National Assembly for Wales

Good afternoon and welcome to this afternoon's Plenary session. The first item on our agenda this afternoon will be questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning. The first question this afternoon is from Mabon ap Gwynfor.

The development plans manual sets out detailed advice on how to prepare a local development plan. It's based on best practice and identifies the key issues to be addressed and the level of evidence required to achieve an adopted LDP.

Thank you very much to the Cabinet Secretary for that response. Well, I had the privilege of going around Pwllheli very recently with Katalina Harper. Katalina Harper is in a wheelchair and so it's very difficult for her to travel around the town, or indeed any town. When she goes around corners, often, because the pavement is uneven, the wheelchair tips over, or the pavements become very narrow, which means she is unable to access essential services, unable to go shopping, and sometimes, when she wants to get on a bus, the pavements haven't been raised to a sufficient level to enable her to get on the bus—and a whole host of other problems.

Katalina Harper in Pwllheli is just one example; this is true of many other people with disability or mobility issues in communities across Wales. So, we need to ensure, in spatial planning in developing urban plans for towns, that they are suitable for people who use wheelchairs or who have mobility difficulties. So, what plans will you put in place to ensure that local governments do take into account the needs of people such as Katalina in developing their town plans?

I'm very grateful for the question this afternoon and for really highlighting the importance of placemaking in terms of our town and city centres. And it's really important, of course, that any new development is undertaken in conjunction and in alignment with our planning policies that do promote that. But equally, we have towns and villages that go back centuries, which haven't necessarily kept pace with the kind of change that we want to see for accessibility.

So, I think that the work that local government should be doing in engagement with representative groups and with disabled people themselves is really important in terms of identifying those particular parts within the community that need to be addressed through investment or, often, some relatively simple changes. And I do think that some of the disabled people fora that local authorities have would be perfect places to have those discussions about identifying often relatively simple things in the community that could change but make a very big difference.

I’d like to know the extent to which spatial planning has helped or hindered house building overall since the original spatial plan was adopted by the then Welsh Assembly in 2004. House building has been in steady decline, and our housing crisis continues to magnify. There are many factors contributing to the failure to meet house building targets, but the planning system is a significant part of this, and the Wales spatial plan creates another layer of delay on planning approval and construction.

There are community-led approaches that have been suggested to supplement the existing planning system, such as the idea of so-called street votes. The previous UK Government held a consultation that ended in February of this year regarding the street vote development orders, in which residents have the ability to jointly propose a development on their street and, subject to the proposal meeting certain requirements, a vote on whether the development should be given planning permission. The intention is for developments to be implemented quickly, to give residents control and to deliver more homes as soon as possible. So, can the Cabinet Secretary outline whether the Wales spatial plan has contributed to the sluggish planning approval and has the Welsh Government considered street votes as a possible supplement to the planning system? Thank you.

I'm grateful for the question, and actually, this lunchtime, I was at a round-table with Building magazine, and they brought together a large section of the construction industry's representation around the table in Wales to talk about some of the challenges that are facing us in regard to delivery on construction projects. And some of those issues that they were talking about in that meeting related to visibility of the pipeline, for example, the availability of skills. So, they weren't really talking about the street votes idea, and I'm not sure, entirely, that that's the direction that we would want to go in, because, actually, the system that we have under 'Planning Policy Wales' does actually set out significant ways in which communities can, and should be, involved at the very earliest stage in relation to developments. So, we do have those formal opportunities, and they come often multiple times during the process of planning, for communities to have their say. We have very much a plan-led approach to development, and maintaining LDPs we see as the absolutely essential tool in terms of delivering on those national and local priorities, such as sustainable development through house building, placemaking, affordable housing, climate change, air quality, renewable energy, net zero and sustainable transport. The principles, though, that we have in our approach in 'Planning Policy Wales' do move us away from simply counting houses to thinking about the outcomes and the quality of the places that we build as well. So, I think we do take a different approach, but I assume that we want to get to the same destination in terms of building sustainable communities.

Yes. Our economic mission sets out how we are using the levers that we have to narrow the skills divide and support better jobs, with our plan for employability and skills prioritising those most in need of help. This includes supporting people to stay in work and those furthest away from the labour market to find employment.

Thank you for your response, Cabinet Secretary. One of the routes to tackling economic inactivity is what you referenced there—having that well-trained workforce. And for younger people, in particular, a large part can be done through apprenticeships, which you will know—and I know your ministerial colleague Jack Sargeant also appreciates—provide a great way to learn a trade and genuine skills that they can use throughout their working life. Unfortunately, compared to other places in the UK, and in particular England, the range of degree apprenticeships on offer here is poor. Couple that with recent cuts that the Welsh Government have made to the apprenticeship programme, and we have problems in our degree apprenticeship programme here in Wales. I recently met with the new vice-chancellor of Wrexham University, and I also met with the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, who were both very clear that degree apprenticeships can make a big difference not just to the economy, but to the services that the Welsh Government are responsible for here as well. So, I'd like to ask what is being done to increase the range of degree apprenticeships on offer, and, importantly, how you are engaging with those educational institutions and others to see the increase in take-up that I'm sure we'd all want to see.

Again, I'm very grateful for the question. We absolutely recognise the importance of apprenticeships, while we are making really significant investment in our apprenticeship programme here in Wales. Of course, this now is being led on by Medr, and Jack Sargeant is very much involved in this particular piece of work, which he is leading on. But our approach very much is one of collaboration. So, providers absolutely have to be collaborating with our university sector, and the education sector more widely, making sure that the needs of learners, employers and the wider community, and, of course, the economy are supported. So, level 6 degree apprenticeships are available, but any changes or reviews to the existing pathways must be done in collaboration. So, I'm glad to hear that you had those conversations, and I know that Jack Sargeant would be keen to have a read-out of your meeting. Thank you.

Today's spokespeople questions are to be answered by the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership. First, the Conservative spokesperson, Tom Giffard.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Minister, can I congratulate you on your appointment to the role as Minister, with responsibility particularly today for culture and for sport? I've been looking forward very much to these exchanges—I know you have as well—and I've also been very grateful for the time you've offered in meeting with me already in your brief. You are, though, the fifth Minister this year with responsibility for culture. Do you accept that there has been some degree of uncertainty within the sector because of the chaos at the heart of the Welsh Government this year?

Firstly, Llywydd, can I thank Tom Giffard for his warm introduction to the Chamber this afternoon, and also for taking the time to meet with me—I think it was last week—to discuss the important issues the culture and sport sectors face? I think it's fair to say, Tom, that, not just on your benches but on the benches right across this place, there is a shared commitment to see the culture sector succeed. You might want to focus on the past, Tom; I will very much focus on the future. This is a sector I am energised by, it's a workforce that are determined and ambitious, and I will focus very much on understanding the priorities of many stakeholders, like those I've met already. In the challenging budgetary period that we face, we're trying to realise the opportunities of the sector, indeed. And that very much includes making sure that culture, sport, including the creative industries in Wales, are open and accessible to all, including working-class communities like mine. So, I’ll look forward to the future work. I very much look forward to these exchanges. I think, Presiding Officer, if I were to sum up my early conversations and commitment to this industry and sector, it would be very much like the famous line from the poem 'Bread and Roses':

'give us bread, but give us roses.’

Thank you very much. I had a feeling you might say that you didn’t want to the look to the past but to the future. So, last year, the culture line in the Welsh Government’s budget suffered the biggest cut of any individual budget line. So, if this is a break from the past, and a look ahead to the new future, with this year’s budget on the horizon, how will you succeed in standing up for the sector, where your predecessors didn’t?

Again, thanks to Tom Giffard for raising the question this afternoon. Look, I’m not going to enter into budget discussions now. I’m sure we’ll have those in the Cabinet, and the Cabinet Secretary for finance wouldn’t look gladly on me if I was to say those things. But what I am saying—and I’m not shying away from the fact that difficult decisions have been made in this sector in the past—is that what we’ve seen from the sector, though, is the sheer resilience and the innovation that the sector can bring to the table when looking to the future.

But you’re right, there have been difficult decisions. Those difficult decisions had to be made because of the incompetence of the previous UK Government, who left a financial black hole and the mess that the public finances are in. [Interruption.] You're right, so I will look to the future, Sam Rowlands. What we’ve seen already is the additional £5 million over the summer. That built on the £3.2 million announced in July for the industry. What I can commit to, Tom, on the floor of the Chamber today is very much being the voice for the culture, sport and creative sectors in those budget discussions. They will have a Minister in me who is proud to represent them, who believes in the sectors, and who wants to work collaboratively with the sectors to make sure the sectors succeed, which I know every single one of us in this place wants to happen.

Organisations in the cultural sector have been warning for some time about the dire financial situation that they find themselves in. And that goes for the big national institutions as well as smaller local institutions, which many communities not only are a part of, but thrive upon many of these local organisations. A recent Institute of Welsh Affairs report from August found that funding for the arts has dropped by 30 per cent in Wales in real terms since 2017. That’s the biggest drop in the United Kingdom. And what we’ve seen under your tenure so far is, in the latest supplementary budget, a £130,000 cut for local culture and sports projects. So, whilst we can look ahead to the future, the record is clear. So, how can you reassure those institutions—small and large—across Wales, that things will be different?

Again, thanks to the opposition spokesperson for the range of questions about what the future looks like. The position is difficult, isn’t it. We recognise the position is difficult, and we’re still in those difficult challenges. As I said earlier, I will give a commitment to the industry—and I’ve met with all of our arm’s-length bodies in Wales in this portfolio—to make sure that, when I have those budget discussions with the Cabinet Secretary, we are putting the best case forward for the sector. This is a sector that I think can succeed. We need to support it. We need to be creative in the way we look at things in the future, but what better way to work collaboratively with the creative sector than in coming up with new ways to support the industry? I’m not going to comment on future budget discussions because they haven’t been discussed to a level that I’m prepared to do on the floor of the Chamber. But that commitment to ensure that the voice of the industry is very much at the heart of the Welsh Government will carry on.

In terms of the sector in general, Presiding Officer, and where we have supported successes in the sector, let me just point to Creative Wales as a positive story, particularly in the production industry. Since its introduction in 2020, £26.5 million has been invested via Creative Wales from this Welsh Government. The expected spend back in the Welsh economy is over £313 million. That is a success that I am proud of. It’s a success that we can build on, and it’s a success that I look forward to collaboratively working on, not just with the Member, but with the industry as well, going forward.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Heledd Fychan. 

Thank you, Llywydd. Minister, I'd like to add my congratulations to you on your appointment, and I appreciate the fact that we've already had a meeting to discuss our overlapping portfolios. As I noted at that time, and I'm glad that you know that this isn't a comment on you personally, I am disappointed that culture and sport aren’t part of a Cabinet Secretary’s portfolio. They are key areas in terms of our identity, our economy and our well-being as a nation, and I very much welcomed the enhanced status the portfolio was given when Vaughan Gething became First Minister. I won't put you on the spot by asking whether you share my view that you should be a Cabinet Secretary, but may I have further information please in terms of what your vision and priorities are for this portfolio? You spoke about being a voice, but what will that voice be telling the Cabinet?

Diolch yn fawr, Heledd, for that. Again, thank you for taking the time out of your schedule to meet with me last week. I won’t comment on the position of the Cabinet Secretary. If you want to make that case to the First Minister then that’s for you to do, not me. I am very proud to be the Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership in the department of the economy, under my colleague Rebecca Evans, who is the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning.

My voice will be loud and clear for this sector. It’s a sector that I want to see succeed. In the conversations that I will be having with Cabinet colleagues, they will be very much about focus and how we can share our cultural identity. Because I agree with the Member, this sector is very much about the well-being of the nation. I will be making sure that we collectively come up with plans to ensure that the heritage of our nation is futureproofed, but also is accessible to everyone, no matter where you come from in Wales. And I’ll be very much taking that forward through not just budget discussions, but all the policy areas as well.

In my own portfolio, if you look at skills in particular and the role perhaps of social partnership, the conversations that we need to have in this sector to make sure it is futureproofed will be done in a way of social partnership to get the best outcome. And I’m very conscious of the role I play in skills as well, to make sure we have a skilled workforce, whether that be in production, gaming, whether that be in our cultural and heritage aspects, or whether that be in all of the other aspects around sport as well. So, I’m conscious of the role that I have to play in that as well.

Thanks for that response. If I can build on what Tom Giffard was asking you, obviously, it’s not just been challenging, it’s been devastating for a number of the institutions that fall within your portfolio. We’ve heard warnings of huge organisations having to potentially close their doors. We’ve had significant job losses. You’ve talked about being resilient. We’ve heard that sectors are at breaking point in a number of areas under your responsibility. There is no place to cut any further. Key services are being lost. National collections are at risk.

So, can I ask—? When Lesley Griffiths was in role, she was very determined in trying to secure that additional funding from health, from education, and understanding the value of those. I just want to be clear in terms of your priorities here in this portfolio. I hear about being a voice, but what will you actually deliver for these sectors? What are your priorities now to secure from Government to ensure—? It’s not about being resilient, it’s about survival.

Well, I agree; we need to survive, but we need to look further than just survival, and we need to look to futureproof the industry, as an industry that wants to succeed. I agree, the fact that we had to make those cuts—and the Cabinet Secretary for finance and you have had an exchange on the issues that are facing us—was devastating for individual organisations. But let me just point to the September announcement from this Government of a further £5 million revenue funding to support Wales’s culture and sports arm’s-length bodies. That’s £725,000 for the National Library of Wales; £90,000 for the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales; £1.5 million for the Arts Council of Wales; £1 million for Sport Wales; for Amgueddfa Cymru £940,000; and Cadw, £745,000. That’s a significant sum of money and I’m pleased that we’ve been able to find that.

