National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon's Plenary meeting, and to the first meeting of this Senedd in the new Chamber. This is the Chamber that will house Welsh democracy for the next century and more. You are the Members that took the decision to reform our Senedd and to make it fit for Wales in the twenty-first century, so I was determined that you should be the Members that were the first to take your seats in this new Chamber. 

Our staff and contractors were set a hard deadline of this week for this Chamber to be operational, and, on behalf of us all, I want to thank all of them for going that extra mile to meet that deadline. The architects were the original Senedd architects of Rogers Stirk Harbour. The main building contractor was a Welsh company—BBI Group from Brecon—and all sub-contractors were Welsh companies. Our main suppliers of building materials ranged from companies from Newport to Blaenau Ffestiniog. It's not all about the building work, of course; it's also about the project management and IT fitting. Thanks to all involved with that. We've been able to address some of the design compromises of 20 years ago. All areas of this Siambr are accessible now without the use of mechanical steps. We've been able to also futureproof our IT capacity. 

The Senedd building itself was opened officially 20 years ago exactly this week. As I sit here, I'm reminded of my final conversation with the late Queen on her opening of the Senedd in 2021. In the lift on the way out, she commented to me on the maturity of our Senedd as it had developed over the years. Never one to miss an opportunity, I mentioned that we were keen not to stand still and that there could be an increase in the number of Members at some point soon. Ever practical, she asked how we would fit them all into the Chamber, and I told her of the foresight of my predecessor and the false back wall. She did not express an opinion, but smiled graciously. In another age, that could well have been taken as Royal Assent, but we had to do it the harder, democratic way, by legislation and vote. Ultimately, this Chamber is not about the walls, or the desks, or the computers, but it is about the Members elected here to do a job of work, to govern and to scrutinise on behalf of the people of Wales. So, let's get to that work; we have a lot to do before the end of our Senedd term.

The first item this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Julie Morgan. 

And I have to work out where she's sitting. She's there. Julie Morgan. 

Diolch yn fawr, Julie. Before I answer your question, I'd like to add my thanks to those of the Llywydd, and to thank her for her leadership in driving this project forward, and also for the foresight, as she said, of the previous Llywydd in foreseeing that we would need to see expansion. I'd also like to give my thanks to all of those who've helped to deliver the project on time and on budget. That's what we want to see in Wales every time.

Thank you very much for that. 

And I'd just also like to note that today, 24 February, marks four years since President Putin launched his full-scale invasion in Ukraine. It's a moment in which I hope to reaffirm Wales's unwavering solidarity with the people of Ukraine, to honour the resilience in the face of brutal aggression, and to recognise the extraordinary compassion shown by communities throughout Wales to those people who've come here to seek refuge. 

I welcome Mick Antoniw and Alun Davies back from their visit to Ukraine—15 visits they've now made to support the people in that country. Diolch yn fawr i chi. [Applause.]

The Welsh Labour Government recognises the service and sacrifice through action, not words, of military personnel. And through our armed forces covenant, we're improving access to housing, healthcare, employment and mental health support for veterans and their families. 

Last Friday, I visited the VC Gallery in Haverfordwest—a brilliant example of veterans creating a space to meet, socialise, support one another and rebuild confidence. That kind of peer support makes a real difference, because recognition is not just about medals and memorials; it's about practical help, connection and dignity, day in, day out. 

Thank you for that answer.

My constituent, Bethan Chedzey, has brought to my attention the case of her uncle, Neville James Alfred Lawes. In 1943, a Japanese passenger and cargo steamship was sunk by the USS Bonefish submarine, while carrying 548 allied prisoners of war. Many prisoners drowned, while others were shot. Despite dozens of first-hand accounts and sworn statements being produced after the tragedy, the UK Government ordered that no war crimes trial be held and the families of the prisoners of war not be told what had happened to their loved ones. To date, the UK Government has never apologised for refusing to bring the known war criminals to justice. Forty-one of the men on board that ship were Welsh, and one of them was Neville Lawes. Their families have lived with the knowledge of the terrible circumstances of their deaths ever since, and they are campaigning for justice. Will you, Prif Weinidog, have a conversation with the UK Government about an apology for the families of those tragically killed that day?

Thank you, Julie. Thank you for reminding us of this terrible event, the Suez Maru, where a Japanese ship, as you say, carrying those 450 passengers who were prisoners of war—as you say, 41 of them from Wales—were torpedoed by a US submarine, and there was a terrible loss of life. What was particularly dreadful, as you say, was that Japanese soldiers returned and they shot the survivors while they were in the water. It was a terrible incident and I can absolutely understand how descendants feel. There is controversy associated with this, as the UK Government, as you mentioned, at the time carried out an investigation, but then they shelved plans to try some of the people for war crimes. I know you've been looking for a response on this. It's an issue that we as a Welsh Government have raised with the UK Government, and we've shared the response with you. Our understanding is, on the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, this will not apply retrospectively.

Veterans need our recognition, of course, but they also need our protection. Many veterans that I have spoken to are very concerned by the actions of the UK Government in partially reversing the Northern Ireland Troubles (Legacy and Reconciliation) Act 2023, which provided conditional immunity provisions for veterans that had served in Northern Ireland and some of the actions that they were asked to undertake in serving their country in doing so. They now face the prospect of prosecution for the actions that they took in Northern Ireland in defence of our country. Clearly, that is incredibly worrying for them, and it should be a shame on all of us that this is something that they are facing. So, what discussions have you had with the UK Government about protecting those British and, particularly, those Welsh veterans from prosecution for the actions they took in Northern Ireland?

Thank you. This is, of course, a matter for the UK Government. But, obviously, we need to think about veterans on all occasions. Many of them suffer long-term effects of participating in war. I know that many of them are very keen for us to continue our support for the armed services, not just in terms of protecting them for the long term, but also in making sure that Wales gets its fair share. We contribute 7 per cent to the armed forces in terms of personnel, and I'm very keen to see that we get more from the Ministry of Defence when it comes to landing investment from the increased amount of money that will be spent on defence in future years.

I think we're all aware we're living in very uncertain times. International tensions are increasing. There are profound implications on all of us, with the US insisting that Europe does more for itself when it comes to defending ourselves, with a higher proportion of money being spent in the UK on defence. I was very pleased that, on Thursday last week, we had the announcement of the defence growth deal for Wales, and a commitment of £50 million coming to ensure that Welsh small and medium-sized enterprises will be able to benefit, and other organisations, from that additional money that is being spent on defence.

First Minister, I had a constituent who contacted me, who is a veteran who served our country with distinction, and who was made homeless through no fault of his own. When he sought support, he was passed around from different agency to different agency and was homeless for about 12 months. He's now found accommodation, which is great, but, when our veterans seek accommodation, they should be getting the utmost support that they need to find that home that they desperately need. So, what is the Welsh Government doing to make sure that no veterans who have served our communities and our country end up on the streets?

It's a terrible situation when that happens, and, obviously, many of them also are suffering from mental health issues, and they need that wraparound support that we're able to give in certain circumstances. Look, we are serious about addressing the issues of housing shortages in Wales, which is why we're very proud that, by the end of this year, we'll hit that target of 20,000 social homes being built in Wales. And, of course, that means that there are more opportunities then for veterans to be able to find accommodation as well.

The Welsh Labour Government is on track to deliver the vast majority of our programme for government commitments by the end of this term. Since I became First Minister, we've focused on four clear priorities: better health, and what we've seen last week again is, for the seventh month in a row, our longest waiting lists coming down and the largest monthly fall on record; we've seen more homes being built—20,000 more social homes on track, despite the fact that Liz Truss crashed the economy, driving up building costs; more jobs—100,000 apprenticeships delivered and over 64,000 young people supported through the young person's guarantee; and now better transport—we were doing our share, and now the UK Government has pledged £14 billion in commitments to help reform our rail structure in Wales.

What a bizarre comment to say 'more jobs'. Go and tell someone in hospitality in Wales that there are more jobs out there thanks to your Government in Westminster, with national insurance increases and all the other bureaucracy you've loaded up onto it.

But the point I want to raise with you, First Minister, is in relation to the Global Centre of Rail Excellence. The Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee visited this site back in the autumn term. We saw a vast brownfield site that will require a huge amount of investment. So far, the nearly £70 million that the UK Government and the Welsh Government have put in has unfortunately not managed to move that project very far forward. In the submission of the business case to the Department for Transport at the UK Government, the civil servants and the Secretary of State went back to your Government and said that this case needed to be strengthened. The incoming Government in May will inherit a requirement of finding £330 million to make that project viable. How is this Government going to make sure that that regeneration project will not go the same way as the Circuit of Wales project, where there were fine words but little substance in delivering what one would hope would be an exciting redevelopment project in mid Wales?

We're very proud of what we've done in relation to rail in Wales. The fact is that we've delivered £1 billion-worth of investment to upgrade the Valleys lines and £800 million on new trains. And yes, we have ambitions to develop the GCRE—a major strategic opportunity for the Dulais valley. There is strong industry interest. We have committed significant amounts of Welsh money to this project, and so has the UK Government. The final investment decision will, of course, be for the next Government to determine. It is one of the projects that we promoted at the investment summit, and we're very keen to make sure that we get private sector investment for this project.

I'm grateful to the First Minister for her kind words earlier, and it is to the nation of sanctuary that I wish to return. The mark of any good Government is how it treats people. I'm grateful for the unity across this Chamber. I'm grateful to Darren Millar, Rhun ap Iorwerth, and Jane Dodds as well, for the work that they've done to support refugees from Ukraine who have sought refuge here in Wales and who have received support not only from this Parliament but from our people. Mick and I, last week, saw the reality of life in Ukraine. We heard the air raid warnings. We felt the cold. We saw the streets in darkness. We saw the impact of war on human beings. The nation of sanctuary is a mark of our civilisation. It is a mark of who we are as a nation and as a country. It tells everybody that the people of Wales will always support those fleeing war. And the nation of sanctuary has overwhelmingly been used to support people from Ukraine seeking support from us here, a sanctuary whilst their country is being attacked. I hope, First Minister, that you will be able to confirm that this Government remains absolutely committed to the nation of sanctuary and will continue to support people fleeing war, from Ukraine and elsewhere, and that Wales will always be a country and a nation that supports those who are fleeing danger and fleeing conflict.

Diolch yn fawr, Alun. You're quite right. I'm very proud of the fact that this country has welcomed people from Ukraine in their hour of need. It has been interesting and wonderful to meet the resilient people of that nation who are now contributing very constructively to our communities. Ninety-one per cent of the money spent on the nation of sanctuary has been spent supporting 8,000 Ukrainians who’ve found refuge in Wales. That's something I think we should be proud of. And this question also relates to veterans, and let's not forget that a significant other part of the 9 per cent left is actually spent on supporting Afghan people who supported our military in Afghanistan. So, these are people that we should be supporting. They stood by us and our military, and it's absolutely right that we stand by them.

First Minister, your Welsh Government's programme for government and your co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru were meant to deliver improvements for the people of Wales. You promised a more prosperous and equal Wales, but what have Plaid Cymru and you actually delivered? Your greatest failures include the lowest wage packets, worst educational outcomes and the highest NHS waiting lists in Great Britain. And what was your response to this? Default 20 miles an hour, more Senedd Members and tree planting in Uganda. These are not the priorities of the people of Wales. First Minister, do you agree with me that the Welsh Government, with the support of Plaid, in whatever form that has taken, have completely failed Wales? Wales now needs Reform, and don't you agree with me that 7 May can't come soon enough? Diolch.

I'm very keen for 7 May to come because it will give us an opportunity to make sure that the people of Wales realise that actually there are significant risks to not supporting the Welsh Labour Government. What we have here is a system where people know what is available to them in their communities. And if you look at what we've done in relation to health, we spend more than 50 per cent of our budget on health and we've seen a response to that. Because we've had more money than we've had ever before come from the UK Labour Government, after years of austerity. Thanks to the party, the Tory party that you used to be a part of, we weren't able to put that money in place as we'd have liked. Now we can. The taps have been switched on and the longest waiting lists are down 92 per cent. We've seen a transformation in the rail system. We're on track to deliver those homes. You ask about jobs—we've created and safeguarded nearly 46,000 jobs in the past five years and we're very proud of the fact that we’ve supported 64,000 people through the young person's guarantee and over 100,000 apprentices have had their lives changed thanks to the Welsh Labour Government.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Darren Millar. 

Diolch, Llywydd. First Minister, can I associate myself with your comments in relation to the fourth anniversary of the war in Ukraine? The Welsh Conservatives stand shoulder to shoulder with the people of Ukraine in the face of Vladimir Putin's illegal invasion. Слава Україні!

First Minister, just last week—[Interruption.] First Minister, just last week there was an announcement by the Hywel Dda University Health Board to downgrade hospitals and axe emergency general surgery at Withybush and strip stroke services from Bronglais. It's a kick in the teeth to the people of Pembrokeshire and Ceredigion, and it will result in patients having to travel much further in life-threatening situations, delaying access to the care and treatment that they need and leading to patient harm and, unfortunately, deaths. Now, people in rural Wales are fed up of being treated like second-class citizens when it comes to accessing healthcare services, so tell us, First Minister, do you accept that your centralisation agenda with the NHS in Wales is failing communities in rural parts of this country, and will you now intervene to prevent the implementation of these dangerous hospital downgrades? 

I know that there's a lot of concern in communities across the Hywel Dda area and across other health boards in relation to reconfiguration of services. People in Pembrokeshire and across the whole of Wales want reassurances. I don't think what they want to see is political point-scoring.

Safe services are absolutely critical. This Government will put patient safety above anything else. We've been clear that we want to see services delivered as locally as possible, but only where safety, quality and a sustainable workforce will allow. This is the standard we apply to all health boards, including Hywel Dda. It is up to the health board to put forward proposals and for them to justify it to the public. So it's right that they explain the reasons for any reconfiguration.

First Minister, with respect, you're in charge of the health service here in Wales. It's your responsibility to make sure that people aren't put at risk because they have to travel too far in life-threatening emergency situations, and you have the powers to be able to intervene in this situation, not just to let it settle with the Hywel Dda University Health Board. We've seen Government interventions in the past when there were attempts to downgrade Glan Clwyd Hospital with its emergency services in respect of maternity services, and I welcomed that, and I need to see the same sort of action now from you as First Minister and from your Government.

And you're quite right: it's not just people in west Wales that are being let down when it comes to NHS services, because we have the same problem in my own backyard up in north Wales, and the situation is absolutely scandalous. The Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board just posted its worst emergency department performance figures on record. Almost 70 per cent of patients spend more than four hours in the accident and emergency department, and a third of people who turn up at the hospital's front door spend more than 12 hours in that emergency department without being admitted—while they're waiting to be admitted for a bed or before being discharged. That is totally unacceptable.

Now, back in 2013, people in north Denbighshire were promised a brand-new hospital on the Royal Alexandra Hospital site in Rhyl with 30 beds, a suite of services to support the NHS in north Wales, and a minor injuries unit to alleviate pressure at Glan Clwyd Hospital. Yet, in spite of the pressures having increased since then, this week you confirmed that the Welsh Government is going to support massively scaled-back plans, with fewer than half of those original beds that were promised to the people of north Denbighshire. It's too little, too late. Why has your Government betrayed the people of Rhyl and north Wales in this way? And given that every single pre-election promise about this project since 2013 has been broken, why should anyone believe a word you say?

I think we all recognise that there's more work to be done in Betsi Cadwaladr. I'm really pleased to see that there are 63 per cent fewer patients waiting for over two years, so that is coming down, and that is going in the right direction. There's still a significant amount of work to be done. But, in relation to the Royal Alexandra Hospital, let me just be clear: the Tories starved our public services of capital funding for over a decade—over a decade. Today—today—we're able to put more money into the health service thanks to the additional funding we've had because the taps have now been turned back on. And that's why we're celebrating the fact that, for the seventh month in a row, waiting lists are coming down. The number of people waiting for treatment is the lowest in three years, and the longest waiting lists have come down by 92 per cent since the peak. The average waiting time in Wales is 19 weeks. Do we want to improve on that? Absolutely. But we're absolutely heading in the right direction, and that additional money from the UK Labour Government is helping.

Now, let's talk about the Royal Alexandra Hospital. I am very proud and I was very proud to be there with the health Secretary yesterday to announce the £33 million investment in the first phase of the Royal Alexandra Hospital. It will take significant pressure away from Glan Clwyd Hospital. It'll save 4,400 bed days a year. There will be new step-down beds. There will be four new dental suites. There will be radiology services that are expended. And no, we are not preparing for a system that was developed 10 years ago. We're preparing for a health system for the future. Things have changed since the initial plans for the Royal Alexandra were drawn up. I'm very proud that what we're doing is bringing support back to hospitals and, yes, where possible, back into people's homes, which is where people want to be looked after.

I'd remind you—I would remind you—First Minister that you promised to eliminate these two-year waits by the end of March 2023. You failed to do it. You failed to do it by April 2024. You failed to do it. You've kept on moving the goalposts. And now you're claiming credit for the reductions we've seen. Look, the facts are that people in north Wales wait longer for their tests, longer for their treatment and longer for their appointments than anywhere else in this country. 

You complain about money. You complain about money. For every £1 spent per head on a patient in England, Wales gets £1.20 to spend here. You have enough money to spend tens of millions of pounds on changing 20 mph zones across our country, you spent tens of millions on an airport that you don't need to invest in and you're prepared to spend £120 million on more politicians. You cannot make these arguments about money when you're spending in that wasteful sort of way. Now, the reality is that you've got money for those, but you never seem to have enough to invest in places like Rhyl, or in stroke services in Bronglais, or in the emergency department at Withybush. We need to see some change. And it's not just west Wales, not just north Wales—we have problems here in Cardiff too.

Darren Millar, during your last question, I allowed a particularly lengthy supplementary, and that was on the basis that I couldn't find my microphone button. [Laughter.] I have now found it, and you will need to come to your question.

I'm delighted to hear you couldn't find it, Llywydd. [Laughter.] Delighted to hear that. It's wonderful having this new technology in the Chamber.

It's not just north Wales, not just west Wales, First Minister—we've got problems in the University Hospital of Wales as well, in our capital city, with pigeons in theatres. 

You are going to have to ask a question, Darren Millar.

So, can I just ask you—? Can I ask you this: if you haven't been able to fix our NHS after 27 years, do you accept that you're never going to be able to fix it, it's time to move on and elect a Welsh Conservative Government in May?

No, I don't accept that, Darren. What I will tell you is that we're spending more money than ever before in the history of Wales on health in Wales. The NHS in Wales is seeing 2.75 million people for appointments on a monthly basis in a population of 3 million people. What we need—. I think what the people of Wales want to hear is reassurance. They want reassurance and they don't want scaremongering. And this week, what your party has been doing is scaremongering. You've been scaremongering in Pembrokeshire. You started the rumours in relation to the emergency department at Withybush being closed. Paul, you started those rumours. People will continue—let me be clear—they will continue to receive urgent and emergency care at Withybush hospital, and it is deeply unhelpful for politicians to suggest otherwise.

Let me just set out for you how this works. In 2007, the Tories raised the prospect of Withybush closing. It didn't. You did it again in 2010. It didn't. You did it again in 2011. It didn't. In 2015; it didn't. In 2016; it didn't. This is a pattern that we see every time before an election. Misleading the public is a very serious issue, and the people in Pembrokeshire and across the whole of Wales need reassurance when it comes to their health services, and that's what we can give them.

The leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Llywydd. On the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine, we state unequivocally today that we stand with the people of Ukraine. And, as we reflect on the cruel tyranny of Putin, we remember the importance of democracy, including our own.

As we gather for the first time in the seat of our Welsh democracy, I'm sure that the First Minister will agree with me that the transparency that we see in politics is of the utmost importance. This is especially true, of course, as we face the Senedd elections in May, when the people of Wales decide who they want to lead their next Government.

So, in the pursuit of that transparency, I look at one particular issue: apprenticeships. A straightforward question first of all. How does the Welsh Government measure the number of apprenticeships created in Wales?

[Inaudible.]—a clear system of counting. We've had the delivery unit, who have come in from outside Wales, to make sure that we deliver in a way that is transparent, that is clear, and in a way that everybody's done this consistently across Wales.

Let me be clear that we are very proud of the fact that we've managed to deliver 100,000 apprenticeships across Wales—it was a real pleasure for me to meet some of them in north Wales just yesterday—transforming their lives. And the fact is that we've managed to do that despite the fact that European funding was withdrawn, which made it far more difficult. Thanks to Brexit, it has been more difficult, but we've still managed to deliver 100,000 apprenticeships in Wales, and that's something we're very proud of.

I'm very interested in this idea of new ideas from outside Wales on measuring delivery. I'll tell you how apprenticeships have traditionally been counted. You don't count them until an apprentice has completed eight weeks. You don't measure those dropping out before, because you're looking for positive and successful outcomes.

On 22 January, Medr published figures showing that there had been just over 91,000 apprenticeships delivered during this Senedd term. Then, a few weeks later, on 10 February, the Minister for skills announced in the Chamber that the Welsh Government had, and I quote, achieved its target of having delivered 100,000 apprenticeships.

Now, setting aside the fact that the original target was 125,000, now reduced by 25,000 apprentices, will the First Minister confirm that the 100,000 figure has, in fact, only been achieved by using a far less rigorous measure, where the Government does now include those who have dropped out early?

We've got a system that has been tried and tested and understood, and I'm not ashamed of getting people from outside of Wales to come and kick the tyres on what we're doing. Is that something that your Government, if you ever were in a position to be in power, would not want to see? I think that it's right and good that we get some kind of objective assessment of what's happening.

Also, it is interesting, because sometimes that's what we need. We're very clear in Wales that, when we count, for example, our waiting lists, we count things like therapies and diagnostics. They don't do that in England. So, we want to make sure that, when we count things, we count things in a consistent way across all of the skills partners across Wales, and that's what the delivery unit has helped us to do.

So, I'm very proud, and the fact is that European funding was absolutely central to the delivery of apprenticeships in Wales. That was withdrawn as a result of Brexit. That is millions of pounds—millions of pounds—that we didn't have, and yet we have hit the target of 100,000 apprenticeships. That's something that I think we should be very proud of.

The target was set after Brexit and then cut by 20 per cent, but I think that the First Minister is somewhat missing the point. It makes not a bit of difference whether the advice to change the measure came from inside or outside Wales. The point is that the sector is clear: the measure has recently been changed, and Labour's legacy, all too often, is one of missing targets and then moving the goalposts to hide their own failures. They've done it with two-year waits in the NHS, with waiting times in A&E, and now they're doing it again with apprenticeships. But the people of Wales won't be fooled, and more importantly, the workforce of the future deserves better. And the massaging of figures, I'll remind you, comes at a time when only last year, Wales saw the lowest ever recorded number of apprenticeship starts.

Later this week, I'll be setting out how being far more transparent in office can lead to better government; that is what Plaid Cymru is determined to set out to do if we're given that opportunity this May. Does the First Minister ever reflect on the fact that one of the reasons people have lost faith in Labour is because, firstly, their record, so often, is one of failing to deliver, and secondly, when failure occurs, they'll always look for a way to sugar-coat it?

I don't accept that we've failed to deliver; I think we should be really proud of what we've managed to achieve over five years of Labour Government. I have focused on making sure that we grow the economy; making sure that we deliver that target of 100,000 apprenticeships; making sure that we deliver on 20,000 homes. And it is interesting, isn't it, you want to talk about where we go in future and what the future looks like. I'll tell you what the future looks like and it is very fascinating today that there's no question, as we've had for weeks on end, about rail funding, because we had an announcement—[Interruption.] We had an announcement last year. You wanted £4 billion for rail funding; we've got £14 billion for rail funding and that is something you simply can't bring yourselves to welcome. That is what happens when you get a Welsh Labour Government that is delivering for the people of Wales.

The Welsh Labour Government has confirmed £33 million for phase 1 of the Royal Alexandra Hospital; part of a £60 million investment in the site. It was a pleasure to be with you in Rhyl yesterday to mark that milestone. For families across Rhyl and north Wales, this means improved surroundings, expanded services and more care delivered closer to home. It also means better working conditions for the dedicated NHS staff who serve their communities every day. This is what long-term investment in a publicly funded NHS looks like, strengthening care where people need it most.

Thank you, First Minister. I'd like to pay tribute to the tenacity of Ann Jones, who was the previous Member of the Senedd for the area, and she told me, when I took over as the Labour Member of the Senedd for the area, 'You'd better make sure that that gets delivered within this Senedd term.' So, I'm really glad that that's going to be happening now. 

Now, of course, the shackles of Tory austerity and the pandemic have been removed, Denbighshire County Council was able to get planning permission, we've got Welsh Government funding and the health board has produced a site that can be delivered for 2027. It's fantastic news for the area. First Minister, what difference will this make, having that minor injuries unit and the intermediate care beds for the residents of Rhyl and the wider area? Also, I believe that, in April, we've got the orthopaedic unit from Llandudno coming on board as well, so, combined, that's £62.5 million being invested in the area. What difference will that make to the residents of Rhyl and north Wales? Thank you.

Well, can I start by paying tribute to you for your tenacity in relation to this project as well? I think you are a great heir to the tenacity shown by Ann Jones, and it was great to see her at the announcement yesterday. I know that this has mattered really deeply to the people of Rhyl. It's true, progress was slow, and that was because of years of austerity that squeezed the capital budget, and then of course we had a pandemic. Things slowed down during those times. I think what's clear now is that we're getting on with it.

The question, then, is: what difference will it make? I think it will make a big difference to the people who live there. We've got these reablement beds, which will help around 220 people each year to regain independence locally, and that will save around 4,400 bed days a year at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, and taking the pressure off Glan Clwyd is critical to the services there.

Of course, the other thing we have is the minor injuries and ailments unit, and that's going to treat 20,000 people annually. That will divert 16 per cent of cases away from Glan Clwyd. I think that is going to make a huge difference. I'm sorry it's taken so long. Some of that was out of our hands, out of our control, but I am very pleased to see and to report that this Welsh Labour Government is dead serious about serving the people of Rhyl, who've been very patient. Of course, I hope now, also very soon, we will see that orthopaedic centre open in Llandudno, which, again, will speed up the delivery of orthopaedic services in north Wales.

I pay tribute to the tenacity of my colleague Gareth Davies MS on this. In 2013, the then health Minister Mark Drakeford approved plans for a new hospital on the existing Royal Alexandra site, scheduled to be completed by 2016, including 30 in-patient beds and an additional 18 beds for older people with mental health problems and a minor injuries unit. Broken pre-election promises that the hospital would be delivered were then given in 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2021, as development costs ballooned from £22 million to around £80 million, promises made by your Government despite you now saying you didn't have the money to pay for them. Planning consent was granted for an amended development in December last year, with construction subject to Welsh Government funding approval, and referring to a sudden resurrection of the plans in the run-up to an election, Gareth Davies pressed you on whether construction would begin early this year and whether this would be to the 2013 original specifications. Lo and behold, you visited the site yesterday to announce a new scaled-down plan for a 14-bed reablement unit and a minor injuries unit with a £33 million investment, aiming to be completed in 2027, and significantly smaller than the original 2013 30-bed commitment. So, after years and years of delay, why should a distrustful electorate see this as anything more than a watered-down pre-election sweetener that fails to meet local need?

We've been working on this project for a number of years, as you're aware. It's taken us a long time. We've had Ann Jones and Carolyn on our backs the whole of that time, we were never going to let it go. But let me tell you that one of the great things that has happened during that period is that, actually, we've built a partnership. We've built a partnership. It's not just Welsh Government, it's the health board and local authorities working together, because the model of healthcare that was envisaged in 2013 has changed. What we want to see now is treating people closer to home, integration with health and social care, and reducing that reliance on acute hospital admissions. People want to be cared for at home as far as possible. It was great yesterday to meet district nurses who were doing precisely that, and they will be based out of the Royal Alexandra Hospital. Twenty-four-hour care in people's homes, that is what the model for the future needs to look like. People shouldn't be in hospitals for a long time. It is a changed model. It is absolutely right that it was reconfigured and redesigned, and we're able to deliver it because we've had additional capital support.

Well, I'll welcome any additional investment in the health service, of course. We always want to be moving in that direction, but forgive me for being cynical because, as we've heard, we had exactly the same kind of announcement in 2013, and a pledge that there would be a new hospital in a few years, and now, 10 weeks before an election, we get the same pledge again, that there is additional funding available and that there will be a hospital in the coming years. I do have mixed feelings here, because this was pledged 13 years ago, and we are still, to all intents and purposes, waiting, despite pledges that are similar to ones that we've had in the past. But the bitter taste this time is that it's only half of what was originally pledged. You're right that the healthcare model is changing, but that provision is still needed. Half the number of beds originally promised. So, explain to us why it's taken so long and why people in north Denbighshire now have to cope with only half the number of beds that were initially pledged. Do you blame people (a) for being cynical, but (b) for being disappointed that this isn't what was originally pledged?

The people I spoke to in Rhyl yesterday were absolutely delighted with the announcement; they were thrilled to bits, the people working there. They have been waiting for a while, but they're absolutely delighted that it is now going to be developed. What we're talking about is a different model. We are not talking about people staying in hospitals for weeks on end. If they come into Rhyl, it'll be for reablement purposes, so they can get home as fast as they can, so they're not taking up those very expensive bed days in hospitals. I'm very clear that we're in the right direction, with the partnership approach. It's not the Welsh Government imposing on a health board; the health board has to come to us with their proposals, and they had to rethink their proposals. They had to build a different relationship as those models of health and care come together. That's what we have in this new reconfigured model in the Royal Alexandra Hospital. I'm very proud and very pleased for the people in Rhyl that this will transform the healthcare that they receive.

Cwm Taf Morgannwg serves around 450,000 people, including communities across the Rhondda. Under the Welsh Labour Government, every single month, there are 227,000 GP contacts, around 17,000 emergency department attendances, and 50,000 outpatient appointments. This is not a system that's standing still; it's a health service that is working flat out for the people that you represent. Are there pressures? Of course there are pressures. After 14 years of austerity, the NHS is still carrying that weight. But waiting lists are falling. I was delighted to be in Merthyr last Thursday for the announcement that, in fact, for the seventh month in succession, those waiting lists are coming down.

First Minister, with the new dental contract due to come into force this April, could you outline how these changes are expected to affect both dentists and patients in practice? I've been contacted by residents in the Ynyshir area following letters they've received from their dental practice outlining changes to how they operate. The language used has created fear and a strong sense of urgency to begin private monthly payments, rather than taking time to consider options such as the NHS access portal, where residents can set the distance they're willing or able to travel for an NHS appointment. Will you emphasise the importance of clear, balanced and responsible communication with patients during this ongoing transition, please?

Thanks very much for raising this. I understand why letters like that would cause real anxiety. I think it's deeply disappointing to hear that some practices may be using that transition to a new NHS contract to take the opportunity to upsell private treatments. That is not on, frankly. That is not the purpose of this reform and it's not in the spirit of the NHS.

For most patients who already have an ongoing relationship with their dentist, very little should change. What will change is a clear focus on following National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance on recall intervals. Up until now, people are called in every six months, irrespective of the condition of their teeth. NICE guidance suggests that there could be longer intervals, and that is what's written into the contracts.

Let's be clear: dentists remain independent contractors, and they decide how much NHS work they provide. But, if they pull out, the funding stays with the NHS and is recontracted to other people. So, it remains in NHS contracts. Sometimes it takes a bit of time to recommit that funding, but it remains in the NHS.

The Welsh Labour Government believes in strong institutions, clear information, and trust in public life. Democracy is precious, and we need to protect it. We're working with the Electoral Commission and UK partners, including the defending democracy taskforce, to safeguard the integrity of the Senedd election. We've strengthened campaign rules, improved transparency, and legislated so voters can access clear, reliable information about Welsh elections. We're also strengthening scrutiny through Senedd reform, with 96 Members from 2026 and residency requirements for candidates.

Thank you, First Minister. It is a sad state of affairs when we have to discuss the need to protect our democracy from outside influences and self-interest. But, of course, that is the reality we face. Whether it is Russian despots seeking to prop up the far right with dirty money and disinformation campaigns designed to sow disharmony, or wealthy elites seeking to bolster their mates' path to power, our elections are under threat. We just have to look at the chaos engulfing Westminster at the moment to see how fragile our system can be. Labour Together funnelled money into getting Sir Keir to No. 10, then had him appoint their mates into positions of power. It was only exposed after the Mandelson affair. But, even after that debacle, we saw the appointment of Antonia Romeo, despite multiple warnings against. Sadly, this just undermines trust in politics and bolsters those on the far left and far right seeking division and discord. First Minister, will you join me in calling for a political campaign for the Senedd elections free from dishonesty, self-interest and dirty politics?

I think it's essential that we retain integrity in public office, and we all have a responsibility as individuals to play our part in relation to that. The Philip Rycroft review into foreign interference in politics is something I think we should all welcome. We're more than aware in this Chamber of how external actors can try and influence our democratic processes. We've seen that a former Member of this Chamber, the former leader of Reform in Wales—. The Reform people aren't even listening. He was found guilty of taking bribes from Russians and sentenced to over 10 years' imprisonment. It is absolutely essential that we keep external international actors away from our democracy. There have been claims recently, for example, that there was Iranian activity in relation to the constitutional future of Scotland. I think we've got to take any foreign interference in our democratic systems very seriously.

