Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon, Members. Today, we mark the sixtieth anniversary of the Aberfan disaster, in which 116 children and 28 adults lost their lives on 21 October 1966. Before we begin this afternoon's business, I invite Members to observe a minute's silence in remembrance of Aberfan. 

Thank you very much.

Item 1 on our agenda today is questions to the Cabinet Minister for Enterprise, Connectivity and Energy, and the first question is from Lynne Neagle. 

I have discussed Jobs Growth Wales+ with the Deputy Minister, including the pressures that some providers are managing as they respond to continued demand for support.

Thank you, Cabinet Minister. As you are aware, we are facing a 'not in education, employment or training' crisis in Wales, with everything that that means for young people's life chances, their employment and, of particular concern to me, their mental health and well-being. However, we're not now just facing the prospect of cuts in further education funding, but, as I've highlighted to you in correspondence, providers of services to young people through Jobs Growth Wales+, which is effectively a post-16 provision, are also seeing significant cuts. I'm grateful to you for your correspondence, but I have written back to you explaining that ACT, which has been praised across this Chamber for their transformative work with young people, has currently gone from a confirmed contract value of £18.8 million last year to £13.9 million in 2026-27. 

Can we have the question, please, Lynne?  

That is a 26 per cent cut. On the basis of these figures, can we accept that the Plaid Cymru Government is committed to tackling the NEET crisis, and, if that is the case, what are you going to do to reverse these cuts and ensure that all learners have an opportunity to have their education?

I am grateful to the Member for her question, and, as I said just now, I have, obviously, had discussions already with Cabinet colleagues to see what more can be done within the resources that we have. I think it is certainly the case that we are seeing not just in Wales, but across the UK, a huge issue in terms of the labour market. It has, obviously, led to the Milburn review, and I agree, actually, with Alan Milburn that working on the supply side, working on employability support programmes, is not going to be enough to deal with the scale of the problem, because the problem is really on the demand side largely. That's where we also need to focus, and I think that, really, the scale of the problem means that we do need a scale of intervention on a similar level to the one that we saw back in 1997—the New Deal for the unemployed. So, we are looking forward to the final report of the Milburn review. We hope that the UK Government will inject the level of investment that is needed not just in Wales, but across the UK, to address the problem that young people and others are facing because of the nature of the labour market need at the moment. 

Cabinet Minister, I welcome your commitment to extend Jobs Growth Wales+ to consider the incentives for employers, because young people leaving the programme need apprenticeships and jobs to move into. I recently met with Williams Electrical (Cymru) Ltd, a Carmarthenshire firm that wants to take on more apprentices but says it can no longer afford to. Under the reformed qualifications, a first-year electrical apprentice without the relevant foundation qualification must undertake broader construction training and skills. The concern for the firm is that the additional college day in the first year leaves just three weeks on site whilst they're having to pay a full week's wages for that apprentice. Carmarthenshire's over-65 population has grown by almost a fifth, while apprenticeship starts across Wales are at their lowest since records began. Yet electrical contractors are generally excluded from the Construction Industry Training Board apprenticeship grants available to other construction employers. So, will you discuss with the Deputy Minister for Skills and Tertiary Education how those incentives could include targeted support for smaller electrical firms to cover that additional college day so that businesses like Williams can train the electricians that Wales desperately needs? Diolch.

The Deputy Minister has been very clear in his view that apprenticeships are absolutely central to enabling young people to achieve their potential and also for us to drive the kind of economic development that we want to see across every sector and across every community. We'll certainly very much welcome those ideas and take them up in discussion with the Deputy Minister in the context of the work that is already ongoing through the skills audit and following the skills summit a few weeks ago.

Cabinet Minister, I heard your response to Lynne Neagle a moment ago, rightfully outlining the challenge around NEETs, but you need to acknowledge that there's a particular problem here in Wales. In England, the numbers have actually dropped in the last 12 months to 13.3 per cent, whereas, in Wales, numbers have shot up to 17 per cent of 16 to 25-year-olds not in work, training or education. It's vitally important that we get those young people into those positions as quickly as possible. As you know, Jobs Growth Wales+ makes a big difference in that, and you do have already the policy levers to be able to make a difference in this area, and it's about prioritising whether or not you think it's an important matter for you to tackle. I think in particular, in my own constituency of Fflint Wrecsam, that Coleg Cambria run a fantastic summer school with Jobs Growth Wales+, where 100 young people took part in that summer school—a record number so far. So, Cabinet Minister, will you commit today, for the sake of the 16 to 25-year-olds, to ensuring that this is a priority and that you do use the policy levers you already have to ensure that young people have a fighting chance?

Where I agree with the Member is that the existing interventions in Wales were not working, and the actual outcomes were worse. As a result of that, we have commissioned, as a Government, work by Professor Melanie Jones, one of the leading figures in labour market economics, to understand, 'Well, let's look across the world at what does work in order to inform our own use of the policy levers that we do have.' But I should say that the consensus view, which is emerging through the work of the Milburn review and economists that are looking at this, is that the supply-side approach, which is basically saying, 'There's an unemployed person here and if we can make them employable, then they can get into the labour market', the increasing consensus view is that that's incorrect, largely. The problem is on the demand side. The jobs are not being generated to a sufficient degree to actually create those job opportunities, and there are particular structural problems in terms of entry-level jobs. That's why I think sector-led approaches, the likes of which we've begun to see, haven't we, in recent weeks and months—the retail sector, the construction sector, coming forward and making commitments to create those entry-level jobs—those kind of approaches are likely to have a better effect. The opportunity for us in Wales is to work with sectors—and we've just heard some specific examples in an earlier question as well—to provide those entry-level jobs, and, yes, make sure that our training skills system is working with employers for real job opportunities that are going to be created.

The Deputy Minister and I regularly discuss how skills, employability support and apprenticeships can equip young people across Wales to succeed in a rapidly changing economy. These issues were a feature of our highly successful future skills summit earlier this month and are central to my productivity mission.

Diolch, Cabinet Minister. In Blaenau Gwent, nearly three in 10 residents aged 16 and over have no formal qualifications, which is the highest proportion in the whole of Wales, while neighbouring Caerphilly has the fourth highest. I've seen first-hand the vital role that organisations such as ACT has in Ebbw Vale. They play such an important role in supporting young people facing really complex needs and barriers to education, training and employment. For many of these young people, progress can mean overcoming mental health challenges, gaining qualifications after leaving school without any, finding secure housing or even turning away from crime as well. They need to have a system that can respond to the full range of barriers they face as an individual and gives them the best opportunity as well to fulfil their potential. So, Cabinet Minister, how will the Welsh Government ensure we have a fit-for-purpose system, with the flexibility and stability needed to support young people to fulfil their potential, particularly those facing extreme barriers?

I am grateful to the Member for her question. I think that, certainly, we acknowledge the importance of programmes like Jobs Growth Wales. We've committed to continuing that next year, even, as I said, as we begin the work of understanding what more we can do and what we can do differently, because, even though these programmes have made a contribution, they have not solved the problem; the problem has got worse. And so, we need to find out what is missing, what additional can we do. As I was saying, I think the growing view among those who work in and analyse this field is that we need to work more on the demand side to generate the jobs, and also we need to have a place-based approach. So, I think you're absolutely right to focus on the specific needs, which will be different in Blaenau Gwent to other places. The opportunities will be different. The employers that we can work with to create particular sectoral opportunities will be different. So, it's that combination not just of the existing approaches, but blending them with new interventions that are demand led and placed based. That's the way, in a holistic fashion, I think that we can provide a durable and comprehensive solution that will deliver hope to young people and to communities across Wales.

Minister, traditionally, entry-level roles have allowed young people to gain the experience needed to progress into more skilled employment. But artificial intelligence now threatens to automate some of those opportunities. What assessment, therefore, has the Welsh Government made of the impact of AI on entry-level employment opportunities for young people in Blaenau Gwent Caerffili Rhymni, and what discussions has the Cabinet Minister had with the Deputy Minister for skills about ensuring that training provision in our constituency prepares young people for the jobs likely to be available in five to 10 years' time?

I'm really grateful to the Member for an absolutely vitally important question, which I think is at the forefront of all of our minds at the moment, isn't it? I think it's certainly true that AI is one of the factors that is driving this unique level of disruption that is going on in the labour market. I think that it is a complex picture, and it's fair to say that the evidence is still emerging. We were discussing this at the jobs summit, and we need to have a better understanding and better data. So, there is a live data set that actually looks at what is happening in the American labour market. Month by month, we can see what's happening, and we can see that, particularly, it's young people that are being disrupted most in terms of higher levels of unemployment. We can even be more specific: it's 22 to 25-year-olds who are facing a 20 per cent higher level of unemployment than was previously the case. Now, we need to get that kind of data here and we need to understand how this is playing out across different sectors and across different geographies. That work is ongoing, and I hope to be able to update Senedd Members more in this regard because I think it's one of the central challenges that we're facing at the moment.

I now call the party spokespeople to question the Cabinet Minister. Reform UK spokesperson, Jason O'Connell.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Minister, as discussed recently in this Chamber, 500 jobs in Admiral are at risk of redundancy. These are real Welsh people, real Welsh families and actual livelihoods that are now facing uncertainty. Many of those jobs are based across our constituencies in Swansea, Cardiff and Newport. And now we learn that, while Welsh workers face the prospect of losing their jobs, some roles—the majority of those 500 jobs—are going to be outsourced to India. Now, this is a massive slap in the face to all those men and women that have worked hard, paid their taxes, only for their jobs to be sent abroad, and is a firm rebuke to this Government's economic credentials. This should be a massive wake-up call for this Welsh Government. So, Minister, what direct action are you taking to stop skilled Welsh jobs being shipped overseas, to protect workers here in Wales, and to ensure that companies benefiting from operating in this country have a genuine incentive to keep those jobs here? Diolch.

Clearly, this was very disappointing news to hear and, obviously, very worrying for the workers and their families involved. I've met with Admiral, and, indeed, with Legal & General as well, to see what we could do—first of all to understand what we could do in the context of those that are at risk of losing their jobs, and we obviously stand ready to do what we can in that regard, but also to understand more about the reasons for these decisions and what we could do, working with these companies and with their sectors, to create additional jobs as well.

Now, Admiral have, in that conversation, confirmed to us that they are going to retain their Cardiff and Swansea offices. In my conversation with Legal & General—and, indeed, with Admiral as well—we did talk about what are the growth opportunities, where we as a Government can work with the companies and with the sectors in order to identify growth possibilities, because we retain important strengths in these sectors, and it's important not to lose sight of that, despite this obviously disappointing news.

Thank you. I thought I was going to get called—excuse me.

Minister, thank you for that, but, as we move on, unlike Plaid's new energy quango, North sea drilling could unlock billions for the UK economy, support thousands of jobs and strengthen our energy security. As Reform UK's Richard Tice has been calling for for years, the Jackdaw project has now been given the green light, and, as we know on this side of the Chamber, that's nowhere near enough. Now, Reform believes the United Kingdom should extract every last drop of oil out of the North sea—and gas—to support our economy, protect jobs and reduce our reliance on imports. Instead, Plaid wants to waste taxpayers' money on another quango and renewable energy schemes that offer absolutely no guarantee of cheaper bills to the men and women of our country. Minister, let's get real for a moment and focus on the action that will actually make a difference to people's pockets here in Wales. What steps are you taking to press Westminster to issue new exploration licences, unlock our North sea resources, boost our economy and bring down household bills for people across Wales?

Look, the real opportunity for us—. If you want to talk about energy off our shores, the real opportunity for us in Wales, it's in our floating offshore wind sector, it's in our tidal stream and tidal lagoon industries. That's where the real opportunity, in terms of jobs, is. So, let's focus there, because there are important messages where it would be useful if we could speak with one voice to urge the UK Government, for example, to realise the strategic value of marine energy, of floating offshore wind, of tidal. We have some unique geographic assets. No, they don't involve fossil fuels, but they are definitely sectors of the future that not only will be important in energy terms, but, if we get this right, will create massive supply chain opportunities to build out manufacturing at our ports in Port Talbot and in ports across the whole of Wales. So, let's focus there, where the real opportunity is for Wales, rather than be distracted by issues and questions that are not our responsibility and won't directly benefit us.

Thank you, Minister. The biggest word in that statement I picked up on was 'if' we get this right. That's a very big 'if' indeed.

But, moving on, today, Reform UK will lead a debate calling for a ban on face coverings used to conceal identities and intimidate the public. Wales has become a country where criminals can hide their faces while law-abiding citizens are frightened to walk down their own high streets. Across Wales, hard-working businesses are struggling, shopkeepers face intimidation and theft, customers are being driven away, and once-thriving town centres are suffering, leading to damage to our economic outlook. All too often, those responsible are hiding behind balaclavas, riding illegal e-bikes, making it harder for the police to identify them. Minister, we both know that enough is enough. Our high streets belong to families, shoppers and hard-working businesses, not masked thugs. We know this matter is reserved to the police, but councils across Wales are considering using their powers to ban face coverings, including balaclavas. We in Reform will do everything we can to support them. Minister, do you agree that Reform UK's face coverings ban would curb anti-social behaviour and help protect Welsh town centres?

How this is relevant to these particular questions—. But, look, this is an attempt, once again, to use this platform to sow division. Speak to the shop workers' union—there's a very real issue in terms of the abuse that they face. Meet with the unions and understand the proposals that they are bringing forward to actually make a difference to those workers' lives, not constantly use this place as a platform just to play politics and sow division and hate.

Welsh Labour spokesperson, Shav Taj.

We've been talking about data, and of course data centres have been in the news quite a lot recently. The planning Minister recently responded to a written question of mine stating that the current system for approving data centres has robust checks and balances in place to ensure that their environmental and community impacts are properly considered. Now, does the Cabinet Minister agree with the planning Minister? And, if the current system is robust for all data centre applications, why is his Government then writing a data centre framework?

What I think that we've said is that we are bringing forward a general policy framework around data centres. I will leave it to the planning Minister to address the planning dimension of that. Technology changes all the time, and I think that, because of the number of dimensions involved in relation to data centres—their potential contribution to the economy, but also the need to make sure that legitimate questions around land use, around the use of water and the use of energy are addressed properly—it is sensible for us to have a framework, as most other countries are doing at the moment, to ensure that we maximise the benefits and the opportunities, but also mitigate against any potential downside were a framework of that nature not put in place.

Welsh Conservatives spokesperson, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Of course, Cabinet Minister, our portfolio covers connectivity across Wales, and good broadband and strong mobile signal is certainly a huge component of that. Ofcom found that much of Wales has the poorest broadband provision in the UK. Wales has an average broadband speed of 6.5 Mbps compared with the UK average of 7.5 Mbps. Twelve local authorities across Wales are classified as having the poorest broadband provision, with some areas receiving speeds of only around 2 Mbps. I've spoken so many times about this with the previous Government, and it is fair to say that, in rural areas, parts of my constituency of Bangor Conwy Môn, some residents are still facing extremely poor broadband connectivity. Now, we need to see increased emphasis—

Can we have the question, please?

Yes. We need to see a greater emphasis on funding. How will you address these notspots?

I totally accept the premise of the question, that this is vitally important for social and economic reasons. Of course, it's fundamentally a UK Government responsibility, and so one of the things that we absolutely need to do is to get them to deliver faster on the promises that they've made through Project Gigabit and others.

In every infrastructure investment that the UK Government makes, it's always us in Wales that are at the wrong end of a very long line. And it shouldn't be the case, actually, because digital infrastructure, by its very nature, has the capacity to actually limit the costs of distance. But, unfortunately, the way that decisions have been made in the UK, it has had the opposite effect. We will do what we can within our resources to make up for the deficiencies of the decisions made by the UK Government. We will obviously put every pressure that we can to make sure that they live up to their responsibilities.

Diolch. I just need to correct you. In the previous UK Conservative Government, under David Cameron, £56.9 million of funding came directly into Wales for superfast Cymru broadband. And we then had Project Gigabit under Boris Johnson, the Right Honourable, again under a Conservative Government. This must continue. And additionally, companies are now phasing out copper cables. So, my residents in Bangor Conwy Môn are really struggling, because, with the phasing out of copper cables, which connect many residents to landlines, there's growing concern about people living in rural areas with poor mobile phone coverage. What steps are you taking, Cabinet Minister, to ensure that those households in rural, isolated parts—and there are many within Wales, but there are a lot in Bangor Conwy Môn—? How are you going to support them as a Government throughout this transition, and how are you going to work with the UK Government now to ensure we get much better funding into Wales for this? Diolch.

Well, as I said, we will first of all hold the UK Government and the relevant stakeholders to the commitments that they have made. Where it's possible, within the resources that we have, and within the levers that we have, we will do everything that we can to mitigate any of the deficiencies from the lack of investment that flows from the UK Government. I've met with some of the key companies in the sector to see in which ways we can work smarter, develop innovative solutions, in order to make sure that no community or no individual, as far as is possible, is digitally left behind. But we do need the UK Government to put that investment in that was promised.

Welsh Government officials hold regular meetings with National Grid Electricity Transmission. Tata Steel UK’s electric arc furnace installation is a commercial matter. However, we do raise the matter as appropriate.

Diolch, Weinidog. The decision to close the blast furnaces in Port Talbot was disastrous for my local community. Thousands of jobs were lost and the impact on the wider economy is severe. The National Grid connection offer for the new electric arc furnace was contracted for the end of 2027. However, a range of factors, such as planning and ground conditions, are threatening to delay the project, and some sources are saying that it could be as late as 2029 before the new furnace comes online.

Previously, you've mentioned that the Welsh Government is not a party to the commercial agreement between National Grid and Tata, but I'd like to ask what conversations you've had with National Grid regarding these delays and what further action will you take to prevent any further issues that could harm jobs and the local economy in Port Talbot. Diolch.

Yes, I'm very grateful to the Member for his supplementary question. I met with Tata Steel UK's chief executive officer, Rajesh Nair, and the steel unions at Tata's Port Talbot site on 24 September to receive a further update on developments. We focused on a whole range of matters, including the issues around connectivity to the grid, which is at the heart of his question, but there were other matters as well around UK Government trade quotas and the effect that that was having on the domestic steel market. Following that meeting, I did meet with the UK Government's Minister for Reindustrialisation, Blair McDougall, together with the Secretary of State for Wales to discuss some of the matters that were raised.

So, we are constantly engaging with the company, with the unions and also with the UK Government to ensure that Wales does—. I absolutely agree with him about the tragedy, really, of the loss of the blast furnaces, but we now need to make sure that we maximise the opportunity represented by the electric arc furnace. It will be the first or second-largest electric arc furnace anywhere in the world. There is the prospect for us to be producing more than 50 per cent of UK domestic steel capacity at a time when the UK Government has said that it wants to increase the level of domestic procurement. So, there is an opportunity there that is massive. We need to stay focused, I absolutely agree, in order to seize that opportunity.

Gweinidog Cabinet, I visited National Grid at Margam substation over the summer to discuss the connection to the Port Talbot substation needed for Tata Steel's electric arc furnace. National Grid explained that there were a number of unexpected barriers, as the Member has previously alluded to, for example, poor ground conditions that increase the number of piles required in the ground from the initial 400 to 11,000, adding an estimated 34 weeks to complete construction. They also outlined plans to recover some of that lost time. Given the importance of the project to the future of steel making in Port Talbot, can the Gweinidog confirm whether any progress has been made in reducing that 34-week delay and whether there is scope to shorten the construction programme further?

I think I will have to leave it to the company to share any information it would like to put in the public domain in relation to the current state of play. This is obviously market sensitive information. You can appreciate that it's most appropriate that that comes from the company, and I'm sure that they would want to allow the workforce to hear that information first. 

But I think that one of the positive things that I'm sure that Tata Steel would not in any way have a problem with me sharing was the very positive experience that they had with Neath Port Talbot Council. We often hear, don't we, in the context of economic development, concerns around planning delay. Well, the message that I very clearly heard from the company was that they were incredibly impressed by the way in which the planning officers of Neath Port Talbot Council had really worked at an incredible pace and shown some innovation in how to manage that process. And there may be wider lessons that can be shared with other major projects across Wales. And we talked a little bit about how we could share that best practice.

As a result of this experience as well, we are very conscious of the importance of focusing in a very granular fashion on major developments and what that means for the grid. And we are, as I said, in discussion with National Grid Electricity Transmission and other relevant stakeholders to make sure that we learn from this experience and make sure that we identify areas where we can make progress in terms of the grid connection and its important role in our economy.

The programme for government sets out the range of measures that we will take to improve economic opportunities and outcomes for every part of Wales. This includes the national productivity mission, supporting small businesses and high streets to thrive and ensuring Wales has the skills it needs for the future.

Thank you very much for your response, Minister. My concern is that too many of our talented young people in Blaenau Gwent Caerffili Rhymni feel that they have to move away to find careers that are sustainable and long term. Beyond the general funding streams, what targeted assurances can the Welsh Government provide to create skilled, futureproofed jobs in their local area so that we can stop exporting our next generation?

I thank the Member for that supplementary question. This question is at the heart of our economic strategy. This morning, I met, for the first time, with the panel assisting us to design the new development agency, and one of the themes that I emphasised was the need to ensure that we do generate good jobs everywhere. We don't want to see a situation where Wales emulates what we've seen in terms of the uneven development across the United Kingdom, where prosperity only accrues in one corner of our nation. We want the south-east of Wales to prosper, we want the north-east of Wales to prosper, and we are very proud of the success that there has been there, but we also want that to permeate through the Valleys, the Heads of the Valleys, into the west, into rural Wales, and into the north-west of Wales. We must raise up the whole of Wales, and that is how we as a Government intend to operate, and that is the aim and the mission that we have already given to the new development agency.

Minister, one concern I've got, from speaking to lots of people in the constituency, who feel young people are leaving the area of Blaenau Gwent Caerffili Rhymni at a large pace now. We can see that the population age is going up in every census, and anyone who's been around the town recently feels that young people are leaving for cities, going over to England or to other parts of the world. What help can you do to incentivise businesses into the constituency, because it's businesses that will create those jobs, but Government have the levers of power to pull? So, I'd be grateful if you could tell us today what levers you're going to pull to bring in those jobs to keep young people here.

I think that's a really important question, and Governments, of course, at one level, have to create the broad conditions of economic success, but we also have to work in a very, very focused way, in the near term, which is about job creation in businesses. Ultimately, Governments can help create those conditions, but it's not Governments that regenerate communities; it's communities and businesses within them that regenerate communities and create those jobs. So, certainly, in looking at the role of inward investment, for example, I think it's critical that we think about the way in which we can make sure that there are opportunities for foreign direct investment in every part of Wales. And, interestingly, in a conversation I had with one of the leading firms in the compound semiconductor cluster, they brought many of their suppliers into Wales, they wanted to be close to the cluster, but those companies said, 'We don't want to be in Newport. We don't need to be in Newport. We want to be in the northern Valleys. We think that's a better fit for us. The skills are there. There are advantages for us.' And there are, of course, fantastic transport links. So, there are unique assets, both people based and also physical assets, that can be leveraged in every community. And we need to be thinking in that granular way to identify opportunities that fit, community by community, across Wales.

We are determined that more Welsh businesses benefit from public procurement. Business Wales provides tailored advice, while the Procurement Act 2023 requires authorities, in covered procurements, to consider barriers facing businesses and whether contracts can appropriately be divided into lots. We are also developing policy options to strengthen support further.

