Plenary

Item 2 is next—questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care. The first question is from Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr. The Welsh Government has long held the view that health professionals should try and work at the top of their licence, allowing others who are appropriately qualified to intervene where appropriate. Until recently, a regulatory issue prevented qualified dental therapists, hygienists and clinical dental technicians from opening and closing NHS courses of dental treatment. This issue has now been resolved, enabling those dental professionals to play a full role in providing NHS care, which will make a difference to the diversity of the dental workforce.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that. Llywydd, if we think of general practice these days, more and more we refer to the wider clinical team, those other people with clinical skills who can be part of an effort to provide primary care in communities—practice nurses, physiotherapists and so on. Why has the dental field been so slow to adopt the same approach? Well, it's partly, as the Cabinet Secretary has said, because of regulatory inhibitions; I congratulate her on having put that right. But it also needs to be supplemented by an effort to train more people who can carry out the more routine end of dentistry.

It's certainly not the case that dentists in Wales operate at the top of their clinical licence; far too often, they carry out routine treatments that simply don't need the skills of a fully trained dentist. So, my question for the Cabinet Secretary is: what more can the Welsh Government do to make sure that there is a sufficient supply of other members of that clinical team being trained? How can we use that to grapple with the fact that, too often, the dental profession has a monopoly of supply and uses that to restrict the supply of NHS dentistry in order to promote the chances of more lucrative private practice?

Diolch yn fawr. I know that the former First Minister led the way, when he was the health Minister, in terms of making sure that we use the whole team around primary care, certainly in terms of general medical services, and I'm grateful to you for that. But, you're absolutely right, we haven't seen that pattern develop in quite the same way in relation to dentistry, and that is something that we are determined to address. There was an issue, as I suggested in my answer, where there was a technical issue stopping dental therapists, for example, from opening and closing those NHS courses of treatment. That's now been changed, so there is at least an opportunity now for that door to be opened.

So, the issue then is: where are these dental therapists? Who are they? How do we train them? This was one of the things that I focused on very early in my tenure, because I recognised that, if we fundamentally want to look at the model, then you can't do that without actually providing the numbers. If you're inverting the triangle, you need to make sure that you've got enough people in training. So, certainly, it was an instruction I gave to Health Education and Improvement Wales a couple of years ago, and, certainly, I can assure you that we have doubled the number of dental therapists in training since 2023. So, things are getting better, but we've got a long way to go.

I'm also really pleased that, the first graduates to qualify from Bangor University's dental hygiene programme, they're also coming on stream. I guess the next challenge for us is to make sure—obviously, we need to increase those numbers, but also to make sure that once they're trained they don't go off to the private sector. That is something that we need to find an answer to as well.

I have to say that I have great respect for the former First Minister, but I just find it ironic that he's now asking his previous health Minister a question on an area of policy where Welsh Labour has miserably failed, during your tenure.

Now, the people's priorities are for this Welsh Labour Government to provide more dentists in Wales. However, what the previous Welsh Government has overseen is rapid decline in NHS dental services—60 per cent, in fact, decrease in the provision, because of your new contracts. They've done nothing to tackle the reality in Aberconwy that we now have a three-tier system: people who can access private treatment, people who can access NHS treatment and people who are left unable to access either. It's an absolute disgrace, hence my comment about the irony. You've only been out of post, First Minister, a few weeks, and you're asking a question that, really, you should know the answer to. Will the Cabinet Secretary commission a piece of work to model what would be required for you, as the Welsh Government, to deliver full NHS services to all people living in Wales? Diolch yn fawr.

We've made no secret that the challenges around dentistry are real, and we have made efforts, through changing the contract, to address some of those issues, in particular for those people who haven't been able to access NHS dentistry for a long time. And I'm pleased to say that, by today, around 300,000 new NHS patients have been able to access those NHS services. You're quite right, though; I have actually commissioned a piece of work to look at what does this look like over the long term—a 10-year plan—because you can't switch dentists on overnight, you can't even turn dental therapists on overnight, but also you've got to take account of things like the fact that, actually, the population is changing. The population in west Wales, for example, is likely to be slightly older and perhaps need a different kind of dental response from those in other parts of the country. So, all of those things are things that we know need to be addressed. Our current challenge, of course, is one of finance. So, we know what needs to be done, but we are, obviously, financially constrained by the fact that, actually, your UK Government has crashed the economy and given us a poor deal when it comes to money for health.

We deploy a range of strategies to support people in Wales to live healthy lives. Not smoking, being physically active where possible and being a healthy weight are all positive steps we can take to prevent avoidable diseases, such as type 2 diabetes.

I thank the Minister for that response. Lifestyle and health are closely related, and the choices made about diet, activity, sleep and smoking can affect health and well-being. A healthy lifestyle can reduce the risk of many diseases, improve quality of life and promote recovery. Improvement in lifestyle is necessary for many people, with obesity being a major cause of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, some types of cancer, such as breast cancer and bowel cancer, and strokes. So, with its early preventative approach, social prescribing can help ease the burden on front-line specialist services. What progress is being made on increasing social prescribing, so that we get people fit and well, rather than visiting doctors, visiting accident and emergency departments, due to being seriously ill?

Thank you very much. Well, I do think we need to be really careful. We perhaps sometimes overmedicalise some of issues that come through our GP surgeries, and that's why I do think that there's a real opportunity when it comes to social prescribing. This, of course, is not something new; it's something that's been going on throughout Wales, but in pockets. And one of the issues that certainly the former well-being Minister was keen to address, and I know that the new mental health Minister is keen to look at as well, is the issue of making sure that, when people are referred in relation to social prescribing, there is a quality around that, so that GPs can—. These, very often, are vulnerable people; you need to have some assurances around it. So, I think there are real opportunities when it comes to social prescribing. That framework now has been consulted upon, so we are charging ahead in relation to the opportunities around social prescribing. But you're quite right, particularly in relation to how do you change people's lifestyles. It's very difficult, it's very personal. What is it that motivates people? And I do hope that people will take up the opportunities, not just through social prescribing, but also through looking at the support that we have that can be effectively tailored to the individual. So, Healthy Weight Healthy You, for example, people can go onto that website and get fairly tailored support that will help them, for example, in their efforts to lose weight.

With the issue of preventative health being raised, I would like to take the opportunity to raise the issue of bowel cancer prevention in Wales. Bowel cancer is the fourth most common cancer and the second-biggest cancer killer in Wales. There has been good progress on testing for Lynch syndrome in Wales, which is a condition associated with genetic predisposition to bowel cancer, but approximately 30 per cent of bowel cancer cases in the UK are linked to a fibre-deficient diet, 11 per cent linked to obesity, and 7 per cent linked to tobacco. A combination of these behaviours will significantly increase your chances of developing the disease. So, could the Cabinet Secretary outline what action the Welsh Government is taking to raise awareness of the behavioural risk factors associated with bowel cancer? Thank you.

