was good to hear you say, in response to Llyr Gruffydd earlier, that you were concerned about the loss of land. And, of course, we know that land here in Wales is at a premium and we need to use it for food production. We've heard already today about Gilestone, and the way that the Welsh Government have bought a farm with good agricultural land for other purposes. We also know that large finance companies are looking at buying farmland here in Wales for tree planting purposes, meaning that we're losing good agricultural land. But figures that I've received through freedom of information show that it's not only finance companies that are buying land for tree planting—the Welsh Government is buying good-quality agricultural land for woodland creation. On this FOI I have here, the Welsh Government have bought land: £575,000 in Ruthin; £170,000 in Staylittle; £260,000 in Newtown; £378,000 in Menai Bridge—Porthaethwy; and, of course, we know about the £1.4 million Brownhill estate in Llangadog. All of that, it says here, was agricultural pasture land, and the reasons for purchase is for woodland creation. As Minister for agriculture, were you aware of this, and are you happy to see good agricultural land being bought for woodland creation purposes?

So, you gave me quite a long list there; I can't say I knew about every one of them. Obviously, I'm aware that NRW, for instance, have been purchasing land as well, and I think we all recognise, don't we, and certainly in the discussions I've had with Cefin Campbell, as designated Member for Plaid Cymru, that we do need to have that increase in the way that we tackle the climate emergency, and, obviously, woodland is a part of that. I have many discussions with the Deputy Minister for Climate Change, who obviously leads on woodland, along with the Minister for Climate Change. But I think it is really important we do look at the land that is purchased. Obviously, the state shouldn't and couldn't, realistically, buy large pieces of land, but I think what we need to look at is how we use it, what it's used for, and we do have to absolutely tackle the climate emergency.

Thank you. Farmers in Pembrokeshire received over £18 million of basic payment scheme payments during the past year. Our Farming Connect service continues to provide crucial support and advice to over 850 businesses in the Preseli Pembrokeshire area.

Minister, one of the most pressing issues facing farmers in Preseli Pembrokeshire is, of course, bovine TB. As you know, the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee has recently published a report on the Welsh Government's bovine TB eradication programme. One of the key points of that report is the need to ensure that farmers, and indeed others involved in tackling bovine TB, are treated as equal partners by the Welsh Government when developing TB eradication policies. Therefore, can you tell us, Minister, what steps the Welsh Government will now be taking to treat farmers, and indeed the wider industry, as equal partners in policy development in the future? And can you tell us how you will ensure farmers feel empowered by the Government's refreshed eradication plan, going forward?

Thank you, and I have received the report this week from your committee, and I will certainly be responding within the timescale. I always think we've treated everyone in relation to the TB eradication programme—farmers, other stakeholders, and ourselves—I think we've always worked very closely. We've always said it's a matter of working closely if we are going to eradicate this dreadful disease. You'll be aware that the National Farmers Union Cymru have started a TB group. I can't remember the title of it; we're working very closely with them. Your backbench colleague Sam Kurtz has offered to assist as well, I think, and I know he's got a meeting with my chief veterinary officer, Christianne Glossop, to discuss how he can help. I don't have all the answers, Sam doesn't have all the answers, but the fact that he wants to work with us I think is really positive.

As you know, we've just been out to consultation in relation to the TB eradication programme. Officials have analysed the consultation responses now, and I will be publishing them next month online. Obviously, those consultation responses, which will have come predominantly from farmers, will form very much a part of our refreshed TB eradication programme. 

Thank you. Once again, my intention is to make early advance payments in October. To continue supporting farmers, I am launching a number of new schemes this year, whilst also continuing the basic payment scheme and Glastir through until the end of 2023. 

I draw Members' attention to my declaration in the Members' interests log. Minister, other parts of the United Kingdom have brought forward the window for payment to July. You highlighted in an earlier response to a question that, actually, instead of three Fs, there needs to be five Fs, and one of those Fs was finance. It's critical that cash flow goes through farming businesses, especially with the busy autumn period coming up now, to purchase seed and breeding stock. Would you entertain any consideration about bringing the window forward, even to July? I heard what you said about October, but now that we've left the European Union, you have the ability to bring that window forward even sooner, and getting that finance into farm bank accounts is in the gift of your good self as Minister. So, could I urge you to give consideration to that, Minister?

I think it's fair to say that the announcement by the UK Government to bring forward a 50 per cent advance BPS payment in England is just really a sticking plaster to the much bigger issue of the cost-of-living crisis. It's also really important, and you will know better than anyone—the BPS budget in the UK has had a large reduction, and it was only reduced last year, and also, this year now, it's been cut by over 20 per cent, so a massive reduction in the BPS budget in England. As you know, I consulted on simplification to the BPS back in 2020, and agreed the farming industry's proposal to make advanced payments at 70 per cent of claim value in October, with balances due in December. We introduced that last year for the first time, and, as I say, I will be doing it this year. 

I've also given Welsh farmers cash flow certainty by introducing, as I say, the payment last year, but also, maintaining the BPS budget at £238 million for this year. I have to say, if you talk to our stakeholders, they've told me they'll be watching DEFRA very closely because they do think it's a sticking plaster. They are very pleased that we've given them stability and confidence by the work that we've done around the BPS. It's a good opportunity, this close to the date, to remind people that the final deadline to claim or apply for BPS is 10 June, and I want to ensure all claims are properly considered before we make advanced payments, and I don't want to risk incorrect payments for the sake of a headline. 

Thank you. The UK agriculture market monitoring group meets regularly to assess inflation rates of input costs. On 1 April I announced a package of support for farmers, foresters, land managers and food businesses worth over £227 million over the next three years, supporting the resilience of agriculture and the rural economy.

Thank you very much. With costs increasing so much, it's more important than ever that agriculture can be as productive as possible, and making the best use of the best land is part of that. I'm pleased, in the context of bids for solar schemes, that there is a strengthening view now that we need to retain our best and most versatile land for agriculture. And perhaps the Minister could confirm that, as we in Anglesey face a high number of applications for solar developments. 

But following on from Mabon ap Gwynfor's question, I wonder whether the Minister can tell us whether that is also relevant as the Government considers where to plant trees. The Government has been purchasing land for some years now, and, having understood that land in Tyn y Mynydd in Penmynydd on Anglesey has been purchased by the Government for tree planting, can the Minister tell us whether that is BMV land or not, because surely the same principle should apply there too?

So, I haven't had any specific conversation with the climate change Ministers around solar farms and where they're being placed, but I will certainly do so, and I will write to the Member with further information. 

According to statistics from the Office for National Statistics thankfully inflation rates for food are actually lower in the UK than in both the euro area and the EU, but that doesn't mean farmers aren't seeing considerable increases in their costs in this country too, and, over the last few months, we've seen increases in prices of fuel, food and fertiliser, resulting in huge additional pressures on the industry. This is creating serious concern within the agricultural sector within my region and has left many worried about their businesses, where it will impact small farmers in particular, bringing with it the real potential of some of these businesses to row back on the amount of food they produce or some going bankrupt altogether. Given the seriousness of the situation, and with the real possibility of some foods not being available as readily in the short term as they have been in the past, this is now the time to take significant action. We need to ensure the sustainable growth of the food sector to create jobs and attract investment and to ensure that sustainable local food producers have access to adequate support and incentives. International factors, most notably the war in Ukraine, have meant now more than ever we need to ensure that we sustainably produce more food than ever here in Wales. So, with that in mind, what consideration is the Welsh Government giving to backing my colleague Peter Fox's food Bill, which would achieve exactly that? 

Well, as you're aware, the Welsh Government is not backing Peter Fox's food Bill. Peter and I have met, and Peter's very well aware of the reasons why we're not backing the food Bill. I believe a lot of Peter's suggestions, which are very good, we can do without legislation, and I'd be very happy to continue to work with him and with Plaid Cymru as part of the co-operation agreement, taking forward the community food strategy, which I think will encompass a lot of the proposals in Peter Fox's Bill. You asked your question with no sense of irony. I have to say inflation is at a level that is causing a huge amount of concern; it's at a higher level than we've seen in this country for many, many years, and that's why it's really important the UK Government really get a handle on this cost-of-living crisis. 

Good afternoon, Minister. May I just start by asking you to pass on thanks to the First Minister for joining me in a farm visit to Merthyr Cynog, where we heard about many of the pressures facing farmers and the farm sector? But I want to touch on one of the key topics that we've heard about in this session, which is about the pressure on farmers right now in terms of the real crisis that there is. And I wrote to you, along with my colleagues Sam Kurtz and Mabon ap Gwynfor, following meetings that we had with the FUW, earlier this month. We've heard about the incredible costs facing our farmers and our farm businesses across Wales, and I can see, to date, that some of the action you have been asked to take just falls outside of your powers and outside of the Welsh Government, but there are maybe some ideas and issues that could be taken up by the Welsh Government. So, in our letter we've asked you to consider an urgent round-table on the cost crisis facing agriculture and farmers, and I just hope you would consider going ahead with that in order to hear some of the ideas and suggestions that there might be. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

Thank you. I'm not aware I've had sight of that letter from the three of you, but I will certainly, once I get it, consider its contents and respond accordingly.  

A survey by the Association of Dogs and Cats Homes on the impact of coronavirus on Welsh animal rescue organisations outlines the increased pressures currently faced by the sector. My officials are considering the survey and what potential actions can be taken arising from it in consultation with our third sector partners.

Okay. Thank you for that answer, Minister. I've spoken to many rehoming centres struggling with capacity, impacted by a lack of space for seized dogs due to the time it takes between seizing them and a section 20 case being heard to sign them over. Rescue centres are having to keep seized dogs for well over a year in some cases, unable to rehome them while the case is ongoing. Not only does this put a financial strain on the centres, but it also means that animals are having to wait even longer to find their forever homes. Legislation in Scotland introduced last year reduced the time between a dog being seized to being able to be rehomed to just three weeks. I believe that they're being rehomed while their case is ongoing. So, I was wondering if the Welsh Government has considered introducing similar legislation, and, if not, what are the barriers to doing so. Thank you.

Thank you. This is certainly something I discussed with Hope Rescue last week at Luke Fletcher's Paws in the Bay event because it was something that they were obviously very concerned about. I know my officials are in contact with the Scottish Government to understand more about the recent changes to seizure and rehoming times and to see if there is anything we can learn or if we need to do anything. As you know, I said in an earlier answer to Jayne Bryant, around the animal welfare plan, we intend to strengthen licensing requirements for rescue and rehoming centres, including sanctuaries, and we will obviously consult on the scope of any new legislation.

Thank you. My officials have regular discussions with Welsh fishers on a wide range of issues, including the establishment of a new ministerial advisory group for fisheries. The most recent discussion on this issue took place last week, on 18 May. The group will be established in July, before the summer recess.

Thank you very much to the Minister for that answer. As you know, there used to be WMFAG—the Wales marine fisheries advisory group—which used to exist as a forum for stakeholders in the fisheries sector to share information, experience and expertise. Unfortunately, WMFAG came to an end around three years ago, and there has been no forum for fishers since then. Despite this, there has been a forum for the third sector and other stakeholders who take an interest in marine issues. We hear very often, and you as Minister and other Ministers have spoken many times, about the need to co-ordinate and co-produce policy. So, what discussions have you had with the fisheries sector to co-ordinate and co-produce the engagement structures as we move forward to re-establishing this important group?

Thank you. As you're aware, when the previous chair's tenure at WMFAG came to an end, I took that as an opportunity to review the group and concluded we needed to move to a different approach and not expect just one sole group to do all that was expected of WMFAG. We are in a whole new world now after leaving the European Union, and I thought that was probably the best opportunity to do so. I think it's fair to say there's been a small delay in setting up the group. I had hoped to do it in the spring, but, as I say, we will do it before we go into summer recess this year.

Just to reassure Members, stakeholder engagement has continued. They've been very supportive, for instance, in bringing forward—we've had a new piece of fisheries management, as you're aware, in whelk management—the Whelk Fishing Permit (Wales) Order 2021, and certainly they were very influential in co-designing that with us. So, I don't want you to think stakeholder engagement hasn't continued. I've met them, my officials meet them regularly, we're working on the joint fisheries statement, as you know, at a four-nations level, and we've got the EMFF replacement scheme. There are always science issues, there are always trade issues, we've obviously gone through all the EU negotiations and we've had to deal with the quota allocations permits, fisheries management issues. So, that engagement has continued right throughout.

I would just also like to say, Llywydd, that I very much welcome the cross-party Senedd group for fisheries and aquaculture, which I know you're chairing and met for the first time this week, and I look forward to coming to one of your meetings, if you want to invite me.

Thank you. Farming Connect provides a programme of knowledge transfer, specialist advice and innovation, and supports farm businesses to reduce costs and maximise efficiencies. On 1 April, I announced a package of support worth over £227 million over the next three financial years to support resilience in the rural economy.

Thank you, Minister. Andrew Bailey, the Governor of the Bank of England, has warned of—I can never say this—

Apocalyptic.

I can never say that word. Yes—global food price rises. In fact, prices are rising at the fastest rate in 30 years. I don't think that the Governor is entirely right that we are helpless in the face of surging inflation. There are steps that we can take here to try and mitigate some of the inflation on the cost of food. We could ramp up food productivity here in Wales. David Edwards, NFU Cymru county chairman for Monmouthshire, wants to see the Welsh Government recognise that the continued supply of affordable, high-quality, domestically produced food is a strategic national priority. Now, on 11 March, I asked if you would support Welsh arable farmers to plough any land set aside, given the impact of the war in Ukraine on grain, and you responded the same month stating,

'we currently have no plans to support Welsh arable farmers to plough land set aside under the Glastir scheme'.

Will you consider that request again, Minister, so that farmers could be asked to plough this land that's set aside so that we can then boost domestically produced food here in Wales? Diolch.

I'm not as optimistic as Janet Finch-Saunders is, unfortunately, that the Governor of the Bank of England isn't correct. Unfortunately, all the evidence we're seeing is of a significant increase, and even UK Government Ministers, I'm afraid, shrug their shoulders when you talk about rising food prices, and they just seem to think that that is what's going to happen.

I mentioned the £227 million that we've announced for the next three years to support our agricultural sector, and there are several windows already open. There was another window opened this week and, over the next couple of months, that will take us up to nine different grants and schemes. Maybe as part of those we can look at what we can do. There's certainly a specific window that's already open around horticulture, for instance.

The Welsh Government closely monitors the availability and cost of all agricultural inputs through the UK agriculture market monitoring group and the UK fertiliser taskforce. Current analysis indicates there are no fertiliser supply issues in Wales, however, volatility of gas prices may lead to further price fluctuations.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Llywydd. I'd just like to remind Members of my interest as a farmer, as stated in my interests, albeit I don't actually use fertiliser.

As we've heard, Llywydd, the agricultural sector—and we've heard it several times today—is facing an uncertain period. For example, there are a number of concerns around the current and future availability and cost of fertiliser, which is fundamental to so many businesses and key to our food security. It is expected that new season fertiliser prices will start to become more clear as the year progresses, with producers needing to buy fertiliser in preparation for next year's growing season. However, concerns have been raised by the farming unions and many producers that current uncertainties in the market may encourage farmers to hold back in buying fertiliser until next year. This would create further challenges, as there is a risk of there not being enough supply capacity to meet future demand pressures. Minister, I was pleased to hear that you are talking to the UK Government, but what conversations are you having with producers and the fertiliser industry to help the sector to continue to be able to afford fertiliser products during a difficult time? Perhaps there is another string to the two Fs in the manner of additional support. How is the Government monitoring supply and demand to ensure that any future uncertainty can be addressed in a timely manner?

Thank you. We do certainly recognise what an uncertain period this is, for a variety of reasons, for the agricultural sector as a whole, and I mentioned that my officials attend the agricultural market monitoring group, and that is where, obviously, we do monitor very closely what is going on in our sector here in Wales. I met a farmer—I can't remember if it was in the Chamber or in a committee where I discussed this—who had bought a supply of fertiliser in February, and when I saw him, which was only about three weeks later, it had increased threefold in price, and he said to me, 'I don't know whether to spread it or sell it'. I think he was joking, but I absolutely understood the concerns he had about the price.

