Plenary

The next item is questions to the Minister for Health and Social Services. The first question is to be answered by the Deputy Minister for Social Services and to be asked by Hefin David.

Diolch, Hefin. Publication of our strategy was an important step in building stronger social connections in Wales. We continue to make good progress with implementing the strategy and have worked with members of our loneliness and isolation advisory group to quality assure delivery and consider what more can be done.

Thank you for that.

On Friday, 31 March, I visited Caerphilly Miners Centre for the Community, which, of course, is the former miners' hospital that has been converted into a community centre through the work of Katherine Hughes and her team, and it's now a local community facility. At that meeting, Katherine mentioned 'Connected communities', the Welsh Government's strategy for tackling loneliness and social isolation and building stronger social connections. The centre provides classes and activities for people who require those activities and does huge work in tackling social isolation, but the funding that she receives is very short term, and she finds it difficult, then, to maintain staffing, and she's uncertain as to whether that provision can be provided in the year ahead. In order to ensure that the funding is not too little, too late, the centre feels that support needs to be more sustainable and funded on a longer term basis. So, would the Deputy Minister discuss with her colleagues, the Minister for Social Justice and the Minister for finance how this can be facilitated, so that these cherished voluntary services can be maintained?

Thank you, Hefin, for that supplementary question. I will certainly follow it up, as you suggest. I'm very pleased that the centre has received money from the loneliness and isolation fund. And, in fact, I believe it's had help for a Ukrainian children's reading club and the Ukrainian Hope project, which is excellent, and also has received funding for a warm hub and a household support fund. So, I really would like to thank them for what they're doing. They're obviously a huge strength in the community.

The £1.5 million loneliness and isolation fund is to build the capability and the sustainability of front-line grass-roots voluntary and community organisations like the Caerphilly Miners Centre for the Community. This is a three-year fund, so it's not short term in the sense that it's just one—it's a three-year fund. Funding was allocated to local authority and community voluntary councils working in partnership to distribute to community-based organisations within their areas. And I know that there has been a real increased demand for voluntary services since the pandemic and in the cost-of-living crisis, so I really do appreciate what they are doing. We also know how important the warm hubs are, which they also provide. So, I do recognise the call for the voluntary sector funding to be on a more sustainable and longer term basis, and when we can, we do provide three-year funding, but I will follow up the particular issues that you raise.

Minister, one of the biggest contributors to loneliness and isolation for older people, apart from the pandemic, is the increased digitalisation of society. As more and more services move online, and physical services become automated, human interaction for many older people has dramatically reduced. Obviously, Welsh Government cannot put the genie back into the bottle and return us to the face-to-face world. However, we do need to look at the health and well-being impact upon older people. Minister, what discussions have you had with local authorities and the third sector about improving socialisation opportunities for those suffering loneliness and isolation? I know you have spoken about some of these; maybe if there is something more, you might let us know.

Thank you very much for that question. Yes, we have had discussions with local authorities. One of the distressing results of the pandemic was that many local activities, for example, where you do have face-to-face contact, did cease temporarily, and some of them have not reopened since, so we have had a lot of discussion and encouragement to local authorities to try to open those facilities. I've often had a lot of involvement with the Commissioner for Older People in Wales, who is very concerned about the development of digitalisation, where it will mean that there won't be anything left in terms of the face-to-face communication, which is so important for people, and particularly for some elderly people. So, we are certainly trying to ensure that as well as digitalisation there is a means of communicating that is face to face or is on the telephone or is more personal. I absolutely take the point that the Member makes, and this is something that we are very aware of.

Emergency department performance at the Grange hospital is not where I, the health board, nor the public want it to be. The health board has an urgent and emergency care improvement plan, supported by additional Welsh Government funding, and is working closely with partners to secure better outcomes and experiences at the Grange site.

Thank you, Minister. I'm glad to hear that. Unfortunately, I was in the position where I had to go to A&E twice last week, at the Grange University Hospital in my region. Seventeen and three quarter hours I waited, and others waited, to see just a doctor—17 and three quarter hours. All staff, let me just put on record now, were absolutely excellent, professional and lovely when you saw them, but that A&E at the Grange is not fit for purpose in any shape or form. The management wasn't right. There was no flow. I spoke to a paramedic outside. The 21 ambulances for the majority of the time that I was there were outside. I spoke to one of the paramedics who said that in Cardiff university hospital there was a one-hour turnaround. In the Grange, they were experiencing eight to 10-hour turnarounds. Something is not right there. Something has to give. That's a marked difference. Is it because the A&E at the Grange was never meant to be an A&E? It was deemed for critical care. As it happens, in A&E with me at the time, there were two former cabinet members for social care from Monmouthshire County Council, both baffled and appalled by the scenes that they saw. Right up to the end of the development stage for the Grange, that area was meant to be for critical care only. It is not fit for purpose for an A&E. The size of it was far too small. There was no food and drink. The positioning in the hospital wasn't right. None of it was right for an A&E. There were patients having to stand up who were passing out. Other patients had to bang doors for help. There was no care during that whole time in the A&E. There was an 82-year-old next to me who had waited 14 hours with a hernia poking out of him who decided to go home after 14 hours.

My second trip: 13 hours. I'm sorry I'm overrunning. Thirteen hours at A&E to see a doctor. Then I was moved to SDEC, the same-day emergency care, which was fantastic, but there were three people in it at the other side of the hospital—

You're going to have to ask your question now.

Why wasn't that being used to relieve A&E, Minister? And the Government needs to get a grip of this situation. What urgent action is your Government and Aneurin Bevan health board taking to ensure that scenes like I witnessed and were witnessed yesterday in A&E in the Grange aren't repeated?

Well, thanks very much. Obviously, the responsibility for making this work is with Aneurin Bevan and the health board. Since the emergency department was configured, obviously what we've seen—the difference in terms of when the planning happened and what is happening—across the whole of Wales is a massive increase in demand. We have made efforts to try and support changes in the Grange hospital, including £3.5 million capital, which has enabled that SDEC service to be established. I think they're still having teething problems with that. Clearly, they need to work out how to use that better. What I can tell you is that nearly three quarters of patients attending A&E in the Grange are spending less than four hours in departments. That is—[Interruption.] Well, this is what was true in March. These are facts. [Interruption.] There are—[Interruption.] These are facts, so you can't really dispute the facts. What I can also tell you is that Aneurin Bevan, I think, is planning to submit a case for capital funding to enable further building works to extend the emergency department, and we're expecting that request to us to come in the autumn.

The party spokespeople now. Conservative spokesperson, Russell George.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. If the Labour-run Welsh NHS is functional, as the First Minister said yesterday, why did the chair of the British Medical Association say it was not?

To be quite honest with you, I don't know why she made those comments. I am absolutely stunned that the Chair of the BMA could say such a thing when she is aware that there are 2 million contacts a month, in a population of 3.1 million people. We have committed to spend over £1 billion extra this Senedd term to help get the NHS back on its feet after one of the most traumatic and difficult times during the COVID pandemic. We are seeing a significant improvement in waiting times; they're not as fast we'd like, but our waiting lists are coming down, while they're going up in England. So, I am baffled by the Chair of the BMA's comments. I am frankly very disappointed in them, and, obviously, it is a sensitive time for everybody involved.

Thank you for your answer, Minister. I suppose that my analysis would be that health professionals, such as the chair of the BMA, have got a very different view to you in terms of how the running of the Welsh NHS is performing. If you want to resolve an issue, the first thing you've got to do is accept that there's an issue in the first place. The statistics for February show us that we've got nearly 40,000 people that are waiting for over two years for treatment. When the March figures come out, I very much doubt they'll be zero, which will mean that the Welsh Government has of course missed its own target. We know that, in Scotland and in England, those two-year waits were virtually wiped out last summer. People, often in pain or unable to live the life that they want, shouldn't be waiting for over two years for treatment. They would rightfully ask, 'Why is it, if I lived in Scotland or England, I wouldn't be in this position?' Could I ask, Minister, when will you be announcing your new target? Tell us when you believe the two-year waits will be eliminated in Wales. What confidence can the tens of thousands of people who are waiting have in the commitments that you make?

As I say, the numbers waiting for treatment have fallen in Wales for the fifth consecutive month, whilst the numbers waiting in England are going up, and have been going up for the past five months. I think it's also important to note that, in Wales, we count diagnostics and therapy, whereas in England they don't do that. What I can tell you is that, actually, by the target date, most specialities will be at zero, but there are seven specialist areas where we are seeing real issues in trying to bring those waiting lists down, which is why I have regular summit meetings focusing on some of those areas, including, for example, orthopaedics, where we know it's very challenging. I'm sure you heard somebody from a health think tank saying on the weekend that, actually, part of the reason for this is because different choices are being made—they're not necessarily always the choices I want them to make, to be honest—with the health boards. Because I've asked them to prioritise the longest waits, but, obviously, clinicians have to take a judgment on urgent cases, and those go to the front of the queue. That's why, if you look at the number of people, ours are going down, theirs are going up, but we're seeing more of the urgent cases.

I appreciate the difficult job that you've got, Minister, I do. Of course, the gap is still significant on those two-year waits between Wales and the rest of the UK, and that can't be denied. It may well be right and correct—I'm glad those waits are coming down—but they are still significant. Here's an idea for getting those waits down—and I'm not going to mention surgical hubs this time either: doing more operations and treatments on the weekend. Patients are two and a half times less likely to be discharged on a Saturday or a Sunday than a weekday. This is only contributing, I would also add, to the bed blocking situation we have, which, of course, causes so many other issues within the Welsh NHS. It just highlights that in Wales we haven't truly got a seven-day service within the Welsh NHS, to the extent that we need it to be. To clear the backlog of treatments, specifically those long waits, can I ask the Minister whether she'll ensure that more is done on the weekend so patients do get the treatment they need, when they need it? Of course, that will ultimately help to bring those waiting lists down.

Thanks very much. I know the Member was here yesterday for the announcement of our new diagnostic strategy, and in there it was very clearly stated that we are intending to expand the time frame when diagnostic treatment can happen, to include longer hours during the day and to include weekends. Obviously, if we do that, we have to find additional money to pay people to do that work, and you will know that what we've had is a real terms cut in terms of our budget this year. So, finding that additional money is not easy. I would love to be able to pay people to work more on the weekends, but, frankly, the financial situation is incredibly challenging at the moment. I'm sure the Member will be very pleased to note the announcement of those surgical hubs in relation to diagnostics, and it's important to emphasise how crucial that is to the waiting list pathway, because 85 per cent of people who need treatment need some kind of diagnosis. So, getting flow going in that pathway, trying to get people seen as fast as you can when it comes to diagnostics, will help bring those waiting lists down, but, crucially, will lead to better outcomes for patients.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Peredur Owen Griffiths.

Since 2010, the NHS has lost almost 25,000 beds across the UK. In Wales, due to bed shortages, senior NHS staff have been advised by the Welsh Government to discharge people who are well enough to leave. This advice may come even if there is not a care package in place for patients being discharged. There also seems to be little consideration for the implications this might have on the care sector, which falls within my portfolio. Doctors have warned this discharge guidance could see patients die. This speaks volumes about the lack of joined-up thinking on the interactions between health and social care. It's one of the reasons why Plaid Cymru has pursued a merger between health and social care for a long time. Can you provide an update for us, Deputy Minister, about the expert group that is due to provide an implementation plan by the end of the year to integrate health and social care? Diolch.

I thank Peredur very much for that question. The expert group, as you will know, has now reported, and I'm very pleased to be working with Plaid Cymru, as part of the co-operation agreement, on what we're going to do as a result of the expert group. We're approaching it in stages. The first stage will be the implementation of a national office, a national framework, and putting in place the building blocks that eventually will lead to a national care service. I absolutely agree with Peredur that it's essential that health and social care work closely together, and the Minister for Health and Social Services and myself have been working together to try to ensure that we make the liaison between the two absolutely as easy and as quick as it possibly can. We have got some very good examples of how that has worked.

Diolch. It's good to hear that progress is being made, so thank you for that update. One of the key contributors to delays in discharge to care is high bed occupancy. As I mentioned in the previous question, this is often due to the social care sector being unable to cope with the volume of patients being discharged from hospital that still need help at home. Patients are still continuing to face long waits, and even the smallest of delays to care can have severe consequences to their chances of a full recovery. Can the Deputy Minister outline the Welsh Government's plan to ensure that the social care sector will be supported and made more robust to cope with this year's anticipated winter pressures, taking on board some of the learnings that we've had coming out of the last winter?

Yes, certainly. The last winter was difficult, but we worked together very closely with the care action committee, which was a committee made up of people from local authorities and from the health boards—key people working together. What we did was create extra capacity in the system. We actually created 687 beds or equivalent beds—step-down beds or community care packages—which made a big impact on the situation in the hospitals. I know that it was a difficult winter, but I think if we hadn't had that really great working together it would have been much, much worse. We did do that last winter, and we're working now in preparation for next winter. The Minister for Health and Social Services will actually be making an announcement in May, I think, about some details of our plans to move forward. What we want to do is—it's not really anything new—put more emphasis and support in having community-based local-facing help in order to ensure that people don't go into hospital. What we want to do is try and stop people going into hospital at all and to try to give that support in the community with multidisciplinary teams, health and social care working together on the ground, and with a lot of work with volunteers. We will be announcing that in May, but we are working now in order to try to improve the situation next winter.

Every patient who need to access a hospital should be able to do that. The NHS doesn't discriminate in dealing with patients, including disabled people, older people, vulnerable people and others. The NHS in Wales has a legal duty under the Equality Act 2010 to ensure that services are accessible to all.

Thank you very much for that response.

Minister, one of the primary considerations for the location of a new hospital should be whether it is accessible for all patients, staff and visitors alike. The Grange hospital, near Cwmbran, may be a modern hospital, but it is, in fact, difficult to access for many of the communities it's meant to serve. We saw this when my Plaid Cymru colleagues Steve Skivens and Councillor Charlotte Bishop, both councillors representing Caerphilly—one in Penyrheol and one in the Aber valley—attempted to get to the hospital from Abertridwr using public transport. It took them two buses, more than two hours and at a cost of more than £9 each to get there. With the Government withdrawing pandemic funding for bus companies later this year, and the predictions of a catastrophic fallout for many bus services, the Grange hospital could become even more difficult for anyone not travelling by private motor vehicle. What consideration have you given to improving access to hospitals for those without motor vehicles? Do you share the concerns of Plaid Cymru about the fallout from the withdrawal of funding for bus companies from the perspective of accessing health services?