Thanks very much. Well, one of the things I'm very proud of is the fact that we've now reduced the age at which screening takes place in relation to bowel cancer, and that is already making a difference. And people are quite keen to get involved in that. Some of the problem though, if you look at the disparities and outcomes when it comes to people who have cancer—any kind of cancer—is the difference between the poorer areas and the richer areas, and we have to do more to get some of our poorer areas to engage in this. So, targeted action to make sure that people in those poorer areas are returning that screening is absolutely crucial. I think that that certainly has got to be a part of what we do, but you're quite right: we've got to get, before that, into the prevention space, and certainly I hope that, with the Healthy Weight Healthy You kind of support that we can put in place, people will recognise what they need to do to maintain a healthy lifestyle.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservatives' spokesperson, Sam Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, this is my first opportunity to question you in my new role as shadow health spokesperson and I'm certainly looking forward to our exchanges in this Chamber. I'm looking forward to working constructively with you on areas and on issues where I can, but also looking to hold you to account, and the Welsh Government to account, on areas that need improving.

One such area that I want to start on here today is around accident and emergency. Only yesterday, Cardiff and Vale University Health Board issued an urgent warning regarding the emergency unit at University Hospital Wales—the largest hospital in Wales—and that was on the same day, yesterday, that, in this place, we had four hours allocated for us to debate putting 36 more politicians in this Chamber at the cost of tens of millions of pounds. So, do you think you have the right priorities?

Well, thanks very much. First of all, can I welcome Sam to your new role as Conservative spokesperson? And before we get into a discussion, I just want to pay tribute also to Russell George, with whom I worked over a number of years. I just want to pay tribute to him on the way you carried out that role, Russell, and thank you for the kind of relationship that we were able to—. You held me to account; you kept me on my toes, but we were able to make sure that we did continue a dialogue. I know that my task is challenging, but I have a small army to support me, and I don't underestimate the kind of work that opposition spokespersons, including Plaid Cymru, have to do without the kind of support that I can rely on. So, thank you also for taking on what is a difficult task.

Just in relation to accident and emergency, I think probably one of the things to point out is that performance in major emergency departments, of course, is challenged at the moment. We have real issues in relation to delayed transfers of care—that is always part of the reason why there are hold-ups—but it's probably worth also noting that performance in emergency departments was better in Wales than in England in eight out of the last 12 months against the four-hour target.

Thank you for your response, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you also for acknowledging some of the challenges that do exist in our accident and emergency rooms at the moment. But this goes back to having the right priorities and having a Government that is focused on dealing with the areas of concern that the people of Wales have.

And one such person wrote to me just last week, a member of the public, who, sadly, has terminal cancer, who wanted to express his experiences at a north Wales hospital, where they attended A&E with a letter from his GP to secure a bed on a ward to counter an ailment, but the hospital refused this and put him in the A&E waiting room, where they waited for 11 hours. By midnight, they were told they were better to go home. So, they came back in the next day and had a very similar experience, with people waiting more than 12 hours. Sadly, this isn't a one-off occasion, and there are far too many people having these experiences in our A&E waiting rooms. So, I wonder, for the sake of our doctors and nurses, who are having to work through this, and certainly for the patients, who are having to experience these conditions, could you outline what plan you have to tackle these excessive A&E waits?

Thanks very much. We've actually got a whole strategy around this. It's called the six goals programme. It's a very comprehensive programme, and it's made a huge difference already. So, I know it may not feel like that, but if you think about things like the 111 system, which meant that 90,000 people were diverted from potentially going to A&E in just one month, in February, that gives you a kind of idea of new initiatives that have been introduced. We also have urgent primary care centres that have been introduced; we have same-day emergency care centres that have also been introduced.

And of course, if you're talking about priorities, I've made it very clear that one of my key priorities is to get the waiting lists down. I spend a huge amount of work really trying to delve into the detail of where the problems are. I've spoken to Betsi just this morning about some of the really difficult issues that they're confronting in particular areas. Of course, part of the problem is these delayed transfers of care. We work very closely with local government to see if we can work together on that, because it is a joint responsibility. But there are too many people in our hospitals who are ready for discharge but who can't be discharged, and that's a challenge for us, but it's also a challenge for local government. And certainly, working hand in hand with councils is absolutely critical, and that's what we do, certainly through the winter months, on a fortnightly basis.

I thank you, Cabinet Secretary, again for outlining the challenges there are at the backdoor of the hospital, as it were, in terms of those discharges. I'm certainly willing to work with you to see what approaches can be put together to see that improve. Because we all want to see a better A&E system here in Wales and those waiting lists and waiting times reduced.

But you referred to your plan, and there clearly has to be robust monitoring and oversight of the plan and the implementation of that plan. Our leader of the Conservatives here, Andrew R.T. Davies, recently submitted a question to you, asking what are the three leading causes of accident and emergency attendance in Wales this calendar year. Certainly, knowing those causes allows you to understand the robustness of the plan that you described having in place. But your answer, sadly, Cabinet Secretary, was that you do not hold this information. So, I just wonder if you can be confident in the robustness of your plan to deal with A&E waits when you don't hold what I see as pretty basic information about what are the leading causes of people attending accident and emergency waiting rooms.

Well, of course, I would expect the health boards themselves to be holding that information. But what we do have now is the NHS Wales Executive, which is really honing in on some of that detail. And the six goals programme that I referred to is an example of where there is a national approach, where there's an expectation of delivery on the local level. We've put £25 million into that, and it is making a significant difference.

So, obviously, one of the things that we've been involved with also is trying to roll out things like Professor Shepherd's programme of identifying violent behaviour, for example—where that's happening, how do we work with police and other authorities to identify where the problems are coming into emergency departments. It's not all violence; some of it is elderly people falling and tripping. It was very interesting last week to attend a conference that looks at the fracture liaison service. What do we do to intervene to stop people before they break a leg or they break a bone? There's a huge amount of evidence-based work that is going into that. We've put £1 million into that, to try and avoid people from going into hospital. So, it's all trying to push things into the prevention space, which is quite difficult when you've got the heat of the moment in ED really upon you, and those waiting lists.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Sioned Williams.

Thank you, Llywydd. Welcome to your new role, Minister. I'd like to raise with you the great concern that exists about the number of day centres closing across Wales. These centres have been more than just buildings for so many people who need support in the community. They have been at the heart of people's lives, offering a vital community contact point, offering activities, company, and a chance to laugh, and helping to ease the pressure on unpaid carers. Age Cymru has found that a number of local authorities have not reopened centres since the pandemic, even though the delays in accessing social care services has meant that the centres are needed more than ever. Restrictions on local authority budgets mean that they are cutting day services, with at least one local authority in Wales suggesting it will close all centres, and another saying that it will almost halve the budget for providing carers with respite.

As a result of this, do you agree that we need more of a focus, and not less of a focus, on early intervention and preventative work and support in the community, of which day services are a central part? And what data are being collected by the Government to ensure that those who need support in the community do receive it, in view of the closure of day centres?

