Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon and welcome to today's Plenary meeting. The first item will be questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, and the first question is from Rhys ab Owen.

Yes, of course. Pavement parking creates serious safety risks for all pedestrians, and particularly disabled people, older people and young children. Ultimately, our goal is safer, more inclusive streets that work for everyone. We are working closely with the Department for Transport and local authorities to address the issue.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

In 2019, the Welsh Government set up one of its consultations, and this had to deal with pavement parking this time. Last month, in this place, four politicians asked the First Minister about pavement parking, and it's clear that nothing much has happened since 2019. In the meantime, the Scottish Government has legislated on this matter and is now enforcing the ban in Scotland. The First Minister mentioned the narrow streets in some places in Wales being an issue in banning pavement parking. Well, of course the Scottish Government has dealt with that. Local authorities in Scotland have the power to exempt certain roads from the ban. What discussions have you had with colleagues in Scotland to see when we can enforce this rule in Wales? Diolch yn fawr.

Well, can I thank Rhys for his question? This is an issue that really affects many, many communities across Wales. It's a very serious issue. I've got a personal grievance not just with those who park on pavements, but also with people who sit with their engines idling, especially outside of schools—[Interruption.]—and playgrounds, indeed. I think, first of all, there are two approaches that need to be taken here. One is education and exposure to the risks. I know that a lot of schools do a huge amount of work in this area. A lot of schools also have used different types of barriers to prevent pavement parking and parking outside of the entrance. In communities that are built up, where people park on pavements, it can be particularly dangerous for people who face regular disabling challenges in life—people who are partially sighted and blind. So, one strand of our actions is about educating the public, the motorist. The second is to look at what can be done in terms of the law. Now, the UK Government has recently published its pavement parking consultation and set out the intention to give local authority powers to act against unnecessary obstruction of pavements. The Welsh Government endorses this approach and we are in discussions with the UK Government on how it can be applied in Wales. The outcome, hopefully, of the discussions will mean that Wales, should we wish to join, can introduce a traffic contravention for pavement parking subject to civil enforcement.

The Member asks about what discussions have taken place with the Scottish Government. Very, very good and in-depth discussions have taken place across all of the devolved administrations and with UK Government Ministers on this particular subject matter. It was on the agenda at the last meeting of Ministers. So, we're sharing best practice, we're sharing experience. We all recognise that the challenge is not just to do with the legal element, but also with educating the motorist.

Cabinet Secretary, pavement parking is a huge issue for residents across many parts of Wales, and I think we can all name problematic areas in our own constituencies. But you all know that the areas that seem to stand out the most are in new-build housing estates, where streets are too narrow to allow parking without climbing the kerb, where homes have not had the required amount of private parking spaces laid from the start. Cabinet Secretary, this seems so easy to rectify and all it would need is for the Welsh Government to finally recognise how crucial car ownership is to people and for this to be properly recognised in the planning policy. What discussions have you had with the relevant Cabinet Secretary to achieve this? Thank you.

Well, first of all, making provision for cars is not the only solution in terms of urban design and the design of housing estates. There are some excellent examples, including the Living Village Trust, which constructed—I think it's in Shropshire—an incredible community, which puts the car second to the pedestrian. And it means that all of the houses that were built were looking into a communal space, and rather than have the car at the front of a property, you had a welcoming door at the front of a property, and it made for greater social cohesion. Incidentally, these houses were far more advanced at the time when it came to renewables and energy efficiency. So, actually, the design of properties can be pursued in such a way as to put the pedestrian first rather than the car.

Secondly, though, on the point that you make about provision for cars, yes, I do recognise that, in many housing estates where there are multiple cars owned by those who are living in those houses, there is insufficient space. But, equally, they wouldn't need more than one car if they had decent public transport. That's why we have re-regulated bus services, so that we can better plan the bus network to meet people's needs, because we're told time and again that the No. 1 reason that people don't use buses, or public transport, is a lack of availability. That's why we passed that legislation, so that we can create a network that ensures that it meets passenger needs, so that people can leave the car at home, if they wish, or not have to have one or two or more cars on their drive or on the road.

Cabinet Secretary, you mentioned idling engines and schools. That really is a very significant problem in Newport East, where you have parents, sometimes with young children, lined along the pavement waiting to collect their other children from school, and a whole row of parked vehicles, some of them on the pavement, some of them not, but many of them with idling engines. While those parents and children are waiting to collect the pupils from school, obviously, they're breathing in those fumes, particularly the children, who are lower down, as it were. It really is a very significant health issue, I think, and it applies to many schools in Newport East, and I'm sure that's the case right across Wales. So, is there any more you can say today in terms of what Welsh Government can do, and perhaps do quickly, to deal with that problem?

Can I thank John Griffiths? Of course, breathing in all of those carcinogens at a young age means that their lives are being shortened. It's incredibly anti-social to have your car idling, particularly where children are present. Now, this is going to be a problem of the past in the not-too-distant future, with the advent of electric cars and also advances in technology in conventional internal combustion engines—for example, the on-off systems that are incorporated into many vehicles now. It's not just a problem, though, with cars; it's also a problem with larger vehicles. So, the greatest thing that we can do in the short term, whilst we phase towards electrification and greater use of technology to prevent this sort of activity taking place, is to educate the motorist. The best way to do that, we've found, is through schools. Schools have been extremely proactive in many areas when it comes to impressing upon parents the need to stop idling their engines, not because it's dangerous for themselves, but because it's dangerous for their children and their children's friends.

Our significant investment in both rail and bus is transforming travel for passengers across mid Wales. Brand-new trains will be introduced to the Cambrian line this year, and bus reform will allow us to build on the incredibly successful TrawsCymru network, to deliver a truly integrated public transport system.

Can I thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary? I look forward to the day when there will be a good service on the Cambrian line, but, unfortunately, there are still too many reports of poor service. One constituent who contacted me recently got on the train with their family at Caersws only to find there was standing room only, and the return journey from Birmingham wasn't much better. There was another experience of someone who got on the train with their wife and son at Newtown. The train was on time, but then that transport service was later terminated at short notice.

We're told that the new rolling stock will be the answer to many of the issues, and you just said that it will be later this year, which is good news. However, I've reported to constituents time and time again that I've been told it will be 2023, then it was 2024, then it was 2025. So, I think there's a lack of confidence that that will actually happen. I wonder if you could confirm when in 2026 the new rolling stock will come online, and when, in your view, do you think that there will be a reasonable guarantee of a good service on the Cambrian line, in terms of trains arriving on time and also a very good chance of being able to find a seat—just the basics?

Absolutely. So, two questions there, really. On the exact timing of the new trains, and when they are going to be introduced, I'm not going to give you a season, because that can be interpreted in many ways. Instead, what I'll do is I'll write to you, or, in fact, I'll ask Transport for Wales to write to you, with the date when it's anticipated that those trains will be introduced to the line. But I can guarantee that it will be 2026.

In terms of performance, as the Member is aware, performance can be dependent on a number of factors. One is the trains themselves, and the £800 million of investment in new trains is certainly making a difference. And the second is seasonal effects, which are now year-round—extreme storms, and so forth—which both Network Rail and Transport for Wales are increasingly planning for around the calendar. And then the other factor is the system itself—the rail line, the signalling. There are also, sadly, increasingly, incidents of self-harm related to railway lines, and that can have a particularly devastating effect on families, and on timetables as well. And it can lead to very significant delays across the network. So, there are many factors that contribute towards rail performance and that can inhibit rail performance from achieving the maximum. But, during the most recent rail period, I'm very pleased to say that almost 89 per cent of Transport for Wales services arrived on time to three minutes, and 4.4 per cent of services were cancelled. That's an incredibly low number compared to other rail operators.

But I think what's most important is what the passenger actually feels and experiences, and I'm delighted to say that the latest Transport Focus report shows that Transport for Wales scored a huge 91 per cent for passenger satisfaction, and that's the best ranking operator in and out of Wales, and the fourth overall from the 20-plus operators in Great Britain. And significantly as well, it showed that Transport for Wales recorded the largest improvement of punctuality of any rail operator in Britain. That's a huge achievement. But I do recognise that services on the Marches and the Heart of Wales lines have been impacted very much by adverse weather conditions over recent weeks. We're very aware of this. I can write to the Member with more detail on the work that's taking place right now by Transport for Wales and Network Rail to address the long-term and more frequent weather systems that are going to impact on public transport. 

Cabinet Secretary, many of the communities I represent in rural Radnorshire have no access to bus transport at all. And what I'd like to see is those communities being connected to places in England, in south Wales, so that they can get to out to hospital appointments, get their groceries, and do whatever they want to do, really. But they're hindered, especially if they don't drive. So, I'm just interested in what work you can insist that Transport for Wales do, with Powys County Council, to make sure that we have got reliable bus networks for those people who don't just live in towns, but who live in our rural communities, especially in places like rural Radnorshire. 

This is a really important point. The reason that people often hanker after rail services over bus services is because they see them as permanent, because under the system that's been in operation since the mid-1980s, it's been far too easy to pull services at the last minute. So, people, the travelling public, have not felt security in the long-term provision of bus services and believe that they're going to be there for the long term, and that's led to a decline in patronage. With the regulation of bus services, we will be seeking to address that. But, crucially, we're already doing it. We're doing it with the TrawsCymru network, which has seen huge increases in patronage in recent times. This is a network that connects those communities that are not served by rail. And I'm delighted to be able to say that, in direct response to your question, Transport for Wales are already working very closely with Powys County Council. They're going to be trialling a new X48 bus service that links Shrewsbury to numerous communities in Powys. And it will complement rail services—it won't compete with, it will complement rail services—on the Heart of Wales line, connecting those communities that are not connected through rail transport. So, it's already happening. And Transport for Wales, I'm pleased to say, are also monitoring passenger demand, looking at where there is unmet demand for services and then planning TrawsCymru services based on that data.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Peredur Owen Griffiths. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The legislative consent motion for the Railways Bill has been laid, and simplifying and integrating freight, passenger services, ticketing and long-term planning is welcome and makes perfect sense for England. But Wales will lose out again because of this Bill.

I have two initial flaws in the Bill that I'd like to raise with you. The Bill allows Great British Railways to prioritise its own services, whilst Transport for Wales will be paying GBR for access to constrained network capacity. And, at the same time, key protections for Wales rely on informal working relations rather than statute. The GBR Cymru business unit is not statutory. There is no legal requirement for GBR to have regard to the memorandum of understanding between the UK and Welsh Governments. There is little accountability of GBR to Ministers. Do you accept that these flaws create an inherent conflict of interest and leave Welsh rail services exposed, particularly if political relationships change? And if you don't agree with that assessment, can you explain how the Bill genuinely safeguards the interests in law, rather than with goodwill?

I thank the Member for his question and his keenness to look into rail reform, which I do welcome. Rail reform is overdue. It will finally lead to track and train being integrated. It will lead to passenger services benefiting passengers first and foremost, over these who seek to make a profit out of public transport.

In terms of the questions that he asked regarding the Bill itself and the components of the Bill, UK Ministers will be saying more about provisions in the Bill for Wales and the strength and the role of the Wales rail board. It's going to be the Wales rail board that are really in the commanding position when it comes to determining services and determining enhancements and maintenance. They're going to be saying more about that when there's an industry-led vision and prospectus launch next week.

Based on that, then, are you going to be pushing to try and put some of this on the statute book, so that at least it's not left to that goodwill aspect? It's giving us that confidence that that will happen. The Welsh Government also has said that its ambition remains the full devolution of rail services and infrastructure. Yet, under the Bill, the Welsh Ministers will only be able to request consultation on long-term rail planning within the England and Wales framework. Wales will remain the only nation in Great Britain without full control over its rail infrastructure, and the Bill is silent on the funding consequences of that imbalance. So, in those discussions that you're having with your colleagues in London, can you explain how the Welsh Government consenting to the Bill advances rail devolution for Wales in any meaningful way? And if it does not, why do you believe further devolution is likely once this legislation has passed?

I think it would be better to reference the experts who have given evidence to committees here and at Westminster. What is clear is that this piece of reform moves on the relationship between Wales and the UK Government and provides a far, far stronger position for Welsh influence through the Wales rail board and through GBR Cymru.

In terms of devolution of rail, I think we've done a magnificent job on the metro. The metro is a discrete and contained piece of infrastructure. Devolving the entire swathe of infrastructure requires us to answer one key exam question: what is it that we're actually seeking to devolve? Is it the Wales route, which includes components within England? Is it just what's within Wales, in which case it wouldn't actually achieve much for the passenger, because unless we deal with some of the congestion points that are right on the border but in England, we're not going to get more through trains, and that's what a lot of passengers, a huge number of passengers, use? Is it about devolving systems, the digital systems, the signalling? Is it about devolving British Transport Police? These are key considerations.

First and foremost, though, there's the cost aspect. I've compared the rail network to a particularly rusty classic car. There was a recent article on BBC online, and I think it was taken up elsewhere, about an Aston Martin, the DB5. I actually once considered parking up and offering the gentleman with this particularly rusty car my slightly less rusty Rover 200 Sprint in exchange. [Laughter.] This car—he had to spend, I think, something in the region of £400,000 on it. This is why I compare the rail network to a very rusty classic car. Rather than pay for someone else's car, once you've taken ownership of it, to be restored, what you should do is, first of all, get the restoration completed, get the restoration paid for by someone else, and only take it on when you are sure that the work has been done properly. That's what I see as the ultimate devolution of rail.

The ultimate devolution of rail would not be just what's within Wales. Through agreements with metro mayors in England, I think it makes far more sense to devolve the entire Wales route network. That would be the ideal solution. That is based on passenger movements, not on administrative boundaries.

In your analogy, it's getting who is supposed to pay to pay for that, and then taking it on because, obviously, that Aston Martin is worth more than £400,000 now. If my memory serves, it's a fair few million, I think, because it was quite a unique vehicle.

But going back to the LCM itself, in your explanatory memorandum, you state that you want further discussions with the UK Government before assessing whether key provisions of that Bill are in Wales's best interests. What are your red lines when consenting to the Bill? What concrete changes must result from those discussions for you to be able to support the legislative consent motion, or will you be happy to vote in favour even if the Bill doesn't have any improvements made to it?

First of all, extremely constructive discussions are ongoing with UK Government Ministers regarding the Bill and the provisions contained within it. Those discussions are ongoing. Clearly, a red line is that the current situation is the base situation in terms of the power and authority that Welsh Ministers have. The Bill and the reforms that are going to take place as a consequence will enhance the relationship that we have, enhance the power that we have and the influence that we have.

To go back to that analogy, you're absolutely right. It's about being able to tell that other authority what to restore on the classic car, how to restore it and when to restore it, and that they should pay for it. Now, crucially, with the establishment of the Wales rail board and the beefed-up authority that it has in the establishment of GBR Cymru, we will have that ability to be able to direct the funding to particular infrastructure improvements. So, it moves us from a position of being passive to actually having greater control, and it's the control that enables us to be able to improve infrastructure across Wales alongside the funding.

Conservative spokesperson, Gareth Davies. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The ongoing closures and restrictions on the Menai bridge have now dragged on for more than three years, Cabinet Secretary, with repairs recently extended again until at least spring 2027, with faults including defective cross beams and bolts. This year marks the two hundredth anniversary of the bridge, a symbol of world-leading engineering for which our nation was once known. Yet we seem incapable of carrying out basic repairs or even doing anything these days without years of disruption, and it's totally embarrassing. The result has been chronic congestion, weight restrictions and serious economic damage to Ynys Môn and the surrounding area.

This isn't a minor inconvenience that people should simply learn to live with. It's a clear failure of project management by this Labour Government, enabled by Plaid Cymru, and it's having a real and lasting impact on the communities of that local area and the local businesses. This crossing is a lifeline, connecting communities, supporting jobs and underpinning the tourism industry. So, can the Cabinet Secretary explain why these repairs have taken so long, and does he now agree with me that the disruption proves that the Welsh Conservatives are right in calling for a third Menai crossing to safeguard the economy of Ynys Môn and north Wales in the future?

Llywydd, the Member calls for repairs and maintenance with zero disruption. You'd need to be a wizard to be able to carry out that sort of work. This is a bridge that is 200 years old. This bridge was designed for horses and carts. [Interruption.] This bridge does need to be properly maintained. I hear the Member for Ynys Môn. It does need to be properly maintained. But I think it's an insult to say that engineers are incapable of doing their job. I would urge the Member not to question the capabilities of people who are not present here, and who clearly you have not met with. So, I will personally ensure that you are sent an invitation to meet with the engineers who are maintaining this bridge. Yes, let's celebrate the fantastic two hundredth anniversary of it, but also recognise that this is a bridge that does need repairs carrying out to bring it to its former glory.

This is infrastructure that was built by Thomas Telford in the days when people used basic tools and their bare hands, and that's not what I said—it's the project management. I said that clearly in my remarks—that it's the project management and the structures that are in place from central Government here in Cardiff Bay, from Labour and Plaid Cymru. And I did hear—[Interruption.] Enabled by Plaid Cymru. 

Wales overall has poor road infrastructure compared to England, with significantly fewer motorways and dual carriageways, and some of the most congested routes are in north Wales. As the north Wales joint committee's regional transport plan points out, the economic well-being of north Wales requires a transport system that provides reliable and convenient access to employment and training opportunities, but the vast majority of people travel by car—that’s a fact—and public transport infrastructure is simply not good enough for most people to make the transition. The lack of investment in roads is also causing people to burn up more fuel, and efforts to reduce the number of cars on the road are clearly not working, and the congestion is hurting our economy. A study by INRIX found that traffic congestion costs the Welsh economy approximately £1.8 billion to £2 billion annually. So, will the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that the Welsh Government’s suicidal obsession with carbon reduction is strangling the Welsh economy? And should they instead end the freeze on road building and invest both in public transport and the road infrastructure that the people of that area so rightly deserve?

I'll ask the Member to just question his choice of terms in reference to climate change and self-harm.

I think, first of all, the Member raised the north Wales regional transport plan. Well, it's as a result of this Welsh Government that the corporate joint committee in north Wales will be getting the power and the funding to be able to deliver against its regional transport plan. It will decide what to fund. It will decide what projects should be taken forward. The regional transport plan contains reference to a third Menai crossing. I don't think it's for any single political party to own that particular issue, because all local authorities across north Wales have contributed to that plan.

In terms of giving greater reference and regard to motorists, well, we're spending huge sums repairing and maintaining roads across Wales. In north Wales, I think we've filled and prevented almost 50,000 potholes in this financial year alone, and we've resurfaced tens upon tens of roads in north Wales, amounting to around 100 km of road surface.

But also we're investing in public transport as well. We're not making the car a requirement to get in and out of employment. And it's a social justice issue, because making the car a requirement is actually what's cutting people out from the jobs market. It's what's making people economically inactive. Twenty per cent of young people, I'm afraid, are still unable to access a job interview because they can't afford or access public transport to get there. That's a reason why we passed the bus Bill, which your party opposed. So, we're investing in and reforming public transport as much as we possibly can to ensure that every person is given an equal opportunity to thrive in Wales.

It almost sums up the take by the establishment within your Government that you've deliberately misconstrued people's comments, particularly from the opposition, in linking certain remarks that are made for your own political gain, and trying to take the moral high ground over these sorts of issues. That's not what I was saying, and I would just say politely that's a naughty comparison to make, I would say, particularly given the mental health struggles that I’ve relayed to this Chamber on more than one occasion. So, I take those comparisons very seriously.

I'd also like to focus, finally, on the A55. The A55 is the backbone of north Wales, a lifeline for our communities, our businesses, our hauliers and our tourism industry, yet year after year, this critical route suffers from chronic congestion, frequent crashes causing gridlocked traffic, and sections running above capacity during peak times. I've previously raised some of the issues on this route. There are regular collisions, sadly some of them fatal, at junction 32 near Pentre Halkyn, regular crashes in the Conwy tunnel and ongoing problems with the Penmaenmawr roundabout. I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary about this in August, and I know—

Can you come to the question, please? I’ve been generous.

Yes, I will now. So, in that regard, I'd like to know how the Welsh Government's study into the transport needs and resilience of the A55 has looked at the middle stretch of the A55, between junction 33 and junction 32, and what progress has there been with regard to swift safety improvements to reduce the frequency of collisions in this area?

Thank you. And I thank the Member for just reflecting, I think, properly and fully on comments earlier. The A55 is a crucial artery; you're absolutely right. It's vitally important to communities and to businesses across north Wales. The resilience study that is taking place right now covers the entire stretch, and it also covers key components, including the Conwy tunnels, the Menai bridge and the Britannia bridge. The initial report is likely to be made available in the spring, and then the final report in the summer, with recommendations for the next Government to be able to consider. I would be more than happy to write to Members regarding figures concerning serious crashes, closures and fatalities on the A55. I asked this question myself just last week, whether there was a particular problem with the A55. The answer I was given was that the statistics relating to the A55 are in line with other roads. My conclusion was that there is still a need to do more on public safety to reduce lives lost.

Yes, of course. The south Wales metro is delivering modern trains, better rail services, pay-as-you-go ticketing and improved performance, transforming travel for passengers. Combined with our plans for bus reform, we will deliver a fully integrated 'turn up and go' system across south Wales, connecting communities, creating opportunities and driving prosperity.

Cabinet Secretary, I was delighted to welcome you to the Ebbw Fach valley last week, where you were able to speak to people in Abertillery and Six Bells about the potential development of the Abertillery spur. I know they were very grateful to you for both the time you spent and also the conversation that you were able to have with people there.

At that time, you made a series of commitments about the place of rail enhancements, the development of new services, investments in infrastructure, both within the Ebbw Fach valley but also across the wider network, which you've already referenced this afternoon. It may be useful, Cabinet Secretary, if you were able to outline how you see these enhancements being made and how you see further investments in rail infrastructure benefiting my constituents.

Can I thank the Member? I was equally delighted to meet with him and local stakeholders in Abertillery last week to discuss the proposals for further improvements to the Ebbw line, including, of course, an Abertillery spur. I didn't get a chance to eat, I'm afraid, because the conversation was so excellent, but I hope the Member made up for my loss of lunch. I am supportive of the proposals, and I do recognise the huge improvement to connectivity that reopening the line to Abertillery would deliver. And, of course, as we discussed, the Member is aware that the UK Government is responsible for funding any additional work.

Now, in the coming days, an industry-led plan for rail will be published, and I'm sure that the Member and his constituents will be as happy to read that as I was to visit last week. Again, it was a heartening visit. What really, really came through loud and strong was that people recognise the enormous benefits of the metro, but they want it and need it and deserve it as well.

Very similarly, the south Wales metro has allowed many of my constituents to benefit from that. The fact, of course, is that the Welsh Government has had to invest significantly in order to reflect the significant underinvestment from the UK Government in terms of rail infrastructure. What I get asked by my constituents, such as those in Ynysybwl, is, 'What next? How are we going to benefit from the metro?' There has been mention made of the halt in Glyncoch; we've heard about the possibility of reopening the railway that connects Pontyclun and Beddau. So, I want to know what discussions have you had with the UK Government in order to ensure that we can take the vision for the south Wales metro further and connect communities, because, at the moment, there are too many connections happening with Cardiff, but not from valley to valley.

Can I thank Heledd for her question? Of course, the south Wales metro, although we've almost completed electrification of 170 km of line, is far from over. There will be more phases to come in the future, with incredibly exciting plans, including the ones that I discussed with Alun Davies and his constituents last week.

In the coming days, the plan for rail will be published by the industry. That will contain a short-, medium- and long-term pipeline of enhancements, including how the south-east Wales metro will be vastly expanded in the years to come, with new stations, new lines and so forth, and that will be happening in the next week.

Cabinet Secretary, whilst I'm supportive of the south Wales metro project, I do believe very strongly in value for money, especially when it's taxpayers' cash that we're specifically talking about. Now, the cost of this particular project has spiralled from its original estimate, and it now stands in the region of £1 billion. Should we really be surprised, though, here in this Chamber, given that it's no secret that this Labour administration plays quite fast and loose when it comes to spending from the public purse? With a whopping 1 billion quid being spent on this project, which, for around 106 miles of track, works out to be £9.5 million per mile, Cabinet Secretary, my question is very simple here today: are you confident that the people of Wales will see this as value for money? And are you confident that the bill for the metro will no longer further increase? Thank you.

