National Assembly for Wales

Welcome, everyone, to this Plenary meeting. The first item today will be questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, and the first question is from Delyth Jewell.

Yes, of course. We wish to develop an integrated transport network that is accessible for all people in Wales. That's why we're legislating to introduce a franchised bus network, why we're investing £800 million to upgrade our rail fleet, and I am committed to support the work of the disability rights taskforce.

Thank you for that.

Some months ago, I had a motion passed in the Senedd relating to improving access to bus and trains at stations, and also on those services. I worry that too many of our public spaces are designed in ways that exclude people—stations that rely on people being able to see obstacles or changes to timetables, poorly lit walkways that make women feel more vulnerable at night, and services that can be cancelled at short notice, leaving passengers stranded. Because women, people with disabilities, they're not intrinsically vulnerable—it's the way that our public spaces are designed that creates that vulnerability. Now, I've pushed for changes with Transport for Wales to alter the processes they follow when cancelling services to be different during the winter months, so that passengers aren't stranded in isolated areas after dark. But we need to change the way we design the spaces that we are all meant to share. So, do you agree with me on that, how are you pushing forward those changes, please, and could we have a meeting to discuss how these changes can happen?

Yes, I'd be delighted to meet with the Member to discuss the various issues she's raised today, and which she's raised on a consistent basis with me. I believe that Cardiff bus station is a pretty good example of how design can be undertaken with people involved with certain lived experiences, from the very outset, so that certain systems and design features don't have to be retrofitted after infrastructure has been built. We have an access and inclusion panel within Transport for Wales. It's done outstanding work. I met with them just in the last month, and I've committed to providing the right support to the panel to maximise its impact and influence in this area. But I would value a meeting to discuss the various issues regarding safety and regarding accessibility to public transport.

Cabinet Secretary, I've been contacted by a number of constituents from my region who travel regularly between Blaenavon, Pontypool, Cwmbran and Newport via bus. Due to a road closure in Pontypool, there has been chaos within the area itself, causing severe delays to bus services, including one specific service called the X24. This is affecting my constituents travelling to work, those travelling to colleges, some are going to hospital appointments, some are travelling to Newport to catch timed connections—even those who are catching connections for holidays as well. Now, I'm told this has a knock-on effect as the service, after arriving in Newport, becomes the 151 service to Blackwood. One particular constituent I spoke with revealed it's regularly taking her more than an hour to travel the four or so miles from her home in Cwmbran to her work in Newport, making her regularly late and not very favourable with her employer—and that's if she's lucky. One morning, she spent an hour and a half waiting for a bus that never, indeed, turned up. Despite opting to catch earlier services, I'm told this has not alleviated the problem for my constituents. So, Cabinet Secretary, I have raised this issue directly with Stagecoach, but would you kindly also look into this matter and work with the bus operator to explore potential solutions, please? My constituents and I would be incredibly grateful. Thank you.

I'd be more than happy to investigate the challenges with the X24 and the 151 bus services. Franchising, I believe, in the longer term, will assist in ensuring that networks are designed to meet the needs of passengers. And, also, with franchising, we'll be able to operate more bus replacement services when systems fail. But, in the short term, I will look at the matter, and I'll report back to the Member.

Cabinet Secretary, the basic accessibility of rail services, obviously, involves the provision of those services and, indeed, train stations. The work of the Burns commission, and now taken forward by the delivery unit, proposes those five new stations for that south-east Wales area, including three stations in my constituency of Newport East. Many, many people want to access train services to get to work and find that those services are not accessible in a way that would allow them to do so, and, as a result, there's a lot of congestion on the roads, including the M4, of course. So, I just wonder if you could provide an update, Cabinet Secretary, in terms of those five new stations and your discussions with the UK Government.

I thank the Member for his supplementary question, and I would agree that when you supply additional capacity, people will use it. We've seen a 13 per cent increase in passengers on TfW services just in the past year, showing the huge demand that is out there for transport.

I was very pleased to see recently Professor Simon Gibson, who is chair of the Burns delivery unit, meet with Lord Hendy, the rail Minister, to discuss the projects that you've just outlined. I believe the discussions were very positive, not least because we now have an agreed pipeline of enhancements for rail infrastructure in Wales, which includes specifically those stations that were proposed by Lord Burns as well as the other work associated with the south-east Wales transport commission and, indeed, the north Wales transport commission.

Across Wales, we’re supporting local authorities to set the right speed limits on the right local roads. In Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire, we are improving infrastructure, funding road safety initiatives, supporting enforcement, and ensuring road safety is integrated into the regional transport plan to create safer, healthier communities.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. It can’t be understated, the success of the improvements at the Nash Fingerpost junction along the A477, and I thank the Welsh Government for their intervention in making that junction safe. But also along the A477 is the junction to Red Roses—a 90-degree junction on a busy main road, where there have been a number of accidents over the years. Now, I’ve written to you about this previously, and I’ve met with you. While this junction itself is compliant with the rules, common sense dictates that it's not safe. The same could be said for the new junction on the Llanddewi Velfrey-Redstone Cross bypass—again, another 90-degree junction with no slip-road exit on a busy road. Could I ask that these two junctions are looked at in more detail and that the regulations that are used to build these junctions are updated, because it’s clear from common sense that these junctions aren’t safe, but they continue to be built not only in my constituency, but across Wales as well?

I'd like to thank the Member for his question. I'm very pleased to hear that the work at Nash Fingerpost junction has been well received. The issues that the Member raises regarding Red Roses and Redstone are familiar to me. I’ve been in discussions with the office of the Mid and West Wales Member, Eluned Morgan, over these very concerns. With regard to Red Roses, while the A477 Red Roses junction was designed to current standards and compliant at the time of its construction, driver behaviour is shown to be a major factor in the evidence collected to date. So, we’ve added a scheme to the 2025-26 programme to identify potential short-term safety interventions at that very junction.

With regard to the Redstone Cross junction, this was pushed for inclusion during key stage 2 of the public inquiry, and all options were reviewed as part of that inquiry. Now, I do acknowledge that there were safety issues at the original Redstone Cross junction and that there are ongoing concerns, some of which have been raised in correspondence by Narberth Town Council. So, the Welsh Government can promise that a safety audit will be undertaken, prior to the removal of traffic management and the opening of this scheme, and this will assess the constructed works and highlight any road safety issues. But I have also asked for a comprehensive briefing on this very matter.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Welsh Conservatives' spokesperson, Peter Fox.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I know you will be aware of the worrying increase in freight crime across the United Kingdom. We’ve seen 5,500 reported incidents in 2023—an increase of 5 per cent on the previous year. The latest statistics show that £68.3 million of goods were stolen, with a cost of £700 million to the UK economy, and, of course, many of those haulage companies are small and medium-sized enterprises and, as such, freight crime is especially damaging to them. I’ve heard some quite harrowing stories, because often these things happen in lay-bys where fuel is taken or curtains on lorries are sliced open and produce taken out of the back. But a key issue not helping this worrying trend in Wales is the lack of areas for drivers to rest safely and securely with basic facilities, such as toilets. If these were available, crime would be reduced massively and drivers would have their basic welfare needs met. To date, little or nothing seems to be happening on this. Cabinet Secretary, what is being done to put these essential areas in place, and when can the haulage industry expect to see some of these?

Well, can I thank the Member for his question? It’s an incredibly valuable one, and it’s very timely, because I discussed this matter with representatives of the freight sector in Dublin over the weekend, and I’ve also discussed it with representatives of the Welsh freight movement, including the Road Haulage Association. I think the Member is absolutely right that it’s caused incredible anxiety, the increase in crime. I’m also concerned that the lack of safe and accessible and affordable truck stops is a barrier for women entering the sector as well. It’s a very, very male-dominated sector, and I heard at the weekend, and I’ve heard previously, that one of the reasons is because women who want to get into employment in the sector are too scared to because of the lack of facilities. Now, I can assure the Member that this will be discussed not only as part of the Holyhead taskforce, given the vital role that truck stops play in ensuring that routes are attractive to the freight sector, but it will also be a key feature in the forthcoming freight strategy, from which we will take lessons regarding the Holyhead taskforce and implement them within that strategy.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. It’s reassuring that we’re on the same page on that. I think urgency is the key issue for the industry. They’ve been waiting an awfully long time, and I absolutely concur with your position regarding women drivers and the difficulties for them. So, let’s hope we see these things happening, but I think it needs to be across Wales as well, not necessarily just on the ports or the new zones, or whatever.

Cabinet Secretary, the pursuit of net zero is a noble one—we’re, mainly, all agreed on that—and it requires investment if it’s to be done well. Now, currently in Wales, there simply isn’t the infrastructure for rapid electric vehicle charging or hydrogen refuelling points for the freight industry to use across Wales. Now, this severely limits the ability or practicality of the sector to invest in its fleet and reduce its own carbon footprint, especially in a sector with such high overheads. Your Government’s national transport delivery plan outlines a few points of action, but no tangible targets to implementing policy. Cabinet Secretary, what targets will be put in place to ensure that Wales has sufficient rapid vehicle charging points and hydrogen fuel stations, to enable those in the freight industry who need or want to invest in the future, greener way of freight transport to do so?

Well, again, the Member raises an incredibly valuable point. I would add to it, though, that we also need to consider, particularly for SMEs, the prohibitive cost of alternative vehicles to traditional internal combustion engine-driven lorries. And that is a feature of discussions that are taking place at an inter-governmental level. We discussed, as Ministers, in the past two weeks, actually, from each of the devolved administrations, and the UK Government, this very need, as part of the race towards net zero, and how we can ensure that private sector operators can afford what are incredibly expensive vehicles. The same challenge affects the bus industry, and this is why I’m keen that TfW play a more interventionist role in acquiring electric buses and hydrogen buses, so that they could then lease them to operators—existing ones and new entrants to the market, as well, as part of franchising. So, we can do some exciting, innovative work in these areas.

I know that there’s a lot of innovation taking place in the hydrogen hub in north Wales. Equally, a huge amount of innovation has taken place in Swansea bay. So, there’s no shortage of ideas and innovation in Wales. The key is in exploiting the new developments in technology. And there is a very significant new development in technology in this area, and that comes with the development of the dry solid cell battery that could be found in vehicles towards the end of this decade. That will be an absolute game changer. Toyota are already, out in Japan, testing their dry solid cell battery technology, and it’s found already that vehicles are able to cover in excess of 600 miles. It’s hoped that the range will increase to around 900 miles with this technology, and that charging can take place within 15 to 20 minutes. That is a complete game changer in terms of the infrastructure that will be required. It’s incredibly exciting, not least because I wish to see those new electric motors built here in Wales, where we’ve got a proud record with Toyota of building engines. And it will answer many of the concerns that people have right now regarding infrastructure to support existing electric fleet, whereas actually what we need to be looking at is the new and emerging technology. It’s a bit like betting on Betamax when we know that VHS is going to win the war.

Thank you again for that. Of course, hydrogen-powered combustion engines are going to be fundamental for the freight industry, that’s probably the next step where we really do need to see accelerating pace, because those long-term investments need to really gear up for the future.

Moving on, another key part of decarbonisation is alleviating the reliance on private vehicles. We’ve heard some about that today. Sadly, Wales just does not have adequate public transport for people to use, and they’re therefore continuing to use their cars as a matter of practicality. I note that it was reported last week that Wales has two of the top-10 worst performing stations in Great Britain, with almost 12 per cent of journeys being delayed or cancelled. You would agree with me this simply is not good enough, especially considering the fact that councils such as Cardiff, for instance, are considering implementing congestion charges. So, alternative reliable modes of public transport have to be in place soon. Cabinet Secretary, can you outline why Wales has two of the worst performing stations in Great Britain, and what steps are being taken to address this?

Yes. Those two stations are on the very same line. I met with Transport for Wales last week to interrogate the reasons for the poor performance on that line. I was assured that it is being addressed.

Now, across the network, of course, the performance has been increasing steadily and consistently. Whilst passenger journeys are up 13 per cent this year, so too is reliability; it now stands at 83.5 per cent. That’s 83.5 per cent of all Transport for Wales services arriving within three minutes of their scheduled time. That’s in no small part because of the huge investment, the £800 million that we are spending on new trains, including of course the electric trains that are operating on the core Valleys lines. By the end of the £800 million project, we’ll have taken the entire fleet from the just 270 trains that we inherited back in 2018 to 484, creating one of Britain’s newest fleets of trains and one of the largest as well for the size of our country.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I want to ask you about the high speed 2 line and Labour’s newest version of your policy. Why has Labour removed the explicit call for HS2 to be redesignated as an England-only project, despite voting for it explicitly in 2023?

HS2 has been an ongoing challenge, I would admit that. We’ve made regular calls for consequentials and for fair investment, and I’m delighted that, as a consequence of those regular calls, we now have a commitment, regardless of the classification, to invest in a pipeline of enhancements that amounts to a huge sum of money to address a historic underfunding of rail investment and to address the lack of consequentials for HS2, which amounts so far to around £400 million. I’ll put that into context: in an independent Wales, that would be lost within two months.

But that doesn’t go to the inherent unfairness of the initial stance. It looks like you’ve been told by No. 10 to soften your stance. And fair play to you, you’ve complied by putting party loyalty ahead of Wales.

The Labour amendment to the debate that we’re going to be having later talks about an appropriate level of comparability with the UK Government programmes. Does that mean accepting less than the full HS2 consequential for the total spend of HS2, which you are on the record for as calling for £5 billion? Why has asking for the full consequential been removed from current Welsh Labour Government policy?

So, you pick on a very, very specific technical point about the classification and comparability. That relates to us having acquired the core Valleys lines, so that, in the future, any consideration of a Barnett consequential can be set against the fact that we now have rail infrastructure, or at least part of Wales has rail infrastructure, in our hands. That will give us a benefit in terms of consequentials, regardless of whether it’s HS2 or any other programme that’s classified as England only, moving forward. With regard to HS2 funding, thus far around £400 million would have come our way. It’s based on your own figures that I say that that would be lost in the space of just two months in an independent Wales. It’s your own figures. The annual fiscal deficit of more than £2 billion means that £400 million would be lost, not on rail infrastructure improvements, but just in propping up existing services. Moving forward, what we are doing is working in partnership with the UK Government to address historic underfunding, which has been admitted for the very first time by UK Labour Ministers, and they are determined, like we are, to get the standard of infrastructure on our rail network up to scratch.

I'm so disappointed that Labour in Wales won't even stand by its own position. Only Plaid Cymru consistently stands up for Wales. You've had the chance to work with your party to deliver transformational change, as promised in the general election, but instead you settled for the sticking-plaster solutions. Labour's amendment later removes the call to update figures on Wales's rail funding shortfall. It welcomes the UK Government's acknowledgement of underfunding, but drops the explicit demand for it.

Does this mean that Labour in Wales is letting Westminster off the hook? Are you now happy to just respond to us at First Minister's questions and spokesperson's questions by saying, 'That's Keir Starmer's job', despite how vocal you were when somebody else was in power? The public do see through this; they see through the hypocrisy. When it comes to the 2026 elections, they will remember who put Wales first and who put party first. Is it time to u-turn on a u-turn, or are we on a road to nowhere?

I am disappointed by what I've heard. It is nonsense. You want independence, do you not? Do you want independent? Do you wish to see independence happen?

Yes, of course, but—

Of course. So, you are willing to inflict more than £2 billion of damage—[Interruption.] Two billion pounds of damage in Wales every single year. [Interruption.] With regard to HS2 and rail, for the first time—

Look, allow the Minister to answer the question that was asked by Peredur Owen Griffiths. 

You are running away from your own figures.

Can I ask the other Members of Plaid Cymru to please—

You want independence, so you're willing to inflict more than—. On your own figures. And I actually prefer to rely on the figures of academic experts, who put the figure at around £13 billion, in which case, £400 million would be gone in days—[Interruption.] In days. Instead, what we're doing is focusing on delivery, on working in partnership with those at Westminster to invest in the rail network in a way that you would never be able to in an independent Wales. It would suffer as a result of what you want.

I'm continuously reviewing how we monitor the performance of Transport of Wales, and I've recently strengthened scrutiny arrangements through increasing the frequency of my challenge sessions with the chair and chief accounting officer to monthly, and commissioned additional regular updates on the core Valleys lines and rail performance, and publishing operational and corporate key performance indicators.

Diolch yn fawr, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet. That sounds very promising. But following a concern raised with me by a Transport for Wales train driver, my office submitted a freedom of information request to TfW in relation to its drivers and conductors and their driving patterns. For the time period requested, TfW, by their own figures, had 89 drivers and 70 conductors, more than is needed to run the service. This equates to an excess wage bill of over £8 million per year. Spare drivers work a shift, but are not allocated a route that day; they are on standby in the depot in case a scheduled driver cannot do that route for whatever reason. On average, there are 11 drivers and six conductors extra per day, but I am informed that they have regularly three times that number just sitting in the depot.

Now, I appreciate, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet, why these spare drivers and conductors are needed to minimise cancellations and delays, but I'm told this is considerably higher than in the days when Arriva ran the service. Cabinet Secretary, will you look into this to see if TfW is running as efficiently as possible whilst also maintaining the best service possible? Diolch yn fawr.

Yes, of course, I will look into this issue. Of course, we do have a conductor on every train, which is somewhat unique in Britain, and we do that because we value the role that conductors play in guaranteeing safety on our trains. As a result of having so many valuable members of staff, we're also able to operate with fewer cancellations than many, many other train operating companies. For example, at the moment, Avanti, I believe, has a cancellation rate of around 13.5 per cent, compared to 5.5 per cent for Transport for Wales. So, clearly, having staff on standby helps to avoid cancellations, but I will, of course, raise this matter with TfW.

In December 2023, the Welsh Government told the committee that the uplift received was not enough and that farebox revenue needed to increase. However, for some passengers, as highlighted by the most recent rail user survey, Transport for Wales rail fares are already seen as being expensive. And I know that the ticket to get from Llandudno Junction, now, to Cardiff, which was £110 is now £117, and the man at the ticket office said to me, 'And they're going up again soon.' So, I'd like some clarification on that.

It is also known and accepted that affordable fares are the key to increasing rail passenger numbers, and it will, in turn, decrease the need for public subsidy. Now, I understand that you've done a deal, as part of passing the Government's budget, with the Welsh Liberal Democrat, for a £15 million pilot offering bus travel anywhere in Wales for people aged 16 to 21 for £1. What assessment has the Cabinet Secretary made of this reduction in bus fares and what impact that will have on rail patronage? And with the loss of nearly £300 million last year, how are you going to address that, so that you get Transport for Wales being less subsidised, with more passenger usage, and really, doing what it should be doing?

The Member raises a number of important points and questions. First of all, I'd like to thank her for drawing attention to the budget deal with the Welsh Liberal Democrats, which will mean that 0.25 million young people in Wales benefit from a capped fare of just £1 and a capped daily fare of £3—a huge, huge boost to young people in Wales wishing to access education and employment. The farebox gathered by Transport for Wales is at the point of smashing through £200 million a year, so the farebox has increased quite substantially, along with the number of services—more train services being operated than ever before and many, many, many services on brand-new trains as a result of our £800 million investment in rolling stock.

There are, of course, regulated and unregulated fares and I've long argued for reform of what is a very complicated and, in part, unfair fare regime. I'm delighted to say that, as part of UK Government proposals for rail reform, with the work that's being taken forward to create Great British Railways, we will finally see the issue of unfair fares and inconsistency of the fare regime addressed.

Discussions are ongoing between the Eisteddfod, Transport for Wales and Wrexham County Borough Council about a co-ordinated transport plan. We saw last year in Pontypridd how a collaborative approach delivered excellent public transport provision, and it was the greenest Eisteddfod ever. So, I want to see the same level of provision in Wrexham.

Thank you very much for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. As you say, we know, based on the experience of Pontypridd last year, but also the last occasion that Wrexham hosted the National Eisteddfod back in 2011, the importance of very reliable and efficient transport links to ensure that visitors are able to get to the maes easily. Last week, I had a very productive meeting with Transport for Wales, and I was very pleased to hear of the work currently being undertaken, as you say, by themselves, by Arriva UK Bus, Wrexham County Borough Council and the Welsh Government to ensure that that absolutely happens in August again. So, will the Cabinet Secretary ensure that these positive discussions continue, and that we have adequate funding to ensure that the visitors to the National Eisteddfod are able to have those excellent transport links?

Can I thank Lesley for her supplementary question? I'm very grateful to her for raising this issue today. I've got fond memories of the 2011 Eisteddfod, when Mark Drakeford came to stay with me and we didn't have the standard of public transport that we have today, so we had to drive to the maes. But, with this Eisteddfod, I believe that it will be different. Now, of course, the site is further away from a train station than was the case in Pontypridd. I think in Pontypridd it took about seven minutes to walk to the maes from the train station. It's two hours in Wrexham, we believe, so walking will not be the option that it was in Pontypridd. So, I have asked Transport for Wales to plan shuttle services to and from the railway station, and to ensure that the bus network is operating efficiently to provide opportunities for as many people as possible to get to and from the Eisteddfod by bus.

I'm grateful to the Member for Wrexham for raising this today, because people in north Wales—and Wrexham in particular—are very excited about the Eisteddfod coming to their patch in the summer. Beyond the summer, Cabinet Secretary, we want to continue to see major events in Wrexham because it's such a welcoming place, but there are challenges around some of the transport links there.

You will be aware, Cabinet Secretary, of proposals from WSMR in relation to a direct rail link from Wrexham train station through to London, which opens up Wrexham beyond its locality, to attract more visitors, and hopefully attract more events into the area, supporting the local economy. You will also be aware that it's making good progress, and I wonder whether you would be able to continue today, in this Chamber, to put your voice of support to that project, so that we can see that direct rail link—much more regular, much more accessible to people—from Wrexham through to London. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I thank Sam Rowlands for his question? There is, indeed, a huge amount of excitement in Wrexham about the Eisteddfod and, of course, other developments—the football museum, the rise of the football club itself, the development of the Wrexham gateway, the ongoing success of the development bank, which is HQ'd there, investment, and a huge increase in tourism. There is an immense amount taking place in Wrexham that we can be proud of. 

I am supportive of more rail services that better connect our communities. To have the service that Sam Rowlands has just outlined would be a huge boost for Wrexham. There is one caveat that I would place on it, which is that no new service should compromise existing services. They have to be able to work in a compatible way. I spoke with a number of organisations this week about that very initiative, including the lead member for transport on Wrexham County Borough Council and the Wrexham-Bidston Rail Users' Association. There is a huge amount of enthusiasm for it. I know that there are a few challenges that remain to be resolved, and we are making representations over them.

The north Wales transport commission report into improving the Menai crossings' resilience made 16 specific recommendations. The first six recommendations were identified as priorities, and detailed feasibility work is now under way. This includes improving junctions and carriageway alignments, introducing wind deflectors to the Britannia bridge, and, of course, enhancements for walking, wheeling and cycling.

Thank you for that response.

I'm grateful for the response, but I am deeply frustrated that things are taking so long. It's 15 months since the commission reported. I received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary explaining that feasibility studies were under way. It's over a year since the previous transport Minister said that feasibility studies were being procured. It's over 10 years since I was asking for the three-lane option to be studied in detail.

We then won the case for a new bridge. That was taken away from us, and we have here a vulnerable crossing that risks isolating Ynys Môn at a time when we are experiencing more and more fierce storms that can lead to the closure of the bridge, and this on a key road to a port that the Cabinet Secretary, I know, wants to see being supported for the future.

I get the feeling, time and time again—not just month after month but year after year—of a Government kicking this into the long grass. When can we have a timetable on moving forward, and can we have an assurance that that still does include a three-lane option as an immediate possibility too?