The point the Member makes around other budgets, again, I’m not going to go into opening discussions about the budget here today. But I agree with you that this portfolio and the responsibilities within it, and the actions that this portfolio delivers, do have cross-cutting impacts, particularly in the role of mental health and well-being. My colleague Sarah Murphy and I have already had discussions around the role that sport can play and around the role the arts can play in supporting people with mental health. That's what I'll be doing when I have those meetings that very much—. Not just in there, but education as well. You're right, this morning I was at the Rhondda Heritage Park, at the mining museum, and it's excellent to see the work that they do in supporting the local communities, their local schools. I want to see more of that, and, be assured, that's what I'll be pressing the case for.

Thank you. As I said yesterday to the Cabinet Secretary for finance, obviously that £5 million was very welcome, but it didn't touch the surface. And, in terms of these sectors, we've lost people in these roles, we've lost expertise, we've lost the ability to actually deliver on many of those programmes that were having a positive impact in terms of people's health and well-being. So, it's not a matter of asking these institutions to do more, it's actually supporting them to do what they were doing and scaling that up. So, in terms of that vision, we're obviously expecting a cultural strategy and I would like to know the timescales, now that you are in post, in terms of that work, but in terms of the finances to support that budget as well.

Also, what assessment have you made about the impact of the cuts on the abilities of organisations that you do provide a remit letter for to deliver on those remit letters? And if that hasn't happened yet, will you commit to doing so, so that we understand the impact these cuts have had on their ability to deliver on the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015? And do you accept that the cultural element of the future generations Act is the least developed goal to date, and how should we rectify that? 

Thank you. On that, with regard to the impact on the bodies that we do send remit letters to, where I'm very interested in hearing from in this area is the work of the culture committee, chaired by your colleague Delyth Jewell. I've understood there have been many organisations already in front of the committee, where the impacts—. Well, I'm interested in hearing their views on that, and they will have those conversations directly with me, but also the views of the committee to see how we can militate against that going forward. As I say, this is a sector that I want to succeed in.

In terms of going forward and looking around at how we can better do things, we have to think differently in these scenarios. We're still in a difficult and challenging situation when it comes to budgetary pressures, so we need to come together collectively, in that spirit of social partnership, to find, perhaps, alternative ways of doing things. That will make Wales's culture sector succeed. I'll be having those conversations with a number of stakeholders in the sector. What I am keen to do as well, as I said in response to Tom, is to have that conversation across the Senedd floor and to hear your views on where we can take this forward. Because, as I say, I think in this sector, in culture, arts, sports and heritage, we consistently punch above our weight in sport, and I want to carry on doing that and supporting grass-roots clubs and activities, and when it comes to culture and arts, it's ever so important that we don't just futureproof, but that we actually have the ambitions to grow. And I think that this is a shared commitment across the floor of the Chamber, and I look forward to having those conversations with you. 

Llywydd, just in closing, as I have the opportunity to say this, and around sports as well, I think you won't mind me saying 'Pob lwc' to Cymru in the coming games of the European 2025 play-offs. 

There's no problem at all in wishing Wales well at any level and in any sport. 

The Welsh Government has regular discussions with the UK Government at both an official and ministerial level to ensure proposed carbon capture projects across Wales are subject to robust regulatory controls, facilitate long-term decarbonisation and build a stronger, greener economy.

Earlier this month, you said, and I quote, that

'it is the Welsh Government's intention to provide a clearer statement of our views and our approach to carbon capture usage and storage,'

but the reality is, of course, that it's happening now. We don't really know, clearly, where you stand on this, and it feels a little bit as if you're asleep at the wheel, might I suggest? Now, CCS as a technology, of course, risks giving carbon emitters a bit of a free pass, doesn't it, because they can carry on polluting or, at best, at least it'll slow down the transition away from carbon dioxide, and we know that there are serious public health risks and issues as well. There are examples elsewhere of leaks and explosions causing hospitalisation and asphyxiation. The Health and Safety Executive say it has major hazard potential. Is that a risk that you're willing to expose the people of north-east Wales to as they become the exhaust pipe of the United Kingdom? 

So, as I said previously, in the coming weeks I will be consulting on the Welsh Government policy position in terms of how we can use carbon capture and storage technology, but our clear focus is on where it can make a clear, measurable and sustained contribution to decarbonisation on our transition away from fossil fuel consumption. I would share your concerns if this was about extending the life of fossil fuels, but that's not what this is about. There are certain sectors, for example, cement, that cannot be decarbonised other than through technologies such as carbon capture and storage.

These are the kinds of areas that we have to be realistic about, and even international studies undertaken by organisations including the Climate Change Committee, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the International Energy Agency have all consistently concluded that carbon capture and storage is a pathway to reducing emissions, and we are not going to get to our targets in terms of net zero without it. So, it is a technology that we have to use, but of course it has to be safe and it has to be done through the appropriate planning regime, and so on.

I know the UK Government has undertaken a range of research in this space, and I'd be more than happy to share more of that with colleagues. One of the examples I have is the UK Government's publication of research and analysis, and that was regarding the deep geological storage of carbon dioxide, offshore UK, and that was about containment certainty. So, that was a particular piece of research that demonstrated a very high level of confidence about the long-term security of carbon dioxide containment in a typical CCS storage complex in and around the UK. So, the research is absolutely there and it's available, and we'll be sharing more of that when we do move to consultation.

But just to be really clear: the policy is about the role of carbon capture and storage on our journey to net zero, and with a particular focus on areas of the economy that can't be decarbonised through other means.

The north-west industrial cluster region stretches from Flintshire and Wrexham through Cheshire, Liverpool city region and greater Manchester into Lancashire. The HyNet North West hydrogen and carbon capture project received £72 million in funding from the Conservative UK Government in 2021 to play a critical role in the UK's transition to net zero, and the announcement that the new UK Government will continue to support this is therefore welcome. The project will convert natural gas into low-carbon hydrogen to power industry, fuel transport and generate electricity.

So, do you agree with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that carbon capture and storage has a role to play alongside other actions to tackle global emissions? And what engagement are you having with Flintshire industries, including Connah's Quay power station, Heidelberg Materials cement works in Padeswood and Parc Adfer, an energy-from-waste facility at Deeside industrial park, which proposed to transport captured carbon dioxide to permanent offshore storage facilities in repurposed depleted offshore gas fields, as part of the HyNet industrial cluster?   

I'm grateful for the question and, as I said in response to the previous question, we're very mindful of the fact that the Climate Change Committee and a range of other organisations have said that carbon capture and storage will necessarily be a part of our journey towards net zero, particularly if we are to hit our net-zero targets in a timely manner. I would just reassure you that we are having those regular discussions; officials meet regularly with HyNet and the consortium partners to better understand the proposals and to offer our support as appropriate. 

And alongside the Minister for north Wales, I visited Heidelberg cement factory recently to understand more about the technology that is being proposed, and the impact that it would have on decarbonising the production of cement.

I know there are concerns about the scale of the project and questions about whether this is the right route towards decarbonisation and our net-zero ambitions, but I want to focus today on some concerns around the potential practical impact on my constituency and the communities within it, whether that’s disruption from the construction of the spur pipeline from Padeswood to the proposed above ground installations near Northop Hall. I serve, and I'm proud to serve, an area that has very much been scarred by industry in the past, and I don't wish that to be our future. So, can I ask, Cabinet Secretary, what the Welsh Government can do, working with the UK Government and other partners, to ensure people and places are fully aware and involved with the process, that disruption and impact on landscape is absolutely mitigated, and that community benefits are meaningful and mandated?

We will absolutely be making those important points in our discussions with HyNet and also with the UK Government in relation to the importance of consulting with and properly considering the views of residents in the area, and also, of course, for maximising the opportunities for the area through new jobs and so on. The impact on the area will absolutely be at the forefront of our discussions, and, of course, impressing upon those other partners the need to consult properly with communities, as appropriate, as we move these proposals on.

The Welsh Government’s planning policies for the consideration of large-scale solar farms are contained within 'Planning Policy Wales' and 'Future Wales'.

Thank you for that response.

The Gwent levels are of international significance and are truly unique for featuring a criss-cross network of fertile fields and historic watercourses, known locally as reens, with some of these wetlands originally reclaimed from the sea by the Romans. It remains largely untouched for centuries. As well as cattle, it is home to more than 200 species of insects and other invertebrates, many of them protected due to their rarity, within sites of special scientific interest.

It beggars belief, therefore, that this incredible landscape could be subject to six huge separate solar farms to go with the Llanwern solar farm that has already been approved. This means that nearly a third of the total area of individual Gwent levels SSSIs has been proposed for solar farm development. Whilst I'm in favour of solar and other forms of renewable energy, in my view, it should not be located within crucial and fragile natural habitats like these wetlands.

Minister, I know you cannot offer an opinion on the merits of such planning applications, but can you provide further insight into how such planning applications are determined, and give some indication of what criteria take precedence within the planning framework for large-scale projects like these? Where do SSSI status, 'best and most versatile' assessments and environmental impact assessments rank compared to energy production and economic benefit? Diolch.

The first thing to say is about the importance of the Gwent levels. I think that importance is very much reflected in 'Future Wales' policy 9 by its designation as a national natural resource area. I think that's very important. Officials are currently in the process of preparing some further planning guidance in line with policy 9 of 'Future Wales', and that will involve developing further planning guidance for the Gwent levels, working with local authorities and with stakeholders. Some work on scoping the evidence base for that is ongoing at the moment. And, of course, the Welsh Government has established a Gwent levels working group, and that's chaired by John Griffiths MS. He's looking at how better protection and management of the Gwent levels can be enabled. One of the strategic priorities for that working group is absolutely about the development of better planning guidance to enable the right developments in the right place and to avoid further unacceptable biodiversity and landscape impacts on the Gwent levels. I hope that provides at least a level of reassurance as to the seriousness that we attach to the Gwent levels and the work that John Griffiths will be leading on.

Thank you to my colleague Peredur for raising this. I've raised before, in this Chamber, about beautiful rural areas of Anglesey currently under threat from developers who want to cover 3,000 acres of valuable agricultural land with solar panels.

The Maen Hir scheme will have a detrimental effect to the point that one of the reports states that the project has the potential for adverse agricultural economic impacts as a result of reduced agricultural income. On top of that, the element of the project expected to raise income for spend on the local community is situated in one of the locations of the site most vulnerable to flooding. This is just unfair to the community. There's massive opposition to this. 'Future Wales: the national plan 2040' states:

'The Welsh Government strongly supports the principle of developing renewable and low carbon energy from all technologies and at all scales to meet our future energy needs.'

That reads to me as though you're prepared to forgo good agricultural land and farming at the risk of covering thousands of acres with solar farms. Will you look at amending the planning policy, please?

I'm grateful for the question. Colleagues know I can't comment on any specific plan because most large solar projects will be determined by Welsh Ministers, but we do have comprehensive and up-to-date planning policy that allows for the consideration of the opportunities and the impacts proposed by solar developments. We do have a really ambitious target of meeting 100 per cent of our energy needs from renewable sources by 2030, but that doesn't mean that we're going to abandon policies for the protection of our most valuable environments and habitats. There absolutely has to be that balance to be struck as we move on that journey to net zero. I will say, though, that 'Future Wales' does make a clear statement on the importance of high-quality agricultural land, as it's considered as a national natural resource under policy 9, and there is a lot of detail then involved in terms of how that land is graded. But I do think that 'Future Wales', as I've said, really recognises the importance of agricultural land as well.

Thank you for your answers on these points to the Chamber today, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you for what you said about the work of the Gwent levels working group, which I do think is very important and shows the commitment in the local area to protecting that unique landscape.

Some of the issues generally in terms of 'Planning Policy Wales', Cabinet Secretary, and policy 9, are about SSSIs and the degree of protection that's provided, and I welcome some of the improvements and better safeguards that have been developed up until now. But, as you mentioned, there is further work under way, and I just wonder if you could say a little bit about that further work in general, Cabinet Secretary, and how it relates to cumulative impact. Because one of the issues with large-scale solar farms is that if a number of them have been consented, it's the cumulative impact on the area. Every time one is consented, it then would normally make further development more likely, given that that development has already taken place.

Just finally, on exceptional circumstances, there is a feeling that greater clarity is needed in terms of interpretation, because sometimes a renewable energy project seems to be considered exceptional no matter what the environmental nature of the land concerned. 

I'm grateful for the question and for the work that John Griffiths is undertaking in this space. I think the net benefit for biodiversity policy is really important in this space, and hopefully that will seek to at least mitigate some of those cumulative impacts, because it does require developers to follow the stepwise approach as a means of demonstrating the steps that have been taken to securing a net benefit for biodiversity. I think that is going to be absolutely crucial. That means working through a number of steps—so, avoiding impact in the first place, but then minimising and then seeking to mitigate and restore, and finally compensate on site for any losses. That obviously is an absolute last resort. I think that new policy approach is really important. I will give some further consideration to the specific points regarding exceptional circumstances and how we can better define those, if there are things that we can do to offer some more clarity.