Poor diet harms people and it puts pressure on our NHS. Obesity increases the risk of cancer, heart disease and stroke. That's why prevention matters. For Welsh Labour, this is about fairness as much as health. No child's future should be shaped by the postcode they grow up in, nor the food that they can afford. That's why prevention is one of our core priorities. Through our 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales' strategy, we're investing in early-years support, community action and better access to affordable healthy food.

Thank you. It all starts with breastfeeding, but that isn't the subject of my supplementary today.

The information is there in plain sight that ultra-processed food is massively increasing the risk of heart attacks and strokes, with a 40 per cent to 50 per cent increase in diabetes, which we already know we're spending an eye-watering amount of the NHS fund on trying to treat. It also is increasing the risks of different types of cancers. The food industry knows all this, but they won't change unless there's better regulation, and we rely on the UK Government to do that.

But given the overwhelming evidence, we also need to address how we use our public procurement. We absolutely cannot go on feeding pupils and patients substances that are causing harm. A social enterprise, Well-Fed in Shotton, has removed all ultra-processed food from their meals. What consideration has the Welsh Government given to setting a date for banning UPF from public procurement?

Public sector food and nutrition standards to support the procurement of healthier food options are already guided by several frameworks and initiatives, and we'll review these for opportunities to further strengthen their implementation in Wales in public sector settings. You will be very aware that we did a huge amount of work when it came to the 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales' delivery plan, and we have committed to consult on options to improve the healthy food offer in public sector settings.

You will be aware that there is no agreed definition of ultra-processed foods. It is possible that the observed adverse associations with ultra-processed foods are explained by many ultra-processed foods being high in saturated fat, sugar and salt, and reducing the consumption of these is already part of the dietary advice we provide.

An independent evaluation found the Act has driven real cultural change across social care in Wales. It places dignity, voice and prevention at the heart of care. Welsh Labour believes social care should be built around people, not bureaucracy, and we continue working with councils and the third sector to make that a reality. This is a long-term reform and it's absolutely the right direction for Wales.

Thank you. I have got to be honest, I'm not convinced that it has made quite the difference that you suggest now. Since 1999, 4,277 NHS beds have been lost, and 40 care homes in Wales have closed, yet only four opened between 2020 and 2023. Christie & Co research shows the loss could be so high that we are going to be short of 10,000 beds over the next decade.

People are living longer, which is lovely, but obviously it brings its own challenges to the provision of social care. We have seen limited budgets for our local authorities over the years to our social care sector. We are hearing now from constituents and their families that they have been stuck in hospital beds due to no agreements being made for them to leave hospital and for a care home place to support them.

I'm now hearing, First Minister, which is really worrying, that if, say, I needed to go into hospital today, leaving a care home bed, and I was in hospital for six weeks, that funding then stops. Then, when I'm well enough to leave that hospital, it can take several weeks of bartering between the local authority and the care home provider to allow them to take that resident back into their home. That can't be right.

We need this combined alignment between health and social care, and it's not actually happening in real life, therefore taking up those valuable hospital beds—

Can you come to your question, Janet Finch-Saunders?

What will you do, First Minister, to ensure that health and social care are far more closely aligned, as the Act itself in 2024 declared they would be?

I think the 2014 Act has brought about a cultural shift in social care, with core principles like prevention, well-being, voice and control, co-production and multi-agency working. That has all been widely recognised and valued. We have had partnerships of academics who have suggested that it is widely valued for its principles.

Let me be clear that we are very proud of the fact that we introduced the real living wage to our social care workforce in Wales, and that we spent in Wales £1,054 per person on social services. That is £154 more per person than Scotland, and a huge £278 more than in England. That is not an insignificant amount of money. You ask about making sure that the partnership is developed better; we have put in the regional integration fund with over £150 million to make sure that health and social services work with the third sector, all together, driving improvement for people in that system.

And finally, question 8, John Griffiths. 

The Welsh Labour Government has secured a historic £14 billion long-term rail commitment for Wales from the UK Labour Government. That was quite an effort, let me tell you, but we got there. That includes seven new stations across Wales, agreed in the current spending review. Three of the seven stations will be in Newport East, at Somerton, Llanwern and Magor. This is on top of the Welsh Government investment that has already delivered the south Wales metro, with electrified lines, new rolling stock, more frequent services and innovative pay-as-you-go ticketing. 

The real point about transport investment is not that it's about an opportunity to get from A to B, it's about an opportunity of connecting people to jobs, education and community. For years, Wales was short-changed on rail under the Conservative Government. Now we have record investment and long-term certainty. 

Diolch, Prif Weinidog. I do believe that this very welcome announcement is an important start in addressing the long-standing underinvestment in rail in Wales, and that the south Wales metro is transformative in providing frequent, affordable, quality services that link people across the area with jobs, training and education, and attract economic investment across the area, so not only enabling people to travel for work and other opportunities, but bringing those jobs and other opportunities to their doorstep. And, of course, it's part of building an integrated transport system, which Wales badly needs. 

In Newport East, Prif Weinidog, that will help ease pressure on the M4, which is a crucial issue. And all of this, of course, is set out in the Burns commission, which includes track investment, and those new stations that you mentioned in Newport East, rewarding the long-running and very effective community campaign for a walkway station at Magor and Undy, as well as Llanwern and Somerton. 

So, all of this is very welcome indeed, First Minister, and I wonder if you could confirm today that this is part of a sustained commitment from UK and Welsh Government, showing a commitment to the whole of the Burns blueprint across and beyond the current spending review period. 

We've been asking for this investment for a long time. Let's be clear: we asked for it under the Tories, and they didn't give it to us. And we've asked for it under the UK Government. And we've been clear about it, and what they said was, 'Show us what you want to develop.' So, that's what we did. We came up with a plan, a vision for Wales—'Today, Tomorrow, Together'—demonstrating how we want to see that vision for Wales develop. The transport department in the UK looked at it. They agreed with it. It's gone around the whole of the UK Government, and they've understood and they've endorsed this. 

Now, what you understand, and what we understand better than anyone, is that when you do investment in relation to rail, you've got to look to the long term. So, 15 years ago, there was a vision for the south Wales metro. Had my predecessors not stuck with that vision, it wouldn't have been delivered. And what that means is that what you need is a stable Government. You need a long-term vision, but also subsequent Governments to stick with that vision. And that is particularly true when it comes to rail. And it is great to see that people in your constituency will benefit now as a result of those Burns stations being built. And I think it is so sad that parties in this Chamber can't bring themselves to welcome the announcement that was made by the UK Government last week. 

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item will be the business statement and announcement, and I call on the Trefnydd to make that statement. 

One good thing—I no longer have to give a pause to allow the First Minister to move and the Trefnydd to move to the podium. It's instant. Y Trefnydd, Jane Hutt. 

Thank you very much, Llywydd. There is one change to this week’s Plenary business. The legislative consent debate on the Crime and Policing Bill has been postponed until 10 March. Business for the next three weeks is shown on the business statement, which is available to Members electronically.

Trefnydd, given the First Minister's comments earlier, I'd like to request an urgent statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care regarding Hywel Dda University Health Board's decision on the next steps of its clinical services plan. As you heard earlier, the health board held an extraordinary meeting over two days last week. In that meeting, they voted on the future delivery of nine clinical services in the health board area, and, of course, one of those decisions was to remove emergency general surgery services. Despite what the First Minister said earlier, this has rightly angered and upset many of my constituents. Let me make this clear: the First Minister can spin this as much as she wants—it's not scaremongering when Withybush hospital has already lost services like the special care baby unit, for example. So, the decision to remove emergency general surgery services will force even more people to travel further for urgent treatment and will severely undermine the viability of Withybush hospital's accident and emergency department.

The people I represent want urgent action to be taken to stop the health board from implementing this catastrophic decision, and so far, the Welsh Government has been absolutely silent on this. The First Minister can shake her head, but the Welsh Government has been absolutely silent on this. Therefore, I'm requesting an urgent statement from the Welsh Government so it can be crystal clear about whether it supports the health board's decision to remove the emergency general surgery services from Withybush hospital, and if it doesn't, then it needs to spell out what it plans to do before the health board's decision is implemented. Diolch.

Thank you very much for that question, Paul Davies. Of course, as you know, local health boards are responsible for the planning and delivery of health services for their local populations, and, of course, that includes Hywel Dda University Health Board, who have been undertaking a strategic refresh in terms of their clinical services plan. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is clear in his expectation that all health boards must provide safe, sustainable services that meet the needs of their local populations. It is health boards that are best placed to understand the needs of their communities. The Cabinet Secretary, of course, expects them to carry out a thorough options appraisal and quality impact assessment of any proposed service changes, and to engage with the public in accordance with that national guidance.

I would like to request two statements, if I may. First, I would like to ask for an oral statement from the First Minister on the vision for rail. Only a written statement has been issued, but, clearly, the First Minister is very eager to have a discussion on it in this Chamber, and we too would be eager to have that discussion and the opportunity to scrutinise.

The second statement I would like to request is from the Cabinet Secretary for health. You will be aware, I am sure, of the strike by health visitors at Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board, which will last a month. This is extremely concerning. It is around salaries and the banding of these health visitors. The health board blames the Welsh Government for the problem. So, what I would like to know is what the Welsh Government is doing to resolve this issue as a matter of urgency, because I am gravely concerned about the lack of service and support available to mothers and families, at a time when they need that support.

Diolch yn fawr, Heledd Fychan. Thank you for that question about 'A vision for rail across Wales and Borders'. The Government wanted to make sure that the Senedd was aware of the written document published by Transport for Wales last week, and, indeed, that £14 billion package that was announced. But in fact, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales would like to make an oral statement. We are now seeking the possibility and the time to do that, and I'm sure that would be welcome. But it's also an opportunity for Ken to make sure that the Senedd knows the full extent, breadth and depth of this £14 billion package. So, I think an oral statement would be welcomed. We will be seeking, in our busy schedule as the Business Committee, that everyone is aware of how we can make sure that that happens in the coming weeks. 

This is an issue for Cwm Taf in relation to the situation in the Cwm Taf area in terms of the impact that this could have. Obviously, we are working and are committed to social partnership, which is crucial in terms of the way we would expect our health boards also to work. This is something where the opportunities to raise this with your health board are, of course, very clear and important.

I know that the Welsh Government has issued guidance to political parties in order to aid the diversity of candidates coming here in the Senedd elections. I know that the Trefnydd has pursued that very strongly. I wondered if you had any opportunity to see what evidence there is that the diversity would be likely to increase at the next Senedd elections, from what you've been able to see so far.

Thank you very much, Julie Morgan, for that question. Of course, we did provide this opportunity for political parties to publish diversity and inclusion strategies. That was a major step forward, and we passed it through Welsh law. We saw that this would give voters greater transparency about how candidates are selected, helping to drive the positive change needed to create a Senedd that truly reflects and represents the people of Wales. In fact, we're leading the way in terms of producing this diversity and inclusion guidance. I'm hoping that we will see that published by every political party in the Senedd. I'm aware that one or two parties, and certainly our party, Welsh Labour, have published that diversity and inclusion guidance.

This is about how political parties can strengthen diversity and inclusion now, ahead of future legal requirements under section 106 of the Equality Act 2010. I was very pleased to see our guidance being highlighted as good practice in the renewed call to action to all of the devolved nations only yesterday by the Jo Cox Civility Commission. As I've said, Welsh Labour has published our diversity and inclusion strategy. We wait to see final candidate lists starting to emerge for the Senedd election. We'll be looking with interest to see the extent to which political parties have responded to that call for diversity and inclusion. I strongly urge parties to voluntarily publish diversity information about their candidates after the election too.

Trefnydd, I call for a statement from the Welsh Government Minister with responsibility for public health. I've been contacted by many constituents in recent months about the prospect of public conveniences being closed in their communities. We know that public conveniences are very important, particularly for those people who have health conditions or disabilities, in terms of being able to access them. And, of course, they're important assets for our visitor economy as well. But it is a concern that we're seeing many of these close across Wales. I appreciate that the Welsh Government does have the Public Health (Wales) Act 2017, which required local authorities to publish strategies for their public conveniences, but there's no statutory requirement for them to provide public conveniences. I think that this is something that does need to be looked at to make sure that we don't lose any more of our loos across Wales. Can we have a statement on whether that is something that the Welsh Government might consider?

Thank you for that question. I think that you reflect not only the public interest in this, in terms of the availability of public conveniences, but a very clear public health issue. We were able to ensure, through the public health legislation, that strategies do need to be published for public conveniences. I recall, over the years, that we've also discussed the fact that we have asked shops and businesses to make their conveniences open to the public as well. So, this requires a strategy, locally driven, with local people's engagement. But this is something that, I'm sure, will be considered by political parties in terms of future statutory requirements that parties may think would be useful and necessary. But it is important that you have put this on a public agenda again today. Diolch yn fawr.

I am requesting an update on the Swansea bay metro proposals. This needs to include when Landore and Cockett railway stations are intended to be reopened. The statement also needs to include an update on real-time bus information at bus stops, some of which have already been installed. The statement needs to include information on the proposed bus and train interchanges.

Can I also ask for a statement regarding a company employing over 100 people that is presumed to be planning to close? The company is the Ospreys. I have concerns about the loss of a major sports club in Swansea, but the concern I am raising is about the loss of employment. Media Wales ranks it in the top 100 companies in Swansea and west Wales. Can I have a Government statement on support for the people currently employed there?

Diolch yn fawr, Mike Hedges. As far as the Swansea bay metro proposals are concerned, the Welsh Government has invested over £6 million in developing plans for the Swansea bay and west Wales metro. That includes a range of proposed rail enhancements, including new stations at Landore and Cockett. Of course, as you are well aware, the programme is centred around a proposal for seven new railway stations in the Swansea bay urban area. Transport for Wales are developing detailed proposals for these stations, including Landore and Cockett. You would have been very pleased, I know, to see these included in the 'Today, Tomorrow, Together' rail vision launched last week. This again shows the commitment of the Welsh Government to make sure that provision through the Swansea bay metro proposals are part of that very welcome announcement last week.

You have raised the issue of the situation in terms of the Ospreys every time you've had an opportunity. The Welsh Government, and particularly today, is looking at employment impacts. The Welsh Government does work, of course, with Working Wales, Jobcentre Plus and local authorities to ensure that people who are impacted by redundancy, in any circumstance, receive the information, advice and guidance that they need about the support that is available to them. That obviously includes ReAct+ redundancy support, vocational training grants, the Communities for Work Plus programme and Business Wales. This is an important opportunity to again remind people who are impacted—and you referred to one particular circumstance—of the services that we provide in partnership with local government and Jobcentre Plus.

I call for a Welsh Government statement on eating disorders. This is actually Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and the charity Beat are highlighting the urgent need to strengthen and standardise eating disorder services across Wales. Eating disorders affect at least 62,500 people across Wales and require timely, evidence-based intervention to improve outcomes and reduce long-term pressure on the NHS. They therefore ask what steps the Welsh Government is taking to ensure that proven innovations, such as lived experience-led peer support and early intervention approaches, are systematically embedded within NHS provision across all health boards. In particular, they ask how will the learning from initiatives, such as the peer support service launched at Aneurin Bevan University Health Board, be scaled nationally, and how will consistency, quality and impact be measured. Clarity is also needed on the progress towards developing a national early intervention pathway for eating disorders, including how feasibility, cost-effectiveness and variation in current provision will be assessed to ensure equitable access to timely support wherever people live in Wales. I call for a statement from the health Secretary accordingly.

Diolch yn fawr, Mark Isherwood. I think it's very important that you've raised this issue, which affects many people, in Eating Disorders Awareness Week, and also to draw attention to the Aneurin Bevan provision and needing to ensure that there is consistent support across Wales. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to update us through a statement on eating disorders and support for those affected, particularly in terms of lived experience.

I wanted to raise the implications of the proposed closure of the Cardiff office of StepChange, which is a specialist debt advice service. The Cardiff office is where the charity's advocacy and vulnerable client team are based, supporting people with severe mental health problems or life-changing injuries, domestic abuse, terminal illness. The nearly 30 people are being asked to relocate to either Chester or Leeds, and potentially it could mean the loss of specialist debt advisors in a situation where we know far too many people are being taken for a ride by people inviting them to take on more debt than they can manage. So, I just wondered if the Welsh Government had had any opportunity to assess the implications for the availability of debt advice services, bearing in mind that we do have the very excellent citizens advice bureaux services provided locally.

Thank you for raising this, Jenny Rathbone, because I understand that StepChange debt charity is one of the largest providers of free and impartial debt advice in the UK. It delivers its advice services remotely via telephone and online channels, and, as you are aware, it doesn't offer in-person services. But they have stated, StepChange, that they are consulting on the closure of their offices in Cardiff and Birmingham. I've asked for a meeting about this because, obviously, this is something, in terms of advice services, where I'm particularly concerned if there are any impacts on services that may not be, for Welsh Government, in terms of our support financially for StepChange, but I do seek to look at what the impact of this will be. I understand that StepChange maintain there'll be no reduction in the number of debt advisers employed nor any impact on the organisation's capacity to support people with complex needs, so I think it is important that we look to this announcement and get further information and engage with StepChange at a UK level.

I'd like to call for a statement, please, from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning on how the Welsh Government is reviewing the planning system in order to make it more robust against businesses linked to organised crime. I have raised issues in this Chamber numerous times over the past few years but we haven't seen any action, and public concern is growing. The Home Office revealed in December last year that four businesses in north Wales, including a car wash, a Turkish-style barber in my constituency, and a takeaway, were fined for employing illegal workers. The National Crime Agency has also been cracking down on businesses linked to money laundering and people trafficking, but they are just chipping away at a huge problem and have only made a dent. This needs to be tackled through the planning system too, by restricting the number of traders in one area that the National Crime Agency cites as more likely to be linked to criminality, such as cash-only barbers, vape shops and American-themed sweet shops. The proliferation of high-street criminal fronts are doing a disservice to honest and legitimate businesses, and I hear these concerns from constituents regularly. So, can I have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary outlining what measures are being considered to make the planning system more robust, ensuring that Welsh high streets are no longer a haven for criminal enterprises? Thank you.

I think that we're very proud of our Welsh high streets and, in fact, the positive impact of our Transforming Towns investment in our town centres. And I think we have to be very aware of our businesses and many independent businesses in our town centres and the important role they're playing, including the provision of key personal services for people. But, clearly, the National Crime Agency—which is not devolved, and policing is not devolved, although we're seeking to have more powers and responsibilities in terms of policing—is clearly aware of issues and working very closely with local authorities in terms of any organised crime that they may be made aware of.

Good afternoon, Trefnydd. Could I get a statement, please, from the relevant person who's responsible for water pollution—or for monitoring water pollution, not responsible for water pollution? I was very privileged today to meet outside the Senedd schoolchildren and Surfers Against Sewage, who are protesting against the degree of water pollution in our seas and in our rivers. Twelve months ago, I was proud to secure £5 million for Natural Resources Wales in our budget agreement, but that wasn't enough. The River Wye, where I live, is now facing ecological collapse. A promised £35 million action plan from the previous Conservative UK Government never materialised. The new UK Labour Government has so far failed to replace it with anything comparable. Meanwhile, pollution investigations have been scaled back, and communities are left fearing that regulators lack the resources to act decisively. This is a cross-border river and pollution does not stop at Offa's Dyke. Without strong co-ordination between Natural Resources Wales and the Environment Agency, progress on one side risks being undone on the other. So, may I ask you what is the Welsh Government doing in order to address river pollution and also the pollution of our beaches? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr, Jane Dodds. We recognise the urgent pressures on the River Wye, including nutrient pollution and the decline in wildlife, and it's great to see schoolchildren engaging and raising these issues with you today. Clearly, close co-operation with the UK Government is essential for this cross-border river, and we're jointly committed to improving its water quality. In fact, the Deputy First Minister met with the Minister, Emma Hardy, from the UK Government in December to talk about the River Wye. It runs along the Welsh and English borders. Both Governments agreed to work more closely together to find better ways to collaborate with farmers and other stakeholders in Wales and England.

What's important, I would say, is that the control of agricultural pollution regulations have been key in terms of addressing this. Enforcement is increasing, with over £1.58 million this year supporting NRW to target high-risk activities. But it's also important to look at Dŵr Cymru as well. They've committed to £133 million to upgrade in river catchments like the Wye. And we're backing the locally led Wye Catchment Nutrient Management Board, with over £341,000 of funding to date, to identify pollution sources and deliver targeted catchment-specific solutions. Also, that board is key to unlocking stalled housing development in the Wye special area of conservation river catchment.

Trefnydd, I would like to ask for a statement on what action the Welsh Government is taking to protect churches in Wales, please. As you might be aware, over the weekend, Zia Yusuf, the next UK Home Secretary, announced plans that the Reform Government would give churches protected status, to see British Christian heritage preserved. We will grant listed status to all churches to prohibit their conversion into places of worship for any other faith. As a proud Christian country with a strong Christian faith, it is imperative that we restore cultural meaning across our country. A Christian country is an inclusive country; it is not exclusive, like other religions. Regardless of whether someone is of faith or not, or which faith they follow, the Christian heritage of this country is very important, as is protecting it. Otherwise, as can be argued, a country is not a country; it's an economic zone. Religion has always been important to the people of Wales; it brings communities together with shared values. Trefnydd, I would like the Welsh Government to issue a statement, please, outlining what action you're taking to protect our churches across Wales. Diolch.

Of course, in terms of our churches, a range of denominations are looking to protect churches and support churches in terms of buildings and the use of churches for many other facilities. I'm very proud of the fact that our community facilities grant, often, is funding churches and, indeed, places of worship. I would like to extend this question just to update Members on the fact that our places of worship include mosques, include temples, because we are a country that recognises an interfaith commitment with our faith communities forum. But I would also say, just in terms of your comments, that 'love your neighbour as yourself' is a Christian value that I think I would want to suggest that you also recognise, in terms of the fact that Reform does threaten many of those people who we, earlier on, were welcoming and supporting as part of our nation of sanctuary. And I think: where does that fit into the points that you've made this afternoon?

Trefnydd, can I request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales regarding the default 20 mph speed limit? I was really pleased to read, over the recess, of the significant reduction in the number of fatalities and serious injuries right across Wales on roads that have been reduced to 20 mph. And the latest statistics showed that in north Wales, where far more roads were reduced from 30 mph to 20 mph, the reduction was almost double than in other areas of Wales. The written statement that was published by the Welsh Government earlier this month did not record these statistics. Therefore, I'd be grateful for a further statement, importantly clarifying the reduction in the number of fatalities and serious life-changing injuries, and also providing the latest substantive statistics.

Well, thank you very much for that question Lesley Griffiths, because, clearly, the greater decrease in fatalities and serious injuries is as a result of the policy to ensure that 20 mph lower speed levels can actually save and do save lives and reduce casualties. And the picture, in terms of what is coming through in terms of statistics, is very encouraging. And also just to remind our colleagues that lower speeds are strongly associated with fewer and less severe collisions. The reduction we're already seeing is an important early indicator that the policy is working as intended. International evidence consistently shows that even small reductions in average speed can lead to meaningful reductions in casualties.

Road collisions and casualties in Wales have generally been declining over the last decade. The latest statistics show that this downward trend is continuing, comparing collisions and casualties to 20 mph and 30 mph before and after the introduction of the 20 mph policy. The latest data shows collisions on 20 mph and 30 mph roads are 33 per cent lower than the same quarter in 2023, which was the last quarter period before the change in default speed limit. Casualties on 20 mph and 30 mph roads are 33 per cent lower than in the same quarter in 2023. And across Wales, killed and serious injuries have decreased from 150 in quarter 3 of 2023 to 115 in quarter 3 of 2025—important early signs that 20 mph is reducing speeds, improving safety, helping to create environments that support more walking, wheeling and cycling, particularly for children, older people and more vulnerable road users.

We've almost used the time up and there are four Members wishing to speak, so I'll call all four, but can I ask you to be brief and pretty responsive as well, please, Cabinet Secretary? Joel James.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Trefnydd, can I please ask for a statement on the ongoing school maintenance that is currently happening in Cardiff and how the Welsh Government is engaging with the council to ensure the work is carried out in a timely fashion to reduce the impact on children's education? While we all recognise the importance of maintaining and improving our school buildings, I'm increasingly concerned that, in some cases, these works are taking years rather than weeks to complete.

You may recall, when I previously raised the example of St Monica's Church in Wales Primary School, the scaffolding there had been up for so long that children were progressing through the entire school and leaving, covered in darkness, surrounded by black mould, and never knowing what the building actually looked like. Roath Park Primary School and Albany Primary School are now in similar situations.

Trefnydd, when projects extend over such prolonged periods, they cease to be short-term inconveniences and instead become part of children's everyday school experience. It is precisely for that reason that we must acknowledge the very real and very immediate impact that long-running construction and maintenance activity can have on pupils who attend these schools, on their physical well-being but also on their mental health. So, with this in mind, can we finally have some firm direction from the Welsh Government on this? Because even you, Trefnydd, must agree that this is unacceptable in the twenty-first century. Thank you.

Well, it's always curious that the Welsh Conservatives raise these issues about spend after 14 years of austerity and not supporting our budget, which, actually—. The budget recently was putting more money into school maintenance, but also the funding that has been made available for our school building programme, which of course the people of Wales and children and parents of Wales are so pleased with, the difference it has made. But, clearly, the additional funding in the budget will benefit Cardiff and the schools accordingly.

Cabinet Secretary, I’d like two statements, please. I’d like one statement from the Minister for economy over the 2,000 responses to the consultation for the turbine application by Bute Energy for the Nant Mithil planning application. I’ve been steadfast in my opposition to that planning application and how it’s going to damage rural Wales irreparably and make an industrialisation of our countryside. I’d like a statement from the Cabinet Secretary just outlining how the Welsh Government are going to manage the level of consultation replies and the next steps in that consultation process.

I’d also like a statement from the Deputy First Minister and Minister for rural affairs over the UK Government's decision not to allow shearers to come here from the southern hemisphere. That’s going to have a serious impact on our shearing season this year, because we need those shearers to come over to make sure that sheep are shorn to improve our animal welfare across Wales. So, I’d like an urgent statement from the Deputy First Minister on that, to see what the Welsh Government are doing to put pressure on their UK Government colleagues on this matter.

Of course, in terms of your first point, the planning application consultation will take its course, and rightly so. I know that people will be able to engage in that.

Your second point: yes, this is where we want to welcome people who are able to help us in terms of their skills, and specialist skills particularly. That’s something of course that, in terms of your party and the horrors that we’ve heard recently about what your party is saying about considering some sort of border security controls and initiatives like the dreadful ICE in the States, is very, very worrying.

On this fourth anniversary of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Alun Davies and I recently visited three cities in Ukraine—Kyiv, Pavlohrad and Dnipro—all near the front line and under regular attack. In Pavlohrad, we met with representatives of the nine miners who were killed by a drone attack as they were returning from their colliery shift. Those who survived the blast were then hunted down by yet a further drone, and further were killed and wounded.

Rhondda Cynon Taf council, one mining area, is now planning to twin with Pavlohrad, another mining area, to give that solidarity and to develop those links between two similar areas. And in Wales, we now have 8,300 Ukrainian families, mainly women and children, who have sought refuge status in Wales. Thank you for all the work you have done on that over the past four years. Will you write to Rhondda Cynon Taf to congratulate them on their initiative? Will you also make a statement on the importance of the nation of sanctuary policy in supporting those Ukrainian refugees and all others who have fled war, oppression and sought safety in Wales?

Thank you very much, diolch yn fawr, Mick Antoniw, and thank you for that report directly from Ukraine, directly from the front line. We’ve already recognised and acknowledged the incredible bravery and courage that you witnessed again on your visit last week, and those all-important supplies that you took again on that journey. I know that there is cross-party support for the work and for the commitment that you have made.

The latest development in terms of the Rhondda Cynon Taf twinning arrangement, in terms of those two mining areas, I think is something that we would want to congratulate RCT on, and I certainly will be writing to them. I just wanted also to say that I was very privileged to meet today, with Mick Antoniw, Larysa Martseva and Helen McAdie from the Ukrainian hub in Cardiff to mark the fourth anniversary of the invasion of Ukraine and to thank them for their work. But I particularly wanted to thank Larysa Martseva and Helen for the way in which they've supported the nation of sanctuary recently in a broadcast on BBC Wales, and also to thank the Ukrainian community for their continued support for the nation of sanctuary, which they've recognised has helped the welcome of over 8,000 people displaced by the war through the UK to come and live with us here in Wales.

And finally, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Leader of the house, is it possible to have a statement from the health Minister in relation to the strike that's going on at the moment in the Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board area with health visitors? I appreciate the Cwm Taf health board is the employer of the health visitors, but the Welsh Government clearly has skin in the game here. Health visitors provide an important service to some of the most vulnerable in the community just having young children born, babies, and, obviously, doing those important first visits and making sure that the progress of the little ones is being developed within the family context and the community context. It is a fact that to be a health visitor you need to, obviously, have a Master’s degree, and, ultimately, from the evidence provided in this campaign, the health visitors in the Cwm Taf health board area believe that they are being underpaid to the tune of £8,000 to £9,000. So, it is vital that a third party in the shape of the Welsh Government get involved, resolve this dispute and, ultimately, get health visitors back to the vitally important role that they play within our communities.

Thank you for the question.

Thank you very much for your question.

It's really important that this is resolved in the spirit of social partnership, and that message, I'm sure, has been very clearly conveyed to Cwm Taf health board.

Thank you, Trefnydd.

Item 3 today is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning on the local growth fund investment plan for Wales. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement—Rebecca Evans.

I welcome this opportunity to update Members on progress in developing an investment plan with partners to invest £547 million of UK Government funding through the local growth fund for Wales between April 2026 and March 2029.

In October, we announced jointly with the UK Government that this funding and the decisions surrounding it will return to the Welsh Government and be scrutinised by the Senedd. We have agreed with the UK Government to work within an overall UK framework in which a local growth fund focused on economic growth operates across all four nations. As part of this, the Welsh Government must agree an investment plan with the UK Government for which we have continued to push for less oversight and bureaucracy than the EU model. We are currently developing a memorandum of understanding with the UK Government to set out these arrangements, which we will publish once agreed. This agreement honours the commitment to restore decision making over post-EU funds after the previous UK Government, through its shared prosperity fund, bypassed the Welsh Government and the Senedd. Since the agreement in October, we've moved quickly, working closely with local government and with wider partners.

To inform our investment plan, we held a public consultation in November and December, underpinned by four regional events. The consultation proposals were founded on a strong evidence base, including lessons learned from previous programmes, including Senedd committee recommendations, input from local government and our regional investment steering group, chaired by Carolyn Thomas MS, our projects with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development on regional development and international best practice, the 2020 regional investment framework, and a detailed socioeconomic analysis.

Using this evidence, our consultation focused on two principal objectives for driving our economy, helping businesses and employees to increase productivity, creating better jobs and raising wages, and reducing economic inequalities by targeting support where levels of economic inactivity or unemployment are highest. To help achieve these objectives, our proposals sought views on guiding principles, priorities and objectives, transition arrangements, a longer term approach to regional growth funding, and monitoring and evaluation. Our approach uses regional planning and prioritisation, supported by local delivery. This seeks to learn lessons from over 20 years of EU funding and from international best practice, and from international best practice, including through our OECD work. The aim is to avoid the overcentralisation that was a criticism of EU funds, and the fragmentation and lack of strategic coherence resulting from overly localised approaches, like the shared prosperity fund.

Importantly, a regional approach also enables much stronger alignment between the local growth fund and other regional funding streams and strategies. For example, corporate joint committees already lead on regional transport and strategic development plans, innovation partnerships and investment zones, with some also overseeing city and growth deals. The local growth fund provides an opportunity to fill gaps within each region and to invest in areas with catch-up potential, or where competitive investment is less likely to flow.

We have proposed a transition year for the local growth fund in Wales, but this is not a continuation of the shared prosperity fund. The new fund has different objectives and a very different funding mix. However, working with local government, the transition year will help us mitigate some impacts of the shared prosperity fund coming to an end, while allowing time for more detailed regional planning with the CJCs, in line with recommendations from the OECD and others.

Our consultation received 154 responses, and over 200 people attended our regional events. We will publish a summary of consultation responses by the end of this week, which shows strong support for a national framework with regional flexibility, alignment to existing structures, a clear community voice, and multi-year planning. We have listened carefully to feedback from our partners in local government, the private sector, higher education, further education, and the third sector. This includes through my ongoing discussions with our Welsh Local Government Association economy spokespeople.

There is widespread but conditional support for our proposal for a transition year. However, partners raised significant concerns about the loss of revenue, the heavy weighting towards capital, and the short-term funding cycle. We are working closely with local government to mitigate these impacts wherever possible, while the design of our transition arrangements directly reflects local government requests to maintain key capacity while we prepare for a more regional approach.

Partners also highlighted the need for strengthened capacity, capability, partnership and decision-making arrangements within CJCs, as well as effective and timely guidance. We will work closely with CJCs and local government to develop these during the transition year. Our approach demonstrates the close working relationship between the Welsh Government and local government.

