National Assembly for Wales

Thank you, Minister. Following a recent meeting with the Bevan Foundation, I discussed concerns that, whilst many families are struggling with the ever-increasing cost of living, an estimated £2 billion-worth of benefits goes unclaimed in Wales. How is the Welsh Government ensuring that the Welsh benefits charter is helping to reach people in need of support, who may be unaware of what they can claim, and that this is being delivered consistently across all local authorities?

I'm sorry, I should have added at the start a declaration that, when I worked at Oxfam Cymru, I did support the Bevan Foundation with research into Welsh benefits.

This is really a key priority for this Government, because ensuring that people have got enough money in their pockets—money that they are eligible for because of low income or different circumstances—is the ultimate preventative measure, isn't it, and prevention is at the heart of this Government's work. So, we recognise the significant potential of this work of making it easier for people to be able to claim what's theirs, to be aware of what they can claim, and for that money to reach their pockets as quickly and as easily as possible. It's really such a key part of what we're trying to do as a part of this preventative agenda. We know, of course, that additional income won't prevent every household from falling into crisis, but it will prevent some, and that's a difference that's really worth making.

The Welsh Government's own progress report on phase 1 of streamlining Welsh benefits, published in April, admits that it has not been possible to establish a baseline take-up rate for council tax reduction, free school meals or the school essentials grant, and the longer term evaluation has not yet been looked at. Bridgend council took part in a Welsh Government pilot; the Vale of Glamorgan did not. The review of the pilot found that, on average, only around 15 per cent of households contacting each campaign went on to receive an award. Without a baseline, the Government cannot tell my constituents whether the Welsh benefits charter is working. Will the Cabinet Minister and Deputy First Minister commit to publishing take-up figures for each local authority and to agreeing a framework for evaluating the charter in the long term, so that progress in Bridgend and the Vale of Glamorgan can finally be measured?

Thank you. As I said, we have done a review of this. When I first chaired the steering group, back in July,  I asked members to shift their focus towards implementation, to make sure that we are delivering and make sure that those solutions are forthcoming, that they're not theoretic, rather than continue to revisit the challenges. We are going to bring more Welsh benefits within the scope. I think the foundations have been laid. It is definitely, as I said in my answer to Sarah Rees, 'Nid da lle gellir gwell'—we've got a way to go on this. I've made very clear that the commitment at the moment, which was developed in conjunction with stakeholders, including the WLGA, remains something that is not statutory at the moment. But I believe that, if progress in embedding the charter's principle within Welsh benefits delivery is not satisfactory, I have said that I will consider legislative options to strengthen those requirements.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. As you will be aware, the bombing of the RFA Sir Galahad was both a military and a Welsh tragedy. Forty-eight people lost their lives in that incident, 32 of which were Welsh Guards, and others, of course, suffered life-changing injuries. The survivors, veterans and bereaved families are still living with the consequences of that day in June 1982, and they're still awaiting answers from the many sealed documents and the lack of evidence that is in the public domain about what happened. In fact, some of those documents remain sealed, as I understand it, until 2065, which is obviously a very long time away and probably beyond the lifetime of some of those individuals who suffered that day and continue to suffer. Do you agree with me that the failure of the UK Government to publish that evidence is inconsistent with the armed forces covenant? Will you make representations as a Welsh Government, given the impact on Welsh families? And will you join me in asserting the rights of Falkland islanders to self-determination by agreeing with the statement that the Falkland Islands are British?

Obviously, foreign affairs are not devolved, but the first part of your question is really important. I know many Members here have heard testimony from Welsh Guards themselves and their families about the need for closure on that tragic incident that befell them with the Sir Galahad. Those records should absolutely be published. I know that the First Minister has given his commitment to make those representations. If that letter hasn't already gone, then it will, and I am completely in concord with that, that we should absolutely see justice for those families. They deserve to have the closure and the information about what happened with the Sir Galahad.

Diolch. Deputy First Minister, let me set the scene for my scrutiny today. Last time we met across this Chamber, just before the recess, there was rather a lot of hyperventilation, but unfortunately no opportunity for me to intervene and challenge what you were saying. It appears that sometimes diversity stops where diversity of thought begins. So, I intend to use my parliamentary time today to ask what I was not afforded the time to ask then. So, let us keep the temperature down, focus on the substance and answer the questions actually being asked. So, let me begin with the first one: during that debate on the face coverings, you defended the wearing of the burqa on grounds of religious freedom. Can you identify the specific verse in the Koran that unequivocally requires a Muslim woman to cover her face?

I would just like to remind the Member that it was a Reform debate. You could have asked for a minute from your fellow Member, if you so wanted to.

No, I ask you. Just answer the question now.

Well, I'm just reminding you in case you don't know how we do business in the Senedd.

And I stood up actually and asked you—

I will tell you I absolutely reject any attempt to divide community—

Answer the question.

Are you going to listen? I absolutely reject any attempts by any Member in this Chamber to divide communities by scapegoating, by insinuating and spreading false information, scaremongering. And I'm sure there are many, many—as we saw that evening—many Members in this Chamber who feel exactly the same as this Government. There is a persistent pattern of members of Reform and spokespeople using their position to fuel hate and division. So, I'm here in good faith—[Interruption.]

Can we please keep quiet while the Minister is afforded her parliamentary time to answer?

I'm here in good faith to answer questions of scrutiny on my work. I will do that. We are all elected to do so. It's a huge privilege, but, as I said that day, with that privilege comes a huge responsibility, and I'd remind the Member of that responsibility to be careful about the words that she uses.

Minister, my responsibility is to scrutinise you and, as you refused the question, to enlighten you. There is no such requirement in the Koran. And let me tell you something, that is precisely the distinction you failed to make because women are entitled to have that distinction discussed without Ministers branding the debate itself as intolerant.

That brings me to the second question. During that debate, you chose to compare Reform's position with the persecution of Jews in 1930s Germany and invoked the Nuremberg law. I have since been contacted by a Member of the Jewish community in Wales, Beth, who has expressly authorised me to raise her words in this Chamber. She writes, 'I'm Jewish and I found Miss Williams's words offensive in the extreme.' She describes your comparison as a false equivalence, which, in her words, minimises the horrors of the Nazi regime and says that using the persecution of the Jews in the 1930s to score political points was hard to listen to. But there's something else. Beth tells me that she cannot put those concerns directly to you because you've blocked her on social media. She said she's never sworn at you or been abusive. Deputy First Minister, you invoked the persecution of Jews to condemn your political opponents. A Jewish woman is now telling you that she found your words profoundly offensive, and she says you have denied her every opportunity to tell you so directly. So, I ask you a very simple question: will you apologise to Beth, unblock her, and listen to a Jewish woman whose history you chose to invoke? [Interruption.] I know the truth hurts. Or does your celebrated commitment to diversity and inclusion end once again where diversity of thought begins?

I'll tell you what's offensive. You should have seen the messages that many of us, including many of us on this frontbench in the Government, received after that debate. They were horrified and intimidated, and felt unsafe and threatened by the language and tone of the debate that was used by Members on the Reform bench. I had so many messages in so many different forms.

As to the point on social media, of course everybody is entitled to their opinion on the views that we take in this Chamber. I am very available as a Government Minister. I have a correspondence address, an e-mail address that is available to all. There is no need to use social media to get in touch—[Interruption.] I'm sorry?

It's not public to all. If you write on social media, other people can see it. 

Cristiana, can we not interrupt the Minister?

If she wants to send a message to me, then she can write to me as a Minister.

I will finish my point. I just want to finish the point, because you weren't here, but when we were having—you did used to be a member, of course, of the Tory party—the toxic language from them about immigration, when that first started, and there were Tory Ministers talking about 'swarms'—I think it was Suella Braverman, who was also a Tory then, of course—coming across the channel, a holocaust survivor spoke out. I quoted her in a debate about that in this Chamber. What I was pointing out, and what she pointed out, face to face to those Tory Ministers in a public meeting, was how language can lead places. When we talk about people that are less than, and your fellow Member says that not all cultures are equal, that infers that some people who are of certain cultures are less than others. That's how things started. That's how things start. 

Deputy First Minister, I'm beginning to think that you may be Reform's greatest asset in this Chamber. Whenever we raise an uncomfortable question, you seem to determined to demonstrate precisely why it needs asking. 

Anyway, this is my last question, you'll be relieved to hear. You recently admitted that there has been painfully little change in child poverty in Wales, and that deprivation is actually deepening. Around two in five children in Wales were living in income deprivation in 2024. Yet, when I questioned you in September, you told me your child poverty strategy still needed a tighter focus, measurable targets and milestones, and that you were working on what those targets should be. 

Deputy First Minister, children cannot live on strategies, taskforces and targets that Governments are still designing. So, give me something measurable today: by the end of this Senedd term, by exactly how much will your Government reduce child poverty in Wales? Because if you cannot give us a number, how will anyone know whether your strategy has succeeded, and whether we'll simply—let me finish—be back here in four years discussing another strategy for the same failure?

Again, I just feel that you need to understand that in order to arrive at a target, you need a strategy. You need to understand what levers the Welsh Government has, what control, what we can change, what we can implement, where we can move our resources. That is a strategy. The money follows the strategy. The policies follow the strategy. The work across Government will follow that strategy. That's what we're currently doing.

We are meeting, as I think I said in the previous answer to you, in that previous question session, to make sure that we can do that work across Government as a sub-group of the Cabinet, and then, obviously, listening to stakeholders, policy experts and anti-poverty campaigners who've been doing this work for such a long time and have a lot to say about the strategy of the last Government. 

That is what we are working on. I will be ready to consult on that strategy—because we have accelerated this work—in the new year. It will be ready then. It's a statutory consultation, to be able to hear those views, to make sure that we're on the right track. What I'm absolutely clear about is that we will focus the priorities of this Government on efforts on the key policies that will have the biggest impact to shift that dial on those things that are within our power.

I'll get back to the business of the Senedd. Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. As we count down the days until the Welsh Government's draft budget, I'd like to ask the Minister what consideration she has given to the idea of gender budgeting. This should be a simple commitment that helps the Government to reach its equality objectives and advance gender equality in all sectors of Wales. Women's Equality Network Wales has told Senedd Members that it is concerned at the lack of emphasis and momentum around gender budgeting, and that this could actually endanger the progress that we've made with the previous Welsh Labour Government. This is obviously recognised internationally as an approach, and we know that it works. I'm sure the Minister would not want Wales to miss out on the opportunity to use gender budgeting to advance her important objectives. So, could she please assure us by telling us what sorts of conversations she's had with the finance Minister and Cabinet colleagues about gender budgeting in future Welsh Government spending, please?

It's a really important point. Obviously, we're in the middle of those budget discussions now, but we are carefully considering the impacts of all the decisions that we are making. It's going to be a very difficult budget, as we've heard the Cabinet Minister for Finance outline. So, we are going to have to take difficult choices, but we are absolutely clear that we want to take the learning from the pilots that have happened around gender budgeting, and also, of course, the wider impacts that we need to consider on vulnerable groups, on children and young people, in our budgetary decisions.

One thing that I think we've been very clear on, and I think it's something that will be evident in the budget, and was evident in the supplementary budget yesterday, is the strides that we are taking on a very important measure for gender equality, which will absolutely impact women and those who give care, which is, of course, ploughing ahead with our very ambitious childcare programme. I'm hoping that the work of the Government in that regard will demonstrate how we are really ensuring that every pound that we spend will have a big impact on equality, and gender equality specifically.

Okay. And that will be done across the different Cabinet responsibilities, of course, because it's an issue that will touch on every side. 

Of course.

On to my second question. Nine in 10 school support staff in Wales are women, which means that when Unison Cymru's report evidences staff having to take second jobs and in some cases rely on foodbanks so that they don't go hungry, this immediately becomes an equality issue. As the Minister responsible for social justice, equality and social partnership, could you take this opportunity to outline the conversations that you've had with the education Minister in relation to this time-sensitive matter? School support staff are waiting for a better deal that ends the injustice of term-time-only pay. Will the Minister commit to ensuring this predominantly female workforce doesn't get left behind while progress is being made with the Labour Government for workers in England? Will you commit to pay justice? And equally, will you press the education Minister to start work to establish a Wales school support staff negotiating body?

Of course, this is a decision that lies with the Cabinet Minister for Education and the Welsh Language. So, obviously, we can have inter-ministerial meetings, as you say, when a workforce is predominantly of one gender, but it's not a given either, is it? Anybody can become a teaching support member of staff. This is something that—

Nine in 10 school support staff, though, are women. 

Shav, don't interrupt the Minister when she's answering the question. Thank you.

Apologies.

I will just say that this is a decision—. We have previously committed to look at this, I know. And obviously, through social partnership, as we do through the social partnership council, and many of the work streams that pertain to that, the groups that pertain to that council, this is an issue that we will obviously discuss in social partnership with the unions and the bodies that represent that workforce. But it isn't a decision for me.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Deputy First Minister, we are approaching that time of year where we focus on remembrance, where we come together to honour the service and sacrifice of those who have served in our armed forces. Whilst remembrance is an important opportunity to reflect on that service and the immense sacrifices that were made to ensure that we are able to live our lives today, it's a timely moment to consider how we support veterans and their families in their day-to-day lives once their military service has ended. Ahead of Remembrance Day, will you, Deputy First Minister, outline what support the Welsh Government is providing to veterans and their families across Wales and what further action is being taken to ensure those who have served our country receive timely access to housing, healthcare and mental health support? 

Tackling child poverty is a key commitment for this Government. The Cabinet Minister for Education and the Welsh Language and I have been briefed on the potential need to support learners from households with no recourse to public funds. We are now considering what further support may be required.

Free school meals are one of the most effective ways to tackle child poverty and hunger, improve children's health and well-being, support educational attainment and ease financial pressures on families. To put it into monetary value, they are worth over £500 for every single child every year in Wales, with their wider social and economic benefits extending far beyond this figure. Yet secondary school pupils with no recourse to public funds in Wales cannot access these free school meals, unlike in England. Families already blocked from accessing life-changing benefits and housing support are also being excluded from this essential provision. Recent proposals by the UK Labour Government settlement changes could now leave families struggling for years longer, deepening poverty and exposing the cracks in an already inadequate safety net. No child should go hungry because of their immigration status. We cannot claim to tackle child poverty while denying some children the support that they need. With this in mind, I'd like to ask two questions. First, what progress has been made towards a joined-up strategy with local authorities and third sector partners to prevent destitution among migrants and sanctuary seekers—

Can I ask you to conclude, please?

—with no recourse to public funds? And secondly, when will secondary school pupils with no recourse to public funds be able to access the free school meals they're entitled to?

Of course, immigration policy, including no recourse to public funds, is reserved to the UK Government, but we absolutely recognise the pressures faced by people, and young people, in Wales subject to this condition. So, we absolutely recognise it can create barriers to accessing support.

Our guidance on supporting families with no recourse to public funds reminds local authorities of their discretionary powers under the Education Act of 1996 to provide meals free of charge, because no child should miss out on learning because they're hungry. That's why, of course, Plaid Cymru campaigned so hard for free school meals in primary schools, and also now we are working to expand that in a phased way, starting with the poorest children—those who are on universal credit—with no income limit, then, for them, for their families to be able to start expanding that into secondary schools.

So, officials are still working closely with local authorities, reminding them of their discretionary powers, and through, of course, the Welsh Local Government Association to understand local circumstances, barriers and opportunities. And the Cabinet Minister for Education and the Welsh Language will also meet the Bevan Foundation to discuss this next month. So, I'm sure, following that meeting, the Cabinet Minister and I will consider that evidence, and then that will inform our future policy approach. But in the meantime, this Government encourages schools and local authorities to ensure that no child who arrives hungry is denied a meal in school.

I have some real concerns about this approach. A 'no recourse to public funds' determination is usually made for those who are in this country unlawfully, or those granted limited leave to remain, where they are required to support themselves and their families as a condition of their residency. It would be wholly inappropriate for the Welsh Government to use Welsh taxpayers' money to extend state-funded benefits to families in circumstances where the UK Government has deliberately placed restrictions on the access to their public support.

More broadly, as children progress into secondary school, surely parental responsibility must remain paramount. The state should not become a substitute for parents in raising their children. With Wales recording such poor educational outcomes, shouldn't our limited education budget be focused on improving literacy, numeracy and standards in our classroom, rather than continually expanding free provision, particularly to those—

Can I ask you to conclude, please?

—with no recourse to public funds?

I want to just make a point of fact here: 'no recourse to public funds' is a visa condition restricting access to certain benefits and housing support. People on work or family visas can be affected. They're here legally. If they have children and they're in a difficult situation, then I would hope that most Members of this Chamber would want for this Government to find a way to make sure that those children are able to avail themselves of a hot meal when they get to school. 

Diolch, Zaynub, for highlighting this clear injustice. Learners in England are able to access free school meals regardless of their parents' immigration status, and this is something that I think can and must be replicated across Wales. It is, of course, a simple matter of fairness, but the idea that free school meals should be denied to specific pupils who need them is a false economy. We know that for a relatively small amount of money, free school meals create huge educational and health benefits for pupils, helping them to keep well-nourished and ready to learn. What representations is the Minister making to UK Government to mitigate the harms of no recourse to public funds restrictions to the health and well-being of learners, or, even better, will you join the Greens in calling for the abolition of no recourse to public funds conditions, which only exacerbate social, economic and racial inequalities?

Diolch. As I said, this isn't a devolved policy area. It will be for the Cabinet Minister for Education and the Welsh Language to make those representations directly, Minister to Minister. But as I've said, we know that, in some local authorities, there is an inconsistency as regards how those discretionary powers under the Education Act are applied. We will continue to work across devolved policy areas to consider what more can be done within our responsibilities to support people affected by no recourse to public funds, and that, of course, would include children of those families.

This was not a budget that delivered for Wales. We welcome measures, of course, within that budget, to ease some pressures on Welsh households, including action on energy costs, on fuel duty and on wages. But tackling poverty requires sustained targeted action, including, for example, on social tariffs, removing the benefit cap and increasing the local housing allowance.

Diolch, Weinidog. I was pleased to see, in your recent letter with the Scottish Government, a call on the UK Government to put measures to tackle poverty at the heart of this annual budget. However, as you referenced, it seems that your calls to unfreeze the local housing allowance have once again been disregarded. We know that raising local housing allowance rates is one of the most impactful things the UK Government could do now to help people living in poverty, as the long-term freeze, in conjunction with the serious lack of social homes, has been perpetuating homelessness and housing insecurity for far too long.

According to data from Crisis, in my constituency of Caerdydd Penarth, less than 1 per cent of homes in the private rental sector are affordable at LHA rates, with households needing to find thousands of pounds to make up the shortfall. In the absence of support from the Westminster Government, what more can the Minister do, working with the Cabinet Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning, to protect people from deepening housing poverty across Wales? Diolch.

In Wales, the freeze in LHA has that disproportionate impact on our households. Private sector rents increased by 4.5 per cent in the year to July this year, exceeding the UK average of 3.7 per cent. And we've had that report, haven't we, by Crisis Cymru, highlighting that this continued freeze is leaving so many vulnerable households unable to meet their housing costs and at a greater risk of homelessness. So, yes, unfreezing these rates would be consistent with the Prime Minister's stated aim and commitment to end homelessness, but what we are doing within our own powers, of course, is trying to support people with the cost of living. Our immediate focus is on helping to reduce costs for families. We want to maximise incomes, because, for me, as I was saying in my earlier answers on the Welsh benefits system, it's getting that money for which people are eligible into their pockets. While those welfare levels are often not sufficient, if we can just make sure they get everything that they can possibly have, that will help, obviously, boost household incomes and ensure—. For me as well, it's about dignity; it's not just about pounds and pence. We have a duty, as a Government, to look after and respect the people we are here to serve, and making sure that everyone can afford a safe and warm home is surely the most essential thing that we can do.

We are working together to deliver the plan’s digital inclusion commitments. Through the digital inclusion Wales programme and grants, we’re supporting help in local communities and access to accessible technology, so disabled people can build confidence and use the services they need.

Could the Minister outline how the Government is working across portfolios to ensure that accessibility is built into delivery of public services, including the provision of suitable alternatives for people who cannot use digital systems?

Thanks for that really important question. Accessibility is a cross-Government responsibility, so the disabled people's rights plan and digital service standard for Wales support services are built, then, around people's needs. Of course, digital inclusion means not digital only, doesn't it? It means that suitable telephone, face-to-face or paper alternatives must remain available where needed.

We know that too many disabled people in Wales still face unequal access to public services, so grounded in the social model of disability, our disabled people's rights plan provides a shared framework for action to address those inequalities across Government, in health, in education, in housing, in transport, in employment, in childcare and beyond. The social model, in essence, means removing barriers, doesn't it, understanding that it's barriers that disabled people face, and those are the things that we need to remove from society. So, with partners, including health and transport employers, we're making systems accessible, protecting and improving British Sign Language, telephone, face-to-face and written access, and developing also safeguards for disabled people to access and spend cash.

A report published by the Wales Governance Centre found that more than a third of people who died after leaving prison in Wales last year died as a result of drug-related causes. The report also found that nearly 700 people were released into rough-sleeping in Wales, and that number has now risen for four years in a row. These are people who have served their sentences and should have the chance to get their lives back on track, but, instead, too many are leaving prison with no stable home, no proper support and nowhere to turn to. The report itself also directly questions whether the Welsh Government support for people with substance use problems and for those leaving custody is really fit for purpose. Whilst, obviously, as you've said, we continue to push for the devolution of justice, the Welsh Government already has the powers over those services. So, Deputy First Minister, this is the key question: what action will you take now to ensure that nobody leaves prison in Wales with nowhere to live and nowhere to turn to for treatment? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thanks for your response. Cabinet Minister, you may claim that this Government is all about protecting women and girls across Wales, but the rhetoric simply doesn’t match the action. To be able to truly keep women and girls safe, we must first understand and defend their rights. I’m pleased to be chairing the Senedd’s first cross-party group on women’s and girls’ rights, and it’s an important milestone and it’s great to have Reform Members, Labour Members, and I’m hoping to see a Lib Dem Member in there as well very soon with us. Now, we did have Plaid Cymru representation on the CPG, but the MS was forced to resign because it doesn’t align with your party’s values.