Well, can I thank Sioned Williams for that question? And I very much look forward to working with you in your portfolio. I think I'm covering some aspects of it with Mabon as well, so I look forward very much to working with Mabon, because, I think, across my portfolio there are issues that are of common concern to all of us, and I hope we can work collaboratively together, not just with Plaid Cymru, but also with the Conservatives. We have many programme for government commitments and co-operation agreement commitments across the portfolio, particularly in relation to improved outcomes for children, which I know is a particular interest of yours, so I'm very much looking forward to that.

But the points that you make are obviously very important. The operation of day centres, of course, is a matter for local authorities, and we know, absolutely, that local authorities' finances have been under tremendous pressure, despite the fact that we have tried to prioritise their funding, along with funding for the NHS, within the budget constraints that we have. All of local authorities' budgets, as you know, are within the rates support grant, so they're not ring-fenced for any particular service. So, it is a matter for the local authority themselves—they're unhypothecated—whether they choose to prioritise social care and so on.

But I can be very clear that both the Cabinet Secretary for health and I have an absolute priority around the issue of delayed transfers of care, and I think that ties in very much with your question. You will have seen, for instance, over the weekend, last week, in the area that I represent—the Cwm Taf health area—Cwm Taf health board made it very clear to Rhondda Cynon Taf local authority that there were some 300 people in hospitals in the Cwm Taf area—that's the equivalent of a single general hospital—occupying beds who shouldn't have been there. And we know that that is an issue that has been going on for far too long. I met with the Welsh Local Government Association well-being and social care leads just last week, and talked about the need for us to press forward on this agenda of reducing the waits for people that are no longer required to be in hospital to come out. And day-care centres and social care provision are absolutely key to that.

So, all I can say to you is that I am having those conversations with local authorities. It is very much a priority that both the Cabinet Secretary for health and I have in terms of moving forward on the pathways for care, and we are continuing to have as constructive a dialogue as we can with local authorities about how, within the constraints of their budgets, and the constraints of our budget, we can both meet those joint objectives.

Thank you very much. Yes, the point is that those day centres do play such an important role in that preventative work to prevent people from having to access health and care services in the first place, and ameliorate that pressure. A number of people have asked Age Cymru for support due to the fact that they have not been informed in advance that they would have to pay for social care. They have also cited cases where elderly people have had to pay significantly more than what the legislation allows for. And, in their annual engagement survey, 34 per cent said that they find it difficult or extremely difficult to understand the payment arrangements for care. Given that the payment system has been in place for some time, what work is being done to ensure that the process is clear and fair? And, of course, the Government is currently consulting on amending the regulations and the code of practice that govern what local authorities can charge, and, specifically, on raising the weekly maximum to £120. This is something that the Government promised not to do, of course.

Now that you have this portfolio, do you believe, Cabinet Secretary, that it is fair to ask carers and older people, and disabled people, those who feel the greatest financial and emotional pressure in our society, to pay more for their care, considering that this, in its entirety, is not a huge amount of money for the Government to find?

I thank you for that further question, which I think, again, is very important when we're looking at the whole way in which social care is currently delivered. Again, in co-operation with Plaid Cymru, we are moving towards a national care service in due course. It's a 10-year programme, and it may take us some time to get there. But we have a shared objective around that and in making sure that that provision is available for the very people that you've just been talking about. I would want to be very sure that people do understand very clearly what they have to pay for and what they don't have to pay for. And, if I can find that that is not happening, I would certainly want to have that conversation with officials to make sure that local authorities are producing very, very clear and understandable guidance. I know, from my own experience—

[Inaudible.]

—yes, absolutely, absolutely. I absolutely know, Sioned, from my own experience, when my father was going through the system before he died. And this is somebody like me, who probably does have an idea of how the system works. And I really struggled to try to get to speak to the right people, at the right time, with the right information, being passed from pillar to post, and that is extremely stressful for individuals and their families. So, we do need to make the system more transparent. We need to ensure that absolutely—you're right—that the staff themselves have all the information that they need, and, if that is not happening, I would want to make sure that it is, that it becomes clearer and is a simpler and more unified process for people to navigate.

On the consultation around domiciliary care in particular, that hasn't closed yet; that's going on through until May. This is something very much that local authorities have been asking for. I tend to agree with your analysis that what is being suggested, in terms of the lifting of the cap, is not a huge amount of money, but it is something that local authorities are saying that they need. But there is very robust process within that, which does ensure that people that can't afford to pay more than the current maximum level shouldn't pay. Now, I would want to ensure that, absolutely, that stays, and if that means that we have to review those rules to make sure that nobody falls through the gaps, then I'm absolutely clear that we should do that, because nobody should be denied care because they can't afford it.

Latest figures show six of seven health boards have hit the target to ensure 97 per cent of all waits are less than 104 weeks. The number of pathways waiting for more than two years fell again for the twenty-third month in a row. The average waiting time is now around 21 weeks.

Thank you for your response, Cabinet Secretary. I recently spoke with Together for Short Lives and Tŷ Hafan about the critical support they provide to children with life-changing illnesses, as well as their families. This care is predominantly centred around palliative care and provides invaluable respite and support for families at some of the most difficult moments imaginable. Tŷ Hafan and Together for Short Lives have outlined their need for further funding to cater for a much needed boost in the number of community children nurses, and have previously called for funding to cover 21 per cent of their costs, despite only currently receiving between 5 per cent and 10 per cent from the Welsh Government to cover this critical service. This is understandably impacting the number of patients these organisations are able to reach. At the moment, the figure stands at one in 10 children in Wales who are getting the critical care that they and their families so desperately need and want. So, Cabinet Secretary, as I'm sure you can appreciate, this has a knock-on effect on our NHS, meaning that nine out of 10 of these children are, therefore, going to be put on a waiting list. So, with this in mind, Cabinet Secretary, what plans do you have to improve access to care in the community for critically ill children across Wales, which will in tandem alleviate this pressure on our NHS waiting lists? Thank you.

Thanks very much, Natasha, and you're quite right that it's probably the most difficult area of all and an area that I'm absolutely committed to addressing. That's why, in the past month, I have given an extra £4 million to hospices in Wales. Let's not forget that, in hospices, the vast majority of the work is done in the community. Certainly, on a visit to St David's Hospice with my colleague Jayne Bryant a few months ago, it really came home to me how much of that work is done in the community. We recognised that, whilst many of the experts who work in this field—and you can imagine the kind of expertise you need in that role, and you've got to be a pretty robust person to be able to work in that very, very challenging space—. One of the challenges was that, actually, we'd given a pay rise to those working in the NHS, but we hadn't given a commensurate pay rise to those working in hospices. So, we hope that the £4 million will go some way towards addressing that issue. I met with those hospices a couple of weeks ago, and I know they were very grateful for that additional funding.

The Cabinet Secretary said in an interview with the PA news agency recently,

'What we’ve been trying to do is to concentrate on the longest waiters.'

Should she be concentrating on the longest waiters or, in fact, should she be concentrating on those in greatest need?