Diolch yn fawr. The Plaid Cymru manifesto sets a target to significantly increase the amount of public procurement spending within Wales to 70 per cent. Given that we spend £11 billion every year on public procurement, there's enormous potential there, isn't there, to better support Welsh businesses, potentially to create tens of thousands of jobs and to boost local supply chains as well. And the best bit, of course, is that this isn't new money; this is money that we're already spending. We need to spend it smarter; we need to make sure more of it goes to local businesses, to our workers and to our communities. So, can the Minister outline what practical steps he's taking to attain that 70 per cent target, and how we plan to measure progress? Diolch.

Yes, absolutely. The formal responsibility is with the finance Minister, but with this, it is very critically, as the Member says, a massive economic driver. It's one of the key tools of industrial policy, actually, public procurement. So, beyond the target, how are we going to achieve it then, getting up to that 70 per cent? We will be setting this out in more detail very shortly. But part of it is working through, as I said, the way in which procurement contracts are structured. So, traditionally, large-scale construction contracts, for example, tend to go to companies the other side of the border because of the scale and the risk involved. Well, just breaking those contracts up into smaller lots, it sounds very simple, but it has a huge impact, and it allows then companies, financially and practically, to get—. The same companies that often end up delivering the project anyway, but now you're taking out a tier and keeping all of that value in Wales.

I think that part of it is also about training companies up, companies that possibly have not been involved in larger scale procurement exercises and might have some fear or inhibition about doing so, so working with them in a different context. I'm going to a procurement exercise in north Wales in relation to the Wylfa project. It's the same kind of approach: how to get Welsh SMEs, many of which have never thought of putting themselves forward, just to understand, 'Look, there's nothing to be worried about; it's a process. You've got the skills, you've got the capacity, you can deliver the product, in many cases at lower cost; you've just got to have the confidence to put your name forward.'

We are committed to ensuring that support for the defence sector is considered in a timely and proportionate way. Whilst the defence ethical investment framework is being developed, interim arrangements are in place to enable urgent decisions to be taken where required.

Diolch. Earlier this year, I visited PMB Battery Technologies, a cutting-edge research and manufacturing company that operates facilities in Ebbw Vale and in Adelaide, Australia. This is a company specialising in advanced battery technology, and a great benefit to the local economy and the people it employs. That day, I met directly with apprentices at the company, young people from Ebbw Vale and the local area, fresh out of education, now in high-skilled and well-paid, meaningful employment. This is exactly the sort of industry we need to attract to deprived areas like Blaenau Gwent, which suffer with high levels of people, especially young people, classified as NEET, not in employment, education or training.

Companies like this rely on Government grants to expand their operations in Wales and ensure that old and outdated facilities meet the needs of modern research and manufacturing. So, what steps is the Government taking to ensure that competitive modern industries are kept in Wales, grants are timely, and that they are not pushed to relocate elsewhere?

I'm grateful to the Member, not least for giving an example of the very phenomenon that I was referring to in response to a colleague earlier, that these high-tech companies can find very, very successful bases in all parts of Wales, including in the northern Valleys. We are committed to doing whatever we can in every sector, but in this sector as well, to support the creation of high-tech jobs. Where decisions are time critical, as I've said on a number of occasions, we've created a route for those decisions to be made exceptionally, before the framework is published and shared with the Senedd.

And the final question, Minister, question 7, Becca Martin.

We are working across Government and with public services, businesses and partners to support the safe, transparent and accountable adoption of AI. This includes strengthening skills, responsible procurement, Welsh language technology and the wider digital foundations needed to ensure AI delivers public value and benefits communities across Wales.

Diolch. AI-driven automation is having a growing impact on the labour market and especially on entry-level employment and on workplace learning, and is widening already existing inequalities. Young people at the start of their careers are particularly vulnerable to things like job displacement and a lack of fair access to opportunities and face the collapse of those traditional pathways that let graduates and early-career workers gain that essential experience in learning. I know we did touch on this earlier, but what measures is the Cabinet Minister taking to establish clear frameworks for the responsible, ethical and transparent use of AI when it comes to employment, and what is being done to protect and help workers to adapt to changing role requirements and the changing jobs market?

The Member raises a really important point. AI must be adopted, in our view, in a way that is fair, transparent and doesn't deepen inequalities. Our approach is rooted in social partnership. Guidance, which has been developed with trade unions and public sector employees, puts worker voice, fair work and human oversight at the heart of workplace AI. We're drawing up a national AI governance framework to provide clear guardrails around accountability, transparency, fairness and risk, and we're still working out, as I said earlier, what the full impacts are on overall employment.

We recognise, though, that AI is changing the skills employers need, and the concerns that I referenced earlier in terms of entry-level roles and traditional routes into work. That's why we're working with employers, with trade unions, with education providers, first of all to understand how AI is changing recruitment, training and workplace learning, while investing, crucially, in digital and AI skills through personal learning accounts and our AI skills pilot.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 2, questions to the Cabinet Minister for Education and the Welsh Language. Question 1, Darren Millar.

Thank you for the question.

My priority is high standards and high aspirations for every learner. That is why this Government has worked at pace to develop the 'Foundational literacy and numeracy plan'. The plan sets out a clear and ambitious programme of action to raise literacy and numeracy outcomes throughout this Senedd term and is our first step in delivering sustained improvements in educational outcomes for all learners in Wales.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Minister, but there's a clear link also between attendance and educational outcomes, and we know we've got a huge attendance problem in Wales, with over 100,000 pupils every year missing at least 10 per cent of their lessons in the last year for which we have figures. In fact, the attendance records that have been provisionally published for 2025-26 suggest that this attendance problem is actually getting worse, not getting better. There's been a fall in the average attendance to just under 91 per cent in 2025-26. What action is your Welsh Government taking to address these appalling figures—which seem to be on the slide, not getting any better—and why is it that we have such a persistent attendance problem when other parts of the UK seem to be getting their act together and getting kids back into school?

It's because they have a Labour Government. 

I think that's pushing it rather at this point, but thank you for the contribution.

Of course, this is an important area for us. There has been, you're quite right, a slight reduction on the latest figures, and there are a number of actions we are taking to tackle that. We are aware that school attendance has gone up again incrementally post COVID but is nowhere near the rate pre COVID. We're also aware that the cohort we are now targeting is likely to require a considerable focus and probably considerable support to push that figure higher. 

One of the things we have included in our literacy and numeracy foundational plan is targets on attendance. You will see a 0.5 per cent increase year on year to bring that level up. There's also a focus on persistent absence, which is missing 10 per cent or more of school sessions. A 2 per cent increase year on year is what we expect there.

There are a number of other areas we are focusing on. You will have heard me speak about the national framework on behaviour, attendance and well-being we are now bringing together, in the recognition that no single intervention, albeit we have targets now too, will address those persistent absence problems. They are often complex issues and do require tailored support, which is why we are looking at this framework in the round and making swift progress on introducing that.

Another thing we have done is to look in more detail—. Because often what we find is that reliable, consistent data across Wales is sometimes hard to find, so we've published new school attendance code guidance to give us that greater consistency in recording absence across Wales, to help us to target our work around this area to make a difference and to increase those figures over time. Because I agree with you: you need to be at school to benefit from the education system. It is very much a focus for us. Diolch.

Can I start by declaring an interest? My wife works in an additional learning needs provision within a school in Conwy.

I thank the leader of the Welsh Conservatives for bringing this question forward. Minister, I was speaking to a teacher in Rhyl, and it was explained to me that the school in which that teacher worked can't afford pens or pencils, and staff are currently using their own money to buy learning resources. It's no surprise, then, that the Institute for Fiscal Studies has claimed that students in that local authority area are up to 23 months behind the national average. As we are seeing a shift towards greater school-level flexibility on learning approaches and a more interlinked learning approach, researchers from Cardiff University have warned that schools need significant investment in materials and learning resources to avoid the widening of educational outcome gaps between different parts of Wales. How can we expect teachers in my constituency to achieve the best outcomes for students when their schools can't even afford pens and pencils? Diolch.

Obviously, funding for schools is a priority for us, which is why we were pleased last week, or was it the week before, that the supplementary budget did go through, with that £60 million earmarked for pressures in schools linked to ALN, but a recognition that schools and the education system is under pressure across Wales.

On the points you make about those flexibilities locally, I would refer you back again to the foundational literacy and numeracy plan, because that will show us, on a national and a local level, the direction we're going in. It will make it easier for us to align the support appropriately in different areas and different schools in Wales in order to make that progress. I've also announced an intention to conduct a targeted review of the curriculum to make sure that we can have a better understanding and provide better advice to schools about some of the areas we expect learners to have access to.

Cabinet Minister, we know that an education workforce that is supported and valued is essential for raising standards and improving outcomes for our learners. Therefore, I welcome the 3.5 per cent pay award, which is fully funded and ensures parity with England, as well as the additional investment that you've just mentioned to alleviate pressures associated with ALN. ASCL Cymru, which also represents school leaders, has accepted the 3.5 per cent pay award. Does the Minister agree that it is in the interests of both school staff and pupils for those who remain in dispute to engage constructively with these proposals and seek to find a resolution without resorting to industrial action?

Thank you very much. Working closely with the workforce and ensuring that they are paid and supported adequately in the important work that they do is a core priority of mine. I'm very grateful for the work that ASCL has done with us, for example to move on the broader debate on school funding. When I came into my role in May, there were detailed discussions at that point in order to facilitate getting the same kind of pay award for teachers in Wales as compared to England, and that was a very firm ask from the unions.

I'm always open to speaking to anyone as to how we move this debate forward in terms of appropriate support for the workforce, and I'm particularly eager to discuss workload and what we can put in place in order to reduce that burden. I see that the leader of the opposition isn't here today. I've had conversations with her, and every teacher that I've met over a period of 20 years, discussing workload specifically. We need to move that debate forward, and I'm willing to speak to anyone who has forceful ideas as to how we can make that progress. My door is always open.

Thank you for the question. We are investing more than £26 million through the Sustainable Communities for Learning programme to deliver modern, high-quality further education facilities across Swansea. This includes the refurbishment of Gower College Swansea’s Tycoch campus and the redevelopment of Ysgol Gyfun Gymraeg Bryn Tawe for both secondary and further education learners.

Can I thank the Minister for that reply? Perhaps I ought to say that I used to be a governor at Tycoch and my grandchild goes to Bryn Tawe, so I've got an interest, though not necessarily a financial one. I thought I'd bring that up for the record.

One of the issues I think we are all in agreement on is that we do not want young people at 16 to become not in education, employment or training. That means we must have adequate availability of courses in the further education sector. If young people do not continue in education or training at 16, then many will face a life of unemployment. Getting them at 18 to go back into taking up a course is going to be very difficult.

Gower College Swansea is doing its best to provide opportunities. I really would like to commend them, and I hope the Minister will as well. Gower College has over-recruited against the numbers funded, but they still have a waiting list for some areas. Will the Minister commit to funding further education so that there is a place in college for every young person who wants it in Swansea, so that we don't have people sitting at home who want to be learning?

There are two points there, Mike. The first one is around NEETs. This is an area of great concern for me and the Government. We know the NEET cohort in Wales is increasing. Roughly 17 per cent of the 16 to 24-year-old age group are NEET. That's clearly not where we want to be. We have to put interventions in place to stop them becoming NEET. That takes different approaches. The Alan Milburn report showed that about 70 per cent of those who are NEET are economically inactive—that is, they are not ready for work. That is because they have several barriers in their own personal lives that stop them becoming employable. That could be around mental health issues, it could be additional learning needs, it could be childcare, transport, disabilities, and so on. I am going to lead an inter-ministerial group of people to look at the NEETs agenda and how we can bring different policy areas to play, which would obviously involve health, social services, transport and so on. So, that's the first part.

The second part is ensuring that no young person will be turned away from the course that they want to study. I am increasingly aware of the significant increases in learner numbers in FE in recent years, and I recognise that that adds funding challenges to FE colleges. I am committed to reviewing that increased level of participation and the financial pressures over the next month, as we have final figures coming through. We will consider providing additional funding over and above what Medr have already provided, £6.25 million, should that money be available, given the budgetary constraints that we are under.

Thank you, Mike, for the question. Improving further education in Swansea must mean providing the skills local industry needs. Employers need courses shaped around their businesses, reliable partnerships with colleges and practical help. For a small business, taking on an apprentice requires a financial and resource-heavy commitment. Announcing an audit does nothing on its own to meet these costs. Since your Government took office, another group of young people have left school hoping to secure an apprenticeship and employment. Employers need immediate funding. Your manifesto promises better use of existing city and regional growth deal funding to support apprenticeships. Your Government is happy to waste our money to fund international projects like tree planting in Uganda, but it seems Welsh employers are being left to shoulder apprenticeship costs. These are our young people, they are our future. What new funding has Plaid made available to help businesses, particularly smaller employers, take on apprentices? 

I'll deal with the main and the most important parts of that question, if I may. If I can refer back to a skills summit we organised on 8 October in the Swansea.com Stadium, for the first time ever we brought employers, small and medium-sized and large companies together with education providers. It was a hugely successful event, where employers were telling us that they need to forge a better relationship with apprenticeship providers and vocational skills providers. Employers know what the emerging sectors are. They know what skills they need for the future. So, we need to develop a mechanism where they are telling providers what they need and that we match them both together.

Now, I heard my colleague the Minister for enterprise explain earlier on that we need to create more demand as well. And you heard him explain how we are going to do that through setting up a Welsh development agency and other programmes as well to support industry and SMEs to take on more apprenticeships. I believe that apprenticeships are a great pathway into work and into further and higher education as well. You can earn and learn at the same time. So, we are committed to supporting the apprenticeship scheme, and we will be working with employers to make sure that what they need, in terms of the skills level, matches what education providers can put on in FE colleges, universities and also through apprenticeship schemes.

I now call on the party spokespeople to question the Cabinet Minister. Reform UK spokesperson, Stephen Senior. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Cabinet Minister, additional learning needs funding remains a contentious issue, with a debate scheduled next month in response to a petition. ALN funding by the Welsh Government is up 14 per cent on last year, and has more than doubled in eight years. Inflation over that period has been around 35 per cent. The percentage of the education budget assigned to ALN has risen from just below 15 per cent to nearly 19 per cent over the same period. At local authority level, there have been huge variations, with increases over the last decade ranging from 65 per cent to 297 per cent. One authority now spends more than a quarter of its education budget on ALN. These figures suggest that there has been a rapid change within Welsh education. Whatever is happening looks unsustainable in terms of funding. Minister, what are your thoughts on the reasons for this ALN spending trajectory?

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you for the question. I think we are dealing with two issues simultaneously here. I mentioned earlier on that I was pleased that £60 million had gone into the system this year, as a result of the supplementary budget, to support with immediate pressures. But you are quite right, in the longer term we need to arrive at a system that is more sustainable and is inclusive of the learners in Wales. I think every jurisdiction everywhere over a time, and particularly post COVID, has been dealing with increasingly complex demand from children and families trying to negotiate a range of issues that their learners are facing.

The education system, arguably, experiences changes in society faster than most of us sitting here and probably most of our services as well. So, we have made an effort now to focus on the sustainability of the ALN system over time. You will have seen that a proportion of what was agreed last week has been allocated specifically for that purpose, and we will work now quickly with local authorities and other partners to work our way to a more sustainable system over time. We need this to be a coherent continuum, we need it to be of high quality, we need it to be inclusive, with—and this is the crucial part I think—clearer national expectations of what this system should look like, stronger mainstream capacity, which in turn comes with demand for support, obviously.

One of the first steps is to understand in detail, with all our partners, what an inclusive system looks like and plot our way from here to that system and this commitment—. There is a great willingness amongst all our partners to work on this and we will do so with speed.

Okay, thank you, Minister. I see that later on there's a question regarding teachers leaving the profession. Surveys show that poor pupil behaviour is a factor. However, Plaid's recent programme for government, whilst acknowledging workload concerns, makes no mention of behaviour.

Staff working in schools have a legal right to use reasonable force to control or restrain pupils. Welsh Government guidance explicitly states that no school should have a 'no physical contact' policy. However, there are still occasions when school staff face lengthy investigations and possible suspension for having operated within the law. This can have a devastating impact on both them and pupil behaviour in the school, whenever staff, unsurprisingly, decide that no physical intervention is their best policy.

Minister, will you ask your officials to establish whether schools are advising staff on their legal right to use reasonable force and whether disciplinary processes are being initiated despite staff having operated within the law? 

It is obviously important that staff feel safe at school and are able to operate appropriately. It is clear that staff may use reasonable force where necessary to prevent harm, an offence, damage to property or serious disruption, but that intervention must necessarily, and I think we'd all agree on this, be proportionate and use the minimum force required. And it should never be used as a punishment. I think we can all agree on those principles. If there are examples, individual examples, that you have, then I would be glad to look at them.

But we are clear that that is the environment in which our workforce is working. It is also our expectation that restrictive practices are a last resort. And to go back to your first point around behaviour, the behaviour and well-being framework is a priority for this Government, and bringing together a greater national consistency around our expectations and around the support that will help the workforce and the learners in turn is a piece of work that is ongoing.

Okay, thank you, Minister. Finally, the national literacy and numeracy assessments are online and personalised to each pupil. So, they're rather like a flow chart, where the next question depends on the answers to the last one. These tests can be taken whenever the school feels it's appropriate. Pupils can take time out during the assessments, and pupils are permitted to repeat the exercise any time. This is not a standardised test where all pupils in a cohort take the same test at the same time of the year so that judgments can be made about pupil and school standards, including progress.

This is what the tests were originally designed to do when Leighton Andrews introduced them, and that is what happened when the tests were introduced in 2014. This adaptive system, as it's called, has been in place for a decade, but has clearly not led to any improvements in the Programme for International Student Assessment results. Minister, will you reintroduce standardised literacy and numeracy tests to be used by all pupils annually at the end of year 2 to year 9?

Thank you. These are adaptive tests. The idea is that the learner engages with them, and it helps to indicate what the next steps in their development should be. That's how they've been constructed to operate.

We can use the data more broadly that this system gives us, to give us an indicator at year 6, which is what we're doing as part of this plan, and which gives us a place go to, then, as a national trajectory of improvement, and also to make sure that we can align the support available appropriately for those schools and for those learners. 

I'm not going to go back to the future. I am, however, going to have, during this Senedd term, a clearer expectation that we can communicate effectively to learners and to schools. 

Welsh Labour spokesperson, Lynne Neagle. 

Thank you. Last week, as we've heard from Sera Evans, you announced a teacher pay award of 3.5 per cent following the consultation on the independent Welsh pay review body report. That announcement was made during an active industrial dispute, and the National Association of Head Teachers have now withdrawn from talks with the Government and announced that they are moving to a statutory industrial ballot. 

Why did you make that announcement while talks were ongoing, and do you think that is in keeping with the principles of social partnership?

Thank you. I think, as I said in my earlier answer, I remain committed to the social partnership, and I'm always willing to talk to those social partners on issues that we have in common as concerns. 

I announced that fully funded pay award last week, following that consultation, because I wanted to respect the principle of no detriment, so that there'd be no difference between the pay increases here and those over the border in England. I know this has been a continuing debate over many years, to ensure that we remain in that alignment.

I think the previous education Minister will also be aware of the financial environment, and the budgetary environment we are now in, and I judged, at this point, that 4.25 per cent was not affordable when we consider the other priorities of this Government, and Wales more broadly, around, particularly, health service demand—the national health service—and other priorities that this Government is committed to.

The 3.5 per cent was important to me. It was important to most partners. But I remain committed to talking to anybody who wishes to examine areas of mutual interest and concern. 

Well, thank you for that answer, and I'm fully in support of no detriment myself. And I do understand the financial constraints, but would point out that the Government still has a significant amount of unallocated resource as a result of the consequentials that were received by the UK Government. 

So, since May, we've had an industrial dispute with the Association of School and College Leaders, an escalating dispute with the National Association of Head Teachers, and the National Education Union have previously gone out to indicative ballot. I hear what you're saying about being willing to talk to partners, but it doesn't seem to me like those talks are going as well as we would want them to go, really. So, in light of that, what are you going to do to get social partnership with the education trade unions back on line?

I think that the judgment on where each of these parties is depends, rather, on who you talk to at this point. I think we have, for example, had very helpful and fruitful discussions with ASCL, in particular, around some of these elements. 

The social partnership—I've been part of arrangements like this for many years—is very important to me. And it is a place where some of these pressing issues that the workforce has been calling for action on for many, many years—. It is a good place to resolve them, particularly on ALN, particularly on workload, recruitment, retention, behaviour, attendance—all these things that are very important to everybody who works in our schools and has an association with them. 

All of those issues, I am entirely open to engaging on them. But I would repeat my first point around the salary increases—the pay increases—that 3.5 per cent was as far as I felt able to go. But I am and remain committed to discussing any and all other issues.

The Welsh Conservatives' spokesperson, Paul Davies.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Before I ask my questions, I would like to put on record my thanks to Efa Gruffudd Jones for her work as Welsh Language Commissioner. She's been a robust advocate for the Welsh language, and I wish her well for the future.

Minister, the report of the Commission for Welsh-speaking Communities, 'Cymraeg in every community, strengthening the Welsh language', notes that workplaces should be considered as key locations for use of the Welsh language, and the report makes a series of recommendations with the aim of increasing the use of the Welsh language in those settings. What progress has the Welsh Government made in terms of implementing those recommendations, and what evidence do you have that more people are using the Welsh language regularly in their workplaces as a result of that?

Thank you very much for the question. I would like to add my thanks as well to the Welsh Language Commissioner for her work.

We will, in December, be publishing a consultation on the Welsh language strategy, the Welsh Language and Education (Wales) Act 2025, and the Welsh language proficiency code. I would ask you to look at that point at what we will publish, because we will indicate what the trajectory is to ensure that the use of the Welsh language, access to the Welsh language, the Welsh language in our heartlands, the Welsh language in our schools, all tie together under one co-ordinated strategy that will be based on the concept that the Welsh language belongs to us all. In that context, we will show how we will reach those particular goals in terms of those opportunities, including the workplace. There will be detail showing that trajectory, including, therefore, more specific targets.

I thank you for that response. I look forward to seeing that publication in December.

Now, the commission also came to the conclusion that the current budget for strengthening the Welsh language at community level was not sufficient, and it highlighted the need for greater support to help organisations to develop workplaces where the Welsh language is spoken. It also called for a review of the way in which public funding and support mechanisms can be used to support the aims of 'Cymraeg 2050'. In light of that, can you tell us what funding is currently available to support the use of the Welsh language in workplaces across Wales, and can you tell us whether you think that the current level of investment is adequate to deliver the cultural shifts that the commission anticipates in its report?

Perhaps I'll have to write to you with the detailed response to that first question. But on what will be needed in order to realise the ambition in the strategy that we will publish—it will be published for consultation in December, into next year—as part of that, in order to deliver that, we will be looking at what's needed in terms of resources to deliver it. Both things will go hand in hand.

Question 3 [OQ64738] is from Vikki Howells. Unfortunately, the Member has been delayed on her way back from an event at Aberfan, so I'll move on to question 4, Anna Nicholl.