In Wales, every region will receive funding. This contrasts with decisions in England and Scotland, where consultations have not been undertaken, transition arrangements are not being provided, and many regions and local authorities are losing access to funding entirely. The consultation responses, coupled with partner feedback and the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee inquiry report, which was published yesterday, underline the importance of prioritising this funding rather than spreading it too thinly.

To address this, we are looking to refine our investment priorities to three areas that are most critical for productivity growth. These are business competitiveness, including research, development and innovation; demand-led skills and tackling economic inactivity; and regional infrastructure, including strategic sites and premises, transport improvements, energy and energy efficiency. Based on consultation feedback, we will reduce the number of objectives within each priority area to help delivery partners focus on their activity.

Our aim is still for regions to retain significant flexibility to shape their own investment portfolios to address specific opportunities and challenges, but they will be required to prioritise within a set menu of options. Following the transition year, we also intend to support pan-Wales or cross-regional projects, where these are developed collaboratively with regions and can enhance consistency and strategic coherence, reduce duplication, and achieve economies of scale. We will work with regions and the wider partnership during the transition year to develop options for pan-Wales or cross-regional capital investments. Revenue funding, however, will remain under regional control.

I would like to thank the WLGA, local government, the steering group, all partners and the ETRA committee for their contributions to this work. Together, we will ensure that the local growth fund for Wales works alongside other programmes to boost productivity growth, support businesses and better wages, and help deliver higher living standards and a sustainable growing economy. I will update Members further on progress, including the publication of our investment plan and the memorandum of understanding.

I welcome the opportunity to respond to the statement on the local growth fund for Wales. Let us begin with what is being proposed. The local growth fund is worth £547 million over three years—around £182 million per year. When we compare that with previous streams, whether EU structural funds or the UK's shared prosperity fund, it is evident that this represents a significant reduction in annual support. Indeed, the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee was unequivocal in its assessment. In conclusion 1 of its report, it states:

'We are disappointed with the large reduction in funding received by Wales though the LGF compared to the previous economic development schemes as this means there will be less money to invest in, and support, our most vulnerable communities.'

This is not just opposition rhetoric; this is a considered view of a cross-party Senedd committee. And it goes to the heart of the matter: with less money, we will inevitably face harder choices. The question is whether this fund is structured in a way that maximises its impact.

We are told that the objectives are to support productivity growth and reduce economic inequalities. Those are all goals we share, but ambition must be backed by resource and by the right funding mix. As you've mentioned, Cabinet Secretary, the 70:30 split in favour of capital over revenue marks a clear departure from the shared prosperity fund, which was predominantly revenue based. Capital investment, strategic sites, transport links, energy infrastructure, et cetera, can be transformative, but productivity is not delivered by infrastructure alone, it depends on people, on skills provision, business advice, innovation support and employability programmes for those currently outside of the labour market.

So, Cabinet Secretary, how will the Government protect the revenue funding interventions, business support services, training schemes and initiatives tackling economic inactivity when revenue is now such a constrained proportion of the overall settlement? And how does this capital-heavy model align with the reality that many of our most deprived communities require intensive people-focused support to move individuals into sustained employment?

The Industrial Communities Alliance, in its recent report, 'The Demolition of British Regional Policy', highlights that older industrial areas of south Wales continue to record some of the highest claimant rates for out-of-work benefits in the UK. West Wales, previously recognised as a less developed region under EU classification, was a major beneficiary of structural funds precisely because of structural economic weaknesses. It also benefited from the SPF funding due to this. If funding is now reduced and revenue activity restricted, how will this Government ensure that those same communities do not fall further behind? Will resources be tightly targeted at areas of greater need or distributed so broadly that impact is diluted?

We also face the issue of duration; a three-year programme offers limited certainty. Economic development requires long-term pipelines, particularly where private co-investment is sought. So, Cabinet Secretary, what assurances can you provide about continuity beyond March 2029? How will the Government avoid the stop-start cycle that has too often undermined regional development policy?

The Government speaks of regional delivery through corporate joint committees and a transition year to manage change. Consultation responses suggest support for a national framework with regional flexibility. That is sensible in principle, but partners have raised concerns about capacity, capability and governance within CJCs. Is the Cabinet Secretary confident that CJCs are a suitable vehicle to manage significant capital portfolios, and what concrete steps will be taken with regard to transparency? Indeed, we are advocating for a development agency.

Finally, scrutiny and transparency matter. This fund will be subject to oversight by both the Senedd and the UK Government. That scrutiny must be meaningful. Will the Cabinet Secretary commit to publishing clear project selection criteria, measurable productivity indicators and annual performance data, so that Members can properly assess whether jobs are being created, wages are rising and economic inactivity is falling?

Dirprwy Lywydd, Wales needs sustained and inclusive growth. We need infrastructure investment—yes, of course we do—but we also need human capital investment that enables people to access opportunity. The committee has warned that there is less money available to support our most vulnerable communities. That reality demands sharper focus, clearer prioritisation, and, therefore, rigorous accountability and transparency. We stand ready to support the measures that genuinely drive growth and reduce inequality, but where funding is reduced, revenue constrained and long-term uncertainty clear, it is our responsibility to be asking the difficult questions, because our communities deserve nothing less. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

I'm very grateful for those questions this afternoon, and it is a fact that, following our departure from the European Union, the funding that we have available is less. That was a choice that was made, and that was a choice that was understood at the time. But I prefer to look at this particular glass as being more than half full: there's more than £540 million within that glass over the next three years, and I know that we can do significant things through our local and regional partners to make sure that that funding does have a major impact in our communities right across Wales. The fact that we are able to support communities right across Wales is significant, because, again, this is something that we're only doing here in Wales. We've chosen to make sure that every part of Wales can benefit; that's not something that can be said in England or Scotland, as a result of the choices that have been made there.

The point, though, about the capital-revenue split is a really important one, and it's one that I've been pressing with colleagues in the UK Government for some time. I'm really grateful to the committee for the recognition of the seriousness of this particular point. We've been pressing UK Government to look again at that. At the moment, it's 70 per cent capital, 30 per cent revenue. That's really challenging, but I don't think that we're in a place now where we're going to see a change in mind from the UK Government on that particular point, so we are working really hard with local government to make sure that the funding is well spent and well targeted.

The UK Government has made it clear that the local growth fund is a new fund. It says that the shared prosperity fund is coming to an end, and the new fund does have different, stronger economic objectives as compared with the shared prosperity fund. For our particular plan, the point about productivity is the golden thread that runs right throughout that. 

We have tried to take some specific steps to mitigate the impact of this on local government, though. We've agreed to this additional transitional year. That's only happening here in Wales, and that does give local government the chance to continue to work with us to plan for what comes next. We've also agreed, crucially, for this transitional year, to use the existing structures within local government and to use the existing allocation methodology. Both of those things were requested of us by local government, and we were happy to work with them to deliver on that.

My colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government has written to leaders earlier this month to highlight the additional budgetary flexibilities that we're putting in place to support them as well, and to highlight the guidance on the flexible use of capital receipts direction used in 2025. Again, that's something that we're doing to try and support local government as it moves to the next phase.

I think the question about the formula is really, really important, so our consultation sought views on a suitable needs-based formula to allocate regional funding. In the transitional year, as I said, we will use the existing SPF methodology for allocating funding to the lead authorities for the SPF, and that will help mitigate some of the impacts that we've talked about. But following that transitional year, then, we intend to use an allocation funding model to the CJCs, and that will comprise the Welsh index of multiple deprivation. That's there to represent and recognise need. That will be the largest part of that formula. And then productivity will also be reflected there, to reflect the gaps in productivity that we see in different parts of Wales, and there will be rurality recognised as well, to reflect the additional challenges that those areas face, such as the lack of agglomeration, displaced populations and peripherality and so on. So, we do, as I say, intend the largest weighting to be given to the Welsh index of multiple deprivation.

Again, I absolutely recognise the challenge around the three-year nature of funding. That's something, again, that we are continuing to press with the UK Government. We do think, though, that the fact that we've decided that CJCs will be the mechanism by which the future programme is delivered is helpful, because CJCs already have in place their regional plans, they have their regional transport plans, they have their regional economic development approaches, so they already have a good idea of where capital spend can make a real difference. 

In terms of KPIs, again, this is a really important recommendation from the committee. We will develop and publish a monitoring and evaluation framework. We'll do that with partners. That will set out more detail, but it will include outcome-focused KPIs. 

I can see the Deputy Presiding Officer looking at me; I know that I'll be able to return to some of these themes in questions that other colleagues, I know, will want to raise. 

Yes, I'm conscious of the time. We've taken 18 minutes and we've just had one person asking questions. 

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for the statement, and for the update on progress towards the local growth fund investment plan. As chair of the cross-party group on industrial communities, we've taken a particular interest in the progress of this fund. There are elements here that are clearly welcome, particularly the return of decision making to Wales, and the commitment that funding decisions will once again be scrutinised by the Senedd. Yet it feels like those who will be impacted by changes to this fund are being asked to accept a model that is more rigid, mor capital heavy, and less responsive than the shared prosperity fund that came before it. 

Let's look at that transition period that we've heard described today. The Cabinet Secretary described a transition year that will mitigate impacts as the shared prosperity fund comes to an end, but that raises a very obvious question. How exactly do you smooth a transition with no additional funding? What does that transition actually look like in practice for local authorities, and for third sector partners who rely on that continuity? 

You also mentioned in your statement that the new fund has different objectives and a very different funding mix. This is exactly where the biggest concern lies—in the capital versus revenue split. Of course, it's very different in England, but it's throwing up huge issues and huge levels of anxiety. We've heard repeatedly from partners, including through the consultation the Cabinet Secretary references, that there are significant concerns about the heavy weighting towards capital and the loss of revenue funding. At the very least, a return to the capital-revenue split that previously applied to the UK SPF is the preferred outcome here, according to all those stakeholders who replied to the consultation.

I think this is where the politics really matters. If I was the Cabinet Secretary, I'd be absolutely fuming with the situation we now find ourselves in. I would have thought that this would have been something pretty simple and relatively straightforward for the Cabinet Secretary to iron out with the UK Government in a conversation with colleagues in Westminster, especially when the stakes are this high, and especially when you yourself, Cabinet Secretary, have acknowledged that you would have preferred a more even mix of capital and revenue funding.

But let's be clear: the proposed shift to capital spending takes a sledgehammer to revenue-funded services. Thousands of jobs delivering these services are at risk. According to the Industrial Communities Alliance, on the basis of the data from sample authorities, it's estimated that 1,500 jobs are supported by delivering revenue-funded UK SPF services in Wales, and probably at least as many jobs are supported in the third sector. If you believe the split is wrong, if stakeholders are telling us the split is wrong, if the previous model worked better with more revenue, then why isn't Whitehall responding to that? Or is the reality simple—that we have another example of Wales's concerns not being taken seriously?

Why, when we were told that the partnership in power would deliver for our communities, does this feel like yet again another example where the Welsh Government isn't getting a look-in? What dialogue has the Welsh Government had with the UK Government on this since last month, when the Cabinet Secretary appeared before the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee, and what have those responses been? We both know that revenue funding is keeping projects alive. It pays staff. It delivers skills programmes. It supports businesses. It funds community regeneration work. It's vital to so many.

The priorities set out by the Cabinet Secretary, including regional infrastructure and strategic sites, are the right ones, but they involve substantial capital projects. Delivering capital projects within such a tight time frame proposed for the new local growth fund is, in reality, extremely difficult. And then, of course, you add CJCs into the mix. I think it's the right question to ask: are the CJCs the correct delivery model for this? Securing, as we know, the necessary permissions takes time. Procurement processes take time. And this is before any work even begins on the ground. So, what contingency planning is in place if regions simply cannot move capital projects at the pace required?

The Cabinet Secretary emphasised regional flexibility and partnership with local government, which is, of course, welcome. But flexibility is constrained if the overall funding architecture is too rigid from the outset. At the very least, we need to be restoring the split to something more akin to the previous ratio. If we can't secure this, then communities across Wales will draw their own conclusions about how much influence the Government really has over their colleagues in Westminster.

I have been really clear throughout that the Welsh Government is deeply unhappy with the capital-revenue split. The question was asked what discussions have I had since I gave evidence to committee. I did meet with the Secretary of State at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, and made these points again. However, the UK Government has been very clear that they see the shared prosperity fund is coming to an end, this is an entirely new programme, which is aligned to the UK Government's investment strategy, and so on. I am not here to defend the capital-revenue split. I am here to explain what the Welsh Government is doing with the funding and how we'll be working with our partners to make sure that that funding maximises the impact that it can make on those key priorities, which I think that we've all agreed are the right ones—around productivity and around economic inequalities here in Wales.

It is the case that our capital-revenue split is the same as Scotland and Northern Ireland. The situation in England is more complex, but, when challenged, the UK Government will say that they've given an allocation directly to a selection of mayoral strategic authorities, and, also, there is a £500 million capital-only recyclable investment fund that will also have regional allocations. Together, those mean that the funding available for England's MSAs also has that capital-dominated investment at around the same split that we have—70 per cent to 30 per cent. I'm just sharing the facts as to where we are in terms of the funding available to us, and the fact that this isn't the Welsh Government's preferred choice. However, we are maximising the impact that what is still a significant amount of money—£0.5 billion—is going to make to us here in Wales.

In terms of the three-year funding horizon, again, that's something that we have been challenging. We would much prefer to see a longer funding horizon. We've seen that as one of the successes of the previous EU funding. But there are areas of funding that we know will require less lead-in time. For example, investment in research, development and innovation counts as capital spending, encouraging capital investment in businesses. That's another area where you can spend significant amounts of funding quickly. And then, also, we would look to opportunities for capital investment in transport, energy or strategic sites. CJCs already have in place their regional transport plans. They already have in place their areas of priority in terms of the regional energy plans and strategic development plans. All of those are likely to be able to help with pipelines of activity, which can be undertaken rapidly and at pace. Again, I think that that's positive in terms of what we can do within three years.

I've already set out some of the actions that we're doing to try to ensure that we are putting local government in the best possible place to avoid job losses wherever possible. Another piece of work that we did in partnership with local government was to work with them to identify those jobs that are currently supported and those funding streams and activities that are currently supported through the shared prosperity fund, mapping them against our priorities for the future fund as well, to try to ensure that there are opportunities to continue work wherever possible and where local government colleagues think that that is their priority area.

We've also worked really hard to make sure that local government has the ability to plan for the next financial year. Ahead of Christmas, I wrote to all local government colleagues to give them indicative figures for what the future spend would look like—again, to avoid unnecessary job losses in the pre-Christmas period. I think that we've done everything that we can. We've certainly done, I think, everything that local government has asked us to do to try to ensure that there is as smooth a transition as possible. We are moving to a different scheme, so it won't be completely seamless. I should also add that the UK Government has extended the closing date for the shared prosperity fund for a further six months. It doesn't involve any new money, but it does provide some regions with some more flexibility to manage a more effective transition.

We are where we are, and we now have a fund that's 70 per cent capital. I just wondered what consideration has been given to how we're going to spend this capital, given that one of your three areas is transport improvement, energy and energy efficiency. 

Today, we had RenewableUK and Solar Energy UK making presentations to Senedd Members in the Senedd. One of the things they were pointing out is that we are still behind the curve, particularly compared to Scotland, in terms of generating the clean power that we need, rather than the eye-wateringly expensive gas and coal energy that's still being produced. 

I wondered if you could tell us how we're going to ensure that Jones Bros is doing 90 per cent of its business in Wales, rather than 90 per cent of its business in Scotland. You will of course be aware that Jones Bros is one of our most successful construction companies.

I'm really grateful for that contribution and those questions. I think that, at the moment, we are in the position where we are finalising and publishing, or on the road to publishing, our investment plan and the MOU with the UK Government. Essentially, in terms of the different roles and where decisions will be taken, the UK Government sets that high-level framework, and that's, as I mentioned, aligned to the growth mission and the UK industrial strategy.

What we're doing now and what we're discussing today is the Wales strategy, so that's our three-year investment plan. That reflects those key economic priorities around productivity and tackling economic inequality. But then, where the real decisions will be taken in terms of investment will be through the CJCs. They'll be working to develop and co-ordinate the regional plans. Those will be aligned to those priorities around productivity and tackling economic inequality. But for the investment decisions, apart from the Wales-wide programmes, which we're also considering, those will be taken through the regional plans.

Importantly as well, the pan-Wales approach will be developed in partnership with our partners in local government to ensure that it's complementary. There could be things that, through economies of scale—. When we think about things like bigger infrastructure projects, often they are better delivered across regions, for example. Those are the things that will come next.

I suppose the question that you're asking today I'm not able to answer, in the sense that those specific projects haven't yet been identified in terms of whether the funding will be spent, because what we're setting out today are the parameters and the priorities. The next work will be undertaken at that local and regional level to identify the best approaches for funding in that space.

But, absolutely, we want to see this investment, particularly because it's capital heavy, investing in companies that are based here in Wales and able to undertake that work in Wales. There's so much more we can say on energy and renewables, and the fact that I'll be publishing the sector deal before the end of the Senedd term and so on, but I'll probably just stick to the investment plan today.

I noted that the Minister hadn't answered Luke Fletcher's point on the hundreds of jobs that are at risk because of the situation with this new local growth fund.

I want to speak specifically very briefly about Môn CF, a charity and a company that belongs to the people of Anglesey, which helps thousands of people every year and gets hundreds of people into work. Over 50 staff are now facing the possibility of losing their jobs there. Some have already left. A letter of support to a local authority is no help at all. The problem is the delay until they can get the funding, but again mainly this allocation of 70 per cent capital and 30 per cent revenue, which is contrary to the situation in England. 

I want to know from the Minister how she's going to take that fight to the UK Government, setting out clearly that there is a detrimental impact on jobs and on our ability to develop economic prosperity in Wales. Can I ask what steps she has taken to help Môn CF in the situation that they're in and the numbers losing their jobs there? 

With respect, I've already answered one of these questions at least twice, but I will repeat myself. I was really clear in terms of the funding that the UK Government is providing through the mayoral strategic authorities and the capital-only £500 million recyclable investment fund that will have regional allocations in England. That brings the split there to 70:30, which is exactly the same as that which we're facing here in Wales and also in Scotland and Northern Ireland. I don't know how I can be any more clear about that. And twice this afternoon I've already set out the actions that the Welsh Government has been taking to do our very best to help local authorities manage these difficult circumstances.

The point then is that local authorities are able to support, as best they can, the organisations and the individuals who rely on them for those jobs. As I've said, the UK Government has been clear that the shared prosperity fund has come to an end. We have worked with local authorities to map out where those jobs are and how best we can possibly make sure that those jobs are mapped against our new priorities. So, that's been something that we have been very mindful of, but, of course, the capital-revenue split has a big impact on that. 

Also, we've been working really hard with Plaid Cymru to make sure that local government had the best possible settlement. We were able to come to that agreement in the budget to invest a further £112 million revenue, so, again, trying to put local government in the best possible place to sustain services locally. And also, I've mentioned the work that the UK Government is doing to extend the closing date for the shared prosperity fund for a further six months, to try and give some space to manage a more effective transition through that. I don't think that we can underplay the importance of giving letters of comfort to local government when their finance officers are asking for it to avoid job losses.

I am more than happy to look at specific cases and to have specific conversations with colleagues. Frankly, if there is more that we can do within the powers available to us and the funding available to us with the split as it is, I am more than happy to consider that, because everything, I think, that local government has asked us to do to try and support the transition, we've done. Everything that we can think of to do to try and manage that change in the split, we have done, and we've done everything that we can to try and avoid job losses and mitigate them wherever possible, recognising that the shared prosperity fund is coming to an end and that there is a new scheme that is aligned to different priorities, through the UK Government's industrial strategy and so on.

I also find it perplexing, if not astonishing, that we think it's acceptable that we face a cliff edge, not only in losing jobs but in that ambition to create more jobs. Employers tell us all the time that they need stability, and this doesn't give our employers stability, it doesn't give people stability, it doesn't give those who are looking for a job stability, and it doesn't give us the opportunity to create the jobs that we need in order to invest in our industries going forward. We have green energy. We have floating offshore wind in Pembrokeshire that desperately needs people to be trained and uplifted. We have a shortage in the UK of 27,000 welders. There is no opportunity here, that I can see, that we have that stability and that surety ahead to allow people to invest in our young people and to train people in the skills that we need, but also ones that can deliver for an ambitious economic revival that we need in Wales. So, could I ask you, what are you doing, as you say in your statement, to create those jobs and to ensure that our industries have that opportunity? Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

I do think it's important to recognise that the local growth fund isn't the beginning and end of our support to local government, to businesses, to academia, to the third sector and other partners, to try and support them in terms of addressing productivity challenges and economic inequalities, and through that, of course, the First Minister's top priority is to create good jobs in every single part of Wales. The local growth fund has to act in partnership and alongside other funding streams. It has to work alongside the AI growth zones, it has to work alongside the new investments announced at Wylfa, it has to work alongside free ports, investment zones, the city and growth deals. All of those things have to work in partnership, which, again, is why it's important that the funding is directed via the CJCs to have that footprint, which is coherent and makes sense. 

And then we've talked a lot about the funding and the support that we're providing in terms of the skills agenda more widely—the apprenticeship support, the work that we're doing on our employability programmes to ensure that people are able to access those jobs of the future, those jobs that are coming in clean energy. We've had incredible announcements just in the past few weeks in terms of offshore wind, floating offshore wind, the nuclear announcements and others, making sure that maximising all of those opportunities for skilled jobs is clearly a priority to ensure that we keep the value as far as we can here in Wales. The local growth fund will have something to play in that space, absolutely, especially around research and development and innovation, for example, but it won't be doing it alone. It will have to do it alongside all of our other employability programmes and education and other support for business through Business Wales and the Development Bank of Wales and so on.

It’s very clear from your statement this afternoon, which I very much welcome, that Wales has lost out by many hundreds of millions of pounds as a consequence of Brexit. We've also lost out on our ability to shape how these funds were created, structured and delivered. You've spoken on a number of occasions and in answering questions this afternoon about your trying to persuade and to lobby the UK Government over different decisions. The reality is, when we were members of the European Union, we were part of those decisions and not simply recipients of decisions that were imposed upon us. So, there is a significant difference in where we are today. I think it's very important that by structuring the fund in the way it has done and by structuring decision making in the way it has done, the UK Government is not seeking to exert control by the back door.

My concern this afternoon is that we are able to deliver on the ambitions that you've outlined. I have no confidence that CJCs are a viable vehicle of delivery. That's my experience as the Member for Blaenau Gwent through this Senedd. We have not seen the delivery of significant policy through the CJC system, and I'm not convinced that they are a viable structure to deliver policy in the next Senedd. So, my question is this: how will you ensure that there is a mechanism to hold CJCs to account for delivering policy? The A465 has been a great triumph of policy delivery for this Government, and I remain astonished that this Government has not planned for the completion of that project by delivering an economic development programme and a jobs programme for the Heads of the Valleys as a consequence of that. So, how will you ensure that the Heads of the Valleys, one of the areas that will be defined by this area—

Alun, you need to—

I am coming to my point. By the mechanisms you've described, how will you ensure that there is a means for us as Members to have some confidence that this will be able to deliver for the people we represent?

I'm really grateful for the questions, and I share that concern that we would be in a different place had we not left the European Union, but our priority here has to be about making the most of what is £0.5 billion of funding that is coming to Wales. I am taking some comfort from the debate this afternoon that I'm not seeing colleagues taking issue with the fact that we are targeting funding in terms of addressing productivity challenges and addressing economic inequality. I think that point about addressing economic inequality is critical in terms of ensuring that we target the funding where it's most needed. So, as I said, the Welsh index of multiple deprivation—that will take 60 per cent of the funding that we'll be providing through the needs formula, and then productivity will be there to reflect gaps and differences in Wales, and then there's a rurality element as well, which will be important. So, we are working hard to make sure that the funding is targeted to areas where it will make a difference and fill a gap as well. So, I've been able to talk about the work that's going on through the investment zones, the growth zones and so on. It's important that those things are complemented rather than seeking to have any kind of duplication and so on. So, it's important that we take the whole picture as one. Again, I really welcome the fact that the decision making now is returned to the Welsh Government and there will be scrutiny through the Senedd. We will be agreeing a memorandum of understanding with the UK Government to formalise arrangements for the return of the post-EU funding to the Welsh Government. Of course, I will publish that, and I know colleagues within the Senedd will want to scrutinise that.

The accounting officer role: we will be the accounting officer for the local growth fund in Wales, and the money will be provided to the Welsh Government by the UK Government via annual budget transfers. Again, we will be accountable to the Senedd for the performance of the local growth fund in Wales, and I was able to answer to one of our other colleagues about the role of key performance indicators, and we will be developing and publishing a monitoring and evaluation framework with partners; that will set out more details. Again, that is something that I'd be more than happy to publish, because I know colleagues will wish to see it.

[Inaudible.]—Members, we may have changed Chamber, but the time constraints and well-known time limits on contributions have not changed. James Evans.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I agree with the Member for Blaenau Gwent: I do not think CJCs are a good mechanism to deliver some of this funding. One area I do want to touch on, on the local growth fund, is that an area where we could have massive growth in high-skilled jobs and high wages is in the defence industries, because we know that there's a growing level of investment in that area. So, I'm just interested, Cabinet Secretary, with this local growth fund—how can you make sure that some of that money is going into our defence sector to make sure that we're creating those high-skilled, high-wage jobs here in Wales?

I'm really grateful for the question, and I hear what colleagues are saying around CJCs. I do think, though, that one thing that we will have the opportunity to do now, through this further transitional year, is to work with local government and our CJC colleagues to address some of the particular concerns that have been raised— they're detailed in the committee's report—and we can spend the period of time that we have in this first year of the new three-year programme addressing some of those, so that we have the right structures in place so that CJCs are well placed to be the delivery body in future.

I was really pleased last week to be alongside the First Minister, the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary for defence to launch the defence growth deal for Wales. I think that that is a really important opportunity. It was wonderful to see so many of our SMEs there, alongside many of the primes who have a footprint here in Wales as well. That was a real moment of optimism in terms of the jobs that could come through the strong focus that there is on defence. Again, I think that this is a really good example of ways in which different programmes need to work together and complement each other, because, certainly, the additional funding that will come through defence will I think give us opportunities to improve productivity and also to address some of that economic inequality as well, but we have to ensure that the funding goes to the right place. I think that all of Wales can benefit as a result of the defence growth deal, partly because some of the really strategically important sites that we have are in our more rural areas, and I think that that will bring significant investment opportunities to those rural areas.

And finally, Heledd Fychan.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I have to admit that I'm perplexed about how the transition is going to work with no funding, and I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary could outline that. I'm also perplexed about why it seems that you have given up on trying to get the 70:30 split changed, when you seem to have the whole of the Senedd's support to get that changed, because there are clearly thousands of job losses and vital services being lost.

I had a funders' fair recently, and both funders and organisations were really, really concerned—organisations in tears, not knowing what was going to happen. So, you say there's a transition, there's no funding—you seem to not care that there are going to be these job losses or that organisations are going to be lost. Why are you not fighting? You have our support to fight. Please fight.

To be clear with colleagues, I raise this all the time with the UK Government, but if I just sit and fold my arms and not engage with the UK Government and not make these plans for how we spend the money, then that's not the right thing to do. I need to continue to make that case to the UK Government, which we are doing all of the time. Colleagues in Scotland are also making the case strongly as well. We know that colleagues in other parts are making those cases. We've got colleagues in the third sector, we've got colleagues in the private sector, we've got colleagues in local government, all making this case really strongly. I will continue to make the case, but also I will continue to get on with my job, which is providing an investment plan that is sound and that does speak to the key priorities that we've identified and which I don’t think there are any concerns about. So, I do make those cases all the time.

The first year does have funding—it's the first year of three years of funding. So, one of the things that I set out in that letter to local government, so that they could share with their funding officers, was what their indicative allocations were going to be so that they could plan for the future as well. So, we've done everything that we can to avoid the cliff edge. We've tried to give as much flexibility as possible. I'm not sure if I—. I think I did mention the letter, which allowed them to capitalise some costs. Again, that's something that is a useful tool for local government.

We're doing everything in our power, we're continuing to make the case, but we're also getting on with our job, which is setting out a viable plan for the future, which will have an impact on productivity, which will have an impact on economic inequality across Wales, and which will see £0.5 billion invested in Wales.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Item 4 is a statement by the Minister for Children and Social Care on supporting the social care workforce. And I call on the Minister to make the statement—Dawn Bowden.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Now, supporting our social care workforce is an ongoing priority for this Government. Social care workers sit at the heart of our communities, providing dignity, compassion and skilled support to our most vulnerable. In recent years, they have faced unprecedented pressures, yet they continue to deliver with professionalism and resilience. So, today, I want to update Members on progress made, actions we're taking and the next steps to further strengthen and sustain our social care workforce.

Last April, we introduced a new inspection rating system for care services, helping ensure people receive the best possible care. Over 92 per cent of care services achieved high standards in the first seven months, and these results are a testament to the exceptional dedication of care staff across Wales. We continue to provide annual funding of around £29 million to Social Care Wales, and £45 million directly to local authorities through a workforce grant alongside the local authority settlement. And it was encouraging to note that, in this year's workforce survey, we've seen an increase in our workforce who feel that staff morale is good, an increase in our workforce satisfaction with life, and an increase in staff feeling valued by the people they support. But we know that there is much more to do.

Today, I'm announcing key steps forward in our journey to improve the sustainability of this workforce. We established the social care fair work forum, bringing together trade unions, employer representatives, local and Welsh Government, to lead in social partnership to improve terms and conditions for social care workers. Its initial priority was advising and supporting implementation of the real living wage, a commitment that we have maintained since 2022. A recent evaluation found that the policy has made substantial progress in paying the real living wage to care workers in Wales, improving pay equity during an exceptionally challenging period for the sector. While many findings were positive, the evaluation highlighted some workers were not receiving the uplift, and we will address this for 2026-27 through tighter monitoring to ensure that this funding is being passed on.

Through the forum and its task-and-finish groups we have progressed wider priorities focused on improving pay and terms and conditions, and this includes finalising a voluntary pay and progression framework for the sector designed to support consistent pay, terms and career pathways. Today, I'm pleased to confirm that the social care fair work forum has now completed this work, and the framework will be published on the forum webpages, and I look forward to discussing this with the forum when I meet them next week.

Now, last January, I announced the establishment of the social care workforce partnership, the first of its kind in the UK. Over the past year, the partnership has developed exemplar human resources policies for the workforce, particularly the independent sector. This is an important step to support more consistent policy approaches and better working conditions across the sector. So, today, I can also confirm that we're beginning to publish the first of these policies—that's recognition agreements and disciplinary and grievance.

Members will be aware that last summer we passed the legislative consent motion enabling fair pay agreements within the UK Government's Employment Rights Act 2025 to extend to Wales. Positively, we negotiated that children's services will also be included for Wales, which is not the case for England. Establishing a social care negotiating body to develop these agreements will represent a significant milestone, enabling enforceable pay levels for social care workers for the first time. Working with our stakeholders through the social care fair work forum, we've developed a consultation on the proposed structure and operation of the negotiating body. Today, that consultation will go live, and I would encourage anyone within this sector to respond to ensure that findings shape our next steps.

The UK Government's immigration changes last year created uncertainty for overseas care workers in Wales and, in response, we have worked at pace to establish a role for the national advisory service to help overseas workers who've been displaced or who are looking for alternative employment. NAS connects workers with Welsh care providers who have vacancies and hold a sponsorship licence. They also signpost workers to relevant support services, including curriculum vitae, interview preparation and well-being support.

The service we've implemented is already making a difference, and it doesn't just support workers; it helps providers who had planned overseas recruitment before the changes to stop overseas workers into social care were implemented. By linking providers with skilled workers already in Wales, we aim to ease recruitment pressures and to continue to strengthen our workforce.

And finally, we've worked closely with local authorities to understand their innovative approaches to recruitment and retention. Several local authorities have established schemes showing excellent retention rates and improving the perception of working in social care, notably through their care academies. Progression opportunities are key to care academies, helping ensure that social care is seen as a career for life. They offer chances to train, gain qualifications while earning and explore different roles across the sector. So, today, I am delighted to confirm that we are committing £1.5 million in new funding to support the first phase of a national social care academy for Wales.

Welsh Government and Social Care Wales will work in partnership to support local authorities to extend the benefits already being felt in some areas across Wales. For those with existing academies, we will work to build on their strong foundations, helping strengthen, expand and maximise the impact of the excellent work already under way. Our vision is to build a nationally recognised but locally delivered social care academy that empowers individuals to pursue lifelong careers in this sector, strengthen workforce resilience and enhance the public perception and trust in the sector.