Thanks very much. The fact is, we've been—. If you look at the overall numbers who need support, we are talking about hundreds of thousands of people. So, how do you prioritise those? You're absolutely right—we have to look at the most urgent cases. The question for me is, if you balance off and if you look at the experts who say what percentage, more or less, are in the urgent bracket, most health boards are categorising far too many as urgent cases, which means that those people who are waiting longest, sometimes with quite complex cases, are put on 'never' lists, and that is not an acceptable situation, which is why one of the things I've been doing is spending a huge amount of time really chasing down those people who've been on very long waiting lists, unacceptably long, waiting in pain. Of course, urgent cases always go to the front of the queue, but there are too many of them jumping the queue at the expense of those people who've been on the waiting lists for a very, very long time.

Workforce planning is the responsibility of individual health boards, based on the specific needs and requirements of their population. This is done via their integrated medium-term plans, which are submitted to Health Education and Improvement Wales. These plans inform the education and training commissioning plan for Wales.

Thank you very much. As we've heard on a number of occasions in the Chamber this afternoon, there is a shortage of dentists, a shortage of Welsh-speaking dentists, in mid and west Wales and more broadly too. I'm pleased to hear that putting the appropriate training resource in place is crucial to ensure the next generation of dentists. So, I was surprised to hear recently about a young woman from Ceredigion who had been denied a place on a dentistry course in Cardiff, and hadn't even been offered an interview. She was expected to meet the grades to enter the school of dentistry. She is now considering studying outside of Wales. This is not a new story. Back in 2019, a report on dentistry in Wales by the Senedd's health committee highlighted the need for a more effective recruitment system to ensure an increase in the rates of students from Wales studying dentistry—those coming from Wales. So, given the experiences of the constituent to whom I've referred, can I ask what the Government is intending to do in order to tackle that particular recommendation, and how can you ensure that a new generation of dentists for the future comes from Wales and includes Welsh speakers?

Thank you very much. You are quite right—I think there has been a problem in this area. The Welsh Government is funding around 74 places in the Cardiff school of dentistry, but applications and places have increased 23 per cent since 2023. But it is truly disappointing how many students from Wales are given places on the course. The school of dentistry has taken huge steps to improve the situation, and you will have seen a difference in the numbers coming from Wales.

Now, I know that the school of dentistry is giving interviews to all Welsh applicants who meet the academic requirements and the standards of the course, but also those who have participated in enhancing participation courses and a number of other courses. But the fact is that that might be difficult for someone in west Wales, to actually access those courses. So, we have made this clear now—and I did have a recent meeting with the school of dentistry, having had a conversation with the Minister responsible for the Welsh language, because I do think that this is a problem. I am delighted that they have acknowledged that there is a problem here, and they have made a commitment to increase the numbers to around 40 per cent of students on the course over the next three years. Now, if that happens, then that is transformative, and, clearly, we need to keep an eye on that.

I have agreed to attend a course at ysgol Glantaf, where they bring a number of pupils from different schools who are Welsh speakers and are interested in going into medicine and dentistry just to ensure that they understand that there is a pathway for them here. Of course, you'll also be aware that there is an additional grant of £7,000 to encourage people on that course to undertake their training in rural Wales.

Minister, I think the position of accessing NHS dentists was pretty dire 12 months ago, and I’ve heard what you’ve said today in response to other questions, but the position is even more dire today. Just this week, I had a constituent in Welshpool unable to access an NHS dentist. They are four NHS dentists short in Welshpool. In Newtown, the largest town in my constituency, the last full-time NHS dentist moved away over the border to England last week. There is now no full-time dentist in Newtown, the largest town in my constituency, at all. So, the position is pretty dire.

Now, I’ve heard some of the exchanges today in this Chamber, and my concern is you continue to get questions from Senedd Members across all parties here about the position, but what is going to happen? What can be done? Now, I’ve heard your response to Janet Finch-Saunders’s question today, and I welcome the financial grant that’s available in order to persuade people to be recruited, and that rural offer. I welcome that, but, as you said yourself—and I agree with you—you can’t just conjure up new dentists overnight. So, in addition to that, I think there are two other things that need to be done. We need to re-examine the NHS contract, because it’s clearly not working. If it was working, we wouldn’t be in the position that we’re in. We need to stop dentists moving from NHS to private and moving over the border. And we also need an offer to attract experienced dentists to come and place themselves in Wales, particularly rural Wales as well—so, experienced dentists working elsewhere in the UK, and there needs to be a financial incentive for that. But, ultimately, when do you think that my constituents, people living in towns like Newtown and Welshpool, will be able to access an NHS dentist in the town where they live?

Thanks very much. As you know, we've done a huge amount of work to try and already change the contract. It's very interesting that England is looking at changing the model that they've got because they recognise that something has to be done there. So, we do have those 300,000 new NHS appointments that have been delivered. We are actually in the middle of negotiating a new contract with NHS dentists. It's very difficult because, actually, they have a choice—they can go and practise privately, and we simply don't have the money, very often, to compete. They do get lots more security if they work in the NHS, and they get pensions and lots of other benefits, but they have to balance that off against what they can get in the private sector. So, it is very difficult, at a time of tight financial constraints, for us to do that. And, of course, it's much more expensive to get your NHS treatment done in England compared to Wales, although we've had to put up prices recently. And, of course, today they've announced that there's going to be a £9.90 charge for any prescription in England. Of course, that is free for people in Wales, and I’m pleased that that is the case.

We recognise the need to improve healthcare provision throughout Wales, and are working with health boards to achieve this through 'A Healthier Wales', our 10-year plan for health and care.

Diolch yn fawr. Cabinet Secretary, earlier this month Morriston Hospital in Swansea issued yet another black alert due to exceptional demand. It's not the first time Morriston Hospital has had to issue such a notice. In fact, there have been nine separate black alert incidents in the last 12 months at Morriston. A black alert should only be implemented in exceptional circumstances, but the frequency with which we're seeing them now in Morriston suggests that they're anything but exceptional. It's experiencing continually high demand that they are clearly struggling to meet, and we all know why. It's because this Welsh Labour Government is the only one in the UK to cut an NHS budget not once, not twice, but three times in total. So, isn't it clear for all to see that the decision of this Welsh Labour Government to prioritise vanity projects like 20 mph speed limits and more politicians is having a real-world impact on our NHS and on those that rely on it the most?

You're quite right—the demand on the service is quite incredible. One of the things we've seen is a huge increase in the number of referrals to the NHS. In 2019, it was 1 million a year; in 2023, 1.2 million a year. That's a significant increase in the number of people. The number of people tested for cancer in 2019 was 8,000. Today, it's 14,000. That's a 75 per cent increase. So, of course, the pressures on our services are increasing. Some of that is a good thing in the sense that if you check people out, then you're more likely to catch cancer early, and that's a good thing for the patient.

Of course, those challenges in Swansea need to be addressed. Some of that is about delayed transfers of care, so there is a need to work much more closely with local authorities. But I do think that it's a bit self-indulgent to look at the fantasy politics that you're talking about, Tom. The fact is it's your Government that crashed the economy and has left us in a situation where we invest significantly less in health compared to the rest of Europe.

