Plenary

The next set of questions, therefore, will be questions to the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, and the first question is from Jenny Rathbone.

Fruit and vegetables are traded across the UK in a common food system. Comparison of local consumption and production is not meaningful because it does not account for how products are produced, traded or consumed. However, a best estimate is that about 6 per cent to 7 per cent of Welsh consumption is met by production here.

Six per cent to 7 per cent? Okay. Thank you. Well, I read recently that the Food Foundation's latest food insecurity tracker reveals that 15 per cent of households are experiencing food insecurity. That's one in six or seven households. Over half of them said that they were cutting back on buying fruit, and nearly half bought fewer vegetables. So, there is a serious misalignment between a healthy, balanced diet that they need, and what is available locally, at a price they can afford. So, how many grants or loans for horticulture have been provided in the last 12 months, and what was the outcome to date in increasing what you guess, at the moment, is between 6 per cent and 7 per cent of locally produced fruit and veg?

Thank you. Well, we have two major schemes to support horticulture over the past year, and we've had contracts worth over £50,000 already awarded. We opened and closed a window; I think the window closed on 12 January. So, those expressions of interest are being appraised by officials at the moment, and I think they're worth around a further £129,000. I mentioned the two rounds. So, we have had one window open back in December 2022, and closed on 17 March 2023. That was £37,000-worth of contracts. I just referred to the latest window as well.

I think you'll be very aware, Jenny Rathbone, because you've questioned me many times around this, that I want to do all I can to support the sector here in Wales, to ensure that we do produce more vegetables and fruit going forward. I really think we've supported the agri-food industry strongly, as you know, but we have provided specific support to fruit and vegetable growers, particularly through Farming Connect, with a specific horticultural programme there, as well as through other horticultural capital grant schemes.

Year-round access to out-of-season fresh fruit and vegetables has increased in the last 20 to 30 years, leading to longer and more complex supply chains. Ninety-three per cent of domestic consumption of fresh vegetables is fulfilled by domestic and European production, while fruit supply is more widely spread across the EU, Africa, the Americas and the UK. The UK, though, produces over 50 per cent of vegetables consumed domestically, but only 16 per cent of fruit. Welsh farmers could make an invaluable contribution to the horticultural sector, but the impact the sustainable farming scheme will have is unknown. According to the report entitled 'Potential economic effects of the Sustainable Farming Scheme: Phase 4 Universal Actions Modelling Results', the modelling

'excludes certain specialist farm types (e.g. pig, poultry, horticulture) as well as a large number of very small farms.'

Will you clarify why the impact of the SFS on the horticultural sector in Wales has not been modelled? Diolch.

The economic assessment to which Janet Finch-Saunders refers to—that piece of work was published alongside the current sustainable farming consultation. It was a very important piece of work, which helped inform the consultation, but I want to reiterate that it is not an assessment of the current consultation. A further piece of work, obviously, will be done, to be published alongside the final scheme, when we will then ask, obviously, farmers if they wish to be part of the scheme. I think the decision taken to publish the information alongside the consultation was very important to identify any potential risks of the scheme. So, a further piece of work will be done and that will be included.

We have published an economic assessment that is an important piece of work that helped inform our consultation so any issues could be addressed. It is not an assessment of the current consultation. The published economic assessment included estimated results for full-time farms in north-east Wales, including Denbighshire.

Thank you very much for that response, Minister. I'm aware that you've tried to allay farmers' concerns over the weekend by saying that changes will be made, but I'm afraid that farmers will need something far more substantive than this to be reassured. NFU Cymru have said exactly this point, and I'm sure that you can tell the strength of feeling by the protests outside this Senedd today.

Modelling on the potential impacts of the scheme predicts a 10.8 per cent reduction in Welsh livestock numbers, a loss of 5,500 jobs and more than £125 million swiped from the economic output of the agricultural sector. The models therefore forecast a hammer blow to the agricultural industry. Farmers do not believe that this proposed scheme will achieve its intended environmental goals either, which will come at a huge cost to the agricultural sector. Rural communities are built on delicate, interconnected familial relationships that rely upon a foundation of wisdom and tradition. Once these communities have been destroyed, they cannot be rebuilt. Farmers in my constituency are terrified that, aside from the hit to the food production on the economy, the proud Welsh farming tradition and identity is in peril.

The Minister quoted Dylan Thomas last week, and I recommend that the Minister reads and reflects on Dylan Thomas's Fern Hill poem, which beautifully encapsulates that very precious farming tradition and how much it means to Wales. I'd appreciate it if the Minister could take account of the dire modelling for this policy, and outline what further changes she intends to make to the sustainable farming policy to address the concerns of the rural communities in Denbighshire. Thank you.

Thank you. Well, I didn't just, over the weekend, say that there would be changes, I've said all along—this is a very meaningful consultation. And I cannot answer the last part of your question, because I cannot pre-empt the consultation. I don't know what responses there will be to the consultation. If I tried to pre-empt the consultation now, I would be taken to court, because you cannot do that, as a Minister, you cannot pre-empt any consultation—[Interruption.] Sorry?

Why—[Inaudible.]

Hold on. You've asked your question, Gareth Davies. Allow the Minister to respond, please.

What we will need to do is make sure that every consultation response is read, and I have committed to that. Every piece of information—. So, currently, I'm getting lots of e-mails just with the views of farmers and they're asking, 'Can this be part of the consultation?', and I've said 'yes'. If people don't want to put in formally—I would prefer them to put in formally—but every piece of evidence or suggestion that we're having, we're feeding in. You'll be very well aware of the roadshows that we've had and all that information will go in.

I think one of the things you referred to was the economic analysis, and as I said in an earlier answer to Janet Finch-Saunders, that was done at the beginning of the consultation being published. There will be a further economic analysis. One of the things that I think we did pick up from that economic analysis is that we need to look at the social value of our agricultural sector. Now, that is a very complex piece of work to do, but I think it's a very important piece of work to do.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Welsh Conservatives spokesperson, Samuel Kurtz.

Diolch, Llywydd. Good afternoon, Minister. I'm sure it's going to be, for you, like me, quite a busy day today. Just taking note of the statement that you and the First Minister released yesterday, I've read through it and it breaks it down following the meeting that you had with organisers of the protest or the meeting in Carmarthen mart, and I thank you for taking the time to meet with them. The three points that they talk about are bovine tuberculosis, nitrate vulnerable zones and the sustainable farming scheme. Just on the bovine TB part of the statement that you released, you note that

'We are committed to exploring other approaches to on-farm slaughter.'

Thank you. Thank you very much, because we've been asking for this for a long time. I've asked around the slaughter of in-calf cows and heifers, and, more generally, this is a really positive point forward. But, moving on, you mentioned

'We are today appointing a Bovine TB Technical Advisory Group'.

Can I ask who you've appointed to that group so far?

Just to say, the statement came out yesterday from both myself and the First Minister on the back of the meeting that you've referred to with the organisers, but also on the feedback from the two presidents of NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales last week, alongside all the other feedback that I'd received from my own officials on the Welsh Government roadshows.

Around on-farm slaughter in relation to TB, you'll be very well aware I announced that I would be setting up a technical advisory group, I said who would be chairing it, that Glyn Hewinson was going to be chairing it, and we needed to look for members to sit on that group. Yesterday I wrote to the people to ask them if they would be prepared. I'm not in a position, at the moment, to say who the members are, because I'm waiting for them to respond to the letter. We were trying to do it as quickly as possible. I didn't think I would be able to do it before next week, but in light of trying to take some heat out of the situation, I think it's fair to say, and to be positive and to show that we were listening, we did it yesterday, but, unfortunately, I'm not able to give you the names. But as soon as I can, I'll be very happy to do so.

Thank you, Minister, I appreciate that. The TB advisory group that you mentioned was a statement back in July 2022—we're now in February 2024. Some would find it slightly cynical that, on the day before a protest, you send out these invitations for people to join—no interview. One of the e-mails, I've had sight of them, was sent to them saying that they've been accepted at nearly 8 p.m. yesterday evening. The night before a protest. I think that can be seen as slightly cynical.

Moving on to the Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021—you know I and everybody else like to call them NVZs; you don't like that we call them NVZs—I'm just wanting to draw your attention to the paragraph that starts:

'We are making £20m of additional funding available to help farmers comply with the requirements'.

Can I ask in what grant budget is that money going to sit?

Some of that funding has already been spent. I think it's around £3.4 million, if I can remember off the top of my head. It will sit in the rural investment scheme.

Thank you. I asked that, because that money was first announced back in October 2022, so there's a theme running here, isn't there, that something is announced by this Government with regard to agriculture, yet it takes a big protest and the strength of feeling in the rural communities and farming for things to actually get done. So, these aren't new things. This is an announcement re-announcing things that have been previously announced. I think, again, it's slightly cynical to think that that would defuse and lower the temperature, which I want to do in this situation.

Now, the final point of the statement was around the sustainable farming scheme. You mentioned, and I'll read the paragraph:

'We welcome the responses to the consultation.'

Tick. Yes, I want every farmer to be able to respond to this consultation fully and their responses to be taken into consideration.

'Every consultation response received',

I quote,

'including the issues raised and discussed at the 10 roadshow events during the consultation period, will be analysed and properly considered.'

Now, that directly contradicts what you wrote to me in a written question when I asked:

'Will the Minister set out how the feedback from the Welsh Government's Sustainable Farming Scheme Roadshows is being captured'?

'The Roadshows',

you say,

'are not a formal information gathering exercise'.

A contradiction there in saying they're not a formal information-gathering exercise to the statement saying

'the 10 roadshow events during the consultation period'

will be discussed.

Now, this is the contradiction that I see here: that it has to take something so drastic as farmers coming down to Cardiff, for farmers to take to the road. And I mentioned this yesterday in my FMQ: I don't condone any of the intimidatory action that's been seen by some individuals in this debate; I think it's become too heated in some circles. But do you understand the strength of feeling here, when the DPJ Foundation has seen a 72 per cent increase in referrals in February 2024, a 62 per cent increase in referrals in the last three months, and a 28 per cent increase in the last six months? Do you fully appreciate and understand how the policies from this Welsh Government being directly implemented have constituted increases in referrals to a mental health charity that this Welsh Government then goes and supports? I would say—

I think you need to come to a question now. I've been very generous.

Thank you very much. I would say that that is cynical and hypocritical, that a Government is willing to inflict this pain on farmers—

You are going to have to come to your question, Samuel Kurtz, you know that.

—while still pursuing policies such as this. Thank you for your patience, Llywydd.

Nowhere in that statement did anything say it was new money. It didn't say that. I never said it was new money. In the statement, that £20 million—[Interruption.] It was just referred to; it didn't say it was additional money, it didn't say it was new money. I was very transparent about that. I didn't say either of those things, so to imply that is unfair, I think.

I mentioned that, the TB technical advisory group, we hadn’t planned to do that until next week. I asked the chief veterinary officer, the public appointments section of Welsh Government, to bring it forward as quickly as possible. If it could have been last week, you probably wouldn’t have said anything about it, but the fact that it was yesterday—. I could have left it, but I didn’t want to leave it; I wanted to do it as quickly as possible, because, as we know, that is a point that is causing a lot of distress.

And you also know that we did have a pilot on trying to look at what we could do to help in this area, and there wasn’t a great uptake. So, what we've been doing is preparing—. The CVO calls it a dossier: we’ve got a pile of information that we will give to the group. They will look at it. As soon as it's set up, the group will have a look at that information to bring forward advice to the Minister as quickly as possible.

I just mentioned, in my earlier answer to you, that—. You’re using the word ‘formal’ in a way that I perhaps am not. I’ve had all that feedback. I’ve had all the feedback from NFU Cymru and the Farmers Union of Wales; there’ll be more. I’ve even had individual farmers just sending me a paragraph, mainly to my MS e-mail address, because that’s the one that’s available. I’m not going back and saying, ‘This isn’t to my ministerial e-mail’—I’m taking that and passing it on to officials, because I really think it’s important that we look at every piece of information.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Minister, you've been reminding many people in some of the interviews that you've been doing this week that you've been deliberating the common agricultural policy replacement scheme for seven years now. Yet here we are, 12 months away from when it's supposed to be implemented, and it feels further away than ever from a scheme that is going to work for farmers and is going to work for the environment as well. And the throngs of people on the steps of the Senedd today, I think, is testimony to that.

Now, we, as a party, have been telling you for a long time that the 10 per cent tree cover proposal just doesn't work. The farming unions have been telling you this for two years. You've had previous consultations that I think have sent you a clear message on that particular front, and there was a resounding message conveyed to you by farming unions at the Royal Welsh last year, but still, here we are, with the latest iteration of this consultation, and the proposal for a 10 per cent tree cover is still there. So, do you really blame people for thinking that you're just not listening?

Well, I hope we have shown that we are listening, if you look back at the two previous consultations, the two periods of intense co-design we've had with 1,600 individual farmers and now the final consultation. You're just picking on one point, and obviously this is one proposal within the scheme. And you know from discussions that we've had that I will not pre-empt and everything is being looked at. And I want to say that there are no proposals in the scheme that will be not looked at, nothing is set in stone, and the 10 per cent of trees is one of them.

Clearly, we have to listen to lots of people, don't we? We have to listen to our farmers, we have to listen to our environmental non-governmental organisations, we have to listen to many voices around the scheme to make sure that it does do what we need the agricultural sector and other parts of the sector to do. I just really would encourage people to put their views forward. I know the 10 per cent of trees is very difficult, but it is a consultation, and that's what consultations do: they get people's views on it. And I don't expect to see a huge amount of change in people's views on the 10 per cent of trees, but what I do hope to see is solutions and answers to the questions about how we make sure we fulfil our climate change obligations, and, obviously, trees as part of that. You yourself, I'm sure, would agree with that; your ambition for net zero is more ambitious than ours. So, where do you plant those hectares of trees that are needed? And I'm sure you will agree with me that our farmers can help us.

Well, there's no question that farmers can help, but forcing people to do something that undermines their own business and their own participation in the scheme isn't going to work. You've got to take these farmers with you on this journey; it's as simple as that.

Now, you could show that you are listening—graphically demonstrate that you are listening—without prejudicing the consultation process. You can carry on with the consultation process, but you could tell us, here today, now, you could make a statement, that, when the consultation closes, you will pause the process in order to review the proposals. You could give yourself and any potential successors, and, certainly, potential next First Minister, that time, that space, to reflect and to take stock. You've always said that it's going to be a huge challenge to get this implemented by 2025. Frankly, I think now, where we are, in terms of taking people with you, I can't see that happening. This is an opportunity for you to say, 'Okay, this is about getting it right.' And if you're serious about getting it right, then telling people now, 'We will implement in 2026, we will pause, we will take stock, and we'll look at the options going from there'—. Because it has to be right: it has to be right for farmers, it has to be right for the environment, it has to be right for the climate. Because, without farmers participating in this scheme, then you'll have nobody to deliver the outcomes that many of us do share. And, of course, under those circumstances, everybody loses.

So, I want to clarify: we're not forcing anybody to do anything. I think that's a really important point. And you're quite right, the scheme, absolutely, has to be right. I've made that abundantly clear. It needs to be right for every farmer in every part of Wales. And I think officials are working very hard, they've worked very hard through all the consultations, to make sure that is absolutely the case.

The consultation has eight days to go. So, on 7 March, the consultation will finish. There will be a huge amount of information for officials to look at. As you've pointed out, there will be a new First Minister, a new Government, coming in around 20, 21 March. There will, obviously, have to be—. When you say—. I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'pause', but, obviously, there will be a stop to the information coming in, and then that information will have to be looked at very carefully.

I absolutely agree with what you say, that if we don't have a really good take-up of the scheme—. Now, let's remember, not every farmer is part of the basic payment scheme. I'm often asked, 'How many people do you want to be in this scheme?', and what I've said to officials is, 'We've got 16,000 in BPS; I would want to see at least that, but hopefully more.' I want every farmer, if they feel, if they look at the scheme and they think, 'This is good for my farm business', I would want them to be part of that scheme. But, as you say, we have lots of voices we have to listen to. There are lots of people that this scheme needs to work to. Not everybody can have everything they want. When you're making policy, you have to make sure that everything is encompassed in that.

Officials are working in partnership with colleagues in other Governments to consider future changes in relation to microchipping databases for both cats and dogs, including accessibility and a single point of entry. Our animal welfare plan makes a commitment to consider extending compulsory microchipping to include cats by 2026.

Thank you for the answer, Minister. The RSPCA, Cats Protection and others are keen to see the compulsory microchipping of cats in Wales, as it would significantly increase the chance of pets being returned to their owners if lost or stolen. I understand the Welsh Government was reluctant to pursue this, as there are 21 authorised databases in the UK, which makes it really difficult to trace some microchips, and which means that current regulations relevant to dogs are not fit for purpose. So, I'm pleased to see that you are looking into it in the future. And I'm hoping that legislation would put in place a universal microchipping database, managed by a central not-for-profit, to make compulsory chipping possible and easy to find. Would it also be possible for the Welsh Government to consider whether animal welfare volunteers could gain a qualification allowing them to access the database, to support the return of lost animals as well? Would that be a consideration, please, for the future?

Thank you. So, any future changes that we have to the legislation would obviously have to be subject to a full public consultation. So, I suppose that's the sort of question that we could ask for. I mentioned in my original answer to you, Carolyn, that my officials are working particularly very closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, because this is something that obviously they're looking at. I should say microchipping is available for all dogs and cats. It's not compulsory for cats, but I think it is really good practice for all responsible owners to get their pets microchipped. So, in England, as I say, this is something that they're bringing forward. Any cat over 20 weeks in England will have to be microchipped by 10 June of this year.

Well, in fact, in Wales, 156,800 or 28 per cent of owned cats are still not microchipped, a figure that, according to Cats Protection research, has stagnated for the past several years. Microchipping cats in Wales is not currently compulsory, as you indicate, unlike in England, where, from 10 June 2024, cats will need to be microchipped and registered on a database by the time they're 20 weeks old. The Welsh Government's animal welfare plan for 2021-26 says that:

'In partnership with the UK and Scottish Governments, we have commissioned research on the effectiveness of existing dog microchipping regulations. The research will also report on the potential benefits of the compulsory microchipping of kittens and cats.'