I think this is, obviously, a long-term issue. It is really important we do continue to talk to our stakeholders. I mentioned I speak to stakeholders regularly. One other stakeholder I spoke to was the banks, because I thought it was really important to assess where they were, and the impact of the war, obviously, on agricultural businesses is something that they're obviously going to have to deal with. So, we will continue to support the industry. We're thinking—. Well, we're not thinking; we are going to set up a hub so that we can signpost people much quicker than we are doing to give them advice and guidance on how best to react to these very high input costs we're seeing.

Thank you. Over the past year, we've supported the agricultural industry in the Powys region by providing farmers with over £63 million of basic payment scheme payments. Our Farming Connect service continues to provide crucial support and advice to hundreds of businesses in the area.

Thank you for your answer, Minister. Of course, what farmers in my constituency need, and in fact across the whole of Wales, is clear direction in Government policy. The agricultural Bill was supposed to have been brought forward in the spring of this year; that of course slipped and didn't happen. Can you, Minister, provide an explanation of why the Bill has slipped, when you now intend to bring the Bill forward, and also any wider issues in terms of supporting the agricultural industry and your direction from Government?

Well, I think we've had a lot of questions around agriculture today, so I think I've set out very clearly the support that we have in place. I go back to what I was saying about why Conservatives don't understand government. So, I'm asked by other Members of your group, 'Can we perhaps look at the agricultural Bill?'—Andrew R.T. Davies is one who has asked me several times could we pause the Bill to have a look at the impact of the Ukraine war, at the impact of the trade agreements. So, we do that and we're criticised. I think what is really important is that we get the sustainable farming scheme out as quickly as possible. I think it's really important that we have that scheme ready ahead of the summer shows so that we can have engagement, because ultimately I think more people will be interested in the scheme than they will in the Bill. So, it's really important that we have the scheme out. I've been working very closely with Plaid Cymru, as part of the co-operation agreement, around the sustainable farming scheme, and I can assure everyone that that will be ready ahead of the summer shows so that we can have that engagement. The agricultural Bill, I hope, will be introduced in September.  

I thank the Minister. 

The next item, therefore, is the topical question, and this question is to be answered by the Minister for Finance and Local Government, and is to be asked by Tom Giffard. 

On 24 May, I laid the legislation required to change the self-catering thresholds. This followed my announcement on 2 March and a technical consultation. The legislation will come into force on 14 June, but will have practical effect from 1 April 2023.

I thank the Minister for the answer. Can I just start by saying how disappointing it is that such a significant change was announced by Welsh Government in a written statement, and it has instead had to take a topical question to drag you here to the floor of the Senedd to explain—

I answered a question on this in questions this afternoon. We debated it a couple of weeks ago. Come on. 

—these changes instead? As my colleague Peter Fox said earlier, this change has sent shock waves through the self-catering holiday industry in Wales. I don't know how to put it any clearer than this, Minister: businesses across Wales will have to close as a result of these changes. The sector itself was even open to changing the criteria. They asked you to raise the threshold to 105 qualifying days, up from the current 70, but they've been ignored in favour of this target, which most operators say they simply won't reach. But perhaps the most stark message within your written statement is where you said:

'There is limited evidence available in relation to some of these considerations'.

Minister, you were sent mountains of evidence from relevant bodies, groups and businesses. Here is the submission from the Wales Tourism Alliance alone—over 1,500 replies right there. And in that consultation, less than 1 per cent of the total respondents actually agreed with the Welsh Government's plan to increase the threshold to 182 days. Minister, what's the point in a consultation if you're not going to listen to it? These are your constituents and mine, and they live in places like the Gower peninsula, and they've totally been ignored in favour of a back-room deal with your coalition partners in Plaid Cymru. 

And even in your own statement, you say, quote,

'I recognise that the stronger criteria may be challenging for some operators to meet.'

End quote. But you go on to offer absolutely no solutions at all as to how they can overcome the challenges. I can only therefore assume, Minister, you're content for those businesses to shut their doors for good. And as they shut those doors, I think one of your Government Ministers said it best when he said,

'we don't really know what we're doing on the economy.'

So, Minister, will you please reconsider this ridiculous decision that will close businesses up and down the country, and instead consider backing, rather than taxing, these businesses?

Before the Minister answers the question, let me just be clear: she did not need to be dragged to the Chamber; she is a most co-operative Minister in agreeing to answer the topical question once I'd decided that it could be asked. So, no dragging was necessary. 

Well, I am perplexed as to why anyone would be surprised by the announcement that has been made, given the fact that, by your own reckoning, there has been huge engagement: 1,500 responses provided to us by the Wales Tourism Alliance, which we obviously were grateful to receive; 1,000 responses to our original consultation; and 500 responses to our technical consultation. So, how anybody can be surprised and have not anticipated a decision on this, I just don't understand. We've tried very hard to be as inclusive as we can in the development of these particular issues. 

It is the case that these changes are intended to ensure that self-catering businesses are making a fair contribution to the local economy. Now, who could object to that apart from, perhaps, the Welsh Conservatives? Where a property is let out on a commercial basis for 182 days or more, I think that it is fair to recognise that that business will be making a contribution to the local economy. It will be generating income and it will be creating jobs, and we do know that there will be plenty of businesses that are able to meet that threshold. For those who can't, obviously, there are options available to them—I'm surprised I have to spell them out. Changing the business model might be one, or providing that property as a long-term let, as a rental property for a local individual or family, might be another option for them to consider.

So, there are choices, and also there's time. I made this original announcement back on 2 March. We had the opportunity to debate it in a Welsh Conservative debate on tourism quite recently. And also the changes won't come into force until 1 April 2023. So, there has been time to consider how businesses will adapt and respond to the changes. But this is part of our work that we are doing in partnership with Plaid Cymru, and it is part of our three-pronged approach to dealing with what is a genuine issue of second home properties in communities across Wales. 

Thank you to my colleague Tom Giffard for submitting a really important question this afternoon. And it is disappointing, as Tom Giffard mentioned, that this did come through a written statement and not through a proper statement here in the Chamber. As you'll be aware, Minister—. You talk about the visitor economy providing a proper contribution; you will know full well it employs around 140,000 people in this country, contributing over £6 billion to the economy here. We're talking about a contribution to Wales that's putting bread on the tables of over 140,000 people and putting roofs over their heads as well. These are the people who have huge concerns about the proposals that you've outlined here. 

In terms of providing the evidence that Tom Giffard mentioned, I chaired the cross-party group on tourism on 30 March, and officials from Government asked whether the attendees there could provide perhaps between 10 and 20 case studies to describe the impact of these proposals. Within four days—within four days—there'd been 400 case studies submitted, outlining their concerns—going from a 10 to 20 request to, within four days, 400 case studies submitted, showing the level of concern. And in the words of the Wales Tourism Alliance, UKHospitality Cymru and the Professional Association of Self-Caterers UK themselves, they've said in their report that they submitted to you: 'Our evidence shows that many micro locally-run family businesses will simply shut down.'

So, in light of this, Minister, why is it that you and the Minister for Economy are ignoring the views of this very important sector, and how can you pursue your proposed changes when these very serious concerns have been outlined to you? 

So, we've been very clear to look at what evidence is available, and it is correct that there isn't a vast amount of evidence available beyond that which was was received through the consultation and that which, additionally, was provided by the Wales Tourism Alliance. But I think one of the places where we can look for reliable evidence is the Wales tourism accommodation occupancy survey, and that does demonstrate that, over three years prior to the coronavirus pandemic, self-catering properties in Wales consistently exceeded 50 per cent occupancy on average. So, the average self-catering property will not have a problem meeting the thresholds that we are setting out. 

And I just think it is fair that businesses make a contribution to the communities in which they are located, and I'm surprised that the Welsh Conservatives would object to that. I've already indicated that I'm willing to look at exemptions in respect of those properties that have planning issues attached to them. So, that's something that officials are exploring at the moment. But this really is just about ensuring that property owners make a fair contribution to the communities and trying to reduce the number of underused properties that we have in Wales, when there is such pressure on our housing market.

Minister, you heard my question to the First Minister yesterday. I don't want to go into the length of discussion on that issue again, but I would like to know, on that particular example, how you would advise a business that has perhaps diversified, a farming business that has brought forward holiday let accommodation, and they cannot be used as second homes, they've got planning permission not for dwellings but only for accommodation use? And also, a lot of businesses across Wales do not live in an area of Wales where they can attract holiday lets for over six months of the year. It's just not possible. The market does not demand a tourist attraction for those particular six months of the year. Surely, Minister, you can understand this is an unintended consequence of this regulation that you've brought forward. How would you—? What would you offer as a solution to those particular businesses that are in that particular situation?

So, without knowing all of the details of the business—. You know, I'm not going to provide individual, bespoke advice, but I'll say, for the third time today, that I've already indicated that I will look to make exemptions for those properties that do have planning restrictions attached to them—so, for example, those diversified properties that are only available for let to holiday makers for 10 months of the year. I'll be looking to make an exception in those cases, and I'll provide a further update to colleagues on that as that work progresses. [Interruption.]

Do you want a question? Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you very much. Sorry—I did put in a last-minute request to participate and I'm very thankful for you allowing me to contribute. Thank you for the question, of course.

Of course, one welcomes any steps that the Government can take in order to tackle the housing crisis, and I welcome what you've just said, namely that you are looking at exemptions for buildings with particular conditions placed upon them. It would be good to hear a little more on that, because that clearly is a concern, but I do hear what the benches at the other end of the Chamber say, that they are concerned that the sector will be damaged. But wouldn't you as a Minister agree with me that the greatest challenge for this sector in reality is not these regulations but the huge growth that we have seen in Airbnb, Vrbo and these other platforms, which are suffocating the sector with very many homes and availability of rooms, which means that those indigenous businesses who want to succeed are having difficulties, because there are too many homes such as Airbnb available, and that the regulations that you're looking at to regulate Airbnb are going to help to that end? This will also help to weed out those owners who aren't serious and are seeking to make money on the back of our communities.

Also, just to say that I am aware of an example in my constituency where owners of holiday accommodation have decided to convert that accommodation to be for local tenants. Would you welcome that kind of development too?

I'm grateful for those points, and, absolutely, that is a real option available to property owners in respect of providing a home to a local resident and also that secure income that will come to them as a result of making that choice, so that's a positive choice that property owners are able to make in all parts of Wales, and it's good to hear of those examples.

Yes, I agree that there are some real challenges facing the industry, and certainly the competition from those kinds of very short term lets, the Airbnbs and so on, is part of the mix in terms of the competition that these businesses are facing.

And I do think that the register that my colleague the Minister for Economy is looking at will be helpful in terms of ensuring that we do have a quality offer for our tourists here in Wales and that we are a place that they'd want to come back to time and time again.

I thank the Minister.

The next item, therefore, is the 90-second statements. The first statement is from Jayne Bryant.

This week marks the Commonwealth War Graves Commission's War Graves Week. Their annual awareness week aims to encourage communities to come together and discover the world war heritage on our doorstep. As I speak, local volunteers are active in my own city of Newport, where more than 315 casualties from world war one and world war two are buried across 15 cemeteries, churchyards and chapel yards; the largest site at St Woolos cemetery with 274 graves, the smallest at Bethel Baptist chapel yard and St Mary's Nash, with one grave each. Since this morning, the team, including local resident Andrew Hemmings, has been on the corner of Charles Street and Commercial Street in Newport, speaking to residents about the remarkable men and women of the Commonwealth forces that died in the first and second world wars and are buried in Newport.

The focus of this year's War Graves Week is the Ordinary People, Extraordinary Times project. Alongside the front-line armed forces, we'll be celebrating those with roles that were essential in the war effort, such as healthcare, logistics, infrastructure and communication workers. These events are happening across Wales and the rest of the UK. Behind every war grave, there's a human story that must never be forgotten. This is a chance to bring those stories to life and to remember the sacrifices made by those remarkable men and women.

May is brittle bone month. Brittle bone disease is a rare disorder that results in fragile bones that break easily. It's present at birth and usually develops in children who have a family history of the disease. The disease is often referred to as osteogenesis imperfecta, which means imperfectly formed bone. Brittle bone disease can range from mild to severe. It should not be confused with either osteoporosis—where bones become brittle over years—or the tendency of some sportspeople to break bones. It affects about one in 15,000 to one in 20,000 people, making it one of the rare genetic diseases, but that means that each one of us should have between three and five constituents suffering from it. And I would hazard a guess that most Members in this Chamber have not met anybody in their constituency suffering from it. It's one of the rare genetic diseases. There are a lot of these rare genetic diseases. Each one is rare; combined, they become far less rare.

The main symptom of brittle bone disease is broken bones; they break very easily. Children can have a bone break during a nappy change, when being burped, or in the case of one person who I met, in the womb. Try explaining that it's brittle bones when you're taking the child for the eighth time in three weeks to the local A&E.

The Brittle Bone Society was established in 1968. It supports the needs of people born with the rare condition and their families in the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Whilst there is no solution, maintaining a healthy lifestyle by exercising, eating a balanced diet sufficient in vitamin D and calcium, and avoiding smoking, can help prevent fractures.

The next item is the motion to elect a Member to a committee, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion formally. Lesley Griffiths.

Formally.

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

Item 5 this afternoon is a Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv) on decarbonising public sector pensions. I call on Jack Sargeant to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Ideas often have their moment, a moment when the evidence for action becomes overwhelming. Dedicated campaigners have chipped away for years on pension fund disinvestment; it is now time for Governments across the globe to join the fight. I believe it's also time for Wales to take centre stage and lead the world on ending public sector pension fund investment in fossil fuels, and in so doing, igniting a new era of investment in the future of our planet, sustainable energy, and transport.

As many of my colleagues know, I have been working with Friends of the Earth Cymru for some time now on the campaign that is the subject of today's motion: for the Welsh Government to bring in targets for public sector pension fund disinvestment. The motion calls on the Welsh Government to mirror its 2030 target for the public sector to go carbon neutral with a target for public sector pension funds to achieve the same. This would mean that the public sector and its investments would be genuinely carbon neutral by 2030.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I'd like to put on the record my thanks to our bold First Minister, Mark Drakeford, who has given me much support and encouragement on this issue. Just last month, I held a cross-party event on this matter, and it was the Prif Weinidog who ensured that a senior Welsh Government official attended and contributed to what was an excellent discussion.

So, let's ask ourselves: why are we debating the seemingly dry subject of public sector pensions, and why am I excited by the opportunity they present to us? Well, the first reason we are doing this is because humanity faces catastrophe. That catastrophe is in the form of global warming. Global warming is caused by the use of fossil fuels, and we know that we have a very short window of opportunity to avert that catastrophe.

Pension funds are huge investors, and stopping them from investing in fossil fuels as quickly as possible is a must if we are to stop global temperature rises that will risk the very future of the human race. Now, coupled with the risk of climate change is the fact that fossil fuels are often imported from dictatorships, many of whom are serious destabilisers in global affairs. They are undemocratic regimes that promote values that we find abhorrent, and we should not continue to invest in them. Fossil fuels are also finite and the price of them fluctuates massively. Disinvestment is inevitable in the long term, but for the reasons I've already stated today, we should look to accelerate that process, as has already happened with pension fund investment in coal.

There is a well-established myth that markets and investment funds should be left to their own devices—their own devices to achieve the best financial returns possible. But the reality is that this never happens. All sorts of actors across the globe constantly interfere with markets and pension fund investment decisions. What this disinvestment campaign is saying is that one of those actors should be us, seeking to include, as an investment criteria, long-term sustainability.

We have seen, haven't we, just recently, that public sector fund managers can move remarkably quickly to remove investments that promote risk to human life? On this very occasion, it was the removal of pension fund investments in Russia, following their illegal invasion of Ukraine. Nobody across the Chamber could argue that this wasn't the right thing to do.