Deputy Minister, I am appalled, truly, and disgusted, that Plaid Cymru is so brazen about admitting that protecting women's and girls’ rights doesn’t align with your views and values. Perhaps more shocking is that the Plaid Cymru MS was, according to media reports, bullied by male staffers into leaving the group. Deputy Minister, this really does show that Plaid Cymru doesn’t really care about protecting women and girls—and are the allegations that men within Plaid Cymru bullied one of the party members into withdrawing from this important CPG actually true?

We are committed, of course, to delivering a new animal welfare plan for Wales, working closely with stakeholders and partners, and we will build on Wales's strong reputation for animal welfare and, of course, continue to maintain and enhance high welfare standards.

Thank you, Cabinet Minister. As you will be aware, a petition numbering almost 14,000 signatures has passed through the Senedd's Petitions Committee calling for a ban on the tethering of horses. In Cardiff earlier this year, a horse was hit and killed by a car in my constituency. The RSPCA has raised serious concerns about tethering, saying that the practice often leads to a lack of shelter, limited grazing, offers no company for horses, stops their natural behaviour and is a direct threat to their physical safety. Yet, despite the public outcry, the Welsh Government hasn't taken action. Minister, will you now take the necessary action to ban tethering and introduce strict guidance that ensures the highest animal welfare standards?

Well, of course, much of what you've referred to there is already illegal. The welfare of tethered horses is already considered under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, and that places a legal duty on those responsible for horses to meet their welfare needs. Now, that includes providing suitable shelter, an appropriate diet, necessary veterinary care and the opportunity to exhibit normal behaviour. Tethering is unsustainable when it comes to long-term use, certainly, and the equine code of practice sets out conditions, including access to food, access to water, shelter, supervision et cetera. As far as I'm concerned, the framework is there, so it then comes down to enforcement, of course, and enforcement remains the responsibility of the local authority. Now, Welsh Government also, of course, funds Animal Licensing Wales, who are there to support local authorities, and I would expect effective enforcement to happen as a result of that.

I believe animal welfare is important. Many animals are sentient beings, meaning they have the capacity to experience feelings like pain, pleasure and emotional states. The evidence is strongest for mammals and birds, but in recent years researchers have built compelling cases for fish, octopuses, crabs and even some insects. Welsh Labour took the decision to ban greyhound racing in Wales on animal welfare grounds, and secured the legislation to deliver the ban—thank you, Jane Dodds. And while the law allows the ban to take effect between April 2027 and April 2030, I want to see the ban brought into force as soon as practically possible. The transition period was put in place to help deliver the ban safely, with animal welfare at its heart, not to prolong greyhound racing unnecessarily. What action is the Minister taking to bring the ban into force?

Well, as you will know, Mike, the previous Government set up the greyhound racing ban implementation group. They have been charged with working through a number of those issues and striking the right balance in terms of protecting the welfare of greyhounds that will no longer be raced against other measures as well. I am expecting their second report imminently. That, I would expect, will give me some advice in terms of the coming into force of the ban and, until I receive that, obviously, I'm not in a position to give you any dates, other than to reassure you that this Government will introduce the ban according to the legislation within the window that is specified in law.

I support what Joe said about the tethering of horses and, obviously, I'm going to support what Mike said as well. I'm not going to ask about greyhounds—I think you've had enough of me on that. But you mentioned in your response to Joe the animal health and welfare plan, and it's really just trying to see if we can pin you down on a timetable for the delivery of that. We know that charities such as RSPCA Cymru and Hope Rescue are keen to see the progress on this. They have—. Particularly Hope Rescue, they're caring—and this is an increasing number—they currently care for nearly 800 dogs and are facing mounting financial pressures. We know that the plan—we hope—will include the regulation of animal welfare establishments and the promotion of responsible pet ownership and breeding. So, therefore, could I ask you, if possible, could you please confirm a timetable for when we will see this published? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I can't give you that timetable here in the Chamber. I will write to you on that specifically. But I can assure you that it is absolutely our intention to deliver that, at the very least, within this Government, obviously, otherwise the moment will have passed.

While fireworks are fun for many people, this does not extend to the majority of animals. Research undertaken by the RSPCA has shown that 55 per cent of animal and livestock owners dread the firework season because of the negative impacts on their animals. Private displays in places such as people's back gardens are also becoming increasingly popular, with 64 per cent of animals negatively impacted by these, according to the RSPCA. Firework litter from such displays is also posing a significant risk to animals. While the relevant legislation is reserved to Westminster, a recent consultation has been held that could see noisier fireworks used only during professional displays. As we await the outcome of the consultation, will the Cabinet Minister commit to advocating for the use of low-noise and silent fireworks as much as possible throughout Wales, and to undertaking any relevant action in that respect? Diolch.

Well, I think there's a very strong case to be made for taking all kinds of actions to reduce the stress and disturbance to animals and pets as a consequence either of the fireworks in terms of noise or, as you say, spent fireworks that may be found in fields and other places where both wildlife and domestic pets would, potentially, come across them. But, whilst the UK Government consultation is running, I think it's only right that we await the conclusion of that process, and then, obviously, take stock from there.

Diolch, Weinidog. For flood-affected communities like those in Monmouthshire, we need to both reduce the risk of catastrophic flooding and support those communities that are affected. Last month, my constituents were encouraged to hear that the upcoming Welsh flood forum will act as a national support network for flood-affected communities. You'll remember the devastation from storm Claudia and the flooding that that brought to Monmouthshire almost exactly a year ago. The section 19 flood report has shown that there is still a lot of work to do, and many are still feeling the effects of the flood a year later. Critical decisions on flood risk management need to be made in Monmouthshire and across Wales in the coming months and years. So, when will the Welsh flood forum be up and running, and how will it be able to help support those decisions?

Thank you for that question. I met Monmouthshire County Council, actually, a few weeks ago to discuss some of these events and the section 19 report as well. But in October as well, I chaired a dedicated steering group that is now going to be working on establishing the Welsh flood forum. It brings together, yes, key partners and organisations, but also, critically, people with lived experience of flooding, which I think is a very important voice that needs to cut through in these deliberations. So, hopefully, their work, which has now started, will help shape a new national support network for those flood-affected communities. We do have a programme for government commitment, of course, to set that up during this Government term.

We're looking to set up a charity, so that will take time, but we are learning from experiences in Scotland, where they've done this before us, and we're leaning heavily on the expertise and the experiences of the National Flood Forum, which of course is already in place, so that we can replicate some of that. So, I will shy away from giving you a date, other than to say I am absolutely committed to seeing this being in place as soon as possible, because it's critical to help communities prepare for flooding, respond to flooding and recover from flooding, and it's much, much needed.

Minister, following on from that, I need to talk about human sewage, or black water as it's sometimes euphemistically known. As you know, much of Wales is covered by a combined sewer system where human waste and rainwater all goes, effectively, into the same pipe. When it was originally built, that wasn't a problem because it just went into the nearest river or into the sea. However, today, that pipe network just can't cope at times, and the water treatment plants can't cope during very heavy rain. We know that there are overflows, which either put the water into the river or into the sea, and even those can't cope sometimes, and it gets backed up, and some of these places that are flooded end up with a very stressful situation where we have human waste in that flood water. That's the harsh reality of our water system.

To separate out those two different systems at a UK level would cost anything between an estimated £300 billion and £1 trillion. The fact we can't put a figure on it shows the problem. We actually don't even know or have an accurate map of where some of those pipes are. So, Minister, my question is: does the Welsh Government, having worked with the water industry in Wales—which is, obviously, more than one company—have any estimate for how much it might cost to solve the problem of combined sewers and combined sewer overflows?

We don't have a cost, no. But it's absolutely a system that's been inherited, and it's a system that, frankly, doesn't deliver the kind of drainage network that would benefit customers and nature and health and a number of other outcomes. You will be aware that developments have happened in terms of urban drainage systems and requirements through the planning system for new builds, et cetera, to try and separate grey water and rainwater and water running off our road infrastructure, for example, from sewers. But we are where we are. Now, we therefore look to the water companies and the water regulators to play their part in making sure that we are on the right path and on a decent trajectory to get to a place where we don't see these incidents occurring as often. I know there is a topical question coming up later on, which I'm sure will address some of these issues. So, yes, we're not where we would like to be, but regulators and water companies have a big part to play in that, and we as a Government are putting pressure on them to deliver.

Diolch. Minister, the devastation caused by this summer's wildfires demanded and deserved an oral statement in this Chamber, post summit, to update us on the outcomes and provide us with a list of the urgent and long-term actions that you will now take, and importantly outline where the funding for them will come from. Instead, we got a written statement. I'm bewildered that you or the First Minister haven't made the time to come to the Chamber this week to outline that and set out what has been in the summit and face proper scrutiny.

The urgency of getting preventative actions in place is paramount if we are to be as prepared as we can be for next summer. A summit is great, but now we need real, tangible action, and at speed, if we are to prevent the fires on the scale that we saw. Since September 2025, England's countryside stewardship higher tier pays for work like bracken control and firebreaks, with scope for private investment to help carry that work forward, but there is no equivalent in Wales. It will take a substantial uplift in the budget, private capital, money from our farmers and commoners' own pockets, to enable any actions.

Can I ask you to come to a question, please?

Yes. But, Minister, who should pay for these land management interventions? Will you use the sustainable farming scheme or another scheme to incentivise farmers and landowners to carry out these vital works? Fundamentally, would they be in place—

Can you please conclude?

Fundamentally, would they be in place for the hot weather in the summer? Diolch.

Okay, there's a lot there; I'll try and remember all of it. First of all, I am here now today, this week. Ironically, you're asking for an opportunity to ask Ministers about the wildfire summit and you're asking me about the wildfire summit. So, you know, okay, maybe it could have been—[Interruption.] Hang on, it's my turn now, you've had your more than one minute. So, look, I'm here now, and I'll happily engage with you further outside of here if you want to go into greater detail. What I would say is: is it me? Is it the planning Minister? Is it the First Minister? This is a cross-Government endeavour. So, I suppose we could all appear and respond to the summit that was held. But the important thing now is, as you say, the outcome of that summit.

There are clear, identified, immediate priorities that have been recognised as a consequence of the summit. We need to support a strengthened all-Wales wildfire board. That came through clearly, and we're committed to doing that. A new pan-Wales approach to monitoring spring and summer resilience risk; that is something that's going to be a work stream. A rapid evidence review to better understand the role of land management interventions is a particular piece of work that my officials are undertaking. We have already announced a separate review of 'The Heather and Grass Burning Code for Wales 2008'. In relation to your question about funding some of these interventions, it may well come up with a requirement for funding, and that will be a challenge for me then to go and see where I can identify the funding for that. The sustainable farming scheme can play a role as well, depending exactly on what the requirements are.

We are going to bring—another outcome of the summit—international expertise to support Welsh fire and rescue services with training and preparation. We need a structured pan-Wales register, for example, for farmers and landowners to indicate where, out there, the willingness is to provide vehicles, equipment, local knowledge, support. Many of them stepped up. They played a critical role. Can we sort of formalise that in some way? We need to review evidence as well on options with the fire and rescue service on improved health monitoring and decontamination procedures for firefighters. We need exploration of further preventative actions to reduce risk, including public engagement. There's a big public education piece. You know, I could go on.

There are huge pieces of work, both individually and collectively spread across Government. We are getting on with it. I'm happy to sit down with you and go through this in greater detail. But please, the work has started.

I would love to. I will definitely take you up on that offer, Minister; I appreciate that. But that response was extremely disappointing and very wishy-washy considering the amount of time that we have left before next summer to put these actions in place. You're still reviewing and creating another view. This summit was of utmost importance. Even though it was two hours long and contributors had 90 seconds each to contribute, it was a very important summit that deserved an oral statement in this Chamber, so that everybody—because it is a collective effort—every single MS should have the opportunity to ask you questions on it.

But I'll move on to my second question—[Interruption.] You've had your chance, it's mine now. Your Government is consulting on whether to replace or scrap the scheme that gives the youngest pupils in our schools free milk during the day and subsidising it through to year 6 if requested. Margaret Thatcher got a lot right, but on this, she got it wrong: she should never have snatched milk out of the schools. It may have been 'Thatcher the milk snatcher' a few decades ago, but it's 'Llyr dim llaeth' now, which perhaps will be the nickname that sticks. It isn't good enough to—

Can you ask your question, please? You're already over.

—just give milk to breakfast clubs; all children deserve to have that nutritional benefit, which supports our dairy farmers and local economies across Wales. Your bedfellows, Labour—

Can the Member ask a question?

—even recognised it. Can you guarantee here today that you will not scrap the scheme, which should not even be an option in the consultation? Diolch.

No decision has been made on the future of the school milk subsidy scheme, and there is a consultation on the future arrangements, but that's happening because the Rural Payments Agency will stop administering the scheme for Wales after the end of March next year. And the consultation considers two options: introducing a new scheme, delivered through existing school food funding arrangements, or, yes, ending the dedicated milk subsidy scheme. But we will consider the consultation responses. And as the Minister for rural affairs, I have a view on this and I will make my view known through the consultation, as I hope all other Members and the wider public will.

Yes, we certainly will, Minister. That consultation, as an option, takes away all children having milk or getting rid of it altogether. That should not even be an option in the consultation, Minister.

Minister, I commend this Government, actually, on the work it's done on the promotion of our fantastic Welsh produce that we have on offer here in Wales, and your Rooted in Wales campaign. But if this Government is truly serious about using local produce in our schools, hospitals, public bodies, how are you going to incentivise local authorities to do that? Are you planning to subsidise the food? What is your plan, Minister? Because the biggest barrier for local authorities to use local suppliers is cost.

As I previously outlined in this Chamber, in Merthyr, 99 per cent of schoolchildren—school chicken, sorry—came from Thailand and China. In Conwy, 94 per cent came from outside the UK. This is a complete shambles, and it's happening right across Wales. It's all very well and good that you're promoting local Welsh high-quality products through adverts like Rooted in Wales, but until you get to grips with our abattoirs, the local supply chain issues, and supporting our farmers in a way where they are absolutely able to produce food—

Can I remind the Member that they are one-minute contributions, please?

—you won't get to grips with this. Can you update the Senedd on how you're working—

And there's more.

—with local authorities on local procurement plans?

Laura, with respect—. Can I remind the Chamber that it is one-minute contributions, not one minute and then pushing and waiting for the Chair to come in? I have a button that turns off. I really don't want to use it, because I want you all to be able to get across what you want to ask. Everyone is doing it, everyone is going over. Please be respectful of the time limits. Sorry, Gweinidog.

Diolch. Well, the Member will know that I am a strong proponent of locally produced food being locally processed and locally procured or eaten, ultimately. We have set up, of course, the national food strategy group that are going to be looking at developing the strategy for us. They have identified three priority work streams, one being the red meat supply chain in Wales and another one being food in our schools. So, as part of that work, they will be looking at some excellent examples that exist out there, actually, in terms of how we make this work. But, of course, at the minute, they're examples that are here and there—we need to mainstream those kinds of approaches.

So, I am putting great faith in the work of Simon Wright, as chair, and the membership of that board to come up with some of these proposals or some of these actions that will turn that around. But there is a duty on local authorities as well. And I think, in fact, the public sector has a critical role to play here because we know the value of public procurement and the level of spend that's happening. But every 1 per cent extra that is spent on public procurement with companies, or through companies or producers in Wales, equates to around 2,000 additional jobs in the Welsh economy. So, if you increase procurement by 10 per cent, that's effectively 20,000 extra jobs in the Welsh economy. And, of course, you're not spending more money necessarily, you're just spending it in a different place.

So, there is much more that could be done, should have been done, potentially, in the past. But we're up for that challenge, because not only do we see the benefits in terms of the economic value of being able to deliver that—there is an economic value, but there may be slightly higher costs initially—but if you mainstream it, you'll get over that hump, and also the money will come back in and you'll keep the pound circulating locally. But there will be nutritional benefits, in terms of it then rubbing off on public health. There will be environmental benefit because you're cutting down on food miles, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And those are exactly the kinds of interventions that I absolutely want to pursue, because they don't just achieve one of our cross-cutting goals as a Government, but they achieve two, three, four, delivering a win-win-win for Wales.

Cabinet Minister, there is significant concern emerging that the Welsh Government may seek to delay the development of a nutrient pollution target under the new Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Act 2026. This would, obviously, be unacceptable, given that nutrient pollution, especially in our rivers, is a major driver of biodiversity loss. Now, I appreciate from your time as Chair of the environment committee in the last Senedd that addressing river pollution remains, I hope, a personal priority for you. So, I'd be grateful if you could confirm today that there will be no delay in bringing forward a nutrient pollution target by 2028, and that it will be consulted upon in the spring, as originally planned.

Well, there are a range of targets, aren't there, as you will know, because I know you'll be familiar with the legislation. There is a range of targets being worked on under the requirements for biodiversity targets through the legislation, the environment Act, that you referred to. Now, I'm aware that nutrients is one of those that's being considered, and I'll undertake to meet with officials to be updated in terms of exactly where we are on those targets. But you'll also be aware that it was us in Plaid Cymru, of course, that pushed for strong and enforceable targets on biodiversity in that legislation, along with a real independent office of environmental governance. And the work on all of that, I can assure you, is ongoing. And what's important, I think, is that, whatever targets are agreed, they're deliverable and, of course, enforceable.

Diolch, Cabinet Minister. For my second question, I want to return to the subject of contaminated land, following on, of course, from that Michael Sheen documentary, Buried, the recent Member debate that we held here, and a packed public meeting that I attended in Church Village earlier this week along with other MSs from across this Siambr. Now, one thing that is clear to me is that there is confusion around who is responsible for what in terms of testing and monitoring sites to ensure that they are safe. And similarly, there is a lack of trust from communities about the results of any testing. We need to address this, and I know, in your letter to me last month, Cabinet Minister, you said that you hadn't reached a decision yet on whether to establish a review or an inquiry regarding historic polychlorinated biphenyls contamination. Accepting that any review needs to be evidence based, and with Natural Resources Wales saying that there are over 9,000 sites requiring investigation, isn't it time to now set up a review or an inquiry to do just this and give our communities the answers they deserve?

Thank you for raising this, because I think it's important that I have an opportunity to address this point. I suppose it depends what you mean by 'review' or what you mean by 'inquiry', because we've seen in other contexts how that can create expectations or otherwise. So, maybe we can pick up on that outside of the Chamber. 

But identifying and assessing potential contaminated land in the first instance, of course, is a matter for local authorities. That's how it's always been, and that's how it continues to be. And, in terms of the Welsh Government's contribution to that specifically, we provided guidance on how local authorities meet their duties under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. Now, of course, I am aware—acutely aware—that communities are concerned about land contamination, and we take those concerns seriously. But the best role, I think, that the Welsh Government can play is to help develop a Wales-wide strategy to restore former industrial land and protect communities from potential risk. And as part of that, of course, we're also pressing the UK Government, in terms of environmental justice, by raising this directly, as the Finance Minister has, I think, on three, maybe four occasions now, with the UK Treasury—I know the First Minister has raised it as well directly with the Prime Minister—so that we can sit down and discuss opportunities to come together, seeking UK Government funding to complement, potentially, Welsh Government funding to continue joint efforts to address this legacy. We've done it through some of the work that happened under the previous Government in relation to coal tip safety. I see that as a model that we now need to pursue in relation to contaminated land. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Minister, we've had some grim statistics about bluetongue this week, we have. I think the five hundredth case has been reported here in Wales, and next year is particularly bleak looking. Many examples are highlighted about the south-west being what Wales might look like next year without a good course of vaccination rolled throughout the livestock sector. We have the winter fair at the end of November. Will you commit to using all the Government communication channels to promote the virtues of vaccination and make sure that you're in constant dialogue with the vaccination companies to make sure there's a good supply of vaccination stock available for livestock, because none of us want to see what happened in the south-west unfolding in Wales this time next year?

Yes, I will. We have been, of course, promoting the benefits of vaccination. It's the only sustainable way at the minute that we have to fend off bluetongue and to keep it at bay. There is a real risk, as you say, that we will end up in 12 months' time where south-west England has been. We need to avoid that. I would urge farmers to speak with their vet, to vaccinate now, because, obviously, we're coming to the tail end of the season this year, but it will provide that protection and then, certainly, being protected into the next term as well. So, the short answer is 'yes'.

I'm grateful for that. If you could use the winter fair, the premier livestock event of the winter season, as a conduit for that message, that would be really well received by the industry. As we go into the closed season, I think there's a danger that some farmers might actually think, 'It's gone. It's not happening', and when you look at the fallen stock numbers coming out of the south-west, they are pretty horrendous, to say the least.

That leads me to my second question, Minister, in relation to fallen stock: what discussions are your officials having, trying to pre-empt any spike in demand next summer, if the consequences that we've seen unfold in the south-west unfold in Wales next year, where some report of a tenfold increase in dealing with fallen stock? That's a huge amount of livestock having to be dealt with by the rendering industry. Are you giving any consideration to what support, if we do find ourselves in those conditions, you might be able to offer as a Government to the livestock sector to deal with this?

That is a live consideration at the minute, but it isn't just in relation to fallen stock. We need to be clear that there is a sufficient supply of vaccines. We need to be confident that there is the testing and laboratory capacity in place. So, you know, it's part of a wider picture. I will undertake to pursue that further and report back to the Member, because there's a wider package of being ready, I think, for what we fear may be coming unless action is taken now.

Well, I'm keenly aware of the extensive impacts of the wildfires on farmers. This is why I increased advance payments for farm business from 70 per cent to 80 per cent, easing, hopefully, or helping to ease cash flow pressure caused by the exceptionally difficult conditions farmers have faced this year.