One of the action points in this plan states that Welsh Government would

'consider extending compulsory microchipping to include kittens and cats'

and also:

'To consider, dependant upon the outcome of the research and consultation, new microchipping regulations for dogs and cats in Wales.'

So, given that this is now 2024, what did the research and consultation conclude? How is that shaping the Welsh Government's policy? And what plans and timescales, if any, do you have for introducing and monitoring compulsory microchipping?

On the timescale point, it will be within the animal welfare plan timescale, so that's obviously before 2026. I think it's unlikely that it will be this year. I don't think it will be 2024 and this year of the animal welfare plan. But you referred to England, and DEFRA did consult, and it was on a basis of England-only. But DEFRA did commit to working with both Welsh Government and the Scottish Government, particularly around the issues on database, because, clearly, any issues around database that they brought forward would have an impact on Scotland and Wales. So, I mentioned that our officials were working very closely on that, and we are currently awaiting the results of the consultation that DEFRA led on. But I think that's probably the best timescale I can give you. It will be before 2026, but I don't think it will be this year.

The proposed sustainable farming scheme is designed to support all farmers in Wales through a universal baseline payment, based on the completion of a set of universal actions, currently at consultation. These actions will be familiar to farmers in north Wales, whether beef, dairy, arable, upland, lowland, extensive or intensive.

Thank you for your response, Minister. And as we've already heard today, and seen today, just outside this place there have been thousands of farmers standing up for their communities, their farms and their very way of life. They see the current proposals in the SFS as an attack on rural Wales and the people who cultivate and nurture our land, and it's obvious why. As we've already heard in this place today, your own impact assessment estimates that 5,500 jobs in rural Wales will be lost as a result, a £200 million hit to the economy, with around 11 per cent fewer livestock in Wales. And these numbers are shocking and should really give serious pause for thought, which I know is something you're looking to do. But it's not just farmers themselves who are likely to suffer, but those in the supply chain too, and by damaging those farm incomes there will be damage to the agri-food supply chain and all those livelihoods that depend on it. So, Minister, I wonder what consideration you're giving and what you're looking to do to not just protect the supply chain, but to help it thrive?

Thank you. Well, the current proposals absolutely do not attack in the way that you referred to. It is a consultation, and I will repeat: we will look at every piece of information that comes in. You refer to the economic impact in a way that—. I tried to explain what it was, and it was completely the opposite of what you, unfortunately, said. And what it really helped us do was look at the issues that could be apparent in the SFS that we needed to avoid. For instance, one of the things that I think the economic impact did was show us the impact it could have on agricultural outputs, so we need to look at that to make sure that the final scheme absolutely reflects the information that came forward in that way.

I think you make a very important point about the supply chain, and it was good to meet one of the five farmers that Sam Kurtz referred to, who the First Minister and I met on Monday. He represented himself, but he worked in the supply chain, and it was really good to hear his concerns about the impact it could have. But, as I say, nothing has been decided, nothing will be pre-empted, and we will, obviously, work to a sustainable farming scheme that every farmer in Wales will want to be part of.

The fact that so many farmers and others from rural north Wales have come here to Cardiff Bay today is a sign of the strength of feeling that there is and the concerns regarding the scheme as it currently stands. The talk of losing thousands of jobs, of course, gives rise to deep concern not just across the sector, but across rural Wales in its entirety. The Minister is the Minister for rural affairs, not just agriculture. Does she agree with me that, when we think about the impact of losing so many jobs across north Wales, that consideration must be given to the impact on the economy, on the language, on how many children there are in schools, on the ability to provide public services such as viable buses in rural areas, and that the Welsh Government has to consider that in thinking about the next steps to make this a scheme that can be implemented practically?

Absolutely, I do. I think that was the point I was trying to make. It's not just listening to one voice; you have to listen to many voices, and you have to think about the impact across a wide range. As you said, I'm the Minister for rural affairs; I'm not just Minister for agriculture, so it is really important that you look holistically at that, because we want the best scheme possible, and we want the best scheme possible not just for our farmers, but for all parts of our rural communities. I've always said I know that when the basic payment scheme goes to a farmer, they don't keep that money for themselves. That money goes into the rural community—they employ contractors to help them at different, busy times of the year, for instance, and it goes into their local shops, it goes into their local venues where they go. It goes right across the rural community. One of the things around the agriculture Act, which you know was passed unanimously in this Chamber, if you look at the four sustainable land management objectives, the fourth one—and this was in partnership particularly with Cefin Campbell, who helped us so much in relation to that fourth one, through the co-operation agreement with Plaid Cymru—was about the language and the culture of our country.

Thank you. The Welsh Government remains committed to improving the financial and environmental performance within the Welsh dairy industry to build sustainable, resilient businesses. Regenerative farming principles align with sustainable land management objectives that underpin future farming and land management support.

I thank you for that answer, Minister. Sometimes, people look at dairy farming and suspect there's only one direction of travel: it's the consolidation of units, bigger herds in barns rather than out on the pasture, it's the creation of more slurry, and so on. But, actually, there are more and more people now who are taking up approaches to regenerative dairy farming, including here in Wales within spitting distance, and north Wales as well has some fantastic examples, I have to say. They are economically sustainable as well as better for the environment, for river quality, for the quality of the soil, and everything else. Some of this work is being driven, I have to say, far-sightedly, by some of the milk distributors as well. So, I wonder, Minister, can we do more with the retailers and the milk wholesalers and distributors to actually try and incentivise regenerative dairy farming and show that there doesn't have to be one direction of travel—losing jobs, losing farm units—but that we can actually look at a modern version of a much more traditional way of thinking about mixed farming?

I think the Member makes a very good point, and, certainly, I did speak with a farmer who does farm regeneratively. He used to farm organically and he's now changed to regenerative farming. I think there has been a bit of a shift to regenerative farming from organic because they can see the benefit for the farm business. I certainly think we can do more to work with the retailers and look at this. I haven't had any of the milk producers contact me, but I will ask my officials to perhaps have that discussion. Thank you.

There is, of course, a growing global market for dairy products due to the increased population, so I think there is a real opportunity here in Wales for climate-friendly nutritious milk, but, under the current proposals for the SFS, the Welsh Government's modelling that's attached to that shows us that we could see 45,000 fewer dairy cows in Wales. So, I'm trying to align this: there's an opportunity here for us to increase nutritious, healthy milk here in Wales, and supply not only Wales, but the world, but, under the current SFS proposals, that's not going to do that; that's going to have the opposite effect. So, how is that going to be squared?

Well, as I've said quite a few times this afternoon, that economic analysis is not part of the current consultation that's out. There will be a new economic analysis.

Thank you. I am committed to ensuring the welfare of racing greyhounds in Wales is not compromised. On 8 December, I launched our consultation on the regulation of animal welfare, which includes a section on greyhound racing, requesting evidence to inform our position on legislation.

Thank you, Minister, for your answer. Minister, as Chair of the Senedd Petitions Committee, I was proud of the report we produced on greyhound racing in Wales, and I'd like to thank the lead petitioner, Hope Rescue, who initiated the petition and the subsequent inquiry for the committee. A majority of committee members supported a phased ban on greyhound racing, and the committee was pleased to see the consultation include the question around greyhound racing, and so we were pleased to see your commitment to the committee there, Minister. With the consultation coming to an end on Friday, could you just outline what the next steps are and how the Welsh Government will respond to the consultation?

Thank you. Well, as Jack Sargeant points out, the consultation does end on Friday and, as you can imagine, we are getting a significant number of responses in this last week, which often happens during consultations. I'm sure we'll see the same for the sustainable farming scheme coming to a close next week. Obviously, the petition you refer to garnered over 35,000 signatures. I think it is a particular area of interest, and, following the report that you brought forward from your committee, that did call for a ban on greyhound racing, and the report's been considered. We have the Government response, which has, obviously, been published now and is publicly available, and I did commit to including that question on a phased ban. So, once we've received all the responses, again, there will be a period where every response is read and we can see what the responses are.

Minister, at the weekend, Wales's only dog-racing track pressed ahead with a race on a severely waterlogged course. During the 14:42 race on Sunday, a dog crashed into the wall of the course, becoming severely injured. While the race was eventually abandoned, the Valley, which is seen as the pinnacle of the Greyhound Board of Great Britain's welfare standards, simply listed that there was no race. There was no mention of the injured animal—Ranches Bandit had cuts and bruising to his face. The dog also has a heavily bandaged right hind leg, which it is not able to put weight on properly. There is no x-ray machine at the Valley track. The vet there will only have been able to give very basic first aid, and, with limited emergency veterinary availability in the region, it is likely the dog would have to return to its trainers for any surgery. Minister, do you agree that this is totally unacceptable, and will you now consider a total, immediate ban on greyhound racing in Wales? Thank you very much.

Thank you. So, I think that what you have just told the Chamber is incredibly distressing. As the Member knows, I've previously met with the owners of the Valley stadium. I've met with representatives of the Greyhound Board of Great Britain, I've met with welfare organisations to discuss the welfare issues and plans for the Valley site. I know that animal health officers have carried out a series of inspections at race events. I'm not aware of one that's been carried out this year. Officers are always accompanied by a veterinary expert, and I will ask officials to speak with the local authority to see if any other inspections are planned. And, as I said in my answer to Jack Sargeant, the consultation closes next week, and, obviously, when the responses have all been considered, we will be able to bring forward proposals.

Good afternoon, Minister. I'm incredibly grateful for the cross-party support for a ban on greyhound racing. I just really wanted to ask you a question about the consultation process. I understand that you, or your officials, have been requested to visit Valley racetrack as part of the consultation process by the Greyhound Board of Great Britain. I understand that's happened. I'm not sure if you're able to confirm that today. But I just really wanted to seek your assurance that, if that was the case, you would also consider, or your officials would consider, also visiting Hillcrest, which is the home that rescues what, in essence, are dumped greyhounds from the racetracks. We were lucky enough to get our second greyhound, Wanda, from Hillcrest, which is a wonderful institution, but it is struggling. The day we took Wanda home, there was a waiting list of other greyhounds ready to take her place in the kennels. So, I wonder if you could just tell us whether you've had a request to visit Valley racetrack, and, if you have, whether you would consider, for balance, visiting Hillcrest as well in order to get another perspective on the greyhound racing world? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you. And I'm aware, obviously, that Wanda has found a wonderful home with you, and is, I know, keeping you very busy. I have had a request to attend Valley stadium. I haven't had the opportunity to do that; my officials have, as you say. And I and my officials would be very happy, if you would like to invite us to Hillcrest, for us to consider that.

My officials and I are in regular contact with farmers, the farming unions and wider agricultural stakeholders on all aspects of the development of the sustainable farming scheme.

Minister, you say you've spoken at length with the sector; the protest, of course, outside says otherwise. So, this means one of two things: you have either failed to listen when meeting farmers and unions when drawing up these current proposals, or you have listened and are now wilfully ignoring the pleas of farmers and, instead, are intent on punishing their livelihoods. Either way, it's clear the current proposals are not fit for purpose and only lead to more anger, upset and worry for our farmers, who we so heavily rely on and are so vitally important, as well as our future generations, many of whom, actually, were outside just now in the protest, as it's their future, their livelihoods in the future that you will negatively affect with these proposals.

As a dairy farmer's daughter, I know that milk produced in Wales has one of the lowest carbon footprints in the world. The modelling published by this Welsh Government suggests that these proposals would see more than 45,000 fewer dairy cows in Wales. Not only would this put thousands of livelihoods across the supply chain at risk, but, by destocking our farms, we become less productive. To put this in context, these proposals would result in and mean the equivalent of taking over 648 million pints of milk off the shelves around the world. If you go ahead as planned and you take away food production land, this will mean that we have to import in the future. So, Minister, my question to you is: are you saying that any future imports as a result of these proposals will come from carbon-neutral farms around the world and will be transported by carbon-neutral transport? If not, surely you're just moving the problem elsewhere and doing nothing to help the planet, whilst punishing Welsh farmers as you do it. You say you want a sustainable Wales, but this flies in the face of sustainability. It's time to pause this consultation, isn't it, Minister, and go back to the drawing board?

Well, we're not pausing the consultation, there are eight days to go—so, we are not pausing the consultation. And I don't want to punish anybody, and certainly not our farmers.

You mentioned future generations, and you're absolutely right to mention future generations. It's imperative that the sustainable farming scheme supports that sustainable food production. And what is the biggest threat to sustainable food production? It's the climate emergency. And we know our future generations are going to be farming in a much more wide-ranging pattern of weather. We've seen it, haven't we? We've seen snow in May, we've seen flooding when, you know, we wouldn't expect to see it. So, we have to make sure that the sustainable farming scheme works for every farmer in every part of Wales. There'll be no pause of the scheme. You will have heard me say in earlier answers to Llyr Huws Gruffydd about the process that will now be gone through. It will be an extensive piece of work that will need to be done, because I'm sure we will have many, many responses, but it is a plea to make sure everybody puts their views forward. I can absolutely assure you that to talk about words like 'punish' is completely incorrect.

You asked me about the extensive consultation. Well, there are over 24,000 farmers in Wales, and obviously I can't speak to every one. I visit farms regularly. I meet with the National Farmers Union, I meet with the Farmers Union of Wales, I meet with the Country Land and Business Association, I meet with individual farmers. And it's really important to hear all those views. I mentioned in an earlier answer—I think it was to Sam Kurtz—that it was really good to hear five individual farmers' views, just this week, on a very wide range of farming, and it's really important that conversation continues, and it will continue.

I thank the Minister.

The next item will be the topical question. The topical question today is to be answered by the Minister for education, and it's to be asked by Adam Price.

Coleg Sir Gâr has undertaken a review of its estate in order to ensure that they meet the needs of learners. As part of that, they have decided to make a significant investment in the Pibwrlwyd campus, with services moving there from Ammanford.

It will be a major blow for Ammanford and the entire area to see the closure of the college in Ammanford. I don't have to tell you that, of course, Minister, because we jointly represent the Amman valley. The college has been there since 1927. The Conservatives—. When they closed the local coal mine, they wouldn't have dared to close the further education college too, and I regret that a Labour Government supports this intention. You have the option. There is an application to make a final decision with regard to the plans that you refer too. Will you make it clear to the college that you won't support the scheme in its current form unless there is a clear commitment to continue to provide further education directly in Ammanford, and to add to the scheme by investing in the buildings currently there on the campus?

Well, as the Member will know, I'm sure, the outline strategic programme has been in train since 2017, and the strategic outline case since 2023. No final decision has been made on funding. That will be reliant on a final business case. But it is a decision for the college to decide on their own arrangements in terms of the campus. The plans that they have will mean a significant investment in the Pibwrlwyd campus, which also includes significant leisure and well-being facilities, to better provide for the needs of students across their college more generally. Commitments have been given by the college on transport and other arrangements that will be appropriate for those learners in Ammanford.

Thank you for your statement on this, Minister, but I do, however, have to agree with Adam Price on this. I feel like, once again, we are seeing the effects of an education budget that has been cut to the bone with nothing left to cut, and the end result is probable closure for some campuses. Local politicians and councillors in this area have already expressed concern about what it will mean for the learners in Ammanford and the surrounding areas. As Adam said, the campus dates back nearly 100 years now to 1927, and is focused on key things that we want to achieve and which would be beneficial for the areas: health, social care, childcare and construction industry crafts. Minister, the decision would clearly not be right for the area and has provoked a strong reaction from the community. So, as Adam says, will you reconsider it?

Well, it is not a decision for the Welsh Government. It's a decision taken by Coleg Sir Gâr's leadership team and governors, who have agreed that rationalising the existing estate, relocating provision to Pibwrlwyd campus, is the best way of meeting the needs of their learners. This is not a matter of budget choices; this is a matter of investment in the college's estate.

The facilities at the Ammanford campus are, as I understand them, generally in poor condition and are costly to maintain, and the site is also liable to flooding and so it limits the potential for future development on that particular site. At the end of the day, these are strategic questions for the college themselves. They are seeking financial support from the Government, and we will follow the procedure and process that we take in relation to any application for support under the sustainable communities for learning programme.

May I share the same concerns as expressed by Adam Price about the future of the Ammanford campus? As someone who comes from the area, the campus, 'the old tech' as it was called, has contributed a great deal for almost a century, as we've already heard, to the development of skills and lifelong learning of a number of students and older learners in the area for many years now. And so it's a blow to an area that is still suffering economically and socially since the closure of the coal mines back in the 1980s. The town of Ammanford is struggling to regenerate, despite the efforts of the county council to regenerate the town. Seeing this is a further blow to the future of the Amman valley.

What we are seeing here, although we welcome the new development on the Pibwrlwyd campus, is we're seeing students having to travel further from their homes, and in an area where public transport isn't adequate. So, we're asking them to go to Carmarthen or Llanelli or Gorseinon or Neath—public transport isn't available to them to do that. So, that's a question that must be answered.

The economic impact on the town is going to be huge when you take the campus away, with all of the students who attend there, the staff and so on, who go to have their lunch in the town and so on.

I accept that this is a proposal by the college itself, and that you support it, but is it possible for us to commit to collaborate, that you collaborate, that we as local elected Members collaborate with the college, to see whether there is a different alternative future to be found, in a creative way, to ensure that lifelong education and continuing education skills continue to be provided in the Ammanford area? Because at the end of the day, you as a Government have the final decision to make on this through the Welsh education partnership. So, I would ask you to consider the impact of this on so many aspects, and to work with us all to ensure that there continues to be a further education presence in Ammanford.

Just for clarity, the purpose of the investment plan is to secure the best possible resources to secure the best education for learners, and that's what's at the heart of the whole funding plan that we provide as a Government. The proposal has been submitted for some time, as the Member will know, to invest in a development to improve the college facilities as a whole, with a focus on Pibwrlwyd, but the intention is to secure the best education and facilities possible. But, of course, I'm always happy to work with the college, as we do regularly, and with anyone else in order to ensure that the plans are appropriate.

I thank the Minister.

Item 4 is the 90-second statements, and the first statement is from Samuel Kurtz.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Ahead of St David's Day on Friday, I had the pleasure of visiting the Second Pembroke Scouts group to award one of their Cubs, eight-year-old Levi Byrne, with a framed copy of her design of the St David's Day badge. The badge was the winning entry in a competition to design a fun St David's Day blanket badge, which Cubs and Scouts from across the UK can gain, and it attracted over 200 entries. I was delighted to meet Levi and other members of the Scout pack to discuss my role in the Senedd and the importance of democracy and Government.