We know from Social Care Wales's recent workforce survey that making a difference to people's lives is a key motivator for working in social care—and they do. Our workforce deserves to be rewarded with real progression pathways, specialist training and the confidence that social care is not just a job, it's a lifelong career. So, I want to close by thanking our social care workforce for everything that they do. They are the pillars of our community, and I firmly believe that the steps that we are taking now, and those still to come, will continue to drive the change that this workforce needs and truly deserves. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank you, Minister, for the statement? Of course, we welcome the changes, and I'm glad to see some steps are being made to address those recruitment pressures on our workforce. This sector plays, as we all know, an absolutely crucial part in our wider health system, and we thank them all for everything they do. But we really do need to get to grips with the scale of the staffing crisis in our social care sector, and these changes will go some way to address those, but things shouldn't have taken this long.

But it would be remiss of me not to use this opportunity to mention another key part of our social care workforce, and one you know very well, and that is our unpaid carers, because it doesn't feature within this. Now, I know it wouldn't directly—the statement directly—mention them, but they are a huge part of our social care system, and, when we recognise one part of the system, we ought to be recognising all parts of it. Because, as you know, that part of our social care system is feeling extremely let down, with many unpaid carers not being able to access carer assessments or respite. With the election on the horizon, time has clearly run out for your Government to deal with this issue. So, I wondered why, Minister, has your Government failed to address the concerns that many of our unpaid carers have, and do you think this is another missed opportunity to support them? Local authorities insist that they are living up to their statutory duties. However, the evidence from unpaid carers shows that this is far from the case. I know you are contacting councils, and we look forward to feedback from that.

So, when we talk about the extra funding for our local authorities through the workforce grant, we welcome that, but the truth is that our local authorities are having to do more and more with less and less. So, Minister, what assessment have you made of the cuts to local authorities on their ability to provide social care, the social care that the people of Wales deserve? We all know that there is a staffing crisis in the sector, linked to poor pay and work conditions. There is a massive disparity between health and social care pay in terms and conditions and progression. And what you've announced today will go somewhere near creating that parity we need to see between the social care system and health. I look forward to seeing what the outcomes of the new national social care academy will look like.

I agree with your statement when you say that our workforce deserves to be rewarded with real progression pathways, specialist training and the fact that this is a career and not a short-term job. But that hasn't been the case here in Wales. So, Minister, why has it taken to the end of a Labour Government in Wales to begin to take the social care system in a serious manner? And when will the unpaid carers, part of our workforce, be recognised in the same way as the rest of the system?

Well, can I thank Peter Fox for those comments and for largely welcoming what I've said today? You will appreciate that I have made separate statements about unpaid carers, and I gave evidence to committee on unpaid carers, and I know that you have written to me for further information around unpaid carers, following my committee appearance. As I said in committee, we are now consulting on the revised unpaid carers strategy, which I believe will deal with many of the issues that both you and the rest of the committee raised with me, and you know that I have been constantly pursuing this matter with local authorities and I have undertaken to write to the committee with the findings of my most recent correspondence with local authorities on that. I remain absolutely resolute in my position and my view, which is the Welsh Government's view, that unpaid carers should be accessing the unpaid carers assessments and should be accessing respite care when they need it, and I'm determined that we will get to that point.

Just to go back, then, to the essence of my statement, which is about our social care workforce, as opposed to unpaid carers, I don't accept the premise of your comment that we have waited until the end of this term. What I have set out in my statement is, actually, the list of things that we have been doing over the last five years, culminating in the final announcement this side of the Senedd election, which is funding for the start of the establishment of a national care academy. We've been funding the social care workforce, as I've said in my statement, through, every year, a £45 million workforce grant, £7 million of match funding through the social care workforce development programme, a £1.4 million commitment to the support for the student social work bursary, £29 million to Social Care Wales. We've set up the social care work forum. We introduced the real living wage. We have a pay and progression framework, which has finally been concluded and published today. We set up the social care workforce partnership. We've set up, now, the national advisory service, and, as I've said, we've also managed to negotiate with the UK Government that we can include our children's services, as well as adult services in social care, in fair pay agreements, which will put social care pay on a legal footing for the first time. And now I've just announced the social care academy.

So, I don't accept the premise of the points that you made, Peter, that we have done nothing over five years. We have seen the workforce increase, we've seen vacancies stabilise, we've seen new entrants into the system through local authority grow-your-own schemes, which is what we're looking to build on through the academies. We've seen more men coming into this service as a result of some of the local authority schemes, which I think is really important. And we've seen—. The registration of our workforce is a key driver in professionalising the career.  

But we're not resting on our laurels. We know there is much to do, and that was really what my statement was trying to put on the record today: what we have done thus far and where we go from here. 

Social care is the foundation of our health service and is the backbone of our society. At some point in our lives, every one of us will have to depend on it to care for an ageing parent, a partner who is ill, or even to meet our own needs. And when that time comes, we will expect high-quality care. Therefore, the workforce that provides that care deserves the pay and conditions that reflect the value of their work and their huge responsibilities.

Although the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 set out a clear vision for rights and well-being, it is the workforce that makes these principles a reality on a daily basis. It's they who make the difference between policy on paper and the real-life experiences of families across Wales. And here in Wales, around 80,000 people work in this sector. It contributes £4.6 billion to our economy. It isn't a marginal sector; it's a central part of our national infrastructure.

But a survey by Social Care Wales shows that only 38 per cent of the workforce are content with their pay, with almost a quarter struggling to make ends meet on their incomes. High stress levels and mental health problems are common. This is not sustainable in the long term. Retaining staff is just as important as recruitment, and if we can't retain the skilled people we already have, no recruitment campaign will be enough.

I welcome a number of the successes that you, Minister, have referred to today. In terms of the real living wage, however, the framework that we have is voluntary and applies to workers directly employed in the care service and their managers only at present. If the ambition is that the sector is cohesive and fair, is there a clear intention to extend this arrangement to include everyone who works in social care? You say that you'll be tightening the rules for the allocation of this funding. Well, what's preventing you from enforcing this now? Also, what proportion of the workforce currently receives the real living wage at the moment, and when will any gaps in the system be closed?

The Government's ambition of providing care as close to home as possible, as is noted in 'A Healthier Wales', is one that we all share here. But, as we know, the reality is challenging. More people are being referred to hospital and are staying there longer, and the demand for services in the community is increasing. We know that around 400 additional carers are needed across Wales to enable patients who are currently stuck in hospital to be discharged, and to provide the community care that they need. What firm steps are being taken, therefore, to recruit and retain that workforce? What additional investment has been earmarked beyond the £1.5 million that you've announced for the academy, which is to be welcomed? That is something that I welcome very much, and I hope that the academy will be a viable pipeline for the workforce in the future. But what additional investment have you identified and has been earmarked, and what timetable is in place to ensure that that capacity will exist within the next two years to meet the demand?

Ultimately, what long-term assurance can the Government provide that care is a career that people want to join and continue in? Because unless pay is competitive, unless there are clear development pathways, as we heard, and unless the training is financially sustainable, the system will not stabilise.

Finally, may I ask whether you agree that UK Government rules to prevent the families of foreign workers from coming here to live with their loved ones as they work are a barrier to employing at least some of the workers that we need, and that the anti-immigrant rhetoric is damaging, because we are so dependent on carers from abroad in several areas to provide vital care to our loved ones? What discussions, therefore, have you had with UK Government in this regard? Thank you. 

Diolch, Mabon, for those points, and again, thank you for your largely welcoming comments on the statement. What I said in my statement was that the social care workforce survey this year has shown that there is increased satisfaction. I note the point that you said, but you were very selective about what you've chosen to speak about in your questions today. But I looked at this in the round, and I saw significant encouragement in what was in the survey compared to previous years. So, I'm taking the positive from that, and we're building. We're building on that.

You're absolutely right: retaining our workforce is as important as recruiting the workforce, and that is the key driver behind the national care academy. It is based on the things that we’re seeing happening in a number of local authorities now, but it is not consistent across the country, and we have to have that consistent approach. What this national social care academy will do is it will set a national framework to be delivered locally by every local authority. So, every local authority will be supported by the national academy. We’ll do a kind of mapping of what's out there now, and then what needs to be done, and fill the gaps in those areas.

Of course, the continuation of the national social care academy, and how that progresses, will be for the next Welsh Government. We're setting out today what we see as the way forward, and we're putting in the initial funding, but the continuation of that, of course, will be for a future Welsh Government.

But I think it's important to say in terms of the real living wage and the enforcement that you talked about in your question, that is the importance of us being part of the fair pay agreement in the UK legislation on employment rights, and you’ll remember we had the legislative consent motion that allowed us to take that forward. Without us being part of that fair pay agreement, we would not be able to legally enforce something that is not a legal provision, that is, the real living wage. The national living wage is, the national minimum wage is, but we have not been able to enforce negotiated agreements. So, the real living wage that we apply in social care here, which applies to social care workers and personal assistants, by the way, has been negotiated through our social care workforce partnership and through the social care fair work forum. That's been done in partnership. It's been a negotiated agreement with our trade union colleagues. But that's not legally enforceable. The fair pay agreement will ensure that anything that we negotiate will become legally enforceable, and that was why we were so keen to ensure that we were part of that, and that we were not disadvantaged in Wales compared to our colleagues in England. So, I look forward to that happening. That will be implemented in 2028, and we're now in the process of building the structure and the mechanism that will allow us to have a negotiating forum to do that.

You talked about community care in its widest sense, social care in community care, and what we're doing to support that. I think both the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care and I have given numerous updates to the Senedd on what we're doing in this respect. We've given reports previously about the regional integration fund and how that is supporting, both in capital and revenue, the development of integrated community care. We’re developing that integrated community care system and we are seeing the benefits and the results of that. We're seeing month-on-month improvements in our pathway of care delays, for instance.

We've got an ongoing £30 million investment in building that community capacity, and building that community capacity is about building the workforce to deliver those community packages. We know we have to find a workforce to start with, and we know that that is a challenge, and all the things that we have put in place thus far have seen improvements in those areas, but not improvements that have been quick enough and that have been able to deliver the stability that we want to see in the social care workforce, which is why we’re now taking this further step.

On overseas workers, Mabon, I absolutely agree with you, and I think I said that in my statement. Of course, yes, we have had, as my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice has had, ongoing discussions with the UK Government to soften the edges of some of the things that are being proposed. We have managed to achieve that to some extent, but we've not managed to dissuade them from introducing those rules. And that has had an impact, because it has meant that we cannot now employ social care workers unless they meet a particular salary threshold, and that's why the work of the national advisory service is so important, so that we can work with providers that already have sponsorship licences—we can match them with workers that lose their employment from employers or providers that lose their sponsorship. That's the biggest problem here. While people are still working, that is okay, but it's when they lose their jobs. And that's what the national advisory service is doing. But we do realise the challenge that it presents to providers, because quite a lot of them cannot provide the levels of salary at this stage that would meet the requirements of the visa. So, still more work to do in that area, but we're doing everything that we can within our powers to ensure that those people are looked after and supported as best as we can.

I very much welcome today's statement regarding how we support the social care workforce. We cannot underestimate the commitment, the dedication and also the incredible care that people who work in residential, nursing, children's respite and care homes right across Wales provide every single day of the year. They care for some of the most vulnerable people in our society and we're very fortunate to have such dedicated individuals who want to help care for our loved ones.

However, unless action is taken now, in 10 years' time, we will not have the social care workforce that will be required to care for an ageing population here in Wales. Currently, as Mabon ap Gwynfor has referred to, the majority of the workforce is reliant on workers from overseas, and in discussions I've had with Care Forum Wales, which is an organisation that has done so much over the years to professionalise the sector, it is very clear that we are not training enough people here to do this essential work. So, what is the Welsh Government doing to ensure the social care workforce is sustainable in Wales for decades to come? And in asking this question, I very much welcome, Minister, your announcement regarding funding for the first phase of the national social care academy in Wales, and I do believe that will strengthen the resilience, but perhaps you can expand a bit more on that.

Absolutely. Thank you, Lesley, for those comments. I absolutely agree with everything you've said about the workforce and the importance of the workforce. We've talked many times, haven't we, in this Chamber about the fact that you cannot talk about the NHS without talking about social care. The two things are intrinsically linked, and the sooner we get to that point of parity—and parity not just on pay, but on parity of esteem, so that people start to see social care as a career choice in the same way as they see the NHS as a career choice.

I was actually up in your patch yesterday. I visited Coleg Cambria. They have a social care academy there at Coleg Cambria. They work very closely with Wrexham local authority, and they place their students with the local authority, so that they get the hands-on experience of working across all aspects of social care as they're continuing their training and their qualifications. Because one of the things that they said to me was—and I've picked this up from the college in my own constituency, in Merthyr college as well—the health and social care qualifications and training packages that our further education colleges deliver are excellent, and they prepare students for the next stage into university and so on, but they were saying that the problem that they have is that a number of those students peel off, go and take the health route and drop out of the social care route, and that's because they don't see social care as having the career opportunities that we all know about in the health service. So, I was delighted to see them, both that college and Wrexham local authority, talking to me about their grow-their-own schemes, which is not now just about social care workers in the absolute sense that we understand it—social workers, social care staff, support workers—but occupational therapists as well. They are now looking to grow their own occupational therapists, because they know that that is a big gap. Without occupational therapists, we can't have those reablement services in the community. So, I think that there are a lot of good things going on out there.

To answer specifically your question, that is really what we want the national care academy to do: pick up the good practice that we know is happening in some local authorities and develop that, so that we can deliver that consistently, right the way across the country, backed with funding from the Welsh Government and from the local authority itself, to deliver a workforce that will be able to plug those gaps in all aspects of social care and give us that sustainable workforce for the future.

Standing still and just carrying on doing what we are doing now won't be enough. We have got to do something new. I'm hoping that the social care academy will be the impetus that we need to develop that new approach to the employment of social care workers. 

Thank you very much for the statement, and I do welcome the announcements that you have made. We are all going to need social care—every single one of us in this Siambr—at some point in our lives. Therefore, this is a very selfish kind of approach, isn't it? We want to see better social care, not just for people now, but in the future.

I'm really concerned about social care in rural areas, and the provision of social care workers. We have a significant workforce challenge. On average, around 3,500 social care roles are advertised each month here in Wales, and one in four carers say that they intend to leave their roles within the next year.

As we've heard, it is a really tough job—caring for the most vulnerable people and our most precious people in our society. So, I'd really just like to know from you, if I may, just briefly: what does this announcement mean for ensuring that we have social carers in rural Wales?

Thank you, Jane. It's a very valid question. I think the point of the national social care academy is, as I was trying to say in my statement, that we will set out a national framework for local delivery, because you cannot have 'one size fits all'. You cannot have exactly the same schemes applying in urban areas as you would have in rural areas, for all the reasons that you set out.

I have got my own family challenges in that. I have an elderly mother and an elderly mother-in-law, and both of those, at some point, are going to need social care. One lives in a city. One lives in rural north Wales. They will have very different experiences, potentially, of the care that they will need. I want to ensure that, wherever you live in Wales, when you need that care package, you will get the support that you need at the time that you need it, in a timely manner. We can't do that unless we have a sustainable workforce.

If it were easy, Jane, we would have done this a long, long time ago, and this would have happened overnight. We know that it's a challenge. We know that it's difficult. We know that pay is a big part of it, but it's not the only part. That is why the academy and the grow-your-own schemes are so important, because they will allow people to train for careers in social care—to change careers themselves.

In some of the grow-your-own academies with local authorities, we are seeing people changing careers—moving from housing and education to go into social care—and pursuing those careers there. One of the local authorities that is running a grow-your-own scheme has reported to us that the people who have done that, and who have transitioned into new careers through these schemes—they are getting 100 per cent retention of those staff.

So, I believe that it's the way forward. It's not a silver bullet. It isn't going to happen overnight. But I think that this is a new and innovative way for us to drive the development of our social care workforce, and I hope that we get the outcomes that we want.

And finally, Julie Morgan.

Diolch. Thank you very much, Minister, for this statement, which I think is very positive. It's great to see the progress that is being made, in particular to bring about more professionalisation of the workforce, because I think that it's absolutely crucial that we do that in every field. As you said in your statement, and as others have said, the jobs that social care workers do are so absolutely vital. Vulnerable people are in their hands, and it has never been recognised as the really important workforce that it is. So, I particularly welcome, as others have done, the £1.5 million as the new funding for the national social care academy. The Minister has told us a bit about how that academy will actually work. Obviously, residential social care in Wales is made up of a vast number of small social care residential homes, as well as, of course, the vast amount of care that is done in the community. I just wondered how would it be possible to reach all those different homes. My colleague Lesley mentioned the fact that the social care forum provides a network and does try to reach out, but has she got any idea about how this academy and all the other proposals will be able to reach out to the very diverse small groups that make up the residential social care workforce?

Thank you, Julie, for that question. Can I say and put on record, probably for the last time that I'm going to be speaking on these matters in the Chamber—? I've got a couple of other regulations and things coming up, but I think this is the last time I'm going to be giving a statement like this on the social care workforce. I just want to place on record my thanks for things that you did when you were in this portfolio as Minister. A lot of the work that I've been able to develop and progress has been as a result of the foundations that you laid. So, I thank you very much for that.

On the point you were making about small residential homes, in fact, I visited one just a couple of weeks ago in Swansea, and they were telling me—. It was a small children's home with four young people and a significant workforce, because these were children with complex needs who needed a lot of support. They had quite a substantive workforce, but it was a small residential home. That particular provider had an apprenticeship scheme and had their own little grow-your-own scheme. I think that that is the kind of model that we could adopt and adapt for other small providers across the social care sector. That's why the first phase of the national social care academy will be about mapping what is already out there and scaling up the good practice.

I say that with some trepidation, because one of the things that, I suppose, has been the most frustrating part of this role since I've taken it on is identifying right the way across social care really good practice in lots of pockets of social care and finding it really difficult to get that scaled up and rolled out. But I think that's a challenge we've got to face up to. I think it's a challenge that we are up for, because we know that that is the only way that we are going to address what has been a crisis in the social care workforce. I absolutely acknowledge that we are nowhere near, still, where we want to be, but we have seen incremental improvements and I think that this is now the building block towards improving that for the longer term.

Thank you, Minister.

Item 5 is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language on Welsh-speaking communities. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make the statement—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. Cymraeg belongs to all of us and it belongs to all Ministers and covers all responsibilities of the Welsh Government in the fields of health, education, planning and the economy, and every other field. Today, I can only mention a few brief headlines from this term before concentrating on the work of the Commission for Welsh-speaking Communities.

The individual actions we've delivered have been made coherent through far-reaching legislative and policy changes that will underpin the sustained growth of our language. The cross-party agreement to the Welsh Language and Education (Wales) Act 2025 was a key milestone. One of the most radical agendas has been the actions we have taken to address the effects that high numbers of second homes can have on our communities. Our Welsh language communities housing plan has supported over 80 community projects through the Perthyn project, and there are 49 community‑led affordable homes in development.

We've extended the bilingual Flying Start childcare provision, we've developed 'More than just words', created new opportunities for people to attend the National Eisteddfod, and there's been new investment in the Urdd. All this and more are achievements of this Senedd term.

Dirprwy Lywydd, as I said, I now wish to turn for the rest of this statement to the work of the Comisiwn Cymunedau Cymraeg. The Commission for Welsh-speaking Communities was established to provide independent recommendations to the Welsh Government. The first phase of the commission’s work examined higher density Welsh‑speaking communities. It published its first report in August 2024. Of the 57 recommendations, 40 were for the Welsh Government. We issued our first response last May.

Since then, work has taken place across Government to deliver these recommendations, and we've already implemented 11 recommendations to date. For example, we’ve introduced a three-year funding cycle to our 'Cymraeg 2050' grant recipients. We’ve also provided extra funding to organisations that work in the community-based language planning field, for example an additional £500,000 for the mentrau iaith across Wales this year. Through the community asset loan fund, lenders accredited with the Cynnig Cymraeg can now receive a 0.5 per cent reduction to their loan rate.

By the end of this Senedd term, we aim to have implemented 17 of the recommendations, with work under way on the remaining 23. This morning, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning published our response to the commission’s town and country planning report, which provides a positive response to the report’s recommendations. Today’s statements relate to the central recommendation made in the the commission’s report, namely that communities where the Welsh language is in most frequent daily use should be designated as areas of higher density linguistic significance.

Given the importance of this recommendation, the remainder of my statement will focus on the recommendation. Such a designation recognises the unique pressure experienced in these localities. These are historical, long-standing issues such as the shortage of affordable homes, the need to create job opportunities and the outward migration of younger people. But these areas also provide many opportunities. They are places with a strong sense of community and of belonging, and of course, they are areas where it's possible to live daily lives through the medium of Welsh.

I was pleased to be able to accept the recommendation in principle in May of last year. At the time, I said that I wanted to be able to scrutinise the key issues that would inevitably surround the policy intention. I'm very grateful to all of those who have provided their views, who've participated in conversations and who have suggested solutions along the way. If I were to summarise that important discussion, however, it would be to say that the strongest focus has been on the complexity of turning the principle into practical action, and also the contested nature of this area of work.

Agreeing the basic recommendation is relatively easy for most. But, in scratching the surface, there are competing views that emerge on a range of matters. Questions arise every time you have this conversation. For example, where should responsibility for designation lie? What criteria should be in place to make that decision? What processes should be followed in making that designation decision? Which voices should be included in that process? And most importantly of all, what difference should all of this make in the lives of the people who live within or adjacent to a designated area? What all of this says to me, Dirprwy Lywydd, is that action must be taken in implementing the recommendation carefully, and the role of the Welsh Government needs to be as much about listening as it is about making decisions, especially in the early stages. That's why, this afternoon, I will set out a phased path to implementation, a path that makes implementation part of this year's work, but that also allows time and opportunity for continued conversation and the creation of consensus.

The key point that was raised was the need for flexibility in the designation process. I agree with this. If we rely too much on a single threshold, we risk drawing lines on a map that don't reflect the complex factors that shape the linguistic characteristics of a community. Following these discussions, and having given further consideration to the matter, I am proposing a three-phase pathway towards designating areas of higher density. Work on phase 1 and phase 2 can be taken forward together while we prepare the ground for phase 3, so that we can begin the work soon.

The first phase would provide recognition of areas of higher density linguistic significance within the revised 'Cymraeg 2050' strategy. The second phase would translate the commitment made in the strategy across all major policy frameworks within Government. The sustainability of Welsh-speaking communities depends on co-ordinated action across different policy areas. Looking further ahead, I believe that, as a third phase, there is merit in exploring the possibility of introducing primary legislation to establish a statutory designation system. Legislation could set out national criteria, define responsibilities for Ministers and local authorities, and could clarify how designation could influence policies. This would offer the strongest and most coherent protection. Most importantly of all, it would allow further time to reach as broad a consensus as possible on the questions set out earlier in the statement, and to prepare for the detailed policy development and legal scrutiny.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I understand that the commission will publish its second report on the situation of the Welsh language within other areas of Wales very soon. Together, these reports, which were commissioned and produced during this Senedd term, give us a thoroughly detailed understanding of the interventions needed to support the Welsh language in communities the length and breadth of Wales. Their work will underpin a wide range of important policy developments. Whatever will be their detailed recommendations in the second report, they will help us to place high-density areas in a continuum where all areas of Wales are deemed of linguistic significance.

Dirprwy Lywydd, together, we have and can continue to deliver the most comprehensive programme ever to safeguard and to strengthen the Welsh language, and to ensure that it thrives as a living language for future generations. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement today. We, as Welsh Conservatives, welcome much of what you've said this afternoon, because we are aware of the importance of developing the language across Wales. You mentioned the importance of consensus a few times, and I do think it's important that we do see community consensus across Wales too, as well as political consensus in relation to developing the language in Wales and the 2050 target. That is why—and we've discussed this previously with you—I think it's disappointing that there's one party now in the Chamber, Reform, that doesn't believe in the 2050 target of reaching 1 million Welsh speakers in Wales. It's important that we don't lose that consensus, and the importance of that, and ensuring that this isn't turned into a political football. That's what we, as Welsh Conservatives, don't want to see—we don't want to see our language used in that way.

I welcome the fact that you mentioned the Welsh language and education Act, and you mentioned consensus there. I welcome the work that we were able to do together in developing that Bill. Although it's difficult to measure the impact of that legislation now, it is important that we can measure the successes, or otherwise, of policies that we've seen introduced by the Welsh Government in relation to developing the Welsh language in these communities, because we remember the last census, of course, which showed that the number of Welsh speakers in those communities wasn't showing any signs of growth. So, that doesn't always give us an optimistic picture of the impact of the Welsh Government's policies to date. So, what work is the Welsh Government doing to assess the impact of the policies that have been in place to date to see what is working, what isn't working, and what can be further developed for the future?

You mentioned the recommendations made, and that the Welsh Government has delivered against 11 of the 40 recommendations made, and hopes to deliver 17 of those recommendations before the election. Well, the natural question following that is on the other 23. You mentioned the work ongoing in delivering those, but when will that actually happen? I do hope that the Cabinet Secretary can respond to that question.

But the most important thing that I wanted to address, and the biggest reasons why people leave communities such as these—they're often rural communities, where there is a high density of Welsh speakers—and it's economic reasons and the local economy. I don't think that we heard enough in your statement today on the importance of developing the economy in communities such as these, because we know that if people can find work in their local communities, close to where they were brought up, they do want to stay in those communities. We also know, of course, that the First Minister said of you that developing the economy in Wales is not your priority. So, I do hope that you'll be able to say something about that in your response to me today on the importance of developing the economy in these communities, in order to ensure that people not only remain in these communities—those who have Welsh language skills—but also that other people who have Welsh language skills can move into the communities, either for the first time or to return to the communities where they grew up. Thank you.

Thank you very much to Tom Giffard for those questions. I agree with him, of course, that the language is important the length and breadth of Wales, regardless of where you live in Wales, and that's why I look forward to the second report of the commission. I agree with him too about the importance of creating a consensus. We have succeeded, more or less, in creating that consensus on the Senedd level. The one party that doesn't agree with us—nobody from that party is in the Siambr to hear the debate and the statement this afternoon. But it is also important—and that's what I was trying to say in the statement—to create the consensus on the community level too. If we are going to create particular areas designated for the density of the language, it's important that we draw communities into the decision-making process.

The Member raised a question about how we measure the impact of the policies that we develop in this area, and it depends on the area, truth be told. I referred in the statement to the Flying Start scheme, where we have more than succeeded—we've drawn more young children into childcare through the Flying Start scheme, and we can start to show the figures because they gather those figures every month. We know that more children have come into the bilingual system than we had expected at the beginning. And when we talk about policies with regard to second homes, for example, we can show the figures about how many new homes have come onto the market, how many new homes local people can purchase and so on. So, it depends on the area, but I agree with the point—it's important that we have a way to measure what we are doing.

To come back to the point, Dirprwy Lywydd, about the economy, of course I agree with the importance of the economy in the Welsh-speaking heartlands to provide economic opportunities, and for young people in particular who want to remain in those communities. That's why everything we do as a Government, in collaboration with the UK Government, to invest in sustainable energy, for example, is so important to us, because those new jobs won't be located in the south-east, but they'll be in the west, where the language is most robust. So, across Government, we are focused on economic opportunities as part of all that we do to seek to support the language in the heartlands. 

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary for this afternoon's statement. Clearly, I think we need to remind ourselves why the Commission for Welsh-speaking Communities was established initially, and some of the things that were said at that point by your predecessor, Jeremy Miles. He did talk about the challenges that the commission would face, and also the need for us to be courageous and to act on those recommendations. The commission was launched in August 2022, the report was published in August 2024, but again, in terms of the main recommendation, it's only today that we are hearing about the beginning of the implementation of that, although we knew that that was something that was likely to arise when the commission was established in 2022.

So, in terms of this phased pathway that you've mentioned, what is the definitive timetable in relation to that? Because there must be a timescale. The one thing that we've heard time and time again—and we all agree with this—is that the Welsh language belongs to us all, but the Welsh language is losing ground, despite 'Cymraeg 2050'. We have seen the census results, haven't we, which show that there has been a reduction. The annual population survey showed a reduction again. So, we need urgent action, and that's why I believed that this Government had commissioned the Welsh-speaking communities commission, to come up with challenging recommendations. We knew that they would be challenging, but we also need to ensure that there is action against those recommendations. So, if you can provide some information on the timetable, I would very much appreciate that.

Much like Tom Giffard—there are other things that haven't been implemented. I do think we need clarity in terms of what the timeline is in relation to that. For example, we know that the coleg Cymraeg has been asking for investment in post-16 education and apprenticeships in high-density areas in order to provide a continuum from education into the workplace. They argue that having unbroken Welsh-speaking pathways are crucial, and that this is exceptionally important in terms of strengthening statutory Welsh-medium education, or that may be undermined. That is something that we have raised a number of times.

You will also be aware that the Welsh Language Commissioner has asked every party to commit to introducing a White Paper as soon as possible within the next Senedd, particularly in relation to the implementation of the main recommendation of the commission, to establish areas of higher density linguistic significance. So, what I wanted to ask is: how is your statement today aligning with that? What discussions have there been with the Welsh Language Commissioner?

Certainly, there are a number of things that you referred to that are things that we worked on through the co-operation agreement. We are very proud to co-operate on those issues, and important steps have been taken, but I do think that there are areas now where we need urgent action. So, more than anything, it's the timetable to align with what you have outlined, what is happening with the recommendations that haven't seen any sort of action to date. And what are your hopes in terms of the next Senedd? What will we see happening in relation to 'Cymraeg 2050'? That sentence that the 'Welsh language belongs to everyone' has to mean something. It can't just be a mantra that replaces action, and that is why—. I do agree with Tom Giffard too that it is good that we have had consensus here; I very much hope that that consensus can be maintained. It's very disappointing that the two Reform Members have chosen not to be here for this debate, and I think we have to be clear that that consensus may have disappeared from this Chamber, unfortunately. There is a major risk that that lack of support will gain ground. We need urgent action. You have majority support at the moment, and that is why I think a timetable is extremely important, and that is why I want to see action now.

I thank Heledd Fychan, Dirprwy Lywydd. The commission was established to provide independent advice to us as a Government, and that is what the commission has done in its work.

On the timetable, well, work has already begun. We've started the work of reviewing 'Cymraeg 2050'. That work will continue over the coming year. A document for the public will be published in the autumn, and the changes to 'Cymraeg 2050' will be presented in 2027. That provides strategic recognition to the areas of higher density linguistic significance and therefore incorporates the idea of those areas as the commission had suggested. We've also started work on phase 2. The commission made a number of recommendations to the Welsh Government for varying policies in areas of higher density linguistic significance, and we have acted and worked on this already. As I said in the statement, phase 1 and phase 2 can proceed together.

Phase 3 will fall to the next Senedd and the next Welsh Government, if that Government wishes to bring forward the Bill to place those areas and their designation on a statutory footing. I have said in the statement that I can see a case for doing that, but that will be for the next Senedd to decide.

The Welsh language is losing ground in the Welsh-speaking heartlands, but it's gaining ground in south-east and north-east Wales too. That's why the second report of the commission is so important, because it demonstrates that, in all parts of Wales, the Welsh language is important to us. What we want to see is growth in the Welsh language wherever people live in Wales. I agree, as I agreed with Tom Giffard, about the importance of providing economic opportunities for people who want to remain in the Welsh-speaking heartlands and to find a way to use the Welsh language in all aspects of daily life.

Earlier today, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning and I met the local authorities in the Arfor area to hear from them about what they think has been successful in Arfor, such as the pilot scheme 'Llwyddo'n Lleol', because we do want to base our plans for what will follow Arfor 2 to create more economic opportunities in those areas where people use the Welsh language every day.

I welcome the Cabinet Secretary's statement this afternoon. I think it is crucial that we do discuss these issues. When I launched the 'Cymraeg 2050' scheme almost 10 years ago now, I think, I was clear in my own mind that we needed change and that generating that change would take years. And the work that you have done during your tenure as Minister has demonstrated that we have created the kind of programme that will deliver against the objectives of 'Cymraeg 2050'.

I am very interested in what you've just described in relation to Arfor, and I'd like to hear a little more on that. But also may I say this about the broader point that you've made? I was pleased to have the opportunity a few weeks ago, along with Lynne Neagle, to visit Ysgol Gymraeg Tredegar. It was wonderful for me, as someone from Tredegar, to see children from Tredegar having the opportunity to speak and learn Welsh for the first time ever, and that is something that is crucially important to us as we look at our broader objectives.

But, to return to the point that Heledd has just made on the Welsh language losing ground in its heartlands, what's also important is that we give people the opportunity to use the Welsh language. I'd like to hear a little more from you, Minister—Cabinet Secretary, rather—as to how we can create more opportunities for people to use the Welsh language and to use the language naturally in the heartland areas.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I thank Alun Davies, and I thank him for the ambition behind 'Cymraeg 2050'. In the discussions regarding Arfor 2 this morning, people were focused on the energy behind the initiatives and the opportunities that people have created through 'Perthyn' and other things under the auspices of Arfor, but drawing attention, as we've been discussing this afternoon, that Arfor is a line on the map, there are some Welsh-speaking communities outwith the Arfor area—the north of Pembrokeshire, for example, isn't under the auspices of Arfor—and whether there are opportunities to do more with those communities that are adjacent to the Arfor area at the moment.