Thank you. I was very pleased that James Bourne, a farmer from my constituency, was able to attend the wildfire summit, and I want to thank James and the other landowners who did exceptional work over the summer alongside firefighters and other agencies to tackle the wildfire in Blaenavon. Now, I've seen the list of actions arising from the summit, and I heard you answer Laura Anne Jones just then, but what I haven't seen so far is any mention of funding, either for farmers directly affected by the fires or funding to restore the common land that was devastated in Blaenavon by the wildfire. So, can I ask, Cabinet Minister, what plans do you have to provide additional funding to farmers badly affected by the wildfires and also to restore common land in places like Blaenavon?

Thank you for your question. I would agree with you—the testimony that we received in the wildfire summit, particularly from James Bourne, and others, in fairness, was quite sobering, quite strong testimony from those who have been affected, and reminding us, I think, of some of the consequences that they're still living with now. Whilst maybe many people, in their heads, have moved on from the wildfires, some animals are still suffering in terms of respiratory issues, pneumonia, et cetera, et cetera, and I think it was important that we were reminded of that.

Now, of course, I recognise the call for financial support, particularly from commoners and those farmers who were directly involved in experiencing losses as a consequence of the fire. Now, what we did agree at the summit was, as you've recognised, a programme of practical work to try and strengthen resilience and preparedness, including the rapid evidence review of land management. I mentioned the review of the heather and grass burning code as well. And there's a lot of work that's happening now where I think we'll need to consider the evidence that will come from that, as that comes forward, to make sure that we focus on targeting interventions in the future and that those interventions are the ones that make the greatest difference to future resilience. I'm aware of the challenges. I haven't come to any decisions yet, but I think we need to look at it in the light of the wider resilience piece as well.

I'd like to draw attention to the statement of opinion tabled in my name last week, which was co-tabled—'thank you' to Members of parties across this Senedd—calling for more nature-based solutions to be implemented to mitigate the risks of wildfires, droughts and flooding across Wales. By rewilding our countryside, we can create healthier, more diverse ecosystems, as well as improve the health and water retention of our soils, which will subsequently make Cymru more resilient against wildfires, flooding and other extreme weather events. This includes tree planting for shade, as well as rewetting of dried out moorlands and lowlands, which are at the greatest risk now of wildfires. I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government held a wildfire summit last month. Will the Cabinet Minister outline the next steps to bring partners together to implement nature-based solutions to prevent future wildfires, and is he confident that funding mechanisms, including the sustainable farming scheme, are well designed to accelerate these interventions?

Yes, although that is part of the wider mosaic, I think, of interventions and funding that are required. As you were asking the question, I was jotting down peatland restoration and rewetting, and trees, and you were trotting them off about three seconds after I was writing them down. So, they're very much on this broader menu, if you like, of interventions that we're now looking at, some of which, of course, are already pieces of work that the Government is delivering, but maybe we need to look at delivering at greater pace or at greater scale. But there is a resource challenge that has to be met in doing that to the extent that we would like, and that is something that we're considering in the wider context of the Welsh budget for next year.

I have recently received the advice paper from the TB programme board, which was informed, of course, by the technical advisory group. I plan to publish their paper later this month, along, of course, with the Welsh Government response.

Well, that is great news, because that was my next question, on exactly when that's going to be published. So, can I check that will be published—you said published in full—by the end of November, and available to the public?

Yes, it will be, and I will be making an oral statement as a consequence of that as well.

Diolch yn fawr.

Cabinet Minister, the recent decision to extend the Pembrokeshire project, which I was pleased to visit recently, reflects the success of a collaborative approach that brings together farmers, vets, researchers and Government to reduce disease risk at herd level. This model has attracted interest beyond Wales and has been recognised in both the Godfray review and Northern Ireland's TB strategy. The project has been praised for empowering farmers and vets to make informed decisions and take greater leadership in disease control. Pembrokeshire remains one of the hardest hit parts of Wales, accounting for around 40 per cent of all TB animal slaughterings. Focusing targeted intervention support and interventions in high infection areas offers an opportunity to achieve real impact in reducing disease transmission and improving herd health. So, can the Cabinet Minister assure us that the lessons that have been learnt from this Pembrokeshire project will now be able to inform the refreshed TB eradication programme right across Wales?

Well, yes, the Pembrokeshire project and the north Wales project as well, actually, have already demonstrated, I think, the value of close partnership working between, as you say, farmers, private vets, Government, and, of course, with that strong focus on herd level disease risks and practical action then stemming from that. Now, of course, we'll need to make sure that the lessons we draw from that are based on the fullest evidence available. So, we're awaiting final reports from the projects, alongside an independent review, and there's a review meeting actually taking place, I think, in a month or two as well, to reflect on some of that. These findings will absolutely help inform the refreshed TB eradication programme, including how the most effective elements of the approaches we've seen in Pembrokeshire and north Wales can be delivered more widely across Wales. The aim always has been to build on what we think works, whilst ensuring that any future targeted interventions reflect local disease risks and can be delivered effectively.

The Welsh Government supports new entrants across Wales through Farming Connect and Start to Farm, helping develop skills, experience and business opportunities. Newly established farm businesses can also access agricultural support schemes as they become available, subject to individual scheme eligibility requirements.

Cabinet Minister, access to land and finance remains a barrier for new entrants, particularly those without a farming background. What conversations has the Welsh Government had with the Development Bank of Wales to help the farming sector to provide opportunities for our next generation of farmers?

Thank you. I absolutely recognise the importance of helping young people, wherever they are in Wales, to be able to build their careers within agriculture if they wish to do so. I'm due to meet the chair and chief executive of the Development Bank of Wales later this month, so that we can start exploring how we can help young people establish and develop their farming businesses. You'll be aware that we currently work with the development bank on the sustainable agricultural loan scheme, which is all about making farms more sustainable and more resilient in the face of climate change. So, there's a model there that we may wish to consider, but there will be other possible options as well.

Regardless of the work that we hope to do with the Development Bank of Wales, we are providing funding through Farming Connect for mentoring, special advice, one-to-one surgeries et cetera, and business development support as well, for those wishing to come into the industry. The Start to Farm scheme particularly can offer substantial bespoke support services, and there's financial support for developing business plans et cetera. So, there's a lot happening, but there's always more that we can do.

Having previously farmed in France, I saw first-hand a much more structured system of support for people wanting to enter the industry. In France, young farmers were able to access substantial establishment grants averaging €32,000 under the previous national scheme, alongside lots of additional financial incentives. Here in Wales, the barriers are considerable. The cost of acquiring land is probably the worst thing, as well as machinery and livestock. It just makes it prohibitively expensive, particularly for someone without a farming family behind them. The figures speak for themselves. According to the Farmers Union of Wales, just 3 per cent of farmers are under 35, and the median age of the principal decision maker in Wales is 61. What consideration is the Welsh Government giving to more ambitious—? Well, you've just covered this, really, but it's something we really need to look at, and find a way of dealing with it.

I'd be grateful if the Member could share some of the information that he has about the interventions that they're providing in France. There's no harm at all in learning from experiences in other countries. But what I do know is that we do have, as I mentioned, some form of support through Farming Connect, which helps young people develop skills and business opportunities. Accredited training is a big part of it, as well as the mentoring and the specialist advice I mentioned. But with Start to Farm particularly, that does offer more targeted support for people looking to establish themselves in the industry, particularly those, as you say, who don't have access to land, who aren't part of farming families or whatever. It provides practical experience through structured work placements. It can match new entrants with farmers and landowners who may be looking for joint ventures, who may be looking to step back from farming a little bit. There's fully-funded business support, a few thousand pounds, available. There are a few more thousand pounds available per partner then towards specialist advice. There's money available to develop business plans. As I say, there's always more that we could do, but I'm always keen to learn from other experiences. Learning about the information that you have from what they do in France would be very valuable. I'd appreciate it.

Following the closure of the Baglan coastal path under the previous Labour Government, local residents were left without a solution or a clear way forward. I'm therefore extremely grateful that this Plaid Cymru Government has taken the initiative to develop an alternative route, allowing residents to once again enjoy this beautiful stretch of coastline. I was pleased to receive the Gweinidog's recent update, but could he confirm whether a map of the proposed route will be made available? Could you also clarify why the new route won't form part of the official Cymru coast path, and what its designation as a permissive path means in practice? Does it mean that it won't be a public right of way? If so, what assurances can be offered about securing public access for the long term?

Thank you. There are a few things there. Maybe I will follow up by writing to the Member in case I miss any particular aspect of that. Maps will be made available, clearly, because people need to know where they're able to walk. But my officials are working with Neath Port Talbot Council to get the new permissive path, as you say, open and available for local people and visitors to use as soon as possible.

The new permissive path will be approximately 3.5 km long and will provide access along just over 2 km of the former Wales coast path alignment, leaving only around a 1.5 km stretch of the former route unavailable. I recognise the importance of securing good-quality public access for local communities to these sites. As landowner, the Welsh Government will need to retain flexibility over the future management and use of this particular land, whilst keeping longer term arrangements for the route under review with the council.

Any decision to create a permanent public right of way would need to balance the benefits of securing access for the public against future potential management and use of the land. So, we’re not currently looking to make it a permanent public right of way, but we absolutely want to make sure that people can enjoy it and can have access to it.

As I'm sure you will know, I've brought forward the control of agricultural pollution review recommendations relating to the closed periods to make sure that they're considered in the short term now, as opposed to the medium term, as was originally proposed. The recommendations are currently being considered by the task and finish group, which will help inform the development of proposals for changes to this aspect of the regulations.

Thank you, Minister. In March five years ago, a Member of this Chamber brought forward a motion calling for this Parliament to annul the Wales-wide nitrate vulnerable zones. As you said in this very Chamber, 'the regulations are disproportionate’. I agree. They cover all of Wales when NRW's own advice was only for a small proportion of Wales to be covered. Again, Minister, in your words, you called the approach ‘absurd’ because it uses the calendar rather than weather conditions for when slurry can be spread.

Whilst I welcome the extension of the spreading season to 15 November, that doesn't address the underlying issue. The approach is wrong. We need an approach that is targeted and not Wales-wide. We need an approach that recognises that we farm by weather. Minister, you were content then to annul the regulations. Will you now work across the parties to scrap them now, so farmers can farm by weather and not by calendar this winter? Diolch.

I haven't changed my mind on this, you know. I still don't believe that the current regulations are fit for purpose. Of course, I was totally vindicated by the review undertaken by Dr Bolton, who came to a similar conclusion when it comes to using the calendar to define when the right time is to dispose of slurry. That is work that is now being addressed. That has been prioritised. I've asked the task and finish group to prioritise that when it comes to looking for a longer term, more sustainable arrangement. So, work is happening to address that very issue.

In the meantime, we did have a certain set of extreme circumstances this year that necessitated more immediate action, hence the decision to avoid, on balance, greater environmental risks when it comes to slurry stores maybe overtopping or even failing catastrophically—something that Natural Resources Wales had been concerned about as well. So, we did introduce an intervention for this year, but, longer term, absolutely, my intention is to be true to my word, and the task and finish group are currently, hopefully, diligently getting to work in finding a way to achieve that.

The summit was an important step in strengthening how we protect agricultural landscapes from future wildfires. It brought farmers, land managers and responders together, as you heard me say earlier, to share their experience and to look at how we can work together more effectively, recognising the role active land management has in building more resilient landscapes.

Thank you, Minister. Local news reports at the time suggested that anti-social and careless behaviour, arson and barbecues are a factor here. Was this discussed in any detail at the summit, and what actual steps will be taken to address this?

There's a wide recognition that this is one of a wider tapestry of challenges and potential interventions that need to be considered, particularly around barbecues and anti-social behaviour. We had representatives from the police there, amongst others. Much of it comes down to a level of public education, I think, so that people realize the risk that they're taking when they undertake certain activity in the landscape at these times. But some of it, you're right, comes down to tackling anti-social behaviour. There are ways of intervening. There's been talk of banning these disposable barbecues, et cetera. That's very much still on the table. But I did, as I'm sure the Member registered, in a previous answer refer to this wider public education piece as one important work stream that has come out of the summit.

I understand that a Member wants to make a point of clarification or to raise a point of order. Safa Elhassan.

I would like to ask for a point of clarification following the contribution made by Natasha Asghar during questions to the Deputy First Minister. There are two cross-party groups in the Senedd relating to women and women's rights. I inadvertently joined one that did not align with my values or my party's. As soon as I realised, I corrected this. I resigned from the women's and girls' rights CPG and joined the CPG for women, supported by Women's Equality Network Wales. This was a straightforward correction of a misunderstanding, and it was not due to bullying. Thank you.

I thank the Member for making that clarification on the record—very helpful indeed. Diolch yn fawr.

I welcome Ofwat's report, and I am concerned by the issues highlighted by the regulators. It's clear that water companies in Wales must deliver sustained improvements for customers and for the environment. This Government will continue to work with regulators to hold companies to account and will take full control, hopefully, of water in Wales so that we can strengthen accountability and ensure regulation reflects Welsh priorities.

We know Ofwat's report is so clear. Dŵr Cymru was the worst performer in England and Wales for external sewer flooding. This past month, we've seen report after report that has continued to damn them. For example, Surfers Against Sewage reported more than 100,000 sewage discharges across Welsh waters last year, lasting a combined 94 days. Yet customers are being asked to pay more to Dŵr Cymru. The average household bill has risen by £180, or 36 per cent, in the last two years.

So, while our rivers are fouled and bills soar, what do we see at the top of Dŵr Cymru? Well, the new chief executive of Dŵr Cymru, Roch Cheroux, says that customers face a choice: you pay higher bills, or wait longer for the infrastructure upgrades that Dŵr Cymru needs. At the same time, let's just remind ourselves of the salary that he receives. He receives £460,000 a year, alongside a potential bonus of £621,000 a year, which gives a total package of nearly £1 million. He has the highest paid job in Welsh public life. I think that this is absolutely ludicrous, and so would many Welsh Water bill payers, such as us, probably, in this Siambr.

A company already fined for breaking its permits has no business asking families to subsidise what is, in effect, its chief executive's pay. That is a gross injustice, and people all over Wales know it, from the Usk to the Tawe and other rivers in Wales. They can see what the gross injustice is. So, I'd like to ask you, and we've raised this on a number of occasions here in the Siambr, and I know that you've heard this both in opposition and as a Government Minister—. We're being asked to pay higher bills, and yet the chief executive is receiving higher pay. He should pay for these upgrades. Dŵr Cymru should pay for these upgrades. Can you assure us that the new chief executive will receive no bonus, that you will press for a review of his salary, and that these bills will not increase for us in order to fund these upgrades? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you for those comments, much of which I agree with. Of course, the Welsh Government has no—. Dŵr Cymru is not accountable to Welsh Government, it's accountable to the regulators. That's why we work with Ofwat and Natural Resources Wales. Ofwat has, of course, a power to deal with bonuses now in a way that they didn't have previously. So, we don't have a role in determining executive pay as much as maybe we would like.

But when I do meet with Dŵr Cymru, because water is of huge public interest, I make it clear what my expectations are in terms of performance. And their performance on key metrics such as pollution incidents, leakage and customer outcomes are unacceptable and they need to improve.

Now, we can recognise that progress is being made in some areas, internal sewer flooding and storm overflows, of course, but overall performance, as you say, is not where it needs to be. I expect Dŵr Cymru and Hafren Dyfrdwy and all companies to demonstrate sustained and measurable improvement, particularly on supply interruptions, on leakage, on external sewer flooding, on pollution, et cetera.

Customers are being asked to fund significant investments in their water services. It's only, therefore, right that they can expect tangible improvements in performance, in resilience and in environmental outcomes. Regulators have to continue to hold the company firmly to account, making sure that commitments translate into improved outcomes, both for customers and for the environment.

Firstly, I concur with all the concerns raised by Jane Dodds, and I thank her for raising something that is a matter that concerns us all. Welsh Water's supply interruption figure was one hour, 23 minutes against a five-minute target. Serious pollution incidents rose by half, and the average household bill is £683.

When you chaired the environment committee, Minister, you told Welsh Water to up its game. In June, you told this Chamber that you'd asked to meet with the chief executive. Did that meeting take place? What deadlines did you secure and will you publish them so people across Wales can see when they'll get the reliable water supply that they deserve and the cleaner seas and rivers, and we can all be reassured that you are relaying our concerns to him? Diolch.

Look, I would love to have the power to hold Dŵr Cymru to account on targets and on dates for achieving those targets, but that is the job of Ofwat, the regulator. Now, I did meet with the chair of Dŵr Cymru, and every time I meet with them, I share with them my ambition in terms of where we need to be, and I'm sure that reflects the views of probably every Member in this Chamber, I would hope. I'm meeting with Hafren Dyfrdwy next week, and we will have a similar discussion. So, one of the reasons that we are hoping that responsibility for regulation in this space is finally devolved to Wales is so that we can have that more direct influence in terms of reflecting Welsh priorities when it comes to the work of Welsh water companies. And as you know, those discussions are ongoing with the UK Government, and let's hope that we get to a place as soon as possible where we're able to get to grips with that ourselves and not through others.

I'd also like to thank the Member for raising this today, because Dŵr Cymru's record is completely unacceptable. For the fourth year running, NRW has maintained Dŵr Cymru's two-star environmental rating. In 2025 alone, there were 107 pollution incidents, including nine serious incidents, three more than the previous year. And who is ultimately paying the price for these failures? It's ordinary people and communities across Wales. Families are already struggling with the cost-of-living crisis, facing rising bills and having to make really difficult choices just to make ends meet. Yet people are being asked to pay more while continuing to see their local environment damaged by Dŵr Cymru's repeated pollution failures.

People are paying more, and they rightly expect better. They should not have to accept this level of environmental performance from their water provider. So, Cabinet Minister, how is the Welsh Government working with Dŵr Cymru and also Ofwat as well to hold them to account and work with them to make sure that we don't see this again next year?

Thank you. I know and I share much of the frustration and the anger that's being expressed here today. Look, independent regulators are holding Dŵr Cymru to account using their respective powers, and I expect them to use those powers robustly where performance falls short. There are some areas where there has been progress, we need to recognise that, but sustained measurable improvement is required, and we're not seeing it to the degree that any of us would like.

Company reform is happening, I know. The investment programme is in place, and we as a Government have a wider programme for water reform that hopefully will deliver better outcomes for customers and the environment. Now, customers are right to expect better services and environmental outcomes from the investments that they fund. Ofwat, of course, sets the bills independently through the statutory price review process, and that has to balance affordability, of course, with the investment needs. But a £44.7 million enforcement package was put in place against Dŵr Cymru to fund some additional environmental improvements without increasing customers' bills not so long ago.

Customers also, of course, need to be given support—those who are struggling, particularly. The more vulnerable customers especially need to be given the support that they need. But the message is clear from me, and I'm sure for those listening today the message is resoundingly clear from this Chamber: we expect better, and we expect better soon.

Minister, the Ofwat statement on Dŵr Cymru says it does not run its sewers properly, spills too much sewage and was badly governed on it, and now may struggle to afford to fix it. Two points come out of that statement that they've made. It's a good overview, in fairness, and it's accurate, but how concerned are you about their governance arrangements? You said you've met the chairman, so have you had a discussion about their governance arrangements? Because if they haven't got good governance, then how are they going to deliver the service and make the improvements we all want to see?

And secondly, how concerned are you about that last statement, in Ofwat's view, that they might struggle to afford to pay the improvements over the plan that they've put on the table for £4.5 billion-worth of investment? Because none of us in Wales want to see a Thames Water situation here, and that financial stranglehold that they find themselves in is a real choker that could ultimately stop the investment that we desperately need in the water system here in Wales.

Yes, look, on the struggling to afford piece, I think that that is a challenge, as you say, that is faced sector-wide. It's one of the reasons, I think, why the UK Government are looking to introduce reform in England. It's hopefully one of the reasons why they're looking to give us here in Wales the powers to try to deal with some of those challenges in terms of the economic regulation of the water sector here in Wales. So, hopefully, some of that will be picked up as part of that particular piece of work. But there's also, of course, a journey that we need to go on to get there. There's a transition. And the last thing we want is to introduce instability, insecurity, uncertainty, because Dŵr Cymru and others depend a lot on markets for borrowing and for their finance. So, these aren't things that we can just change overnight. There is an evolution that needs to happen.

On the business model, if you like, we are very proud of the fact that we have a unique model here in Wales, that Dŵr Cymru is, of course, part of Glas Cymru, that it's member owned, if you like, or customer owned. I'm aware that, at Westminster, questions have been raised about the robustness of scrutiny by the company there, and I think it's incumbent on Glas Cymru to reflect on that. But I think there is a debate to be had around whether we want to nationalise water in Wales, whether we think that the private model is better. But regardless of that, we need a regulatory regime that reflects that breadth of business models effectively, because some people have questioned in the past whether that is sufficiently considered under the current model. So, that, again, is something that maybe we can take away to think about as we reform the economic regulation of water here in Wales, given the powers.

Diolch, Lywydd. Ofwat's report shows that Dŵr Cymru is not only missing its environmental targets, it's one of the few water companies in the UK that's not even improving. It remains the worst performing water company for storm overflows and is missing its targets for compliance with its discharge permits. And informed groups like Save the River Usk have demonstrated that discharge permits, even if they were complied with, are not fit for purpose anyway. Ofwat's enforcement action earlier this year is welcome, but clearly an urgent shake-up is needed. So, what assessment has the Government made of the permit system, how Welsh Water can be brought into line and how the system can be reformed for the longer term? Diolch.

Well, I will refer to much of the answer I gave earlier, actually, in terms of the wider reform of the system. I think there is an opportunity for us, given the powers and given the opportunity, to recast that whole regulatory piece when it comes to water. And it's something I think that we should pick up and consider in that context.

Thank you, Llywydd. Over the last few months, I have been privileged to hear stories from men whose lives have been transformed by the fantastic work of Movember. So, I want to take this opportunity to recognise the remarkable work of Movember and all the Mo bros and Mo sisters in Wales, not just in November, but all year round. This month, many of us will be growing moustaches, taking a moment or participating in Move for Movember. What began with a moustache has become a global movement. Every donation funds research, supports communities and, crucially, helps to start conversations that men often feel unable to have.