Diolch. I met the chair and chief executive of Sport Wales last week, where we discussed support for community and grass-roots sport, including from national governing bodies and other partners. Most sports include community outreach within their activities, and I value their important contributions.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. I've worked with a number of grass-roots sports clubs in my constituency—the ones I have in mind are Beddau welfare and Coedely welfare—all of which have developed from their traditional welfare role in mining communities to developing sporting facilities and so on. One of the contributions it's clear they make, increasingly, is not just around physical health, but it's also around the mental health and broader well-being of the communities. Could I ask the Minister what action he's talking to encourage grass-roots sports clubs to play a more specific and focused role in the development of support for mental health in the communities and broader well-being?

Can I thank Mick for that important question and the points made within the question, but, more importantly, thank him for all of the work he does in his constituency of Pontypridd in this particular area, supporting people with their mental health, supporting sports clubs and other organisations to support people in their mental health?

The Member will be very aware that I have championed, for a number of years now, the idea of sports clubs playing a role in supporting fans and players with their own mental health. We know, don't we, Presiding Officer, that men in particular can struggle to open up and talk to one another about how they are feeling, so providing that safe space and a comfortable space is ever so important to do so. I do believe sports facilities, particularly grass-roots sport, is one of those spaces.

Llywydd, there were two football teams in Wales this year who won awards during the Football Association of Wales’s grass-roots awards for raising awareness and promoting mental well-being, both stemming from the loss of a player to suicide: Heolgerrig Red Lion FC and Connah’s Quay Town in my own constituency, in the memory of my best friend of 20 years, Jamie Wynne. This is a further example of good practice, but it's not just in football. Welsh Athletics also have a partnership with Mind Cymru, and they've recently announced that they have trained 34 mental health champions in 23 running clubs across Wales.

In terms of the specific ask from the Member, I've already had the opportunity to speak with the FAW around this, to speak to Sports Wales around this, and also to Cardiff City FC Foundation around this. My colleague Sarah Murphy and I had those conversations around where sport in particular can, perhaps, play a bigger role in supporting people with their mental health across Wales. Together, we will take that work forward to see what may be possible in the future.

Community outreach, Minister, for our sports clubs is very important, but also how they link with community health as well. What we have across Wales is an obesity epidemic, and I think sport can play a huge role in addressing the obesity crisis that we have across Wales. So, what I'm interested to learn, Minister, is what you are going to do to have better links with health to make sure that our sports clubs can play their role in ending obesity across Wales. What time frames can we see for when implementation of this is going to happen and when are we going to see the outcomes of the work that the Government is doing?

Thank you, James Evans, for that. I know the Member in particular has a real passionate interest around the role sport and health can play in Wales and in his own constituency. And I know he's an avid sports player, Presiding Officer—

An average sports player. [Laughter.]

An average sports player himself—that would be mean, Sam Kurtz. No, he's very good. Llywydd, I've played darts against James—he's much better than me.

But the role he mentions in sport and what it can do in terms of preventative measures in the health department is ever so important. I think it's something that the health Secretary and I, with his Deputy Ministers as well, will have further conversations on, around what that looks like going forward.

I will just point to the Welsh Rugby Union and Urdd programme Fit, Fed and Fun that takes place during the school holidays. That doesn't just help battle loneliness and isolation, but it very much does all of the things James Evans wishes sport to do in terms of getting people fit, getting people healthy. I'm very committed to making sure anyone who wants to access sport in Wales can do so in whatever sport that may be, at whatever level, to make sure that we do have a healthy nation, going forward.

The responsibility for demonstrating that carbon capture and storage business cases make the necessary contribution to long-term decarbonisation and build a stronger, greener economy rests entirely with the developer. To acquire necessary consents, developers must provide evidence in line with our policies set out in 'Planning Policy Wales'.

Cabinet Secretary, multiple reports have highlighted that carbon capture is an untested and untried science, and we've already heard some concerns about that, following Llyr Gruffydd's question. We really shouldn't be surprised that the fossil fuel industry is keen to clutch at this straw as a way of prolonging the lifespan of carbon-emitting fuels, rather than switching to alternative energy generation. Given the number of energy experts who say that CCS technology isn't worth investing in, what might the Welsh Government's business case be for sinking money into this doubtful technology, when Wales is endowed with so many renewable energy options on our doorstep, which we can use for both generation and warming our homes?

So, in terms of Welsh Government's own investment, you will see that in the renewable sector. You'll see it through Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru and the five projects that we're seeking to develop there. You'll see it in our wider support through Ynni Cymru for more community-based renewable sources of energy as well. So, in terms of where you see the Welsh Government investment, that's where it's going, and we just are really, really clear that our preferred methods of decarbonisation do remain demand reduction, energy efficiency, use of renewables and transition away from fossil fuels. And we need to ensure that carbon capture and storage is only used where other options for decarbonisation have been explored and are justifiably discounted. We'll support the industry across Wales, which, after exhausting all of those other options, have only CCS as a possible solution to decarbonise. And then it's just worth mentioning as well that any proposal for carbon capture and storage will require planning permission, environmental permits, marine permits, a technical and economic licence for transport and storage activities, and all of those will have demanding technical and economic requirements that have to be fulfilled before any consent is granted. And each regulatory regime requires the developer to provide detailed information and evidence on processes, impacts, monitoring and mitigations, before any energy can take place. But then, just to reiterate in terms of our own investments, they are very much in the renewable space.

Diolch. We collaborate with the living wage movement, employers, trade unions and other stakeholders to promote the real living wage, and we encourage employers across Wales to adopt this wage and to seek accreditation for their commitment.

Thank you for that response.

And also congratulations on your post. It's good to be questioning you today. I'm very pleased that the new real living wage has gone up to £12.60 in Wales, and the real living wage rates are now worth over £2,262 more per year for the full-time worker in Wales than the legal minimum, the national living wage. There are 582 accredited real living wage employers in Wales, and more than 22,000 employees in Wales have received a pay rise due to the real living wage. Since 2014, all NHS Wales staff have been paid the real living wage, and I'm really pleased that in the social care field we were able to help the real living wage to be introduced for social care workers in Wales. But although things are progressing well, there are still a lot of employers who are not paying the real living wage, so could the Minister suggest ways forward that we can increase the number of employers paying the real living wage?

Can I personally thank Julie Morgan for that question and join with Julie Morgan in welcoming today's announcement on the real living wage rate increasing to £12.60 in Wales? It's great to have employers take this seriously in Wales—employers like Transport for Wales and Tiny Rebel. The Member is right to point to the work we do in this field in the NHS, and of course in the social care sector. We're proud to have that commitment, and I want to place on record my thanks to Julie Morgan for making that commitment a reality and her leadership when she was the Minister for social care.

Presiding Officer, the increased wage announced today will make a real difference to thousands of workers who work for real living wage employers across Cymru, and for me personally, and the working class community that I come from, I'm very conscious of the difference that this will make for lower income families with children in particular.

The real living wage not only benefits employees, but the evidence does suggest it benefits employers as well as the wider community. We are approaching Living Wage Week in November. That is an opportunity to celebrate and encourage more employers, if they are able to do so, to consider paying the real living wage and seeking accreditation for doing so.

The Member asks what more we can do in the Welsh Government, and I'm particularly interested to see if there is more to do around the economic contract here and the work of the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023 in encouraging employers to do so. And can I also pay tribute, Presiding Officer, to the movement in general and the trade union movement, who have championed this case for many, many years and deliver real-term pay increases for their members?

And finally question 8, Alun Davies. 

The Welsh Government works with partners such as the Cardiff capital region, Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council and key businesses to deliver prosperity and the benefits of economic growth to all parts of south-east Wales, including Blaenau Gwent.

I'm grateful to you for that, Cabinet Secretary. The Cabinet Secretary will, of course, be aware of the Goldworks development, which has just been opened in Blaenau Gwent, and I should take the opportunity, of course, of inviting her to Blaenau Gwent to go and see that development and to see what is being achieved in the borough. But, as the completion of the A465 dual carriageway comes to a completion, what we are seeing in the borough is a greater demand for business units and for industrial units. Will the Cabinet Secretary, on her visit to Blaenau Gwent, meet with the local authority and myself to discuss how the Welsh Government can continue to invest in the sorts of business environment we require in the borough to take full advantage of the investment that has already been made by the Welsh Government in the dualling of the A465?

Thank you very much to Alun Davies. I'd be very happy to take him up on his kind invitation to visit Blaenau Gwent. I know that my predecessor also had a very interesting tour of some of the highlights in terms of Welsh Government investment and the opportunity to talk about additional things that we could be doing together as well. And as Alun Davies says, the construction of the Goldworks business centre was funded by Welsh Government. That was a joint venture with the council, and then it was fitted out by Blaenau Gwent, using some money from the shared prosperity fund. Other premises built in Blaenau Gwent by us include the Rhyd y Blew unit—that's 50,000 sq ft, which is under offer to a local engineering business that is seeking to expand—and also the Tech Valleys House, which currently has interest from two credible inward investors as well. So, again, all very positive stuff. And between those two investments, I think that that required a budget in excess of £10 million. So, that is a really significant investment on the part of the Welsh Government. That includes, of course, the Tech Valleys House. 

I know that the Northern Valleys Initiative has also identified property as one of the top three areas that it wants to look at. So, we stand ready to support that work as well. So, just to recognise the importance of having available units for businesses to move into and expand is absolutely important, and I very much look forward to my tour of Blaenau Gwent.  

I thank the Cabinet Secretary and the Minister. 

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

Well, 53 years on from the establishment of the concept of the inverse care law by Julian Tudor Hart and also Brian Gibbons who, of course, went on to become a Member of this Senedd, very sadly this law remains too often a reality right across the UK. The Welsh Government wishes to work for a Wales where this law no longer applies. 

Thank you, and I absolutely endorse your remarks about the importance of Julian Tudor Hart's work in getting this at the forefront of most clinicians' minds. But I was therefore very sad to read research by Cardiff University with Public Health Wales, published this August, which suggested that GP surgeries in the poorest places are being disadvantaged financially. So, I wondered if you could tell us what action the Welsh Government is taking to ensure that health boards are funding primary care teams equitably so that those serving the poorest, and therefore the most sick, communities get the most support. 

Well I, too, read the report to which the Member refers in her question, and I welcomed its publication because it casts a light on the question of funding allocations on practices that serve more deprived areas. We will as a Government continue to engage with new evidence on the health impacts of inequality and primary care funding and how we can ensure that resources are distributed fairly. One of the authors of the report was a former chair of Deep End Cymru, and I'm pleased that, in the context of primary care, we are contributing to the funding of that project during this financial year, and I very much look forward to the insights that the project will generate as to how we can best support GPs working in challenging circumstances in communities with the highest levels of deprivation. In addition to the formula, which accounts for probably two thirds of the funding for GP practices, good work is happening across GP clusters to identify the further interventions that can be funded that will assist, through that accelerated cluster development set of arrangements, in making further investment into services particularly of value to the communities to which the Member refers in her question.

International evidence suggests tackling the underlying causes of early years poverty and the inverse care law are key to improving short- and long-term health outcomes. In fact, poverty in childhood can and does lead to poor health outcomes into adulthood such as asthma, obesity, poor mental health, all of which fundamentally require much-needed primary care.

As you are aware, poverty rates have remained high in Wales over the past two decades, with children consistently at the highest risk of living in poverty of any age group. The evidence is clear that children in poverty are more likely to require intensive medical support. What steps are you taking as the health Cabinet Secretary to try and tackle one of the underlying fundamental factors that result in some of the most vulnerable in our society requiring this intensive healthcare?

The Member is correct to say that the effect of poverty, especially on the early years, can very often cause lifelong challenges and the NHS is there to support those individuals, but they are broader societal challenges in the way that the Member acknowledges, I think very fairly, in her question. That is why our commitment as a Government to Flying Start and to the first 1,000 days of a child's life is so important, because we recognise that it's by making sure that we give every individual the best start in life, the most supportive context, that we can make the biggest difference.

We expect higher education institutions to put learners' needs at the centre of the system to protect their mental health and well-being. There is a range of mental health support available to students, which is provided by universities, the third sector and NHS health services.

Okay, thank you for that. However, I think it's fair to say, sometimes things go wrong, and it's how they're picked up and lessons learned going forward. I by chance met the parents the other day of Mared Foulkes, the grieving parents. They're still grieving now after the shocking scenario there, where the wrong exam results were given, and she lost her life as a result.

I'm aware of the consultation on the strategic plan of the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research. As it states in the plan, 'terms and conditions of funding will become the vehicle through which we exercise our regulatory powers.' Now, what upset me was that the parents are working very hard right now to ensure this doesn't happen to anybody else, and so they've written a paper. They've distributed that paper to Parliament—every Member of Parliament, every Member of this Senedd. The response, however, has not been great. I just find it unbelievable that somebody could write in, pointing out their own evidence of what they've come across—. Even Cardiff University has been accused by the parents—and they've said I can raise it here today—of a lack of compassion, of a lack of response to what happened to Mared. Here is a young lady who will not see the life that she should have had and lessons have to be learned from a situation like this.

So, what steps are you taking to co-operate with the Cabinet Secretary for Education to ensure that every university in Wales has stronger measures in place to care for those with mental health issues, to ensure that the wrong results for exams never, ever happens again, and that—? I just find this really difficult. This is a death that could have been prevented, and lessons have to be learnt, and I would just reach out to Cardiff University, using this forum: please respond to this family, work with them to ensure that no other university in Wales, or in fact the UK, loses a student in this way. Diolch.