But there were also many discussions about the use of the Welsh language. So, we're focusing as usual on creating a million Welsh speakers by 2050, but the second part of the strategy was to double the use of the Welsh language. That, to me, is so important. So, we have been undertaking research with the commissioner, with the Urdd, for example, to see where the possibilities arise to create more opportunities, particularly for young people who speak Welsh at school—as in Ysgol Gymraeg Tredegar—to use the language that they're learning outside of the classroom, on the playing field, in the arts and so on.

A great deal of the detailed work behind this statement today is focused on the things that we can do to help people—particularly those people who are learning Welsh who come from non-Welsh-speaking homes—to find those natural opportunities for them to use the language that they've learned.

Thank you for the statement, but there are concerns about this approach. As you have said, there are challenges in communities across Wales, and one of the greatest is the number of young people who are leaving Wales who are Welsh speakers. I'm pleased to see that there is consensus across the Chamber, and, if the Liberal Democrats are returned in May, we will maintain that approach, and we will ensure that we are ambitious in getting more people across Wales speaking Welsh.

One of the things that I wanted to highlight is in, mid Wales, in Powys, we have more Welsh speakers than there are in Ceredigion, but, although that is the case, Powys isn't included in these plans. So, could you just explain a little more on that? Also, how can you ensure that there are more people across mid Wales who are given that opportunity to speak and to learn Welsh? As we know, when a language disappears from communities, it usually is never restored, so that is hugely important for the communities that I represent. Thank you.

I thank Jane Dodds, Dirprwy Lywydd. When young people leave Wales to study and so on, there's more we can do to help them to continue with their Welsh. And I've been speaking to the coleg cenedlaethol, alongside Vikki Howells, to support the work that they're doing to create a network of young people who've received their education through the medium of Welsh who are now studying in universities over the border to create opportunities for them to socialise together. There are many new possibilities now, where people can come together on screen and online and so on to use the Welsh language. We know that many young people who've received their education through the medium of Welsh want to continue with their Welsh, and we can create more opportunities for them to do just that.

Jane makes an important point about the number of people in Powys who speak Welsh. They are outside of the Arfor area, but they're not outside of what the commissioner says about designating areas where the language is strong, because that can happen anywhere in Wales if we have that designation system in the very best position possible. There are a number of communities in Powys where I can see a case to designate them as areas of linguistic significance. So, it depends on how we approach this, but the point that Jane Dodds has raised is an important one.

And finally, Delyth Jewell.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. The Welsh language belongs to everyone in Wales. 

Cymraeg belongs to everyone, regardless of whether they speak it. But too many people lack the confidence to become siaradwyr Cymraeg. People who can understand a lot lack confidence to take that step and to siarad Cymraeg. There is an obligation, isn't there, on all of us as more confident speakers not to be too judgmental if someone makes mistakes. Treigladau are not the be-all and end-all. The different types of Cymraeg we each speak have value. 

And we are all learners. 

We are all learners. Recently, my committee published a report that was calling for more support in areas like the Valleys, where Cymraeg is not spoken as widely in shops, cafes, sport clubs, to kick start those conversations, to make sure Cymraeg is a language we don't just learn, but that we live. 

Is that a vision that you share?

Well, I do, of course, and I thank Delyth Jewell for the work that her committee does. I look forward to appearing before the committee again next week. 

What Delyth Jewell says, Dirprwy Lywydd, is so true of the Welsh language. People who speak English who make mistakes all the way through the way they speak, it never occurs to them that this would be a reason for not carrying on speaking English, but people who make mistakes in Welsh are always worried that somehow this means that they shouldn't be using the language, whereas the only way to get better in a language is to use it. And there obligations on people who are fluent speakers of the language there, of different sorts: first of all, not to be too helpful, not to turn straight away to English if you see somebody struggling a bit, but certainly not to be judgmental, to allow people who are learning the language and trying it out and trying to get more fluent in their use of it to have those conversations and to feel that they're supported in doing so. That's the way I believe that we can go on building on the single greatest strength of the Welsh language, and that is the goodwill towards it, which is so evident in Wales, and in all parts of Wales, however much of the language is spoken every day. That's the way we will persuade more people to learn, and then, very importantly, to use the language.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Item 6 is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education on supportive and inclusive education for a brighter future. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. They say that time flies when you’re having fun. And while the last two years have had their challenges, they have certainly flown by. When I began this role, I set out a clear ambition: to improve standards, to raise attainment and to lead an education system that puts learners first. I said then that the best interests of our children and young people would always be my starting point, and that good mental health must be the foundation on which our education system is built. Those principles guide me as strongly today as they did on my first day in office. And while the world around our children and young people continues to shift, shaped by rapid technological change, cost-of-living pressures and changes in societal and parental expectations, my commitment to supporting their well-being and ensuring their engagement with learning has only grown stronger.

The challenges faced by this generation of learners are distinct from those who came before them. Increasing numbers of children and young people are navigating anxiety, social pressures, online harms and the lingering emotional toll of the pandemic. Schools and colleges have found themselves supporting learners in ways far beyond the traditional remit of education, becoming safe spaces for emotional support, social connection and stability. For that reason, the well-being of learners has been the cornerstone of everything I have done. The whole-school approach to mental health and well-being remains central our vision—an ethos that does not focus on a small group of learners, but one that permeates the culture and daily life of every education setting. Today, 95 per cent of schools in Wales, including every secondary school, have action plans in place, demonstrating the sector’s commitment to embedding well-being as a shared responsibility and lived practice.

We are matching that commitment with strong continued investment: over £14 million next year, including more than £3 million dedicated to school-based counselling. Last year alone, almost 14,000 young people accessed counselling—evidence that learners are seeking and receiving support earlier. And school-based counselling is easing pressure on specialist services, with most learners needing no onward referral and only 1.7 per cent of learners requiring a referral to child and adolescent mental health services. Our CAMHS school in-reach service, placing 119 practitioners directly in schools, strengthens early identification and bridges the gap between education and health. More than 6,400 school staff have already benefited from targeted training.

But our work does not stop at access. We need to make good practice everyday practice. Well-being is inseparable from a sense of belonging. Learners thrive when they feel known and valued in their school community. Sometimes this begins with the smallest gestures: a teacher greeting a child by name at the gate, a moment of encouragement, the sense of being part of something bigger than oneself. These daily interactions foster a culture where learning can flourish.

We have already seen how strengthening relationships and community engagement can translate into better attendance and behaviour. Attendance remains below where we want it to be, but it continues to improve in line with our approaches, in particular our investment in community-focused schools and family engagement officers. Additional funding this year and next, over £15 million in total, is supporting schools and local authorities to re-engage learners, understand the roots of persistent absence, and create inclusive environments. And our consultation on revised attendance codes will help us build a clearer, more granular picture of what keeps children from the classroom.

But engagement is not only about attendance; it is also about feeling safe. We have heard the concerns of practitioners and parents about escalating levels of disruptive and sometimes violent behaviour. In response, we set out five immediate actions to give staff the practical tools, guidance and backing that they need. We have delivered on each of these, strengthening guidance on weapons, partnering with police forces on safety, developing national support programmes, and creating clearer expectations on mobile phones, exclusions and detentions. Behind each of these actions is a simple belief: every learner and every member of staff has the right to feel safe, respected and able to learn or work without fear.

Engagement and well-being also depend on meeting learners' individual needs. One of the most significant reforms of recent years has been the implementation of our additional learning needs legislation. As a result of the ALN system, more than 32,000 learners have statutory individual development plans in maintained schools across Wales, and this number continues to grow. This protects the rights of children and young people with ALN to have the provision that they need. Every school now has an additional learning needs co-ordinator who will soon be on the leadership scale, reflecting the strategic importance of their role in creating inclusive schools.

We know, however, that there have been pressures and inconsistencies across the system, and we have listened carefully to the concerns of parents, local authorities and practitioners. That is why I commissioned a legislative review, and I have already begun acting on its findings, strengthening national oversight, improving data, producing new guidance, and committing to deeper integration across education, health and social care. Our work should continue until every child with ALN receives the timely, high-quality support that they deserve.

Supporting well-being means recognising the pressures that families face. Poverty remains one of the greatest barriers to engagement, attendance and attainment. This year, we invested £128 million through the pupil development grant, and an additional £13 million to help families afford essential school items, supporting over 89,000 children.

We introduced free school meals for every primary learner. That means over 60 million meals in this Government term, because no child should be hungry, and every child deserves to feel included, cared for and equal at the table. These investments ease pressure on families and help ensure that every child arrives at school with dignity and confidence, and is ready to learn. I have announced a review of PDG to ensure that it is delivering real impact for learners affected by poverty.

Well-being provides the basis for children to engage in learning. Similarly, literacy—especially reading—allows children to access the curriculum and supports well-being. The two are inextricably linked. I recognise the challenges highlighted by Estyn in their annual report, particularly in relation to the quality of teaching and learning and challenges in reading and literacy. I welcome their support for this through their inspection regime.

I have announced a major £20 million investment in literacy and numeracy over three years. I have established a national professional learning partner, Dysgu, to ensure that schools and local authorities receive the support that they need in these areas. Dysgu will also lead national support for well-being across all schools, alongside professional learning in ALN and inclusion.

I have also commenced work to ensure that there is more clarity around our expectations of learning in literacy and numeracy through more granular age-related expectations, which will be embedded in our personalised assessments. Our personalised assessments national report highlighted improvements in English and Welsh reading and numeracy last year. I look forward to the publication of the next annual report in the summer and, of course, the next round of the Programme for International Student Assessment results in the autumn.

Our belief in supporting engagement extends into tertiary education. Through Medr, we have created a more connected, learner-focused post-16 system that aims to offer coherent pathways and high standards across further and higher education. We recently celebrated the tenth anniversary of the Seren programme, which has helped 24,000 high-achieving learners access some of the world's top universities. And we have strengthened financial support so that no young person is held back by cost.

Wales remains the most generous provider of living cost support in the UK, with the education maintenance allowance increased to £40 per week, and expanded learning grants that support adult learners and part-time study. Today, 37 per cent of Welsh students study part time—far more than in England—reflecting a system that flexes around learners' lives. And we are expanding junior apprenticeships. Since 2024, we have doubled the funding to give more young people engaging vocational routes that reconnect them with learning and future employment.

Well-being is shaped not only by support, but by the environments in which learners learn and staff work. Through our Sustainable Communities for Learning programme, we have invested over £1.5 billion in modern, sustainable school and college facilities. Every new building represents more than infrastructure; it improves the daily experience of learners and staff, supporting inclusion, well-being and better behaviour. Our education workforce remains at the heart of everything that we do, and their well-being is paramount. Our strategic education workforce plan for schools will set out how we will build on the work we have already done to improve well-being, improve working conditions and reduce workload pressures, and to expand access to professional learning through Dysgu, ensuring that our school practitioners feel supported, respected and resilient.

Dirprwy Lywydd, our mission is clear: to build a supportive, inclusive and ambitious education system that places well-being at its core and enables every child and young person to fulfil their potential. We have made real, meaningful progress. I am sure that we can all recognise that there is more to do, and I am determined to go further, because every learner in Wales deserves an education system that supports them, challenges them and believes in them. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for this afternoon's statement. Cabinet Secretary, it does seem rather ironic that you have just made a statement on supportive and inclusive education for a brighter future, given that that's exactly what this Government and successive Labour administrations over the last 27 years have failed to do. I appreciate that you've only been in post for a short time, but you can tell that an election is certainly looming, because we're getting a lot of warm words and empty promises from Labour and, on occasion, from Plaid as well, to be fair.

Labour have had their hands on the levers of power here for more than a quarter of a century, and instead of creating a brighter future, the party has inflicted more damage on our education system. Cabinet Secretary, credit where credit is due, you talk a good game, and that's exactly what the problem is: there seems to be a lot of talk and very little action.

Violence in our classrooms is rising. Does that sound like a supportive and inclusive education to you? Estyn recently reported that literacy standards were weak in Wales, not exactly surprising given the Government's inaction and incompetence, but does that sound like a supportive and inclusive education system to you? There is inconsistent teaching quality according to the school inspectorate. Does that sound like a supportive and inclusive education to you? We have 20 per cent of children leaving primary school functionally illiterate. Does that sound like a supportive and inclusive education system to you? Maths standards in Wales are too low. Does that sound like a supportive and inclusive education to you? And how can you promise a supportive and inclusive education system when school attendance levels still remain worryingly low compared to pre-pandemic levels? Cabinet Secretary, I can stand here and list a lot of the problems within our education system and this Government's failures, but I simply don't have enough time.

I couldn't agree with you more though, Cabinet Secretary, about learners' well-being being of paramount importance. Honestly, you talk about the whole-school approach and the Government investing £14 million, with £3 million going to dedicated school-based counselling; I'd like to know where the remaining £11 million is going to be spent, Cabinet Secretary. With 14,000 young people accessing counselling last year alone, it just shows how important these services actually are. That's why I recently announced that a Welsh Conservative Government would introduce guidance counsellors at every single secondary school across Wales to provide students with consistent support, and the intention is to roll this out into primary schools in the future. Do you therefore agree with me, Cabinet Secretary, that the Welsh Conservatives' policy would be transformational for the well-being of our students?

School attendance, as I briefly touched upon earlier, remains far too low. You've confirmed that the Government will be spending £15 million in this area. As is often the case with this Government, we see catchy headlines and funding announcements, but, sadly, the detail is often sparse. Will you outline what sort of initiatives the £15 million will be spent on to boost attendance? Because the Government is still failing miserably in turning this problem around.

Cabinet Secretary, to say that ALN reforms have been plagued with pressure and inconsistencies is simply an understatement. You say that you're acting on the findings of the legislative review, so can you please kindly elaborate on this for all of us in the Chamber today? Given that it's such an important area, we do need to know exactly what action the Government is taking to iron out these issues.

It's almost unbelievable that we're here talking again about the problems of literacy in Wales. There absolutely needs to be more clarity around the teaching of literacy across the country, and that includes moving away from the defunct cueing method to teach children how to read. We need to be moving towards more of a systematic synthetic phonics system, or SSP as I like to call it, as a proven, effective way of teaching children how to read. My question is: given the problems that we have of literacy in Wales, and it's been known for quite some time, and we've had announcement after announcement from the Government, are you confident that you are finally on track for this? Also, Cabinet Secretary, when do you expect to see the results of your interventions?

You talked this afternoon about junior apprenticeships, but what about degree apprenticeships? Have you and the Minister for Further and Higher Education had any discussions about expanding the provision for degree apprenticeships across Wales?

Cabinet Secretary, you drew attention to the fact that increasing numbers of children are navigating anxiety, school pressures and online harm. We know that mobile phones and social media are indeed contributing to this. So, does this mean that you are now going to be supporting a Conservative call to ban mobile phones in classrooms, and for social media restrictions for the under-16s?

Cabinet Secretary, at the end of your statement, you declared that every learner in Wales deserves an education system that supports them, challenges them and believes in them. I couldn't agree with you more, but they are not getting that at the moment, and that's down to 27 years of Labour Governments. It's got nothing to do with the hard-working staff in our education system, whom I have the greatest respect for—I know you do too—and we have admiration for them as well, but it's sadly down to Labour running the show. Labour politicians have had years to deliver an education system, just like you described, Cabinet Secretary, but they've failed every step of the way. In stark contrast, the Welsh Conservatives are waiting in the wings to unpick Labour Governments' failures and sticking plasters and deliver for the people of Wales. Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you, Natasha. I suppose it was a vain hope on my part that this could be a constructive engagement around the substance of my statement. Instead, you repeated lots of trite points, which suggests to me that you haven't, in fact, listened to very much that I've said in a long period of time, including in the committee that you sit on, where I spent two hours in ALN scrutiny, setting out exactly what we were doing.

I don't think I'm perfect, but I don't think anyone could accuse me of being the kind of person who just talks a good talk. We are taking action on all of the areas that I have outlined today. I could spend an hour just talking about the work that we're doing to tackle the challenges of behaviour in schools and colleges.

You continue to repeat incorrect statistics about literacy—this 20 per cent of learners leaving primary school unable to read. That is based on an old report that is a good 10 years old. It would be a really good thing, I think, if you actually updated your approach on these things.

On attendance, I did a statement on attendance. We have seen an improvement in attendance. Attendance rose in the last full academic year that we have figures for to 91.1 per cent, up from 90.5 per cent the previous year. The percentage of half-day sessions missed by pupils in primary and secondary school has decreased to 8.9 per cent in 2024-25, from 9.5 per cent the previous year. The number of pupils that were persistently absent fell from 30.4 per cent to 27.0 per cent. And also, we've seen the number of pupils eligible for free school meals who missed half-day sessions decrease as well. But I've been very clear that we've got a lot more work to do. We've got a long tail from the COVID pandemic. The approach of families to school has changed, that contract between families and school, and there are lots of barriers in place.

You've asked me what we're doing with the £15 million; I've set that out very clearly in the past: we are investing in family engagement officers right across Wales so that they can work in a granular way with families to break down the barriers that prevent children coming to school. That could be transport issues, it could be child poverty, maybe they haven't got a coat to wear to school, it could be ALN issues, it could be mental health issues. Those family engagement officers are building relationships with families and I get really good feedback on the work that they do to make sure that we can get children back in school.

There's nothing simple or easy about these issues. Issues with attendance are happening across the world now, but we are taking action. We've also introduced enrichment activities in schools, so things that children can come in and enjoy after school, so that there's an incentive for them to come to school. We've increased our investment in our school holiday enrichment programme, so that we keep hold of children during the school holidays, because we believe that that will increase the likelihood of them maintaining their attendance. And we've continued to invest in our community focused schools approach.

In relation to your points about the whole-school approach, as I say, we're spending nearly £14 million a year on the whole-school approach and the £3 million that I referred to for school counselling is money that goes into the local authority education grant for school counselling. There's also money that some years ago was put into the rate support grant for school counselling, so the amount the local authorities are spending on school counselling is much more than that. And we've just done an audit exercise to identify how much is being spent.

In terms of the rest of the money, some of that money is spent on underpinning the implementation of the whole-school approach through the co-ordinators that we fund through Public Health Wales; £5.6 million—because this is a joint endeavour between education and health—funds the CAMHS inreach workforce that is in our schools; and we've also invested in training and other initiatives to support local authorities and schools with the work that they're doing to embed a whole-school approach.

You said that you've made some manifesto commitment to employ guidance counsellors. I'm not quite sure what the definition of a guidance counsellor is, but we already have a commitment that is enshrined in primary legislation in Wales for there to be a school counselling offer for all learners aged six and above. That is what is in place in Wales: all learners have got access to a school counselling service. It's an independent service, which is very important from a safeguarding point of view, because we've had situations in schools where some of the staff—. Obviously, we've had the Foden inquiry and everything that arose from that. If your guidance counsellors are people who are going to upskill the workforce, then we're already doing that; I've already told Dysgu that we expect well-being to be a core part of their work. So, we're upskilling the school workforce already. I take the view that this isn't about individuals in schools; mental health in schools is everybody's business, whether it's a caretaker or a teacher or a learning support assistant—it's everybody's business in a school.

You asked about ALN as well. Obviously, I've set out in committee the extensive steps we're taking on ALN. As you know, I commissioned the review of ALN. That found that although there were strengths in the system and that there was good support for the key principles underpinning the ALN reforms—in particular the focus on inclusion—there were also inconsistencies in the system in the way that the legislation is being implemented.

I set out five immediate priorities on the back of that legislative review. First of all, to clarify the legal definitions, and we've got guidance being issued on that by the end of March; to improve national consistency, and we'll be laying new regulations on data so that we've got a much clearer picture of what's happening in ALN across Wales. But I also have a national board now, a delivery board for ALN. I committed to providing more information and support for families. We published the ALN parent toolkit in the autumn. We're in the late stages now of a review of advocacy services, and I hope that we will have a much stronger advocacy offer. I committed to strengthening multi-agency collaboration, particularly with health, and that work is being taken forward. And a longer term commitment, then, to embed our vision for a bilingual inclusive education system. That is very much the road that we're on in Wales. We don't want ALN to be over there; ALN is part of everybody's business in a school. We want all our learners to feel valued, to feel that they belong, and that they can progress.

Thank you for the statement, Cabinet Secretary. As articles 28 and 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child make clear, every child has the right to a high-quality education, but rights on paper are not always reflected in reality. And if we are serious about supportive and inclusive education, we must ask who continues to be left behind and why, and how we can solve that—how are we going to deliver on our commitments to children's rights.

I welcome the focus in your statement on the importance of tackling child poverty in this regard, because one of the most obvious barriers to attainment is poverty. Too many children in Wales grow up in homes that are under significant financial pressures. One in four of them are living in poverty. Poverty has an impact on attendance, attainment and well-being. A child who comes to school hungry, as you mentioned, worried about finances at home or without the basic resources they need is already at an educational disadvantage. So, any measures—like those that you've listed—to ensure genuine inclusion will be undermined while poverty continues to have such an influence on children's educational experiences.

You've mentioned a number of the things that are already being done, but what further steps will you be taking within your own powers and in terms of your discussions with partners at Westminster to ensure that a child's background does not define their educational attainment or future prospects? You mentioned the important contribution being made by free school meals in our primary schools—a measure introduced, of course, following an agreement with Plaid Cymru. But while acknowledging the effectiveness of such a measure, I'd like to ask why there are young people in our secondary schools from families that are eligible for universal credit but who are not eligible for free school meals. It would cost relatively little to change this, but you've not taken action on it, even though it would have a major impact on their well-being and attainment. So, perhaps you could explain why you haven't taken that step.

In terms of what is in Westminster's hands, they have at last, and we welcome that, lifted the two-child limit. But anti-poverty organisations such as the Bevan Foundation have suggested that a decrease of around 3 to 4 per cent in child poverty levels in Wales will be the impact of that change, and they're calling for a change to the cap on benefits, another Conservative policy that remains in place. So, what discussions have you had with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice and with the Westminster Government regarding the need to review the cap on benefits? What assessment have you made of how the cap will continue to affect child poverty levels and, therefore, educational outcomes in Wales?

I would also like to raise the point that you made regarding access to higher education. I do think that it's entirely misleading to say that no young person is being held back in terms of access to higher education by costs. Do you accept that the wholly immoral student finance system that we have increasingly means that higher education is something that only wealthier families will be able to access in future? While there is great emphasis, and I acknowledge this, on support for students from the poorest backgrounds in Wales, the National Union of Students Wales warns that the current system is unfair and unsustainable for the majority. Do you agree? And if so, what discussions are you having with the Government in Westminster in that regard? And are there any adjustments that you would like to see in terms of the system and the powers that we have over it in Wales?

For other children, the barriers aren't just economic that prevent them from reaching their potential, but there are structural barriers too. Disabled children and young people continue to face delays before receiving assessments, with inconsistencies between local authorities and difficulties in securing the reasonable adaptations that they need. True inclusion means ensuring participation, doesn't it, and support and dignity. So, how will the Government ensure that the support is consistent for disabled young people and children across Wales, and that that doesn't just mean that they can get to school, but that they can thrive at school?

I'd also like to ask, finally—. You've mentioned in great depth the reforms, in terms of additional learning needs in Wales. But we've seen, haven't we, over the past few days, proposals by the Government in Westminster to reform what is happening in England, with a focus on earlier intervention and greater consistency. These developments could have implications for Wales, for example through consequential funding or cross-border provision. So, can I ask you what assessment the Welsh Government has made of the possible impact of those plans? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Sioned, for those points, and thank you for opening your comments by referring to the UNCRC. I think it's important that we always see these things in a context of children's rights. And I wanted to say as well to you that, when I talk about inclusion, I'm talking not just about children with additional learning needs, children who are disabled—I'm talking about children who are living with trauma, children whose behaviour is affected by their lives outside school, and I'm talking about children who experience barriers to their education because of the poverty that they live in. And I've been very clear that, as a department, we are taking that broad lens to inclusion, which is absolutely vital.

I set out some of the things that we're doing. The universal primary free school meals—which, yes, was a commitment delivered together with Plaid Cymru—has made a very significant difference to putting money into families' pockets and making sure that children are not in school hungry. The school essentials grant has been really, really important in helping to break down those barriers. You referred to an extension of free school meals in secondary schools. That is something that I would very much like to have done, but there wasn't sufficient money in the budget for next year to do it. I have been clear with officials that it is something that I'm very keen that we look at, and we've made available a small amount of money to local government to start to look at what would be needed, because you'll recall that, with the universal primary free school meals, a lot of the investment was around things like bigger kitchens and things like that—capital as well.

[Inaudible.]

Yes. I was very open with the children's committee that I was keen to do this, but the budget that was passed did not allow sufficient funding to do that. I hope it's something that we can continue to look at. I was at Whitmore High School a few months ago where I met with some learners who were 16 and 17, and it was really hard to listen to them telling me that they didn't have enough to eat at lunchtime. I think we need a particular focus on those learners who are going to be doing their exams. So, that's something that we continue to discuss as a Government.

We're doing other things. We've had a very successful poverty-proofing pilot, which has been operating in different parts of Wales. I've just had the evaluation for that, and we're looking to extend that now to other parts of Wales. I referred as well to the pupil development grant. We're investing a huge sum of money in that every year, but what we're not seeing is that attainment gap closing. Obviously, that has to be fundamental to what we're doing. I do discuss, in answer to your question, these matters regularly with my colleague Jane Hutt, who would be the one who would lead for the Welsh Government in discussions with the UK Government. I know that Jane is as committed to tackling the impact of poverty in education as I am, and the actions in the child poverty action plan cover education, and we continue to have that dialogue, and then I know that Jane feeds back on these issues and discusses these issues with Westminster.

In terms of the student finance system, we do have already the most generous student financial support system in the UK. That is as a result of our Diamond reforms, which were purposefully progressive. I know my colleague Vikki Howells is waiting for the evaluation of the Diamond reforms at the moment. I do recognise that it's still really tough for young people, and obviously there has been a lot of focus on increased debt for young people. I think we have to remember that getting a degree these days is no longer a meal ticket for lots of young people. That is something that worries me. You will have heard the First Minister confirm in the Chamber that we have been in discussions with the UK Government around their plan to freeze, and we have communicated to the UK Government that we are not implementing the plan to freeze in Wales. Those discussions are ongoing, but as part of that work, myself and Vikki Howells are completely focused on how we protect the interests of Welsh learners.

In terms of disability issues, we will be issuing new guidance, as I said, by the end of March. That is also clear on the need for reasonable adjustments for disabled learners, as well as learners who have significantly more difficulty learning. You referred to the White Paper that was published yesterday, which I was very interested to see. I do have to say that most of what is in the White Paper we are doing as a Government. We're committed to inclusion, committed to multi-agency support for schools, committed to improving relationships and that sort of social partnership with families, tackling the attainment gap—all those things. We are actively on that journey already in Wales. There was a funding announcement, as you saw, attached to it, so we're waiting to hear what that means in terms of consequentials for Welsh Government. As I've done throughout my time in this job, I will be making the strongest possible case for those consequentials to reach the education department to benefit children and young people.

Unlike the Member who is the Conservative spokesperson for education, I, obviously, am living in a different world here. So, I would like to congratulate you on the work that you have done. I think that you have given exemplary leadership as Cabinet Secretary for Education. You haven't shied away from the challenges, and I think you've come up with solutions. People who came before you have also come up with good solutions. I think the fact that we have the Welsh curriculum, which allows school leaders to shape what they're teaching children to the reality of their lives, is just a massive bonus that I know my daughter in England is unable to take advantage of. I think we have so much to be proud of in Wales, and that's why I was so disappointed at the earlier statement from the other side of the Chamber.

I think it's a real success story that we have this system of providing all children aged over six with access to counselling, because it means that we can be sure that children can report if they're feeling unwell mentally, without medicalising them. I think it's a massive success that only 1.7 per cent of learners are being referred to CAMHS, because they're not then taking with them a record of mental illness before they've even started their young lives, and that's just hugely significant. So, thank you so much for everything you've done, and I think, building on the work that's gone before, there's so much that we have to be proud of here.

I've got two questions. One is—. The pupil deprivation grant is determined by eligibility for free school meals. In primary schools, you can get a free school meal without having to register. One of my schools has had a 14 per cent drop between last year and the year before, and the children haven't changed. So, how are you planning to approach that very significant issue, so that the schools who have the most deprivation are able to continue to get the extra resources they need to support those children and hopefully tackle the attainment gap?

Secondly, unfortunately, we live in a society where the political discourse at the moment is incredibly unhelpful, and the well-being of young people is undoubtedly going to be affected by some of the racist language being used by people who should know better. So, I wondered if you could tell us a little bit about how the diversity and anti-racist professional learning and the mandatory obligation to teach black history in schools, which I think we should be incredibly proud of, the idea that we're all white and always have been is absolute nonsense—. So, I wondered if you could tell us how well schools are coping, particularly in secondary schools, which is where that discourse becomes a lot more challenging for teachers to deal with.

Thanks, Jenny, and thank you for your kind words. It's those at year 6 and above that are able to access the counselling, although we do have initiatives for younger children, but it's less of a  sort of—. Counselling is a model that relies on agency, so it's more like play therapy and things like that for younger children.

You make a really important point in relation to the PDG, and that's something that we've been really worried about since the introduction of universal primary free school meals, because schools are really worried that they're losing out on money. That's why we, as a Government, have been promoting the need for families to register as eligible for free school meals regardless. If they would've been eligible, we want them to sign up for them. Schools themselves are very active, because obviously they know that they get the PDG money. It passports to the schools essentials grant. But we're also working with the UK Government on some new legislation. I've forgotten the name of the Bill that's going through, but it'll enable digital sharing of information that will hopefully enable us to automatically register families for free school meals, if they would've been eligible anyway. So, hopefully, there'll be fewer families that will fall through the gaps. I mean, the other thing, just to reassure you, is that we do try to compensate for the fact that some schools are seeing a drop, by something that we call our 'smoothing allocation' for PDG. So, if they've seen a drop, then we do give them some extra money to compensate for that, but, obviously, it's much better to have the up-to-date data.

We are also, as a Government, doing a piece of work that we've called 'Beyond eFSM', which is looking at other ways we can measure poverty. I was very interested in the White Paper yesterday. One of the issues the UK Government have picked up on is that sort of measurement that we've always relied on for years, the right one to actually measure if families really need the help or not.

You make important points about political discourse. Unfortunately, we have seen some very ugly situations in Wales, in communities, but also in schools like Sea View Community Primary School in Swansea, where they've been the focus of far-right activity, and where it's been very, very frightening for children and for families. As a Government, we've been working with the Association of Directors of Education in Wales to try and put more support in for schools who are in those situations, and also to try and help parents understand things as well, because, in some of the areas, those difficulties have arisen from religion, values and ethics lessons. I think a lot of it can come from lack of understanding as well, so we're looking at better communication with families so that they understand this is about a pluralistic approach to try and avoid having episodes like that again.

We're fully committed to our anti-racist action plan and the education actions in that. Diversity and Anti-Racist Professional Learning is a huge success story, and it continues to have a huge impact and roll out their training across Wales. All I ever get is really positive feedback from people who do the DARPL training, which is called DARPL-ing. They've come and, as you know, done some DARPL-ing with us as a Labour group and I would encourage anyone to take the opportunity to DARPL. It will be a really enriching experience.

It's also about things like the black history curriculum. You can't be what you can't see, can you? And it's about things like our incentives to encourage more teachers from ethnic minority communities as well, but also to add that we also really recognise the toxicity of racist bullying as well. We know that that's something that the children's commissioner has been very concerned about. We're about to issue new guidance on anti-bullying, which will strengthen the anti-racist protections. But we're also trying to get more data and it is complicated to get data from schools, sometimes, on racist incidents, because sometimes racism can be perceived in certain ways by school staff. But that's a piece of work that we're doing so that we can have a much deeper oversight of what's happening in that space. In the same way as I said to Sioned, it's about inclusion in the wider sense. It's also about including kids affected by racism, kids who are experiencing LGBTQ discrimination. I want our schools to be safe, inclusive places for all our learners to thrive.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary. 

The next item is item 7, the Building Safety Act 2022 (Consequential Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2026. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning to move the motion—Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. In December last year, regulations were made that reformed the manner in which building control approval is conducted in Wales. These were needed to enable change as a result of Dame Judith Hackitt's recommendations to improve safety and accountability following the Grenfell Tower tragedy. These changes have been part of an ongoing strategy to reform the building control sector, and to improve safety in higher risk residential buildings, though they also affect the wider process of building control.

The regulations being discussed today are consequential upon those made in December. They update the terminology across other primary and secondary legislation. They do not alter the intent or the meaning of the legislation they amend, but ensure that existing legislation continues to operate as it currently does once the new suite of new legislation comes into force on 1 July.

December's legislation introduces the term 'application for building control approval' to the lexicon in relation to building work, and shifts the position of procedures relating to this from the Building Act 1984 to the Building Regulations 2010. This instrument ensures that other pieces of legislation, including various local Acts, are updated to reflect this change.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the draft regulations on 9 February and the Welsh Government's response yesterday. The committee's report contains four technical reporting points. The first identifies an erroneous reference to the parent Act in the italic headnotes. The second highlighted a typographical error that results in the amendment failing to correctly identify the existing text for substitution, and the third reporting point identifies an inconsistency between the English and Welsh texts. The Welsh Government acknowledged the matters raised in the scrutiny points, but does not intend to take further action. The fourth reporting point asked the Welsh Government to clarify whether the new definition of 'building safety authority' inserted by the regulations into various Acts is referenced precisely enough to realise the policy intent. In its response, the Welsh Government assured the committee it believes that the reference is correct.