Here in Wales, the work is absolutely vital. Movember's recent 'The Real Face of Men's Health' report paints a sobering picture. Nearly 7,000 men in Wales died prematurely in 2024, and suicide remains the leading cause of death for men under 50. So, I just want to remind everyone that behind every statistic there is a family, a friendship and a community living with this heartbreaking loss.

Movember is a fantastic example of an approach that works, meeting men where they are and helping them seek support before crisis point. Working closely with other organisations like Men's Sheds, Men Thrive and Helpu, they are changing lives. However, excellent projects like this should not have to exist as isolated examples of proper practice. Wales needs a coherent national approach. So, as we celebrate Movember, I gently invite the Welsh Government to consider how a dedicated, properly resourced men's health plan could build on Movember's work and ensure that every man in Wales has the chance to live a healthier, longer life. Thank you.

Today, we commemorate 187 years since the Chartist march on the Westgate Hotel in Newport. The history of Newport, Blackwood, Risca and the Gwent Valleys and its people are at the very heart of our modern democracy. Now, this may seem a bold statement, but the events of the 1839 Chartist uprising reverberated across the country and directly contributed to the democratic rights that we have today. The individuals who made their mark during that time, such as Zephaniah Williams, William Jones and John Frost, must not be forgotten. The Chartists campaigned, marched and died for those rights. Among the six demands listed on the people's charter were secret ballots, equal-sized constituencies and universal suffrage for men over 21 years of age. The fact that at least 22 people died at the Westgate Hotel that fateful night campaigning for those rights is a sacrifice that we must never forget.

The work of our Chartist heritage, the Newport Rising Festival, is a grass-roots movement led by volunteers, and this year's festival has a fantastic, packed programme once again. The range of events on offer include the annual Chartist convention, as well as live music, poetry and, of course, the torchlit march this Saturday, following in the footsteps down Stow Hill of the Chartists. It's the spirit of the Chartists that we need to capture and hold with us. The principles of striving for better, coming together as a collective and working to improve the place we live are as relevant now as they were then.

This week is National Fertility Awareness Week, with a simple message: every fertility journey matters. For many, fertility difficulties are not something they ever expected or planned for. Discovering that starting a family may not be as straightforward as you assumed can take a real emotional toll. For some, that lasts months; for others, years or a lifetime. Life can feel on hold, measured in appointments, treatment cycles and waiting for news while everyone else's life carries on around you.

My partner and I have been through our own fertility experience. For us, needing treatment wasn't unexpected, so we were open about our journey. What I hadn't expected was how our openness would encourage others to share theirs. Friends and colleagues spoke about their struggles, losses and treatment that we had known nothing about. It reminded me just how much people carry this quietly. Fertility difficulties can affect relationships, work, finances, mental health and also friendships. This week also shines a light on male fertility. Too often, fertility is seen as a women's issue, when men's experiences and emotional well-being can be overlooked.

We may never know what our colleagues, friends or family are carrying. I hope this week can encourage more honest conversation, help break the silence around fertility and offer some comfort to everyone facing their own fertility journey. Diolch yn fawr.

Light over darkness, hope over fear and good over evil. This week, we celebrate Diwali, the festival of light, with the Hindu and Jain community, and extend greetings to Sikhs marking Bandi Chhor Divas and families across the south Asian diaspora. I pay tribute to the Indian Society of South West Wales and Raj Aggarwal, Honorary Consul of India in Wales, for bringing communities together, sharing traditions and helping younger generations take pride in their heritage. As a clinician, I thank GPs, surgeons, consultants, technicians, nurses and carers from these communities who serve us every day. You bring light through your care, comfort through your kindness and hope through your service.

Diwali reminds us that our different traditions enrich our shared Welsh identity. Wales shines brightest when every neighbour is valued, every community belongs and we stand together. Its message of generosity reflects the Welsh spirit of welcome and looks after one another. To everyone celebrating in Gŵyr Abertawe, across Wales and around the world, may this festival bring health, happiness, peace and prosperity to your homes. When we share our light, we brighten our communities. Thank you. Diolch.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I speak today in my capacity as Chair of the Petitions Committee. On behalf of the Members serving on that committee, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to introduce this debate today. This is the first debate held in the current Senedd for this term, and I thank the Business Committee for allocating time to this very important debate.

The petitions system offers a direct line to the Senedd for individuals and groups in Wales. It's an accessible route for them to raise concerns or issues with us directly, their elected representatives, and for them to have their voices heard in the Chamber. Former Chair Jack Sargent coined the term 'the people's committee', which is a very apt turn of phrase for the work the committee does in giving Wales and her people a voice using this mechanism.

Since taking up the role of Chair of the Petitions Committee earlier this year, I've been encouraged by the significant volume of petitions submitted to the Senedd and the high numbers of individuals signing petitions, including the one we're about to discuss today. Thank you to all those who have taken the time to share their concerns with us in this way. I'd encourage others to make use of this simple and straightforward route to engage with the Senedd on matters of importance to them across Wales.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to commend the work of the sixth Senedd's Petitions Committee. That committee's work led to significant improvements on important issues including water safety and drowning prevention, the use of smartphones in schools, and health concerns relating to landfill sites across Wales. I look forward to working with fellow members of the Petitions Committee during this current Senedd term to continue the good work and help improve lives and communities in Wales in response to the petitions submitted to us by the public.

In case any Members are not aware, Standing Orders require the Petitions Committee to consider any petition submitted that has gathered over 250 signatures or more. The committee must refer the petition to the Government, any other committee of the Senedd, or any other person or body, for them to take such action as they consider appropriate. Alternatively, the Petitions Committee may take any other action that it considers appropriate. As a committee, we have agreed with the Business Committee for this current Senedd term to consider seeking a Plenary debate on any petition that has gathered 10,000 signatures or more.

Today's debate concerns a petition submitted by Laura Tams on behalf of the National Association of Head Teachers Cymru. The petition closed for signatures on 27 July this year, having collected a total of 11,451 signatures. The Petitions Committee considered this petition on 24 September. On behalf of that committee, I'd like to thank Laura for taking the time to submit this petition, and also thank those 11,451 people, individuals, who took the time to sign it. I should note that the petition for debate today was submitted prior to recent Senedd debates on the funding allocated to ALN within the supplementary budgets for this current financial year.

The text of the petition states:

'We call on the Welsh Government to allocate and ring-fence the £500m in consequential funding from English SEND spending directly to local authorities and schools for Additional Learning Needs (ALN).

'While not legally bound to the same portfolio, this funding exists because of systemic education pressures that do not stop at the border. Ahead of the supplementary budget, this money must go straight to the frontline to support Wales’ most vulnerable learners and stabilise our schools.'

Deputy Llywydd, ALN provision has been a regular subject of Senedd petitions over a significant period of time, as well as the subject of many a debate in this Chamber, of course. Just last month, the Petitions Committee considered another well-supported petition concerning ALN provision. That petition, submitted by the mother of a child in north Wales with severe and complex ALN, highlighted a lack of Welsh-medium residential placements in Wales for children with complex ALN and called on the Welsh Government to take urgent steps to address the issue directly.

There can be no doubt that, over recent decades, awareness of ALN and how they can affect individuals' learning and attainment has improved. Generally, learners with ALN are far better supported now than in days gone by, and that work should be commended. However, as demonstrated by the considerable support for Laura's petition, there is clearly more to be done and greater investment needed to sustain and improve the current provision of ALN support in Wales. Significant scrutiny of ALN reforms and funding provision for implementation was undertaken by the sixth Senedd, in particular by the Children, Young People and Education Committee. I'm sure ALN will continue to be a hot topic of debate and scrutiny during the current Senedd term.

During this Senedd, the Cabinet Minister for Finance has repeatedly stated that ALN funding requires a long-term sustainable solution. Contributions were made in Plenary on 23 June, in the Finance Committee on 30 June, during a Labour-led debate on 1 July and in the supplementary budget debate on 14 July. At the end of August, in response to a letter from the Petitions Committee, the Cabinet Minister for Education and the Welsh Language clarified that the total additional funding Wales received via the UK Government's spring statement earlier this year was £322 million, which arose from special educational needs and disabilities investment and debt write-off measures in England, rather than the £500 million referenced in the petition.

The Cabinet Minister acknowledged the significant pressures facing schools, local authorities, families and the wider education workforce in supporting learners with ALN. The Cabinet Minister also explained that a £120 million three-year funding package to support ALN capacity had been included in the Welsh Government's first supplementary budget for 2026-27. However, as we all know, that supplementary budget was not agreed by this Senedd.

The second supplementary budget, debated yesterday, provides £60 million of funding for ALN in this current financial year, compared to the £40 million allocated in the first supplementary budget. This is a step forward, but clearly falls short of the demands of the petitioner and those who signed this petition. It's also unclear what level of funding for ALN support will be provided beyond this financial year.

During our consideration of the petition, the committee noted that there are clearly significant concerns about ALN provision in Wales, including on the question of funding, and we therefore decided to seek this Plenary debate.

The committee noted that ring-fencing all consequential funding by the UK Government would risk undermining the principle of devolution by restricting Welsh Government's ability to spend according to its own priorities. In responding to the petition, the Cabinet Minister raised the same point, which is central to this debate today. The Welsh Government will of course wish to spend that funding provided to it according to its own priorities. That is what Governments are elected to do, and that is what the people of Wales expect of them.

At the same time, it's entirely understandable that those who are concerned about current and future ALN provision in Wales will feel that funding consequential to spending on special educational needs and disability in England should all be spent on ALN here in Wales. The number of signatories to this petition suggests that many people in Wales support this position, and I therefore call on the Cabinet Secretary today to explain in detail the Welsh Government's position on the question of ALN funding and allocation. These debates offer an opportunity for us, as a Senedd, to consider the views of the people we represent on a specific issue such as this one before us today, and I look forward to hearing other Members' views. Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd.

I'd like to put on record my sincerest thanks to NAHT Cymru and the 11,451 people who have signed this petition. What they're asking for is that the consequential funding for ALN sent to Wales from Westminster be invested fairly in children with additional learning needs here in Wales.

Wales has received, as we've heard, £322 million in consequential funding, yet just £60 million of that money has been allocated to ALN. And let's not forget how we arrived at this point. When Plaid Cymru published its first supplementary budget in June, there wasn't a single penny of additional funding allocated to ALN. I'll repeat that: there wasn't a single penny of additional funding allocated to ALN.

Only when the Government needed opposition support to pass its own budget did it offer £40 million a year over three years. That offer was too little too late, the budget was defeated, and after further negotiations the figure has increased to £60 million. I find it appalling that funding for children with additional learning needs became a political bargaining chip. That should never have been the case.

This Government can find money for overseas projects—I know you don't like hearing that, but we're going to keep saying it, I'm afraid—and spending priorities elsewhere, yet when it comes to properly funding our schools and local authorities, suddenly we are told that there are difficult choices to be made.

Well, let nobody in this Chamber be under any illusion: the refusal to allocate more of this consequential funding to ALN is a political choice, plain and simple. NAHT Cymru tells us that additional funding is being distributed according to the overall pupil numbers, rather than the prevalence or complexity of additional learning needs. A small rural school supporting several children with complex needs can face enormous additional costs, yet receive considerably less funding than a larger school with fewer complex needs. How can that be equitable, when distributing money intended specifically for children with additional learning needs?

Funding should reflect the needs of individual learners, not the number of children on the school's register. Audit Wales has already warned that the ALN system is under strain. School leaders are struggling to fulfil their statutory responsibilities; teachers are under enormous pressure; and parents are having to go above and beyond the call of duty to secure the support their children are legally entitled to receive.

So, I would like to ask the Minister: will the Government review the funding formula to ensure more money reaches schools according to actual learner need? They deserve properly funded services, and this Government has a responsibility to deliver them. The ball is in your court. Diolch yn fawr. 

I welcome the opportunity to speak today, and can I thank the Petitions Committee for bringing forward this debate? I also want to thank the National Association of Head Teachers for starting this petition, and I want to pay tribute to them for all the campaigning they've done on school funding in recent years, including when I was the Minister responsible. Because, in my book, we can never have too many voices making the case for more funding for education. 

I also want to thank the 11,000 people who signed the petition, and who have campaigned for increased funding for children with ALN. We in Labour have been fighting on your behalf. It was your voices, and the future of children across Wales with ALN that we had at the front of our minds as Welsh Labour negotiated for increased funding. And we are really pleased that, through these negotiations, we were able to secure an extra £60 million for ALN from the Welsh Government for this year. 

That £60 million is a significant cash injection that will make a real difference to the children in Wales with additional learning needs. It builds on the investment Welsh Labour delivered in Government, and, crucially, not a penny of the extra £60 million we've been assured will come from elsewhere in the education budget. That was a key ask we made during negotiations, as was the need for a long-term sustainability plan for further education in Wales. 

Throughout, Welsh Labour repeatedly made the case that the Welsh Government should be setting aside even more funding for ALN, over and above this £60 million, and that remains our position. But we are clear that the £60 million we secured is substantial progress from the Welsh Government's initial offering. Let's not forget that Ministers originally failed to allocate any additional money for ALN when they first brought forward the supplementary budget in the summer, despite additional funding being provided by the UK Government. And the money secured by Welsh Labour is 50 per cent more than what was being offered at the start of last month. 

The investment we secured must now pave the way for future additional investment in ALN, with the £60 million acting as a baseline going forward. Welsh Labour will continue to fight for more funding and to negotiate the best possible deal ahead of next year's budget. We will also continue to press for improvements to the ALN system itself, so that all children have the opportunity to thrive.

In Government, we rolled out a new system for supporting children with ALN that puts the learner at its heart. And we backed those reforms with hundreds of millions of pounds, including more than £250 million to build new facilities and to improve existing facilities. But I am acutely aware, not just of the rising demand in additional learning needs, but the additional complexity that schools are dealing with.

We know that getting this right requires a long-term approach and sustained investment from the Welsh Government. That's why we were determined to get this additional money. It is crucial now that this money gets to schools and colleges as quickly as possible. So, could the Minister please confirm a timeline as to when all the extra funds will have been distributed to schools?

And the Minister will have heard yesterday concerns about the method of allocating the funding. I understand better than anyone that there is a certain amount of data not held by Welsh Government on numbers of children with ALN in individual schools, so there had to be a mechanism found. And I also recognise that further work that we did in Government will lead to a better data set in future. But it would be helpful to know what messages she is giving to schools about protecting that money for the children who need it most. And can I finally ask the Minister to recognise the need to build on this investment in future years, so that all children are given the opportunity to thrive?

And I just wanted to conclude by acknowledging that the NAHT would have liked all the SEND consequentials to be spent on ALN, and we will continue to make the case for more funding. The thing that made the biggest impact on me as Minister was the huge range of societal issues schools are now faced with, some of which are presenting in the classroom as additional learning needs. I met teachers and headteachers who said to me, 'I'm a police officer, I'm a psychologist, I'm a social worker, and I'm an educator.' I take my hat off to each and every one of them.

We need now in Wales a genuine and honest examination of the range of issues schools and colleges are dealing with—

Can you conclude?

—and we need to make sure that the costs of that are genuinely informing budget allocations and the use of consequentials. Diolch.

Can I thank the Chair of the Petitions Committee for presenting this in the Chamber here this afternoon, and of course thank the petitioners themselves and the 11,000 signatories alongside them for their efforts in bringing this to our attention here today?

I also want to, Deputy Presiding Officer, just remind us of what is often forgotten in this debate, because when we're talking about additional learning needs, too often we slip into a very important issue, which is around budget lines and numbers and figures, but what we're really discussing here are the lives and the future opportunities of young people and children here in Wales who do need that additional support to help them through their schooling. And when we shorten additional learning needs just to 'ALN', we often are even more removed from thinking about individual schools, teachers and learners. I want all of us here today to be mindful of that and remember that, when we say 'ALN', we are discussing our children and young people, their education, their futures, so we absolutely need to keep them at the forefront of our minds throughout this debate here this afternoon.

As we've already heard in this debate, this petition calls on the Senedd to note the petition in particular to allocate the entire—as the petition describes it—£500 million consequential to ALN provision. And those who proposed and supported this petition have made worthwhile points. They recognise that the consequential was received as a result of ALN spend—or SEND spend—in England, and so they believe that it should be spent here on ALN in Wales.

I think the crux of the issue here, Minister, if I may, is not necessarily whether we're talking about £500 million or the £320 million that you may describe; I think it's the spirit of what's being described here, not necessarily the letter of it. Because by Labour and Plaid Cymru deciding to allocate just £60 million, they've claimed that this is enough, or you've claimed this is enough, to protect ALN provision for this financial year, but without a comprehensive detailed review of ALN provision, its strengths and current challenges in Wales, both of these are fundamentally political arguments. I do have concerns that the £60 million allocation has been happened upon out of political convenience, not because of a genuine understanding and consideration of the level of need in ALN.

The Welsh Government's claim that this amount supports the needs of ALN learners in Wales has no credibility unless it is based on a real assessment of ALN needs in Wales. And I wonder how you can describe the level of assessment that's taken place to give you the assurance that £60 million is the right amount of money for this year. Why was it £60 million? Why wasn't it £40 million? Why wasn't it £120 million? How has that number come about as meeting the needs of learners in Wales? I'd be interested to know what modelling Plaid Cymru and Welsh Labour have used to decide that this would provide enough relief and support to those teachers, learners and parents. I want to know what evidence the Welsh Government will point to when convincing school leaders, organisations and parents that the £60 million is indeed the right amount of money that ALN needs in this year. Or was it just a convenient number to get to for a compromise between Labour and Plaid Cymru?

Let's not forget, back in July, the day after this petition was launched, Welsh Labour held a debate on their motion saying that funding for additional learning needs should be included in the first supplementary budget. As Welsh Conservatives, we supported that motion. I spoke on the real pressures that schools, headteachers and governing bodies were facing in trying to ensure ALN provision could be provided where it was needed. I have first-hand experience of these struggles—I declare my interest now, Deputy Presiding Officer—as a local education authority governor of a school in north Wales, but I've also spoken to school leaders from elsewhere in Wales who told me a very similar thing.

The Senedd passed that motion, and we all know what happened shortly afterwards: the Welsh Government lost the vote on their supplementary budget because Labour were not satisfied with Plaid Cymru's £40 million for ALN. Yet, we know that, yesterday, Labour have supported a £60 million budget for ALN, only £20 million more than what Plaid Cymru were hoping to get through before the summer. And as we've already heard in this place today, this has disappointed those important stakeholders who were willing to work with the Welsh Government, with Welsh Labour, and with all other parties in the Senedd to ensure that children with additional learning needs are properly supported. In particular, we know that NAHT were keen to ensure that the right amount of money was levelled towards schools. And this could have been a consequential that could have had a once-in-a-generation chance to put learners first, invest in provision, and to launch a sustainable funding model for schools.

So, I think, Deputy Presiding Officer, it's clear that Wales needs proper investment in ALN now. Our young people, our schools and teachers, and our future generations cannot afford more underinvestment before a fundamental change in funding can be achieved and a sustainable model put in place. As Welsh Conservatives, we know that more must be done, and we'll continue to push this Welsh Government to ensure that everyone in education is properly supported. Thank you.

I want to begin by thanking the petitioners for helping to bring this debate forward today. At its heart, this petition speaks to a sentiment on which we can all, I think, agree: that young people with additional learning needs in our communities deserve the very best and, in turn, demand the very best from us as representatives. I know too well, as someone with intimate experience of the system, both how it is intended to work and where it struggles. I know the difference that effective support can make and I personally understand the frustration and the consequences of the absence of that support. This is a matter that holds real personal weight for me, and it reinforces my belief that getting our ALN system to a place we can be proud of is not something we can afford to put off. And this is why it's important that we change the structures of ALN support, that we focus on outcomes and critically examine how the system is organised.

Putting more money into a system that isn't delivering is not in itself a solution, and last night's budget vote was an important milestone, beginning the work of improving that system while addressing some of the more immediate financial and operational pressures this year: £44.8 million directly to schools; £11.2 million directly to local authorities; £1.5 million to support partners in undertaking further planning work, assessing the longer term provision required across our communities, which will be crucial because we cannot continue to approach ALN provision on a short-term reactive basis. And £2.5 million for further education is equally welcome, recognising of course that the needs of learners don't stop at age 16.

These are important investments, and it's right we recognise the support they'll provide in the here and now. But we need an approach that sees the outcome of our work as the goal and not just the headlines of amounts spent. Additional funding, while necessary, is a partial answer. There are some very fundamental questions about the long-term sustainability of our ALN system that we need to confront and that money alone simply does not answer. I sympathise very much with the sentiment of the petition, and yesterday's supplementary budget vote was a welcome step forward, but, Dirprwy Lywydd, there is much more work to do beyond budget allocations when it comes to ALN. Diolch.

Can I start by thanking the Chair for his work on this and the committee's work in general, and echo his words in encouraging more people to use this way to bring in a debate to the Chamber? I say that as a member of the committee, but, before my time here, I say it as someone who used the petitions way to bring a debate to the Senedd as well.

Can I thank the petitioners for what they've done, because ALN is an important issue out there for a lot of people? And, for me, today is a frustration yet again, because in this Chamber we hear a lot from this Government about how it likes to listen. But, Minister, when the original supplementary budget and this supplementary budget were done, I don't know who you could have been listening to, because if we look at what the Welsh Local Government Association has said, in terms of the pressures they have seen on the front line, the ALN funding gap is bigger than the consequential funding itself and they warn that this cannot continue. 

If we look at the petitioners, the National Association of Head Teachers Cymru, they have sent their warnings several times about ALN and the pressures that teachers are facing themselves. The National Education Union said that 86 per cent of their members surveyed stated concerns regarding ALN. There's Estyn as well, and even the Children's Commissioner for Wales says that around one third of the casework concerns they're dealing with are to do with ALN. So, how is it that it was left to efforts made by petitioners and other people to put this on your radar, that the original budget fell short? Why is it that people now feel that they were a pawn in a political deal for additional funding to come?