Yes. Thank you very much, Janet Finch-Saunders. You are right—this was a preventable death that should not have happened. My thoughts are with Mared's parents, who have written to the Welsh Government and have, in the interim whilst we prepare the response, been written to by my Welsh Government officials as well to really thank them and acknowledge them for all the work that they continue to do to make sure, as you said, that this never happens again. I'd also like to point out that the Cabinet Secretary for health now, in his role as Cabinet Secretary for education, met with the family—met with Mr and Mrs Foulkes—to discuss this as well and to assure them too that this will absolutely make a difference. I am now responsible for the suicide and self-harm prevention strategy that will be coming out in the new year. I can assure you that what they have shared has played a huge part in this. 

I've also met with my colleague the Minister for Further and Higher Education, as well, in the last few weeks. It was the first question that we discussed: how do we ensure that these things don't happen? How do we ensure that students, when they're usually away from home, have the support that they really need? And that's, I think, always a worry for parents—always a worry.

In terms of Cardiff University, they have now put themselves forward to be a part of a UK-wide research project that will be looking at what interventions really make a difference. It's being led by the University of Exeter. I'm really pleased to see that they've put themselves forward for this, I think, acknowledging that they really need to learn from this and see what works. But you are right—we have got the Tertiary Education and Research (Wales) Act 2022 now, and we do have the Medr project. There will be funding going towards this, but we also expect to see results and we expect for this not to keep happening. Diolch.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Gareth Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Firstly, I’d like to address the Mental Health (Wales) Measure 2010 and how this interreacts with the Mental Health Act 1983. There is, of course, uncertainty regarding the Mental Health Act, as Keir Starmer’s Government has promised to reform the Act in a phased approach, but there is no timeline set for this yet. But an issue that has been raised regarding the mental health Measure, after 14 years on the statute book, is that there is no enforcement of the Measure and there are no real consequences to contravening its edicts as opposed to the Mental Health Act, which has more bite. Given the length of time it will take to legislate for a Welsh mental health Act, it would make more sense to amend the mental health Measure to include a new code of practice that would strengthen the Measure and would ensure compliance. The Measure is also 14 years old and there are no supplementary amendments to it that have been suggested, such as those put forward by my colleague James Evans, which include removing the age limit upon those who can request a reassessment of their mental health, and amend the Measure to extend the ability to request a reassessment to people nominated by the patient. So, can the Minister outline whether the Welsh Government will reassess the mental health Measure to consider elements that may be outdated and to consider strengthening the code of practice to ensure that the Measure carries more weight than in a clinical setting?

Thank you very much for that question. Interestingly, I actually met with the UK Government Minister who has responsibility for this, Baroness Merron, this morning. It is absolutely still happening. It was in the King’s Speech. We are thrilled that it’s going ahead because so much work had been done on this by stakeholders, by politicians. There’d been so much really constructive debate about this in Westminster, and, honestly, it was almost very much ready to go and I think it was a shame that it didn’t. So, I think that many people have welcomed, and are absolutely thrilled, that this is one of the first Bills that the incoming UK Labour Government picked up, because that’s how important they know that this work is.

So, we had a very constructive conversation this morning about it. I’m afraid, though, that I’m not going to be able to comment on a Bill that I haven’t seen. So, I agree with you—many of the things that you’ve highlighted I would also expect to see in it, and have been in initial drafts, but until we see the final draft, which I hope will be coming very soon, I won’t be able to comment on the detail of it. But I think this is an excellent Bill to be beginning with. I also met with James Evans just this week as well. It's not my place to discuss James's own Member's Bill and the future of that, but we have had some very, very constructive conversations, and I admire everything that James has done.

I appreciate that response, and I understand the remarks you make in terms of the Act, but my question is more along the lines of the Measure and what we can do as a Welsh Parliament, and, indeed, you as a Welsh Government, in order to expand what was passed here 14 years ago, and how we can enhance that and move that across into a broader suite of modern measures that we can incorporate in the existing things that were agreed 14 years ago, but then also to incorporate it and it can, indeed, move with time. So, it's in terms of conversations, in terms of the Welsh Government and your work in terms of the Measure and what is devolved to Wales, and how that can work with the existing Mental Health Act of 1983, and how that can coincide and work together in a streamlined way, because, often, in mental health practice there's an internal debate among mental health professionals, who say there's confusion on how to interpret the Act and, indeed, the Measure as well. So, how can those streamline together in a more succinct way, which would make life easier for professionals, and, indeed, get the right care for the right patient at the right time?

Thank you. I agree with everything that you're saying, and I think we're not disagreeing here. We're very much on the same page, as that's where we want to get to. The reason why James Evans's Bill had Government support was because it was going to achieve many of those things. As it stands, it is still a legislative proposal, on the time frame that we have. So, that is very much—. That's why we supported it, because that's what it was going to do—everything that you've just laid out, that's what it was going to present, and what the Welsh Government then would have done is to look at all those things that you've pointed out. So, at the moment, unfortunately, whilst we're in this place where James's Bill is still going, that is for James to discuss and to share, and we are trying to get to the same place, absolutely. So, that's where we are. I've met with James Evans this week to discuss that.

I'm pleased you've had those discussions with James Evans regarding his legislative proposal, but, again, the question is about the Measure. The Measure has been in place for 14 years, and it compels healthcare professionals, mental health practitioners to honour what was agreed in this Senedd 14 years ago. And that's embedded in Welsh practice across all of the health authorities, and all, indeed, of those local authorities and tertiary sectors that work with mental health professionals. So, it's really important, I think, that there's a recognition from the Government, in your context, to recognise the role of the Measure, understand that it's been in place for 14 years, and how that can, indeed, move fluidly, given that it's been embedded for so long, be updated and work in a streamlined way, as mentioned, with the Act. So, in terms of the political element to it, now that we've got a Labour Government in Westminster and there's a Labour Government here in Wales, what conversations can you have with your counterparts down the M4 to make these decisions streamlined in a way, like I say, that is right for the patient, right for the delivery of care and right for the mental health professionals as well?

Thank you very much. Okay, well, just to prove that we're very much on the same page here, I do recognise the role, I do recognise that it's been 14 years, I do want it to move forward, I do want it to be updated, and we do want it to be streamlined. On all of those things, we absolutely agree. At the moment, what we're looking at is that we've got a Member's Bill that aims to achieve many of those things, which is here, which I've met with James Evans about this week. So, I've looked at it in a Welsh context, with my officials, and that's exactly what we're seeing if we can achieve. And on the other side of it, as you've just asked, about what we're doing with the UK Government, I've also met with the UK Government this morning to discuss what they are looking at doing with their mental health Bill and how that would be able to work with both Governments together, so that we can achieve all the things that you've laid out. Diolch.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you, Llywydd. Llywydd, during the Cabinet Secretary's appearance on one of the weekend's political programmes recently, he described the new partnership between the NHS in Wales and the NHS in England as a new way of working, before going on to say that all that partnership entailed, really, was a way to learn good practice. Is the Cabinet Secretary, therefore, telling us that the NHS in Wales wasn’t learning and looking at good practice from England before now?

The Member’s interest in the process at the expense of output is rather striking. [Laughter.] But, to answer his question, what was new was the willingness that we see from a Government in Westminster to work with a Labour Government here in Wales in an open, co-operative manner. That’s what’s changed in this regard. That’s what’s new. It’s always important to look at good practice from wherever it may come, including in the health service here in Wales and across the United Kingdom, but what is new is the enthusiasm on behalf of the new Labour Government in Westminster to work with us.

Thank you for that response. 

Now, I and, indeed, many people in Wales are unclear about the impact that this will have on waiting lists in Wales. When asked if the plan is to send Welsh patients to England, the Cabinet Secretary has said that, in his words,

‘It isn’t what we’re talking about’.

Yet, the Welsh Secretary is adamant that Welsh patients will receive elective care in theatres in English hospitals. So, how many patients from Wales, over and above those receiving elective care in England already, will receive treatment in hospital theatres in England?

I refer the Member to the publication that the Government made—I think, probably, two weeks ago, or a little under that at this point—which sets out the level of activity in terms of people from Wales treated in England and people from England treated in Wales. That is a very pragmatic set of long-standing arrangements, which are in place for very good reasons—for reasons of geography, reasons of the existence of specialisms—and I’ll be working with the Secretary of State for health to explore whether there are opportunities, as I’m sure there will be, to work more closely together. And this will of course build on that existing partnership between the two NHSs, which already see thousands of people from England receive their care in Wales and vice versa.  

So, if I can sum up what you’ve said, and my understanding, then, it’s that best practice was, essentially, you’ve told us, already being shared between the Welsh NHS and English NHS anyway, but you’re looking at maybe a better way of working openly and together. There’s no extra capacity in the English NHS to provide more treatment to patients from Wales, but you’re looking at exploring these possibilities, and health boards and health trusts on both sides of the border have not received any correspondence regarding any form of mutual aid partnerships or any other agreements. So, the only thing to actually have come from this new policy is an advisory group to help the Cabinet Secretary deliver better policy, while patients will see no tangible benefits. Is that a fair summary, or can the Cabinet Secretary elaborate on exactly how waiting lists will fall as a consequence of this headline-grabbing policy?

Well, the Member will know that I made an announcement, probably three weeks ago, which set out the arrangements that we are putting in place for a group of people with significant experience in reducing waiting lists. They will be tasked with identifying the arrangements we currently have in place, and they will also advise us on arrangements that we might consider putting in place to improve performance right across the NHS, including in relation to waiting lists. I’m expecting to meet them in the next few days as they start their work, and I will be publishing the terms of reference once they’ve considered them at their forthcoming meeting. I think it’s really important that we allow that group of people to do its work. Now, we have got a number of initiatives already in place in order to reduce waiting times, and I’ll be making announcements about more very shortly. But this group of people will bring the best knowledge, the best experience, the best practice to bear on what is a very persistent challenge. I hope they will encourage us to be bold in our response and to draw from the widest possible body of experience, because we want the NHS in Wales to be able to be inspired by good practice both within Wales and beyond.

Yes. Our vision in 'A Healthier Wales' is for people to have equity of access to an increasing range of community services to support them to stay well and live independently. We expect local partners to collaborate to build community capacity and design and deliver integrated and preventative services.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Concerns have been raised with me regarding the ease of access to home adaptations and funding for people in Wales living with disabilities. The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 stipulates eligibility as meeting the set of national criteria for adults, children and carers. There are many constituents I’ve met who have faced difficulties in accessing funding for home adaptations and NHS-funded disability equipment, as there is a rigid set of criteria to meet. Four conditions are set by the legislation that must be met in order to have access to the funding, but many disabled people with restricted mobility do not meet every condition. For patients with rare conditions who only meet some of the conditions, they find accessing the funding for the correct equipment for their home difficult, and what is offered to them does not meet their requirements. The red tape can also be tricky to navigate, but having access to funding for accessibility equipment can massively ease the burden placed on the health service by allowing those with disabilities to have the facilities to live at home. So, how does the Welsh Government respond to feedback from people with disabilities to simplify the process of applying for home adaptations and equipment on the NHS that will, in the long run, ease the burden on NHS service provision? Thank you.

The Member raises an important question, and I absolutely agree with the thrust of his question, which is, we know—. In fact, we’ve seen this most recently with the Darzi report for the NHS in England, haven’t we, that the increasing ability of the NHS to provide care for people in their homes or in the community is an absolutely critical part not just of making sure that the service that the NHS can provide is robust, resilient and sustainable, which is obviously crucial, but also most people would prefer to be getting appropriate healthcare as close to home as possible. So, that is absolutely the thrust of this Government’s policy. If there are particular obstacles that the Member has identified that we can help with resolving, if he could identify those to me in correspondence, I will look into what more can be done to address those particular points.

Our approach is set out in the quality statement for cancer, and the NHS set out what action it will take in the cancer improvement plan. For example, this includes our investment in a new breast centre of excellence at Ysbyty Ystrad Fawr.

Thank you so much, Cabinet Secretary. Every year, nearly 20,000 people in Wales are diagnosed with cancer. It is a truly cruel condition, with one in two people in the UK being diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime. My region of south-east Wales used to be home to a pioneering cancer centre that used proton beam therapy, a more targeted form of radiotherapy. The Rutherford centre closed its doors in 2022, which was a huge blow to cancer patients and the wider community at large. There were reports following the centre’s closure that a Government takeover might be on the horizon, but it doesn’t look like that materialised into anything.

Cabinet Secretary, from my understanding, all of the centre’s pioneering lifesaving equipment remains in a derelict building as of today. This equipment could indeed be put to some really good use within our health service to treat Welsh cancer patients, instead of simply gathering dust. Has the Welsh Government had any conversations about acquiring this equipment for use within our NHS? And if not, Cabinet Secretary, will you commit to looking into this matter further to see if it can indeed be done? Thank you.

Thank you for that further question. I’m not myself aware of any discussions of that sort. The Government does invest heavily in cancer services, as the Member would expect, given the level of priority that we attach, and I know that she attaches, to good cancer services. Tens of millions of pounds for equipment, facilities and training, as well as modernising and expanding screening programmes, and, crucially, introducing rapid diagnostic centres of the sort that I referred to in my initial question. So, we will always be looking for what more we can do, what more we can do to bring together the kinds of expertise, the kinds of innovation that are required, so that we can provide the best possible service to patients in Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, there is a campaign called Claire's Campaign, which collates women's experiences of gynaecological cancer and campaigns for service improvement. Their testimony is that too many women have their initial cancer concerns dismissed by their GP: cancer isn't suspected, other conditions are proposed and, over time, they're ruled out, and, far too often, their pain and extreme discomfort is dismissed or overlooked. This is not bashing GPs, they do a wonderful, wonderful job, but in terms of the training and support that is offered to them, perhaps that needs to be looked at. Because, for too many women, their cancer progresses before suspicion, even, let alone diagnosis and treatment starts, and too many women die as a result. We are letting women down and the whole system can do more to diagnose and to treat these women's cancers earlier. The women's health plan presents a huge opportunity here. What can women expect, please, from the plan to say and do to improve the NHS's culture of listening to women who are experiencing pain and symptoms that might be gynaecological cancers?