The Scouting movement is an amazing international youth organisation, started by Robert Baden-Powell in 1908, providing over 14,000 four to 25-year-olds in Wales the skills they need for school, college, university, the job interview, and other essential skills they need for life. I imagine that I'm not alone in this Chamber in having happy memories of being a Cub, myself only for a short period of time, and being able to partake in the fun range of activities that were organised and the life lessons that were learnt.

I would like to thank Alex Pett and the members of Second Pembroke Scouts for making me so welcome, and I express my gratitude to all pack group leaders and volunteers across Wales for the excellent and inspirational work that they do in preparing young people for adult life. The Scouting movement is something that is part of our nation's fabric and, from my experience, it feels that it's in very safe hands. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

Last Saturday, Dan Simms of Caldicot began the mammoth feat of walking from Caldicot castle all the way to Amsterdam in memory of his two close friends who sadly took their own lives, and to raise awareness of men's mental health and the importance of speaking up when you are feeling down.

Three quarters of the people who took their own life in 2022 were men, and tragically, suicide rates amongst men continue to be high. Dan will be walking a marathon every single day for 15 days, covering 600 km and sleeping under the stars until he reaches his destination. After suffering the loss of his two friends, Dan is raising money and awareness for how important it is that men's mental health is made a priority.

Unfortunately, there is still stigma surrounding men's mental health, and many feel they must suffer in silence. The money raised from Dan's walk will go towards charities that support men with their mental health, and to let those around them know that they do not have to go through these challenges alone. Talking openly and honestly about our mental health, whether it is good or bad, is the first step we can all take to normalising these conversations, and Dan is a great example of this in action. I'm sure Members of the Senedd will join me in wishing Dan well as he takes on this challenge in such a good cause.

I'd like to speak to you today about a happy little boy called Ivor who has Angelman syndrome. This is a genetic disorder causing severe learning difficulties and issues with movement and balance. Most people with Angelman syndrome will never talk, and some will never walk. They will need continuous care for the rest of their lives. There are approximately 0.5 million people worldwide living with Angelman syndrome, including about 300 people here in Wales. Fortunately, there is significant progress in medical research around the world with a mission to cure Angelman syndrome.

This wonderful little young man of four years of age, Ivor, walked 1 km every day for a month around his home village in Monmouthshire to raise awareness of Angelman syndrome. He inspired hundreds of people to walk with him and raised thousands of pounds for FAST UK, a charity dedicated to medical research for Angelman syndrome. He has captured the hearts of so many people in his local community and beyond.

Speaking to Ivor's mother about her experience, she wanted to stress how early diagnosis and post-diagnosis support for both the individual and their families is crucial, but desperately lacking. Ivor's family waited 12 months for a blood test result that should have taken six weeks, leading to many months of unnecessary pain and uncertainty. There was very little practical support following diagnosis. Ivor's mother was literally signposted to a charity's website, and then left to her own devices. There does need to be a basic level of additional learning needs training and teacher training courses, and the money needs to follow the child with specific needs like Angelman syndrome.

I thank everyone who came to the drop-in event this week. They loved meeting you. Let's hope, with the greater awareness now, we can really see real change for these people who are suffering with Angelman syndrome. Thank you.

Thank you to the three Members.

Item 5 is a debate on the Culture, Communications, Welsh Language, Sport and International Relations Committee Report, 'International Relations: Annual Report 2022-23'. I call on the committee Chair to move the motion. Delyth Jewell.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's a pleasure to be able to open this afternoon's debate on the committee's behalf. As far as I'm aware, this is the first report of its kind in terms of international relations in the Senedd's history.

The committee's work in this area includes receiving regular reports, scrutinising the draft budget, and an annual scrutiny session with the First Minister. There are a number of different issues that I would like to raise this afternoon.

Now, it's a shame that the First Minister is not present today. It would have been an opportunity for him to put his own words on the record. I'm quite sure that he too would have enjoyed listening to the different contributions. However, we are very grateful to the Deputy Minister, who will be responding on the Government's behalf.

Last week, the First Minister was asked about his international relations portfolio and its importance to him, and he spoke about Dewi Sant, who emphasised the need and the importance of doing the little things well. That is a pertinent and timely analogy, and, perhaps, a lodestar to guide the Government. In that context, I think it would be fair to characterise our committee's wishes as wanting to ensure that the footprint of that international relations work is greater than the sum of its parts, greater than all those vital little things combined, and that there should be a guiding strategy, an ethos and a programme not only underpinning all of those individual actions, but linking and shaping their purpose, drawing out a pattern that can be mapped onto an outline of the world. After all, Wales's relevance to the world, and our relationships with it, will only grow larger and more significant.

There have been areas where we have expected more from the Government. Most notably, we were disappointed that the First Minister decided not to attend draft budget scrutiny in person. That has caused us some difficulties. The written evidence we received contained errors, and we've been unable to consider the figures with confidence. Our committee's frustration on this is testament, I think, to how vitally important we believe these matters to be, how crucial international relations are to Wales, and that is a view I know the First Minister shares. We've recommended that, in future, the Minister with this portfolio should attend budget scrutiny and draft budget scrutiny in person.

To turn to the international strategy, the Welsh Government doesn't report specifically on that strategy, but we as a committee monitor the progress of the international relations activity. We are assisted by our wonderful team in doing this, by using a combination of Welsh Government overseas office reports, ministerial statements, evidence sessions, Senedd business and social media. A lot of diplomatic engagements are announced on social media—that's the world that we live in. In that regard, we welcome steps that have been taken by the Government to increase and improve the information in the public domain.

As the strategy nears its end in 2025, we've also welcomed the First Minister’s offer to discuss the refresh of the strategy with us, and we'd also like to see that invitation extended to a broader group of stakeholders. We’ve also recommended there should be a progress update on both the short and medium-term actions listed in the strategy. In response to that recommendation, the First Minister accepted that, and we look forward to receiving these updates in due course.

The international strategy also sets out the Government's priority country relationships, the majority of which are in the EU. It is clear to us that UK-EU relations remain a priority both for Government and for stakeholders. We've observed that the absence of a dedicated strategy presents challenges in navigating and providing effective scrutiny of the post-Brexit relationship. Only this morning our committee continued our inquiry into the effects of Brexit on the cultural industries. It is a web with many strands; it's important we have as much clarity as possible, so that we don't become entangled in that web.

To echo contributions made during the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee debate last week, we need to ensure that the four constituent nations of the UK are represented in discussions on UK-EU relations and supported by regular engagement between our countries and the EU. We are concerned that the difficulties faced by stakeholders in attempting to participate in post-Brexit UK-EU structures have led to a reduction in the Welsh voice being heard. Dirprwy Lywydd, we are a nation that is proud of the strength of our voices, both individually and as a chorus. We are concerned that this voice could be further silenced as time goes on. That is why we have recommended that the Welsh Government should produce a dedicated EU strategy. In doing so, we would regain that lodestar I mentioned earlier—a strategy to guide and navigate the post-Brexit relationship, as choppy as those waters can be.

We owe them a debt of gratitude.

At the beginning of this Senedd, we heard from a number of those stakeholders who were worried that the loss of a dedicated Minister for international relations would mean the topic would lessen in prominence. I think it's fair to say that the prominence of these matters has remained true, though there are still concerns, inevitably perhaps, about how focused this work can be without a Minister whose sole priority is this work. The issue of prominence versus focus will, I'm sure, continue, but as this will be the final international relations debate that will happen in this Senedd where our current First Minister has this responsibility, I would like to pay tribute to his evident delight in these issues and his passion for Wales internationally. Whoever next has control of this vital area of work must, we would urge them, champion our nation and her interests. At a time when the world is getting smaller, the part our nation has to play on its stage will only grow.

I look forward very much to hearing the views of others in our debate this afternoon.

I'm grateful to the Chair of the committee for introducing this report, and also grateful to the secretariat who have supported the committee in its work. Currently, international relations are the responsibility of the First Minister, and it's always very difficult, knowing that the First Minister has indicated his intention to resign, that this debate doesn't become something of a valedictory debate. But we should, I think, thank the First Minister for the work he's done and how he has represented Wales on the international stage. We know that he's in Brussels today at a St David's Day event, and I also know that his commitment to ensuring that Wales is represented in Brussels and elsewhere has been greatly appreciated by many.

Much of the committee's recommendations do refer to issues around scrutiny and strategy. I think in terms of how we address the debate this afternoon, it's very much taking stock, if you like, learning lessons, perhaps, and then looking forward. Because what we do know is that in a month's time, we will have a new Minister taking responsibility for these matters, and we'll have a new First Minister who'll be taking forward Wales's place on the international stage. So, I think it's right and proper that this is an opportunity, therefore, for the committee to look back on the past couple of years and to make some, perhaps, thematic recommendations rather than simply each individual recommendation in isolation.

For me, there are three key areas. First of all, there's the area of scrutiny. In any parliamentary democracy, Ministers are accountable to the Parliament, and it is the Parliament that determines the mode and form of scrutiny, not the Government. The Government will appear in front of committees, and Ministers will appear in order to give evidence when the committees request that they do so. In any democracy, it depends on that relationship, and it is a matter of some great disappointment that we have not had access to the First Minister in the way that the committee would have anticipated and, frankly, expected. It is important in any democracy that we are able to scrutinise the Executive. We can only scrutinise the Executive if the Executive is prepared to appear in front of committees, and I think that is a really key point from this report.

The second point is that of strategy. There are a number of recommendations referring to strategy in this report. We’ve looked at different areas of work the Welsh Government has undertaken in this field. There is a common thread running through all of those, and that is that the Government is more prepared to report on what it has done rather than to tell us what it wants to do, why it wants to do it, and what it seeks to achieve by doing so. But it is only by setting very clear objectives and measurable targets that we can actually scrutinise the Executive and determine whether it has achieved its objectives or not. Without the strategy at the beginning, there’s no purpose to a report at the end. The Welsh Government has repeatedly shied away—and not just in this area, either—from setting out its objectives, setting out what it seeks to achieve, setting out how it expects to achieve its objectives. I think, if there is a learning point for me, we do need the next Minister, the next Government, to ensure that it does set out very, very clear objectives for its work.

You need to conclude.

—the Deputy Minister will also encourage me in my efforts to create links between Tredegar and Tredegar. Thank you.

Thank you very much to the committee for all of its work on this issue. I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak about international relations this afternoon. I am proud that we, through the work of this committee, have made an effort to position ourselves in the world. Our Senedd has been designed to be transparent and visible so that people can look in upon us and see what we are doing here, but all of that glass, too, is a means for us to look out, and not just look at Wales. We need to look out at the world, and for me, that is crucially important.

Last week I was in Ireland, and the discussions I had there with stakeholders on trade, energy and politics have demonstrated clearly to me once again that we could and should be doing far more to build on our international relations, and that closest and most important one, in accordance with the conclusions and recommendations of this report and the committee's previous work on links between Wales and Ireland. One thing that stood out to me, by the way, was the level of interest in the cross-party model of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales as a means of discussing political, economic and constitutional issues in an informed and constructive manner—something that is particularly pertinent on the island of Ireland. And we could and should, always within the international community, be seeking ways of sharing good practice, and that naturally works both ways.

Of course, Wales's relationship with Ireland forms a key part of our wider relationship with Europe, and to which this report we’re debating today draws particular attention. Indeed, the report calls for clearer, more deliberate, thinking about Wales’s relationship with the EU. Welsh Government currently lacks, I think, a strategic approach on post-Brexit EU-UK relations, with the renegotiation of the terms of this relationship by 2025. I think this gap needs to be addressed urgently.

Now, the findings of this report echo and build on those of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee’s recent work on UK-EU governance, which highlighted a clear lack of influence for Wales on the frameworks governing post-Brexit EU-UK relations. And I am unequivocal about this: whenever decisions are being taken that affect the people of Wales, those that represent them should be in the room. And at the moment, on key decisions, by the Welsh Government’s own admission, this is not the case when it comes to EU-UK governance.

Now, Wales has been locked out of critical governance forums. We’ve played no part, for example, in the renegotiation that led to the Windsor framework, despite its implications for Ireland-Wales trade—something that’s particularly relevant in my own constituency of Ynys Môn. And this, to put it plainly, is entirely unacceptable. And I’d ask what steps the Welsh Government, and in particular the two candidates to be the next First Minister, propose to take to address this glaring democratic deficit.

Now, we in Plaid Cymru are clear and have been for a long, long time, on what we believe is the optimal position for Wales in our relationship with Europe. Wales’s future, from our point of view, is as an independent nation within the EU, but we’re also determined, of course, to strive for the very best for Wales in the here and now, in the circumstances in which we find ourselves. And everything possible should be done to overcome the challenges that Brexit has created for our economy and for our relationships with our closest neighbours. To me, this means the UK as a whole looking to rejoin the single market and customs union. I think we should be making that case strongly—a view, we know, that is shared by at least one of the contenders to be the next First Minister. But I would ask, as a final point today, for the Welsh Government to join me as a whole in calling for this and to outline how we might work together to achieve that.

Wales has much to offer the world: our language, culture, sport, engineering and so much more. The Welsh Government and the Senedd have an important role to play in promoting our values, solidifying economic relations and sharing best policy practice. Many countries are very interested in our Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Welsh language.

The devolved responsibility we have for areas such as research and sustainability give a strong basis on which to work with partners across Europe to learn from one another’s experiences, whilst focusing on tackling our biggest threat, the climate emergency.

I welcome the Welsh Government’s commitment in its programme for government to increase Wales’s presence in Europe and to retain an office in Brussels. The presence is to ensure the European Union remains our strongest partner and will allow us to work together on our shared values and policy ambitions. It will also enable the Welsh Government to support businesses to trade as efficiently as possible in the future, which is really important post Brexit.

I’ve been disappointed to discover how Wales is often left out of conversations by the UK Government, and when I visited Ghana for the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association conference, I discovered that there were two tiers.

We heard evidence this morning from the creative sector that there have been no gains since leaving the EU, only costs and bureaucracy that have put us at a disadvantage to other countries. More guidance and consistency is needed, not just for those who are travelling, but also for those who are actually working in border control.

The loss of access to funds has also been significant. Creative Europe has just had a massive injection of funds that we can no longer access, but the creative industries do not have UK Government recognition of their importance and value, unlike in Europe. I agree with the First Minister that the current UK Government's handling of Brexit has been wholly unsatisfactory, to say the least, and we need a new Labour Government in Westminster to rebuild co-operation and trust with our European partners on a UK-wide level, particularly when it comes to economic and cultural relations. Wales needs to continue networking to provide opportunities for dialogue and information sharing. They offer a platform to raise Wales's profile and set out our distinct approach and values to an international audience, whilst strengthening relationships with our priority regions and contacts, with whom Wales not only shares membership, but has also co-founded many networks. And as well as promoting Wales on the global stage, we also have a duty to the international community to do what we can to support them, including those facing persecution.

May I echo the thanks to the committee for its report? I hadn't realised, until the Chair's opening remarks, that this is the first time that we've had a debate on this important matter on the Senedd floor. And I would say that the international awareness of Wales is greater now than ever before. I remember travelling in my twenties in Europe and having to explain to people where Wales was. The awareness of Wales wasn't very high internationally. But this has changed entirely. You can travel all over the world now and people will be aware of Wales, primarily due to the success of our sporting teams.

As Alun Davies has given a plug to Tredegar in Virginia, may I also give a plug? It was wonderful for me to be in Cardiff, Maryland, at the end of January, and talking in Welsh to people who've never been here, and people's enthusiasm for Wales, and for our language and culture, was infectious.

I'd like to raise two issues in this debate, Dirprwy Lywydd. First, one of the most powerful arguments, in my view, in favour of Senedd reform is that it will improve scrutiny of the Government. I agree with the culture committee's recommendations, and Alun Davies's comments, on the need for in-person oral evidence sessions. We often hear in this place fair criticism, in my view, of Westminster Ministers for refusing meetings with Welsh Ministers and Senedd committees. I'm sure that we can all agree that giving evidence solely via written statements is not the best means of scrutiny. Often, it isn't the pre-arranged questions that draw the most informative responses, but those supplementary questions that follow naturally in a question and answer session. So, failure to engage in such sessions could set a poor precedent for our Senedd, and could harm its scrutiny function.

Finally, I'm concerned by the Welsh Government's response to recommendation 8, that its approach to the review of the trade and co-operation agreement will be determined by wider political developments. I read into that that they mean they want to wait for a favourable UK general election result. The clear implication is that they're waiting for a change of Government at Westminster before making a decision. The Welsh Government should not be basing its position on how to make the trade and co-operation arrangement work effectively and on how to improve engagement with the UK Government on who happens to be in Government at Westminster. This is not sustainable. We cannot base this on the long term. We should not be relying on other Governments to act before Wales does.

Our view on international matters are so important they should not be dependent on the point of view of whoever happens to be in power at Westminster. Logically, this position of waiting to see what happens at Westminster would mean that Wales will always lag behind other countries in terms of our international presence. The Welsh Government should not be waiting for the results of a UK general election, but act proactively to ensure Wales’s voice is heard clearly on the international stage and that we do have a place at the table. Diolch yn fawr.

Many people have remarked already on the importance of promoting the social, cultural and economic links of Wales internationally, and that is absolutely true. And in case anybody hasn't mentioned it, can I be the very first to congratulate, in that field of international relations, Jess Fishlock and our other players, last night, on their victory in the republic, with apologies to my Irish cousins? But it's part of our international relations, I have to say, what we do on the sporting field as well—wins and losses—going forward. It does matter. But, Dirprwy Lywydd, it's a real pleasure to speak on this today, and it is something of a milestone.

If we reflect back on where we began as an Assembly all those years ago, and there are a couple of Members who were here at that time, the idea that we'd be having full debates on international relations would probably be unthinkable at that time. But this is quite a milestone, so I really congratulate Delyth and the culture and international relations committee on the production of this first annual international relations report and the debate here in the Senedd. It is something of a milestone, and it's probably a reflection as well of where we are in the post-Brexit landscape, withdrawing from the EU. It's also, I have to say, probably something of a reflection of the maturity and the willingness of this Senedd to not only debate these matters, but to make sure that Welsh Government and the Senedd and all our relations speak very loudly for Wales.