Diolch. The Welsh Government is committed to ensuring that, wherever possible, people with learning disabilities are cared for at home rather than in a hospital. It is for health boards and local authorities to determine how people are best cared for based on their individual clinical and care needs.

Thank you and welcome, Minister.

I met last year with representatives of the Stolen Lives campaign, and I know Sioned Williams was at the protest last week on the steps. I joined her as well to talk to young adults who have been detained in care for far too long. They've launched a petition entitled 'Stop the detention of learning disabled and autistic children, young people and adults in hospitals'. Again, I always think of my own daughter, who is nine years old this year. In 10 years' time, could she be facing those same circumstances alongside so many parents that turned up at the protest last week?

I've also met with constituents of mine whose autistic son is currently an in-patient at a mental health unit in a local hospital, but between November 2023 and April 2024 was held in prison where staff and psychologists remarked on how well he reacted to the structure and routine of prison life. I've met with the Equality and Human Rights Commission to ask that these issues are addressed and investigated. I think however well he adapted to prison, he shouldn't have been there in the first place. Anyone else remanded would've been on bail. There's a whole load of issues going on under the surface that, because the criminal justice system is not devolved, I think the Welsh Government is unaware of.

Therefore, can we meet, can we talk—and I would also extend my invitation to Mark Isherwood, as chair of the autism cross-party group—and have a discussion about this? I know Sioned is meeting with you. Unfortunately, I'm in committee that day asking questions of the education Minister, but I would appreciate a chance to meet with you and discuss this.

Diolch, Hefin. I'd like to thank Hefin for raising this important issue and for highlighting his constituents' case. As Hefin has said, I am aware that he has met with campaigners from the Stolen Lives campaign. I'd also like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to my predecessor, Julie Morgan, for her work in this area. I'd like to assure the Member that I and the Welsh Government share the ambition of the Stolen Lives campaign. We're committed to minimising the number of people with a learning disability cared for in a hospital setting. The key principle remains that, as far as practicable, individuals should be cared for at home, or as close to home as possible, and that a hospital bed is not a home. Indeed, this is a specific action within the Welsh Government's learning disability strategic action plan, which was published in 2022. I will be meeting representatives of the Stolen Lives campaign next week, with Sioned Williams, and I'm keen to hear directly from them. And, of course, while I cannot get involved in individual cases, I would very much be happy to meet with Hefin to discuss the wider issues raised. I believe my office has already been in touch with your office, Hefin, and dates are being discussed for such a meeting. I know that that meeting is extended to Mark Isherwood as well, due to the work that he's doing and his interest in this area. If there are other Members, do please let me know.

Sioned, thank you very much for raising this issue already. Yesterday, I attended a briefing organised by Disability Wales regarding the increased charges for non-residential care and support. I was shocked to learn that, despite assurances to the contrary, many of the poorest people in Wales are having to pay these charges and are often faced with the choice between paying for social care and food. Any increase in charges will undoubtedly force more people into this situation. With this in mind, Minister, will you abandon these plans or, at the very least, review the minimum income amount calculations?

Diolch. Thank you very much for that question, Altaf. Social care sits with my colleague Dawn Bowden, so, certainly, I'll happily discuss these issues with Dawn, and I'm sure she'll get in touch with you as well.FootnoteLink

Diolch. We'll continue to provide sustained funding to Aneurin Bevan University Health Board for the provision of mental health services in response to local needs. This includes the provision of online support. We also fund online and telephone-based mental health support nationally, which is available across Wales.

Minister, may I take this opportunity to welcome you, as a close colleague, to your new role on behalf of the people of Islwyn?

SilverCloud is a project that offers interactive programmes designed to teach practical skills for coping with mild to moderate mental health issues. The service is open to anyone over 16 in Wales and can be accessed for free via any digital service. It is groundbreaking and innovative. Since its pilot in Powys in 2018, funded by the Welsh Government, SilverCloud has helped and supported approximately 30,000 people and is now being used in the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board region, supporting the people of Gwent. Minister, this is a welcome development, helping to meet the increasing demand for therapy via a holistic suite of online self-help programmes, based on cognitive behavioural therapy.

What assessment has the Welsh Government made of the ability and capacity of mental health professionals to support and supervise its use, check understanding and monitor progress or lack of progress of the participants? Because the obvious potential concern is that whilst more people gain access to initial mental health support, those with more serious problems would require bespoke intervention and pathways to higher intensity in-person therapy during or straight after their interaction with SilverCloud. What evidence and assurances can you provide to me that such quality control and assessments are indeed taking place?

Diolch. Thank you very much for that question, Rhianon, and for your really kind words of welcome—very much appreciated.

As you said, cognitive behavioural therapy has been a very positive development in this area. The aim of providing access to online CBT is to prevent escalation to more specialised support. Whilst the programme is online, it is supported by a team of clinicians in Powys health board who can help identify if individuals accessing the support need different or more specialist support through the screening questionnaire and the sign-up. A range of information is also recorded about outcomes and experiences, and these are reviewed regularly to ensure that support is meeting need. Powys health board, who lead the programme for NHS Wales, are currently working with our NHS joint commissioning committee and the NHS executive to develop the future model of online CBT to ensure that needs are met and a more standardised approach across Wales. As you have mentioned, the service has received around 30,000 sign-ups, with approximately 30 per cent from the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board area. The online CBT is one of a number of easy-to-access mental health services that the Welsh Government funds nationally. This includes our CALL listening and advice line and the Beat eating disorder helpline, and this is part of our approach to improve access to support.

I'd also just like to take this opportunity to highlight specifically within the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board area that residents are also able to access free self-help for their mental health and well-being through the Melo website. This website provides access to information about how to look after your mental health and well-being, as well as signposting to other services if help is required. So, I just wanted to highlight that particular area.

Finally, question 8—Rhun ap Iorwerth.

I am aware of proposals for the development of a new health and well-being centre in Holyhead, and discussions are ongoing between Welsh Government officials and the health board.

Thank you very much for that response. It's almost five years now since the Longford Road and Cambria surgeries had to be taken over by the health board directly. The surgeries were merged following that, but the service that has existed in Holyhead since then has been very fragile indeed. Recently, we heard GPs raising concerns about the sustainability of staffing there. We won the battle and got the pledge that there would be a new multidisciplinary healthcare centre developed in Holyhead, but unfortunately things have gone very quiet—there have been no updates. The people of Holyhead deserve this; they need this service. Can I ask for a clear commitment from the Minister that she will pursue the health board to ensure that this issue is followed up urgently?

Thank you. As you're aware, a proposal was made to the Welsh Government by the integration and rebalancing capital fund pathfinder project in 2022. There was a need for a lot more work done on that proposal, and therefore the health board had to carry out more feasibility studies on options. I do think that this is part of a development where we do want to see far more focus on prevention and early intervention. I do hope that priority can be given through the regional partnership board process, and they will have to decide what is prioritised within the health board. I do know that the health board hopes that an application for business case development fees will be coming through the IRCF by September.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary. That concludes that set of questions.