Thank you. Local authorities are responsible for decisions on the future of schools, and they must follow statutory procedures when bringing forward proposals. This includes consulting communities, providing sufficient information to enable people to come to informed views, engaging with relevant partners, including religious bodies, and having regard to the wishes of parents.

Diolch, Cabinet Minister. I'm concerned about the low level of confidence that parents, staff and governors in Pembrokeshire have told me that they have in the council involving them meaningfully in big decisions about the future of their schools. Examples include but are not limited to church schools. I wrote to the council back in September around decisions on the future of Cilgerran school, and I'm glad this is now resolved. But, Cabinet Minister, public trust and confidence is easily lost. As Pembrokeshire County Council now consults on proposals to close Tenby Church in Wales VC Primary School and neighbouring Greenhill school, replacing them with a new three-to-19 community school, can the Cabinet Minister assure us that she expects these decisions to be based on the meaningful involvement of parents and the wider community, including open and transparent information on all options available?

Diolch. Local authorities are democratically accountable to their communities and are responsible for developing school organisation proposals. In so doing, they must comply with the requirements set out in the School Standards and Organisation (Wales) Act 2013, and the school organisation code, which is quite clear about the processes and involvement that is required in these cases. I do expect all proposers to comply fully with these statutory requirements and to engage openly and meaningfully with all those affected by any proposal. These decisions should be informed by the evidence gathered through consultation and taken in accordance with the legislative framework. You will be aware, because I've said it several times, that the role of Welsh Ministers in the statutory process means that I'm unable to comment on proposals that I may later be required to determine. But, in the context of all decisions, I would expect my first two points to be clear.

Thank you. I seem to have lost you in my book. Wait a second. I'm sorry.

We recognise the significant pressures across our schools and local authorities, and acknowledge the commitment of the education workforce in continuing to support learners. Decisions on the level of funding available to schools, including rural schools, are made by each local authority as part of their overall budget setting.

Thank you, Cabinet Minister. In Gwynedd Maldwyn, we're already seeing the consequences of the financial pressures on these rural schools. Both Gwynedd and Powys have closed rural primary schools and further closures are being considered or progressed. I understand smaller schools can cost more per pupil to run, but these schools are often at the heart of their communities. When one closes, it's not just the school building that is lost; children may have to travel much further, parents have to reorganise their lives, and villages lose something that is very difficult to replace. And, of course, transporting those children elsewhere comes at a cost as well. So, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary whether the Welsh Government is properly accounting for those wider costs and the impact on rural communities when assessing the funding pressures facing our rural schools? Thank you.

Thank you very much. We understand just how important schools are for our rural communities, and in the context of smaller schools, for example, there are very detailed requirements in relation to consultation on any reorganisation that's proposed. The Member will also be aware that my colleague the Minister for rural resilience is looking at ways of nurturing and protecting the resilience of rural communities, and that considerations on sustaining services with a more dispersed population, for example, are part of those wider considerations. I think that the broader response is that, in looking at the needs of rural communities, there is a broader responsibility across Government in ensuring that we do understand the specific challenges faced by those areas and respond appropriately to them.

The challenges facing rural schools like those in my constituency are a symptom of the broader challenges facing our rural areas, with an ageing population, families moving away and local authority services that are more expensive to run and more difficult to administer. For rural schools to flourish, we need high-quality jobs, adequate housing and effective public transport, and I'm very pleased to see the Government taking action on these matters. If rural communities prosper, then rural schools will prosper too. How, then, will the Community Schools Plus plan empower our rural schools, as well as empowering the communities to which they belong?

Thank you very much. The Member may be aware that we are currently piloting the Community Schools Plus programme at the moment in order to look at developing our understanding of the challenges facing those schools and, as I said earlier, drawing on those different elements of policies and bringing them together. I am, of course, aware, too, that school transport is a particular priority for the Deputy Minister for Transport, that the Minister for rural resilience is also looking at these issues and I, too, am looking at the demographic challenges that will impact on how we provide services and education, particularly in rural communities and in Wales more broadly, too.

So, what I would encourage the Member to look at is the detailed work happening across a number of different areas, which we are progressing quickly, as areas that relate to her question but are not necessarily reserved to the education portfolio, and we have taken meaningful steps to ensure that we don't look at these issues in isolation.

Thank you for the question.

The Welsh Government is committed to lifelong learning and ensuring that adults can access opportunities to develop new skills, retrain and progress throughout their lives. Through personal learning accounts, employability programmes and further education opportunities, we support adults retraining for new careers to realise their potential and progress into sustainable employment.

Diolch, Weinidog. People retrain for many reasons: after losing a job, returning to work after raising a family, or starting a new chapter following a career break. Others come to Wales with valuable qualifications and skills that go unrecognised, despite the contribution they could make to our Welsh economy. At the Inspire! adult learning awards, I met learners determined to gain new skills and contribute to their communities. For many, adult learning is more than education; it is a vital opportunity to rebuild their careers and their lives here in Wales. One of my constituents, Yassmein Hussein, completed 13 adult learning courses through Cardiff and Vale College and Cardiff Council, leading her to win the shared futures award at the awards. Yassmein's story shows what people can achieve when they have access to the right learning opportunities. But not everyone gets that chance, and many adults still face barriers to retraining. So, I want to know how the Welsh Government is ensuring that adults who want to retrain for a new career can access the learning opportunities and support they need to make that transition.

Well, like you, I was there in the Inspire! adult learning awards, and what a terrific night it was, to hear the remarkable stories of adult learners across Wales, many who have overcome very personal barriers to achieve in their learning. It really was an inspirational evening and, for me, it's one of the highlights of the year to go to that event. What it shows is that adult learning is about more than just gaining qualifications or skills. It builds confidence, it increases resilience and it improves well-being, and I was delighted to be there to share in Yassmein's success that evening.

In terms of your direct question, the Welsh Government is committed to ensuring that people of all ages have opportunities to learn throughout their lives. We do provide Medr with funding streams, which is allocated to further education colleges and other providers to support learners facing particular barriers. They may relate to disabilities, financial hardship, transport issues, childcare, mental health and well-being. This can include additional learning support, disability-related support, transport assistance, childcare, well-being services and so on, because we want to remove those barriers that stand in their way. Now, in particular, there is a community learning grant worth £6.5 million available to fund adult community learning in general, adult basic education, employability, English for speakers of other languages and well-being courses. These actually help people back into skills and work.

There is also a learning grant for learners over the age of 19, and also a personal learning account programme, which aims to help individuals upskill or reskill, as you mentioned, in priority sectors. So, the Welsh Government is absolutely clear that we do support adults in their retraining and upskilling, and want to be as supportive as we can. Because lifelong learning means exactly that: it never stops. So, we are 100 per cent committed to that programme.

Improving recruitment and retention is one of my priorities. We already know that teachers leave the profession for a range of reasons, including workload, well-being and working conditions. We are drawing on national and international evidence and working with our social partners to take practical action to address these issues.

Thank you, Minister. In March, the Welsh Government workforce plan admitted that they did not have data as to why teachers leave the profession. Estyn noted exactly the same concern 19 years ago. The latest figures from the Education Workforce Council show that more than 3,000 schoolteachers have left the register in the year up to March, the highest number in five years. But we don't know why. There is no national system in place to ask the teachers themselves why they have left. England and Scotland do that. Why doesn't Wales? Will the Minister ask the Education Workforce Council to start asking teachers who are leaving the register why they did so, so that we can understand how we can stop more teachers from leaving in the future?

Thank you. I don't think it's correct to say that we don't have any evidence. There are a number of reports that have looked into this specific problem—one quite recently carried out by Cardiff Met, for example, which was published in 2024. The OECD has also looked at these challenges in the context of work that they have done in Wales. One of the Senedd committees has also looked in detail at this issue.

They've all come to the same conclusion, to all intents and purposes, namely that the workload is excessive and is a heavy workload. There's also a feeling that society does not appreciate the efforts of teachers as it did at one stage in the past. I think that we all have a responsibility to examine how we speak about the education profession; we can all be of help in that context, at least. There are also questions about the professional pathway—in terms of promotions and so on, as you move through the system. Then, there are specific subject areas where it is especially difficult to recruit and retain teachers. There is a dependence as well on teachers who are perhaps qualified to teach one subject but are increasingly asked to teach another subject.

These are all issues that influence our ability to recruit and to retain teachers, and this has, clearly, been a priority for me over the recent period. That is why, for example, we provided those additional payments for recruitment to difficult-to-recruit subjects, and also are looking then at the broader requirements with representatives from the workforce itself.

And the final question, question 8—Llŷr Powell.

The safety and well-being of learners is an absolute priority for the Welsh Government. We continue to work closely with schools, local authorities, the police and other partners to prevent harm,identify emerging risks and ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place to respond effectively when concerns arise.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. In September, more than 300 pupils in the Caerphilly borough lost their free school transport because, as the council said, they fall within the two-mile measurement of the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008. Now, the problem with that is that the Measure is looking at distance but not incline. I've walked this route with campaigners and parents and children themselves—I went from Aberbargoed to Bargoed—and it's the incline that is the tricky part. During different weathers, whether it's the heat we experienced in the summer, or even cold winter days, when that road can be slippery, it does become a risk. Will the Government now look at reviewing the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 and look to include the advice on inclines and the difficult weather paths that this could create?

Thank you. As I referred to in an earlier answer around school transport more broadly, this has been a challenge on many levels—access to Welsh-medium education, for example. The cost of transport has been an increasing concern and that's why, with my colleague the Minister for transport, we are looking at school transport in particular as an immediate priority and linking that, which may be of interest to you as well, to additional learning needs learners for whom this is a pressing priority. I can't commit this afternoon to looking at the learner travel Measure again, but, certainly, issues more broadly around access to school and transport to get learners there safely are right at the top of my colleague's agenda, I know.

Thank you very much, Minister and Deputy Minister.

We move on to item 3, questions to the Senedd Commission. Question 1, Carmelo Colasanto.

The Commission supports Welsh businesses by making procurement opportunities both visible and accessible. All suppliers are treated fairly and consistently under procurement law. Contracts worth more than £30,000 are advertised on Sell2Wales, allowing companies to express an interest and to tender. We also explore the market; we identify potential Welsh suppliers and alert them to suitable opportunities. We monitor spending with Wales-based suppliers through a corporate key performance indicator reported annually. At present, that is being exceeded—it's 55 per cent against our target of 50 per cent. For larger contracts involving subcontractors, we seek opportunities for Welsh businesses to join supply chains. These measures strengthen participation while maintaining an open, transparent and legally compliant procurement process for all involved.

Diolch, Lywydd. The Senedd should lead by example in how public money is spent. In 2018-19, the Commission introduced a performance indicator tracking procurement spending with Welsh suppliers. Following scrutiny of its 2020-21 accounts, the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee recommended splitting the contracts into smaller lots so that the smaller Welsh firms could compete. The Commission accepted that recommendation. The Welsh Government has now pledged to increase public procurement spending with Wales-based suppliers towards 70 per cent. Small and medium-sized businesses account for over 99 per cent of enterprises in Wales. Businesses across Carmarthenshire, from Llanelli to Ammanford and Carmarthen should have a fair opportunity to compete for those contracts funded by Welsh taxpayers, but knowing how much the Commission spends with Welsh suppliers tells us little about whether that money is reaching businesses across the whole of Wales. So, will the Commission publish a regional breakdown of its procurement model spending, including how much goes to small and medium-sized businesses? And what practical steps is it taking to ensure that the smallest firms in areas such as Carmarthenshire can compete for contracts, including splitting larger contracts into smaller lots where appropriate?

Indeed. Well, one of the good illustrations of this is, of course, what we do in terms of the contract we have here with the public food suppliers. Interestingly, I noted that we're exceeding the KPI in aggregate by 55 per cent against our target of 50 per cent, but actually the food procurement by our catering suppliers here, using good Welsh suppliers that do, indeed, break down the individual contracts to really favour smaller suppliers within the Welsh food supply chain, they are achieving in excess of 70 per cent with Welsh suppliers. So, we're actually doing well. But we're always open to more ideas. I'll take away the thoughts that you've given us and see whether we can disaggregate the data even more. But I have to say the story is one of positive success.

Diolch. The Commission already has safeguards in place that restrict filming and recording on the Senedd estate without relevant authorisation. Importantly, those restrictions are technology neutral, and they apply regardless of whether recording is undertaken using conventional equipment, a phone, smartglasses or any other device.

However, we recognise that wearable and AI-enabled technologies are developing rapidly. I've therefore commissioned a review of our policies and guidance to ensure that they remain effective and keep pace with these developments. Our aim is to ensure that Members and their staff, Commission officials and the Senedd estate are properly protected, while allowing the legitimate benefits of new technologies, including, by the way, accessibility benefits, to be realised where their use is appropriate and properly authorised.

The Member says his glasses caused a stir. They certainly did. The Commission is undertaking a review, the Cabinet Office has enforced a ban, and it's only a matter of time before other organisations follow suit. The review isn't the problem; the gap before it concludes is. The Cabinet Office has already taken action very swiftly, so I'd be grateful to know the Commission's position while that review is under way. I would also argue that this is a question of equity. Everyone should be on a fair and equal footing. A Member wearing a recording device has an advantage over every other person in the room, and they have no idea that they may be filmed. So, whether the glasses weren't filming isn't the point—nobody else can tell, and a rule that depends on checking after isn't a safeguard.

Thank you very much. First of all, on the Cabinet Office, the Cabinet Office may have made a decision on this, and it's perfectly open to Welsh Government to make a decision on how they pursue this policy as well. Also, courts and tribunals have banned the use of film and recording devices outright. Just to reiterate, there is a clear ruling here already, in a technology-neutral way, on any filming and recording device on the Senedd premises. I shouldn't need to remind Members of that. They're fully aware, they went through induction, everybody's aware. I've written out subsequently as well.

On the issue of equity, that's a valid point. It's been raised by other Members. I've actually had some very good written representations about ideas that could be fed into the review. So, I would strongly suggest that all Members, actually, contribute to this review going forward, but recognising that some of this assistive technology has benefits, not least that it has been identified by many within the disability lobby as well to say, 'We want to see the proper, appropriate, authorised use of this in the right situation.'

So, I can just give a further brief update. The initial review of smartglasses and other advancing technologies is now well advanced. I'll be writing to Members before recess to set out further explanation of the way in which the review will carry out its work, including the ways in which Members will be able to participate so that all views can then be taken into account. Just to say, if we get to this point at the speed that we are going, we will be ahead of other Parliaments in actually putting the right procedures in place for this technology.

I appreciate the Llywydd's answer on the Commission's position there. Llywydd, for this review that's taking place with smartglasses, could you confirm whether you're going to be reaching out to charities right now? A lot of them have come forward, like the RNIB, who represent people who are blind or partially sighted, who say this technology has now created an equal playing field. Allowing people who have these glasses who are registered blind or partially sighted on to the estate I think is important in terms of the inclusive side of things. As well, Dyslexia UK is another charity that has come out and actually said these glasses and technology can help equalise the playing field for people's lives in reading in certain colours, and, going forward, I think it's important that the Commission looks to these charities that are coming out expressing views, to make sure the Parliament is as equal as possible.

And in terms of equity, I think it's important that Members should be on an equal playing field. Maybe some Members should be given glasses to help read the manifestos on which they were elected to this Chamber.

Simply to add to what I was saying, I think all views are welcome in this. That does include those from organisations outside who do see legitimate use of assistive technology. However, we also need those views about, where any filming and recording devices are used, whether our rules are currently fit for purpose or not, and where these devices may be used in future. So, I'm not pre-empting any outcome of that review, but we're moving on at pace and we do want all views to be heard.

Meanwhile, as I said in the opening part of my answer, the issue here is the integrity of this place, both for Members, staff, visitors and all others who use this, to know that we can do our business in the way that we want it to be done properly.

Thank you. The Commission’s broadcasting policy drew on a report by an independent advisor, which examined the Senedd’s historical position, looked at five other legislatures and considered relevant policy principles. I recently agreed that this policy could be reviewed. In September, Commissioners were asked to consider four options. It was determined that further consultation was required between the Commission and party groups, and this is now under way, with officials already having met or briefed most party groups.

Diolch. GB News is still excluded from the Senedd's internal television screens, and the justification was that comments made were contrary to the Parliament's values. However, the very broadcasting protocol itself was developed by an unnamed independent advisor to the Senedd Commission. So, what are the values of this advisor and on what political spectrum do they lie? The fact is the inclusion of Sky News as a commercial broadcaster undercuts the rule of allowing only public service broadcasters on the internal Senedd television screens. GB News is also a licensed news and current affairs broadcaster like Sky News, and its programmes cover issues affecting people across Wales, including perspectives that challenge the Welsh Government's policies.

So, while I recognise the Commission's responsibility to maintain appropriate standards, these standards must be applied fairly, consistently and proportionately. So, could we have discussions on this sooner rather than later, and can we all have an opinion on this, so that we can get GB News back where it belongs on our internal tv screens?

So, Catherine, we are keeping consistency here that this is appearing in every Commissioner's questions, but simply to say the independent advisor's report remained part of the evidence that was also presented to Commissioners. That included, by the way, comparison with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Westminster and Victoria and other parliaments. But the framework we're now using is one that looks at transparent, objective criteria rather than judgments about individual broadcasters' particular viewpoints and so on.

The original policy, by the way, that stands at the moment to amend what channels were available on internal tvs was agreed by the majority of the previous Commissioners, and in answer to your point, it ensures access to channels that have public service obligations and also provides one additional news channel, Sky News, to ensure plurality of news stations. You asked whether we're getting on with it: yes, as I said in my opening remarks, we're already engaging with political groups.

And I rise again, with the greatest of respect to the Member, who is persistent and consistent at the very least. But I am perplexed, and I wonder if the Member is listening. No. I am perplexed why the Member keeps raising this issue. So, let's just be clear: GB News is repeatedly embroiled in serious controversies. Last June—[Interruption.] Dirprwy Lywydd, may I carry on in some silence, please? Diolch. Just last week, a GB News presenter apologised in court and agreed to pay substantial damages to a UK politician. Meanwhile, Ofcom is investigating the channel. Ofcom is investigating the channel following more than 12,000 complaints about a guest—

Jane, have you got a question for the Llywydd?

I have, I have. But, Dirprwy Lywydd, I've been interrupted, so I'm coming to that, thank you. Twelve thousand complaints about a guest appearing to associate Pride, the organisation, with child sexual exploitation and bestiality. And once again, we are here about GB News.

Can we have the question for the Llywydd, please?

My question to the Llywydd is: will the Llywydd agree that broadcasting GB News would be at odds with the principles of respect, dignity and integrity that should underpin the Senedd? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The Member tempts me to pre-empt where the review is going and also to pre-empt the views of individual Commissioners. There are four Commissioners that sit with me in deliberation on this and I think, out of respect for them, I have to wait to see the views of Members being put forward. They'll have heard the views put forward by all Members and will come to, I'm sure, a good and fair and reasonable decision on the four options that have been put in front of them.

By the way, just to remind Members, one of those options is, of course, focusing on the primary use of parliamentary monitors on the estate, which is to inform Members of what is going on in this place. However, there are also alternative views that say that Members should have ready access to breaking news and so on. We're comparing with other Parliaments as well as to what is currently done there. So, all views are genuinely welcomed.

Diolch. The Commission cannot formally mandate training for Members, who are of course elected office holders, or their staff, who are employed by those individual Members. However, the Commission treats learning or briefings that inform and protect Members, their staff and the Senedd from legal, regulatory or reputational risk as necessary and recommend them as essential.

We provide training and support to help Members understand their responsibilities and ensure their staff are appropriately trained, and we continue to promote participation through accessible, appropriately sequenced provision. Participation by Members and Member support staff is vital. It has been particularly helpful in the past when party groups have required their Members to attend particular training, while employing Members may require—and, depending on the subject, may be responsible for ensuring—that their staff complete appropriate training.

Diolch, Lywydd. The Commission's own guidance makes clear that while safeguarding is everyone's responsibility, it has designated safeguarding officers who act as a central point of contact for managing concerns. This is standard practice. However, individual Members are responsible for safeguarding arrangements within their own offices, and although the Commission advises Members and their staff to mirror its safeguarding policy, there really isn't an equivalent safeguarding structure, as it were, or central point of contact for Members themselves. You mentioned political groups, Llywydd, but what consideration has the Commission seriously given to how safeguarding arrangements for Members and their support staff could be strengthened, including through that mandatory training I mentioned and clearer procedures to ensure that everyone knows how to raise concerns and that both the people we represent and those working to represent them are properly protected?

Diolch yn fawr. I think I've mentioned the point in terms of mandatory training. Members are elected office holders, so we cannot formally mandate training for Members, but you rightly raise the issue of the role of group offices. In the interests of their Members and their staff, we've stressed how critical we see these opportunities that are provided. If it is of help to Members, once again, I can happily write out to Members and business managers to explain to them how they can direct their Members to safeguarding training.

The safeguarding policy statement is on the hwb online and includes, by the way, matters such as appointing a safeguarding lead, safer recruitment, secure record keeping, reporting arrangements, safe physical and digital environments, and much more as well. So, we're providing every possible opportunity that there can be, both for Members' benefit and for their staff's benefit. I'll take away and consider, Sera, from the question whether it would be helpful to write out once again to business managers and Members to remind them of how they can do this.

As Sera clearly points out, Welsh Government policy is very clear that safeguarding is everyone's responsibility. So, if safeguarding training is expected across so many other areas of public service, why should those seeking help from their elected representatives expect anything less? Therefore, does the Commission agree that safeguarding training is essential not only to help Members and their staff recognise the signs of abuse, neglect or exploitation, but also to give the public confidence that they will be treated safely, fairly and consistently by any Member, as elected representatives, and their staff, of course, too?

Yes, we've stressed—I stressed in my opening remarks—how we consider that this training that we offer is vital. It really is. And it's also vital for the protection of the individual Members as well, because they know that if they've undertaken the training, they are better protected themselves, and so are their staff. And also the public then can have confidence. But, again, I come back to the point here: we can do a lot through business managers, we can do a lot through individual Members. We are making this very easily accessible to Members, but perhaps I could stress how critical this training is, to then appeal to all Members and business managers to take it back to their groups and encourage their Members to do it.

Diolch yn fawr, Janet, for your question. The Commission is currently in discussion with landlords in the Cardiff Bay area to secure suitable temporary accommodation while the refurbishment of Tŷ Hywel takes place. Clearly, there will be costs involved. These include rent, fitting out the offices, service charges, utilities, and any costs associated with returning the buildings at the end of leases. Those costs are still being negotiated, so I'm not in a position to give you a precise figure at this point in time, but I think it's important to point out here that moving Members and staff out of Tŷ Hywel will allow for refurbishment to be completed much more quickly, and that brings significant savings as well. In fact, all the options we're currently considering are expected to be at least cost neutral compared with keeping Members in Tŷ Hywel while work takes place. So, I want to reassure you, Janet, that we're looking carefully at the costs, with value for money very much at the heart of our considerations.