A very brief intervention, please, just to put on record the concerns we have that we need to ensure that remediations remain very central within these regulations. We know that, for many residents who've been in touch with us, a pressing issue is not future regulation, but the incomplete works that they currently have. So, I just really would appreciate the Cabinet member's response to that. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Do you want to respond, Cabinet Secretary?

Yes, just to thank particularly the committee for its work. The regulations we're debating today will ensure the proper functioning of the changes to the building control procedures that come into force later this year, and those changes provide the basis for more rigour and oversight of complex residential buildings where the impact of fire or structural failings has the potential to be devastating, with a high loss of life, as we saw in Grenfell. But the regulations, as I say, that we're debating and voting on today are very much about updating the terminology across legislation rather than introducing new policy.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, the motion under that item is agreed. 

Item 8 is next, the Regulated Adoption Services (Service Providers and Responsible Individuals) and Adoption Support Services (Local Authorities) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2026. The Minister for Children and Social Care to move the motion—Dawn Bowden. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The Welsh statutory instrument before you today introduces amendments to the regulated adoption services regulations 2019 and the adoption support services regulations 2005. These amendments represent a thoughtful, proportionate and forward-looking modernisation of Wales’s adoption framework. At their heart, these reforms are about ensuring that children, adults and families can access the right support at the right time, free from unnecessary barriers, duplication or delay. They've been informed by direct feedback from the adoption sector, including local authorities, voluntary adoption agencies, practitioners and representative bodies. Engagement highlighted areas where existing regulations were creating uncertainty, did not fully reflect current practice, or were unintentionally restrictive. The changes within this statutory instrument seek to respond to those issues, and by removing the requirement for certain providers of adoption services to register with Care Inspectorate Wales, particularly those contracted by local authorities, we anticipate an increased number of professionals will be available to provide support, and families will be able to access trauma-informed and expert help more quickly, something that is essential when needs are urgent and deeply personal.

The introduction of an exemption from the requirement to register for providers of adult counselling relating to adoption reflects a simple truth: adopted adults are fully capable of making informed decisions about the support they seek. Removing layers of regulation that add little value will ensure that counselling in relation to adoption is more accessible, more responsive and better aligned with the wider therapeutic landscape. Crucially, the professional standards that underpin quality and safety will remain firmly in place.

Alongside these changes, the regulations modernise outdated terminology, clarify the range of support services that local authorities must offer, and align cross-references in provisions to create a more coherent and inclusive legal framework. While these amendments do not alter the substance of adoption support, they ensure that the system is clearer, more consistent, and more reflective of modern family structures and lived experiences.

Taken together, this package of reform removes duplication where it serves no purpose, strengthens clarity where it is most needed, and focuses regulation where it has the greatest impact. The result is a more flexible, proportionate and effective adoptive support system, one that better serves children, adults and families across Wales. Diolch.

I'm supportive of the intention behind these regulations and recognise the rationale for ensuring that the regulatory framework is proportionate and avoids unnecessary duplication, particularly where qualified professionals may already be subject to professional standards and oversight. However, I'd like to press the Minister a little further on the extension of exemptions from registration in relation to certain adult adoption-related counselling services. While I understand the argument for flexibility, adoption-related therapeutic support can involve complex trauma, identity issues and safeguarding sensitivities. Removing the requirement to register with Care Inspectorate Wales inevitably changes the nature of the oversight that applies. Some stakeholders may have concerns about whether exempting such services from registration with Care Inspectorate Wales could reduce the level of formal oversight that applies to what can be highly sensitive and specialist therapeutic support. In particular, it would be helpful to have on the record how the Government is satisfied that appropriate safeguards, accountability mechanisms and clarity around regulatory boundaries will remain in place so that adopted adults accessing counselling services continue to receive consistent and high-quality support. I'm sure the Minister will be able to provide me with those reassurances.

The Minister to reply—Dawn Bowden.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Before I respond to the points that Mabon has raised, I just wanted to reflect on what the amendments represent for adoption support in Wales and, most importantly, the people who rely on it. At their core, these reforms are about creating a system that works with people, not one that places obstacles in their way, and I think that's what you're acknowledging. For too long, our services have operated within a framework that hasn't kept pace with modern practice or with the evolving needs of children, adults and families, and so today's changes help to ensure that the law supports good practice rather than constrains it.

The amendments strengthen clarity, they reduce unnecessary complexity and they remove barriers that can delay access to vital support. By streamlining the regulatory landscape, we're enabling practitioners to focus their time and expertise where it's needed most, providing timely, compassionate and therapeutic support to those affected by adoption. And in particular response to Mabon's question, this exemption is intended to strengthen support for adopted adults by removing the administrative barriers that can slow down or complicate access to counselling.

It is sometimes difficult to identify whether counselling will centre around adoption before the advice starts. So, if adoption-related issues are unearthed during counselling sessions, and these are the primary concerns of the focus, then the counsellor is prevented, under the existing framework, from continuing to work with the client unless they register with CIW, thus potentially causing upheaval in an already difficult time, leading to a reduction in professionals offering the adoption-related services, and, importantly, that change will increase the availability of counsellors at a time when we know that there's a growing need for that more specialist adoption-aware therapeutic support. It acknowledges that adopted adults may seek counselling at an important and often emotionally significant moment in their lives, and ensures that they can receive timely, appropriate support when it's most needed. And by enabling a wider range of professionals to provide that counselling, then that change increases the choice and the flexibility for adopted adults. It broadens access to practitioners with specialist adoption-related knowledge and experience, ensuring that adults can draw on therapeutic support that is more informed, tailored and grounded in a deep understanding of the adoption-specific issues. But the underlying safeguards that you've referred to are all still included in that process, as already sits at the moment.

The legislation also reflects a broader and important shift in approach, because it recognises the autonomy and the lived experience of adopted people, the diverse forms of family created through adoption and the value of responsive, person-centred support. And by refining the framework, we're reinforcing an environment where services are delivered flexibly, proportionately and with respect for both professional judgment and the individual choice. Crucially, the changes maintain the strong safeguards—which I think is the point you were flagging, Mabon—the standards and the statutory responsibilities that underpin a safe and high-quality service. What they remove is regulation that no longer adds value. So, the outcome is a system where quality is strengthened through clarity and coherence, not unnecessary bureaucracy.

Taken together, the amendments made by these regulations represent a considered and measured approach to modernising our adoption support framework. They make the system easier to navigate, more adaptable to current practice, and better placed to evolve with the needs of the people it serves. They do not alter the fundamental duties of our local authorities or our partners, but they do give them the clarity and flexibility needed to provide support that is timely, effective and grounded in the needs of the individuals. So, these reforms strengthen the system where necessary, simplify it where possible, and focus our collective efforts where they have the greatest impact on improving outcomes for children, adults and families across Wales. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, the motion under item 8 is agreed.

Item 9 is next. The Food Supplements (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (Wales) Regulations 2026. The Minister for Mental Health and Well-being is moving the motion—Sarah Murphy.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. This afternoon, I am asking the Senedd to approve the Food Supplements (Magnesium L-threonate monohydrate) (Wales) Regulations 2026. These regulations would approve the use of magnesium L-threonate monohydrate for use in food supplements. The comprehensive safety assessment of this form of magnesium for use in food supplements has been carried out by the Food Standards Agency, and a public consultation was held in December 2024. I have previously taken action in line with my counterparts across the UK to authorise magnesium L-threonate as a novel food. These regulations will enable the novel food to be produced and sold in Wales especially for use in food supplements. The effective date for the novel food authorisation aligns with the commencement date for these regulations, if they are approved today. The substance is already authorised for use in the EU, both as a novel food and for use in food supplements. Ministers in Scotland have laid similar regulations before the Scottish Parliament, and the UK Government is preparing to update its legislation to allow the use of this form of magnesium in food supplements in England. If these regulations are approved by the Senedd today, they will come into force on 5 March. I ask Members to support these regulations. Diolch.

I have no speakers in this debate. I trust the Minister doesn't want to respond to herself. Therefore, I'll ask the question.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, that motion under item 9 is agreed.

The Higher Education (Fee Limits) (Wales) Regulations 2026 are next. The Minister for Further and Higher Education to move the motion—Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion. The Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 establishes a comprehensive regulatory regime for tertiary education in Wales, including the establishment of a register of providers of higher education. The register, on track to be established by Medr this July, will enable Medr to deliver effective, proportionate and accountable regulation of our diverse higher education sector, including in relation to tuition fee limits.

The Higher Education (Fee Limits) (Wales) Regulations 2026, which I consulted on last year, prescribe the maximum tuition fees that institutions may charge qualifying persons pursuing qualifying courses. These fee limits, together with financial support from the Welsh Government, ensure higher education remains affordable. The regulations are being made at this time to ensure the full legislative framework is in place, thereby enabling Medr to establish the register of providers of higher education. The fee limits specified in the regulations will first apply in academic year 2027-28, and at this time reflect the fee limits we have recently specified for the upcoming academic year. The determining of the final fee limits for academic year 2027-28 will be a matter for the incoming Government.

I would like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for their work in reviewing these regulations. As I set out in my response to the committee, these regulations can be understood without requiring reference to the detailed definitions of 'qualifying persons' and 'qualifying courses'. I ask Members to support the motion.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee considered the draft regulations on 9 February and the Welsh Government's response yesterday. The committee's report contains one merits reporting point, which notes that, in the explanatory memorandum, the Welsh Government stated that a second set of regulations would provide the definitions for the terms a 'qualifying course' and a 'qualifying person'. That second set of regulations has not yet been laid, therefore we cannot consider the scope of the terms set out in these regulations and how the maximum fee limits will apply in practice. The Welsh Government's response states that the two instruments serve distinct purposes. These regulations are intended to set out the fee limits themselves, while the second set of as yet unlaid regulations will determine how those limits are applied.

Thank you, Minister, for bringing these regulations forward this afternoon. My Welsh Conservative colleagues and I will not be supporting the regulations and we will be voting against them.

We know that the higher education sector is under financial pressures and that burden, as far as I'm concerned, should not be offloaded onto students with fee increments. The Welsh Conservatives have indeed been clear that we need a system that works for everyone, and, at the moment, that is not the case. We need a comprehensive review of the system and we need to provide a sustainable further and higher education sector for all. Unlike Plaid Cymru, who want to do away with tuition fees altogether, the Welsh Conservatives have a plan to ensure sustainability within the sector should we form the next Government. We have students going to university, Presiding Officer, racking up obscene amounts of debt, which they'll be paying off for years to come, and sometimes failing to get a decent job, which is just simply not fair.

We want to balance the financial stability of tertiary education providers with the needs of students, to be an urgent area of focus within the next Welsh Government. But simply hiking up tuition fees as a sticking plaster without proper, wider measures is simply not going to be the answer, and that's why we are not going to be supporting these regulations today. Thank you so much.

Thank you to the Minister for bringing this forward this afternoon.

As we all are aware, the higher education sector is under severe financial pressure, and, clearly, sustainability remains a top priority for our institutions. Taken together, the eight universities report an aggregate deficit of around £116 million for 2024-25. Therefore, whilst there is that proposed higher cap of £9,790 in these regulations, we know that, alone, this will not solve the funding crisis facing our Welsh universities. That's why Plaid Cymru will be abstaining on these regulations today. We believe that a serious system-wide rethink is needed, and that is exactly a commitment that a Plaid Cymru Government would pursue.

We need to see greater progress in terms of putting our universities on a sustainable footing. We need to ensure that it delivers better value for both students and universities, in terms of our higher education being back on a sustainable path. And we're also aware that another part of the challenge facing the sector is participation, something that incremental fee increases fail to address. We want to ensure that this is an option for everyone, irrespective of background, and we know that too many students are leaving further education, with high interest rates—looking at that as something that will put them off entering higher education. So, there are some practical, immediate steps that we would like to start working on from day 1 in Government. We have offered to work cross-party on a number of these things, but that's why we will be abstaining today.

The Minister to reply.

Diolch, Llywydd. If I respond, first of all, to Mike Hedges's comments in his capacity as the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, just to reiterate that these regulations are intended to set out the fee limits themselves, while the separate regulations on qualifying courses and persons will determine how those limits are applied. As such, the two instruments serve distinct purposes. It's not essential for them to be laid simultaneously, but I can, however, confirm that I intend to make the qualifying courses and persons regulations tomorrow.

Responding to Natasha Asghar's points, I think, Natasha, you know, as well as everyone else on the education committee, that Wales is the only part of the UK that still has a shortage of graduates. And we all have a responsibility in this Chamber to be very direct, honest and upfront with students about the value of having a degree. And I don't think your party political point scoring really fits into that category. This fee increase will not reduce the money available to students while they study; neither will graduates repay more each month. Only those who go on to be the highest earning graduates will likely pay back this increased fee, and that's a really important factual point to get out there. In addition to that, let's remember that this increased tuition fee cap will provide an estimated £19 million additional income to our Welsh higher education institutions.

And then, turning to Heledd's point there, I and my colleagues in Welsh Government absolutely agree and acknowledge that this tuition fee increase won't solve the financial challenges facing our higher education sector alone. That's why I set up a ministerial advisory group to look at the future participation and sustainability of the whole of the tertiary system, including, of course, our universities. The call for submissions for that is still open and will close at the end of March, and this will then be a really big, comprehensive piece of work, more comprehensive than anything undertaken in the rest of the UK to date. That will form the basis, then, of advice to an incoming Government about how to tackle those wider issues that you refer to.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. Therefore, we'll defer voting until voting time.

Item 11 has been postponed.

Item 12 is the legislative consent motion on the Victims and Courts Bill. The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice is moving this motion—Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and I move the motion and recommend that the Senedd consent to the relevant provisions in the Victims and Courts Bill as set out in the legislative consent memorandum laid on this Bill. The Bill introduces important provisions. It gives judges new powers to compel offenders to attend sentencing hearings, ensuring that they face the consequences of their actions. Those who refuse to attend without reasonable excuse could receive additional penalties, including up to two years' imprisonment. It also automatically restricts parental responsibility for individuals convicted of serious child sexual abuse, a vital safety measure that will strengthen protections for victims and spare families further distress and trauma.

The Bill enhances the role of the victims' commissioner, expanding scrutiny of how victims are supported and improving accountability across the justice system. It ensures that victims have clarity about how to access information relating to an offender's release by updating the legislative framework for the victim contact scheme, creating a statutory right to make representations on licence conditions, and establishing a dedicated victim helpline.

Taken together, these measures send a clear message that justice must be visible, meaningful and centred on the experiences of victims, families and communities. These measures are supportive of our ambition in Wales to eradicate violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence by strengthening the legal framework around victim and survivor experiences and protections.

Whilst the vast majority of this Bill is reserved, there are provisions that fall within the legislative competence of the Senedd, as outlined in the memoranda. The clauses that I refer to today are the clause numbers as they appear in the latest version of the Bill, as published on 28 October 2025.

I would like to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for the consideration they've given to the Welsh Government's LCM on the Victims and Courts Bill and for the reports they have published. The committee has agreed with the Welsh Government's view that consent is required for clauses 3, 4 and 9.

Clause 3 creates an automatic restriction on the exercise of parental responsibility for offenders sentenced to four or more years in prison for a serious child sexual abuse offence. Clause 4 makes similar provision for restriction of the exercise of parental responsibility where an offender is convicted of rape and has parental responsibility for a child who was or may have been conceived as a result of that rape. Clause 9 requires local authorities and social housing providers, where they're engaged with victims of anti-social behaviour, to co-operate with the victims' commissioner where appropriate and reasonably practicable.

The Welsh Government has been consulted and has worked with the UK Government in the development of this legislation, and we will continue to do so as the Bill progresses through its final parliamentary stages. Llywydd, recognising the importance of the Victims and Courts Bill and the positive impact it will have across Wales, I recommend that the Senedd supports this Bill and gives its consent. Diolch.

The Chair of the legislation committee, Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee has laid two reports on the Welsh Government's legislative consent memoranda for this Bill. The committee's first report was laid last July. This report considered the first legislative consent memorandum. As stated in that report, we agree with the Welsh Government's assessment in the memorandum that clause 7 of the Bill requires the Senedd's consent. The committee also noted in that report that good inter-governmental working took place between the UK Government and the Welsh Government during the Bill’s development.

We laid our second report, on memorandum No. 2, in January. In memorandum No. 2, the Cabinet Secretary identifies an amendment made to clause 3 of the Bill at Commons Report Stage as requiring consent. The Cabinet Secretary also noted that following a review of the amendments tabled, other provisions in clause 3 require the consent of the Senedd. As the committee states in its report on memorandum No. 2, we agree with this assessment.

Plaid Cymru will be supporting this motion today, although we continue to believe that the best way of delivering the general objectives of this Bill in Wales would be by devolving justice and policing powers fully to Wales, as is supported by a wealth of academic evidence. We see the impact of this legislative consent memorandum, which will improve collaboration between local authorities and the victims' commissioner in cases of antisocial behaviour, as a sensible, reasonable and proportionate step, and we will therefore support it.

The Cabinet Secretary to respond, if she so wishes. No. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? There is no objection, therefore that motion under item 12 is agreed.

Item 13 is next, a legislative consent motion on the Pension Schemes Bill. The Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government to move the motion. Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion and recommend that the Senedd consents to the relevant provisions in the Pension Schemes Bill, as set out in the legislative consent memoranda laid on this Bill.

As part of wider reforms to the UK pensions landscape, the Pension Schemes Bill will enable reforms to investment management in the local government pension scheme. The aim is to secure the benefits of scale, including greater expertise, better value for money and improved resilience. These should benefit members and employers.

The clauses for which the Senedd consent is sought through the initial legislative consent memorandum provide powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations about how the eight pension administering authorities, which are devolved Welsh authorities, operate in relation to the local government pension scheme.

The amendment to clause 4, considered in the further legislative consent memorandum, confers a function on Welsh Ministers as an appropriate authority under the Procurement Act 2023. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that contracts between local government pension scheme administering authorities and the local government pension scheme asset pools to conduct investment management activities are treated as in-house rather than as public contracts. It includes a power for the appropriate authority to make regulations about the calculation of the proportion of activity that should be carried out for, or on behalf of, the local government pension scheme managers for this to apply.

Llywydd, I am grateful to the committees for their scrutiny of the first legislative consent memorandum. I regret that the second memorandum was laid too late for similar scrutiny and I apologise to Members for that. I am pleased that the benefits of a single pension pool for Wales have been recognised by the UK Government in confirming the existing Wales Pension Partnership as the pension asset pool for Wales. I would like to give credit to the partnership, which has, since 2017, been working to bring those benefits of scale to the local government pension scheme in Wales.

The Bill aims to strengthen pension investment, securing better outcomes and greater value in pension schemes for the benefit of Members, and I ask the Senedd to consent. Diolch yn fawr.

The Chair of the legislation committee next, Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee report on the legislative consent memorandum for this Bill was laid last November. As stated in the report, the committee agrees with the assessment made by the Welsh Government in that memorandum of the provisions requiring consent.

Our report also noted that the Bill will enable UK Government Ministers to merge two or more local government pension scheme funds, including a compulsory merger. We highlighted that if funds were merged in Wales, this would have the effect of removing functions from a devolved Welsh authority.

The Welsh Government laid a supplementary legislative consent memorandum for this Bill on Thursday, 12 February, just before the spring half-term recess. This memorandum covers amendments to the Bill that the UK Government tabled on 1 December last year. The memorandum was therefore laid over 10 weeks after this date. Cabinet Secretary, you will know that Standing Orders provide for a two-week period for a memorandum to be laid in a case like this one. I would be grateful if you could explain why there was such a long delay in the laying of the supplementary memorandum.

Because of this delay, the committee was not able to undertake meaningful scrutiny of the supplementary legislative consent memorandum beyond a brief consideration at our meeting yesterday. Our consideration did, however, raise a question about a new clause inserted into the Bill—clause 3 entitled 'Additional powers for certain scheme managers'. The supplementary legislative consent memorandum suggests it is mentioned for information only, but consent has not been sought for it in this supplementary memorandum nor in the initial memorandum. As a result of this, and the changes to clause numbering, it is not clear to the committee which clauses of the Bill now require consent, and so I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could provide some clarity on this matter too.

Plaid Cymru will be voting against this legislative consent motion, as it would give the Secretary of State too much control over pension asset funds in Wales.

Once again, we see Westminster attempting to centralise power, and the Labour Party here willing to allow further intervention in the powers of this Senedd. Although vocational pension funds are currently a reserved matter, the administrative authorities in Wales—namely our local authorities—are devolved bodies.

The explanatory memorandum notes that the Minister for Pensions has confirmed in writing that the Wales Pension Partnership will continue as the assets pool for Wales. Of course, this is to be welcomed and reflects what we called for when the UK Government’s initial policy intention was announced. However, the Bill gives wide-ranging powers to the current and future UK Governments to overturn this arrangement with ease.

Section 1 allows the Secretary of State to require administrative authorities to withdraw from a specified assets pool, including the Wales Pension Partnership. In addition, section 5 provides a power to require the merging of pension funds. This raises significant concerns. A future Secretary of State, for example, could merge Flintshire’s pension fund with schemes in Cheshire or Liverpool, channelling Welsh pension assets into investments that do not provide direct benefits to Wales. Cardiff’s pension fund could be compelled to withdraw from the Wales Pension Partnership to join an assets pool in south-west England.

Although the Wales Pension Partnership is not perfect—and Plaid Cymru, if we were to form the next Welsh Government, would introduce reforms to strengthen its ability to support sustainable investments and to retain more of Wales’s wealth in our communities—this Bill opens the door to its destruction. There are no guarantees that Wales’s pension assets, which are our citizens’ wealth, will continue to be managed in accordance with Wales’s priorities rather than those of Westminster.

The Labour Welsh Government’s recent approach to legislative consent motions is concerning. It is hard to believe that the previous Westminster Government would have received consent so easily for measures that would give so much power to a Secretary of State over pension funds administered by local authorities in Wales. And we have to be honest here: with the possibility of a Reform UK Government in 2029 on the British level—a party that opposes devolution and even denies climate change—there is a vital need to safeguard Wales’s interests. That's why Plaid Cymru with be opposing this motion. And that’s why I encourage every other Member of the Senedd to oppose it too.

Can I declare an interest, as I have a small pension with the Clwyd pension fund from when I was previously a councillor? I am hugely concerned. Richard Tice MP from Reform has announced a policy that will have a disproportionate and devastating impact in Wales, with one in nine workers in Wales affected. He's unveiled plans to scrap defined benefit pensions for local government workers.

Around 140,000 people work for local councils, delivering front-line, vital services like schools, social care and refuse collection. It's one of our biggest employers in Wales. It's not a bloated workforce, as Reform keep making out. They have reorganised, they've restructured and are stretched after year upon year of cuts. There is no fat left.

I remember, as a councillor, when we were struggling to fill waste operative vacancies, we would occasionally have to use agency workers, who weren't always reliable and did not know the rounds, so would take longer. Our biggest sell to them, to encourage direct employment, was that workers would have a good pension. So, even though the wages aren't great and they had to walk 13 miles in all weathers, they could think that, in the long term, they would have a decent pension and they had decent holidays.

As well as scrapping the current pensions of council workers, Mr Tice will also outline plans to abolish Wales's biggest ever pension fund, which is crucial to driving local investment across Wales. Reform proposes to merge the Wales Pension Partnership and its £25 billion of assets into a UK-wide fund that would not be focused on Wales. The partnership is already supporting thousands of jobs and projects across Wales, including housing and energy. We recently received a petition to our Petitions Committee, seeking reassurance that Welsh pensions will continue to be invested in ethical projects in Wales, decided by Wales. I had assurance then from the UK pensions Minister, Torsten Bell. Wales is a member of the Beyond Gas and Oil Alliance. We have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. We need access to the £25 billion investment opportunity to build decent homes in Wales. Torsten Bell, the pensions Minister, said that these plans would bring chaos to the pensions of over 100,000 workers in Wales. Their plan to abolish the biggest pension fund in Welsh history, recently created by the UK Labour Government, would undermine local investment across our Welsh constituencies. Cabinet Secretary, would you comment on this?

The Cabinet Secretary now to reply. Jayne Bryant. 

Diolch, Llywydd. In closing this debate, I'd also like to declare an interest as a former local government worker and being part of a local government pension scheme.

I'd just like to thank the committees and Members for their contributions to today's debate. As I said earlier, I do regret that, due to timing pressures, we weren't able to have the proper time for that proper scrutiny throughout that process.

But I note that the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee highlighted in its report that the Bill allowed the potential for a Secretary of State to subsequently merge pension funds and that, if funds were merged in Wales, this would have the effect of removing functions from a devolved Welsh authority.

As I've said, the UK Government recognises the value of a Wales-specific pension pool and the then Minister for English devolution wrote, in advance of the consultation, to provide that assurance. He did not see a need for the Welsh pool to merge with larger English funds. And the UK Government has confirmed that any future mergers would be a response to local government reform in England or serious governance failings. They would require regulations to be approved and therefore consultation and scrutiny.

The then Minister said he saw that a single Welsh local government pension scheme pool would be one where the partner funds had a mutual interest in investing within the Welsh economy, and the Wales Pension Partnership has been working closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that it meets the new requirements in good time.

I do not expect any proposal to merge the Wales pool with others and, in the unlikely event of such a proposal, I would certainly oppose it and I would expect most Members of this Senedd to do so. The Wales Pension Partnership has developed and demonstrated its value since 2017, and a Welsh pool means a pool with a strong mutual interest in optimising investment within the Welsh economy. It allows focus on the green economy and on local sustainable projects, including infrastructure. Our landmark Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 should be driving pension funds and public bodies' decision making in this way.

Just following on from Carolyn's points around the importance of this scheme, I note that Reform’s plans would stop new entrants to the pension scheme and roll the Welsh pension scheme into a UK-wide pension scheme. That would really, as Carolyn has said, undermine local investment in our communities. It shows what Reform think of Wales and Welsh public service workers and how little they value them. Diolch. 

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, that motion under item—. [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. 

Just in time. 

Therefore, we will defer voting until voting time. 

Item 14 is next, the Legislative Consent Motion on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care will be moving the motion. Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. I wish to open the debate on the LCM for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill by setting out what Senedd Members are asked to do today. 

In some ways, this is a conventional debate on an LCM. We are asked to consider whether we consent to a set of provisions in a UK Bill that relate to our devolution settlement. What is different, however, is the topic and nature of the Bill. This is a private Member's Bill that was developed by the sponsors rather than by the Government. And it relates to an exceptional issue—assisted dying, an issue that each of us will have our views on.

But the motion before us today is not a referendum on legalising assisted dying in Wales. Only the UK Parliament can make that decision, as it relates to changes to legislation where there is a restriction on the legislative competence of the Welsh Parliament. The debate and vote this afternoon relate to the specific provisions within the Bill that address devolved issues. These include provisions that have the intention of ensuring that the Senedd and Welsh Ministers do have a meaningful role in implementing and delivering arrangements for assisted dying in Wales. 

Llywydd, this Bill marks an unusual constitutional moment for Wales. The provisions for which consent is sought have regard to devolved matters. That is not significant in itself. At the same time, it highlights the unique procedural challenges that arise when a private Member's Bill of this magnitude moves forward without the usual Government control over its timing, scope or amendments. The absence of that involvement may create some uncertainty about the operational arrangements, as much of this will be left to secondary legislation, to be worked out if the Bill is passed by the UK Parliament. The details of how voluntary assisted dying will be provided in the future are not provided for in this Bill. It is challenging, therefore, to anticipate exactly how such arrangements might interact with Welsh law and policy. 

The subject matter of this Bill, the vehicle for its delivery, and the understandable neutrality of both the UK and Welsh Governments together, make these exceptionally unusual circumstances. These issues notwithstanding, the Welsh Government has worked constructively with both the sponsors and the UK Government as this Bill has progressed through the UK Parliament. As a result, we've secured important amendments that strengthen the regulation-making powers of Welsh Ministers, strengthen consultation duties with Welsh Ministers, protect Welsh language rights, and ensure that guidance and commencement arrangements reflect devolved responsibilities and support appropriate Senedd scrutiny. 

The sponsors of the Bill have been very collaborative in their approach to devolution matters, and I'm grateful to them for that. The Bill has undoubtedly been substantially strengthened in respect of devolution as it has progressed. I'm also grateful to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and the Health and Social Care Committee for their detailed scrutiny of the legislative consent memoranda. Their work has been invaluable in informing the Welsh Government's position on this motion. 

We have been able to reflect concerns raised by Senedd committees and secured amendments that provide Welsh Ministers with a formal consultation role in the appointment of the voluntary assisted dying commissioner and that require Welsh Ministers to consult before making any regulations on assisted dying in Wales. It's important to be clear these amendments relate to constitutional matters and the operation of assisted dying services in Wales. They do not address the fundamental question about whether assisted dying should be legalised.

Parliamentary scrutiny of this Bill, as we know, is not yet complete. It is still being considered at Committee Stage by the House of Lords. So far, more than 1,000 amendments have been put forward. A total of 14 sitting days have been scheduled, reflecting the depth of scrutiny and the continued consideration of amendments, including those that have regard to devolved matters in Wales and are the subject of the most recent supplementary LCM, No. 4.

So, we are in an unusual position. It is unlikely that parliamentary consideration of the Bill will be completed before this Senedd is dissolved. Our best assessment, given the current pace of progress in Parliament, is that amendments that require further legislative consent memoranda are unlikely before the end of this Senedd term. If, despite that assessment, the position changes, then, of course, the Government will bring forward the relevant memoranda.

The Welsh Government has taken a neutral position towards assisted dying, and there will be a free vote today for Labour Members on this motion and on the amendments to the motion proposed by Heledd Fychan. We've been consistent in our approach throughout in seeking to ensure that Wales has appropriate powers, safeguards or oversight mechanisms should the legislation pass. Members, I know, will wish to be clear about what may happen if the Senedd were to withhold consent today. The sponsors of the Bill have confirmed that, in those circumstances, they would seek to remove clause 42 from the Bill. That would mean the law in England and Wales would change to permit assisted dying, but there would be no powers in the Bill for Welsh Ministers to implement assisted dying services in Wales or to oversee or regulate such services.

Members will, I am sure, ask whether this is something the Senedd could seek to address through Wales-only legislation. Of course, Wales does have devolved competence in relation to the health service. In those circumstances, it would be possible for a future Welsh Government and Senedd to consider legislating in some form through a Wales-only Bill. However, whether a Wales-only Bill could, on its own, provide a comprehensive and coherent legislative framework for assisted dying services is uncertain. That depends on the final form of the Bill as passed by Parliament and on operational models that, necessarily, have not yet been fully developed.

The Bill also makes provision in areas that relate to reserved matters. For that reason, trying to coherently replicate the precise provisions subject to the LCM in a Wales-only Bill in the future would be difficult. For example, a future Senedd-only Bill could not make provision for issuing guidance in Wales in relation to coronial investigations. Other provisions would require Minister of the Crown consent. Though it would not deliver the current LCM provisions, it is possible a future Senedd Bill could provide different and perhaps more limited provisions for Wales.

Llywydd, whatever our personally held views about the principle of assisted dying, today's LCM debate is a vote on those provisions in the Bill that have regard to devolved matters and that grant powers to Ministers in the operation and delivery of assisted dying in Wales. I look forward to the debate.

I have selected three amendments to the motion. I call on Mabon ap Gwynfor to move the amendments.

Thank you, Llywydd. Regardless of my personal views on the moral  principles of this Bill that is currently making its way through the UK Parliament, they are not the subject of today's vote. It does not involve deciding whether assisted dying is right or wrong. It relates to how this policy, were it ultimately to become law, would be drawn up in Wales and how it would operate within our devolved responsibilities.

That difference is crucial. This isn't a vote on the principles of the Bill, nor is it approval or rejection of those fundamental principles. And yet, unfortunately, outside of this Chamber, the debate is often presented as if we were exactly deciding on that moral question itself. It's disappointing that we've arrived at a situation where a narrowly framed legislative consent motion can be interpreted by the public as consent for the Bill as a whole. That's not the purpose of this vote. It does not decide whether assisted dying will be legalised. What it does is to consider how the provisions in an evolving Bill interact with devolved powers in Wales.

But even on that narrow question, we're being asked to proceed without clarity. The Bill has not completed its journey through the House of Lords yet. Over 1,000 amendments have been tabled, with a significant proportion of them yet to be debated. And many of them could change significantly the way that the legislation interacts with devolved responsibilities in Wales. And yet, only a very small number of those amendments are reflected in the legislative consent memorandum.

As admitted by the Welsh Government itself, no comprehensive assessment was undertaken of how the vast majority of amendments could affect Wales. Even those amendments mentioned in the memorandum could yet change before the Bill completes its journey. We are, therefore, being asked to give consent without knowing what the final form of the legislation will be. We are being asked to vote in the dark.

The Health and Social Care Committee and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee have both highlighted the narrow lens through which this Bill is being considered. It's not a minor or technical measure. It involves healthcare in its broadest sense. It touches on clinical governance, safeguarding arrangements, regulatory oversight, workforce capacity, commissioning arrangements, financial pressures and the wider structure of end-of-life care services.