Thanks very much. We are committed to trying to make sure that access is available for all. We have been concerned about access to the Grange hospital in particular, and I'd like to thank in particular my colleague Hefin, who's been working very hard on a particular project. I know that recently the Minister and Deputy Minister for Climate Change have agreed to a proposal to fund an initial trial bus service between Blackwood, Newbridge, Pontypool and the Grange hospital. The aim is to have that new bus service operational by the middle of June, and that, of course, adds to the bus routes that already go to the Grange hospital from the Gwent area—the route 29 from Newport, the 29A from Chepstow, the X1 from Brynmawr, the X24 from Blaenavon. What I can tell you is that, actually, £114,000 was committed to help community transport by the health board, and they are now co-ordinating a scheme to make sure that we can get as many community providers to help deliver the transport services needed under that scheme.

Question—. No, indeed—Peter Fox.

Thank you, Llywydd. Minister, accessibility to hospital comes in different ways. Just yesterday, people were urged by Aneurin Bevan University Health Board not to attend the Grange hospital's A&E unless they had a life-threatening condition or serious injury. We learnt very late last night that the urgent message was made after the site faced two days of IT problems. I'm sure all would agree it is unacceptable for a hospital to essentially shut down vital services. One would have thought that all hospitals would have contingency plans to deal with these sorts of problems should they arise. Minister, what reassurances can you give my constituents that hospitals in south-east Wales have the appropriate contingency plans to ensure that they can be accessed at all times, and vital services aren't disrupted in the way that they were at the Grange, or still are at the Grange?

Thanks very much. This issue at the Grange was a global issue that affected a number of NHS Wales bodies in south Wales in particular who were using the Welsh Government's public sector broadband aggregation service. That's the service that's managed by BT. I'm very pleased to say that it has been mostly resolved now. BT and its partners have delivered a temporary fix while they're planning to undertake a permanent fix, and that's expected to be completed in two weeks.

I think it's fair to say that all NHS bodies kept citizens informed in relation to possible long waiting times for non-life-threatening treatments. What I can tell you is that, obviously, I'm very concerned about the situation. I had a meeting with my digital team this morning. We're going to work to quickly identify any continuing issues and, obviously, a lessons-learnt exercise will be carried out to make sure that we can prevent a similar occurrence from happening again.

Botulinum toxin—I'm sure I've mispronounced that, but I hope you can tell I don't use it—injections such as Botox, relax the muscles in the face to smooth out lines and wrinkles. Now, the effect isn't permanent, and it usually lasts for about three to four months. The Public Health (Wales) Act 2017 provides the ability to add procedures to a special procedure register and for local authorities to then issue licences to providers. Now, we're starting that process with tattooing, acupuncture, electrolysis and body piercing, but we will consider adding other cosmetic procedures in future based on the evidence of risk.

Thank you for that answer. Research done by University College London of clinics in London found that nine out of 10 are flouting the regulations that are intended to protect public health, which ban the advertising of this drug and other products of botulinum toxin, or, indeed, any other prescribed medicine for profit. It's difficult to believe that practitioners in Wales are being more adherent to the rules. Clearly, there are situations where somebody can be delegated to prescribe a medicine, but, in this case, this is an attempt to make money out of people's anxiety about different parts of their body—nothing to do with public health. And, in contrast, people are being prescribed these things without people having even been seen. We know that these sorts of injections can cause pain, headaches, swelling, bruising, partial facial paralysis, and even disfigurement, so safe prescribing practice is an essential component of public protection. We do not know what we are walking into in terms of the way it can come back to hit us in the NHS. So, it would be very useful to know why we cannot pay more attention to this abuse of prescribed medicines at this point being used by private clinics where the oversight is almost non-existent.

Thanks very much. I think this is an area that we should be concerned about. I would urge anyone thinking of having one of these procedures to check the credentials of the people administering Botox because they may not always be qualified or experienced. There are regulations surrounding this and the professional regulators require any practitioner prescribing Botox—. Botox is one of about seven different—. That’s a kind of name for a particular type of treatment. But, what happens is that often they delegate that administration to another person, and that person who's administering the prescription doesn't necessarily have the knowledge, the skills and the training to administer it. So, I would expect professional regulators to take action against any registrant who doesn't adhere to accepted professional standards on delegating that responsibility to others. But, obviously, such matters are reserved and they're not devolved to Welsh Ministers.

The new NHS Wales pathway, with national clinical standards for the safe delivery of wax management services, is being implemented across all health boards, with advanced progress made by Betsi Cadwaladr and Swansea Bay University Health Boards. Good practice is being shared with the other health boards to support implementation.

Thanks for that answer, Minister. I've been contacted by a lot of constituents who are concerned about the impact cutting NHS wax removal services will have on them. For many people, this service is absolutely essential, but they're now being told that the service is no longer provided in primary care. One constituent told me that her son had an ear wax build-up and his school had contacted her several times to say that this was affecting his hearing, which was in turn impacting his learning. Having been refused NHS treatment, his mum is now ineffectively managing the issue at home with no idea how safe it actually is. Another constituent told me that, with the cost-of-living pressures, he can no longer afford to pay privately for treatment and can no longer access it through the NHS. With private treatment costing between £50 and £100, many residents simply can't afford this extra cost. Personally, I can't see any reason why treatment can't be provided in different community-based settings. So, Minister, what discussions have you had with the Aneurin Bevan health board about this? And will you commit to looking at new ways for this essential treatment to be delivered to residents all across Wales? Thanks.

Well, thanks very much. And I want to make it clear that no-one should expect to have to pay for this service. So, actually, in terms of audiology, we have a pathway now that is very different from what is happening elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We are trying to move to a community-based service, but I recognise that waiting times are not where we want them to be and tackling that backlog is a key priority for me. That emphasis on delivery of care in the community is crucial. I've asked all the health boards to look at best practice. So, we know it's working well in Betsi and it's working well in Swansea. If you want to write to me about the specific case so that I can just look at where the gap is, it may be useful for me to just put a little bit of pressure on. Thank you.

We are recruiting and training more nurses than ever before. We are using a range of approaches to recruit and attract staff, including international recruitment and record investment in education and training. Our national workforce implementation plan contains a number of actions, and these actions will be delivered collaboratively, providing a sustainable workforce for the future.

I thank the Minister for that response. The Minister will have heard me asking a question of the First Minister yesterday on Tywyn Hospital. In his response, the First Minister said that staff were transferred to Dolgellau in order to ensure services in the area. It wasn't clear which area the First Minister was referring to because Tywyn is over half an hour away from Dolgellau by car, never mind those using buses. So, it remains that Bro Dysynni has lost a crucial service recently. Now, Bro Dysynni is a glorious area. It's a wonderful place to work, it has a good quality of life and excellent education in the area. If any nurse out there wants to experience a great workplace in a wonderful area, then I would recommend that they consider working in Tywyn. But every time we raise the question of nurse numbers, as I've just done, you as Minister, and others, tell us that there are more nurses than ever before working in the health service. That might be true, but there is a great shortage in some parts of Wales. Only four nurses in bands 6 and 7 are required to reopen the Dyfi ward in Tywyn. The board tried to recruit nurses from nursing agencies, having secured accommodation for them, but the agencies failed to provide those nurses. This in itself is disgraceful. What steps is the Minister taking in order to ensure that there are adequate numbers of nurses available to reopen the Dyfi ward and the minor injuries unit in Tywyn? Can the Minister take action to ensure that nursing agencies do provide nurses as promised?

Thank you very much. You're aware that the health board has tried very hard to recruit to that area. One of the things that we have in place is the national workforce implementation plan and, as part of that, we are putting incentives in place to target not only the groups that we want to see more of, but where exactly we want to send those people. We are doing that, for example, with dentists—we're trying to send dentists to areas where it's traditionally been difficult to recruit to that profession. Work is being done by Health Education and Improvement Wales on that.

But 446 more nurses are working in Betsi, for example, than there were 10 years ago. So, the proportion has gone up, but the demand has gone up. That's part of the problem—the demand is higher than ever before. You'll be aware that we spend more than £0.25 billion annually on training for the NHS. Evidently, we're trying to recruit. We recruited 400 nurses last year and there is lots of work in the pipeline to recruit more nurses internationally. Part of the challenge at present is, even if you can recruit them, where to put them. There is a problem in terms of where we put these people once we recruit them. That is also a challenge that we have to think about and tackle, particularly in rural areas.

Minister, nurse recruitment is something that's actually really important to me, and I've talked to you on a number of occasions about getting more access for nurses to come into the NHS. When my mother was a nurse starting off in the NHS, she went from a vocational route, coming in at the bottom and learning on the job, getting more and more qualifications right the way up to ward sister. What is the Welsh Government doing to make sure that there are more routes into nursing other than the ones that are currently available through university?

Thanks very much. Over the past five years, we have increased the number of training places by 41 per cent for nurses. But you're quite right, we've got to find new ways of getting people in, and in particular into some of those areas where it's more difficult to recruit. That's why we have, for example, nurse apprenticeship routes. I know that that has been used extensively in some healthcare settings. There's a lot more distance learning whereby people can start off on that route but then go and do their placements later on. It's where they're training as well, which is why, for example, we've opened—I was pleased to see the Llywydd at that event—a new facility in Aberystwyth, so that we're training people and then the placements will be locally. It's really important, I think, for us to, as you suggest, find new routes for people to come in, in particular since it's become a degree-level course now. What we're keen to see is people who perhaps haven't gone to university like that. Actually, compassion is probably one of the key things that you need to be a nurse, and I think there are real opportunities for people. One of the things we're keen to do, of course, is to work with the care sector to provide a route for people to enter into the workforce as well, into the NHS workforce, so that those pathways are clearer for people.

We set out our expectations of the NHS in the 2021 quality statement for cancer and a series of national actions in our 2022 programme for transforming and modernising planned care. In January of this year, I also announced the NHS response, as set out in the cancer improvement plan.

Thank you, Minister. In February, only 58 per cent of men and 57 per cent of women in north Wales were starting treatment within the 62-day target. That was worse than December 2022. Behind those figures are some of my constituents in serious distress. One of my residents died, sadly, before receiving any treatment for stomach cancer in Liverpool. Another one of my constituents has waited around four months for lung cancer treatment in Liverpool, but has now just had the treatment, thanks to coming to see me. And a consultant at the Christie has identified that another in one of my residents, who was told by Ysbyty Gwynedd that she was clear, it's now been found, since her going privately, that she has four pockets of cancer in the abdomen and the folds of the liver. This is a very young mother. Now, Richard Pugh, Macmillan Cancer Support Wales, has stated that:

'Cancer treatment in Wales now rests firmly on the flip of a coin – people with cancer face no better than 50/50 odds on whether they are treated on time'.

Now, I am currently liaising with the health board and the ombudsman in relation to the examples that I have had to provide you with, and it wasn't easy to give you those examples. These are individuals with families. But in this instance, they highlight the importance to north Wales of specialist services in England. So, my main question to you today, Minister, is: what steps are you taking to speed up the process of Aberconwy patients, and people across Wales, especially when these patients require treatment outside Wales? The funding applications are very, very problematic and there are huge delays. You cannot delay when someone is diagnosed with life-threatening cancer. Diolch.

Thanks, Janet, and I want to extend my empathy to those people who are suffering. One in two people are going to get cancer during their lifetime, so we're talking about huge numbers of the population, and in order to get a diagnosis of cancer, to get to the 5 per cent, we need to test 95 per cent of the public. And, obviously, we want to get there early, as soon as we can—early.

So, you weren't here for my statement yesterday, when I announced our new diagnostics recovery and transformation strategy, and diagnostics is absolutely key to addressing the issue in relation to cancer. So, if that process at the beginning of the system is held up in any way, then it's more difficult to reach the 62-day waiting time. So, we have got a long way to go on cancer. It is absolutely in the top six priorities that I've set the health boards. Some are more challenging than others. I have regular cancer summit meetings. You will also have heard that, actually, there are really new advances in technology, and I'm hoping to make sure that we exploit those. So, for example, I went to Cardiff University on Thursday to look at how they're using liquid biopsies to take blood samples that can detect cancer, and if you do that, then you don't need these huge machines and all the stress; the results come back much quicker.

Now, we're very much at the beginning of this process and we're doing very, very cutting edge things here in Wales. But I'm hoping, in years to come, that, actually, we'll be going a lot more down that route, and that will speed the whole process up. So, I've asked them to concentrate, for now, on the ones who are waiting for more than 62 days, because those are the people we absolutely need to get to, and, obviously, as we do that, the 62-day target will go up a little bit. So, we're in that situation now, but they are starting to come down. I'm pleased to say that 12,700 patients in Wales were informed that they didn't have cancer in February. So, there are lots of people getting good news, but I'm concerned about the ones who are waiting for the bad news, so that they can start their recovery quicker.

Finally, question 8, Llyr Gruffydd.

Over 277,000 children have been treated in general dental services since April 2022. More than 60,000 of these are new patients.

A family has contacted me drawing my attention to the situation of their daughter. She’s been awaiting treatment from an orthodontist since she was 11 years old. She’s now 14. She hasn’t had a single appointment in the three years that she’s been waiting. A fortnight ago, she was informed that the orthodontist was referring her back to her local dentist. Now, in the meantime, of course, the local dentist doesn’t offer NHS services, and also, the waiting list for private treatment is full—the private register is full. Clearly, there’s been dental decline over the three years that she’s been waiting. There’s no sign of that being resolved, but it’s also now starting to have an impact on the individual’s mental health, having waited for so long at such a young age. Now, I know that you can’t comment on an individual case, and I’m not asking you to do that. But what I am asking is: what on earth, in your view, are the options available for children who have been excluded from the NHS when it comes to dentistry?

So, I do think that we do need to understand that things have clearly changed since COVID. We’re back in a situation where 70 per cent of people who were having treatment before are now having treatment, but we’ll never get back to 100 per cent without increasing capacity, because there are stricter rules now in terms of ensuring that we don’t see the same kind of standards that we saw before the pandemic.

So, what we have done is we’ve changed the contract to ensure that more children are being seen, and in the Betsi area, 12,900 more children have been seen. These are new appointments and they happened over the last year. Evidently, we’re in negotiations for the next contract, and it is difficult because what we see is that some dentists are leaving the NHS and going private. Well, they are individuals; they don’t work directly for the NHS—dentists have never worked directly for the NHS—and so, we can only go as far as we can afford to go to pay these people to work in our system.FootnoteLink So, that does cause a problem for us, and that’s why I’m pleased to see that recently, the rules have changed so that people such as dental technicians and therapists can open and close cases now. That’s something that’s happened in the last two weeks, and hopefully, that will mean that the model can adapt and be more flexible than what’s available at present.