Real concerns have been raised here today: how did this figure of £60 million come about? Where was it? What formula was used? What calculations? Who did you speak to to come to the idea that £60 million was adequate? Because to date, I haven't seen anything. And that is a real concern. So, maybe, in this debate today, you could answer that question and reassure families and young people across Wales that they weren't just some deal made behind closed doors between two political parties, and that real calculations were made, real assessments were made, and those people were treated as people and not just a figure that you could put out in a press release.

I know first-hand about additional learning needs, not just from the work my mother did, but I fell into one of those statistics as someone with dyslexia growing up. I know the hardship of feeling in a classroom that you can't read from the board—the difficulties, the panic attacks. I know today I speak in front of you, but I speak from bullet points and notes, not from a scripted speech, because my dyslexia does have barriers for me there that I've had to work around. That's something I've developed in life. But young people in classrooms right now are feeling that support isn't there, that new tools and assistance aren't there, because funding isn't there. Teachers are sitting next to them because the schools simply can't afford a one-to-one in these classrooms. Minister, let's think of children when we're doing this. Let's not go to the point scoring. And if you can address some of these points right now, I'd be grateful so that I can let some of my constituents know that this Government does actually care and listen to them when they are bringing concerns forward. Diolch.

First of all, congratulations, Jason, on your role as Chair of a committee I feel very passionate about as a previous Chair myself. I'm glad to be back on that committee serving with you and others. As you rightly pointed out, the Petitions Committee over the years has often been undermined in terms of the actual power that it has for us to be a conduit between the people out there, the average ordinary person out there. I really want to support this petition and to congratulate Laura Tams from the National Association of Head Teachers Cymru and every single one of the 11,451 people who signed it.

Their message is clear: children with additional learning needs must receive the right support, at the right time, yet too many are being left behind. The evidence is stark: between 2018-19 and 2024-25, the number of pupils receiving statutory support through a statement or an individual development plan rose by 164 per cent. Costs are also climbing. Welsh councils have budgeted £764 million for ALN in 2026-27, £96.3 million more than last year. Wales is expected to receive around £500 million over three years as a result of spending decisions on special educational needs in England. Wales is also due to receive £322 million of this money for the 2026-27 financial year, yet none of this money was allocated specifically to ALN in the first supplementary budget. As has been pointed out by my colleague Sam Rowlands, only an additional £60 million was allocated for ALN in the second supplementary budget.

We, the Welsh Conservatives, are very clear that that is not enough. And what happens after this financial year? One year of additional funding is certainly not a sustainable plan for our teachers and our headteachers who have to grapple with this underspend. This money came to Wales because of spending on special educational needs in England. Ministers are not obliged to allocate this to ALN, just like previous Welsh Labour Ministers didn't allocate Barnett formula commitments to Wales when it came to health—up to almost £1 billion. Ministers are not obliged to allocate it, but they must explain why they won't and how vulnerable learners will benefit from their decisions. You are, after all, as a Government, accountable for every single penny and every single pound that you receive as a Government.

The numbers of school absentees are really worrying. More and more parents are coming forward and saying that they're not sending their children to school because the children are not being fulfilled in their attempts to receive an education. They don't understand. Llŷr, you put your point on a personal level very well here today. Well done for doing that. Why £60 million? How was that figure calculated? We have a right to know, the teachers and headteachers have a right to know, and the parents have a right to know. It's their children's lives that you are affecting with your budget decisions. What difference is this going to make to really vulnerable children?

An announcement is not an outcome, and the way this funding is allocated does matter. The NAHT noted that rather than allocating the extra £60 million based on actual learner need, the Welsh Government mandated a distribution formula driven purely by total pupil head count. Every single one of these children that needs support is different. They need different types and amounts of support. Funding based on raw school size rather than ALN prevalence or severity of need creates arbitrary winners and losers. Audit Wales found that public bodies do not have a complete picture of ALN demand, workforce capacity, costs or outcomes. It's extraordinary. If Ministers do not know the true level of demand, the available workforce, the full costs or the outcomes, how can you even guess that £60 million is enough?

Schools are doing absolutely everything they can. Teachers, teaching assistants and specialists work tirelessly, but goodwill does not fill vacancies, dedication cannot fund specialist provision and compassion cannot balance a school budget. School leaders now are warning that they are being forced to cut teaching assistant numbers simply to balance their books. That means fewer adults supporting children with complex needs—

Can I ask you to conclude, please?

The 11,451 signatories are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for every child to have the chance to thrive.

Sorry. Can I ask you to conclude?

No child should be left behind. Nothing less will do. Diolch.

Schools and local authorities are responding, as we've heard, to rising demand and increasingly complex needs. The capacity of education settings and access to expertise are not consistent across Wales, and education, health and other services do not always work together as effectively or as early as they should. Families can experience uncertainty about what support is available, while practitioners are being asked to respond to growing demands in an extremely challenging financial environment.

These are difficult and interconnected problems and this Government is determined to address them. That's why we have secured the additional £60 million investment in additional learning needs in this financial year. This includes £56 million for schools and settings and £2.5 million for further education. This extra funding will help alleviate immediate financial and operational pressures, stabilise staffing and local provision, and strengthen support for learners. It is a substantial investment and a clear demonstration of our commitment to children and young people with additional learning needs.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I made getting more money for ALN into education's front lines a priority upon my appointment to this role, and I'm grateful to partners both within and outside this Chamber for helping to make that happen. I agree, in this instance, with Lynne Neagle and Sam Rowlands: we can't have too many people advocating for a focus on education. That support is welcome from all quarters.

However, we do know that funding alone will not resolve all the challenges that this system faces. As well as financial investment, it is important that we take practical action in the short term to improve the support available to learners and their support networks. So, we are strengthening arrangements for children and young people with healthcare needs, for example, through the development of new integrated guidance, co-produced by health and education partners. That working together will be important. This is intended to provide greater clarity and consistency for supporting learners with healthcare needs in education settings. We're also investing in workforce development through the national professional learning and training delivered by Dysgu, building the skills and confidence of practitioners, which has also been alluded to today, while strengthening the strategic leadership role of additional learning needs co-ordinators in embedding inclusive practice and improving outcomes for learners. 

We're also strengthening our evidence base, and this has come up several times this afternoon as well. We need to be clear on that evidence base and act upon it. Estyn is undertaking a thematic review of local authorities' specialist resource bases, for example. This will help us better understand how specialist mainstream provision is delivered across Wales and to identify effective practice, with a view to improving the quality and consistency of our offer to learners and their families across the country. We are also continuing to improve Welsh-medium ALN provision by building capacity and improving access to timely support in Cymraeg.

Alongside these actions, because this is an educational priority, of course, we have published our foundational literacy and numeracy plan and are moving at pace to implement that. Literacy and numeracy provide the essential foundations for accessing the wider curriculum, and it is important that every learner, regardless of background, regardless of challenges, is encouraged to develop their skills in a manner that best suits their individual needs.

My ambition is to build a genuinely inclusive education system in Wales, a system founded on high expectations for every learner, which identifies and overcomes barriers to participation, engagement and achievement, a system—[Interruption.] Yes.

Thank you. I was just reflecting on your comments a few moments ago about the evidence base that you are seeking to strengthen, with the work of Estyn. I wonder, as that evidence comes through over the coming weeks and months, and if it becomes clear that the £60 million is not going to be enough to meet the demand within this year, whether you would further petition the finance Minister, or yourselves, the Welsh Government, to see whether more money should be allocated towards ALN to meet the needs that evidence provides you.

I am happy to look at an evidence base that is as thorough and as compelling as I can find across Wales. I was coming to that in the next part, where we look at how we build a sustainable system over time, because that's the evidence base that we need to build. If we are going to address these matters in the longer term, in a way that we can all understand and we can sustain, then that is the priority for the next step beyond that £60 million.

We want a system that enables us to focus on what learners can do, not what they can't. So, inclusion is the key part here, and it must be the golden thread running through the education system, shaping how education is designed and delivered. It's not a bolt-on or an approach that sits alongside. Inclusion is our core business, and it's everyone's core business. That means schools and settings having the skills, capacity and support to respond effectively to a wide range of needs. It also means learners being able to access specialist expertise and provision when they need it. That genuine understanding of need is part of the rationale for the funding package of £1.5 million that has been allocated to support explicitly the work on the long-term sustainability of the ALN system, strengthening inclusive provision in response to changing demographics, too, and the diversity of learners in our schools.

This work will build on work that is already happening across Wales. During my visits to schools and settings, I've seen for myself the commitment, expertise and innovation, crucially, that is already shaping support for learners. Local authorities are working with their schools, developing different approaches to specialist and inclusive support in response to local need. I want to build on those strengths, working with our partners to develop a more coherent continuum of high-quality inclusive provision across Wales. That's the aim and the ambition—underpinned, though, crucially, by clearer national expectations, stronger mainstream capacity and sustainable specialist support. That requires a system-wide approach, ensuring the skills, capacity and infrastructure are in place to provide equitable and sustainable support for learners whenever and wherever they need it.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We've had a very good debate for the first one for the Petitions Committee, so thank you very much to everybody who contributed. I did take a lot of notes down, so I just want to pay tribute to everybody who had an input.

We started out with Helen Jenner. She mentioned that the petitioner requests fairness, which is something that I think we can all relate to, and a reminder that not a single penny was allocated in the initial budget. It’s the process and the work of this Senedd and the debate that we had on this floor that moved that allocation forward in instalments, and the subsequent negotiation with the Government and other parties that made the initial advances. She questioned the priorities in terms of foreign spending versus domestic spending and asked the question: should we be spending money abroad when we have our home-grown problems to solve first and foremost? So, there's a question there of priorities. And an important impact assessment should be made on ALN in rural settings, so perhaps we don't understand fully quite how much more difficult those children have it when it comes to rural settings, and how prevalent that is in regard to the ALN debate.

Lynne Neagle, I pay tribute to your work on this issue. I think you've led very much from the front during the many debates that we've had in the Senedd. You recognised the role of the National Association of Head Teachers from the outset. You've obviously got considerable experience in working with those. You claim the additional £60 million was as a result of your negotiations with the Government, which I think is a fair assessment of the current position, but you made the point that it's very much a starting position for this Government. It's £60 million now, but we want to see the Government go further in its allocation over the coming years. You made the point that it's crucial that it gets to schools as soon as soon as possible—that this money gets to work as quickly as possible and it's not held up by Senedd processes, or more talking shops. You asked specifically for a timeline of allocation for that money, which I can agree is very important indeed to the families who suffer or are blessed with, in many cases, ALN children.

Sam Rowlands made a very good point in terms of how does that £60 million—. Where did that come from? How did it get from £40 million to £60 million? Where is the formula for that? He asked for the data and assessment required. Was it an agreement of political convenience, or is there evidence that supports the generation of that figure, and how do families know that that £60 million is going to be enough for this year and the subsequent years? There's a recognition there of real pressure by educational leaders. They want more action from this Senedd, less talking and, as I said earlier, they need to see that money doing the work for them. 

We then moved on to—excuse me as I skip through my handwriting—Sera Evans, who shared a very personal experience in dealing with the system first-hand, which I think we should all take heed of and listen to. She made the very good point that money alone isn't enough, and the system needs fundamental reform. We need to get that money to the affected families sooner. We need to get that money to work so that the ALN provision can be issued to children who need it as quickly as possible, and a recognition that there's far more to do in this space. And, again, I think you can agree with Lynne that we need to act quickly to make sure that the ALN provision is passed down.

We then had Llŷr Powell, who has been a beneficiary of the system and used the system in a previous life. He highlighted the WLGA comments in regard to the funding gap of the ALN provision and the consequence of ignoring warning signs from bodies across the sector. And I think that's something, as politicians, we all need to hear, and take care in ensuring we listen to those bodies who deal with this on a day-to-day basis. He agreed with Sam on the basis of the £60 million—where did that come from? How was it generated? How are we assured that that's going to be enough going forward? And then he shared a very personal experience and asked us to think of the children in this case. We can often see in this place that we talk about numbers and spreadsheets, but it's people's lives at the end of the day that we're dealing with, and we need to remember that, I think, during these debates.

Janet recognised the role of the committee, which is absolutely right. We have a very good Petitions Committee, and I'm thankful to everybody who serves on it. We've got a range of views, we have good debate and we get a lot of good work done. And this is a great example of one of the instances where I think we can do some good. You recognised that the number of pupils in the ALN system rose by 164 per cent, which is significant, and I think, as a Senedd, we need to consider the change in societal norms as it relates to ALN. As the issues are more prevalent in our society, people are becoming more aware of what ALN means to them as families. They're reaching out for those services and we need to make sure we're prepared for what we can do in terms of providing the budget to make sure the needs are met. There's a reminder there that no additional funding was allocated prior to the debate, which is in agreement with other speakers, and a recognition that a one-size-solution doesn't fit all when it comes to ALN. Those families have complicated needs in some cases, and they need the time and the support from us as Government—not from me, sorry, from you as Government—to ensure that they're getting their needs met in terms of the ALN provision.

Cabinet Secretary, thank you very much for your response. I think you addressed the majority of the comments. You recognised the genuine concern from the petitioner, but also from right the way across the sector, so that was good to see, and there was also a recognition that there's not a consistent approach when it comes to this, and that's something that needs to be looked at. You are content that £60 million addresses that for this need, but I think there's a recognition that we want to see what happens after this year and make sure that funding increases and continues through the subsequent years.

You do recognise that ALN is a priority for this Government, but, again, it's a similar message to what Sera said earlier: more than money is required. We need to see fundamental reform of the system in order that we maximise the use of that money and, again, we implement the range of measures that you identified in strengthening practitioners' day-to-day lives. They're the ones who have to deal with the system, navigate their way around it and make sure they have everything they need to be able to deliver their services for what you say is a world-class system, and that's the vision we want to get to—. We need to give them the tools to be able to do that.

You mentioned that inclusion as key. It's not a bolt-on, and that's something I can agree with. It's important to understand that this is an integrated approach to ALN, and, where possible, it fits seamlessly in.

So, on that, thank you again to everybody who contributed. The debate has highlighted that the support there is high on the Senedd's agenda, which is great to see, but also that much more needs to be done. I recognise I'm out of time, so I'd just like to thank you all for your contributions today. The Petitions Committee will reflect on all of the comments as it considers the petition in due course, so diolch. Thank you.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Mobile phones, eh? Sometimes, we reflect on those days before the internet, before mobile phones and before smartphones in particular. They've changed lives, some for the best and some perhaps not for the best. I think this debate is slightly unusual in that most of us, perhaps all of us, in this Chamber recognise that there is action required on the use of mobile phones in schools.

We've had mobile phones now in schools for over 25 years. We had non-smartphones originally, which caused some problems, but they were limited. Then, around 2012 we had smartphones come in, and I remember getting my first smartphone. And then we developed the fourth generation mobile phone network, which meant that those smartphones became easy to connect and the data speeds increased. Then, in recent years, we've had much, much more reliable networks with increased data, and those data packages became much more affordable, including for children. So, it's the adoption, I think, of the smartphone, with these unlimited data packages, that has really brought this to be one of the key issues on top of the educational agenda.

There are powerful reasons for a ban that are based on behaviour, well-being, concentration and attainment. I think on that last one, in Wales, we need to do everything we can on that, and if this is one thing that we can do, then we should grasp it. So, those issues will be explored a little bit later in the debate, but I'm going to focus on the nature of the action that we think in Reform is required.

Now, the new administration, the new Welsh Government, to its credit, has launched a consultation on this. It's launched a consultation that is still live and will be for several more weeks on how statutory guidance for schools can be developed, not on whether statutory guidance is to be developed, but on what that statutory guidance should say. The Cabinet Minister has made it very clear that she expects restrictions to be introduced. So, that, if you like, is taken as read.

So, you may think, then, why is there a reason for this debate? As far as we in Reform UK are concerned, we don't think that the statutory guidance being proposed is sufficient. Let me explain why. The proposal is to issue statutory guidance to schools based on the Education Act 2002. That was a piece of legislation written to cover England and Wales and that was drafted shortly after devolution. Section 175 of that Act was drafted to cover general safeguarding and well-being matters, because mobile phones hardly existed in schools 25 years ago. And indeed, the Welsh Government's own consultation, the one that is still live, states this:

'There is currently no specific legislation or guidance in place in relation to the use of mobile phones in schools.'

So, the consultation itself recognises that there's nothing in place. There will be people in this Chamber who have worked in schools. Be in no doubt how difficult it will be removing a mobile phone from pupils in all schools. Those of us who've had responsibility for doing that know that implementing such a policy takes a huge amount of time and effort and, at least at first, is very, very confrontational, and that confrontation can come from both pupils and parents. Ultimately, it is something that might even result in the necessity to have a pupil exclusion, and that's something that actually isn't referenced in the consultation document.

The consultation document also states this:

'Our role as Government is not to mandate a single approach'.

On that, we in Reform disagree. Governing bodies, headteachers and teachers want clear direction on this matter—very clear direction. They don't want discretion; they want it to be set out in legislation. They want more than statutory guidance based on laws that predate the widespread use of mobile phones.

Now, the second part of the Plaid Cymru amendment today is not helpful. Of course, there will occasionally be individual pupils for whom an exception is required. But these must be rare, otherwise any ban will be very, very difficult to enforce. In fact, it will likely fail. The amendment proposes that a school's mobile phone policy will, and I quote, 'reflect their local circumstances'. My question is simple: how can local circumstances justify exemptions? It simply provides a mechanism for headteachers to be challenged regularly by any number of individuals and organisations. It would create an inconsistency and set up schools to fail in any policy implementation. So, I'd urge you to consider that when looking at the Plaid Cymru amendment.

The reality is that it's time for Wales to have a new schools Bill put forward, which can include provisions for mobile phones and for other electronic devices. This is what has happened in England—England has specifically legislated in the recent schools Bill to cover the issue of mobile phones and other electronic devices. It was deemed that the old legislation wasn't strong enough, so they've legislated just recently—and that's what you will have read about in the media—because it was accepted that new legislation was required. This is also what is going to happen in Scotland. I'll come back to the consultation document, which says:

'The Welsh Government would retain the option of considering stronger measures, including primary legislation, in the future should further action be required.'

So, the Welsh Government acknowledges that legislation would be stronger. This Senedd should be bold and give teachers the powers and the direct backing to tackle this problem of mobile phones.

Teachers want to know and to be able to say that we are behind them. Please, I think there is a majority in this Chamber who would agree with that point of view. We should legislate. That could be within the context of a bigger schools Bill or it could be a very short Bill to deal with mobile phones and electronic devices in schools. That is a matter for the Welsh Government. Please think about this very carefully; we have an opportunity today to change things for the better in our schools, and I would urge all Members to support the original motion.

Diolch. As a parent and a member of the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign, I've become increasingly concerned about the role smartphones are playing in young people's lives. I don't think many of us anticipated how quickly smartphones would become such a dominant part of childhood. For many young people, they are where they socialise, spend their free time and, increasingly, form their views on the world.

Many parents worry about what their children might encounter online, but they also worry about them feeling excluded if every other child has a smartphone. But, for me, the issue isn't really the phone itself; it's what comes with it. When we hand a child a smartphone, we're giving them access to platforms designed to keep them scrolling for as long as possible. Research from Beyond Equality found that it can take less than two hours for a social media account to be exposed to harmful content. Young people don't have to go looking for it. Content that begins with sport, fashion or fitness can quickly become a pathway towards misogynistic narratives and harmful gender stereotypes. Seven in 10 young people report seeing messages telling girls how they should look, dress or behave, whilst boys encounter content that presents masculinity in terms of dominance and emotional self-sufficiency, a danger that Llŷr Powell pointed towards yesterday when he raised men's mental health. Those messages don't stay online. They influence confidence, identity and how young people see their place in the world. Schools cannot solve every problem created by technology, but they can provide something increasingly valuable: a safe place where young people can focus on learning, build relationships face to face, and spend time away from the constant pull of notifications. That's timely—my watch pinged then.

Members have heard me say before that I'm an avid reader, and I've consciously gone back to buying physical books. Partly that's about supporting local bookshops, but it's also because I've become increasingly aware of how dominant screens have become in our daily lives. Johann Hari, in his book Stolen Focus, writes about how constant notifications and digital distractions make it harder to concentrate deeply. So, if as adults we recognise that in ourselves, it shouldn't surprise us that children are experiencing it too. That concern extends beyond learning and attainment. In recent years, there has been a significant decline in children's mental health and well-being. Whilst researchers continue to debate the extent to which screen use is the cause, there's growing evidence of a negative association between excessive screen time and young people's well-being. The widespread adoption of smartphones and social media has transformed childhood. As time spent online has increased, time spent reading, engaging face to face with family and friends and participating in the world around us has often declined. When screen-based activity begins to replace deep reading, sustained concentration and real-world interaction, there are understandable concerns about the impact on attention, memory, comprehension and mental well-being. We don't need to be a child to know the impact this is having.

This isn't about rejecting technology. It's about recognising that children need opportunities to develop the habits that books encourage: focus, reflection, imagination and the ability to engage with deep ideas. And those skills are every bit as important in the digital age as they have ever been. I spoke to Bridgend College in my constituency, who explained how they're dealing with the issue of mobile phones. Students are using their phones for important reasons, such as accessing timetables, their bus pass and practical learning activities. But staff have also spoken about lessons being disrupted by device distractions. Their response hasn't been to pretend the problem doesn't exist. They've introduced no-phone zones, strengthened behavioural expectations and given staff clearer authority to act when phones are getting in the way of learning. This is about boundaries, respect and helping young people develop healthy relationships with technology.

But we also need to look beyond smartphones, because if we focus on those alone we risk fighting yesterday's battle. New forms of wearable technology are already raising questions about privacy, consent and the sharing of images without permission. Those challenges won't disappear if smartphones are banned from the classroom. That's why we need to do more than set rules about devices. We need to equip young people with the skills to navigate technology safely, responsibly and respectfully. We have a responsibility to protect children from online harm. Young people can encounter cyberbullying, racism, misogynistic abuse, pornography and content promoting violence or self-harm. We have a duty to consider these issues through the lens of children's rights and well-being.