Can I thank Natasha for her questions? First of all, when it comes to value for money, if we were to base all of our public transport decisions on value for money, then we would only have public transport in those most intensely urban areas like London. That's been one of the problems that we've faced for many years, that the Treasury Green Book has traditionally benefited those areas where you get the highest return. I see public transport as a public service, a public service that requires a subsidy, and a subsidy that we should not shy away from. And the more rural the area, the higher the level of subsidy. We often hear in this Chamber calls for more services on rural routes. They carry with them the highest level of subsidy—on a value-for-money basis, we would never, ever, ever choose to deliver them. We do it because of social justice and to connect rural communities.

As Lord Peter Hendy, the rail Minister, has said, with rail it always costs more than you first anticipate, and it always takes longer than you anticipate, but you never, ever regret it once it's delivered. With the south Wales metro having being electrified, we're seeing the results already. We're seeing those passenger responses to it, the 91 per cent satisfaction rate—that's incredible. We're seeing the huge increase in patronage as well. We're seeing, through pay-as-you-go, a vast increase in the farebox coming through. But it will still require a subsidy. If we want to put on more rail services and more bus services, that subsidy will be required for the long term and could have to increase. But I see no problem in that if it's affordable and if it's getting people out of unemployment and into work.

Yes, of course. Through the regional transport fund, local authorities can prioritise unadopted roads in line with regional priorities, with decisions on individual schemes taken by regions. We're working with the Welsh Local Government Association to support those regions that want to include schemes in their regional transport fund programmes.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. I've raised on many occasions in this Chamber the situation in Sandy Cove in Kinmel Bay, which is a very significant housing estate—over 250 homes—with no adopted roads there at all, no pavements, full of potholes and flooded every time water comes over the sea wall or there's a big downpour. The situation is intolerable. There's no proper lighting either, from a community safety point of view. This is a saga that has been going on and on and on, and now requires some Welsh Government leadership and intervention in order to bring stakeholders together to resolve this issue. Can I ask whether the Welsh Government has any appetite to bring those stakeholders together, from the local authority and from the local community, in order to try to move a project forward so that we can solve this situation once and for all?

Can I thank the Member for raising the question about Sandy Cove? For the benefit of other Members and for viewers today, Sandy Cove is an estate in the Member's constituency. It was during the 1930s, I think it was, that a company, Kinmel Estates, came up with the idea of building a holiday park there—a holiday village. These houses obviously produced quite a bit of interest at the time, with people wanting to make their own holiday homes there. And why wouldn't you? It's a fantastic place. By the 1940s, most were sold. But the company then went into liquidation, and it was then taken over by the Crown, I think, and the council in the years afterwards, and remained in the hands of the Crown and the council until about 1996, 1997, when it passed to the Kinmel Bay and Towyn Community Association.

Since that time, there has been this ongoing problem with unadopted roads and the way that that's inconveniencing people who live there. Now, I am pleased to say that the unadopted road fund was utilised by Conwy council to design an initial solution for Sandy Cove. That funding was provided, obviously, on the understanding that there was no further obligation on Welsh Government to fund what is a local authority responsibility. But, following this, Conwy council then calculated a redevelopment cost in the region of £5.5 million. It's a significant sum. I am more than happy, though, to check with the north Wales corporate joint committee where this particular project sits in their regional transport plan, because that's going to be the mechanism to ensure that the funding is made available to solve the problem that residents have faced.

I've awarded £4 million in local transport grants this year to the Vale of Glamorgan to fix local roads and pavements, improve road safety, active travel and bus infrastructure. From April, I'm giving local leaders a greater say over investment in transport priorities through the new regional transport fund.

What would be really welcome in the Vale of Glamorgan is a new railway station in the village of St Athan. The local development programme signifies significant new housing development, and, in the past, there's been significant housing development in that particular area. The former MP for the Vale of Glamorgan, Alun Cairns, promoted this with the Department for Transport in London and they commissioned a business case study of such a project. The new Labour Government that took over in 2024 has not taken that business case proposition forward, and it is a vital piece of infrastructure that will take a lot of traffic off the road if it is built. Will you commit the Welsh Government, in the limited time it has available before dissolution, to lobbying your colleagues in London to reactivate that business case and relook at this important piece of transport infrastructure for the Vale of Glamorgan?

I'm very well aware of the interest in a new station at St Athan. I've had discussions both with regional leaders and with UK Government Ministers regarding this. We're also working very closely with the Wales rail board to develop priorities for rail in Wales, and, as I've said to Members, a prospectus will be published that contains the short-, medium- and long-term priorities for Welsh rail. That's going to happen in the coming days and the work that's taking place at the moment through the Wales rail board, I can assure the Member, is including consideration for a potential new railway station at St Athan. And I know that, with the use of the regional transport fund, there is the possibility of drawing down development funding to take this project forward.

The safety of all road users is extremely important to us and we'll soon publish our new road safety partnership plan. We invest in safe and accessible active travel infrastructure through grants to local authorities and are currently consulting on updated guidance that will strengthen the design of routes further.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. The recent proliferation of e-bikes and e-scooters represents the biggest challenge to the safety of the pedestrian and cyclist alike. While e-scooters are illegal on UK roads, many parents still purchase them for their kids. Those who are aware of the illegality of e-scooters have mistakenly put their children on electric bikes. These bicycles are more akin to motorbikes than pushbikes. As a result, we have seen an enormous rise in accidents. Last week, a 13-year-old was arrested after a hit and run involving a pregnant pedestrian. Cabinet Secretary, what additional measures can be taken to protect pedestrians from these high-speed bikes and scooters? Thank you.

Can I thank Altaf for the question? It's a hugely important issue and a growing problem, a growing menace across communities. I met recently with police chiefs and with UK Government Ministers to discuss this challenge. I know that police forces are already taking enforcement action. They recognise that, with greater sales numbers of these particular e-mobility systems, they're going to have to take greater action in the months and years to come. A large part of the problem rests with online sales, second-hand sales platforms, because you can regulate in shops when they're sold first; what you can't regulate so well is when they're sold on. Many of these e-bikes are way too powerful for people to use, certainly on pavements—they shouldn't be on there—but on roads as well. Unless they're licensed, they shouldn't be on there. They can travel at up to 80 mph, and I'm afraid that far too many that I see don't have lights on. They are way too powerful for use by young people. The police are very, very concerned about this, and they're working collectively across Wales to deal with what is an increasing menace.

Yes, of course. Our transport strategy sets out our ambition for a better, more connected transport system across Wales. In Preseli Pembrokeshire, we'll deliver projects through our national transport delivery plan. We support local leadership through the regional transport plans, enabling communities to shape the priorities that meet their needs.

Cabinet Secretary, as you know, there has been some contention over the development of a coastal road adaptation scheme in Newgale in my constituency. I've been supporting the local campaign group Stand Up For Newgale, which has developed a significantly cheaper solution than the local authority's £40 million-plus road realignment scheme. On Monday, Pembrokeshire County Council's cabinet voted to pause its own scheme and agreed to review the position in the next 18 to 24 months. Cabinet Secretary, it's vital that this matter isn't ignored for the next two years. So, can you provide any update on any discussions the Welsh Government have had with Pembrokeshire County Council on this particular issue? Will you now join me in calling for the council to support the local community's more affordable and more environmentally sensitive proposal?

Can I thank the Member for introducing me to that community group, Stand Up For Newgale, who did present an alternative case that is far more affordable? I know that the local authority has considered that particular alternative, and the Member is right, the council took the decision to pause the scheme for the next 18 months to be able to consider other options, not just the affordability of the proposal that was on the table that they'd worked up.

I haven't had an opportunity since Monday to speak with the local authority regarding this particular matter, but I will be chasing it up and having a conversation with the council leader, I'm in no doubt, in the weeks to come. It is a local authority matter, but it's also a matter that can be taken up at the regional level, and I'm pleased to say that there's an indicative allocation of £24.7 million for the south-west Wales region for those leaders to be able to allocate as they see fit.

And finally, question 8, Siân Gwenllian.

North Wales has recently staged some top-class sporting events, including the Wrexham Open tennis championships, the trail world championships and the women’s Tour of Britain bike race. We're working to attract major events across north Wales, including nominating Wrexham as a host city for the FIFA World Cup in 2035.

Thank you very much. What I have in mind specifically are the final rounds of the Welsh Cup, and I have supported the calls to move the final of the Welsh Cup from Newport to north Wales, given that only clubs from north Wales are left in the competition, and congratulations to them. The Football Association of Wales announced in December that the men's final would be played at Rodney Parade in Newport. That decision has been confirmed by now, of course, for this year, and I do understand that there are some contractual factors associated with that. But, four teams from north Wales are the ones who have secured a place in the semi-final: Bangor, Flint, Rhyl and Caernarfon. So, could I ask you, therefore, to discuss again with the FAW the possibility of holding the final in north Wales, on a regular rota perhaps, every other year or so? That would be a fair way forward in terms of the fans who spend their money to attend the final, but it would also be fair in terms of sharing the local economic benefit that stems from holding the Welsh Cup matches. Thanks.

Can I thank Siân for her question and also welcome the fact that four clubs from north Wales have reached the semi-final? That's quite an achievement. I'll just repeat that: all four are from north Wales. I know that the FAW is an independent governing body, so decisions are rightly made by the FAW without any Government interference, but I equally recognise what Siân was outlining about the convenience of being able to travel closer to home for the events. I understand that the final has previously been moved around Wales to accommodate and reflect the teams that have made the final itself, so that people don't have to travel great distances. The Welsh Government does not intervene in operation or competition-related matters; however, I think as individual MSs, we are able to raise our concerns with the FAW and I'd encourage Siân and any other north Wales Members to do so.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

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

Thank you very much for your question.

We have provided £10.9 million to Third Sector Support Wales in 2025–26 to strengthen support for voluntary organisations across Wales. Of this, £224,000 will go to Pembrokeshire Association of Voluntary Services to help local groups with fundraising, governance, safeguarding and volunteering.

Cabinet Secretary, as I'm sure you are aware, it is Welsh Charities Week, and it's a great opportunity to highlight the fantastic contribution of charities in our respective local communities. I'd like to highlight the VC Gallery in Haverfordwest, which runs a range of projects aimed at supporting veterans and the wider community. One of those projects is a Friday breakfast club on the high street, and the charity has been inviting representatives from organisations like Citizens Advice Pembrokeshire and the Wallich to attend and connect with residents and share information about the help that's available locally. These events are just one way in which the VC Gallery brings people together, provides advice and support, and ensures that there is a safe, warm space and meal for those who need it.

So, Cabinet Secretary, can you tell us what the Welsh Government is doing to identify and roll out best practice like this, so that more and more people can benefit from the work of charities like the VC Gallery in Pembrokeshire?

Diolch yn fawr, Paul Davies. I would like to come and visit the VC Gallery in Haverfordwest. It sounds like an excellent example of what charities can do. And can I say that I'm very glad that you highlighted the fact that it is Welsh Charities Week? Yesterday, I think a number of us were at events. In the Senedd, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action had a really important event focusing on volunteering and the role of the private sector. I went to speak at the St Giles Trust as well, which is doing important work with women in the justice system.

But you've highlighted a really important charity in your constituency, and I think just in terms of best practice, this again is where the fact that we do give this strong support to all our councils for voluntary service—which includes Pembrokeshire Association of Voluntary Services—means they all meet together and share good practice. Of course, the breakfast club, the gallery, the fact that it's providing food, engagement, outreach to Citizens Advice, is very much what we're doing with our warm hubs. Interestingly, Swansea University is doing some research about the impact of these centres across Wales, which we have helped to fund. Thank you for that important question.

Thank you for the question. We're supporting families across Wales by directing help to those who need it most and by supporting people to access good-quality jobs. We're taking action to alleviate financial pressures, investing over £7 billion in programmes to ensure people can access their entitlements and keep more money in their pockets.

I agree that keeping more money in people's pockets is important, but unfortunately, the record of the Welsh Labour Government and their partners in Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats show that left-wing parties like yours have an ideological addiction to higher taxes. We see that time and time again as this Welsh Government and the UK Government in Westminster find new and innovative ways to hit people in their pockets and take money away from them. 

But the Welsh Conservatives are different. We're the only party going into this election with a plan to cut people's taxes, putting £450 back into the pockets of ordinary working people right across Wales. So, do you agree with me that this forthcoming election is a choice between the Welsh Conservatives, with a plan to cut people's taxes, and left-wing parties that only serve to raise their taxes?

Well, I'm not quite sure how that relates to the question. In fact, I'm amazed that you actually stood up and didn't recognise the 14 years of Tory misrule, I have to say, in terms of austerity, which saw the highest levels of taxation—a 70-year high.

But what I'm enthused to do in response to your question is to say that we are putting money into people's pockets as a result of the work we do with the single advice fund. And I'm sure you recognise the funding that we give to Citizens Advice—we've just heard about the good work of Citizens Advice. There's the funding that we give in our discretionary assistance fund for people who are in difficulties, in terms of vulnerable people. 'Claim what's yours', I hope you're playing your part, Tom Giffard, in publicising that. 'Claim what's yours' advisers have helped over 90,300 people—and this is the important point about getting money into people's pockets, their entitlements—and the people helped were supported to claim over £30.4 million in additional income. That's what our investment in social justice has done in terms of impact and putting money into people's pockets.

 Questions now from the party spokespeople. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Sioned Williams.

Diolch, Llywydd. For all the fanfare we've heard recently about the recently announced White Paper on policing representing the most radical shake-up to policing in two centuries, it risks replicating all of the flaws of what came before. And by prioritising centralisation over devolution, it threatens to make the jagged edge of devolution, of which we speak so often when it comes to social justice, even sharper for some of Wales's most vulnerable citizens. So, Cabinet Secretary, what direct and specific action are you taking to challenge your Labour partners in Westminster's disdainful refusal to devolve power and oversight over policing to Wales, in spite of the difference that could make to the effectiveness of Welsh Government's own social justice policy outcomes? Have you made a formal request to the UK Government for the devolution of policing in Wales?

Thank you for that question—a very topical question. Indeed, meetings over the last few weeks since the announcement of the abolition of police and crime commissioners and, indeed, the publication of the police landscape reform White Paper, which actually, I would say, has opened the door for reviewing the police governance systems within Wales, have included not only meetings with the UK Government Minister, Sarah Jones, but regular meetings with the PCCs, including the PCCs that represent you and your constituents, and also with the chief constables and the Welsh Local Government Association. And it's also important that we bring in local government as well. So, the UK Government has acknowledged that Wales needs a distinct approach to policing, and we are working constructively with them and our Welsh partners to develop a bespoke model of police governance in Wales. 

You talk about opening the door, but I would argue that that door was slammed shut firmly by Shabana Mahmood in Westminster, when Liz Saville-Roberts, the leader of Plaid Cymru in Westminster, asked that specific question, about whether this was an opportunity to have a different approach. I didn't hear an answer as to whether you had made, as a Welsh Government—as you've said is your policy—a formal request to the UK Government as a part of those discussions to devolve policing. So, could you give me that clarity now?

Well, the Welsh Government's ambition, as I've stated on many occasions in this Chamber, is to secure the devolution of policing and justice in its entirety, and we continue to work with the UK Government and others to secure the next steps. It is about taking the steps towards devolution to allow this to happen. Of course, we've always recognised, indeed, in consultation with our colleagues in the policing community, that this will be a phased approach in terms of the devolution of policing, but we have got an opportunity now in terms of that announcement of the abolition of police and crime commissioners to take this forward. And I'd also say, because I chair the policing partnership board, that we've got ideal structures. We work already in partnership, so I think we're in a good place in terms of moving this forward.

As you say, it is a no-brainer, especially where the social justice policy aims are in question, for instance, and that piece about justice is really important alongside policing. Because expert research tells us that imprisonment of a household member, for example, has been identified as an adverse childhood experience, which can negatively impact on children's future health and well-being. Recognising this fact, your Government undertook research to consider how future support for children in Wales affected by parental imprisonment could be improved. That report was published about a year ago.

That report emphasised that collecting, aggregating and publishing data would provide the necessary information to be able to respond to those needs. But the Equality and Social Justice Committee have recently received a response to our request to HM Prison and Probation Service asking how many children in Wales are affected by parental imprisonment. We were told no reliable data is currently held, due to the division of responsibilities between the Ministry of Justice and the Welsh Government, and that all the figures they have are held on an England and Wales basis. What action are you taking on this, given that Welsh legislation and policies are meant to support a trauma-informed, ACE-responsive children's rights approach?

Thank you for that really pertinent point about how children are caught up in the criminal justice system. In fact, I met with Dr Robert Jones from the Wales Governance Centre when he published his fact file showing appalling statistics. I'm particularly concerned about the imprisonment of women, because imprisonment of women then has the impact on children.

What I am pleased about—and in fact we had a round-table about this this morning—is the fact that we now have more data disaggregated—and we had academics engaged, including Dr Jones, in that meeting—so that we can actually ensure that we do get that evidence and provide that evidence through that data disaggregation in order to address that issue, which, of course, is crucially important in terms of the health and well-being of our children in Wales.

Welsh Conservative spokesperson, Altaf Hussain.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, how do you respond to the news that the number of police officers in England and Wales charged with criminal offences has risen by over 40 per cent in the past year? Do you agree with me that this adds to an erosion of trust in our police officers and damages community cohesion? Will you therefore call an urgent meeting with police and crime commissioners to ascertain what actions they are taking to tackle falling trust in our police forces? 

Thank you for that question. It is, again, really important that we are discussing policing this afternoon. It's not devolved to Wales, although we would like that to be the ultimate outcome. But I do enjoy a very constructive and full working relationship with our elected police and crime commissioners and, indeed, with the chief constables at our policing partnership board, which I chair. Trust and confidence in policing has become a regular issue on our agendas. That is something where I have the opportunity to speak to the policing Minister, Sarah Jones, about these issues. It is an important question and we have to look at it and engage with it in terms of the operational delivery of policing in Wales, but also in terms of the integrity and trust that the people of Wales can have in our policing service.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Of course, we would hope that the individual police forces would be better at vetting officers, but that is for the Home Office to enforce. I want to stick with the theme of community cohesion.

The UK Government recently appointed the British Muslim Trust to introduce a reporting system for anti-Muslim hatred. The BMT launched their national Islamophobia reporting service on Monday. The trouble is we still don't have a definition of Islamophobia or anti-Muslim hatred from the Government. We also have no clarity from those appointed to record Islamophobic incidents. The chief executive of the British Muslim Trust refused requests from journalists to expand upon her submission to the UK Government.

I and many Muslims are concerned that the UK Government will stick with the all-party parliamentary group definition, which effectively reintroduces blasphemy laws. I believe this could lead to an increase in anti-Muslim hatred as our faith would be offered protections not given to Christians or Jews. Cabinet Secretary, are you able to provide any clarity on the definition or on when we can expect an announcement from UK Ministers?

Thank you very much for that question, a really important question, Altaf Hussain. This is something where we are fully engaged, I have to say, through our faith and belief groups. I chair the faith communities forum, which is meeting in due course, and we have, as across this Chamber, engaged fully in working with our interfaith council.

Also, we have our Wales Hate Support Centre, run by Victim Support. We've asked our Wales Hate Support Centre to monitor any spikes in the reporting of Islamophobic hate crime and to ensure that service users receive the support they need. Of course, this is something where we want this to be considered fully across all of our public services, including in our school and education settings as well.

In terms of exploring a new definition of anti-Muslim hostility and Islamophobia, the UK Government has asked an independent group to explore this. We're awaiting the findings from this work and subsequent UK Government actions. But it's important that any definition works for Wales. It's also useful, of course, in terms of combating anti-Muslim hatred through legal processes.

After Christmas, I visited a mosque in Cardiff that had been targeted. Of course, when I visited them, and talked through the situation, they were also concerned not just about those who come to the mosque, who worship, but about the community they live in and they're a part of. It was wonderful to see the work that they're doing with welcoming a Scout group, which now meets at the mosque. So, it is in working together that we overcome this.

I am grateful, Cabinet Secretary. Sadly, many groups are seeking to exploit such situations and are doing all they can to foster division online. As we draw ever closer to May's election, the messages of division are growing louder and are being amplified by foreign influences seeking to undermine our democratic processes. Dark money is being funnelled into groups determined to sow doubt about our institutions, and these doubts are being seized upon by those who would like to see an end to devolution in Wales. Cabinet Secretary, what steps are the Welsh Government taking to tackle the disinformation aimed at tearing our communities apart and undermining our election?

I think this, again, is something that we are working very closely with. I think it's a really important question for the Senedd, and for all political parties, as well as the Welsh Government. But we do have a responsibility, and we take this very seriously, in trying to support and deal with that online hate and misinformation. Of course, the risk and the impact of online hate and misinformation is increasing, and we've seen those organisations and individuals targeted in recent months.

I have to say that I would like to applaud the way that the BBC spoke about the nation of sanctuary on Sunday on Politics Wales. I thought it was fairly done. It was really important to see the benefits of our approach to enabling people to feel safe and integrated when they come to Wales.

Last week, I met with the Minister responsible for online safety, Kanishka Narayan, and talked about what the UK Government is doing. But I do want to draw the attention of Members to the 'Keeping safe online' area of Hwb, which provides resources for young people in terms of education, and to parents, to understand online hate and extremism.

We've commissioned Cwmpas to deliver a media literacy pilot across the south Wales Valleys, with the aim of improving the ability of Welsh adults to identify and deal with misinformation and online hate. We're also providing training sessions on countering disinformation to local councillors. This is affecting all levels of democracy, and we seek to foster good relations and build cohesion. We need to come together in terms of tackling those messages of hate and division that are blighting our communities leading up to our elections in May. 

Thank you for the question. I laid a statement setting out the Welsh Government’s response to the judgment on 29 April, and work is under way across the Welsh Government to identify cross-Government policy areas that may be impacted by the Supreme Court ruling to ensure we meet our obligations under the Equality Act 2010.

Thanks for your response, Cabinet Secretary. Frankly, I cannot believe that it's necessary for me to be tabling questions like this, but here we are again. It's fast approaching a year since the Supreme Court ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex, and this Labour Government is still refusing to act. By failing to act, the Government is continuing to let down our young girls and women across Wales. In light of the ruling, Scotland has acted, declaring that the country's schools must provide separate toilets for boys and girls, and they must be available on the basis of biological sex. Yet here in Wales, it's just crickets, it's radio silence from the Welsh Government.

The cynic in me is saying that your Government is hoping that if you kick this deep enough into the long grass, you can simply run down the clock until the dissolution of this Welsh Parliament and not take any action. Cabinet Secretary, does this Government actually care about protecting women and girls? Because your failure to act so far makes me think otherwise. This is something I'm very happy to be proved wrong upon, so please show me that I am wrong, Cabinet Secretary, by acting now. Thank you. 

I have answered a number of questions and I'm very pleased to repeat the situation. You saw my written statement, of course, back in April, when the Supreme Court judgment was announced. I think what you need to recognise—and it's been said more than once—is that, in terms of the timing of the publication of the code that has come out of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, it is a matter for the UK Government. You know that it's a matter for the UK Government, and that we are awaiting the outcome of it. 

Just very helpfully, though, I'd like to say that the latest news is that I did meet with the new UK chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, to discuss a number of issues, including the implications of the Supreme Court judgment and the forthcoming EHRC code of practice. So, I think that may reassure you, that I met with her. And I said again, as I've said before, that I am clear that the Welsh Government will comply fully with the code of practice once issued. 

Thank you, Julie, for that question. We work closely with the EHRC as key partners in advancing human rights in Wales, including through the human rights advisory group and their UN treaty monitoring. We value their independent scrutiny, and I was pleased to welcome their recent Wales impact report for 2024-25 with a written statement.

Thank you for the answer. 

Cabinet Secretary, I was very pleased to read your statement welcoming the new Chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, because the work of the EHRC in promoting equality and human rights helps to make Wales a fairer nation. And I know that the Welsh Government works closely with the EHRC. So, could the Cabinet Secretary tell us what representation from Wales is on the EHRC, and what more can the Cabinet Secretary do, in conjunction with the EHRC, to help promote equality, fairness and human rights across Wales?