I thank the Minister.

No topical questions have been accepted.

We’ll move, therefore, to the 90-second statements, and the first today is from Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you, Llywydd. I wish to take this opportunity to congratulate Ynys Enlli, Bardsey Island, and everyone who is involved in maintaining this little piece of heaven on being recognised as having the darkest sky in Europe, according to the International Dark Sky Association.

This designation recognises the unique sky above Enlli, and its importance to people, wildlife, and future generations there. Enlli's dark sky sanctuary will be celebrated throughout the year, as it is part of a growing network of places with dark skies across Wales, with events where people can share in the celebrations on Enlli and across north Wales. I hope that this designation will not only increase awareness of the need not only to protect the dark sky for future generations, but also to emphasise the unique site of Enlli, as the only small island in Wales that has a community that lives on it throughout the year, and that tries to manage its human resources for the benefit of the island, its nature and its people.

Enlli has a thriving fishery, farming that works in harmony with nature, and Wales's oldest bird observatory. It is also home to a small community, as well as the fact that it welcomes visitors during the spring and the summer. Congratulations to Ynys Enlli.

Campaigners are essential to any healthy nation, but of equal importance, I would say, are those patriots who work within the system to change and improve it. One person who belonged to the second category was Illtyd Rhys Lloyd, who died a week and a half ago.

A native of Cwmafan, he was steeped in the Welsh, socialist and non-conformist traditions. After a period serving as deputy head in one of Cardiff's large schools, he was appointed to the inspectorate of education in 1964, and remained there until his retirement as chief inspector of schools in 1990. During his time as chief inspector, this socialist from Cwmafan worked closely and very effectively with Sir Wyn Roberts, Nicholas Edwards and even Margaret Thatcher, of all people.

This is what former headmaster Huw Thomas said in his book, Brwydr i Baradwys, on the growth of Welsh education in the south-east, about Illtyd Lloyd:

'He would not miss an opportunity to promote the Welsh language and bilingual education, sometimes by starting a professional conversation in a school in order to push the boundaries, and at other times by seeing the potential of new legislation and suggesting practical ways forward. Taking action every time an opportunity arose was one of his characteristics.'

When Illtyd retired, he informed the authorities that he was not interested in a gong, but he was happy enough to be honoured by the Gorsedd and the Baptist Union of Wales. The world of education, the Welsh language and the Baptists have lost a great friend following the death of Illtyd Lloyd. It is a great privilege today to commemorate him on the floor of the Senedd. Thank you very much.

April is PMD, or premenstrual disorder, Awareness Month. To mark this, I'd like to raise awareness specifically of premenstrual dysphoric disorder, or PMDD. PMDD affects one in 20 women and those assigned female at birth, who experience very severe symptoms in the weeks before their period. PMDD is a type of premenstrual disorder, complex conditions at the intersection of mental and menstrual health, which are linked to hypersensitivity to normal hormone changes across the menstrual cycle. They can cause or contribute to significant emotional and physical symptoms in the weeks leading up to, and even during, a period, such as depressed or severe low mood, rapid changes in mood, feelings of being overwhelmed and difficulty with concentration. As has been described to me, this can lead to women simply blowing up their lives, leaving jobs, education, relationships, even leading to suicidal thoughts.

PMDD is sometimes misdiagnosed as depression, anxiety or bipolar disorder, and this is due to a lack of understanding of the condition. Today, I was glad to sponsor an event in the Senedd to raise awareness about PMDD, supported by the International Association for Premenstrual Disorders, the National Centre for Mental Health and researchers from Cardiff University, and I want to thank many of you for attending.

The event was organised by campaigner Becci Smart, one of my constituents from Bridgend. Becci has lived with PMDD since she was 14. She's told me how she had to wait 18 years for diagnosis and treatment, and this is, unfortunately, the norm in Wales and across the UK. She says that it's often hard to find the right words that can properly explain the totality of living with PMDD and spoke to me about the struggles and heartbreak that cyclical hormone-based mood disorders cause. This is a condition that can destroy lives, this is a condition that we must learn more about and it's a condition that has not been sufficiently recognised or treated effectively. We must make sure that Wales is a nation where people with PMDD can survive and thrive.

Item 5 is next: a statement by the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee on the rules for the operation of cross-party groups. I call on the Chair, Vikki Howells.

Good afternoon and thank you, Llywydd, for the opportunity to make this statement today. Today, the committee has laid its report on the revised rules for the operation of cross-party groups. The rules will be published and come into force on 2 May.

Cross-party groups are widely considered to be a valuable part of the democratic process and provide a forum for Members from different political groups to consider shared interests in subject areas relevant to the Senedd. The rules for the operation of cross-party groups provide Members and outside bodies with the information that they need to set up a group and ensure that its activities are transparent. I am therefore pleased to be able to make this statement today, outlining how the committee has updated and improved the rules to simplify them and make them easier for everyone to understand and comply with.

The previous iteration of the rules was drawn up by the fourth Assembly’s Standards of Conduct Committee, after it reviewed the arrangements for cross-party groups as part of an inquiry into lobbying in 2013. Having been in place for almost a decade, it seemed timely to review the rules alongside the committee’s current ongoing inquiry into lobbying, given the crossover in the subject area. The committee agreed to consider whether the rules as they stood provided sufficient guidance, and whether they were clear, accessible and transparent for key stakeholders.

The committee asked a question on cross-party groups as part of its lobbying consultation, which ran between 13 May and 23 June 2022, and then went on to issue a cross-party group specific consultation, which ran between 11 July and 2 September 2022. Eleven respondents answered the question in the lobbying inquiry, and there were six respondents to the second consultation. I would like to take this opportunity to thank those organisations and individuals who contributed to these consultations.

The committee were pleased to find that the rules have generally been working well, and that respondents to the consultations were positive about the role and value of cross-party groups. Respondents felt that the current arrangements were robust and continued to strike the right balance between transparency and practicality. However, there was still room for improvement, and the committee endeavoured to bring the rules up to date and also to simplify them where possible. We also produced a summary sheet to sit in front of the rules and provide the important information to key stakeholders at a glance.

In order to ensure that cross-party groups remain in step with Senedd business and can continue to attract high levels of participation without increasing the need for participants to travel, the committee formalised the ability for cross-party groups to be held in virtual and hybrid meeting formats.

Following the changing landscape of groups during the fifth Senedd, and since the sixth Senedd only contains three political groups, the committee agreed that the cross-party group membership requirement of three political party groups was no longer appropriate. We therefore changed the requirement to three political parties, to facilitate Members who represent a political party that does not meet the Senedd’s threshold for forming a political group. In order to increase transparency, the committee also agreed to introduce a requirement in the rules for at least one Member of the Senedd to be present throughout all cross-party group meetings.

To encourage Members to fully engage in the work of cross-party groups, the committee clarified the financial rules in relation to those groups. Where the subject of the cross-party group has particular relevance to the Member's constituency or region, or the group is discussing matters that may be debated by the Senedd, it is now clear that Members are now able to claim in accordance with the rules and guidance on use of Senedd resources.

I welcome the statement given this afternoon in the Siambr, and I want to thank Vikki for chairing the committee, and my fellow Members, and I also want to thank the clerking team for their assistance in this consultation and the report. I'm a member of a number of cross-party groups and also chair the substance use and addiction cross-party group, which I established with the drug charity Kaleidoscope. I'm of the firm opinion that hearing lived experience can have a lasting impact on policy development, and CPGs provide a vehicle for those personal stories to be heard.

In terms of the update today, I welcome the guidance on hybrid and translation facilities. It's also important that these translation facilities are given their rightful importance in line with us striving to be a fully bilingual nation. It is good to see conclusions highlighting the various ways to conduct meetings. I'm also glad to see the caveat that proceedings will be conducted at the discretion of the group hosting said meetings, because they are best placed to know the ideal format for those particular meetings. In my experience, CPGs can provide valuable opportunities for extra depth and scrutiny on matters that are pertinent to life here in Wales. They provide a valuable space for discussion that is friendly and inclusive; long may that continue. Diolch yn fawr.

I'd like to thank Peredur Owen Griffiths for his contribution and echo his thanks also to the clerking team. It has been a pleasure to work as a cross-party committee on this important inquiry. And I agree with you, Pered, that cross-party groups are really important vehicles here in the Senedd, and they do allow that forum where people are able to give their own personal stories, and the personal impact on various different issues is one that I think is the strength of our cross-party group system.

I'm glad also that you raised the issue of translation, which I know was important to you at the outset of this inquiry, and we were assured as a committee that translation facilities are available to all cross-party group meetings, whether they are being held face to face, hybrid or virtual. And I think it's important that we spread that message far and wide. Let's take that message back to our political groups to make sure that all chairs of cross-party groups avail themselves of those translation facilities.

So, to conclude, I also agree with everything you said there about cross-party groups being a valuable addition to our Senedd, and I'm hopeful that the updated rules that we've worked on as a committee will assist us in maintaining that. Thank you, Llywydd.

Thank you to the Chair for that statement.

The next item will be a debate on the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee report, scrutiny of the Welsh Government's accounts 2020-21. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Mark Isherwood.

Diolch, Llywydd.

As if by magic, it appears.

Apologies, yes. We were lectern-less.

Well, scrutiny of the accounts of publicly funded organisations is a core part of the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee's work, and has been undertaken on an annual basis since 2014. This work is an important driver of transparent financial reporting and provides the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee with an opportunity to explore issues of governance and financial management by highlighting any issues in the public domain, offering transparency and openness.

Scrutiny of the Welsh Government's consolidated accounts for 2020-21 was anything but ordinary. Delayed and signed nine months later than the timetable originally agreed, the accounts were also qualified by the Auditor General for Wales on three separate issues. These included a payment made to the former Permanent Secretary, clinicians' pension tax liabilities, and expenditure for some COVID-19 business grants. This meant that scrutiny was conducted by this committee significantly later than originally intended, with a limited opportunity to make impactful recommendations ahead of the preparation of the Welsh Government's accounts for the following year, 2021-22. These are serious and complex matters.

I thank, on the record, the time taken by Audit Wales to thoroughly audit these accounts to ensure that these matters were explored and reported on appropriately. We welcome Audit Wales's positive and proactive engagement with the committee throughout this process. I also thank Welsh Government officials for their engagement with our scrutiny work.

The main findings of our report are that significant funds for essential public services were lost due to shortcomings in the Welsh Government's accounting. We found many examples where poor record-keeping and mismanagement of public accounts have cost the people of Wales. This includes £155.5 million lost to Wales due to poor account management; serious concerns about record-keeping relating to an £80,000 payment made to the former Permanent Secretary; and concerns about the level of fraud and error in the COVID-19 business grants scheme.

In relation to the payment made to the former Permanent Secretary, the committee has made a number of recommendations on the need for the Welsh Government to improve its transparency around decision making in relation to the role and working arrangements of the Permanent Secretary. Deficient record-keeping about how important decisions were taken resulted in a lack of clarity and insufficient opportunity for this committee to scrutinise this payment. The Welsh Government failed to provide the auditor general with sufficient contemporaneous evidence to establish the change in the former Permanent Secretary's working arrangements and to justify the payment made on her departure.

Would you give way on that, Mark?

By all means, yes.

Mark, I wonder whether the committee turned its attention to, as well, the decision that could have been made by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at the UK level to actually allow flexibility to use that and to pull it back, and to use it for other purposes. It has been done before. There's no reason it couldn't have been done now, particularly in a very difficult year, and a challenging year as well. So, I appreciate you're pointing the finger very much at 'Welsh Government should have used it', but actually their return clawback was dwarfish compared to that being clawed back from other departments in the UK, but it could have been different. This rests with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. He could have allowed Welsh Government to keep that money.

If you read our report, you'll see we fully address that and incorporate some of the specific matters you highlight received in evidence. In fact, I will develop on some of your points in my speech now.

It's difficult to understand why the Welsh Government waited so long to be told it could not do as it wished with the underspend, and why a request to use the underspend was made retrospectively. The Welsh Government appears to have assumed, based on previous HM Treasury decisions, that it would be granted the flexibility to use the funding. It raises questions as to whether making a request sooner may have enabled the funds to be used. [Interruption.] I see the Minister shaking her head adversely; remember, this is a cross-party committee and the wording was agreed unanimously, after receiving extensive evidence, both in public and private session. So, we did consider all these matters. Lessons must be learned to ensure such vital funding is not lost from Wales again.

Would he give way on that point?

Well, time's limited, you know—I've only got 15 minutes in total.

Indeed—I really appreciate you giving way. But have you picked up, either during the report or since, any evidence that the Minister actually was engaged in discussions with the UK Treasury, with the Chief Secretary, actually making this point consistently, and that, actually, the failure was for the Chief Secretary of the Treasury to clarify to the Minister?

This is in the report. The problem is the evidence we received from the most senior level of the Welsh Government: this was retrospective.

The committee recommended that the Welsh Government provides the committee with further information on the timescales and discussions that took place between the Welsh Government and HM Treasury—so we're prepared to look at any further evidence that might exist—regarding the Welsh Government’s request to carry forward at 31 March 2021 a sum in excess of the limit on the Wales reserve. We did ask the questions. The committee does not expect any further funds to be lost to Wales, and recommends that it seeks approval for flexibility from HM Treasury as early as possible before the end of the financial year, so that funds can be utilised in-year, should its request not be granted.

Finally, in relation to the COVID business grants scheme, we raised concerns about how the discretion given to local authorities to apply the COVID-19 non-domestic rates grant scheme was used. We found that the inconsistent application of the amended guidance issued in relation to self-catering businesses resulted in support being paid out by some local authorities to legitimate businesses, even when they did not meet the discretionary criteria set, while in other local authorities, which strictly applied the criteria—particularly one—some legitimate businesses did not receive the support they needed. It was not clear from the evidence provided to us the degree to which discretion had been applied and what redress is available for legitimate businesses who were denied support to which they were otherwise entitled.

Our report also flags concern that the Welsh Government has not met the timescales it set for the completion of its post-completion monitoring, which is aimed at ensuring that grant terms and conditions are adhered to and to address instances of incorrect awards. This process is likely to be ongoing for quite some time. Furthermore, the Welsh Government has not explicitly confirmed it would amend its methodology for calculating the estimate of fraud and error within the COVID grant schemes, in light of auditors’ findings and the auditor general’s observations in his audit certificate on the 2020-21 accounts. These findings highlighted that there are uncertainties in the estimate as a result of data limitations and how the rate has been calculated.