Now, as noted in the debate on the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee report last week on UK-EU governance, both of our committees are agreed on a number of key issues in this area, and it demonstrates significant cross-party consensus on these matters. So, for example, both committees agree that the Welsh Government needs to set out clear, strategic priorities for its future relationship with the EU and to engage with stakeholders in Wales on Wales-EU issues, and that's very good to see. And both committees agree that the Welsh Government's role in the governance of UK-EU agreements must be strengthened.

And we note the First Minister's response in relation to the upcoming review of the trade and co-operation agreement—confirmation that the Welsh Government is focusing on making sure that the TCA works as effectively as possible and focusing on inter-governmental relations on UK-EU matters. So, there is a consistent voice here, coming out from the Senedd and from Welsh Government. Can I say as well, we particularly welcome the commitments secured by the culture committee for the Welsh Government to include its analysis of the UK-EU trade and co-operation agreement in relevant legislative consent memoranda? This transparency is really welcome.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Dawn Bowden.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I say at the outset that I welcome the annual report and the committee's dedication to work alongside Government to support our international ambitions and to see Wales's profile grow on the world stage? It's been very good to hear all the contributions from Members today. I'm certainly pleased that, since the committee was established, it's brought forward a series of recommendations and proposals that have improved transparency and reporting procedures.

It's probably incumbent on me at this point to acknowledge the point that a number of Members have made about the appearance or the non-appearance of the First Minister in relation to giving in-person evidence. The First Minister had made it clear—he's been very clear and consistent in his communications with the committee—that he is unable to make multiple appearances at the committee due to his additional FM scrutiny commitments throughout the year, but that he would commit to taking an annual in-person scrutiny session after the publication of the annual report. I think that it's those additional scrutiny sessions in other arenas that are the restricting factor, which I think is a point that Huw Irranca-Davies acknowledged, but any decisions, of course, about future scrutiny will of course be a matter for the incoming First Minister.

The Welsh Government's Brussels office and our network of offices across Europe, in France, Germany and Ireland, are central to supporting our trade and investment activity and delivering on our commitment to European engagement. We work with partners in Europe on our shared values and policy ambitions and we support businesses to trade as efficiently as possible. With the UK's exit from the EU resulting in additional barriers to trade, it's more important than ever to have a presence across Europe to promote Wales as an investment destination and to support businesses who want to trade with our largest partner, and we must work harder to remain present and relevant to our European partners. To emphasise that point, as has already been recognised, the First Minister is currently in Brussels to mark St David's Day, and his programme includes a reception for VIP guests from EU institutions, from embassies and European regions, as well as meeting with institutions and key partners around renewable energy, research and innovation.

Now, the Welsh Government has shared policy goals, of course, with the EU on many key issues and challenges such as sustainability, the environment, biodiversity, climate, innovation, equality and social affairs, amongst others, but the Welsh Government at the moment does not agree that a separate EU strategy is needed at this time. Our focus is very much on delivering the international strategy, which includes our relationship with Europe, and the retention of our office in Brussels and the creation of a dedicated representative for the EU affirms our commitment that Wales places a high value on our relations with Europe and the European Union. The focus and the foundation of any development to the relationship with the EU should be around recreating an economic relationship that works for both sides. So, we will begin the work on reviewing and refreshing the international strategy, and our relationship with Europe will form part of that strategy.

You need to conclude now, Minister.

I've got just a couple more points to make, Chair.

No, you need to conclude now, Deputy Minister.

Okay. The international profile of Wales continues to rise. Our nation's success in sport and culture, our innovative approach to policy means that our demand for international engagement is high and increasing. And despite challenging budgets we will use the achievements from the last four years to build on raising Wales's profile in the future. Diolch yn fawr.

And I call on the committee Chair, Delyth Jewell, to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I think the fact that so many Members have wanted to take part in this debate today is a testament to how important the subject is.

Alun voiced his own thanks to the First Minister for the First Minister's passion for Wales internationally. He characterised our report as 'taking stock', though he did voice to our disappointment, of course, about the lack of access that we have had to the First Minister, maybe not as much as we would have liked. I think that our committee would all agree that the EU must be a priority for the next First Minister. And the point about having measurable targets—that's something again that we would all support. Alun often talks about Tredegar. It was wonderful to hear about the other Tredegar too, and I look forward to hearing much more about the two Tredegars in future months.

Rhun spoke about the importance of the fact that we locate ourselves in the world. He spoke about transparency and glass. As the poem on the Wales Millennium Centre reminds us, creating truth like glass is the challenge for us. Rhun mentioned Ireland—which is close to our hearts as a committee—and the fact that Wales needs to be in the room for discussions with the European Union. There is a democratic deficit emanating from the fact that we aren't around that table. I think that we, as a committee, would agree, in terms of a number of the findings that we have come to.

Carolyn set out more Wales's role in the world, and what we offer to the world. She alluded to her experience in Ghana, how at times we might be seen from the outside. Carolyn spoke about some of what we are uncovering again in our inquiry relating to Brexit and cultural institutions, which Alun had also referred to. Wales has led the way as a nation. The global footprint of Wales, the global challenges that we face together, like climate change, the many wars and struggles facing our planet—they are, vitally, something where Wales has to have that part.

Rhys spoke about the high degree of awareness of Wales internationally. He said that this was partly because of sport, perhaps, but he also spoke about the diaspora community in Maryland. It's fascinating to hear about how we, as Welsh people, are seen, and how the Welsh language is being spoken worldwide. Rhys expressed his concern about the poor precedent that could be set by the fact that we don't always receive the ministerial access in this area that is needed.

Thank you as well to Huw for speaking in this debate. I'm sure that we would all join you in congratulating Jess Fishlock and the team. Thank you for your kind words. I do think that this is a milestone for our committee. It's an important one, and we do really wish to work together with your committee on this. We intend this to be first of annual reports on international relations work. I hope that it will mean a legacy of annual debates on this too.

There is, I think, a great deal of commonality between our committees, particularly on UK-EU relations, of course. You referred to our committee as allies, and we are indeed allies, and I hope very much that we will be able to look at these issues together. Particularly, you had set out, Huw, I think, the benefits and the challenges of having the First Minister as the Minister with this responsibility, and that may be something that we could look at in the future. This is something that came up in the Deputy Minister's contribution as well.

I thank the Deputy Minister.

We do appreciate the commitments, of course, on the First Minister's time. As Huw had said, we don't believe that this has anything to do with a lack of willingness. I think that it comes back to that challenge of the prominence given—the added prominence given—to international relations by being in the First Minister's portfolio, the prominence versus the focus. That is a duality, and I think that it's something that our committee, alongside the LJC committee, will need to keep an eye on.

The work going on in Brussels is to be welcomed—everything that the Deputy Minister was setting out. We would argue that a separate strategy would aid that greatly. There would be no better way, diplomatically, of sending that message to the EU that we want to engage with them than to have that strategy.

I would welcome so much of the good work, and the really exciting work, that the Deputy Minister was setting out. I think that that reiterates the point that there is so much of this vital stuff that is going on that isn't being captured in the regular monitoring, or what is sent to us. So, I really hope that that can be addressed, because we want to celebrate the good stuff too. We want to be able to take delight in, and champion, all of the wonderful things that are happening, as well as pointing out where we would like to see more.

Now, in a few weeks' time, we will have a new First Minister. Whoever becomes the next First Minister, we as a committee want them to ensure that international relations are not neglected, or put on the back burner of Government. Rather, it's a golden opportunity for the new Cabinet to be in the vanguard when it comes to prioritising international relations. We as a committee are determined to play our part to ensure that the world continues to learn about our historical, beautiful, unique and modern nation. Our hope is that the Welsh Government will do everything within its power to do exactly the same, and to tell a story that St David himself would be pleased to hear.

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.

Item 6 today is a Welsh Conservatives' debate on the sustainable farming scheme, and I call on James Evans to move the motion.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion tabled in the name of my colleague, Darren Millar.

Today, I stand to open this debate with a very heavy heart, burdened by the potential devastation facing rural Wales. The Welsh Government's proposed sustainable farming scheme, in its current form, threatens the very fabric of our communities. It threatens the fabric of our farmers, our families, our friends and the whole of rural Wales. The Welsh Government's own commissioned impact assessment figures paint a grim picture: 5,500 job losses, 122,000 livestock units lost and to top it all off, a staggering £199 million loss to the economy. Those numbers I quote aren't mere statistics, they represent real people, real families. And I'm not talking alarmist nonsense, as our First Minister indicated to me last week. This is the Welsh Government's own commissioned impact assessment. These impacts are the concerns from seasoned farmers to the bright eyes of our young farmers and the wider associated businesses.

The sustainable farming scheme in its current form casts a long shadow of uncertainty and unworkability for many farming businesses in Wales. At the heart of our anxieties lies the potential erosion of the very foundation of rural communities. The projected decline in farm income due to reduced output and increased compliance costs threatens the livelihoods of countless families who have dedicated generations to stewarding the land. This economic anxiety extends far beyond the farm gate. The potential widespread job losses across the entire agricultural sector would ripple through the very fabric of our communities, impacting agricultural supply chains, local businesses and the overall economy of Wales.

One element that worries me and my group hugely in the current sustainable farming scheme proposal is the potential threat to the very food security of Wales. The projected reduction in livestock numbers, particularly sheep, would impact our own nation's food security. This decline, coupled with a potential decrease in agricultural output, could lead to an increased reliance on food imports, compromising quality and environmental standards. Our farmers in Wales produce the best food in the world and they should be rewarded properly for doing that.

It is often quoted by Ministers that the sustainable farming scheme has been seven years in the making. However, this final draft has come as a shock to many in the sector, including the farming unions and those farmers who sat on the co-design groups. The tree planting and habitat targets are unworkable and it was asked for them to be removed, and some of the universal actions are downright insulting to farmers. It will force many of them off the land or to become reliant on bureaucrats or consultants—that's something none of us wants to see. This has been evidenced by the unprecedented numbers that have attended the consultation events up and down Wales. It is testament to the strength of feeling that the farming unions are working together on this, and I think the numbers coming to Cardiff Bay today are a plea to the Welsh Government to listen to their concerns and to start being a friend to rural Wales.

I am pleased that the Minister and First Minister have met with farming representatives and the unions. And yesterday, you published a joint statement outlining the next steps and some announcements in areas where the Welsh Government is looking to make changes with regard to TB, nitrate-vulnerable zones and the sustainable farming scheme itself. And the response from the farming unions has been positive. But warm words, Minister, will only go so far, and actions to address the defects in the sustainable farming scheme and in certain policies are what are needed from this Government to reassure the farming community that you are listening.

Farmers are not adverse to change. They have adapted, over the years, to many of the Welsh Government schemes, such as Tir Gofal, Glastir, woodland creation schemes and different types of habitat schemes that have come out from the Government. These schemes, in the past, have delivered conservation benefits and carried out the asks that the Welsh Government has told them to do. The environmental actions in the sustainable farming scheme can only be brought about with the co-operation of our farmers. It is essential that the Welsh Government work with farmers to make a scheme that is workable, achievable and one that will ensure that our farmers keep farming.

One element that is very important to me and to many Members is the mental health of our farmers. Rural mental health charities have been ringing off the hook with people who are seriously concerned about their future, and their mental health is being detrimentally affected. I want to say to those farmers, if there are any listening out there, don't suffer in silence at home alone, seek out help and support, because the rural communities across Wales will support you.

Let us not underestimate the seriousness of this situation. We stand at a crossroads. Does this current Welsh Government pursue a path paved with job losses and economic hardship, or do we, together, find a way and a solution that safeguards our rural communities, our environment, and, more importantly, our farmers? I urge the Welsh Government to listen to the cries of the farmers outside and across Wales, engage in an open dialogue, acknowledge their concerns and work collectively to refine the sustainable farming scheme. Because I would like to say to everybody in this Chamber, a sustainable future doesn't come at the cost of rural communities. We need a balanced approach, one that protects the environment while nurturing the economy.

Together, we can build a Wales that thrives, where environmental responsibility goes hand in hand with vibrant farming communities. I urge every Member in this Chamber today to do the right thing for our farmers and rural Wales, support our motion, be the friend that farmers and our rural communities need. This is our chance—our chance—to send a clear message to the people of rural Wales that we are on your side, and we in this Chamber are your friend.

Many Members have asked to speak this afternoon, but, unfortunately, not everyone will be called within the time available.

I therefore ask all those who are going to contribute today to make sure you keep within the times, so we can get as many in as possible, please.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales to move formally amendment 1, tabled in her own name.

Formally.

I just want to start my contribution by making a comparison that many of you will have heard me make in the past, but I think it's a fair comparison, because 40 years ago, many of us here in the Chamber, in almost all parts of the Chamber, perhaps, stood shoulder to shoulder with the miners as they battled for their livelihoods. Many of us now stand shoulder to shoulder with the steelworkers of Port Talbot in their battle to secure their livelihoods and ensure that just transition from what they have now to a more sustainable future. I don't see any difference between the laudable and valid stances taken then and the stance taken by many today in terms of our rural communities and the agriculture industry.

The economic assessment that we've just heard about, of course, is one that we know, don't we? We've seen the figures: 5,550 jobs, £200 million lost from the rural economy, and, of course, we, on a number of occasions here, have talked about how every £1 that goes into the agriculture industry produces £9 in return on investment. So, if we take £200 million out, we're taking nine times that out of the rural economy.

Now, I know that the Minister has said, in fairness, and we must recognise this, that that modelling was undertaken on a model that isn't the exact model that's before us today when it comes to the consultation. But, of course, let's be honest, it hasn't changed that much, has it, compared with what we had before us previously. Perhaps it's not 5,500, but it will be a significant number of jobs lost, and that's the concern.

And we're only talking there about the economic elements. We know about the social impact that that would have on rural communities. We know about the impact that that would have on culture in rural areas, and on the Welsh language, of course, bearing in mind that the sector is one of the main stalwarts of the Welsh language. And I will return to the environmental element, but those are some pillars. We have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 here in Wales, and if there were to be an assessment painting a relatively similar picture once again, then I question whether that would meet the statutory obligations of this Government when it comes to the well-being of future generations Act.

I just want to elaborate a bit on the environmental aspect, because we've seen an emerging sort of polarisation, haven't we, of views—or perceived views, maybe we should say—and, clearly, certain people have infiltrated the debate around this to pursue their own agendas. But I just want to say that anyone who might characterise farmers as rejecting a willingness to change, as rejecting a recognition that they have a big part to play in helping all of society meet its challenges and its demands in relation to climate change, well, they're deluded. The industry is absolutely committed. In fact, ironically, the industry has committed itself to net zero by 2040, which is earlier than the Welsh Government's commitment, by the way. So, let's not try and sort of polarise the discussion and characterise it to be something that it absolutely isn't.

But the Government has to take everybody with them on this journey. If the scheme doesn't work for our family farms, then who is going to deliver on the outcomes that we all want to see delivered through a scheme? Everyone loses under those circumstances. I've been told countless times by those who attended the roadshows that, as the officials were running through the list of universal actions, by the time they got to seven or eight, they'd already decided it wasn't for them, and they weren't even halfway through the list of universal actions. So, I really do think, on a pragmatic level, that we need to relook at the number of universal actions to make it more workable.

We've touched previously—and I did so in my questions earlier about the 10 per cent tree cover—on the fact that it's a one-size-fits-all policy for an industry that is anything but one size. It could be lowland, it could be upland, it could be the most productive land, a less-favoured area, it could be dairy, it could be beef, it could be lamb, it could be arable, and yet everybody's asked to do the same thing. We do need more flexibility. Trees are part of the answer, absolutely, but they aren't the only answer.

And yesterday's statement, I'll acknowledge, yesterday's statement about a broader suite of options was welcome, but, of course, the farming unions have been offering you this. NFU Cymru pointed to the ARCZero scheme in Northern Ireland last year. You were made aware of it: accurate, individual, whole-farm carbon balance sheets, utilising trees, soil, hedges and others. We were blown away by the presentation on that in a recent NFU conference. You were invited, I think, to go to Northern Ireland. You chose not to, so let's hope that you revisit those opportunities.

Llyr, you need to wind up, please.

Okay. The key message, then, is if farmers don't buy into the scheme, then you risk ending up with a scheme that nobody delivers and delivers for nobody.

Anybody would think that this was a debate that was occurring in a vacuum only in Wales, but actually there's been an equally robust debate occurring in England, and more farmers are now joining the English version of a sustainable farming scheme that they've got there. We clearly have to take the farmers with us. I absolutely agree that we need a just transition for Welsh farmers, but that doesn't mean to say we don't need to change, because, at the moment, the public money we are investing in farming is not aligned with the public goods that we need.

Let's just look at Welsh meat production. Only 5 per cent of red meat produced in Wales is consumed in Wales; 95 per cent is consumed either in England or in mainland Europe, or a small part in the middle east. And yet, we can't find the sources of meat that the caterers in our schools need to buy in order to feed our children. So, there's definitely a misalignment going on there, and we need to work out where we should be putting our subsidy. I'd much prefer to see a subsidy to feed our children with Welsh meat than a subsidy to feed people in other countries.

We already know, from the conversation I had earlier with the Minister, that only 6 or 7 per cent of the fruit and veg that we consume in Wales is grown in Wales. So, my question is: what is the point of a sustainable farming scheme unless we can feed our own population? If people can't obtain the fresh ingredients of a healthy balanced diet in the community where they live, they end up relying on tired vegetables and adulterated bread.

Last month, I visited Treorchy for one of the excellent FUW charity breakfasts to talk to local farmers about what they want from the sustainable farming scheme and what they think it should look like. The excellent and popular farm shop run by the daughter of a local farmer was absolutely stuffed with completely brilliant locally produced meat of all varieties, slaughtered in the Maesteg abattoir, and it's literally just off the high street, so anybody could walk to it and buy it. And there were dozens of families enjoying the excellent full Welsh breakfast as part of a weekend treat. So, it was a fantastic place to be.