I welcome the Welsh Government's consultation on stronger guidance. Schools need clarity and consistency when it comes to restricting mobile phone use, but any approach also needs to recognise the differing needs of learners and the realities faced by schools and colleges. This isn't about being anti-technology. Young people need digital skills, but they also need safe spaces to learn, to concentrate and to build healthy relationships. Technology should support education, not compete with it. Diolch.

I'll be speaking in favour of the motion. As a former secondary school teacher, I'm arguing in favour of what I call a hard ban over a soft ban. A soft ban allows pupils to keep phones in their bags. A hard ban means phones are handed in or locked in secure storage at the start of the day, except where medically or educationally necessary. The motion calls for a statutory ban in classrooms, and I believe the most effective way of achieving that objective is a hard ban. A soft ban does not reliably prevent phone use in the classroom in my experience.

I have been to over a dozen schools across south Wales as a teacher, a supply teacher and teaching assistant. At almost every school, two things would happen: (1), at some point I would be mistaken for a pupil, and, secondly, and more relevant to the motion, at some point a pupil would get their phone out of their bag and I would catch them on their phone. Remarkably, it didn't matter which school, the excuse would usually be, 'I was just texting my mum.' Now we cannot legislate for pupils to give better excuses, but we can legislate to remove the temptation of phone use in the classroom. There was one school, though, where phone use was not a problem. I worked as a teacher at an independent school in Cardiff that had a hard ban. All pupils handed their phones in at reception at the start of the school day, collecting them at the end of the school day. There, I confiscated phones at the rate of maybe two a year. By contrast, in schools with softer bans, the rate was sometimes six or seven phones confiscated in one lesson, because pupils could simply reach into their bag and take out their phone.

Enough anecdotes. What does the evidence tell us? A major study published just last month involved nearly 17,000 higher education students in India. In a randomised experiment, students required to hand in their phones at the start of each lecture achieved better academic results than those who were not, with the greatest improvements among the lowest achieving students. Although conducted in higher education rather than in schools, this provides strong experimental evidence that physically removing phones during lessons can improve academic performance.

Turning to school-based research, there is evidence that girls may particularly benefit from phone bans. A peer-reviewed Norwegian study published this year found that school phone bans were followed by reductions in girls' consultations for psychological conditions, alongside improvements in their educational outcomes. Interestingly, the study found that estimated academic improvements among girls were larger in schools with stricter bans, including those requiring pupils to hand in their phones at the start of the day, which is precisely the approach I am advocating. Why are we seeking a statutory ban? It's because guidance alone will not guarantee consistency. The Welsh Government is proposing statutory guidance, meaning schools will still retain discretion over their final policies.

A statutory ban would establish a national minimum standard, giving headteachers a clearer basis for enforcement and ensuring pupils across Wales benefit from consistent protection against classroom distractions from phones. Significantly, in the Government's own workforce survey this year, 82 per cent of respondents favoured statutory restrictions, compared with just 15 per cent who preferred statutory guidance, leaving decisions to schools. Surely we should listen to those working on the front line.

Banning phones is not a panacea, but the evidence and my personal experience lead me to believe that it is something worth doing. When Wales's Programme for International Student Assessment scores are the worst in the UK in all three subjects in the latest results, we need to do everything in our power to try to raise standards. And, as we have seen, there is evidence that hard bans can contribute towards better educational outcomes. Let's let learners learn and teachers teach without the distraction of phones in the classroom. I urge all Members to support this motion.

Welsh Labour are supporting amendment 1, which reiterates the need for clear national expectations about mobile phone usage in schools, and which recognises the importance of getting the guidance on this right, so that it is enforceable and means more schools can be phone-free.

Can I remind Reform that the introduction of statutory mobile phone guidance is out to consultation until 2 December, and is therefore still an open consultation? Where I do agree with Stephen Senior is that we have to back our teachers, but I do think it would be remiss of the Government not to listen to and await the outcome of their own consultation.

This is, in any event, a process I started as education Secretary in the last Welsh Labour Government. In March this year, I set out the Government's concerns about the impact of social media on our children and young people, following discussions with schools, parents and young people across the country. We had heard about the adverse impacts that technology and mobile phones can have, not just on our children's learning, but also on their wider health and well-being, as has been articulated by Sarah Rees. We also heard from headteachers that, while many had already taken the decision to restrict the use of devices in their schools, there was demand across schools for a national direction to be set.

We took the view that children need to be able to concentrate on their education in classrooms, and so a balance needed to be struck between minimising the impact of mobile phones in schools and supporting local flexibility. That's why, as education Secretary, I began work on national guidance on the use of phones in schools in order to protect children and young people's online safety and well-being. We made clear at the time the guidance needs to be robust, practical and reflective of the sector's needs. So, the last Welsh Government committed to a full public consultation on guidance, working with schools, unions, local authorities, and the children and young people affected.

In March, I also commissioned a national survey of the education workforce to look in detail at the impact of mobile phone policies. From that survey, we have seen that two thirds of respondents reported that their school already had a formal written policy in place, with the evidence showing that restrictions are making a positive difference. Nearly three quarters of respondents reported that restrictions helped reduce distractions, while around two thirds saw improvements in behaviour and reductions in bullying. And there was strong overall support for a greater national direction to be set.

We therefore welcome the consultation on statutory guidance now being taken forward by the current Welsh Government, as highlighted in amendment 1, and I'd be grateful if the Minister could update Members that everything is on track with the consultation, and that she is still due to publish final guidance early next year.

And finally, can I ask the Minister for her reassurances that Welsh Government will work closely with schools about the practical implementation of the guidance, so that they can be as prepared as possible for the changes? And I do welcome the fact that there has been a workload impact assessment on the guidance, because the last thing we want to do is add burdens to our hard-pressed teachers and headteachers. Diolch.

Can I thank Reform for tabling this debate in the Chamber here this afternoon and for coming to the same position that we Welsh Conservatives have held for such a long time, supporting the complete ban of mobile phones in schools and classrooms? We know that mobile phones are a distraction, as they are in this Chamber for many of us from time to time. Mobile phones in schools can contribute to bullying and make it more difficult for teachers to do their job. In fact, we've been advocating this ban—[Interruption.] Certainly.

Thank you. I just wondered whether you think a paediatric nurse would back this guidance and how you would sort of ensure that, when a medical device is used, and what the nursing teams would say about that. I wondered if that's something you'd be aware of.

I think there are absolute exceptions where they're absolutely necessary, and I think that's already been presented in the Chamber here this afternoon. The position for the vast majority of children, though, in our classrooms will remain the same, that this ban is best for them and for their welfare and for the welfare of their fellow pupils.

A clear, achievable and decisive plan is needed, and a comprehensive ban on mobile phones in all schools would do this, to reduce those distractions, support teachers, and let our children focus on learning in schools. And this is not a path-beating plan, potentially. According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, 114 education systems across the world now have a national ban on mobile phones in schools, which is nearly 60 per cent of countries worldwide. So, whilst the Member raises an important issue, more than half the world is already doing this. This is not a unique position for Wales to consider.

But an all-Wales policy means that every teacher, every parent and every learner will know exactly where they stand, eliminating the confusion that separate policies from school to school and area to area bring. A single policy will mean that everyone feels supported by the Welsh Government in enforcing the ban and expectations will be clear across all of Wales.

And, Llywydd, in their first 100 days plan, Plaid Cymru promised to bring forward plans to give local authorities the power to restrict the use of smartphones in schools, and of course, over the summer, there was a perfect opportunity to take action and either ban phones right across Wales or give that power to local authorities to do so, and I'm still slightly confused as to why a 12-week consultation was chosen instead, whereas September would have been an ideal time to start this in the new school year. We have to ask ourselves, 'Has that consultation been absolutely necessary?' Because we know a survey of the education workforce, published in June, conducted by the Welsh Government, found that eight in 10 respondents backed statutory restrictions. That same survey also found that nearly 75 per cent of educators believed restrictions on mobile phones would reduce distraction, while 60 per cent believed they would reduce bullying or misuse and improve learner well-being. It's absolutely essential we listen to those educators. I'm not sure a further 12-week consultation, kicking the can down the road, is exactly what is needed at this time.

And at exactly the same time as launching the consultation, we heard from the Cabinet Minister who acknowledged that the impact that mobile phones, social media and wider technology can have on well-being, behaviour and learning experience is substantial. So, again, you have to question why, with that already known information, that well-being, behaviour and learning experience impact is substantial, why there's a choice then to kick the can down the road even further. Surely, if that information is already known, a decision should have and could have been made. Instead, teachers and parents are stuck in uncertainty with no real action being taken.

And it's not as if there are no solutions out there already. We know that there are solutions available to provide innovative ways to restrict mobile phone use in the school day. For example, we know of those lockable pouches that keep phones out of sight and out of mind. I'm aware of an organisation called Yondr who provide this, and they provided me with a case study of a school in England, the John Wallis Church of England Academy. They've reported, the academy itself, the headteacher described the change as 'transformational'. They've seen 40 per cent fewer detentions for disruptive behaviour; a 75 per cent reduction in lesson truancy; an 80 per cent reduction in reported cyber bullying and online safeguarding incidents; staff turnover falling from 29 per cent to 17 per cent, and pupils covering more lesson content—all benefits of a mobile phone ban in that school. I do not understand why the Welsh Government have been dragging their feet over this issue with so many benefits.

The Welsh Conservatives will be supporting Reform's motion today and standing with the education workforce to enable them to focus on their important job of educating the next generation. We'll be standing with parents who we believe know the potential for phones in schools to cause harm to their children. And we're standing with learners of all ages who know that school is a place to learn, and don't want distractions in their classroom. 

Schools should be places where pupils can concentrate and learn. Mobile phones can make that harder. Teachers are left dealing with distraction in lessons, and arguments and problems that begin online often follow pupils into school. Just imagine every phone in this Chamber ringing while someone was trying to speak. We would all agree it was a distraction.

Of course, we already hear the Plaid benches rumble whenever an uncomfortable truth is raised. The Welsh Government's survey heard from 410 education staff. Among those who responded, 82 per cent supported statutory restrictions on phone use. That is a clear message from our education staff. The research finds that mobile restrictions reduce distraction during the school day. Some studies have also found improvements in areas such as incidents of bullying or exam results for certain groups of pupils. Other large studies have found little immediate effect on attainment or well-being. So, we should be measured about what a ban can achieve. The strongest case is the one the evidence supports: it can remove a source of distraction from the school day.

Wales would not be acting alone. As Sam said earlier, UNESCO reports that 114 education systems—that's around 58 per cent of countries worldwide—have national bans. The detail varies. So, that figure does not mean that every country has exactly the same rule or allows no exceptions, but phone restrictions are now a mainstream policy choice around the world.

There are useful examples. France has made the school day phone-free from nursery, with exceptions for some health and disability needs and specific permitted uses. Ireland requires primary schools to ban pupils' use of and access to phones throughout the school day, while post-primary schools must restrict them. Finland restricts phone use during lessons while allowing limited use for learning, health or as an assistive device. England's statutory guidance says schools should be phone-free by default, with exceptions. These models show how a firm national rule can still make room for genuine individual need.

In Wales, the Government is consulting on statutory guidance and it would expect every school to have a policy restricting phone use. Schools would have to have regard for the guidance and explain any departure from it, which is fair enough. But each school is forced to choose its own approach. Wales is being offered national direction, but no clarity. It needs a common phone-free rule.

The draft guidance lists several possible models: phones handed in on arrival, locked in pouches or lockers or kept out of sight under a never-use rule. It also allows for use in certain places or at certain times. Those are very different policies. If every school is left to choose between them, pupils and parents will continue to face different rules depending on where they go to school. A national expectation should mean something very, very clear, and clear enough for every family to understand and every member of staff to enforce.

The survey also shows why leaving details to each school can be difficult. Just over half of respondents said their school enforced its policy consistently in the most part. More than half identified limited support from pupils as a challenge in putting policies into practice, and many raised inconsistent enforcement, parental disagreement and a lack of secure storage as barriers. Rules on paper are no help to teachers if they are not applied consistently or if schools are left without the facilities to enforce them.

That is where Reform's position is clear. Pupils should have no access to mobile phones during the school day, except in exceptional circumstances. If a pupil needs a phone for the journey to and from school, it can be handed in securely on arrival. The draft guidance itself recognises the need to account for medical needs, disabilities and additional learning needs. Those exceptions can be clear and properly managed. The consultation is a step forward, but schools have been dealing with this for years. Clear national direction should have come at the outset. Instead, schools have had to set different rules, manage disagreements and carry the burden of enforcement.

We've had Plaid in power for over 175 days. Nothing substantive has changed. This is a failure to support the education system. Plaid must stop passing responsibility down to schools without giving them the clarity and support they need. Statutory guidance that leaves every school to choose a different system risks preserving the inconsistency staff say cause problems. Schools need a clear framework they can rely on, safe storage arrangements and backing for staff who enforce the rules. This is about giving pupils and teachers a school day with fewer distractions and clearer expectations. The evidence supports restrictions, education staff are asking for them and countries around the world have adopted them. This should not be difficult. The Government should set a consistent phone-free standard for Wales, define the exceptional circumstances properly and give schools practical support to make it work. Thank you.

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this really important issue today. As we've already discussed, everyone is aware that the Government is currently consulting until 2 December on developing statutory guidance for restricting mobile phone use in schools, where we will hear from experts and stakeholders in the field. I do therefore believe that calling this debate today is premature considering the ongoing consultation.

As a parent myself, I worry about the potentially damaging effect that the use of mobile phones in classrooms may be having on our schoolchildren's educational performance, behaviour and mental health. I believe this concern is perfectly natural, especially given the rapid pace of technological change that we are all witnessing and that affects our everyday lives. But, as a chair of governors, I also believe that, with the exception of their parents, teachers know pupils better than anyone else, and that local context cannot be ignored. That's why I welcome the Welsh Government's ongoing consultation, which recognises the importance of letting schools make rules that are best suited to their individual circumstances and challenges.

The proposed guidance offers five common models for restricting phone use, ranging from a blanket ban on phones on school premises to limited use in specific zones or time periods, and gives schools the options and therefore the flexibility that will help them determine the best course of action for their pupils. This approach also takes into consideration the time and effort needed to actually implement policies related to restricting mobile phones.

As I've already mentioned, this is an emotive issue for every well-meaning parent like myself, who cares deeply about their child's future prospects, but at the same time, we must not let emotion get in the way of evidence, which should form the basis of whatever guidance the Government ultimately provides on this matter. A 2026 European Commission report on mobile phone bans in schools across the EU found that restrictions work better alongside clear rules, pupil involvement and wider teaching about safe and responsible digital use, which is exactly why the Government is currently consulting on this issue.

A healthy body of existing academic research has found that restrictions can reduce schooltime phone use and distraction, but that shouldn't be an end to itself. The educational, behavioural and mental health impacts are far more important considerations, and the fact is that, currently, robust evidence related to these three areas is lacking. This is what the Senedd's Petitions Committee concluded in the report published last year, while recently published academic research has drawn similar conclusions. Therefore, whatever guise the final statutory guidance takes, once in force, we must monitor, gather and analyse the data on the impact of the restriction on school children's performance, behaviour and mental well-being, and keep open the possibility of updating the guidance in response to what this tells us. We must also collaborate with our counterparts in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland to better understand what does and what doesn't work in respective national contexts.

Finally, we must face the reality that restricting mobile phone use in schools alone will not be enough to reduce screen time and the potential of targeting and online bullying. More needs to be done to educate parents on the harms of the online world, and the importance of monitoring children outside of the school environment. And more importantly still, the big tech companies in Silicon Valley, who for too long have had free reign to profit from young people's vulnerabilities and insecurities, must be held accountable for child safety and put robust safeguarding measures in place. I hope this is a view that we can all agree on in this Chamber. It was refreshing to discuss the issue with pupils of Gwernyfed High School earlier today.

In conclusion, Llywydd, I support the amendment to the motion today to await the views of stakeholders during the consultation period and the need to set clear national expectations on restricting mobile phone use that still enable schools to implement policies that reflect their local circumstances and the individual needs of learners. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Lywydd. It's stated that around 95 per cent of teenagers own a smartphone, and many spend more than an hour on that phone during the school day—almost none of it educational, I'm sure you can all see that. Phones do not just distract, they make poor behaviour easier. A cruel message, an embarrassing photo or a fight can be so easily shared within seconds. The risk of being caught feels low. However, the audience that it goes to is much larger. What once stayed in the playground will now follow our young people forever, everywhere.

This is especially true with bullying. Nearly nine in 10 schools report that cyberbullying occurs amongst their students. About 16 per cent of secondary school students say that they've been electronically bullied in the past year, rising to 21 per cent amongst girls and 25 per cent amongst the LGB community. Unlike traditional bullying, it does not end when the school day ends. It follows them. The same phone that connects friends also delivers attacks in their pockets and in their homes, in their bedrooms. Victims often feel that they can't escape. At the same time, the phone rewards bad behaviour with attention: a video, a nasty comment, a dig. Just amongst their peers, it's more likely to be repeated over and over again. It does not go away.

When phones are out, in my opinion, the real learning stops. I'm a qualified teacher. I work with young people with mental health. I've seen this first-hand. I also have an 18-year-old daughter, so I've grown up with that issue with the phones. Students sit together but barely talk. Teachers spend time policing, when they should be teaching. The NASUWT survey says that 37 per cent of teachers cite mobile phone distraction as one of their most significant day-to-day issues that they're dealing with. They should be teaching, not policing. The figure rises to 50 per cent in secondary schools, and the atmosphere becomes much less focused and so much less kind. 

Phones can be useful for learning, don't get me wrong. I'm the first one to pick up my phone and Google. They can be a really useful tool. But unrestricted use during the school day too often turns them into a distraction, secrecy, and it can be harmful. Many schools that introduced clear restrictions have seen sharp drops in discipline problems and fewer bullying incidents. I'm not saying it's going to make all the bullying go away, it won't, but anything we can do to help these children and young people, we've got to do. School should be a place where our young people can concentrate, they can talk to each other, they can feel safe, they can feel nurtured, and constant access to a phone works against all of this, in my opinion.

If we want better behaviour and less bullying, we need clear rules, we need stronger digital responsibility and a willingness to call out cruelty, online and offline. We need rules that are constantly enforced across the board. And that's why Reform are calling for the Welsh Government to introduce commonsense statutory legislation requiring mobile phones to be banned in classrooms, which I feel—and my colleagues feel—will lead to better outcomes for young people in Wales. I'm sure that's what we all want in this Chamber, no matter what political party. We want our young people to thrive, we want them to succeed and we want the best for them. 

To protect the school summer holiday period and allow for meaningful engagement from stakeholders, I launched a consultation on the draft guidance on 9 September. The draft guidance supports schools to develop and implement effective mobile phone policies in response to growing evidence, which has been referenced today, that unrestricted mobile phone use can distract from learning, impact well-being and social interaction, and create barriers to learners fully participating in school life. At its heart, this is not simply about mobile phones; it is about creating the conditions in which children and young people can learn, participate, build positive relationships and achieve their full potential.

However, lasting change, as I think others have referenced this afternoon, is most likely to be achieved when we take the time to listen to those who will be responsible for putting it into practice. Schools, governing bodies, local authorities, parents, carers and learners all have important perspectives to share on this issue. A responsible Government makes decisions based on evidence, not conjecture, and we are mindful that those impacted by and reliant upon mobile phones are best placed to make representations about how they should be used. But, from the outset, I have also been clear that the status quo is not acceptable. Parents, learners and staff deserve greater clarity and consistency regarding expectations around mobile phone use in schools.

The Member opposite quoted from the consultation document, saying that nothing is currently in place. There isn't, so that's why we're putting this in place. That is exactly what this proposed statutory guidance seeks to deliver. Some have argued, and they've done so this afternoon, that we should go further and follow England’s lead. Llywydd, I have made clear repeatedly that I'm keen to learn from good practice wherever it resides, and I'm not at all averse to building on the experience of others. However, I will only do so where I consider there to be tangible benefits for Wales and its people, as is my responsibility.

In the case of England, it is important to clarify that Ministers have not legislated to ban mobile phones in schools. Instead, the UK Department for Education strengthened its guidance in January 2026 and then placed it on a statutory footing, requiring schools to have regard to the guidance when developing their policies. The intention was to strengthen consistency and compliance, a call that has been repeated across this Chamber this afternoon, rather than change the underlying policy position.

This is broadly similar to the approach we are taking in Wales: setting clear national expectations through statutory guidance, while allowing schools some flexibility in implementation. Importantly, our approach in Wales combines national consistency with local flexibility, and this is a theme that runs through much of our policy agenda.

But let me make clear that we are setting a national expectation where none currently exists that mobile phone use should be restricted during the school day as we believe this is the right thing to do for learners and for staff. Our approach, I would argue, is both practical and proportionate, with flexibility for schools to adapt implementation to their context and apply appropriate exemptions where necessary, such as for medical or safeguarding needs. These are important considerations that make an outright ban on mobile phones inappropriate at this stage. Our new guidance will reflect this situation and take account of the different circumstances that staff and learners face.

This consultation is ongoing and will end on 2 December. We will carefully consider its responses before finalising and publishing the guidance in early 2027, to confirm the timeline question asked earlier on, ensuring the final iteration reflects stakeholder evidence and feedback. A package of supporting resources will complement the guidance to ensure effective early implementation. Several people have also raised the importance of making sure we give the schools the support and the tools that they need to do this effectively.

A clear lead-in period then will allow schools to prepare thoroughly for implementation to do it well and effectively at the beginning of the next academic year, ensuring that policies are understood well by learners, parents and staff, addressing another few of the questions that have been raised this afternoon. That communication will be important.

The final guidance will then be subject to evaluation, and if evidence shows that guidance alone is not delivering the consistency or the outcomes we expect, I have been clear that I am prepared to consider further action, including legislation. You have asked this afternoon why we're not legislating now, and my answer to that is quite straightforward: statutory guidance allows us to act more quickly. But that does not mean it will be advisory only, and any departure from its expectations will require a clear and robust rationale.

Diolch, Lywydd. I just want to declare an interest: I teach GCSE English language and literature online. I'm no longer a classroom teacher, but I'm still very much involved in education.