The committee has made a recommendation that the Welsh Government provides further clarity on the latest position on recovery from the COVID-19 support for business schemes it has administered, including an explanation of how these figures relate back to the sums reflected in the auditor general’s memorandum and those provided by the Welsh Government during oral evidence to the committee. We note that the UK Government Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, or BEIS, has set out details about the calculation of its estimates of fraud and error in relation to UK Government COVID-19 grants in its annual report and accounts 2020-21, which the Welsh Government has not.

Can I please put on record, alongside the Chair, my thanks to my fellow committee members, clerks and all those involved in brining this report together? It really was a team effort in every sense of the word. It has been a long and arduous journey getting these accounts published, and I'm really glad that they're now finally seeing the light of day. There are several serious and shocking revelations within the 2020-21 Welsh Government accounts. Some of the issues, dare I say, were more than likely avoidable. One thing is for certain though: there are plenty of lessons for the Welsh Government to learn going forward. Perhaps the most shocking of all—and this is the one that really gets me—is the fact that £155 million was sent back to Westminster because of the Welsh Government's mismanagement. In the midst of a global pandemic, £155 million would have gone a long way in keeping vital public services in Wales up and running.

Will you take an intervention?

Go on.

I thank you for giving way because it's point that I do take some issue with: £80.6 billion was returned to Government by the Department of Health and Social Care, some of which would have had consequentials for the UK, by the way. Now, in Wales, it was 1 per cent. It was 6 per cent for that department, and 6 per cent across the UK departments. Why did that happen right across Whitehall?

Huw, can I ask you a question? Have you read the report?

Yes, I have.

You have. Okay.

It doesn't sound like it.

But it doesn't seem as though you are reflecting the report.

To be fair, both of your Members who represent the Labour group were in the meeting with us. We went through everything line by line, and everything was met with and approved by them.

But I'm not on the committee, so I'm asking you.

No, and I'm absolutely letting you know that everything was done with the approval, with all the associated research, and all of the answers were given to us through those who were in—

That figure was in the report. It's in the report, that figure.

It was in the report, Huw, and I'm afraid that that's the way we're going to go with this.

Six per cent for Westminster—

Can I remind Members that this is not a discussion, this is a debate? So, Natasha Asghar.

Thank you very much. I could think of a million different ways that the money could have been spent here in Wales for the people of Wales, like extra doctors, extra nurses, ways to reduce the waiting lists, or even, in fact, to get extra teachers. Or maybe even help for users of public transport. The UK Government spent £155 million on capping bus fares at £2 in a bid to attract more people. The options are endless as to where this money could have actually been spent. But, no, due to poor financial management by this Labour Government, the people of Wales were deprived of £155 million. We're not talking about a couple of quid here, or even talking about finding some spare change down the back of a sofa. That's enough money to give every public sector worker in Wales a 1.5 per cent pay rise of one year, or as the COVID-19 Bereaved Families for Justice Cymru group have stated, that money could have paid for a lot of—and pardon my pronunciation—high efficiency particulate air filters for hospitals.

Time and time again, glum-faced Labour Ministers stand in front of this very Chamber pleading poverty and austerity, telling everyone who will listen that they simply don't have enough money in their back pockets. Or they say they wish they could do more, but their hands are tied due to a lack of cash. They are always quick to point the finger at Westminster, accusing the UK Government of not pumping enough cash into the Welsh Government's coffers, and the number of times I have literally sat here and rolled my eyes, because one Minister or another likes to say 'Why don't you ask your colleagues in London for more money for Wales?' It's ridiculous. Well, that certainly does not wash with me anymore, as we can all see that the reality is that the Welsh Government had plenty of money, so much in fact that they couldn't even spend it.

Natasha, would you give way on that point?

No, Huw, with all due respect, you've had plenty of chances. And I'm taking note from Dawn earlier: you can keep asking the same question again and again, but you're going to get the same answer. I don't want to hear a single Labour politician stand up in this Chamber in the future talking about how cash-strapped they are. This Government's financial mismanagement has cost the people of Wales dearly, and it simply cannot happen again.

Another point I'd like to draw on in particular here is the level of fraud and error when it comes to the COVID business grant scheme, which was administered via local authorities. The Welsh Government reckons the amount of fraud and error could be anywhere between £700,000 and £37 million. This is an incredibly broad estimate. What I don't understand is why the Welsh Government didn't put more pressure on local authorities to identify incidents of fraud and error. Some councils are saying they had not found a single case of fraud and error. Surely, that can't be right.

I cannot stress enough how important it is that lessons are learnt from this sorry saga, so the people of Wales don't get shortchanged again because of this Welsh Labour Government's sheer incompetence. At the very least, the people of Wales deserve an apology from the Welsh Government and an assurance that there will be real consequences if this sort of sheer negligence should ever happen again. Thank you so much.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate this afternoon on the Welsh Government's accounts. Clearly, this inquiry has been a thorough one; the range of findings are testament to that.

The first element I want to look at is the £155 million that was returned to the Treasury in London. I have to admit that I was aghast when I heard this news first. Indeed, I continue to be astonished. Time and again, we hear Ministers from the Government, never mind backbench Members of the Labour Party, arguing that Wales isn't properly funded. Ministers have recently been saying that there isn't money available to maintain bus grants, for example, and that we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. Then, we're given to understand that they are sending £155 million back to the Treasury.

Now, I hear the Government's arguments—the arguments put forward by Huw Irranca—that they had requested that the Conservative Government allow them to carry funding forward from one year to the next, and that it's the fault of the Conservatives. But, really, did you expect the Conservatives in London, particularly given the poor relationship with Boris Johnson at the time, to sympathise? What do you expect from a mule, but a kick? The Government here has to start taking responsibility for its own failings. Time and again, they deny responsibility and refuse to take the blame, despite the fact that they've been in Government for 24 years.

On this point—

You're welcome.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Mabon. And it's not the same point, despite what was said before. Can I just say: what I would expect from UK Government is responsible engagement with Welsh Government, if there was a responsible Government, in order to negotiate that flexibility? But what does he think of the 6 per cent of Whitehall budgets that were returned to the tune of £1 billion? It is tiny, the £155 million. That would have been £1 billion to Wales as a consequentials—£1 billion.

I agree entirely with the Member on that point. And the way in which the Conservative Government in Westminster treats Wales and the people of the state is disgraceful, but, in this case, we're looking at £155 million being returned to the Treasury from the Welsh Government, which would have paid for the bus emergency scheme, four or even five times over. So, the Welsh Government must take responsibility for their own failings, just as the Conservatives have to take responsibility for their failings in Westminster.

If you look at the stories around the SNP in Scotland and the Conservatives in Westminster, commentators are united that the failings that are being reported in the news are the result of political parties that have spent too much time in power and have become lazy. That's what they say. They've lost their spark and vision apparently and they've lost direction. Well, if that's true of a party that's been in power for 15 years, what about a party that's been in government here for 24 years? If they can't find a case to spend £155 million in one of the poorest nations of northern Europe, when we're living through a housing crisis, a health crisis and failings in education, never mind untold other problems, then God help us.

And then the issue of payments to the former Permanent Secretary and the range of questions that come around as a result of that. How can significant payments be made for work that hasn't been done, without first taking legal advice? How can employment and retirement arrangements be made that aren't part of the Welsh Government's HR rules? And why was this information on changes to employment not being communicated clearly to line managers? It all suggests that there's one rule for one and another for the others. But, more than all of this, it's been highlighted once again that this Government is not fond of transparency and fails to keep clear records of decisions. How many times does the Government need to be criticised for this before they take action? The report into the employment of the former Permanent Secretary shows clearly that clear records were not kept. We know from the Gilestone Farm issue that meetings were held without records being kept, and, back in 2020, the Public Accounts Committee at that time wrote to the Permanent Secretary expressing concerns about the failure of Government to keep accurate, clear records.

But why the secrecy? Why the reluctance to be transparent? The Government is fortunate that there isn't much public scrutiny of its work here in Wales, as a result of a weak Welsh press and the stories from Westminster taking all of the political bandwidth on a UK level, or maybe the Government here understands full well that there is a lack of public scrutiny. But things can't go on like this. We must have transparency and I urge the Government to learn the lessons from this report and to ensure that the people of Wales know exactly how their money is spent and how people are employed. Thank you.

Jack Sargeant.

I'm grateful, acting Presiding Officer. It's wonderful to see you in the chair today. I'd like to take the opportunity, if I may, Chair, to set the context of public finances across the United Kingdom, because it is rather important to set the context here today: this scandalous waste of money in Westminster; the UK Government's decision to withhold billions, as we know—as we've discussed many a time here—in terms of capital funding for Wales. If we look back, many of us were here during the time of the pandemic. Let's have a look at some of the things that happened there in the realm of public finances. I think we all remember Matt Hancock, maybe from his I'm a Celebrity days, but certainly from his days as health Minister—that £40 million of Government COVID-related work won by his former pub landlord. It was the same Matt Hancock whose health department at the time underspent over 10 per cent of their departmental funding, which had to be returned to the Treasury, similar to what we're talking about today.

Let's look at department underspends. We touched on department underspends in the Welsh Government, of just 1 per cent, but let's look at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, for example. Alok Sharma and the disastrous Kwasi Kwarteng had £4.1 billion—that's a 16 per cent underspend there. 'The department for so-called levelling up', as I would call it, under Robert Jenrick, £1 billion—that's a 4 per cent department underspend. The Department for Transport, again, 4 per cent; the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, as it was, a 19 per cent departmental underspend. That's what we're here to discuss in this debate. If we reflect and contrast the two styles of approaches, NHS England test and trace compared to NHS Wales test and trace, in NHS England, a significant amount of money was spent on that, and a significant amount was wasted as well. Let's look at the efficiency of those two programmes—two different programmes. Wales was led by the public sector, much more efficient than the English system led by the private sector and friends of that Government.

There are countless examples, Presiding Officer, but I do want to touch, before closing, on one. Let's touch again on the fraud example and the levels of fraud. Natasha Asghar, a member of the committee, rightly mentioned it in the debate and I'm glad it was looked at by the committee. The committee report itself sets out that there were very low levels of fraud and error in our grants to businesses as a result of the approach in Wales. Surely that's a lesson to be learnt for the UK Government when they look at their departmental budgets. Let's seek the reality of where we are: the Welsh Government returned less than 1 per cent of its total expenditure limit. Huw Irranca-Davies, in his number of interventions this afternoon, has already explained about that £155 million and how the UK Government could and should have been flexible in their approach, as they have done on many occasions in the past. But the reality again is that Wales and the Welsh Government remain, as it has consistently been, at the top of the league table for spending by all UK Government departments. I've set out before the big departments—BEIS, so-called levelling-up, plenty of others, DCMS—and again, Wales, the Welsh Government, is at the top of the league table.

Clearly, there's some uncomfort with thorough scrutiny, scrutiny that has been presented in this report. I thank the PAC for doing such a thorough job and driving this debate today. We should never be frightened of scrutiny, even though it may find us wanting. We have to learn from that scrutiny, and clearly today Huw has struggled with some of that scrutiny and is trying to challenge some of the areas in this repeatedly. But Wales requires its Government to be open and transparent with its finances. The money is not here for the Government to do what it wishes to do with impunity. Rather, it has to be entrusted to them by the working people of Wales. It is therefore crucial that this money is used properly, ensuring that taxpayers in Wales get value for money.

Firstly, I would like to highlight the fact that it is incredibly concerning that the laying of the Welsh Government's consolidated accounts for 2021 was significantly delayed and signed nine months later than the timetable originally agreed. And to make those matters worse—and I know I'm repeating things again—the accounts were also qualified by the auditor general on three separate issues, including the payment to the former Permanent Secretary, clinicians' pension tax liabilities, and expenditure for some COVID-19 business grants. One of the main concerns, as we've heard, that the auditor general has was the payment to the former Permanent Secretary of £80,500 upon the end their contract. I must say that I share the concerns of the auditor general. I am also concerned to see the Welsh Government fail to provide sufficient evidence for the auditor general to determine whether this payment was materially correct and properly authorised.

I also want to raise concerns highlighted by the auditor general on the possibility of fraud, again, as we've heard, relating to the Welsh Government's COVID grants. This came about as the public spending watchdog found that some councils had not identified any cases of fraud and error—a conclusion that Audit Wales found extremely unlikely, especially when, after additional checks, one authority found £570,000 worth of potential fraud and error, as pointed out by the Chair of the committee.

Finally, I will again raise the concerns surrounding the significant loss of that £155.5 million worth of revenue as a direct result of the Welsh Government's decision not to spend it, knowing full well that this funding could not be carried forward and only asking for greater flexibility once the financial year had ended. The people of Wales don't want to see the Welsh Government constantly butting heads with the UK Government over established processes—they need one willing to spend public finances here in Wales in a timely and appropriate manner. I certainly hope that this mistake will not be repeated again. Going forward, it's vital that the Welsh Government takes account of what the auditor general has said, ensuring that reports such as these are published and debated quicker in order to effectively scrutinise the use of taxpayers' money. I welcome the scrutiny that has been demonstrated and played out here this afternoon—it's quite right and what we should be doing here.

I call on the Minister for Finance and Local Government, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. I welcome the committee's ongoing scrutiny of our annual accounts. It does help the Welsh Government in its efforts to continually improve the information being made available to readers of the accounts. Officials continue to work closely and constructively with the committee and with Audit Wales, and the Permanent Secretary will respond to the report's recommendations.

One area of interest is the management of the year end. Members will recall that in August of 2022, I provided the Finance Committee with a written report on the 2020-21 final outturn for the Welsh Government set against the spending plans that were approved in the third supplementary budget in line with my commitment to good practice and transparency. I have previously set out the facts in this Chamber many times now, and in the Finance Committee, but I will do so again today.

The pandemic and the funding made available for our response made the 2020-21 financial year an extraordinary year. Significant funding was provided by the UK Government very late in the financial year. To make the most effective use and secure the best value for money for taxpayers, we maximised expenditure wherever possible, including bringing forward our capital plans. To be very clear, we operated within the overall departmental expenditure limit budgetary controls set by HM Treasury and we should have been allowed some flexibility in respect of the individual revenue and capital controls. Our decisions to maximise capital spend were made having regard for the rules within HM Treasury's own consolidated budgeting guidance that revenue budgets can be switched to capital. It's a practice that we have used in the past.