Thank you for that question. It's very topical, following on from the previous question, and I'll say that I was very pleased to meet with the new chair, Dr Mary-Ann Stevenson, to welcome her to Wales. Our discussions reaffirmed our commitment to collaborative working, particularly in advancing the human rights agenda across Wales. We explored opportunities for future engagement. It is important that we have a human rights advisory group in Wales. In fact, that advisory group is meeting tomorrow, and I will be chairing that meeting. Right across this term, we've shifted how we think about equality. We work in a more joined-up way, so that we can see how we are affecting people's lives, and the different rights and inequalities that people experience. It has strengthened our human rights work. Also, we have produced a human rights statement, and EHRC contributed to that.

In terms of the work that has been done, with the disabled people's rights plan, Gypsy, Roma and Traveller needs, and the race equality 'Anti-racist Wales Action Plan', all of those have been important indications in terms of the outcomes of our work. Can I just say that I'd also like to put on record that I'm also urging the UK Government—and I think this is now going to happen—to appoint the new chair of the Wales committee for the EHRC? We've approved the process, and we hope now that this will progress, but I'm very grateful to Martyn Jones, who has stepped in and covered the Wales chair role in the interim.

Cabinet Secretary, the Equality and Human Rights Commission has repeatedly raised concerns about the gap between policy commitments and lived experience, particularly for disabled people, older people and ethnic minority communities. How do you and the Welsh Government assess and measure the outcomes of your policies to make sure that they genuinely improve people's day-to-day experience in relation to human rights? Too often, we hear about strategies and reports and plans that convince us that we're doing the right thing, but how do we monitor to make sure those outcomes make a real difference?

Thank you for that question. This is something that is crucial to the delivery of change—the cultural change we want to see in Wales in terms of respecting equality, advancing equality and human rights. That's what our disabled people's rights plan seeks to do. It's a 10-year plan. It's built on the social model of disability. It was shaped by the work of the disability rights taskforce, and it has long-term goals. Crucially, you need to ensure that it's monitored independently and that it actually delivers on its outcomes. I'm pleased that we are having an external advisory group. Its first meeting will be held on 23 March, with expert guidance to steer delivery and maximise impact.

Cabinet Secretary, as has already been said to you today, yesterday marked 300 days since the Supreme Court ruled that 'sex' in the Equality Act 2010 means biological sex. That's 300 days that Labour Governments at both ends of the M4 have been stalling whilst women and girls remain unprotected and are not getting the right to safe spaces or fairness in sport. It is not good enough. The ruling was quite simple: a 'woman' means a biological woman. Yet, we have not seen anything from you suggesting that you are trying to pressurise the Government and the EHRC to act hastily in this regard. Can you publish, please, any correspondence you've had with the EHRC and the UK Government asking them to act quickly on this due to the importance of this matter to protect women and girls here in Wales? Have you been given a date of when you will get the guidance that relates to the updated code? Diolch.

I can give you the background. I have already given quite extensive feedback on this issue. The Equality and Human Rights Commission submitted the updated code of practice to the Minister for Women and Equalities and the Secretary of State for Education in September last year. It is a lengthy and complex document, and the forthcoming guidance won't change the law or alter the legal impact of the Supreme Court judgment. It is the judgment, not the guidance, which sets out the law on these issues. The UK Government is now considering the code. The Minister for Women and Equalities and the Secretary of State wrote to the Welsh Government in the autumn, and they have to consult with us. We submitted our response on 20 November, and, indeed, the UK Government will decide whether to approve the code and lay it before Parliament for 40 days.

Indeed, this is something I spoke to Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson about last week, and I just want to say one thing about this: my focus at the moment, I have to say, in terms of women, is tackling the endemic violent sexual and domestic abuse of women in Wales. That is my focus—that is my focus—and when I met with Dr Mary-Ann Stephenson, I told her of the groups that I'd met: WEN Wales, Pride Cymru, trans stakeholders, Stonewall, Women's Rights Network Wales, LGB Alliance Cymru, Merched Cymru. I've listened to everyone. I've listened to all their views. And when I met with her, we discussed the need for compassion and dialogue to develop solutions, so that everyone in Wales can access the services they need while public bodies meet their legal duties.

Thank you, Joyce Watson. Our 10-year disabled people's rights plan sets out practical actions and long-term goals to tackle barriers across employment, transport, education, healthcare, housing and digital access. And we're making a £100 cost-of-living payment for disabled people in the council tax disabled band reduction scheme who also claim council tax reduction.

Diolch,  Cabinet Secretary. I really do welcome the disabled people's rights plan, because we all recognise that everyone has the right to be treated fairly and equally in our society and given the same opportunities as everybody else. So, I believe the plan addresses those fundamental issues and, with people working collaboratively, I'm sure it can be successful in achieving its aims. Cabinet Secretary, disabled people in Wales are one of the target audiences for the 'Claim what's yours' campaign that helps people to claim what they're entitled to, and you mentioned the £100 cost-of-living payment already. Are you able to give more details on this and when people will receive that payment?

Thank you very much, Joyce Watson. The council tax disabled band reduction scheme is a one-off cash payment of £100 to households receiving means-tested support through the council tax reduction scheme who also receive a disabled band reduction. All payments will be made by this March, in the next few weeks. We've asked local authorities to make payments as soon as possible after they conclude a household is eligible. I think what's really important—and this is part of our Welsh benefits system here now—is that households don't have to apply or provide evidence to receive the £100 payment. So, councils are using the data they've got to identify who's eligible. They're contacting households only to confirm the bank details needed to issue the payment. So, I hope the Senedd will recognise this is a dramatic, great step forward. It's removing barriers that often prevent people from accessing their entitlements, and it does show how local authorities can deliver financial support in a straightforward, person-centered way aligned to the Welsh benefits charter principles.

Tank you for this question, Carolyn Thomas. The Royal Mail, of course, as you know, is not devolved, and the postal service is regulated by Ofcom. But I recognise the postal service is vital in connecting our communities, and I am concerned that there are some areas where this service is failing to deliver. 

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. So, as a former postie, I am deeply disappointed to hear that Royal Mail continues to put profit ahead of its public service duty. I've been made aware by postal workers that they are instructed to prioritise the more lucrative parcels, leaving behind large volumes of letters, including vital NHS correspondence, sometimes amounting to up to five days' worth, and so vital appointments are being missed. This is not just a failure of service to the NHS; it is a serious social justice issue. People who depend on healthcare letters, older residents and those who are digitally excluded are being left at a real disadvantage, with potentially serious consequences for their health and well-being, and missed appointments have an impact on our NHS. So, can I ask what discussions you have had with Royal Mail about this practice, and what action the Welsh Government can take to ensure that letters from public services, such as our NHS, are treated with the urgency that they deserve? Thank you.

Thank you very much. This is an important question that has also come up this week in this Chamber, and I have actually had representation from Royal Mail asking to meet with me, and of course that's something that I will do, particularly following these questions. There is research carried out by Ofcom, the regulator, showing that people want an affordable and reliable postal service, and many people still do not have this, often waiting weeks for letters to be delivered. I have had in casework, as I'm sure many have, concerns about these NHS appointment letters. So, it is going to be a question of what Ofcom allows Royal Mail to do to make changes to the service. The postal workers themselves are crucial to this delivery, and I was pleased to make my Christmas visit to meet with postal workers, to meet with the unions as well, as I'm sure many of you did, and to recognise the pressures. Can we just say that our postal workers—and I appreciate your experience in this sector—are absolutely vital to our everyday lives, to our public services, and, yes, wouldn't it be good if it was a public service again?

Thank you, Carolyn, and also you, Cabinet Secretary, because I brought this up not here, but with my own sorting office in Llandudno in the summer. At that time, they were having staffing problems, but since the universal service obligation has come into force, it's pretty much a guarantee that a first-class letter you'll receive the next day, a second-class letter two days later. But I've been approached again about my local sorting office, even by postmen and women, anonymously. It's a real problem and it seems to be a pattern now, certainly across Wales. I would just ask whether you could work with the UK Government and with the Royal Mail. This should not be happening. I think a powerful voice from this Senedd would actually show them that we're not going to accept this. I'm having people with late appointment letters. Our own letters going out for appointments with me are received on the day. It's just not good enough. Our residents and constituents deserve a first-class postal service, especially when they're paying for a first-class postal service. Diolch.

Diolch. Thank you. Obviously this has now raised a number of questions across the Chamber, so I will meet with Royal Mail. It is a universal postal service provider and it's responsible for the six-days-a-week single-price delivery of letters and packets to all UK addresses. I think it's important to meet Ofcom as well as Royal Mail in terms of monitoring the performance against targets that have been set. I also just wanted to make the point, in terms of the communication of appointments in the NHS, that so many NHS letters are so important for patients, including particularly those who are digitally excluded, because actually, as many of you know, often the NHS communicates by e-mail or text and telephone calls, but many of those who are not digitally included will not get that communication. So, there is now a Royal Mail NHS-specific barcode. I think we need to again ask for more understanding of what this means in terms of working together to deliver for the patients who need that service and also for the wider customers and for the postal workers themselves.

The Member isn't present to ask question 7. Question 8, Russell George.

Thank you very much, Russell George. We're committed to ensuring everyone in Wales has the digital confidence, basic digital skills and support to meet the minimum digital living standard, ensuring no-one is left behind. This will allow people to make informed decisions about how they engage with digital technology.

Thank you for your answer, Cabinet Secretary. I recognise that the Access Broadband Cymru scheme has helped many people across rural Wales, in terms of residents and businesses. But I'm also aware of cases where, during the period where the scheme was paused to allow for updates, some individuals in rural areas felt that they had no option but to install alternative broadband solutions, at their own expense, in order to remain in work or keep their business operating, often in the expectation that the scheme, then, would reopen within a matter of months.

So, given that digital connectivity is central to digital inclusion, can you, Cabinet Secretary, set out whether the Welsh Government has considered whether any retrospective support or discretion could be applied for those who acted out of necessity during the pause period, and how future scheme suspensions might be managed to ensure rural residents are not inadvertently disadvantaged?

Thank you for that important question. Of course, our digital strategy for Wales, which is a programme for government commitment, makes clear that, for people who can't or decide not to participate digitally, alternative ways to access public services in Wales must remain available.

You've drawn attention specifically to an issue in rural Wales. Clearly, broadband connectivity responsibility rests with the UK Government, and yet we have made sure that we've supported, through Superfast Cymru roll-out, millions of pounds of public funding to deliver superfast broadband. Can I ask that you write to me specifically on that issue? This is something that I've also been discussing with the older people's commissioner as well.

Finally, question 9, Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch yn fawr, Rhys ab Owen. The building and planning permission are confirmed. We're clear that the centre will be a real asset for women in Wales, providing therapeutic and rehabilitative services as part of a trauma-informed approach.

Diolch yn fawr, Trefnydd. You might remember, this is one of the first questions I asked when I joined the Senedd five years ago, because when the announcement was made in 2020, following work with the Thomas commission, it was exciting to hear that the additional £2.5 million of funding was going to go with the centre to deal with offending with regard to women. We have been told, on several occasions, that the building has been purchased, that the planning permission has been granted, but the opening date was due in 2024. We have seen the opening date delayed and delayed, time and time again, and a spade hasn't been put in the ground yet. We've heard of the incredible difference Hope Street has made in Southampton, but still, yet again, Wales waits. When will this groundbreaking centre open for the women of Wales? Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr, Rhys ab Owen. I'm really glad we've reached this question, because I absolutely agree with you. My frustration about the lack of progress in opening it I think is shared by so many. It's a key objective for the Welsh Government that the centre opens. It's crucial for women to maintain contact with their families. Indeed, I have to say, and I mentioned it earlier on, that today I attended a women's justice blueprint round-table, chaired by Ian Barrow, the chief executive of HM Prison and Probation Service in Wales. In my opening remarks, I noted the urgency around opening the centre. I'm set to meet Lord James Timpson at the end of February. I'm requesting an update on the opening of the centre, and officials, I know, are working closely with the UK Government to ensure the centre remains a priority and is progressed quickly.

There will be a report of this round-table today. I've had questions earlier on as well about women's justice and the outcomes that we need to seek to address, because this is about allowing women to stay closer to home, maintaining crucial family ties, especially with their children, and also addressing all those underlying issues that contribute to offending behaviour: mental health issues, substance misuse, or domestic violence. So, yes, I'm grateful for the Senedd's support, and for your questions today about the centre.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 3 is questions to the Senedd Commission. These questions will be answered by the Llywydd. Question 1, Lindsay Whittle.

Young people are a target audience in the Senedd 2026 election campaign, and officials are engaging with young people in a variety of ways. This has included education sessions on the estate and off the estate. In January alone, the education team held 107 sessions with pupils eligible to vote across Wales. Efforts have also included community outreach events, for example at universities, colleges and student unions, and through digital channels targeted at younger audiences, such as Instagram, in order to encourage young people to participate in the election.

Thank you for that response.

Can I say that today I attended the apprenticeships event, and I was excited to look at a virtual reality headset? I feel that could be a way forward, because I understand the Electoral Commission uses these virtual reality headsets. So, they teach young people how to even register, how to vote and how to navigate a polling station. Could I ask, do staff, please, from the Senedd Commission, when they visit the schools and the colleges, have access to such exciting technology, which certainly impressed this older gentleman? Thank you.

Well, I'm not aware that virtual reality is currently used by the Senedd in engaging with younger people. We obviously engage with younger people on the platforms where they are present and interested. We use the kind of visual media that they are linked into and that they provide feedback to us that they want to see information on about voting, about politics, shared with them. A virtual reality polling station is not one that I can quite visualise in my own head at this point, but obviously I need to move faster with these times and keep up with you, Lindsay Whittle.

The Commission encourages staff to consider healthy and active lifestyles, for instance supporting active travel through the cycle-to-work scheme, secure bike storage, showers and pool bikes. We work in partnership with our catering contractor to continually improve the healthy eating options, and we have seen significant improvements in this over recent years. Well-being levels are monitored through regular surveys, and through these we are seeing sustained improvements in well-being indicators, including reductions in sickness absence.

Diolch yn fawr. My office earlier today, Llywydd, sent out information to Senedd Members about a parkrun celebration event here at the Senedd next month. One of the things that parkrun is trying to do is to widen its impact and build on its very beneficial impact in terms of health and well-being in Wales. For example, they're linking individual parkruns with local general practitioner surgeries as part of social prescribing, and now they are looking to link workplaces with parkruns. Indeed, a number of local authorities and others are supporting that development.

I know there are a number of Commission staff and MSs who regularly participate or volunteer in parkrun events in their local area, and I wonder, Llywydd, whether you might meet with me to discuss whether our Senedd might, perhaps, through the auspices of the national leadership, which is Chris Davies in Wales for Parkrun Wales, look at linking the Senedd with parkrun, in what I think would be a first for any Parliament anywhere in the world.

Thank you, John Griffiths, for that question.

I got my invitation to the parkrun celebration that you're hosting in a few weeks' time in my inbox this morning. I don't promise to have my running shoes on for that event. But just to say, in answering this question after you having tabled it, a 'thank you' personally, John, for the leadership you've given to active lifestyles, both as a policy issue more widely in Wales, but also in encouraging all of us, as Members and as staff, to live as active a lifestyle as we can in our workplace. You'll be missed as a champion for that cause on your retirement, but I'm sure there will be others who will take up the baton. I'm going down a running track in my analogies here, so I'll stop there. But thank you for that leadership.

You've offered me and this Commission a challenge, then, to look to see how we can link in with the hugely successful parkrun initiative that's taking part in communities right throughout Wales. And even though this Parliament isn't usually in session on a Saturday morning, when parkruns are happening in our communities, I'll gladly meet with you and representatives of the parkrun initiative to see how and in which way this Parliament could better align itself, or align itself, with the parkrun initiative. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you, Llywydd.

No topical questions were accepted today.

We will now move on to item 5, the 90-second statements. The first statement is from Mike Hedges.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer.  I'm pleased to be a patron of Tabernacle Morriston Choir. This promises to be an incredibly exciting year for Tabernacle Morriston Choir as it celebrates its one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. The Tabernacle Morriston Choir was formed in 1876 and is the second-longest-established mixed choir still performing in Wales. The choir has sung in many venues throughout the country, including the Royal Albert Hall, St David's Hall Cardiff, Llandaff cathedral, the Brangwyn Hall Swansea, as well as its regular performance at the world-famous Tabernacle chapel in Morriston.

The choir has performed many times for Radio 3, Radio Cymru, BBC One and BBC Two. The choir was the first Welsh choir to appear on BBC Two singing Bloch's 'Sacred Service' with the late Sir Geraint Evans. The choir has made a number of overseas tours. The first was a Brussels visit in 1992; Hungary in 1994, to take part in a performance of Belshazzar's Feast; Pau, Swansea's French twin town, in 1997; and Vienna in 2000.

The choir takes considerable pride in encouraging young singers embarking on a professional career, such as Sir Bryn Terfel, Rebecca Evans, Jason Howard, Richard Allen, Natalya Romaniw, who is from Morriston, Janet Watson and others. In recognition of this, it was a great honour when Bryn Terfel, who has sung with the choir many times, agreed to become the choir's life patron. The choir has a wide repertoire, including Handel's Messiah, which they sing every Christmas, but they also sing Verdi's Aida and Nabucco, as well as a series of requiems by composers such as Mozart, Berlioz and Rutter.

This year they are celebrating this wonderful milestone with a series of events. Congratulations on your one hundred and fiftieth anniversary. I look forward to the next 150 years and attending the commemoration events.

I'm sure everyone in the Chamber is aware that this week is Apprenticeship Week Wales. This week provides an important opportunity to recognise apprenticeships as a valuable route into employment or a new career, while reflecting on the significant benefits they offer to individuals, employers and the wider economy. Apprenticeships play a vital role in developing a skilled workforce and strengthening the Welsh economy. They provide life-changing opportunities for people to earn, learn and progress, all whilst supporting businesses to grow, innovate and thrive.

Now, some Members may have attended the apprenticeship fair held here in the Senedd today, hosted by the cross-party group for apprenticeships, with Joyce Watson and I both co-chairing that group. And it was, of course, supported by ColegauCymru and the National Training Federation Wales. I sincerely hope that colleagues had the chance to visit this event and to engage with the colleges and training providers showcasing the breadth and quality of apprenticeship opportunities available across Wales. To illustrate the real and lasting impact apprenticeships can have, I want to share the story of an apprentice from Gower College, Swansea, Jodi Jones. After taking time away from work, Jodi returned in 2021, unsure of her next steps. She developed an interest in welding and gained experience by volunteering in local workshops. This sparked a passion that led her to a welding and fabricating apprenticeship at Gower College, which she successfully completed in 2022. Her drive didn't stop there. The following year, she represented the college in the welding category at Skills Competition Wales, and since has progressed even further and is now an engineering technician and lecturer—a genuinely inspiring example of how apprenticeships can genuinely change lives and open doors to a new and fulfilling career.

As we celebrate apprenticeship week, I hope that colleagues will join me in reaffirming our commitment to ensuring that every learner in Wales has access to high-quality opportunities that help them realise their potential and shape a stronger future for them and our communities.

Thank you, both.

Item 6 this afternoon is a debate on a Member's legislative proposal, a human rights Bill. I call on Sioned Williams to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. As chair of the Senedd cross-party group on human rights, I've had the privilege over the last four years of working with experts and campaigners who've highlighted, through their research, their scrutiny of policy and through their lived experience, the importance of strengthening human rights protections for the people of Wales. This is a topic we've discussed over many years in the Senedd and forms part of the current programme for government, although a scrutiny of that commitment by the Equality and Social Justice Committee has shown that there's been a regrettable gap between that promise made by the current Welsh Government and its delivery.

So, why do I think this Bill is needed? Well, put simply, a human rights Bill would embed international human rights in Welsh law and give people clear routes to enforce their rights. It would make it easier for people in Wales to understand and claim their rights, alongside ensuring accountability for those responsible for upholding people's rights. And why now? Well, because a powerful and co-ordinated movement is growing that seeks to weaken human rights protections, to redraw the boundaries of who deserves dignity, and to decide whose lives, bodies and freedoms are worthy of protection. And for those who don't agree that this is the case, well, we see it daily. Do not reject, in Orwell's famous phrase,

'the evidence of your eyes and ears.'

We see lies allowed to circulate unchecked. We see protesters arrested. In the US, ICE agents killing civilians and tearing communities apart. Private interests shaping politics in the shadows. Minorities blamed for problems they didn't create. And this alongside the shrinking of accountability. This is the predictable outcome of systems where human rights are treated as conditional, optional or expendable. I really think that this is a moment. We are not approaching a tipping point; we are already in it. As we move towards the 2026 Senedd election, the political climate in Wales does not exist in isolation. It is shaped by this global rise in authoritarianism, misinformation and division. Instead of confronting the real issues facing people, blame is too often redirected by some onto those with the least power. This narrative is not new. It is familiar and dangerous: divide communities rather than address structural failure; make ordinary people point at each other in searching for solutions to social and economic problems, so that the super-rich can continue to protect their own interests; and the questioning of rights, the rights that make us equal and equally accountable under the law. We see the drive towards even questioning and removing citizenship, the very frame on which our rights are hung.

Writing in the aftermath of the second world war, the philosopher Hannah Arendt warned of what happens when rights are treated as abstract ideals rather than enforceable guarantees. She described the most fundamental human right as the right to have rights: the right to belong to a political and legal community that recognises you as a rights holder in the first place. And that insight could not be more relevant today. Because when rights are not embedded in law, then they are not enforceable. When they depend on political goodwill rather than legal obligation, people are left without that most basic protection—the right to have rights at all.

So, that's why this motion is important. The Senedd is being asked something fundamental—to agree on whether we believe human rights in Wales should be real, enforceable protections, or simply aspirations expressed in policy documents and speeches. A Bill such as that set out in my motion would embed selected international human rights treaties directly into Welsh law, making them binding on Welsh Ministers and public authorities in the exercise of devolved functions. Because recognising a right is not the same as securing it. We've seen that with what's happened with Roe v Wade, which stood for nearly 50 years in the United States of America, protecting fundamental reproductive rights, until that was swept away by a single decision.

We don't need to look overseas, because here in Wales a Welsh Government report published only weeks ago described the detention and hospitalisation of people with learning disabilities and autistic people as a human rights scandal—people deprived of their liberty, subjected to inappropriate physical and chemical restraint, held in solitary confinement, including children, some spending their entire adolescence behind locked doors, far from families and communities.

This reality was reinforced by the work of the cross-party group on human rights, which last year examined whether commitments to strengthen human rights in Wales are being delivered in practice. The evidence set out in our report from charities, academics, campaigners and people with lived experience was strikingly consistent. Despite repeated recommendations from the United Nations, from Senedd committees, from civil society and independent research, commitment to incorporate key international treaties into Welsh law has not been delivered.

So, we must legislate. A human rights (Wales) Bill would do three vital things. It would give legal force to international human rights standards within devolved areas, including treaties such as the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, ensuring Welsh Ministers and public bodies are bound by them. Second, it would make rights clearer and more accessible. People should not need legal expertise to understand whether their dignity has been violated, or how to challenge that violation. Third, it would improve monitoring and accountability. Public bodies do vital work, but, when they fail, people must have meaningful remedies.

Wales would not be acting alone. In Scotland, the Scottish Government is progressing work towards a human rights Bill that would embed multiple UN treaties into Scottish law. That work demonstrates that devolved Governments can be ambitious, principled and practical in protecting rights, and Wales should be no less bold. And the public understands this. Polling shows that more than eight in 10 adults believe human rights protections are even more important today than when the European convention on human rights was created in the aftermath of the second world war.

So, Dirprwy Lywydd, I believe we should use every power at our disposal to protect equality, justice and the inherent common human dignity we all share in the face of a growing threat to those very things. We can allow rights to remain fragile, contingent and vulnerable to political winds, or we can secure them in law for the people of Wales. I look forward to the contributions, and I urge Members to support the motion. Diolch.

A human rights (Wales) Bill has been presented today as a noble and principled cause, and, on the surface, it sounds like something that no-one could not support. After all, how could anyone possibly be against human rights? But we cannot be under any illusion. This proposal isn't what it appears to be. It is a Trojan horse carefully designed to advance Plaid's wider political and constitutional agenda under the guise of human rights. This Bill is another attempt to drive a wedge between Wales and the rest of the United Kingdom—a deliberately constructed Bill to create separation, not because it delivers better outcomes for the people that we represent, but because it serves the political ambition of Plaid Cymru, which is Welsh independence.