I think the Member does raise important points here: the intervention that we are taking forward on the Britannia bridge, on the Menai bridge, and also the need to continue to consider the prospect of a third crossing over the Menai strait. The work that's taking place at the moment does not rule out a third crossing. I do believe that we need to do more in the short to medium term to improve the resilience of the existing crossings. That's why the work on the Menai bridge is commencing again this month, and it will be completed in time for the two-hundredth anniversary of the bridge. The regional transport plan as well, which is out for consultation, identifies how vulnerable Anglesey is as a result of having two crossings, both of which are subject to either restrictions or to severe weather patterns. I am committed to taking forward the six priorities, but I will provide the Member with an indicative time frame for delivery, because I think that is exactly what people need to have. People need to know on Ynys Môn when they can expect the Menai strait to have a more resilient set of crossings.

The Welsh Government collaborates closely with Natural Resources Wales and local authorities to enhance the resilience of the highway network against flooding. This partnership involves strategic planning, funding allocations and the execution of specific projects aimed at mitigating flood risks.

Many rural lanes and roads are damaged by the run-off from fields, blocked ditches, culverts and other private land. Under riparian law, landowners are responsible for the management of these, including at the side of highways, and many might not know. Drainage and highway officers at councils have asked the Welsh Government to provide support to inform landowners that it's their responsibility. There seems to be some confusion as to who's responsible for them. It has been suggested that a leaflet or some other resource could be given to landowners. It would be a really useful tool in this, and I was wondering if it was something you would consider. Earlier, at committee, we were asking NRW about this and they said that there's information on their website, but I don't think that's enough, really, as a tool. So, could you look at doing this, working with the Welsh Local Government Association?

Yes, absolutely. Can I thank Carolyn for her supplementary question? There are many forms of legislation in place that highlight the responsibilities of riparian landowners in regard to flooding, and anyone who owns land or property that either contains or is next to a river, stream or a ditch is a riparian landowner. I think it was last year that the then Minister for climate change provided a written statement over this very issue, but my officials do meet very regularly with the Welsh Local Government Association, and I will ask that they review the situation, when they next meet, to discuss the best ways to inform landowners of your concerns and of their responsibilities.

I am committed to ensuring that walking, wheeling and cycling is inclusive and accessible to all. This includes funding for inclusive infrastructure, such as safe crossings, dropped kerbs, tactile paving, and better integration with public transport, promoting equality of access within and between communities.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Sadly, one of the biggest barriers to active travel for people with disabilities is the scourge of pavement parking. The former transport Minister promised a crackdown, but inconsiderate parking is still a barrier to wheelchair users, as well as those with sight loss, taking active travel options. Cabinet Secretary, can you update the Chamber on efforts to crack down on pavement parking and any discussions you have had with the Cabinet Secretary for planning about ensuring new housing includes sufficient parking facilities to prevent the need for pavement parking? Thank you.

Can I thank Altaf Hussain for raising this matter today in the Chamber? We're working with local government to look at how we can address pavement parking, and we're also working with the UK Government and the other devolved administrations to ascertain whether a collective approach to this matter can be developed. The Member may be aware that, this forthcoming year, we're going to be insisting that, as a minimum, 60 per cent of core allocations for active travel is spent on the ground, on actual physical improvements, on infrastructure improvements, such as dropped kerbs, tactile paving and preventative measures that stop people from parking on pavements. That's an indication of the course of direction that we are going to be taking as a Government, but we will go on working with local government and the UK Government to ensure that, collectively, we can crack down on pavement parking.

Our priorities for north Wales are improving public transport links, building better roads, devolving decision making to the north through its regional transport plan, and delivering the north Wales metro.

Questioning you here in 2018 during your first innings as transport Secretary, I highlighted the North Wales Economic Ambition Board's growth vision for north Wales draft proposition document, which stated the region invites the Welsh Government to support the formation of a regional transport body and fund the delivery of a well-planned and integrated transport network, and that additional powers will be needed to enable the planning of integrated passenger transport networks. In your response, you referred for the first time instead to the north Wales metro. As you know, I chair the cross-party group for north Wales, and at our meeting in February 2023 you argued in favour of devolving decision making on a range of transport matters to the region, and you stated this could involve devolution of funding to the north Wales corporate joint committee. Now that you're on your second innings as transport Secretary, how will you reconcile your statement last month that decisions about the future funding of the Welsh Government's transport grants will be taken by corporate joint committees based on an agreed delivery plan, presumably with the Welsh Government, with the approach advocated by the ambition board from the outset of real regionalism and devolution?

I'm delighted to say that, in my second innings, we are actually doing what I said we should commence in my first innings, which is to devolve the financial resource and the decision making to the region—yes, to the corporate joint committee, but it may be that funding goes direct to local authorities. It's for the CJCs to determine how the funding is allocated against their agreed regional transport plans. I wish to see those who know the regions best make the decisions over transport. That's what we're doing with devolution.

The Member points to an interesting report from seven years ago. I think it was also the case—and we're going back even further now—that Elizabeth Haywood recommended a similar scheme of intervention, the creation of a transport authority, in her report on city regions. I'm keen to look at this as a process rather than a single event, and in the future we may well see evolution towards that, utilising structures that we've put in place through the CJC. I would not describe devolution to the regions as the end point, though. It is part of a process.

Our transport strategy, 'Llwybr Newydd', sets out our vision to improve transport across Wales. We will deliver this vision in south-west Wales through the projects set out in our national transport delivery plan and the south-west Wales regional transport plan, which is currently being consulted on.

Thank you very much for your answer. You'll know that, just over a month ago, I raised with the First Minister the cancellation of key junction upgrades on the M4 around Swansea in particular, specifically junction 47 at Penllergaer and junction 45 at Ynysforgan. We know that this would have made a huge difference to the traffic flow on the M4, the congestion that can exist on those junctions and across those communities, particularly at peak times. The First Minister said in response to my question that you would look at this in greater detail to see whether these plans, which were previously cancelled by the Welsh Government, could potentially be resurrected. Can I ask for an update from you on your work on that review and what more work I as a regional Member for the area, and also local campaigners, can do to help make the case to you that we need these junctions improved so that we can get Swansea moving? 

Can I thank Tom Giffard for his question? I do recognise the congestion that people experience on the M4 at junctions 45 and 47. I recall the Member raising the issue with the First Minister recently. The national transport delivery plan includes a commitment to improve safety, resilience and modal shift on the M4. I have asked my officials to work with local authorities, the CJC and wider stakeholders to consider where our strategic road network requires action and they will be looking at these junctions. I'll report back as soon as I've got more information.

We work closely with Transport for Wales, Cardiff Council, other local authorities and the event organisers themselves to agree transport plans for major events. And thanks to our £800 million investment in new trains, Transport for Wales has been able to provide far more capacity for passengers before and after such events.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. As you know, Cardiff plays host to a growing number of major events that undoubtedly brings revenue to many businesses in and around the city that provide hospitality services. Recently, the Labour leader of Cardiff Council has spoken about how Cardiff will look to introduce a tourism tax, and how they could even look at introducing a premium on event days. If this is introduced, there will undoubtedly be people who will be put off from staying in the city overnight who would have otherwise done so, and we can therefore expect that this will put a greater strain on the city's transport infrastructure in and around event days. With this in mind, Cabinet Secretary, what work has the Welsh Government undertaken to determine the potential increase in traffic and train use at major events once the tourism tax and a potential premium on event days has been introduced? Thank you.

Well, there are two parts to the question. First of all, the assertion that a few more pounds on the cost of a room at the height of a season and when a major event is taking place will act as a deterrent to people coming to Cardiff—I don't believe that that is the case. If people are paying upward of £250 for a hotel room, I think a few more punds as part of a levy to enhance the place is probably something that most visitors would pay; I'm not sure that they'd necessarily notice it if they're paying £200, £300, £400 for a hotel room. But the Welsh Government regularly attends—to the very point that the Member was asking, actually, in terms of assessments and the work that's undertaken—the stadium events liaison group. That consists of representatives of the police, the rail sector, the ambulance service, of course Cardiff Council itself, the Welsh Rugby Union and many other organisations. It meets regularly to discuss possible impacts that events in the city could have on the transport network, and to plan accordingly. That will take place regardless of the level of tourism levy that is imposed on visitors, but, as I say, I do not believe that when significant major events take place, a slight increase in the visitor levy would have a material impact in terms of visitor numbers.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. 

The next item will be questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip, and the first question is from Jenny Rathbone. 

Thank you for the question. I have regular discussions with the UK Government, including through the four nations ministerial group on the UK child poverty strategy, to discuss how they can use their levers to support our child poverty strategy and help tackle child poverty here in Wales.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. We hear recent reports that UK Ministers are looking to exempt children under five, disabled children and the children of parents in work from this two-child limit, which has been imposed on children for the last seven or eight years. Children don't have a vote and live in the shadow of this two-child limit, while pensioners are protected by the triple lock and can use their vote against any party who threatens to remove it. Now that we have the United Nations asking the UK Government to rescind this discriminatory policy, and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation is predicting an extra 32,000 children in Wales living in poverty by 2029, what action could the Welsh Government take if the pleas for change fall on deaf ears?

Thank you very much, Jenny Rathbone. Of course, we know that social security policies potentially impact on child poverty. This is the starting point of my discussions and contributions to the UK Government's four nations taskforce, and I am aware of the discussions that have been aired and the reports that have come forward about options being considered for changes to the current two-child limit.

Just to confirm, I've personally raised the issue of the two-child limit and wider welfare reform with the UK Government, and will continue to do so. It is important that we examine the impact of social security policy as a whole, instead of a piecemeal approach to looking at individual policies. But those recent reports, as you said, the two-child cap to be reviewed or abolished, including that recent important Child Poverty Action Group report, which was published in February 2025, issues that have been raised by the Resolution Foundation and Citizens Advice reports—. So, obviously, we await the outcome. We actually have a meeting of the four nations taskforce next week as well, so I look forward to, again, raising this issue, particularly to clarify what may be forthcoming in terms of the UK child poverty strategy. Because we know that social security policies, as I've said, have a particular impact on child poverty, and we are committed to tackling poverty as an absolute priority as a Welsh Government.

Cabinet Secretary, data consistently shows that poverty and inequality impact a child's whole life. It affects their education, which limits their employment prospects, it affects their housing and social environment, and this in turn impacts their health outcomes, which, again, in the long term, also affects their ability to work. We know that this creates a vicious cycle that imposes poverty on the next generation, and this cycle is difficult to break out of.

Cabinet Secretary, it is in everyone's interests to reduce child poverty, and I recognise how much work and money has been invested to help reduce it. However, the fact remains that the rates remain stubbornly high. From speaking with charities and schools, one of the factors that is often mentioned is a lack of inter-agency collaboration on this issue. Social services, education, health and the third sector need better joint co-ordination not only to speed up intervention when it is needed, but to maximise the opportunities it has. With this in mind, Cabinet Secretary, what strategy does the Welsh Government have to improve interconnectivity of agencies working together to tackle child poverty? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Joel James, for that question. As you are aware, of course, we published our own cross-Government child poverty strategy last year, and one of the key points in that strategy, which brought together, in consultation, not just all of the statutory organisations responsible, those who have a responsibility and can make a difference to children's lives and experiences, but also the third sector and children themselves, actually. I met Young Wales at the weekend, and we were talking about—particularly, they wanted to talk about the impact of child poverty and the ways in which we could address this. So, we've had extensive engagement with children and young people and their representative organisations. But it's very much a cross-Government responsibility.

So, I mean, I think that is why it was so important that Wales was the first UK nation to offer free school meals. When I came into the post, representations from external organisations and the evidence was clear that, if we could offer free school meals to all primary learners, which we now do—over 35 million additional meals served since the launch in September 2022—this supports low-income households. It supports eligible pupils, it supports all pupils in universal primary free-school-meals roll-out, and, indeed, of course, there's the commitment to maintaining free breakfasts in primary school as well.

But I would also like just to respond to that cross-Government engagement and cross-sectoral policy engagement to refer to the fact that, over the past year, we have also had a child poverty innovation strategy, with innovation and supporting grants for 2024-25, and I think the examples, particularly in your regions, are important to show what difference it can make. Some of these projects are led by local authorities, some of them are led by the health service, some of them are led by children and community organisations all working together to tackle child poverty.

Diolch to Jenny Rathbone for this important question. My supplementary, Trefnydd, is about children in Wales living in poverty within working households. Now, according to Welsh Government data, in 2010 50 per cent of children living in relative income poverty did not have a parent in work. However, the figure now has increased to 75 per cent of children living in relative poverty with a parent working. The Department for Work and Pensions's data show that the UK-wide equivalent is 63 per cent. So, the figure is far worse in Wales, far more acute in Wales. Children living in poverty even when they live in a working household is an acute issue here in Wales, which I would suggest requires a Wales-specific solution. Therefore, what is the Welsh Government's plan to reverse this worrying trend? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much for your very important question.

And this has also been raised in our four nations and inter-ministerial taskforce on tackling child poverty, that those who are in work often end up claiming universal credit and in work. Those in work are often led by single-parent families as well. So, this is why all our work to ensure that people take up all the benefits they're entitled to—. And they are entitled to benefits that would be available to them if they are in work as well. It's vitally important to see that, for example, in the Cardiff and Vale region, services have helped more than 63,000 people from our most disadvantaged and marginalised communities to claim additional income of over £9.2 million. That's through the single advice fund that we introduced in January.

Of course, if you are a working parent, free school meals and the free school breakfast can assist that working parent. But also, there are other benefits that we encourage all our parents to take up, particularly, for example, a UK benefit, the Healthy Start voucher. Now, Healthy Start payments can help purchase, for example, fruit, vegetables and milk. It amounts to £4.25 per week for eligible pregnant women and for children from their first until their fourth birthday, and £8.50 a week for babies up to one year of age. It's really important that, again, we have the opportunity through these questions to again remind our colleagues, and indeed all those you represent, of these entitlements in order to ensure people have got—. I mean, it is money in the pocket that they need.

Of course, there are also the concerns that many working parents, sadly, in this day and age, as a result of 14 years of austerity, have to turn to foodbanks. And we know that working parents are accessing foodbanks as well. So, I mean, this does go back to the very first question about the social security system, and also enabling working parents to have better wages, fair work, the real living wage, because we know that that will ensure that there are fewer children in child poverty. So, it's very much a cross-Government response.

Thank you for your question. I have called on Ofgem directors for reform on standing charges as they are fundamentally unfair to people in Wales. I think I also raised this on 24 February when I met Ofgem directors to discuss the impact of the latest price cap that was announced on that day.

Thank you very much for your response, Cabinet Secretary.

North Wales currently has the highest daily standing charge for electricity of any part of the UK. At just over 69 pence, it's significantly higher than in other regions, with Londoners facing a charge of just over 46 pence and residents of south Wales just over 51 pence. But this burden doesn't end there; the unit rate for electricity in north Wales is also the highest in England and Wales as well. It's not fair, it's not in the interests of my constituents and it needs rectifying. Whilst I recognise change is outside the powers of this place and Welsh Government, I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's an unacceptable situation for the people of north Wales.

One way of addressing both this disparity and the broader impact of rising energy costs would be through a meaningful social tariff. To be clear, this should be in addition to any current consumer support and not a replacement, and should be aimed at the people and places that need it the most. Therefore, does the Welsh Government support the further exploration and implementation to strengthen social tariffs as a way of both mitigating the impact of high energy costs and ensuring equity for my constituents and corner of the country? And in addition, do you think there should be a social obligation on suppliers to automatically switch people on to the cheapest rate?

Thank you for that important question. And, in fact, this question was raised only last week at the cross-party group on tackling fuel poverty. And, as you say, customers in north Wales pay the highest standing charges in Great Britain, and are so disadvantaged because they live so close to those sources of affordable, renewable electricity, which is exported through the national grid. So, again, these are the discussions I've been having with Ofgem—we had them at the cross-party group only last week. We stressed the need for a holistic review of retail charges. Of course, this issue of standing charges is crucial, and we've called for an abolition of this, but, as you say, the way forward for reform is to introduce a social tariff.

So, I have raised this, not only every time I meet with Ofgem, but when I met with the UK Minister for Energy Consumers in October last year—Minister Fahnbulleh—to discuss whether we can work together for a permanent effective form of protection for householders in need. They are reviewing their fuel poverty strategy. I think their upcoming warm homes plan will be key to tackling fuel poverty. And I raised with the UK Government the possibility of a social tariff and other forms of social discounting, because we do think that would be the progressive way that can support our most vulnerable households. But also we know that social tariff works in the water industry; the social tariff operates through many of our water companies. And I think it's something where we have to make the case: we've supported a social tariff, and I think there's actually a lot of support across this Chamber for a social tariff. So, thank you for putting this on the agenda again today.

As we discussed at last week's meeting of the cross-party group on fuel poverty and energy efficiency, north Wales and Merseyside households still pay the highest standing charges in the UK for energy, no matter how much they use. After you had to leave the meeting, Ofgem told us that this is due in part to the density of the network, and in part to the design features of north Wales, and that this regional variation was something they were looking at. After noting that north Wales was an energy producer and exporter, I asked Ofgem whether they're factoring into this how regions with the highest standing charges, which are also net energy producers, can benefit from that in their bills. In your discussions with Ofgem, what consideration will you therefore give to their response that, at the moment, you get no regional benefit on wholesale but you get a regional cost on the network? I think they said, 'You know, we would look to try and bring those two decisions into line with each other.'

Can I just thank Mark Isherwood for the role he plays in the cross-party group, as the chair, and also for the huge experience now you have and the engagement you have with those organisations who have all the evidence, who are working at the front line? And of course we heard from National Energy Action, who service and support the working group, the cross-party group. But I think it is very useful that you had that discussion, you had the deputy director there from Ofgem, and you had experts around the table—those on the front line. So, I will take this back, in terms of the questions and the issues that you raised and you explored with them, in terms of regional variation and regional cost on the network. I'm grateful for that.

The point about standing charges is that they don't consider consumers' ability to pay, and households can't lessen the impact of standing charges. In fact, we had quite a lot of information about energy debt, didn't we, Mark, at that meeting, and it was appalling to hear that there are people paying standing charges when they actually aren't even receiving a fuel supply, through disconnection, particularly, through prepayment meters. So, thank you for that contribution; I will follow it up.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservatives spokesperson, Altaf Hussain.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, the youth justice blueprint for Wales prioritises a whole-system approach to prevent offending of children and young people. However, it does not seem to be working. We have seen an explosion of violent crimes perpetrated by young people recently, with the terrible incident at Ysgol Dyffryn Aman, which highlighted the knife crime being perpetrated by teens in Wales. In recent days, we have seen just how widespread it is, with three teens arrested in an airport for attempting murder. But it's not limited to our cities: a 16-year-old stabbed another teenager in mid Wales at the weekend. Cabinet Secretary, what discussions have taken place at Cabinet, with the police and crime commissioners, and the UK Government about the uptick in violent crimes being perpetrated by young people?

Thank you very much, Altaf Hussain, for that question. And I do think that the youth justice blueprint, which was published, of course, back in July 2019—and it takes very much a child-centred, child-first preventative approach to meeting the needs of children in the justice system—has been effective. It has been effective because it has reduced the numbers of young people entering the criminal justice system.

The crucial areas of policy are about prevention, and I have to say that this youth justice blueprint was developed with the previous Conservative Government, with the Ministry of Justice, and the Welsh Government, policing in Wales and our Youth Justice Board for England and Wales. But, together, we developed this plan and, of course, it does focus on prevention, pre-court diversion and custody. Crucially important is prevention, of course. So, we need to prevent those kinds of incidents. They are awful incidents that you’ve recorded for us today, that you’ve reported and reminded of us today—incidents in different circumstances. But they are incidents. In terms of the overall picture, we can see that we’ve significantly reduced the number of young people entering the criminal justice system.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Of course, violent crime is not just being carried out by young people on young people; we had a fatal shooting at Talbot Green on Sunday, underlining the fact that South Wales Police and Gwent Police are amongst the only force areas to see a rise in violent crime. Across England and Wales, police forces are seeing a decrease in violent crime against the person, yet, in Wales, it is going the wrong way. South Wales Police are the only force to see a rise in sexual violence. They are also terrible in converting reports into convictions—more than 3,400 rapes and sexual offences were reported to South Wales Police, but only 155 of these cases resulted in charges. Cabinet Secretary, the PCCs are increasing the police precept for council tax payers. Do you believe they are presenting value for money? What discussions have you had about their plans to tackle violent crimes and sexual violence in particular?

Thank you very much for that question. And again, you draw attention to events. I won’t respond to them at this point in time, but I would say that—. And it was very significant, I think, yesterday, in our debate on International Women’s Day, that, virtually across the Chamber, we all—everyone—raised the fact that this is enduring and endemic, violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence, which of course we have to work on to address. Again, it goes back to my comments on the youth justice system as well in terms of prevention, early intervention and indeed a robust criminal justice system to address these issues.

Now, of course, policing isn’t devolved. We would like it to be devolved, but it isn’t devolved. But we have a partnership approach with policing to address this. So, I think the violence prevention unit is very effective. I co-chair the strategy board on the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence, with the police and crime commissioner, Emma Wools, as I said yesterday. But I also chair the policing partnership board. I had a meeting only two weeks ago with the policing Minister, Diana Johnson, because they are looking at reform of policing, and we want to engage in that. Indeed, all our PCCs I meet with regularly as well.

But I think this is about partnership. It is about early intervention. It is about a robust criminal justice system. But we feel that much of the engagement of devolved responsibilities, devolved services, whether it’s health, housing, education—back to education—and social services and local government, is crucial for us to be able to have a crime-free, as crime-free-as-possible, Wales, where we invest in those services that can prevent crime, and indeed help support a robust criminal justice system.

I am grateful, Cabinet Secretary. Failure by the police to tackle serious crimes erodes trust in our police and criminal justice system. But the action of individual officers also has a chilling effect on trust. We’ve seen a series of high-profile misconduct trials against officers in south Wales and Gwent, the most recent being around fraudulent access to the police national computer and providing privileged information to members of the public. Cabinet Secretary, have you discussed tackling police corruption with any of the PCCs, or the Home Secretary? Thank you.

Thank you. And I think we were all horrified by reports of fraudulent police officers. It is very important that we actually do hear about this, that it’s transparent, that it's open and we hear about it and action is taken by the chief constables—it’s an operational issue—and we can see the outcomes of that. And also, this applies, of course, to the behaviour of our police forces as well. And again, I chair the policing partnership board, and I very much respect the role of the chief constables, the police and crime commissioners, as we work together to address these issues.

If people and our communities are going to have trust in the police forces, which are there for all, then we have to root out, not just in terms of what we have seen—appalling fraudulent activities, as you’ve described—but also misogyny, sexism, racism, homophobia from our police forces.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Sioned Williams. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The Labour UK Government are planning welfare reforms that will cut billions of pounds from social security payments, which will hit thousands of people in Wales who are already struggling hard, especially disabled people. I do really find it astounding, not to mention disappointing, that this is a Labour Government making these types of political choices, to target the least well off, the least resilient—disabled people—continuing with Tory policies. And yet again in Wales, we’re going to be left picking up the pieces, trying to shield the people of Wales from Westminster, because we know the safety net isn’t sufficient as it is. Trussell, who say they are appalled by these plans, say 68 per cent of people claiming universal credit have gone without essentials in the last six months—68 per cent.