Diolch. Over 500 Commission staff work in Tŷ Hywel, and then, of course, you do have the 96 Members and our members of staff. The refurbishment of Tŷ Hywel is set to last approximately three years. We've only got three and a half years left of this current term. These refurbishments, complete, are set to cost around £42 million, but with the relocation and decanting of this high number of staff and Members, it is bound to be a very costly exercise. You could even have duplication. You could have a situation where you're keeping all the lights and all the heating going in this building whilst it's being refurbed, and we're paying those heating costs—a duplication of costs. This at a time when people are facing so many increased costs of living themselves within their families. As a previous proud Conservative Commissioner, it is true, and it should be on record, that I opposed such a massive spend of taxpayers' money, because I believe that it is taxpayers' money that's being spent, and it is vital that we are as transparent as possible.

Can we have the question, please?

Yes, it’s coming right now. Will the Commissioner commit to providing a complete and transparent breakdown of these ever-increasing costings as the plans progress? Diolch.

Diolch, Janet, for your supplementary question, and I appreciate the importance of keeping costs to a minimum, particularly when we're talking about temporary accommodation. I think, in my initial answer, I did state that what we currently expect is for it to be at least cost neutral, if we were to stay in Tŷ Hywel or to move out, because, obviously, the timescale of the project would be reduced because contractors could get on with the work. So, that's certainly under consideration at the moment. And whilst we're still in commercially sensitive negotiations on the precise costs, I want to assure you that it's about delivering the project most efficiently, minimising disruption and securing the best possible value for public money. And all those details will be available in due course, once those negotiations have been finalised.

Firstly, I should declare an interest in so far as I've spent over 30 years working in the commercial property market.

I fully understand that a decision needs to be made on the future of Tŷ Hywel, and that during the sixth Senedd, under the previous Welsh Government, the current proposal for Bay 32 was agreed by the Commission to be significantly cheaper than the only other alternative. Doing nothing is not an option and, unfortunately, it looks like it will fall on Members of this Senedd to deal with the issues around Tŷ Hywel's lease expiring. Therefore, I think that it is important that every Member recognises the potential disruption coming next summer, based on the current programme, as our offices are moved offsite for the rest of the Senedd term.

So, before the final decision is made, can more detailed proposals be presented to Members on the temporary relocation plan, especially on how our new offices will be arranged, and how they will link with this Siambr, so that the implications for our work here can be fully understood?

Diolch, Nick. I think that's a very fair point. I absolutely recognise the concerns that Members will have about the potential disruption to work. The original intention was to keep Members in Tŷ Hywel while the refurbishment took place, precisely to minimise those disruptions. However, having tested the options carefully, it became clear that the risks from noise, vibration, dust and potential delays were simply too great. We could have ended up with far more disruption and much less certainty for Members and for staff.

We're now working to secure high-quality alternative accommodation very close to the Senedd, which will retain the full range of support services that Members need to do their jobs efficiently. Importantly, moving everyone out temporarily will also allow for refurbishment work to progress much more quickly. The savings from that should at least offset the additional accommodation costs and could potentially deliver an overall saving.

A detailed relocation plan is being developed, and I agree with Nick that Members need to understand exactly what those arrangements will mean for them and their staff. Our priority must be to make the transition as smooth as possible, minimise disruption to the work of the Senedd, and ensure that Members can return to a refurbished Tŷ Hywel under the current programme by April 2030.

Commission officials are responsible for deciding what products are available in the Senedd shop. Products stocked are regularly reviewed and updated. Goods for sale in the shop range from, but are not exclusive to, branded souvenirs, local artisan goods, Welsh food and drink, and products that inform and engage on a broad range of topics. A comprehensive review to inform a refreshed shop strategy has been under way since July and has included support from an independent retail consultant. A refreshed shop strategy will go to Commissioners for consideration in the coming months.

Thank you, Commissioner. In the Welsh Parliament's bookshop, there are several books that promote the immensely harmful trans ideology to children. This is all the more concerning given that the Welsh Government supports children's access to puberty blockers. Children can't be born in the wrong body and they shouldn't be injected with cross-sex hormones. Those two statements should not be controversial. Commissioner, will you have those books removed from the Welsh Parliament's bookshop? 

Like most parliamentary gift shops, the Senedd shop sells a broad mix of products. We're always looking for ways to improve the gift shop and we welcome Members' and customers' feedback. But the Senedd Commission is also firmly committed to advancing diversity and inclusion, ensuring that the Senedd is welcoming and accessible and representative of the people of Wales. So, it's no surprise that that approach may be reflected in some of the items available for purchase.

Diolch, Steve, for your question. The Commission has undertaken a public, open and competitive procurement process to look at the options available to us when the current lease of Tŷ Hywel comes to an end in 2032. Throughout that process, value for money has been absolutely central to our considerations. We've looked not just at immediate costs, but at the longer term financial implications of each option, including the cost of doing the bare minimum and remaining in Tŷ Hywel under the current arrangements. That work identified the options we're now taking forward as offering the best value for money and at a considerable margin.

The final financial details are still being worked through and will form part of the full business case, which will inform the Commission's decision in December on whether to proceed. I fully appreciate that the Member will want to see those figures, and rightly so. However, we're dealing with commercially sensitive information, and publishing it before contracts are signed could undermine our negotiating position. But I want to reassure Members that we will share that information with them as soon as we're in a position to do so. 

Thank you for that. This decision will commit public money for decades, and Members need to see the figures before the Commission commits to the deal. On 8 October, officials told the Finance Committee that the business case uses a 50-year appraisal period. The Commission has also confirmed a right to renew the existing Tŷ Hywel lease for a further 25 years. That option must be tested on a like-for-like basis against the preferred proposal.

Will the Commissioner publish a comparison of the whole-life costs of both options, covering rent, refurbishment, temporary accommodation and maintenance? Will it use the same appraisal period and set out the assumptions made beyond the renewal term? And will Members have sufficient time to scrutinise that comparison before any further binding contractual commitment is made? Diolch. 

Diolch for that supplementary question. I fully appreciate that Members want the reassurance that we're getting the best value for public money, and rightly so. It's also important to recognise that doing nothing is not a cost-free option. Staying in Tŷ Hywel under the current arrangements would mean increasing maintenance costs, significant investment in an ageing building, and potential rent increases. 

A full business case will examine all of these costs alongside the proposed development, so that the Commission can make an informed decision in December. It also recognises the importance of transparency, and while we must protect commercially sensitive information during negotiations, we are committed to sharing the financial details with the Finance Committee and Members as soon as we're able to do so. 

The final question, question 8, Lindsay Whittle. 

Thank you, Lindsay. We recognise how important community outreach work is in supporting and understanding the work of the Senedd. During the last year, our education and youth engagement team has delivered 29 outreach sessions in schools, colleges and youth groups in the area, working with more than 2,000 young people. A further 11 education sessions have been held here in Cardiff Bay, involving 337 young people from that area. 

During the election period, we took our outreach into communities across all constituencies, using pop-ups and conversations in familiar community settings to engage directly with local people, to answer their questions, and to increase understanding of the Senedd's role. This included activity in Blaenau Gwent Caerffili Rhymni. 

Thank you for the answer, but I know that there is a strong feeling amongst many people in our communities, from Brynmawr and Tredegar, through to Caerphilly and Rhymney, and Torfaen as well, that the Senedd feels like something that is 'over there in Cardiff' and is far removed from their everyday lives. Will the Commission commit to trying to increase the number of face-to-face visits—because they're so important, I believe—and also try to increase the direct outreach projects in these local areas, rather than relying solely on digital material, to ensure that local people do not feel that they've been forgotten?

We've received a fair bit of recognition in the Senedd, actually, for our outreach work. I mentioned in my opening response the 29 outreach sessions within that local area—within your constituency—within the last year. We could always do more, of course, and our team is keen to get out there, and invites Members along as well, because we think Members here, across the Siambr, are an important part of that engagement process. 

It is very important. 

We'll continue with that. I think it's a very important part of spreading the message and the understanding of what we do here, and how schools can engage, and how their voice can be heard as well, bringing it back to the Siambr. Thank you for the question; it's very helpful indeed. 

We'll move on to item 4, the topical questions. Nick Carter.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Natural Resources Wales has confirmed that the fuel discharge has now stopped, with mitigation measures preventing residual fuel from reaching the River Taff. Clean-up and assessment of potential environmental impacts on the river habitat and wildlife continue, and NRW will of course continue to monitor developments closely. 

Cabinet Minister, last Friday evening, residents of Caerdydd Ffynnon Taf in Nantgarw and Taff's Well, as well as communities in Tongwynlais and Gwaelod-y-garth, alerted NRW to a pollution incident in the River Taff, following a toxic leak from GE Aerosapce Wales's engine maintenance plant. We have been told that up to 25,000 litres of kerosene spilled into the river. The impact on people's health and the environmental damage, at least 2 miles downstream, was immediate. Members of the community we have met have spoken of unbearable conditions, which cause headaches, sickness and drowsiness. And then there has been the deadly impact on wildlife and the natural environment all along the river.

We have spoken to South Wales Fire and Rescue Service, who were called by NRW, and were first on the scene. They suggested that an incident occurred on the site sometime before they arrived. Finally, we have met with GE Aerospace, who have confirmed that they were the source of the leak and have assured us that the fuel lines have now been isolated to prevent any further spillage. We welcome the ongoing work being undertaken by Natural Resources Wales, Public Health Wales and the emergency services to assess and respond to this extremely serious incident, but many questions remain to be answered.

What assurance have you received regarding the volume and chemical make-up of the fuel released, and what further risk is there given that this is an area prone to flooding? What discussions have you had with Natural Resources Wales regarding the next steps being taken around the clean-up operation and habitat restoration, and how long this is likely to last? When can we expect a full and transparent review to identify how, why and when exactly this incident occurred, what safeguards are in place, and what is being done to ensure that this won't happen again? Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr for your question—or for your questions, I should say; there are a number of questions there, but rightly need responding to.

The first thing I would say is that I have spoken directly with Natural Resources Wales about this significant incident and the ongoing response. I fully recognise the concern that it has caused for local communities and for those with an interest in or an involvement with or living nearby the River Taff. NRW have confirmed to me, as I said in my initial answer, that fuel discharge has now stopped and that current mitigation measures are preventing residual fuel in the tributary from reaching the River Taff, and clean-up and environmental assessments are continuing.

You asked about the volume particularly, but also the source and maybe a little bit about the precise circumstances of the release. Those remain matters for NRW's ongoing investigation, but you're right: early reporting made claims that a considerable amount, estimated at up to 25,000 litres, may have been lost into the site's surface water drainage system. But I wouldn't want to present that estimate as some sort of final confirmed figure, because, as I say, investigations continue. For example, my understanding is that the tank could potentially contain that much; it's not clear yet how much was in it. And, of course, not all of it would have found its way into the river—some of it would have been contained or collected on site before reaching there. So, we need to be mindful of that, but, obviously, this will become clearer over time. The pollutant has, though, been identified as kerosene.

I've discussed the ongoing response with NRW, and I'll continue to keep closely sighted on developments there. The site operator's specialist contractor, who they brought in very early on, continue recovery and clean-up activity, including maintaining and replacing containment booms, whilst NRW continues to assess the environmental impact. NRW officers have observed impacts on aquatic invertebrates, which may be linked to this incident. The information currently available doesn't provide a firm timescale for completion of the clean-up—which is another question you asked—or any subsequent habitat restoration that might follow as a consequence. Again, I wouldn't want to speculate on that today, but that work is ongoing. NRW will continue to work with the site operator to establish the cause, and they will ensure that all possible steps are taken to prevent further spills.

The circumstances of the incident and its environmental impacts remain under investigation, and it would therefore not be appropriate for me to speculate on who is responsible, or anticipate any regulatory or enforcement action that might follow. But, again, I would reiterate—I'm sure, on behalf of everyone here—our thanks to all of those who have been involved in the response effort, which, I have to say, happened promptly and in a very effective manner.

Thank you to the Member for raising this. Cabinet Minister, I spent over 20 years with South Wales Fire and Rescue Service, so I recognise the efforts of crews, Natural Resources Wales officers, and everyone containing pollution. But the facts are deeply concerning: kerosene from GE Aerospace's Nantgarw site has affected around 4 km of the Taff. Dead fish have been recovered, residents have been advised to close windows and doors, and fumes are present. GE Aerospace said it isolated the source on Friday, yet on Monday Natural Resources Wales said it was still investigating the drainage system to stop further pollution. Stopping the original leak is not the same as stopping pollution reaching the river. And this is not the first time; in 2024, pollution from PB Gelatins UK in Treforest killed fish. The outcome announced this June was the enforcement undertaking, including a £50,000 donation and nearly £15,000 in costs.

Cabinet Minister, you chaired the committee that reported Natural Resources Wales's own concerns that its fines and sanctions weren't enough to deter polluters. You now oversee Natural Resources Wales. Our Reform manifesto commits us to dismantling and fundamentally restructuring Natural Resources Wales, bringing strategic policy under ministerial oversight while environmental protections continue without interruptions.

The public deserve to know what went wrong, who is accountable and who will pay to put it right. So, Cabinet Minister, will you commit to a written statement to this Senedd within 14 days, setting out how much fuel was released, the damage identified so far, the timetable for Natural Resources Wales's investigation and any enforcement decision, and how all legal recoverable costs will be pursued from those found responsible and not the Welsh taxpayer? Diolch.

Thank you for the question. Frankly, everything you've asked for is in train. It will be the responsibility of NRW to provide all of that information. On cost recovery, clearly, they will need to establish liability, if there is liability, and then they will proceed in the appropriate manner, either through the courts or whichever way they believe is most appropriate. I have to question, if you dismantle NRW, as you describe it, the question remains, who would actually be dealing with these situations when they arise? Maybe that's something that you may wish to ponder.

In addition to the questions that have already been raised—this is a constituency that I also represent, Caerdydd Ffynnon Taf—we've seen a number of authorities involved in the immediate response, including Natural Resources Wales and Public Health Wales: could the Minister therefore confirm actually which body is ultimately responsible for co-ordinating clear and effective messaging for the public, and also any signs of warnings in advance? Also, building on what Nick said around safeguarding, what safeguards are in place to make sure that residents who live near the river, and the many, many visitors, of course, to the Taff trail, are informed about the potential health risks before they come into contact with contaminated water? Not everyone looks at Facebook, for example. Not everyone is going to get an alert on their phone. How are we going to make sure that the public know, especially if they've got children or dogs, for example, not to go into the river?

Thank you for those questions. NRW are leading the effort in that environmental context, that is their role, but they are also liaising very closely with Public Health Wales and fire and rescue services as well. In terms of public health, you're right, there have been messages put out there by Public Health Wales; some will see them, others, unfortunately, will not. That's a constant challenge in these situations, and any learning that can be taken from any event is taken on board, I hope, and reflected upon. The advice has been clear. Obviously, if you can smell kerosene, then the advice is to keep windows and doors closed and avoid contact with any affected water—that goes for pets and children particularly. Anyone who does consequently feel unwell or concerned needs to contact NHS Wales 111, and the system will respond to that in the best way it can. I think public bodies have been providing that information as best they can, but there will always be room for improvement in that sphere.

I was appalled at the weekend to learn about the kerosene leak from the GE Aerospace site in Nantgarw in my constituency. I'm really concerned about the environmental impact of this pollution as it seeps into the waterways and into the River Taff that runs right through the heart of our city, right down to this place. I understand Natural Resources Wales were made aware of the incident on Friday and have been taking action with fuel-absorbing barriers at the confluence between the tributary and the Taff, but there are some discrepancies between the two organisations' public statements that we've seen. GE Aerospace claimed that the source of the spill was fully identified and isolated on Friday, but NRW have said that they're still seeking to confirm the source.

Cabinet Minister, I'm glad to hear that you're being briefed by NRW. Could you confirm whether or not GE Aerospace are fully co-operating with the investigation? Will GE Aerospace be held fully accountable for their failures, which allowed this to happen? And what will be done to assess and remediate impacts on the fish and animals that live in and around the River Taff, and how will that be paid for?

Look, until the investigations have been completed, I am loath to point the finger as much as Members would like me to. Clearly, where liability is identified—let's put it that way—then NRW will take appropriate action. That is their role and that is what we all expect of them.

In terms of seeking the source of the incident, my understanding is that whilst maybe it had been identified early on, once it was in the drainage system, which can be very complex, it's very difficult then to know exactly where that goes. So, maybe there's a bit of confusion around the source as opposed to the numbers of ways that that water could actually escape the site. But again, all of this will come out in the wash once the initial response and recovery has taken place. There will be a process then to make sure that we look at the results of all of that.

In terms of the environmental impact, of course—and that is clearly an important factor here—NRW are waiting for results of samples for biological and ecological investigations. Drone surveys have been conducted so that they can visually assess the impact as well. I am told that 10 dead fish have been recovered from the river as a consequence of this. Ten dead fish. But, of course, impacts on invertebrates will mean greater ecological impacts as well, and I'm not downplaying that for a second.

And finally, Minister, Leticia Gonzalez.

Thank you, Llywydd. There has been a lot of attention recently on the legacy of industrial contamination in Wales and its devastating impact on local communities and the environment. But this week's shocking news demonstrates that it's not just an issue from our past that we're dealing with, but something from our present too. Can the Cabinet Minister confirm that you're working closely with the Cabinet Minister for health and with Public Health Wales on providing assurance to residents across my constituency of Caerdydd Penarth impacted by this leak?

Yes. And? [Laughter.]

Sorry. And does the Welsh Government reaffirm its stance on the polluter-pays principle, ensuring that those responsible bear the cost of addressing its remediation?

Yes and yes. And you will note, of course, that the Deputy Minister with responsibility for public health is here to make sure that all of Members' concerns are fully taken on board. This is an ongoing issue, not just particularly in relation to this incident. These are the challenges that we will continually have to face. A changing climate makes that battle more difficult as well, as we experience more extreme weather events, which no doubt will test infrastructure and these kinds of facilities to a greater extent in years to come.

It does remind us that we always need to be vigilant, always need to be diligent, and I would encourage, by the way, members of the public to make full use of NRW's hotline. There is a hotline there. People can go to their MSs, they can go and put stuff on social media, but ultimately, if you want a swift response, you need to let NRW know first. That would be another plea of mine today. Diolch.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Minister. I was waiting for you to rattle off the phone number for that hotline there. [Laughter.] Thank you very much. 

We'll move on now to the 90-second statements. First of all, Peter Fox. 

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I recently had the pleasure of visiting Big Pit National Coal Museum in Blaenavon, where I met with staff and learnt about the excellent work they are doing to preserve and promote Wales's rich industrial heritage. What impressed me most was the museum's commitment not only to protecting our history, but to engaging people of all ages, through education, community outreach and innovative exhibitions. Big Pit continues to play a vital role in ensuring that future generations understand the sacrifices and achievements of those who built our coalfield communities.

During my visit, I also had the opportunity to see the Stories from Aberfan exhibition. And as we mark the sixtieth anniversary of the Aberfan disaster today, this exhibition is a poignant and powerful reminder of the 144 lives lost, the devastating impact on the community and the extraordinary courage and resilience shown in the decades since. The personal stories and artefacts on display help ensure that the memory of Aberfan endures and that the lessons of that tragedy are never forgotten. I would like to thank everyone in Big Pit for their dedication to preserving these important stories and sharing them with future generations, and I encourage all people to visit.

Last week, I was, along with you and other cross-party colleagues, delighted to welcome Danielle Webb to the Senedd women's caucus. Danielle is an inspirational woman and I am fortunate to call her a friend and know her as a former colleague. As vice-chair of Little People UK, she spoke passionately about her experiences as a little person as part of Dwarfism Awareness Month. She highlighted the everyday challenges that many little people face—as students, when entering employment, commuting or simply navigating spaces that too often fail to accommodate them.

There are between 3,000 and 7,000 people with dwarfism in the UK and over 200 different types of dwarfism. Depending on the condition, people may experience significant medical complications, including spinal stenosis, hydrocephalus and arthritis. Diagnosis and treatment can require genetic testing, scans and x-rays, as well as a co-ordinated team of medical specialists. Dwarfism Awareness Month is an opportunity to challenge misconceptions, raise understanding and confront the barriers that people with dwarfism face every day. We must listen to people like Danielle, champion their experiences and ensure our public spaces, workplaces and services are accessible and inclusive. Greater awareness must be matched by practical action so that people with dwarfism can participate fully in every aspect of life in Wales. Diolch.

Dirprwy Lywydd, this month marks Menopause Awareness Month, and on Sunday just gone, we recognised World Menopause Day. Until recently, when I thought about menopause, I naively pictured what I assume many people do: women of a certain age, hot flushes and many a conversation about the temperature of a room. Perhaps that highlights a lack of appropriate education around menopause growing up. I was wrong, and I'm learning that the hard way.

Menopause can cause chronic pain, but also cognitive and mental health challenges that can affect work, relationships and everyday life. And for women who are neurodivergent, in particular those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, those changes can bring additional challenges that we need to understand and talk about too. We also need to challenge the assumption that menopause only happens to women of a certain age. I want to take this moment to acknowledge premature ovarian insufficiency, or POI—something I had never heard of until I was diagnosed with it at 36. This coming Sunday marks the second-ever World POI Day, which in itself shows how much more awareness and understanding is still needed.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'll say it again: this Chamber works best when we use our time to shine a light on aspects of people's lives that too often go under the radar. So, to those living with menopause and POI, you deserve to be listened to, understood and supported. And during my time here, I will do what I can to make sure these experiences are seen, heard and taken seriously. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. And finally, Alun Cox.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to congratulate Cwm Taf Morgannwg public health team and the Treherbert learning community team, who recently won the inclusion and respect award at this year's Seren awards. Their work forms part of the wider Treherbert initiative, with Grow Rhondda as a key partner. The initiative asked one simple question: what was needed to help people in Treherbert to live healthier lives? This question was taken directly to the people and some clear themes began to emerge: affordable healthy food, mental health support, youth facilities and much more. Importantly, following this, work has started to act on some of these priorities, resulting, for example, in the creation of a low-cost fruit and veg market at Grow Rhondda's cafe, where nothing costs more than £1.50. This shows the importance of working with and listening to a community when looking for concrete actions to improve people's lives. So, congratulations once again to Cwm Taf Morgannwg public health and Treherbert learning community team, and I look forward to seeing what the future holds and what further activities they deliver. Diolch.

Thank you very much.

Item 6 on the agenda today is the Members' legislative debate under Standing Order 11.21(iv), an NHS first Bill. Before I call on Gwyn Williams, there are many speakers who wish to be called today. I'm going to ask you if you can keep your contributions as succinct as possible to ensure that I can call as many Members as possible in the half an hour allocated. I call on Gwyn Williams to move the motion.

Diolch yn fawr, Ddirprwy Lywydd. This debate, in a nutshell, is, essentially, about putting the NHS first when deciding how to reduce waiting lists, and I'm grateful for the cross-party support on this matter.

I should declare an obvious interest, which you're all expecting me to say anyway, that I'm a consultant eye doctor at Singleton Hospital in Swansea. I've worked in the NHS for 23 years as a doctor and 10 as a consultant. I believe in the NHS, work in the NHS, and I've seen the problems and opportunities first-hand. Our clinicians know their patients, they know the hospitals and, more importantly, they know the systems that they work in. We should give them the opportunity to put forward plans for reducing waiting lists before asking private providers if they can do so. And this is not party political, or at least it shouldn't be.