We have a topical question next. This is to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for economy and to be asked by Heledd Fychan.

Thank you for the question. I'm aware of the impact that this will have on staff and the broader community in Treherbert. My officials are working with partners, including RCT council, the Department for Work and Pensions and Careers Wales to support the workers who will be affected through this process.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary. Now, clearly, coming so soon after the loss of almost 500 jobs back in October at UK Windows and Doors, this is disastrous news for the area. Clearly, some of the people who were employed by Everest had found employment having lost their jobs, and for the second time are facing an uncertain future. Many people who lost their jobs back in October still haven't found alternative employment, so there are no jobs that are as well paying or available in this area.

Now, clearly, there was contact between the Welsh Government and this company some years ago when the company faced difficulties. Can I ask you, therefore, what recent contact there's been with the company to see whether it was possible to save these posts? Also, given that UK Windows and Doors and Everest have led to substantial job losses, what assessment is being made of the situation and position of other companies in RCT? And what work are your officials doing in order to ensure that we won't get another shock such as this one, with so many jobs being lost, and that we do work in order to secure all the jobs there currently, but also to create jobs in an area that desperately needs investment and jobs that will keep people in the area, in order to give an economic boost to an area where the levels of disadvantage are so high, and where we do have to have those jobs?

Well, as the Member says, the workforce there, in Everest, is one that we've supported in the past when the company was under pressure. Our focus now is to do everything that we can to find different opportunities for them, wherever we are able to do that. We have spoken to the council and the other bodies, as I mentioned, to ensure that we do collaborate. The ReAct programme has been started to support the individuals who will lose their jobs. I've spoken to the local councillor, with Buffy Williams, as the RCT Member, and my officials have been in contact with the company when it was obvious that there were challenges arising, so they were in contact immediately after we found that there was a risk.

In terms of what's happening in the broader economy, the problem often is that the challenge doesn't emerge for the Government until it's nearly too late. That's how things often work, unfortunately. But we are working with the corporate joint committee and with the council to ensure that the region and the regional deal are focusing on a specific plan for Rhondda, bearing in mind the fact that we don't know what the future holds.

The northern Valleys initiative, which is a scheme that the region has, and the sites and premises fund—there are opportunities for them as well to be looking at opportunities in the Valleys, and in Rhondda in particular, and more broadly too. So, that's the situation from our perspective at present.

Cabinet Secretary, can I begin by echoing the thoughts of Heledd in terms of saying how devastated I am for the workers of the Everest site, with so many people being made redundant, as has been reported? I appreciate that this must be a worrying time for them and their families, and I hope that they're able to find work quickly.

Sadly, it seems that we will always face issues such as this as our economy adapts to technological advances and decarbonisation. Industries change, and our economy weathers the storms that come from global influences outside of our control. Ultimately, we need to be able to provide workers with skills that enable them to be resilient in the jobs market, and to be able to quickly find work when circumstances such as these come about. With this in mind, Cabinet Secretary, what efforts are the Welsh Government making to ensure that those people who have lost their jobs from the Everest site in Treherbert are made aware of the help and support that is available to them, to apply for new roles or to access additional training to reskill, and what steps are the Government taking to build that employee resilience in the job market? Thank you.

Thank you to Joel James for that further question. Well, as Heledd Fychan was saying, this is an experience that some workers have had very recently as well, so it's particularly distressing, I think, for people who have been made redundant once and are, within a few months, in the same situation again. I know there are many people in that situation who have been employed at Everest.

What we are doing is that the ReAct programme, which is for the purpose of providing skills and support for those facing redundancy, has now been activated and is supporting individuals who have been impacted critically. My officials are working closely with the council, who I know, when this kind of event has happened in the past, have been very proactive in making sure they bring together all the relevant sources of support in that multi-agency way. So, we will be working alongside them in relation to that, to make it as accessible as possible for the employees who are affected. And as I mentioned earlier, my officials have also been in touch with the company to highlight to them the support that the Welsh Government is able to bring.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Item 4 today is the 90-second statements. There is only one statement today, and that's from Heledd Fychan.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd. This week is Maternal Mental Health Awareness Week. This year's theme is 'rediscovering you'. The journey to motherhood is not always an easy one, and too many new mothers are left alone and unsure on where to turn to for support. Up to one in five will suffer from maternal mental health disorders such as postpartum depression, and less than 15 per cent of women receive treatment. This is why today I would like to take a moment to highlight the remarkable work being done by Katy and her team at Mothers Matter. Developed during lockdown by Katy, Mothers Matter is a community-led perinatal mental health and well-being organisation based in my region, in Tonypandy, that is dedicated to supporting mothers, fathers and their families before, during and after childbirth. They provide unwavering support to expectant and new parents throughout the critical early stages of their child's development, up to the age of five.

I recently had the opportunity to visit Katy and her team at their newly opened parenting centre, the first of its kind in Wales. The centre provides families with essentials such as nappies, milk and clothing, offering support to parents during financially difficult times. In addition, they offer a range of free services, such as community-based home support, individual counselling, community groups, well-being hubs, befriending groups and educational classes. All these services are carefully crafted to address perinatal mental health challenges among new parents. Many of you had the opportunity to learn more about Mothers Matter and their new baby loss project yesterday. But for any new parent struggling, please know that you are not alone. Support is available, and as the testimonies of those supported by organisations like Mothers Matter show, things can get better with the right support, and there is light at the end of the tunnel.

Diolch, Heledd. I did meet with them yesterday at lunchtime.

Item 5 is the debate on the Petitions Committee report, 'A Warmer Winter: P-06-1326 The Senedd should scrutinise the prepayment meter scandal in Wales'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Jack Sargeant.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. At the end of last year, the Petitions Committee published its report titled, 'A Warmer Winter'. The report made a series of recommendations to the Government and other stakeholders to ensure that energy companies would not and could not repeat their actions of the previous winter, where thousands of vulnerable customers were treated disgracefully—their homes invaded and then forced on to a payment method that they had not asked for.

Some of these customers, Deputy Presiding Officer, were running medical equipment at home; some of them had chronic conditions; some of them with very young children and young families. 'Involuntary installation' is an industry term for the fitting of prepayment meters without the consent of the customer. This can be done via warrant from a court, or by remotely switching a smart meter to prepay mode.

The committee was moved to undertake this work by a petition submitted by Climate Cymru, and we're grateful to them for engaging with our process. We are also grateful to all those who provided evidence for our work, including the third sector campaigners, one of the journalists who did so much to uncover the scandal, Dean Kirby, and the representatives of the energy companies and their regulator, Ofgem. Deputy Presiding Officer, I'd also like to put on record our thanks as a committee to the chair and all of the team at Splott Community Volunteers in Cardiff for allowing us to launch our report at one of their energy advice sessions. I'm also grateful to the Welsh Government and Ofgem for producing thoughtful responses to the committee's recommendations. Our hope in undertaking this work and producing our report was to ensure that the first duty of energy companies and the industry regulator Ofgem will be to the people, not the enormous profits of energy suppliers.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I'm pleased to say that since we started our work, there have been some changes, and although I would like very much to see more changes, it is important to recognise the ones that have been made. Ofgem has introduced the mandatory code of conduct that we wanted to see, and it could have been more generous, but at least it does give some protection to consumers. But as we speak here today, as we hold this debate, we know that seven energy suppliers have already been given the green light to restart involuntary installation of prepayment meters in Wales and the United Kingdom. And despite the new mandatory code of conduct, vulnerable people in Wales could still have a prepayment meter forcibly installed in their home this winter, just because they don't meet the strict criteria for exemption. What is vital now is that the energy regulator Ofgem continues to monitor the code of practice and, more importantly, makes changes if things are not working.