Deputy Presiding Officer, one of the strangest facts around whether pension funds invest in fossil fuels is their lack of willingness to involve those who pay into them in the decision-making process about where they invest. Now, I have no doubt that the vast majority of investors support the decision not to invest in coal, and they support the decision not to invest in Russia. And I believe that they would also support the decision for public sector pension funds to go carbon neutral at the same time as the rest of the public sector, by disinvesting from fossil fuels.

Being a genuine democrat and wanting to empower the people of Wales, I would go even further. I would ask them to be involved in forming a new investment plan—a plan that gives them the returns and improves the places where they live. There is, as I said, a real opportunity here to get pension schemes to invest in infrastructure in Wales. There is plenty of opportunity for investment returns here, and it could drive the creation of home-grown renewable energy, the building of social housing—a great investment because of the guaranteed rent returns—and carbon-neutral public transport. Just those opportunities alone would create highly skilled, high-paid jobs whilst investing in the future of our local communities. It is in the interest of Wales and the rest of the UK that we increase our levels of energy security, and it is about promoting home-grown energy production. And it is in all of our interests that the public sector goes fully carbon neutral by 2030.

Deputy Presiding Officer, today's debate is an opportunity for the Welsh Government to once again show the sort of bold leadership that saw us become the first nation in the world to declare a climate emergency, and to build on the well-being of future generations into legislation. The Deputy Presiding Officer knows that, at heart, I am an optimist and I know, in this Senedd Chamber, we take the averting of climate catastrophe as seriously as it needs to be taken. So, I commend this motion to the Senedd Chamber today, and I would urge all of you, cross party, to support this motion and join me in the campaign for pension fund disinvestment and urge the Welsh Government to act now. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank the Member for Alyn and Deeside for bringing forward this very interesting debate today? Before I begin, I'd like to confirm that the Welsh Conservative group will be abstaining on the motion before us today.

This is not because we don't agree with the premise of the motion. It's important, if we're to meet our climate change commitments, that we continue to move away from our reliance on fossil fuels, not just to power our cars and fuel our homes, but also to support our public finances. Of course, investing pension funds into things like fossil fuel companies has been standard practice for some time. It's not just the public sector pension funds that have been used in this way, but many private sector pension funds also. So, it's about time that we start looking at different and innovative ways of investing public funds into socially and environmentally responsible initiatives.

And so, it is in this regard that I'm pleased that the local government Wales Pension Partnership announced a new decarbonisation initiative across £2.5 billion of its investments in April last year. It's also welcome that the partnership has developed a climate risk policy with an ambition to report on progress towards reducing exposure to carbon-intensive investments. Councils and local authority pension funds have also made good progress in decarbonising their investments. For example, back in 2018, Monmouthshire County Council, when it was under Conservative leadership, agreed to ask Gwent pensions fund to disinvest in fossil fuels. Deputy Llywydd, there has been a wealth of good work by councils here in Wales on this agenda, but I absolutely agree that there needs to be more done.

However—and going back to why we are abstaining from today's motion—what I would just caution is that any disinvestment may result in some unintended consequences for the values of people's hard-won pensions. The latest statistics show that over £500 million-worth of pension funding is currently locked up in such companies. And so, we need to be careful as to how this is managed and it's important that all pension trustees have the independence to do what is best for their fund, as well as to use their knowledge to ensure that any shift in funding strategy has a minimal impact on investment returns. However, in saying this, I do believe that public bodies in Wales should be encouraged to ensure that any investments made by their individual pension schemes are environmentally and socially responsible, as well as meeting the needs of their members. Diolch.  

Thank you very much, Diprwy Lywydd, and I'd like to thank Jack Sargeant for introducing this important debate this afternoon. I’d like to begin by echoing some of the words spoken by the young people of Wales in the Urdd's message of peace and goodwill last week:

'The clock is ticking and our world is on fire'.

Indeed, in this powerful statement by our young people, we were all reminded of the serious threat that the climate crisis poses to our world and to our way of life, and the environmental, ecological and humanitarian crises that are likely to occur if we, as those who have the power to effect change, don't take urgent steps to save our planet.

As part of turning words into actions, we could start by looking at the investment policies of some of our public sector pensions to see how much of these investments are still in fossil fuels, such as oil, gas and coal. This continues to be a wholly irresponsible policy as we face a climate crisis. And I agree with Jack that Wales has a golden opportunity here to be in the vanguard of investing in funds that are greener and more sustainable. Without action, by the time a number of our younger generation—the children of the Urdd—are old enough to benefit from their pension funds, the environmental destruction will have continued, with the ice caps having long since melted, our food chain broken, and extreme weather being the norm.

Recent data from Friends of the Earth, for example, show that in Wales over £550 million out of a total of £17 billion of local government pension funds has been invested in fossil fuel. This equates to around 3.2 per cent of these schemes' value, which is higher than the percentages in England and Scotland. This is equivalent to every single person in Wales investing £175 in the energy sector that is most harmful to the environment. In my region of Mid and West Wales, the picture is even more striking, with almost 5 per cent of Dyfed’s pension fund invested in fossil fuels. Believe it or not, this is the second highest percentage in all nations of the United Kingdom, from all of the pension funds.

We know already that a number of councils have taken deliberate steps to try to tackle the climate crisis. It's frustrating, therefore, that our public sector pension funds are continuing to invest in carbon fuel corporations. But more than that, not only is supporting an unsustainable energy sector a dubious step, it is also economic folly. With international efforts to decarbonise having gathered pace, it is increasingly clear, as Mark Carney, the former governor of the Bank of England, has warned, that the current carbon bubble is not fiscally sustainable in the long term. So, without divestment in favour of greener sources, our public sector pension funds could be at a disadvantage very soon.

I welcome the efforts, therefore, that have been made by county councils, including Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion, and the work of other organisations, such as Divest Dyfed, which have been in the vanguard in calling for change at Dyfed pension fund to invest more in clean energy companies. And as has been mentioned by Jack Sargeant already, the Ukraine crisis, and the decision to withdraw investment from Russia, has demonstrated that robust, principled and united action by the pension authorities is possible in the face of a crisis. So, it is a responsibility and a duty on all of us now to ensure that this kind of goodwill and certainty is repeated in light of the climate crisis, and to ensure that real steps are taken to decarbonise public sector pensions in Wales for the benefit of future generations.

Thank you to my colleague Jack Sargeant for tabling today's motion on pensions divestment. I'm really pleased to speak in support of this important issue, and indeed it's something I've long agreed is essential. For example, I hosted a drop-in with Friends of the Earth Cymru for Senedd Members a few years ago, and the specific purpose of this was to generate consensus behind divesting the then Assembly Member pension scheme. I was delighted when the pension board agreed to do this at the start of 2020, and I'd like to thank Members of the board for delivering on this important issue.

This was a really important step, as we put our money where our mouth is. I believe we were the first UK Parliament pension scheme to take this action to commit to invest in our pension scheme in a sustainable and ethical manner. But this was an intervention that was no less important symbolically, as we sent a clear sign that pensions can be and should be divested. Rightly, the focus of our Welsh Government, and much of our public sector, has been on our response to the coronavirus pandemic in the time since, but we cannot lose sight of a climate emergency that is no less critical. And as this motion argues, now is the time for Welsh Government and our public sector to agree a strategy to decarbonise pensions by 2030.

A report published last year under the aegis of grass-roots movement UK Divest gives a stark picture of the scale of council investment in coal, oil and gas. Many of these figures were on a UK basis. However, Welsh local government pensions were noted to have invested £538 million in fossil fuels, which works out at just over 3.2 per cent of the total value of the schemes. No Welsh pension fund is amongst the top 10 highest investors in fossil fuels, but one, Dyfed, as was previously noted by my colleague Cefin Campbell, was the second highest investor as a proportion of their fund's total value. Just under 5 per cent of their fund was invested in fossil fuels. 

Another important point is that, in these funds invested in fossil fuels, £2 out of every £5 are invested in just three companies—that's BP, Royal Dutch Shell and BHP. Familiar names, but also companies that have been identified as making massive profits from oil and gas. For example, Shell boasted profits of over $9 billion in just the first quarter of 2022, and that was three times the value from the same period the previous year. These are companies that are harming our environment, profiting from global destruction, and making their shareholders rich while squeezing ever more tightly the people we represent as household energy bills rise exponentially. It's important that we divest from an environmental perspective, but it's equally important that we do so from an ethical perspective too. And if we can deliver this, not only our Welsh Parliament, but our country as a whole, will be taking an important lead. 

I want to thank Jack Sargeant for tabling this important debate this afternoon. I don't totally agree with the entire premise of the motion, but it's still important, at the same time, that we have the debate. I will say from the outset that decarbonisation should be our number one priority, as we're in the middle of a climate emergency, and my constituents are already suffering the effects of rising global temperatures. However, I don't believe that taking the action suggested in the motion before us will do anything to address climate change. If we are not careful, we will end up making an empty gesture that does little other than to harm our poorest public sector workers. If we stop pension funds from investing in some of the most profitable businesses in the UK, we are going to severely restrict the growth of those funds and diminish the pensions of some of our lowest paid workers—our social care staff, our NHS staff, the cooks and cleaners in our schools and day care centres, and the tens of thousands of other council employees and hospital staff who provide a valuable service to each and every one of us here. 

We are blessed. We can afford to pay a little extra to save a little extra. They can't. You also have to ask yourself what we will achieve by banning investment in the likes of BP and Shell. Will we force them to change their ways? I don't think so. They are doing that themselves. These oil and gas companies are some of the biggest investors in renewables. BP has just partnered with Abu Dhabi energy firms ADNOC and Masdar to decarbonise UK and United Arab Emirates energy and transportation systems. They are pumping billions into green hydrogen in an effort to enable the decarbonisation of hard-to-abate industries such as steel production. They have also become a leading partner in the Global Centre for Maritime Decarbonisation, as shipping is one of the biggest contributors to global carbon emissions. This move should be applauded not punished. Let's encourage pension fund managers to invest in profitable companies that are actively seeking to decarbonise rather than ignoring them because they are currently just a fossil fuel industry. 

Should these large multinationals and global corporations be more ethical? Absolutely, yes. But we won't effect change by restricting our pension funds. I don't hear anyone calling for pension funds to divest from the likes of Nestlé or Apple. Apple are using forced labour in China and anti-competitive practices around the globe to become the world's richest corporation. [Interruption.] We don't see people jumping up and down about that, do we, Llyr? So, let's take more of a measured approach. We can work together to encourage change, but we won't force it by impoverishing public sector funds. I urge Members to abstain on the motion this afternoon. Thank you very much. 

Thank you very much. I have to say, Jack, I disagree with one thing you said. I don't find this dull; I find this extremely interesting, because, actually, pensions affect all of us. One constituent wrote to me, 'It makes little sense to worry about the financial viability of a pension I can access in 32 years' time when current projections place my house, here in Cardiff, underwater by 2050, and I will face a future of food shortages, more extreme weather events and increased risk of death from high temperatures.' So, that's what we are talking about now: taking real action. What Gareth Davies was saying I cannot comprehend. It's almost an argument for doing nothing. [Interruption.] No, a debate you base on facts. I heard very few facts there. One thing I do agree with: it does go beyond fossil fuels. We should be looking at ethical pension schemes, which include the arms trade, tobacco and so on. This is a climate emergency. [Interruption.] I will, of course, take an intervention. 

As the Member for the Vale of Clwyd wouldn't take an intervention, I'll make the point that I was going to make then. One of the positives that could come out of disinvesting in this way would be to persuade those companies that have traditionally made their profits from fossil fuels to change direction. It is about persuading them to work in an ethical way by saying, 'We'll invest in that part of your business, but time is up on that'. 

I could not agree more with my colleague there. I think Jack was right in the motion to note progress in relation to our own pension funds as Senedd Members, but it may be surprising to some Members here today that the same is not true for our staff. In fact, it is an issue one of the members of my team has been trying to get to the bottom of since starting with me. The person had, in fact, turned down a job offer with a local authority because they were unable to offer them an environmental, social and governance pension, and agreed to a role in my team because they were under the impression that the Senedd pension scheme included auto-enrolment into an ESG scheme. However, having now gone through the pensions enrolment process, the person was disappointed to learn the following: that staff are not auto-enrolled into the scheme, they're not made aware that there is an option to go into the scheme— 

Heledd, would you take an intervention? I've got a request for an intervention from Mark Isherwood. 

No, thank you. Staff can enrol themselves—[Interruption.] You didn't take an intervention from me, so, please—

Don't respond to him. You don't need to. [Interruption.] 

May I continue, please? Thank you. Staff can enrol themselves into an ESG option available, but need to know which questions to ask. My team member has now been provided with the details—[Interruption.] May I speak, please? Thank you—of the pension fund manager so that this can be followed up. However, and I quote, my team member told me, 'As a member of staff, I find that I am having to do most of the legwork of getting to the bottom of finding out just where my new work-based pension is being invested.' I think there's a lesson for us all in this, in ensuring that we make it as easy as possible for our own staff, as well as the wider public sector, to ensure that their pension is an ethical one. After all, shouldn't this be an opt-out rather than an opt-in going forwards? 

And why is it important? Not only is it the right thing to do ethically, but it is also right we do it for the future of our planet. I'm grateful to all of my constituents that have contacted me on this matter and shared with me research undertaken by Aviva with Route2, in association with Make My Money Matter, and as part of Aviva's partnership with WWF UK. It found that moving the national average pension wealth to the sustainable fund using their calculation is 21 times more effective than the combined annual carbon savings of switching to renewable electricity providers, substituting all air travel with rail travel, and adopting a vegetarian diet. 

My constituents who feel strongly about this rightly also feel that setting a 2030 target is not good enough and that this change should be made now. After all, we saw during the height of the pandemic things that were previously deemed impossible become possible, and international co-operation reflective of the urgency. Yet, when it comes to the climate and nature emergency, and as we saw at COP26, we continue to see a reluctance to act, despite the situation our planet faces. We shouldn't take what fossil fuel companies are telling us at face value. I'm sure many of you saw Caroline Dennett's explosive resignation working as a senior safety consultant with Shell, accusing the fossil fuel producer of causing extreme harms to the environment, and stating:

'I can no longer work for a company that ignores all the alarms and dismisses the risks of climate change and ecological collapse because, contrary to Shell’s public expressions around net zero, they are not winding down on oil and gas, but planning to explore and extract much more.'

We must do this. It's not an option. We are able to do it here in Wales in terms of our public sector pensions. We are told time and time again that it is too complicated, but, as was illustrated by Cefin Campbell, future generations demand this of us. Otherwise, there will be no point to them having any sort of pension fund.

Before I move on, can I just simply remind all Members that every Member is entitled to make a request for intervention, but the Member speaking has every right to either accept or reject that request? I would encourage Members not to actually respond to comments from sedentary positions, because it allows you to continue your flow of speech naturally. Sarah Murphy.

Diolch. I want to thank Jack Sargeant for bringing this motion to the Chamber today. Our Welsh Government was one of the first in the world to declare a climate emergency, and it was groundbreaking. I remember hearing the announcement and thinking of all those across our communities who have adapted to recycling their waste, cycling to work, walking to work to mitigate air pollution, schoolchildren who are using reusable water bottles to reduce plastic consumption. These acts are not in vain when we have a Government that acknowledges the science. In Wales we have a Government that knows that we have to act now. Before the pandemic, I was also proud to stand alongside young people across Wales, but in particular of course those from Bridgend, who came down and marched with the youth strikes for climate. They used to come and sit on the steps of the Senedd on a monthly basis and give incredible speeches.

Sea levels are rising, there are changes to the weather that are impacting our farmers, climate change is impacting our biodiversity and wildlife. So, declaring a climate emergency is not just about identifying the threat here in Wales, now we have to set an example and actually do things differently. This includes collaboration between countries working together to create sustainable living, collaboration of priorities that ensure that the most vulnerable do not suffer, collaboration between Governments and its people where residents play their part in return for our Government also working to tackle the impact of climate change. The motion today brings about these very same principles. Again, this is not about imposing this on the public sector either. It says very clearly in this motion that this is about collaboration between the Welsh Government and the public sector, and it is to reach targets that are already there in place to have a net zero public sector by 2030. People need that assurance from their Government and their public sector that they're doing things that are in their best interest and the best interest of the planet. 