Now, on many occasions, Cabinet Secretary, as you did two years ago, you’ve condemned the same welfare reforms as welfare cuts, lamenting that we have a fragile welfare state. So, will the Welsh Government challenge these plans? We didn’t get an answer from the First Minister on that yesterday. Do you still regard them as cuts that are damaging the welfare state? And what assessment is being done in preparation to identify what new gaps will be torn in the safety net, and what measures will need to be taken by the Welsh Government to mitigate the impact of this?

Thank you very much for that question, Sioned Williams. And of course, we are now awaiting the publication of a Green Paper on what have been highlighted as possible changes coming forth for welfare reforms. When it comes through, we will carefully consider the impact of proposed welfare reforms on people in Wales, and provide a cross-Government response. I feel this is where we have, indeed, responded to previous changes and proposals from previous UK Governments in terms of the impact of welfare reform on disabled people in Wales. So, I can assure you that we will be looking very carefully at this. We do need to ensure that we have a welfare system that supports disabled people, but we recognise we need to ensure that it also effectively supports people into work, offering an effective financial safety net for people who are unable to work. I think those are key principles and I think that’s something that many of the charities that have been commenting on this have said themselves, but, at this point in time, we await the proposals.

Yes, because PIP payments, of course, are nothing to do with employment; they’re about making that more level playing field, aren’t they, for disabled people, giving the support they need to live independent lives and possibly support them into work, therefore.

In their 'State of Wales' briefing on economic inactivity and ill health, the Bevan Foundation set out how proposals in the UK Government’s 'Get Britain Working' White Paper would have a deep impact on Wales as we have higher rates of disabled people of working age than the UK average, and five of the 10 UK local authorities with the highest rates of economic activity because of long-term illness are in Wales. The proportion of the working-age population who are disabled in some local authorities is even higher than the Wales figure. More than one in three is disabled in two of the local authority areas I represent, and experts and campaigners are warning that welfare cuts will have a chilling effect on engagement with support, leading not to increased employment but to increased poverty. So, the Bevan Foundation stresses the UK Government will need to address what they term the huge double disadvantage that people in Wales face, because there are not only high levels of disability and long-term illness in the working-age population, but they’re also less likely to be in employment and to say that health is the reason. So, what discussions have you had with the UK Government on the need to focus on areas of greatest need, such as Wales, and increase resource for devolved services? Do you agree with the Bevan Foundation it wouldn’t be appropriate to use the Barnett formula, because the population-based formula would fall far short of need?

Thank you for that question. We do have a four nations inter-ministerial meeting with the UK Government Department for Work and Pensions. It’s been set up, and it is four nations. There was previously a bilateral arrangement with the Welsh Government and the UK Government, but it is good that it’s now a four-nations meeting. We are going to be discussing issues like any reforms to the benefits system, so that is an opportunity. But I also would say that I welcome the commitment that the UK Government has given to work with disabled people in Wales so that their views and voices are at the heart of any proposed changes to disability and sickness benefits.

I think that our disability rights plan, which very shortly we’ll be launching for consultation, does address how we in Wales, within our powers and responsibilities, should be working to ensure that disabled people who do want to work and are seeking work can be supported. Obviously, that, again, has to have an interface and interaction with job centres, with DWP. But the fact that we have now, for several years, employed five disabled people’s employment champions, means they bring lived experience and practical understanding of the social model of disability, which will underpin our disability rights plan.

Indeed, working with employers, employer representatives—and, of course, it links very much to our commitment to social partnership—across the public and private sectors, it’s about promoting recruitment, retention and progression of disabled people who want to work but who face barriers. That’s what we need to address.

Diolch. The Bevan Foundation also highlights how the Welsh Government will need to consider how to support disabled people in Wales if there are changes to health and welfare benefits, because an increasing demand for welfare advice will inevitably result, and if the benefit changes include reductions in eligibility or the value of benefits, there could be increased demand for devolved grants and allowances, such as the discretionary assistance fund and help from social services, and additional costs for the Welsh Government, local authorities and third sector organisations would, therefore, be disproportionately higher in Wales than in England. The recent inquiry on the disability employment gap held by the Equality and Social Justice Committee, of which I am a member, heard deep and widespread concern about the lack of progress on the publication and implementation of the work of the disability rights taskforce and the lack of progress too on your programme for government commitment to incorporate the United Nations convention on the rights of disabled people. So, what assessments and cross-governmental work have been undertaken to ensure enhanced support is achievable? And when will we see delivery of the disability action plan and incorporation of the UNCRDP?

Thank you for several questions there, Sioned Williams. I really welcome the Equality and Social Justice Committee's 'Anything's Achievable with the Right Support: tackling the disability employment gap'—I was really pleased to give evidence. It couldn't have come at a better time to have that report. But, as I said, I’ve assured you that the disabled people’s rights plan is imminent; it’s due for publication very shortly. It will be out for consultation. I co-chaired the disability rights taskforce with Professor Debbie Foster. We had seven work streams, co-produced with disabled people. And, indeed, addressing the issues that you’ve raised today, I believe that the work we’re doing with the Welsh benefits charter, with the discretionary assistance fund, and working closely with our partners and stakeholders and all those who rightly influence policy in Wales, like the Bevan Foundation, will be very important as we respond to the challenges that are forthcoming.

Thank you, Lesley Griffiths, for that question. Whilst justice is currently a reserved matter, many services essential to operating the justice system in Wales are devolved, including health, education and housing. We, therefore, work closely with His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service to reduce reoffending and support families to build strong and resilient communities in Wales.

Recently, whilst I was waiting for a train at Wrexham General station, I assisted a newly released prisoner from HMP Berwyn. He'd been dropped off at the station with a travel warrant to get himself back to the north-east of England. He told me he couldn't write and he had no idea how to navigate the rail system, which required multiple changes for him to get through his journey. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me this is unacceptable and the current system absolutely sets up such individuals to fail? If she does, will you please ensure, in your discussions with relevant UK Government Ministers, proper and adequate assistance is provided for such individuals to make sure they return to their chosen destination in the most appropriate and correct way, where relevant support services should also be available? 

Thank you for drawing attention to that, and the situation you outline is simply not acceptable. And, if you hadn’t have been there, what would have happened to that newly released prisoner? The provision of transport for those leaving custody doesn’t fall under the remit of our services, and it does, actually, form part of the process of planning for release, which is the responsibility of the probation service. So, what, I think, is important, just in response and for Members, is that we have set up—it’s not devolved; we’d like probation to be devolved, as you know—a post-custody accommodation working group, co-chaired by senior officials in the Welsh Government and HMPPS. And that’s also looking at some of the proposed legislation we’re about to discuss to end homelessness in Wales. But this group is focusing on immediate challenges faced by people leaving prison, because it is about resettlement and successful resettlement, and I’ll certainly bring this to the attention of the group.

Unfortunately, what I heard from Lesley Griffiths just now across the Chamber is exactly the same story as I heard when I recently visited the Salvation Army, who told me there is a crisis of homelessness for those leaving prison. Last year, the number of those managed by Welsh probation services who were homeless following release increased by 51 per cent, which is equivalent to 500 people, and around five people who are released from His Majesty's prison in Cardiff every week are then recorded as homeless.

Clearly, the current support package for those leaving prison is not adequate. There should be help given to people in place, being proactive before they leave prison, to set up somewhere to live, to set up possibly employment, because, as Lesley said, they are dropped as soon as they come out of prison and left to fend for themselves, and they've got to rush around in the 12-hour day, going to the job centre, going to all the different services that they need in order to have somewhere to sleep that night and get something in place so that they can get some money. Otherwise, what we're seeing is them falling back. As the Salvation Army said to me, and the people I met there, unfortunately, those people are falling back into drugs, alcohol and so on, and it's just not on. I know you've said this is a reserved matter, but a lot of those services that you've just outlined are devolved and we have a responsibility to do that to stop these people going into the system, and to stop homelessness in Wales.

Thank you very much, Laura Anne Jones. I couldn't agree more with what you're saying. I think any evidence that Members have around the Chamber, we need to know so that we can share those. Although it's not devolved, we are doing as much in a joint capacity—. I've already mentioned the post-custody accommodation working group, a co-chaired working group, and it's actually learning from some earlier schemes that have been successful. You'll be very, I'm sure, hopefully, supportive of the recent ending homelessness White Paper, which proposed bespoke amendments to the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, with the aim of improving outcomes for men and women in custody, because unless—. It has to be before release that arrangements should be put in place, because of those immediate challenges that face prisoners when they leave prison. And also, we have got some good work. There's a small task and finish group looking at the national pathway for homelessness services for children, young people and adults in the secure estate, and there have been changes in probation and homelessness services since that publication, but this is very valuable evidence for us to take back to these working groups and to take action, because this is how we need to ensure there's not only effective release, preventing homelessness, but also routes into work, accommodation, and a way from the criminal justice system.

I very much agree with the points that have been made by Lesley Griffiths and Laura Anne Jones this afternoon, and the response from you, Minister. At its heart, the devolution of the criminal justice system and policing is a matter of social justice and social cohesion, and it's supported by the Welsh Labour Party and by this Government, and I've always been very supportive of the approach that you've taken, Minister, in this. In this context, I was disappointed to hear in the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee on Monday that the Government does not intend to provide any further updates to this Senedd on its Delivering Justice for Wales programme before the next election. I would ask you to reconsider this, and to keep this Senedd updated on the very good work that you and other Ministers are doing to campaign for and to deliver the devolution of criminal justice to Wales, so that we can get to grips with the subjects that have been raised by Lesley Griffiths and by Laura Anne Jones.

Thank you very much, Alun Davies, and thank you for all the work that you've undertaken previously in ministerial roles as well. Just to say, this is the responsibility now of the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs—constitutional affairs—so I'm sure you will be raising that with him directly. I will be sharing it with him. I'm very involved, though, working at a more operational level, in terms of exploring devolution for probation and youth justice, which indeed is all about what makes sense and what works in terms of social justice and good outcomes.

Diolch, Tom Giffard. The Welsh Government is investing in supporting pensioners across Wales, including south-west Wales. These include investment in the regional integration fund, funding for the warm hubs, raising awareness of pension credits and other benefits, measures to end abuse, and the creation of age-friendly communities.

Cabinet Secretary, the UK Labour Government's decision to remove the winter fuel allowance from an estimated 500,000 pensioners in Wales, a policy that actively puts lives at risk, is possibly one of the most callous and cruel decisions a UK Government could have taken in office. Now, we know, Llywydd, that older people are disproportionately affected by fuel poverty, and that decision alone may be responsible for as many as 4,000 deaths in Wales. And now, as a result, we've seen poverty increasing in Wales, with one in five older people now living in relative income poverty. Indeed, Age Cymru's 2024 'What matters to you?' annual survey revealed some very devastating and heartbreaking responses from across South Wales West, with constituents across the region now citing concerns over the cost of living and its impact on their physical and mental health, as well as being concerned about having less money to live on since that decision was taken by the UK Government. So, Cabinet Secretary, as we mercifully leave the winter behind us this year, will you ensure that that was the last winter that our pensioners will go cold, and adopt our Welsh Conservative policy of a Welsh winter fuel payment to protect them?

Thank you for that supplementary question. Well, I'm sure you're aware, because I've said it more than once in this Chamber, as others have said, that the winter fuel payment is devolved to Northern Ireland, and will be to Scotland from 2025, but is not devolved to Wales—[Interruption.] So, we're not able to legislate for a—[Interruption.] Are you going to listen to my answer, please, Darren Millar?

Darren Millar, please allow the Minister to answer.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. What is essential, and the serious point is, because you have asked me this question about how we are supporting pensioners in south-west Wales, and I reported back on the ways in which are supporting them, within our powers and responsibilities, and I do want to just focus on one area, because it's been raised by Members, about the role of the discretionary assistance fund. Because it is important that people have raised with me the issues of whether it's actually reaching older people, particularly. I can say that the discretionary assistance fund is there for all in financial crisis, and this you can share with your constituents. It's for people who can't meet their immediate basic needs and have no other means of support. It is important that over 800 registered discretionary assistance fund partners can make applications. So, we've met with Age Cymru, the local authorities, Citizens Advice, housing associations, and also, Tom, we met with the Older People's Commissioner for Wales recently to see how we can ensure that older people are aware of the DAF.

These are Welsh Government initiatives. These are our ways in which we are seeking to support our pensioners. And, of course, also, there are not just the discretionary assistance fund, but the fuel voucher scheme, the Warm Homes programme and the Fuel Bank Foundation. Really important in west Wales, there's also the heat fund scheme, and people who are off grid can get funding from the discretionary assistance fund as well. So, quite apart from our strategy, 'Age friendly Wales: our strategy for an ageing society', there's the money we're putting in to local authorities, the Pembrokeshire keeping well sessions, Swansea engaging with older people, and all of the promoting of healthy ageing and connecting older people with advice services. This is what we're doing in Wales to support pensioners in south-west Wales. 

We're already out of time on this question session, and we're only on question 4, so if we can inject some pace, and brevity even, into the questions and answers, that would be appropriated, to try and get as many questions asked and answered.

Question 5, Carolyn Thomas.

Thank you, Carolyn Thomas. I'm having ongoing discussions with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales on this topic, and met with himself and yourself, Carolyn, yesterday. We are committed to ensuring that disabled people with the greatest need can benefit from parking concessions and that the process of obtaining a badge is as fair and as efficient as possible.

Thank you for your answer. People living with lifelong and degenerative conditions, including cognitive, having to reapply with a full application every three years, uploading all their medical information, their photos, their doctors' letters and prescriptions is time consuming, difficult and traumatic. The Welsh Government's guidelines say that local authorities can mark a customer account with 'not for reassessment'. It would mean the badge could be reissued without submitting all that medical information again—just a photo, proof of ID and address. However, we have been told that there is an omission of the term 'not for reassessment' and no ability to add it to the form. It needs to be there as well as on guidance and consumer information. Help is inconsistent and the guidance needs to be clearer for those delivering the blue badges. Cabinet Secretary, this is a social justice issue. It's been raised many times in the Senedd by many Members and in the Chamber via the Petitions Committee. Would you help to resolve it, involving STAND North Wales CIC representatives, who submitted the petition, and are important stakeholders, along with the Welsh Local Government Association and Welsh Government officials? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Carolyn Thomas, and as we learnt yesterday from our very useful meeting with the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, there is going to be a workshop with local authorities held very shortly. We suggested, or I certainly suggested, that that could include—and I think you were supportive of this—some disabled people's organisations as well. So, all of the points that you've made in terms of the need to ensure that we cut down on the barriers of bureaucracy to accessing blue badges, I'm sure, will be raised at that workshop, and I'm sure this will continue to be something that we will raise in the Senedd.

Thank you very much for your question.

In line with the governance code on public appointments, Welsh Ministers make appointments with safeguards to uphold transparency and public confidence, while encouraging diverse and representative public bodies. We're committed to improving transparency, widening access, strengthening diversity and ensuring a rigorous but inclusive selection process.

Diolch, Cabinet Secretary. Ensuring diversity in public appointments in Wales is crucial in helping to shape an inclusive, fair and representative Wales. Encouraging more women and people from all backgrounds to apply for these appointments is essential if this is to be achieved. We need a diverse mix of voices influencing key decisions to drive that change. Progress is being made, but barriers still remain. I was therefore really pleased to hear the recent announcement from the Welsh Government that they're investing £185,000 of funding for the Equal Power Equal Voice mentoring programme over three years, and that of course is co-funded with the National Lottery community fund. Cabinet Secretary, do you agree with me that programmes like these are crucial in helping to increase the diversity of representation in public and political life in Wales?

Thank you very much. This is such an important question, and we're very proud to support the Equal Power Equal Voice programme for the next three years. I mean, just to remind colleagues about this, it does help individuals gain skills and knowledge, to take on public and political roles, and is a very great success in terms of mentees becoming school governors, councillors, MPs and public board members as well, and it is for under-represented groups.

But I also wanted to report back to Members that we are investigating how we can produce a more robust diversity data monitoring system, to enable me to report regularly on the diversity of our public appointments. I mean, actually, now, women make up 60 per cent of appointees from the latest findings, which is very encouraging, but where they sit in those public appointments and at what level is important. We have got improvement in terms of ethnicity. Black, Asian and minority ethnic applicants comprise 22.3 per cent of the applicant pool and 20 per cent of appointees. But we have got to have a greater impact on encouraging disabled applicants, as 21.1 per cent of the Welsh population has reported as disabled, but we still are under-represented in appointments at 10.9 per cent. 'Reflecting Wales in Running Wales' is the strategy we're working on with public appointments.

Thank you very much for that question, Janet Finch-Saunders. Women’s refuges are available across north Wales for women fleeing immediate violence or the threat of violence and harm. The complex needs of women, such as mental health or substance misuse, are always considered.

Thank you. Responding to my written question as to why there are no women's refuges in north Wales that can house women who are victims of both sexual assault, exploitation and drug addiction, you stated, and I quote, that

'A number of refuges across Wales, including in north Wales, can and do accommodate individuals with these experiences.'

However, I followed this up, that response, by requesting the name of such a refuge, but was told by the Welsh Government, via FOI, and I quote,

'Following a search of our paper and electronic records, I have established that the information you require is not held by the Welsh Government.'

So, Cabinet Secretary, could you clarify how you could say on 22 January that there are these refuges—and you've just said it now—when in fact the Welsh Government states that you don't hold such information?

Well, I think it might be useful if we had a follow-up meeting about this, Janet Finch-Saunders, because it's always unfortunate when something goes to an FOI and we can't give you the full feedback that we would like to. We want to understand what the issues are because there are at least five providers of refuge space in north Wales, and you will know many of them, providing multiple sites and units. And, of course, we're allocating funding. Each refuge has its own eligibility criteria, and that depends on access to professional support at any given time. But we do want to make sure that women or people, survivors, can access the sort of support you're talking about. But I would very much like, if you would be agreeable, Janet, to have a meeting about this, so that we can unpick where there may be issues that we can clarify. 

Finally, question 8, Adam Price. 

Thank you very much, Adam Price. We work closely with policing partners and the Wales violence prevention unit to prevent crime and to protect our communities, and we are engaging with the UK Government on their Safer Streets mission.

The Police Foundation has recommended establishing a dedicated crime prevention agency to centralise expertise and strategically co-ordinate crime reduction initiatives across different Government departments. The international experience, particularly from Nordic countries, such as Sweden and Denmark, has demonstrated the effectiveness of such agencies in integrating preventative efforts across justice, health, education and local government, helping to reduce crime rates and enhance public confidence. So, does the Cabinet Secretary agree that adopting this successful international model in Wales could similarly deliver more cohesive, more proactive, more evidence-based crime prevention measures? And, if so, will the Welsh Government commit to undertaking a comprehensive feasibility review to explore establishing a comparable agency here in Wales?

Diolch yn fawr, Adam Price. I'm shortly meeting with the Police Federation of England and Wales, so I'll get more information about this. Of course, we're very interested in international models and learning from those. I will just say, Llywydd, with your forbearance, that I’ve mentioned the Wales violence prevention unit, which is a partnership between the south Wales police and crime commissioner, Public Health Wales and South Wales Police, which is taking very much a public health approach to preventing violence, ensuring an evidence-based approach to tackling violence, which is more of the international model. So, I would want to meet with the Police Federation of England and Wales, but also get that evidence to see where we are, given, of course, that it is not devolved, but it also helps build our understanding as we move towards delivering in partnership with police and moving towards, ultimately, we hope, the devolution of policing in Wales. 

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

There are no questions to the Senedd Commission this week.

There are no topical questions.

Item 5 is next, the 90-second statements. The first statement is from Cefin Campbell.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. I will take this opportunity to congratulate two Oscar winners from my Mid and West Wales Senedd region whose success was recognised during the Oscars ceremony in Hollywood just over a week ago. First of all, Laurie Crawley, raised in Llansantffraid-ym-Mechain in Powys, who won the best cinematography award for the film The Brutalist. It was also good to hear about his intention to visit his old school, Ysgol Llanfyllin, to speak to pupils in their morning assembly in the near future. Another winner was Rhys Salcombe, from Aberystwyth originally, who was one of four who shared the best visual effects award for his work on the film Dune: Part Two. Rhys has previously won other awards for his work on major films such as Blade Runner 2049 and Star Trek Beyond. I should also mention a third Welsh Oscar nominee, Trevor Matthews from Newport—not Newport Pembs in my region, but the other Newport—who missed out on the best picture award for his work on the film The Brutalist. Congratulations to Laurie and Rhys for showcasing the best of Mid and West Wales’s talent on the biggest stage of all. Good luck to both, and of course to Trevor, in the future.

Congratulations to you all. 

The Senedd will, I know, be united in congratulating Lauren Price on her victory last week, just the latest in a host of titles won by this inspiring young woman on the world stage. 

Lauren Price is no stranger to success. Before taking up boxing professionally, she won the gold medal at the 2020 Olympics, and gold representing Wales at the 2018 Commonwealth Games. Even before that, Lauren played football for Cardiff City women and represented Wales at under 19 and senior levels. But her win at the Royal Albert Hall has catapulted her to even greater heights. ‘Unstoppable’ truly seems a fitting title for this young woman from Ystrad Mynach. And what a joy it was to see her enter the ring as Dafydd Iwan’s ‘Yma o Hyd’ was playing, the red dragon resplendent behind her. Price is a woman whose pride for her nation is clear in everything she does, and her community in Ystrad Mynach is so proud of her. What a tribute her success is to her own resilience, her determination, and the support shown to her by her beloved grandparents and friends. This woman with world titles who’s never forgotten her roots. So, from one Ystrad girl to another: llongyfarchiadau, Lauren, you’ve made so many people so proud.

I think we should all start a chant of ‘Pricey, Pricey’ around the Chamber. I can lead you; I was there. I witnessed her victory. Da iawn, bawb. 

Item 6, the debate on the Standards of Conduct Committee report, 'Individual Member Accountability: Recall'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Hannah Blythyn.

Thank you, Llywydd. It’s a pleasure to open this debate on a very important report produced by the Standards of Conduct Committee.

Working to ensure that the Senedd has the processes in place to maintain both individual and institutional integrity is a cornerstone of our devolved democracy and central to the work of the Standards of Conduct Committee. The recall report is part of an ongoing package of reform that is aimed at building trust and transparency in our processes, in our politicians and in our politics. As a committee, we want to see increased confidence in the political system, and proper processes are fundamental to this. Our recommendation around the introduction of a system of recall is a significant step forward in this journey.

I want to be clear that this forms part of the work that the committee has committed to on considering the entire standards framework in this place and to strengthen the systems of powers here in the Senedd to better empower people to come forward with concerns about conduct and serious and unacceptable issues like sexual harassment. To do this, the committee believes it's important to be able to have sufficient powers to deter and deal with serious misconduct, and the sanction of recall is an important factor in that. The introduction of a system of recall ensures that there is clarity and understanding around the measures that may be used to hold Members to account.

We have made nine recommendations aimed at introducing the system in time for the seventh Senedd, so that all Members elected to that Senedd will be held to a consistent standard from the start. We are pleased that the Government has accepted all of our recommendations either fully or in principle. It is both welcome and warranted that we are able to work together to put in place such an important piece of legislation in Wales.

As a first step, the committee looked at the model adopted in Westminster around recall, which has been well received and effectively used in allowing the public to hold to account those Members who have acted in ways that fell short of the standards expected of them. We concluded, however, that, rather than duplicating this system, what was needed was a model that fitted Wales and the electoral system that will be in place for and following the 2026 Senedd elections.

The committee has taken a pragmatic and practical approach to this work, and held simplicity and understandability as the two most important principles when designing the system. A one-stage process, a single ballot that asks whether a Member should be removed and replaced with the next person on the list or retain their position, seemed to us the best way to meet those principles. We also recommended that the Government works with the Electoral Commission to develop a voting paper to present the information in a clear and easy-to-understand manner, and that it works with the electoral community to ensure information relating to recall is clear for voters. These recommendations have all been accepted by the Welsh Government.