Thank you to all of you who have contributed today. We've heard a range of views, but I think one of the contributors pointed out—actually, I think, Claire, you said it—that, ultimately, we all share that view that we want our young people to succeed. We want the best outcomes in terms of education, but we maybe have differing views as to how we achieve those. So, everybody knows I'm really passionate about all things to do with education, but I promise I'm going to try and not to go over time here in responding to this debate.

So, starting off, Stephen Senior, you noted that while mobile phones have been present in schools for more than 25 years, the landscape is totally different now. Smartphones, faster mobile networks, unlimited data, 20-plus notifications going off per day—it's completely different. And I think, ironically, I remember when I was in school, the rules seemed to be a lot stricter around mobile phones, even when it was just the case that you would occasionally be texting, maybe, behind your pencil case so that the teacher wouldn't pick you out, rather than these apps going off 24/7. And I remember my head of year 10 actually confiscated my phone because a dinner lady had spotted me with it on the school field, and he kept it for a week. Can you imagine trying to present that to our teenagers these days, who have this sense of entitlement to be constantly on their phones?

You also pointed out as well the Welsh Government's decision to consult on statutory guidance and its intention to introduce restrictions. Guidance alone, and this is going to be the theme of how I respond to this, it's not enough. You've got governing bodies, headteachers, teachers looking for clear legislative direction rather than flexibility, and I'll be commenting more on that later on.

Sarah Rees, you talked about the Smartphone Free Childhood campaign. I think it's a fantastic idea. I'm sort of implementing my own with my children. It's deeply unpopular; I go for a screen-free summer and we have that battle every year. But that's in no way to mitigate, because I recognise it is difficult. You have those battles with your children. It is really difficult to try and switch off that screen time. But that just brings me back—and I think you touched on this as well—we have a real opportunity here to make schools a safe place and a switch-off time for those phones. We can't regulate what's going on at home, but we can actually intervene to give six and a half hours of screen-free time every day, and I think it's incumbent upon us to take the opportunity to do so.

Sam Rowlands, thank you very much—you support a total ban. You pointed out as well that even adults struggle—even adults struggle with scrolling. It completely rewires your brain to think you can keep being on these apps—YouTube, whatever—and harmful content inevitably comes up. It is very difficult. You talked about the 114 education systems that have that ban. Sixty per cent of countries, I think you said, already have a statutory ban, so we wouldn't be doing anything radical here in going for that. And I think, you know, we're talking about what they're doing in England—let's go even harder. Why not? Why can't we be leading on this here in Wales?

I'm just flipping through my notes now because I've got a lot of  scribbling down here. Okay. So, Steven Rodaway, I think this is one of the most powerful points as well—82 per cent of education staff who responded to the Welsh Government survey supported statutory restrictions on phone use. So, these are the people on the ground—these are the teachers, these are the school staff. How could we possibly argue against it when the people, the teachers, the people who are affected by this are pushing for it? And we're haemorrhaging teachers—education is in a terrible state in Wales, and some of the reasons are workload, behaviour, and it's linked to phone use—this is the whole point. 

Lynne Neagle—I think I've jumped around, actually, in my order now—you know, you seem to be a bit confused as to why we're going for this. You're wondering why we're pushing for this statutory ban and you're questioning, and you're saying, you know, you were working on expectations and guidance. That word 'guidance' keeps coming up time and time again—it's not good enough. And with all due respect, after 27 years of Labour being in charge of education, it's not in a good state. Let's be honest there.

I am keeping an eye on the time now as well. So, Josh Kim. No, I think I've already covered Josh. That's fine. I'm flipping around now because my notes are absolutely all over the place, because I've got so much to say on this.

Coming to Rebeca Phillips, who mentioned again about the current consultation on guidance and not being premature about things. We're 170 days in. I don't think that teachers and parents think that we're being premature on this. And I just want to come back to it again: 82 per cent of school staff want this ban. And I'm hearing as well about empowering teachers and school leaders to apply a local context. I keep hearing the word 'flexibility'. Well, the fact is that, if you allow schools to have that flexibility and that local context, what you inevitably end up with is a postcode lottery. So, let me just tell you now, there are two schools in my constituency, 10 minutes from each other, and one school was saying that phones were allowed on the corridors, phones were allowed in free time, and inevitably those crept into the classroom; and the school 10 minutes down the road had an outright ban, and consequently had better educational outcomes. That is a fact. These things are linked together. I can't believe that we are not realising this. So, if you're privileged enough that your mum or your dad can drive you to the school 10 minutes down the road, great, you get a better education, they've got stricter rules. But you might be stuck on that one bus route, and that could affect your education. It affects disadvantaged children the most.

So, now, finally, what I want to come to is that I'm no longer a classroom teacher but I'm still in touch with my former colleagues and receive regular correspondence, and the feedback I'm getting is that headteachers are holding their hands up saying, 'We know we've got a problem with phones in this school, but we're waiting for this guidance to come through', and they actually don't want guidance, they want a ban. Again, I challenged the First Minister before half-term. I brought up phones in First Minister's questions, and I said that England has had the ban in place from 1 September, and his response was—there has been a ban and they've gone further than we're saying here—that he wants to empower school leaders to make the right choice around phones. It's not good enough. It's too wishy-washy. And what are the right choices? They look different according to different schools, as I've highlighted. The progress of pupils where there's a ban on mobile phones is far better, and we have to make sure that everybody is on a level playing field.

The daily arguments that erupt between schools, pupils and parents around phones have contributed to the weaker approaches. We hear it: 'My child has the right to have their phone on them', 'You can't confiscate my phone, it's my personal property', and then, as Josh was saying earlier, 'I need to text my mum.' They're never texting their mums, let's be honest. I confiscated a phone once. There were no emergency texts back and forth to mum or dad or anything of the sort; what there was was an extensive Snapchat group, which was entitled, 'Dodging registration'. So, it even affects truancy, Llywydd. Anyway, I will finish there.

So, the First Minister has talked about it and we've referred to this idea of empowerment. What could be more empowering than, when these inevitable arguments erupt, when these distractions occur, the teachers and school leaders can say, 'I'm sorry, it's the law.' I urge Members to support our motion. Diolch.

Diolch, Lywydd. I'm introducing today's motion on guidance on complying with the legal definition of sex, introduced by my colleague Llŷr Powell on behalf of Reform UK. The Supreme Court has ruled, the law is clear, yet women in Wales are still waiting for this Government to act. On 16 April 2025, five Supreme Court justices unanimously confirmed that, under the Equality Act 2010, sex means biological sex, not gender identity, not self-identification. And before the inevitable caricatures and accusations start flying across the Chamber, one inconvenient detail: the Supreme Court confirmed that transgender people remain protected against discrimination under the Equality Act. So, perhaps we can dispense with the predictable accusations of intolerance and concentrate on what the judgment actually says. This is not about removing anyone's rights, it's about protecting women's rights, too.

But the judgment means little if those responsible for applying it cannot explain what has changed. In June, I challenged the Deputy First Minister on implementation. She assured this Chamber that the Government respected the judgment and was reviewing its policies. I subsequently wrote seven questions about changes to policies, guidance and instructions to public bodies. In September, I asked again what has actually changed. Apparently, I had a fundamental misunderstanding. And then came the extraordinary suggestion:

'Perhaps you can write to the EHRC to get clarity.'

Llywydd, I had written to her, the Cabinet Minister responsible for equality and human rights. The Equality and Human Rights Commission is the regulator. It does not run NHS Wales, write Welsh Government policy or relieve Ministers of their responsibilities. You cannot outsource ministerial responsibility because implementing the law is politically inconvenient, and Ministers cannot explain how policies are changing, or who has been shaping them.

For years, the Welsh Government has maintained a close relationship with Stonewall, yet barrister Akua Reindorf, examining Stonewall-reviewed policies at the University of Essex, concluded that they stated the law

'as Stonewall would prefer it to be, rather than as it is.'

Campaigners may advocate for the law they want, but Governments must comply with the law we have. Women's Rights Network Wales and LGB Alliance Cymru met the Deputy First Minister in July and warned against reliance on an organisation that had previously misrepresented the law. Will the Deputy First Minister publish the organisations consulted, the advice received and the changes made to Government policy, because transparency should not become another casualty of political convenience? But this is not simply about legal interpretation. The practical test is whether public institutions protect women's privacy, dignity and safety. Let's consider the evidence. Freedom of information data identified at least 178 reported rapes or sexual assaults in Welsh hospitals between January 2019 and October 2022. Forty-four per cent reportedly occurred on hospital wards. Just 2 per cent resulted in a criminal charge. These figures do not establish that mixed-sex accommodation caused those offences, but safeguarding cannot be dismissed as a culture war distraction. When asked how many hospital wards were mixed sex, the Welsh Government could not provide the information centrally. So, sexual offending is being reported in Welsh hospitals, yet this Government cannot tell us the extent of mixed-sex ward provision.

And the evidence from Welsh leisure centres should concern them equally. The Women's Rights Network obtained police data from three Welsh police force areas recorded during 2023: six reported rapes, two sexual assaults and seven incidents of voyeurism associated with leisure facilities. At least 73 per cent of victims were female and 87 per cent of the alleged perpetrators were male. Of 16 incidents identified in changing rooms, 14 reportedly occurred in mixed-sex changing villages. These figures raise serious safeguarding questions. These are not imaginary concerns. These are reported offences in facilities women and girls should be able to use safely. Yet mixed-sex changing facilities continue to be presented as modern and inclusive. Inclusive for whom?

Women and girls are entitled to privacy without their concerns being dismissed as intolerance. And when women challenge institutional decisions about privacy, what happens? The Darlington nurses provide a revealing answer. Female NHS nurses objected to sharing changing facilities with a biological male colleague who identified as a woman. Their concerns were not adequately addressed. Eventually they went to an employment tribunal and they won. The tribunal found that the trust's conduct violated their dignity and created a hostile, humiliating and degrading environment. Those nurses were not demanding special privileges. They were asking for privacy while getting changed. That should not require litigation, but litigation was what it took. Public institutions cannot simply decide that one protected characteristic automatically overrides another.

So, we have safeguarding concerns, institutional policies being challenged and women pursuing legal action to defend their dignity. But the problem reaches into language Government uses to describe women. The Welsh Government has repeatedly adopted expressions such as 'people with periods' and 'people who menstruate'. Let us recover some biological clarity. Women and girls menstruate, and menstruation is a function of female reproductive biology. Apparently, even acknowledging that has become politically uncomfortable. The Welsh Government's 'Period Proud Wales' consultation found that a third of respondents raised concerns about the absence of references to women and girls, including objections that such terminology was dehumanising. Women told this Government: 'Stop writing us out of our own biology.' A Government committed to women's equality should not need reminding that women exist.

Llywydd, there is a disturbing pattern. When an activist interpretation suited the political establishment, it travelled quickly through public institutions. But, when the Supreme Court clarified the law, suddenly everything became complicated, more guidance was needed, responsibility belonged elsewhere—suddenly, women had to wait.

So, let us move beyond assurances and establish what has been delivered. Which Welsh Government policies have changed since April 2025? Which NHS and education policies have been reviewed? Please do not tell me again to write to the EHRC. I am asking the Welsh Government what the Welsh Government is doing. Women should not need employment tribunals to defend their privacy, and women should not have to beg the Government to respect rights recognised in law. Llywydd, the Supreme Court has done its job. Now, Deputy First Minister, do yours.

So, we have safeguarding concerns, institutional policies being challenged, and women pursuing legal action to defend their dignity. But the problem reaches into language Government uses to describe women. The Welsh Government has repeatedly adopted expressions such as 'people with periods' and 'people who menstruate'. Let us recover some biological clarity. Women and girls menstruate, and menstruation is a function of female reproductive biology. Apparently, even acknowledging that has become politically uncomfortable. The Welsh Government's 'Period Proud Wales' consultation found that a third of respondents raised concerns about the absence of references to women and girls, including objections that such terminology was dehumanising. Women told this Government: 'Stop writing us out of our own biology.' A Government committed to women's equality should not need reminding that women exist.

Llywydd, there is a disturbing pattern. When an activist interpretation suited the political establishment, it travelled quickly through public institutions. But when the Supreme Court clarified the law, suddenly everything became complicated, more guidance was needed, responsibility belonged elsewhere. Suddenly, women had to wait.

So, let us move beyond assurances and establish what has been delivered. Which Welsh Government policies have changed since April 2025? Which NHS and education policies have been reviewed? Please do not tell me again to write to ECHR. I am asking the Welsh Government what the Welsh Government is doing. Women should not need employment tribunals to defend their privacy, and women should not have to beg the Government to respect rights recognised in law. Llywydd, the Supreme Court has done its job. Now, Deputy First Minister, do yours.

I think it is worth noting again today that Reform have chosen to spend their taxpayer-funded time asking for guidance that already exists. The law exists. And at a time when families are struggling to pay their bills and feed their kids, we are here today discussing this, rather than focusing on the real issues that are impacting people in Wales. Instead of talking about the real struggles your constituents are facing with housing, with healthcare, with rising bills, Reform are wittering on about a piece of legislation that already exists.

What we are seeing actually from Reform today is a dog whistle, targeting a minority group, as they always do, trying to spread hate and sow seeds of division that is being made clear from their contributions today.

Sorry, we're trying to listen to the Member's contribution, please. 

They have found an opportunity to broadcast blatant transphobia to the nation at a time that is already incredibly difficult for trans people across Wales and across the UK. And transphobia will not help the people of Wales pay their energy bills, but it will cause more harm to an already vulnerable community. And do you know that one of the core principles of fascism is the demonisation of domestic enemies, creating an us-versus-them mentality, where outgroups are existential threats. Distractions are distracting from the real problems, waste time targeting minorities, while the rich get richer and ordinary people are struggling.

And trans people exist. Trans people have always existed, and they are our neighbours, they are our colleagues, they are our friends, our brothers, our sisters, our siblings, and they are my friends. And I cannot put into words how sickening it is to have trans people I know, trans people I don't know, and trans people I love painted in this light today.

The vast, vast majority of violence against women is committed by cisgender men and, in the UK, a woman is killed by a current or former partner every three days. Yet somehow this is always left out of Reform's concerns on women's safety. And I'd urge the opposition to actually go and speak to young women across Wales, if they can find any women who want to speak to them, because when men want to hurt women, they do it. They attack us on our streets, in our bathrooms, on our public transport, and most often in our own homes. They do it anyway, they will do it anyway. And since Reform have had representation in the Senedd, they've done nothing to tackle the root cause of gender-based violence. All they've looked to do is put the blame on minority groups. And misogyny is something your party is happy to tolerate. Your own MP said it—you have a male issue, you're chauvinistic, headline after headline exposing Reform for what they really are and what they deem acceptable behaviour towards women and girls. They want to weaken sex and relationship education in our schools, and instead of advocating for what has been proven to work, which is better relationships and consent education,

which is better relationships and consent education, they have no plan to support prevention in our schools. They're opposed to devolving policing and justice, which could actually ensure that we tackle the shamefully low rates of prosecution of rape in the UK, to ensure women are believed, to make misogyny a hate crime, and better support victims of stalking. Where is Nigel Farage's plan to fix our broken justice system, to clear the backlog of rape cases? It's nowhere to be seen. [Interruption.] No, you've had enough time to broadcast your hate. I will not be taking interventions. You've had enough time. [Interruption.] 

Could I just remind all Members, please, to address the arguments being made? [Interruption.] Members, could I ask you to just take the temperature down a little bit, please? [Inaudible.]—to address the arguments being made and not the motives, please.

Do you know what I've also seen, is an increase in the abuse and hate directed at trans people, because this guidance makes it really difficult for trans people to access any appropriate facility, and makes it near impossible for them to exist in public spaces? And I've heard from trans people who have gone from never being harassed in a public bathroom to being harassed six times since this guidance. Trans people who have been threatened, shouted at, having cubicle doors banged on and being chased out of bathrooms. [Interruption.] Who gets to judge if someone looks masculine enough or feminine enough to be in a certain bathroom? What about women with short hair, women who don't wear make-up, women with polycystic ovary syndrome? Who gets to question or even begin to think of a way to check what body parts someone has in order to use a certain bathroom? How can we function as a normal society if these sorts of things become normalised?

What we need is an adult conversation about how we ensure that everyone has access to appropriate facilities and dignified services. What we need is to make sure that everyone is safe from harassment. What we need is to tackle the root causes of violence against women. That is not what the opposition have brought forward to the Senedd today.

I just want to make it quite clear to the Member that this is not about trans people. What I've just heard now is appalling, quite frankly. Llywydd, I want to approach this debate principally as a matter of law, as you might expect. Law. On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court gave judgment for Women Scotland Ltd and Scottish Ministers. The court was explicit about the nature of the question before it: it was a question of statutory interpretation. The issue was not what the law ought to be; it was not an invitation for the court to enter into a political debate surrounding sex and gender. The question was what Parliament meant by the words 'sex', 'woman' and 'man', when it enacted the Equality Act 2010. The court itself stressed the limited nature of its task. It said that it was not for the court to adjudicate upon arguments in the public domain concerning the meaning of 'gender' or 'sex', nor to define the word 'woman' outside of the provisions of the Equality Act. And that distinction matters. Courts interpret legislation. Parliament makes legislation. Governments and public bodies must act within the law as interpreted by the courts. Indisputable.

The Supreme Court considered section 9(1) of the Gender Recognition Act 2004 alongside the Equality Act 2010. Section 9(1) of the 2004 Act provides that where a full gender recognition certificate has been issued, a person's gender becomes the acquired gender for legal purposes. But that provision is expressly qualified by section 9(3). That section allows other legislation to disapply that position where its wording, context and purpose call for a different interpretation. The Supreme Court therefore examined the Equality Act as a whole. Its conclusion was unequivocal. For sections 11 to 212(1) of the Equality Act 2010, the term 'sex', 'woman' and 'man' refers to biological sex.

The court held that interpreting sex by reference to certified sex would make important parts of the Act incoherent and in some cases unworkable. And that conclusion was not reached in isolation. The court examined pregnancy, maternity, it examined single sex services and facilities, it examined communal accommodation, it considered associations,

it considered associations, charities, sports, positive action and the public sector equality duty. Its concern was coherency. A statute must, so far as possible, be interpreted so its provisions work together as a coherent whole. At paragraph 264, the court concluded that the words 'sex', 'woman' and 'man' meant biological sex. Biological women, biological men, for the purposes identified in the Act; and that is the law. This is now a settled legal meaning within the terms of the Act.

There's another part of the judgment that is equally important. The court—. And this is for you. The court expressly rejected any suggestion that its interpretation removes legal protection for trans people. It doesn't. Gender reassignment remains a protected characteristic under the equality Act. Protection against unlawful discrimination remains as it does against harassment. The legal position, therefore, does not ask us to choose between protecting women and protecting trans people, as some people would like to point out. Parliament has legislated for both. The task of Government is to apply the statutory provisions correctly.

And that brings us to Wales. The Welsh Government has already acknowledged the effect of the judgment. Its own published material states out that where its policies engage the Equality Act 2010, references to women and men must be understood by references to sex at birth. Moreover, since 5 August this year, the revised code of practice issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission has been in force, and the code applies to Wales. It gives detailed guidance to service providers whose exercise in public functions and associations on compliance with the equality Act followed the Supreme Court judgment. That's the ECHR. Okay.

Will you accept an intervention?

I will, certainly, if you're a legally qualified person who's going to actually try and dispute what the judges have said.

Thank you. I do have a law qualification, so hopefully this will help.

Oh, good. Well, good, then.

May I ask if you can confirm that the protection under the Equality Act 2010 for gender reassignment says protection applies from the point of intention to transition, not only after medical or legal steps have been taken? So, will you accept that it does protect trans people from the point of transition?

It does. It's quite clearly stated.

Thank you.

And you can refer to the judgment itself to actually clarify that point. So, the legal question before the Welsh Government is no longer whether it agrees with the judgment—[Interruption.]—agreement is legally—. Well, I have got that little bit of extra time, have I, Lywydd? Thank you very much indeed. [Interruption.] Yes, thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

[Inaudible.] Continue, please.

So, it's not a question whether Ministers will have reached a different policy conclusion, the question is compliance. Welsh Ministers exercise statutory powers, Welsh public bodies exercise statutory powers and those powers must be exercised consistently with the Equality Act 2010, as interpreted by the Supreme Court. I will therefore ask the Government specific questions—which I'm now at time, so I probably can't anyway.

No.

So, basically, it's a matter of legal certainty, proper administration and compliance with the law. [Interruption.] Oh, you don't like it, do you? No. [Laughter.]

Thank you. Shav Taj.

Diolch, Lywydd. So, we recognise the Supreme Court judgment and the responsibility on public bodies to comply with the law. We also recognise that the Equality Act 2010 continues to protect people from discrimination on the grounds of gender reassignment. The Supreme Court judgment did not remove those protections, and that is vital to say.

Now, from the offset, I want to be very clear about the principles that guide me personally in this debate. I didn't come into public life to represent the interests of one group over another. As a trade unionist and now as a Member of the Senedd, my responsibility has always been to represent the many and to ensure that people are treated fairly, equally and with respect. And that's what every single worker and every single service user deserves. What workers, managers and front-line staff need now is clarity. They don't need confusion and they don't need competing interpretations of the law.

The TUC has been very clear that all workers, including trans and non-binary people, have the right to safety, dignity and full participation in the workplace. It's also been clear that women's rights to safety, respect and equality are absolutely fundamental, and so are the rights of trans people. The challenge before us is not to choose one set of rights over another, it is to make sure that the law is implemented fairly, consistently,

Can I thank Reform UK for bringing this important debate to the Chamber here this afternoon?

As we heard, on 16 April last year, the Supreme Court delivered its landmark judgment, and for the purpose of the Equality Act, the terms 'sex', 'man' and 'woman' refer to biological sex. It is that simple: a clear-cut ruling. Yet, apparently, it isn't that straightforward for some, because fast-forward more than a year, and organisations across Wales are still waiting for clarity about what that actually means in practice. I'm not even convinced that the Cabinet Minister responsible for this important topic truly understands what's going on even, because recently she said, and I quote,

'On International Day of the Girl, we are reminded of the importance of ensuring people in Wales can manage their periods with dignity, confidence and pride.'