The public sector pension scheme is an investment to ensure that their future is one of financial security for people once they are no longer in work. A scheme that invests in fossil fuels, contributing to the destruction of the planet, contradicts the very security the pension aims to create. From industries to local businesses to residents and schoolchildren, we are all looking at new ways of sustainable living that centre around protecting our planet. Divesting from the scheme would be another example of how Wales is leading on environmental protection, and it's also the right thing to do for the collective interest. It would also make us the first nation in the world to do so. That would be absolutely incredible. Don't we all want to be part of a nation and a Government that can do that?

So, I stand fully with this motion today. We can no longer focus on maximising economic growth and GDP over putting societal and environmental benefits at the heart of our decision making. We must reinvest energy from damaging practices such as funding oil and gas into innovative, collaborative and transparent policies that put people and the planet before profit.

I would like to thank Jack for bringing this important debate to the Senedd and for the excellent campaign he has been doing alongside Friends of the Earth Cymru to get this issue talked about. 

In this Chamber I have spoken before about Thatcherite policies for which Wales and the UK continue to pay the price, whether that be the housing crisis or disastrous bus deregulation—pensions are another to add to this list. In the 1980s the Thatcher Government discouraged what they called dependency on state benefits, and instead incentivised a shift to greater levels of private pension provision. It unleashed the personal pension—. Sorry, I wasn't expecting to be called. Very sorry. 

In the 1980s the Thatcher Government discouraged what they called dependency on state benefits, and instead incentivised a shift to greater levels of private pension provision. It unleashed the personal pension misselling scandal, whereby armies of commission-driven salesmen were paid to convince the public that they should ditch their final salary occupation schemes in favour of the riskier personal pensions. This led to a huge number of pensions being controlled by private asset managers, and has remained the status quo ever since. Instead of leaving pension funds in the hands of the private sector, they should be managed democratically and in the public interest. Nowhere is that more necessary than in relation to pension fund investments in fossil fuels, and currently public sector pension funds in Wales are acting as a power source for further climate destruction. Not only do these funds fuel the climate crisis, but they also represent bad investments. Any green transition worthy of the name will need to include the targeted decline of reliance on fossil fuels, which will result in significant devaluation of fossil fuel investments, increasing the risk of current pension funds.

Pensions are designed to provide workers with security when they retire. Continuing to invest pension funds in destructive fossil fuels does exactly the opposite, much like the climate crisis itself. These investments are ticking time bombs, and it doesn't have to be like this. Imagine a system under which public sector pension funds are ploughed into a green new deal, and instead of funding the destruction of the planet, we could be funding the saving of it. We could use this investment for social and environmental good, investing in well-paid, unionised jobs in the sustainable industries of the future. The time for serious action on climate change has long since passed. Here in Wales we have already shown our willingness to take the lead on environmental issues by declaring a climate emergency in 2019. And as Jack's motion specifies, Wales can lead the way again. We can become the first nation in the world to fully divest public sector pension schemes, and we must continue to back our words with serious action. Divestment is needed, and it's needed now. Thank you.

I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government,  Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, and thank you to Jack Sargeant for bringing forward this debate today. It definitely hasn't been a dry debate, it's been more lively than I think any of us had anticipated, but really useful as well.

It is absolutely clear that net zero has to be a shared ambition for us across the Senedd, across Welsh Government and across the Welsh public sector more widely, and we've discussed many times in this Chamber how climate change is the biggest challenge that we face and how we need to act and act now.

The Welsh Government supports the ambitions set out in the motion to decarbonise those public sector pension schemes that are funded through investments. So, this covers the local government pension scheme and schemes for the Arts Council of Wales, National Museum Wales and the National Library of Wales, and, of course, our own scheme for Senedd Members.

The local government pension scheme is the largest of these, and this provides the pensions of nearly 400,000 members in Wales. Of course, it's not as simple as voting today to divest specific funds. Our pension funds, like the rest of the system, must respond fully to the climate and nature emergency. And we have set out, in law, our target to reach net zero by 2050, and, of course, the ambition for the public sector in Wales is net zero by 2030. To do this, public sector pensions, like others, must develop a coherent understanding of the current and historic emissions inherent in their investments. They need to identify positive opportunities to invest in developments that support the shift to the decarbonised world. They need to understand and respond to the financial risks that the climate emergency brings.

Minister, I have a request for an intervention from Mark Isherwood.

If I just finish this section, and then I will happily take the intervention. They also must respond transparently and must develop credible transition plans to net zero, and, of course, they have to work closely with those who've contributed to the funds, including the workers and their trade unions, to ensure that they're engaged and fully consulted in any future approach—a point that was made very strongly by Jack Sargeant. I'm happy to take the intervention.

Mark Isherwood.

Diolch. Thank you very much indeed. I'm sure we all share the same goals. The world passed peak oil production a few years ago, and the world is running out of fossil fuels, whether we love them or hate them, and therefore we've only got a few years to put an alternative energy system in place, but the technology is not fully there yet. How do you respond to the evidence that without fossil fuel back-up providing energy security during the transition period, potentially hundreds of millions or billions of people could die?

I think the point here is about transitioning investment towards those technologies, which we do need for the future, and if we don't invest in that technology and the innovation, then we'll be waiting forever for the alternatives to fossil fuels to arrive. So, investment in those alternatives and in the innovation and the research to find those alternatives will be absolutely critical. And I don't think that any of us would really argue against that point.

As one pension manager noted, setting a long-term net zero target is the easy part; the challenge is to have that credible and transparent framework that enables your fund to convert that intent into practical decisions and actions. I think that speaks to Mark Isherwood's concern.

But, of course, it's really important to be very clear on this that there are no powers for Welsh Ministers to direct public sector pension scheme authorities or trustees to invest or not to invest in certain ways. The responsibility for looking after the best interests of the funds' members does lie with the pension trustees, elected members and the officers and managers of each fund, and the best interests of their members clearly include securing good returns, but equally it means responding—responding to the wishes of members and responding to the financial risks posed by climate change, and playing their part, also, in ensuring that there's a habitable planet for future generations to enjoy their retirement, as so many Members have said in the debate this afternoon.

So, the Government's role, I think, is to work with pension authorities across the public sector. It's about convening those discussions and ensuring that there's shared learning so that we can be sure that they are recognising the risks and the opportunities that the climate emergency brings. It's about supporting best practice and reducing barriers and also encouraging ambition and pace where they're needed.

While I'm not here to explain the actions of the pension authorities and the trustees, I do think that they are responding to the issue. The local government pension scheme pool has a climate change policy and a responsible investment policy, and also a low-carbon fund that excludes companies that rely on coal to generate revenues. They've also introduced independent environmental, social and governance and climate risk reports, and the Welsh local government pension funds have transitioned the majority of their passive investments into low-carbon tracker funds. The Senedd Members' pension has committed to transition investments away from fossil fuels. And I've already met with members of the local government pension authorities and we did agree to discuss with local government leaders at the statutory partnership council, as part of our ongoing focus on responding to climate change, this particular issue.

Of course we want to see ambitious, faster action on this agenda, and in Wales we do have opportunities for pension funds to invest as we scale up the deployment of renewable energy. We're setting up a public renewable energy development function that will be seeking investment to deliver renewable energy projects in a way that maximises the economic and the social value to Wales. So, we want to work with pension funds in Wales to explore the opportunity to link that development in Wales with investment from Wales, and this isn't an area where Welsh Government can mandate a change. If we do want to change, we have to help make that happen, and it has to be through that collaborative partnership approach. But Welsh Government does have a vital leadership, support and facilitation role. We need to work jointly with partners in local government and across the public sector, including our trade unions, on what is, after all, as I said at the start, a shared ambition. So, I support the motion to work with the public sector to agree a strategy to decarbonise pensions by 2030. Diolch.

I call on Jack Sargeant to reply to the debate.

I'm grateful, Deputy Presiding Officer, for Members' contributions to this debate and the positive contributions from most Members of the Chamber this afternoon. I will start, Presiding Officer, in summing up—I'm not sure if the Member for the Vale of Clwyd had his Shreddies these this morning, or his Denbigh plum, but certainly I disagree with the majority of his contribution. But I do welcome his intention to abstain and the contribution that he did make this afternoon.

But I am determined, Deputy Presiding Officer, that this motion will be passed in this Senedd Chamber today, and we will demonstrate that Wales's national Parliament wants our public sector to be truly carbon neutral by 2030. I thank Members for their positive engagement, but also the work that they've done in previous years. I know Jenny Rathbone and Mike Hedges worked alongside, and Vikki Howells mentioned in her contribution our Members, when we were Assembly Members, our own pension funds and the work they've done successfully there. But Heledd Fychan mentioned something that really needs to be looked at by all Members of the Chamber when it comes to our support staff and their pensions scheme, and I would urge the Commission to also take note of that.

But, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the rest of the public sector to go carbon neutral and then for the public sector pension funds to invest in fossil fuel extraction would seem quite ridiculous. As Carolyn Thomas has said, we would be funding to save the planet if we did this right.

I also want to pay tribute here, in closing, to all the campaigners that have been working hard on this issue for many, many years. This debate today is about showing that real leadership from Welsh Government and sending a message to pension funds investors that there is a need for collaboration and there is a need to disinvest, and the future is not in fossil fuels.

As has been said in this Chamber, pension funds disinvested from Russia in a matter of days. I welcome Peter Fox's remarks and also recognise the good work, as Cefin Campbell has, of councils across Wales already. But this is about it being standardised across the whole of Wales. And, of course, Peter Fox mentioned the unintended consequences that might come with this. Well, we are giving them eight years to do this with a 2030 target, and it's that collaboration with Welsh Government to have those conversations, like the Minister said, with our colleagues and our trade unions to make sure there are no unintended consequences from any shift in this direction. But we are giving them eight years.

I want to just reflect on young people, our future generations, from the Bridgend youth strike for climate and those young people that Cefin Campbell described. The clock is ticking on this; we really do need to get moving, otherwise there will be no point in having pensions in the future anyway.

Presiding Officer, I'll end here by saying one thing, finally. This is a real opportunity to invest in the future of Wales, in our communities and its infrastructure. We cannot solve the climate emergency alone, but we can disinvest in our public sector pension funds, and, if we do so, Wales will be the first nation in the world to do that, and it will show that real, bold leadership to the rest of the world. Diolch yn fawr.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. I will defer voting on the motion until voting time.

Item 6 today is the debate on petition P-06-1249, 'Provide a clinical pathway, medical care, and specialists for people with Tourette’s syndrome in Wales'. I call on the Chair of the Petitions Committee to move the motion—Jack Sargeant. 

Diolch yn fawr, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think we're getting quite used to this this afternoon. 

On behalf of the Petitions Committee, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to introduce this debate.

Deputy Presiding Officer, the petition we are discussing today is titled 'Provide a clinical pathway, medical care, and specialists for people with Tourette's syndrome in Wales'. This petition has received 10,393 signatures. It states that Tourette’s affects one in 100 children, that it is not a rare condition and that, in Wales, there is one specialist, who doesn't see children. The petition calls for

'a proper, clear, clinical pathway and access to specialist provision and medical care for people with Tourette’s syndrome in Wales.'

As I stand here today, Deputy Presiding Officer, we are 10 days into Tourette's Awareness Month, an attempt to raise awareness of Tourette's syndrome and the difficulties it can cause for one in 100 children and adults. I would at this point like to thank the Business Committee for scheduling this debate so promptly, so that we can contribute to the awareness raising.

Deputy Presiding Officer, the petition highlights the difficulties sufferers can face in Wales. Low levels of awareness mean it can be hard to get diagnosed, a lack of specialist care means it can be hard to get fast access to the support that can make life a little bit easier, and there can be enormous inconsistencies in the treatments, based on in which part you live in Wales. We can do better, and we must do better.

Now, of course, I do welcome the action taken by campaigners to raise awareness, including those celebrities like Billy Eilish and our very own Hefin David, who just recently brought his family's experience with autism into the Chamber, and the link that has there too. But, just like Billy Eilish and Hefin David, the petitioner, Helen Reeves-Graham, what they really want to see is not just raising awareness, they want to see real change, Deputy Presiding Officer—change in their communities and real change in their lives and the lives of the people they love. If I may use Helen's own words, and I quote:

'Ideally we would love to see a specialist Tourettes clinic within Wales that would offer a complete care package from therapy, access to medications, help with sleep, behaviour difficulties, mobility difficulties, managing pain and help with other co morbidities. Help and support needs to be available in ALL parts of Wales. The people that would be providing these services need to be fully trained. Access to a specialist in WALES is absolutely needed.'

And I know the Deputy Minister is committed to improving assessment and support services for all neurodevelopmental conditions, including Tourette's syndrome, and that she has met the petitioner and others to hear directly from patients and their families about the difficulties they face.

Listening to those with lived experience is crucial if we are to truly understand the needs and the type of support they require. A constituent has recently contacted my office and shared her family's distress due to the lack of support services. She described her eight-year-old son and how Tourette's impacts his life. She says that her son doesn't swear, but his condition is far more challenging and, in her words, Presiding Officer, and I quote:

'He suffers with extreme anxiety and has intrusive thoughts. He had talked about how he wants to die. He tells me it's his tics saying this in his head and he feels that he wants to get a Knife to stab himself.'

At the time, her son was seven, and the school immediately referred to child and adolescent mental health services, but they were told there would be a very long wait. Presiding Officer, her son suffers with violent tics in his head, face and jaw. His eyes burn, he bangs his head, he has poor motor skills, he can just about write, he has very poor control over his bowels and experiences a great deal of pain in his body from sudden involuntary movements, amongst a range of other challenges. And despite all of his suffering, the family have been unable to access specialist services, apart from the constant support of the school special educational needs co-ordinator. She describes a very bleak picture of how our health system is failing her son and fears for his future. She calls for all professionals to be better educated about this crippling condition. She also calls for suitable help, support and a clear medical pathway, from the GP upwards. This is what her son and others with Tourette’s deserve—the right to be understood, to be respected and to receive the care and support they so desperately need.

Presiding Officer, the results of the demand and capacity review of all-age neurodevelopmental services, which was due to report at the end of March, will, of course, inform the approach taken by the Welsh Government in the coming years and months. And I would be grateful, in responding to this debate, if the Minister can share some of her thoughts.

Presiding Officer, I do look forward to hearing from other Members this afternoon and, of course, hearing from the Deputy Minister. Diolch yn fawr.

It gives me great pleasure to speak in support of this particular petition. Now, the organiser of this petition is Helen Reeves-Graham, who is a constituent of mine and is a formidable campaigner for improving services for people with Tourette's syndrome in Wales, and I'm proud to have people like Helen living in my constituency.

As the Chair of the Petitions Committee said, it's thought that around one in 100 children in Wales are living with Tourette's syndrome, and the condition shows itself differently in different people. One person may have involuntary head jerks, another may have vocal tics, and so there's no one-size-fits-all snapshot of how Tourette's syndrome looks. As we know, symptoms can range from mild to severe, and, in the case of physical tics, these symptoms can sometimes be painful. Now, living with a complex condition like Tourette's can be overwhelming, particularly for children, and so it's absolutely crucial that there is access to specialist care within Wales. Some parents are turning to the internet to help find information on how best to support their children with Tourette's, and the reliability of some of that information is, of course, questionable. But it really shouldn't have come to that. There should be support services in Wales available from the onset of diagnosis, and it's really worrying to read reports of children and their families feeling alone after being diagnosed, and we have to take action now to ensure that this does not continue.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we know that more and more children across the UK are being diagnosed with tics and Tourette's, as experts at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London have recorded a rise in the number of children and teenagers experiencing tic symptoms and tic attacks since the beginning of the pandemic. Now, before the COVID pandemic, the Great Ormond Street Hospital would normally receive four to six referrals a year, but, by January 2021, they received three to four referrals per week. And so, as the number of referrals grows, the demand for more support and understanding does too, and so it's vital that the Welsh Government intervenes and ensures that children have access to vital physical, mental and emotional support here in Wales. Not accessing the appropriate medical care and support can lead to long-term mental health problems, and, as the petitioner has rightly highlighted, people with Tourette's syndrome can have difficulties with anxiety, sleep, rage and social isolation. Therefore I sincerely hope that the Welsh Government will reflect on the very serious impact that not having support and services is having on children living with Tourette's syndrome in Wales and their families.