Following a protracted exchange with the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury and HMT officials, we were denied the flexibility to switch revenue to capital, and this is despite being given to understand that the revenue and capital imbalance could be managed after the year end via an outturn adjustment. As a result, funding was reclaimed by the Treasury due to a completely arbitrary application of the consolidated budgeting guidance, which did not fully recognise the arrangements that had been agreed with this Government in our financial framework. I pressed the then CST repeatedly to allow for this flexibility so that we could have the money going forward, with a number of pragmatic suggestions as to how that could be done. However, all of these requests were denied, and that is clearly a position that is unacceptable. But there is a pattern of unreasonableness in HMT decisions and they have cost Wales dearly. This episode demonstrates again that they have an irresponsible and unsustainable approach to managing public finances across the UK. Our recommendations in 'Reforming our Union' seek to resolve these entirely avoidable issues.

In Wales, the money that was taken back represented 1 per cent of our available resources. A Barnett share of the funding returned to Treasury by UK departments would have been well over £1 billion rather than the much lower £155 million. But let's remember that would've been nothing at all, had the revenue-to-capital switch been agreed. While UK Ministers returned large parts of their budgets unspent, we spent every penny of our budget, but the UK Government refused that revenue-to-capital switch. But nobody could argue that we should've followed the UK Government's approach to managing public money during the pandemic. Nick Macpherson, the former Permanent Secretary to the UK Treasury, said that the £37 billion test and trace programme in England

'wins the prize for the most wasteful and inept public spending programme of all time'.

The fact is that the Welsh Government has a long record of outperforming the best UK departments and devolved Governments in terms of using our budget, and that remained the case in 2020-21. That is actually the real story here. I really do regret the ignorant, lazy, politically motivated willingness of some Members within this Chamber to mislead the public about the situation that occurred in that financial year. Our better management of public money here meant that we were able to do more in Wales to support people and businesses through the pandemic. Business support in Wales was significantly more generous. A typical medium-sized pub or restaurant here with 10 staff received £82,500 in Wales, but just £26,000 in England. A coffee shop with four staff received £33,000 here in Wales, just £18,000 in England, and that's thanks to the decisions that were taken here in Wales by the Welsh Government.

The Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee recommends that the Welsh Government should seek early approval for flexibility from HM Treasury before the end of the financial year and provide further details on the timeline for discussions over the 2020-21 year end with the Treasury. I hope I have again assured colleagues that we did all we could, before and after the year end, to resolve the issue, but the Permanent Secretary will be providing additional detail in his response. I have a list here of discussions that we had with HMT over the 2020-21 year end, which began in February 2021 and continued on until June of 2022. Those discussions go into double figures.

The Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee has also made a number of recommendations concerning the extensive range of COVID support provided to businesses during the 2020-21 period. During that time, 260,000 grants were made available to businesses impacted by the pandemic, with a combined value of £1.6 billion. This unprecedented package of assistance was delivered at pace to support businesses that were closed or severely impacted by the pandemic, which were at real risk of ceasing to trade, leading to the loss of thousands of jobs. Overall, 85.8 per cent of recipients agreed that the Welsh Government support was as important as furlough in safeguarding those businesses, and 91.9 per cent agreed that the funding helped safeguard jobs. This was only possible because of the close working with local authorities and partners, such as the Welsh Local Government Association and the Development Bank of Wales.

I call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate.

Thanks to everybody who contributed, starting with Natasha Asghar, who stated that there are plenty of lessons for the Welsh Government to learn going forward. She identified a number of key funding needs that the underspend of £155.5 million could have met, and she said that fraud and error could be between £700,000 and £30 million—but we don’t know. Mabon ap Gwynfor said that he was aghast when he heard that the £155.5 million had been returned to the UK Treasury, which would have paid for, he said, the bus emergency scheme four or five times over. He said this Welsh Government is not fond of transparency and clear records are not kept. We can’t go on with a lack of public accountability in Wales, he rightly stated.

Jack Sargeant spoke about the UK Government’s use of money in Westminster, yet, this debate is about the Welsh Government’s accounts, and the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee considers matters that relate to the economy, efficiency and effectiveness with which resources are employed in the discharge of public functions in Wales, and the Welsh Government is required to respond objectively and transparently to our evidenced findings and recommendations.

Peter Fox said that taxpayers in Wales must get value for money. He again pointed out that the accounts were significantly late, and qualified by the Auditor General for Wales. He shared all the concerns highlighted by Audit Wales and the Auditor General for Wales.

The Minister referred to the management of year end. She stated that Welsh Government operated with the financial controls set by UK Treasury. I didn’t hear her mention that the sum they requested to carry forward was in excess of the limit upon the Welsh reserve, for example. She then reverted to talking about the UK Government when, again, PAPAC’s remit applies in this context to its duty to scrutinise the Welsh Government. Her apparent approach—and I hope I’m wrong—to the findings of the Welsh Parliament’s Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee, and the evidence on which this was based, could have been interpreted as concerning, and I hope will not be allowed, if carried through, to set a precedent.

The committee considers matters, as I said, relating to the economy, efficiency and effectiveness within which resources are employed in the discharge of public functions in Wales. This report is produced by the Senedd’s Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee, which operates independently and which rightly has representation from all the main parties, and let me assure the Minister that the wording in the report was unanimously agreed by all Members, having heard the evidence that we heard together.

Our report highlighted a number of serious issues within the accounts, many of which were rehearsed by speakers. We believe that late notification, coupled with insufficient record keeping and reporting practices employed by the Welsh Government, materially complicated the process of auditing the accounts. The underspend was referenced by a number of speakers; in terms of Huw Irranca-Davies, please look at paragraphs 173-175 of the report, which directly address the points you made.

Can the Member please now come to an end?

I'll conclude by stating that the Public Accounts and Public Administration Committee will continue to pursue these issues and we will be closely monitoring the implementation of our recommendations. I know that all of its members will jealously guard our reputation for objectivity, evidence-based reports and positive engagement with the public bodies with which we work. Diolch.

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

We'll move on now to item 7, the Plaid Cymru debate on HS2 redesignation. I call on Luke Fletcher to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd dros dro. Today, we demand that the UK Government recognises its unjust neglect of Wales and provides us with the consequential funding owed to us. For too long, Westminster has ignored the needs and aspirations of Wales. We have seen successive Governments invest billions of pounds in London and the south-east, while leaving our nation with crumbling infrastructure and underfunded public services.

The high speed 2 line is just one example of how Westminster prioritises England at the expense of Wales. The Tory Government demonstrates yet again that Wales is an afterthought in Whitehall, but the sad truth is that Wales could face the same fate under a Labour-led UK Government. While the First Minister supported our calls for HS2 to be reclassified as an England-only project, Starmer has refused to agree with the First Minister. Let's make this very clear: regardless of which party is in power at Westminster, whether it's Labour or whether it's the Conservatives, none of them has committed to reclassifying HS2 as an England-only project, thus robbing Wales of £5 billion.

Today, we expect the Labour Government in Wales to commit to calling on a future Labour administration to rectify that decision, and today, we expect the Tory Party here to push their Government to do it now. Despite Wales not being directly connected to the proposed route, we are still entitled to receive our fair share of funding, as per the Barnett formula. As we all know, this formula dictates that any funding allocated to England must be mirrored in funding for the devolved nations. But, the designation of HS2 as an England-and-Wales project means we are being deprived of the billions of pounds we are rightfully owed, in contrast to Scotland and the north of Ireland.

As a Senedd, we should unite and demand that the UK Government redesignates HS2 as an England-only project, thus providing Wales with essential consequential funding. Funding that could be used to repair and modernise our broken railway network. It could be used to connect our communities, making travel more accessible, affordable and sustainable. It is a well-known fact that our railways are outdated and underfunded, resulting in slower services, poor connections and inadequate capacity, and the Deputy Minister was honest about this recently. But with this funding, we could significantly improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our rail system. In turn, we could encourage more people to use public transport, thereby reducing congestion on our roads, cutting carbon emissions and fighting climate change. The chronic underinvestment in Wales’s rail infrastructure is well-documented and there’s been no shortage of discussion in this Chamber.

But let us use this opportunity today to remind ourselves of the extent of the unfair, unchecked underinvestment facing us. The travesty of HS2 is part of a broader plight facing Wales, which has resulted in a 200:1 ratio between UK Government’s rail investment in England versus Wales. This is a constitutional outrage. Let’s break this down: last year, analysis showed that the Department for Transport's £180 million contribution to the core Valley lines transformation now being delivered by Transport for Wales is part of a UK Government forward commitment rail enhancement investment in Wales of less than £500 million. In contrast, there are well over £100 billion of rail enhancements set out by DfT in England, specifically the integrated rail plan, which includes funding for HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail. Compare that with a population ratio of approximately 20:1 and the route length, just 10:1. This is daylight robbery; it's staggering and completely undefendable. Both HS2 and national rail enhancements are defined by the UK Treasury as England-and-Wales expenditure. The UK Treasury determined the DfT comparability factor for Barnett consequentials to Wales at now just 36 per cent in comparison to 90 per cent in 2015. This applies to any Barnett-isable changes to the DfT’s budget, not just rail.

If you don’t invest in your network to expand capacity, reduce journey times, and improve reliability, your operations become less efficient and more costly and so attract fewer passengers. It is clear that the rail industry and associated DfT ecosystem via its rail network enhancement pipeline and Treasury Barnett policy continue to systematically fail Wales. Wales has and continues to lose out on billions of pounds of necessary rail investment. It is politically, constitutionally, economically and environmentally unacceptable.

Llywydd dros dro, Wales deserves better. We deserve a fair share of funding that reflects our needs and aspirations. It is time for Westminster to recognise the historical injustices and invest in our infrastructure, therefore I urge the Chamber to support Plaid Cymru’s motion. Together, as a Senedd united across party lines, we can boldly assert the rights of Wales and send a clear message to Westminster.

Thank you so much, acting Presiding Officer. And can I also thank Plaid Cymru for tabling this debate today? Now, let me be clear: it's the Welsh Conservative view that Wales should receive consequentials as a result of HS2. However—and let me please emphasise this 'however'—there's an important point that I must stress: we don't want to see a single penny go directly into the hands of this Labour Government, and let me explain why. Any money—[Interruption.]—any money coming to Wales should go directly to Network Rail, because we have absolutely no confidence that this Government would spend the money wisely to deliver major infrastructure projects. I've shared my view on this matter on countless occasions, and I will say it again today: Labour in Wales have a horrendous track record of frittering away millions of pounds of taxpayers' cash on their vanity projects. They wasted £150 million on the M4 relief road project before spiking it, they pumped in excess of £200 million into a failing airport, and as we've all just heard, they've sent £155 million back to Westminster because they didn't spend it. And please don't even get me started on the south Wales metro and the cost that has now ballooned up to £1 billion.

The list of wasting taxpayers' money goes on and on. Does this really sound like a financially responsible Government that we can trust to deliver for the people of Wales? I think not, and the record speaks for itself. So, yes, the Welsh Conservatives agree that Wales should get money from HS2, just as long as it does not go anywhere near this financially irresponsible Labour Government. And that's not to say HS2 will not bring about benefits to Wales, because, despite what Labour and Plaid might say, it most certainly will.

How?

I'm going to carry on. You'll—. Yes, Jack.

Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr iawn, Natasha, for that. You say you agree that money should come across from HS2; we disagree that it shouldn't come to the Welsh Government, the elected Welsh Government. But, having said that, do you think then—? Or will the United Kingdom Conservative Government give the money to north Wales for the electrification of the north Wales line, and when will that happen, because it hasn't happened yet?

Jack, you've got the Deputy Minister for transport sitting right in front of you—why is he not asking that question and making that call and making those calls? He needs to be able to have that communication. This is what I've been saying. In every contribution I've made, I've constantly asked all your Ministers: make that communication, have that relationship with Westminster. But they don't seem to be doing it, so therefore we're at a loss. We're not in power; if we were, I'd happily pick up the phone and make the call.

So, going back to what I was saying, that's not to say that HS2 will not bring about any benefits to Wales, because, despite what Labour and Plaid might say, it most certainly will. Not only will HS2 deliver faster and more frequent train services to Wales, it will also benefit businesses as some of our nation's companies will be working on the project. In fact, did you know that 44 of HS2 suppliers are actually Welsh SMEs? Labour politicians in this Chamber will often criticise the HS2 scheme and demand extra money for Wales as a result of the project and pull faces—as one is doing right now—yet, rather interestingly, HS2 was first investigated under Gordon Brown's Labour Government back in 2009. And I feel like it's worth reminding you that the current Labour leader has refused to guarantee that he would give Wales a fair share of HS2 funding if, god forbid, he was ever made Prime Minister. So, it would be interesting to hear what Labour Ministers here have to say about Keir Starmer's refusal. It's all well and good tabling this debate today, but what are Plaid going to be doing about it, going forward? You're here with Labour. Are you going to be pushing for action behind the scenes today, or is today's debate just for show?

We live on a different planet, Natasha Asghar and I, because the idea that the UK Government has got a track record of delivery on this matter is just extraordinary. The HS2 facts and figures are the following. The cost initially outlined in 2010 was for a project that would cost £33 billion. By 2015, it had risen to £56 billion, and it has now ballooned to somewhere between £72 billion and £98 billion at 2019 prices, for a project that has cut off the line to Leeds. It's certainly going to cost above £100 billion—almost certainly—and what is Wales going to get for it? Absolutely nothing. These people in the Treasury and the Department for Transport who are trying to argue that this is an England-and-Wales project obviously need a geography lesson, because, when I last looked, the line going from Birmingham to Old Oak Common is nowhere near Wales—absolutely nowhere near. In fact, it makes it less attractive to invest in Wales, because it improves the attractiveness of Birmingham and gives nothing to Wales. It's a real abuse of the devolution settlement and really undermines people's faith in the democratic process.

I heard the really interesting idea that the money that should be due to Wales should be given to Network Rail. Well, that would be better than not giving it to Wales at all, because there's a huge backlog of repairs to be done on Cardiff Central station, which is the only station in Wales that is the responsibility of Network Rail, in case some of you don't realise it; it's nothing to do with Transport for Wales. And last weekend, I had a complaint from a family who was stuck in one of these lifts—very old lifts; I use them quite frequently because I take a bike up there. And they were stuck in it for several hours. And this sort of thing is going to go on, along with the signalling breakdowns. That has a knock-on effect on the smooth running of our train system. So, it really is totally disappointing that the UK Government is simply unable to realise that Wales has transport needs as well. This is not—. They should not just be running the UK Government on behalf of England. They have to take account of the whole of the United Kingdom, and we are getting nothing as a result of this, and it goes with the broken promise that we had back in 2018, when they decided they weren't going to electrify the line to Swansea, as a result of which we're having to run a whole load of inappropriate trains on the lines, when we could be using electrified trains. So, the track record of the UK Government in this is absolutely shameful, and this isn't just a debate that is occurring amongst ourselves. I can tell you that constituents of mine are raising this and saying this is an absolute fiction. This is the sort of thing where they're taking Wales for granted.