As well as a one-stage process, we concluded that a one-day process, akin to a by-election, with postal and proxy voting available, was the most simple and straightforward approach. Alongside this, we are pleased that the Government has accepted the recommendation to consult with electoral administrators and other interested stakeholders on the practical implications of holding the vote on a single day across multiple polling places in a constituency.

Moving now to those recommendations that were accepted in principle, as a committee, we did not feel 'recall' to be a meaningful nor an accurate name for the process that we were recommending. While we recognise there's a level of popular understanding for the term amongst the public, it does not align with the process recommended and may be confusing in light of the difference between Wales and Westminster. We wanted to ensure that the name better and more accurately described the process and recommended the phrase 'remove and replace ballot'. However, we accept this may not be best terminology either, but it serves as a starting point for discussions about what it is called. We look forward to working with the Government as it gives further consideration to this matter.

In order to operate an effective and fair standards system, there's a requirement for flexibility in applying sanctions and a range of options available. As a committee, we believe this is best achieved by not including specific triggers for recall in primary legislation. There's been much criticism levelled at the Senedd about it being unable to react with sufficient speed, and, as such, we considered it prudent to allow the Senedd to be able to decide what may trigger a recall. We believe this will also help futureproof the process, as it would not require amendments to primary legislation. For the ease of simplicity of understanding, we recommended all triggers for recall to be set out in the guidelines, but accept that the Government will want to give this more consideration and that some matters may be included in legislation.

We further recommended that recall should be a stand-alone sanction that is available for the committee with responsibility for matters under Standing Order 22 to utilise. Much of the evidence we received suggested that the 10-day sitting provision in place in Westminster is too low, and it seemed to us like a stark cut-off point. This forms part of the reasoning for the sanctions sitting with the responsible committee, allowing it to take precedent and other mitigating factors into consideration. We welcome the Government's intention to consider this recommendation in more detail, as well as its undertaking to explore the exact form that guidance for the application of recall should take. The committee is supportive of all additional detailed work on these areas, and would not expect anything less of the Government when taking forward such an important piece of legislation.

Llywydd, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the current committee members and those who started this work—including the previous Chair, Vikki Howells, and former members Mark Drakeford and Natasha Asghar—for their hard work in this area. I'd also, of course, like to thank everyone who took the time to give evidence to the inquiry. We took a significant amount of complex evidence over a short period of time, and this has been invaluable in helping our thinking on this matter and allowing us to make the considered and informed recommendations set out today.

To conclude, as Chair of the committee, I hope Members will agree that these proposals suggest a workable and practical approach to increasing accountability within the political context that we are and will be operating in.

I am particularly pleased that there is cross-party support for the principle of adopting a recall system in time for the seventh Senedd, and that it has been generally accepted by the Government. I look forward to hearing comments from fellow Members in the debate. Thank you.

I'll begin by thanking the Chair of the committee for her work in leading us as a committee in this inquiry.

I think Hannah's chairmanship of this committee in picking this up after the previous Chair is to be commended, as is the work of the other committee members on this, as I myself pick this mantle up from my colleague Natasha Asghar.

But I think this is a really good piece of work. I think this is a really integral piece to where we are as a Parliament in our history, and where we wish to be, going forward. Isn't it right that those politicians who fall foul of the standards that are expected of them are punished accordingly? I think recall, or remove and replace—that recommendation 4—I'm pretty open to that, Counsel General, on what that wording is, but I think anything that is clear to constituents within the new constituency regions as to what the process is is really integral. That's why I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted or accepted in principle the recommendations put forward by the committee.

I think it's really integral that when—if—this happens in the future, those constituents go to polling stations, it feels as real as possible to a general election, to a Senedd election, in that the ballot looks as clear as possible and the polling station feels like a polling station during a general election or Senedd election, and that, for all intents and purposes, it is an election. It might be a recall process, but for those taking part in it and going out and exercising their democratic duty in voting for or against an individual Member, I think it's important that it feels as real as possible to a normal election within the election cycle. I think that's incredibly important on this.

Coming back to the ideas around why we need this, I think the evidence that we took forward is important. And while this is a relatively young institution in comparison to that across Offa's Dyke in London, we're actually bringing this forward far sooner in our history than Westminster has, and I think that's something to be commended, as we move forward into the seventh Senedd.

I'm keeping my contribution relatively brief on this, Llywydd, but I'm pleased that it is the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery who is responding today on this, I believe, and bringing this piece of legislation forward for the seventh Senedd. Because time is of the essence in this; if we are to get this done in time for the seventh Senedd, then the Government must work quickly to bring this forward. It would receive support from myself and others in bringing forward a recall-style election for this and I know that that's one of the discussions that parties had in the initial discussion around Senedd reform more broadly.

I really commend the committee on their work on this, not just because I'm a member of the committee, Llywydd, but I commend it because this is a really interesting piece of work, I really enjoyed taking part in it. I think the chairmanship was excellent and the contribution from committee members on this was great. And my final thanks go to the clerking team and the whole team on the Senedd estate who supported us in doing this. I think we should be proud as a Senedd that we're bringing forward something like this so early in our institution's history. Diolch, Llywydd.

I echo what Sam said.

I really thank everybody who's been involved in this process, from the Chair, the clerks and the members. It's been a seemingly easy thing, but the minute you start looking at it, you realise that it's got many different facets and many different aspects. And in conjunction with some of the other work that the committee is doing—around deception, around bullying and sexual harassment—it forms part of building the trust back into politics, and making sure that this institution and others, especially in Wales, have that trust in the political system, so that at least we can move things forward here in Wales. Obviously, it needs to be done in a timely fashion, and the legislation needs to be brought forward as soon as possible, to make sure that it's embedded in time for the 2026 election. That's going to be a challenge, but I echo again what Sam was saying about at least it's the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery taking that forward, so hopefully it will get delivered. So, we'll wait to see on that one, but we'll do our part as a committee, I'm sure, to facilitate that.

One thing that we needed to consider is that, obviously, the new system in Wales, in 2026, is going to be different from England, and different from anything that we've done before, other than the fact that it is the way that I was elected. So, the electoral system is going to be exactly the same way as every regional Member here has been elected. So, in a sense, we've been doing this for 25 years, it will just apply to everybody now. But in that, then, you need a recall system that mirrors that, and plug-and-play from Westminster doesn't necessarily work. So, that's why we've had to look at that. Obviously, there have been a few parts of evidence where there's been concern—and I'd acknowledge those concerns from people like the Electoral Reform Society—just worried about how it would work, and some of those concerns were raised. But the reality in balancing an effective accountability mechanism with the characteristics of the new electoral system will inevitably form some of those compromises, and that's what we've tried to do in the recommendations coming through from the committee.

I therefore really call on the Government now to give us a regular update as to how this is progressing and to make sure that the Senedd is kept informed. I also look forward to those debates on deception that are coming down the line, and also to now get on with some of the work that we've already started but have had to pause to do this work, which will now continue, around some of those aspects that I talked about earlier. So, diolch yn fawr, and I commend this report. Diolch.

Like others have said, this is an excellent report, and I commend the Chair—or Chairs, perhaps—in the work that they've led on debating and discussing and taking this matter forward. I think there's general agreement—I certainly hope there is—across all parts of this Chamber that whatever name we use, whether it's 'recall' or a different name—I didn't expect to hear that in the speech; it's put me off—is accepted as a point of principle. The principle is accepted, and what we are debating and discussing now, and I hope over the coming months, is the process by which we deliver that accepted principle. I think that's really important. It's important that we recognise that the democracy of this place rests not simply on one election, but on how we deliver and the conduct of Members over a whole term, over the full four years. I think the committee has set out a first-class analysis of that, and has suggested some ways forward.

What I would like to do in the few moments I'll speak this afternoon is to outline some potential alternative options for us to consider as well. I do not have any comments to make on the points over thresholds—I think they are very clear, and I think the point that has been made in the committee's report about previous decisions of the committee creates a context by which we can understand that. But I think we will need to put that in law. What for me is important is, then, the process that we follow. It is important that any process a Member faces has elements of fairness hard-wired into it, and that the process continues to be a quasi-judicial one, where fairness is at the heart of that. Accountability and fairness have to be at the heart of all of this. And what I would like to see is a process by which decisions over conduct are taken in this place, in this Chamber, so that we do continue to hold each other to account for our actions and behaviours and conduct, and that we do that in a way that is done with due serious consideration, and potentially judicial oversight, if that is considered necessary.

For me, the role of the electorate comes in a different place. It comes in the place of elections and accountability, and, for me, that means that we do need to hold by-elections in any system. Now, I believe, and I fervently hope, that the current system we have, by which Members will be elected next year, will be in place only for a short period of time. I do not like the compromise that was made. I accepted it, I argued for it, I voted for it, but that doesn’t mean I like it. For me, I prefer the single transferrable vote, and I will be arguing in the coming months that the next Senedd should adopt the single transferrable vote as the means of election into the long term.

But we can also hold by-elections under a closed list system, because we can hold a by-election using the alternative vote, which maintains our proportionality, and our commitment to proportionality. And it does mean it is the electorate, and not a party, that chooses who sits here. And I think that’s really important. It’s important because one of the trademarks of the Westminster system, and I think we’re all influenced by the Westminster system, is that it is the system of recall that we see most used, and it’s being employed at the moment for a Member in the north-west of England. But I believe that we do need to maintain the principle of the electorate being able to pass judgment, not simply on the individual, but on who follows them. And that means that, in most STV systems, as far as I understand it—and, certainly, the system I’m most familiar with is in the Irish Republic—the system used is essentially the alternative vote system, to fill by-elections in the Dáil, where they occur during the term of office. And I believe that we can employ that here, so that where a vacancy is declared, following the process, we do hold a by-election for that post to be filled, and that that is done through the alternative vote.

But these are debates and discussions that we can have. We need to be moving fairly rapidly, for the reasons that Sam Kurtz has already outlined. But I do believe that we should have this debate honestly and fully as Members, not necessarily from political parties, or representing political points of view, but as individual Members, because the principle of recall, or whatever is accepted—what we debate and discuss now is how we deliver that, and how we make that level of accountability a reality. And I agree with what’s been said, that we need to do that with some speed, but also with due process.

And I’m also grateful to the committee, and to the Chair of the committee too, for this report. It is a report of a very high standard and quality, so thank you very much.

And it comes at a time, doesn’t it, when we know that the context for politics is at an all-time low. Political scandals have significantly contributed to public disillusionment with us as politicians. We went through the 2009 expenses scandal, the controversial personal protective equipment contracts, leaks about lockdown parties—let’s not forget those—and there have been even more, sadly, more recently. We also have a crisis of disengagement, and the two go together. So, our young people are not engaging with politics. We heard this week from the Electoral Commission that only 62 per cent of young people in Wales feel they have a good knowledge of democracy, which is far below the UK average.

But just to the content of this report, and to recall, which in essence, for me, is about restoring the contract between elected representatives and the public that they serve. It ensures that when trust is broken, when standards are undermined, voters have, as we have heard, a meaningful say in whether an individual should continue in office. It’s not about political opportunism, it’s about strengthening our democracy. And we’ve already seen the power of recall in Westminster. When the system was first introduced, some doubted whether it would be used at all, and since then we’ve seen a number of times when recall petitions have succeeded. And to declare an interest here, I obviously played a role in one particular recall petition.

The power of recall is not just its ability to remove an elected representative, it is the message it sends: that politicians must be held to high standards of conduct, or answer to the people. I am pleased to see the Welsh Government's broadly supportive response to the Standards of Conduct Committee's report. The Government's willingness to engage with the recommendations and openness to adapt to the system should be commended, so I do welcome that.

But we mustn’t lose sight of the urgency here. We have Senedd elections next year by, as we've heard, a different process, and it's really important that people feel that they can understand both the new process and understand this new system. So, I do urge the Government to consider how we can inform the public on both the new process of electing their representatives, but also on the recall process as well. So, I'd like to hear, if possible, more detail on how we plan to engage with the public and ensure that voters fully understand the recall system—how it operates and the conditions under which it is triggered. But I do welcome this report and I thank all members of the committee.

Thank you very much to all of you.

And I look forward to seeing this move on. Diolch.

As we head towards the Welsh general election of May 2026, it will be the most radical and the most democratic election in the history of devolution and of all the UK Parliaments: sixteen-plus voting, automatic registration—which will add, potentially, up to 0.5 million people to the electoral register—recall and removal, deception provisions, and a wholly proportional voting system.

The recommendation is for the creation of a process for the removal of a Member, and it is one where I believe there has been complete unity in this Senedd for that objective. It is based on a principle of personal responsibility by Members for their integrity and their standard of conduct. It is a specific Welsh model, creating a process for the removal of a Member whose conduct has fallen below what is acceptable and that the electorate should be allowed the choice of removing that individual. And it is a power to be exercised by the electorate. It’s right that they will be the ultimate arbiter. Thomas Paine wrote:

'A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.'

What I think the processes that we are introducing are doing is increasing our personal accountability, but also this Senedd’s political accountability to the electorate of Wales. It is a brave and radical step, and it will create, I believe, the most democratic institution in all of the Parliaments of the United Kingdom. Diolch.

The Counsel General to reply to the debate, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I want to start by expressing my gratitude to the Standards of Conduct Committee for its really diligent work on this crucial report. I think this is, really, proof that although the Senedd may still be a very young Parliament, we’ve come a very long way in our 25 years of existence. I think devolution has brought government closer to the people of Wales, and as we continue to evolve, we must ensure that our democratic structures remain strong, transparent and accountable. Public trust in politics is hard-won but easily lost, and it’s our duty to safeguard it.

People rightly expect high standards from their elected representatives, and when those standards aren’t met, they expect consequences. And that’s why we need a fair, transparent system that allows voters—the very people who put us here—to have the final say. Without that, I think we risk undermining confidence in our institutions and in our democracy. And in a democracy, confidence is everything.

So, to address these issues, the Welsh Government will bring forward primary legislation before the next election to introduce a recall system for the Senedd. Time is very tight, but we’re committed to working with the Senedd and its committees to get this done. And if we succeed, Llywydd, it will be a landmark moment in our Parliament’s history. This is about ensuring that the people of Wales always have a mechanism to hold their representatives to account, regardless of party, regardless of politics, because this is bigger than any one Government.

On that basis, we accept recommendation 1 in relation to the primary legislation necessary to establish this system. Following the passage of the Bill, there will need to be a focus on implementing secondary legislation and agreeing committee guidelines to ensure a smooth roll-out, some of which will necessarily fall to our successors in the next Senedd.

This proposal must also align with our new electoral system, which every Member, I think, who’s contributed has mentioned—a proportional, list-based system that was agreed upon by this Siambr last year—and I wholeheartedly support recommendation 2, which advocates for a single stage ballot asking voters whether a Member should stay or go. Any resulting vacancy will be filled using the existing processes, ensuring continuity and clarity for both the Senedd and the electorate.

The committee rightly emphasises the importance of clear and accessible information for voters. We accept recommendations 3, 8 and 9, to ensure that ballot papers, poll cards and voter information are well designed and informative. The recall process must be easily understood by the public. We will work closely with stakeholders, Senedd Members and the Electoral Commission to get this right.

I agree with the standards committee that the naming of the process matters. And while I do recognise the need to differentiate it from the UK system, I do myself have reservations about referring to it as a ‘remove and replace’ ballot. I think the Chair in her contribution had a bit of reservation on that as well. The system will not directly replace Members; it will remove them, with successors chosen through standard procedures. Given that 'recall' is widely understood as a mechanism for removing politicians, we will need to carefully reconsider this terminology as we develop the Bill. And, Llywydd, I very much hope that Members will engage in that process to help us all come to a mutually acceptable conclusion, because clarity in language leads to clarity in process.

And then, Llywydd, recommendation 5 introduces a new approach, a stand-alone recall sanction, to address the cliff-edge issues seen at Westminster. I think this is a promising idea and I support it in principle, but, due to its novelty, we must meticulously work through the legal and practical details. It’s essential it doesn’t become an arbitrary measure but instead provides a meaningful way to uphold standards without creating unintended consequences. This work is already in progress and we will move at pace to develop it. And as we develop this recall system, we must ensure it is flexible enough to adapt to future challenges. This is not just about today; it’s about creating a robust framework that can evolve with our democracy.

Llywydd, if we can make this work, it makes sense for the committee to develop clear guidelines on behaviours that could lead to recall, including both mitigating and aggravating factors. The public needs to have confidence in the process and know that it won’t be misused for political gain. We’re exploring how the Bill can formalise this process effectively.

I do slightly diverge from the committee’s perspective here, because I believe that certain clear-cut and externally determined offences should be explicitly listed in the Bill, such as cases where a Member is sentenced to prison but does not meet the threshold for automatic disqualification. This clarity is essential for both voters and Members. People need to know where the line is drawn and that such actions will lead to a recall poll. We also recognise the need for legal certainty in all aspects of the recall process. This will ensure that both voters and Members understand their rights and responsibilities clearly. A fair system is one where nobody is in doubt about the rules.

Finally, Llywydd, we support a simple, one-day vote that mirrors the Senedd election as closely as possible, accepting recommendation 7. The more familiar the process, the more accessible it will be to voters. A recall ballot should be straightforward and decisive, allowing the public to exercise their democratic right efficiently.

Llywydd, I haven’t addressed the issue of deliberate deception today, as the committee has provided a separate report on that matter, which will be debated independently. This separation allows us to focus on the Government’s position more clearly and to ensure that both discussions receive the attention they deserve.

So, in closing, I want to thank the committee Chair for today’s debate and all Members who contributed to this vital work. There is clear cross-party support for introducing a recall system and we have a significant task ahead of us. But, Llywydd, this is about strengthening our democracy, enhancing accountability, and putting power where it belongs: in the hands of the people of Wales. I look forward to collaborating with all of you to deliver this important change. Diolch.

I call on Hannah Blythyn to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I just respond by welcoming everybody’s contributions in a thoughtful and thorough manner? It really has been a pleasure, as my first big piece of work as Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, to actually do something we could get stuck into that can play a part and really contribute to strengthening our democracy here in the Senedd. I was asked, when we were discussing publicly the report, when it was published, why it had taken so long. I did point out that, actually, it was a lot quicker than Westminster: it had taken them a couple of centuries; it had only taken us a quarter. But, as part of that evolving democracy and alongside the other work we’re doing as the Standards of Conduct Committee, I look forward to working with Welsh Government, with all stakeholders and, actually, with all colleagues in the Siambr. Diolch.

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

Item 7 this afternoon is a debate on the Children, Young People and Education Committee report, 'Children on the margins', and I call on the committee Chair to move the motion—Buffy Williams. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Imagine a child who is missing, their whereabouts unknown. They may be running from something—abuse, neglect or trauma—or perhaps they're being exploited, coerced into dangerous criminal activities. These are not hypothetical children; they are real children living in Wales today. And they are on the margins of society, vulnerable to manipulation, abuse and violence. We've heard powerful and heartbreaking accounts from those children: stories that are difficult to hear, experiences that are even more difficult to live through. The children who have gone missing or who are being exploited often endure unimaginable trauma, including brutal violence. Some are coerced into committing crimes themselves, others are exposed to dangerous situations, both physical and emotional, that no child should ever experience. These are the children we set out to better understand in our inquiry, ‘Children on the margins’. In our inquiry, we focused on two of the most vulnerable groups of children in Wales today: those who go missing, their whereabouts unknown, and those who are criminally exploited—children who are manipulated, deceived or forced into carrying out criminal activity. How are these children being failed by the systems that should protect them? And how can we do better?

Our report reflects real-life evidence of children who have experienced these challenges. Some children shared their experiences of being trafficked and forced into criminal activity through so-called county lines operations. Others spoke about being manipulated by local gangs or even exploited by members of their own family. They detailed how criminal gangs deliberately target children who’ve been excluded from school or those who do not attend school at all. For these children, school exclusion is often a gateway to exploitation and violence. Perhaps the most chilling story we heard was from a child who had been groomed over months, promised safety and care, only to find themselves trapped in a world of crime, violence and fear. These are not rare cases; they are growing numbers. And we must do everything we can to prevent such exploitation from continuing.

After hearing from these children and the professionals who work to support them, we identified several key findings. I want to highlight a few of the most important points today. Effective multi-agency working is crucial to ensuring vulnerable children are protected. It’s the thread that ties together the efforts of the police, social services, schools and health professionals. Yet, time and again, we’ve seen that poor information sharing across agencies leads to gaps in support and, too often, tragedy. This is a systemic issue that needs to be addressed. The response to children who are criminally exploited is often far behind the response to other vulnerable children. Awareness and understanding of criminal exploitation are inconsistent across Wales. Some professionals are doing exceptional work, but there is a wide variation in how these children are identified and supported, leaving many children at risk of further harm. We also identified clear risk factors that make children more likely to be exploited. School exclusion is a key risk. Children who are excluded from school or who struggle to remain in education are particularly vulnerable. Trauma, whether from abuse, neglect or the experience of being in care, also increases the likelihood of a child becoming a target for exploitation.

But perhaps the most important thing to remember is that any child can become marginalised. It’s not just those with difficult backgrounds. Any child, regardless of their personal circumstances, can be pushed into the margins and left vulnerable to exploitation. The report makes a number of recommendations to address these issues. I’d like to highlight four key areas where we believe significant progress can be made.

When a child goes missing, it’s vital that we understand why. Return interviews, where a professional talks to the child after they have returned, are an essential part of this. These interviews give us an opportunity to identify the risks that the child is facing and to intervene early. However, we discovered that return interviews are not always offered. We recommended that the Welsh Government make the offer of a return interview mandatory, after every missing episode. Sadly, the Welsh Government rejected this recommendation, arguing that the research did not reach a consensus on whether return interviews should be mandatory.

We know that some young people, often those in care, can feel frustrated when they are reported as missing. They might have been out seeing friends and didn’t make it back home before curfew, like teenagers often do. For them, a return interview may not be right. But let me be clear: we did not recommend mandatory interviews for all children. We called for a mandatory offer of an interview. This is a simple step to ensure that every child has a chance to speak to a professional about their experience. The need for this is clear, and I ask the Welsh Government today for further clarity on their position on a mandatory offer of return interviews and why this would be a bad thing.

Another key recommendation was for a national strategy to address child criminal exploitation, to have a consistent and co-ordinated response across Wales. Since we wrote our report, the UK Government has announced plans to make it a criminal offence for an adult to use a child to commit a crime. This is an important development, but we still need a clear national strategy here in Wales. While the Welsh Government has expressed some reservations about a national strategy, many experts in the field believe that it is essential. We would be grateful if the Minister could please provide an update on the Government’s reflections, if any, in light of the UK Government’s new legislation.

During our inquiry, we visited Hillside secure unit, and spoke to some staff and young people there. It was a deeply moving visit. It was following this visit that the committee identified the need for better information sharing between agencies. The West Glamorgan safeguarding tracker, a digital platform that shares information between safeguarding partners, was one example of how technology can improve communication and co-ordination. The tracker flagged 93 people who had between 16 and 25 interactions with the NHS in just one year. It highlighted young people who had contact with both children’s services and the police, where that link had not previously been made by professionals. Minister, we welcome your recognition of the potential for digital platforms to improve information sharing. What are the Welsh Government’s own plans to improve information sharing? You mention the Connecting Care programme in your response. Can you give us an update on that work, please?