I believe we all want people across Wales to receive safe, timely care. We want waiting lists to fall and we want public money to deliver the greatest possible benefits for our patients. So, what does this proposal ask for? Three things: to favour NHS-led provision; to give clinical leads the power to reject unsafe private proposals or inadequate follow-up arrangements; and to demand transparent publication of data on private provision from every health board. And why? Because I believe that putting the NHS first can help us deliver safer care, work more efficiently and make better use of NHS money. And I will take each one of these things in turn.

Deliver safer care. One appointment or a surgery is only one part of the process in a patient's diagnosis and treatment journey. It isn't, and, indeed, can't be, a stand-alone thing. Likewise, an operation also. What happens afterwards matters too, and, indeed, before, with listing and pre assessment. It's obviously not hugely safe to send one link of this chain to an unfamiliar provider and then the patient is returned. Clinicians all over Wales can speak about experiences, for example, with patients returning to the NHS with some form of complication following a cataract operation, for example, privately via outsourcing. These complications can and should require urgent treatment, which then takes priority over elective cases, such as macula hole repairs. The proposed legislation would give clinical leads the authority to refuse private arrangements they consider unsafe or which lack appropriate follow-up care. The people responsible for patients' care must have a say in how that care is provided—the people who mop up the mess.

Secondly, to work more efficiently. Local NHS teams know the patients, the department and the systems, yet decisions to outsource or insource work to companies can be taken several levels above them, before they have the opportunity to offer an in-house solution. Oftentimes, if the patients are not known to the company clinicians, who also can't access records and are not responsible for follow-up—we don't have an electronic patient record all around Wales, for example—decisions are deferred, as it is merely an exercise in kicking the can down the road to make the figures look temporarily better. But it always catches up worse than before. I'm a fan of the HBO miniseries Chernobyl, where Professor Valery Legasov says,

'Every lie we tell incurs a debt to the truth. Sooner or later that debt is paid.'

And when is that? When the contract ends in this case.

This proposal would require health boards to seek the development of those solutions first: additional waiting list initiative clinics and operating lists within the NHS, planned by the teams who understand the service. And we also need to consider the effect on our workforce. When clinicians cut their NHS hours to do more private-provider work, which does remunerate better, it has to be said, the private sector grows and the NHS capacity atrophies. We become more dependent on the very provision that is drawing our staff away, and we're, in fact, paying to drain the very service we need to strengthen. If an NHS team cannot undertake all the additional work, private provision would remain an option. This proposed Bill would merely establish a presumption in favour of NHS-led plans.

Thirdly, to make better use of public money, if indeed we do put the NHS first. Private contracts use public money. I think Mabon recently quoted £1.5 million that was spent over the past few years on outsourcing. That money used in an NHS setting would have helped develop services and make a permanent improvement to departments all over Wales. We need to appreciate and understand the full cost of the contracts, including follow-up, complications and any work that then returns to NHS services.

Cataracts, for example—obviously, I'm biased towards cataracts—[Laughter.]—are not undertaken and simply sent back. Complications are needing extra surgery, appointments in eye casualty, as well as administrative problems caused by one eye being operated on privately via outsourcing and the other eye falling through the cracks, which is a terrible image. [Laughter.]

Health boards should publish transparent data on their use of private provision so we can see what has been purchased and assess what it delivers. And why does this matter to constituents across Wales? Because behind every waiting list figure is a person waiting for treatment. They need safe care, timely treatment, and confidence that someone will take responsibility for their follow-up. The decision we make today affects the NHS's ability to treat patients tomorrow. We need to reduce waiting lists while strengthening the service people will continue to depend on.

And why does this matter to me personally? Because this is why I'm here. This is why I came into this job and why I sit in this chair: to give the clinicians delivering care the opportunity to put forward solutions. We have an opportunity to put NHS capacity, clinical judgment and accountability at the centre of decisions about waiting lists—not an expensive, unsafe, can-kicking, sticking-plaster exercise that erodes the health service upon which we depend. Let's stand up for the NHS. Let's put the NHS first. Let's show the people of Wales that we take their safety, their waiting times and their public money seriously, by giving the people who know the patients and deliver their care the opportunity to lead. Diolch yn fawr. 

Reform UK, we support the NHS. We believe in an NHS that is free at the point of need. And we believe in an NHS that is properly funded and an NHS that puts its patients first. Too many people in Wales are waiting too long for treatment. Roughly a quarter of people are on a waiting list, and two-year waits have not been eradicated as was promised. A&E departments across Wales remain under tremendous pressure, and our planned care capacity is still short of what is required. Everybody who interacts with our NHS can see that the staff are under pressure, the estate needs investment, and the system is not delivering the outcomes that the public deserve.

But we also know that throwing money at a problem doesn't automatically solve it. We cannot fix capacity issues in our NHS if we refuse to look at every practical tool available to us. Therefore, we cannot risk totally excluding independent healthcare providers if they can provide quality care that clears backlogs. I'm not interested in privatisation or charging patients. I'm interested in utilising additional capacity funded by the NHS purse and free to the patient.

Now, I don't believe that the motion before us today seeks to completely exclude the private sector. But I'm concerned that, ultimately, the Bill could result in a set of legal requirements that make it too difficult for us to make use of independent capacity when it is needed. Patients want to be treated in a reasonable time and receive care that is safe and effective. If this Bill leads to a situation in which people are waiting years for NHS care because the system cannot utilise its independent capacity, then it would have failed in achieving the core mission of our NHS: putting patients first.

I'm not opposed to the principle of ensuring that the NHS is properly managed and resourced before seeking alternative solutions. And I'm supportive of the measures that strengthen the NHS, improve the accountability of our health boards and encourage investment into our workforce and estates. But any Bill that effectively rules out practical capacity solutions could, ultimately, end up failing the very people it seeks to protect. Therefore, I will be looking forward to the detail of this Bill, and I will judge it on its ability to get people treated sooner whilst protecting the NHS's founding principle of free care at the point of need. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank Gwyn for bringing this before us today? I'm a member of the Socialist Health Association, and committed to a publicly funded and publicly provided health service. The NHS, despite the waiting times and financial pressures, is supported by the vast majority of people in Wales. When you consider the cost of health provision in the USA, the NHS is excellent value for money. In the USA, medical costs are the major cause of personal bankruptcy.

I believe in the direct provision of a publicly funded health service by publicly funded and employed health professionals. The private sector see opportunities to profit from the health service, taking the easy-to-provide services, not providing the expensive and difficult-to-provide. I support, wherever possible, delivery of waiting-list initiatives, surgeries and clinics within the NHS rather than through the private sector. The private sector is looking for opportunities to make a profit out of publicly funded health. My aim is a completely directly provided health service with no publicly funded health expenditure leaking out to the private sector.

I support increasing surgical activity through weekend and evening clinics, opening new diagnostic and treatment centres and creating more community-based services to reduce hospital demand. We also have the advances in AI giving us analysis and treatment. All health boards should develop costed plans for additional clinic activity from departments within their organisations before considering entering into contracts with private providers. They must empower and trust clinical staff. I think that's one of the big problems we have: a lack of being prepared to trust the clinical staff.

The BMA has expressed concern about the increasing role of private healthcare provision in the NHS, particularly regarding the privatisation of NHS services. They argue that private healthcare companies should be held to the same standards as NHS providers, including transparent reporting of patient safety incidents and performance. The BMA supports a new NHS provider selection regime to limit procurement arrangements with independent sector providers and ensure the sustainability of the NHS. They also advocate for better oversight of privatisation and recommend that independent sector providers for NHS services should be subject to the same requirements as NHS providers.

I share the concern of many in the health service that increasing the reliance on private providers will erode the NHS's long-term sustainability and will end with us not having a national health service, but a publicly funded health service being used by the public in private hospitals and private areas. And the problem then becomes that the private sector won't want to do accident and emergency. They won't want to do anything that is difficult. They'll want to do the easier-to-deal-with. I think it really is important that we stand up for the NHS, which is what I'm doing now. Can I just, finally, say that the health service is funded to provide services, not as a cash point for the private sector?

My Welsh Conservative colleagues and I absolutely believe that we need to be doing more to increase capacity within the NHS. We need to be doing much more to drive down those shamefully high NHS waiting lists, which are leaving our constituents languishing in pain. We do need to have better data sharing and give consultants and specialists more control as well as authority. But that should not be at the expense of the private sector. The private sector has a place within our healthcare system. It is not the enemy. It can complement and build on the NHS offering. The NHS will always be the crème de la crème, but we should have as many weapons in our arsenal when it comes to providing patients with the best possible care. And that, as far as I'm concerned, includes the private sector. We should be utilising private providers. But, by going after the private sector, you're running the risk of increasing pressures on our already overstretched NHS. Not only can private providers be used to help bring down waiting times, but they can actually alleviate pressure on the health service in other ways too, by providing extra capacity and specialist expertise.

I recently met with the Icon Group, an Australian firm, which is poised to reopen the old Rutherford cancer centre in Newport. Yes, it is a private company, but it stands ready to work with the Welsh Government and the health boards to see NHS patients. That's just one example, but there are many organisations out there in a similar position. Look at Newmedica. They are one of the biggest providers of NHS-funded ophthalmology services, treating nearly 14,500 patients all across Wales. Why would we actively seek to prevent them from carrying out their vital work?

The motion before us would force all health boards to develop costed plans for extra NHS activity before entering into a private sector contract. Some would argue that this sounds reasonable on the face of it, but what happens when the NHS does not have the capacity to deliver quickly enough? Are we going to make patients wait even longer than they have to whilst another plan is drawn up? If an NHS department can deliver treatment promptly and cost-effectively, it should be given every single opportunity to do so. If an independent provider can safely treat a patient sooner, and at an appropriate cost, health boards must retain the flexibility to use that as an option. We do need to see more joined-up working between the NHS and the private sector, not less of it, which I fear is what is going to happen if this motion goes through. We are going to be supporting this motion today, and I will put on record that I do, in fact, fear that this is a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face against the private sector at the same time. Thank you.

I, too, declare an interest as a consultant ophthalmologist working in the NHS in Swansea.

Expensive contracts, fragmented care, lost opportunities to strengthen our NHS: these are the concerns that I recognise not just as a Member of the Senedd, but also a treating clinician. I thank my colleague Gwyn for bringing forth this proposal, which I support. We all want shorter waiting lists. We all want patients to be treated sooner. And we all recognise the extraordinary work that NHS staff are doing to make that happen. But the question is not simply how many patients we can treat today, but whether we can build the capacity to treat patients tomorrow. 

Let me explain what I have witnessed. Patients that have had cataract pre-assessment by an external provider, that arrangement ends, the patient returns to the NHS, sometimes requiring another assessment before surgery proceeds. That's another appointment, another cost, and another delay. And when complications occur, patients rightly return to the NHS teams, adding to the workload of a service already under pressure. Colleagues in other specialties have reported similar frustrations.

Deputy Llywydd, this is not about criticising individual providers. It's about questioning whether our system is making the best use of public money and clinical expertise, because waiting lists can appear shorter without the NHS becoming stronger. So, that's at the heart of this debate.

In Swansea bay, our performance report identifies gaps in cataract pre-assessment capacity and opportunities to improve theatre utilisations. We have the clinicians, we have the expertise, and what we need is the capacity to deliver. And that means investing in assessment clinics, our theatres, our workforce, and the clinical leadership needed to redesign services. That means asking our front-line teams what they can achieve with the right support. And it means ensuring that our clinical leads are involved in decisions about external contracts, patient safety and continuity of care. And we also must be transparent about costs, outcomes and who remains responsible for patients when contracts end.

Deputy Llywydd, I'm not arguing that external provision should never have a role. I'm arguing that temporary solutions must not be a substitute for permanent NHS capacity. Every pound that we spend should do more than reduce today's waiting list. Where possible, it should strengthen tomorrow's service. We're treating patients today, we're training the clinicians for tomorrow, and we're building our NHS for the future. And this principle is why I believe that this proposal should be advanced, and that's why I support it. Diolch.

I believe that the NHS first Bill has worthy ambitions, as long as the NHS is able to deliver the care when required. All my constituents ask for is a local medical centre or a hospital that can treat them quickly, with local expertise.

Gwyn Williams has often talked about how health board boundaries stop the movement of patients, staff and experts. This means that services are fragmented, duplicated and delayed. Patients should not be refused access simply because they live on the wrong side of a health board boundary. There must be no postcode lottery in treatment or outcomes. The ministerial advisory group recognised last year that de facto regional arrangements are already widely established and called for stronger regional working.

To support the Bill, there is clear need for more medical staff. I welcome the Government's announcement of 253 additional graduate nursing jobs recently, but the Royal College of Nursing has said that the uncertainty has caused a huge reduction in people accepting nursing degrees in Wales.

This Bill should also call for greater transparency. Health boards should publish clear information about the use of private providers, including costs, activities and outcomes. That would allow the public to judge whether spending leads to permanent NHS capacity or just short-term solutions. An NHS first approach must have stronger accountability. For too long, the Welsh Government has taken a hands-off approach to NHS management. Ministers must exercise firmer oversight and set clear expectations when performance, decision making or patient safety falls short. Successful practices should be shared across Wales. Our NHS needs management that is results driven, not process driven. We must allow our front-line health professionals to concentrate on what matters most: their patients.

What's needed is faster treatment, safer care and better use of public money. It is about building capacity and resilience within a national health service that belongs to us all. Let us put the NHS first, break down the barriers that delay care, strengthen democratic oversight and ensure that every decision begins and ends with what is best for the patients in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

Deputy Llywydd, nobody in this Chamber, obviously, wants patients to have to wait any longer for treatment. And if capacity is available that can safely get somebody their operation done sooner, I understand why Governments, including the previous Welsh Government, have looked at the private sector. But I think today's debate asks us to look beyond the immediate waiting lists and consider what kind of NHS we actually are wanting to build for the future. And that is where I believe the workforce has to be at the heart of this discussion.

Here in Wales, 'Agenda for Change' provides the framework for pay and important terms and conditions for most directly employed NHS staff. Unison Cymru has warned that health boards cannot expect to recruit and retain staff without addressing NHS pay. It has also been absolutely explicit in calling for the NHS in Wales to be protected from privatisation. So, when public money is spent buying additional services and capacity outside of NHS Wales, we should ask not only, 'How many patients will this treat today?' but also, 'What does this actually do in terms of the capacity and workforce issues of our NHS for tomorrow?'

This doesn't need to be an ideological argument. Where private capacity is absolutely necessary to get patients treated sooner, we should be pragmatic. This is why I support the principle of NHS first, but NHS first doesn't, obviously, have to mean NHS only. But our longer term ambition should always be much bigger; it should mean building the strength and capacity of our NHS and the public services around it. It means our NHS and our community care working together rather than treating health and social care as separate systems. It means recognising that health does not begin at the hospital door. It means addressing the socioeconomic inequalities that drive poor health. It means tackling mental health earlier before people reach crisis. And it means confronting some of the deepest causes of trauma and ill health in our communities, including violence against women and children, domestic abuse, and other forms of abuse. Because NHS first cannot simply mean asking where we treat somebody once they become ill. It must also mean creating the conditions in which fewer people become ill, fewer people reach crisis, and fewer families need emergency intervention.

So for me, that is also about holding on to the founding principle of our NHS that healthcare is a public good, there for people when they need it, regardless of their means or their backgrounds. And as, of course, Aneurin Bevan put that principle simply:

'No society can legitimately call itself civilized if a sick person is denied medical aid because of lack of means.'

Deputy Llywydd, our responsibility is obviously not simply to defend that principle, but to make it work for the challenges that Wales faces today. Bringing waiting lists down matters, but so does building the NHS, the workforce, the community services and that healthier society that ensures that we leave our NHS stronger than we first found it.

Thank you to Gwyn for bringing this debate to the Chamber. I'm pleased to contribute to this debate, which shines a light on the importance of keeping our NHS in public ownership, and not fall victim to creeping privatisation. At some point, every one of us will rely on the NHS. It has cared for our loved ones and communities in their times of need. And we must protect a service that provides care free at the point of need.

Cardiff is often a hub for specialist NHS services, serving people from all across Wales. My constituency of Caerdydd Ffynnon Taf is home to the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff Royal Infirmary, Noah's Ark Children's Hospital for Wales and Velindre University NHS Trust. These hospitals have been caring for people from all across Wales for decades, and with roughly 700,000 people on NHS waiting lists in Wales, the answer must be to invest in our public health service.

This is particularly important when it comes to women's health. Despite making up more than half of the population, women-specific healthcare needs have historically been overlooked and underfunded. Endometriosis is just one example. Roughly one in 10 women are affected by this debilitating condition, and given concerns about the future of Wales's only NHS British Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy-accredited endometriosis centre in Cardiff, protecting these specialist services must remain our priority.

Greater reliance on private healthcare risks creating a two-tier system, where those who can afford treatment get help sooner, while others who can't are left waiting for years. So, Deputy Llywydd, ultimately, we must invest in our NHS and protect its public provision at the point of need. An NHS Bill that strengthens these principles would only be a positive step forward for the people of Wales. Diolch.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Minister for Health and Care, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to respond to the motion before us. I would also like to thank the Member in question for being a tireless advocate for our health service, and I know that he brings very valuable professional experience to this debate.

There is a great deal in the motion that the majority of Members across the Chamber can support, as we've already heard. We all want a stronger national health service in Wales, with more care provided in NHS settings wherever possible, and patients receiving timely, safe and high-quality care. As a Government, we firmly believe that the health service belongs to the people of Wales, and although certain political figures, along with their wealthy, questionable and unaccountable backers, might think otherwise, our precious health service is not for sale and never will be while we are at the helm.

We inherited a significant backlog of patients who have waited far too long for treatment. Our priority, therefore, is to build NHS capacity, increase activity and provide the support that clinical teams need to treat more patients safely within NHS Wales. The Government agrees with the core principles underpinning the motion. NHS capacity should be developed and utilised wherever possible. Decisions should be guided by clinical considerations. Patient safety must be prioritised and any additional capacity must be transparent with appropriate governance measures in place.

The question is: what is the best way to deliver on the commitments that we have made to the people of Wales, particularly our commitment to reduce waiting times and to eliminate the longest waits?

Our planned care reset and delivery plan is firmly focused on that objective. The plan was developed with national clinical leaders, speciality leaders and NHS operational experts. It is increasing NHS capacity and productivity, redesigning pathways and exploring dedicated surgical and diagnostic hubs. Our aim isn't simply to purchase short-term activity, but to build a stronger and more sustainable NHS service.

We're already seeing this approach support progress in tackling waits of more than 104 weeks, with most additional activity being delivered within NHS Wales itself. By drawing on the expertise of our clinical and operational teams, strengthening weekly planning and making better use of existing capacity, we are supporting more patients to receive care within the NHS, with independent capacity used selectively where needed. Clinical leadership runs throughout the plan. Clinical leaders are identifying opportunities to increase productivity, redesign pathways and safely increase activity, keeping decisions focused on what is best for patients.

Dirprwy Lywydd, our overriding responsibility as a Government is to deliver the programme for government. That means reducing waiting times, eliminating excessive waits and ensuring that patients receive treatment when they need it. People waiting for surgery, diagnostics or out-patient appointments are not concerned with organisational boundaries. They are concerned with receiving safe and timely care. Health boards are expected to maximise NHS capacity by improving productivity, by using their workforce effectively and strengthening clinical pathways. But health boards must also make responsible choices. They're expected to consider how NHS capacity can be maximised before commissioning additional provision.

This isn't a new approach; the NHS has long commissioned services from external providers where necessary to supplement its own capacity. Where patients would otherwise face excessive delays, health boards must retain the ability to plan services around clinical need, local capacity and the responsibility to reduce harmful waits. Importantly, there are already robust arrangements in place to ensure accountability and transparency. Health boards publish planned care performance monthly, including progress against delivery trajectories, waiting times, activity and recovery plans. The Welsh Government scrutinises delivery weekly so that emerging issues can be addressed promptly.

Dirprwy Lywydd, patient safety must remain at the heart of every decision we take. Where additional capacity is used, established arrangements must ensure care is safe, clinically appropriate and properly monitored, including quality, outcomes, follow-up and continuity of care. Clinical leaders must be able to raise concerns where proposed arrangements do not provide safe treatment, effective governance or appropriate follow-up, and those concerns must be acted upon.

The motion also raises important questions about the future sustainability of planned care services. Alongside tackling waiting times, we must build a stronger and more resilient system through more day-care surgery, higher productivity, fewer unnecessary follow-ups and better use of diagnostics and theatres. The expert group considering surgical and diagnostic hubs is central to that work. Dedicated elective facilities could protect planned care from emergency pressures, improve access and support a more sustainable NHS-led model.

We do support the principles behind the motion, namely maximising NHS capacity and strengthening sustainable provision within it, wherever this is clinically appropriate. The existing legislation, including the Health Service Procurement (Wales) Act 2024, already supports collaborative delivery and flexible commissioning. Through clear national expectations, robust governance and transparent performance management, these goals can be achieved, enabling health boards to ensure safe and timely care. Therefore, there is no necessity as things currently stand to introduce further new legislation.

There is scope to look at strengthening governance, and we are doing so, and ensuring transparency, which is also something that we are doing. If it becomes apparent that these measures have not yielded the desired results, then we may need to revisit the possibility of new legislation. But there are things that can be done, and that we as a new Government are doing, that do not require new legislation—and, of course, there is no need to legislate unnecessarily either.

Wales has also adopted a different approach to infrastructure investment, having made less use of PFI than England in the past. Furthermore, Wales has developed alternative models designed to strengthen the role of the public sector, enhance transparency and deliver greater benefits to communities. Patients cannot afford to wait if there are actions that can be taken now. They want to see positive change now, and their demands are entirely justified. The ultimate test is whether the care provided is safe, timely, free at the point of use, and delivers the best possible outcomes, wherever it is commissioned. We will always seek to strengthen NHS provision, while also acknowledging that health boards must be able to act responsibly when additional capacity is required to prevent avoidable harm.

For these reasons, we can support the motion, and we do so on the basis that its principles, namely strengthening NHS capacity, safeguarding patient safety, ensuring clinical leadership, and improving transparency, can be achieved without necessarily resorting to additional legislation. We will continue to focus on delivery, namely increasing NHS capacity, reducing the backlog we have inherited, and enabling safe decisions that are informed by clinical judgment and in the best interests of patients. Thank you.

Thank you, Cabinet Minister. I call on Gwyn Williams to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. Thank you, Cabinet Minister. How much time do I have left? A minute and a half. Okay.

First of all, I thank everyone who took part in the debate from all sides. Before I come on to the specifics, just to reassure Benjamin and Natasha that this is absolutely not about discriminating against the private sector at all, it's just about doing what we can in-house and what we can't outside of the house. Because there are risks—safety risks, but also continuity-of-care risks, follow-up risks—all kinds of things that make it more desirable to do the work in-house.

I myself have been in a strange position, for example, whereby our waiting lists for seeing patients—out-patient appointments—have been going behind. And I want to see more, but I'm told that, because of outsourcing and because there's a lack of money for doing the work in-house, the only way I would have been able to see my own patients is by joining the company and seeing them in a whole different environment, which is very odd. That's why I wanted to bring this to all of your attention, specifically so that we just put the horse before the cart and we try to do things in a sensible, cheaper and safer way beforehand. So, just to reassure you, we're not going to ban the private companies altogether. This is absolutely not the aim of this. It's just about there being a presumption to do the work in-house first. 