To isolate only a handful of clauses rather than examine the Bill as a whole understates its impact on devolved responsibilities. The Senedd is not being given the opportunity to consider those implications properly. That is not how meaningful legislative consent should operate. It is also concerning that the Welsh Government hasn't published its legal assessment of how the Bill interacts with devolved competence, citing legal professional privilege. Members are being asked to reach a constitutional judgment without full sight of that analysis.

And there is, of course, a deeper issue. The Bill legislates in a wholly devolved field—healthcare. It will shape how services are delivered within the NHS in Wales and how safeguards and regulation operate within our system. Yet Wales hasn't been treated as an equal partner in shaping that framework. The implications for our settlement have been addressed narrowly and late. That is why we've tabled our amendments and why we are seeking your support for them tonight.

If legislation of this magnitude, dealing with one of the most profound areas of healthcare policy imaginable, can proceed in this way, it exposes a weakness in our current settlement. Wales should have that same clarity of competence as Scotland and Northern Ireland in this area. When a policy engages an entirely devolved field, this Senedd should not simply react to decisions taken elsewhere, it should have the authority to determine its own approach in line with the democratic will of its people.

To those who support the principle of the Bill, I say this: if you believe assisted dying should be lawful, it must be legislated for properly. This concerns one of the most consequential decisions a person can ever make. It demands safeguards, clarity and democratic legitimacy of the highest order. As matters stand, we don't know the final form of the Bill, yet we're being asked to give it consent. That isn't about raising obstacles for their own sake, it's because the issue is so profound that it must be done carefully and transparently, with full regard to Wales's responsibilities.

Finally, whatever the fate of this Bill at Westminster, one responsibility clearly rests with us here in Wales, and there is an urgent need to strengthen palliative and end-of-life care. That is within our competence. It commands cross-party agreement, and it must not be overshadowed by this debate. Diolch.

The Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, Peter Fox.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Health and Social Care Committee has considered and reported on the first three memoranda for this Bill. In the time available, we have not been able to consider the fourth. Let me begin by saying that, whilst the subject matter of these LCMs is very emotive, the committee itself takes a neutral position on the matter of voluntary assisted dying for terminally ill adults. Our job has been to consider the provisions in the various LCMs. We have done this and made a number of recommendations to the Cabinet Secretary.

Amongst these recommendations is a call to the Cabinet Secretary to set out why he has chosen to take a narrow approach to the question of consent with this Bill. As we know, the Bill seeks to enable adults who are terminally ill to be lawfully provided with assistance to end their own life. The Bill achieves this by amending the Suicide Act 1961, which is restricted under Schedule 7B to the Government of Wales Act 2006. The Cabinet Secretary has previously stated that, although health is a broadly devolved area, the Welsh Government's assessment is that only a limited number of clauses in the Bill have regard to devolved matters and therefore require Senedd consent. However, the core provisions of the Bill will be delivered in a medical setting by healthcare professionals with a specific aim of alleviating pain and suffering. As such, we believe they could reasonably be considered to have regard to the extensively devolved matter of health. Had a broader approach to consent been adopted by the Welsh Government, we believe that a majority of the clauses in the Bill could have been considered to require Senedd consent.

The Cabinet Secretary's decision to adopt a narrow approach to consent, however, has meant that the Senedd's involvement in a decision of considerable public importance in an extensively devolved area has been more limited than it could otherwise have been. Given the significance of the subject matter and the strength of the public interest arguments, we believe the Cabinet Secretary should put more information into the public domain about his decision and why he chose not to take a broader approach to the question of consent, which could've enabled the greater involvement of the Senedd.

In our report on the first two memoranda, we commented on a number of policy matters, including the workforce implications of implementing the Bill in Wales; the need for provision of services in the Welsh language and for people whose first language is neither English or Welsh; and arrangements for monitoring the Act by the voluntary assisted dying commissioner. On this latter point, I note the amendment listed in memorandum 4, which has been sought by the Welsh Government in response to a recommendation of the health committee, that the Prime Minister should consult the Welsh Ministers before appointing a commissioner.

Our report also highlighted the significant implications of a symmetrical cross-border approach, should assisted dying services be made available in the future via the NHS in England, but not in Wales, and the uncertainty and inequity that patients would face in such a situation, as well as the operational challenges for health professionals. We also touched briefly on palliative and end-of-life care. As a committee, we were concerned about the potential longer term impact of the Bill on the provision of palliative and end-of-life care in Wales. We feel that if the provisions of the Bill were to be implemented in Wales, there must be a clear and definitive distinction made between assisted dying and palliative end-of-life care. Crucially, we believe that any future implementation of assisted dying services by the NHS in Wales must not impact negatively on funding for palliative and end-of-life care.

I want to close my contribution with a reminder that today's debate is not about the principle of assisted dying for terminally ill adults in Wales. It is about whether the Senedd gives its consent to the Welsh Ministers being given the powers to provide for voluntary assisted dying services in Wales via the NHS, as at some point in the future. A decision by the Senedd today to give consent to these memoranda will not necessarily lead to assisted dying services being available via the NHS in Wales. That would depend on the Bill itself receiving Royal Assent and on a future Welsh Government choosing to bring forward regulations. Diolch.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee reported on the first two memorandums in October 2025 and laid its second report on memorandum No. 3 at the end of last month. Memorandum No. 4 was laid last week, in recess. We have not therefore had time to consider it in detail and report on it.

At the outset, it is important to keep in mind that today's debate is about whether the Senedd consents or does not consent to the clauses of the Bill that are listed in the motion. As our second report highlights, the memorandum covers complex matters. As a result, the committee's second report made 13 recommendations, including further information from the Welsh Government, in particular aimed at clarifying what the outcome of a vote on this motion will mean to the potential for assisted dying services in Wales, both via the NHS and via non-NHS providers. We are grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for responding to our report promptly, enabling publication of that response well in advance of today's debate. I draw that response and the information it contains to the attention of the Senedd.

I would like to highlight a few points. The committee considers that the majority of clauses in the Bill require the consent of the Senedd on the grounds that they have regard to the devolved matter of health. The Welsh Government disagrees, but, unhelpfully, has told us that it cannot explain why this is the case without waiving legal and professional privilege. However, the Welsh Government has not made that argument in relation to the other 185 supplementary legislative consent memorandums, covering 71 UK Government Bills, that the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee has considered in the six Senedd. In our second report, we therefore asked the Cabinet Secretary to explain the Welsh Government's reasoning for this discrepancy in approach. Unfortunately, the Welsh Government's response did not address that issue; on such an important point, that is disappointing.

We also asked the Cabinet Secretary to explain why the Welsh Government selected only five amendments out of the 1,159 tabled in the House of Lords for inclusion in memorandum No. 3. The Welsh Government responded that it has taken a pragmatic approach to preparing the legislative consent memorandum for the Bill. As a consequence, it says that it has not been practical or proportionate to undertake a full analysis of all the amendments tabled, and so has focused its detailed assessment only on the Bill sponsor's proposed amendments. The Cabinet Secretary confirmed that, should any of the other 1,154 amendments be agreed by the House of Lords, the Welsh Government would bring forward a further supplementary legislative consent memorandum in respect of those amendments, if the Welsh Government considers that they have regard to devolved matters. However, the Cabinet Secretary also highlighted in his response that, ultimately, it's for the UK Parliament to determine whether to legislate, irrespective of where the consent has been given.

In closing, I would like to highlight one other point, which I touched on earlier. Through recommendations 10, 11 and 12 of our second report, we are seeking to understand two specific issues: first, what the implications would be for assisted dying in Wales if the Senedd provides consent for the clauses listed in the motion, and, secondly, what the implication would be if the Senedd withholds consent to those clauses. Specifically, we were seeking to understand what the implications would be in the context of NHS and non-NHS services. As part of his response to the implications of the Senedd withholding its consent, the Cabinet Secretary said that independent providers of non-NHS services could still be established in Wales due to the change in the criminal law following the commencement of other provisions in the Act. It would help if the Cabinet Secretary could clarify this point, namely what would happen if the Senedd votes not to give consent to the clauses in today's motion and they are removed from the Bill as a result? Would the practical result be that the Welsh Ministers will not have the power to make regulations providing for voluntary assisted dying services in the NHS setting, but non-NHS services for assisted dying would still be lawfully provided in Wales?

I rise today to speak against this motion. I know that there are some very well-intentioned comments that have been made, attempting to decouple discussions on the principle of this Bill with the discussion on the specific clauses that are before us, but I'm afraid it's impossible to completely disentangle the two, because this is not merely a debate about those particular clauses, it is actually a debate about the fundamental values, I believe, of our nation and the very meaning of compassion.

Now, let's be honest about the task before us. While the term 'assisted dying' is used by many to soften the reality, we are actually talking about assisted suicide. Language is the lens through which we view morality, and by sanitising the vocabulary, I do think that we risk masking the true gravity of the principle that this particular piece of legislation supports. And that principle is state-sanctioned provision of lethal means for a citizen to end their life.

Now, as many of you will know, my world view is rooted by my Christian faith, and I believe that every human life is a gift possessed of an inherent dignity that does not diminish with illness, disability or age. The sanctity of life is the cornerstone, and has been for a very long time, of all our medical ethics. And as a matter of conscience, therefore, I cannot support a framework that treats some lives as less worthy of protection than others. I'm not alone in this conviction. Just this month, a historic joint statement was issued by faith leaders across Wales representing the Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh communities. And they've spoken with one voice to warn of the very serious implications that this law could have on vulnerable people.

But it's not just the religious community and people of faith that are sounding the alarm. We must also listen to the very people we would be asking to carry out this act—our healthcare professionals. The Association for Palliative Medicine, representing those who actually care for the dying every single day, remains staunchly opposed to this legislation, as does the Royal College of General Practitioners. They've maintained a position of opposition, citing the unacceptable risk to the doctor-patient relationship. And then there's the Royal College of Psychiatrists. They've raised concerns about a lack of safeguards for those with poor mental health. Now, when the experts in health and end-of-life care tell us that this will fundamentally damage the trust between a clinician and a patient, it's our duty to listen to what they say.

And there is, Llywydd, a profound constitutional problem with this motion, as has already been discussed by Mabon ap Gwynfor, because we are being asked to grant legislative consent to a Bill that is still moving through the UK Parliament. As the Minister has already identified, there are over 1,000 amendments that are still under consideration, and I can't help but feel that we're effectively being asked to sign a blank cheque. How can this Senedd properly scrutinise the impact on all of our devolved health services and functions when the final version of the safeguards, or the lack of them, is still yet to be fully known? So, I'm firmly of the view that to grant consent now would be an abdication of our responsibility to the people of Wales, who rightly expect that this Senedd should be able to debate matters in the full knowledge of their implications for Wales.

Now, turning to the safeguards in the current version of the Bill, we were initially promised a High Court shield, whereby a judge would be required to sign off each request for an assisted death. That safeguard has now been completely removed. And one issue that no safeguard can address is that of coercive control. One of the main threats posed by assisted suicide laws is the danger that people living in abusive situations will be coerced into ending their lives. And I believe that that's a very, very dangerous loophole.

Will you give way? 

I'll happily give way, yes. 

I understand the criticisms the Member has of the Bill, but the vote tonight has got nothing to do with any of that. And if this Senedd withholds its consent, all it will do is make it more difficult to design public services in Wales in a thoughtful way. So, he's trying to make a broader point, but the specifics of what he will achieve by that would cause difficulty. What would that achieve? 

I believe that should this Senedd wish to legislate on these matters in the future, then it needs to be able to do so in the full light of day, knowing fully what the Bill in its entirety is actually saying, in detail, so that we can properly scrutinise it. We're not in that position at the moment. You've just heard the Chairs of two committees tell us that this Bill has not been subject to proper scrutiny, even the clauses before us this afternoon. So, clinicians involved in signing off requests for assisted suicide could easily miss a history of domestic abuse or long-term coercion, and I don't believe that, therefore, this is a robust law, and I do believe that it's neglected in terms of its drafting.

And we must also address the chilling socioeconomic reality of this Bill. In Wales, we're very familiar with the inverse care law. It's something we've discussed on many occasions in this Senedd, and that is the principle that those with the greatest need for healthcare are very often the least likely to receive it. And if assisted suicide were to be legalised, then we risk a terrifying new iteration of this law. Data from other countries points clearly to the fact that those in poorer, more marginalised communities who may lack access to high-quality palliative care are more likely to seek to end their lives. And when high-quality care is a luxury at the end of life, but state-facilitated suicide is free, the choice for a person in poverty is not a choice, it’s a societal pressure. I do not want people to be put into a situation where the option to die actually becomes a duty to die for those who feel that they're a financial burden.

So, to conclude, the state's priority, in my view, should be to support people at the end of their lives, to alleviate suffering, not to help them commit suicide. We face a choice in this Senedd about how we use public money. Welsh hospices are in the middle of a funding crisis, and I believe that we should use taxpayers' money to ensure that as many people in Wales as possible have access to the high-quality palliative care that they deserve, affirming their dignity, the dignity of every single person in this country, until their last natural breath. So, for the sake of the vulnerable, for the integrity of our medical profession, and out of respect for the sanctity of human life, I urge Members to refuse consent to this flawed, dangerous and incomplete Bill.

This is a debate where I know that everyone is moved by compassion. The desire not to see someone they love suffer is something that nobody can disagree with. My argument, though, is that we must also think about those people who are not surrounded by love—disabled people, those in vulnerable positions, people who are poor or lonely or being abused who could feel compelled to end their life, not to be a burden. That is not scaremongering. It is a reflection of the reality seen in every jurisdiction in the world where assisted dying has been legalised. People who are vulnerable have felt and have become less safe, less protected, less valued.

There are specific problems with this Bill. It is not designed for Wales. We are treated as an add-on to a Westminster private Member’s Bill, a Bill that has deep and significant flaws. We are being threatened with the scenario that if we vote 'no', people will only be able to access assisted dying privately in Wales. That is not the case. There would be four years when Wales could legislate, should it choose to, and create a fairer system that actually works for Wales. Attempts to give Wales a veto in this Bill were removed by the House of Commons, leaving us in this situation where we are being asked to give consent to something when we have no idea what the final Bill will end up looking like—like legislating with a blindfold over our eyes and restraints on our hands. This is no way to treat a Parliament. This is no way to treat a nation.

And this Bill is no way to treat vulnerable human beings. There is a reason why so many palliative care doctors are against it, why the royal colleges of physicians and psychiatrists have said they cannot support it, why Marie Curie and Hospice UK have expressed concern: because of the burden it would place on doctors who would be obliged—obliged—to offer assisted dying to anyone when they are given a potentially terminal diagnosis. That is, when a patient is at their most vulnerable, instead of being offered hope, doctors will be compelled to offer this as an option. It is cruel and will lead to people feeling it would be selfish to carry on because of the high costs of their care. Palliative care doctors have told me that many patients they've cared for have gone through a phase at that point of diagnosis of wanting everything to end, but that almost all their patients find things to live for: new grandchildren, new experiences—reasons to stay alive. I am not talking about people who want to die; I am talking about people who might want to live. Putting such a blunt and forced obligation on doctors protects neither patients nor those caring for them. I say again, it is no way to treat human beings.

And what we are presented with might well become worse. In Oregon, eligibility criteria have been widened so that now people can have an assisted death for diabetes, anorexia, arthritis—diagnoses from which people can recover; lives that will have been ended, that might have got better. There are inadequate safeguards to protect victims of domestic abuse and coercive control, which has been highlighted by domestic abuse charities. Disabled people's organisations, not to mention Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson in the Lords, have warned about how disabled people's lives have been treated as an afterthought with this Bill. I understand the motivation of those who support this Bill. I empathise entirely with the idea of not wanting to see people suffer. But the fear and terror I have is how this will end in situations where disabled people, those who are poor, lonely or abused will be led to feel that they have no choice but to end their life, where investment in palliative care is lessened and desperate people will feel obliged to take a step they can never take back—all the lives of the people we will never meet, but who will be affected fatally by this decision. I accept and acknowledge fully that this is a vote on the legislative situation. It cannot be separated in many people's minds from the more substantive issue, which is why I'm making these points. It is for these reasons that I will be voting against—[Interruption.] I will take Julie Morgan's intervention.

Thank you very much for taking the intervention. I just wanted to make the point that disabled people have led the fight for assisted dying. If you just think of Debbie Purdy, Diane Pretty, Tony Nicholson, they were all people who were very severely disabled and who fought for assisted dying. So, I think it's really important to put on the record that disabled people have led this fight.

Thank you very much for making that point. The reason I'm saying that disabled organisations are frightened of this Bill is because of the implications and unintended consequences that could lead—that I'm afraid will lead—to disabled people in too many circumstances feeling under a burden to end their lives because that is what has happened in so many other legislatures. Thank you for making that point, and I respect it entirely.

For the reasons that I have set out, I will be voting against this LCM. I hope sincerely that the Senedd does the same. I will end by saying again that I think we all have to acknowledge that this is something on which everybody is driven by compassion, and I hope that we can keep that in mind during this debate.

First of all, I wanted to start by thanking all those people who have worked with us during this discussion, this debate that has been going on for a long time now. I'm thinking of our constituents who've written to us, about the different groups who've lobbied us, who've come here, about the workforce who've made their views known to us, and, of course, the families who've been affected by these proposals. On quite a few occasions, we've had families here, people with terminal illness who are looking for us to help them in the very difficult situation that they're in, and families and carers who are looking after people with terminal illness. Some of them have been here today, and I'd like to just start off by thanking all of those, because I think they have made a big effort to come here to let Members know what they feel.

The second point I want to make, and that's picking up what has just been said, really, is that it's very good that, as politicians with very different views about very important principles, we are able to discuss this in a democracy. We're able to discuss it civilly. We know we feel differently about these issues, but we are able to respect each other's views. I think that's very important to put on the record as well.

But, I want to go on to reiterate the point that the debate, as has already been said so many times, is not about the principle of the Bill. Jeremy put it very succinctly in his opening remarks, and we've heard that reiterated since: the principle of assisted dying under the present devolution settlement, under which we are discussing this today, is not a devolved decision. The House of Commons passed this Bill last year, and 75 per cent of Welsh MPs voted for it from all parties. It's now in the House of Lords. When it completes the procedures in the Westminster Parliament, it will become legal in Wales as well as in England. So, what we are debating today is the implementation of assisted dying, to give the powers to the Senedd to implement the Welsh clauses, should it become law. We need to have those powers in order to implement this legislation in the way that we want to do it for Wales, in the Welsh way.

I think it was Darren who talked about an abdication of responsibility. I feel it would be an abdication of responsibility if we did not support this LCM today. Should the Senedd reject the LCM, these powers would not come to the Senedd, the Sewel convention would apply, and the Welsh clauses would be removed from the Bill. Both Kim Leadbeater, the sponsor in the Commons, and Lord Charlie Falconer, the sponsor in the Lords, have made that absolutely clear, that they would respect the view of the Senedd and, if the vote goes against the LCM, they will remove the Welsh clauses.

Will you take an intervention on that?

Yes, of course.

You said that the sponsors of the Bill want to respect the Senedd and the views of the Senedd, but, of course, this Senedd voted against the principle of assisted dying in a previous debate, and yet, obviously, this Bill is still progressing with Wales as part of it. That does not seem like much respect for this Senedd to me.

I think you misunderstand the situation, Darren. The previous vote that was held here on assisted dying was on a much wider concept. It had no deadlines. This Bill we are debating today—people must be terminally ill, they must have at least only six months to live—is completely different from what was discussed before. That was discussed as a Member's motion, to have an airing of the issues.

I would have thought that what we're discussing today is something much more tightly drawn up, which has had a huge amount of scrutiny, which is very specific, so I don't see any comparison. And, as I say, they have said they will respect the views of this Senedd. So, if we reject it today, they will take those clauses out, and we will lose the opportunity of doing what we can to make people's end of life dealt with in as compassionate a way as we possibly can.

Here in this Senedd, would we want to leave the people of Wales without any access to services if this Bill becomes law? It's very likely that this Bill will become law; it has a majority in the democratically elected House of Commons. So, it is going to become law. It would be irresponsible not to do, within the powers we've got, what we can to ensure that we have the power here to make the services as good as we can.

We know that the numbers are very small in Wales of who will want this service. The number of people who've actually reached the stage where they want an assisted death is very, very small. I think the estimation is that, in the first six months, there would probably be about 40 people in Wales who would want to have an assisted death. So, we're not talking about a huge development; we're talking about specific services for a specific group of people, many of whom have already experienced and taken the benefit of palliative care. I'm a huge supporter of palliative care. I believe we should be giving a lot more resources to palliative care, and I believe palliative care and assisted dying are not one or the other. We need palliative care for the vast majority of people who need it, and for that small group of people, as I say, most of whom have experienced palliative care and feel that they cannot go on, that they need an assisted death.

And then, of course, there's the Welsh language issue, which I think is absolutely crucial, because I think we all know of people who, when they reach the end of their lives, want to speak and discuss things in their own first language. I remember my uncle, who lived in Ceredigion and who had to go into Glangwili hospital at the end of his life, and he could only speak Welsh, he couldn't—. His English deserted him. So, I think, again, we've got these clauses here in this Bill to make sure that services are delivered in the Welsh language, and surely we can't reject the opportunity to do that.

So, the other issue that's already been raised is what about the inequality of any service that is offered, if it's not led by the Senedd, by the NHS. We know that the number of people who go to Dignitas in Switzerland is very small, but it is growing; it is growing very swiftly. But the only people who can go there are people who can afford it, and it costs an estimate of, I think, £10,000 to £15,000 to go to Dignitas. So, I really feel that we would be lacking in our duty if we didn't do everything we could, within the powers of the Senedd, within the devolved settlement that we're in, to give an opportunity for those people who, at the end of their life, decide that they want to opt for an assisted death. Diolch.

I've been very generous to the first speakers of all the political groups thus far. I have many speakers wishing to take part this afternoon. It's very difficult for me here, with free votes, to understand who's going to speak for and against in order to ensure a balance of debate. So, I'm going to be in your hands now. Please be as succinct as possible in your contribution and in making your points, and I'll try and call all of you, as Members. Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd. Just 16 months ago, this Senedd voted against supporting the principles of assisted dying, and against supporting the Westminster Parliament to introduce an assisted dying law in England and Wales. That's what the motion said. Speaking in that debate, I noted that polling by the Royal College of Physicians found that 80 per cent of palliative care physicians, those working with dying people, remain opposed to medicine's involvement in the ending of patients' lives, with only 4 per cent in favour.

As we've heard, Members are not being asked to vote today on whether assisted suicide should become law in Wales in principle. Rather, the Senedd is being asked whether to grant legislative consent for Westminster to legislate in devolved areas affecting palliative and end-of-life care in Wales. This is therefore both a constitutional decision that directly affects Senedd authority, and a moral and policy one affecting the future of Welsh people.

Legal advice to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee yesterday confirmed that the legislation for which consent is being sought today is not yet in its final form. Welsh palliative care clinicians have warned that asking Wales to consent to something before it knows what it's actually consenting to, thereby handing powers to Westminster, sets a very dangerous precedent, and that this LCM, this legislative consent motion, is being used as a tool to be able to claim that Wales now supports the Bill. The Senedd must therefore reject this LCM if it wants to ensure both that it determines how and by whom any future possible assisted dying service would ultimately be delivered in Wales, and that we do not act prematurely before the final shape of the Bill is clear.

Although polling in Wales shows public support for assisted dying, support plummets when the terminology is explained and people understand what's actually being proposed. Salvation Army polling uncovered continuing concerns that vulnerable people are at greater risk of being pressured into applying to die, with 60 per cent saying older people are at greater risk, 54 per cent saying people with mental health issues, and nearly 52 per cent that people with a learning disability are at greater risk. They add that the decision to seek assistance with suicide will not look the same for people experiencing poverty or other systematic disadvantage as it will for more privileged people.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists reached a consensus that it could not support the Bill in its current form. The Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland states:

'In matters of life and death, the threshold for safety must be unassailable. The current proposals fall demonstrably short of this standard, exposing vulnerable people to risks we cannot undo—all while the palliative care they deserve remains inequitable and often unavailable.'

They also highlight research showing that doctors' assessments of which patients are likely to die within six or 12 months are correct less than 50 per cent of the time, and note that around half of people in other jurisdictions choose assisted dying because of feeling a burden on family and friends.

More than 250 healthcare professionals across Wales wrote jointly calling on us to reject this LCM, stating, for example:

'The bill's definition of terminal illness fails to recognise the risks from mistaken diagnosis or misinformation. Accurate prognostication is impossible.'

They emphasise the inequity in provision of specialist palliative care and hospice beds.

Marie Curie states that their latest research provides further evidence that our palliative and end-of-life care system is at breaking point, and Hospice UK state that we must urgently address the sustainability of the hospice sector. However, the experience of other jurisdictions has shown that the legalisation of assisted suicide has led to a reduction in effective palliative care provision, despite claims to the contrary.

Further, once the principle is accepted, it is impossible to contain. As we heard in Oregon, the understanding of terminal illness has widened to include conditions such as anorexia or diabetes. In Canada, the law was extended to non-terminally-ill individuals, and, by 2027, it's due to widen further to include mental illness.

Referring to assisted suicide provider Dignitas, Welsh palliative care consultants told me that there is no guarantee of a dignified death for anyone, even if that is the aim of whatever care the person receives, and that there are many unknowns or potential issues with the Swiss system, as there is no publication of data.

I will leave the last words to the constituent who told me that the proposed legislation has inadequate safeguards to prevent coercion of vulnerable people, increases pressure on disabled people and is a retrograde step. In terms of the point—concluding—that Julie Morgan intervened on earlier, both Disability Wales and All Wales People First, representing adults with learning disabilities, have warned that the implications of this Bill are far-reaching, with serious potential consequences, adding that this is why no deaf or disabled people's organisations in the UK are in favour of this legislation. Diolch yn fawr.

Today, I would like to speak to Plaid Cymru's amendments, but I would also like to acknowledge that the majority of representations that I've received have certainly not been on the legislative aspect, but on the issue itself. I do regret that reference has been made to a previous debate on a Member's legislative proposal, which, as we know, is not the way that we decide how the Senedd determines its views. That was a moment, but it wasn't the moment for this debate, and neither is this the moment for the debate that the people of Wales and those that have contacted us on both sides want to see the Senedd being able to take, because this is a matter of significance for Wales. It does have a significant bearing on things that are within our control here in Wales, and yet we are not debating the substantive issue here. We are not giving voice to all those that feel strongly outside of this Chamber. Some have made reference to that, but that's not what we're voting on, and I regret that that is the perception for people who do care about this issue. That's why I am urging people to support our amendments, which clearly state that there has been a lack of thorough consideration of the constitutional implications of this Bill on Wales during the legislative process, and that we do believe that Wales should have full powers to choose to legislate, or not, regarding the legality and implementation of assisted dying services, as is the case in Scotland, and I regret that we won't have that opportunity here in Wales.

In terms of those contributions that we've heard already today, it is a hugely emotive issue—not the legislative aspect, but the aspect that people want us to be discussing and deciding on here in Wales. There are clearly differences of opinion; I've expressed my personal view during the debate on the Member's legislative proposal, and I will restate it today. I believe that everybody with a terminal illness has the right to choose how they die, and currently that's not the case.

During this process, I've heard horrific examples of people dying in pain without the right support and without dignity. I've also heard from the family members of people who've chosen to commit suicide or go to Switzerland, without their family knowing, to end their lives. Constituents of mine have been left traumatised, have been arrested, as they were suspected to have assisted a suicide, even though they hadn't, and it's clear to me that we need to confront this issue properly in Wales.

As has already been said, many of us do recognise that supporting this does not negate the belief that we need to improve how we support people in that awful position and provide better access to palliative care. There's a huge concern, for instance, in the region that I represent, that Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board are proposing to reduce the number of specialist palliative beds and move to a model of care at home. But this isn't an either/or; both are needed—specialist palliative care beds in community hospitals and also access to support if people choose to die at home. Because not everyone can be cared for at home, and neither does everyone have a home that can accommodate the equipment needed to ensure that someone is cared for properly, nor do some have the family support at home. Take, for instance, some of the terraces next to rivers in my region that have flooded a number of times in the past few years. If someone was sleeping downstairs and not able to move, then I know of homes where that person would have very likely lost their life by drowning in their bed.

This is the reality of the communities we represent, and all of this must be looked at in its totality, but it's not, and that's what's lacking here. We should look at this in the whole. Wales should be able to decide. And that's why I am asking Members, those with a free vote, to support the amendments, because Wales's voice needs to be heard. The debate has to be done properly here in Wales, and we should be looking at all these aspects. Framing this as a legislative aspect only—which it is, technically—is not giving voice to our constituents. It's not addressing the need that there are people taking this decision now. I personally believe that everybody has the right to choose how they die. They are choosing suicide; they are choosing to go to Switzerland. We can't bury our heads in the sand. So, that's why I think it is important we have this debate, but we should have the right to decide how it's done here in Wales, and properly.

I'll try not to repeat what others have already said, but I agree with the previous speaker that what we are discussing today is the right of all citizens, whatever their socioeconomic circumstances, to accelerate the end of their life when they've already been diagnosed as being terminally ill. People with resources, both financial and intellectual, can choose to turn to Dignitas, with or without a change in the law in the UK Parliament.

We all know that people prefer to die at home, surrounded by their loved ones and their favourite possessions. That isn't always possible, either for the individual or for their loved ones, to be able to accommodate, but we have to understand that most people, according to the latest poll that was published in the Western Mail, of all the main parties, about three quarters of all of them are supporting that this Bill, if passed in the UK Parliament, should apply to both England and Wales.

There's a lot of work that needs doing to make sure that all the safeguards that need to be in place to ensure that it is the wish of the individual are going to be there, and to deal with some of the points that Delyth made about the anxieties that she has about disabled people being forced to do something they haven't actually chosen to do.

But, in this Bill, we're talking about people who are already suffering hugely. And we know that some people—some of my constituents—have said, 'I don't want to go on anymore, because I've got type 1 diabetes, end-stage kidney failure, end-stage heart failure and severe osteoporosis.' And when they've said this, and they've agreed with their family that they want to stop taking their medication, the response from the GP, instead of saying, 'Of course I support that right of the individual to stop taking their medication', the GP referred this to the suicide team, and instead of having a peaceful death with her family around her, they had the mental health team, the psychologists, the police and social services all involved. That was not appropriate, and we clearly have some education to do with our GPs, if that's the attitude. And, in fact, it took the palliative care team to say, 'Stop, this is not what the current law says.' Stopping medication is absolutely within an individual's rights and this certainly should not have happened.

So, I think it's incredibly important that Wales has the right to ensure that we have the services in the way that people want them, and it will depend very much on the circumstances of the individual. But I think we really are ducking our responsibilities if we're not saying that we need to ensure that the Welsh NHS is able to accommodate the tiny number of people who wish to take this choice, rather than just leaving it to those who have—. Instead of having to go to Dignitas, they'll just have to go to England, but that still leaves a very large number of people who won't be able to afford to do that and won't have the resources, won't have the contacts.

I just think there's an equity issue here that is really, really important for us to make, and we have to bear in mind that, whatever we decide today, it won't stop the Bill passing this time or in the next parliamentary session, as we're already clear that those who promote the Bill are planning to use the Parliament Act to bring it back. So, what we're discussing today is whether or not the way in which services are developed in Wales to accommodate a change in the law are ones under our control or under the control of somebody in Whitehall. I know which I would choose.

I think the final point I want to say is that, if we decide not to do this, it will simply mean that those decisions will be made elsewhere rather than by us.

I'm struck by the fact that this is my first time standing in this expanded Chamber today, as it has been for many people contributing this evening—this Chamber, a physical symbol of democracy in Wales. And whilst I've been against the expansion of this place, proponents of this increase have been advocating for such a thing because, fundamentally, they want to see a strengthening of democracy, showing that Wales has now proven itself to stand up in making many of its own decisions for itself, showing a mature Senedd that properly and thoroughly debates the big decisions, the difficult decisions, with all the detail that goes with them to enable proper scrutiny and then make a final decision. That context brings us to this debate here and now. We, as a Senedd, seeking to demonstrate our level of maturity, our depth of scrutiny and our seriousness of thought have today been scheduled one hour, with limited information, to make a decision on one of the most serious questions we can ever ask of a democracy—a question, quite literally, of life and death and what it means for people in Wales.

On the moral position of the question, I'm unwavering in my decision, founded in my Christian faith, that it is not right for this Bill to proceed, because no matter their health, no matter their stage of life, every person is precious, every life is of equal worth, and our laws and healthcare system should always reflect that. Beyond my personal beliefs, I have serious concerns about patient safety, legal clarity, inequality and constitutional accountability. The fact is that granting consent now would embed into Welsh health services a practice that remains deeply contested.

The Bill is still in Committee Stage with, as we've heard from others, over 1,000 amendments yet to be resolved. Some of the issues that are the subject of amendments are issues that we in Wales would at least want a view on and are absolutely fundamental to devolved areas of competence. Firstly and fundamentally, the definition of 'terminal illness' refers to an inevitably progressive illness or disease that cannot be reversed by treatment. That is such a broad definition. Many chronic conditions are inevitably progressive and could lead to death if stabilising treatment is refused. This would not just affect older people, as we’d expect, towards the end of their life, it could impact much younger people living with serious conditions.