And we know that this isn't just about independence—it's about another 'i' word; it's about immigration. Because I saw in the press release Sioned Williams put out a headline—

Will you take an intervention? 

Well, I'm just reading the press release headline from you first, and then I'll let you in and you can respond to it. Because the press headline that you trailed ahead of this debate, Sioned, said that there was, quote, 'a call for human rights law in Wales amid fears of US-style immigration crackdowns'. So, this isn't about human rights at all; it’s about immigration, isn’t it?

I was about to say that you’re predicating your whole contribution here on the hypothesis that this is about independence, if I’ve heard you correctly. How would you then explain that the unionist party Welsh Labour Government had incorporation of UN treaties as a part of their programme for government? Doesn’t that contradict your hypothesis?

Well, look, the Welsh Labour Government can answer for the Welsh Labour Government, but what I was saying was that this is about both independence and about immigration, and I know that it is Plaid's position that illegal immigration simply doesn't exist. I remember the leader of Plaid Cymru saying that on the television, quite famously. And at a time when the Conservative Party under Kemi Badenoch is rightly leading a serious national conversation about restoring democratic control by leaving the European convention on human rights, this proposal pulls in the opposite direction. Instead of strengthening the sovereignty of the UK Parliament and reinforcing accountability to the British people, Plaid Cymru would prefer to bind Wales even more tightly to external legal frameworks and activist courts.

Leaving the ECHR is about ensuring that the laws in this country are made by our elected representatives and interpreted by our own courts, not judges in Strasbourg and elsewhere. It is about rebalancing human rights with public safety, but also proper border control and common sense, and this proposal undermines that objective by entrenching an increasingly rigid and politicised human rights culture at a devolved level. We're told that this proposal would improve accountability and access to justice, but the reality is that it is likely to create more bureaucracy, more complexity and more legal costs—money that could be going into front-line services and would instead be wasted on diversions and administrative costs.

And at the same time, this proposal offers symbolism rather than substance. It allows politicians to appear virtuous without addressing the real challenges facing Wales: long NHS waiting lists, bad educational outcomes, pressure on public services, housing shortages and failing educational standards. I mean, that is classic Plaid Cymru. I challenge Plaid Cymru to find a member of the public who thinks that the constitution is the No. 1 issue they're facing, knocking on doors in the run-up to the election.

People don't want grand gestures, Dirprwy Lywydd—I’m wrapping up—they want practical solutions and effective government, something that the Welsh Labour-Plaid Cymru duopoly on Welsh politics has failed to deliver over the past 27 years. For this reason, I and my party can't support this proposal. I urge fellow not just Conservative Members but unionist Members to think carefully about the long-term consequences of backing it. The Conservative Party in Westminster can deal with this issue by taking us out of the ECHR when we form the next Government, and this will not and will never be an issue for the Senedd.

I'd like to thank, first, Sioned Williams for the important debate, but, more importantly, for her leadership on human rights throughout this Senedd term. I completely agree with what she said back in November and again today. Rights that cannot be claimed are no rights at all. I won't repeat my comments about the future generations Act; the Trefnydd knows my views about rights that communities and individuals can't use.

It's important that we have this debate, because there are strong voices against human rights. It's unfortunate that those voices are not here today to listen to this debate. Maybe they will come in at the end of the debate to shout their opposition. Tom reminded me a bit of Geoffrey Howe, all by himself there, going out to face the bowling with a broken cricket bat. But fair play to you, Tom, for being the only man in the Conservative Party who has an interest in human rights. Although you talk so much about it, only one of you has bothered to show up to this important debate.

As Sioned said, it's not only for right-wing parties that this is a problem. Look at Westminster, which is curtailing the rights of protesters, and also our country, and the failures mentioned in the report in December 2025, failures of this Government. And this is the irony. The devolution settlement is based on human rights. The Government of Wales Act 1998 and the 2006 Act, they are based on human rights—Acts that the people of Wales have voted for twice in referendums, Tom. So, unlike Westminster, this place has to legislate in accordance with human rights.

But there are failures, failures within this Government: a failure to incorporate children's rights within Welsh law, despite, as Sioned has said, this being part of the programme for government for this Senedd; a failure to take steps to improve equal access for people to education—guidance was published three years ago, but we're still waiting for the final guidance. And once again, although it is part of the programme for government of this Government, we are still waiting for the legislation that will help to improve access to employment for those who are part of the obvious gap at the moment. As Sioned said, this Bill would create accountability: accountability of the Government and of this place to the people of Wales. I greatly hope that the parties will include this in their manifestos and that there will be a majority in the next Senedd to make this Bill a reality. Thank you.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip, Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr, Deputy Llywydd. Can I say that I welcome this debate and I will be supporting this motion? Human rights matter, because they shape people's everyday lives, their dignity, safety and fair treatment. And I know that Members across the Chamber share a determination to uphold the rights of people in Wales. In Wales, human rights are not just principles on paper; they are built into how we govern, into the standards we expect of devolved public services. And this Government has got a record of putting human rights into law and practice. Children's rights is a clear example: Welsh Ministers have a legal duty to have due regard to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child when exercising their functions. And through our strategic equality and human rights plan and our national equality objectives, we are strengthening delivery and accountability.

The motion before us asks the Senedd to note a proposal for a human rights (Wales) Bill. And it sets out clear aims to make rights more meaningful and accessible, to strengthen routes to access justice when rights are not upheld, to improve monitoring and accountability. The Welsh Government agrees with these aims. In fact, I reflect on the fact that I had many challenges in my questions earlier on about just these points in terms of, when rights are not upheld, how do we hold the Government to account? So, the question now is not whether we should strengthen rights, but how we do it in a way that is durable, enforceable and workable in Wales. And in a devolved context, we must be clear what Wales can legislate for, how any approach interacts with the wider UK framework, and where the boundary sits between devolved matters and reserved matters. So, that is complex technical work—it's essential—but the people of Wales deserve protections that work in practice.

In responding to Rhys ab Owen, of course, human rights obligations are built into Wales's constitutional architecture. Welsh Ministers must act compatibly with the European convention on human rights through the Human Rights Act 1998. And, of course, we can only legislate where proposals are compatible with the convention. The Human Rights Act is a protected enactment under the Government of Wales Act 2006 that the Senedd cannot modify. So, our constitutional settlement does set a floor for rights across all portfolios and provides a common legal language for scrutiny. We can learn from Scotland, which has been on a similar journey. Their work there on a human rights Bill has been under way. And, of course, Scotland has been clear that the Bill will not be delivered during the current parliamentary session, but they are looking at this through consultation.

And I think this is all about how we look in terms of the importance of getting legal competence, consultation and implementation detail right from the outset. That's why we've approached this in Wales in this way. So, again, we commissioned the 'Strengthening and advancing equality and human rights in Wales' research on that basis. I said earlier today that I established and chair a human rights advisory group, and it brings together those key organisations: Children in Wales, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Disability Wales. And we have established the legislative options working group, chaired by Charles Whitmore of the Wales Council for Voluntary Action and the Wales Governance Centre, to test legislative and non-legislative routes against competence and feasibility. With our programme for government, we are beginning the work by considering the treatment of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in terms of recognition of the current need to strengthen disabled people's rights.

Now, finally, Deputy Llywydd, the scale of this work is enormous. LOWG is reporting soon. We're meeting the group on Friday morning. I've invited members of the Equality and Social Justice Committee to join that discussion. In the meantime, progress is not on hold. We continue to strengthen the positive impact of rights through action plans and policy delivery. We need to be held to account on that and ensure that human rights are being delivered. So, let's finish at this point by restating my support for this motion. I'm driven by the same purpose: a belief in strong and meaningful rights protection for the people of Wales.

I call on Sioned Williams to reply to the debate.

Diolch. There were other speakers, I think.

No, not on my list.

Okay. Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you to everyone who's contributed. It's good to hear that the Government is supporting, and it's that question of not 'if' but 'how', isn't it? It's too late—. I thought it was quite ironic that I was presenting this debate today as a legislative proposal because it's too late for this Senedd, of course, to legislate in this area. But we can, certainly, send a message to the next Senedd, to the next Government, to the people that we represent, and Plaid Cymru is willing to take action on this.

This motion relates to leadership with regards to taking decisive action. The work on a human rights Bill in Scotland shows us what is possible, and the evidence in Wales demonstrates what is necessary. This motion, therefore, gives us an opportunity to turn a commitment—a commitment that we've had from the current Government for a number of years—into a reality.

Because it's not enough to say that human rights in Wales are already regarded, because, while there is aspiration and commitments on paper, and in action plans and policies, there are gaps in enforcement, in inconsistent practice, insufficient statutory safeguards. True respect for human rights requires proactive protection, statutory accountability and measurable outcomes, which Wales currently lacks. A human rights Bill, therefore, is the only way to ensure protections for people's rights now and, importantly, in the future. Let's think of those future generations, as we are meant to do, their dignity, yes, and even their very freedom, by sending them this most important message from this Senedd, from this point in time, from all those who believe in equality and fairness, and in actions as well as words. Diolch.

The proposal is to note the proposal. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, so I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Item 7 is the Welsh Conservatives' debate on restricting social media for under-16s. I call on Natasha Asghar to move the motion.

Thank you so much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It's my pleasure to move the motion this afternoon, tabled in my colleague's name, Paul Davies.

Let me begin by saying social media, without a doubt, has its benefits. It allows us to keep in touch with family and friends, who may be dotted around the globe; it provides us with quick access to the news as well as global events; it provides us with entertainment; it can unlock support; and it can help with job opportunities as well as networking. However, for far too many children, it has become a breeding ground for harm, bullying, addiction and anxiety. Social media is exposing our children to graphic content, whether that be sexual, violent, extremist or suicide related. It opens the doors for predators and grooming gangs. Sadly, we know only too well that dangerous social media trends have led to the tragic deaths of so many young people across the country. Put simply, Deputy Presiding Officer, it is putting our children at unnecessary risk and can have a hugely damaging and sometimes even fatal consequence.

My Welsh Conservative colleagues and I, as well as our counterparts in London, absolutely believe in freedom, but this must be matched with responsibility. When it comes to our children and young people, responsibility must and always come first. That is why we are proposing a ban on social media for the under-16s.

Children are now spending almost three hours online every day, with over 70 per cent of them being exposed to videos or real-life violence online. A UK Parliament petition calling for age restrictions on social media has already gained more than 75,000 signatures. We would not allow an unregulated substance into our children's bedrooms, yet that is exactly what we have done with social media. We already recognise that some things are not acceptable for children and young people to access, and that's why we have age limits on alcohol, gambling and also driving. Deputy Presiding Officer, social media, with its links to self-harm, declining mental health and exploitation, brings it firmly on the list.

Other countries around the world have already started to wake up and act. Australia introduced restrictions on social media for under-16s late last year, and already they're seeing benefits. Whilst the full impact is yet to be known for a while, early indications suggest that they are seeing reduced screen time, lower exposure to cyberbullying, and that it has created an environment for children to thrive at school and really spend more genuine time with their loved ones. Spain recently announced plans for a ban on social media for the under-16s, in a bid to protect the country's children from a digital wild west. France and Denmark are also looking into a social media ban. We need to follow suit to protect our future generations and give our children a proper childhood, not one filled with cyberbullying, extremist content, depression, anxiety, and so much more.

Excessive social media use can also have a hugely negative impact on our children's education, with reduced attention and focus, sleep deprivation, mental health issues, reduced performance, and lower cognitive skills. This proposed social media ban builds on the Welsh Conservatives' policy of banning smartphones in schools. Both of these measures, if implemented, have the power to drastically transform our children's lives for the better, returning schools to what they should be: places of learning.

Deputy Presiding Officer, social media can wait. Your childhood cannot. Some will say that this will be difficult to enforce, and, of course, it's not going to be perfect—no ban ever is—but it is something we must do in order to add an extra layer of protection, and set clear societal standards. Some will say that this isn't the role of the Government, and, as a Conservative, I am in favour of limited Government intervention on this, but we are talking about protecting our children from something that is causing major damage to them, and I make no apology whatsoever for supporting this ban. This isn't authoritarian; it is responsible.

And I'm not the only one who backs this ban. Polling shows that the vast majority of both children and parents support an age limit for social media use. According to More in Common, 77 per cent of parents support this, and data from YouGov shows that 83 per cent of generation Z-aged people in the UK are in favour of this too. Professor Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at New York University's Stern School of Business said, and I quote,

'Bravo to the Conservative Party for taking this important step to roll back the phone-based childhood and improve the mental health and human development of British children.'

Arabella Skinner, a director at Health Professionals for Safer Screens, said, and again, I quote,

'This is a public health crisis and needs immediate action. Raising the minimum age for social media use, as proposed by the Conservatives, is a crucial step to protect our children's well-being. We must act now to ensure a healthier future for them.'

Deputy Presiding Officer, the Welsh Conservative Party might be pushing this forward, but it really, sincerely, isn't about party politics. It's about doing the right thing by keeping our children safe. The UK Labour Government has announced that it's consulting on social media for children, which, in my view, is just simply kicking the can down the road. We need action, sooner rather than later, not warm words and endless consultations. I hope, this afternoon, we can put our party politics aside, do right by our children and young people, and send a clear message to the UK Government that we support a social media ban for the under-16s. Thank you very much. 

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. 

Formally. 

I was very pleased to table a short debate on these matters back at the end of last year, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I think it's very important that we do continue to debate these matters, because the impact of screens, smartphones and online gaming on our young people is very worrying indeed. 

Yes, of course, as Natasha said, technology brings many benefits. But as she also said, we face an epidemic, really, at the moment, of excessive screen use from the earliest years. Children as young as three are on social media, and most 11-year-olds in Wales have smartphones. Young people often spend six to nine hours a day on screens, far more than they spend being physically active. This is, very obviously, negative for children's health and well-being on an individual basis, but it also has wider social and economic costs: a cost to the NHS in terms of rising obesity, short-sightedness, anxiety, depression, sleep problems, and shorter attention spans; the cost to schools in managing poor behaviour—teachers report worsening behaviour and concentration, fuelled by the fast-paced environment of digital content; the emotional cost to families—parents tell us about mood swings linked to gaming and the addictive pull of endless social media reels; and the cost to the economy in terms of our future workforce, with 15 per cent of Welsh young people not in employment, education or training, partly due to rising levels of long-term sickness, partly from those adverse health impacts.

It impacts, we know, girls and boys differently. A consistent finding in studies is that it is particularly harmful for young girls' happiness with their physical appearance. For young boys, there's a danger of becoming immersed in an online world that has allowed the rise of online misogyny and radicalisation. That well-known Netflix series Adolescence captured the heartbreaking realities of online hate that fosters harmful ideas and an online culture where hatred spreads faster than kindness, resulting in behaviours that have no place in our society.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm sure we'll hear rightly about the many harms, such as these, that are part of this debate. We know that other countries like Australia, France and Italy are already taking bold steps to combat these negative impacts. Wales and the UK cannot afford to be left behind. We need clearer boundaries and national action that protects our children from harm, while still allowing technology to enrich learning.

This is not about demonising screens, but restoring balance, so children spend more time in the real world, rather than being locked into digital ones. Restricting social media access for under-16s is not about policing childhood, it's about protecting it. It's about ensuring that the digital world our young people grow up in does not shape them through hatred, exploitation or fear.

I do believe, Dirprwy Lywydd, that we have a very clear and strong responsibility across Governments, across parties, and across societies, to act now. If we fail to act, we risk raising a generation locked into screens instead of the world around them.

Plaid Cymru will be supporting the Welsh Government's amendment today. That's not because we are dismissive of the concerns that have been raised by the Conservatives and by John Griffiths as well; quite the opposite, there are many things that we agree with in terms of the original motion. We realise that we have to do something, for the reasons that have already been mentioned.

But our feeling is at present that there is a responsibility on us, when it comes to ensuring the safety of our children, to base any schemes or actions on evidence. It's very easy to rush to find solutions or to make easy headlines, but what we have to do is take our time and see what the impact is of any policies being implemented in Australia, for example, to see what good things and not so good things emanate from that work.

The issues that have been raised in this debate are very meaningful, and they do outline very clearly the negative impact of social media. There's no doubt that children are being harmed online, and that harm is happening now. For example, around one child in three has experienced online bullying, has had people they don't know contact them without their permission, or has seen inappropriate content. Almost 90 per cent of young people between the ages of 12 and 16 spend time online every day, with endless hours on social media in some cases. Almost half of them say that online content is having a negative impact on their mental health, with social media often playing a significant role in that.

Safeguarding is an issue that should be a concern for all of us, it's something that is entirely unacceptable. Safeguarding children is a wider problem than issuing restrictions or bans without full clarity on how to implement and enforce them. Also, what is the effectiveness of these restrictions? Because it's too early for us to be able to say, without considering the possibility of any unexpected or unintended consequences. Interventions in this area that are not carefully planned and considered risk perhaps pushing children into some dark corners of the digital world, less visible corners, that are likely to be less well regulated than the online media are at present, where there are risks that are harder to detect and address.

That's why Plaid Cymru supports the Government's amendment—not to end this debate, but as a starting point for the mature debate that we need to have on such an important issue. In terms of the spirit of the original motion from the Conservatives, we do agree with the spirit of that, but we do feel that we need more evidence.

The amendment rightly places responsibility on social media companies. Children, parents and schools can't be left to manage risks created by these platforms designed to maximise engagement rather than well-being. Existing legislation must be enforced, and where it falls short, it must be strengthened. Companies must be held accountable for the harm their platforms cause. The NSPCC has been absolutely clear about what effective safeguarding should involve: robust enforcement of age limits, removal of addictive design features, age-appropriate experiences by default, and putting children’s safety ahead of profit.

The amendment also recognises the need for collaboration between the UK and Welsh Governments. While regulation sits with Westminster, the Welsh Government holds responsibility for education and child protection, health and youth services. Safeguarding children online requires clear leadership, joined-up working, and sustained focus here in Wales. It also acknowledges the importance of engaging children and young people themselves. I'm just finishing off, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

The issue for the Welsh Government is not whether these principles are welcome, but whether they are acted upon. Commitments must be translated into concrete action, with clear leadership and accountability, measurable progress, and scrutiny. That is why Plaid Cymru will be supporting the amendment put forward by the Welsh Government today. Diolch.

Perhaps I should declare an interest as having three children under the age of 16 who would be affected by this motion here today. The premise of this is what has already been discussed in this Chamber. We want to make sure that children are being kept safe and being protected from harm. But there are also broader harms that I think John Griffiths has already touched on, which is the broader impact of this addictive experience on social media, around the mental health concerns in particular, and that increased inactivity that is being evidenced already.

Trying to address those issues that children are facing at the moment is why this motion is in front of us here today. It was the Centre for Social Justice's 'Lost Boys: Boyhood' report that showed that children are growing up in a world where screens and technology are dominating their earliest years. Screens aren't just a distraction, they're shaping how young people think, learn and interact with the world. It is for that reason that we need to have appropriate safeguards in place.

Many of the things that have been talked about in this Chamber already—the issues and risks that young people are facing online—if that stuff was happening in the real world, if that was happening on our streets and in our neighbourhoods, we would be taking significant action to deal with those. We'd be throwing millions of pounds. We already do, rightfully so, throw millions of pounds to make sure children are safeguarded as best as possible in the real world. 

The problem is that same focus is not happening in the virtual world, where more and more of children's time is being spent. In fact, children are now spending almost three hours online every single day. A significant chunk of their waking day is being spent online in a space that is not being properly protected. These platforms are too often promoting violence or sexual content. They're deliberately designed to be addictive, exploiting anxiety, comparison and distraction in ways that children are simply not equipped to manage, and parents also are not equipped to support them appropriately through that as well.

The scale of this is staggering. We've already numbers in this debate here today, but research just from last year shows that, in the UK, 815,000 children in that age bracket of three to five are already using at least one social media app or site. Children aged three, four and five, over 800,000 of them are already on social media. Among 10 to 15-year-olds, 96 per cent of that age group are on social media. In 2009, children aged five to 15 spent around nine hours a week in front of a screen. By 2018, that had jumped to 15 hours a week, and it's only increased since then. That's the point John Griffiths was talking about with the inactivity that has significant health problems in the long run.

A child who turned eight in 2024 will spend the equivalent of 319 full days online by the time they reach 14 years—almost a full year of childhood on a screen within a few years. And what are they seeing? Seven in 10 have been exposed to harmful content, one in seven have experienced grooming-type behaviour, and more than half have been victims of cyber bullying. These are statistics we cannot ignore. As I said earlier, if this was happening in front of us in the real world, in the physical world, we would be throwing huge amounts of resources to deal with this. The fact is that these things are happening now in the virtual world where children are spending more and more of their time. 

That same report I referenced earlier highlights that screen exposure is one of the central challenges in early childhood, alongside family instability and education. It argues that higher screen time in the early years is holding children back, especially boys and young men, whose development and behaviour are disproportionately affected. The risks are real and measurable. There's much more I can say on this, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I'm aware I'm losing time.

We cannot expect parents to single-handedly protect their children from these highly addictive digital environments, and that's why us Welsh Conservatives are showing leadership in this area, prioritising the well-being and safety of our children over convenience. Deputy Presiding Officer, this is about common sense. It's about giving parents the tools they need. It's about setting clear standards for what is safe and appropriate in our society. Age restrictions on social media are long overdue. Children deserve protection, parents deserve support and our society deserves safer online spaces. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

A message over a smartphone—what is said or not said—can send a person spiralling into dark depths. It can be isolating in that virtual world, hidden from loved ones who are often unaware of the emotional harm to that person until it's too late.

A while ago, I watched Swiped, a Channel 4 documentary with Emma and Matt Willis. I watched it again on Monday evening for this debate. A group of year 8 pupils and their teachers, with the support of parents and guardians, gave up their phones for three weeks. The University of York were involved with monitoring the students before and after, checking cognitive effects of the ban. Many were on their phones for six hours plus and after 10 o'clock at night. It was difficult. Boredom was intense, but boredom can lead to imagination and exploration. Over time, the young people went outside, kicked a football, went on a bike ride, interacted with parents, helped get tea ready. Emma, who gave up her phone, said she initially felt isolated and not in control of life anymore, but that that can be swapped around so that we, not the internet and that virtual world, are in control of our lives. 

Parents were anxious as well about their children being safe at the end of the school day. Science showed beforehand that there was impulsivity, concentration issues similar to ADHD, lack of sleep and anxiety. After three weeks, they had an average of an hour extra of sleep. Sleep improves mental health. There was improved concentration in class, they were much more socially connected and moods improved. A young person said that they felt happier and it made time to do the things that they really wanted to do. There was a 17 per cent decrease in depression, 18 per cent decrease in anxiety and a 3 per cent boost in working memory. The programme exposed, frighteningly, that there is a lack of age verification, with easy access to terrifying, explicit content, which is fed to young people. Algorithms need to be under control.

Studies show that one in four people is using smartphones in an addictive way and losing grey matter, similar to someone with substance abuse. The harm of the addiction was also evidenced in our Petitions Committee's short inquiry into whether there should be a ban on smartphones in all schools. When the inquiry took place last year, we were surprised, as a committee, on taking evidence from stakeholders, including psychologists, teachers, classroom assistants, parents and young people, that there wasn't a call for an outright ban, which surprised us. Instead, there was a call for schools to set up their own restrictions and to become smartphone-free schools. 

Whilst there is plenty of evidence that points to the harms, the committee also heard how smartphones can support young people's welfare and safety. While some children experience distraction, cyber bullying, addiction and anxiety delivered through their phones, there are others who are liberated by being able to manage health conditions or feel emboldened to walk to school, knowing they can always contact a parent.

In conclusion, the Senedd's Petitions Committee urged the Welsh Government to establish clear guidance, alongside a robust decision-making framework, which will give teachers the confidence to set rules that work best for their young people. The committee also wanted the Welsh Government to keep following the evidence of studies into the impact of smartphone restrictions during the school day. The UK Government has strengthened guidance for schools in England to be mobile-free by default, restricting use during the day, including break times.