Now, as the chair of the Petitions Committee has already said, the Welsh Government is working to improve assessment and support services for all neurodevelopmental conditions, and that work will be informed by the outcomes of a demand and capacity review. I hope, in responding to this afternoon's debate, the Deputy Minister will give us an update on that specific work. Nevertheless, I'm really pleased to hear that the Deputy Minister has met with Helen Reeves-Graham to discuss what the Welsh Government can do better to support families here in Wales, and, whilst that engagement is extremely positive, time is of the essence for children living with Tourette's, and the longer that they go without support and services, the more serious the impact is on their lives. That's why we need to see action now, and why we need to see Tourette's being prioritised and not simply grouped with other neurodevelopmental conditions. A one-size-fits-all approach just won't adequately address the needs of people with Tourette's. Instead, the Welsh Government must get on with the job of establishing a specialist centre for people living with Tourette's syndrome in Wales so that they can access support, therapy and, indeed, the care that they need.

People living with Tourette's in Wales, and in particular children, shouldn't have to travel across the border to access specialist treatments, and, at the very least, the Welsh Government should commit to providing more aftercare and support post diagnosis. The Welsh Government has said that regional partnership boards are rolling out a new framework to improve access to the right support, and I hope that, in responding to this afternoon's debate, the Deputy Minister will tell us more about how that work is also progressing.

So, in closing, Dirprwy Lywydd, can I pay tribute to the hard work and determination of Helen Reeves-Graham in circulating this petition and ensuring that Tourette's syndrome is on the Welsh political agenda? Your voice, and the voice of families across Wales living with Tourette's syndrome, has been heard. Therefore, Dirprwy Lywydd, we have an opportunity to get this right, and I sincerely hope the Welsh Government will work to ensure that children living in Wales with Tourette's will be able to access specialist services in Wales sooner rather than later. Thank you.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and firstly I'd like to thank Helen for submitting this petition. What it calls for is exactly right—Tourette's is overlooked by many and is viewed by most as a condition that means that you just swear uncontrollably, and I like many others am guilty of previously thinking that, but there's a lot more to it. It's a neurological condition that can be quite painful. That's why it's important that diagnosis is given and that medical care and support follows. But in Wales there currently is no clear clinical pathway to assess specialist provision and care, especially for children. There is only one Wales-based consultant specialising in Tourette's, but only in adults. This is very problematic. The tics that people develop are often most severe during childhood and adolescence, and, as a result, can impact on what we all recognise and know is a critical period in human development and socialisation.

The reality is that delaying until adulthood to receive a diagnosis can cause a whole load of issues. Studies have shown that receiving a diagnosis of Tourette's can help individuals to understand their own behaviours and help them to explain their behaviours to others. Some report that without their diagnosis they felt more at risk of developing metal health problems, and it has been proven that mental health issues amongst those with Tourette's are more likely to develop. Alongside mental health issues, the majority of respondents to the Tourette's syndrome impact survey study, which included both children and adults, reported at least one tic that caused physical pain and damage. That's why access to occupational therapy that can address pain management, as well as speech difficulties and sensory issues, is vital. As well as opening access to services and support, receiving a diagnosis allows people as well to meet others with Tourette's, therefore helping them to develop a sense of community and belonging that they might not have otherwise.

Going back to an earlier point I made, there's a lot more to Tourette's than we might initially think. There's a lot to be said about education, as well as how we talk about it and address the stigma surrounding it. I think this petition has already played a part in doing that, and Helen should take pride in that. So, again, thank you to Helen for highlighting this issue with the committee, and I look forward to seeing how the Government responds to the petition and what it calls for. Diolch.

I had the pleasure, in advance of my short debate on autism, ADHD and Tourette's two weeks ago, of speaking to Helen Reeves-Graham on the phone and hearing her story personally, and it demonstrates the difficulty that exists in this community. And particularly one of the things I mentioned in my debate was feeling like a pinball. As a parent of someone with autism, as Jack has kindly mentioned—although he did also call me a celebrity, which I don't think I agree with—the challenge of being a parent of a child with autism is strong, and you feel like a pinball bouncing between different specialists. And the Royal College of Psychiatrists have told us that 20 per cent of people with TS also have ASD. That leaves 80 per cent who don't have ASD and therefore don't have access to that autism pathway.

And I'll come back to that in a second, but I've had an e-mail from Nicola Hall, who is a constituent, who demonstrates exactly what we mean by this pinball effect. So, this is about her son.

'We first noticed Aled's verbal tics in February 2020. He was four years old at the time. We reported this to the GP, they confirmed this was common and would probably go away on its own. "Come back after 12 months if they're still present", they said. Over the 12 months, his tics became worse, were constantly changing and now included motor tics. We went back to the GP, we were referred to the SPACE panel. They referred us to early years. I pleaded with SPACE for a CAMHS referral. They refused. After becoming part of the South Wales Tic and Tourette's Support Page, talking to other families and researching, we knew CAMHS was where we needed to be seen. Early years could not help us and referred us back to SPACE. SPACE referred us to PCMH, where we were assessed and taken on with the promise of six virtual sessions with a psychiatric nurse. At session three, we were informed by the nurse there was nothing more that could be done and she would refer us to CAMHS. We are now on the waiting list for CAMHS. The frustration, as I'm sure you can see, is that we asked to go there initially and this time has been wasted.'

Now, I've benefited from going to an educational psychologist, school, speech and language support and various different places, but each time the waiting list increases and the end outcome becomes further away, which I mentioned to the Minister yesterday. In the case of Tourette's, where less is known about that condition, that journey becomes even more complicated, and sometimes some of the places you're referred to may not be the right place in the first instance. And one of the things that Nicola said to me is that parents know best. Listen to parents first, because they spend the most time with their children and theirs are the opinions that need to be listened to first and foremost. Now, there are waiting delays in the system, we know that, but they are being exacerbated by that pinball effect.

And that is when you can get treatment, because I've had other correspondence from Byron Thomas about his son. His son was 13 before he had treatment, when they knew that there was an issue when he was five years old.

And I mentioned autism, and I said that people on the autism pathway have a clearer pathway, and that is undoubtedly the case, but I've had a letter from Sally Smith, who says that she keeps a diary of her son's tics and symptoms, went exactly on the same path, bouncing like a pinball, like Nicola, and it took one and a half years for her son to be diagnosed after that period of time. But what she said to me as well is that the only support he receives is because of his autism; Tourette's support is non-existent. So, there are even issues for those of us who are parents of children with autism, that that pathway still is very confused and unclear. 

And finally, I do want to mention that I've had from Jane Hutt—. As she's a Minister, she can't speak in this debate, but she's sent me the details of her constituent whose son, Ben, has issues. Jane has passed it to the Minister, but I promised I would raise this in the debate as well. And, Minister, there we go, that's the e-mail itself. There we are. And I think it's really important that the Deputy Minister hears these stories. And I'd say that we have the right person in this Deputy Minister, because I have been in meetings with parents with the Deputy Minister, and witnessed her taking action. She really does want to resolve these problems. There are many complex parts, complex moving parts, to this, but there are things that can be done. And just to finish, the most important thing I think we can do is listen to parents and those experiencing Tourette's.

I, too, would like to congratulate Helen Reeves-Graham for raising this issue, because without that, we would not have discussed it. And I'm very grateful to Diana Beljaars, who is an academic expert at Swansea University, who has done research on this subject, not least because a close family member of hers has Tourette's, so, obviously, that has prompted her interest in this. And from talking to her, I learnt a great deal about this. I always knew about the shouting out and swearing, but nothing about the other ways in which it presents itself just with tics. So, children can be told to stop moving, keep still in the classroom, and can then be singled out for behaviour that they actually can't do anything about, because they don't know why they do that.

My understanding is it's a combination of genetic and environmental factors that cause Tourette's, so there's clearly a need for a lot more research. Is there a link, for example, with air pollution? There's so much we are beginning to understand about the impact of air pollution on different aspects of people's health.

Clearly, it's important that we have patient-focused services. We've got to be listening to the people who are caring for these children, and taking seriously what they're reporting. Now, parenting doesn't come with instructions, so a first-time parent might not realise that there was anything out of the ordinary about the particular presentation of their child with Tourette's. But what Diana pointed out to me was that people are often told that most children don't need treatment, so it's sort of 'Go away' time. 'Yes, we've diagnosed you, you've got Tourette's, but you're not going to get anything off us', and that, clearly, has to stop.

So, I think one of the most important things that we can all do something about is combat the discrimination that people with Tourette's can experience, both in the classroom and in the workplace, because people can lose their jobs as a result of the employer simply not understanding the unusual movements that somebody might be displaying are something that (a) they can't do anything about, but (b) that doesn't stop them being a perfectly brilliant whatever.

And there are two really good examples I learnt about, which are really interesting, because I had assumed that if you've got Tourette's, you can't possibly be a surgeon. Not true. There's apparently a really famous neurosurgeon, Peter Hollenbeck, who functions in the United States, and who's won all sorts of awards, including the top teacher award in Purdue University from the College of Science, and several other accolades for his work on the nervous system.

And the second person who is perhaps more accessible to most people is Tim Howard, who used to play as a goalie for Everton and Manchester United, and then went on to be one of the goalkeepers for Memphis 901 FC in the United States. He's widely considered to be one of the greatest goalkeepers in American footballing history.

So, clearly, these are two people who are doing jobs where hand-eye co-ordination is absolutely crucial, and the reason why they are able to excel at their chosen profession is because, apparently, when you're concentrating on something—and, clearly, when you're in front of the goal, you're concentrating—you don't have Tourette's, whereas if you're asleep you can have the tics or whatever the presenting factors are of Tourette's. All of which I find really interesting, but also a really great way of saying that if your child has Tourette's, that does not mean to say they can't excel in the career of their choice.

Diolch to Helen Reeves-Graham for starting this extremely important petition. As Jack has stated, we know that Tourette's affects one in 100 children, so to see over 10,000 signatures in support of providing a clinical pathway, medical care and specialists for people with Tourette's syndrome in Wales comes as no surprise. The Royal College of Psychiatrists say that up to 85 per cent of people with Tourette's syndrome will also experience co-occurring conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder and autism spectrum disorder.

During my time in education, I worked with a number of children who were diagnosed, and, in some cases, undiagnosed, with Tourette's syndrome. I witnessed first-hand how living with Tourette's impacts on the person and family dealing with this condition. It was distressing to see the struggle of a small child on a daily basis fighting with this condition, and it was just as distressing to hear the parents beg for help and support.

The everyday scenarios that we take for granted as fairly easy tasks can be very difficult for children suffering with Tourette's—mingling with peers in a class and during break, completing schoolwork. Children with Tourette's are expected to catch the school bus with other children with just one carer, when most parents and guardians will tell you that children with Tourette's will need a carer just for them. It can be mentally and physically exhausting for all involved.

The lack of awareness in Wales of Tourette's syndrome even makes things like going shopping or walking through the park a daunting experience, knowing that eyes will likely be following you. We need to make sure that people with Tourette's in Wales feel supported, not ridiculed. The added pressures of searching constantly for help and support, not being able to access the correct medical care and facilities, can lead to long-term mental health problems. Tourette's isn't just swearing. It can be exhausting. Through involuntary movement, which is painful and debilitating, it can lead to difficulties with sleeping, anxiety, social isolation and bouts of rage. It's a complex condition, and should be treated as such.

We need to do better at, firstly, diagnosing the condition, raising awareness of the condition, and ensuring that the correct treatment and support is available for individuals, families and carers to access. I wholeheartedly support this petition and will work to make sure that those suffering with Tourette's in Wales feel supported. 

I call on the Deputy Minister for Social Services, Julie Morgan.

Diolch, and I welcome this debate this afternoon and thank Members for their comments. As Jack Sargeant said in his introduction, today is timely as we are currently in the middle of Tourette's Awareness Month, and the greater awareness we can get, the better.

I've recently met, last week in fact, with Helen and with other parents of children with tic disorders and Tourette's syndrome, and this was the second time I'd met this group of parents. In these meetings, parents told me about the struggles they've experienced trying to access support for their children, and Members today have described some of those struggles that people have had to go through. And the issues they raised, together with their strength and determination, are absolutely at the forefront of my mind as we strive to make positive changes.

As, I think, Hefin said, 'Listen to parents first,' and that's what I'm doing, and I think nobody can tell us better than parents themselves what the situation is. And I've listened carefully to what Members have said about the individual experiences of their constituents, and of course I've read the letter that Hefin gave me about Ben from the Vale of Glamorgan, in Jane Hutt's constituency.

So, firstly, I must say that I'm committed to making sure that all neurodiverse children, young people and adults, along with their parents and carers, have access to the services and the care that they need. A sustainable service is built on good foundations and the work that's been done to deliver the statutory code of practice on the delivery of autism services has given us a solid base to make real change in improving services for all neurodevelopmental conditions, including Tourette's syndrome. I think services for autism have definitely improved, but we've got to make sure that the other conditions now are improved as well.

When we were talking to stakeholders when we were developing the autism code, we listened when we were told that despite the progress made in autism services, many people with other neurodevelopmental conditions and their families and carers are still struggling to access the support they need, even though their needs were often similar or were co-occuring with autism, as has already been mentioned here this afternoon. And these messages were echoed in my conversations with parents of children with Tourette's syndrome. So, that's why we are widening our approach from an autism focus to seeking improvements across neurodevelopmental conditions, such as Tourette's syndrome and also ADHD. We have a dedicated policy team, working across health and social care, linking closely with departments across Welsh Government, such as education. Our national autism team is expanding its remit and its expertise to provide advice across neurodevelopmental conditions.

Members will be aware, and I know it's been mentioned several times this afternoon, that we commissioned a demand and capacity review of neurodevelopmental services last year to better understand the increased waiting times and the pressures on the neurodevelopmental service and to try to identify options for improvement. After receiving a presentation on its findings, I'm currently considering the final report from the review. The final report will be published shortly and my intention is to make an announcement about the immediate, medium and long-term actions we'll be taking to support improvement. This will include urgent action to reduce the pressures on assessment services and to put in place early help and support for families who need help now. I've been so struck in my discussions with the families about how desperately they need help and how difficult it has been for them to access that support when they realised that there were issues that had to be dealt with. The third sector will have a key role in providing support to families and we've started working very closely with organisations such as Tourettes Action UK on this. 

In conclusion, I can assure Members that we're committed to delivering a sustainable neurodevelopmental service for Wales that will essentially be co-designed with individuals and families with lived experience of these conditions, including Tourette's syndrome. I will be making an announcement about our proposals as soon as I'm able to do so.

I call on Jack Sargeant to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Deputy Presiding Officer. If I can extend my thanks to all Members, both of the committee and Members of the Senedd, for their contributions, and of course to the Minister, not only for her response, but for her commitment to supporting those families and those who suffer with neurodevelopmental conditions.

We've heard, haven't we, from across the Chamber, the reason why we need to provide a clinical pathway—that medical care and those specialists for people with Tourette's syndrome—and why it's so essential to improve people's quality of life, whether it was from Helen Reeves-Graham, the petitioner and my constituent, or Jane Hutt's constituent, Ben. As Hefin David has rightly pointed out in his contributions, this is crucial for the lives of those people and their families. Hefin described the pinball effect and one of his constituents described that too.

So, I think we await, Minister, with interest your announcement, but we are grateful for your support in this. You have, as you said, improved autism services, but there is still a long way to go. And rightly so, we should be listening, not only to the 10,000 people who signed this petition or supported and shared this petition, but those who haven't who also suffer from neurodevelopmental conditions. So, can I offer my thanks again to all Members, to everyone who signed and supported this petition, but mostly to Helen Reeves-Graham—Paul Davies's constituent—and those who've supported her to bring this to the floor of their Parliament and to get the Minister's response? And of course, we do await with great interest the work that you are doing. Diolch.