Well, I thank Delyth Jewell for the question and for the way that she's highlighted the work of Claire's Campaign, which I would absolutely wish to associate myself with, and the work that Claire and her colleagues are doing to highlight challenges in the system, which we would absolutely acknowledge. I was very struck by the evidence given to the Senedd committee as well in its recent inquiry.

I had a conversation this very morning in relation to the importance of responding at that first consultation to symptoms, as they're presented, and to really making sure that that is taken at its most serious, so that we can make sure that people get the rapid care that they need. I know, from discussions with the Minister, that we are looking very closely at making sure that the plan, when it is published in December, is as robust and as supportive as it possibly can be, and, actually, some of that thinking has certainly been shaped by Claire's Campaign.

Men concerned about their risk of prostate cancer should request an appointment with their GP to discuss their concerns and come to an informed decision about further investigation. There is publicly available guidance to support men and GPs to have that discussion.

Thank you for the response. Since tabling this question, Sir Chris Hoy has confirmed his own terminal prostate diagnosis, and prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men, and it's risk increases with age and a range of other factors. But, caught early, it is possible to live a long and positive life. Like me, the health Secretary is over 50, which is one of the factors when men should consider seeking advice and the possibility of a test. I have the additional risk of being mixed race with black African heritage. My own experience of contact with general practice on this issue has been a positive one. What steps is the health Secretary taking to make sure that more men understand the risk factors and are encouraged to act early on them? And can he confirm what progress is being made in Wales towards more accurate testing for prostate cancer? 

I thank the Member for those remarks and that question, including his reminder to me of my age. I thank him for that. It is absolutely critical in the way that the Member identified in his question to recognise how important it is to detect cancer early. There is clear national guidance in place, which is based on symptoms and risk factors, for GPs to follow when referring for suspected prostate cancer. We've augmented this with digital training materials for GPs, detailing how to assess people. If people feel that they may be at risk, then they ought to see their GP. There is clear national guidance on that to support those conversations. I think it's also important to look at approaches that are developing constantly in this space. As he will know, there is no current recommendation in relation to screening—population screening—in this space, but I'm also aware of the work that Prostate Cancer UK has been undertaking with the UK National Screening Committee, and I will be interested to look at the developments in that space. 

Llywydd, I declare an interest, as someone living with prostate cancer, and, clearly, as someone else who is over 50 as well. Now, my understanding is that, at the moment, doctors cannot proactively offer prostate-specific antigen tests to high-risk men with no symptoms, such as men over 50, black men and men with a family history of prostate cancer, and so more clearly needs to be done in this area to address that.

Now, last week, I took part in a Prostate United walk with Haverfordwest County Association Football Club, an initiative that is raising funds for Prostate Cancer UK by encouraging people to walk, run or cycle every day in October. So, Cabinet Secretary, will you join me in celebrating the efforts of everyone who has taken part in the Prostate United challenge so far? Can you also tell us how the Welsh Government is working with health boards to be much more proactive in reaching out to men at the highest risk of prostate cancer?

I will absolutely celebrate the work that he is referring to in his question, and it is really important that we use those opportunities to highlight the risks in the way that this set of questions is doing today, and that that happens at a local health board level as well. As I mentioned in my response to Vaughan Gething, the work that Prostate Cancer UK is doing around alternatives to testing in this space and the developments in testing in the future is absolutely a critical part of that landscape.

We owe a debt of gratitude to our veterans. This is reflected in our policy, which provides priority access to NHS treatment for health conditions that are a result of their time in military service. We also provide access to Veterans' NHS Wales for service-related mental health issues.

Thank you, Minister. According to the recent Veterans' Commissioner for Wales's report, Veterans' NHS Wales spends around £1,600 per veteran seeking mental health services; in England, the figure is over double that at £3,400. There, veterans receive support with substance misuse, addiction and complex post-traumatic stress disorder therapies. This is unavailable here in Wales. Here, veterans are referred back to non-veteran mental health services for any issues not considered directly related to their time in service. Now, as you indicated at the beginning of your answer, these individuals have faced circumstances that we cannot begin to fathom. They have often put their lives on the line. Yet, I meet veterans on the streets of Cardiff, homeless. We are letting them down. Do you know why we have such a huge gap here in Wales compared with England, and do you think there is sufficient spend in Wales to provide the services they deserve? Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much, Rhys ab Owen, for this question and for highlighting the veterans' commissioner's report that came out, the annual report, which I feel is a very helpful personal assessment of the key issues affecting veterans in Wales, many of which you have touched on just now. I also just wanted to say that we continue to invest in Veterans' NHS Wales, and mental health is one of the First Minister's four priority areas, so I will revert back to what my colleague Jack Sargeant said earlier on, in that I cannot pre-empt what will be in the upcoming budget.

However, I would say that some cross-border comparisons do need some qualifications, and the veterans' commissioner recognises that, in relation to crisis beds and specialist substance misuse services. So, yes, our mental health service for veterans, Veterans' NHS Wales, is funded by Welsh Government and it is meeting its targets with some local exceptions, where a post is gapped or recruitment is taking place. This service is now also supporting veterans in prison in Wales.

I think it's also worth mentioning as well, though, that you are right, a lot of this is centred around the NHS veterans in Wales service, but we also have a fantastic range of third sector organisations who are doing tremendous work on the ground in people's communities. So, the work of TGP Cymru includes a specific focus on restorative approaches for veterans and family services, so that's really helping them to reconnect with their families and to have a really positive, healthy family life. We also have Adferiad as well, which has a Change Step programme that works with veterans, and they're doing tremendous work again with the Places, Pathways and People programme, which is making a big difference.

So, please continue to raise it. I'm very proud to have veterans' mental health in my portfolio, and I will continue to communicate with the community as well and ensure that they're getting everything that they need. Diolch.

The first thing I'd like to start with is by thanking Lisa Rawlings from the Female Veterans Alliance for raising a very important issue in our recent Senedd armed forces cross-party group. She pointed out that female veterans face unique challenges, both during and after service life. Great strides have been made, of course, in veteran care since the introduction of the armed forces covenant under the previous UK Conservative Government, but way more needs to be done here in Wales particularly. One of the major barriers to supporting female veterans is that we have no dedicated female veteran peer mentors in the NHS veterans service.

In 2021, servicewomen were 10 times more likely to experience sexual harassment. A study of UK female veterans found higher rates of mental health difficulties among female veterans, compared to non-serving females. Wales having no dedicated female veteran peer mentors creates a barrier of access to the service, meaning that many are not wanting to explain issues that perhaps involved a male to a male veteran, which is currently the only offering in Wales. Feedback suggests that there is a clear need for more female veteran support in the NHS. So, Minister, could you please assure us that you'll look into this and perhaps meet with the Female Veterans Alliance so that this can be addressed with some sort of urgency? Thank you.

I really welcome your question today, Laura Anne Jones. It's very important. I'd also like to put on record my thanks to Lisa Rawlings for sharing her lived experience. I always hugely appreciate and admire anybody who can do that, especially when there can be a stigma associated with it, when it can be traumatic, when it can be painful, in the hopes that, truly, they'll make a difference for other people. So, I would like to assure you that I will, absolutely, agree to meet with the Female Veterans Alliance. I would like to hear more. I'm a big believer in the peer mentor support; it's going incredibly well. There is one Veterans’ NHS Wales embedded peer support mentor in almost every health board that we have now. However, if none of them are female, that is a huge issue. So, I would really welcome that meeting and I will absolutely go away and look into this more. Diolch.

Question 7 has been withdrawn.

Reducing waiting times is a priority for this Government, and we are working with the health board to ensure that they prioritise cancer and urgent referral for gastroenterology and then focus on the diagnosis and treatment of the longest waiting patients.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Early diagnosis of gastroenterological issues and access to treatment to get symptoms under control is essential for people living with Crohn's and colitis. Delays to diagnosis and treatment increase the risk of serious complication and increase the likelihood of surgery. In the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board area, the number waiting over a year for their first gastroenterological outpatient appointment has risen from three people in July 2023 to 449 at the end of July this year. With a median wait for a gastroenterological appointment of 37.6 weeks at the Cardiff and Vale University Health Board, how is the Cabinet Secretary working with the health board to prevent people living with Crohn's and colitis from having no choice but to present at A&E? Thank you.

I thank the Member for that important question. I think it is absolutely fair to say that the health board have found diagnostic waiting times a real challenge. In my periodic meeting with the chair, we discussed that very question and I'm absolutely clear that the health board recognises the need to make real progress as quickly as possible, for the reasons, partly, that the Member sets out in his question. I know that the health board have secured a mobile endoscopy unit, which was used until recently, and are now increasing capacity through additional insourcing. It is a significant challenge, it is one that, unfortunately, will take some time to resolve in its entirety, but I hope I can give the Member the assurance that I raised that in my meeting with the chair and there's an absolute recognition on the part of the health board that the service needs to be improved.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary and the Minister.

The topical questions are next. Two have been selected today. The first is to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for climate change and to be asked by James Evans.

Diolch, James. Thank you for the question. The Welsh Government has increased its engagement with NRW to monitor progress in resolving the matter and to learn lessons from the how the position came about. This is an operational matter for NRW, as it continues in its discussions with HMRC to bring about resolution.

Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. It is deeply troubling to learn that Natural Resources Wales has been under investigation by HMRC, and it has been estimated in the press that Welsh taxpayers may be on the hook for as much as £19 million. That's a truly staggering figure. 

And yet, this isn't the first time that NRW has misled the public when it comes to its financial competencies. The Countryside Alliance has previously accused Natural Resources Wales of misleading the public during its public consultation, following the organisation's purchase of land in Carmarthenshire.

Cabinet Secretary, looking at the numerous finance-related controversies that NRW has created since its creation in 2013, it is clear that it is incapable of managing its finances. So, I ask you: what is the total liability anticipated from this latest fiasco at NRW, and how much more Welsh taxpayer money are we going to have to fork out to cover for NRW's mess?

I would also like to ask you a question in your role as the Deputy First Minister. What work is the Welsh Government doing to look across Government and public organisations in Wales about the IR35 rules, to make sure that no other organisation, whether that be Welsh Government or local authority, has fallen foul of the rules and is going to owe HMRC millions of pounds of taxpayer money?

Well, Llywydd, first of all, let's acknowledge that this is a significant issue that NRW needs to resolve in its discussions with HMRC. But one thing that I will not do is engage in political attacks on the organisation, which is the principal environmental guardian and regulator within this space. As we just saw, it has expanded into a larger attack on NRW, the organisation.

Just to make crystal clear, NRW is not the only organisation that has been subject to IR35 investigations by HMRC. Indeed, under the UK Conservative Government, the MoJ and DEFRA—I’m sure there might be others as well—also have been in this predicament. But it is for NRW—a Welsh Government-sponsored body, but not run by Welsh Government—to actually engage now, as it is doing, with HMRC to resolve this.

Just to make clear—contrary, by the way, to some of the suggestions made on the Conservative Twitter pages and by the leader of the opposition during this week in the Senedd—this is not the taxpayer opening a cheque book to NRW. In fact, the reason that the Welsh Government has made, I think, the right decision to enable NRW to enter into those negotiations with HMRC with a loan was to avoid, actually, higher costs that could accrue through interest rates on that.

So, in fact, this is wise use of taxpayers’ money to avoid it getting into a more difficult situation. And, by the way, the £19 million is an indicative amount, and I made a written statement on Monday, James, as you know. I have been making great efforts, by the way, to engage with the shadow spokespeople on this issue, but unfortunately, I have had no response—

I've not had an e-mail from you.

—and that's disappointing, because I would have liked to have gone through the real detail of this.

However, let me just say, NRW's annual report and accounts include details of HMRC's investigations into what is a historic compliance issue with IR35 rules and the extent of a potential liability—watch those words: a potential liability—that may be owed. Llywydd, we laid the written statement on Monday, as you know. They are discussing this matter, between NRW and HMRC, to bring forth a resolution.

We are continuing to work with NRW to provide necessary support as it goes through the process. I have discussed this with NRW's chair regularly since it has come to my attention, including as recently as Monday. I have asked my officials to work with NRW to develop enhanced monitoring arrangements and further support for capacity and capability, as is required.

But let's be clear as well: when we put these political attacks on NRW that go beyond this IR35 issue, as we saw earlier this week in this Senedd—. We are facing a climate and nature crisis. NRW's work as a regulator is of the utmost importance to us all, and the professional and passionate NRW staff work day in, day out to help protect nature and people in Wales. The Welsh Government does indeed have a clear role, Llywydd, in supporting NRW in fulfilling those responsibilities and ensuring that its vital work will continue, and we will support NRW in its discussions with HMRC.

Point of order—

Delyth Jewell. No point of order. 