I agree with Shav: this is not an ideological argument at all, it's more of a scientific and commonsense argument. I'm grateful to all the people who spoke. I was going to list them all, but there are too many and time is running out. But also the people who wanted to speak but there was no time as well: Leticia, Sarah Rees and Cristiana Emsley. I'm very grateful to her, again, not that she did speak, but that she wanted to speak, and I'm grateful for that. Thank you. 

And lastly, just to say that this is all just about creating the conditions for allowing the national health service to survive. Aneurin Bevan—who has been quoted already, but I've got a different quote, thankfully—famously said that

'The NHS will last as long as there's folk with faith left to fight for it.'

We're fighting for it. Diolch yn fawr.

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

We will now move to our next item, the Reform UK debate, prostate cancer strategy. I call on Benjamin Hodge Mckenna to move the motion. 

I stand today to move the motion tabled in the name of my colleague Llŷr Powell calling on the Government to explicitly include prostate cancer in the national cancer strategy for Wales. Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer amongst men in Wales. Each year, more than 2,500 are diagnosed, and around 640 sadly die from the condition. If it's caught early, the outlook can be more positive. Nearly everybody diagnosed at stage 1 goes on to live for five years or more. But, if it's caught late, the picture is very different. Too many men in Wales are being diagnosed too late, particularly in our most deprived communities. The consequences of this are severe, and they're measured in lower quality of life, unnecessary suffering for patients and their families and too many people losing their lives too soon. 

The 'National Prostate Cancer Audit State of the Nation Report 2026' found that prostate cancer diagnoses in Wales rose by 12 per cent between 2023 and 2024. That growth included more stage 1 diagnoses, which is an encouraging sign if it means that the disease is detected early. But it also shows the need for capacity and careful clinical planning in this area. In Wales, 54 per cent of men with high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer received radical treatment. That's compared to 69 per cent in England. Serious concerns have also been raised regarding higher rates of emergency readmission after surgery and a significant drop in recorded numbers of radical prostatectomies—try saying that after a night out—and radical radiotherapy.

The audit also raises serious questions about data quality in Wales. It highlights problems with incomplete data, data with linkage issues and underrecording. We also know that waiting times for cancer treatment remain a serious problem here. The 62-day target is still missed routinely, and diagnostic capacity needs to be addressed. Across Wales, particularly in north Wales, patients have faced unacceptable delays that have allowed their cancers to progress. If we don't have adequate data systems in place to track treatment and outcomes, it becomes incredibly difficult to make improvements to the system.

Cancer is the leading cause of death in Wales and, for too long, we have lacked a proper cancer action plan as a nation. There is a clear need to implement a strategy that invests in modern diagnostic technologies and treatments and uses evidence-led screening initiatives that improve patient access. That is why I support the principle of the 10-year national cancer strategy. However, I have heard concerns from clinicians, campaigners and the third sector that prostate cancer will not receive the explicit focus, accountability and resources that it needs. So, today's debate is an opportunity for the Government to address those concerns and ensure that people across Wales who are suffering with prostate cancer get the attention and treatment they deserve.

The fact is that there are serious questions that need to be asked with regard to prostate cancer in Wales. What assessment has the Government made of the UK National Screening Committee decision only to recommend a limited screening programme? Alongside that, what discussions has the Government held with the NHS and third sector about the feasibility of implementing a prostate cancer screening programme? And in the absence of a screening programme for all high-risk men, will the Government consider including other early-detection commitments within the cancer strategy to ensure that more men with prostate cancer are diagnosed early?

A strategy that does not contain firm commitments that prostate cancer will be a priority risks leaving men behind. That is why today's motion was both reasonable and necessary. Prostate cancer needs more than a passing mention in the cancer strategy; it needs clear actions, including targets to increase the proportion of men who are diagnosed at an early stage, particularly in our most deprived communities; measurable improvements in the proportion of men with high-risk disease who receive timely radical treatment; urgent action to fix data quality issues so that progress can be monitored; plans to improve diagnostic and treatment capacity; and an integration with a broader men's health approach that encourages men to come forward sooner.

Patients in Wales deserve to be diagnosed before their cancer has spread so that they can receive proper treatment in a timely manner. By explicitly prioritising prostate cancer in the national cancer strategy, the Government can take a practical step towards that goal. It will give clinicians, health boards and patients the clarity that they need, and it will give this Senedd the ability to hold the Government to account against delivery. Prostate cancer deserves a clear place in Wales's cancer strategy, one that is supported by resources, data and delivery. That way more men can be diagnosed early and more lives can be saved. Therefore, I urge Members to support our motion today. Diolch yn fawr.

I have selected the amendment to the motion. I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 1 tabled in his own name.

Diolch, Lywydd. I move the amendment tabled in my name. As Members are already aware, I am living with prostate cancer and, as such, I believe that that experience has given me a real insight into the challenges faced by patients and indeed their families across Wales. As has already been said, I'm one of more than 2,500 men who are diagnosed with prostate cancer every year here in Wales and, as we've already heard, around 640 men die from it.

It's because of the high prevalence of men in Wales who are diagnosed with it that I believe it has to be included in the national cancer strategy for Wales. Indeed, in the written questions that I've tabled to the Cabinet Minister, the responses have included actions that would be taken via the national cancer strategy, and so I have no reason to believe that it wouldn't inform some part of the future thinking of this Government.

I have to say that I welcome the consultation on the national cancer strategy, because it's a good opportunity to think a bit more innovatively about how services can be delivered in the future. However, this consultation must be more than a tick-box exercise, and as we've so often heard in the past, whether it's a Welsh Government consultation or a health board consultation, patients' voices must be heard. It's absolutely essential that this consultation is meaningful, that those who engage with it are confident that their views are genuinely being considered, and that the final strategy reflects the submissions it receives. So, I hope that the Cabinet Minister will give that assurance to us today in his response to this debate.

Now, as our amendment makes very clear, the Welsh Conservatives want to see a national screening programme introduced by the Welsh Government. I believe that earlier detection improves patient outcomes, and as Prostate Cancer Research tells us, when prostate cancer is detected early, survival rates are close to 100 per cent. And this is not a party political point. I have worked constructively with colleagues in other parties and in other political institutions to call for a national screening programme. For example, I joined the Labour peer Lord Kevin Brennan to raise awareness of some of the symptoms of prostate cancer. We both shared our different prostate cancer journeys, and we discussed why we believe a national screening programme should be introduced. But whether you agree or disagree with a national screening programme, there is clearly a shared understanding across political parties that more can and should be done when it comes to prostate cancer, so I hope that this spirit of co-operation will continue as this strategy is developed.

Now, a key section of the Welsh Government's national cancer strategy consultation considers the opportunities presented by advances in medical technology. We are witnessing significant developments in diagnostic tools and various innovative treatments, many of which are transforming outcomes for patients, including focal therapy, stereotactic ablative radiotherapy and many other treatments. These technological developments can have huge potential, not only to improve survival rates, but also to enhance quality of life for those living with prostate cancer. These technologies must be available to men in all parts of Wales, irrespective of where they live, and I hope the new strategy will show how patients are able to access these specific treatments. Of course, alongside investment in technology, there must also be a commitment to supporting the workforce and ensuring that healthcare professionals have the capacity, training and resources they need to deliver these treatments effectively.

Llywydd, the forthcoming national cancer strategy presents an important opportunity to improve cancer outcomes across Wales, but to achieve that goal, there must be a meaningful consultation process, a commitment to earlier diagnosis and screening, investment in cutting-edge technologies and a determination to provide equitable access to the care and treatment that patients need wherever they live in Wales. We have a responsibility to the men already living with prostate cancer in Wales and to those that will be diagnosed with prostate cancer to use this opportunity to get this strategy right.

And as for a national screening programme, Wales can lead the way if it wants to. We don't have to follow England, we don't have to follow other parts of the UK. So, I urge the Welsh Government to commit to exploring this further at the very least. We all want to deliver better outcomes for men diagnosed with prostate cancer across Wales, and so we will be supporting this motion this afternoon, and I urge Members to support my amendment.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak on this really important issue today. There's real excitement across the cancer charity sector and the cancer workforce because a long-term cancer strategy is a chance to set a new course for patients in Wales. This is a critical moment for how we want to see cancer outcomes improve over the coming years, and I welcome every opportunity to discuss what the strategy should look like, because we will all know someone who is told that they have cancer in their lifetime, if not ourselves.

Cancer will affect one in two people. The figures for prostate cancer are particularly shocking. Prostate cancer will affect one in eight men. For black men, it's one in four. And for men who have a family history of particular cancers or who carry the BRCA2 gene variant, they face a significantly higher risk. Reducing this inequality and the many other inequalities in cancer diagnosis and care must be a focus of the strategy.

The Welsh Government has set itself an ambitious timetable, aiming to publish the strategy on World Cancer Day next year. That is commendable and shows the urgency that is needed. It will be Wales's first national cancer strategy since 2006. And as chair of the cross-party group on cancer, which everyone here is welcome to join—I've e-mailed some of you separately; you're all welcome—I'm not aware of any plans for the strategy, as it is at the moment, to focus on any site-specific cancers, which the debate tabled today calls for, but with such a tight deadline, the strategy must build on existing groundwork. There are already national optimal pathways shaped by clinical specialists and best practice that set out how people with suspected site-specific cancers, including prostate cancer, should be treated and supported, but too many people are not being served quickly and effectively by these pathways. There's often a backlog for diagnosis and waits for treatment often depend on surgical space and workforce availability. As a result, only one in three people with prostate cancer start treatment within 62 days, when the target is 75 per cent.

The strategy must not be a 'one and done'. Too many quality statements and short-term plans have sat on the shelf after publication. This strategy must be a living thing. It must give every national optimal pathway, including for prostate cancer, the chance to work to its full potential and actively unblock the barriers holding them back. Alongside this, it must improve access to clinical trials, awareness of signs and symptoms and so much more, like data and workforce. All these things are vital.

I'd like to acknowledge the amendment tabled by Paul Davies, and I share the urgency behind it. General screening for all men is still not recommended by the UK National Screening Committee based on the evidence currently available, but that evidence is moving. In May, the committee recommended targeted screening every two years for men aged 45 to 61 who carry the BRCA gene variant and have a family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer, and the UK Government has accepted that. So, I'd like to ask the Minister: when will this be in place in Wales and will the new strategy commit to it?

I also stand with colleagues in calling for research to go further and faster and for more men to know of their family history. For men facing a prostate cancer diagnosis, support and time to make decisions about their care are essential, but time is not always a luxury patients have. The earlier a diagnosis is made, the more treatment options are available. I hope today's discussion can focus our minds on a near future where prostate cancer is diagnosed quickly and early, where innovative treatments are available and where patients can look forward to life after cancer or to live well for decades to come. Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank the Member for bringing forward this important debate today and also thank Paul Davies for sharing his experience and his insight into such an important subject matter? And as we've heard during this debate already, prostate cancer is the most common cancer amongst men in Wales and far too many families across the country have lost loved ones because a cancer diagnosis came too late. So, Welsh Labour strongly supports this motion and we join calls to include prostate cancer in the national cancer strategy for Wales. We wish to see a strategy that delivers better outcomes, improves support for cancer patients and builds on the progress made under the previous Welsh Labour Government.

In Government, Welsh Labour ensured that record numbers of people got the good news every year that they don't have cancer. We invested tens of millions of pounds in new cancer facilities, diagnostic equipment, treatments, technology and workforce development, and we started construction on the new Velindre Cancer Centre, which is opening next spring. We introduced a £2 million cancer recovery programme to improve how services are delivered, including a specific focus on urological cancers, and we took significant steps to improve cancer screening and early diagnosis. We expanded bowel cancer screening to everyone aged 50 to 74, and increased the sensitivity of the screening test. We also made Wales the first UK nation to introduce human papillomavirus testing as the primary cervical screening test. Furthermore, we announced a new national targeted lung cancer screening programme, and on all of those decisions, Welsh Labour were driven in our determination to deliver better health outcomes for families in Wales. 

Would the Member take an intervention? 

Yes, of course. 

Thanks for taking the intervention. On top of those things that you've just listed, though, I think you have to recognise that, even through my time in the Senedd, when we were looking at waiting lists, actually cancer waiting lists targets were missed almost every time they were coming out from the centre of Welsh Government. So, do you admit that, actually, that's one thing in Government that you actually got wrong, that you never actually got on top of cancer waiting lists in Wales?

We were certainly right to set very, very stretching targets for cancer. Obviously, we didn't meet them on all occasions, but I do not apologise for the stretching targets that we set. And of all of those decisions, as I say, Welsh Labour were driven at all times by the determination to deliver better health outcomes for the people that we served.

Now, that's particularly relevant today. Decisions about screening programmes must always be based on the best available evidence. In this case, we know that the independent UK National Screening Committee does not recommend population-wide screening for prostate cancer. It advises that population-wide screening can cause more harm than good, because of the risks that include false positives and also the risk of providing false reassurances. Instead, they recommend targeted screening for prostate cancer, and, of course, the UK Labour Government has followed that advice.

The UK Labour Government has committed more than £20 million to improve prostate cancer research and treatment, including supporting the Transform trial, which aims to deliver better ways of detecting the disease. That research is particularly important for understanding how screening can better support black men who face a higher risk of developing prostate cancer. So, will the Minister now confirm that he too will follow the science and the Plaid Cymru Government will commit to introducing an evidence-based targeted prostate cancer screening programme in Wales, similar to that which the UK Labour Government has announced for England? If the Minister is unable to make that commitment today, he should set out his reasons in detail and explain why the Welsh Government is taking a decision that is not led by the evidence.

I'd also urge the Minister to ensure that the national cancer strategy is focused squarely on outcomes and real-life improvements for patients, and that it builds on the measures delivered by the Welsh Labour Government. Because what matters is early diagnosis, faster treatment and better chances of survival for cancer patients. The Minister already has our support for the motion today. If he can make those further commitments on the national cancer strategy, and a targeted prostate cancer screening programme, he will have the full backing of Labour Members as he delivers those plans.

I'm going to address the men of Wales, and first of all, thank you, Llŷr Powell, for tabling this debate. This is one of those debates where we should be able to put politics to one side. Prostate cancer doesn't care who you vote for, where you live or what you do for a living. When somebody is told they've got cancer, they're not thinking about politics, they're thinking about their family, what happens next and whether they're going to be all right.

This issue is personal to me. My grandfather died from kidney failure caused by prostate cancer, and several other men on my mother's side of the family have been affected by it. That's why it matters to me. I'm thinking about my grandfather and about the families across Wales facing those same worries today. I'm also thinking about the men who may have put off speaking to their GP. I'm 61 now, and because of my family background, I've had the prostate-specific antigen test, and, thankfully, the result was reassuring. But many men don't take that step. Some don't want to make a fuss. Some are worried about what they might be told. Others simply think if they feel fine, there cannot be anything wrong. The reality is that prostate cancer does not always give you a warning. That's why awareness matters and why men need to understand their own risk. But awareness on its own isn't enough. When someone does come forward, the NHS has to be there for them. If they need tests, scans or treatment, they shouldn't be left waiting and worrying about what happens next.

For those of us in rural Wales, there can be additional challenges. A hospital appointment can mean a long journey, time away from work and an entire day spent travelling. If you're already anxious about your health, that only adds to the burden. The latest national prostate cancer audit also raises concerns about variation in treatment in Wales. The figures come with important warnings about data quality, but that itself raises a question: how can we be confident that patients are receiving the right treatment if we cannot reliably measure what is happening?

I also want to say a brief word about the Conservative amendment. I understand the case being made, because I'd like to see more men diagnosed earlier too, particularly given my own family's experience. There is important work taking place around targeted screening for men at particularly high risk, and I believe Wales should continue to follow the evidence and medical advice as that develops.

But today's motion is straightforward. We're asking the Welsh Government to ensure that prostate cancer has a clear place within Wales's national cancer strategy. And inclusion in a strategy must mean more than just a mention in a document. It needs clear commitment on earlier diagnosis, timely treatment and fair access across Wales, with progress that patients and families can actually see—not because prostate cancer is more important than any other cancer, but because it affects so many men and families, and deserves sustained attention.

I'd like to thank organisations such as Prostate Cymru, Prostate Cancer UK, Lingen Davies Cancer Support in my own constituency, and Movember, along with the NHS staff and all the other organisations and individuals who work tirelessly to support patients and their families. Llywydd, I can't change what happened to my grandfather, but I'd like to think we can improve things for the men and families who come after us, because behind every diagnosis is a husband, father, grandfather, brother or friend. And what matters to those families isn't which party brought this debate forward; what matters is what we do next and whether we make the difference. Diolch.

I will declare an interest in this debate, because this particular cancer has come knocking at my own door for a loved one of my family.

I would first of all like to thank my colleague, though, Paul Davies MS, for all the brilliant work that he's already done to raise awareness of prostate cancer. By sharing your own experiences, Paul, which was very brave, you've already actively played a part in encouraging more men to come forward for screening. More than 2,500 men are diagnosed with prostate cancer in Wales every year. Around 640 men in Wales die from that disease annually. And the reason I'm speaking up is because what has happened to me and my family, it can happen to anybody.

We shouldn't just stand by and read out numbers any more of how many people have died annually. In my particular case, two years of monitoring—diagnosed two years ago, two years of monitoring—and the condition was going worse and worse during monitoring, to such a degree now that more extensive surgery is required than would have been had this been picked up sooner. Almost 40 per cent of prostate cancer cases are diagnosed at stages 3 or 4. That is not good enough. When the disease is more advanced, the treatment becomes more challenging. These figures should concern everybody sitting here, including you, Cabinet Minister for Health and Care.

Behind every statistic is a man facing the devastating consequences of cancer, prostate cancer being the most common cancer to affect men. Yet it remains one of the cancers where diagnosis too often comes too late. That is why, as has been said many times here today, and I endorse, early detection must be a priority. The Welsh Conservatives firmly believe that a national prostate cancer screening programme could help to identify the disease earlier, improve survival rates, reduce inequality and raise awareness across Wales.

We recognise that screening must be evidence-based and carefully designed. Concerns have rightly been raised about false positive results, unnecessary treatments and the pressure a screening programme could place on NHS capacity. I also understand that there's been a pushback, certainly from our health board, but also the Government, that too much testing can actually identify problems that could lead to more problems. I'm never convinced by that. A raised PSA result does not automatically mean a man has prostate cancer, but an ever-increasing PSA result is very worrying indeed for the family.

Screening can identify some slow-growing cancers that may never cause serious harm. But these challenges should drive us here, as Senedd Members, to develop a far better approach. Advances in diagnostic technology, including MRI and improved testing pathways, offer opportunities to make diagnosis more accurate, and for better treatment decisions when better informed. We should ensure Wales keeps pace with these developments and adopt proven innovation and evidence as it emerges. We should also recognise that a consistent national approach will tackle those very inequalities that have been described today: black men, men with a family history of prostate cancer and men with certain inherited genetic variations. It is fair to say that a very close member of my family has already died with prostate cancer, so why those warnings were not heeded earlier—who knows?

We acknowledge the recommendations of the UK National Screening Committee, including targeted screening for certain men with a confirmed BRCA2 variant and a relevant family history. The Welsh Government must carefully consider these recommendations. However, we also believe Wales should be ambitious. We should work with clinicians, researchers, charities, and patients and their families, to establish the strongest possible screening approach, informed by evidence and designed for the needs of our Welsh men.

We must also ensure that earlier diagnosis is matched by timely access to high-quality treatment, sufficient NHS staffing and the resources needed to meet demand. I will say this here today: patients from north Wales, patients within the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, should not be going to London for operations. Devolution was always supposed to be about providing those kinds of treatments here in Wales, and I was really shocked to learn that the robotic equipment that was purchased in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was not the right equipment—that is why we're sending people from north Wales to London. And it has to stop now. Diolch.

Every Member here will have met a constituent who has lived with prostate cancer or a family who has lost someone to it. A man who put off seeing the GP because he felt fine. A wife who noticed something was wrong before he did. A son who now gets himself checked because his father was diagnosed too late. These are not abstract cases. They are our neighbours, our friends and, for some of us, our own families.

Prostate cancer does not affect all communities equally. In our most deprived communities, most men, or more men, are now diagnosed at a later stage than at an earlier one, while men in more affluent areas are more often caught early. In practice, that means that a man's postcode can decide whether his cancer is found while it can still be treated.

According to the 'National Prostate Cancer Audit State of the Nation Report 2026', diagnoses in Wales rose by 12 per cent between 2023 and 2024 to around 2,500 men. That is 2,500 men in a single year who heard the words, 'You have cancer', and 2,500 families whose lives changed in that moment. The same audit found that only 54 per cent of men in Wales with high-risk or locally advanced disease received radical treatment, compared with 69 per cent in England. Those are the men whose cancer is the most dangerous, and too many of them do not appear to have received the treatment that could have saved their lives.

At the same time, 11 per cent of men in Wales with low-risk disease received radical treatment that may not have been needed, compared with 7 per cent in England, with all the lasting consequences that that can bring. The audit urges caution about the Welsh figures because of problems with data quality. Think about what that means. We cannot even say with confidence how many men with prostate cancer are being treated in Wales. That should trouble every one of us, and should be put right.

We also know how hard it is for many men to come forward. Too many have grown up believing that talking about their health is a weakness, and prostate cancer often gives no warning in its early stages. Members of the Senedd have spoken with real courage about their personal experiences, and I pay tribute to them, Paul. Our party leader in Scotland has done the same. But we cannot ask men to be brave enough to come forward and then fail to have a clear plan waiting for them when they do.

Men account for 54 per cent of cancer deaths in Wales. That is why Reform Wales has called for a 10-year cancer strategy, investment in modern diagnostics, targeted screening where need is greatest, and a men's health framework for Wales. So, I call on the Government to name prostate cancer in the strategy, with clear and measurable objectives included, to fix the data, so that we know what is happening to men diagnosed with prostate cancer, and to close the gap between our richest and poorest communities, so that no man is diagnosed too late because of where he lives. I urge all Members to support this motion. Diolch.

Thank you for tabling this debate today. As we've already heard, the statistics regarding the number of men who are impacted by this cruel disease every year cause quite a lot of concern. It's important to recognise that our rural communities are not immune to this challenge. Indeed, as noted in several studies, the burden can be particularly heavy for men in rural areas, where access to health services can be more challenging. A number of factors contribute to this: the distance that some men have to travel to reach a GP; concerns regarding the reduction in GP services, as we currently see in Powys; and the lack of public transport in rural areas. These barriers can all make it more difficult for men to access medical advice and that critical early diagnosis. 

It isn't just the practical challenges that we have to tackle, either. Often, stigma and unwillingness to discuss personal health matters can also lead to delay. We know that some men in farming communities are more prepared to prioritise the health and welfare of their animals over their own. We need to change that. We must foster a culture where men feel comfortable speaking about their health and are willing to ask for advice when something worries them. 

A number of organisations do valuable work in tackling this stigma. Recent work by the FCN charity, in partnership with Macmillan, to draw attention to the challenges in terms of access to cancer services in rural areas is an important example of these efforts. By the same token, I was very pleased to see the FUW adopting Prostate Cymru as the union president’s charity this year. I very much hope that this partnership will help to reach more men in our farming communities and emphasise the importance of identifying potential symptoms and seeking prompt medical advice.