When I went with the fantastic woman who runs the farm shop to look at what they were actually selling in the shop apart from meat, there was no local fruit or veg whatsoever. They previously had been able to source it from Cowbridge and, alternatively, from Treherbert, but those outlets were so successful in their own local markets that they had no surplus available, and therefore it simply wasn't worth their while to bring their produce to Treorchy. So, we clearly have a need to produce more veg and fruit in Treorchy. That would strengthen the local economy and ensure that the local community had access to fresh fruit and veg.

Jenny, will you take an intervention?

Will you take a brief intervention? You made lots of very valid points there, but I was just wondering what part of removing potentially 20 per cent of productive land will actually help to deal with those issues that you've raised.

Instead of the 0.5 per cent of land we currently dedicate to fruit and veg, we've only got to dedicate 2 per cent to fruit and veg to resolve our domestic need. So that really isn't an issue in that particular case. That work has been done by Amber Wheeler as part of academic research I could send you.

We have to address the really important issue of the shortage of local ingredients for our free school meals programme. Local authority catering departments are struggling to find suitable supplies at prices they can afford. This is something that the new sustainable farming scheme needs to address. That should be this public money for public good, primarily to feed the population of Wales, not the population of mainland Europe.

Today, I had the privilege to meet Teresa Corção, an eco-chef from Rio de Janeiro, who has helped to develop a network of local growers who feed the 50 million schoolchildren in Brazil who are fed every day of the week by law, using local ingredients—

Jenny, you need to close now, please.

—and nourishing food, which also safeguards their culture. This is the sort of thing we need to do in Wales, and we need to continue to have that serious conversation with our farmers on what they can do and we can do to do this together.

For those of us Members who went outside today and stood with the farmers and rural communities, we saw the strength of frustration and anger out there. The tone and language, I'm afraid, from Labour Ministers in recent weeks has done nothing to lower the temperature of the current debate. We had sweeping statements from the First Minister, like, 'Farmers in Wales voted to leave the EU'. What a ridiculous statement to make—a ridiculous statement. It makes me angry when I hear the First Minister say that, because all that does is blame farmers for the Government's own flawed policy. The First Minister then suggested that farmers want to be given subsidy for farmers to just do whatever farmers think they would like to do with it. I've never heard a farmer or the sector suggest that to me; they haven't done so. I really can't believe that the First Minister does not understand that subsidy exists in order for our country to manage our food supply, as has been the case in the UK, in Europe and around the world for decades. It does not exist to benefit farmers; subsidy exists to benefit the public, to make sure that we have affordable food prices in our shops.

The Government should not be surprised by the strength of feeling today—the largest protest that this Senedd has ever seen—because of the language that Labour Ministers have used. If they want to lower the heat in this debate, they've got to stop using the provocative language that they have been using up to now. 'No farmers, no food', that's what the slogans say outside. Let's break that down: if we have no farmers, or a reduced level of farmers, we become more reliant on food being imported from outside of Wales and from outside the UK. So, let's open our eyes to the danger that that brings. We saw it during COVID, didn't we? We had shelves that were empty in some key areas. Fruit, veg, milk, meat; that was during COVID. We know the volatility of our supply chains. We've got a war in Ukraine, in one country in the world, and we can see the impact that is having on our global supply chain—from just one country. We are sleepwalking if we cannot guarantee our own food supply for our own country and make sure that we have our supply chains in our country in order.

We shouldn't be surprised that there is so much frustration not only from farmers, but from the general public also. We should be doing everything we can, should we not, to make sure that we're producing as much food as possible locally, here in Wales. I know we've got support for that. [Interruption.] I know. We've got support for that across the Chamber, and that is what we need to do. The other thing that frustrates me, and I think it's frustrating farmers—

Will you give way?

Yes, I will.

It is on this strange dichotomy that we have. I understand the arguments for food security, but at the same time, my upland hill farmers are exporting much of their lamb because the market pays a premium for it in Brussels, in France and in the middle east. So, you can't be arguing, I don't think, that we are going to force those farmers to put that produce on our local shelves—or are you, and are we looking at price controls?

I think, Huw, you are deliberately trying to misunderstand the point I'm making. Surely we must be making sure that the food that we are producing we eat locally. Of course we should. And of course we can export beyond Wales as well; that's exactly what we want to be doing.

To move on to another point, what frustrates me is when Government Ministers say they are listening—[Interruption.]

Can all Members on all benches please ensure that I can hear the speaker and others can hear the speaker?

Just because a Minister says they're listening does not mean that they are listening. Because we didn't see that happen with nitrate vulnerable zones, we didn't see that happen with bovine TB and we're not seeing that happening now with the sustainable farming scheme. We know that because for several years the unions and the farming sector have been saying it's unworkable—that the tree cover aspect of the SFS is unworkable. Yet it still turns up in a consultation published just two months ago. That does not demonstrate that the Government is listening, I'm afraid, at all.

Our motion today highlights, of course, the 2022 proposals, which would see 5,500 Welsh jobs lost, and, of course, there would be much wider implications for the wider economy. But the frustrations from the farming community go beyond the SFS as well. Farmers really feel that they are at breaking point. You've got the NVZ regulations forcing farmers to put in infrastructure when it's not needed because there are no environmental issues in those areas, making them then unprofitable compared to the rest of the UK and the rest of Europe. We have bovine TB—a cruel, cruel disease in animal stock and in wildlife as well—and it is exasperating farmers as they have sleepless nights as they wait for their TB results. So, I'm afraid we have to do more on TB as well. We have to be culling infected wildlife in order to ensure that we eradicate this bovine TB for good as well.

To end, Deputy Presiding Officer, we will have a new First Minister within the next couple of weeks, and we will have new Government Ministers. There's an opportunity now for the Government to seize a different direction, and I hope the Government will.

Any farming scheme must aim to hold food production as central, support an active role for our Welsh-speaking communities, and bolster thriving rural economies. The sustainable farming scheme as it stands—and I do appreciate that there is a consultation ongoing—is overly complex and unworkable for farmers. I was also at a farming meeting of 500 people in Brecon, where we were all presented with the 17 universal actions. And I have to say, at universal action 10, on ponds and scrapes, it wasn't just me who was completely confused; the farmers sitting next to me were holding their heads in their hands.

I have to say, anybody who wants to contribute to this debate should review the sustainable farming scheme and the 17 universal actions, which are on top of 10 per cent trees and 10 per cent habitat, and then tell me that it is a scheme that is workable and not complex. The immense administrative burden of the scheme on farmers cannot be underestimated, nor, as we've heard, can the cumulative mental health toll on farmers and their families, fearing disastrous income loss if they fail to properly implement the scheme. Believe me, I saw it at that meeting in Brecon. There were farmers who were there speaking in sadness and distress, and we have to change. I'm pleased to hear that there is an option for the Minister and the First Minister to look at serious changes to the scheme. After significant cuts to the rural affairs budget, the Welsh Government cannot afford to continue to alienate our farming communities further—not when their dedication is vital for food production, sustainability, and nature restoration goals. Farmers want to be active partners in shaping an equitable scheme that they can have faith in.

As I say, I acknowledge that the consultation for the scheme is still ongoing, and I welcome the encouraging provisional steps that have been outlined by the Welsh Government so far. Wales needs a farming scheme that is straightforward and simple, that works for all of our farmers and food producers and for our natural environment. So, let's work together to ensure we have a scheme that has food at its forefront and takes people with us on the journey to net zero. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

To start, I will refer Members to my register of interests. We've heard, and we heard it yesterday, that for seven years the Welsh Government has been working with farmers to get to this point. However, it's clear from the justified outcry from the farming community and the thousands of people here today that the Government still don't understand the industry properly or how their policies can affect rural life. Welsh farmers are facing a perfect storm of pressure—years of devastating effects of TB pushing families to the brink of despair, made worse by the inaction of this Government to deal with that problem properly. Add to this the pressures of NVZs and water regulations, with the management changes and bureaucracy they bring, and we can see then why the Government's proposed sustainable farming scheme will be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

The First Minister's recent comments saying that—and we've heard it already—farmers can't just do whatever farmers think they would like to do with the farm support rubs salt into open wounds, as if farmers to date have been somehow reckless with public money. Let's be clear: subsidies were originally put in place to ensure we have affordable food and a sustainable food sector, and this applies today more than ever before. Without farm support, we would see farmers driven out of the industry and increased costs having to be passed on to the consumer. The consultation document in its title says, 'Keeping farmers farming'. I guarantee it will not. It will do the opposite. It will push many small family farms out of the industry. It would drive down food production. It would weaken our economy. It would threaten local supply chains and food security, and the impact on our Welsh culture, our language would be profound. We would see the very fabric of Welsh rural life being dismantled.

The Government should be under no illusion that thousands of farmers will opt out if basic actions like the 10 per cent tree cover or the 10 per cent habitat, the ridiculous pond and scrapes actions, and asking farmers to learn how to look after their stock, just to name a couple, aren’t completely revisited. I'm afraid this Government's romantic, utopian, The Darling Buds of May vision of what farming should look like in Wales is unrealistic. I fear there have been too many people too close to this who wouldn't know one end of a cow from another, and it's time to listen to those who do.

I welcome the Minister now saying things within the scheme will have to change. Minister, you already know exactly what you're going to give on, so why not lance that boil here and now and let farmers know, show you're listening. You have a perfect opportunity today to put minds at rest. Farmers don’t want to be up in arms. They just want to farm. It's just sheer desperation that is driving them to act. For most, the hurdles of the basic actions are just too great. The anxiety and pressures farmers are feeling right now is huge, they are fearful of what the future holds for their families and businesses. The proposals raise more questions than answers. For instance, will there be compensation for the devaluation of prime land that may have to be planted with trees? Would we need planning permission to construct a scrape or permits to move the spoil which we would dig out from them? There are hundreds of questions that need answers, no more than clarity about payment levels. And I would encourage the Government, if they haven't already, to consider how the England sustainable farming incentive scheme is working, with a menu of costed actions, a pick and mix of options that farmers can look at. Many ask, 'Why should our farmers and their farms be used as tools to drive the Government's green agenda?' Why should our farmers pay the price when most countries get behind their farmers, recognising how important food is? [Interruption.] I'm nearly finished. Come on then.

I was going to say we've got a climate emergency and a biodiversity emergency. We have to have a dialogue and we have to change.

So why are we using farmers and farms just to be the tools to reach that agenda?

Everybody has to change.

No, no, no. We've already heard—we've already heard—most countries get behind their farmers to create sustainable food. That should be your first action—feeding your nation. Feeding your nation. We've already heard of the devastating stats. Your own impact assessment suggests jobs losses, huge reductions in livestock, number of massive hits to farming companies. [Interruption.] Lee, you've got it all wrong as well. The proposed sustainable farming scheme is simply not fit for purpose and has to be reworked for the sake of our rural economy, our food security and Welsh culture. I hope today allows us all to turn an important corner in finding a truly sustainable future for Welsh farming.

First of all, let me thank the farmers in my own constituency for the work that they do producing good, nutritious food in ways that are good for animal welfare, with open grazing on grass pasture and good for wildlife and biodiversity, and for our ecosystem services, like flood alleviation, protection of soil and water quality. The majority of my farmers on the uplands and commons of the east Glamorgan hills, and those straying down into lowland pastures, are mainly small-to-medium scale, mixed arable, livestock and sheep farms, with hedgerows and tree cover and plenty of grass and responsible approaches to slurry management and so on. Some of the produce is indeed exported at premium prices, but their efforts actually sustain the historic sheep sales in Blackmill in our patch, the abbatoir, Maddock's, in Maesteg—over 130 years old itself, predating most of the development of the town—and our local butchers. These farms have family members who work in the local community as teachers, cafe owners and public servants and more, because these farms have never returned huge profits; this is way-of-life farming for active farmers and farming families deeply embedded in their communities.

But I would argue that across Wales and across all sectors, in all parts of Wales, in this new approach to sustainable farming, we need to lift up and support the good—and there is good practice out there—and also remove the bad practice, which I've seen, which can damage our soil, damage our rivers, worsen carbon emissions, and harm wildlife and biodiversity. We have to be honest about this. So, when we talk about sustainable farming, it needs to be sustainable in all meanings of that word: sustainable food production businesses and sustainable environmentally too. They are not mutually exclusive.

Let me pick out some of the bones from the current concerns, noting that, as the Minister has repeatedly said ad nauseam, this is a meaningful conversation at the tail end of seven years of engagement, and I really do urge all farmers and the farming unions to treat this as such, and in good faith, and put forward your suggestions and amendments to the proposed scheme, but let those concerns be based on an accurate reading of the proposals and not on supposition or misinformation, because there's a lot of that about, and it is fuelling the concerns.

Now, much of the focus has been on woodland. I've spent hours with farmers, some of whom know they will have no problem with this, others have genuine concerns. The average Welsh farm currently has around 6 per cent to 7 per cent already—there's a wide variety of farms, but 6 per cent to 7 per cent already. The requirement in the consultation is for holdings in their entirety to have 10 per cent and to receive payment for all that wooded area, yet I've heard it said—and we've heard it said again today—that, actually, we need to take out 10 per cent of productive land, or even up to 20 per cent. That is not my reading of what the current proposals are, but put your concerns in, valid concerns, but read the detail.

You mentioned there the importance of small and medium-sized farms, the family farm in Wales, and the fact that we've seen intensification. If farmers don't buy into this scheme, if they opt out, what we'll see is greater intensification because they'll want to make up the losses. So, you have to have a scheme that they buy into. Currently, the farmers aren't buying into it. So, do you agree that we need to see a change in order for farmers to actually buy into a scheme that would work for them?

Yes. I absolutely agree that we need farmers to buy into this. We need to bring farmers with us on this and engage with farmers. And I have to say, the Minister has been strenuous in trying to say that's exactly what this is: this is a genuine, meaningful consultation. And I repeat that again because I've been out, probably like the Member opposite, on the farms, spending hours with my farmers going through it. When you get to the detail, some of the concerns are valid and some of them are not. So, that's the scale of what we need to do. Sorry, Dirprwy Lywydd.

There are those also, by the way, who deny the reality of climate change, of course, and some of those, regrettably, are prominent within the 'no farmers, no food' movement. We can't ignore this. There are those also who deny the nature crisis we face. Now, my comments are not addressed to those who are in total denial of our collective challenges, but rather to those farmers and farm leaders who do recognise that agriculture needs to play its part, along with other sectors, in tackling across Wales those emissions and environmental challenges. So, I welcome farmers' input into how we do this.

I take, Dirprwy Lywydd, Welsh farmers and farmers' unions at their word, repeated over many years and many conversations, that they want a sustainable future for farming, where farmers can farm, produce good food to good standards—

You now need to conclude, please, Huw. I've given you the extra time.

—and for decent reward. My apologies. Can I simply say: let us use this consultation to reflect on concerns, but let us not argue that the status quo is sustainable? It is not. We need to move forward together.

Do you know, walking in this morning and seeing the crowds starting to assemble and the police presence, I thought of one individual, actually, the late Brynle Williams, a late Member here, a farmer himself, who warned us over 20 years ago about food security. I think he was talking about it on a global basis. Little did he know then that we'd be having this debate now, and it's the Welsh Government that actually are now threatening that very same food security. And a man who actually brought the country to a standstill, and today we're seeing our Welsh farmers bringing Cardiff Bay to a standstill, and everyone on these benches supports every single farmer, their family, their children who attended here today. The messages on the tractors were clear: 'You cannot eat trees', 'No farmers, no food' and 'Enough is enough'. The data on the impact of the Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru sustainable farming scheme is clear: livestock down by 122,200, jobs down 5,500, rural economy down £199 million, but still you are not listening. The promise of a review at this point is not enough. Even in this debate today, in response to our call for the 10 per cent tree requirement and the whole farming scheme to be scrapped, you have simply responded with the very lazy approach of 'delete all'.

I'll briefly highlight why your plans are so wrong. The universal actions that Jane Dodds has mentioned completely fail to acknowledge that the delivery of environmental and social outcomes are dependent on ensuring farm businesses are economically sustainable. There is no universal action that directly recognises the importance of food production. Universal action 2 will result in an increased bureaucratic burden, because farmers will have to complete a minimum of six courses and pass a minimum of six tests annually. And that's insulting to our farmers. Universal action 7 results in micromanagement of farms by the Welsh Government, to the point that you are stipulating requirements, such as the sward height, percentage of tall grasses, soil, and when livestock has to be removed from land. Universal action 8 essentially asks farmers to create temporary habitat and improve land through abandoning areas to nature. Universal action 8 also sets farm productivity to dwindle because of your wish to micromanage the seeds in mixed leys. Where do you get all this from? I've no idea. Universal action 10 will see farmers destroying areas of good-quality agricultural land to create scrapes and ponds. The same UA10 again, representing micromanagement to the point that you are stating:

'Excavate for a maximum water depth in the winter of 500mm (50cm) in the centre, with an average depth of 250mm (25cm).'

Universal action 13 will see the loss of good-quality agricultural land to 10 per cent tree cover. See, I've been engaged in this process since the first consultation, 'Brexit and our land', in 2018. Six years on and yet it is staggering that you still are pushing a policy that does not acknowledge the importance of agricultural productivity. You are taking advantage of your major failure to ensure that the Welsh Government's net-zero 2050 target does not take into account emissions of goods imported from abroad. You're not taking the carbon footprint of any of that into account. In an effort to achieve net zero by 2050, you are offsetting productivity to other nations. It is clearly irresponsible—[Interruption.] Do you want to say—? Do you want to get up and ask me a question? Come on, let's have it. Let's have it.

Janet, continue your contribution, please.

Thank you. That is clearly irresponsible, when considering that a study from Bangor University found Welsh sheep and beef farm methods have among the lowest greenhouse gas emissions of comparable systems globally. I would actually like to add: some of your emissions are not the best emissions, Lee Waters. [Laughter.] You should be backing food production in Wales. I ask you, Minister, and I ask you, Welsh Government: work with our farmers and not against them—

Janet, one second. Members need to ensure that contributions are heard clearly, and Janet is coming to the end of her contribution, because we need to move on.

Thank you. Work with our farmers, not against them, to find a Welsh way forward. And I back those farmers who say you've stirred the dragon, the dragon is now awake. And I tell you now: we will fight every battle with those Welsh farmers until some common sense comes forward from your Government to ensure that our farmers are supported once and for all. Diolch yn fawr.