The proposal is to note the petition. Does any Member object? I don't see an objection, and therefore the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Item 7 is next, and that's the Plaid Cymru debate on post-Brexit funding. I call on Luke Fletcher to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the motion tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian.

Why have we called for this debate today? I could launch straight into detail about different pots of funding and rehash well-worn Brexit arguments, but I'd like to start in more simple terms: we are facing a cost-of-living disaster. Most have already started to feel its effects after the 1 April energy price hike, and yesterday's headlines reported that the typical household energy bill is set to rise again by another £800 a year in October. Whilst all this is going on, Wales not only is lacking the financial and welfare levers that are currently held by Westminster to tackle this crisis, but we have also been denied funding as we have exited the European Union, funding that could make all the difference now. Rather than the disjointed projects that tinker around the edges, Plaid Cymru is calling for the levelling-up funds to be used to deliver genuine transformational programmes such as retrofitting Wales's housing stock, one of the oldest housing stocks in Europe, to save households over £600 on energy bills. Plaid Cymru is also calling for the shared prosperity fund to be devolved, and for a needs-based funding formula to be adopted, thus giving us the opportunity to correct the arbitrary top-down approach adopted by the UK Government.

Devolving the shared prosperity fund to the Welsh Government is necessary to ensure that the funds are directed properly to tackle the cost-of-living crisis head on. Inflation figures and economic growth rates add to the mounting evidence of UK stagflation; the Conservatives' record is of 12 years of failure to create an economy that delivers well-being for people across the United Kingdom. From the banking crisis to the present day, the Westminster Government has sought out every opportunity to impose austerity and to bring about a hard Brexit of its own making. Those have combined to aggravate the UK's cost-of-living crisis. Yes, there have been other causes that have been beyond our control, but these are ideological choices that will go down in history as Tory creations.

The levelling-up fund does nothing to correct past mistakes or deliver for the future. By the Welsh Government's own figures, this Government's post-Brexit funding arrangement for Wales falls short by £772 million of structural funds alone for the period of 2021-25, and we face in Wales a loss of more than £1 billion in unreplaced funding over the next three years. That's not only an assault on Welsh devolution, as the economy Minister has already said, but also a broken election promise. The Conservative Party promised in 2019 to replace EU regional funding with a programme that is fairer and better tailored to our economy. However, so far, the amount of funding allocated to this end has failed to match the promise of the UK Government's levelling-up rhetoric. That is not what was promised on page 15 of the 2019 Welsh Conservative manifesto, which said that

'no part of the UK loses out from the withdrawal of EU funding'.

Nor is it what was promised on page 29, which said that

'Wales will not lose any powers or funding as a result of our exit from the EU'.

To be fair, the Welsh Conservative benches here must also be disappointed, as their 2021 manifesto set out their hopes to see delivered a UK shared prosperity fund that tackles inequality and deprivation and levels up the whole of Wales. A year on from this manifesto, and inequality and deprivation have only deepened. Three years into its term and six years on from Brexit, the UK Government cannot articulate or deliver any clear benefits to Wales. We need an honest funding settlement, devolved engagement, and a focus on delivery rather than glossy announcements.

The UK levelling-up agenda excludes the Welsh Government from the management of the shared prosperity fund with allocations made to local authority areas based on investment plans with approval granted by UK Government Ministers. This is a purposeful bypassing of the Senedd's democratic oversight. Fundamentally, there is a principle at stake here: decisions for Wales should be  made by Wales. It should be for a democratically elected Welsh Parliament to decide how to spend what money is left. Where there is a problem, it always seems the UK Government's answer is to patch together a solution that serves a small cohort of the population. Out of ideas—other than to centralise powers that they do not possess—the UK Government sit on their hands as the economy that they're responsible for fails to work for households and businesses not just in Wales, but across the UK.

To close, Dirprwy Lywydd, this message should have landed a long time ago. It was the UK Government that promised it, after all. We'll never stop repeating it, and we'll always remind them of it: 'Not a penny less, not a power lost'.

I have selected the amendment for the motion and I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 1 tabled in the name of Darren Millar.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the amendment tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar. Members will be aware that the Finance Committee is looking at post-EU funding and, as I've said before, the Economy, Trade, and Rural Affairs Committee will probably look at this matter later on this year, after the Finance Committee has concluded its inquiry. Of course, the effective delivery of funding post Brexit is vital, particularly at a time when the cost of living is rising and everything from food to fuel to energy is costing households more and more. 

We know that EU structural funds were integral in supporting programmes to tackle deprivation, and I think that's a really important point. We're not solely talking about strategic infrastructure projects, but, in many cases, local community projects that have a huge impact on how people live in their communities. I know that in my own constituency, EU funding has been used to deliver business support programmes, apprenticeships, tourism projects and environmental schemes. Therefore, as I've said before in this Chamber, it's so important that Wales does not lose out on that funding going forward, so that projects can continue to make a real difference in our communities. 

Our amendment today reaffirms the UK Government's repeated statements that Wales will not lose out on funding, and I, like Members right across this Chamber, will continue to push for this to be the case. The UK Government have said that previous EU programmes would be ramped up and ramped down, and that its funding commitment would be met by a combination of EU funds from the 2014-20 programme and investment through the shared prosperity fund. Indeed, the level of funding was raised with experts in a recent Finance Committee meeting. I believe it was Guto Ifan from the Wales Governance Centre who explained, and I quote:

'both Governments are making different claims based on quite different assumptions about the allocations and spending. So, there's that, and then there's the issue of publicly available data on how much legacy funding we have. We don't really know what would have happened to EU funding in terms of the building up, if we had a new funding programme period. And, of course, we don't know what happens to the shared prosperity fund after 2024-25, which I think you'd need to properly compare for a complete picture of a comparison with previous EU funding.'

Therefore, it is clear that more transparency is needed from both Governments on the figures they've already published. I want to be clear that the UK Government should provide more clarity over its allocation for Wales, but the Welsh Government shouldn't be left off the hook either. Whilst the Welsh Government has released some figures, it hasn't accounted for EU legacy funding, or how much funding is coming from the EU, or making that distinction between allocations and actual spending, as was highlighted in that recent Finance Committee session. 

Our amendment also recognises the commitment of the UK Government to empower local communities in Wales via the levelling-up agenda and the shared prosperity fund. While some might not like it, the reality is that Wales has two Governments, and the direct funding to local authorities serves to highlight the UK Government's commitment to devolving power to councils who are best placed to deliver this funding. As I've said before—[Interruption.]—we've just seen how resilient our local authorities have been during the pandemic, and their local knowledge will be invaluable in delivering this investment. I give way to the Member for Ogmore.

Thank you for giving way, Paul. I appreciate what you're saying about getting some of these decisions down to a local area. In fact, that's what the strategic group looking at regional funding within Wales was looking at, based on the very best OECD models. I had the privilege of chairing it for a while. But, what they didn't suggest was, in any way, bypassing the policy framework in Wales at a national level. They actually recognised the need for partnership and working within that context. Why has the UK Government chosen to, effectively, bypass this devolved institution and Welsh Government? 

I've said before in this Chamber that it is important that Governments at all levels actually work together, but this is about real devolution, isn't it? It's devolving these matters to local authorities, and that is hugely important, because local authorities can prioritise the projects in their own areas. That, surely, is devolution. 

The final part of our amendment calls on the UK Government and the Welsh Government to ensure that lessons are learnt from how EU funds have been administered in the European structural and investment funds scheme, so that future investment, by both Governments, make a real difference to the Welsh economy. The management of European funding has previously been criticised by some for being overly complex and bureaucratic. 

PLANED, a community-led partnership based in Pembrokeshire, told the Welsh Affairs Committee that, and I quote,

'European funds whilst being welcome, appreciated, and intrinsic to the success of many projects within Pembrokeshire, as in the rest of Wales and UK, have also proved to be an administrative and bureaucratic burden that can often detract from delivery, outputs, and sustainable change'.

Unquote. And in responding to that, the Welsh Affairs Select Committee is right to say that the development of the shared prosperity fund represents an opportunity to address these problems and establish a system of funding that is less administratively burdensome. And I'll certainly be doing what I can to encourage the UK Government to provide assurances that those lessons have been learned.

So, all Members in this Chamber should want to see the successful delivery of post-EU funding, where funding reaches the communities that it needs to reach and is used effectively to make our local areas more prosperous for the future. Therefore, Llywydd, I urge Members to support our amendment.

I want to focus on the impact of Brexit on research and innovation funding, which clearly illustrates the assertion in our motion that post-Brexit funding streams are not working for Wales. So, why is this a problem? Research and innovation is absolutely fundamental to our nation's productivity and prosperity. It further helps us understand who we are and how we can best plan our future, enabling the research undertaken in our universities to have a positive and concrete impact on our lives here in Wales and far beyond. Nobel prize winner Andre Geim memorially summarised the value of fundamental research. He said, 

'There's no such thing as useless fundamental knowledge. The silicon revolution would have been impossible without quantum physics. Abstract maths allows internet security and computers not to crash every second. Einstein’s theory of relativity might seem irrelevant but your satellite navigation system would not work without it. The chain from basic discoveries to consumer products is long, obscure and slow—but destroy the basics and the whole chain will collapse'.

And we needn't look further than the years of the pandemic to realise our need for the two cultures of the humanities and science. We need not look further than the climate crisis to understand why our lives quite literally are in the hands of our researchers.

The Welsh Government's 2019 report into protecting research and innovation after leaving the EU stated:

'Brexit will bring a significant reduction in overall UK R&I investment. Any loss of structural funding on this scale, unless addressed, will disproportionately threaten Wales’ productive research and innovation ecosystem, having managed over the past two decades to catch up and outperform other UK and many similar sized countries and regions in Europe and internationally in terms of research publication impact'.

It's clear that this prediction was spot on. What is lamentable is that neither the UK Government nor the Welsh Government have responded adequately since then to ensure the impact of the loss of EU funding is addressed, because the risks were clear. EU structural funds have played a critical role in Wales's research capacity. Wales secured around 25 per cent of the total UK allocation for the 2014-20 period—more than five times the UK average. During this period, Wales was allocated €388 million of the UK's total European regional development fund for research and innovation—the highest of any of the devolved administrations. And since 2014 the Welsh Government was able to invest over £500 million of EU-related funding in research and innovation. The loss of these funds, without adequate replacement, therefore cannot be overstated. And that's because currently, Wales does not achieve a share of the UK R&I funding equivalent to the share we should expect from the Barnett formula. In 2020 for example, despite Wales making up 5 per cent of the UK population, we received only 2 per cent of the UK R&D funding. Wales's level of R&D investment is significantly below that of the UK and EU averages. And this picture will only get worse as Welsh universities are disproportionately disadvantaged, given the high level of historical dependency on EU funding.

In 2018 Professor Reid's review of Government-funded research and innovation in Wales highlighted that, while the research and innovation ecosystem in Wales was strong, it lacked the scale needed to deliver Wales's full potential. And we all know that in most cases, to have scale, you need funding. So, how does the future of this crucial sector look, when 79 per cent of Wales's total EU funding for research and innovation is from those EU structural funds, and the shared prosperity fund falls hundreds of millions of pounds short of the 'not a penny less' empty promise? Well, it doesn't look good, because given the small scale of the Welsh research base, it's not realistic that increased success in the competitive UK R&I funding environment alone would be sufficient to grow or even maintain Wales's R&D at previous levels. Given this, the Welsh Government must urgently address this huge gap in funding, which will endanger our research and innovation capability.

Professor Richard Wyn Jones of Cardiff University has drawn attention to the consequences of the Welsh Government's failure to implement the full recommendations of the Reid review, which were designed to protect and strengthen Welsh R&I, in light of the damage caused by Brexit. So too have the Institute of Physics, the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales, the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cardiff University, FSB Wales and Universities Wales. In explaining the thinking of the Welsh Government, the economy Minister has pointed to the role of the internal market Act and the UK shared prosperity fund in reducing expected funding and related previous commitments.

While I ask all Members to therefore support our call on the UK Government to devolve responsibility over the new post-Brexit funding streams, I would also point out to the Welsh Government that the current situation is surely more of a reason for them to act now, to shore up the key driver of our nation's prosperity. Diolch.

I'm going to try today not to make any political points whatsoever. The only thing I will do, when I intervened on you earlier, Paul—. It is interesting the approach that has been taken, in that the only people excluded to a high degree from this are the Members of this Senedd, because MPs are specifically mentioned within the need to actually take this forward. So, not Members of this Senedd, this Welsh Parliament—yourself, me included—but also engagement with the Welsh Government and the policy framework. Not that the Welsh Government should do this, but that, actually, they should be a fully embedded partner within it. Now, the reason I mention that is because we spent three years—three years of my life. It hasn't been wasted, I'm glad to see, because some of it has worked its way into the way forward now. It actually has; it's permeated it, when we actually spent three years bringing forward the framework for regional investment in Wales. That was co-produced by the CBI, FSB, the third sector, higher education, further education, academia, everybody, and it was based on the very best OECD models. We were worried that that was going to be chucked out. It's been put partly to one side, but I'm happy to say, in the flurry of the fortnight before the announcement was made, on 13 April, I think it was, with the announcement on the SFP being brought forward—there was a flurry of two weeks of intense negotiations after nothing for months, but there was a flurry of a fortnight. In that fortnight, one of the concessions brought forward was actually to acknowledge that, in Wales, we collaborate. In Wales, there is a framework of partnerships—regional partnerships, local authorities working together, with the third sector, with others—and this somehow has somehow found its way into it with a protest of that last fortnight—. But the disappointing thing, Darren—and I'll happily take an intervention—is, out of all of that collaboration, all of that partnership, all that work that was done over three years, some of which has found its way in, the one missing partner is us, and I just can't understand it.

I'm very grateful for you taking the intervention. I think you're quite right, actually, to raise the fact that it is regrettable, in my view, that Members of the Senedd are not part of the decision-making process in the way that MPs are when it comes to this new funding stream. But do you also accept that it's a matter of regret that with the Welsh Government's approach, I had no say in what was being spent in my own constituency, you had no say in what was being spent in your constituency either, in terms of the way that they were dealing out the cash that was available from the European Union. So, don't you think that that is perhaps—[Interruption.]—don't you think that that is perhaps, therefore, a lesson for the Welsh Government in the way that it handles grant funds in the future? Because I agree with you, I think it would be great to give more local people greater say, including us.

That's actually part of the lessons that we took through in the framework that we put forward and that the OECD worked with us directly on over those three years. The OECD, by the way, is still working with Welsh Government on these matters, and I think that question of learning the lessons of pulling out some of the bureaucracy, but actually within the proposals here, Darren, what we have got is some of that burden of administration—it's a competitive bid process now within the IPs. That competitive bid process is now being managed by individual local authorities. I could go through the list of what we've heard on the forum that continues in a different format to actually share experience from CBI, FSB, the third sector and everybody else, and what they are saying about their experience of this. Actually, they are now taking on that burden of administering this—[Interruption.] I will give way, but I'm conscious of time.

It's a very brief one. And, of course, local authorities do say how difficult it is for them to deal with the administrative burden of this. In response to what Darren Millar said, yes, of course we have, as Members of the Senedd, an opportunity to scrutinise decisions taken by Welsh Government. That is our role as parliamentarians, and does the Member for Ogmore agree that the danger in giving direct influence for Members is that you turn into a pork barrel politics type of scenario?

Look, I'd hate to say it is going to be that way, but it is indeed a danger, and the fact that we can't scrutinise—so it's already been flagged by the forum members that they have concerns that some of the proposals being brought forward will actually duplicate existing Welsh Government programmes. Now, that would be not just a waste of resource and time, which are scarce anyway, but they may actually work against each other. Well, surely, that's crazy. That is not good regional economic framework modelling. So, we should be able to, Darren, not just at a local level, but at a regional level and here engage on these projects and get them right so we don't have that duplication.