In order to ensure real change, it's vital that any strategy to increase awareness and improve access to diagnosis and treatment aligns with the Welsh Government's broader plans to improve rural health services. To this end, I very much hope that such a strategy will work hand in hand with the Welsh Government's progressive aspiration to establish a new rapid diagnosis centre in Powys.

This is an important development for the region. At present, some patients have to travel outside Powys to receive specialist assessments because there are no suitable diagnostic services available locally. This can mean long journeys, additional costs and further strain for patients and their families at a time already full of worry. A new centre would be an opportunity to improve access to timely assessments and reduce geographical barriers, and it would help to ensure that patients are examined as soon as possible. 

We know that awareness and early diagnosis are vital in order to improve treatment outcomes for prostate cancer. By ensuring that the needs of rural communities are at the heart of any strategy, we can make a genuine difference to men’s lives the length and breadth of Wales. Thank you very much.

Nothing can ever prepare a person for receiving a cancer diagnosis, or indeed hearing about the diagnosis of a family member or a friend. It's one of the most terrifying things that anyone can be told, and it's a disease that touches, in effect, so many of us. Therefore, I welcome the Government's 10-year cancer strategy, because it's badly needed.

We're hearing today about why prostate cancer deserves proper attention within the national cancer strategy for Wales, and I'll be building on those points. But I also want to share with you a personal experience. I'd like to thank Paul and Janet for sharing their experiences also. My father was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2023. It was the most horrendous news to hear and it's been a very tough experience for our family, especially, at one point, we had an agonising wait of seven days to find out whether or not it had actually spread to his bones. I'm relieved to be able to tell the Siambr today that, three years on, he's still in remission. He doesn't like to have a fuss made of him, and he went through the first few weeks of this process alone because he didn't want to worry anybody. Thankfully, we're beginning to turn the page and move on from a very difficult chapter for us.

Early diagnosis and timely treatment were essential for my father, as they are for all men affected by prostate cancer here in Wales. Ensuring that our health service has the ability and the bandwidth to test and treat the thousands of people in Wales being diagnosed annually is crucial. The 'National Prostate Cancer Audit State of the Nation Report 2026' recorded around 2,700 prostate cancer diagnoses in Wales in 2024, as we've heard, and it increased 12 per cent on the previous year. And as we've heard a few times, but it does bear emphasis, just 54 per cent of men in Wales with high-risk or locally advanced prostate cancer received radical treatment, compared with 69 per cent in England. Meanwhile, 11 per cent of men in Wales with low-risk disease received radical treatment, with concerns that this may represent over-treatment, compared with the 7 per cent in England.

These figures raise serious questions about whether patients are consistently receiving the right treatment at the right time. However, the audit itself warns that problems with Welsh data quality and completeness mean that these findings must be interpreted with caution. Reliable data, modern systems and effective accountability are needed to deliver on its commitments. How can the Government properly assess performance, allocate resources or establish whether its policies are working if it cannot reliably measure what is happening? Cancer services need reliable systems that allow clinicians to access accurate information, co-ordinate treatment and identify delays. The Government must explain how it will ensure that the new platform delivers and how it will hold those responsible to account if it does not.

Llywydd, there is a wider lesson here about funding. In its evidence to the Senedd's Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee, the Wales Cancer Alliance argued that increased investment in cancer services has not translated into proportional improvements in performance or patient outcomes. It also highlighted that the national target requiring 75 per cent of patients to begin treatment within 62 days of their first suspicion of cancer has not been met across Wales as a whole, or by any individual health board, since August 2020. Let us consider that. Years of missed targets across every health board in Wales. That should concern every Member of this Senedd.

Of course, cancer services need adequate funding so that the NHS can afford modern diagnostic equipment, effective treatments, reliable digital infrastructure and properly staffed services. They all require investment. But we cannot simply assume that spending more money will automatically produce better outcomes. We need clear lines of responsibility, transparent performance measures and accountability when commitments are repeatedly missed. Prostate cancer must be included in the national strategy and that must mean measurable commitments on earlier diagnosis, timely treatment, reliable data and reducing unwarranted variation between health boards. And it must mean publishing progress, identifying failures and directing resources where they will make the greatest difference to patients. We should not accept a situation in which the Government cannot confidently establish what is happening to patients because its data is incomplete. The forthcoming strategy is an opportunity to put these failures right.

The Government must explicitly recognise prostate cancer as a priority and demonstrate how investment, digital transformation and service reform will work together to improve outcomes, because men diagnosed with prostate cancer do not need another promise, they need to know that their health is considered, understood and included. They need a health service that can provide the right treatment, at the right time, and demonstrate that it is getting better. That is what accountability looks like; that is what our motion will deliver. I therefore urge Members to support it. Diolch, Lywydd.

I call on the Cabinet Minister for Health and Care, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you, Llywydd. I welcome the opportunity to respond to this debate and to recognise the significance of prostate cancer for the large number of men, families and communities across Wales that it affects. Cancer is the leading cause of death in Wales, and prostate cancer is now one of the most common cancers diagnosed in men. Too many men still face delays in receiving a diagnosis, treatment and care, and too many families continue to experience uncertainty and anxiety whilst waiting for answers. We must do better.

Let me be clear. I understand the concerns that have prompted this debate. Members will be aware that cancer services in Wales are a major priority for me. In the field of cancer, performance regarding waiting times remains below the standards that we expect, and this includes parts of the urology pathway. Although NHS staff continue to work tirelessly under significant pressures, I am not satisfied with the current situation and no-one else in this Chamber should be satisfied either. Improving outcomes and experiences for everyone affected by cancer remains a key priority for this Government.

That is exactly why we are developing a new 10-year cancer strategy, the first of its kind since 2006. This work will set out a long-term strategic vision as well as national priorities to guide NHS planning and the transformation of cancer care over the next decade. Our objective is simple, but significant: that more people survive cancer, that more cancers are diagnosed early, that access to care does not depend on where one lives, and that people receive timely, personalised support throughout their cancer journey. This same objective must be delivered for men diagnosed with prostate cancer, just as it must for everyone affected by cancer in Wales.

We intend to publish this strategy on World Cancer Day 2027, alongside a national cancer conference bringing together NHS leaders, clinicians, planners, partners, stakeholders and the third sector to share best practice and explore how our national priorities will be delivered across the next decade. Improving outcomes and experience to match the top quartile in Europe will require sustained effort, long-term commitment and honest recognition of the challenges we face. It's an ambition worthy of the people of Wales.

Cancer doesn't discriminate, and nor should we. Our intention is to support improvements across all cancer types and for people of all ages, backgrounds and communities. Importantly, the strategy will cover the entire cancer pathway, from prevention and screening through to diagnosis, treatment, recovery, survivorship and living well with and beyond cancer. The strategy will address the key challenges facing cancer services, while putting in place the enablers needed to deliver sustained improvement. That means looking at workforce, leadership, research, innovation, digital systems, infrastructure and service design alongside the quality and effectiveness of care itself. We also want to accelerate the adoption of new validated tests, technologies and recommended treatments, while strengthening accountability and transparency to drive improvement across Wales.

The strategy is being informed by one of the most extensive engagement exercises undertaken in cancer policy in Wales. A national call for evidence is currently gathering insights from stakeholders and the public, and I encourage all those with an interest in cancer services to contribute by the 31 October deadline. Alongside this, we are undertaking structured engagement with NHS organisations, professional bodies, key partners and the Wales Cancer Alliance.

To Paul's point on consultation, we are listening directly to people affected by cancer through patient engagement forums across Wales, co-ordinated by the Wales Cancer Alliance, to ensure that lived experience helps shape the priorities and actions needed to improve outcomes and experiences for the future. It's important that this process is allowed to conclude before decisions are taken on the final content of the strategy. The programme of engagement is still under way and the final priorities should be shaped by the views, expertise and lived experiences that we are gathering, rather than by predetermined conclusions.

The challenges facing the urology cancer pathway are not unique, but they bring into sharp focus the changes we must make if we are to improve cancer outcomes in Wales. These ambitions sit at the heart of the strategy. While the Welsh Government doesn't directly fund individual diagnostic tests, the strategy will set out how the NHS and its partners will work together to evaluate and introduce new diagnostic investigations for suspected cancer, including for prostate cancer.

I recognise the anxiety that prostate cancer causes men and their families and why many would welcome screening. The Welsh Government follows the advice of the UK National Screening Committee and, at present, the committee does not recommend population screening for prostate cancer. However, it has recommended targeted screening for men between the ages of 45 and 61 who carry the BRCA2 gene and have a first-degree family history of breast, ovarian, pancreatic or prostate cancer. We have asked Public Health Wales to consider how this could be implemented in Wales.

It is already established clinical practice to offer active surveillance to patients with low-risk, localised prostate cancer, and we are monitoring rates of radical treatment through the national prostate cancer audit, to support improvements in care. GPs support shared decision-making with any man who is concerned about his risk of developing prostate cancer. We will work with the NHS to consider whether additional guidance is needed to support GPs in conducting these discussions.

I want to reassure Members that we are not waiting for the strategy to improve cancer data. Working with NHS organisations, we are already strengthening the availability, quality and use of data to lay the groundwork for success once the strategy is published. The Welsh Government has taken action and will continue to take action on the findings of the Audit Wales report, with the next phase of this work being driven by the strategy.

Llywydd, everyone in this Chamber shares the same broad objective: better outcomes, better experiences and better services for people affected by cancer in Wales. The national cancer strategy provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to secure that improvement, not only for men diagnosed with prostate cancer, but for everyone affected by cancer in Wales. That is the commitment driving this work, and I look forward to continuing that journey alongside patients, clinicians, charities and Members from across this Chamber. Thank you.

I call on James Evans to respond to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I just start by thanking all Members who've contributed to this debate, and also the Members who haven't contributed, but have actually sat through and listened to the debate? Because I think it's very nice that we've got a debate that galvanises the whole Chamber together. With all of the rumpus conversations that we have in here, it is quite nice to have some that do bring us together.

Ben opened the debate and, as you said, it's the most common cause of cancer in men: 2,500 people diagnosed and, as many people, like yourself, said, 640 of those sadly passing away—sadly too young, a lot of them as well, because the diagnosis wasn't caught early. And that only 54 per cent of men in Wales are accessing rapid treatment compared to 69 per cent in England, and that's something that should concern us all. I know the Cabinet Secretary highlighted—I'll come on to it later—about wanting to be the best in Europe, and I share that ambition, I'm sure we all do, but we need to put a laser focus on this area of cancer, because it is preventable if it is caught early enough.

You also raised the issue, as a lot of Members did, around data. It's something that a number of us who've been here a long time have always heard about cancer care, that the data just isn't there to inform decision making, so having more accurate data is very, very important. You also raised early screening. I know a number of Members raised that and that's something that's also very important. I know Prostate Cymru, for example, have gone out doing screening themselves on top of what the NHS is doing, and I think they've done an absolutely phenomenal job

phenomenal job in finding a number of people across the country. Sometimes, those are men, as Members have talked about, who wouldn't naturally go and see a doctor as well, but they've had the sessions in rugby clubs, in gyms, for example, or down the local pub. So, it's actually been really good that they've rolled that out. 

And then Paul Davies—and thank you, Paul, for giving your own personal experience. You and I have talked a lot about this in the past, about your own personal experience of living with prostate cancer and the need to include it within that cancer strategy. And that's something that we need to see, because it is the biggest killer of men in terms of cancer. So, we do need to make sure that it is included. You also raised the consultation, and we all need to see that, if consultations are had by Government, then the lived experience of people has to come through that consultation. It just can't be a tick-box exercise, as you raised. It actually needs to be considered and thought out in the way that it does that. And you also raised, and I know you've been a real champion for it, the national screening programme, when it was first discussed, and then the UK Government screening committee decided not to roll it out. I know that you were deeply disappointed about that, like a lot of others, and I'd just like to thank you for the work you've done, not just in this Parliament but in other Parliaments across the UK, to understand why that screening programme should be happening. And also about the advances in medical technology as well, and that men in Wales should have access to that technology and not outdated technology, and that was picked up a little bit by the Cabinet Minister.

Matthew, your commitment to cancer is unmatched, really, in this Chamber. You worked for a number of cancer charities before you even came to this place, and now you're chairman of the cross-party group on cancer. And as someone who's been here before, I can say that that cross-party group does an awful lot of very good work, and it's informed a lot of the work of the cancer strategy over the years as well. So thank you for that. And you said about the excitement that there is amongst a number of third sector bodies and our charities about a cancer strategy, something that a number of us have been shouting about for a long time to have, so it's positive that that is coming forward. You raised the cancer pathways as well, and actually the delays that some people are experiencing in care through those pathways. And I'm sure that's something that the Government will take heed of from your cross-party group as well to see how we can improve, not just for prostate cancer but all cancers, to improve the pathways.

Ken Skates then opened with his support for the motion, and I will give credit to the last Government—I don't give them credit much—about the new Velindre cancer care centre as well. [Interruption.] No, you can keep rolling your hand, Ken, but that's as far as it's going. And about the work it did, especially with the new cancer centre as well in Nevill Hall Hospital, the Velindre @ Nevill Hall cancer centre, and just how that's opened up so many more avenues to get care closer to home. I know the new Cabinet Minister has been there, and I've also been there in a personal capacity with a family member. I know just how important that centre is for so many people. And also about the strategy being evidence led by stuff that's going on at a UK level. I think that was really important to highlight.

Adrian, you raised your personal experience, like a lot of others did, with cancer, and a lot of men don't seek out help, and that's something that we do see across men's health across the country. A lot of people don't seek help with their own health problems, they just tend to deal with it quietly, and they don't go to the GP, and they don't go for tests. They just put it in a box somewhere and say 'We won't talk about it'. But I think that's really important. You also raised screening, and that the Welsh Government here should follow the advice as it develops. And you also mentioned the support that can be given to patients and their families. I think that's really important.

Janet, thank you very much. I know about your personal experience. As you said, you and I have also talked about that a lot. And I think it was a point that you raised that 40 per cent of people are only caught at stage 3 and 4, which is an absolutely shocking statistic. It's coming well too late. That's probably one of the worst out of all the cancers, actually, except some of our rarer cancers. And you, like others, raised the screening programme as well. So I'm sure the Cabinet Minister has heard that, that a lot of us in this Chamber want that. 

Gareth, you said that cancer can affect everyone, and that men in deprived areas are actually more likely to get diagnosed later than those in more affluent areas, and that's something about health inequalities that the health committee have looked at on a number of occasions, and how we do need to make sure there is that health equality across Wales, without detriment to anyone in any part of the country. And the postcode lottery, I don't know how many times the Cabinet Minister and I have both heard that before, and others in this Chamber, about how where you live across Wales can really decide how your outcomes and prognosis really do look, which is also shocking.

Elwyn Vaughan—people who live in rural areas. You and I and a lot of others share this as well, about the barriers we face to diagnosis. And we talked about the farming community especially, and just raising something from my own community, Shearing is Caring raised an awful lot of money for Prostate Cymru, and that's about the farming community and getting men talking more about their mental health. You talked about the link with the farming community network at Macmillan. I'll give a shameless plug now that I'm running a HYROX race next week for Macmillan. So if anybody wants to sponsor me, I'm still taking sponsorship.

I'm still taking sponsorship. And also about the Welsh Government's plan for the rapid diagnostic centre in Powys. I don't agree with Plaid Cymru on much, but I think this could actually be an area where I think it's really positive for the people who live in rural areas, especially in Powys.

Helen Jenner spoke about her own personal experience in her own family, and I think it's very important that people do talk about their personal experience. I think it's something that really shapes a parliamentary democracy, that we've got people in here who actually do understand the issue, that have got family going through it. And you also said about your father not wanting to worry people. How many times have we heard that with men who are going through a diagnosis? ‘I'm just not going to tell my family.’ I've even known people who've passed away from cancer, and their own family don't even know why they've passed away until after, because it's been hidden from them, because they just don't want to worry. So, making sure that men talk more is important. And you also raised about the data and the years of missed targets, and I think that's something that the Cabinet Minister needs to reflect on, and perhaps other Members in the Chamber in Government before, that actually this is a historical issue and a historical injustice that really does need to be sorted.

Then we moved on to our Cabinet Minister, and I do not pretend not to show your commitment to this area. I know you and I have worked closely in the past on cancer pathways and improving cancer care across Wales, so I don't doubt your commitment to that. And as you said, cancer is the leading cause of death for men in Wales. It's still too high, and it needs to be addressed. And as I said earlier, you raised about us wanting to be the best in Europe. I want us to be the best in the world when it comes to addressing cancer, especially prostate cancer. We're a small nation that spends an awful lot of our public money on the health service. So, actually, for the money we put into it, we actually get a pretty poor return in what we put in. So, actually making that money work better to get better outcomes for the people of Wales, and especially men struggling with prostate cancer, is really important.

You also talk about the Welsh Government wanting new technologies and tests, and I know the new lung screening tests that are coming through. But there are new tests coming through as well for prostate cancer, and it would be really, really good if Wales could be a leading partner with charities and with the university institutions to develop these new technologies so people can get seen quicker.

You mentioned about screening. Something I haven't heard before, actually, is the commitment from government. They've asked Public Health Wales to look at the screening, perhaps not as wide as some Member wants, but actually screening for perhaps a portion of the population which are at higher risk of getting prostate cancer.

The clock has now gone red, but I'm going to make another shameless plug, it's something that I've always been very keen on. It was something in our manifesto—a proper men's health strategy for Wales. I think that is something that is needed. Prostate cancer is a leading cause of death in men, but there are also a lot of other health areas that need to be addressed for our men across the country. We don't talk about it often enough, and I think that's something that the Government should take into serious consideration—a proper men's health strategy for Wales to address the health inequalities of a number of men across our country. And I urge all Members to support our motion this afternoon. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. I will therefore will defer voting under this item until Voting Time              

The next item is the Welsh Labour debate, the M4 around Newport. I call on Jayne Bryant to move the motion.

Newport is the city where I was born, grew up in, and live in, and I speak today as part of a group of Welsh Labour Senedd Members who know that this issue has gone on unresolved for far too long. You do not need to live locally to know that the M4 around Newport is broken. Sadly, the Brynglas tunnels have become synonymous with gridlock. The vast majority of M4 traffic is not local, but the motorway was never designed to carry the weight of a modern national economy. This stretch of road is the main gateway to south and west Wales. It is critical to our industries, both established and emerging, our ports and our tourism, yet it bisects a growing city.

While congestion on this stretch of the M4 puts a handbrake on economic growth, it is the people of Newport who pay the price every single day with air pollution, which is a silent killer. Welsh Labour has laid this motion today because the people of Newport and connected communities in Cwmbran, Torfaen and Caerphilly have had enough. These communities are not some theoretical testbed, and the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government is toying with costly and ineffective proposals that will wreak havoc on people's lives.

Let's take the Government's serious proposals to close junctions. Fully closing High Cross and the eastbound slips at Malpas and Caerleon is not a quick fix.

is not a quick fix. The Welsh Government's own report shows that it would only take up to 3 per cent of traffic off the motorway. Not everyone can work from home, and junction closures, whether temporary or permanent, would also affect public transport, access to healthcare, childcare and property prices. It's astounding that the Government is even considering this.

When I asked the Deputy Minister how the remaining junctions at Tredegar Park and the Coldra would cope with the displaced traffic, he had no answer, because it wouldn't cope; it would just funnel toxic air and gridlock into residential streets. That's why, Llywydd, we're asking that this Senedd charts a new course today. Welsh Labour believes that local people should be at the heart of this new Government's approach to the M4 around Newport. Successive Governments—the Conservatives before devolution; a Plaid Cymru Minister in 2009; and Welsh Labour Governments have all failed to resolve this challenge.

When the independent planning inspector examined the black route nearly a decade ago, he concluded there was a 'compelling case' on economic and human grounds to build the relief road. This was a comprehensive and lengthy process that engaged with communities, including public hearings, and incorporated detailed plans to enhance and protect the environment.

Major infrastructure done right can enhance, rather than destroy, our natural environment. Indeed, the wonderful and much-loved Newport wetlands nature reserve was established to compensate for habitat lost during the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage. Many of us across the Labour movement have known long time how vital a relief road is, and that's why I could not vote to scrap it in this Chamber in 2019. Today, as a party, Welsh Labour is clear: while the decision to reject the inspector's recommendations may have been understandable on narrow financial grounds, it has left the issue unresolved. Innovative funding models should have been explored like public-private partnerships, regional borrowing by local authorities supported by Welsh Government or land value capture, rather than rejecting it outright.

Now, let's be clear: these decisions are difficult, and for too long the M4 has been put in the 'too difficult' box. The Plaid Cymru Welsh Government's recent report from Arup states on page 3:

'None of the options or any combination of options considered as part of this review would fully resolve the M4 problem.'

So, if the Government is serious about solving this issue, why on earth has the Government remained wedded to their belief that a new relief road is out of scope? It seems Plaid Cymru is perfectly content to build roads and bridges elsewhere in Wales, but not when it comes to solving the M4 around Newport.

In addition to junction closures, the review identifies the options of widening the Brynglas tunnels combined with the ineffective interventions on local roads, and the so-called blue route is back on the table, which would take traffic closer to communities like Lliswerry, Ringland, Pill and Duffryn. The blue route might seem like an option for people who don't live in the area but with thousands of homes built at Glan Llyn and Milton Park since the initial option was proposed, and thousands more being built, turning what's known as the SDR, the southern distributor road, into a quasi motorway is completely divorced from reality. Everyone knows locally how busy that road is.

The option of widening the Brynglas tunnels cannot be regarded in a credible way. The report states that widening the tunnels is not expected to reduce traffic on the M4 as it involves online works and does not create an alternative route elsewhere. The two lanes start back before the tunnels, and whilst we want the traffic to flow better, it will not tackle the air pollution problem. And we must not forget what the disruption to local homes and businesses above and next to the motorway will be.

Plaid Cymru's public transport plans are not new. They were in progress before this Government. The Burns train stations and better public transport are vital. Welsh Labour championed them, and we need them to be delivered. And while we're glad to see Magor and Undy and Cardiff Parkway stations progress, these stations alone will not solve congestion at the Brynglas tunnels. We need to see the Plaid Cymru Government act with urgency to deliver the stations in Newport at Somerton, Liswerry and Tredegar Park. Public transport must be regular, reliable and affordable for people to use it. I say this as someone who's long campaigned for the Ebbw Vale to Newport line and commuters on that line still face unacceptable cancellations and overcrowding. Public transport and road infrastructure must meet the needs of a growing population, and Newport is the faster-growing city with the youngest population in Wales. 

So, let's be clear: a new relief road would not be the old black route. Houses and schools have been built, people have moved to the area and the bar for environmental delivery has rightly risen following the roads review. What we need now is an appropriate, modern relief road that acts as a template for responsible infrastructure. Imagine a road built with the lowest possible embedded carbon and strong site of special scientific interest protections.

The way forward should not be shaped by Ministers lecturing, but by people affected in and around Newport. Welsh Labour believes we should empower those local leaders across councils and the south-east Wales capital region, building on the collaborative Burns model, to develop an appropriate relief road and a creative multisource funding package supported by Welsh Government. Contrary to what we've seen so far, the Government must remember that the people of Newport and south-east Wales aren't just data points in a transport policy document, they're individuals, families and businesses. So, I urge the Senedd to back our motion today. Diolch.