Diolch, Llywydd. This payment to HMRC does raise serious concerns about management and compliance, but it also, surely, prompts questions about what processes are in place to support staff in this position. I don't know the details of what's happened here, but my instinct would tell me that no-one would have wanted things to get to this stage, that this wouldn't have come about through deliberate deception, but inadequate safeguards and, who knows, maybe staff fear. I'd like to know what support is currently being given to the staff affected by this, and I'd like to know what steps the Government took to monitor NRW's financial practices, again, yes, to hear assurances, of course, that similar failures won't happen again in public bodies under its remit. Processes have to be strengthened, clear lines of accountability have to be clarified if need be, but NRW does do hugely significant important work. My view on this is that we should be focusing on the future, ensuring that this doesn't happen again, to protect staff, as well as finances. Just focusing on calling for heads to roll doesn't get us anywhere, does it? A mistake was made, it was a very serious mistake, but surely the blame needs to be placed on processes not people.

Delyth, thank you very much for that. You raise some really important points here, because, at the heart of this also—. This is a historic compliance issue that they're dealing with; it goes back several years. They are undertaking proper scrutiny of what happened in order to learn those lessons going forward—to avoid it. They have indeed, and I've met with the chair of the board frequently on this, put in place now strengthened governance and oversight, and risk analysis, to make sure that this doesn't happen again. I would expect that of them, and they are doing it. But right at the heart of this are people who are passionate about the work they do, at all levels, within NRW. And that's why I say very strongly, 'Let's not look at pointing the finger at individuals or NRW as an organisation', and actually say to NRW that they need to sort this out in terms of their relationship now with HMRC, this potential liability needs to be resolved, we need to see the exact quantum of what it is, and then the Welsh Government stands by to help support in one way or the other, in a responsible way, with our own proper responsibility as the sponsoring body for NRW, but not stepping into that space that they have to resolve. 

And just one thing to clarify as well, Delyth, and Llywydd: whilst this is a matter for NRW itself and the board, rather than the Welsh Government, NRW has made clear that it is no longer using off-payroll contractors, and its default position is that it will not use them in the future, and that is good to hear. So, there are historic issues to deal with, to understand, to learn how this can be avoided in the future. I think that NRW have to be very frank and honest in their internal analysis of that. We are also, as the Welsh Government, in that space, trying to understand exactly what has got on in a body that we sponsor, but it is now for them to sort out. And meanwhile, they have to get on with their essential day job as a regulator of the natural environment here in Wales, and also all the work that they do on flood defences, the work that they do with communities throughout Wales. And I know this is definitely not where you were heading, but let's not try and drag them down and use this as a political opportunity to undermine them as an organisation; they've got a critical role to play.

Just for clarification—I don't know who you were referring to—I haven't had an e-mail about this particular issue from you. I know we spoke outside, but that was about your statement yesterday and nothing to do with NRW.

I've got to be honest, this is yet another inadequacy on the part of NRW. Even your own statement yesterday, Deputy Minister, following the bail-out, was a clear admission that NRW is not only struggling, but is in need of greater oversight. This latest scandal highlights the poor—incredibly poor—leadership within NRW. Week after week, we hear many failings of this organisation.

I feel really sorry for the hard-working staff, who I work with regularly, and they feel let down by constant management inadequacies. They do a fantastic job, but they're being let down. Serious questions should be asked. I make no apology for going a step further than you: if this was a private company, people would be on notice. Why should the public sector, this Welsh Government or NRW be any different? Who was appointed to audit these accounts? Why did they not highlight this situation earlier, when it talks about NRW's historic compliance with off-payroll working? I would never get away with that in business, nor would many within the private sector.

In the Welsh NHS, we have an oversight and escalation framework. Have you never thought of having such a similar process for other public bodies, to include NRW? But I have to tell you, if I had my way here today somebody in senior management would be asked to consider their position. Diolch.

Llywydd, there is a genuine and serious point within this about NRW taking responsibility for how this came about, actually learning the lessons and being transparent as well, and that process is under way, Janet. But, just to be clear, you've just thrown on the line there, if I heard you correctly, incredibly poor leadership, inadequate management, whilst paying tribute to the passion of the front-line workers. Actually, there are people in NRW at every single level that are passionate about protecting our natural environment, and—[Interruption.]—and to use this as an opportunity to undermine and denigrate the organisation and those people within it—

No, I've actually—

—I think is a poorly placed attack.

So can I just say as well, just for clarity, Llywydd, during the course of the last few days, including Monday, but actually prior to that as well, I as the Cabinet Secretary made approaches to every frontbench spokesperson. Janet, you mentioned the approach that I made to you yesterday in person wasn't on NRW. No, it was. This is NRW. [Interruption.] This is NRW and IR35, and we've made, just for clarity of purposes, on the record, Llywydd—[Interruption.] 

I'm allowing the Cabinet Secretary to conclude his comments.

In trying to be absolutely clear, we made repeated overtures by e-mail, telephone and indeed direct personal message to say could we speak about this, if you wanted to, to go through this in detail before we brought it to the floor. So those have been done to every single political party without fear or favour in order to explain this. We'll keep on trying to do that in future as well, but part of this is because of the detail behind it. Because I think what we have here in front of us is an organisation with a historical compliance issue with IR35. The organisation is working with HMRC to resolve this. There is a potential liability of up to £19 million. Welsh Government is standing by the organisation in a responsible way to make sure that that doesn't increase and to provide support where appropriate. But that is our role as the sponsor of this body, and I will not join in attacks on an organisation that is established to protect the very best of our natural environment, our rivers, our seas, our soil, everything else, and to deal with flood protection for individuals throughout Wales.

Of course, IR35 issues aren't new in terms of public sector bodies. We remember the BBC being caught up in this many years ago, the Ministry of Justice and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as well on a UK Government level a few years ago. But it would be interesting to understand what if any advice the Welsh Government issued to its own departments or to sponsored bodies as a consequence of those issues in the past, flagging up risks for those organisations that come within the Welsh Government's remit. You've now asked NRW to increase capacity and capability, particularly on financial risk and management arrangements. Is that a slight admission that they are struggling with capacity more generally? Because we as a Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee have long warned of our concerns in that respect. Is this one of the kinds of consequences that we're now seeing as a result of that unsustainable trajectory of increased duties and diminishing resources? And finally, are you expecting NRW to pay back any money out of that £19 million at the end of the day?

Llyr, thank you very much for those questions. First of all, there's an awareness of this issue right across Government. So, every Cabinet Secretary is aware of this and every sponsored body is aware of their direct responsibilities. I should say very, very clearly, whilst it's for HMRC to assess compliance or non-compliance on IR35 across all organisations, we are not aware of any other live cases in relation to Welsh Government sponsored bodies.

But you mentioned the issue of support on capacity, so one of the things we've done in this situation, which I think is a responsible way forward, is, in our engagement with NRW and the repeated meetings that I've had with the Chair and senior management, to say if they need additional support in terms of supporting their discussions with HMRC, to enable them to go ahead—. We want this to be resolved as soon as possible; the worst thing is this hangs over the head of the organisation. So, we've tried to work with them to say, ‘Let's get some timescales here’, bearing in mind that it's up to HMRC how fast they want to evolve it, but I think HMRC are also aware of a desire to get to a completion on this to see what the potential liability is. You ask pertinently as well: does this mean NRW will need to pay back any money to us? Because we have, indeed, stepped in, and I say, again, I think it's a responsible way to step in, because we're avoiding interest and other costs accruing. Now, on the basis, if we can first determine—. Sorry, 'if we can'. If NRW can first determine with HMRC what its potential liability is, then at that point I, along with the finance Cabinet Secretary here and others, will have those discussions with NRW to talk about how, actually, the taxpayer's money can head back to the place that it came from. We're not at that point yet, but it's a very pertinent question. 

Just one other thing is to say this is very different from the wider pressures that some people are trying to conflate the issues into with the 'Case for Change', with the well-known budgetary pressures that NRW are facing, over recent years as well, which the Environment Agency in England is also under pressure with. This is separate from that entirely, but we are conscious that we don't want this to be an issue that detracts from, then, proceeding with the unions through the 'Case for Change' consultation, determining how they focus on their statutory responsibilities and also being fit for purpose for today and for the future. 

So, we're keen to stand in the right way with support for NRW and its engagement with HMRC but, just to be clear, this is a matter for them to resolve with HMRC.  

Minister, thank you for your responses this afternoon. I've listened intently and I was grateful for the leader of the house's response yesterday, which I think was very insightful, especially as you agreed to keep the Chamber updated.

Thank you. 

A couple of points, if I may. I was of the understanding from the reports that I've read that the £19 million is the quantifiable amount of money that's owed to HMRC at the moment. It is not the totality of the liability and the discussions are ongoing, and certainly that liability could increase. Could you confirm that that is the case? 

And secondly, are these employees, a number of them having taken redundancies, being put back onto the books of NRW via the self-employed route and subcontractor route, and therefore that is how this liability has arisen? Because, obviously, all public bodies have been reducing headcounts, but, ultimately, when you go into some of these organisations, they've re-employed the individuals as subcontractors or on a self-employed basis, and this is where the liability has obviously manifested itself. Because £19 million is a considerable sum of money in anyone's context, and it is our job as the opposition to hold the Government to account as to why that liability has crystallised. 

Indeed, and, listen, thank you for the way in which you've phrased those questions, Andrew; that's really helpful. First of all, one thing to be very clear of—and this is a genuine point—is we don't comment in detail on discussions between a sponsored body and HMRC, okay. We don't, and there are good reasons why we shouldn't do that, because those discussions are ongoing. But the headline figure of £19 million—. Let me stress again: potential liability is exactly that; it's potential liability. But I don't comment on where that figure might end up; those are exactly the discussions that are currently ongoing. It's for NRW to have those discussions with HMRC. 

Just to make it clear, the issue of redundancies and so on is wholly and entirely separate from the IR35 issue. This is separate from the 'Case for Change', it's separate from the wider pressures on this and other public sector organisations. So, we need to unpack it from that. And as I mentioned earlier on, it's been made clear by NRW that neither do they have any currently, or intend to have any going forward, off-payroll contractors. But, as I say, as I mentioned before, Andrew, NRW is not the first organisation to be in this territory and discussions with HMRC, either in terms of Government departments or others. I don't think they'd want to be here, neither would we as their sponsor for them, but they're going to have to get on now at pace with those discussions with HMRC so that they can get to what is the figure, and then how do we as Welsh Government actually help them through this particular issue. But I come back to the point that they've got a job of work to do as well on their day to day, and we need to make sure that they're focused on that as well. 

I thank the Cabinet Secretary. The next question is to be answered by the Minister for Further and Higher Education, and is to be asked by Cefin Campbell. 

We are absolutely committed to supporting a sustainable higher education sector. The sector will receive £197 million in grant funding this financial year from Medr, previously the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales. The Welsh Government has increased the tuition fee cap to £9,250 in 2024-25, and an additional £20 million in capital support will be made available to tertiary education providers for decarbonisation.

Well, thank you very much for that response. It's all a mystery, isn't it?

In response to a question from me last week regarding the financial crisis facing Welsh universities, you stated

'Medr is going to have its own funds to support our institutions.... It will be called a transformation fund'.

But, lo and behold, within 24 hours, we then received a letter from you backtracking on this commitment of support to Welsh universities. In that letter, you wrote:

'the policy in this area remains at a very exploratory stage, and we are still working through what, if any, potential support mechanism may look like, in partnership with Medr and institutions.'

So, I'm just wondering, at that stage, whether you were making things up as a Government as you went along. Just as your Government has given false hope to patients with non-existent cross-border health plans, you've also misled the higher education sector last week by spuriously raising expectations.

Now, Minister, Welsh universities need a cast-iron guarantee from you that they will be given the support they need not just to survive but to prosper. Now, you also reiterate that you don't think any Welsh universities are at risk of failure. Now, however, at least five Welsh universities are running, or have just completed, further voluntary redundancy schemes. And as I've mentioned previously in the Siambr, the collective deficits are now spiralling north of about £100 million. So, do you agree with me that giving the false impression that support is imminent erodes the confidence of the sector? Now, this can't continue. It's not sustainable, and Welsh Government needs to get a grip on this.

So, I have two specific questions: firstly, since taking post, have you or the Cabinet Secretary for Education actually had discussions via official correspondence with HEFCW, Medr, or individual Welsh universities regarding this transformation fund? And secondly, when will you make a decision on what, if any, support will be provided further to what you have just outlined today? Diolch.

Thank you, Cefin Campbell, for your supplementary questions there. I'd like to start by saying that I am absolutely committed to supporting a sustainable higher education sector, and by that I mean strong institutions that are able to deliver not just on our ambitions for students and for research but for driving economic growth across Wales as well.

I recognise the financial pressure that our HE institutions in Wales and across the UK, and, indeed, across the globe, are under, but you'll be well aware that, as universities are independent organisations, they are managing their budgets in a range of ways. And I'd add that our student support package for student living costs remains the highest in the UK, which is something I think we should be really proud of here, and that the income that that generates for Welsh institutions per student remains comparable with England and actually higher than that in Scotland and Northern Ireland as well.

You ask if I've had discussions with HEFCW. Well, no I haven't, because they don't exist any more. I've had discussions with Medr, which is the body that's been set up to replace them, and those discussions have been really positive, including a meeting with staff on the ground and a meeting with the board as well as with the chair and the CEO.

You ask if I’ve had discussions with institutions. Yes, I have started that already. As I said in the Chamber just last week, I think it’s really important that I get out there and visit each HE institution in Wales. I’ve started doing that already. I’ve been to the University of South Wales already, and I’m looking forward in the coming weeks to meeting with both Cardiff University and Cardiff Metropolitan University as well.