Sorry, I've taken a couple of interventions, so I'm going to run out of time very shortly, as in now—

I'm not sure whether you've actually started yet, you've taken so many interventions. [Laughter.]

I have hardly started—[Laughter.]—hardly started. So, I want to touch on a couple of the challenges that have already been flagged on the forum. One is the additional burden that it adds to local authorities, because they have to manage the competitive bid process. Secondly, the tight timescale, they have between now and August to bring forward and to negotiate between different local authorities on what are the best bids, and to do all the stuff that we could have done in much more managed way there. We also have, I have to say, the challenges as well of looking at what is best within a regional structure. The good thing is that the collaborations that we have built over many years in Wales stand us quite strongly in that, because I'm not picking up an appetite from local authorities to beggar the hindmost, they actually want to build on what we were doing already in Wales and work together. But this carries lots of risks.

So, in this debate today, I would say to people, go and look—. If you want an impartial, balanced view of what stakeholders are genuinely saying about this process, including their analysis of the Welsh Government's points on the fact that we are, at this moment, short of money, that we have been shortchanged, and we're looking to see how that is going to be made up, then go and look at the minutes of those three meetings we've had already, the fourth to be published shortly. I hope, Minister, that what we will have is a maturing from this position, where we genuinely have the UK Government reaching out, and the Welsh Government reaching out to them as well, to say, 'Let's make this work for Wales.' Because we've been in a dark tunnel for a long, long time, I have to say, and I'm not sure that we're out of it. And I do worry that this transition between where we were with that EU funding and where we're heading is not being managed as effectively as it could be.

I welcome the debate today and I welcome Huw's position of not making political points, and I won't try to make any either. But I agree with my colleague Paul Davies on his summation of the situation, and I too am firmly of the belief that the UK Government must honour its repeated commitment to ensure that Wales does receive its share of post-EU funding. From what I'm already hearing within the Finance Committee, and we're yet to see the response, there is a clearer picture on post-European funding and clearly a misunderstanding or a different position being taken here. Clearly, clarity would be important from both sides, and that isn't there, that transparency isn't there.

But I do think we've got to be careful that we don't see this as a threat constantly to devolution; this is an opportunity, and, I think, as Huw says, an opportunity for governments to work together to drive the very best for their local communities. I know as a past leader that there is an appetite for devolution to local authorities. They may not come out and say it in some areas, but any leader of a council and their cabinets who do not want to have access to the levers to make real change in their communities shouldn't be leader. They should be looking to lever in moneys to help their communities, close to communities, to help businesses and drive up opportunities.

We have to recognise that there's been a significant amount of money flowing already through the various schemes—£121 million, we know, for projects to improve infrastructure in Wales through the levelling-up fund; £46 million for 165 projects through the community renewal fund; and we know £585 million of shared prosperity funding, along with the tail-off European funding, will be spent and match those opportunities that were there prior to.

But, Llywydd, I wasn't going to make my contribution around just figures. I wanted to think about this debate in a slightly different way. What I think is missing from the debate is a discussion about why we still need this funding in the first place, following decades of similar investments. As part of the European Union, Wales received substantial funding via the structural funding mechanism, which was supplemented by UK Government funding, but, as we well know, this was because most of Wales fell under the 'less developed' category, which was regions below 75 per cent average EU per capita gross domestic product. And what did this fund really achieve? Yes, there are examples of good projects that have benefited communities, and yet economic development has still lagged behind, despite the various initiatives and funding streams. For example, when Objective 1 money first arrived, gross value added in the West Wales and the Valleys region was 62.1 per cent of the UK average. By 2019, it was 63.4 per cent GVA for Wales as a whole. By 2019, it was just 72.6 per cent of the UK total—[Interruption.] Oh, sorry, Jenny—yes, please.

I was astonished to hear you say, 'Why does Wales need this money any longer?' We're in the middle of a climate emergency and we have a massive programme of decarbonisation that we need to achieve, and that's one of the things that the European programme was used for. 

Thank you for that. I think you misunderstood me. I'm asking for that wider debate of why we are still in here after 20 years. I'm conscious there are some new emerging areas where the money will be focused toward, but we have to ask ourselves why the country is still in such a desperate position for economic growth, and we're not seeing that movement that we need to mobilise our communities, despite all of the funding that has gone into the area.

You know from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's report published earlier this year, it stated that Wales has the highest poverty rate among the four nations in the UK, with almost one in four—23 per cent of people—in poverty; between 1997 and 2000, this rate was 26 per cent. So, despite all of the EU funding, Wales still faces persistent poverty and an economy that lags behind the rest of the UK. So, the real question is not how much money Wales receives, but how we can use the new funding mechanism as a fresh start to ensure that the future investments made by both Governments—and I emphasise both—make a real, long-term difference to the Welsh economy and communities. Because, ultimately, despite all of the debate here, we must not forget what this funding needs to do. So, it's not just about shouting about who's right and who's wrong; it's how we use the money and lift this country out of the position it's currently in.

Just as decisions about Wales should be made in Wales, the funding allocated to Wales should be spent by the Welsh Government. That's a fundamental principle. Let's bear in mind that two years ago the Government in London announced the levelling-up fund, which was worth around £5 billion, for England only. It was only a year later that they acknowledged that some of it would be distributed between the devolved nations, with £800 million shared through the Barnett formula to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Rather than levelling up, what we are seeing is the latest proposals spreading the resources available to us thinner and thinner and drawing funding away from those areas where they are most needed.

You will, I'm sure, bear in mind that, under the EU's criteria previously, Gwynedd was considered as an area that required financial assistance, and Gwynedd did receive contributions from the EU running into millions of pounds. But, under the current regime, Gwynedd is seen as an area that isn't in need of support and so is one of the lowest areas in terms of support through levelling up, whilst the county and area of the Chancellor is identified as an area that needed more funding and is therefore receiving more funding. So, the system put in place by Westminster is perverse and works against our most deprived areas.

Now, if we look at another aspect, looking at funding for COVID-19 and dealing with the pandemic, far from proving the strength of the union, the UK's pandemic response was in fact one huge subsidy to the south of England. The Centre for Progressive Policy has calculated that the UK Government spent £1,000 more per London resident than in Wales, and £6.9 billion more on London than if each nation and region had been allocated emergency spending equally.

Wales's current strategic planning regions are a response to Westminster priorities, including the UK Government's city and growth deals and shared prosperity funds. They write off three quarters of Wales in terms of economic and cultural viability, and continue to make our future dependent on the crumbs of somebody else's table, rather than serving as a vehicle to connect our communities north and south, east and west, and realise the potential of our own country.

To turn to a sector highly affected by post-Brexit funding streams, the Conservatives have, once again, broken their promises made in their 2019 manifesto to rural and agricultural communities. We must hold the UK Government to account to commitments made on future funding for Welsh farming. The autumn budget and spending review announced that an average of £300 million a year would be allocated to Wales for agriculture and rural development, which is a full £37 million less than the budget allocated in 2019. This was when the Tory manifesto pledged to guarantee the current common agricultural policy budget to farmers in every year of the next Parliament. This will make Welsh agriculture around £248 million, nearly £0.25 billion, worse off by 2025. The current context has only resulted in further uncertainty for Welsh farmers, making it only harder for stakeholders and policy makers within the Welsh Government to provide the detail and clarity that our Welsh farmers need. Whilst the long-standing CAP system was often viewed by some farmers as a bureaucratic inhibitor to farm activity, its strengths in providing a level playing field across many countries could not be questioned. For years, CAP provided baseline support to farmers across Wales and Europe and protected them from market disruptions. As stated already, Brexit has taken this away. We're now rushing to fill the legislative void left by the UK's departure from the EU and, with it, CAP.

And with respect to EU structural funds, as they were allocated on an objective assessment of need, historically that needs-based approach resulted in Wales receiving 24 per cent of UK structural funding, more per person than any of the devolved nations and English regions, reflecting the gap that exists between the poorest parts of Wales and the UK average. In its response to the Finance Committee's consultation on post-EU funding, the NFU has suggested that the Levelling Up Advisory Council, set up by the UK Government, should include specific Welsh and rural representation to give confidence that the EU funds will be replaced in full. They also go on to state that they believe that

'there should be formal consultation on future funding streams in order to ensure funds have effective strategic oversight so they can work for Wales, farming and our rural communities'

as well.

Therefore, as Plaid Cymru has explained in this debate, the funding agenda post Brexit in Westminster has meant to date more powers for Westminster, more money for Tory constituencies, and less democracy for Wales, and less funding and representation for Wales too. We deserve better than this clear effort to buy loyalty for a split and failing union. 

Jane Dodds.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I'm very grateful to Plaid Cymru for this debate today.

People have been repeatedly told since the 2016 referendum—it seems like a very long time ago, doesn't it—that we would not be a penny worse off than when we left the EU. I'm not going to retrace the arguments about how inadequate the UK Government has been around the new arrangements, but I do want to say it feels a bit like groundhog day, because we keep coming back to this really important issue, and it is so vital that we keep doing that, because I do see a glimmer of hope, perhaps, in some of the Conservatives over there. I'm really pleased to hear Paul Davies saying that he wants to challenge the UK Government, and that Peter Fox also feels that there should be transparency. But listen to what you're hearing this afternoon. You're hearing about our Welsh farmers, you're hearing about what they're losing. We heard this afternoon, and we had the debate and the discussion about our Welsh farmers and how important it was to support them, and yet—. They were promised, this phrase, 'not a penny less' when we left the EU. As we've heard, they have lost around £375 million a year to sustain world-leading quality food, excellent animal welfare standards and a £7 billion food and drink supply chain. Please, take those messages back to the UK Government.

And Peter Fox, you perhaps don't understand the effect that Sioned Williams was talking about in terms of our universities here in Wales and the impact that the loss of funding is having on them. Aberystwyth University, in my region, secured more than £40 million of EU funds in order to develop the new and innovative enterprise campus, a state-of-the-art veterinary hub and a range of other skills and projects as well. That research and development money is essential to us here in Wales. We're letting young people down, we're letting our farmers down, we're letting our rural communities down. We must do better, and we must do it now. The political posturing of the Conservatives in Westminster continues to undermine our universities and our farmers. [Interruption.] Of course I'll take an intervention.

Thank you, Jane, for taking the intervention. I think you mentioned my comments about R&D. I absolutely agree with Sioned on R&D, and that isn't necessarily because of this fund, it's because of the lack of Government interaction in trying to lever in the R&D into this country. Look at Scotland, how Scotland have levered in so much more than we have. We—this Government—have let Wales down on R&D, and we need to do a lot more. But what I was saying in my contribution was about why we have got into this position, and why haven't we done more about it til now. I'm not saying there isn't a need for funding, but why are we still in this situation? And just for clarity, the farming community are still getting £337 million a year. That is fact.

Well, thank you very much for your intervention. Perhaps you could respond to the NFU. As Mabon has said to us, the NFU themselves have told us about the lack of funding for our farmers and how let down they feel, so it really is important that we think about those farmers and our agricultural community. And R&D is absolutely essential to Scotland, England and Wales. My challenge to you, and I'll finish with this, is: if a Conservative wants to stand up and tell us about the loss of EU funding, please answer these three questions. Why will Wales not lose out? Where will that money come from? How much, and when will it come? Because we're still waiting, and we can't wait any longer on behalf of our communities. Thank you, diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'm not speaking this afternoon to be an apologist for the UK Government. However, I do take issue with Plaid's motion this afternoon and the stance of their puppet masters in the Welsh Government. Wales will not be £1 billion worse off in unreplaced funding over the next three years, nor has the UK Government undermined the Welsh Government's ability to strategically plan spending for the benefit of Wales and its communities. This blatant Welsh nationalist propaganda has to be treated with the contempt it deserves. The double accounting, fanciful figures and the revisionist history that has been used to come up with Wales's imaginary losses—it would be funny if it wasn't so dangerous. Its only purpose is to undermine the United Kingdom and further a nationalist agenda of dragging a so-called independent Wales kicking and screaming back into the European Union.

Plaid and, for some unknown reason, the Labour Party want to take us back to the halcyon days of EU membership, when the handouts were large and the gravy train was at full throttle. But, in their rush to paint a rose-tinted epitaph to the past, they fail to mention all the times that they themselves hit out at the useless bureaucratic EU funding schemes—schemes that were designed to bring Wales out of poverty, yet utterly failed to do anything other than create more bureaucrats and a few vanity projects. Objective 1 funding was a once-in-a-generation opportunity to improve Wales's economic prosperity—

Are you taking an intervention?

No. I would have accepted if I was taking an intervention. 

No. Okay. He's not taking an intervention, Alun Davies. 

It was therefore shocking when it not only failed on all counts as Wales once again qualified for structural funds. Even after the EU was expanded by the admission of former Warsaw pact states from the east of Europe, despite billions of euros being pumped into west Wales and the Valleys, our nation was still as poor, or even poorer, than many of the former Soviet bloc countries that had gained EU membership. Once more, billions of euros were flooding into Wales in an attempt to level up Wales. What Plaid like to gloss over is the fact that these funds could only be spent on terms set by the EU. This institution had no say, no sway, so it's little wonder that what emerged was a string of broken promises, failed projects and a stagnant economy.

The UK Government's replacement schemes are in stark contrast. They are designed to deliver maximum benefit to local communities, designed to give local residents the final say in projects to improve their areas, yet this is unacceptable to Plaid and Labour politicians. They don't care about local communities, they only care about holding power onto them. I urge Members to reject this motion and support—

Hold on. Hold on.

—our amendment tonight. Thank you very much.

I think you're too angry, and I would consider just calming down in your contribution. 

Passionate, Llywydd.

No, no, that was anger. That was too much. I ask you to reflect on that for your future contributions. Yes, that was a bit of a shock there, actually. I'm going to ask the Minister now to contribute. Rebecca Evans. And I'm sure you'll calm things down, passionate as you are, but calm passion is always best, I think.

Okay. Thank you, Llywydd. I do welcome this motion today and the opportunity that it gives us to debate what is an absolutely vital issue. Despite repeated commitments from the UK Government that we won't be a penny worse of as a result of the UK's exit from the European Union, the UK Government has—and this is a fact—failed to honour its pledge to fully replace EU structural and investment funds, leaving our communities and businesses more than £1 billion worse off as a result. And I'd commend to colleagues the written statement I published in response to a request from Paul Davies on this issue just a couple of weeks ago, which sets out the details and the workings out, if you like, for that.

Since 2016, the Welsh Government has worked intensively to create the strongest possible model for post-EU regional investment in Wales. I put on record my huge thanks to Huw Irranca-Davies for his work and his leadership in that particular area. During this time, we've also made frequent attempts to engage with the UK Government on these plans, but it wasn't until just two weeks before the publication of the SPF prospectus that the UK Government offered any kind of meaningful negotiation with us. And it's only then as a result of the intensive discussions that we engaged in at that point that concessions have been made and the UK Government now at least recognises in its plans the importance of regional partnership working and our existing partnership arrangements that we have in Wales.

However, we simply cannot support the UK Government's decision to adopt a funding distribution model that redirects economic development funds away from those areas where poverty is most concentrated. And I'll repeat that, because this is what the UK Government's proposals do: they redirect economic funds away from areas where poverty is most concentrated. What Government would make that choice? Its structure really fails to advance the cause of social justice and equality, and it fails to meet any kind of test that the Welsh Government would set for this kind of expenditure. But, to my mind, it also fails badly the levelling-up test that the UK Government would want to set for itself.

UK Government Ministers have said that they're devolving more locally, but let's be really clear: no funding or decision-making power is being devolved. Welsh local authorities, they have to prepare their plans, but then they're assessed by Whitehall civil servants and decided upon by UK Ministers in London.

Our rural communities, too, are also suffering as a result of the UK Government's actions. When providing replacement EU farm funding, the UK Government is deducting EU receipts due to Wales for work that was part of the 2014-20 rural development programme. And, as we've heard, what this means in practice is that Wales's rural communities are £243 million worse off than if we had remained in the EU. Again, fact.