We are fast approaching our time limit, and I intend to call three more speakers before the Minister. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I want to speak simply this afternoon about what exactly our rural communities mean to us in Wales, to underline the importance of supporting them. And I want to declare an interest as the designated Member urging change to the SFS, and as someone who has members of my family and extended family working in the agricultural sector.

In so many ways—so many ways—agricultural businesses and all of the other businesses that are part of the rural supply chain are the backbone of our rural economy, but agriculture is also at the heart of our rural communities, the warp and weft of those communities in all parts of the nation, and that's why I say time and time again that the Welsh Government has to be a true champion of agriculture and rural areas of Wales.

To look at the economic element first of all, the core ingredients that we produce are at the heart of the food and drink sector, which employs directly and indirectly up to 239,000 people. Agriculture and the supply chain are worth £8 billion, and farmers spend £1.4 billion annually on everything from feed to machines and contractors. This figure is one that we refer to often: for every £1 of public funds invested in agriculture, over £9 are created within the Welsh economy, and the public sees this.

NFU Cymru commissioned research by YouGov at the end of last year that confirmed the very strong level of public support—82 per cent of the over 1,000 people asked said that they supported the Welsh Government providing financial support for farmers to produce food.

So, we can see the broad impact, the broad economic impact, of agriculture and the support for it—the direct jobs, indirect employment in the supply chain. How do you measure the contribution of agriculture and land management to the £2.8 billion tourism industry in Wales? Farming will be a key partner in the delivery of the changes we need in environmental protection and biodiversity, but the cultural and community contribution of the agricultural sector is something else that we downplay at our peril. There's a clear relationship between the Welsh language and the agricultural sector in rural Wales. The proportion of Welsh speakers within the population is around 20 per cent; among agriculture workers, it's around 40 per cent.

The future of agriculture is at the heart of the future of the Welsh language, and not just in terms of the numbers of farmers and their families who speak Welsh, but the influence that they have on rural society more widely. I look at the excellent work of the young farmers clubs in maintaining excitement in the world of the Welsh language. To borrow a quote from the campaign that we've seen today: no farmers, no young farmers, and without young farmers, we won't have a future for the sector. But what we have is an SFS that the Government itself foresees would cause a huge amount of damage in terms of jobs and incomes in rural areas.

That's why the Government, at this moment in time, in the face of strong and reasonable calls from rural Wales must demonstrate that they can be the champions needed by the industry. On SFS, it's one thing to listen, but it's time to act.

I do welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate today. And actually, listening to the contributions, there does seem to be a consensus to want to find a way through this, and I do commend the Minister, in fairness. That might sound odd coming from these benches, but I do commend the Minister for working with the farming unions and the farming community over the last seven years in trying to find a way forward.

But, in some respects, the protest out there was a sign of the failure, really, to communicate the opportunities that are available to the Welsh agriculture industry and communities the length and breadth of Wales—rural communities who depend on farmers to be the backbone of those communities. And don’t forget, tonight 800 million people will go to bed hungry across the globe. Eight hundred million people—10 per cent of the world’s population—will go to bed without a meal inside their stomachs. And we’ve also got to remember that the agricultural world has always been a world of change. It has always embraced change. I can remember the MacSharry reforms of the 1990s and then the Fischler reforms of the early 2000s, where the fundamental changes in the common agricultural policy set the tone for the next 20, 30, 40 years, with set aside, and then, obviously, historical payments were brought into use as well then.

And this is an opportunity for the Welsh Government to actually set a direction of travel that actually puts food security and the environment at the heart of what we want to do. I’m no climate change denier. I believe passionately that there is a climate crisis, and we do need to address that climate crisis. But we also need to maintain food security as a co-partner in developing the balance that makes sure that there is a future for farmers and the rural community as a whole. That was the emphasis that came across when speaking to farmers outside there today. They don’t feel that there is that hope. They don’t feel that there is that opportunity in the current scheme to develop a farming industry that can provide the food and the environmental gains that we require. And that’s what we all need to try and put our shoulder to the wheel and develop.

The recent announcement from the First Minister and the rural affairs Minister about that change is welcome, and that dialogue yesterday in the statement that was made opens a chink of light in a door that seemed firmly shut for many people. But when you look at the economic analysis of the proposals that are currently before us, is it any wonder that 2,500, 3,000 farmers turned up there on a wet February afternoon today? Five and a half thousand job losses—direct job losses, not the ancillary job losses—125,000 head of cattle to be lost, 800,000 sheep, 370 million litres of milk quota and a £200 million economic hit to the rural economy: these are massive numbers that would frighten anyone in any sector.

Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I welcome the tone of the leader of the opposition in his words this afternoon? I think it's very important that we do adopt that tone. I very much welcome the way in which James Evans opened the debate this afternoon, because James and I are constituency neighbours. And every so often I'll walk up past Top House along the old Bryn Oer tramway to Chartist Cave and up to the escarpment on Mynydd Llangynidr and look across to the Black Mountains, the Brecon Beacons. I rarely go that far and climb them, but I look at them. And what you see, of course, is an industrial landscape. It's a landscape that's created by man, by agriculture. It's almost as industrial as the landscape behind me, looking south into the Ebbw Fach, the Ebbw Fawr, the Sirhowy valleys that I represent.

And when I talk to the farmers in my constituency, do you know who I talk to? I talk to people who've got one of the toughest jobs in Wales today. I talk to people who are out all hours in all weathers, working hard to deliver the food that we all need. And do you know what? What I see as well isn't simply a job or a vocation, but a community. And I see something that's emblematic of our country. What international visitor has ever been here and then left without being offered Welsh lamb or Welsh beef or a lump of Welsh cheese? What international visitor isn't told about what Wales produces, the food that we produce, the people we are and the communities that we've sought to create in these two western peninsulas of Britain?

And in doing so we talk about the place of agriculture not just in our history but in our culture, in our present and in our future. Because, when we do look at all these landcapes, we look at landscapes that are created and maintained largely by the farming communities of Wales. And in that sense, there is no division here between the farmers I represent and the farmers that James and others represent. And I know that they're all united by hard work. And that is why I think we need to reject the language and the siren voices of division, the people who will seek to create two, three, four Waleses. For me, there's only ever been one Wales. And together we have to solve the problems of the future. And we can do that.

And you know, there are enormous issues facing agriculture today, and I think farmers have been let down. I think they were let down by a Brexit that created enormous barriers to trade with our greatest markets. I saw UK Ministers going to negotiate reductions in CAP budgets—they were supported by Liberal Democrats at the time. But I saw them heading off for breakfast, croissants and coffee, the like-minded group—'How can we reduce farming payments?'—without a thought about the communities that we seek to represent. I've seen how people have been let down. And let me say this—I'll say this absolutely clearly—so long as I've got breath left in my body, this Government will never, ever, ever do to rural Wales what Thatcher's Government did to the mining valleys of south Wales. We will not do that. We will not let down the people who have sent us here and the people we seek to represent. We will always look to create one Wales and not division across Wales.

I call on the Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I’m pleased to be able to respond to the motion tabled by the Welsh Conservatives. The Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023 was unanimously passed by this Senedd. The Act reflects our shared commitment to securing a sustainable future for Welsh farming, as producers of food, as an integral part of our communities, countryside and culture. I do not believe that the Welsh Conservatives’ approach is right for Wales.

Where the Conservatives are in power in England, there is no duty on Ministers to act to conserve the fabric of rural communities in the way that they deliver farm support. There is no commitment to publish all analysis that informs the choices that they make. Indeed, requests to publish their evidence have been refused. There is no consultation on the support schemes that they may, or may not, make available. They have signed trade deals that expose our farmers to unfair competition, and have even speculated recklessly as to whether Britain needs farmers at all. The Conservative Party are wrong on all counts.

In Wales, Ministers are duty bound to sustain rural communities, to publish our evidence for proper scrutiny, and to consult before new policies are launched. We believe that openness and collaboration—not always easy—deliver better outcomes in the end for the people of Wales. So, I am pleased to have the opportunity again to address the misunderstanding of the economic modelling that was referred to in the Conservatives’ motion.

The reduction in economic activity described in the analysis is not a prediction of the effect of the current proposals. Rather, it highlights financial pressures that the current proposals seek to address. This early analysis has been published because it provides the context for the important question of how best to financially reward the social value delivered by farming in Wales.

We agree that the analysis shows the need to enhance the social value payments for farmers in the way that Rhun ap Iorwerth referred to. The question is how best to do this in a way that is fair to farmers and fair to the public whose investment the scheme will rely upon.

What the analysis shows is not the economic pressures that would arise as a result of implementation of the scheme. In the real world, if the scheme is not financially beneficial to farmers, they would simply choose not to join it. To see what this looks like in real life, one only has to look over the border to England. They had no consultation on their schemes. They have not been fully transparent with their analysis. As a result, they have failed to encourage farmers to join the random selection of half-baked schemes that they have launched.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course.

Thank you. The debate today, and the frustration outside, is about the sustainable farming scheme, TB and NVZs. That's what the debate is about today. You are trying to shift responsibility away from your responsibilities here. Surely, stick to what is the responsibility of this Parliament here and the decisions that you've made with regard to Welsh farming.

The UK Government has indicated that it intends to prioritise tax cuts and will cut unprotected budget areas, including farm funding, in order to deliver them. That is what the Conservatives offer to farmers: empty promises in public, while privately pursuing economic policies that fail to recognise the value of farming in this country. I don't see them fighting every battle—to repeat Janet Finch-Saunders's empty words.

The Welsh Government is committed to developing a sustainable farming scheme that is attractive for all farmers to join—

Minister?

—with payment to reward farmers for the social value they realise, as part of rural communities, in addition to the income they earn selling produce in the market. Of course. Sorry.

I welcomed the reference in the statement yesterday to ensuring the economic resilience of farms and also avoiding the new scheme making farms unviable. Is the Minister prepared, today, to commit to the principle that revised proposals, when they're brought forward and when you model them, will have, at their heart, a commitment that there will be no reduction in farm business income, compared to the existing scheme globally?

One of the things we need to look at—. I appreciate that it's been very frustrating for farmers not to have modelling done around the payments that they will receive for the sustainable farming scheme, and that's the point, Russell George, that I'm trying to make about the cuts in the budget, to which I refer. One of the things—and we've worked with Plaid Cymru around this—around the stability payments was to make sure that, as they approach the sustainable farming scheme, they will have that stability payment. We will have to look—. At the moment, we don't know what our budget is for next year. It's incredibly difficult to make promises when you don't know what your budget is.

The Conservatives' motion calls for the removal of woodland creation from the sustainable farming scheme, and I would like to provide some assurance around our proposals and explain why I believe that removing woodland creation from farm support would be the wrong choice for Wales. A significant expansion in woodland creation is an inherent component of the legally binding carbon reduction targets, which this Senedd—again unanimously—passed into law. Furthermore, an expansion of woodlands is needed to adapt to the impacts of climate change, to mitigate the impacts of flooding, fires and drought.

There have been concerns raised that pursuing large-scale land use change in Wales may lead to rapid progress in the short term that cannot be sustained or is even self-defeating. This Welsh Government shares those concerns and that is exactly why we are proposing that we focus our woodland creation efforts on paying farmers to integrate woodlands within productive farms. For many farmers, this is nothing new, and they've been keen to emphasise to me the need to have means of enabling farmers to go beyond the minimum requirements on day 1 in exchange for higher payments. For others, they are concerned that a rigid interpretation of the requirements would make it difficult for them to join a scheme at all. So, as part of the consultation, we've set out some of the ways in which this is not a rigid requirement, which excludes food production and can take into account the real constraints that exist on some farms. And following the consultation, we will undoubtedly make further improvements.

If woodland creation were an artificial barrier to scheme entry, then the public would lose out on all the other benefits that the sustainable farming scheme secures in exchange for their investment. We've published extensive evidence around woodland creation opportunities in Wales, as part of our environmental modelling, and there are excellent examples of agroforestry and diversification into silviculture by farmers right across Wales. I do not want to take this opportunity away from our farmers, I want to work with them to understand how we can best make it accessible in ways that can enhance the resilience of their farm businesses, and many Welsh farmers are already showing how this can be done and we will refine our policy in response to the consultation—[Interruption.] I can't take anymore, sorry. I'm out of time.

No. The Minister is already out of time and I've given her additional time.

So that all farms are able to successfully enhance the woodlands on their farms.

I would like to reiterate my calls for all those with an interest in the future of farming to take part in the consultation. In saying that, I want to refer to Peter Fox's comments that I already know what I will change in the consultation. That is deeply prejudicial and cynical. I do not. And I reiterate that all voices will be heard and every response will be considered before decisions are made. We will proceed with launching a new system of farm support only when we are confident that it is ready, when final analysis has been completed and published, and when budgets and payment rates are confirmed.

So, in conclusion, it is very apparent to our Welsh farmers that if the Welsh Conservatives really value farming in Wales, then they should join today with this Welsh Labour Government in calling on the Conservative UK Government to commit and publish the budgets for farm support, so that we can provide Welsh farmers with the certainty they deserve. Diolch.

I call on Sam Kurtz to reply to the debate.

After 60 or so minutes of what I thought was a constructive debate, even highlighted by a Labour backbencher, I think the Minister's response there certainly missed the tone of this afternoon. A pre-prepared speech with a couple of annotations relating to some points made on these benches I don't think goes any way to satisfy the fears, the anger, the frustration and concerns of Wales's farmers. I am deeply disappointed that that is what farmers will have taken away from this debate from the Government's benches today.

But why are we here? Why have we got so far down the line when there is so much co-operation and conciliatory agreement in what we need a future farm support to look like, and why has it taken 3,500 to 4,000 farmers on the steps of the Senedd to get a statement out of the Government on this policy? Farmers feel that they haven't been listened to. Farmers feel like they've contributed time and time again to consultation after consultation, yet nothing changes. Farmers feel like they're taken for mugs when Welsh Government comes forward with proposals, not just on the sustainable farming scheme, but on TB eradication and on NVZs, when the evidence from the sector is dismissed in favour of that from offices elsewhere.

It's so disappointing to try and be able to put over the frustrations that I felt from the farmers outside there today. I know a few Members made it onto the gangway between there and here. I would have wished that they'd gone out and spoken to those farmers. They were the most peaceful, most polite, most respectful farmers that we've met, who only wanted to make their concerns known for themselves, and not just themselves, but for their children and the next generation of farmers in Wales.

Alun Davies pointed it out: farming is not just about the farmer, it's the culture, it's the community. It is a lifeline, it is the lifeblood of our rural communities. If you take that out, if you rip out that backbone from rural Wales, Wales no longer exists as a country. This would no longer be a Government for all of Wales. I'm pleased to see that both prospective First Ministers are in their places here, because, both of you, whomever is successful, will be inheriting a really broken relationship between rural Wales and this Welsh Government at the moment. You have one heck of a job on your hands in rebuilding that relationship after what's happened over these last couple of years.

One thing that I would like to point out in terms of all of these points here is acknowledgement, acknowledgement of what farmers are already doing, everything that we've talked about here in terms of sustainable food production and the sustainability of our rural communities. There is no acknowledgement of what they are already doing, because a freedom of information request shows that Welsh Government don't hold the data on how much carbon is already sequestered in Welsh agricultural land. How can we implement a new scheme if we don't have the baseline data to see our improvements from? That, for me, is a dereliction of duty, of bringing forward a scheme that works for Wales, works for Wales's farmers, works for our rural communities and makes our sector better.

If you'll take an intervention, do you agree with me and share the disappointment that we've heard the Minister talking about forestry and trees, and, of course, that is of concern to farmers, we know that, but there's been no reference in the Minister's response to the 17 universal actions, and those, as much as the tree planting, are a huge problem for farmers, and they won't be able to respond positively? Those 17 will undermine the way farmers work in Wales at the moment. Do you share that disappointment?

Yes, of course. I share Mabon's disappointment, and what disappoints me also—

What disappoints me also is the fact that the Minister referred to our motion by saying we want to get rid of woodland creation. Well, I've reread the motion again. It says we want to get rid of the 10 per cent target on woodland creation. Farmers truly believe there is a place for trees on their farms, in the right place, for the right reason. They're not against it, just in the way that they're not against change. So, I was disappointed by that remark from the Minister, misleading on what our motion stands for today.

You mentioned those universal actions, those 17 universal actions. I was in Narberth with the NFU Cymru roadshow, and I commend once again the work of the unions, the tireless work of both farming unions in advocating for an industry—not just their membership, but the whole industry. I was at that meeting in Narberth as they categorically and surgically went through each and every one of those 17 universal actions, and the only way I could describe the mood of the farmers was one of shell-shock, one of, 'How on earth have we got to this point where these 17 universal actions are as close to what the final policy could potentially be?'

My call to this Senedd this evening is not to say, 'This is where we are, therefore we shall let the consultation continue and changes will be made.' I truly believe now that the sustainable farming scheme, those three letters, are so tainted in the eyes of farmers that no scheme can go forward if it's called the sustainable farming scheme. I genuinely believe that the SFS can no longer exist whatever and regardless of the changes that are made to it. It must be a new scheme brought forward, it must be a scheme brought forward in genuine co-design, because the co-design here shows evidence of farmers not being listened to once again, especially around tree cover. It must be genuine co-design; it must be genuinely taking forward the advice and scientific evidence on carbon sequestration, on productivity, the use of technology, science and research.

Another reason I'm disappointed with this Government is that they chose not to take forward the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill, an opportunity to improve productivity and sustainability. They said 'no'. That's an example of this Government's treatment of rural Wales—a Government that's willing to force the Royal Welsh Show to potentially change its date, another death by a thousand cuts for rural Wales, which has had to put up with all this—

Will you take an intervention?

I'll happily take an intervention from Alun.

Do you think it helps the debate to use rhetoric of that sort?

I appreciate the intervention, and I appreciate the angle from which you're coming. But when the First Minister has said the statements that he said and widened the gulf between the Welsh Government and farmers, I think farmers are frustrated. I see myself first and foremost as a farmer's son and a politician second, so I am sharing the frustrations of my friends, my family and those that I consider peers in agriculture.

So you don't see yourself as a leader.

I see myself as a leader, of course. I see myself as—

Don't engage in crossbench discussion, please.