I welcome the UK Government's forthcoming consultation on access to social media for children under 16, and there will be evidence-based decisions that ensure that social media is also safer for young people over 16 and adults, which is really important. Social media companies need to be held responsible for the harmful content on their sites, with existing legislation enforced and strengthened, and a diverse range of children and young people to be engaged in the debate, and their perspectives taken into account—we found that really important in our inquiry.

As captured in the documentary by the academic, we are breeding and growing a society of children addicted to smartphones. Parents, governments, tech companies, society, schools—we all need to play a part. There should be no technology in bedrooms and screen-free meal times. Children are getting mobile phones far too young, as evidence shows their mental and physical health is better without them. Thank you.

Whilst I rise as a politician, I think I’m speaking more as a grandfather. I'm a grandfather of nine, including five granddaughters, who are all between seven and eight years old, and four grandsons, who are a little younger—two are younger, and two are very young. Like many children their age, they are already confident with technology, navigating devices with ease. While I admire their ability, I also worry deeply about the world that they are likely to enter far too early, once they start to access social media, which no doubt they will.

Today's debate is not an anti-technology argument, and it’s not about stopping children learning, exploring or communicating. For me, it’s about recognising that social media platforms are not designed with children in mind. Our kids and grandkids may be skilled with technology, but they are not emotionally equipped, even in their early teens, to deal with the pressures these platforms create—the constant comparison, the chase for approval, the exposure to inappropriate or harmful content and the risk of contact from people who do not have their best interests at heart.

As adults, we understand that what we see online is often filtered, exaggerated or just simply untrue, and I fear that children do not have that same perspective. What they see they often believe, and what they experience online can shape how they feel about themselves in very real and lasting ways. We have to ask ourselves a very simple question: would we be comfortable placing young children into an unsupervised space full of strangers, where they could be judged, pressured or exposed to harmful material, and then walk away? Well, of course none of us would do that. Yet, if you think about it, that's effectively what happens when we allow children unrestricted access to social media. We already accept, as a society, that children need protection. We place age limits, as we heard earlier, on alcohol, driving, gambling and other activities because we understand that maturity matters. We have policies in many areas of life to make sure that safeguarding is always a top priority, yet, when it comes to social media, there is little that safeguards our youngsters.

I struggle to see why social media, which can have such a profound impact on mental health and self-esteem, can go unchecked, as it seems now. I know there will always be arguments about enforcement and about parental responsibility and, yes, parents do have a vital role, but how can they really protect their children from the negative effects of these huge, globally influential social media platforms? Platforms that don't just provide online social interaction and entertainment, they have business models designed to keep people engaged for as long as possible; they become addictive to many and trap many young minds in an online world. I think society has to get a grip of this, and hats off to Australia for being the first to take a stance. Surely, setting a clear threshold sends a message that we take children's mental health and well-being seriously. It gives young people time to grow, to build resilience, to develop a sense of self, before being exposed to the pressures of online validation and comparison. Like hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of parents and grandparents across Wales and the UK, I want my grandchildren to enjoy a rounded education, real friendships and a childhood that is not dominated by online pressure that they are not ready to handle.

We should be pragmatic; we don't have to wait for the other Governments to do what they need to do. We know what the situation is, everybody here today has said the same things. Why can't we be pragmatic as a Government and say, 'This is what we believe' ahead of whatever happens in the UK. What does that matter? It's what happens here that should matter. And that is why, today, I support the motion and I urge colleagues to join us with that. Diolch.

I'm very pleased to see this debate today, because I've spoken about these issues on a  number of occasions. Probably the first time I came here, I spoke about the impact that social media is having on our young people, because it is harming children. That is no longer an opinion, it's a fact backed up by real lives and real damage. We see it in our schools, we hear it from parents, and increasingly we're seeing mental health services being put under enormous strain due to the pressure of social media. Children are being exposed to extreme content, including self-harm, eating disorders, pornography and violence, often within minutes of signing up, not because they ever searched for it, but it's because of how the algorithms push it at them. That's not accidental, these are how the platforms are designed to work. We've had platforms like TikTok and Instagram that have already faced serious criticism after internal documents showed that they were fully aware that their systems brought harmful content to young users, and they carried on regardless. Meanwhile, parents are told to manage screen time—well, if mums and dads can realistically compete with billion-pound tech companies, then behavioural challenges really need to be challenged, because the system is failing children. We already have age limits and they're ignored; we already have guidance and it's unenforced; and we already have promises from tech companies and they have been broken. That is why we believe that the UK should be seriously looking at the Australia model.

In Australia, they have moved beyond talking into action. They are introducing mandatory age verification that actually works, not the tick-box nonsense that we have here now. They're placing legal responsibilities on the platforms themselves, not pretending that children or parents can shoulder that burden alone. And they are backing it up with serious penalties that make companies change behaviour rather than shrug their shoulders and carry on. We should be carefully considering the outcomes of this policy in Australia before making any rushed judgments, and not taking account of any potential negative outcomes, and also ensuring that any loopholes in legislation are closed.

But this debate should also be looking at something wider—it's about what childhood is supposed to look like. I'm not that old myself, I can just about remember my childhood. But what we want to see is children safe, playing outside, playing with their friends, kicking or passing a rugby ball around, riding their bikes, getting money, learning how to socialise properly and building that real-world confidence. We want children to actually talk to each other face to face, not being glued to a phone or sending messages across the table to each other on Snapchat. We want that to stop, and we want it to stop from the moment they wake up to the moment they go to sleep, because I think it is very important as well, which is probably not mentioned here, that we also take into consideration the voices of children themselves.

Sometimes, as adults, we do think that adults know best, but sometimes we can have unintended consequences for the children themselves by imposing things like a ban, because some of these children are extremely, extremely reliant on some of these devices, and if you make that hard cut-off straight away, it can have a huge impact on their mental health and well-being. So, one thing I will be asking for from the Cabinet Secretary when she does give her reply is that she actually talks about what the UK Government is doing to include the voice of children in these discussions, because children now are a lot more informed than, probably, I was at that age, and we need to make sure that their access to information, that we're not—[Interruption.] Yes, I'll take an intervention, but I am coming to an end, Sam.

I appreciate that, James. Just on that point, just to support that point around listening to young people, it's striking that 83 per cent of children under 16 support a ban on social media. So, they're using their voice at the moment, but I think I would agree with you that it's not being heard at the moment. I guess that disappoints you.

Yes, 83 per cent of children want a ban, but we all want something, and when it's taken away from us, sometimes there are unintended consequences to banning things that I think need to be taken into account. As I said, children are far more advanced than they ever were when I was below the age of 16. They know a lot more about political discussion, they know that things that are going on in the world, and I think we want to be very careful about limiting their access to information, limiting their access to debate as well. So, we will be abstaining on this motion today, because I do think that more needs to be done in this space to make sure that we are making an informed choice and not rushing into something that could harm children even further.

This is a very important debate. I will be voting in favour, but I think—I can't miss this opportunity—that it is rather ironic that this is a Welsh Government debate, a party that says week in, week out in this place that we should concentrate on devolved issues only, and I'm sure we'll hear the Conservatives saying that in the next debate—[Interruption.] Yes, of course, I'll take an intervention.

You're three months ahead of yourself. You said it was a Welsh Government debate. I'll just correct the record. It's a Welsh Conservative debate. After May, it will be a Welsh Government debate.

That will not happen, Tom, but if you want to delude yourself in thinking that, please carry on. It is ironic that this is a Welsh Conservative debate, because you say all the time we should concentrate on devolved issues only, and you will say that in response to the Plaid debate next time, but maybe you could cross that out of your scripts. Because as your—[Interruption.] Of course I will, Darren, yes. I haven't finished my first paragraph yet. [Laughter.]

Isn't it the case that the safety of children in Wales is a matter for both the Welsh Government and the UK Government, and therefore the impact of that on children's welfare and education and everything else is important to us?

I agree completely, and justice plays a huge role in the safety of Welsh children. Social media—and I can agree with you on this part from now on—is the defining factor of the modern age, and its impact on all of our lives cannot be understated. If it's true about us, who haven't been raised with social media—. I can see Tom Giffard on his mobile phone now, because it is—. They're addictive. They're addictive, aren't they? They are addictive machines. The algorithms have been designed to make us addicted to them. And if it's true about us, it's definitely true about our children who have been raised by it.

Now, many Members have declared an interest already. I will declare an interest. I do use tablet electronic devices with my children. It does enable us, selfishly, to have that lie-in on a Saturday morning, to keep the children occupied during long journeys, to keep them well behaved when we're enjoying a meal in the restaurant. It's not always that straightforward, is it? We heard, didn't we, Carolyn, that evidence coming across clearly in the petition debate. It's not always binary. This idea that some children are on their phones all the time—. Children can use their electronic devices and also socialise as friends and go to the park et cetera, et cetera. It's not always that clear-cut.

Now, I agree that Australia has seen this danger and has taken action with it, but they have seen the difficulties too, and I think we really need to learn from the issues. Limitations of the effectiveness of facial IDs, for example, have allowed children in Australia as young as 13 to pass as 18-year-olds to use apps such as Snapchat and Meta Facebook. UNICEF has reported that these age restrictions alone won't keep children safe online. And of course we have to—. I think you implied, James, this, in your contribution—we have to, of course, remember, by the age of 16, children have the vote now in this place, and will in the United Kingdom. So, more research needs to be done, but I think it's important to have this debate.

I think it's also important to look at what's happening already. We can look, for example, towards what St Albans is doing, that city in Herefordshire. Schools have come together—33 local schools have come together—to declare their area as smartphone-free, and have urged parents not to give children a smartphone until the age of 14. And I think maybe this is something the Welsh Government can look at: not only always calling for Westminster to do something, but seeing what we can do here already—take the reins, engage in a community-led, grass-roots approach, including children, as James Evans said, to try and tackle the dangers and the addiction of social media. Diolch yn fawr.

And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Protecting our children is one of the most profound responsibilities we hold. Their online safety is not an abstract policy debate; it is about real lives, real families and the kind of society we want to build. The decisions made now will shape the world that our young people grow up in. That's why I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate today.

There is no doubt that social media can expose children to significant harm. Too many platforms are still designed in ways that keep young people online for longer than is healthy, intensifying pressures that chip away at their wellbeing. I support the ambition of the Online Safety Act 2023 in holding tech companies to greater account. The Act is a step forward, but its impact will depend entirely on whether Ofcom's new codes of practice are enforced with the robustness children deserve.

We will continue to engage regularly with Ofcom Wales as this work progresses, but we know there is still a long way to go. That's why I welcome the ongoing debate about how we can strengthen protections further. With the rapid evolution of AI, this need has never been more urgent. Child protection must not be outpaced by innovation. I think we can all agree that social media needs to be made safer, not just for children but for wider society. However, how we do this is the point of great debate. Some decisions are, of course, straightforward, such as the proposal to ban nudification apps in England and Wales. These tools are causing extreme harm, particularly to women and children. It's essential to criminalise them, and we will continue to work closely with the UK Government on the legislation.

Determining the right minimum age for children to access social media is far more nuanced and complex. We are increasingly aware that many social media features are designed to capture and hold our attention, often at the expense of our wellbeing. Infinite scrolling is a prime example. It keeps content flowing and can make it incredibly difficult, especially for young people, to disconnect from their social media feeds. The toll that doomscrolling and fast-paced short-form content is having on mental health should not be underestimated. So, when we talk about restrictions, I strongly believe that removing features that encourage compulsive use is a practical step that could make a real difference to children's experiences online. Exploring ways to improve the accuracy of age assurance is also under consideration, but we know that this is not without significant challenges.

When thinking about how far we go, it's vital to recognise that this is an emotive subject, with strong views on all sides. With this becoming increasingly polarised, we must gather evidence and shape an approach that puts the needs and protections of young people first. Having listened to parents, professionals and young people, there are valid and deeply held concerns about the harms that can be exacerbated by social media, and behind some of the most difficult stories are children and families who have endured experiences no-one should ever have to face. We are mindful of the more insidious everyday harms—the pressure to fit in, the comparisons, the constant stream of content that can slowly erode young people's well-being—yet we must also consider what young people are telling us about the positive and meaningful connections they find online. There is a compelling argument that, for some, especially those who feel isolated, access to online communities is a lifeline. Any approach we take must recognise this complexity and avoid simplistic solutions. That's why I see the UK Government's consultation as a good opportunity to gather evidence and consider these issues in a balanced and thoughtful way. My officials will work with the UK Government to ensure that the voices of children, parents, practitioners and experts in Wales are heard clearly. Here in Wales, I am proud that youth voice is at the centre of our work. Engagement with our keeping safe online youth group—13 to 16-year-olds from across Wales—is invaluable. They were recently hosted by Ofcom for a discussion about their experiences under the new regulatory framework, again reminding us that policy must be shaped by lived experience.

Empowering children and young people through education and making sure that they understand their rights is another way of driving change. The Welsh Government's digital resilience in education programme supports the whole school community in working together to address online safety challenges proactively. This work is brought together through 'Keeping safe online', a dedicated area on Hwb, which provides the latest resources, training and guidance for the whole school community. To help ensure that our work remains grounded in the latest evidence and best practice, as a Government, we have built strong relationships with online safety organisations across the UK. This includes the UK Safer Internet Centre, NSPCC, Common Sense Education, Praesidio Safeguarding and Internet Matters. With the safety of young people on social media firmly in the spotlight and public debate about how to tackle these issues so polarised, these partnerships are vital. Last November, through our digital resilience in education symposium, we brought online safety experts together, alongside Estyn, Ofcom Wales and the children's commissioner's office. We listened to their priorities, initiatives and perspectives on emerging trends, all of which inform our work.

One of the most consistent themes in our discussions is how best to engage families with online safety. That's why a key focus of our work is supporting schools and families to work together, to open up conversations with children and bridge the generational divide. Yesterday was Safer Internet Day, a key date in the online safety calendar. This year, the campaign has been focused on the safe use of AI. I attended our keeping safe online event at the Principality Stadium. I had the privilege of taking part in a Q&A session with representatives of the digital guardians, young people involved in the NSPCC and Platfform youth engagement project. We discussed a wide range of online issues, from social media use to the emerging impacts of AI. We want to ensure that young people have the skills they need to navigate these new technologies safely and the confidence to know what to do when something goes wrong. And at the heart of this is helping our learners develop strong critical thinking skills so that they can spot risks, question harmful narratives and use technology confidently. By embedding digital competence and online safety across the Curriculum for Wales, we are equipping young people with the skills they need to thrive in a rapidly changing world. 

Focusing back on the debate and whether we should call on the UK Government to restrict access to social media for children under 16, I want to be clear that we are grappling with one of the biggest issues of our time. Everyone agrees that young people deserve safer social media experiences, but how to deliver this remains a live debate. Decisions that are made will shape our young people's lives. Amid the intense media focus and public debate, we must be confident that the approach taken is the right one, and that it is shaped by solid evidence. As the consultation gets under way, it is vital that Welsh voices, particularly those of our children and young people, are heard clearly. Diolch.

I call on Natasha Asghar to reply to the debate.

Thank you so much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I honestly thank every single Member for their contributions in this debate this afternoon? A lot of interesting points were made from across the political divide, and it's clear that we all share the same goal when it comes to protecting our children; it's just that we have different ways of getting there.

Cabinet Secretary, I listened very intently to everything that you said, and I am all for working with schools, parents, students and children at large, but, based on the amendment before us today, it seems that you'd rather kick everything into the long grass and get bogged down in consultations, which is not the way I see things. I stand by my introduction, Deputy Presiding Officer: we simply haven't got the time. We need to act now.

We heard from Peter Fox, who spoke openly and honestly about his perspective as a grandfather. [Interruption.] Yes.

You spoke there about your initial remarks, and, in those remarks, you talked about sexual exploitation and grooming. Now, the one thing that this motion in front of us tells us is it talks about social media, specifically social media, but there's no definition of social media. So, you're not talking about private, end-to-end encrypted messaging like WhatsApp, like Wizz and others, and that's where grooming and sexual exploitation happens at a large scale. Neither do you talk about Roblox and other games like that, where we know grooming happens. So, do you accept that we need evidence-based policy, and that's why we need to see the amendment?

Firstly, thank you very much for your intervention. I'd just like to say, firstly, that this isn't a Bill, to begin with. We know—and we are all adults here—what social media is. We are not out here to define Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok. We know what is out there. What we're—[Interruption.] What we're trying to do, simply, is lay out exactly what our intention is, which is to, ultimately, save children from experiencing these bad behaviours, these offensive things that are happening online, protecting them from violence, protecting them from exploitation, and protecting them from any harm. That's clearly the message that we're trying to convey. I said, just a few seconds ago, that we are all clearly on board for that, but, going forward, we all need to work together to make something happen sooner rather than later, before more lives are affected. [Interruption.] I'd like to carry on, if that's okay, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Now, there will be a lot of parents and grandparents out there in the same boat as Peter Fox was, who have similar concerns and worries, and that's why it's important that we act. We brought this debate here today, as I just said, to protect our children and future generations from the harm that social media possesses. Sam Rowlands provided invaluable insights about the CSJ's 'Lost Boys' report. Sam was absolutely right when he said children are not adults. They need protection. Sam also pointed out that 96 per cent of 10 to 15-year-olds are, indeed, online, and that is a huge number. He was also right to highlight the dangers and risks of social media, including grooming, cyber bullying and exposure to extreme content—just like John Griffiths, in fact, who made a very valid contribution that children are spending way too much time on their screens, instead of being children and being active out there. It is resulting in having added pressures on the NHS, as well as fuelling online hate and extremism, which is something I absolutely am with you 100 per cent on there, John.

Cefin Campbell made some valid points as well, and said that we need to take our time, which is exactly what was just said in the intervention, and wait and see, but I personally feel—and I stand by what I say, as well as this entire group here—that the time is now. We need to act now, sooner rather than later. He touched upon excessive screen time and bad behaviour as a result of endless hours on social media, but I believe, Deputy Presiding Officer, that where there's a will, there's a way. Yes, Carolyn.

Thank you. Sorry, there was one point I forgot to mention: the importance of parents being able to access information, whether it's WhatsApp messages or Facebook messages, from these companies, should they need to in the future. Hopefully—. Do you agree that that's something that should be considered as well? Thank you.

Parental control already exists, Carolyn, in many apps as it is. However, I'm absolutely with you, and I was going to come to it, because, later on in the contributions, social media companies were mentioned, and I am going to come to that as well. I do believe that they do need to have a stronger responsibility when it comes to providing parents with that information, so I'm with you on that one, for sure.

Okay. I appreciate, Cefin, your support on this one. You were right; social media platforms do need to take responsibility, and I just echoed that with my response to Carolyn.

Carolyn, you gave a very, very touching and heartfelt contribution, and spoke very deeply about the positive aspects of children being away from their screens—better sleep, better concentration. You said, 'losing less grey matter', which is certainly a new one for me today. I didn't know about that. You spoke about the Petitions Committee's stance on this as well, which I appreciate. I listened avidly to that debate when it came to the Chamber. And also for companies to be held to account, which is just what we spoke about now, and I'm 100 per cent with you on that, as is my party. So, rest assured there.

James Evans, he emphasised how many children are being affected by it, leading to a rise in mental health issues. He made some very valid points about rules and regulations being put into place, but, sadly, that often they're ignored due to loopholes in the system and, unfortunately, children can find ways to get onto social media, sadly. I was a little bit surprised that you abstained today, because of the fact that you've previously supported this going through and through. But, nonetheless, everyone can find a loophole somewhere.

Will you take an intervention?

Go on.

My position is very clear: we have to be very careful when we go straight to banning anything without looking at the unintended consequences of doing things. This could have a negative impact on some of the children that are currently using social media, which will put a huge strain on already overstretched statutory services. So, we need to look at everything in the round in making policy. That's how you make good legislation, not defaulting straight to a ban.

Okay. Firstly, we are supporting a ban on social media, not mobile phones at this moment in time. We have spoken about that in the past, but right now today's debate is focusing on a social media ban for the under-16s. So, let's focus on that. In relation to the consequences that you've mentioned, I've got no issues with regards to what you've said in relation to the impact it has on healthcare, the impact it has on children's well-being. I support everyone's contribution in relation to what they've said in those areas. However, as I mentioned, I am just a little bit surprised as to your voting intention in relation to this.

Rhys ab Owen, thank you very much for your support today. It really means a lot. I have absolutely no problem if you want to play Ms Rachel for your children to have a lie-in on a Saturday morning. That's absolutely fine with me. It's social media that we are talking about today, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I sincerely appreciate—. Yes, go on.

Will you take an intervention?

I feel I'm taking interventions everywhere.

You're very generous with the interventions today. I rarely do interventions, but I think the point to be made today is that this is just the beginning of the discussion, isn't it? We're not talking about banning anything tomorrow. There will be a White Paper, there'll be a consultation, there'll be talking to stakeholders, there'll be a chance for amendments, there'll be a chance to extend it from social media, if people like Mabon want to extend it. So, this is just the beginning of the journey. Do you agree with me that, quite often, we have one consultation, one after the other, years go by, and nothing happens?

Exactly, and that is what we despise in this party. We want action, and we want action now.

I'm not joining you. [Laughter.]

No, that's absolutely fine, but I'm very happy about your response on that. And I truly appreciated your response about St Albans, because I think it's a very, very pivotal example as to what can be done to improve things when it comes to seeing the future for our children's benefit.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I've had a lot of interventions, so I would like to just please carry on if that's okay, and I do want to wind this up as well. It has been said, by a lot of speakers in today's debate, that by restricting social media access for under-16s, we can help restore focus in the classroom, improve behaviour and, most importantly, better safeguard vulnerable young people across Wales from the very real harms associated with social media. Other countries, we've heard from many different countries across the world, are starting to wake up to the reality to take action, and I just want to make sure that we here in Wales are not left behind.

I really hope that all Members today will support our motion and send a clear message to the Labour Government in Westminster that they must do right by our children and introduce a ban on social media for the under-16s. Time is of the essence, but if Labour doesn't want to do what's right, believe me when I say this, the Welsh Conservative Party will be waiting in the wings to take action when we take control in May 2026. Thank you.

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

Item 8 today is the Plaid Cymru debate on the devolution of justice and policing, and I call on Adam Price to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to start this debate with three simple facts. In Wales, we already pay for policing, the majority of which is from devolved sources. In Wales today, we increasingly feel the strain on policing, but the power to shape policing is still held somewhere else. That's not a partnership. That is being handed a bill, and the bill is getting bigger. The Senedd is allocating, as the Government amendment itself confirms, more than £100 million towards policing next year, despite policing not being devolved. We're asked to keep the service afloat while being told that we may not touch the rudder. We are allowed to write the cheque, but not hold the keys, and that is the wrong at the heart of today's motion. Pay without say, money without mandate, responsibility without authority, blame without power. In other words, taxation without representation, dressed up in modern language and sold to Wales as 'how things have to be'.

If anyone thinks this is a niche, constitutional argument, listen to the conversations in homes across Wales. People don't talk about reserved matters; they talk about fairness. They see council tax rising because the police precept keeps creeping up, while neighbourhood policing feels thinner, response times feel slower, and visibility feels rarer. They feel they are being asked to pay more for less. And this is not a debate about the dedication of officers; it's a debate about who makes the big decisions—funding, structure, priorities, governance—and whether those decisions reflect Wales or reject Wales.

Two independent commissions looked hard at the evidence and reached the same conclusion: policing and justice should be devolved to Wales, not as a trophy, not as a slogan, but because the current system doesn't join up and doesn't work. This Senedd can invest in the services that prevent harm—mental health support, crisis teams, housing help, youth work, addiction services, the foundations of safer communities—but when that prevention fails, when the 2 a.m. call comes, when officers are the first responders, when the system decides whether it's treated as a health crisis or a criminal incident, the decisive levers sit elsewhere. We talk here about a Welsh approach, but we are denied the tools to make it real.

Policing is the front door of justice, and justice is bound up with health, mental health, housing, education, local government, youth services—the services this Senedd already funds and controls. Yet we are expected to build a joined-up approach to safety with a crucial part of the system bolted on from the outside. It's like designing a fire safety system while someone else controls the hose.

That brings us, really, doesn't it, to the White Paper. This is not about constitutional point scoring. This is a real fork in the road for the future of policing in Wales. The UK Government is proposing an entirely different model: bigger forces, more central direction, new structures, new targets, new oversight. Now, while some of that can be presented as modernisation, there is a basic test, isn't there: will it bring policing closer to the public or pull power further away?