Thank you for giving way, Jenny. Would you accept, though, that some of the rolling stock, particularly in north Wales, is the responsibility of the Welsh Labour Government? My constituents are still having to travel on 30 or 40-year-old rolling stock, and they are that old. What my constituents are seeing is Cardiff and the Valleys getting new rolling stock and the Welsh Government making a good advert for that, which is great, but the people of north Wales are having to rely on old trains in order to get from A to B. Would you accept that's the responsibility of the Welsh Government?

Well, we've got to start somewhere, and obviously the majority of the population lives in south-east Wales, but I don't discount the fact that the rolling stock in north Wales definitely needs replacing, because I've experienced it myself. But the network lines—[Interruption.] The lines are the responsibility of the UK Government. These main national infrastructure lines are the responsibility of the UK Government and of Network Rail. Instead, Network Rail is being starved of resources across the whole UK network, which means that the whole rail system across the UK is going to be grinding to a halt because of the delays, the signal breakdowns, that will happen across the piece, which means that they are literally trying to make sure that the rail industry dies on its feet. It's an absolute tragedy, and this is just one iteration of that.

In defending the decision not to provide the money that is owed to Wales as a result of these projects, the Westminster Government has argued that they will benefit north Wales, because the people of north Wales, believe it or not, will be able to reach London earlier. This essentially shows the mentality of the British state; whether Labour or Conservatives, London is the centre of the world. Feeding London is the priority, not promoting the economy of other areas.

But linking people with London is not our priority. According to the North Wales Transport Commission, two thirds of all journeys made by people in north Wales are 15 km or less. So, we need investment to develop connectivity between our communities here in Wales. This is our priority.

Yesterday and today, I've mentioned the fact that the Dyfi ward in Tywyn Hospital has been closed because of a shortage of nurses. One fact that hasn't been given its deserved coverage publicly is that the health board had asked a nursing agency to provide nurses. This would have kept the ward open. But, unfortunately, the agency failed to ensure that these nurses were available. Why? Because Tywyn is too far, and there is a lack of infrastructure and public transport. These roads are winding and long, and public transport is difficult in the area.

I have a constituent who sleeps in a tent during the week rather than travelling home, because there is no public transport available to take him home once his shift finishes in the factory. I have a constituent who has to move from Blaenau Ffestiniog to live in Llandudno because the bus service has come to an end, and they can't do their shopping or visit their family at convenient times. I have students who have to travel two hours one way on a train, or a series of trains, in order to get to college. There are patients who have to wait for hours for bus connections in order to get to their appointments at Alltwen Hospital. How on earth is a train that gets to London a quarter of an hour more quickly going to help these people? We need this funding here in order to improve Welsh infrastructure.

Then, the Westminster Government claims that HS2 will be of economic benefit to us here in Wales. That is utter nonsense, of course. It’s true to say that investment in infrastructure is an economic boost. Adam Smith made that clear in his book, The Wealth of Nations. This is what the Institute for Public Policy Research said in its report on the Northern Powerhouse back in 2017:

'A very large number of studies from all over the world have demonstrated a clear and positive correlation between public sector infrastructure investment and economic growth, with the multiplier varying from country to country and investment to investment, but always positive'.

But in order to see those economic benefits you have to see investment here, not in another country. Saving a quarter of an hour on a train journey isn't going to add to the GDP of the far end of the Llŷn Peninsula or the Ardudwy coast. If we want to see real economic growth here, then we need to enable the railways of north and mid Wales to carry freight, for example. This will mean that manufacturers can produce materials in the north-west and get them to market easily.

We need to look to reopen our rail lines, not necessarily as conventional railway, but as light railway to connect communities in a green and affordable manner.

That brings me to the final benefit: investment in our infrastructure and public transport here can mean that Wales is in the vanguard in decarbonising, playing our full part in the battle against climate change.

Receiving what we are owed from HS2 and the Northern Powerhouse railway could transform Wales for the better, enhance our communities, help to avoid depopulation of our rural areas, and make a constructive contribution to ensure that the world isn't going to warm up over 1.5 degrees above pre-industrial levels. On the basis of all of this, I encourage you all to support the motion.

Darren Millar.

Thank you, temporary Presiding Officer, or interim Presiding Officer—I'm not quite sure how we refer to you. Can I just say I'm really disappointed with this debate because I thought it would be a good, consensual debate where we were able to gather around the motion on the Order paper that we all support on a cross-party basis here in the Senedd? But it's quite clear that it's gloves off. So, let me get going.

Let's talk—[Interruption.] Let's talk about the absolute dreadful hypocrisy from the Labour Party in this Chamber today that gripe and gripe and gripe about the unfairness that they suggest the UK Government shows towards Wales. We know that, for every £1 spent on transport in England, with the exception of HS2 and some other projects—[Interruption.]—absolutely, and I support that for you—£1.20 comes to Wales. But what doesn't happen is the way that you—. What isn't fair is the way that you carve that cake up within Wales.

Let's have a look at your record on transport spending, because it is absolutely dismal for north Wales. You have spent, or you're going to spend, £1 billion on the south Wales metro, and there's a miserly £50 million—one twentieth of that sum—for a quarter of the population in north Wales, that you've allocated to the north Wales metro, a metro that doesn't appear to be going anywhere at the moment, and which you've scaled back since the original announcement was made. I'll come to you in a second, Jenny. I'll come to you in a second.

Let's talk about the fact that you've dualled the Heads of the Valleys road, right, at extortionate cost. The final project cost was twice the original budget and it took twice as long as it should have taken to deliver that project. In fact, it was nearly three times as long as the original forecasted completion date. It cost £190 million over budget. I mean, that is an extortionate sum of money.

We know as well that you've sunk over £200 million—over £200 million of taxpayers' money—on an airport that is consistently making loses, which is, frankly, like a ghost town in the Vale of Glamorgan, empty nearly every time I go there. Goodness knows what you're doing, but you certainly have no idea how to run an airport. And then you publish a roads review, right—a roads review that ends up scrapping projects the length and breadth of the country, apart from, of course, some key projects in a few Labour and Plaid Cymru constituencies elsewhere, particularly in the south. That is your idea of fairness. Where's the north Wales consequential? When are we going to get our fair share of investment in north Wales to deal with our traffic infrastructure problems? Because I tell you, Jenny, you haven't experienced the half of it. You might have sat on a dodgy old train in the past, but if you had to drive the roads that I have to drive down every week in order to get to this Senedd, or get on the trains that I experience when I have to come down here, you would be absolutely appalled. And frankly, people need to open their eyes and start looking northward and making a bit of investment in my area and my region. I've got essential road safety projects that have been scrapped on the basis of climate change. It doesn't matter if people die on a dangerous junction. It's not going to have any impact on climate change, but they've still been scrapped and shelved by this Government. That's not good enough. I'll take the intervention.

Thank you very much. Just to remind you that the A470 is one of the nicest drives I experience. I love going north-south on the A470. I can't tell you about your particular projects on—[Interruption.] I absolutely enjoy that. What I wanted to remind you about earlier on—[Interruption.] What I wanted to remind you about earlier on is that the reason we have £1 billion available for the south Wales metro is because we didn't spend £2 billion on 12 miles of road on the M4. That's why we are going to have a much better, much more joined-up south-east Wales transport system.

I would point out, actually, that the UK Government offered to underwrite and fund the cost of the M4 relief road. Yes, it did, and it made it quite clear that it was prepared to do that, and the Welsh Government of course abandoned it—a £100-odd million road to nowhere, with now properties on your hands that you don't know what to do with. So, look, if we want to talk about fairness, we need fairness within Wales as well as within the United Kingdom. So, give us our fair share in all parts of Wales—north, south, east and west—and let's make sure that everybody can benefit from transport infrastructure investments, not just the south.

The announcement that the Birmingham to Crewe leg of HS2 has been delayed and that it'll be the line from London to Birmingham, which is phase 1, that will proceed has placed a new highlight on the issue. But the problem goes back 30 years, and that problem, the huge mistake was to designate the HS2 scheme as an England-and-Wales project rather than an England-only project, depriving Wales of huge sums of money. The decision by the Treasury was entirely deficient, to be honest, and totally incredible to anyone who's ever looked at a map of the nations of Britain and where the new rail line is proposed. There's not an inch of it in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, but it's only Wales that is missing out financially as a result of it. And, in the meantime, our nation is suffering from large-scale underinvestment.

Our train system is creaking. I know this from experience. I spend eight hours of my life on a train every week that I come to the Senedd. And Jenny, that is better for me than travelling on the A470, despite the circumstances. Transport for Wales has changed things for the better ever so slightly; I do see a difference since I came to the Senedd in 2016. Things are starting to change very slowly. At least there is better service planning now. There are better working conditions for the staff of Transport for Wales than there were for the private companies. Bangor station in my constituency is among the busiest in north Wales, and there are plans afoot to make improvements to facilities there. But, as many constituents in Arfon tell me on a weekly basis, we need far-reaching improvements in order to encourage them to become regular train users.

The £5 billion of HS2 consequentials, which should come to Wales, would be invaluable in improving services here. But, in addition to the underinvestment, there is another problem that militates against the creation of a rail system that we can be proud of, and that is the absurd situation that the responsibility for the infrastructure, the rail lines, is with a body under Westminster. Network Rail has underinvested on a broad scale in Wales for many years, and we need to devolve responsibility for infrastructure and the consequential funding to this Senedd. Then we can make real progress in creating a system that connects the whole of Wales with itself and outside of Wales, to the rest of the world.

One of the projects that needs to be prioritised is the electrification of the north Wales rail line. The north Wales main line runs for almost 170 km and travels across the north Wales coast. There are wonderful views from the trains, but not a centimetre has been electrified. Electrification is the key for faster, cleaner trains and more regular services for passengers and goods. According to Growth Track 360—[Interruption.] I will come to you in two minutes. According to Growth Track 360, which has been promoting this, the electrification programme for the north Wales main line would cost £1 billion, a sixth of the money that should be coming to us as a result of the England-only plans.

I of course support Growth Track 360’s proposals, but do you agree that, despite the two-year delay to the Birmingham to Crewe stretch of HS2, the Crewe HS2 hub will be critical not only to general rail access to north Wales improvements, but particularly to future electrification?

The problem is that I don’t think that that will happen, that it will ever happen, and that it will never see the light of day. There’s been a delay of two years. How convinced can we be that we will see any further steps in that regard? Even then, I haven't been convinced that these changes in Crewe will be truly beneficial to the rest of our country.

I think that Labour and the Tories need to recognise that we need to devolve rail infrastructure to Wales. That, ultimately, is what will make a major difference. But in the meantime, today, let us all come together and unite, despite our differences on certain aspects on this. There is one thing that we are agreed on, and let’s send a clear message to Westminster today that the Welsh Parliament insists on its fair share of the funding owed to us from the HS2 project.

I’m going to begin by trying to echo that call for all of us to come together and say what we’ve currently got is just wrong, with the HS2 funding and other funding, over many years, and the Northern Powerhouse Rail plans as well. All of that is wrong, and it shouldn’t rely on changes of Government, by the way. We need to either look at that issue of devolving the rail investment here to Wales, and I would take issue strongly with Natasha’s point—simply allocating it to a body where there is no democratic input would be a travesty. We had a debate earlier this afternoon about scrutiny of decisions and spending of money. We devolve that decision making, that money comes here and then we allocate it, and then scrutiny committees can actually take to task the allocation of that to north or south or east or west or whatever. That’s the way to do it.

It shouldn’t rely on what Government is in power in Westminster. Now, there are ways to do this. It could be devolution; it could be, actually, engagement with the Treasury. The big villain in this, I have to say, is the Treasury. The Treasury makes top-down decisions and says, ‘That’s the way it is.’ And yes, they’re instructed by No. 10, but they’re instructed by the Chancellor as well, and if the Chancellor decides HS2 funding is England-and-Wales spend, or that the Northern Powerhouse Rail is England-and-Wales spend, so be it. There’s no input here from Welsh Ministers whatsoever, or anybody else. Now, surely that has to change. The stage of devolution that we’re at means that Treasury has to be open.

Now, I would suggest that the inter-governmental machinery that has been put forward over the last year or so, which is still bedding in, might be one way forward. But of course there are exclusions within that inter-governmental machinery for Treasury decisions. What a surprise. So, I suspect, unless the Ministers this afternoon can disabuse me of this, I don’t think there is a way forward within the inter-governmental machinery to actually raise this and say, either currently or next time there’s a HS2, or next year’s financial settlement, let’s get in there and let's agree what the proportion is. Should we have full consequentials from it or should there be an agreement? For example, as UK Governments have traditionally argued, if you invest in the south-east in rail, there is a benefit to people who are travelling from north Wales and south Wales. Well, let's actually discuss that and negotiate what benefit does come to Wales, and then say, 'But, it's not the entirety; we want 80 per cent here or we want 90 per cent coming back.'

The practical reality of this—. Luke, I'm glad you introduced the debate, because you'll know some of the hard realities on the ground for us. We have been waiting for something like 15 years for the investment in the electronic signalling of the Maesteg loop. It has been promised time and time again; time and time again, it has been taken away, and I actually remember being told, 'For investment in the south-east of England.' And I think, 'Well, fantastic, I'll visit the south-east of England, I'll go there to Westminster for my committee things and I'll have some benefit', but it's my—I was about to swear—my constituents in Maesteg, they want that electrified. We've got a guy who goes up and down the stairs with an old-fashioned Victorian key to change the signalling to allow it to go. Why is that important? Because we can only have one train an hour on the track. Until we deal with that, and we have the straightening of the loop around the Tondu thing, which we've been promised as well, we can't actually have a half-hourly train. The Pencoed level crossing, we've got to deal with that. We've had no investment in that as part of levelling up.

The fact that we are not having this £5 billion is nothing less than a scandal, to be honest, and I want to explain why that kind of investment would be able to transform the provision of public transport in my region and across Wales. The region I represent, as you will know, is a rural area that mainly suffers poor bus and rail services.

When I go out to meet people across the region and talk to them about the issues that are important to them, time and time again they raise the lack of public transport. For too many rural communities, the idea of having access to convenient rail links is a pipe dream. Very often, these are the same communities that face losing services when the BES scheme comes to an end before long.