I appreciate that, Deputy Llywydd. What I want to end on is the fact that there is a better way. The agricultural community and the sector sees a better way. They live a better way; they want to change and embrace. Everything that you mentioned, Jenny Rathbone, farmers wish that and more, but you have to work with them, not against them. Things must be done from the bottom up, not top down, and I genuinely think Wales has such a good opportunity as a small and nimble nation to come forward with an agricultural policy that is fit for Wales's farmers, that is fit for rural Wales, and is fit for all of Wales. I urge everybody to vote with the Welsh Conservative motion this evening.

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

Item 7 is the Plaid Cymru debate on bovine TB. I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move the Plaid Cymru motion on bovine TB.

Bovine TB, as we all know, has cast a long and dark shadow over the agricultural industry and rural communities for many years now, threatening livelihoods, threatening the viability of family farms, and a yoke on the mental health of individuals and whole families. That feeling of fear in counting down the days until the TB test, and that feeling of horror as you await the results, of course plays on one's mind, and then the hopelessness when you do hear bad news. I have friends, I have family, I have neighbours who have lived and are living through that very hell, that hell that leads to sleepless nights, to hopelessness and very often to losing one's mind.

As we heard from that family from Capel Isaf on that heartbreaking edition of Ffermio on S4C a few weeks ago, 'All we're doing now', according to Wyn, 'is rearing cattle in order for them to be culled on the farm'. How tragic is that? And that was just one family—one family among hundreds of families who are living through that very same hell from week to week and from month to month. What pain. What heartbreak. And what salt on the wound when the Government refuses to implement all possible options to tackle this destructive disease.

There's no doubt, is there, that the anger and frustration within the industry at the repeated failure of successive Governments to implement a comprehensive TB eradication strategy in Wales is as great now as it has ever been. I've sat in this Chamber for 13 years, and every year I've listened to different Ministers present their annual statement on bovine TB. Over the years, yes, there have been slight variances—up, sometimes, and down at other times, and that's the cyclical nature, isn't it, of these things. But, fundamentally, of course, nothing has changed. Under the current policy, Wales is going around and around in circles. And I bet you that this year's annual statement, to all intents and purposes, could be the very same statement that was given 10 years ago.

After a decade of testing in Wales, we haven't gained much ground, have we, when it comes to controlling the disease. In quarter 3 of 2013, the reactor rate per 1,000 cows tested was 3.2 cows. Ten years later, in quarter 3 last year, the reactor rate was 5 cows per 1,000 tested. It's getting worse. Currently, 16 per cent of all dairy herds across Wales are locked down because of TB—16 per cent of our dairy herds. We heard on the steps from a vet earlier this afternoon outside the Senedd that in the high-risk west area, where he lives and works, there was a 26 per cent rise in the number of herds closed down with TB against the previous year's figures. So, the disease isn't going away, and the nightmare continues.

Ten years ago, some 6,300 reactors per year were killed in Wales, and in the last 12 months, nearly 10,000 cows were slaughtered. And the Government tells us that things are getting better, that things are improving. Well, that doesn't sound like progress to me. The recent findings from the NFU's bovine TB in Wales survey paints a distressing picture, revealing widespread dissatisfaction amongst farmers at the Government's approach to TB eradication. The survey's stark revelation is that 70 per cent of farmers think that the Government's strategy is very poor. And that reveals a deep-rooted sense, doesn't it, of disillusionment and frustration within the farming community.

From a financial perspective, going down with TB can be devastating. Costs increase, of course, don't they? Because of movement restrictions, you need extra feed, extra bedding, maybe additional housing, you could incur higher labour costs to cope with those additional animals. There's significant extra paperwork. More cattle on the holding, of course, puts pressure on farm infrastructure—slurry storage capacity is a big issue, compounded now, of course, by the NVZ requirements. The loss of cattle, then, as a result of TB, reduces production, it therefore reduces income. There's the loss of milk yield on dairy farms, or a reduction in the number of calves born on beef units. And I could go on. All told, the estimated average annual cost per affected farm is over £25,000. That can vary from £10,000 up to over £50,000, but the average is a £25,000 annual cost per affected farm.

I have selected the amendment to the motion and I call on the Minister to formally move amendment 1.

Formally.

Can I thank Plaid Cymru for tabling this motion and confirm that the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting the Plaid Cymru motion unamended here today?

TB is one of those diseases that we've heard about in this Chamber, we've talked about diligently and in depth, but until you're a farmer who's gone through their own TB story, it's incredibly hard to try and portray what that actually means. What does that mean when you're a dairy farmer milking cows twice, three times a day, knowing those cows each by number, each by name, knowing which comes into the parlour first, which cow has its own temperament and personality, and seeing TB rip through that herd, decimate what you hold dear? There's no feeling quite like that, I don't think.

We heard on the steps of the Senedd earlier today Stuart Williams, a constituent of Paul Davies, a farmer who lost his Ayrshires—pedigree Ayrshires, show Ayrshires. I had the pleasure of helping him show those very cows at the Royal Welsh Show one year. Decimated by TB. He himself was open about the mental health struggle that was to come for him following that. The alarm in the morning, going out to a parlour that was empty, sheds that were quiet. Because TB had decimated not only the farm, but his livelihood. Farming was what he held dear, and farming those Ayrshires that he and his father had spent time breeding.

How do we allow ourselves to get into a situation where farmers are crying out for mental health support because of a disease that we need to get a grip on? How do we allow ourselves to have a blind spot when it comes to welfare because we don't quite like the way of eradicating it, potentially? And I agree with Llyr, this isn't a silver bullet when we talk about the eradication of TB in the wildlife, but what it does is minimises and takes away any other opportunity for that disease to be prevalent in herds and in the wildlife. What we need is a holistic approach. You need to be able to say with certainty, 'We've been able to work to get rid of the residual disease in our herds and we've been able to reduce and remove that in the wildlife that's around the farm'.

That's not, I don't think, a controversial thing. I think the use in the Labour manifesto of the word 'forbid' when it comes to this is quite controversial, because it goes to show that this isn't a scientific decision, it's a political decision. There's no political will to get to grips with something so difficult, mainly because, perhaps, being unkind, it might not affect Labour Members' constituencies as much as it affects rural constituencies. That's me being unkind. Hopefully, this is an opportunity to open the door and explore the opportunities and the science that follows so TB eradication can come true here in Wales.

I want to focus on two specific aspects this afternoon, namely the policy of on-farm slaughter of cattle and the impact of bovine TB on farmers' mental health, but before doing so, I want to echo one fundamental issue raised by Llyr in his opening speech. Scientific evidence demonstrates that wildlife—badgers in particular—can spread this disease, and despite this the Government has chosen to ignore that truth, focusing their efforts instead on cattle alone. This is like going into battle with one arm tied behind your back.

But to turn to the major focus of my speech today, I'd like to refer specifically, as Llyr has done already, to the experience of the Castell Hywel farming family in Capel Isaac near Llandeilo. We've spoken about them before in the Chamber, and a number of us will have seen that appalling programme on the Ffermio programme a few weeks ago. The farm has been under TB restrictions since 2020, and since then they've lost more than 180 cattle. But what the programme saw was the fact that 27 cattle had to be slaughtered on the farm, in front of the house where the farmer and his young family lives. There's no doubt that that item will have contributed to the deep-seated strength of feeling that we saw on the Senedd steps this afternoon.

As it happens, Llywydd, I had a conversation with Wyn and Enid two days ago, to see how they are feeling by now. It wasn't an easy conversation to have. Wyn is still feeling the effects of what happened. As he said, 'What I saw that day plays on my mind every hour of every day.' It's clear that the experience has left its mark on him and his family. But do you know what? On top of everything else, he received a letter from the Government following a postmortem of the cattle, which stated that the majority of the cattle were inconclusive in terms of TB, which raises serious questions about the accuracy of the tests being undertaken. And I'm sorry, Minister, but nobody else should suffer what the Davies family has been through.

The costs related to TB tests, the restrictions on cattle movement and the losses as a result of stock reductions all have an impact on farm businesses. But as the Davies family demonstrates, the cost isn't just an economic one, it's a psychological cost and an emotional cost. The loss of cattle due to TB can lead to feelings of guilt and mourning and a loss of hope, and on-farm slaughter is heartbreaking for farmers to witness, who have to be there, as Sam said, to see the animals that they have nurtured from being calves to milking cows, being killed before their own eyes, including those that are in calf.

The mental health impact of our approach to managing TB is a deeply concerning aspect of the broader crisis currently facing farmers. A farm is never just a business—farming is a way of life, and the threat of losing everything they have worked so hard to build can take a heavy toll on farmers' mental health. As we've already heard, data from mental health groups, like the DPJ Foundation, working in rural areas show a 70 per cent increase in the use of their services over the past year, with a 27 per cent increase in the past month alone.

I'm concluding by saying this, Minister. We have words in policies and regulations that have implications on people's livelihoods and well-being, but what is unwritten is the unintended consequences of these policies. TB being one classic example. What we don't see explicitly are words like 'depression', 'trauma', 'despondency', 'heartbreak' and, yes, even 'suicide'. We owe it to the farming community to put that right the devastating wrongs of current policy, using every measure at our disposal. A failure to do so will be on the conscience of every one of us in this Chamber.

We were nearly bovine TB free with changes in the 1960s introducing testing and restricted cattle movement. It was foot and mouth that put a stop to testing measures and allowed the restocking of infected cattle. A 10-year study supported by Westminster proved badger culling wouldn't help farmers or cattle, and still they went ahead. In 2022 94.7 per cent of Welsh cattle herds were free from bovine TB, and 95.6 per cent of English cattle herds, and this is with Wales using a stricter testing regime, having more mandatory controls and not culling badgers. If badgers were truly responsible for bovine TB spread, Wales would see a far higher incidence rate than England. Wales's 'badger found dead' project collects dead badgers from road-traffic accidents, looking for a sign of illegal interference or trap-related injuries, while testing for bovine TB. This project in 2020 resulted in 681 badgers being suitable to be tested. Only 50 produced a TB culture. This equates to an average of 7 per cent of badgers having TB in the whole of Wales, and only 0.7 per cent in the low TB areas. However, this doesn't even mean that test-positive badgers were infectious or could carry the disease on to cattle. I look forward to the next report from that project.

This legal, Westminster Government-endorsed culling of badgers has also incentivised the illegal killing of badgers. For example, one licensed badger cull contractor illegally killed 28 badgers outside of the cull period and stored the bodies in a freezer in order to claim the payment when the cull period reopened. England has spent more than £70 million a year just to cull badgers that could have been put into pushing forward for the vaccine for cattle, which would protect badgers and farmers, or directly into supporting changes on farms. Britain has one of the most nature-depleted landscapes in the world. According to the biodiversity intactness survey, Britain ranks last of the G7 and is in the bottom 10 per cent globally for biodiversity. And we as the Welsh Parliament have a motion to support killing it further.

Over and over, we seem to just want to kill other critical Welsh wildlife instead of focusing on what actually works to remove bovine TB. I welcome that there will be a technical advisory group on bovine TB, which is being brought forward by the Minister. Thank you.

I'm so pleased that we have an opportunity to discuss this issue today. We've heard and seen, both inside and outside the Senedd today, all the frustrations that are being felt within the agricultural industry and in rural Wales at the moment. And as we've discussed, there are a number of things driving that frustration, one thing on top of another. And, certainly, the Welsh Government's failure to tackle issues that have detrimentally impacted agriculture for many years include the failure to address bovine TB.

Having a coherent policy that gets to grips with TB has been something that Plaid Cymru has long called for, and it's something that we call for again today. But despite our repeated calls, TB continues to be an issue that devastates farms and farming businesses and farming families week after week after week, month after month, and the farming sector can only conclude that, somehow, Welsh Government just doesn't understand the scale and impact of what we're dealing with here.

If you haven't seen that Ffermio programme, by the way, that's been referred to by two of my colleagues already, go on BBC iPlayer and search on Ffermio; it's the programme that was broadcast on 22 January. It really is harrowing, the story of Wyn and Enid—it's the story of a family on their farm in Llandeilo—and it is heartbreaking to watch them being heartbroken at the loss of their herd, and the frustration comes through so, so clearly. Welsh Government provided a statement for the programme: 'Working in partnership with farmers is vital in getting to grips with TB', said that statement. But I can tell Welsh Government today that farmers across Wales don't feel as if Welsh Government is working with them on this. In fact, if anything, they feel as if Welsh Government policies are working against them and causing unnecessary delay in addressing and getting to grips with the suffering that is being caused. That's why Plaid Cymru has brought forward this motion today calling on Welsh Government to firstly look immediately at making changes to on-farm slaughter policy. The story of Wyn and Enid, a story seen in so many communities throughout Wales, surely makes the case for that in as compelling a way as we have seen, but also we're calling for the establishment of policies that do reflect wildlife as a source of infection and which allow for proper and scientifically validated culling and control methods.

Now, I acknowledge that the Minister took some positive steps, some small steps, in her statement yesterday. The pace of moving in the right direction is slow, and there continues to be a lack of meaningful action, and we do have the ability to put an answer in place, a response in place here in Wales.

And a quick word here, actually, on people in relation to the debate around agriculture currently who want to hijack somehow that debate as a proxy to attack our devolved institution, our Parliament and devolution itself: we can't allow that to happen. I know, and I'm pleased that we have the support of the Conservatives today, but the Conservative rural forum manifesto talking of handing powers over biodiversity and TB back to Westminster—it really, really doesn't help, apart from the fact, I'm not sure if you've seen the polls recently, you're handing those powers back to Sir Keir Starmer. But, seriously, it does not help, and I was so pleased to hear Samuel Kurtz talking about how, in relation to SFS, he believes that we are a nation that is nimble enough and has the drive to put the right answers in place, and the same is true, I believe, around TB.

Once again, I thank you, Plaid Cymru, for bringing this debate forward. I've heard some pretty heartbreaking stories from farmers within my own constituency. For the second time today, though, we have a pro-farming motion to which the Welsh Government has simply decided to respond by stating 'delete all'.

The Welsh Labour amendment claims that Welsh Government is evidence based. That's how you go about your daily business—you're evidence based. Yet we have long proven that this is not the case with the bTB testing chart. It is scandalous that Welsh Labour force farms into restrictions in Wales that would be free in England and Scotland. Members, remember that Scotland is TB-free and that England has seen a decrease of 15 per cent, whilst Wales has increased by 2 per cent. So, that defies your debate there, Carolyn. Ask yourselves: why, Minister, are you still yet to provide us with any concrete evidence or science to support your decision to use a more severe chart that leads to some spurious culling of cows, only to find, on postmortem, that those cows were not infected? I'd suspect you have none, because, if you had, and I was a Government Minister, and opposition Members were asking us, 'Provide me with the science, provide me with the evidence'—. Yet you haven't done so.

For example, the Birch review, an analysis by the Animal and Plant Health Agency, suggests that bTB in herds can be reduced by 56 per cent in areas where there has been four years of culling badgers. The independent Godfray review of 2018 recommended wildlife control as an important part of TB eradication. And just in case you've got any doubt, I actually love badgers, but I don't like the impact that they have in terms of the disease spreading and then the impact it has on our farmers and, indeed, our livestock. How do you value one life over another? I just don't get it. Phil Latham, a Cheshire dairy farmer, a former member of the UK Government's bovine TB partnership, recently wrote in the Farmers Guardian, and I quote:

'Until badger culling in Cheshire started, nothing shifted the upward trajectory of the county's bTB. There can be no doubt that farmer-led culling...has been a monumental success.'

This is supported by data that shows a 70 per cent reduction in skin test reactors in 2022, compared to 2010 to 2013, where the disease in wildlife has been tackled. But Welsh Labour politicians ignore this reality. Do you not realise the horrific death a badger with TB suffers? What astounds me the most is that you're more than willing to allow the mass culling of livestock, almost 10,000 annually, but not a single badger. And I would ask: wouldn't it be kinder to cull than to allow them to die a slow, agonising death with TB?

RSPB Cymru has highlighted that millions have been invested in such a strategy in England, but what needs to be realised here is that the cost of bTB to farmers in Wales over the last 12 months has been more than £50,000 for many individual holdings. And, as both Plaid Cymru and people on our benches have pointed out, there's a bigger cost when it comes to mental health. The case for a major change in your failing TB policy is clear. According to your own latest statistics across Wales, incidence has increased compared to the same time last year. Herd prevalence has increased compared to the same time last year. The number of animals slaughtered has increased compared to the previous year. As NFU Cymru have summarised, this means more new TB breakdowns, more herds living under TB restrictions, more cattle slaughtered because of the disease compared to the same time last year. Fail, fail, fail. If you won't act on the stats, then listen to the farmers of Wales.

You are going to have to bring your loving of wild animals to an end now.

Okay. This Welsh Government's anti-farmer mantra has to stop, and it must stop today. I am voting for change today, so in support of the original motion. I'll be clear: the commitment to look at the current on-farm slaughter policy is a step in the right direction, but even greater change needs to be delivered urgently. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'd first like to start also by thanking Plaid Cymru for tabling this motion today. We wholeheartedly will be backing it as the Welsh Conservatives. Farmers have been let down for years over a solution to bovine TB, with sticking-plaster solutions when what has been needed is bold, brave action. Today's debate is a crucial one. Our farmers are the guardians of our environment and the backbone of our food security in Wales, as we've heard throughout this afternoon, and bovine TB is a huge worry for our farmers, as are NVZs and the SFS proposals: emotive enough, of course, to see record numbers protesting outside our Senedd today.

In many ways, the sustainable farming scheme proposals are the straw that broke the camel's back. It is one punishing directive too far for them. I remember passionately standing here in this Senedd, the then Welsh Assembly, for farmers back in 2003, 21 years ago, and, quite frankly, I find it painful the lack of progress that's been made and the lack of support in place for our farmers. This morning, before I came here, I was up early meeting with one of our farmers in Monmouthshire, Russell Morgan, one of the biggest dairy farmers in our area. And he described to me the effects that the current TB rules are having on his dairy farm, and we talked about the farms and farming families that we both know through our families that have been destroyed by the lack of real action from this Government on bovine TB.