And let's be honest about what is at stake for Wales. When governance is redesigned, when forces are merged, when accountability is reshuffled and targets are imposed, Wales doesn't just get reformed, Wales gets remade, often as an afterthought, and decisions about boundaries, governance and national bodies become decisions about the kind of country we are allowed to be.

Of course we need UK-wide and cross-border capability. Serious organised crime doesn't stop at the Severn or the Dee. Cybercrime doesn't pause at the border. Co-operation matters. That's why Plaid Cymru argued for the closest possible continued relationship with Europol after Brexit, because criminals don't respect borders and neither should our ability to catch them.

But co-operation is not the same thing as control. You can co-operate across borders and devolve power. Scotland does it. Northern Ireland does it. Every serious police service does it. The question is not whether Wales can work with others. The question is why Wales is not trusted to lead its own system while doing so.

If the problem is that policing has become too distant and too stretched—according to the White Paper—if the goal is to rebuild trust, then the answer cannot be remote control from Westminster. Wales is a nation with devolved services, devolved responsibilities, and a devolved democratic mandate. A one-size-fits-all blueprint stamped onto Wales risks mistaking uniformity for improvement.

And there's a deeper point, Dirprwy Lywydd. If the White Paper goes through without a commitment to devolution, it won't merely change policing, it will lock us into a settlement. It will build a new architecture—mergers, governance, national bodies—and then Wales will be told later, 'It's too complicated now; the system is already built.' That's how centralisation works: it doesn't just take decisions for you; it reduces your options.

So, this is the moment not to request devolution, but to demand it, to write it into the blueprint while the blueprint is being written. Because if Wales is remodelled without Wales being empowered, we will spend the next decade arguing inside a structure designed to stop us ever changing it.

Our motion is reasonable, necessary and long overdue. It asks a question that has been dodged for a generation: why is Wales uniquely the only devolved nation not trusted with the responsibility for our own policing and justice?

And that brings me to Labour's partnership in power. I want to be fair because this is a serious matter, but fairness runs both ways. Partnership cannot mean Wales helps pay while Westminster keeps the power. It cannot mean warm meetings, press releases and memoranda and then nothing changes. A memorandum is not devolution. Papering over underfunding is not devolution. Being consulted after the decisions are framed is not devolution. Devolution means powers in law, accountability to the people of Wales and the ability to align policing with devolved services so that prevention and community safety sit in one coherent approach, working together in lockstep.

So, here is the practical challenge to Members today. If you want neighbourhood policing protected, you should want the levers in Wales to align policing with prevention. If you want fairer funding, you should want Wales at the table, not at the end of the chain. If you want trust rebuilt locally, you should want accountability that begins here, not one that disappears into Westminster and Whitehall. You cannot argue for local policing and defend more remote control.

And to Labour Members here in particular, I'll end with this. You have a choice—those that are listening—you have a choice: it's not a procedural one, it's a moral one. You can vote for the status quo, where Wales writes the cheque and Westminster holds the keys, or you can vote for Wales to be trusted with the full responsibilities that come with being a nation and with being a democracy. If Wales is good enough to pay, Wales is surely good enough to decide. 

I have selected the amendment to the motion and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move the amendment to the motion.

Formally.

That's been moved. Altaf Hussain.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. It will come as no surprise that the Welsh Conservatives will not be supporting this motion, nor the Government amendment. Policing and justice are not safe in the hands of Plaid or Welsh Labour. Policing and justice are not a stepping stone to any independent Wales. Policing and justice are a distraction from the failings of Welsh Labour and their separatist supporters. We have spent too much time and far too many resources trying to make the case for more devolution, more powers, more control—[Interruption.] Please.

[Inaudible.]—are you levying that towards Manchester and London as well, who have responsibility for policing?

Thank you. We've spent too much time and far too many resources trying to make the case for more devolution, more power and more control, yet successive Welsh Governments have failed to use the powers they do have to improve the lives of the people of Wales. Our NHS is crumbling, people are waiting too long for treatment, they are in isolation, and we know the NHS is the cornerstone of our society.

In other areas of devolved responsibility, things are just as bad. Education standards continue to slide, the economy continues to deteriorate and we continue to have some of the worst living standards in western Europe. But rather than tackling these massive issues, Plaid and Labour try to distract us with arguments about the constitutional arrangements for Wales. They point to the Thomas commission and say we must have control over policing and justice. What they won't say is how their police and crime commissioners have failed to drive force improvements.

According to His Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire and Rescue Services' police effectiveness, efficiency and legitimacy assessments, Labour-run North Wales Police are failing to protect vulnerable people or investigate crime effectively. Plaid-run Dyfed-Powys are not protecting their workforce and are also failing to protect the vulnerable. All four Welsh forces either require improvement or are doing the bare minimum on the key metrics. Why on earth would we want to hand greater control to Labour or Plaid Ministers?

What those arguing for devolution of policing and justice also fail to tell us is that the Thomas commission largely ignored the evidence on cross-border crime. My colleague Mark Isherwood recently met with the North West Regional Organised Crime Unit, a collaboration between North Wales Police and forces from the north-west of England, and they highlighted the valuable cross-border work being undertaken to tackle the trade in drugs, guns and people. Yet the Thomas commission only looks at closer working between Welsh forces.

If Plaid get their way and policing is devolved to a Cabinet led by Rhun, what happens to criminality across our very porous border? What happens with financial crimes, counter-terror policing and tackling serious organised crime? Are they happy to leave that to the English police forces or are we going to see a future Minister arguing for the creation of a Welsh national crime agency, swyddfa ymchwilio Cymru? 

It is time to stop wasting time and resources on this topic and concentrate on the priorities of those who elected us to serve them. It is time to end the self-serving navel-gazing and reject the motion as well as the amendment. Diolch yn fawr.

The final report of the Thomas commission emphasises the extent to which the so-called jagged edge of justice in Wales has created a profound and damaging misalignment of policy objectives and responsibilities between the Senedd and Westminster, and nowhere is this more apparent than in relation to social justice. The Government's record on these issues is of course something we debate often here, and often the answer to our scrutiny is a lack of power over key levers. So, regardless of how well-intentioned or designed their social justice policies are, they are destined to be hamstrung by the inability of the Senedd, in contrast to the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly, to influence the criminal justice landscape, which, as we know, is one of the most influential determinants of social justice outcomes.

For example, as was laid bare by a report by the Equality and Social Justice Committee, Welsh women prisoners are especially disadvantaged by the current system. I've been a member of that committee for all of my five years here as a Member of the Senedd, and that inquiry was one of the most impactful upon me, without a doubt. Because the evidence we heard showed so clearly how some of our most vulnerable women are directly harmed by that so sharp jagged edge. It's about the short prison sentences of less than 12 months, some of even only a week, which are particularly prevalent amongst the female prison population, which we know are utterly counterproductive when it comes to rehabilitation.

The report also made several detailed recommendations about the proposed residential women's centre in Wales. While it could provide a much-needed alternative to the current residential custodial sentences that Welsh women are forced to serve miles and miles away from their families, we have seen no action after years of discussion. The fact that this has now been effectively mothballed by the UK Government underlines how far we are held back by Westminster's insistence on keeping hold of the levers of power, regardless of the consequences to the people of Wales and its Government's efforts to support them.

That all Welsh women are currently imprisoned in England has severe implications for their mental health and well-being, many of whom are already vulnerable and are victims of domestic abuse. It can have profoundly negative life outcomes for their dependents. Children of female prisoners are disproportionately likely to end up in care.

The inequities of the criminal justice system also correspond with the contours of racial inequality in our society. Ethnic minorities account for 27 per cent of the prison population of Wales and England, compared to 18 per cent of the overall population. This imbalance is especially pronounced in relation to the black population of Wales, who are over four times more likely to be arrested compared to the white population, over twice as likely to be arrested as the black population of England. 

We also know that problems of institutional racism and misogyny, highlighted in recent years by the revelations at Gwent Police, remain stubbornly persistent. As my colleague Adam Price has already alluded to, we need to be very alive to the prospect of a future right-wing UK Government seeking to emulate their authoritarian idols in Washington, Moscow and Hungary by weaponising law enforcement agencies to enforce their toxic agenda of division.

Finally, it's worth reflecting on the relationship between poverty and crime and how the blunt instruments of our legal system do not adequately recognise this complex societal dynamic. The fact is that more deprived communities are not only more likely, on average, to be the victims of crime, they are also more likely to face disproportionate barriers when accessing legal services. If there's a clear lesson to be learned from the sordid, grotesque saga of the Epstein files, it's that justice is clearly not a level playing field, and that all too often the scales are skewed by wealth, influence and power.

It was quite striking when I raised the point with the Cabinet Secretary—I've done it on many occasions, and I did so again this afternoon—that her job is inherently undermined by her inability to formally influence the criminal justice system and policing. There was no attempt to deny this inescapable reality, but also no attempt to rail against how badly her Westminster colleagues are deliberately and irrationally withholding the levers to improve outcomes in Wales. She couldn't confirm again this afternoon whether there'd been a formal request or even a demand to devolve policing to Wales.

Wales should not be consigned by this Labour Government to be a silent and subordinate member of this so-called partnership in power. The cost to the people of Wales, in both financial and human terms, is unacceptable. 

I think the current state of the policing and justice system in the UK is well documented and very depressing, Llywydd. It's certainly not preventative or rehabilitative. Prisons are grossly overcrowded, many prisoners have very poor basic skills with high levels of illiteracy, many with mental ill health and substance misuse addiction. Gross overcrowding makes rehabilitation and training very difficult, and works against reducing reoffending. That, of course, results in more victims of crime and offenders continuing to live lives that are damaging to themselves, their families and communities.

Here in Wales, not devolving policing and justice makes it more difficult to build a more productive and effective system for our people. This has been set out in a number of reports, such as the Thomas commission and the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales. Currently, we have a fragmented devolution settlement for these matters, which creates barriers to coherent policy making, integrated public spending and effective delivery.

Wales, of course, is responsible for services that are absolutely central to policing, justice and prisons. Education and skills policies cover prisoner education and training. Mental health and substance misuse services in the community and prisons, and homelessness policy, directly impact offender resettlement. The independent commission stated this, of course—that most of the services on which the justice system relies for prevention and rehabilitation are devolved, but justice agencies are accountable to the Home Office and Ministry of Justice, creating complexity and incoherence.

This misalignment and blurred responsibilities create substantial issues for us here in Wales that do not occur in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Since 2016, UK policy has caused the average number of prisoners held in Wales to increase by 34 per cent. The independent commission concluded that devolving justice would deliver significant gains in preventative and rehabilitative policy through improved co-ordination and governance. And of course, Wales already does what it can. It leads in trauma-informed approaches, in awareness of adverse childhood experiences, youth diversion and integrated social services, whereas the Westminster model leans more heavily on punishment rather than the preventative ethos that Wales has delivered and embedded for many years.

With that background, we have the UK Government White Paper on policing proposing a new model, the creation of a national police service, greater central oversight, and new structural reforms and force mergers. Without explicit protection for Wales, these reforms risk recentralising policing and bypassing Welsh policy needs altogether. This White Paper is therefore a crucial moment to secure a commitment to full devolution of policing and justice for Wales.

No matter what anyone says, devolution of justice is not constitutional tinkering. It’s a practical necessity for our people and our communities. Policing in Wales is run from Westminster, but the causes of crime and the solutions to crime sit largely with the Welsh Government. This misalignment is one of the key reasons the reports that I mentioned, and other reports, argue that justice in Wales is difficult to manage under the current devolution system. Devolution of policing and justice will enable Wales to deliver safer communities, fairer outcomes and a justice system rooted in prevention, not just punishment.

The evidence is crystal clear. The commissions are unequivocal. Wales deserves a justice system that works with its devolved services, not against them.

As the Thomas commission said in 2019, justice is not an integral part of policy development in Wales, unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland. The collaboration between devolved and non-devolved bodies creates a complex situation that doesn’t provide transparent accountability and therefore doesn’t lead to effective performance. That was the view of the Thomas commission years ago and it is entirely true today, if not even more pertinent today.

As Plaid Cymru's housing spokesperson, I want to mention one recent anomaly. Yesterday, we passed Stage 4 of the homelessness Bill, an important Bill that Plaid Cymru has been proud to help shape. A crucial aspect of the Bill is to identify those at risk of homelessness before crisis hits. Important agencies are drawn into the need to ‘ask and act’, which covers front-line services, recognising and identifying problems and acting to ensure that people do not end up sleeping rough or experiencing homelessness in its various forms. But one key partner is missing, namely the police. At Stage 2, I attempted to include the police on the multi-agency list within the Bill. The desire is clearly there among our police forces, but as policing is not devolved, it was not constitutionally possible to make this change and to pass the amendment that I tabled.

Tackling homelessness requires an approach that is trauma informed. This is crucial, and special training will need to be provided across the agencies listed in the homelessness Bill. But there will be no requirement for the police to participate in that, and Welsh Ministers will not be able to hold them to account. This multi-agency collaboration, the crucial holding to account, the person-centred approach and the trauma-informed approach—this all would have been significantly stronger if the police were a formal, statutory part of that partnership, which will be seeking to tackle homelessness in an effective manner, but they aren't included. The police are not part of this, and this is a fundamental weakness.

These powers can't come to Wales soon enough so that we can be more effective in the way that we deal with homelessness and a whole host of other issues, so that fewer lives are damaged. These are the positive outcomes that would have a direct impact on the lives of the people of Wales if justice and policing were devolved. There is a very real opportunity now with this White Paper. Let's grasp that opportunity as the new model is developed, and give the relevant powers to Wales, so that we can be effective in the way that we treat some of the most vulnerable people in our society. Thank you.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to add to this debate this afternoon. The argument for devolution of policing and justice rests on the recommendation of the Thomas commission, as we've heard many times already this afternoon, and the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, but the reports have significant weaknesses, which I will outline, and they do not provide a compelling argument for devolving policing and justice.

There are very few practical benefits to devolving policing and justice, and the main thrust of the argument that is made by the Thomas commission rests on constitutional symmetry. This is an argument based on symbolic alignment. It does not prioritise stability or the best-quality policing and justice for the people of Wales. And finally, it does not prioritise cost-effectiveness with devolved policing. [Interruption.] I'll finish this sentence and then I'll give way. You are coming up on my—. So, I don't know if you want to still make the intervention. Courts are predicted to cost the Welsh taxpayer far more per head. I do recall the Member for South Wales Central arguing the other week that Baron Thomas of Cwmgiedd is a respected judge and peer and not some foaming-at-the-mouth nationalist, and I completely agree. But there were several important factors that were not—. [Interruption.] Of course I will.

I'm sure everyone's pleased to hear your analysis of the report, Gareth. Now, of course, the commissioners of that report included the former Lord Chief Justice, the head of prisons and probation in Northern Ireland, a global partner of the largest legal firm in London and many others—not your typical members of commissions in Wales. So, how are you more of an expert than they are?

I will be covering that during my contribution in some regard, but not to the detail that you've highlighted. I'm more highlighting the theory behind the argument against the devolution of policing, thoroughly done by the commission, with the report outlining the very few practical benefits to devolving policing and justice.

I'm not prepared to see the Welsh taxpayer fork out considerably more money for poorer policing just for symbolic constitutional symmetry in order to keep the separatists happy. Separatists who just want to see further creeping towards independence. I will prioritise what is sensible and pragmatic over ideology, and the Welsh nationalists are guided entirely by ideology. There is ample evidence outlining why devolving policing and justice is not a good idea. [Interruption.] Of course I will.

[Inaudible.]—seeing as my colleague Llyr Gruffydd did. Do you believe that Manchester or London are on the way to independence because of the devolution of policing in their respective cities?

That's a flawed argument, because it's a completely different model of devolution. I'd expect a better standard of argument from a leader of a party, in all honesty.

On the financial impact, Wales currently benefits from the economies of scale and the integrated system with England, and devolution risks diverting funds from front-line services to bureaucratic restructuring to establish devolved policing and justice. 

We should also remember that Scotland and Northern Ireland have a long precedent of having their own courts and law enforcement. Scotland has had its own legal system since before the Act of Union in 1707, and Northern Ireland since 1921, with their own autonomous Royal Ulster Constabulary. But discounting medieval Welsh law, there is no precedent for this in Wales. Justice and policing have always been integrated with England, so this means that devolving policing and justice would be novel.

We would lose the economy of scale, and the fiscal fragmentation of disintegrating—[Interruption.] You wouldn't feel the need to heckle so much if you knew what I was saying was truly not factual. It's a classic defence mechanism, isn't it, when you're being told something to the contrary of what you believe.

We would lose the economy of scale, and the fiscal fragmentation of disintegrating policing and justice would lead to higher per capita costs for the Welsh people. The UK Government's 2018 estimate was that the initial set-up costs associated with devolving justice would amount to £101.5 million—expect this to be much higher today. Welsh taxpayers would be expected to share the burden of an extra £37.5 million per year; again, this figure would be much higher today, and that doesn't even include the additional costs for other things, like legal aid. 

An integrated justice system also allows us to benefit from a larger pool of expertise, resources and international prestige. The chief constable of North Wales Police, Amanda Blakeman, whom the leader of Plaid Cymru might be interested to hear from, given she covers his constituency, recently said that north Wales is very much connected from a criminality perspective to the neighbouring forces of Merseyside through to Cheshire, commenting that crime is more east to west than north to south.

Will the Member take an intervention?

If the Llywydd will allow me to, I'd be happy to.

It's your call, Gareth—it's your time.

I know I'm in the red, so—

Yes, but you have an additional minute for interventions, so you're within that minute, just about.

Two points. One, a devolved Welsh police system would, presumably, still want to co-operate across borders, as my colleague Adam Price made the case. Is that not true? Secondly, is the Member making the case for a cross-border police force that ignores the Welsh border entirely?

I'm not making any claims in that regard; I think you're trying to put words in my mouth, really. I would advise you to, perhaps, have a briefing on county lines to see how that actually operates, and some of the intricacies of that—it's quite interesting, actually. A significant portion of crime in Wales, particularly in regions like north Wales, is inherently cross-border, with estimates indicating that 95 per cent of crime in north Wales is cross-border with England, with little all-Wales crime. As my colleague Mark Isherwood has raised before, cross-border criminality is mentioned in the Thomas report only once.

As much as I wish we were, we are not living in the era of Dixon of Dock Green, and county lines and other organised gangs, terrorist organisations, do not just simply stop at Offa’s Dyke. Devolved boundaries, which criminals don't care about, create silos, increasing response times and costs. Retaining centralised control ensures seamless integration and allows police forces to share data to keep us all safe.

Again, the timing for the push for this is ill thought through. Labour has proven itself unable to govern Wales with the powers it already has, and there are significant issues with policing across the UK as it stands, whether it's two-tier justice or wasting time on policing Facebook posts while burglaries are ignored. I dread to think of the nightmarish, dystopian policing we'd end up with should it ever be run by Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru, and I think we all know that that would be worse. I'm not saying that policing and justice—

I have been extremely generous up till now—if you can come to an end now, please.

Thank you very much. It's of no practical benefit for the people of Wales whatsoever. Let's not add policing and justice to this ever-growing list of Welsh Government failures that we've had to endure for the last 27 years. Thank you very much.

We've already heard about the imbalance that exists between the responsibilities of the Welsh Government in some areas and its lack of influence in terms of policing and justice. This creates obvious tensions, but above all, it creates real suffering for individuals and their families. This, as Sioned said, is the jagged edge of devolution that cuts through the heart of our public services.

The evidence is clear: the criminal justice system is failing individuals with mental health problems. In our prisons, nine out of 10 prisoners suffer from mental health or substance misuse problems. Rates of self-harm and death in Welsh prisons, as has been tragically seen at HMP Parc recently, are at an all-time high. This jagged edge is not just a series of lines on a constitutional chart, it's a scar blighting the lives of families across Wales. When we talk about a fracturing of authority, we are talking about a mother in the Valleys watching her son experience a mental health crisis, but instead of an ambulance and nurse, it is a police van and cells that await. We criminalise illness because our laws here don't align with our health values.

Think of that 15-year-old child from north Wales, who is transported hours away to some institution in England. They lose their connection with their family, their language and the social services that are meant to help them rebuild their life. The current system chooses remote punishment and isolation over healing and support. This is a trauma caused not by the crime, but by the current constitutional settlement, which has failed. This Government likes to say that mental health care in Wales is trauma informed, but is clearly blind to the fact that it is causing deeper trauma by failing to change this failing system.

Every death in prison, every overdose on our streets and every police officer who has to act without the necessary psychiatric training is a testimony to a broken system. We serve two masters, and because of that, we do not serve our people effectively. By devolving justice, we are not just claiming power, but we are claiming the right to treat our citizens with dignity, compassion and coherence. Welsh families deserve a system that sees them as whole human beings, not as administrative problems to be shared between Government departments in Cardiff or London.

Why is this happening? Because it is obvious that accountability is divided, and, secondly, when accountability is divided in this way, it leads organisations to deny accountability and point the finger of blame at each other, rather like the popular Spiderman meme that everyone has seen. When an individual dies or suffers in a prison in Wales, the safety aspect is a matter for London, but the healthcare element is a matter for Cardiff Bay. This division means that no-one is responsible for the whole person. As the Thomas commission said:

the division of powers is a major obstacle to the coherent delivery of justice and health services.

This is not just a matter for the prisons, it affects our streets. Currently, our police forces have become the first responder service for mental health emergencies. Reports show that officers in Wales spend thousands of hours in accident and emergency departments waiting for beds, because the police protocols, which are under Westminster, and the NHS protocols, which are under Cardiff Bay, do not talk to each other. Consider the families who lose loved ones to drugs. The Welsh Government wants to follow a harm reduction approach, but the police are tied to drug legislation from London. In countries where health and justice are united, there is innovation, such as the Test for Change project in Scotland, which saves lives by using naloxone. In Wales, we are fighting against the tide with both hands tied behind our back.

As Mick Antoniw said, who was the Counsel General at the time:

the jagged edge means we are trying to deliver a twenty-first century health service within a nineteenth-century justice framework.

Policing and justice need to be devolved, not to obtain more power for politicians, but to ensure one unified system—a system that treats people as patients rather than as criminals, that keeps children close to home and that puts an end to the confusion that costs lives. It is time to smooth out this jagged edge for the sake of the people of Wales.

I want to concentrate my remarks on women in the justice system, the need for reform and how the devolution of police and justice to Wales will help in this process. I support what Sioned Williams has said about women in the justice system earlier on, and I know that we've had some discussion about it earlier this afternoon in the Chamber.

We all know that the vast majority of women sent to prison are serving very short sentences. In the year ending June 2024, over three quarters of women in the UK sentenced to custody received sentences of 12 months or less. I was in Westminster in 2007 when Jean Corston produced the Corston report, and that's 20 years ago, and what progress has there been? It was made clear in that report, and it's exactly the same now, that the vast majority of women who go to prison are not dangerous, they're not a risk to the community; they're dealing with poverty, poor mental health or the lasting impact of abuse. Many are carers, many are mothers—and we've already heard about the way that children suffer when mothers in particular go to prison—and many have been failed long before they ever reached court. The services they use and need are almost universally devolved.

Reform of the justice system is about being effective, humane and fair. Short prison sentences for women do very little to reduce reoffending, but they can cause enormous harm to families and children and can make already challenging circumstances even harder. I welcome some of the reforms introduced by the UK Government in its Sentencing Bill, including the presumption against short custodial sentences and the greater use of suspended and deferred sentences. I also welcome the establishment of the Women's Justice Board, which includes representation from Wales. These are important and positive steps that reflect some of our values in Wales.

But Corston, 20 years ago, also called for a local, woman-centred approach, rooted in communities, focusing on prevention, as John Griffiths spoke about in his contribution, focusing on support and rehabilitation. Wales has shown time and time again that we can lead in taking a more compassionate, preventative approach. And I do believe that that is the approach that this Senedd has led.

The delay in progress on the women's residential centre, already mentioned several times this afternoon, is another reason for the devolution of justice to Wales. Devolving justice would allow Wales to join up all these systems properly, build a fairer, more effective approach for women and for everybody. The statistics on justice in Wales are shocking. The system is failing. Devolution would give us the opportunity to tackle these failures, and I believe this is an opportunity that we should work towards. Diolch.