I have selected the amendments to the motion. I call on the Deputy Minister for Transport to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan.

Formally.

Thank you very much. Lyn Ackerman.

Diolch, Lywydd. This is the first time I rise in this Chamber having to admit that I'm in awe of the Labour Party—for the barefaced cheek it takes to bring this motion to the floor of the Senedd, having cancelled the previous scheme in 2019. Let us not forget that, in Government, they spent £135 million not to build the very thing they are now demanding of Plaid Cymru today. Public money spent on a road that they cancelled, and I note that the leader of the Labour group was the transport Minister at the time. Labour cannot expect people to forget simply because they are now sitting on the opposition benches. Indeed, the public have not forgotten. For all of their online sham protests, I would suggest they read the comments from the public on their social media accounts.

Burnham's branch office is entitled to argue for a different road, but it owes the people who paid for the last scheme an explanation of what it would do differently this time. Its motion gives us no way of knowing which road it means or how it would be funded. Labour needs to explain what its motion would add to the work Ministers have already announced. The Government has already accepted that road and engineering improvements are needed around Newport. It has announced an 18-month study to select a third—

Another review. 

—road option alongside improvements to the existing motorway and public transport. The study needs to lead to a decision that Ministers can fund and carry through. I also expect progress on the existing network while this work takes place. People should be able to see what is being delivered within those 18 months and when they can expect to improve their journeys.

For people in Casnewydd Islwyn, the roads that lead to the M4 matter as much as the motorway itself. Changes at the Newport junction could affect journeys from the Valleys and put more traffic through residential areas. The Arup review warns that traffic could be displaced around Malpas, High Cross and Ridgeway, which affects noise and air quality. A proposal could therefore improve the flow of traffic on the motorway while making some local journeys worse. We need to know where that traffic would go and what the consequences would be for the people living around those routes. The Government has said that no decision to implement junction closures has been taken. It is committed to further traffic modelling before any decisions are made. I support the decision and look forward to seeing the updated data before the Government makes any final decision.

Based on the evidence, I am supporting the amendment and urge Members to do the same. The electorate expect us to act in this Chamber on their behalf, and not descend into pantomime politics by pretending that the easy solution exists to solve complex problems. This is how we end up here in the first place.

Oh, have I waited for this one. [Laughter.] Now, we, Reform, will of course support the motion today. It's pretty clear, though, that it's an obvious attempt to cut the strings of Labour's puppet master, Mark Drakeford. Now, we welcome the decision and we congratulate Welsh Labour on taking 27 years to come to the same conclusion that it took us exactly one minute to make. And that one minute was 59 seconds too long, in my opinion.

Now, every day, tens of thousands of motorists sit in queues on the M4. Businesses lose money, workers lose time and families spend more of their lives sitting in traffic than sitting at home with loved ones. And after literally decades of promises, what have they been given? More congestion, more excuses and absolutely no solution. The very politicians responsible for this failure are trying to convince the people of Wales that they have the answer.

Let's start with Labour. Twenty-seven years in Government. Twenty-seven years to deliver a solution to the most important transport problem in recent Welsh history. One hundred and fifty million pounds of taxpayers' money spent on plans, consultations and reviews. And what did the people of Wales receive for that substantial investment? Nothing. Perhaps a few sheets of paper. Mark Drakeford cancelled the M4 relief road, abandoning a project that would have made a real difference. And who was the Government Minister at the time? A gentleman called Ken Skates. [Interruption.] Good timing, sir.

It was me. It was actually the case that the entire project was in my name. I was the sponsor Minister taking it through the public inquiry that ruled, in the inspector's view, that it should go ahead. The decision was made on financial grounds and for the right reason. But I don't know whether you can see me through the script in your glasses, but can you just tell me whether your party still favours making motorists pay twice through taxes and then through tolls?

Well, good news, Ken: I can see straight through you, so no problem there. [Laughter.]

You've been practising that one, haven't you? 

Didn't know it was coming.

You've rehearsed that.

Didn't know it was coming.

Was that in a mirror or in your glasses? [Laughter.]

Not at all. Reform has been very clear: we will build the M4 relief road. So, that's our position. That's the one we're currently going down, and it will not be a toll road. It will be paid for out of the sovereign wealth fund from the UK Government. Thank you very much.

But continuing, did you stand up and challenge the decision? No. Did you stand up and fight for businesses, commuters and families who desperately need that road? No. You defended the very Government that cancelled it. Now Labour wants to lecture this Chamber about the importance of building a relief road. It is quite funny. The same party that killed the project want to take credit for bringing it back to life. So, here's my question to Labour: if the M4 relief road is so desperately needed today, why didn't you build it when you were in power? The truth is, Labour hasn't changed. They've discovered the political consequences of ignoring it. And now, frightened of losing even more support to Reform UK, they're desperately trying to distance themselves from the anti-motorist legacy of Mark Drakeford and Lee Waters. But the people of Wales won't forget, and neither will we.

So, let me now turn to Plaid Cymru, a party that promised change but are determined to continue the same failed approach. The black route has apparently been ruled out. But good news, stranded motorists, we've been offered more studies, more assessments and even more delays, and astonishingly, proposals to close motorway junctions and divert traffic onto local roads in Newport and the surrounding towns. Now, think about that for a moment. Their answer to congestion on the M4 is to move that congestion into the communities of Newport. How on earth is that supposed to improve the lives of the people we represent?

Now, thanks to resurfaced tweets, we have greater clarity on the mind behind the junction closures. In 2019, the Minister stated he wanted to discourage car use on the M4 because of the climate emergency, and even went so far as to seriously suggest that the way to solve the M4 issue was that workers in Wales, in the public sector, should work a day fewer a week. Now, they call us climate conspiracy theorists, of course, yet they're the ones blocking the relief road as part of their net-zero agenda. That is their design: punish motorists and push them onto public transport. And if you don't believe me, just take a look at the transport Minister's own words for it. 

Today is about setting the record straight. Labour had the opportunity to build the road and cancelled it. Plaid Cymru had the opportunity to deliver a solution and is ruling out the very project that would provide one. Now, one party cancelled it, the other refuses to build it, but we all know it was the constant pressure of Reform, our historic election result and our grass-roots campaign that has got us here today. The people of Wales already know how they're going to get this M4 road delivered, and that is with a Reform UK Government.

I'm delighted to support this Labour motion today. The gridlock of traffic congestion on the M4 around Newport has been a national embarrassment for over 30 years. The consequences of all Senedd parties being unable to agree a way forward for the M4 around Newport is ever-rising levels of congestion and pollution in Newport, and the connected Valleys communities north of the M4 in Torfaen and Caerphilly. The Confederation of British Industry and local businesses have been advising for years that the gridlock on the M4 is a brake on economic growth and prosperity for communities along the whole of the M4 corridor in south Wales.

One of the key lessons that this Welsh Labour group takes from its losses in the Senedd elections in May is that we must do more for people today. This is why we must speak out against what Plaid Cymru is proposing to visit on the people of Newport and the south-east Wales Valleys through its proposals on the M4 around Newport review.

Every party in this Chamber will, of course, be keen to support the public transport proposals developed under the last Labour Government for more rail services on the south Wales main line, and this will eventually offer many commuters a rail-based public transport option. And bus and active travel solutions also have a role to play. But the problem is that these public transport interventions will only take 7 per cent of traffic off the M4 on completion, and that's after six to seven years of construction. This is less than a third of the 25 per cent or more of traffic that needs to be diverted from the M4 around Newport.

The last Welsh Labour Government commissioned a series of major road studies in readiness for a new Government, looking at the M4 and also the A55 and the A494 corridors in particular. This work under Labour enabled the Minister to make his announcements on the Menai bridge and the M4 in recent weeks.

The most effective intervention for the M4 would be a relief road. It would meet the key criteria of reducing congestion and thereby pollution made worse by stationary and crawl-speed traffic, and improve resilience, providing an alternative route to the M4 in case of accidents. The other options seemingly championed by the Minister are not fit for purpose. For a 3 per cent reduction in traffic on the M4, junction closures will cause congestion mayhem, pollution and economic harm in and around Newport.

Widening the Brynglas tunnels is a surprising option, dismissed by all previous reviews. The A48 and blue route are not credible either. They would destroy health and wealth in Newport, and the proposals will face great challenges from new housing and the urban context. Looking at this Welsh Government's half-baked review options, it would need to implement a combination of these that it sets out, and the cost of these combinations would exceed £3 billion, and take nearly 30 years as the works on them cannot be done concurrently. All this in the context of a Government with an annual borrowing limit of £165 million, and a total borrowing cap of £1.1 billion.

The Welsh Government cannot deliver an M4 solution on its own. It will need partners prepared to pool financial resources, subject to fit-for-purpose options being agreed. It's time to get real. 

It's time to get real. The proposed junction closures must be ruled out for the benefit of the people of Newport. The only option that delivers reduced congestion, better environmental outcomes by keeping traffic moving and releasing the chokehold of the M4 on the economy is a relief road. We need local leaders empowered to lead the planning of a new relief road for the M4—a partnership of Welsh Government and local authorities able to consider innovative funding and fully grounded in engagement with the community. Diolch, Lywydd. 

I'm not going to lie, I do feel like I've walked into the twilight zone today with this particular debate happening. As someone who was born and raised in Newport, I have to say on behalf of myself, as well as all the residents, commuters and businesses, that Newport has been forced to suffer for years with unacceptable traffic chaos, especially when it comes to the M4. This vital stretch of road is regularly clogged with hotspots like the Brynglas tunnels often gridlocked. Not only does this affect residents going about their daily lives, it has a major impact on visitors and seriously damages our economic prosperity.

Something absolutely needs to be done to tackle the M4's never-ending problems. By closing junctions 26, 27 and 25, it's simply not going to be the answer to everyone's prayers. Now, instead of providing any sort of relief, as the Government claims, junction closures will consign Newport to even more misery. Traffic won't magically disappear when these junctions close, it will just be moved to our city's A-roads and residential streets, creating more problems. 

And then there's the price tag. The Government is looking at spending £14 million on closing these three junctions for a measly 3 per cent expected drop in traffic on the M4. Do you really think that's worth it? That £14 million could go towards building an M4 relief road—something that would actually improve the traffic problems across and around Newport.

Since news of the junction closure plans came to light, the public uproar in Newport and its surrounding communities has been loud and clear. They do not want to see Plaid politicians spending £14 million on a scheme that is going to make their lives a living misery. And I don't blame them one bit. Residents have been contacting me in their droves over the past few weeks to highlight the problems junction closures will cause for them, and I want to share some of their stories with all of you in the Chamber today. These are the words of one of my constituents: 'If the Welsh Government continues to pursue these oppressive and poorly thought out policies, it makes me seriously question my future here and I am genuinely considering moving my family and my taxes across the border to England. I know I'm not alone in giving this serious thought.' 

Another constituent told me, 'The closure of these junctions will not only cause chaos on the roads in and around Newport, it will create problems on the roads leading down to the two valleys, which are already congested. It will cause businesses to lose valuable custom, increase their fuel costs and make deliveries a logistical nightmare. It will make commutes longer, more time consuming and more costly.'

Another bewildered constituent said, 'Newport residents should not have to pay the price for years of inadequate transport planning and infrastructure investment. Stopping the M4 relief road was, in my view, a major failure in planning towards the future of Wales. Closing M4 junctions is not a solution, it is simply going to move the problem elsewhere. Has anyone seriously considered what the consequences will be for local residents, businesses, commuters and emergency services? We need proper infrastructure investment and long-term thinking. We need additional road capacity and better connectivity across south-east Wales towards England, not measures that make existing congestion even worse. Newport residents deserve better, Wales deserves better.'

Now, that's just a snapshot of the feeling amongst my constituents. I could stand here genuinely all afternoon and read you e-mail after e-mail, but I appreciate there's simply not enough time. However, I would be more than happy to share these with the Deputy Minister for Transport so he can get a better understanding of how his plans have gone down in communities across my constituency. Taking feedback and views from residents, businesses and key stakeholders is paramount, Presiding Officer, and whilst I believe these junction closures should be categorically ruled out, if this Government is hell bent on pushing this piece of work through, then there must be a serious consultation.

Last week I raised this point with the Welsh Government, and to say I was disappointed by the response would be an understatement. The Government keeps saying it will engage with communities in Newport about the junction plans, but we haven't heard to date one time—one time alone—how they will be doing this or when this piece of work will indeed be commencing. So, I'm going to try again, and I hope that the Deputy Minister will address these points when he responds to this debate later on.

These are genuine concerns about the impact junction closures will have on emergency services and accessing medical care. One constituent that I spoke to, who has a child with medically complex needs, is sincerely fearful of the potential extra delay she will face as a result of more traffic when getting her daughter to the Grange University Hospital. The Police and Crime Commissioner for Gwent, Jane Mudd, has also sounded the alarm over junction closures, saying it runs the risk of slowing down emergency response times. Not only that, but Malpas fire station is just a stone throw away from junction 26, which has been earmarked for partial closure. Has the Welsh Government taken this into account? Has the Minister had serious discussions with Gwent Police, the ambulance service, Newport City Council and Aneurin Bevan University Health Board? If so,

If so, what has their feedback been so far? My Welsh Conservative colleagues and I will absolutely be supporting Labour's motion this afternoon, calling for the M4 junction closures to be ruled out and a relief road to be built.

But it would be very much remiss of me not to point out the sheer hypocrisy of the Labour Party when it comes to this issue. Let's not all forget: Labour were in power here for 27 years before being turfed out in May. You had more than a quarter of a century to do something to solve the M4 problem, but you did nothing.

Labour spent more than £100 million of taxpayers' money on research and development for the M4 relief road, including buying a caravan park, everybody, only for the former First Minister, Mark Drakeford, to scrap the project. And let's not forget that the Conservative Prime Minister, David Cameron, offered your Labour Welsh Government the money to build the relief road, but it was rejected. Where was the outcry from Newport Labour politicians then? Everyone sat there in silence. By not acting when you were in Government, you are equally to blame that these junction closure plans—

Could you conclude now, please, Natasha?

—are happening right now. In fact, it was one of your MSs who touted the idea of junction closures in the first place—former MS John Griffiths—[Inaudible.]—for the first time.

Ken Skates. [Inaudible.] Ken Skates.

And do you know which Minister it was that ruled out those junction closure plans at the time?

Was it you, by any chance?

It was, indeed. Thank you.

Okay, well, it was the fact that—[Inaudible.]

[Inaudible.]—going. But I said loud enough, please, to conclude the remarks. Ken Skates.

Thank you, Llywydd. Obviously, the subject matter of this debate actually predates devolution. It goes all the way back to the early 1990s, to the John Major Government, when there was failure to deliver back then. And of course, some in the Chamber were once Tories failing to deliver.

But if we then move to 2019, of course, the planning inspector gave support to the proposed M4 relief lanes that I had promoted through the public inquiry. But the decision made in 2019 not to go ahead with the relief lanes was for very good reason. The cost at the time, at a period of terrible uncertainty, was prohibitive. It was too much money at the time, with too few options available to pay for it. Costs, and estimated costs, had been rising during the course of development and reached £1.4 billion.

At the time, we were planning for a no-deal Brexit, with funds being—[Inaudible.] This is a fact. With funds being prepared to help businesses, to help farmers, to help public services, with the chaos that would have come. Instead, COVID came and wiped out our budgets.

Now, I'm proud of the work that Lord Burns and the South Wales Transport Commission did, as well as having secured the money for the south Wales relief line stations, including Cardiff Parkway. And I'm proud that we delivered the south Wales metro. But we now know for sure, because of the independent expert resilience study published this month, that if we wish to solve the problem of M4 congestion through Newport, no single or combined package of solutions will do.

Now, it's worth Members knowing that 25 million km—25 million km—of new road will be built around the world between now and 2050. The M4 black route would have amounted to less than one-millionth of that amount. And that doesn't relieve us of our responsibilities to meet net zero targets and to promote biodiversity, but it does show that even the most environmentally sensitive nations are building roads.

The key is building better, and in suitable places, rather than in not building at all. Ecologists from around the world, from Cairns to Cambridge, are now agreeing that, built in the right way, roads can actually help nature and the environment. And this is why our motion states that a relief road must be appropriate.

The policy and consenting environment has changed substantially since 2019, and a relief road would rightly have to meet far more stretching environmental challenges. Revising existing plans would provide an opportunity to include dedicated bus rapid transport and active travel routes along the M4.

That would save more than £300 million from the proposed standalone bus rapid transport road from Newport to Cardiff. It could also be used as a global exemplar in the use of low-carbon materials, modular construction techniques, and world-leading environmental benefits. The world is building 25 million km of new road. In my view, we must help them build better by leading on sustainable infrastructure.

Now, pages 27 to 29 of the independent report published this month 

published this month show how economic growth and investment in road transport infrastructure are tightly coupled together—this is a fact—where an economy is weighted towards manufacturing, logistics, agriculture, construction, automotive and aerospace sectors, the very sectors that drive the future of the Welsh economy. So, whether we like it or not, unless the economy of wales is changed dramatically and fast, its future growth or contraction is inextricably linked to road transport.

Where we are today is a world away from 2019. We have greater economic stability— 

Will you take an intervention, please?

In a moment.

—a UK Government that's growing, more Welsh Government borrowing powers, more finance options available, and, of course, an established corporate joint committee in the region to make a decision on the M4 for the region. And we now have an indisputable, independent expert evidence-led study that concludes that only an appropriate relief road will meet the needs of the people we serve.

Now, it's my firm belief that tackling climate change and tackling economic decline are not mutually exclusive objectives for a Government. To claim that they are is to promote an absolutist argument that divides and damages society. And, as leading ecologists are now agreeing, building better roads can actually help the planet as well as the economy. Let's be open minded, evidence based, ambitious and responsible and unite in building better infrastructure that combats climate change and economic decline. Diolch.

Could I forewarn Members that there are many names down in this debate? I don't think I'll be able to call everyone, but let's do our best. Paul Rock.

Diolch, Llywydd. In his resignation statement to the Senedd in 2024, the former First Minister, Mark Drakeford, reflected on his first major decision, which was to not proceed with the M4 relief road. He said:

'The easy decision would have been to say, "Go ahead". The powerful voices in Wales were lined up in support of it. My decision, having spent many, many days reading and thinking about it, was that that was not in the long-term interests of Wales.' 

Welsh Labour were also responsible for passing our ground-breaking Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and many other world-leading initiatives. I guess that's why I find this motion quite sad. The black route is no longer an option; the land is no longer available. But even if it were an option, concreting over the Gwent levels is an option that no serious Government or Parliament could consider, given the environmental devastation it would cause. There is no magic green floating motorway. But I do agree that doing nothing is not an option.

The most important part of the solution to the M4 congestion is further investment in public transport to encourage more drivers to leave their cars at home and take a train or a bus. So, I really welcome the announcement that the new railway stations recommended—[Interruption.] no, it's all right—by the Burns commission will be brought forward and delivered sooner than originally planned. Increasing accessibility and the number of services on the main line between Cardiff and the Severn Tunnel Junction will be incredibly valuable for people across the region, and I look forward to using them myself in the not-too-distant future.

Now, looking at the Government's proposals, lorries travelling between the north of England and west Wales are currently inhibited from using the Heads of the Valleys road, due to the lack of rest facilities, which they are, of course, legally required to use. The Government's proposal to invest in rest facilities is common sense, cost effective, and can remove substantial freight traffic from the M4. 

The people of Newport will be more likely to take the bus if they have confidence that a bus goes where they need it to, will arrive at their stop when the timetable says it will, and will get them to their destination on time. So again, the Government's proposed bus network improvements are sensible and cost effective and have the capacity to reduce the number of private cars using both the M4 and the surrounding roads.

The railway stations recommended by Lord Burns are, as I said, welcome. Experience shows that new railway stations always outperform the passenger number modelling, so these stations could really make a difference

could really make a difference to traffic on the M4 around Newport. It won't surprise Members that I feel the Burns stations don't go far enough. In my own constituency, the long-anticipated, but currently unfunded, stations at Gabalfa and Roath park, as well as others like Caerleon, would encourage more people to use public transport, helping to reduce congestion across the whole road network. Rather than spending the entire Welsh Government capital budget on a single new motorway that would devastate a fragile ecosystem, public money is far better spent on making cost-effective improvements more quickly to our existing road network and public transport that, together, can produce considerable benefits for all road users, including freight, private cars, buses, cyclists and pedestrians. Diolch.

On paper, we're debating the M4 relief road, but scratch the surface of this debate, and it's about something else entirely, political credibility, consistency and a spectacular example of particular opportunism. When I saw this debate on the agenda, I wondered whether the scriptwriters from The Thick of It had taken over the Labour group, because, Llywydd, you can't make this up. Do Labour Members think we've forgotten who cancelled the M4 relief road?

Let's remind ourselves of the fact that a Labour Government spent over £100 million developing the plans and buying land along the route. A Labour Government commissioned an expensive public inquiry. A Labour Government cancelled the project in June 2019. As we've heard, we know who the transport Minister at the time was, none other than the Labour leader himself.

But we don't need to go back seven years to find a contradiction. Seven months will do. In March, speaking as the transport Secretary, he told us this in this Chamber, and I quote,

'When it comes to the M4, this debate has been and gone, and we are ploughing ahead with hugely ambitious plans to improve connectivity by public transport, sustainable connectivity. The cost of building an M4 relief road right now would be enormous, and it does need to be a costed proposition, I believe, and it can't be, whether it's from yourselves or the Conservatives, a back-of-the-fag-packet proposal.'

Seven months ago, Llywydd.

So what's changed? Has the cost come down? Is there new evidence, or is the scheme that was unaffordable in Government—

Will you take an intervention?

No, I've got to make headway because Llywydd has told me. Or has the scheme that wasn't affordable in Government become a brilliant idea in opposition? Apparently, a few months on the opposition benches can work wonders.

But beyond the political theatre, there's a serious problem for communities I represent. People in Casnewydd Islwyn want to get to work on time. They want reliable trains and buses and an end to the daily frustration of M4 congestion. I know how badly the congestion affects residents and businesses. There's no simple, single solution. If there was one, Labour might have found it during all those years in Government.

We need credible proposals, proper evidence and meaningful consultation with local communities. If Labour want to help, they could start with their colleagues in Westminster. Wales is still being short-changed on rail funding, not least through HS2. Labour once agreed with us. Indeed, the current leader said in 2020 that Wales could be owed as much as £5 billion. Imagine the difference that could make. Yet, since Labour took office in Westminster, those demands have gone remarkably quiet.

So, I'll finish with questions for the Minister when he responds to this debate. If Wales received the rail funding that we're owed, what improvements would he prioritise for Newport and the surrounding area? Would those include the Burns stations in Newport? Our communities deserve more than political theatre. They deserve investment, better transport and a Government prepared to deliver. Diolch yn fawr.

If we were starting from scratch now, the M4 would stretch from the bridge over the Severn estuary to Fishguard. The motorway would be three lanes wide for the whole of its length. There would be fewer junctions, and they would be further apart. It was built piecemeal. But we're not starting from scratch, are we?

So, what do we intend to do? It's not just around the Brynglas tunnels that we have problems on the M4. For those of us coming in from the west, we have problems around Port Talbot. We have problems around the junction going on to the Heads of Valleys, and then we all join—and I'm sure, if you're driving here, Presiding Officer, you do—coming off the M4