Finally, our report highlights the link between school exclusion and criminal exploitation. Children who are excluded from school or who refuse to attend are at higher risk of being targeted by criminal gangs. This is an urgent issue. We need to do more to keep children in education and to support schools in keeping vulnerable children engaged and learning. We are encouraged that the Welsh Government has accepted our recommendation to pilot a children missing education database to track children at risk of exploitation. We look forward to seeing the pilot begin this April, and hope it will lead to more proactive intervention for these children.

In conclusion, I want to express my deepest gratitude to all those who have contributed to this inquiry. I know that reliving these traumatic experiences is not easy. To the children and young who bravely shared their experiences, thank you. Your stories have been difficult to hear, but they are invaluable in helping us understand the challenges faced by those on the margins. To the professionals, carers, social workers, teachers and healthcare workers, thank you for your dedication to supporting vulnerable children. Our committee will continue to prioritise our scrutiny for the benefit of the most vulnerable children in Wales. Together, we can make a difference for these children and ensure that no child in Wales is left behind. I look forward to hearing contributions from Members across the Senedd.

Can I thank my committee Chair, Buffy, for opening this debate, and the clerking team for producing such a comprehensive report? I also want to thank and pay tribute to all those who gave evidence. 

I think we can all agree that it highlights some serious challenges for the Welsh Government in improving the effectiveness of the current support systems for children on the margins, and it shows what action is needed, sooner rather than later. Sadly, the report highlights once again the issues that the Welsh Government has in collecting data. We see this across many different areas that the Welsh Government has responsibility for, particularly health, and this is something that is of serious concern among many health professionals and charities. We ultimately have to acknowledge that failure by the Welsh Government to ensure that reliable and robust data is collected is now having a detrimental impact on the lives of people in Wales. The fact that a local authority reported more individual children missing from care than the total number of children who were in care at the time goes to show how careless the data collection has become, and the truth is, whether the Welsh Government wants to admit it or not, it has not been diligent enough in ensuring public bodies collect, report and update it.

I am pleased to see the recommendations by the committee that immediate action should be taken on this and that the Welsh Government has accepted this. I also think that the six-month timeline for achieving this is actually quite fair, and to take any longer just shows that it is not a priority for the Government. With this in mind, can I urge the Government to really consider this and not just kick it into the long grass? Better data means that better decisions can be made, resources can be used more wisely and, most importantly, it means that better and more effective systems can be developed, which can prevent many children from going missing in the first place.

We have to acknowledge that there are many children in Wales who are vulnerable, and I agree with the committee that return interviews are an essential part of helping those who are found to finally get back to a sense of normalcy and everyday life. It is a big decision for a child or young person to choose to leave home, and the events leading up to this and the mental well-being of the child or young person has to be at the forefront when providing support services. I cannot see any reason why we can’t offer a return interview. We have skilled professionals who are able to adequately assess the state of mind and the circumstances that led up to someone choosing to leave home, and it’s important that we continually understand the social and home environment that children and young people are living in.

I recognise the importance of children and young people in care having a statutory right to access independent advocates, including when they have been reported missing. Unless this is a requirement in law, some of them will always remain some of society’s most vulnerable, who will not be declaring, discussing or seeking help for the issues that they are facing.

County lines is a serious issue. Not only is it very difficult to track the people responsible, but they deliberately target children in care. The sad truth is that young children are enticed by the prospect of earning comparatively huge amounts of money for transporting drugs. They are made to finally feel part of something, so they don’t see the danger or criminal aspect of what they’re doing. As the report evidence sessions have highlighted, those responsible for recruitment are organised and meticulous in their recruitment techniques. Because children and young people in care have effectively lost their protective buffers of family and friends, they are ripe for exploitation.

It is extremely worrying that child criminal exploitation is so frequently identified as a form of exploitation in Wales. I was shocked to learn from the Minister that 59 per cent of referrals between April and June of 2024 were for children, and 49 per cent of the referrals were for criminal exploitation. I was therefore surprised to see that the Welsh Government rejected recommendation 12, to develop a child criminal exploitation risk assessment tool for use by front-line staff. I strongly argue against the Welsh Government's response here. If the existing mechanisms were fit for purpose, then surely we wouldn't find ourselves in the position that we do.

Assessment tools would not only aid training, but encourage a consistent approach across different sectors, such as policing and health. Moreover, assessment tools, once developed, can be easily and relatively quickly updated to respond to new and emerging exploitation methods, which is ultimately half the battle. Criminals who exploit vulnerable people don't just stop when they have perfected their technique. They're constantly trying and developing new methods, and assessment tools, in my opinion, would generally help.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I would like to finish by saying that this is a thorough report and it's good to see that so many recommendations have been accepted by the Welsh Government. Thank you.

May I thank the Chair for presenting this report today? It is a report that is of very great importance because it discusses the welfare and future of our children, especially those who are on the margins of society. The report notes clearly the dangers that they face in being on the margins of society, away from the usual care that can be provided, which leaves them vulnerable to harm and vulnerable to exploitation. The report reminds us too of the urgent need for systemic change to safeguard and support these children.

Although I wasn't a member of the committee from the very beginning, I joined the committee towards the end of the inquiry and I was shocked by the evidence that I and the other committee members saw and heard about the impact of exploitation on young people, and I'll speak a little bit about that later on in my contribution. I want to thank everyone who gave evidence to us as a committee, despite how difficult that must have been for a number of witnesses, and the organisations that submitted written evidence to the committee.

Of course, the bare statistics about exploitation and abuse referred to in the report don't tell the whole story, because they are just statistics. What lies behind those statistics are the real lived tragedies that shape the lives of children, and change the lives of those children forever, and the impact that that has on their families and on their communities. These experiences can have harmful and long-term impacts in some cases, and perhaps these children will never be able to overcome the pain and suffering that they have experienced. This is the reality that we cannot ignore, and there is a responsibility on us to ensure that their lives are better for the future.

One thing that was clear to me from the report was the need to collect data, and perhaps more important than the collection of data, the sharing of that data as well, and ensuring that there is robust collaboration between organisations and local authorities. Effective data sharing could improve outcomes significantly for young people who are at risk, and by sharing data and systems we can ensure that no child falls through the cracks. That is what happens far too often. We could create a support network that is seamless and comprehensive, where the professionals are consistently focused on the welfare of every child, based on data, information and evidence. This collaborative approach would enable us to respond effectively at critical junctures, and to hold ourselves accountable for the care and safety of our young people.

Further to this, although the report does not call specifically for the devolution of youth justice, I believe strongly that this is a crucial step that we should be considering. In informal conversations, many committee members agreed with this, because by bringing youth justice under our control here, we could then tailor our approach to meet the unique needs of children in Wales. We could develop policies and practices that are more responsive, yes, and more compassionate too and more effective in tackling the fundamental causes of marginalisation and exploitation. Of course, for Plaid Cymru, we would like to see the entire justice system being devolved, and then we wouldn't lose these young people from our system as they move from the youth system to the adult system, but perhaps that's a discussion for another day.

So, to conclude, Dirprwy Lywydd, I hope that the Government will implement the report’s recommendations at pace. We don't have any time to lose. Let's work together to make a genuine and tangible difference to the lives of our most vulnerable children. And let us ensure that every child in Wales has the opportunity to grow up safely, feeling supported and empowered. Thank you very much.

Firstly, I'd like to pay tribute to the Chair, Buffy Williams, for the commitment and passion that you have shown in highlighting and putting a spotlight on this particular issue. You have shown real passion and been a driver behind making sure that the voices and the experiences of these children are actually brought out into the Senedd and into the public, so thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The title of the report, 'Children on the margins', is really something we should be ashamed of because they shouldn't be children on the margin; they should be children right in the middle of everything that we think of and do, because these are the most vulnerable, the most exploited, the most challenged, and sometimes, I know, the most challenging children and young people. Their experiences of growing up, of being mistreated, criminally exploited is something that we really should be deeply ashamed of here in Wales.

You as Chair highlighted a story of missed opportunities, missed conversations, unmade interventions, unacted decisions. One professional in the report described reading about the lives of criminally exploited children as

'looking at a car crash in slow motion'. 

This report, I hope, will not become another missed opportunity for these vulnerable groups. We must act on this. We must have decisive action and we must move forward on this. So, I do look forward to hearing from the Welsh Government why they have not enacted all of the recommendations in this report. 

I wish to cover a few, if I may. Firstly, one that I know the Chair highlighted, that of the return home interviews. In paragraph 62 of your report, you say, 

'We were surprised, therefore, when the Minister for Children and Social Services told us that there is no consensus over whether there should be a mandatory offer of a return interview'. 

I'm really surprised at that. I'd like to hear more from the Minister, please. I chair the cross-party group on care-experienced young people and the cross-party group on children and families. We have a whole host of stakeholders coming to those meetings and I have not heard one voice say that they don't want the mandatory offer. So, please, could the Minister be a little bit more specific on where that voice comes from and why there is no consensus? And even if there's one voice that says, 'No, we don't want it', then surely we look at the best practice and we see very clearly that mandatory offers of return interviews are what help children. And I speak from experience; I've worked in England where it works—where, actually, children welcome the opportunity to have that offer. They may not take it up the first time, but they may take it up further down the road, and that really helps us as practitioners. So, please, I'm really going to be specific here and I'm going to intervene, if I may, Minister, if we don't get clarity on why the Welsh Government isn't enacting that particular recommendation. 

May I also draw attention to recommendation 6, that on homeless children in Wales, particularly those who are care experienced? As of January 2024, we saw over 3,000 children under 16 who were living in temporary accommodation here in Wales. We have a direct responsibility to those children and young people. We are their corporate parents. None of us here would want to see those children, our children, living in that accommodation. So, please can we see a better response? So far, the response to this crisis has been inadequate, and I would urge the Welsh Government to consider what more can be done to provide care leavers with a guaranteed safety net in housing beyond the White Paper on homelessness.

We've talked about corporate parenting—thank you for raising that. I want to finally finish on another area that I'm passionate about, and that's separated children. I don't call them 'unaccompanied minors'. Miners are people who've been underground. These are children who are separated from their caregivers, and that is the correct title, in my view: separated children. We need to see a proper system here in Wales, and I'm glad to see that the Government has accepted it in principle. But in Scotland, they have an absolutely fabulous system, which we need to replicate here in Wales. It’s a system of guardianship, which is well funded, which gives those separated children the parent that they are missing. So, I would like to hear from the Welsh Government two specific things: why are we behind Scotland, but most pertinently, why are we behind England in not having statutory return interviews. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Tom Giffard.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm grateful to you for calling me, and I apologise for missing the first minute or so of this debate.

I'm really pleased to be able to speak on this debate and also to have taken part in the Children, Young People and Education Committee as we looked in some great detail into this. I thank Buffy Williams for her work as Chair of that committee. Because I think this was a really impactful report, and I can't think of another report that certainly I have done, in my relatively short time in this  Senedd, that has had such a profound impact on me personally, and changed the way I think about an issue, probably, coming out of that investigation, and opened up a whole new world of young people's lived experiences and the things that we can be doing as politicians and Senedd Members in order to better advocate for them. I think the work of the committee and the final report that has come out is a reflection on that work, and on that cross-party work that I think we did. In fact, Buffy and I would often joke, during this inquiry, about how much we seemed to agree on lots of issues, which I think unnerved us both, didn't it, Buffy?

I wanted to focus my remarks on just one or two of the recommendations in the report, owing to the time given. The first was on return ineterviews, which I won't go into in too much detail, because I know other Members have mentioned it in much greater detail than I have, particularly, I think, Jane Dodds, in the previous contribution, who made the point very well in terms of the Welsh Government's response to those return interviews. We certainly didn't hear evidence that the offer of a mandatory return interview for young people who go missing or who leave care, for any reason, shouldn't be an offer on the table. I'm very open-minded to the idea that those views might exist or might sit within the Welsh Government, but I'd be really, really grateful, as Jane Dodds has requested, to hear more about that, to hear those voices. Because they are not voices, views and opinions that we heard as part of this inquiry, and as a consequence, I'm quite disappointed to see the Welsh Government reject that particular recommendation.

I also wanted to focus specifically on recommendation 12, which suggests that the Welsh Government should work alongside health boards, police forces and other relevant statutory and non-statutory agencies to develop a pan-Wales child criminal exploitation risk assessment tool for use by front-line staff, including in healthcare settings, which is something that came up quite a lot during the course of this inquiry. However, the Welsh Government has considered existing mechanisms to be fit for purpose and, therefore, in their view, developing that tool would not be necessary. I think the citizen engagement team facilitated interviews with young people for us, who'd survived criminal exploitation, in order to support the work of the committee's inquiry. One of those interviews that I recall reveals a story of a young person who was put in a hostel after having run away from home due to difficult living circumstances. They detailed what they felt they needed and expressed the support they feel they should've received from social services. However, heartbreakingly, they said they felt that nobody was there for them. They stated, and I quote—and this quote really stuck with me—they had

'all of the responsibilities of being older but none of the freedoms.'

I think it's very difficult to listen to examples like that and stand by the fact and the idea that the existing mechanisms are fit for purpose, when some of those vulnerable young people are clearly slipping through those gaps, are in those margins.

I want to thank the committee for their continued work in this area and implore that the Government continues to review whether those functions are fit for purpose, whether children are falling between the margins and what we can do as legislators to make sure that young people are never in that position again. Diolch yn fawr.

I would like to thank the committee for this important report and Jane Dodds for the work that she does in the cross-party groups that I'm a member of. That work is crucially important. Thank you, Jane, for retaining a focus on this issue in your Senedd work.

I wanted to contribute to this debate as I've spoken many times on the need for a consistency of approach when it comes to vulnerable children to ensure more effective preventative measures when it comes to children who are at risk.

I would like to focus firstly on the highlighting in the report of the urgent need for a consistent national approach to tackling child criminal exploitation. Currently, responses vary. As we've heard, across local authorities, there's no standardised risk assessment or co-ordinated strategy and many children are treated as criminals rather than victims. Without sufficient early intervention, they, of course, remain at risk. A national framework would improve information sharing—as we heard from Cefin Campbell, that multi-agency collaboration, data collection—ensuring better protection and support. Of course, while criminal justice, unfortunately, is not devolved, the Welsh Government could strengthen safeguarding policies and must drive a more unified response.

In response to the committee’s recommendation on a strategy for tackling child criminal exploitation, the Welsh Government says that it does 

'not consider the development of a national strategy essential to achieve greater consistency in practice.'

Could you elaborate, Minister, please, on the reasons why, and outline what other approaches, therefore, are being taken to improve consistency in practice, together with the Home Office?  

I'd like to turn to recommendations 6 and 7, as homelessness among care-experienced young people is another pressing issue that the report rightly addresses. It's absolutely unacceptable that one in three care leavers in Wales face homelessness within two years. The committee's report outlines how plans to abolish the priority need test could further increase their vulnerability.

While greater equality in homelessness support is the Government's goal, in its evidence to the committee, the National Youth Advocacy Service rightly points out that removing priority need status without proper safeguards risks leaving more young people without stable housing, due, of course, to the chronic shortage of affordable and suitable housing in Wales. Plaid Cymru, therefore, supports the committee's call to maintain priority need status and introduce a mandatory housing preference for care-experienced individuals.

Although the Government has accepted the committee's recommendations, it's not clear if this acceptance is a commitment to maintaining priority need status for care leavers in Wales. So, would the Minister commit to retaining that assessment for care leavers who are at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness, and could you provide us with an update on the timeline for the Bill that follows from the White Paper to end youth homelessness in October 2023?

I would also like to take this opportunity to remind the Welsh Government that making experience of care a protected characteristic was one of the calls of the Children, Young People and Education Committee's report on radical reform of services for care-experienced children, 'If not now, then when?', which was published when I was a member of the committee.

The committee called on the Welsh Government to lobby the UK Government at the time to amend section 4 the Equality Act 2010 to add care experience as a protected characteristic; it was rejected then. Would the Minister let us know whether she would reassess this, especially in the context of this report, and especially given the former Deputy Minister, while stating that the Welsh Government wouldn't be able to change the law as it was reserved, nevertheless told us at the time she was interested in the committee's view on this matter and would, and I quote,

'like to look at it further'?

Has it been looked at further now that we have two Labour Governments in power? Will this conversation be happening? Diolch.

I call on the Minister for Children and Social Care, Dawn Bowden.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I start by saying I very much welcome this afternoon's debate? It's a hugely important debate, and I really want to thank everyone for their insightful contributions. I think in the time allocated to me I'm not going to be able to respond to all of the points that were raised. We have submitted a detailed response to the committee's recommendations, but I am, of course, always available to have further conversations with the committee and the Chair of the committee about any of the recommendations.

We have accepted 21 out of the 23, and a number of those are accepted in principle, so I understand that there is significant discussion that still needs to go on between myself and the committee about how we develop where we have accepted in principle, because a lot of those are pieces of work that are ongoing but still need further development. But I absolutely want to extend my gratitude to the members of the Children, Young People and Education Committee for their dedicated work on these crucial topics, and particularly thanks to you, Chair, for your tenacious approach to the inquiry.

But importantly, I also want to thank those, as others have said, who shared their experiences and provided evidence to the committee. These are people, particularly children and young people, that I come across pretty much every day in the role that I undertake as Minister for Children and Social Care, and their evidence is always difficult to listen to, but it has shaped both the committee's recommendations and the Welsh Government's response to it, so I do very much appreciate and welcome the evidence and the input that those people have made to this inquiry.

The committee's report absolutely aligns to our ambitions to bring meaningful change to the lives of children on the margins, including those who go missing from home or care, and those vulnerable to criminal and sexual exploitation. The committee's report has offered a further opportunity to reflect on and review the work that's already been accomplished in this area, and assist us in concentrating on our future objectives. Our aim is to ensure that the measures that we have achieved, and our plans moving forward, translate into tangible and concrete improvements in the lives of vulnerable children. 

As I've said, we accepted 21 of the 23 recommendations, either in whole or in principle, and our response to the recommendations of the 'Children on the margins' report outlines what has been achieved so far, alongside our plans to advance the important area of work. And all of that, as I've said, is detailed in our response to the committee. But they do include developing guidance for practitioners to guide their work with children who go missing from home or care and are sexually and/or criminally exploited; developing online criminal exploitation training for practitioners; the launching of the single unified safeguarding review and repository; revising the guidance on safeguarding children who are trafficked and/or criminally exploited—and we continue to engage with the Home Office on our approach to this; and promoting the use of the complex safeguarding Wales practitioner toolkit via the Wales safeguarding procedures website.

As always, working in partnership with the sector is key to driving forward meaningful change, so we have established a safeguarding children and young people who are reported missing from home or care stakeholder steering group, which comprises key representatives dedicated to protecting vulnerable children. The steering group has a clear mission ahead, driven by insights from the research, including the committee's report. Their objectives include building a comprehensive evidence base to underpin transformative recommendations and weaving together networks from across Wales to form a community of practice, focused on the welfare of missing children and young people. 

I just want to refer to recommendation 3 and the point that Jane Dodds raised that we had rejected recommendation 3. In fact, we haven't; we have accepted recommendation 3 in principle. What I was saying was about how the stakeholder group has been set up to look at this. So, the group will be mapping current funding sources for services providing the return-to-home interviews following a young person’s missing episode, and that group will use this information to consider how these may be commissioned in the future, maximising the resources that we can access, because there is already a statutory right to a return-to-home interview under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. So, this is about moving beyond that into how we make sure that it happens more effectively in practice. Jane.

Thank you for taking my intervention, and it's not a surprise that I just wanted to focus in on the return interviews and the statutory offer. I can see that you've accepted in principle, but that is not the same as accept. And whilst you have this working group who are looking at the evidence, surely the evidence is there. I get that the working groups are important in some areas, but, actually, the evidence is clear, both from the report and the experience in a much bigger country, which is England. The longer we wait, the more children go missing and don't have this service. So, could I ask you, very clearly, to tell us what your timelines are in terms of expectations for this group, both for reporting back and more importantly in terms of implementation? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you for that, Jane, and I understand the important point that you are making. I would reiterate, we do have a statutory obligation or statutory offer to children and young people who go missing, to have a return home interview. This group is looking at how we can more effectively progress that. That was the point I was trying to make.

Several people have highlighted the fact that there's more work to be done around data collection. And so whilst I understand the urgency and the need for us to move on with this, we do have to map the landscape of that data. Everybody today has been making the point that we're not doing enough around data collection. We have to make sure that what we're doing is properly informed, and that's what this group is going to be doing. They'll be mapping the landscape of data collection related to missing children and young people, identifying the key data holders and reporting systems to better use that information to plan and to deliver those services.

They're reviewing and refining the all-Wales safeguarding practice guidance and the cross-border guidance on children who go missing from care, and the updated documents in the guidance on conducting return home interviews will be clarifying those definitions and processes. I can't give you an absolutely timeline on that yet, but as soon as I have a clearer idea of when the work of this stakeholder group will be completed, I will certainly let the Senedd know. But ultimately, they will be making recommendations to ensure that every child and young person in Wales receives an equitable response when they go missing from home or from care.

And in parallel with that, we will soon be consulting on our national 10-year strategy for preventing and responding to child sexual abuse, covering all types of sexual harm, including exploitation. There are four strands to that strategy: prevention; protection; supporting children, young people and their families; and supporting adult survivors. So, we continue to work across Welsh Government and with the UK Government to safeguard children from criminal and sexual exploitation.

Our response to the recommendations underscores our commitment to addressing these issues, and improving outcomes for children and young people. By building on these efforts, we can create a safer, more supportive environment for all children in Wales. But in conclusion, I know that we all want the best for every child and young person in Wales, and I remain absolutely steadfast in supporting this vital work, and will continue to champion our shared vision for a better future for all children in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Chair of the committee to reply to the debate.

I'd like to thank all Members for their contributions today. Joel and Cefin both spoke about data. In our committee, we're always, always looking for the data. Sadly, it's not always available, and we know just how important data sharing is for children on the margins. We can't let any child slip through the net because the correct information is not available. That is just not right.

Tom, I think this inquiry will stay with us well beyond our time in the Senedd, and we can agree on just one more thing: we need to do more. Jane highlighted missed opportunities; hopefully our report will help to end those missed opportunities. And Sioned—Sioned always speaks so, so passionately—thank you so much for your powerful contribution today. I know that when we spent time on the Children, Young People and Education Committee together, a bit like myself and Tom, we agreed on more than we didn't agree on, where things like this were concerned, and it's so important that we all work together to make these positive changes. I think we can all agree on that.

Not every child who goes missing is harmed, and not every missing episode is an indicator of abuse. When we talk about children who are criminally exploited, we are talking about a relatively small number of children, but we should not underestimate the devastating and overwhelming impact on the lives of those children who are exploited or abused. Children who are criminally exploited often suffer terrible physical and mental abuse. Some children die as a result of their exploitation. For many survivors, the trauma of their abuse will change their lives forever. Even if we try and set the emotional impact to one side, many young people who escape their exploiters will hold criminal records. This makes it so much harder for them to find work and move on with their lives. Neither should we underestimate the complexity of some of the criminal networks that are responsible for this child abuse. Many of the gangs are sophisticated and professional, and will target and groom at-risk children before trapping them in criminal activities. This is a complex, high-risk and cross-border area of policy that requires proper attention from Governments across the UK.

There are some signs that child criminal exploitation is beginning to receive the political attention it deserves at UK level. The forthcoming statutory definition of criminal exploitation is an important development. We heard this definition should support law enforcement agencies to prosecute exploiters. We also recognise that progress is being made in some areas by this Welsh Government—the single unified safeguarding reviews, for example, and the potential for the children missing education database—but what matters most to individual children and their families is the availability and quality of the protection and support they receive. And all too often, we heard that that support isn't nearly as consistent as it should be.