Reform UK is absolutely clear on this issue. We do not support the devolution of policing and justice to Wales. More than that, we do not believe that the answer to every problem that Wales has is more devolution and more powers. What the public want is for the powers that this Senedd currently has to work properly. Policing is one of the most serious responsibilities of the state. It involves the use of force, deprivation of liberty, counter-terrorism, serious organised crime and public order. Fragmenting that system for political reasons is not reform. It risks public safety.

And I will say this very plainly: I would not trust the hard left in this place, a Plaid Cymru and, potentially, a Green Party coalition, anywhere near the policing system of our country.

Would you take an intervention?

I'll make a bit of progress. No, I'll make a bit of progress. We do not have to look far for real-world examples of why this matters. People of a certain political persuasion in Wales have faced threats, credible threats of extreme violence, yet, in some cases, nothing meaningful has happened. At the same time, we see people questioned, cautioned and arrested for comments about illegal immigration. That creates a perception, whether people like it or not, that policing priorities are shaped by politics rather than by public safety. It's two-tier policing in action. And once the public start to believe that law is not being applied fairly or consistently, trust in policing collapses, and, without public trust, policing by consent does not function. And yes, I'll take an intervention.

I wonder whether you would trust a Reform Government here in Cardiff Bay to run policing.

Yes, I would, because Reform would ensure that policing—[Interruption.]—that policing—

There we are: James Evans wants to devolve policing.

I was very clear: I'd trust Reform to deliver policing across Wales. And I will say it—[Interruption.] I will say it—[Interruption.] I will say it very clearly: Reform do not agree with the devolution of policing or criminal justice here to Wales. [Interruption.] I've just said on the record—. Yes, I'll take a very short intervention, Llyr.

Thanks, I appreciate it. So, does that suggest that you would be taking responsibility for policing away from Manchester and away from London because you see it as some sort of slippery slope to something you don't like?

Well, actually, policing in cities across England is very different to the devolution of full policing. It's more like what we have across police and crime commissioners. I think you need to do a bit of homework about that before you raise that again.

So, now let's talk about cost, because this motion is glossing over the cost of it. Policing and justice are expensive national systems. They rely on shared UK-wide infrastructure, including intelligence databases, specialist units, training, forensics, counter-terrorism co-ordination and cross-border co-operation. Devolving policing would mean duplicating much of that in Wales: separate governance structures, separate oversight bodies, separate judicial administration, all at a significant and ongoing cost, and there is no guarantee the UK Government would provide any funding for the devolution of policing and justice. Even the Thomas commission acknowledged that devolution would require major upfront investment and long-term funding, yet there is no clear explanation of where that money would come from other than higher taxes or to cut other services across Wales.

We are consistently told that there is not enough money for health, education and local services, yet we are now being asked to believe that Wales can afford to build a parallel justice system from scratch. The numbers simply do not add up—just like Plaid Cymru's case for separatism. Duplication is waste. Supporters of this motion often point to Scotland and Northern Ireland, but let me be clear: Wales is not Scotland and it's not Northern Ireland. Scotland has had a separate legal system for centuries and Northern Ireland's arrangements reflect unique historical and security circumstances; Wales has neither. What Wales does have is deep integration with England. Criminals move across borders. Victims move across borders. Police forces already co-operate daily. Fragmentation of that system makes policing harder not easier.

And there's also—[Laughter.] You're obviously laughing, I think, because you're losing the argument. There is also the issue of politicisation. This motion brought forward by Plaid Cymru talks a great deal about opportunity but very little about risk, about cost or the consequences. We know why Plaid Cymru want this. We're not blind to the fact that they want this as a means to an end. The end of this is separatism and independence, that quiet, quiet walk down that road, and Reform takes a different view. We do not believe in consistently grabbing more powers for the sake of it. We believe in making the powers that already exist here in Wales deliver real results for the people of Wales. Devolving policing and justice would mean higher costs, weaker co-ordination and greater politicisation and reduced public confidence. That is not progress; that's a gamble with public safety. For those reasons, we will not be supporting this motion, and anybody who does is going towards a slow march towards independence.

This topic was the topic of my first question to Mark Drakeford in FMQs in May 2021, and it was the first debate that I took part in—I opened the debate—back in May 2021. I could repeat my speech then word for word, and nobody would notice. I'm sure I could have written the speeches made by Altaf and by Gareth too, because exactly the same arguments were used back then. The debate and the narrative, as Julie Morgan mentioned in respect of women in the system, haven't moved on at all. Five years later, and we're in exactly the same place. There was some hope, five years ago, that a change of Government in Westminster would allow us to move the debate forward, but that hasn't happened. It's clear to me that political ideology is behind this blockage. Whatever the party in Westminster—Labour, Tories or even Reform—it's ideology that's the issue. We can present whichever argument we want to, the strongest possible arguments, the best experts possible in the area—and we have—and you would still refuse; Westminster would still refuse because of ideology. Ideology wins this debate in Westminster.

So, what can we do? What can we do? Well, of course, we still have to make the case. We have to make the case clearly to Westminster, but we also have to admit to ourselves that we're not going to persuade Westminster at present to devolve justice. We've reached a dead end on that, and it's difficult to see how we could break through that. What I think is that we have to look at what we have already. What's forgotten time and again in these debates is that a third of the recommendations made by the Commission on Justice in Wales relate to things that we could do now, things that can happen now without any change in the devolution settlement, things that could improve the lives of the people of Wales now. And that isn't true at present. When I've asked questions about justice in Wales to the Counsel General, I've had to start the question like this—because of the lack of accountability here, in Wales, I've had to start the question in this way—'What discussions has the Counsel General had with the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Trefnydd and Chief Whip, the Minister for Children and Social Care and the Ministry of Justice', and we haven't even reached the question yet. Doesn't that show how stupid the settlement is here and how complex the settlement is here within Government that there is no clear accountability for justice here in the Government?

In the first answer that I got from Mark Drakeford as First Minister, he mentioned the justice sub-committee of the Welsh Government. Do you know when that sub-committee last met? It was February 2024. I've heard that the sub-committee doesn't even meet anymore because we don't need too many committees. Well, I agree that we don't need too many committees, but we have to show then that we take this issue seriously in another way. I've said time and time again here that the big loss was not passing the tribunals Bill here in this Senedd. The recommendations of the Law Commission, which aren't complex, which aren't controversial, have been made since 2020—that was the last Senedd term. Passing that Bill would have ensured an appeals court for Wales, the first one in the history of our country. More importantly, it would have allowed us to gradually build our own justice system—a system accessible to everyone, without the court fees and the need for lawyers. It would have been accessible to everyone, and it would have assisted those who can't afford to pay for lawyers. I've argued throughout my time here at the Senedd that the Welsh Government should look at the tribunals as they pass Bills. We should be using our own tribunals when we pass Bills when it comes to enforceability, when it comes to making sure that the Bill is used properly, but that hasn't happened. I do hope that the Government will do that in the building safety Bill.

Another source of disappointment recently was understanding that the Welsh Government is not going to continue with family drug and alcohol courts, even though the pilot has been very successful, and Cardiff University has shown then how successful that pilot was. This is what has been said by a judge, and I'll finish with this.

A mother who had a traumatic upbringing and who had been in an abusive relationship gave birth to a child while still addicted to alcohol and drugs. The local authority made a care order application. Mum was suitable for the pilot, and, in the words of the judge, she 'visibly thrived' with the team. He said her physical and emotional recovery from years of abuse was slow, but evident, fortnight to fortnight. Sober now, mum appeared to have a new lease of life.

The pilot came to an end, she went back to drug taking, and the child is now in care. That was a decision that we could have made here, and we've let that family down, and who knows what kinds of problems we're creating for future.

During apprenticeship week, we have an opportunity here for the Welsh Government to ensure that it is possible to qualify as a lawyer through a level 7 apprenticeship. You can do that in England. You can't do that here. I hope that I've shown you, and I hope that the next Government of this place will listen, and will show, and will take advantage of what we can do to improve justice here, and through that improve the lives of the people of Wales. Thank you very much.

The Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice now, Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can I say that this has been a very important debate, which I welcome? I want to thank all the Members who've contributed, because there has been a significant number of questions and discussions on the devolution of policing and justice over the past few weeks. That's very helpful to me. It's very helpful to me as I continue at pace to progress my discussions with partners in the justice system, both, of course, devolved and non-devolved.

But can I say from the outset and confirm that the Welsh Government's ultimate objective is to secure the devolution of policing and justice in its entirety? This was advocated by the Thomas commission, the largest ever examination of the justice system in Wales, and more recently by the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, chaired by Rowan Williams and Laura McAllister. We do need progress on this and we need it soon. And it's good to be able to put that on the record again this afternoon.

And yes, the jagged edge has been brought up so many times this afternoon. It does have an impact on social justice, and I do welcome all of the Equality and Social Justice Committee's influential inquiries and reports. I also welcome the fact that there has been a focus on women's justice this afternoon in this debate.

I do want to start by thanking Dr Robert Jones for his fact file and to say that, in terms of the importance of justice data for us to make this journey towards the devolution of justice and policing, we need to have that disaggregated data. I'm pleased to say that now we have broken through that and this is as a result of the work that's been done, and done with the Ministry of Justice and HMPPS, so that Rob Jones doesn't have to go through the freedom of information request route. He actually now has got that justice data. More to come, more disaggregation, but that's been a major step forward. But also, just to recognise the important facts that he revealed in his latest fact file, 'Prisons and imprisonment in Wales', recognising that unacceptable level of women's imprisonment and the way that it has happened, and the impact it has on not just women's lives, but of course on the lives of their children and communities.

We've been debating and I've been scrutinised on this in questions this afternoon, about how we can best support women in the criminal justice system. I was pleased this morning, and I've already said earlier today, that I attended a round-table, which was set up specifically to address the findings of Dr Jones's fact file, chaired by Ian Barrow from HMPPS, where we looked at women's justice with a range of partners, influential partners, and those who are at the sharp end of practice, those who are responsible for the justice system. And again, the need to progress with the centre, of course—the residential women's centre—remains a key objective for the Welsh Government, and I'm meeting Lord Timpson at the end of February and plan to request an update on the opening of the centre. So, it has been important that we've focused on people's lives, on the lives of women in the justice system, today in this debate.

But as the independent commission noted, even if there was a consensus on the devolution of justice, on a practical level it would need to happen in stages and, clearly, as Members have set out, the decision to replace police and crime commissioners actually makes this the right moment, and it's the focus of your motion, of course, to ask questions about future arrangements for policing. As I've said, we do believe the best answer to those questions would be the full devolution of policing, and the White Paper expressly moves local police governance into an area of devolved responsibility.

It's been recognised in the debate as well, in the motion and in our amendment, that a substantial amount of funding for policing in Wales already comes from devolved sources—over £100 million in next year's budget—and I'm particularly proud of our continued funding of our police community support officers, or PCSOs. In 2025-26, funding was maintained at £16 million, supporting around 344 PCSOs. The 2026-27 budget provides a further 2.2 per cent rise. They're working at the heart of neighbourhood policing teams, PCSOs, playing a critical role in keeping communities safe. They take a problem-solving approach to develop long-term and sustainable solutions to issues to prevent recurrence and minimise adverse impacts on local communities.

And what we need to do now, and what we agree about, I think, in terms of the motion and our amendment, and what we care about is what is best for the safety of communities up and down Wales—the prevention of crimes, the securing of justice for victims where crimes do occur. And that's why I’m taking the responsibility to actively work with partners in Wales, with the UK Government, to ensure that local police governance structures for Wales work effectively in a devolved landscape. This includes reflecting the democratically elected constitutional roles of the Senedd, the Welsh Government, and local authorities. And at a minimum, we've said that functions that are currently exercised in Wales by PCCs should remain within Wales.

We already have a structure that we can draw on, and we are drawing on the policing partnership board for Wales, which I chair. The UK Government policing Minister attended the last meeting with our PCCs, our chief constables and our local government representatives, where we discussed the White Paper. Our next meeting is on 5 March. The Home Office has acknowledged that the proposals for England are unsuitable for Wales and have been open to alternative models. So, I do welcome the fact that the White Paper acknowledged the importance of reflecting the Welsh landscape in its work, supported by a commitment to close working between the Home Office and the Welsh Government, in partnership with policing in Wales. We know there are many reviews and issues about forced mergers. We're going to be fully engaged with that to ensure that the unique Welsh landscape is understood.

So, Llywydd, in conclusion, in support of the Welsh Government amendment, but recognising the importance of this debate, and I thank you for tabling it, I can assure Members that we’re now actively seeking to take another step on the journey in terms of the important needs for Wales within this context. And, within this sixth Senedd, I hope we will make real steps to move us into the future in terms of the devolution of power to Wales over policing and justice.

Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I’m grateful to everyone who's participated in this afternoon's debate. I think it's worth considering again today, as we close this debate, the words of the Thomas commission as they published their recommendations back in 2019:

'the people of Wales do not have the benefit which the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland and England enjoy by justice being an integral part of overall policy making.'

And that is exactly why Plaid Cymru has brought this debate before the Senedd today. This is not a constitutional debate for its own sake, this argument for the devolution of justice and policing, but an argument to give Wales the powers to face some of the most complex challenges facing our society and our communities.

Without powers over justice and policing, Wales will never be able to address the highest incarceration rates in western Europe. Without powers over justice and policing, Wales will never be able to establish a police force tailored to the needs of Welsh communities. And without powers over justice and policing, Wales will be unable to embed rehabilitation, forced only to contend with the consequences of criminality as opposed to putting measures in place to guide individuals on a better path.

Now, whilst the majority of Members in this Chamber do recognise the interrelationship between the justice system and other fields of devolved responsibility, a minority would rather stick to an outdated script, rolling out their same old attack lines, as we've heard this afternoon, on Welsh devolution, and exposing their long-standing mistrust, fundamentally, of our ability as a nation to manage our own affairs. Yet for all of Labour's insistence that devolving policing and justice remains their policy position in Wales, we see them increasingly, in deeds and in words, moving away from that position. Yes, they still say the words, as we heard from the Minister, but the voice is a whimper, and UK Government is determined to silence even that whimper.

I thank the leader of Plaid Cymru for giving way. Have you done any public sourcing about what the appetite amongst the Welsh people is for the devolution of policing? And now that we're embarking on a Senedd election, are you prepared to put this pledge at the very front, and a headline policy of your manifesto? I don't mean just some little snippet on the back page, but a headline policy for the people of Wales to indeed have their say on whether there is any public appetite for this. Because the communities that I represent, they just want a police force that's reflective of their communities and crimes dealt with. Not one constituent has ever contacted me to say, 'I support the devolution of policing.'

I think that's a lengthy enough intervention now.

I will leave it there.

I'm grateful to the Member for continuing to highlight the unseriousness of his party's attitude towards this policy area.

But back to Labour, were this motion to be put forward whilst the Tories were in power in Westminster, I would imagine that Labour Members would have been minded to support it, but since the arrival of Keir Starmer in No. 10 just over 18 months ago, two things have become abundantly clear, I think, which have made their words sound hollow and their policies become meaningless: (1) it is clear, time and time again, that they choose to avoid internal conflict instead of doing the right thing and standing up for Wales; and (2) even if they did raise their voices just a little bit, Keir Starmer or his Home Secretary wouldn't take a blind bit of notice. The partnership in power, which promised so much, has delivered next to nothing, and the flat-out refusal by the Labour Home Secretary to even consider the proposition of giving Wales the powers it needs in this area epitomises that perfectly.

We are expecting some sort of announcement on a plan, a memorandum to progress some elements of devolving justice policy, but we know that this will be a meagre minimum. Ever since the Thomas commission reports and the adopting by Labour itself in Wales of a policy of pursuing the devolution of justice and policing, all we've seen by Labour is dilution, and dilution, moving away, and, frankly, any signal now that at the time of a massive reform of policing that Wales is ready to accept crumbs would be capitulation. It would be seen as capitulation. It is the worst possible time to throw in the towel, quite apart from the fact that this would undermine an incoming Government that was determined to really make the case for moving forward on this agenda, as a Plaid Cymru Government would.

Llywydd, to close, I want to differentiate between serious and unserious contributions towards the debate today. Unseriousness was apparent in contributions and interventions from both the Conservative benches and from their more extreme aliases, Reform. What we heard from both parties was confirmation that their anti-devolution credentials are getting ever stronger. Their clear message today: 'Do not trust Wales.' Listening to them, one thinks, 'How on earth could Scotland manage policing? How on earth could Northern Ireland do it? Or London, or Manchester?' They clearly see Wales as inferior and incapable. And that—[Interruption.] No. I'll continue. That clarity is there from two parties who claim that they can both win the forthcoming election, but they don't want to have the tools to shape the future of our nation because they don't believe in the future of our nation.

There is a responsibility on those of us in this Chamber who are serious about tackling the deep societal issues that we face in Wales and who believe in devolution as a route to better outcomes for our communities to make our voices heard. But the ideological irrationality, the constitutional obsession of the UK Labour Government, the Conservative Party, Reform—

between serious and unserious contributions towards the debate today. Unseriousness was apparent in contributions and interventions from both the Conservative benches and from their more extreme aliases, Reform. What we heard from both parties was confirmation that their anti-devolution credentials are getting ever stronger. Their clear message today—'Do not trust Wales.' Listening to them, one thinks, 'How on earth could Scotland manage policing? How on earth could Northern Ireland do it? Or London, or Manchester?' They clearly see Wales as inferior and incapable. And that—[Interruption.] No. I'll continue. —and that clarity is there from two parties who claim that they can both win the forthcoming election, but they don't want to have the tools to shape the future of our nation because they don't believe in the future of our nation.

There is a responsibility on those of us in this Chamber who are serious about tackling the deep societal issues that we face in Wales and who believe in devolution as a route to better outcomes for our communities to make our voices heard. But the ideological irrationality, the constitutional obsession of the UK Labour Government, the Conservative Party, the Reform Party—

You will need to bring your contribution to an end now.

—in wanting to hoard powers at Westminster is holding Wales back and damaging the prospects of the people we're elected to serve. I urge you all to support Plaid Cymru's motion today.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Is there any  objection? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will therefore defer voting until voting time.

Item 9 is next. The motion under Standing order 26C.40 in respect of the Planning (Wales) Bill and the Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Wales) Bill. I call on Adam Price to move the motion. 

to repeal the power. The question in front of us today is not whether the power should be retained or removed; the question is whether a change of this character belongs in a consolidation Bill, without the opportunity for Members to table amendments and test the Government's reasoning in the open. There's an important principle here: consolidation is meant to clarify the law, not to settle contested questions or change policy about the future architecture of delivery in Wales. If a Government's position is that Wales should never again have the option, however rarely used, of conferring planning authority functions on a statutory delivery corporation, it is certainly entitled to argue that case. But that's a policy choice with legal and practical consequences, and it's exactly the kind of choice the Senedd, at the very least, should be able to debate and, if it wishes, to amend.

Crucially, time has already been allocated previously by the Business Committee for detailed consideration by the Senedd of these Bills, so it is available to us. So, on that basis, I ask Members to support this procedural motion on a simple, non-partisan basis: if you're persuaded by the Government's argument, you should be confident that that argument will prevail at detailed consideration. If you disagree, you should want the chance to amend. If you're unsure, well, that's precisely why we have scrutiny. So, please pass this motion and let us have the debate properly, transparently, and within the process the Standing Orders expressly provide.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. The Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee has considered these Bills at initial consideration and at detailed committee consideration. In its initial consideration report, the committee recommended that the Bills should proceed as consolidation Bills. In December, the Senedd agreed with the committee's recommendation, and the Bills therefore proceeded to detailed committee consideration.

The committee's report on its scrutiny of the Bills at detailed committee consideration was laid on Friday, 13 January. The report notes that all the amendments tabled were submitted by the Counsel General, and those amendments were later agreed. The report also notes that some of the agreed amendments either related to or addressed recommendations made in the committee's initial consideration report. Also, the report notes that the purpose of the other amendments that were agreed was to ensure consistency or clarity or to make consequential amendments to enactments. Based on this, and as reflected in our report, a majority of the committee consider that the Bills should proceed to final stage. But, on a personal note, I believe planning decisions should be dealt with by councils as opposed to appointed bodies.

I'm grateful for the meetings I have had with the Cabinet Secretary and also with Adam Price. However, the Welsh Conservatives will not be supporting the motion proposed by Adam today.

We're of the view that this proposal has been brought forward far too late in the legislative process and risks the future of these Bills. The Planning (Wales) Bill and the Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Wales) Bill are consolidation measures, as we've heard, intended to simplify and modernise the language and terminology used within the planning system. By bringing the relevant legislation into clearer and more accessible form, they will provide greater certainty and coherence for those operating within the sector. The sooner this consolidation is achieved, the better it will be for the industry and those who rely upon an efficient planning framework.

I am conscious of Adam's concerns, but I believe that these can be addressed separately at a later date and under new legislation. Further delay would serve no constructive purpose and is not in the interests of stakeholders or the wider public. Thank you.

I thank Adam for tabling this motion, because, on a quick reading, after a very brief discussion with Adam here this afternoon, I remain in the 'unsure' category. To answer Joel James's comment: it is never too late for scrutiny. So, if there is any uncertainty, we need to properly scrutinise. Too many things are passed on a nod in this place.

On a general note—and I'm sure it's not lost on Adam at all—this very community, this very building, is partly here because of what I consider a successful urban development corporation, the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation—1,100 hectares of derelict docklands in Cardiff and Penarth were transformed to Cardiff bay today. As the gentleman after whom this very building, Nicholas Crickhowell, wrote about Cardiff Bay Development Corporation in his book, Westminster, Wales and Water—and it's in the library, I looked at it this afternoon—it was imperative that we concentrated developments in the often empty and derelict centres of our once great cities and where industrial plans stood in the past. That message, I think, is still relevant today and one that all parties should consider 

when planning for the next Senedd.

In terms of the motion before us, the relevant Standing Order states this:

'A consolidation Bill may...remove or omit provisions which are obsolete, spent or no longer of practical utility or effect'

An obsolete provision would include a provision which is out of date, for example, because it's about bodies, persons or things that are no longer in existence or use. This power, at one glance, isn't obsolete because a future Welsh Government may wish to establish a UDC. A spent provision is one that would apply to a situation that can no longer exist, and I don't think, on my quick reading this afternoon, this is the case here. 

The letter from the Counsel General, dated 3 February, clearly shows that power isn't spent. For example, and I quote from the letter,

'a UDC in Wales could be given development management functions under Part 3 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, including the power to make
local development orders and the responsibility for determining planning applications. It could also be given some related functions relating to enforcement, highways, listed buildings, and other consents and notices.'

So, how do the provisions no longer have practical effect? And I think we really need to consider this before just letting it go on.

The Counsel General has outlined the numerous functions of local planning authorities that could not be transferred to a UDC in Wales, but she has explained that a UDC and local authorities can coexist together, but there would be a risk that neither operate effectively as planning authorities. I am minded to agree with that point and that amendments to primary legislation would be needed to ensure the UDCs in Wales could operate effectively in fulfilling planning functions for their areas.

However, as I said at the beginning, I am not yet convinced that the proposed removal of UDC planning powers is actually in line with the Standing Order. Further clarification on that point from the Welsh Government is needed and would be very helpful. Diolch yn fawr.

The Counsel General to reply—Julie James. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The Government is opposing this motion. The motion runs, as we have heard, directly against the majority recommendation of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee that the Bill should proceed straight to final Stage. The committee in their Stage 1 report also concluded unanimously that the consolidation changed the law only to the extent allowed by Standing Order 26C2.

I've already outlined the Government's position and the rationale behind our approach to Adam, both in writing and in person. Indeed, he has just reiterated it in the Chamber. Our position of not restating the power to transfer planning functions from a planning authority to an urban development corporation has been consistent and transparent. It is firmly based on the comprehensive findings of the Law Commission's review of planning law. The commission pointed out the provision has never been used in Wales since its enactment just over 45 years ago. After two consultation exercises, the commission concluded that the provision is not required and recommended its removal. Their position was overwhelmingly supported by stakeholders.