Secondly, let's be clear, while this Bill is titled with the words 'assisted dying', the Bill seeks to amend section 2(1) of the Suicide Act 1961 to remove criminal liability for those who assist another person to end their own life. This LCM is asking us to embed assisted suicide within devolved health services in Wales, while crucial details remain unresolved. At a time when we rightly invest in suicide prevention and tell vulnerable people that their lives matter, we must confront the contradiction of facilitating suicide as a medical service in certain circumstances. Doctors, as we know, are guided by the principle to first do no harm. This Bill would place our clinicians in Wales in conflicting roles, preventing suicide in some patients while validating it in others.

Thirdly, Llywydd, the safeguards remain unsettled. The original promise of High Court oversight has already been replaced by a review panel. Oversight appears largely retrospective and it is not clear how wrongful decisions will be identified or remedied. We have heard from others this evening that the six-month prognosis safeguard in itself is deeply problematic. Predicting life expectancy is notoriously difficult, even for specialists. Prognosis is an estimate, not a guarantee.

Finally, if we are serious about dignity at the end of life, our priority should be universal access to high-quality palliative care, not the introduction of assisted suicide into mainstream practice. Before introducing an irreversible option, we should be able to say with confidence that excellent end-of-life care is consistently available. So, for reasons of conscience, compassion and constitutional integrity, I will be voting against the legislative consent motion and urge Members across the Chamber to do the same.

I regret—genuinely regret—that we are being asked to decide on this legislative consent motion without the fullest opportunity to scrutinise its implications for Wales. As we’ve heard, over 1,000 amendments have been tabled in the House of Lords, including changes that would materially affect the clauses within the scope of this LCM. We’ve not had a proper opportunity as a legislature to signal where we stand. This is not a procedural quibble. It matters because assisted dying doesn’t sit within one constitutional box. It sits on the Crib Goch, if you like, of our constitution: criminal law reserved to Westminster on one side, health service delivery devolved to this Senedd on the other, and a narrow exposed ridge between them.

You cannot responsibly make assisted dying lawful without embedding it in the health system that delivers end-of-life care. No-one in England would separate the legality of the service from the governance of the service itself, yet that is the risk when the law is made in one Parliament and the care delivered under another. Look to Scotland. Whatever one's view on the policy, Holyrood is able to proceed within a unified set of competences, and, therefore, it's able to design a system as a whole. And it's decided, on that basis, to tether eligibility, for example, not to a fixed six-month prognosis, but define it instead as an advanced and progressive condition expected to cause premature death. It's decided, on similarly compassionate grounds, that the underlying illness, not assisted dying, is recorded as a cause of death, and it's adopted a broader workforce model, allowing registered nurses, not only doctors, a role in provision on an opt-in, conscientious consent basis.

Now, those are not peripheral choices; they are the architecture of the system. And Scotland can make them because competence and responsibility sit in one place. In Wales, we sit at the edge of power. If we wish to develop a distinct oversight structure to limit provision to NHS Wales, or to give statutory weight to the adequacy of palliative care in this context, we cannot be confident, currently, that we have the legal power to do so. That's the problem. And it's for that reason that I will support the amendments before us. They seek to strengthen Wales's voice within the framework of this Bill.

But we must confront, tonight, what happens if we say 'no'. We've been told explicitly that if this Senedd withholds consent, the Welsh service provisions will be removed, but the criminal law change will still apply. Assisted dying would be lawful in Wales. NHS Wales, though, would have no power to provide the assisted dying services—a private-only pathway, therefore, within Wales, or cross-border provision.

Supporters of assisted dying do not argue for access determined by wealth. Opponents do not argue for a system outside NHS governance in a matter as grave as this. No-one in this Chamber argues for that. And yet, that is what withholding consent would deliver: not the prevention of assisted dying in Wales; a worse version of it. Lawful, yet unregulated; available to some, not to others; severed from the very structures and services within which we care for people at the end of their lives.

I will not pretend that this is a comfortable vote for me, nor for anyone else. I came into politics to bring decisions home to Wales, not to consent to frameworks drawn up elsewhere, least of all on matters of life and death. Every instinct I hold about this Senedd's purpose and moral authority pulls against what I am about to do tonight. I will vote in favour of the motion, even unamended, because the alternative, in my view, does not protect Wales; it abandons Wales to a private-only system no-one here in all conscience would design.

No country's Parliament should have to stand aside while another decides the terms on which its own citizens live and die. I hope this vote tonight in this new Chamber is the last time we are ever put in that invidious position. But tonight, we all have to do the best we can for the people we all represent. 

Thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate, because I abstained when this issue was first debated back in October 2024, nearly 18 months ago. And I've heard some of the contributions so far today from Members, some who were against the concept, the principle of assisted dying, and who were so for moral and religious reasons, and I understand and respect those views. But I want to be clear that they're not my views. I don't have a moral or religious reason not to support assisted dying.

I'm grateful to those constituents who have reached out to share with me, quite candidly, the unimaginable pain and suffering that they have gone through, or their families have gone through, and who have been put in difficult positions themselves, where they have wanted to die as a consequence of the conditions that they face. And upon reading those and sharing those experiences, I was thinking and feeling how fortunate we are not to be the ones put in that position of having to make those decisions ourselves. The reason I abstained 18 months ago was because I listened to those stories and I was open to the idea of a Bill that worked and had safeguards that could be delivered upon. I hoped that the abstention in my name would allow a bit of time for the Bill, as was being drawn up in Westminster, to be improved to offer further safeguards and protections.

In that time, I was offered the invitation to go and visit Tŷ Olwen, a palliative care unit in Morriston Hospital, and what I found was some of the most hard-working and compassionate staff you could ever imagine meeting. They really believed in the importance of palliative care, the importance of what it is that they were doing. These are people that deal with people in those positions that I described every single day. We talked about the Bill as was drafted at that time. As we've already spoken about, this is an ever-evolving Bill, with many amendments, but the Bill as was drafted at that time made those people—who are so passionate about palliative care, who believe so much in the difference that the work that they do can make—vehemently against the Bill as was drafted at that time, because it changed, fundamentally, the relationship between medical professionals and the patients that they care for.

That oath they take not to harm their patients they were all of a sudden being forced and compelled to offer as an option. That, for me, changed my view quite fundamentally on what we were being asked to look at, what we were being asked to debate. It is not something that I can continue to support. I abstained on the proposal put forward 18 months ago. I'll vote against today's legislative consent motion for many of the reasons that we've discussed—the safeguards, the judicial oversight, the potential coercion, the mission creep, the parliamentary process. All these points are fundamentally valid. But I cannot support a Bill that puts patients in the position that is being proposed, which is imperfect by design. We should be aiming for legislation, when it comes to matters of life and death, not to be imperfect.

But let me end on this. I've wrestled with this. I found this a very, very difficult proposal, and probably the most difficult in the five years that I have been a Senedd Member. I think, Delyth, you said it earlier, all of us are driven by compassion. Whatever side of the fence we fall down on tonight, whatever side of the fence we fall down on as this Bill develops throughout, all of us are driven by wanting to do the right thing. All of us are driven by the idea that we want to help and support the people who are in some of the most unimaginable pain, suffering and condition. I wanted to be able to support a Bill that could genuinely offer people a way out if they chose to do that. This Bill doesn't do that in any way, and that's why I can't support it. Thank you.

As others have said, it is very clear from much of the correspondence we've all received from our constituents, and also from some media reports, that this LCM is not well understood, or what it is exactly about. This LCM is not about the principle of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. That's a matter for the UK Government, and I'm not going to comment on that principle. What this LCM is concerned with is, if and when this Bill becomes an Act, does this Senedd give consent to Welsh Ministers to have the power to ensure voluntary assisted dying services could be provided by the NHS across Wales if a future Welsh Government wishes to do that. 

Therefore, if this LCM is not consented today and the Bill becomes law, there would be a gap, a gap that a private provider could fill. We would then be left in a position that only if you could afford to access private assisted dying services would you be able to make that choice. This LCM is the same as any other LCM that we are asked to vote on in that it is about something we want Westminster to do on our behalf or whether we want to do it ourselves. As we've heard, this Senedd has the primary powers to do it, but, as I've outlined, if we choose to do the latter, there will be a gap.

I was pleased to have sight earlier of the letter the First Minister has received from the sponsors of the Bill, assuring Members that the devolution settlement enabling the Welsh Government to implement, monitor and report on assisted dying services in Wales will be respected, and also to hear the Cabinet Secretary reiterate that in his opening remarks. However, it will be a risk—a very significant risk—that if we do not vote for this LCM before us today, a future Welsh Government may not be able to take the decision to provide public assisted dying services via NHS Wales.

I represent a border constituency, so I am acutely aware that my constituents need to access equitable NHS services as those offered in England when the Bill becomes law. Having considered and listened very carefully to both sides of the argument on this specific LCM, I believe my constituents deserve to be able to access equitable and publicly provided NHS assisted dying services if Westminster decide to bring forward this legislation, which would, of course, apply in both England and Wales. I would be letting my constituents down, the majority of whom rely on the NHS for their health services, if I did not vote for this LCM.

This is not an easy debate. Discussing issues of this magnitude never is. Over recent months, I've received correspondence from constituents whose experiences sit at the opposite ends of this argument. Some have written about sitting by the bedsides of loved ones in unbearable pain, feeling helpless and desperate to help them and hoping that they had more control and dignity at the end of their life. Others have contacted me with deep concern about what a change in the law could mean for vulnerable people, for those living with disability or for those who might feel like a burden. Both those perspectives are sincere, both are rooted in care and both deserve to be treated with seriousness and respect.

For me, this is a personal debate that cuts deeply into my Christian faith. My faith teaches me about how precious life is, but it also teaches me about compassion, mercy and walking alongside those who suffer. When we are discussing assisted dying, those convictions are not simple to reconcile. They add a genuine moral weight to this issue, and I do not pretend otherwise, and it does weigh very heavily on me. I've expressed in this Chamber before my own family experience, which shaped my view on this position. Watching someone you love endure prolonged suffering changes how you think about care at the end of life. I was contacted by a constituent the other day whose partner stopped eating and drinking at the late stage of their diagnosis just so that they could end their life quicker after begging their partner to assist them for months and months. But with the fear that they would be prosecuted, they weren't able to do so. That person has subsequently died of dehydration.

That experience is why I support the principles of assisted dying for terminally ill adults subject to very strict safeguards. I do so because I believe there can be a compassionate case for reform. I have not moved from that position; it is still my fundamental view. However, supporting a principle does not remove our responsibility to scrutinise the legislation that seeks to deliver that aim. The Bill before Parliament is still progressing through the House of Lords. As many others have said, 1,000 amendments have been tabled, safeguards are still being examined. Important details about capacity assessments, the role of clinicians, regulatory oversight and practical implementation are yet to be finalised. It remains, in substance, a Bill of work in progress.

We must also be honest about the constitutional and practical position that does face Wales. If legislative consent is not granted and the law progresses and becomes law in England, we will find divergence between our two nations. In England, the system would be provided free on the NHS for constituents there, but in Wales, it would only be available via private providers, not available on our NHS. I know the Cabinet Secretary said that we could legislate in the future, but it would not be the service that they have in England. That does create inequity of fairness and access, and I think that's something we seriously need to consider. But equally, granting consent now, before the legislation is complete, would bind this Senedd and future Welsh Governments to a framework whose final shape we do not know. Health is devolved and implementation of it would rest here. It would operate within our Welsh systems under Welsh health boards and with consequences for our NHS. That's not a procedural technicality, it's a matter of regulatory responsibility.

But there is also a principle that I believe must underpin any reform in this area, which is that if assisted dying is to become lawful, it must sit alongside and never replace a strong, properly resourced and accessible palliative care sector. Because no person should feel that assisted dying is their only realistic option because hospice services are stretched and pain management is insufficient, because we do need to make sure that real choice at the end of life depends on real investment into palliative care. As many have said, the question before us today is not whether I support the principle—I do support the principles of assisted dying—the question is whether it's right to grant legislative consent to legislation that's still evolving, still subject to amendment, and still under delayed scrutiny elsewhere. On an issue of this magnitude that touches on the value we place on life, the protection of the vulnerable, and the trust we place in the law, we should proceed on the basis of certainty and not assumption. If the law is to change, it must change in a way that's clear, settled, and capable of commanding public confidence across Wales.

At this stage, I don't think we're there, and I do not think the Bill is there either. My decision today reflects that judgment. It reflects the belief that compassionate and careful law making are not opposite; they must go hand in hand. It reflects the view that reform, if it comes, must be done properly and on the basis of final, fully scrutinised legislation that impacts on people's lives. For that reason, it's with a very heavy heart that I say this to my constituents, the people who've contacted me, and my own conscience: I will be abstaining on the motion today in the hope that, in the future, the finished legislation will provide me and others with the full confidence to support this Bill. Because people should have the option to choose how to end their own life. Diolch, Llywydd.

Can I just pay tribute to every single person who has spoken? The compassion with which you have spoken, and the way this debate has been held, is something that I don't think I'll ever forget. It's when we all come together like this, whichever direction we're going in—. It's the kindness and compassion with which this debate has been held tonight. I just think that is a tribute to you all.

For me, personally, I cannot support assisted dying. As one of the older Members of the Senedd, my own life experiences have taught me—. I've witnessed where people have died who didn't want to die, and when 'do not resuscitate' has been used. Certainly during COVID, we know of people who died through excessive use of DNRs. Whether this is competent for us to decide tonight—. I am a little bit concerned about a comment I think, Julie, you made that this is going to go through Parliament. It just baffles me that, when we are in these debating chambers, something that needs 1,000 amendments yet to go through—that there's foregone conclusion that this Bill is going to pass in England.

For me, this argument, I'd like to turn it around, really. For me, as an elected Member and someone who is, I believe, spiritual, my faith doesn't allow me to support this. My moral values and things are really compromised by this. But I've taken the time and trouble to listen to the experts who have come forward, those who support assisted dying, and those, as Darren Millar has quite rightly and eloquently pointed out, who work in our health service, our church leaders. For me, I've listened to the consequences of assisted dying. If you are there, and an assisted death is likely to take place, I've been informed in all reality that we're all different individuals and that it can take longer in some people. People can fit, because the medication given to them hasn't worked, and it can take two to three days for an assisted death to take place.

I'm about assisted living. I fundamentally believe, as the doctors have done—. Two hundred and fifty doctors and senior health professionals have called on us not to support this. We've seen our hospices, where the funding isn't sufficient—three quarters of hospices fearing that they will be forced to withdraw the support they currently provide to hospitals and care homes. They've called on the Welsh Government to develop a new sustainable funding model for hospices in Wales, including an extra £40 million. It really does concern me that evidence came forward that people may be suffering with some mental health issues, as well as other physical disabilities, just having a bad day, and could say, 'Right, I want assisted dying.' There's evidence that comes forward where it's been proven that people have changed their minds in instances like that.

'The Bill's definition of terminal illness fails to recognise the risks'—

and it's been picked up on these benches—

'from mistaken diagnosis or misinformation. Accurate prognostication is impossible.'

These are the medics now.

'We urge the Senedd to decline legislative consent connected to this deeply flawed Bill.'

And the Bill in its current state is

'extremely unsafe for the population of Wales'.

So, how can we possibly consider end-of-life care outlined in this Bill? There is, I believe, an alternative to this Bill and to the topic regarding the end of life in care. To make a real difference in end-of-life care, there should be suitable funding to support charities, hospices and palliative care units, who desperately need help in providing services. In addition to this, and I emphasise this, funding is not only for people who are needing end-of-life care, but also to the families who need care and support through those incredibly tough and emotional times.

Now, Matthew Brindley, policy and advocacy manager for Wales at Hospice UK, stated:

'Without urgent action, we could be looking at a future where adult service capacity is further reduced, specialist staff are lost and—crucially—people with life-shortening conditions and their families have less access to the compassionate and high-quality care they need.'

I'm so fortunate in Aberconwy, we have St David's Hospice and Tŷ Gobaith. Now, Tŷ Gobaith, in particular, for children—. So, where you have parents who have no alternative than taking this palliative care—. I just believe that this Bill—we shouldn't really be discussing it here today. It's a flawed Bill, and I have no hesitation, for the reasons I've said earlier, in not supporting this Bill in any shape or form.

Of course, we're not discussing this Bill, and that is the key issue for us tonight in this debate. It is a difficult debate for all of us, and all of us will be coming to it from a different perspective, with our own personal experiences and beliefs. I think all of us recognise the difficulties that many Members have in coming to a conclusion on this matter, and, in that sense, I'm very grateful to the Minister for the way that he introduced the debate this evening, in a very thoughtful and thorough way.

But this is not how we should be legislating on these matters. I agree very much with the points made by Adam Price, that this place should have the powers to take a complete decision on these matters. It is simply not correct that Wales is placed in this position. It isn't the same in England, in Scotland or in Northern Ireland. It is only in Wales where we are unable to have the debate that we have sought to have, and that is simply not the way to govern any country. I hope that one of the things we do learn from this is that we need fundamental reform, to ensure that we are not placed in this situation again.

At the same time, I recognise fully, and I've had this conversation with the Minister, about the timing of this LCM—. He will know that I would have preferred it to have come later in this session, to enable us to have the widest possible understanding of the position of the House of Lords. But we also know that the 1,000 amendments that have been placed in front of the House of Lords are not simply being placed there to improve the legislation, but to obstruct the legislation, and that is not an example of good governance either. So, yes, the settlement needs revising, but also how we legislate needs revising, and I hope those lessons will be learnt.

The Minister told me, quite forcefully, that he wanted to go ahead with the debate this evening, because he didn't foresee any reasonable possibility of significant changes being made to the legislation if we were to wait one, two, three or even four weeks, and I think he's probably right. I think he's probably right in that analysis. It is unlikely that the fundamental architecture of the legislation will change over the coming weeks. But Mabon, in the case he made earlier on in this debate, is absolutely right that this is not how we should be approaching these matters. But we are, and we have to reach a conclusion this evening.

My view is that we have little choice but to pass this LCM this evening. And the reason I say that is because if we do not pass it, what will be the situation tomorrow morning? What will be the situation facing some very vulnerable people in Wales tomorrow? You will not have stopped the Bill, as people have argued this evening. I always enjoy listening to my good friend Darren Millar, but this evening he made an excellent speech, but for a different debate in a different place. And I make no—. [Interruption.] I will give way. I recognise fully the depth of his beliefs and passions on this matter. But by voting against this LCM tonight, you will not prevent the Bill from becoming law. 

I'm very grateful to you for making reference to my contribution earlier. The point I was making is that it is impossible to disentangle a debate about the principle from the clauses that we're discussing today. That was the point I was making. And I do not think that it's appropriate for this Senedd to even consider clauses that we've not been properly able to scrutinise as a Senedd. An hour's worth of debate to scrutinise some detailed clauses is insufficient. And for that reason, I want to see people vote against this particular motion that's before us.

But voting against it will not achieve that objective. I've supported the extension and deepening of our democracy in this place. I supported the expansion of this democracy. I've supported, as other Members know, greater time to be spent on these matters. I've done that over nearly 20 years, because I agree with that. But voting against this LCM this evening won't achieve any of those things. It won't achieve any of those things. What it will do is it will do this: it'll deprive Welsh Ministers of having powers, and it'll deprive this place of having the ability to shape the legislation, should it become law. That is what it will do.

It will also ensure that there is a two-tier law in Wales. Those people who can afford it will be able to exercise choice, and this is a really serious matter when it comes to a debate on morality. What debate on morality can take place when we say to people in Wales, 'You can exercise a choice on this fundamental matter, but only if you've got the money to pay for it'?

And then we talk about compassion. We talk about compassion. If we vote in such a way as to only enable people who can afford to do it or are willing to move to access services to exercise that fundamental choice, and then we talk about compassion—there's no compassion or morality to be found in that argument, I'm afraid, none at all. And what we do is we remove the opportunity for this place to shape those powers and to shape any future regulations that will enable future Welsh Ministers to determine how those services are delivered.

And then we go back to the arguments over the Bill, which will still become law, whatever vote you take this evening. But what we will have done will have made Wales a much, much worse place to be. What we will have done is to say to people in Wales, 'The services are available if you can pay for them, or if you're willing to move, but the services aren't available to people—'. [Interruption.] I will take interventions if the Presiding Officer allows me to. But we will not allow people to access those same services on the national health service as people are able to do across the border. I give way.

Thank you. I follow the logic of the Member's argument and many of the views from different points across the Chamber, and I respect the difference in views, the different perspectives, including those who are going to vote on the principle of the Bill as opposed to the LCM before us. But can I just check? Because my understanding of the legislative process is that, if the Lords make amendments, then that Bill returns to the Commons for MPs to have a final vote. So, it is possible the Bill will not be passed, not just if it's not talked out of time in the Lords—and I agree, there are good-faith amendments in the Lords, and there are others who’ve been upfront about the fact that they just want to talk it out of time. MPs will still get a final vote, and that will determine whether the law changes on assisted dying. This LCM and the scheme of the Bill actually mean that devolved areas would return to Welsh Ministers, whoever those Ministers are, and it's then a matter for the Parliament here, the Welsh Parliament, the Senedd, to actually agree or not those regulations. And there is, of course, an opportunity—you’d expect it to happen, regardless of what takes place after May—for this place to want to scrutinise those regulations in an enhanced way. So, this is about whether this Parliament has the opportunity to do that with Welsh Ministers at the same time as the law would change in England.

Thank you. Probably not for the first time, Vaughan Gething has made my points for me far better than I made them myself. I think that if we are to accept this LCM this evening, then we will provide Members here with an opportunity to have those further debates, and we will be enabling Members to be elected in May to make those decisions. If we vote against this LCM this evening, we do not provide that same opportunity for future Members, and I believe we have a duty to do so.

Before I call the Cabinet Secretary, just for the record, I've exercised no limit to the time provided for this debate tonight, and all Members who have sought to speak have been allowed to and have been called to speak.

The Cabinet Secretary now to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. I would like to thank Members for the thoughtful and often detailed contributions that have been made during today's debate. It's been a debate, as a number of Members have said, about the provisions of the Bill that have regard to devolved matters, which confer functions on Welsh Ministers and which require Senedd consent and involvement, and not about the overarching principle of assisted dying.

Members have approached what I think we would all see as a challenging task with care, recognising the seriousness and often the complexity of the issues raised by the Bill and its implications for Wales. Colleagues have made points both for and against the legislation in Parliament itself, and for and against the principle, and I know Members will understand that I don't propose to address those points in winding up. But several points today have reflected the pressure and, I think, the sense of duty that Members have felt and which the Senedd itself has experienced in scrutinising a private Member's Bill of this scale and importance, and I do propose to respond to those.

A number of Members referred to the timing of the debate that we are having. The timing, the volume of amendments, the need to lay a fourth supplementary memorandum during recess, have created challenges, both for Members and for committees, and I want to acknowledge that and to reiterate my thanks to the committees whose scrutiny has ensured that we have been able to consider properly Wales's interests despite those constraints. I want to say something specific on the timing and on the substantive points that the Chairs of the two committees raised.

A number of Members made the point that they wanted to be in a position where the debate was held once the final form of the Bill was settled, and I'm sure we all have sympathy with that. The LCM process is imperfect and it involves inherently judgments that the Senedd has to make whilst legislation is still passing through Parliament. In the case of this Bill, given the parliamentary timetable in Westminster, the final form of the Bill cannot be known during the term of this Senedd, and so applying that principle would mean that this Senedd would not have an opportunity to give its view, and I know from the contributions that Members have made today that the correspondence that we've all received, and the attendance at the Senedd over weeks of campaigners, both for and against the principle, would expect us to be able to form a view and declare a view.

The second point that—[Interruption.] Yes, certainly.

You referred there to the imperfect process, and, of course, an imperfect process leads to an imperfect law. Would you therefore agree that it would be best to have the process devolved to Wales, so that we could have that proper scrutiny process and that we could actually develop our own legislation around the needs of Wales?

Well, I heard the important points that the Member and others on his benches made in relation to that point. In the context of the amendments, I do propose to come on to say something specific about that.

The second point, Llywydd, that I want to make on timing is to reassure those who have said that they feel this is—I think this was the language used—a blank cheque, and to confirm that if there are further agreed amendments that touch on devolved matters, the Government is committed to bring forward a further LCM, but, as I said, our best assessment is that this is unlikely to be needed during the remainder of this Senedd term.

Peter Fox made an important set of points in relation to the operation of a potential future assisted dying service in Wales, and he raised important questions about how that might be delivered. But they are, of course, questions for a future Government and a future Senedd, if the legislation passes in Parliament. Mike Hedges asked questions in relation to the regulation of private providers. Clause 42 of the current Bill provides a range of powers in relation to that, but there are existing separate legislative provisions for those regulations that sit in the hands of Ministers.

A number of Members noted what they described as the narrow drafting of the Standing Order. Llywydd, I wanted to say something specific on that. Our assessment as a Government of which clauses require consent is based on the test in Standing Order 29 as to whether the Bill's provisions have regard to devolved matters. Our legal analysis concludes that only the clauses identified in the LCM require consent under that Standing Order.

Some Members have asked, in relation to amendments, why a broader approach could not be taken. Again, that Standing Order requires memoranda to be laid where there are non-Government amendments that have regard to devolved matters where they have been agreed to. The pragmatic point that Mike Hedges rightly referred to in his contribution simply recognises the vast scale of applying a different rule in the context of the number of amendments laid in Parliament. The focus for amendments in memoranda 3 and 4 have been largely on key amendments tabled by the sponsor, which would insert entirely new clauses or amend provisions in relation to which LCMs have already been laid, or that respond to Welsh Government requests to address recommendations from Senedd committees or other requests that the Welsh Government has asked for consultation provisions to be included. All of those have been set out in subsequent memoranda.

On the point of the amendments that have been raised in the debate and that Mabon ap Gwynfor raised in his intervention, we have worked constructively throughout this process with both the sponsor and the UK Government to secure amendments to strengthen the functions of Welsh Ministers. The amendments to which the Member referred relate to where he and, I don't doubt, many of us in the Chamber would like the constitutional boundary to be, but that is not where the constitutional boundary is. The LCM is necessarily crafted on the constitutional boundary as it is, not where we might wish it to be. Wherever we think that the powers that he referred to should sit, I can reassure him and his colleagues that it is not right to say that the existing devolution settlement has not been thoroughly considered in the preparation of this LCM and in discussions with both the sponsor and the UK Government. That engagement will continue as the Bill moves forward. If there are further amendments that require LCMs, they will be laid, and we will keep Members fully updated as the Bill progresses.

Finally, Llywydd, if I may say, I'm grateful to Members for approaching the questions before Members today with the seriousness and clarity that they demand. Diolch yn fawr.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. We will, therefore, defer all voting under this item until voting time, which will follow once we've dealt with two remaining items.

The first of those is item 15, the motion to vary the order of Stage 3 amendments to the Building Safety (Wales) Bill. The Cabinet Secretary to move the motion.

I move.

It is formally moved. I have no speakers. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. The motion under item 15 is agreed.

The next item is a debate on Stage 4 of the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for climate change to move the motion—Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Llywydd. It's a privilege to open this Stage 4 debate on the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill. I'm very pleased to move this motion today, which brings this notable piece of long awaited legislation closer to being put in place.

We are debating this Bill at a time, Llywydd, when both the climate and nature emergencies are intensifying around us. Wales is experiencing more frequent flooding, coastal erosion, biodiversity loss and, indeed, shifting weather patterns. These challenges are not abstract. They are not distant. They are here now, and they threaten our communities, our economy and the ecosystems on which we depend. This is why it is critical that this Bill passes today. It is a landmark step forward for Wales that represents a significant moment in our determination to protect and to enhance Wales's environment for this and for future generations.

This Bill achieves this by establishing an environmental objective to guide our policy and decision making right across Wales, focused on a high level of environmental protection and an improvement of the environment. It introduces duties on the Welsh Ministers, on Natural Resources Wales and other public authorities to apply four core environmental principles and to integrate environmental protection. It establishes an independent environmental governance body with authority, with expertise and with real power. It establishes a framework, empowering and requiring the Welsh Ministers to set targets in secondary legislation that contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss or to restoring biodiversity to resilient levels. In essence, it provides the statutory framework we need to respond to these challenges with urgency, with ambition and with coherence. It demonstrates our leadership, our determination and a shared commitment across this Senedd to safeguarding the natural world that sustains us.

This Bill is a product of real and deep collaboration and exceptional engagement. I want to express my sincere thanks to everyone who has helped shape this important legislation—to Senedd Members on all sides, to committees and committee members, to stakeholders from right across Wales, and to all of those who've contributed so much time, expertise and scrutiny. I also want to take this moment, Llywydd, to express my thanks to a small but very dedicated team of Welsh Government officials, Senedd lawyers, committee clerks, and Commission staff for their dedication and professionalism throughout this process. I am really pleased to say that the constructive amendments made throughout the Senedd scrutiny process have indeed improved the clarity, the ambition and the effectiveness of this Bill. This is unquestionably a stronger Bill because of the breadth of voices that have shaped it.

Llywydd, this Bill represents the best of co-operative legislating in Wales. I call on Members across the Chamber to give their support to this Bill in this final stage, so that we can take this important step forward together. Thank you very much.

I too would like to thank the clerks, the committee team and the legal team for their work and perseverance on the Bill, and thank the Deputy First Minister for his assistance and that of his team too. And I would also like to thank Niamh Salkeld and Lewis Owen from the Plaid office for their work on the amendments to the Bill. I'd also like to thank Friends of the Earth Cymru and Wales Environment Link for their assistance with our amendments.

Now, this is a Bill, of course, on the power to correct a historic imbalance in our communities and to give a voice to citizens on the state of our environment. Plaid Cymru has worked to improve the Bill in order to ensure that the new body has a clearer purpose, to explain that people have a right to make representations to the OEGW, and to enable Ministers to recover biodiversity to proper levels. The amendments are practical, but they will make a significant difference to the way that we safeguard our environment. And the Bill does more than deal with structures and processes alone; it is about empowering our communities. So, I look forward to seeing how the Bill, now as law, will strengthen the voice of our communities and help to ensure a cleaner, healthier Wales for everyone. 

I will be opposing the Bill this afternoon because what we have seen across this Senedd in a number of different areas is targets set up all the time, and what do we do? We don't meet them, because arbitrary targets do not make any difference; substantial change does. What we also see with this Bill is a new, ill-defined, costly quango, and the last thing that Wales needs is another quango set up to actually try and improve things. And this Bill is going to cost £34 million to deliver—money that would be far better spent on our front-line services. And I'm afraid that all this money will do is be diverted into endless evaluations, reports and more bureaucracy.

I also cannot support legislation that promotes the work of the committee on climate change that wants to reduce livestock numbers by 27 per cent by 2040—something that I fundamentally do not support. So, for those reasons, I will not be supporting this Bill today, and I would encourage others sat to one side of me who want to save money and actually reinvest them in public services to support me in this matter.

The Cabinet Secretary now to reply—Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Could I, first of all, just reiterate my thanks to both committee members who have contributed to this, but other wider stakeholders who have definitely improved this Bill? As Delyth rightly said, one of the purposes of this Bill is to strengthen the voice of our communities and our citizens in Wales to be able to hold to account public bodies, including Government Ministers, on whether we are delivering on those improvements to nature.

And James, just to say to you, in your opposition to this legislation, the establishment of a powerful body to provide independent voice to challenge those public bodies—what you describe as a 'quango'—is actually a denial from Reform that we are hearing of the nature and climate emergencies, and, more than that, a denial of the right of the citizens of Wales as well to challenge policy makers and to hold them to account. If that's where you want to stand as Reform, good luck to you, but I urge Senedd Members to actually support this long-awaited legislation. It is a landmark step forward in Wales, and you will do a great service to the people of Wales by supporting this.

In accordance with Standing Order 26.50C, a recorded vote must be taken on Stage 4 motions, so I defer voting on this motion until voting time.

Mae hynny'n golygu ein bod ni'n cyrraedd y cyfnod pleidleisio. Dwi bron yn siŵr nad oes tri Aelod sydd eisiau canu'r gloch ar y pwynt yma, felly fe wnawn ni symud yn syth i'r pleidleisio.

The first vote this evening is on item 10, the Higher Education (Fee Limits) (Wales) Regulations 2026, and I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, 14 abstentions and 13 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on item 13, the legislative consent motion on the Pension Schemes Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jayne Bryant. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 42, no abstentions and 11 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next votes will be on item 14, the legislative consent motion on the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill. The first vote is on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, there are 16 abstentions and 12 against. Therefore, the first amendment is agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, 15 abstentions and 25 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 3, again tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, 16 abstentions and 25 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

The final vote on this item is on the motion as amended by amendment 1, and that motion was tabled in the name of Jeremy Miles.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, two abstentions and 23 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

The next vote will be on item 16, the Stage 4 of the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Huw Irranca-Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 51, no abstentions and two against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

That brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you all very much for your contributions, and good evening.