There are approximately 200,000 households in Wales using the prepayment meter for their mains gas and their mains electricity, and with energy debts across Britain at record levels, there is a danger that that number grows even higher. Now, while the energy price cap came down in April this year, it is far from the end of the crisis in the cost of energy. Energy prices are still 49 per cent higher than they were before the crisis started. Energy debt is at record levels. Fuel poverty in Wales—and in some cases, Deputy Presiding Officer, extreme fuel poverty—has become the norm for many low-income households. The lesson from this scandal is clear: we should not trust the suppliers to mark their own homework. The UK Government and the regulator Ofgem should have acted quicker when the scale of the scandal became clear to many. The way suppliers view their vulnerable customers is all wrong, and it shaped the way they behaved over the prepayment meter scandal. During evidence to the committee, this is what one chief executive of an energy supplier said when giving evidence, and I quote, Deputy Presiding Officer:

'I think we have a real problem still in the UK about people who can pay for their energy but who decide they won’t pay. And if society was such that people were completely honest and we wouldn’t need to have this debate, then we probably wouldn’t be in this situation. But it is a real problem. Every day, we have thousands of people who just decide they would prefer to go on holiday rather pay for their energy, or prioritise something else.'

Deputy Presiding Officer, I was stunned by this statement of this particular chief executive of a supplier. For me, this is not someone running an organisation that understands the needs of vulnerable customers in Wales and the United Kingdom.

I'd like to start by thanking the Petitions Committee Chair, Jack Sargeant, for opening such an important debate and all those who took part in the evidence sessions. I think all Members across this Chamber recognise the complex issues that exist around utility bills and that this is complicated by the application of prepayment meters. Whilst there are households and groups that are particularly vulnerable and need assistance with paying their bills, there are also households and individuals who can adequately afford their electricity and gas bills, who, for one reason or another, choose not to pay them and instead run up high debt.

Whilst this may not seem problematic for some, because their view is that utility companies can easily weather this loss of income, what it actually means is that that loss is pushed on to other bill payers, who end up subsidising those who refuse to pay. Therefore, there is still a need for prepayment meters and, in some cases, the need for prepayment meters to be mandatory.

There is evidence that prepayment meters can be an effective way of helping to manage household budgets, especially for those living in shared accommodation or temporary rented accommodation, because it reduces the administration of setting up new accounts for short periods. But, as we all know, one of the major issues with this and with prepayment meters is that they traditionally, as we’ve heard, then charge a far higher tariff than direct debits.

As such, I’m pleased to see that the UK Government, as of July last year, have now enforced the scrapping of prepayment meter premiums by energy companies, and I think this is a big step forward in promoting a fairer and more just system. I do think, Dirprwy Lywydd, as the report points out, that, despite this, there needs to be a more thorough understanding of an individual’s vulnerability before prepayment meters are installed. I know that utility companies are fully aware of the needs of vulnerable customers and have made considerable efforts to understand vulnerability and put into place services to help meet those needs. However, it was fundamentally wrong of them to involuntarily install meters during a time of huge inflationary pressure from the COVID pandemic and the war in Ukraine, because they were fully aware that many of their customers would have been vulnerable and struggling to pay.

On average, Dirprwy Lywydd, it takes about two years before people facing financial difficulty come forward to seek help. And during this time, they often make poorer financial decisions out of desperation, and this can impact their mental and physical health. We also know that vulnerability can be transient, whereby people are vulnerable for short periods of time, such as after a bereavement or job loss. And therefore, I wholeheartedly believe that we should be making efforts to reduce, and indeed eliminate, the stigma that people can feel with regards to their vulnerability, and there needs to be more awareness of how they can access support.

Thank you to the petitioners for bringing this forward and thank you to everyone who contributed to this report, and thank you also to Jack Sargeant, as committee Chair, for keeping this on the agenda and ensuring that we are following through on this. So, thank you very much.

As a member of the Petitions Committee, I have to say that this is one of the most important items that has come before the committee. Taking evidence for the report was quite alarming, because the deeper you delve into the scandal of forced prepayment meter installations, the more shocking it gets. For example, the committee were alarmed at the upper and lower age limit that prevented a prepayment meter from being fitted. Despite the World Health Organization defining patients as elderly if they are over 65, the code of practice on prepayment meters has deemed that 75 and above is the age limit at which you are not permitted to fit one. Families with preschool children above the age of two can also have a meter installed against their will. That is clearly wrong.

But no matter what the age, people should not be forced into making a decision between heating and eating in twenty-first century Wales. Unfortunately, that is what is happening in many, perhaps even a majority, of the communities that we represent in the Senedd. That is an injustice and a national scandal. Households should be getting more support from both Westminster and Welsh Governments on this matter. With that in mind, and given that the price of energy is still much higher than it was pre-crisis levels, I want to know what the Government of Wales is doing to alleviate the high levels of energy debt. I also want to know how this report will, in tandem with the findings of the Wales expert group report on the cost-of-living crisis, influence the Cabinet Secretary's work. Diolch yn fawr.

May I thank also the Petitions Committee for bringing this important report to the floor of the Siambr today? I also want to place on record my appreciation to committee Chair Jack Sargeant for his leadership in this critical field—for some, life and death.

The Times undercover investigation into a company used by British Gas to pursue debts led to shock waves around the United Kingdom. It found that British Gas routinely sent debt collectors to literally break into customers' homes, and force-fit pay-as-you-go meters, even when they were known to have extreme and intersectional vulnerabilities. The investigation found that agents were sent in by British Gas to force-fit a meter at the home of a young mother with a four-week-old baby. Her bills had risen sevenfold during the cost-of-living crisis. What a symbolic and bullying institutional act.

As the Chair's foreword notes, having access to heat and light can be a matter of life and death, so I welcome the response of the Welsh Labour Government and Ofgem to this report, which sees them both in principle accepting every single recommendation of the Petitions Committee's report, although Ofgem has been slow to react and there is still much more to be done. The new code of practice for the involuntary installation of prepayment meters is still new, and will need due diligence and an assessment made of its effectivity. Ofgem also has much to do, as it is estimated that only 1,502 people have been awarded compensation, despite over 150,000 installations being assessed by energy companies.