So, we urge the Welsh Government to harness the new UK-wide momentum to drive improvements in the response to missing and criminalised children across Wales, and we urge parties across the Senedd to support that drive, to ensure that agencies are listening to children and families and then working together effectively; to ensure that agencies responsible for safeguarding children take concrete steps to improve practice when things go wrong and are held to account for doing so; to ensure that front-line professionals understand the key risk factors and signs of criminal exploitation, and how and when to respond. Because the implications of getting this wrong, for our most vulnerable children, are unthinkable. Diolch.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.26.

Item 8 today is the Plaid Cymru debate on rail infrastructure funding. I call on Peredur Owen Griffiths to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I'm pleased to move this motion in the name of Heledd Fychan this afternoon.

I'm pleased to open this debate on a motion that gets to the heart of a fundamental injustice—the systematic underfunding of Welsh rail infrastructure by the UK Government. Our motion sets out the undeniable facts: Wales has received a fraction of the rail enhancement funding it is owed, our infrastructure has suffered from decades of neglect, and the UK Government has failed to deliver the fair funding Wales needs to improve its transport network.

The UK Secretary of State for Transport has acknowledged that Wales has experienced historically low levels of rail enhancement spending. But this underfunding is not just historical, it is ongoing. Westminster, whether red or blue, continues to deny Wales the HS2 consequentials it is due, despite the fact that Scotland and Northern Ireland received their fair shares. If Wales had been treated fairly and equitably, we would have been entitled to around £4 billion.

That figure has been repeated previously by numerous members of this Government, Labour Members of the Senedd, Labour Members of Parliament and, even now, the Secretary of State for Wales. These calls from the Government benches opposite grew evermore silent as they inched closer to power in Westminster, where they would have the ability to do something about the ongoing injustice we face on funding. This is not just about past spending, it's about Wales's future. 

We hear reports that the UK Chancellor intends to freeze spending on major new rail projects until after the next UK election. The Secretary of State for Wales claimed that rail development in Wales was her No. 1 priority, yet only days later, reports emerged that the UK Government is blocking new investment. Clearly, the people of Wales cannot trust this Labour Party to stick to their word.

What do we make of the amendment today? It is a 'delete all' amendment, u-turning on previous policy positions. A weak amendment that does nothing to demand fair funding for Wales and instead welcomes vague promises from the UK Government. And let's be clear, this is a complete u-turn of Labour's previous stance. In the past, Labour MSs in this very Chamber have unanimously voted for HS2 consequentials for Wales. They've stood on platforms promising to fight for fair rail funding. They have agreed with everything we are saying today. That is, until Keir Starmer took charge and they decided to put party over the interests of Wales. Now, when it truly matters, they have collective amnesia. What has changed? The facts remain the same, the funding injustice remains the same, the flawed Barnett formula is the same. The only thing that has changed is Labour's willingness to stand up for Wales when they've finally got the chance to do something about it. I'm so disappointed. Diolch yn fawr. 

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. 

Moved.

I call on Peter Fox to move amendment 2, in the name of Paul Davies. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the amendment, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Dirprwy Lywydd, consecutive Labour Governments here in Cardiff Bay have played politics with virtually every issue. They played politics when it came to the UK Conservative Government offering support for waiting lists, they played politics when it came to the matter of M4 relief road funding and again when it came to childcare, and the matter of rail investment is no different. Let's look at HS2, as we've already heard. It must be embarrassing for Labour backbenchers—hence not many are here—where, before the last election, Labour politicians in both Wales and England were calling— 

There's nobody on your front bench. 

Yes, all right. I'm talking about you. 

There's nobody on your front bench.

There were Labour politicians in Wales—[Interruption.]

Let's not have a conversation across the room, let's allow the contribution to be made. 

He always does it. So, yes, politicians in both Wales and England were calling for billions of pounds, as we've heard, of consequential funding for HS2, but now that Labour are in power in Westminster, their call is now for just a meagre £400 million. What a kick in the teeth. We should be getting at least £1.5 billion, recognising the £38 billion that has been spent so far on HS2 funding. That's not to say that that's all we want—[Interruption.] Yes.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Would you agree, then, that the consistent failure of the last Government over 14 years to pay consequential funding to Wales was a 14-year kick in the teeth?

We, as a group, as you know, have stood against our own party when it comes to HS2 consequentials, and we're talking about your opportunity now, and it's a kick in the teeth for Wales that you are turning your back on your Members.

Keir Starmer had his chance to announce extra funding in Wales as a result of HS2 spending in the autumn budget, but, instead, he chose to tax our farmers, strip pensioners of their winter fuel allowance and hit businesses and employees with national insurance increases. He could have announced the electrification of the north Wales main line, a £1 billion project that had been pledged by the Conservatives, but no, instead, the Labour Government—[Interruption.] I knew you were going to do that.

Will you take an intervention on that? Because you're right, the Conservatives pledged it. What they didn't do was to budget for it, and we've seen correspondence from Network Rail that directly contradicts what Rishi Sunak said in his speech in Manchester. He said that the money was there; it wasn't there. He misled people. Do you condemn him for that?

No, I don't. No, I don't.

Thought not. Thought not. Thought not.

These are about choices and decisions. If Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves wanted to do it, if they really thought, they would have found a way to have done it. We would have done it, and your party clearly don't want to now. But, instead, the Labour Government—. As we heard also, Westminster's decided to freeze all new rail projects. That's short-sighted, isn't it? How is this conducive with the need for more and better public transport or the need to reduce carbon emissions? It's not. Labour struggle to understand that we need to invest in our infrastructure if we want to see growth, so there has to be a joined-up strategy across policy areas aligned to strategic aims, rather than ad hoc policy done on the hoof. And we see Plaid Cymru continually shouting for more money irrespective of context. No matter how much the UK Government send to Wales's Government, it will never be enough for Plaid, and I can see why they do that.

And that said, that said, I agree with most of their motion. I agree with most of their motion, apart from the continuous complaining about past Conservative Governments. I know that's your job—[Interruption.] But it's easy. It's easy—[Interruption.] It's easy, Dirprwy Lywydd, to carp from the backbenches, knowing that they're unlikely ever to have to deliver anything, certainly not in the UK Government, and probably not here. Words are cheap. [Interruption.] Sorry, Mabon.

Do you accept that we've had decades of underinvestment in our rail service, and that the Conservative Party is part of that problem?

I think we could have had more in Wales over the many, many years, yes. But we're talking about now. We're talking about now. We're talking about 25 years of Labour. You could have reprofiled your own capital spend and done more with different things.

Now, unlike—[Interruption.] Now, unlike the Labour Government, we as Conservatives were happy to tell our colleagues in Westminster when we disagreed with them, and we did not sell Wales short. I believe that Wales was owed fair funding for HS2 and still is, unlike the Labour Party, who clearly don't. When we look at their amendment, there is no direct mention of HS2, and it does not expressly call for fair funding, let alone put a figure on it.

We hear the First Minister regularly saying she is not responsible for what Keir Starmer does, but that shouldn't stop the Labour Party here calling him out. First Ministers here have always been happy to criticise every Conservative Prime Minister; why can't Welsh Labour stand up to the current UK Government, recognising how they are ripping off Wales and the Welsh people?

Dirprwy Lywydd, I really hope that Wales gets the investment we deserve from UK Government, but it's clear that Keir Starmer has had other ideas, and it's also clear that the Welsh Government won't advocate for the people of Wales. Welsh Labour are clearly tired; it's time for them to stand aside and let us put things right.

The closer we get to an election, the poorer the standard of debate happens to be in this Chamber.

You would swear from what you've heard—and I'm sure my colleague, because I believe my colleague Mick Antoniw is going to speak, will talk about the importance of the right to devolution of that funding—but you would swear from what you heard in this debate that, actually, there's been no progress whatsoever on rail in Wales, which is manifestly not the case. I can take you back to my office in Gilfach in 2016 when I invited Ian Bullock of Arriva Trains Wales into the office to ask him why we had to travel to work on stinky, crowded, squeaky-wheeled Pacer trains in which everybody was packed in like sardines on the journey to work. Peredur is nodding; I imagine you've travelled on those. I remember Leanne Wood getting up in the Chamber and saying how disgusting it was that people had to travel on these trains, and I agreed with her. And then we managed to get Tom Joyner, when he took over Arriva Trains Wales, to buy in additional rolling stock, old-fashioned 769 trains, but we managed to get them, to buy them in and convert them from electric to diesel to run on the line. That helped Transport for Wales—[Interruption.] Well, it was going really well, then. You interrupted—. Go on.

You were just questioning why you had to travel in such poor trains back in 2016. The reason why you had to travel in such poor trains in 2016 was, when Stephen Byers issued the initial franchise for rail in Wales—

Oh God, it's like Mark Isherwood.

—it had 0 per cent—0 per cent—growth built into a 15-year franchise. Your Government put the franchise in place, and it had 0 per cent growth built into it.

It's the Mark Isherwood process of going back over past speeches. It was a good answer, but the fact is I'm not talking about the historic situation, I'm talking about what happened with the Minister, the Cabinet Secretary, the Cabinet Secretary who is sitting on the front bench right now, and the changes we saw.

So, if I come back to Tom Joyner, bringing in those carriages on the line, that helped then add infill while the new trains were being built and have appeared on the line. So, if you look the Rhymney to Cardiff line now, the newest trains in the whole of Europe—the newest trains in the whole of Europe—are running on the Rhymney to Cardiff line. The transformation is incredible. The transformation is incredible. If you were travelling on the train today, you would not recognise that service. Whatever happened with Stephen Byers, you would not have recognised that service, because the core Valleys lines were devolved, because the transport Cabinet Secretary has been able to make those changes, and those changes are going to be rolled out across the Valleys lines network in the form of the metro—

Will you take an intervention?

Oh God, all right, then. Go on.

I accept what you're saying, and it's good to see those new trains, even though we could do with some in north-west Wales as well—

Yes, and I've said—

—but the funds that you've had to allocate for that, that money, if we had our fair share, could have been paid from the money that we're owed from the UK Government, and the money that you've had to spend could have been spent on other capital projects. But you're not accepting that—

No, I am. I am accepting that, and, as I said, my colleague is going to make the same point, but I think the point you've made is, actually, that the Welsh Labour Government deserves credit for what it's achieved with limited resources on this line; £1.5 billion has been spent on the metro, and we've seen it rolling out. So, I welcome Mabon ap Gwynfor's praise for the Welsh Labour Government's success in the face of the challenge. And as Alun Davies is chuntering, it is devolved. It is because it's devolved; that's where the power comes from. So, you were absolutely right to say it needs to be devolved and that devolution is welcome.

So—. My flow was interrupted by Mabon ap Gwynfor. This is coming off the top of my head anyway, so it doesn't help. The fact that the trains will be rolled out across the rest of the network will happen, and I've often likened Transport for Wales and the network to being like a flowering flower that germinates on the Rhymney line and is now seeding across the network, and you will see that. That transformation has come about directly as a result of what happened.

Yesterday—. I also want to talk about one other thing. Yesterday, we talked about the global centre of rail excellence at First Minister's questions. I believe there's an opportunity there as well, and, again, why the devolution of funding is important, because I think there's an opportunity there for the UK Government to put in further direct investment, in addition to the £20 million so far, to support that, providing that the global centre of rail excellence can leverage in additional funding.

The key point is that centre will bring new economic strength to Onllwyn and to the area in which it's operating, including the whole of the south Wales Valleys. I think it can become a magnet for world-class talent and the first ever net-zero in-operation railway, supporting innovations needed to speed up technology development in the rail industry. At the moment, if we want to test our carriages that are running—these brand-new carriages that are running—on the core Valleys lines, we've got to send them to Spain. Wouldn't it be easier if we could just send them across to Neath? That's an opportunity that we have and an opportunity I'm going to be pressing as time goes by. With that, with all the interventions, I think I'd better stop, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you very much.

Quite simply, our rail system in Wales is not fit for purpose. I hope to catch a train from Cardiff to north Wales this evening; those of us living in north Wales know what kind of experience that journey is. The timetable says that the journey will be five hours and nine minutes—that'll be my journey home this evening on the train. And the words, 'rail replacement bus' are enough to horrify someone, and this is the experience we have so often. How many direct trains have to change in Chester, and so on? The system isn't good enough.

It is clear to anybody who uses the rail system in Wales that it is not fit for purpose. And you know, in the embers of last year's general election campaign, there lies many a broken promise, but few have proven to be more emblematic, perhaps, of Labour's betrayal than its screeching u-turn on HS2. The current Secretary of State for Wales, Jo Stevens, went to the despatch box and quoted the same numbers as Plaid Cymru does and the £4 billion owed to Wales. But, now that Labour is in power, she has changed her mind, and Labour are doing nothing differently to the Conservatives before them in addressing the injustice of HS2. Hefin David.

I just want to correct a misconception about rail replacement services, the bus replacement services, certainly on the core Valleys line. The reason they're there is because the rail network is being upgraded and it's being improved, so it's actually part of the improvement process; it's only temporary. So, when we say, 'rail replacement bus services', sometimes that's for a very positive purpose.

Rail replacement isn't part of the enhancement process, of course; it is about fixing things and it's about maintenance. It is not about rail enhancement. It is not about improving the rail system that we have in Wales, which is what we're talking about here today.

But we did hear the Secretary of State for Wales, as I say, make the case for the £4 billion. Mick Antoniw sits here today:

'The UK Government needs to do the right thing and to pay up',

he said. Absolutely right. Jenny Rathbone is here too:

It's certainly going to cost'—

HS2—

'above £100 billion...and what is Wales going to get for it? Absolutely nothing.'

Huw Irranca-Davies isn't here today, but he was right too:

'the HS2 funding and other funding, over many years, and the Northern Powerhouse Rail plans as well. All of that is wrong, and it shouldn’t rely on changes of Government, by the way.'

'Hear, hear' to all of them; I agree entirely.

But there are two separate but interconnected issues at play here: is Wales receiving fair consequentials as a result of HS2? Well, not only is it 'no fair consequential', but there is no consequential for Wales. Designated as an England-and-Wales project, the more spending goes into HS2, the less money there is, effectively, to invest in rail spending in Wales. But, beyond that, does the current system treat Wales fairly when it comes to Network Rail spending on major projects, not fixing things as they go along, but rail enhancement? It certainly doesn't. And again, previously, Members of the Labour benches agreed with us on this issue. Since the year 2000, Wales has received just 2 per cent of total enhancement investment from the England-and-Wales rail enhancement pipeline. The only major scheme delivered has been the electrification of the south Wales main line, but that only went as far as Cardiff, when it was always going to go as far as Swansea, along with a small contribution to the south Wales metro, with Welsh Government having to go into its own not-too-deep pockets to make up for the money that wasn't coming from Westminster.

Now, to put this into perspective, Wales comprises around 10 per cent of the UK's rail network, 5 per cent of the population, yet we're receiving only a fraction of the investment we are due. From 2011-12 to 2019-20, the Wales Governance Centre estimates that Wales was shortchanged by around £0.5 billion in rail infrastructure spending, and there's no sign of the injustice coming to an end.

There is no sign that the injustice is coming to an end. Professor Mark Barry—such an authority in this area—calculated, under the current Barnett formula, that Wales would lose out by £2.7 billion in terms of further funding for our railways by the 2040s. These billions of pounds that are going missing means billions of pounds that are not invested in the future of Wales.

Because this isn't just about the past failures to spend properly, it is about our future. If we do not act now, Wales will continue to miss out on critical future investment, leaving our transport network in disrepair while billions are poured into infrastructure elsewhere. And all we ask for, essentially, is fairness. The Welsh Government has to stand up to Keir Starmer and make that case, insist that he rectifies what others in the Labour Party agree with us on, or certainly used to agree with us on, and what we are as determined as ever on these benches to put right. We can’t allow Westminster to continue treating Wales as an afterthought and a poor relation. Think of what we can achieve with this missing investment.

Rhun, you need to conclude now, please.

We must have ambition for our rail infrastructure: electrification—north as well as south; better connectivity; a modern and efficient transport network that supports our economy, our communities and our future generations. The status quo is no longer acceptable.

It's a pleasure to take part in this debate this afternoon, on the subject of rail infrastructure funding—a topic that, despite its importance, has too often been met with neglect and delay in north Wales. There has been historical underfunding of Wales’s railways, particularly in comparison to other parts of the UK. But there is an equally troubling reality within Wales itself, one that sees north Wales routinely treated as a poor relation when it comes to transport investment.

We are told that Wales has suffered from decades of underfunding and rail enhancements. This is true. The UK Labour Government has denied fair funding for HS2, which the Welsh Conservatives supported, as we believe HS2 should have been classed as an England-only project from the start, and so did Labour until they were in office.

The Welsh Government has consistently prioritised investment in the south, while leaving the north with little more than broken promises and empty gestures. While south Wales has been—

Will you give way?

I'll finish my sentence and then I'll let you in. While south Wales has seen more than £1 billion ploughed into its metro system—an integrated network of heavy rail, light rail and trams—north Wales was handed a meagre £50 million. Alun.

I'm grateful to you for that. Do you think the greatest deception that you can play on a people or a group or a community is to promise them something, knowing that you are telling a direct lie, and that when Rishi Sunak did that in Manchester over the £1 billion for the electrification of the north Wales main line, he was deliberately deceiving the people that you represent? 

I don't agree. I think that it was subject to the outcome of the election. The Conservatives, unfortunately, weren't returned to Government and we weren't able to carry on with our plans. That was also part of the Network North strategy, which connected towns and cities in the north-west of England, and north Wales was a part of that project. So, I think that you are being slightly disingenuous with your intervention there, Alun.

That is not just a slight imbalance; it is an outright scandal. The north Wales metro, much trumpeted by Ministers in Cardiff bay, remains little more than a rebranding exercise, with next to no meaningful improvements for passengers. And what about the fares? The differences are staggering. In south Wales, you can travel between Swansea and Cardiff for £5.50. A journey of similar length in the north—for example, from Llandudno Junction to Chester—costs more than twice as much as the £5.50. Why should the people of north Wales be forced to pay more for worse services? Where is the fairness in that?

On HS2, even UK Labour Government Ministers, when in opposition, argued that HS2 should be classified as an England-only project. Now, when they have got the reins of power, they appear not to be keen to honour that principle. I say to them: if you truly believe in fairness, and if you genuinely want to see Wales flourish, then deliver the consequential funding that we are owed.

But let us not pretend that the UK Government alone is to blame. The Welsh Government, too, has questions to answer. It’s all very well for Ministers in Cardiff bay to lament underfunding from Westminster, but what have they done with the powers and resources that they already have? Time and again, when given the choice, they have opted to direct investment southwards, while leaving the north with whatever shrapnel was left over.

When they are not funnelling money into vanity schemes and exercises that amount to an irresponsible waste of taxpayers’ money, they are directing the money to the south. This is not just in rail, but in all forms of transport infrastructure. Major road projects in north Wales have been scrapped, while vast sums are poured into schemes in and around Cardiff. This is not a matter of party politics. It’s a matter of basic fairness.

If we truly believe in an equal and united Wales, then we must end the grotesque imbalance that sees one half of our country systematically overlooked. The Welsh Government’s ownership of TfW has been an unmitigated disaster: poor punctuality, overcrowding, overpriced services. Now, passengers across Wales will see regulated rail fares rise up to 6 per cent from this month, following a decision by the Welsh Government. Despite high rail fares and TfW being heavily subsidised by the taxpayer, the company is running at a loss. But how could we expect anything else from a Government of public sector Ministers who have never run a business?

The Plaid Cymru motion highlights, in point 2(b), that funding for the north Wales main line failed to materialise, but why did it fail to materialise? Because we got a Labour Government in Westminster. And, as mentioned, Rikki Sunak pledged £1 billion to electrify the north Wales main line as part of the Network North deal, which was dropped along with the levelling-up agenda, as the Labour Party seek to pump money into their heartlands elsewhere.

So, what, then, is the solution? First, let us insist without equivocation that HS2 is redesignated as an England-only project and that Wales receives the consequential funding it is owed. That money must be spent wisely—

Gareth, you need to conclude now, please.

—ensuring that it receives its fair share. This is not about regional rivalry, it’s not about setting north against south, it’s about ensuring that all of Wales has the opportunity to grow and prosper and benefit from the money they pay in tax. It is about fairness, justice and economic common sense. So, let us agree—

Gareth, conclude now, please.

I'm finishing now. So, let us agree to commit to delivering the investment our railways so desperately need right across Wales, and not just in one corner of it.

I've been reading a book called Derailed: How to fix Britain's broken railways, telling us about the history of our railway lines. They've never really been fit for purpose. Britain was the first country to develop passenger rail, but our journey to the present day has never been a straightforward one. If you go back to the beginning, the first railway service was between Liverpool and Manchester. It opened in 1830 and prompted a huge boom in railway construction. Competing railways began to spring up, often building duplicate infrastructure. So, they competed with each other and didn’t actually join up. They served passengers, but then also Britain’s heavy industry, such as coal, iron and steel.

World war one led to a more co-ordinated railway service and some joining up, and the system was temporarily nationalised before being handed over to the big four by the Railways Act 1921, privatising it again, only to be renationalised yet again after world war two, as intensive use and bombing meant significant state investment was required. So, we’ve not had a steady influx of proper funding over the 200 years. By the 1990s, British Rail was the most economically efficient of the western European railway systems with only low levels of state subsidy, but that wasn’t acceptable then to the dogmatic Tories of the early 1990s, and Thatcher promptly sold off British Rail and put us backwards again. What they failed to understand was that railways will never be a commercially driven business, but should be a public service whose state subsidy is justified by the enormous social and environmental benefits that the railways provide to everyone.

These benefits extend to freight trains, as well as passenger. One freight train can transport enough construction materials for around 30 houses, compared to up to 136 heavy goods vehicles. It's crucial for the environment, housing and job creation. Wales’s total benefits from railways in 2018-19 amounted to £260 million, representing 11 per cent of the total GB benefits. This includes £200 million in user benefits and £60 million in social benefits. Wales has the second highest overall benefits per capita in GB.

I’m pleased to say that we have a Labour Government now in the UK that has made a commitment to end rail franchising and bring rail services back into the public sector, where they belong. In Wales, we already do that, and we can demonstrate the benefits of a publicly owned rail operator in Transport for Wales, which is focusing on delivery for passengers, rather than profit. I remember when we had the strikes and Transport for Wales said, 'We’re going to keep our ticket offices open; we’re not going to have closures. We’re going to make sure that there are still guards and services, which is really important for all our passengers', and I was really proud that we’ve got Transport for Wales here in Wales that cares about people.

I will continue to call for significant infrastructure investment that is owed to Wales. I do believe we’re entitled to our fair share of HS2, and I’ve called for it. It was wrong that it was denied to us previously. Bids were made for levelling-up funding as well, for many schemes in north Wales, and that was also denied to us. I hope that schemes will come forward soon. I know that we've had some funding already to improve the timetables across north Wales and Wrexham to Bidston. I know we've got funding to improve stations. I know it's a little bit at a time, but it's all welcome.

Carolyn, will you take an intervention?

Yes, sure.

I'm glad to hear that you're supporting greater investment and more funding for rail in Wales. Can you explain why your Government has put a ‘delete all’ down to this motion and isn't supporting what you're stating today? 

I will say that I will support all funding, any extra we can get, whether it's the bits for station improvements, which I really welcome, or the fact we're investing in Transport for Wales, £800 million for new carriages. If we can get more money that was designated under HS2 as well, fair enough, and that's where I stand, okay?

I understand that progress is being made now by the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales with the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Transport regarding railway investment, and while the damage of 14—[Interruption.]

Ignore the comments from people who are sitting down. You can just continue your contribution.