The conversations that I’ve had so far have been really constructive and there has been a lot of desire for further collaboration within the sector as well, which is something where I see lots of positive work already. And I explained to the Senedd that the Welsh Government is continuing to explore what, if any, potential support mechanisms are feasible to support the sector in Wales.

It is important as well to add that we do not believe that any Welsh institution is at immediate risk of failure. Medr closely monitors institutional finances and advises that there is appropriate liquidity to manage ongoing risks while those important strategic decisions are taken within each independent institution to ensure their ongoing sustainability.

And just to add there, as a final closing remark, I did say that I felt that the sector was really exploring lots of constructive ways forward. And I think that that is summed up by the fact that we’ve got this £20 million decarbonisation fund for the tertiary sector. And we’ve already received £33 million in bids for that. So, I think that that just really sums up how hard the sector is working within these new areas in order to enhance their sustainability.

I think Cefin is right: you did give false hope to universities and other institutions across Wales with your statement last week. Within about 24 hours, a fund

'to support our institutions here in Wales, and I'm pleased to say it's going to be a more positive kind of fund...a transformation fund,'

within 24 hours, became

'that the policy in this area remains at a very exploratory stage, and we are still working through what, if any, potential support mechanism may look like...with Medr and institutions.'

And those institutions, obviously, are very clear about the scale of the funding challenge that they face. Cardiff University mentioned a £30 million black hole that it needs to address; Bangor University, a £9 million deficit; Aberystwyth, £15 million; Swansea University is going through 240 voluntary redundancies at the moment. So, it is a sector—I’m sorry to agree with Plaid Cymru—that you have given false hope to.

It is a mess, quite frankly, Minister, and it is a mess that happened just days after the education Cabinet Secretary changed three times in three weeks what the Government’s guidance was on reading in Wales. It does beg the question: does anybody in the education department of the Welsh Government know what they’re doing?

Well, thank you, Tom. You may be in the business of hyperbole and cheap political point scoring, but I can assure you that myself and the Cabinet Secretary are in the business of delivering for students across Wales at all ages.

And there is that £197 million of grant funding that we are providing this financial year via Medr to our Welsh universities. You’ll be aware that 90 per cent of university income comes from sources outside of the Welsh Government, and that’s why I’ve already reiterated how important it is that the sector are working within those areas that they have control of, and I do see lots of green shoots there for lots of positive interventions.

The additional £20 million that we’re putting forward for decarbonisation as well, all of that is really important, and so I am quite happy with the direction of travel that we are taking and I look forward to engaging further with the sector in the months to come.

I thank the Minister.

Item 4 this afternoon is the 90-second statements and the first statement is from Hannah Blythyn.

This week, Mold is celebrating the Daniel Owen Festival—a week-long bilingual arts and literary festival held in Mold to celebrate the author Daniel Owen. The festival is held every year around the end of October. Daniel Owen is the foremost Welsh novelist of the nineteenth century, and was born in 1836 in Mold. Earlier this month, it was a privilege to join the mayor of Mold, and a whole host of other people, to unveil a blue plaque at the house where he once lived.

Daniel became an apprentice in a tailor's shop, and is said to be a youth who loved literature. Having spent time studying at Bala College, he later returned home to Mold. His first novel, Y Dreflan, was published in 1881, and Rhys Lewis, perhaps his most famous novel, followed in 1885, and tells the story of a minister’s life. Today, the Daniel Owen Festival includes walks, talks, singing and dancing, and more. It was wonderful to watch some of the performances at Daniel Owen Square over the weekend. Indeed, my puppy enjoyed it too—she wagged her tail along with the music. It was fantastic to see such a cultural celebration in the heart of the town. I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to every volunteer, and I look forward to seeing the festival going from strength to strength. 

In 1790, a group of people met at the Castle Hotel in Neath, and resolved to build a canal, stretching from Glynneath to Neath. It opened in 1795, and was quickly extended through to the Brunel dock at Briton Ferry, and, in 1824, it was connected to the new Tennant canal, which allowed goods to reach Swansea docks. The Tennant canal celebrates its two-hundredth anniversary this year. At its height, some 200,000 tonnes of coal were carried along this vital artery. However, following the development of the Vale of Neath railway in the mid-nineteenth century, Neath canal steadily lost out and ceased to be used as a means of transporting goods. Revenue for the owners was maintained by supplying water to local industries, but, slowly, parts of the canal were filled in, built over and faded from memory. And now, even those industries have gone.

Today, the Tŷ Banc Canal Group, an amazing volunteer group, have begun working with the owners, St. Modwen, to ensure the canal is preserved for future generations as a vibrant, sustainable, community asset and resource. The Neath canal predates the creation of the modern postage stamp and even the United Kingdom itself. It has seen the industrialisation and de-industrialisation of the communities it runs through. But it has been a constant through centuries of revolution, war and discovery. As Neath canal is about to reach its two-hundred-and-fiftieth birthday over this next year, ours could be the generation to see the canal fade away completely, or ours could be the generation to see the canal renewed and repurposed. Diolch to all the volunteers and groups who are working so hard to ensure that the right choice for the future of the canal is taken.

Twenty years ago, a group of us, led and inspired by Rob Nicholls, assembled in the vestry of Tabernacl chapel in Cardiff to form Côr Meibion Taf. Since then, the choir has been victorious at the National Eisteddfod, local eisteddfods, and in several music festivals. The multitalented musician Steffan Jones now conducts the choir, and, under his baton, it has gone from strength to strength, with around 70 members. Key to the choir’s success is Lowri Guy, the accompanist for almost the entire period.

Although the choir hasn’t had to listen to my attempts at singing for several years now, I can still attest, on a personal level, to the kindness and care the choir offers, in good times and in bad—in major and minor keys. Côr Meibion Taf is more than a group learning notes. It’s a community of people, from teenagers to pensioners. It creates confident Welsh speakers, its members support each other and their families, and it has supported a host of good causes and charities over the past 20 years. Côr Meibion Taf has enriched music-making in Wales, but, more than that, it has enriched the lives of hundreds of its members, former members, and their families. Thank you for the past 20 years, Côr Meibion Taf. Congratulations to Steff, Lowri and all the lads, and onwards to the next decade. Thank you.

Thank you, all.

The next item is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv): assisted dying. I call on Julie Morgan to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm very pleased to bring forward this Member debate on assisted dying to the Senedd here today, submitted jointly with my cross-party colleagues, James Evans, Heledd Fychan and Adam Price. It’s been 10 years since assisted dying was last debated in the Senedd. A lot has changed since then, so now that the national conversation is ramping up about this, I think it’s absolutely right that we debate this very important issue here in the Senedd, in our Welsh Parliament today. It is a matter of great consequence, and I’m so pleased that we’re able to do this here this afternoon.

And, of course, it’s particularly important in view of the fact that Kim Leadbeater MP’s private Members' Bill on assisted dying has been introduced in Westminster and will be voted on in November. If the vote is won there, the Bill will then go on to the Committee Stage. So, we have no power here to change the law on assisted dying, but because we are responsible for health and social care, we will have to deliver any new law, so we have a big stake in this debate here in this Chamber.

As well as Kim Leadbeater’s private Members' Bill in the Commons, Lord Falconer has a private Members' Bill in the Lords. There’s also one in the Scottish Parliament, introduced by Liam McArthur MSP. The Isle of Man also has a private Members' Bill going through, moving to the upper chamber this autumn, and plans for legalising assisted dying were approved in principle by the Assembly in Jersey earlier this year. So, this debate is coming up everywhere. And, of course, there are 31 jurisdictions around the world that have already legalised assisted dying. From Australia, the Netherlands, to Canada, more and more countries are taking this step forward. So, this debate cannot be ignored.

So, why am I supporting assisted dying? I believe we need to show more compassion to those people who are suffering intolerably from an incurable illness and who have a settled wish to die. At the moment, one person, every eight days, goes from the UK to Dignitas or somewhere similar in Switzerland. Under the present legislation, any relative or friend who assists them are liable for prosecution; they are criminalised. I listened to Sir Max Hill, former director of public prosecutions, who said it was very clear to him that the law is not working. During his period of office, he had 27 people referred to him—relatives of people who had died—and, in 26 cases, he took no further action. These were elderly people, usually in their 70s and their 80s, who had just lost someone very close to them, and he said it took sometimes up to two years for a decision to be made not to prosecute. Imagine having that hanging over you at a time of great loss. What a cruel law. Surely we can do better than that.

Many of you will have spoken to Sue Lawford, who’s spoken publicly, and has vividly described police action taken against her after she accompanied Sharon Johnston from Cardigan to Dignitas—Sue Lawford from Cardiff, who vividly describes the horror and the upset she experienced after she helped Sharon Johnston to go to Dignitas. This, I believe, must be a decision by Parliament rather than by an individual director of public prosecutions, which happens at the moment. The law is not clear, and I want to have a more compassionate law, so that families do not suffer in this way, that we do diminish that suffering. I think it is our duty to look at doing this.

I also believe that we need to show our compassion by increasing our support for the hospice movement. For many years, I have been closely associated with the hospice movement, and I was the vice president of a local hospice in Cardiff North, which provides care at home, for many years. And there is no way that wanting a change in the law diminishes the importance of the hospice movement. In fact, in some countries where assisted dying has been introduced, the amount of money spent on the hospices has increased. It is not one or the other. And the very in-depth report done by the Health and Social Care Committee in Westminster has shown this clearly. It’s not one or the other, and support for this Bill does not indicate any lack of support for the hospice movement. Our hospices are fantastic, born out of the charity sector, and now playing a major role with the NHS to provide end-of-life care.

And, of course, at the moment, the cost involved in having an assisted death and travelling to Dignitas is prohibitive, with the average cost being between £10,000 and £15,000. This means it is only an option for the wealthy. It is very distressing that people are forced to do this and only people who can afford it are able to do it. We must try to do something about it. Also, people are travelling to Dignitas while they feel well enough to get there, because they have to take that into account. The other big issue is the very great difficulty of having a proper funeral or a burial for somebody who had to leave the country. So, this is being forced on people because we haven’t properly addressed the law.

I know there are many different views on this subject, and I absolutely respect the views of everybody in this room. I think it’s absolutely right that we have a conscience vote on this, but I think that some of the reasons that come up—. It has been mentioned to me quite a lot about the idea that it is a slippery slope, and it will extend to people with lack of mental capacity or disabled people, for example. I absolutely respect those views, and I think those fears must be addressed, but I do believe it is possible to provide strong legal and medical safeguards.

We must ensure that at least two doctors are involved and present when assisted dying takes place—one with an expertise in assisted dying, another in the particular illness the person has. Everything should be recorded, and proper processes followed. And we’re able to learn from other countries and their practices. We have got 31 countries already doing this. There’s so much that we can learn to bring in the best possible law.

Also, lots of people say, ‘This will be the sort of law that disabled people will reject’, but I think it’s important to remember that, in many ways, disabled people have led the campaign for assisted dying. If you think of Tony Nicklinson who suffered from locked-in syndrome, he could only move his head and his eyes, and he had wanted to end his life for many years. He went to the High Court to ask for assistance for him to die. That was refused. Tony died shortly afterwards after refusing food and water.

Then there’s Debbie Purdy who had MS. She argued it was against her human rights not to know if her husband would be prosecuted if he went abroad with her to die. She won her case and the DPP was ordered to produce clearer guidance on who would not be prosecuted. Of course, there are also disabled people working for and leading pro-assisted dying organisations.

So, what evidence do we have of the views of the public? In every survey taken on legalising assisted dying in the UK, the majority of people are now supportive. There was a citizen jury that took place in England last year, and 26 out of 28 jurors voted in favour. There has been a move in public attitudes. The former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, is in favour of assisted dying, saying that

'Doing whatever we can to relieve needless suffering and bring peace is a profoundly Christian act.'

In the medical profession, the royal colleges have taken the decision to have a neutral stance. The BMA has dropped its opposition and is now taking a neutral stance.

Bringing about assisted dying in the UK is not something that should be taken lightly or rushed. It’s important that we have these debates where everyone is able to air their views. My belief is that we should be able to reach a legislative result that will address all the concerns that many people feel but will enable us to provide a much more humane system. I look forward to the debate. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I have many Members who wish to speak in this debate. I hope to call all Members, but I ask each Member speaking, first of all, to ensure you keep to your time, please, and I will not be accepting any requests for any other Members to speak, because the list is already full. 

I’d like to start my contribution to this debate by highlighting in the strongest possible terms my deep concern and opposition to this motion. It has been repeatedly proven that assisted dying laws, when introduced, descend quickly into a range of problems, from coercion by relatives to the hand-picking of specific doctors willing to euthanise. It would, I believe, set a dangerous precedent and lead to a catalogue of unintended consequences if it was introduced into the UK. I appreciate that this is a very emotive subject, and I, therefore, want to focus my contribution on the evidence. 

Unlike many other countries, every person in the UK has the right to high-quality palliative care, and the right to express their wishes about how they wish to receive it. There is a clear difference between what we have here in the UK and what other countries offer in terms of palliative care. I believe that this very much skews the thinking and, perhaps, the reasoning in support of assisted dying. For instance, we find that in Canada less than 30 per cent of Canadians have access to high-quality hospice palliative care, and that access to hospice palliative care is not considered a fundamental healthcare right. In the Netherlands, palliative care is not a distinct medical speciality, but it is incorporated into general hospital care, which is typically focused on diagnosis, treatment and discharge. Studies of this system have shown that the needs of dying patients are unmet, and that there are serious deficiencies in the quality of their care. In New Zealand, the right to access palliative care has only now, in October 2024, been introduced by a private member's Bill.