Now, as we all know, a chronic lack of public transport connectivity has a profound impact on the economy, making it harder for businesses to thrive and for people to access education, training and other essential services. It is also a key factor in wider patterns of rural poverty and social exclusion in rural mid and west Wales.

Where rail services do exist, as anyone who has recently travelled on the Heart of Wales line, for example, will attest, they are regularly beset by delays and cancellations, often with little or no notice. I happened to travel recently on the Heart of Wales line, but unfortunately I wasn't allowed the joys of the railway line all the way because I had to catch a bus from Llandeilo to Llandrindod and from Llandrindod to Llandeilo on the way back.

Timetabling often fails to account for the needs of people. For instance, the final train from Tenby to Pembroke Dock leaves long before anyone on an evening shift in any of Tenby’s restaurants, pubs or bars would be able to catch it to get home. This acts as a barrier to accessing local job opportunities, particularly for young people, and it's an example of inadequate joined-up thinking.

But it doesn't have to be this way. The consequential funding that Wales is rightfully owed from HS2 could help to transform rail provision in mid and west Wales. By investing in our railways, it could also improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our services, providing faster, more frequent and more reliable connections across the region. Improving connectivity would support businesses and help to overcome key obstacles to investment in the region, supporting job creation and boosting growth. This, in turn—and this is really important—could help to reduce poverty and inequality in my region.

Quite simply, there is no way that people in mid and west Wales will be able to move away from private cars at the scale and speed required to combat climate change if public transport remains so unreliable and inconvenient.

Redesignating HS2 as an England-only project and providing the consequential funding to Wales would make a real difference to the lives of people across the country. Indeed, on a point of principle, what civilized nation would not want to connect people with each other? We have west-to-east connections, but none from north to south. And that's the point. I do agree with Darren Millar on that: we need to improve those north-south connections. The situation is a disgrace. And that's after Tory and Labour Governments have had plenty of opportunity to rectify this over decades. People in mid and west Wales deserve investment in their local economies, which creates jobs and reduces poverty. But more than anything, they deserve the right to public transport that is convenient and effective, and ensuring the money that's owed to them by the UK Government would take us a step closer to providing those basic services. Thank you.

My theme this afternoon is connecting Cymru, following from what Cefin Campbell has just said. Those speaking in favour of this motion today want to connect Cymru, to unleash the potential of our nation, to unite Wales rather than divide our country. We all know that Wales being starved of cash by Westminster is nothing new and we know that cuts are often forced on Wales.

This underinvestment and cutting back on Welsh rail infrastructure goes back decades. In the words of Professor Phil Williams, 'If you examine the criteria used by Lord Beeching and his successors to justify closing individual rail lines, there are huge deficiencies in the accounting methodology.' Phil Williams went on to say, 'What is even more significant in the case of Wales is the incompetent way in which individual lines were closed without any real assessment of the knock-on impact on other lines and on the whole network.' And he was right there. To an official in Whitehall, the closure of the lines between Pwllheli and Caernarfon and Aberystwyth and Carmarthen were relatively minor closures, but that destroyed the one remaining north-south link within Wales. At a stroke of a pen in Whitehall, these closures prejudiced any chance of developing an all-Wales rail network.

When people praise the union, perhaps they should consider these issues: that despite Westminster control of our rail network, we are still in the same situation today following the Beeching cutbacks. I’m pleased to see there’s an ever-growing Senedd petition by Gwynedd councillor Elfed Wyn ap Elwyn for the reopening of railway lines that connect the north and south of Wales. The latest delay on the HS2 line means more money spent, more money wasted, more money taken away from Wales. Research by Mark Barry has revealed Wales in effect pays for HS2. This results in fewer enhancements relative to the rest of the UK network, a less capable and efficient railway, carrying fewer passengers, with a higher subsidy per passenger.

Last month, the Trefnydd agreed to my call for a written statement on rail infrastructure funding lost to Wales. When can we have that written statement to the Members of the Senedd, Minister? Because I am sure Members across this Senedd would like to know how much money Wales has lost over the years due to the delay in the electrification of the Great Western rail line and the fact that HS2 and probably Northern Powerhouse Rail are classified as England-and-Wales projects. Cardiff to Swansea electrification was dropped by the UK Government in 2017. While there are calls to restart this scheme, the UK Government has given no indication that it intends to do so. What discussions, then, Minister, has the Welsh Government had with the Westminster Government and UK Labour colleagues regarding Cardiff to Swansea electrification?

The Deputy Minister for Climate Change to contribute to the debate. Lee Waters.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Government will be supporting this motion this afternoon, and I’m grateful to Plaid Cymru for bringing it forward. The sadness I have listening to this debate is I listened very carefully and I don’t see anybody disagreeing with the motion, but it would be hard to get that conclusion from listening to the debate from the public gallery. We are focusing instead on those things that we disagree on, rather than the consensus we’ve finally reached—after the Conservatives eventually decided to support the call—that we now have cross-party support in this Parliament for this investment in Wales. You'll remember the last time we had cross-party support in this Senedd for a rail investment was for electrification of the Swansea and Cardiff main line, and to the credit of the Conservatives, they came together with other parties to lobby their own Government and succeeded in getting a decision that favoured Wales. So, it’s been done before and we can do it again. Sadly, in that case, the UK Government u-turned on its policy and we haven’t had electrification.

I was baffled, I must say, by Darren Millar’s opening, where he called for a good consensual debate and then lamented the fact there wasn’t one. He took his gloves off in what was clearly a preprepared speech, developing his usual wedge issue of trying to separate north and south, which is his usual clarion call, which is becoming rather tiresome. If he was sincere about advancing the interests of north Wales, rather than scoring points, he'd be making the case for the electrification of the north Wales railway line and doing that loudly and consistently. He doesn't do that—this is a non-devolved responsibility—and he'd rather play silly games. There is, in fact, £800 million of investment by this Government into new brand new trains, most of them made in Wales, currently being used and tested in north Wales.

Will you take an intervention?

I won't take an intervention. [Interruption.] I won't take an intervention, no.

It is not true that we are not investing in north Wales. We have set up the North Wales Transport Commission, led, again, by Lord Burns, who is currently developing a pipeline of schemes for investment right across north Wales—urban and rural—and some of that will require UK Government investment because it will be in rail infrastructure. And I hope at that point, Darren Millar can put aside his love for wedge issues to focus on what we do agree on and argue for that investment to be made in Wales as it is non-devolved. We've seen the same in the south Wales Burns commission, where a series of recommendations have been put forward for a pipeline of schemes, and we are working constructively with the UK Government on finding funding for them—the electrification of the relief lines through Newport will be critical to realising the vision of the Burns commission. And I hope we can get cross-party support for that.

Natasha Asghar, I'm afraid, was completely wrong to say that HS2 will bring benefits to Wales. If she took the trouble to read the business case for the HS2 investment, she would find that, in the DfT's own business case, it shows that HS2 will take £200 million every single year out of the Welsh economy. There are no services coming into Wales, not a single mile of track will come into Wales. David T.C. Davies, and before him Robert Buckland, and before him whoever it was who was the Welsh Secretary—it's hard to remember—argued that HS2 would benefit north Wales because of trains coming to Crewe, but they can't even argue that now, because the DfT has postponed that development. And I think Siân Gwenllian is right to be sceptical that we will ever see this leg of HS2 developed. So, I'm afraid that Natasha Asghar, again, is putting siren calls ahead of national interest. They say they support the policy, they say they want a cross-party initiative, and then they have to trivialise it by a puerile call for giving the money not to the Welsh Government but giving it to Network Rail, a body that, as has been pointed out, is not accountable to this Parliament, it is not accountable to the people of Wales and is not devolved. And it'll achieve nothing. It's just, I'm afraid, a sign of the spite that, having taken so long to agree that this was a wrong that needing righting, they couldn't quite bring themselves to be grown up about it.

Just to add salt into this open wound, I'm sure Members will have read the announcement of Network Rail's most recent maintenance plans, with the so-called control period 7 settlement, which shows that Network Rail are planning, over the next five years, to cut spending on maintaining the railway in Wales. So, this body that the Tories want to give extra funding to is planning to underinvest in Wales, which will have the direct effect of worsening rail performance in Wales—a planned decline in the Welsh railways. Deteriorating assets, more service failures, performance predicted to worsen or barely improve—that's what the UK Government is delivering for Wales in a non-devolved area: worsening train performance. So, when they make accusations of a lack of investment, they need to turn their fire on where the blame lies. In fact, the only bright spot in the control period 7 settlement is that it will deliver a very marginal gain in Wales's on-time performance, which is good news. The reason why that's happening is because of the investment we've made in improved services: in new trains, in more and better-trained staff, and improvements to legacy fleet and performance. So, when Gareth Davies talks about the performance of rolling stock, he should remember that our investment is actually counteracting the conscious managed decline by the UK Government via Network Rail in services in Wales. They have an appalling record to defend and the barefaced cheek to criticise us.

Will the Minister take an intervention?

I won't, no.

Luke Fletcher rightly said at the beginning that this is daylight robbery, we are being deprived of investment. This is a very simple thing, really. This is an England-only project, and we should be getting a devolved consequential from that. It's a scandal that we are not. Interestingly, this is not just a party point. Lord Peter Hendy, the chair of Network Rail, Boris Johnson's former head of Transport for London and a cross-party figure sitting now as a cross-bencher in the House of Lords, widely respected right across the political spectrum, said in his maiden speech—. It's worth reading, it's a short speech, and significantly, of all the subjects he could have picked on in that opening speech to greet him into the House of Lords, he picked on the very curious decision not to give a Barnett consequential to Wales. I think that is significant. He used very guarded, measured language. He said it was 'strange', the way that the HS2 consequential for Wales was working, and that 'something is amiss' in the way the Barnett formula was applied. So, if the UK Government won't listen to the Welsh Conservatives, won't listen to this Parliament, they should at least listen to the chair of Network Rail, Lord Hendy, who is rightly pointing out a very strange shortcoming in the way that this key formula is applied.

We are doing what we can with the resources that we have to invest in rail right across Wales. It's a key part of our climate change targets and our vision for the Wales transport strategy. Having additional resources to spend on rail and bus, to have a truly integrated transport system, is something we desperately need. We're not short of ambition. We're not short of plans. But we are short of money, and putting this wrong right would help. Diolch.

I'll start by thanking everyone for their contributions. I'm not going to go through every contribution, you'll be pleased to hear, but I do want to highlight a few issues. Luke, in opening the debate, was quite right in highlighting how prioritising England over Wales has happened here, and I would say that one of the problems is that London has been prioritised over everywhere else over recent years. Essentially, perhaps that is one of the fundamental problems here. And the 200:1 ratio when it comes to expenditure in England as compared to Wales—and Luke and Huw Irranca-Davies and others referred to that—that is just indefensible. It's impossible to believe that anyone could believe that that could be justified, in my view.

Darren said that he was disappointed with the tone of the debate. I agree. Maybe not even Members of his own benches got the memo, but there we are, and I agree that we do need to see a more equitable spread of investment across Wales. I and others have been banging on about that for many, many years. But, of course, the focus of the motion here—maybe not the debate, but the motion—is about the quantum of that funding that you have to spread across Wales, and that is a different issue. As I say, that's what the motion calls for, not necessarily, maybe, what's been debated on occasion.

The Deputy Minister, of course, emulated Darren, ever so slightly, if I may say so. He started off by saying that we needed consensus, then Darren took his gloves off. Well, I think the Deputy Minister might have slipped in a few punches that were below the belt too, but there we are. That's why it's called a debate, isn't it, and particularly when you have politicians involved, we're not always going to get consensus on everything.

But I do have to come back to some of the comments that Natasha Asghar made in her contribution. I mean, you're effectively rewriting the devolution settlement in your five-minute contribution, and it does lift the veil, I think, on what the whole HS2 debacle is about. It's about the UK Government intentionally subverting the Barnett formula. That's what's playing out here. Now, I appreciate that the Welsh Conservatives' standpoint is different, although not as different as I thought it was before this debate, because what you're saying is that Wales can have the money as long as the UK Government decides how it's spent. That's a huge statement there in your lack of influence in this place, for one thing, and it's a bit like a grocer saying, 'I'll sell you the potatoes as long as I can tell you what you use those potatoes for.'

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, I will.

With all due respect, did you listen to what I was saying? I was stating that we are more than happy for the money to come, but it mustn't go into this Government's hands; it must go into rail, which is what everyone wants here. We all want to see the rail services improve—north, south, east, west—but we don't have that trust in this Government. Let it go directly to the rail services so that people get the service that they need and deserve.

And that says a lot about your lack of influence in this place—that you would wish others to make the decisions. It's exactly the point I was making, Natasha, so I don't quite get what you're getting at there.

There is consensus, no matter what anybody says—I insist there is. [Laughter.]

But, look, it is significant—and don't let us forget this—it is significant, I think, that the Conservatives at a UK level, through the UK Government, say one thing, but that the Welsh Conservatives have a differing view, although not the view that we would want to see, but I do acknowledge and respect that. But I also acknowledge that the Government, or rather the Labour Party at a UK level, haven't given us any assurance that they would do anything different to the Conservatives at a UK level if they were in Government. But, again, I recognise that there is a different view on the benches in this place.

So, there is common ground, and I am pleased that, hopefully, we will move towards support from all Members for this motion. I do encourage you, therefore, across party boundaries, to support the Plaid Cymru motion this afternoon. Let us send a united message to the Westminster Government, whatever its political hue now and in the future, that we as a Senedd and we as the people of Wales aren't willing to be neglected in this regard. We're not willing to be ignored, and we're not willing to accept this injustice of the lack of consequential funding for Wales. Let us show that we are willing to raise our voices and to fight for our fair share of what is owed to us. Surely, we can all agree unanimously that Wales, in this context, deserves better.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed.

Which means that we don't need to have voting time this afternoon.

We'll move directly on to item 9, which is the short debate. The short debate this afternoon is from James Evans.

Thank you, Sam Rowlands, for your good assistance there. Diolch, Llywydd. I would like to give a minute of my time to Laura Anne Jones, Sam Kurtz, and Mabon ap Gwynfor. I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to do this debate today on the aspects of rural Welsh life, shooting and its benefits to the economy and conservation. I look forward to hearing the views of the Minister and Members throughout the Senedd and colleagues on this very important topic. As someone who took up shooting recently, and as a member of the cross-party group on shooting and conservation, it's a very important issue to me and many people right across Wales.