I should ignore them, shouldn't I? The two Governments have reached a mutual understanding of requirements that are needed specifically. We don't need electrification on the north Wales line at the moment. We need to have extra capacity at Chester. We need to get that station built at Deeside industrial park. We need to get the north Wales main line sorted, so that we don't have flooding on it. These things are more important for us, that we get those in place. So, there's much that we need to do, to get back on, to actually enable HS2 funding. As long as we're getting some money coming in at the moment, I'm really pleased. We need to keep it going, and I know that those points are being made at the moment, and we need to keep fighting. Thank you. 

Hefin's right: objectively, train services have got better, especially from my perspective as someone who lives in Pencoed. I've got two trains an hour now; I'm not looking at the clock when we're getting late in the evening and thinking, ‘Am I going to catch the next train? Am I going to have to wait an extra hour and a half to get the next train?’ There are two trains now; they’re cleaner, they’re modern, but that isn't the case everywhere.

In Pencoed, we have that improvement. If you go to the other side of the region I represent, to the western Valleys, well, the provision isn't there at all. If we go to other parts of Wales, to north Wales, to west Wales, again provision is incredibly patchy, and that's where I'm worried slightly that the point of this debate might be missed, because the reality is, if we had that investment, if we had that money that was owed, then we could have invested in the western Valleys. We could have invested in a train line from Carmarthen to Aberystwyth. We could have invested in better provision in north Wales, and the reality is that that lack of investment, that infrastructure investment, has dampened our economy.

Every year, our local economies lose billions of pounds collectively due to those rail inefficiencies, those poor infrastructure and service provisions. Here in Wales, those are hitting our local economies particularly hard. The cost of lost productivity and stifled economic development is staggering even before considering the deeper inequalities in rail infrastructure investment. Other countries like China, Japan and Germany treat infrastructure as the backbone of economic growth, but here in Wales, it's not that we don't want to prioritise infrastructure investment, it's that we simply can't give it the same level of priority. And to be fair, that might have something to do with the Government not having the levers necessary to develop our own transport network. Westminster has clearly shown no intention of stepping up, but that doesn't excuse it.

Let's not forget that the Welsh Government decided to turn down greater powers over rail. Let's not forget that, now there's a Labour Government in London, the figure owed to Wales is less than it was before the election. You know what that is? It's an absolute joke. Labour Members here have gone back on what they were saying prior to the election. It's quite frankly embarrassing, and this neglect shows simply the regional inequalities in what is a dysfunctional union, putting Wales at a serious disadvantage compared to other parts of the UK. It restricts our economic potential, it deters investment and it drives skilled workers elsewhere, and we are seeing the consequences of this neglect in real time.

It's perfectly encapsulated with the construction of Old Oak Common as part of HS2. That will cause massive disruption for passengers travelling on lines in south Wales, yet the Welsh Government has been unable to provide any clarity on which stations will be impacted and how frequently passengers can expect disruptions. Perhaps we can be provided with some clarity on that today by the Cabinet Secretary. Perhaps even the Cabinet Secretary could provide some clarity on whether Wales will get any compensation for that disruption, because this is just another cost to Wales of this project that we are paying for but will receive no benefit from. If Wales is to prosper, we must have control over our own transport infrastructure to build our own infrastructure and ensure Westminster can’t hold back funding that we are entitled to again. It really is as simple as that. 

This is really quite depressing, this debate, for two reasons. One is that those two parties just want to tear chunks out of each other for not doing what the other one thinks they should be doing. And the second reason—and I am very frustrated with the Welsh Government—is the 'delete all' that you've put on the motion, because I challenge every single one of you here just to reread what the motion calls for. With the greatest of respect to my Labour colleagues, let's just remind ourselves. Do tell me what you disagree with here. I do welcome this motion. It says: 

'Calls on the Welsh Government to provide updated figures on the shortfall in rail enhancement investment in Wales'.

What's wrong with that? Secondly:

'confirm its position that HS2 should be redesignated as an England-only project and that Wales should receive the resultant consequentials in line with figures quoted by current UK Government Ministers when in opposition'.

What's wrong with that? And thirdly:

'write to the UK Secretary of State for Transport to ask for the full consequentials to be made available to Wales and reversal of low levels of enhancement spending.'

That is the focus and the ask of this debate. We all accept that services could be better elsewhere, in 'where I live' or whatever, but it's not about that. I feel these Wednesday afternoon debates are really the opposition parties putting down a motion and the Welsh Government saying 'delete all', and it feels like on this occasion just for the point of doing it. That depresses me beyond belief, because it would be so easy for you to accept it or at least to just enhance it in some way. So, please, could the Cabinet Secretary, who I have the greatest respect for, please tell us why you have decided to delete all and not accept any of the issues and the requests by Plaid Cymru in this motion, which I do welcome? 

I think you have to accept that UK Conservative Governments and UK Labour Governments have failed us here in Wales by really actively not designating HS2 as England only and demanding that we have the amounts of money from it—[Interruption.] Can I just finish this point? Honestly, I will come to you. And demanding that we have the money from it. Yes, thank you. 

I agree with you. I think it's a chronic shame that the Conservatives in Government didn't designate this as an England-only project, like they did with Scotland and Northern Ireland, and Wales received the Barnett consequentials. I agree entirely. But I do find it a little bit rich because you had five years in Government. You had the transport Minister there—Norman Baker, I think it was—and in those five years, where HS2 was in its construction stage, not one single Lib Dem made the request to make that an England-only project in those five years in Government. 

Thank you. I'll accept that. I'm not going to be standing here like I'm afraid you lot are saying 'Not my fault'. But thank you for saying that you would accept it. I think it's a disgrace that we are still where we are with HS2. I've always said that, where the Liberal Democrats have played a role in that, I accept responsibility for that. So, I'm not going to just shrug it off as a kind of 'Not my fault', because I accept that.

I do just want to make some quick other points, if I may. We heard, didn't we, from the journalist Will Hayward saying that this was the great Welsh train robbery, and that's indeed what it is. Let's accept it for what it is. It's absolutely unacceptable that we still see the situation that we're in here in Wales. I would like to hear from the Welsh Government just what they are going to do to get the HS2 consequentials in here. It's not a big ask. So, please, can we enhance the quality of the debates we have here, both on a Wednesday afternoon and specifically this one, by perhaps accepting that the asks put forward by the Plaid Cymru motion are not unreasonable and actually will help every single party in this Senedd and help the Welsh people? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I very much agree with the points that have just been made, actually. Welsh Governments have been coming to this Chamber for many, many years with 'delete all' amendments; I don't think it's ever enhanced the debate or enhanced the standing of the Government amongst all Members. I don't believe that's the correct way of approaching these debates. We should look for consensus, where possible—and that's coming from me—across the Chamber. It won't last, don't worry. But we should look towards amending motions rather than deleting them. I think that's a good principle. Because I have to say, I'm not entirely happy with either the motion or the amendment. I think there's a very real crisis for us in Wales when we talk about our rail infrastructure. It's a crisis for Wales and it's a crisis for the union.

Wales is the only part of the United Kingdom that doesn't have the power to deliver an integrated transport network. It's the only part of the UK. They can do it in Northern Ireland, they can do it in Scotland, they can do it in parts of England, independently of the UK Government. In Wales, we have to go as a supplicant to the UK Government and beg for crumbs off the table, and we all know where that largely gets us. It's a crisis, because the chronic underfunding of the Welsh rail network has happened systematically over decades. And we can point fingers across this Chamber. The Labour Party is as guilty of that as is the Conservative Party. But the responsibility on this party, as the party that has a majority here, is that we need to do something about it. We need change. [Interruption.] I'll give way.

Diolch, Alun. I wanted to press you on the points of HS2, because there's a lot where I think that we are in agreement here. Do you share my frustration with the current stance of the Welsh Government, which seems to be unclear on the HS2 billions? Keynes is credited with saying that

'When the facts change, I change my mind.'

It seems to me that, when Westminster's minds have changed, the facts are trying to be changed as well.

I don't want this debate simply to fall into a debate about whether it's this many million or that many million. What we need is structural change—structural change that means that whenever money is spent by the UK Government, Wales gets a fair Barnett consequential of that, as do Scotland and Northern Ireland, and that is done as part of a settlement that means that Wales is treated as an equal part of this union. The structural underfunding of rail in Wales means that my constituency, or the constituency I hope to stand in in the next election, has one railway that is devolved, as in the Rhymney valley line—and we've heard from Hefin David on some of those issues—which is part of the core Valleys lines, which means it will be electrified and we will have new trains and a metro system running there, but the other half of the constituency is served by the Ebbw valley line, which is not devolved, and where we have struggled for two decades to get funding for it. Tell the people of the Ebbw Fach valley why they do not have the right to the same service as the people in the Rhymney valley, and then tell those people that we have a settlement that works for Wales. It's not possible. It shouldn't happen, and we need a settlement that is fair for everybody in Wales. [Interruption.] I give way.

Alun, thanks for giving way. I accept your call that we need structural change; I think you're right there. But are you therefore as frustrated as I am, and as we are, that your own Government has put in a 'delete all' amendment and will not support this? Do you support your Government's position?

Mabon, you should've been listening to my opening remarks: I said that in the first 10 seconds. I know I take time to get warmed up, but I was hoping you might have been there before me.

The reality is that the only parts of Wales that have seen real investment—and Gareth doesn't understand this, of course; if he'd done his research, he would—are those parts of Wales where the responsibility for taking those decisions is devolved. That is the reality. There's no conspiracy, Gareth. Your Government told direct lies about this and you shouldn't defend it; you shouldn't do that. You should do your research instead. The only parts of Wales that see the investment are parts of Wales where we have devolution of responsibility. [Interruption.] I will make one more point before I allow an intervention. And that means that we need to have responsibility here. We need the full devolution of rail infrastructure to this place to enable our Government to deliver on the promises that this Government want to deliver upon.

You have a swathe of MPs in Westminster now, we had Wales questions in Parliament this afternoon, there's a Wales Office. Doesn't it beg the question to you what these Welsh Labour MPs are doing that they can't seem to influence the Government to invest in our rail services—in north Wales in my case, but then, indeed, the Ebbw Fach valley, for instance? What's your MP up to down there?

I didn't stand for election to this place to spend my time commenting about the performance of Westminster MPs. That's not why I'm here. I'm here to argue the case for the position of this Parliament and this Government, and I think that should be very clear. I'll finish on this—

Yes, please.

—before testing the Deputy Presiding Officer more on this point.

If we are serious—and this is the really serious point here—about modal change, about changing the way that our transport networks work, about connectivity across Wales, about ensuring that we're able to develop rail next to bus with active travel and all the things we've heard from Welsh Ministers over the 18 years that I've sat here, the only way that will be achieved is if those Welsh Ministers have the levers to deliver that change. We can create as many cross-border committees and boards as we like, but the reality is the Welsh Government is not an equal; the Welsh Government is currently a supplicant at that feast.

Okay. Thank you, Alun.

The Welsh Government depends on the largesse of Ministers who, historically, we have seen, have always placed Wales's needs last. That is why we need devolution; it's not constitutional posturing, it's about delivering for the people who elected me and elected all of us here to deliver on the promises that we've made to them. The Welsh Government should be campaigning for that, the Welsh Government should be helping deliver it—

Thank you, Alun.

—and the UK Government should be recognising its responsibilities.

Two competing narratives explain Wales's relative economic underdevelopment in the modern era. The first claims our fate is sealed by geography—remote villages, isolated valleys and rugged mountains condemn us to permanent disadvantage. Our economic woes are supposedly written into the very landscape itself. The second narrative, the one I hold to, recognises there's nothing inevitable about our underdevelopment. It stems not from geography, but from systematic political neglect, what economist Andre Gunder Frank called 'the development of underdevelopment'. Successful economic development isn't about nature or geography, it's about strategic institutional choices and investments that enable some places to flourish while others are condemned to failure.

I once was at an economic conference where a fairly prominent Welsh economist claimed Wales underperformed because of its topography. Too many mountains and too many villages. Some brave voice from the back piped up and said, 'What about Switzerland?' Switzerland's mountains, let's face it, make ours look like hills. Their villages are scattered across impossibly steep terrain. Yet Switzerland thrives economically, with communities that prosper and achievements that inspire global admiration.

Switzerland's secret? Well, firstly, it's an independent nation that is able to prioritise its own infrastructure needs without competing for attention from a distant capital. They invested in trains; and not just any trains, but a network built with an almost religious devotion to connectivity. Their clock-face timetable means trains arrive and depart at the same minute every hour everywhere. They're trains that don't merely transport people, they transform isolated hamlets into neighbourhoods of a single prosperous nation.

Now, compare that to Wales: our railways are largely industrial leftovers, built not to connect people but to extract resources, moving Welsh wealth out, not binding people and communities together. Add to that decades of Westminster neglect. As we've heard, they've left us without, almost—well, uniquely, I think, of any European nation—a proper north-south rail connection. The Valleys have had some investment, driven, yes, by the Welsh Government, but they still lack, don't they, east-west links? The western Valleys in rural communities—they might as well be islands because of their complete lack of rail connectivity.

And yet, when we look around the world, the evidence is clear, isn't it? Good rail creates prosperity. Rail investment sparks job creation, boosts productivity, attracts investments by expanding labour markets and cutting transportation costs. Better rail doesn't just follow economic prosperity, it actively creates it. So, think about what we've lost in Wales, cumulatively, decade after decade, generation after generation: businesses never started because founders couldn't reach customers; students unable to attend college. Our disconnection is our disadvantage, and neither are inevitable; they're the result of political choices made in London.

Now, we're not looking for charity, but parity; not subsidy, but equality. It's a modest demand that we've heard echoed across the Chamber, isn't it, that Welsh communities simply receive the same consideration, the same investment and opportunity to thrive as communities elsewhere in the UK. And when we hear the Chancellor announced continued support for that bullet train to Birmingham, the Silicon Valley express from Oxford to Cambridge, new runways at London airports and reservoirs in the south-east, whilst simultaneously postponing investment everywhere else, I'm reminded of that Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang's book, Kicking Away the Ladder, where he argues that wealthy regions and nations build their prosperity through state-led infrastructure investment before then preaching austerity to others, effectively kicking away the ladder that they climbed.

The economic centres of south-east England developed, and continue to develop, through massive public investment, while denying Wales the same path. This economic gap will persist as long as this chronic unfairness continues. My preferred answer, Deputy Presiding Officer, is to break the cycle by making the Swiss choice, solving our own problems as an independent nation. But to unionists, our argument is simple: you say you believe in the union, prove it, because for Wales, fairness or freedom will become the generational choice we must surely face sooner or later.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I have three themes that I wanted to comment on. The main one I want to comment on is actually about how we might use that investment, particularly with the north-west corridor opening of railway lines. But I have to comment on some of the issues that have been raised earlier. Certainly, my constituency, as Alun has identified, is one of those areas that has massively benefited from the investment in those areas that we actually control: the metro in terms of Pontypridd, the trains and the Valleys lines, where there has been massive transformation as a result of devolution, and the things that we've done are absolutely phenomenal. The points that are raised, of course, on those areas that we don't control, are the areas where we actually struggle for that.

But I do want to comment on the actual funding issue, because the underfunding is recognised, it is historic: there is unity about that particular issue, and I do not accept the UK Government's response to HS2 funding. I could accept an argument that says that we can not fund all the legacy of all the disastrous economic consequences of the last 14 years of Tory Government, but I believe that we have a constitutional entitlement to the Barnett funding consequential, and the response from the UK Government has been unacceptable, it's been inaccurate, it's been flawed, and I don't believe it is credible. The Tories deliberately robbed Wales of funding that we were entitled to within a system of decades of massive underfunding, and it's only because of devolution that we're now able to start reversing some of the damage that was done over decades, and particularly since privatisation, and I think we are entitled to better than that. And what is not acceptable is that the consequential funding we should be entitled to is subject to a whim of Government. It has got to be something that has a clear constitutional and structural foundation, and that is what needs to change. Now, that having been said, I do of course welcome the fact that there are conversations and discussions going that may well result in additional funding coming in. I very much welcome it, but it is not the foundation on which that should be happening.

Now, one of the areas where we could invest, were we to receive that funding, is the investment in the north-west corridor. Taff Ely, Cardiff West, my constituency and the constituency of Mark Drakeford, is likely to have a development of in the region of 10,000 new homes. A quarter of the households in both our constituencies do not have access to a car. There is no realistic non-car, public transport other than tram train, which I think is the option. The business case for that has been made, it satisfies all the decarbonisation and levelling-up criteria. And we need a decision now on the reopening of the north-west corridor railway line, which has been preserved exactly for that particular purpose. It was set out in the documents and research that my myself and the Member for Cardiff West identified. A new tram-train route via the City line and potentially utilising the route of the safeguarded corridor between Cardiff Central, junction 33 and Creigiau, an extension of the tram-train route from Creigiau to Pontyclun via Cross Inn, and an extension of the tram-train route from Creigiau to Beddau via Cross Inn, Miskin, Llantrisant and Talbot Green—that is the only solution to the development of the enormous number of homes, which we desperately need, but which cannot be solved by any road solution. And one of the reasons this issue over the structural funding of the rail infrastructure in Wales is so important is because there are things like this that should have happened, that need to happen, where the work is being done now to enable it to happen, and it will only happen when we actually get a commitment to that investment—investment that will secure public transport for the next 100 years in an area of enormous development. Diolch.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, Ken Skates.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's been a very interesting debate, and I do welcome many comments that have been made. I'll deal with specific ones in a moment, but I must start by saying that this is a Government that delivers. Welsh Labour delivers. We took ownership of the core Valleys lines and created a transformational metro system. We turned what was a liability into an asset, and we're improving the life chances of people across the region.

And now that we have a UK Labour Government, we will transform services across north Wales as well, increasing services by 50 per cent—50 per cent—by next year. That's as a result of an agreement between us and the UK Government that took place last year. Investment in the north Wales main line. Unlike the false promise that was offered by Rishi Sunak over electrification, the money is there, the promise is real, we will deliver. And by next year, we'll be seeing 50 per cent more services across north Wales.

And we've agreed a pipeline of rail enhancements with the Department for Transport and the Wales Office, which will transform our rail network and address injustice over funding or a lack of funding in our rail network over many years. We've long campaigned for fair rail investment in Wales, and for the first time, Dirprwy Lywydd, the UK Department for Transport Ministers and the Wales Office have recognised that Wales has suffered from historic underfunding for rail infrastructure. They have agreed with us that it must and will be addressed. Lord Hendy confirmed just last week at the Welsh Affairs Committee that the Department for Transport have submitted our rail priorities for inclusion in the spending review. He referenced the Burns review as guiding his union connectivity review and being the foundation—the foundation—for the Department for Transport's submission.

Our agreed pipeline is based on the north Wales and south-east Wales transport commissions and the union connectivity review. New stations and capacity improvements are proposed to support new rail services across communities in Wales, and we're not starting from scratch. What we are doing is building on what are some of the most developed rail plans anywhere in the UK, but which, sadly, were ignored by past Tory Governments. Today they are embraced by UK Labour Ministers.

We are also working in partnership with the UK Government, and indeed our allies, metro mayors in England, to agree a review of Network Rail investment green book processes, to ensure that Wales receives a fair share of all future rail infrastructure investment, which would finally deliver that structural change that Alun Davies spoke of.

I should say that we have already secured £39 million into our annual block grant for the ongoing maintenance and renewal of the rail infrastructure that we own—the core Valleys lines. That's what partnership in power can do. And we're seeking comparability with relevant UK Government programmes in the Barnett formula, recognising that we are now a rail infrastructure owner. I think Hefin David rightly highlighted how we've taken one of the oldest fleets of trains in Britain—one of the oldest, inherited in 2018 and comprising of just 270 trains—and we are going to be delivering one of Britain's newest fleets of trains, a vast increase of trains as well, to 484. New trains are in service across Wales; in north Wales, south Wales, east Wales and west Wales, we are introducing a huge number of new trains across the country.

Now, Carolyn Thomas talked about the history of rail in this, its two-hundredth anniversary. I was recently reading about the history of rail services in her region. It was very interesting that the borderlands line, otherwise known as the Wrexham-Bidston line, was actually known as 'the north Wales and Liverpool line' until the early twentieth century. And as a result of our agreed pipeline, we will create metro services, direct and uninterrupted, between Wrexham and Liverpool. That's the result of partnership in power. And the work will commence on infrastructure requirements around Padeswood.

Our rail priorities improve connectivity, not only within Wales but across our borders in the wider UK. It's critical to ordinary people, and indeed businesses, that we have good links with the big cities and major airports of the UK. And our priorities will improve connectivity across borders and enhance our competitiveness. In north Wales, rail services and public transport need to be configured to support cross-border functional economies, as advocated by Growth Track 360. Similarly in mid Wales, the Western Gateway partnership advocates a similar cross-border approach for south Wales and the south-west of England.

And, Dirprwy Lywydd, rail reform is coming. The system that has been broken for far too long is coming. This will deliver much-needed change to the railway industry and, strengthened by our partnership with the UK, will set the platform for further investment and improvement in Wales. [Interruption.] Yes, of course.

Thank you very much for giving way. The Cabinet Secretary talks a very, very good game, and forgive me if I've intervened too early and that you're coming around to this, but you haven't mentioned any numbers whatsoever—the kind of scale of investment that the Government is planning to put in, to make up for the lost billions, plus make up for the future billions that we are projected to lose under current Barnett spending projections. Plus, there has been no recognition that HS2 and the consequentials we are owed is completely separate from that, and that more, hundreds of millions in his eyes—billions in my eyes, and that of his colleagues—is also owed to Wales on top of that. Maybe he'll address those two.

Can I just pose a question, then? Would you support investment in rail infrastructure in Wales that amounts not just to the HS2 consequentials, but also supports a pipeline—a pipeline of improvements that reflects past underinvestment and future needs? That is precisely what we are agreeing with the UK—

If the Dirprwy Lywydd is happy for me to come back—

Absolutely.

What I'm asking here is for those two things—. I said they were separate but interconnected. Yes, we need to see the pipeline—absolutely. We've been unable to develop a pipeline because the money hasn't been there. We want to know how much money is there. But on top of what that would bring, we need the HS2 funding too.

And this is crucial. This is crucial, because when you say, 'Let's see the figures for each of those component parts', the figures are out there. But rather than constrict delivery of those projects to the estimated cost of delivery, we wish to see those projects delivered regardless of how much they eventually cost, because the story of rail—the story of rail—not just here, but around the world, is that projects concerning rail infrastructure blow budgets. They go over budget. So, I would not want to constrain our ambitions by a simple envelope of cash, but, instead, agree the projects will be delivered. [Interruption.] And the scale—the scale—is enormous.

I would like to hear the contribution from the Cabinet Secretary.

The scale is enormous. That pipeline of projects relating to Burns alone is huge—huge—and we are investing as well. We are investing in new technologies, we are investing in staff, we are investing in people, we are investing in stations right across Wales. And through partnership in power, we are commencing work to transform what is currently a liability into an asset. [Interruption.] Yes, Delyth Jewell. 

Thank you so much. Look, there is an awful lot here that we agree on and that we do welcome. Could I ask you, please, if you could answer specifically what it was in our motion that you disagreed with that meant that you had to put in a 'delete all', considering that there is so much that we agree on?

Well, I hope that you'll therefore support our amendment. I really do.

But the vote on ours comes first. 