The entire process has been an absolute abject lesson of what happens when a UK Government wades into devolved areas with such carelessness and in such a poorly informed manner. The UK Government has fundamentally disrespected Wales's devolution settlement through this process, and is using the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 to take funding and decision making away from the Welsh Government and this Senedd, undermining, I have to say, even their own Welsh Conservative Members of the Senedd in the process.

We have numerous examples of where powers that are devolved to Wales have been undermined by the UK Government, and where it's deliberately overriding Welsh devolution. The UK-wide levelling-up fund replaces England's towns fund, for which the Welsh Government previously would have had Barnett consequentials to support our priorities here in Wales. So, the fund is not new money. No local authorities in Wales would be guaranteed funding from the UK Government's competitive funding stream.

Despite the Welsh Government having been democratically elected to lead on policies in devolved areas, the UK Government is administering UK-wide programmes such as grass-roots football or tennis facilities via third parties, bypassing scrutiny here. And the £100 million UK seafood fund, aimed at supporting UK fisheries and the seafood sector, is again being administered directly by the UK Government, completely failing to understand or meet the specific needs of the sector here in Wales.

The Welsh Government was elected to govern on devolved matters, and we will continue to fight for this Senedd to retain its democratic role in future regional investment. The Senedd is elected by the people of Wales to scrutinise and, ultimately, authorise spending by the Welsh Government. But the UK Government is now creating a parallel stream of activity that is outside this democratic oversight, and it will inevitably not get the same kind of focus in Westminster as it would get here in the Senedd. Bypassing the Welsh Government and the Senedd will lead to the duplication of provision across Wales, blurring accountability, creating funding gaps for sectors, and failing to deliver public value for public money.

Having less say over less money means that there will be difficult decisions to make for the Welsh Government and other institutions across business, education and the third sector, and we've heard about some of those difficult decisions this afternoon. Vital programmes delivered with support from EU funds, at a time when we're recovering from the pandemic and addressing the cost-of-living crisis, will be put at risk.

We have shared our learning from administering EU funds with the UK Government, emphasising that a greater strategic national approach will deliver better outcomes for Wales. But it's failed to listen and instead is continuing with a fragmented approach of investing predominantly in smaller local projects that may have no link to our wider objectives, such as our work on net zero or integrated transport. But we will continue to work with partners to mitigate as much of the disruption as we can, but, Llywydd, Members should be under no illusions as to the damage that this set of decisions will do to the communities across Wales that need this funding the most. 

Llyr Gruffydd now to reply to the debate. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Can I thank everybody for their—well, most Members for their contributions and their constructive contributions to this debate? I think Luke Fletcher struck the right note right at the start. This levelling up is actually a top-down agenda in reality, and I'd go further. What kind of agenda? Well, we're seeing constituencies and authorities being cherry-picked for funding, with the diktat that ribbons must be cut 12 months before the next general election. You're not fooling anybody in terms of what the agenda really is here. 

And, I have to say, there was a valiant effort to justify the amendment that's being proposed, but to say that this is about empowering local communities, the reality is quite different. Let's be honest about this. Even under the WEFO programme monitoring committee, you had local government representatives, you had business representatives, you had the education sector, you had the third sector. And now, of course, we have under the levelling-up fund an application process where applications disappear into the bowels of Whitehall somewhere, no doubt to be processed by unelected bureaucrats—remember those—unelected bureaucrats making decisions, and of course it leaves local authorities thrown into this kind of cut-throat competitive environment where you're pitting communities against each other to be in the limelight, to get the money to pay for their projects, and local authorities, likewise, competing against each other.

And, okay, how many times have we heard, 'Wales will not lose out on post-EU funding'? It's reflected again in the amendment. It's straight out of the Boris Johnson playbook, really, isn't it? No matter how ridiculous it is, say it often enough and, do you know what, people might believe you? Well, people are wise to that now. I think we've learnt when not to trust the Tories. It's when their lips move, isn't it? That's what people tell us. Or indeed, when they table these kinds of amendments, or indeed when they promise something in a manifesto. As many Members, many sectors, many organisations are telling us, where has this money gone? It's disappeared. Not a penny less, not a power lost, as we were told. Well, it's far from the truth.

I would agree with a number of the Conservative Members who actually said that we need more clarity around the funding here in Wales. We need the figures provided. We need transparency—those are the words that you used. And I would agree, because I think that does reflect that the current settlement around some of the fiscal powers that we have here is deficient. When I was Chair of finance in the last Senedd, we had one evidence session where we had the Secretary of State telling us that Wales was getting more money, and in the immediate next evidence session we had the finance Minister from Wales telling us we're getting less. And as a committee, we were sort of fumbling around in the dark trying to work it out. Well, if we couldn't work it out then what hope does anybody else have? So, I'd agree with you there that we do need to address this.

And, of course, the killer line for me came more than once from the Conservative benches. Why do we need these funds in Wales after decades of funding from the European Union? Well, because the United Kingdom is broken; because the status quo has left us in exactly that space. [Interruption.] No, I won't. You've had over an hour to make your argument, and if you've left it until now then I'm sorry.

The macro-economic levers are held at Westminster. Those are the powers that can make a real difference, and successive UK Governments have let us down and have left us poor. You've let us down. You're keeping us in poverty, so give us the powers and we'll do a better job. Not a half-cocked power arrangement to do a little bit of this and a little bit of that; not the crumbs from the table, as Mabon ap Gwynfor told us. And it should start with honouring your broken promises on post-Brexit funding, and give us the powers.

Thank you. I'm very grateful for you taking an intervention—

No, I've finished, actually. [Laughter.]

He fooled me as well, Darren.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. Therefore, I defer voting until voting time.
 

We now reach voting time. We will take a short break to prepare.

That brings us to voting time. The first vote this afternoon is the vote on item 5, the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv) on  decarbonising public sector pensions. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jack Sargeant. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 35, 12 abstentions, 1 against. And therefore the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on item 7, the Plaid Cymru debate on post-Brexit funding. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 35, no abstentions, 13 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

And that concludes voting for this afternoon.

We will now move to the short debate. Carolyn Thomas will take the short debate this afternoon, so if Members—

If Members can just be quiet so I can call Carolyn Thomas for the short debate. Carolyn Thomas.

Diolch, Llywydd. I've given Huw, Delyth and Sam Kurtz a minute of my time each. 

Whether you were buzzing about on World Bee Day or you’re on the verge of completing No Mow May, this time of year focuses on celebrating and learning about biodiversity, and since being elected last year, I’ve been impressed by the level of understanding in this Senedd. But the roots of my interest in nature go back to my childhood; in fact, if a child does not connect with nature before the age of 12, then they are less likely to as an adult. I used to power up a steep hill in my village, thinking that once I get to the top there will be an amazing view, but now I wander up lovely lanes slowly, taking in the variety of natural life in the species-rich hedgerows and banks that is going on all around me.

After I was made Flintshire council’s biodiversity champion and attended some presentations and workshops, I started to look for species. I developed an eye for spotting them in the verges; I spotted wild strawberries, orchids, honeysuckle, stitchwort, wild garlic, butterflies, bees and bats. I discovered singing hedgerows full of sparrows, crows fighting buzzards, otter spraints and snakes. I noticed that there was a whole world out there, another world going on outside the human bubble that I lived in. And I'm proud to say I am now a species champion for the butterfly orchid.

Nature is beautiful, and importantly, we cannot survive without it. Our natural environment is in decline and so are the benefits it delivers. It has served us well and now we need to nurture it and help it thrive. Biodiversity is an essential underpinning element of all resilient ecosystems and is fundamental to our economic, social and cultural well-being. We so often forget that the wild food chain we were taught as children starts with the smallest of insects who rely on our native flora.

We are now in a nature emergency, and our wildlife is declining globally at rates unprecedented in human history. We have no choice but to act now to save it. One in six species assessed in Wales alone are at risk of extinction. That's one in six—let that sink in. We focus on tree planting for carbon storage, yet three to five times more carbon is stored within our grasslands than in our forests. Rural grass verges make up more than 50 per cent of our rich meadow land in the UK, and 97 per cent of traditional lowland grassland meadows in Wales and England were lost between 1930 and 1987. This is where we need to look to put protections in urgently.

Road verges and parks may be the only regular contact some people in Wales have with nature. Having more native areas allowed to stay wild will enhance local character, visual interest and our health and well-being. Changing how grass is cut, over time, creates more native wildflower-rich meadows in amenity areas and along roadsides. Creating wildlife corridors via wild patches, natural growth areas and focusing on only cutting desirable footpaths where needed will make a difference. This will help combat both the nature and climate emergencies by supporting wildlife, enhancing ecological connectivity, storing more carbon in our soils and building more resilience to environmental change, while letting our children connect with our wildlife, so they too will continue to protect it for our future generations.

We can make road verges and amenity grasslands—parks and other green spaces—more wildlife friendly. Regularly cut, closely mown grass may look tidy to some, but it has little benefit for wildlife. We need to take a step back from our expectations of manicured monocultured grass, weeded to boredom. We need to allow all possible meadows to reach their full potential and let flowers grow. Great work is already being carried out by local authorities, North Wales Wildlife Trust and local nature partnerships across Wales, highlighted by No Mow May, the Magnificent Meadows Cymru partnership project, and the road verge management guidelines, which are an important framework for this partnership working. I also want to pay tribute to landowners who have managed land for nature, and hope that the incoming sustainable farming scheme will offer the right incentives to encourage others who can't afford to do so or have the expertise.

If we are to cultivate a fertile future, one in which our biodiversity is allowed to bloom, much more needs to be done to protect our natural environment, and I know the Welsh Government is working hard with partners to do just that. As they say, Minister, you reap what you sow. Diolch.

Thank you, Carolyn, for introducing this debate—a great contribution there. I just want to say a few words, and it's picking up on the themes that you said. We can all play a role within this. This morning before I came in, I just happened to be flicking through a book that I've got on my bedside cabinet. It was Chris Packham and Megan McCubbin's Back to Nature: How to love life—and save it. They make this point about the head change that people have got to do, the mind change to actually allow untidy places—so, verges, edges. I've done, like a lot of people, the No Mow May. I've been doing it for a few years now. My youngsters have been encouraging me to do it. It's fascinating. There's three sorts of clover coming through there, all different sizes, shapes and colours. We've got natural vetch coming through in it, and, of course, the dandelions and daisies and so on. It looks beautiful and it's an absolute feast for wildlife. There's the hedges and edges campaign that's going on as well, about what can farmers do with their verges, a bit less manicured, a bit more untidy, with homes and habits for wildlife—flora and fauna. And also, there's what we can do with town councils and county councils in terms of pesticide-free communities. But it's all a head change—that's what we've got to do, and that's the exciting thing about this. It's actually making that leap to say, 'We've all got a part to play'—sometimes it takes bold decisions to do it, and then sticking with it, and we can make a real difference to biodiversity. So, Carolyn, thank you very much.

I wanted to thank Carolyn Thomas for bringing this debate before the Senedd. What a wonderful and important debate it's been. The pandemic has led so many of us to re-evaluate the importance of nature in our own localities. One doesn't have to travel to mountains and lakes to experience nature in all its glory, it's also there in our villages, or it could be if we allow it to grow. Wild flowers, as we've heard in that very passionate speech from Carolyn, provide some of the most beautiful spectacles and I'm fully supportive of any efforts to see more wild flowers in bloom. Finally, the nature emergency, of course, affects us all, but this is one way in which we can play a constructive part in species recovery and ensure that more people can appreciate nature in their daily lives. Thank you, once again, to Carolyn for this debate.

Huw, I was really struck, in your contribution there, by the importance of the beauty of untidiness. I was trying to think what 'the beauty of untidiness' would be in Welsh. I think it's 'prydferthwch blerwch', which is almost cynghanedd, so it's also a beautiful phrase in Welsh, and poetic too.

Thank you to the Member for North Wales for bringing this forward. As someone who brought forward the statement of opinion on hedges and edges that the Member kindly co-signed as well, I think this is really important. The agricultural community absolutely has a part to play in this as well. It's about planting the right tree in the right place for the right reasons, and they are absolutely on board with that. A little bit of a plea to the Deputy Minister, though, while he's here: let's not make public safety secondary to this. I draw the example of Milton in my constituency where verges are having a detrimental impact on visualisation on the road on the A477, with constituents really worried about the access from their properties onto the main road, because the verges are encroaching onto the road itself. But, Carolyn, you mentioned how you slow down to look at these verges and enjoy what's there, and I was reminded of the phrase from W.H. Davies's poem, 'Leisure':

'What is this life if, full of care, / We have no time to stand and stare?'

I think it's very fitting that we do take a little bit more time to stare and enjoy what nature gives us in Wales. Diolch.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Climate Change to reply to the debate—Lee Waters.

Thank you very much. That was a short and fruitful debate with many thoughtful contributions. Thank you, Carolyn, for tabling it and for the work you've been doing with us to help inform an approach on this to work with local authorities to try and spread good practice.

You highlighted the alarming rate at which nature is being depleted and many of the practical ways that we can all try and mitigate that. You also highlighted the good work being done by our Local Places for Nature scheme, as well as the projects, as Huw Irranca-Davies mentioned, being taken forward by town councils, housing associations, schools, the NHS and so on. I won't repeat the figures or the benefits that have been highlighted by Members. I would agree with Carolyn Thomas about the possibility from our road verges—we have 29,000 miles of road verges and they have the potential to sustain an astonishing amount of wildlife. And I take Sam Kurtz's point about the example in his constituency of verges in Milton. Where highway authorities do cut verges, they are very mindful of the impact that it has on visibility and on road safety. But even beyond the immediate side of the highway where these things are issues, there's a huge amount of surrounding land, which has got great potential, and, of course, the hedges and edges in your own community, not just on farms—little scraps of land here and there where there is potential to harness wildlife.

So, there is much work to be done. Carolyn has done some good work in promoting the collection of cuttings to stop the grass creating dead vegetation and smothering delicate plants, and collecting seeds. In fact, we have funded a number of local authorities to have the machinery that will allow them to collect the seeds and, in the process, support the local provenance of flowers. Having a monoculture wildflower intruder in our countryside, for the best of intentions, can, in fact, serve to stifle biodiversity, and that's not what we want. And Huw Irranca-Davies is right: having the courage to accept messiness. I'm doing it in my own front lawn, and I do feel the disapproving looks of neighbours that my hedge is a little unkempt and the lawn is looking scruffy. And I think that is one of our barriers, and I think that's one of the pieces of work Carolyn Thomas has identified, the need to educate people. It's not the council being lazy in not cutting the grass, there's a reason for doing it. But it does require, as Huw Irranca-Davies said, a mind shift, to get people to understand that nature isn't tidy, and, in fact, tidiness is an enemy of biodiversity encouragement.

So, there's a big education project to be done, and we are funding a range of projects across the country. Just to name one, the one mentioned by Carolyn Thomas—it was the North Wales Wildlife Trust's Biodiversity means Business project on the Wrexham industrial estate, which has created over 600 m of wildflower verges and eight roundabouts planted with wild flowers. There are many more examples that we are funding right across Wales, and we're working closely with Plantlife and their No Mow May campaign, which we really want to embed, and understand the barriers and do practical things to encourage them. My colleague Julie James is currently conducting a biodiversity deep dive, working in collaboration with a range of stakeholders, to try and understand practical barriers and how we overcome them.

But I think the key point for us to emphasise—we've mentioned in the Chamber this afternoon already the climate emergency, but every time you mention the climate emergency, we must also mention the nature emergency that runs in parallel. And there are tensions between the two, and those tensions need to be managed and worked through. I had an excellent visit with the RSPB last week to the Conwy nature reserve on the side of the A55, and saw there, in a pretty unpromising location, really, how they've created an idyll of biodiversity, but how there are tensions between our two objectives of climate and nature emergency mitigations. And I think the more we talk about it, the more we mainstream and normalise untidiness. And for once, I think we can all embrace being a bit scruffy. Diolch.

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