The Government believes it's critical that any future UDC must work in close partnership with local planning authorities, given their central role in placemaking and in creating sustainable communities. Taking this collaborative approach protects local democratic accountability. It is axiomatic that planning decisions should be taken by elected members who represent their communities, rather than by an unelected body.

Just to address the points in some detail that Rhys ab Owen raised, anyone arguing to preserve these powers today is arguing to preserve a broken, incomplete and outdated system. A UDC in Wales would be left with major chunks of the planning system missing, unable to make plans, unable to certify lawful development, unable to charge the community infrastructure levy, and lacking some of the core enforcement tools. No responsible Government should retain powers that are likely to cause difficulties in meeting the UDC's regeneration objectives.

These gaps are not small technical oversights. They stem from the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 that was written for a very different era, and has not kept pace with the evolution of the planning system. The result is a patchwork of powers that cannot be made complete through consolidation. There would be similar gaps in legislation relating to listed buildings and conservation areas, 

listed buildings and conservation areas, creating yet more issues that the consolidation Bill cannot resolve.

So, in considering the committee’s recommendation, we’ve taken account of other planning powers that also would be available if a UDC were established in attempting to solve the problem. These do include the use of local development orders by planning authorities and special development orders by the Welsh Ministers to grant planning permission for development in a designated area, all of which could expedite the planning process and provide greater planning certainty for a UDC.

The existing provision is just, as I’ve already said, simply not fit for purpose. Today, a UDC could not operate effectively or on an equal basis with other planning authorities.

Consolidation Bills are there to clarify and simplify the law. If we attempt to amend these Bills now to reinstate these powers, the work would be highly complex, and more importantly, it would maintain the same unsatisfactory gaps in the functions UDCs could exercise in Wales, and any UDC would require new primary legislation to address the existing gap. As I explained to Adam Price in our meeting, it is actually the point of a consolidation Bill to simplify the law in order to reform it later, and if you want to make an urban development corporate, it would be an awful lot easier to do new primary legislation on top of the consolidation Bill, not by trying to address the gaps.

So in our view, Llywydd, scrutiny has shown clear, consistent and unequivocal support for these Bills from the committee, from stakeholders and from Members across the Chamber. The rationale behind this motion simply does not hold, and it risks us losing the whole Bill. I therefore urge Members to follow the evidence and oppose the motion. Diolch.

Adam Price to reply.

Thank you. I think the fundamental view that I hold is that the Government has approached this through a policy lens, and we saw a glimpse of that in the Counsel General's reference to the axiomatic position that the Government holds, that you should never use an urban development corporation to somehow override a local authority. Now, that’s a perfectly reasonable policy position to take. The Labour Party has never liked development corporations. It didn’t like the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, but different administrations under different circumstances might take a different view. What if you had local authorities run by far-right political parties? Wouldn’t a Welsh Government under those circumstances, for example, decide that actually it is in the interests of a Welsh Government which has democratic accountability to actually use the development corporation in a way which promotes economic development?

I think that goes to the heart of the issue here. The principles on consolidation Bills, as Rhys ab Owen has set out, are very clear. You cannot omit a provision based on the fact that it has never been used. The reason it was not used in the case of Cardiff Bay is that South Glamorgan was told, ‘You agree to everything that they want, otherwise we will take the planning powers away’, so it concentrated minds. The threshold for consolidation Bills is that there is no realistic prospect of future use judged not by the intentions of the current Government, but by what any future Government might realistically do. That matters because what is being removed here in this section of the consolidation Bill is not some spent transitional clause. It is a real enabling power. Urban development corporations still exist as a legal possibility in Wales, and this affects how we organise delivery.

In England, development corporations are going through a renaissance. They are right at the heart of regeneration, including the possibility of giving those mayoral development corporations planning powers. Stripping them away is a policy choice. It may be the view of the current Government, but it might not be the view of other Governments, and therefore it’s inappropriate for a consolidation Bill.

The irony of the Conservative Party actually siding with the Labour Party in repealing a 1980 Bill by the Thatcher Government will strike some of us as odd. But look, there’s an important principle at the heart here. What we’re asking, we don’t lose anything, do we? By giving the Senedd the opportunity to hear these arguments—legitimate arguments, technical arguments—that the Government wants to put forward. Why not actually allow us, those of us who take a different view—I was in a minority on the committee; I may be in a minority in the Senedd—we will never know unless we afford ourselves the ability to have 

the ability to have proper legitimate parliamentary scrutiny. That is our function and purpose. Please support the motion on that basis. 

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, and we will defer voting under that item until voting time.

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we will move to voting time.

The first vote this evening is the vote on item 6, a Member's legislative proposal on a human rights Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Sioned Williams. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions and 13 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next votes will be on item 7, the Welsh Conservatives debate on restricting social media for under 16s. We will first vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, 14 abstentions and 25 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, two abstentions and 11 against. Amendment 1 is therefore agreed.

The next vote is on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, two abstentions and 11 against. The motion as amended is therefore agreed.

The next votes are on item 8, the Plaid Cymru debate on the devolution of justice and policing. The first vote is on the motion tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions and 38 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions and 25 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

So, the next vote will be the vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, no abstentions and 23 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

And that completes voting time. [Interruption.] Apologies to Adam Price. There is a motion—

Do you know, I must have been too keen to leave the voting in this Chamber and return to the new Chamber, because this vote, Adam Price, will be the last vote that this Senedd will take in this Chamber. It may be the last vote that Senedd Cymru ever takes in this Chamber, and it's in your name.

and it's in your name.

So, we will vote—.

We will be voting; we will be returning to our Senedd for our proceedings a week on Tuesday.

So, the final vote is on item 9, the motion under Standing order 26C.40 in respect of the Planning (Wales) Bill and the Planning (Consequential Provisions) (Wales) Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Adam Price. Open the vote. So, I close the vote. In favour there were 15, no abstentions and 35 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed, and that does conclude voting for this evening.

But, it doesn't conclude our meeting, because we have two short debates this evening, the first of which is to be moved by Llyr Gruffydd and the second by Julie Morgan. So, I call on Llyr Gruffydd.

If we can leave—. I know you're very reluctant to leave this Chamber, but please do so quietly, if you are leaving the Chamber.

Llyr Gruffydd to introduce his short debate.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I'm very pleased to share some of my time with Lindsay Whittle and James Evans, who will have some time to contribute to this debate. Today, I want us to focus and discuss a subject that isn't just an industry or a sector, but is something that represents the heart of our communities. This will be a discussion about places that for generations have been social anchors across Wales, namely our local pubs.

I stand before you here in the Senedd today with a deep appreciation of the local pub and what these places mean, not simply as licensed premises, but as community living rooms, as cultural hubs and as spaces where friendships are made, stories are shared and lives are lived. Wherever you are in Wales, the pub is where, very often, generations have gathered after work, after community events and after church even. It's where we celebrate together, where we console each other, where we come together for committee meetings or for entertainment, where we go for food or just to be less alone.

And that social value brings with it, of course, an economic value as well. The Welsh beer and pub sector generates over £1.5 billion for our national economy and supports more than 68,000 jobs here in Wales—jobs for young people entering the workforce, jobs for whole families, jobs that underpin tourism and local prosperity. Many of us here, I'm sure, will have had our first experience of paid employment working behind a bar or waiting, or even out the back washing up, maybe some of us, earning our first pay packets. A lot of people, of course, earn their main income or subsidise their incomes in pubs and bars as well.

But, beyond the balance sheets and employment figures, we must also recognise something less tangible, but just as important, of course: the cultural value of the local pub. Across Wales, pubs are often the beating heart of our creative lives. They are the places where young musicians first find an audience, where local bands learn their craft and where new talent is nurtured and encouraged. From small acoustic gigs to lively open-mike nights, from informal jamming sessions and folk sessions, our pubs showcase the full richness of Welsh culture—jazz, folk, rock, traditional music and, yes, even the occasional karaoke night that, perhaps, tests our eardrums as much as our patience.

And it goes far beyond music as well, of course. Pubs regularly provide the backdrop for book clubs, poetry evenings, language groups and community arts events. Initiatives like Bragdy’r Beirdd, one of my favourites, and similar gatherings across the country have found a natural home in the warm, welcoming environment of our local pub. These venues give space to storytellers, poets and performers, to Welsh language events and bilingual creativity,

and bilingual creativity, to conversations and connections that simply wouldn't happen anywhere else. In doing so, of course, they help keep our culture alive, vibrant and accessible, not locked away in formal institutions, but rooted firmly in everyday community life.

We also need to recognise, of course, the crucial role that pubs play in supporting tourism and the wider marketing of Wales as a destination. For many visitors, experiencing the local pub is not an optional extra, it's a central part of one's holiday. Tourists don't come to Wales simply for scenery, important though that is, of course, they come for a sense of place, for the warmth, the welcome, the music, the conversation and the local character. Now, the Irish, of course, have understood this for decades, haven't they, turning the Irish pub into a globally recognised symbol of hospitality and culture, and there's no reason at all why Wales can't do the same. Our pubs, with their local food, local drink, their music and stories, are among our strongest cultural assets. They already contribute hugely, of course, to the tourism economy, drawing visitors into town centres and rural communities alike. And with the right support and imaginative promotion, Welsh pubs could become an even more powerful showcase for everything that makes Wales unique.

Another vital dimension that deserves recognition as well is the growing partnership between local pubs and Wales's thriving microbrewery sector. Across the country, independent breweries are breathing new life into the licensed trade, offering distinctive, high-quality Welsh beers that reflect local character and craftsmanship. Venues such as the Mold Alehouse in Flintshire, the Bay Hop in Colwyn Bay, the Tafarn Fach in Rhyl, the Magic Dragon and the Drunk Monk in Wrexham—and I could go on—these all show what's possible when pubs work hand in hand with small producers, creating new opportunities, attracting new customers and supporting genuinely local supply chains. And crucially, of course, the profits generated through these enterprises then remain rooted in our communities, rather than being siphoned off to distant multinational companies. These microbreweries and tap rooms have become an increasingly valuable part of our economy, providing skilled jobs, encouraging entrepreneurship and strengthening the unique identity of towns and villages around Wales.

Similarly, of course, over recent decades, many pubs have transformed themselves into food-led venues, diversifying their offer and becoming destinations in their own right, some of them, and in doing so, they have become a crucial link in a much wider food and drink ecosystem. Across Wales, the food and drink sector now supports around a quarter of a million jobs, from farmers and growers to processors, distributors and hospitality workers. Local pubs play a vital role in sustaining that network—buying meat, vegetables, dairy and drinks from nearby producers, showcasing the very best of Welsh produce in their menus and in their taps. Now, these short, sustainable supply chains are good, of course, for the economy and good for the environment, as well—local farmers producing local food, for local shops and wholesalers, to supply local pubs and businesses. It's a model that keeps wealth circulating, as I was saying, within our communities and strengthens livelihoods, especially, very often, in rural Wales.

Yet, despite this positive evolution and deep connection to our communities, our pubs today face perhaps the greatest challenge in living memory. The pressures I speak of aren't abstract, they're very real and very severe. Across England and Wales, the number of pubs continues to fall, as we know. In 2025 alone, an average of one pub per day closed permanently, lost to conversion or demolition, disappearing from communities across the country. And this decline isn't accidental, it's a result of a perfect storm of sharp cost increases and policy decisions that have made survival harder rather than easier. And we've heard some of these examples rehearsed in the Chamber in recent weeks and months, and I'll refer to some of those pressures. Clearly, high inflation, particularly in relation to food and drink costs, which squeezes margins that are already much too tight; unsustainable rises in energy costs, which disproportionately, very often, affect hospitality businesses, of course, because they have late opening hours meaning more significant heat and lighting demands; rising staffing costs is another one, at a time when recruitment and retention are already challenging within hospitality; insurance premiums and water charges have increased significantly, as well. But also, of course, business rates, which represent a significant burden on local pubs.

I want Members to listen to the voices of those on the ground, in the front line, the very people who run these businesses. Recently, my office has received a lot of correspondence on this, but particularly one letter from the Llandudno Hospitality Association, and in it, they lay out with clarity and passion what's at stake here,

with clarity and passion what's at stake here, and I'll quote a little bit from their letter,

'New analysis shows that the hospitality sector in Aberconwy is projected to see its business rates bill increase by a total £5.3 million over the next three years… Most are seeing increases of 30 to 80 % in their rateable values'.

'On top of 30 % rises in insurances and water rates and endless increases in energy costs — how on earth is any business meant to plan or make investments?'

'Hospitality is the Golden Goose that has always laid Golden Eggs for the Welsh economy'

they say,

'and the Welsh Government now has that goose firmly by the throat.'

Now, these words are of genuine frustration, of course they are, but it underlines the urgency here as well, from people who are deeply invested in their communities, not in abstract political debate, but in everyday reality, in the reality of keeping the doors open, paying staff and paying bills.

The business rates system, as it applies to pubs and bars, is placing unsustainable pressure on the hospitality sector. In Wales, unlike England, there is no multi-year certainty on business rate relief. While pubs in England will receive a 15 per cent discount and then a real-terms freeze for two years, in Wales the support offered by the Welsh Government is limited to a single year. That's simply not enough for an industry that obviously would wish to be able to plan for the longer term.

As my Plaid Cymru colleague Rhun ap Iorwerth raised recently in the Chamber, whilst we welcome the most recent announcement, it is, of course, only a short-term solution that gives little long-term assurance to a sector that's worth £4 billion to the Welsh economy, which will struggle, obviously, to

'survive on a one-year settlement basis alone.'

And it’s clear

'that the business rates system in Wales is fundamentally broken'

and 'a pro-business Plaid Cymru Government' would prioritise the radical reform that's needed.

Now, our tax system should support and encourage, not undermine, local enterprise. For many pubs, these cumulative pressures aren't some distant threat, they're a daily reality. So, without meaningful reform, what we'll see is more closures following. More jobs will be lost, more communities will be deprived of their social heartbeats.

And yet, alongside this sobering picture, there is hope and innovation that is worth celebrating, of course there is. 

Across Wales, communities are taking control when their local assets are under threat. We have seen and continue to see a remarkable rise in community pubs, a real new beginning for local hospitality in some of these communities. There are many examples, you think of Tafarn y Fic in Llithfaen as the first example of a community pub in Wales. Nearer my home, the Raven in Llanarmon-yn-Ial, and also the Saith Seren in Wrexham, which shows it is just as relevant in an urban community, rather than thinking of it just in rural communities. There are also Tŷ'n Llan in Llandwrog, Yr Eagles in Llanuwchllyn, Y Llew Gwyn in Cerrigydrudion.

In all of these cases, the local community has come together to save a pub that had either already closed or was about to close. They're bought by the community, they're renovated by the community, and they're run by the community. And most importantly, the profits stay in the community and are reinvested in community activities, services and events of all kinds.

This concept—cymunedoli or communityisation—sums up a powerful thing, namely that communities take control of their own destiny. When pubs act as community assets, they become more than just places to eat and drink, they become village living rooms, cultural centres, they create jobs, and they are hubs for other services, such as post offices, local shops or meeting places and so forth.

So, the question we must consider here is: can community ownership be a part of saving the local pub? Well, of course it can, and we've seen that happening, and we need to support and encourage that as a model, moving forward. But should community purchase be the only lifeline? Well, no, it shouldn't, not at all. We should celebrate these successes, but sometimes there's a risk that we romanticise them a little. That's not an exclusive solution. Not all communities have the resources to buy, and not all pubs are in a position to transition to a community model.

So, be it community owned or privately owned, there is a critical value to our local pub that we should always, always cherish. But there are some direct questions I wish to pose to the Government in the hope that they can be addressed, maybe in the response that we will hear, and I'm sure they will be. What will you do to save the local pub is my first question. Will you commit to back the calls for longer term business rates reform that recognises the unique pressures on hospitality? Will you back calls for Welsh pubs to receive multi-year certainty?

Will you back calls for Welsh pubs to receive multi-year certainty? Will you back calls to extend fairer rate multipliers to hospitality and leisure, not just retail? Will you support community ownership models with targeted funding and advice, and will you work with stakeholders to design a tax and regulatory system that helps pubs thrive, rather than pushing them towards closure? Our pubs, as I say, are not just businesses: they're an integral part of our social infrastructure. They're creators of jobs, they're community builders, they're carriers of Welsh culture and much, much more. They deserve a future. So, let's not call last orders on our local pubs. Let's make sure that the beers keep flowing for many years to come.

The Member has been so passionate about his contribution that he hasn't left minutes for the other Members, but I'm going to give them to you anyway, because we're in the last time in this Chamber. So, Lindsay Whittle.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I'd like to thank Llyr for leaving me out.

I just want to give a quick shout-out for the White Cross Inn in Groeswen, a small conservation village on the mountainside above Caerphilly. The chapel was built there in 1742, and it's the first Methodist place of worship ever built in Wales. In 1750, those same locals built the Groes Wen, or the White Cross, public house. Today, it's remarkable that in a modern Wales, this tiny pub has survived, and that is due, in my opinion, to the resilience of Mair Arthur, the publican. The pub has survived despite COVID recessions and the modern ways of social life. In the past, it had a reputation for late-night lock-ins, but today it hosts a beer-bellies club, knitter and natters, wig and wine nights, pretty in pink—don't ask—vintage tea parties with home-baked cakes, race nights to coincide with Ascot, songs from local artists who raise money for charities, carnival-type days, and it famously appeared on Doctor Who. I held my twenty-first and my sixtieth birthday parties there. It is a traditional pub, a real ale pub, a real fire pub, a real people's pub, and as Harry Webb, the poet once said, it is one of the last of its kind. Long may it survive. And diolch.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. My last contribution in this old new Chamber, and it's going to be sad to see it go, but I'm sure people will be glad to be in the other Chamber.

Cabinet Secretary, a lot of our pubs across Wales have seen huge rate increases, which is actually putting a lot of them under threat. We've seen this, and especially my own pub, which is under threat. I don't want to see it go under, because I like playing darts during the week. So, what I would actually like the Cabinet Secretary to do is outline what the Welsh Government is doing to mitigate against the rate increases, which are hospitality and pub sector, as seen across Wales.

And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and the Welsh Language, Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to thank Llyr Gruffydd for bringing this debate forward and giving us an opportunity to discuss the future of our pubs in greater detail.

As others have said already this evening, Dirprwy Lywydd, pubs have been part of our communities for centuries. Dafydd ap Gwilym's 'Trafferth Mewn Tafarn' might have been written in the fourteenth century, but it is instantly familiar to anyone who's spent a Friday night on Lammer Street in Carmarthen in the 1970s. Now, it is more than 40 years since I was there, and pubs face a range of challenges today, some long-standing, some more contemporary. Demographic shifts and consumer choices are changing, changing the landscape for hospitality businesses of all sorts. But those challenges are also amplified through the persistence of some of those issues, of staff recruitment and retention, and the ongoing need to promote hospitality as a valuable career and one in which skills can be developed which stand people in good stead for their futures.

I want to briefly summarise what we have been doing for the sector when it comes to business rates. There's lots more to the landscape for hospitality than business rates, but it's been raised again tonight and it's been part of the ongoing conversation here in the Senedd. So, briefly, to put it on record, since 2020, more than £1 billion in additional temporary relief for hospitality businesses, including pubs, has been provided by the Welsh taxpayer. In the current year alone,

The foundations that she laid and the improvements that, as we have heard in this debate, she continues to champion will benefit generations of children and young people to come. It's a platform on which we have continued to build throughout this Senedd to support more children to remain with their families, for fewer children and young people to be taken into the care system. Where children and young people are placed into care, we want that time to be as brief as possible, as close to home as possible, so they can stay connected with their local community and networks and with the right support to thrive.

Our transformation programme for children and social services is built on three key elements: radical reform, future provision of services and the whole system working together. It's informed by the voice of children and young people with direct experience of children's services. As you mentioned, Julie, there is no better example of this in practice than the groundbreaking care-experienced summits that we have taken part in. These summits have enabled Welsh Ministers to meet care-experienced children and young people on four occasions over four years. Like you, I've had the privilege to attend some of these and know first hand the value and power of hearing directly from children and young people about their experiences.

These experiences have helped to shape our transformation programme, which has made a lot of progress over the last five years. The Senedd passed the Health and Social Care (Wales) Act 2025, making us the first part of the UK to introduce a ban on profit from children's care in Wales, as you said. We published the multi-agency practice framework for children's services, which is improving consistency of practice and supporting a strengths-based way of working across agencies.

We've also developed national practice guidance for therapeutic support for care-experienced children. The corporate parenting charter and its 11 principles was developed with young people. All local authorities and NHS organisations have signed up, and the number of other organisations doing so continues to rise. We've invested heavily in the development of therapeutic accommodation and specialist services for children and young people with complex needs, and these new homes enable our most vulnerable children to stay in their communities.

We've rolled out parental advocacy services and, in recent weeks, we have announced funding to support parental advocacy for next year, and additional funding to extend peer advocacy support in several areas across Wales. We've worked with the fostering network to deliver the step-up, step-down pilot in Wales, and we've continued in our commitment to uphold the rights of unaccompanied asylum seeking children and young people. We've created Foster Wales and the national adoption service has delivered a programme of transformation that places identity, connection and lifelong support at the heart of adoption. A lot has been achieved, but there is still more to be done.

Turning now to respond to your questions, firstly, in relation to foster carers hugging children in their care, I'm pleased to hear this is having a positive effect. We've progressed this further by working with the fostering network and other stakeholders to develop training packages for foster carers. The updated safer caring guidance explicitly includes the importance of hugs, warmth and physical contact. In addition, the Foster Wales learning and development framework resources include guidance around physical contact now, and the Fostering Network's Skills to Foster programme makes crystal clear that physical contact, comfort and warmth are essential to all children, including those in foster care. We'll continue to reinforce these messages, and ensure that every service, every team and every carer feels confident and supported in offering child-led physical affection, and I'm grateful to you for raising that in the debate today.

You also highlight the cliff edge that some young people experience when they leave care. We absolutely recognise that this is a vulnerable time for young people, which is why we've emphasised everyone's role as a corporate parent working alongside key professionals like personal advisors and trusted adults each young person identifies along their journey. There is building momentum around the corporate parenting charter, which has the potential, I think, to offer care leavers much wider support and opportunities.

The basic income pilot that you asked about is a good example of a new approach

a new approach for supporting care leavers to give them that head start that they need when they leave care. The evaluation of the pilot is ongoing and it will continue into 2027. Annual evaluation reports have already been published in 2024 and 2025, and the 2026 report is now imminent. Each one of those reports provides interim insight from the emerging evidence of the pilot and we are absolutely committed as a Government to learning about the outcomes of this crucial initiative.

Now about your questions on removing profit from care. I can confirm that, from 1 April this year, existing for-profit providers will not be able to add new children's homes to their registration. They will still be able to apply to expand their maximum capacity up to 1 April 2027, but only within their existing homes. Progress continues to be made on implementation ahead of April 2030 when children will not be able to be placed into the care of a for-profit provider, apart from in absolutely exceptional circumstances, and my officials are continuing to work closely with local authorities and with the sector. Last week we launched a consultation about new duties on local authorities to prepare annual sufficiency plans, setting out how they will meet their duty to secure appropriate accommodation for children looked after, in line with the new removing profit provisions. These plans will strengthen authorities' strategic planning for implementation of the commitment.

I appreciate the concerns that you've raised, and young people's concerns as they've been reflected to you, about English children currently placed in for-profit children's homes in Wales. These children will be able to continue living in these homes if it continues to be in their best interest.

Finally, Julie, you referred to earlier intervention and prevention. This has been an absolutely central focus of our transformation delivery group, and this includes representatives from across the sector and, most importantly, from care-experienced young people themselves. They've produced a comprehensive update on the progress that has been made and it's had a particular focus on the eight programme for government commitments that provided the framework for the overall programme. The report includes what I think is a significant piece of work to develop an early intervention and prevention framework for Wales, and it concludes with a set of specific recommendations from the delivery group for the next Senedd term which I hope will see this work continuing with the momentum which it deserves.

We've taken some big strides on this journey but this is a journey that does not and cannot stop here. It must continue into the next Senedd term and, indeed, beyond that.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary. And that brings our proceedings today to a close.

And it does also bring our time in this Chamber to an end. I hope to see you all in the Chamber that has been renovated for us in the Senedd.