Shooting is fundamental to rural communities in Wales. It provides opportunities for people from all walks of life to come together in the great outdoors and enjoy each other's company. I agree with Sir Gareth Edwards CBE who has publicly stated that he truly believes that shooting in rural Wales is bound up with our nation's culture and traditions.

It is clear that sustainable shooting and the associated conservation activities provide a wide range of environmental and economic benefits, achieving each of the seven well-being goals set out in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Almost a quarter of people in the most rural parts of Wales feel isolated, and shooting can be very beneficial in addressing this, and bring physical and mental health benefits. Shooting is a crucial part of bringing people together, and people make on average 20 friends when they get involved in their local shoots.

Shooting also has conservation benefits, such as the management of 380,000 hectares in Wales, which is 90 per cent of Wales's land mass. Associated management practices play a pivotal role in protecting ecosystems and helping wildlife to thrive. Shooting contributes an annual spend of £7.4 million on conservation across Wales—the equivalent of 490 full-time jobs, or 120,000 hours of conservation working days. Research has shown that good game management can lead to significant benefits for wildlife and biodiversity. For example, woodland managed for game shooting tends to support more songbirds and butterflies and bees in woodland edges.

Shooting practitioners and communities across my patch in Brecon and Radnorshire and beyond are well equipped with the unique skills to help tackle the challenges associated with the climate and nature emergencies head on. Those involved in shooting are passionate about the land and its wildlife. They also do a fantastic job in predator control to help restore ground-nesting bird populations from predators, such as the curlew, and I know that my colleague Mark Isherwood, who is the curlew champion in this Senedd, would agree with that.

Indeed, it is shooting that has ensured that farms across the land continue to thrive, with hedgerows, small woodlands, lakes and ponds and even stunning swathes of heather and moorland. The desire of farmers to enhance and improve the Welsh countryside gives them a motivation and often the finances needed to maintain habitats that might've otherwise been grazed or have fallen under the plough. Our farmers do a great job of protecting and maintaining the environment, and shooting helps do just that. It is the diversity of habitats found on shooting estates and the passion for wildlife found amongst the people who shoot that makes shooting so valuable in the fight to conserve declining bird species.

But not only this, shooting contributes to the rural way of life and goes even further into the economic sphere. Let's have a look at the figures: shooting activities in Wales contribute £75 million to the economy, and research shows that there are 2,900 shooting-related businesses across the country, and they directly employ 2,400 full-time people supporting the rural economies and rural communities right across Wales.

The range of shooting activities in Wales has to offer sports tourism and are hospitality businesses throughout the year, which attracts visitors from across the UK and, more importantly, from around the world, and I'm sure Members in this Chamber can agree that some hospitality venues in the winter would have to close if it weren't for groups of people coming to that area to enjoy the countryside and go shooting. This provides our rural communities with that real economic lifeline by extending the tourism season into the winter months, when it's harder for those businesses to keep going. Tourism is the heartbeat of many communities and shooting provides young people in the hospitality and tourism sector with jobs and opportunities to keep our young people in rural Wales.

Shooting is an area of life that is open to all, and it's open to people from all walks of life; shooting is not elitist. There are people, from the estate managers, the farmers, the helpers, the conservationists, the breeders, the dog handlers, the dustbin men, even politicians like myself who didn't even go to university, who enjoy shooting, because we're all part of a wider team. And I would like to say about clay pigeon shooting, because shooting isn't just about game; clay pigeon shooting is a fantastic opportunity to get into the sport. It's increasing in popularity as well. It gives novice shooters—I know there are some in this Chamber, who have done some clay pigeon shooting—the opportunity to learn the ropes, and I can attest that it is a very, very good day out, and if anybody wants to go on a stag do or a hen do, it's also another fantastic opportunity to get out and enjoy shooting and the great outdoors.

Shooting and the associated conservation activities do bring communities together, and they encourage people of all ages and backgrounds to get involved with outdoor activities. Indeed, many of those activities, as I said before, take place in the winter months. This can be an isolating time for many people, and shooting provides the opportunity for those people to go out, and to regularly socialise and enjoy nature. It also provides regular exercise for participants by offering the chance to walk in the countryside, to walk their dogs and reconnect with nature, both having physical and mental health benefits, which, yet again, fits in to this Welsh Government's agenda. These are all things that we should wish to encourage in the population, so shooting really does work to everything that the Welsh Government is trying to do.

I’d like to thank James, firstly, for giving me a minute in this important debate today, but also thank him for his contribution—I thought that was absolutely fantastic. You were bang on, and I completely concur with you on the multitude of benefits that shooting brings to our rural areas, and the necessity of shooting in our rural areas as well. What we are currently seeing is this Welsh Government putting forth the beginning of an anti-shooting agenda by wanting to change the regulation of this release of game birds. The divisive agenda is another example of large-scale state intervention, with increasing red tape around licensing. This Government is intent on using taxpayers’ money to restrict freedoms instead of using the legal framework that is already being used successfully across the UK. Why do we need to be different? It’s yet another example of the Welsh Government trying to make changes for the sake of it than taking a more cautious, pragmatic approach. The proposal would see additional and undisclosed conditions, including on licences. Because of this, licences run the risk of being open to challenge by those who oppose shooting. I know from my patch that many constituents across south-east Wales are opposed to this ludicrous idea. It’s high time the Welsh Government got on with their day job in trying to fix the record of the NHS waiting times and failing education system instead of meddling in our rural way of life.

I’d like to thank James Evans from Brecon and Radnorshire for giving me a minute of his time. As chair of the cross-party group on shooting and conservation, it’s a real privilege to be able to contribute in this debate this afternoon. One thing that struck me when recently meeting with BASC was that they said, and I quote, that the ‘C’ in BASC is equally as important as the ‘S’. The conservation element of shooting is equally important, and I think that’s really something that we need to fully understand—the environmental, the conservational, impacts of shooting and the good game management, good wildlife management, that come from that. I’ve been out on shoots as a picker-upper looking at the benefits of what the shoot does, and it really struck me: where else in our society would we have a sport where we have a grandfather and his granddaughter going out for a day, spending time together in the great outdoors in the countryside, being able to name the birds in the trees, the plants on the ground, and the trees growing, and their roots in that part of the world? I think it was a fantastic opportunity to really see first-hand, and, as chair of the cross-party group, I was disappointed when an invite went out—and I won’t name the individual—but a response came back from a Member saying, ‘Are you seriously putting shooting and conservation in the same title?’ I only wish that Member had attended a couple of our CPG meetings just to see for themselves the benefit that shooting and conservation have to each other.

I have to pay tribute as well to the Countryside Alliance and BASC because, as James mentioned, I sponsored, with Llyr Gruffydd, the Aim to Sustain event in the Pierhead building, which was fantastic, showing the nutritional value of game meat, showing how carbon neutral it is in that sense, and how it ticks so many of those boxes. The English NHS have noticed the benefits of game meat, introducing it into the menus in hospitals across the border. I only wish, when I’d written to the health Minister, that she’d taken that opportunity up as well, so that we could support our game industry here in Wales by having the procurement through our hospitals as well.

So, thank you very much, James, for bringing this debate forward. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you to James for bringing this short debate forward. I just want to show my support for it. I live in a community where there are six shoots around me, and I’m sorry to say that we lost two recently because of the economic circumstances, and that’s had a detrimental economic impact on the area. But I see the economic value, the cultural value and the social value of these shoots. It’s wonderful to see the pubs full from morning, at breakfast time, through to the socialising in the evening, and the economic impact that that has.

It is important to emphasise here, I feel, that game meat is used in full; every part of the animal is used—not just the meat but the whole carcass. It all goes into the food chain in one way or another. And, at a time when we are seeing concerns about the increase in the price of white meat, and chicken particularly, we want to see more promotion of game too. It is tasty, it is nutritious and it is available across the country. So, we need to see that promoted, without forgetting what Sam has also said, the role in terms of conservation that shooting game has in our rural communities, which is so very important. So, thank you for bringing this debate forward, and I hope we will see people listening to it.

The Minister for Climate Change to reply to the debate. Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. Members will know the importance I place and this Government places on tackling the climate and nature emergencies. I will take this opportunity to set out just some of the examples of the action Welsh Government is taking for nature, the rural economy and to support our rural communities. The natural environment of Wales is a precious resource, which we have a moral and legal duty to protect. The welfare of the wildlife that depends on our natural environment should always be a key concern for us all.

James Evans has spoken about what he sees as the importance of shooting to the Welsh economy. He's pointed to suggested benefits for nature when land is managed for shooting. I and my fellow Ministers, however, have been very clear: faced with the challenges I have outlined, there are many vital uses for our limited resources. I will go on to outline a few examples of how we are using those resources to support rural economies and the environment. However, just to be very clear, the Welsh Government does not support the shooting of live animals or birds as a leisure activity. Our natural resources—.

Can I ask for some clarification on that, Minister? I've seen a number of written responses to my colleagues that outline that you don't support activities that are linked with shooting. However, I know there are a number of events that you're supporting now and this year. The Welsh Government financially supports events that are connected with the shooting of live game. So, can I ask for some clarification—if not today, perhaps a written statement to clarify what the Welsh Government's policy is on supporting events connected with shooting of live game?

Well, perhaps if you'd let me get past four sentences, you might find out. Our natural resources are central to supporting Wales's communities and livelihoods. The clean, green landscape of Wales, alongside our language and our culture, makes Wales a uniquely wonderful place for visitors—visitors who come here for quiet, undisturbed enjoyment of the countryside. And I'm in no doubt the peaceful and beautiful countryside of Wales is what helps attract investment. It is part of what makes Wales such a great place to live, work and do business.

Our rural economy also provides us with so much of the quality food we eat and the natural resources we enjoy. It supports communities and livelihoods across Wales. Local food and resources produced here in Wales are really important in delivering our net-zero targets, and delivering those targets is absolutely essential to tackling the climate emergency that threatens our natural environment. So, it is absolutely vital that we leave no community behind as we move to a cleaner, stronger, fairer Wales. We need a decade of action to support green skills for the jobs of the future. We need to understand the impacts of change and to make sure that these are fairly distributed in our society. Our values underpin all of this. We don't believe we can just consume endlessly or that new technology will bail us out, nor should the worst-off in society shoulder the burden of change. We do believe that, by working together and taking collective action, we can deliver a stronger, fairer and cleaner Wales for future generations.

I want to turn to some practical ways we're delivering for our rural economy and our environment and set out what we are supporting and why it is important that we do so. Last year, in 2022, the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, and Trefnydd announced £227 million would be made available over three years to support the resilience of Wales's rural economy. So, I'm pleased to say we are indeed supporting farmers, foresters, land managers and other rural sectors. We are supporting them to deliver on-farm sustainable land management actions, enhancements to fuel and feed efficiency and nutrient deficiency on farms. Using only what we need and minimising waste is one of the examples of the behaviour change we need to see. It helps farmers and rural businesses be more resilient; it helps them to mitigate the huge cost-of-living impacts we are all experiencing. I recognise to be more efficient will often require upfront investment, and that's why we're making the support available.

The funding complements the development of the sustainable farming scheme. The scheme will reward farmers and land managers for the work they do to help our biodiversity recover. It will reward them as they continue to produce food sustainably in Wales. And it is essential that the scheme helps tackle both the nature and climate emergencies as well as sustaining farm businesses. The scheme will have a set of universal actions, requiring at least 10 per cent tree cover and 10 per cent semi-natural habitats. It would also contain a collaborative element, enabling farmers to work together to create interconnected habitats across landscapes. I am really determined that we will foster the team Wales approach to getting the outcomes right for both our environment and our farmers, working collectively. Our aim is to create a sustainable agricultural sector in Wales for future generations, one which is prosperous and resilient. However, change is needed so the farming sector plays its part in tackling the climate and the nature emergencies. The challenge we face is significant and the time to act is now. Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse are really leading threats to humanity. Our relationship with the natural environment is completely unsustainable and must change. We need to accelerate the actions we are taking to halt the decline in biodiversity. Our environment is absolutely central to who we are as a nation here in Wales. Just don't imagine for one moment that biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse is something happening far away or only gradually. It is happening right here in Wales and it is happening right now. Our programme for government gives a commitment to establish statutory nature targets to protect and restore biodiversity, but that's not enough; we must continue to build our capacity to change and to make that change effective.

I'm hearing what you're saying about protecting nature and ensuring that we have a thriving biodiversity. Do you accept that shooting also plays a part in conservation and ensuring that we have a diverse nature in the country?

Well, I've been very clear about that. Shooting can play a part in that, and, absolutely, because we have predator species and so on, sometimes that is necessary. But I don't, I'm afraid, support it in any way as a leisure activity. I do not think killing anything as a sport or leisure is anything any civilised society should support, I'm afraid, and I've been very clear about that.

These things need to change, in line with the way we work. We absolutely do need to protect our way of life and we need to protect our communities, but we also need to change our behaviour. Anyway, as I was saying, this will fund projects ranging between £30,000 and—[Interruption.] I listened very quietly to all of you; are you going to give me the same—? I listened very quietly to all of you. [Interruption.] So, give me the same courtesy.

You're doing my job for me now, Minister. Are you taking the intervention from Russell George?

No. I've already taken one off you, Russell.

You haven't answered the question.

I haven't finished.

The Minister isn't taking an intervention.

As part of this, earlier this year I announced the allocation of over £3.5 million under the nature networks fund. This will fund projects ranging between £30,000 and £250,000 supporting our most threatened habitats and species. I'm pleased to say that I will confirm the nine projects that will receive the funding tomorrow to help create resilient ecological networks. Our protected sites will be at the core of these projects. And that's not all: the Welsh Government is investing £800,000 over the next four years in the Natural Resources Wales-led Natur am Byth! project. It aims to reverse the decline in our most endangered and iconic species in Wales. [Interruption.]

Can we listen to the Minister, please? You are all—. The Tories themselves want to listen to you as well, or some of them do, so, carry on, Minister.

The Natur am Byth! project aims to reverse the decline in our most endangered and iconic species in Wales, contributing to the 30x30 target, and connect people with nature. The project has nine focus areas integrating terrestrial and marine management issues, supporting vulnerable marine species as well as those on land and in fresh water. This will also complement the Nature Networks programme and it will target and reverse the decline of some of our most endangered species and connect people with nature.

So, in conclusion, tackling the emergency posed by a destabilising climate, biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse is central to our work as Government. The rural economy and rural economies are vital contributors to that effort, but behaviour change and changes in modes of life are necessary to do this. You have agreed that there is a climate and nature emergency. You cannot just continue to tell me that doing everything that you've always done in the way you've always done it will achieve that, because it will not. Diolch.

That's the end of our work for today. Thank you very much.