I do not see a problem with what we have tabled whatsoever, but we have a fundamental disagreement when it comes to whether we wish to be part of a union and whether you wish—[Interruption.] No. We have a fundamental difference, because we've heard this afternoon from Members—we've heard this afternoon from numerous Members—who have said, on your benches, that, if we had the HS2 consequentials, we would have been able to spend it on rail infrastructure in Wales. But the truth is that, in an independent Wales, as I said earlier this afternoon—[Interruption.] In an independent Wales, even a full consequential, based on your estimate of £4 billion—

Cabinet Secretary—

—would be blown in no time at all, no time at all.

Cabinet Secretary. I would like to—. The Cabinet Secretary needs to finish his contribution, and he knows the timescale as well, but the benches need to let him do so as well, please, because I cannot hear his contribution because of the noise from my left. 

And this is the inescapable truth, the objective truth, and, for yourselves, the very uneasy truth, that, in an independent Wales, which you wish to see, any HS2 consequential would be lost in a matter of months, based on your own figures—your own figures that you have embraced. And it would be lost without any improvements to show for it in rail infrastructure. Instead, we are working in partnership with the UK Government, and we will deliver that pipeline of enhancements across Wales.

I call on Heledd Fychan to reply to the debate. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. If you want a debate about independence, we'll have a debate about independence. Please table one in Government time, because this is not a debate about independence today. And thank you too for confirming what we've all feared since the election, that the Welsh Government are just now the UK Government's spokespersons here in this Chamber. Jane Dodds was completely right to ask the very, very pertinent question of what's wrong with the demands in the motion. And Alun Davies was completely right; we should be seeking common ground. On things that matter to people in our communities, on things that make a difference, we should be seeking common ground, because we all know of the issues that are there. Nor is this a debate about Transport for Wales. That's not what this debate is about. So, we can try and state some of the things that are happening, yes, welcome some of the investment we've seen, but that doesn't detract from the fact that Wales has suffered historic underfunding and there is no light at the end of the tunnel in terms of that remedy at present. 

You have heard the arguments. They are arguments that are based on facts. We've seen this Welsh Government, unfortunately, in putting forward this amendment and seeking to justify it—although they haven't even tried to justify it, truth be told, in the response—turning their back on their principles, turning their back on the people of Wales, and, unfortunately, putting the interests of Keir Starmer and the Labour Party before the interests of Wales. And there is no denying the truth at the heart of this debate, namely that Wales is being deprived of the investment in its railways that we need and that we deserve. 

The Secretary of State for Transport in the UK has admitted that Wales has historically suffered very low levels of expenditure on rail improvements, and the figures speak for themselves. Between 2019 and 2029, Wales will face a deficit of between £2.4 billion and £5.1 billion in funding to improve the railways as compared to our population and the size of our network. This systematic underfunding is even more shocking bearing in mind the consequentials for HS2 also haven’t been given to us, an injustice the current Government needs to address.

Yet, despite these damning admissions, the UK Government continues to deepen this inequity. The reported freeze on major new rail projects until after the next UK general election only serves to entrench Wales’s underinvestment for years to come, and even the pledges that have been made to people in Wales—vital commitments from the UK Government, such as electrifying the north Wales main line—they remain unfulfilled. What makes things even more unacceptable is that Labour MSs in this very Chamber have previously called for Wales to receive HS2 consequentials, and yet today the Welsh Government has tabled an amendment removing this call. They’ve acknowledged even today during the debate the unfairness of the current situation. We didn’t hear that from the Cabinet Secretary. Yet party leadership in Westminster refuses to ask—[Interruption.] Oh, sorry.

Thank you for saying that, and would you agree with me that it seems that there may be agreement across the Labour benches in terms of HS2 consequentials coming here to Wales, and that the motion in terms of what you’ve set down may be something that is agreed and accepted by Welsh Labour? So, would it be the case that you would expect that there might be a change of mind here and that, actually, we might see Welsh Labour actually voting for your motion and therefore actually showing that we can all work together when it comes to something so important as this? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you for that intervention, Jane. I’m a similar kind of politician to you in terms of I would hope that that logic would work, that, where we agree, we can unite, and I would ask Labour colleagues who expressed their commitment today to what’s actually in our motion, not the amendment, to reflect on that when voting. We are constrained by the fact, sometimes, that we’re told to vote in a certain way. This is important for our communities and I would hope it’s not too late for Labour to say that they won’t be going forward with their amendment. So, perhaps you would like to reflect on that so that we can unite, because these are things we used to agree on. Only a few months ago, you used to agree with us, so why vote against a motion that you used to agree with? And some of you still do. So, I would urge, if we could have one united voice today—. Wouldn’t it be so much stronger, if we as a Senedd were able to unite? Send that clear message: the position as it is is unacceptable and we demand action.

Will you take an intervention? Again, on this notion of uniting, I can certainly unite, as I said earlier, behind the Cabinet Secretary’s ambitions around a pipeline of projects, but the truth of the matter is they're a pipeline of projects that should be happening anyway, and the fact that we have been denied funding over the years makes us somehow have to feel incredibly grateful for getting what we should be getting anyway. 

Absolutely. That’s the crux of the matter. We should be standing firm that HS2 is an England-only project and that Wales must receive its fair share of consequential. That’s one thing where the Conservatives were willing to stand up to the UK Conservative Government. I wish that you would be able to do the same, and I hope you will by supporting our motion today.

Further, I hope we can unite to demand that the UK Government reverses decades of underfunding and finally delivers the investment our rail network desperately needs. This is about ambition, it is about fairness, it is about parity and equity, and it is about standing up for Wales and our communities. We cannot allow Westminster to continue to treat us as an afterthought. The status quo is failing our people, as outlined by Luke Fletcher, it’s failing our economy, it’s also failing our future. It is time for Wales to receive the rail infrastructure that we need and that we deserve. I ask every Member of this Senedd: support today’s motion unamended. Send that message. We should be united on this.

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

And that brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move directly to voting time.

The only vote this evening will be on item 8, and I call for a vote on the motion without amendment tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote—[Interruption.]

I've closed the vote at the moment, Janet. As it happens, I don't think it'll change the outcome of the vote. Can we check it before we go on to the next set of votes, though, please, okay?

In favour 12, no abstentions, 42 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Before I move on, I want to just check the system is working for Janet. Yes. Okay.

I now call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 29, no abstentions, 26 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed. 

That concludes voting for this evening.

We will move on to our next item, the short debate. I call on Jenny Rathbone.

If Members are leaving, please do so quietly.

Since the end of January, Cardiff University has been engulfed in an existential crisis that could threaten its future as the largest and best resourced university in Wales. Cardiff University has played a huge role in the work of both the Senedd and the Welsh Government. It's the largest training school for doctors, dentists, nurses and allied health professionals in Wales. It also has the only planning school across Wales, and, given the increasing divergence of planning law between England and Wales, we clearly need a pipeline of planners in our local authorities who are familiar with the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the detail of Welsh planning law to negotiate the best possible deals with applicants and make sound recommendations to their elected members.

Its mathematics and its music departments provide large numbers of specialist teachers for our secondary schools, and I know from experience it's already extremely challenging to recruit specialist maths teachers in secondary schools. Where then will the brilliant mathematicians of the future come from unless they have inspirational teachers? How on earth are we going to maintain a centre of excellence for semiconductors in south Wales unless we can develop and retain the skills to keep those international organisations from decamping to another part of the world where those sorts of skills are readily available? If we don't have a modern foreign languages department in the future, what impact will it have on Wales's strategy for inward investment and selling Welsh goods and services to other countries? Are we really confident that it will be sufficient to rely on people of other nations speaking English?

I accept that no change is not an option. Cardiff University is currently subsidising its day-to-day operations from its reserves to the tune of £31 million a year, and, frankly, we don't really know the extent of the financial challenges it is grappling with. All universities are struggling, with the UK Government killing off the golden goose of higher fees for foreign students, which enabled universities to cross-subsidise the cost of their teaching because the fees paid by home students no longer cover the cost of the courses they need to complete. And the cost-of-living crisis has reduced the numbers prepared to take on the debts they inherit as soon as they graduate.

Those challenges are just the tip of the iceberg. Universities may still have charitable status, but they've long been able to take on all sorts of financial instruments to fund their ambitions. In February 2016, Cardiff raised a £300 million loan on the bond market at 3.1 per cent interest, repayable in 2055—a very long time ahead. When I asked the then Welsh education Minister what he knew about this bond, he could not recall even being told about it, never mind what it was for. A more modest additional sum of £126 million was raised subsequently via bond. Cardiff University's consolidated debt now stands at £321 million, according to its most recent accounts.

Many Members have pointed out that Cardiff has much larger reserves than other Welsh universities, and the University and College Union is arguing that the financial stability of Cardiff could be achieved by deploying reserves, rather than severely shrinking the size of the university's staff and student intake. It's really quite hard for outsiders to be able to assess just how much financial difficulty Cardiff is in or, indeed, what financial liability other Welsh universities have acquired. What is a sustainable level of debt for large not-for-profit institutions like universities? What is being funded with the borrowing, and does it create significant new revenue streams that can be used to service that debt? Is the assumption that large principals will have their value eroded by inflation in the intervening years? We're not yet in the situation that we have in the United States, where you have rollover re-financing, but the Welsh Government may know a lot more than we do, as the public, or indeed, the public. But, clearly, until and unless the Welsh Government has a clear idea of the situation across all our universities, it's very difficult to know what its role might be, and simply clamouring from the opposition to fund it out of its difficulties really isn't sufficient.

I've spoken to a wide range of Cardiff academics and I've yet to find any support for the university's academic future proposals. Perhaps the most humbling moment was talking to two maths professors, Professor Marklof, who is president of the London Mathematical Society, and Professor Terry Lyons of Oxford, Bristol and Cardiff universities. Between them, they have marshalled an open letter to the university, which has been signed by nearly 4,000 mathematicians from across the world. Clearly, this is not doing Cardiff's reputation any good. Individual schools of excellence are horrified that they may be bundled into new colleges, many of them losing the research and teaching profile they have built up over years. Cardiff's senedd has now rejected these proposals, and I hope the vice-chancellor and her executive board will reflect and think again, because, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

The ability of universities to collaborate, to work as a team, to hammer out common principles on things like widening access or streamlining research expertise seems to me to be crucial to ensuring that Wales has a thriving university sector, serving the whole of Wales. I understand that that's how it works in Scotland, and we clearly need a team Wales approach if we all want our universities to all survive and thrive. We can't simply have departments of music cut, the whole of nursing courses culled, without discussion or exploring alternatives, either at Cardiff or at another higher education institution. Why did this not happen before? Well, apparently, Universities UK advised them that they couldn’t talk to each other until they had published proposals, because they might fall foul of the Competition and Markets Authority. I tackled the Universities UK chief executive at the reception at Techniquest where the Minister spoke. She promised to get back to me, but I have yet to hear from her, so we really do need to understand what collaboration means, and why if, in Scotland, it’s possible to collaborate and to agree basic points of principle, it’s not possible in Wales or, indeed, anywhere else.

There is plenty of research collaboration that goes on between universities across the UK. For example, Cardiff has a partnership with five other universities: Bath, Bristol, Exeter, Southampton and Surrey. With a research portfolio of over £600 million, the SETsquared Partnership has produced over 230 spin-out companies through collaboration across regional innovation ecosystems. Unless Welsh universities collaborate with each other, both in Wales and across Europe, we will never overcome the significant imbalances in equity funding that mean that start-ups in the region raise, on average, five times less at the early stages than in the golden triangle of Oxford, Cambridge and London.

Therefore, I hope that we will hear from the Minister exactly how we are going to move forward on this. Cardiff clearly has to make some changes. They can’t spend money that they haven’t got. But, clearly, these proposals have got to be agreed in social partnership with their main stakeholders, which are principally their staff, who are all highly intelligent and opinionated individuals, as well as the students. Hopefully, then, we will recover a lot of the damage that we have seen occurring over the last couple of months.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I forgot to say that I had agreed to give a minute to Julie Morgan and Cefin Campbell. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Jenny, for giving me a minute of your time, and I declare an interest as my son-in-law works at the university. I think that we have all been absolutely shocked by the proposals from Cardiff University, of course, followed by cuts proposed from the University of South Wales and Bangor. The loss of so many jobs in the university sector, I think, is very, very dismaying, and the loss of the students who go to those universities. Students are our lifeblood. Young people are our lifeblood, and this is cutting off opportunities for them.

My closest links, of course, are with Cardiff, and I have been absolutely dismayed at the extent of the cuts. I have been inundated, like others, I am sure, by very distressed letters from staff, many of whom live in my constituency. I have spoken to a number of different student organisations, and I have had students come up to the constituency. Certainly, there is absolute dismay. So, I suppose that my appeal is that this is a genuine consultation, and that there will be recognition of all those feelings that have been made known and have been publicly declared during the period of the consultation so far.

I think that the consultation is halfway now, and I just hope that some of these points are going to be considered, and that there will be greater focus on collaboration, genuine working together with staff and students, so that any decisions that have to be made about the university’s future include input from the people on the ground, who know what’s actually happening. Without them and without a greater feeling of collaboration and moving together, I really fear that these decisions will really impact negatively on our universities sector in Wales.

Our universities are part of our DNA as a nation. Even Owain Glyndŵr, 500 years ago, acknowledged the importance of further, higher education—continuing education—for the sake of the nation. So, it came as a bombshell to us when we heard of the announcement from Cardiff University—the potential of losing 400 jobs, and courses being cut as well in key areas for the growth of public sector in Wales. We have a sector that, collectively, is showing a deficit of about £70 million. That doesn't include a £20-million further hit from national insurance contributions and a further hit of about £70-million to £80-million loss through the visa changes and the loss of international recruitment.

In this Chamber a couple of weeks ago, I called for a cross-party review, including sector experts, to help us understand how we could fix this broken financial model, which clearly isn’t working. That was rejected by the Minister; she has said that she is undertaking her own review. So, like Jenny Rathbone, I’d like to understand a little bit more about the details of that review, because my understanding is that, rather than hiding behind a Westminster review, Wales will not be formally included in a UK review of higher education. 'Where does that leave us in Wales?' is my question as well to the Minister.

Clearly, we need to work quickly because of this domino effect we’ve seen across all our universities facing voluntary redundancies, compulsory redundancies, campuses under threat of closure. We can’t carry on like this, otherwise that whole sector will be decimated. So, we need to work quickly to protect that higher sector and fulfil the dreams of Owain Glyndŵr 500 years ago.

I call on the Minister for Further and Higher Education to reply to the debate—Vikki Howell

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you to Jenny Rathbone for proposing this short debate. I’d like to begin by saying that the title of the short debate that was tabled is 'Ensuring Wales has a thriving university sector', and so the comments that I’ve prepared relate to that, and I think that’s the most appropriate use of the time.

I’d like to start by saying that, as our universities undergo a difficult period of transformation, it’s right and proper that we think to the future about what we want to see from our universities in Wales and how we might achieve that. If I can briefly recap the measures that we’ve taken to address these short-term and longer term challenges, before then turning to address calls that I’ve heard from some quarters to change our student support policy, and I’ll finish on the further steps that we’ll be taking over the coming months in our process of higher education reform.

Firstly, we are already on a long journey of tertiary education reform in Wales. In this current Senedd term, we passed unanimously as a Parliament the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022. That Act sets out, at the very top, the principles that will provide the basis for the future of our tertiary education sector, including promoting lifelong learning, equality of opportunity and widening access, increased participation across all forms of post-16 education, and greater collaboration and coherence in our tertiary education sector. Dirprwy Lywydd, this Act and these principles were set out with the prospect of the challenges now facing the sector firmly in mind. Today, we reach a new stage in this ongoing journey of tertiary education reform with the publication of Medr’s strategic plan, as required by the 2022 Act, and I’ll talk a little more about that later.

Dirprwy Lywydd, to address the more immediate challenges facing the higher education sector, we have done all we can to make available Government funding and increased revenue for our institutions. We’ve increased the tuition fee cap in two consecutive years, and, in total, we have now increased Medr’s higher education funding by £28.5 million this year compared to the budget set at the start of the year. We’ve also confirmed our continued investment in Global Wales for another year in order to promote our universities internationally, and we’ve set out our plans to reshape the Seren Academy, including increased engagement between the Seren team and our universities to ensure that we are promoting Wales as a place of study for our learners with the highest potential, regardless of their background.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the Welsh Government offers the most generous student maintenance for full-time undergraduates in the UK, with the highest levels of non-repayable grant support provided to those most in need. Our higher education funding model ensures that our universities receive comparable levels of funding per student to England, while our overall contribution to the costs of higher education through student maintenance grants means that we are spending more than twice as much as the UK Government per student. We believe that this approach to higher education funding makes effective use of public funds and a fair balance of funding for students and institutions, but we must leave no stone unturned, which is why we are currently evaluating the Diamond student support package, with initial findings due in the autumn.

Dirprwy Lywydd, in recent weeks I've heard increasing calls from some quarters to replace all or some of our student grant scheme with student loans, and to redirect this funding to universities. I wish to take time to set out to the Chamber why, aside from whether this is the right thing to do, it is currently unlikely that such a policy would be affordable without cuts to student maintenance. Our student loan budget is limited by HM Treasury, which requires our student loan expenditure to cost the same or less than if we were to apply English policy. We've now likely maximized the amount of loan expenditure that HMT will provide, due to our student maintenance package increasing more than that in England over several recent years through its link to the national living wage, a policy that has been supported by parties across this Senedd.

Therefore, any cuts to grants would require a cut to overall student maintenance entitlement, and given the distribution of our student grant entitlements, these cuts would hit the poorest students hardest. Students would have less money in their pockets and I think it is likely that it would only harm rather than help our ambitions for expanding participation and widening access. That is not something that I am prepared to do, and I'm sure it is not something Members of this Siambr would like to see either.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the setting of student loans budgets is a highly technical policy area with significant interdependence between the Welsh and UK Governments. There are important aspects of this policy area where we believe there could be greater clarity between ourselves and UK Government on our agreed budget for us to have greater certainty about our ability to make any future changes to student support. As I set out in my written statement on 3 March, I have made this a priority issue for myself and officials to discuss with UK Government over the coming months.

Dirprwy Lywydd, as I've set out both in recent Plenary debates and in written statements, there are other areas also where we are taking forward discussions with the UK Government that will inform future policy here in Wales. Vice-chancellors have stressed to me the vital importance of being clear about the expected tuition fee limit over the next few years in order that they can plan. I'm therefore asking the UK Government to set out its fees policy across the current UK parliamentary term as soon as possible, so that I can, in turn, give universities in Wales such clarity. Universities have also expressed to me their concerns about the salary requirements for the graduate visa becoming too high in comparison to average wages in Wales, so further damaging Wales as an appealing destination for international students. I will be communicating this concern to the UK Government, as I know that my Cabinet colleagues will also, and reiterating our belief that international students are vitally important to the future financial and cultural life of our universities.

If I could turn to some of the specific questions that were posed by Jenny Rathbone: Jenny, you asked whether we have a clear idea of the financial situation of Welsh universities, and I can confirm that, yes, we absolutely do. Universities report to Medr, who in turn report to me, and I've also had confidential one-to-one meetings with each vice-chancellor as well. Medr is absolutely adamant in its belief that no university in Wales is at risk of going under, and we also are not looking at any mergers at all either.

I'd like to say, in relation to the points made by several Members about Cardiff University, I think it's really important that we remember that this is a consultation. We're still within the time frame of that consultation, and I understand from my conversations with staff and students at Cardiff University, particularly with the trade unions, that they've put in really meaningful responses to that consultation, and I'm hopeful that that will get some movement on some of the proposals that the university have put there.

You also referred, Jenny, to spin-out companies and start-ups, and I absolutely agree with your comments there and, in fact, it was a topic that came up in our round-table with the vice-chancellors that the First Minister attended alongside myself. There is clearly some really good practice already among several of our universities here in Wales, but that is something that we need to look to maximise, because we know that our universities are really key to regional economies across Wales. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, looking ahead, then, I want to set out the steps that we can and will take going forward to further deliver on our ambitions for tertiary education reform, and to ensure that the sector adjusts in a way that is sustainable and meets the needs of Wales. Firstly, as previously mentioned, the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 and the establishment of Medr were designed with the aim of ensuring greater collaboration and coherence between tertiary education providers. The current challenges facing our universities show us that such collaboration is no longer an option, it is a necessity.

Collaboration between institutions will make the difficult strategic choices they may be facing less damaging and painful for institutions, staff and students, and we cannot allow the perceived risk of breach of competition law to be a barrier to that. So, Medr has been seeking advice on this issue and has had a meeting with the Competition and Markets Authority to help clarify for universities what is and is not permissible, and I expect further work on that in the coming weeks.

Secondly, as I've mentioned in this Siambr before, I've asked Medr to conduct an overview of subject demand and provision to understand the risks in the future of any subject areas in Wales. This will enable us to consider where and if action might be necessary from either Government or from Medr to support or incentivise universities, which are rightly autonomous, on matters of course provision and content to continue to deliver vital provision in Wales.

Thirdly, there is a particular provision where Government has a more direct interest in maintaining vital provision, including initial teacher education, health and in high and expensive cost provision currently partly supported by Medr, such as science, technology, engineering and mathematics and conservatoire subjects. I intend to undertake an overview of the funding needs of this provision and ensure that it is sustainable.

Fourthly, part-time provision has been a significant success for us here in Wales, with significant increases in the numbers of part-time higher education students since 2018. We want to ensure that this remains sustainable, so following calls from the Open University, we are exploring the feasibility and affordability of increasing the part-time fee loan to reflect growing costs of delivery, while also ensuring that part-time study remains an excellent and accessible way into higher education for thousands of people across Wales.

Fifthly, increasing overall post-16 education participation in Wales should result in improving application and entry rates into higher education. This is a longer term challenge, particularly with evidence suggesting increasing entry to post-16 education below level 3 in recent years. That is why it is vital that we do not waver from our priority aim of improving attendance and attainment in schools and colleges, both pre and post 16, to ensure that we have that next generation of students who see higher education as part of their aspirations. 

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to return to the publication earlier today of Medr's strategic plan, and this sets out the key strategic goals for Medr as it establishes itself as an effective and respected regulatory and funding body. In doing so, it sets out how Medr will work towards the ambitions we set for it in the tertiary education and research Act. In the coming months and years, Medr will be undertaking a wide-ranging programme of work to achieve these goals, but I believe that there are particular commitments it sets out in its plan that are relevant to the topics raised in today's debate.

Medr will be introducing the new system of regulation for tertiary education providers in Wales, ensuring improved oversight of institutional quality, governance and finances. Medr will be improving our evidence base for overseeing the tertiary education sector and ensuring that we have the necessary data to enable planning, collaboration and coherence across tertiary education. Medr will be consulting on its funding systems and processes, and ensuring we maximise value for the significant sums of public investment in our universities and colleges. Medr will be driving forward increasing equality of opportunity in higher and further education, through improved oversight and regulation of activities to widen access. And Medr will be making the interests of learners and students central to its work, and create a learner voice forum to inform its policies and its decisions. And all of this work will be undertaken through the expectation of both Medr and Welsh Government for our tertiary institutions to work in social partnership with trade unions. That is absolutely crucial.

So, I'd like to express my agreement with the chair and chief executive of Medr, in the foreword to their plan: it is time to do things differently in our tertiary education sector. I therefore call on the leaders in our tertiary education sector, across universities, colleges and schools, to get behind Medr's ambitions, as set out in its strategic plan, and realise our collective vision for, to quote again from the foreword:

'A more joined-up and inclusive sector, with clearer and more flexible pathways for learners. A more collaborative sector, with providers encouraged to focus on their strengths and deliver the highest quality learning and research'.

And a tertiary sector

'that meets the needs of our society and economy, with higher rates of participation and fewer people not in education, employment or training.'

Diolch.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, all. That brings today's proceedings to a close.