End quote. 'People'. I think you mean women and girls, Cabinet Minister. The confusion doesn't stop with Plaid politicians, unfortunately; you can see that in public bodies all across Wales, Presiding Officer. Just look at the Aneurin Bevan health board. In material for patients about women's health, it deliberately omitted the words 'women' and 'girls'. Instead, it chose utterly nonsensical phrases like 'people who were born with ovaries' and 'pregnant people'. What utter nonsense, Presiding Officer. Women are born with ovaries. Women get pregnant. [Interruption.] No.

So, what is so difficult to understand? Gwent Police was threatened with legal action not too long ago because of its policy allowing transgender females to use women's toilets and showers. We need to be protecting single-sex spaces and ensuring the safety of women and girls. Safety should be the No. 1 priority, yet, sadly, it isn't always the case, as a piece of work carried out by the Women's Rights Network, known as WRN—a group that does some truly remarkable work—uncovered. The group's report into the use of mixed-sex changing rooms in leisure centres was published only just under a year ago, and it made some truly shocking reading. We heard some stats earlier. We heard that, in one year alone, there were six reports of rape, two reports of sexual assault, and seven reports of voyeurism. Eighty-eight per cent of these incidents took place in mixed-sex changing villages. Those figures alone really do hammer home what most people with a tiny drop of common sense know, and that is that the safest changing rooms for women and girls are those that are single sex.

Presiding Officer, I have repeatedly raised concerns about the Welsh Government's response to the Supreme Court judgment and how it would ensure public bodies were following the law and protecting women's spaces. Yet I am still none the wiser. Time and time again, I am told the Welsh Government intends to comply with the law. Well, yes, so it jolly well should. Of course the Government must comply with the law, but the question is how these commitments will be translated into consistent and credible practical actions. That is why public bodies need that clear guidance published as soon as possible. Women and girls should not have to wonder whether their rights will be recognised differently depending on which hospital they attend, which school they go to, or which public service they access. It should ensure single-sex spaces are truly protected, and, above all else, it must give women and girls the confidence that their rights, privacy, dignity and safety are taken seriously.

The Supreme Court judgment has clarified the law. The Welsh Government here must now ensure that public bodies have that guidance that they desperately need to put that law into practice. I am genuinely fed up of hearing assurances from the Welsh Government that work is under way. Plaid Ministers seriously need to stop burying their hands in the sand and publish clear guidance without any further delay. Thank you.

Care, compassion and community. Those were three reasons why I stood for election. I think this Chamber since the election would really benefit from reminding ourselves of those values, because these debates that have been put forward in this Chamber are not victimless. They have real consequences for some of the most vulnerable people in our communities. They have consequences for people who already feel unsure whether they are accepted, whether they belong and whether they can live safely as themselves. That is why I support the Plaid Cymru amendment, because it recognises something important.

The Supreme Court has made its judgment and the Equality Act continues to protect people from discrimination on the basis of gender reassignment. Guidance already exists, and guidance is important. Public bodies have a responsibility to implement their obligations with clarity, dignity and respect for everyone affected. For me, that should be the starting point, not asking who wins and who loses, not creating opposing camps, not treating compassion as though it only belongs to one side of an argument, because compassion is not a finite resource. When we talk about safety and fairness, we should remember that Wales is at its best when it is big enough to embrace people who look a little different, pray a little differently, love a little differently and identify differently to ourselves. Difference is not a deficit.

Earlier this year, after speaking at a Pride event in my local area, a man came over to me. He was struggling to get his words out through emotion. I stood and held him while he tried to speak. The first thing he managed to say was, 'I'm not gay or anything.' He didn't need to explain; I could tell he was a parent. When he was finally able to speak, he told me about his adult child who is trans and how much my words had meant to him. I'll never forget that moment, not because of what he said, but what it told me. How many parents carry the fears of those they love? How many people are searching for signs that their loved ones will be safe, accepted and allowed to live as themselves? These moments stay with me because they remind me that politics is never just politics; it's people's lives, it's people's safety and it's people's hope.

I know something about what it feels like when rights that others take for granted are not afforded to you. As a gay woman, I grew up learning I didn't have the same rights to marry as a straight woman. I couldn't marry my partner when we got together. I am not comparing these experiences to being trans, but I am saying that when society and institutions tell you that something fundamental about who you are places you outside the norm, it has an impact.

And I have also experienced periods of my life where I have felt profoundly uncomfortable in my own body as a result of an eating disorder. I want to be careful here, because I am not comparing those experiences with being trans, but it did teach me something. It taught me how exhausting it can be when you are constantly at odds with yourself, how much mental and emotional energy it can take just to get through the day, how much it can affect your confidence, your happiness, and your sense of who you are. And that experience left me with a greater sense of humility when talking about other people's relationships with their bodies and their sense of self, not because I understand every experience—I don't—but because I know that other people's experiences are often far more complex and far more personal than they might appear from the outside. And I think that should make us all a little more compassionate—[Interruption.] Can I carry on? That's something that's often missing from too many of these contributions.

When this Chamber does more to deepen fears than ease them, more to divide than bring people together, we must stop and reflect on what our role is. Our role is not to alienate or marginalise. Our role is to stand up for everybody in our communities. [Interruption.] I'll carry on. I do not believe that one person's safety has to come at the expense of another person's dignity. I do not believe that one group's rights can only be recognised if another group feels excluded. I do not believe Wales has to choose between these two things. A Senedd that cannot care about everybody is not doing its job. [Interruption.] No, I won't, thank you. A Wales confident in itself should be big enough for difference, and not a Wales that sees people as less than.

So, today I want to stand up for a politics that brings people together rather than pushes them apart. And to those across Wales who may be listening to a debate like this and wondering whether they belong, I simply want to say that you do. You are part of our communities, you are part of Wales, and you deserve to be treated with dignity, respect and compassion. Diolch yn fawr.

In this Chamber we speak about women's health. We debate the devastating heartbreak women can experience through miscarriage and stillbirth, and the support they need afterwards. We discuss major health issues such as endometriosis and polycystic ovary syndrome. We call for better maternity services, better women's healthcare, and we champion women's health hubs. We push for early diagnosis of women's health conditions and we fight for greater understanding of the pain some of us experience throughout our lives.

In those debates, we recognise that female biology matters. We understand why healthcare must take account of biological sex. The same clarity must apply when we discuss our privacy, our safety and our dignity. On 16 April, the Supreme Court unanimously clarified that 'sex', 'man' and 'woman' in the Equality Act 2010 refer to biological sex, which is about this debate. That is a binding interpretation of the law, and public bodies need clear guidance on applying the interpretation in practice.

Trans people remain protected against discrimination and harassment, and I support those protections. I believe in freedom of expression. People should be able to live freely and receive respectful treatment. But, alongside those freedoms, women must be able to speak openly about our rights, our safety and our boundaries without fear of judgment, intimidation or abuse.

I have said before in this Chamber: when women speak, we listen. Why should that principle be any different in this debate? When a woman says they feel uncomfortable undressing in a changing room shared with someone of the male sex, including a trans woman, we listen. When a girl says she feels uncomfortable sharing a changing room with someone of the opposite sex, regardless of the person's gender identity, we listen. When a female patient asks for a female member of staff to provide her personal care, we listen.

Public bodies have a duty to make their policies clear and to respect women's privacy, dignity and safety. As my colleague mentioned earlier, the Darlington nurses' case shows why this matters. Women working in our health service deserve to be listened to just as much as the patients that they care for. My position is clear: female-only toilets and changing rooms should be protected as female-only provision. Additional private or gender-neutral facilities can help meet other people's needs.

In hospitals, women's privacy must be protected in sleeping accommodation, washing facilities and personal care. As a healthcare support worker, I worked alongside excellent male colleagues, and we worked as a team, respecting the wishes of the person that was receiving our care. If a woman felt uncomfortable, the male colleague would leave, and I would do the same for a male patient. That respect works both ways. A woman who depends on others for washing and dressing may feel particularly vulnerable. When she asks for a female worker, we must recognise that the sex of that person providing that care matters to her. In a medical setting, a woman should be able to say, 'I feel uncomfortable', and ask for a female care worker without having to debate or defend her asking it. Staff must take her wishes and boundaries seriously. Good healthcare must recognise biological sex, relevant anatomy and treatment history. A trans man who retains a cervix may need cervical screening. A trans woman who retains a prostate may need investigation into prostate disease. Compassion requires honesty and appropriate support.

As a woman living with endometriosis and adenomyosis, I know how much it matters for women's experiences to be recognised, taken seriously and addressed through medically accurate, evidence-based care. Wording matters. Women and mothers must remain central and explicitly named in the language our health boards use. Biological sex matters in healthcare, and our public health information must reflect that clearly. Every patient deserves respectful treatment, with medical language, records and decisions that accurately reflect biological sex, relevant anatomy and treatment history, so that each person receives the care appropriate for their clinical needs.

The Welsh Government must now act and set out what has to be done to put the Supreme Court ruling into practice. What remains outstanding and when will it deliver the clear guidance? I urge Members to support this motion. Women deserve answers, clear safeguards and confidence to speak. When women speak about health, we listen. When we speak about our privacy, our dignity and our safety, this Chamber must listen and act on it, because women's rights are human rights too. Diolch.

should be protected as female-only provision. Additional private or gender-neutral facilities can help meet other people's needs.

In hospitals, women's privacy must be protected in sleeping accommodation, washing facilities and personal care. As a healthcare support worker, I worked alongside excellent male colleagues, and we worked as a team, respecting the wishes of the person that was receiving our care. If a woman felt uncomfortable, the male colleague would leave, and I would do the same for a male patient. That respect works both ways. A women who depends on others for washing and dressing may feel particularly vulnerable when she asks for a female worker. We must recognise that the sex of that person providing that care matters to her. In a medical setting, a woman should be able to say, 'I feel uncomfortable', and ask for a female care worker, without having to debate or defend her asking it. Staff must take her wishes and boundaries seriously. Good healthcare must recognise biological sex, relevant anatomy and treatment history. A trans man who retains a cervix may need cervical screening. A trans woman who retains a prostate may need investigation into prostate disease. Compassion requires honesty and appropriate support.

As a woman living with endometriosis and adenomyosis, I know how much it matters for women's experiences to be recognised, taken seriously and addressed through medically accurate, evidence-based care. Wording matters. Women and mothers must remain central and explicitly named in the language our health boards use. Biological sex matters in healthcare, and our public health information must reflect that clearly. Every patient deserves respectful treatment, with medical language, records and decisions that accurately reflect biological sex, relevant anatomy and treatment history, so that each person receives the care appropriate for their clinical needs.

The Welsh Government must now act and set out what has to be done to put the Supreme Court ruling into practice—what remains outstanding and when will it deliver the clear guidance? I urge Members to support this motion. Women deserve answers, clear safeguards and confidence to speak. When women speak about health, we listen. When we speak about our privacy, our dignity and our safety, this Chamber must listen and act on it, because women's rights are human rights too. Diolch. 

I speak today in support of this motion. The central question before us is actually very simple, as we've already heard: will public bodies in Wales follow the law, and will the Welsh Government provide the guidance they need to do so? The situation is clear, as we've heard again and again today. The Supreme Court has ruled; the legal position is settled. The definition of sex within the Equality Act is based on biological sex. Now, public bodies have a duty to comply with that ruling. Yet remarkably, many organisations across Wales are still waiting for clear direction. Even though people have said that the direction's there, they are clearly looking for direction. More than a year after the judgement, uncertainty remains, and Plaid Cymru have been reluctant to engage with that reality.

The uncomfortable truth is that Plaid are dragging their feet, because it seems they simply cannot bring themselves to accept what that ruling means. Instead of acknowledging a legal ruling, it seems Plaid Cymru Members have spent their time looking for ways around it. We have seen Plaid MPs oppose measures supporting single-sex services. We have seen Plaid politicians argue that there are shortcomings in the judgement. We have even heard senior Plaid figures continue to insist that trans women are women, despite the legal clarity provided by the court, and that is at the heart of the problem.

Now, this isn't about discrimination, albeit too often, if you raise this subject, you're accused of such. You're almost frightened to stand up and even talk about something like this. And you shouldn't do. I'm a reasonable person, I think. I hate discrimination of any kind, any description, but this isn't about—. Well, I didn't think this debate was about that today. This debate is about public bodies needing legal certainty. Women and girls deserve legal certainty. When councils, schools, hospitals and public services are left confused about what rules apply, that confusion creates risk. Women should not be left wondering whether single-sex spaces will remain single-sex spaces. Women should not be left dependent on whether Plaid Cymru has managed to resolve its internal ideological arguments.

its internal ideological arguments. Public bodies should not be left navigating complex legal obligations because Plaid is still trying to come to terms with a judgment delivered by the highest court in the land. Frankly, that isn't leadership. The Welsh Conservatives support the rule of law. We support the Supreme Court's judgment. We support the protection of women and girls. And we support the provision of clear guidance, so that public bodies know exactly what is expected of them.

I want to finish by paying tribute to my colleague Natasha. She has shown the courage to say what many people across Wales already know to be true: that common sense matters, that biological reality matters, and that women deserve the protection that Parliament intended when it legislated for single-sex spaces. This motion is not or should not be controversial. It is not radical. It simply asks that public bodies are given the guidance necessary to comply with the law. Plaid Cymru can continue wrestling with the ruling if they wish, but the rest of Wales cannot afford to wait. Women and girls deserve clarity, and Wales deserves action. Diolch.

What is a woman? Well, there are some in this Chamber that seem very confused by the concept of what a woman is. The Deputy First Minister herself has described:

'a woman is a woman, and trans women are women.'

It beggars beyond belief. We can identify the sex of a skeleton buried 2,000 years ago, yet some Members appear to struggle with the meaning of the word 'woman' enshrined in law. It seems you're still grappling with these issues due to your continual delay of providing guidance in line with the Supreme Court judgment. In 2025, the days of wonderment should have been over, as five justices managed to do what politicians had spent years avoiding, and that is to describe sex in the Equality Act 2010 as biological sex.

Single-sex services for women are lawful, proportionate, and can exclude biological males even if they identify as women or have a gender recognition certificate. It matters because it affirms the legality for women-only spaces, supports the dignity, the privacy, the safety of women and girls, provides clarity for public bodies, businesses and service providers across the UK. Plaid Cymru are dragging their heels. When will the guidance be in our Welsh public institutions? They're always saying they are the party for women and girls, but I would suggest Reform don't have a problem understanding what a woman is.

Girls need privacy. The Trefnydd in 2025 said in the Chamber she was hugely supportive of 'Period Proud Wales' and she championed having it enshrined in legislation. Young females in my constituency, instead of using the mixed toilets at their local college, are going to the local Morrisons next door to ensure their privacy away from males. I can't believe I'm having to say this, but: men don't have periods, teenage girls do, and they need privacy.

This highlights the need for girls to have that intimate privacy away from males. If a man enters a woman-only space identifying as a transgender woman, the women and girls there do not know that man's intentions, and it can be a fearful experience. We are talking about little girls in a toilet or changing room where adult males are present dressed as a man or woman.

During 2010 to 2020, there were five sexual assaults by transgender prisoners, but after that the figures became vague—and you have to wonder why that is. Karen White is an example of a transgender woman who entered a women's prison and sexually assaulted women. Isla Bryson is another who sexually assaulted women, but actually was placed away from female prisoners.

I welcome the changes to the sporting world and thank goodness some of our organisations are protecting our women and girls. I am thankful that women no longer have to compete against men. In Wales, we have had transgender individuals trying to compete against women in both rugby and in cycling. We welcome organisations banning this practice, which was highlighted famously in the Olympics with the dispute over sex and screening for the SRY gene with Imane Khalif. This could have put the boxing opponent in severe danger.

I would like to, firstly, start by thanking my own party for bringing forward, in the name of Llŷr Powell, this debate in this place today. And I want to thank Cristiana Emsley for opening our debate so eloquently. I'd also like to thank every single Member who has contributed to this debate today, and I'd also like to thank the Minister, of course, for her response. 

On 16 April 2025, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom ruled unanimously that, in the Equality Act, 'sex' means biological sex, as Cath Cullen just quite rightly pointed out. Five justices, no dissent, no ambiguity, no excuses. It was not a change in the law, it was a clarification of what the law always meant. Let me be absolutely clear: the law is the law. It is not a matter of opinion, it is not up for debate and, as Peter Fox just said, it is certainly not optional for the Government of Wales, or anyone in Wales, regardless of what you ideologically believe, it is the law. Sadly, many in this Chamber needed the highest court in the land to tell them what a woman is and why defining one is so important. It's so important for safety, for fairness and for dignity, as Peter Fox and Natasha Asghar quite rightly pointed out. And I thank the Conservatives for agreeing with us. 

Now, Kiera Marshall, hardly a surprising contribution. It would be great if it actually added to the debate that we were talking about today. You used words like 'wittering on', 'spreading hate', 'transphobia', 'fascism'. And I have to say, Llywydd, I'm not really comfortable with those words being used in this Chamber. Arguably, you are the one who is spreading hate and division, and it's abhorrent. 

Sarah Brown, I want to move on to you. The Equality Act already exists to protect all of us. Trans rights shouldn't be at the expense of women and girls, it should sit nicely alongside it. And we agree with that. 

And then we move on—. For clarity, it was Sarah Rees's contribution. 

I want to move on to what Claire Archibald pointed out in her contribution, that trans people still remain protected from discrimination and harassment under the law. That has not changed, and nor should it. Nobody on these benches disagrees with that. You must understand that. But, those protections were never meant to be at the expense of women and girls. Let me be crystal clear: upholding the rights of women and girls, their rights to fairness, their rights to safety, their rights to dignity is not anti trans, it is pro women and girls. 

Eighteen months on, this Government—and the last, to be fair—have had every opportunity to lead and they've chosen not to. Instead, they've reluctantly and through gritted teeth—as we've just seen from the Minister, not taking even any interventions—parroted what they will do, upholding the law. Great. Easy to say. Let's see you ensure that that actually happens. 

We now have the long-awaited EHRC guidance

We now have the long-awaited EHRC guidance, but where is this Government's drive to not only ensure that the law is upheld, but quite simply, their drive to protect women and girls across Wales? It is not, Shav, a culture war to ask for these protections. The Welsh Government's role is now to ensure that all public bodies and all bodies and organisations that receive public money, taxpayers' money, from this Government are abiding by the law. Shav, we agree on these benches, everybody does have the right to feel protected in the workplace, and if this Government isn't willing to fulfil that safeguarding role across the board, then it is showing utter contempt for the law and utter contempt for women and girls across Wales—their safety, their fairness, their dignity. Never have I seen such a lacklustre response from a Government, and that is saying something after six years of standing in this Chamber, leading on this issue, questioning successive Governments on it. For six years, I was jeered at, shouted down, called a whole host of things, so bring it on, for simply standing up for females in this country. I am no raving feminist. I never even envisaged having to stand up in a Parliament to try and convince people that a woman is a biological woman. Former Labour First Minister Mark Drakeford failed to say what a woman was when I asked him in this place. This Minister seems to struggle to do the same. But this no longer matters. As my colleague Adrian Mason quite rightly pointed out, whether you agree or not, the law is the law. It's no longer up for debate, it's about implementation. As Mr Mason said, agreement is legally irrelevant now. The Minister failed to outline what systematic examination there has been of their current policies, guidance and administrative practices across public services to ensure that they comply, and you need to do that. Yes, the EHRC has given guidance, but as Cristiana Emsley quite rightly pointed out, it does not run the NHS or write Government policy.

So, why does it matter so much that we've brought this to the Chamber today? It matters because, as Claire Archibald quite rightly pointed out, it matters in healthcare. It's about respecting the wishes of the people receiving care. It's about protecting the particularly vulnerable. And it's about providing correct healthcare based on biological sex. Single-sex spaces are important throughout our Welsh NHS. Single-sex spaces, changing rooms, toilets, wards, need to be based on biological sex. And that's not up for negotiation. England's NHS has reacted to these guidelines already, and as I and many others have already asked, when will we see the same from NHS Wales? You, Minister, need to be pushing for this.

Why else does it matter? It matters because, as Cath Cullen said, it puts the safety of women and girls at risk in sports, like boxing, in rugby, where biological men are at a big advantage. [Interruption.] Biological men are at a big physical advantage and stronger. It also matters because women and girls deserve fairness in sport, as they are biologically stronger. Many of Wales's major sporting bodies have finally done the right thing, with the FAW finally dragged kicking and screaming over that finish line. But there are many others that need to comply.

Language matters too, going back to healthcare. Sorry, Natasha Ashgar, as she quite rightly pointed out, along with Cristiana and Claire, 'people' can't get pregnant, 'people' don't menstruate. Women and girls do. It's important. We have debates on endometriosis. It's important. Like I said—

I gave an additional amount of time to the Minister to conclude remarks. I'm just giving a bit of additional time as well, Laura.

Like I said, every public body receiving money from the Welsh Government must comply with the law. Why does it matter? It matters in the schools, where guidance is still out for consultation. That's not okay until 2027. The Government is fundamentally letting women and girls down, right, left and centre, across Wales. Members across this Chamber, we have won the argument in law. Let's now make it count for every girl walking into a changing room, every woman asking for intimate care, every athlete who wants a fair race. I ask this Chamber to reject Plaid's amendment, back Reform's motion. The Supreme Court did its job. The EHRC has now done its job. Minister, it's now on you. I urge everyone to support our Reform motion today.

Before we move to the motion to be put, I've had a request from Sara Crowley to seek some clarification.

Yes, I believe that you mentioned

Yes, I believe that you mentioned a Sarah Brown in your statement. We don't have a Sarah Brown, so I just wondered if you could clarify what you meant by that, please. 

I was referring to Sara Crowley. Thank you, Sara, we've corrected the record. Thank you very much. 

Thank you. I appreciate the correction. Diolch yn fawr. 

Thank you very much.