In terms of unintended consequences, one of the outcomes we cannot prevent is that once this door of assisted dying is open, there's no stopping future generations of politicians from adversely reforming the legislation. Evidence has shown that in those countries that have introduced assisted dying there is a trend to broaden the eligibility criteria. It has been expanded in the Netherlands and Belgium to include children, and, in Canada, from 2027, they will allow people suffering solely from mental health issues with no physical condition at all. According to data from Canada, 17.1 per cent of those assessed for assisted dying in 2022 cited loneliness or isolation as the reason for their suffering.

There's growing evidence that people are gaining access to assisted dying because of financial issues. It was revealed in post-assisted dying investigations that a 41-year-old woman who was euthanised in 2021 after telling doctors she could no longer stand the pain caused by her fibromyalgia had told friends in private that she actually wanted to die because she was so poor. There's another case where a 61-year-old man was euthanised even though the only health problem listed on his application was hearing loss. That should be a massive red flag to the dangers of introducing assisted dying legislation. [Interruption.] People are accessing it for the wrong reasons—

Joel, will you give way to Lee Waters? 

Thank you. These examples you're citing are not examples that would fall within the legislation that's being discussed in the UK at the moment, are they?

Thank you for that intervention, Lee. What I'm trying to highlight, regardless, is that, at one point, the legislation was different to what has now happened in those countries. At every opportunity, that has changed, and my concern is that if this legislation was introduced into the UK, at some point, 10 years, five years or 20 years down the line, that criteria would be broadened. 

However, my biggest concern and one that has been frequently communicated to me by constituents is that by introducing assisted dying you change the narrative from how we can provide the best possible care for someone dying to at what point do they become a burden, financially or otherwise, to the state, to their family or to their carers. Those with disabilities are often and frequently forgotten about—I've had to remind Government Members here in this Chamber to even mention them in their statements—and are terrified by the prospect of assisted dying being introduced here, because society would instinctively move to make a value judgment on their life, which is something they've already had to contend with when trying to find employment or access to services.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the internal feeling of being a burden is what elderly and disabled people have to live with on a daily basis. The external pressure they would feel from others to decide what the value of their life or death would be would be unbearable. It would be presumed that those with disabilities, particularly cognitive disabilities or those who are old and infirm, are better off dead. Evidence from other countries where assisted dying has been brought in shows that many disabled and older people fear that to show any signs of weakness, melancholy, frustration with their condition, or the fact that they may be struggling, affirms that they are no longer of any value and that they wish to die. 

We all want the same for those who are suffering: dignity and compassion. But euthanasia is not the way, when there's so much evidence showing that not only eligibility criteria but the value society places on our most vulnerable quickly changes. Whilst I support the Members in raising this debate, especially given an assisted dying Bill is to be debated in Westminster, I cannot disagree with it more, and I, therefore, encourage everyone here to vote against it. Thank you.

This is, I know, a debate prompted by compassion: the desire not to see someone we love suffer. It's an instinct I understand utterly, and I empathise with those proposing it, but I will be voting against the motion. I too am motivated here by compassion, I think we all are, because nearly everyone who approaches this debate will do so through the lens of the last moments of someone they love, someone they've seen suffer, someone whose pain they've wanted desperately to lessen. How could anyone disagree with that?

My contention, though, is that we must also look at this through the lens of those not surrounded by people they love: those marginalised, pushed to the sidelines by society—those people who could be placed under pressure in a future that is horrifyingly near at hand to end their lives because the necessary palliative care is not available, or because they feel themselves to be a burden.

My fear with this motion—well, my terror, really—is not so much with how it will begin as with how it will end. There are safeguards in what is being proposed in Westminster, indeed there are, but every precedent we see internationally shows that no safeguard is sacrosanct; the experiences of Canada, the Netherlands, Belgium and some states in the US show what can so easily, so inevitably, happen. Laws are first introduced for people who are terminally ill, as is being proposed in Westminster, and bit by bit, the safeguards have been eroded so that now people with depression, with anorexia, and many other non-terminal disorders can qualify—disorders from which people can recover, lives that will have been ended that might have got better.

But more worryingly than that normalisation is how quickly the vulnerable in those societies felt and were at risk. In the US state of Oregon, over 47 per cent of people who ended their lives cited as a reason the fact that they didn't want to be a burden on their families or care givers, and I fear those changes will be inevitable if the Bill in Westminster passes, because courts in those places have felt obliged to extend the rights given to some citizens. To others, it becomes a macabre certainty; there will be no turning back from it.

The debate around assisted dying is often presented understandably—utterly understandably—as a way of offering people a choice, but for many disabled people or people who are not close to their family, people who are worried and anxious and lonely, it would lead to them feeling they have no choice but to end their life. That's exactly what Tanni Grey-Thompson has warned about: the sense that some people will get that their lives will matter less, or that because of the high costs of their care, it would be selfish to stay on. I do not mean this as scaremongering; it is a reflection of what has happened in other parts of the world that have opened the door a crack and have had it blown open, never to be able to close it. It's why Nicola Sturgeon said earlier this year she'd moved away from supporting assisted dying because of all these quiet, terrifying inevitabilities. 

A former Archbishop of Canterbury has drawn headlines recently in this debate by saying there is nothing holy about agony. Indeed, there is not. But neither would there be anything kind in causing people to feel they have no choice, because in a debate of this nature, a debate of such fundamental consequence, we have to think not just of its intentions, but likely effect, of all the lives of the people we will never meet, but who will be affected fatally by this decision.

This is probably the most difficult debate I've had to speak in since being in this Senedd. I did feel I had to speak. It's difficult because I can understand so utterly why so many people want this change; I do truly understand that, I feel it in my heart. But the terror I feel about this is not some trifling thing. It is a future that I see not as merely a worst-case scenario, but the only final scenario: a future where few safeguards remain, where there is investment that is lessened in palliative care, instead of increasing it as we should be, and where desperate people feel obliged to take a step they can never take back. It is for these reasons, Dirprwy Lywydd, that I felt compelled to speak, with every respect and empathy for those who propose it, but it is also why I feel compelled to vote against it.

Ten years ago, I was involved in the debate that we had then on assisted dying in this Chamber, and I put my name to that motion at that particular time to support it. And during the course of the debate, I actually changed my mind. Not in terms of the principle of this, but in terms of whether there had been sufficient thought to how we might be able to implement this in society, how legislation might be designed and focused to enable it to happen, to enable the principle to be implemented, without all the concerns that I'm sure we all share with this. And it's right, it is extremely difficult legislation.

But I think during the course of those 10 years—. During that debate, I changed my mind on it, and I then voted against it, but, 10 years on, I think we've now reached a crossroads. There has been a lot more thought, a lot more analysis, a lot more research, but I think also we've reached the stage where Parliament really needs to take a decision on this, which is why I welcome the private Member's Bill, and I welcome the debate in this particular Chamber. The legislation is a very focused piece of legislation, and it's focused on a very specific description of terminal illness and, of course, there are many differing views, very sensitive and emotive views, and I respect all of those particular views that are made within here. But I believe we've reached a stage where we do have to take a decision. Can I also say that this is a matter—? Although the criminal aspect of it, which is what the legislation is about, is not a devolved matter, the implementation of what happens in this legislation clearly is a devolved matter, and perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm whether he agrees that this is a matter that will come back to this Chamber, that the issue of legislative consent will actually be required, because it does specifically engage the delivery and the implementation by devolved services.

But, for me, this is really about choice, and I can summarise them in just three or four points, I think. Firstly, I think it is about the dignity of choice, and indeed about the dignity of death. Secondly, it would be about, in certain circumstances, my right to be able to choose. It is also, I think, very clear that the role of Government is not to deny me that choice, but to set the legislative framework within which that choice can actually be exercised. I believe that I have the right to make that choice, to make that decision myself, but within the narrow confines and focus of the legislation itself. I support the Bill that is going through Westminster. I would support the idea of a debate in this Chamber in terms of legislative consent, specifically in terms of some of the details of it. But I don't believe it is right now for Parliament to continue to deny me that choice within certain, very specific circumstances. Diolch.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to contribute in this important, emotional, emotive debate in this place today. I also absolutely accept the sincerity with which the Members who have proposed this motion here today, the sincerity with which they do, but I will be voting against the motion here today. And the reason why I fundamentally find this a motion that I cannot agree with is, I think, because, for me, this motion centres on how we value people in our society and all people in our society. No matter their current physical health situation, no matter their current mental health situation, no matter the stage in life in which they are, all people are precious, all lives are precious, and we should show that value to them at all times. And for me, this motion and what this motion implies is a message that says that not all lives have the same level of value in our society. That's not something that I could sign up to. I believe that the proposals within assisted suicide and within the motion before us today undermine the belief I think we'd all have in this Chamber that all lives are equal and equally precious—

Would the Member give way?

Absolutely.

If we value all lives, surely we value the right of individuals to make choices about their lives and how their lives end.

And that argument is similar to how Mick Antoniw in his contribution spoke a few moments ago. But we heard from Delyth Jewell, actually, and others in the Chamber so far, that, sometimes, whilst it may be a theoretical choice, because of the burden that some people may feel, that isn't actually a real choice that they have. Because actually what happens in situations as outlined in Oregon, where a significant proportion of people feel that they are a burden to those around them, it moves from a right to die to actually a duty to die, because of the situation, and then people feel they have a duty to no longer be on Earth for the sake of those around them. That, then, is no longer a choice. It becomes a perceived duty. So, I think that argument falls down at that stage.

And when the state sanctions this, and, in some cases, as we've seen in other countries and other states in the US, when the state sanctions this, that takes it to a whole new level, and, in some instances, the state is encouraging this as well. We know that—. We could all bat around examples, I'm sure, around the Chamber this afternoon, but we know of examples where people are offered, in very much recoverable situations, as described earlier, in that perhaps people may be suffering with anorexia, where, with the right care, with the right support, with the right love and attention, people can work through those extremely difficult circumstances. I'm not undermining or trying to take away from the difficulties they are going through. People can work through those. But very sadly, far too often, in other countries where this is taking place, people are offered the option of ending their lives. For me, that does not value them in the right way in the circumstances, in the sanctity of life that they hold in that moment.

We're talking about the terminally ill.

Sorry, do you want to make an intervention?

Sorry, thank you, yes. We're talking about the terminally ill here, not people with anorexia. You're twisting the debate.

Okay. I'll address that point as well. I feel that that has already been commented on in this Chamber here today. I know you perhaps don't accept this phase of a 'slippery slope' but it really is, because, once a law is passed in this area, with certain criteria by which some people may be able to access this, that will inevitably be challenged in the courts, as has been done in other countries, because it becomes an issue of equality—equality of access to that same level of what may be determined as a health option. So, it becomes an issue of equality, which will be challenged in the courts, and that is when it gets expanded, as it has in other countries, and most notably in Canada, and I'm sure, on that instance, you therefore would not agree with what's happening in Canada, where, in 2027, people with mental illnesses will be able to access or will be offered—not even just able to access; they will be offered this—as a way out of their situations. So, that slippery slope is not just a philosophical idea. It's a very, very real situation in other places all around the world, and I fear that that would be exactly the same in this country, because there would be a challenge in the court of law.

I will wrap up, Deputy Presiding Officer; I'm aware of time. I haven't been able to get through the points that I perhaps would have wanted to, but I'll just wrap up in my closing comments by saying that whether it's through effective mental health support or making spaces more accessible for people with disabilities, the way that we should be working through this is by properly funding, properly supporting, whether it's humane palliative care support, or ensuring that we're valuing all people in our society. Life is precious no matter the situation that you're in, reminding people that there is care, we have compassion, we have love, and there is hope, and that hope is found amongst us, and we should be sharing that, and not offering death as a way out through legislative proposals. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

As a point of principle, I'm a supporter of legalising assisted dying. I believe that individuals facing unbearable suffering and pain at the end of their life should have the right to choose how and when their life ends. However, I do recognise that many of the concerns of those who are opposed to this proposal are valid and they deserve thoughtful consideration. And rather than dismissing those concerns, what I want to focus on in my remarks is how a well-designed policy framework could address them. By building a system, a policy, around certain key principles, I believe we can bring forward legislation that combines care and compassion, not just for individuals but for society as a whole.

The first principle, for me, is the key one. It is autonomy and consent. Assisted dying must be based on the foundation of individual autonomy, the right of people to make decisions about their own bodies, about their own lives and, yes, about their own deaths. For those facing terminal illness and intolerable suffering—and let's keep them where they should be, at the centre of our focus in this debate—the decision to end their life must be theirs and theirs alone. And to protect that autonomy, it's essential that the decision is based on fully informed consent. Individuals must be given clear information about all options, including palliative care, which doesn't work in all circumstances for all people. And consent must be confirmed at multiple stages. And this should ensure that the decision is thoughtful, voluntary and made by somebody that fully understands the implications.

A second major principle is the need to safeguard the vulnerable, as we've heard—the elderly, the disabled—who might feel pressured to choose assisted dying out of a sense of obligation or duty, as others have remarked. That's a valid worry, but it can be addressed by strong protections. The system, drawing on the experience elsewhere, must include independent assessments by multiple professionals—doctors and psychological evaluators who ca