It is hard for our border families, of course, to see a more common-sense approach and bolder approach across the border when it comes to SFS, or their sustainable farming incentive, or TB. Now, of course, with 16 per cent of dairy farms locked down, and with all this Welsh Government is doing to our agricultural industry, that farmer said to me that he's considering selling up his farm and moving to England. 'It's just easier, Laura', he said. Now, this, I'm sure you'll agree, is extremely disheartening to hear. It's not something that any of us, I'm sure, want to hear. These issues we're debating today are close to my own heart, as I've said, as a farmer's daughter myself, and I'm appalled and embarrassed by Wales's approach to these issues, compared to England.

A revealing NFU Cymru survey recently has shown the true extent to which bovine TB is impacting our Welsh farmers and damaging their business. The poll of over 500 cattle farmers across Wales details the high level of anguish, despair and economic loss of those that experience losses due to bovine TB, as well as the concerns of those who have not had TB on their farm but fear it might happen, or those waiting for the inevitability of it coming round again. NFU Cymru said that the findings of the survey highlighted a lack of confidence amongst Welsh farmers in this Welsh Government's approach to TB eradication in Wales, and it's not surprising considering—. And this Government should be, quite frankly, ashamed of itself over its record to date. Eighty five per cent said bovine TB had negatively impacted their own mental health, or of someone in their family. I got very emotional trying to write down my thoughts for this debate, actually, knowing some of the lives that are, quite genuinely, destroyed.

I've just found the report I was referring to, and it says—it's a 2020 report, and it says:

'In its response to the Godfray TB review today, the Government has finally come up with a long term exit strategy from badger culling based on cattle-based control measures and TB vaccination in both badgers and cattle.'

It's moving away from culling. That's a report by UK Government.

Thank you for your intervention.

In Wales we have implemented more stringent controls on cattle movements over the years, yet the stats in some areas of Wales are worsening. They are worsening. If we don't control and eradicate our wildlife reservoir then nothing, nothing that we do to cattle, will lessen the effect of TB. A survey last year found that 63 per cent of farmers blamed wildlife for TB transmission. Farmers I speak to urge the Welsh Government to reconsider and consider the targeted removal of infected wildlife, as currently, for farmers, despite their efforts, it feels there’s no light at the end of the bovine TB tunnel, and this needs to change. We need an effective eradication policy that brings an end to the suffering that bovine TB causes to cattle, wildlife and farming families.

In England they’re getting a grip of this. It’s not perfect, as has been said, but they’re getting a grip of it—the stats speak for themselves—whilst Welsh farmers still experience heavy, devastating losses year on year. It’s not the full answer, I know, but I call on this Labour Government to finally put science over ideology and do what’s right for our farmers, as outlined in point c of the Plaid motion today.

I just hope that this Government wakes up and smells the coffee before it’s too late for our farmers and rural communities. What you’re doing to control bovine TB isn’t working. Wales needs real, holistic action on TB, and action right now. Let’s work together and finally get a grip of this.

The Minister now to respond to the debate so far.

Diolch, Llywydd, and I'm pleased to respond to the motion tabled by Plaid Cymru on this very important issue. I'd like to begin by saying my thoughts are with all of those farmers, their families and staff who are suffering the devastating impact of bovine TB on their farm. It isn't just the harrowing experience of losing so many livestock to the disease, but also the constant fear it will recur, as Members have demonstrated. Controlling the disease so fewer farms suffer these impacts requires action that is itself difficult and stressful for farmers, and it requires constant, careful balancing to ensure strict policies that bear down strongly on the disease are not so restrictive that farmers cannot run their business.

I welcome the contributions from Members today, and I do know that there is a genuinely shared interest across the Senedd in supporting our farmers to drive out this cruel disease from the Welsh herd. We all recognise the mental health pressures that farmers face, and the Government amendment sets out the excellent sources of support available in Wales, which we would encourage all farmers to access.

I note the findings, too, of the NFU's TB survey, and I'm fully committed to continue engagement with our farming unions and others. I've said many times that we will only succeed in eradicating TB through working collectively, with Government, farmers, vets and our rural communities each playing its part. Our approach to tackling bovine TB has to respond to both the changing patterns of the disease we're seeing and the lived experience of the sector, who suffer most directly from its impact. In that regard, the Government is always willing to consider new evidence, to listen to people's ideas, and to look at different approaches.

Last November, I updated the Senedd with regard to the five-year delivery plan published in March 2023. This sets out our approach to TB eradication, building on the toolbox of measures already in place to achieve a TB-free Wales by 2041. In the statement, I explained the priority I placed on partnership working with a range of industry bodies, including our farming unions, and drawing on world-class expertise, including the centre of excellence for bovine TB at Aberystwyth University.

Last year, I announced plans to create a standing technical advisory group to make it quicker and easier for us to access the necessary scientific advice to inform our policy. And the group—.

I think I just heard you say 'last year' when you mentioned the technical advisory group. I think the statement came out in 2022—am I correct?

I thought it was March 2023, but I'll be happy to check that.

The group will play a crucial role in the first milestone view of our 2023 TB eradication plan later this year, for example. As Members are aware, yesterday, offers of appointment to the bovine TB technical advisory group were sent out, and I think I said to Sam Kurtz in my questions that I'd be very happy to update Members on the membership once people have responded to me.

In response to feedback from farmers and the farming unions, I've set the first priority for this group to review the on-farm slaughter policy. It is important, where cattle cannot be removed, that slaughter is carried out promptly in order to minimise the risk of disease spreading to other farms. However, I do want to continue to engage with the sector if there are ways in which this can be made less traumatic for the farmer, the farmer's family and the farmer's staff involved.

The Pembrokeshire TB project—and I thank Sam Kurtz particularly, for his help with this project—has now been successfully established and the work is well under way. This is an excellent example of a collaborative, industry-led initiative exploring new ways for vets and farmers to make informed decisions on disease prevention by security and control at herd level, complementing existing statutory measures.

We've met with industry representatives through the GB calf strategy group and introduced changes to help keepers under TB restrictions to better manage young cattle out of their herds, including moves to approved outlets and a general licence that will reduce the administrative burden. Officials have also begun a wide-ranging review of Cymorth TB, driven from the ground up, identifying an improved model for delivering support that can make a difference.

Whilst the picture of bovine TB in Wales is ever changing, I would like to emphasise that the important long-term trends do show fewer affected herds and new herd incidents across Wales as a whole. But we do need to remain focused on driving out the disease from every farm in Wales. And there has been some regional variation that does require our vigilance. However, new incidents have decreased by 14 per cent in the 12 months to September 2023, when compared with the same period five years ago, and the number of animals slaughtered for TB control has also decreased by almost 3 per cent. We are seeing promising trends in the high TB areas where the number of new incidents has decreased by almost 10 per cent, when compared with the same period five years ago. Proactive targeting of hotspot areas and partnership working are making a difference.

During this year, we will analyse our six-yearly milestone eradication targets and assess the progress made, and a report will then be considered by both the technical advisory group and the programme board. I am aware of calls for our strategy to adopt the approach of mass culling of wildlife where it is suspected they are contributing to the spread of TB. My party is clear: we are committed to eradicating TB in Wales, but we do not agree that mass culling of native wildlife is an effective or proportionate response. We know there is still much more to be done in improving biosecurity and addressing the predominant source of infection, which remains overwhelmingly from cattle to cattle.

Mabon ap Gwynfor now to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and thank you to everyone who's contributed to this debate this evening, which, generally speaking, has been constructive and positive.

The truth is that TB is having a painful, long-term impact on individuals, families and communities, never mind the livestock. As we've heard, average losses of over £25,000 per farm as a result of TB are the norm. Who can sustain such losses, particularly during a cost-of-living crisis, with input costs having shot up and agricultural inflation higher than any other sector? In many cases, more than one generation have invested in developing specialist herds and pedigree herds, having given a lifetime to their breeding, and investing heart, soul and capital in their development, only to see the whole lot destroyed before their very eyes.

We heard Llyr, at the outset, describing that feeling of horror that farmers experience in preparing for those tests. Sam described that relationship between the farmer and the herd, and talked about Stuart Williams from Pembrokeshire, who spoke outside the Senedd here this afternoon. I, myself, have seen and experienced it in Pennal, as TB reached south Meirionnydd. So, that horrific experience is a very real experience that people go through. Think of the appalling impact on the mental health of these people and their families. Let’s not forget the vets who also have to go through that heartache and suffer huge mental health issues themselves. At this point, I think that we need to recognise and thank the DPJ Foundation, Tir Dewi, the Royal Agricultural Benevolent Institution and the Samaritans for all of the work that they do in the sector in supporting our agricultural communities.

We need to see changes in the on-farm cattle slaughter policy, and that’s without doubt. Llyr, at the outset, mentioned that there’s been hardly any change over a period of a decade. Laura Anne Jones said that she had spoken here 21 years ago and said something very similar this year. So, there has been no change in the sector.

Of course, the statement from the Minister yesterday was welcome, and it says a great deal, doesn’t it, that it takes a heart-rending tv programme with the Davies family from Castell Hywel in Capel Isaac on Ffermio on S4C some weeks ago, and a debate in this Chamber and a major rally before the Senedd, that it took all of that to get such a statement from the Government. But, that statement is to be welcomed. It is also a recognition by Government that what has happened is insufficient, and therefore support for this motion is necessary because we haven’t seen that work commence as of yet. So, on that basis, I do hope that we will see Members of the Government and the Labour benches supporting our motion.

But, in case Members in attendance don’t know farming life well, imagine that the shadow of TB is placing significant pressures on farms. If a cow failed a test, then she would have to remain on the farm until cleared, and this is a significant additional cost for the farmer. It will mean that there are more cattle on farm than were expected and so you need more feed, more care for those herds, never mind the inability to sell the stock that they have in order to bring income into the farm, exactly as Llyr explained at the beginning of the debate.

This is a brief snapshot, but I do hope that it gives those Members who aren’t familiar with the farmyard in relation to what farmers have to go through. Therefore, we have to develop a new policy in order to tackle TB—a policy based on scientific evidence. Rhun called on the Government to work with the sector in order to find a new resolution to this, and asked the Government to look at the science. It was good to hear the Minister committing to working with the sector. That is a positive development. Warm words are fine, but we must also see action, not warm words alone.

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

And that brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time.

The first vote this afternoon is on item 6, the Welsh Conservatives' debate on the sustainable farming scheme. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendment tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. There is a tied vote, therefore, as required by Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote against the motion. In favour 26, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is again tied, so, as is required by Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote to vote against the amendment. Therefore, in favour 26, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

As the Senedd has not agreed the motion without amendment and has not agreed the amendment tabled to the motion, the motion is therefore not agreed.

The next vote is on item 7, the Plaid Cymru debate. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendment tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. Once again, the vote is tied. Therefore, as required by Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote to vote against the motion. Therefore, the result is: in favour 26, no abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths. Open the vote. Close the vote. The vote is tied, therefore, as required by Standing Order 6.20, I exercise my casting vote to vote against the amendment. In favour 26, no abstentions, and 27 against. Amendment 1 is not agreed.

Once again, as the Senedd has not agreed the motion without amendment and has not agreed the amendment tabled to the motion, the motion is therefore not agreed. That brings voting time to an end for today.

We still have business, so those leaving the Chamber, please do so quietly.

I now call on Mark Isherwood to talk on the subject of his short debate.

Diolch. I've agreed to give one minute to Mike Hedges to speak after my opening contribution in this short debate.

Nearly 10,000 people are diagnosed with leukaemia in the UK every year, or 27 people every day. Leukaemia has a significantly higher rate of emergency diagnosis, accident and emergency and otherwise, compared with the overall cancer average: 37 per cent to 21 per cent respectively. Being diagnosed via an emergency setting has been linked to reduced survival. Sadly, there are nearly 5,000 deaths attributed to leukaemia every year in the UK, with 250 deaths in Wales every year. The most recent Public Health Wales observatory data showed that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was the health board with the highest leukaemia mortality in Wales, with leukaemia being attributable to 311 deaths in the five years between 2017 and 2021.

The challenge with the early diagnosis of leukaemia is multifaceted, but it can be attributed, in part, to the non-specific symptoms of leukaemia, including persistent fatigue, unexplained bruising, which can also be indicative of more common and less sinister illnesses. This makes leukaemia hard to spot for both members of the public and healthcare professionals. A full blood count is all that is needed to diagnose leukaemia early or to rule it out. This is significantly cheaper than many other diagnostic tests and could also detect many other conditions earlier, helping to save lives.

That is why the blood cancer charity Leukaemia Care has launched its Spot Leukaemia campaign, in collaboration with leukaemia research charity Leukaemia UK, which aims to increase awareness of the signs and symptoms of leukaemia among the public and healthcare professionals, and to help reduce the number of people receiving an emergency diagnosis, which could help improve patient outcomes.

The campaign highlights a number of ways to address the challenge of leukaemia diagnosis. Leukaemia Care and Leukaemia UK conducted a large patient survey to understand more about patient experience of obtaining the full blood count. They also spoke with their GP advisers. The campaign was first launched in 2017, with the objective being to raise awareness of the symptoms of leukaemia, and not only of raising awareness of the signs and symptoms, but also seeking to change the public perception of leukaemia and who it affects.

For example, although the public perception is that leukaemia is a childhood disease, 64 per cent of people who are diagnosed with leukaemia are aged over 65. Leukaemia Care’s recent YouGov poll found that while 88 per cent of the UK public knew leukaemia was a type of cancer, not everyone could identify the symptoms, with 31 per cent not being able to name a single symptom. Furthermore, when asked if they would visit their GP if they had any of the symptoms, 28 per cent said they would not because they would not want to put additional pressure on the NHS.

More awareness of leukaemia is greatly needed, with 30 per cent of the UK public still thinking leukaemia only affects those who are aged under 15, and only 4 per cent of the public identifying that leukaemia is more prominent in those who are 65 to 74 years of age.

Leukaemia can be hard to spot, because the signs and symptoms are common to other, unrelated illnesses. Knowing what to look out for could help people make the decision to visit their GP sooner. The six most common symptoms experienced by all leukaemia patients prior to diagnosis are fatigue, shortness of breath, fever or night sweats, bruising or bleeding, bone and joint pain and repeated infections.

In addition to symptom awareness, Leukaemia Care has a number of issues they want to highlight to the Welsh Government, including GP capacity pressures. According to the NICE referral guidelines, everyone presenting with the symptoms of leukaemia should receive an urgent 48-hour full blood count to diagnose leukaemia early or to rule it out. However, Leukaemia Care and Leukaemia UK’s survey found that only one third of patients reported that they received a blood test straightaway after seeing a GP about their symptoms, i.e. following one appointment only. In addition, almost a quarter, 23.5 per cent, of acute leukaemia respondents said it took up to three to four months after first presenting to the GP to get a blood test.

Can I thank Mark Isherwood for giving me a minute in this debate? I support the Spot Leukaemia campaign. We know with cancer that early diagnosis saves lives. Currently, patients with leukaemia have a significantly higher rate of emergency diagnosis than other forms of cancer. The highest emergency presentation rates for any cancer type occur in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia at 66 per cent of patients, a huge difference compared with the overall cancer emergency presentation of 21 per cent. So, two thirds of people with leukaemia only get diagnosed in an emergency.

Many people aren't aware of the signs and symptoms of leukaemia until they or someone they know is diagnosed. This leads to a delay in visiting a GP, which can delay a diagnosis, worsening the outcome for patients. Quite often, due to the non-specific nature of the symptoms and relative rarity of leukaemia, people are misdiagnosed by their GP or attend several times before they get a diagnosis. I am passionate about raising awareness of the signs and symptoms of leukaemia and informing people that leukaemia is more prominent in those who are aged 65 to 74 years of age. It is not a childhood illness.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Mental Health and Well-being to reply to the debate. Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and can I thank Mark Isherwood for bringing forward this short debate on leukaemia, a relatively rare type of cancer that affects blood stem cells, given around 300 people in Wales are diagnosed with the condition a year? And can I thank Mike Hedges for his contribution too? It is important that we have time to discuss how we are addressing specific cancers like leukaemia as part of our overall approach, given the degree of public focus we tend to see on solid cancers such as lung and breast. I know that many of our cancer charities that specialise in these types of cancer are concerned that they are overlooked, and I would like to offer my assurance that this is not the case. We are committed to improving outcomes for all cancers.

Our broader approach is set out in the quality statement for cancer, and this includes blood cancers. It seeks to bring clinicians together in Wales for each main type of cancer to work together on how to improve services. We do this through the NHS executive's cancer network group for haematological cancers. This has been looking at what more can be done to give people the right support within the resources available to health boards. The expert clinicians in this group are developing nationally agreed optimal pathways for blood cancer, and are also active participants in blood cancer research and work at the UK level to help prioritise and design studies in this area. We recognise that the needs of people with blood cancer and the services that are there for people can be quite different to other cancers. In particular, we see that blood cancers like leukaemia can disproportionately affect younger people and require specialist teams, and the management of things like fertility and future developmental needs.

Many people with a chronic form of leukaemia can be on an active monitoring pathway, because the abnormal cells grow so slowly that people won't need any active treatment for many years. This can take its toll on people psychologically. Also, standard treatments for other cancers, like radiotherapy and surgery, play less of a role in leukaemia care, where targeted drug therapies, chemotherapies and stem cell therapies are the mainstays of treatment. We have also seen the emergence of new, advanced immunotherapies such as CAR T-cell therapy, for some patients who do not respond to regular treatment or who relapse following treatment. This makes the role of the medicine appraisal bodies, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, or the all-Wales medicines strategy group, very important in guiding access to effective treatments.

Importantly, we have mandated in Wales that technology appraisals are implemented within 60 days, to help ensure rapid and equitable access to new drug treatments. However, as Mark has highlighted, we know this is a hard condition to spot in the first place. The chronic forms of the disease may display no symptoms for many years, given how slowly the abnormal cells grow. Often, people will be diagnosed as part of their treatment and investigations for other conditions, whereas the more aggressive, acute forms of the condition result in symptoms coming on rapidly, and people are often diagnosed in emergency departments.

It is important we help to raise the profile of these conditions and their symptoms, and I hope that this debate will contribute to that. As with many cancers, it can be hard to spot some of the common symptoms, such as persistent fatigue, recurring infections and unexplained bruising—and indeed, in most instances, they won't have a serious cause. But we do need to talk about it more so that people know what's normal for them, and when something changes they feel confident to seek advice from their GP.

Thank you, Deputy Minister. That brings today's proceedings to a close.