So, Minister, what actions or representations can the Welsh Government make to ensure that debt collection agencies should not be the arbiter of whether a household is vulnerable, that Ofgem monitor the impact of the new code of practice, and consider lowering the age for the do-not-install category from 75 to 65 years, and for the introduction of a social tariff for energy? The backdrop to this British scandal was a devastating cost-of-living crisis, as the owner of British Gas in 2023 announced a record £3 billion of annual profit. Centrica, the owner of British Gas, is a FTSE 100 company that adjusted profits of £3 billion—the highest in its history at this point. Under the rule of the UK Tory Government in Westminster, capitalist giants drown in profit, at the expense of the poorest and most vulnerable members of society. So, the quickest and most definitive way to bring radical change for Welsh households in this field is the election of a new UK Labour Government, come the general election, that prioritises people over profits. Thank you.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate, because fuel poverty has been one of the main areas of inquiry of the Equality and Social Justice Committee, of which I am a member. And, as Plaid Cymru's spokesperson on social justice, the way in which high fuel prices and unfair practices, which, in the words of the report, are a scandal, have contributed to the levels and impact of poverty and the cost-of-living crisis has been a concern that I have raised regularly in the Senedd. I will not apologise for repeating once again what provides a context for the report, because this is a situation that creates severe mental anguish, unacceptable hardship, and causes unnecessary illness and death. It is completely unsustainable and shameful in a state that is among the wealthiest in the world.

As we heard, fuel poverty has increased in Wales and remains at a critically high level, including 98 per cent of low-income households. Energy bills are still nearly 50 per cent higher than they were before the energy crisis, and any reduction in the cap on energy prices has been completely wiped out by the massive increase in energy debt. According to Ofgem, the debt on energy bills has more than doubled over the last three years, and, as the number of households has not increased in the same way, it is clear that those debt levels are now even deeper.

And the picture in Wales is bleaker, given that the south and the north are in the top three most expensive regions for energy, and given that standing charges are at their highest levels ever. And, of course, the committee's report sets out the extent of the situation very plainly—that is, how the practices of the energy companies when dealing with vulnerable customers who suffer from fuel poverty exacerbate the situation.

Many of the recommendations in the report, published in November last year, are in line with the conclusions of the expert group on the cost-of-living crisis, which were published back in September last year, which called for urgent measures from the Welsh Government and Westminster to alleviate the economic crisis and unfairness facing too many people in Wales. The expert group called for pressure from both Governments on energy companies to ensure action to support them, and action on unfair practices and regional variations.

It has been many months now since these two sets of recommendations were published, and thousands of people, unfortunately, have suffered through the cold winter months between then and now. There have also been, as we heard, some developments since then in terms of the new statutory code of practice regarding the involuntary installation of prepayment meters that would form part of the licensing conditions for suppliers. But it is clear that we need to reduce the number of prepayment meters in use, and, to do that, we need to tackle debt levels and the factors that lead people to be in such debt in the first place. We cannot continue to see a situation where the level and depth of this debt leads to people having to go without essential energy, and, therefore, the means of keeping warm, clean, and being able to cook their food.

I wouldn't say it's a pleasure to take part in this debate, but it's a privilege to be able to speak on this issue. And I commend Climate Cymru and others for bringing forth this really important petition, as well as, as I would call him, the 'superman of fuel poverty', Jack Sargeant, who continues, really, to champion this particular issue. Thank you to you.

We know that this crisis disproportionately impacts our most vulnerable citizens—those in social housing, households with children and the elderly. Alarmingly, Citizens Advice reports a third of Welsh prepayment meter users faced disconnection last year, due to unaffordable top-up costs, with 13 per cent going over a week without essential energy supplies. Forcing prepayment meters without safeguards, therefore, flagrantly violates consumer protections and does not safeguard our most vulnerable and those that we are responsible for. With six suppliers forcing prepayment this year, more must be done to ensure fewer face potential disconnection over debt. I do welcome the Welsh Government, therefore, accepting most recommendations that came out of the committee report, including supporting a vital social tariff for the vulnerable and enhancing advice surgeries, but bolder action is still needed.

There is a pressing need, in collaboration with the UK Government and Ofgem, to implement legally binding legislation, prohibiting all non-consensual meter transfers and the installation of prepayment meters, whether through warrant action or through the transitioning of smart meters, without the say-so of the consumer. Similarly, while Ofgem's introduction of a vulnerability principle and a mandatory code of practice are positive steps, their response to the Petitions Committee sorely lacks detail on those enforcement mechanisms and an oversight to protect our most vulnerable groups beyond Ofgem's narrow criteria. Relying on suppliers' self-governance is absolutely unacceptable, as they have the financial incentives conflicting with robust consumer protection. Additionally, allowing debt collection agencies to conduct initial vulnerability assessments is unacceptable as well. They lack the necessary training and the impartiality to properly evaluate those vulnerabilities. I would welcome comments from the Cabinet Secretary about how you will work with Ofgem to ensure that these robust measures are in place.

But the wider point, raised by my colleague on the ESJ committee, and, as well, by Rhianon Passmore, is how we address the issue of fuel poverty. It is a scourge across the whole of Wales. Around 98 per cent of those people in Wales living in low-income households are struggling. Rural communities, such as my own of Mid and West Wales, are disproportionately affected, suffering from fuel and energy poverty rates far exceeding the national average. And, whilst I do welcome the long-awaited launch of the Warm Homes programme, which Sioned has also touched on, it's a full year later than anticipated. And the current plan to improve only 1,600 properties per year over a seven-year period is absolutely unacceptable. Some of my poor staff have worked out how long that would take to address all fuel-poor homes in Wales. It is 130 years. That will outlive us all. We have to do more and faster.

And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. And I'd really like to thank members of the Petitions Committee for their report on the prepayment meter scandal in Wales and for the opportunity to speak on behalf of the Government this afternoon. The report made several important recommendations in line with our policy positions and actions in this important area. Our response to the committee's recommendations outlined all the work Welsh Government is doing in this area, including where we do not have devolved powers, where we continue to raise our concerns with the UK Government.

The Welsh Government did raise concerns about the prepayment system and the fact it was failing the most vulnerable people in society before the scandal broke in early 2023. My predecessor, the Minister for Social Justice and Chief Whip, Jane Hutt, wrote to suppliers in November 2022 and gained assurances on the support that they would give households in Wales during the winter of 2022-23. However, despite those assurances, we all witnessed shocking reports of debt collectors breaking into homes to force-fit prepayment meters. A self-imposed ban followed, and Ofgem introduced a voluntary code of practice. I'm pleased that Ofgem accepted our call to make its voluntary code of practice a mandatory part of the supply licence. Breaches of the code can now lead to enforcement action and fines. It is vital that eligible householders are protected. The new code is a welcome step to provide better safeguards for the most vulnerable households in our society. I'm pleased that Ofgem engaged with a variety of stakeholders in developing this code. We fully expect Ofgem to monitor suppliers' compliance with the vulnerability checks and whether the new rules go far enough to protect those most in need.

Several Members this afternoon have mentioned Ofgem, and I've today written to the chair of Ofgem, asking him to ensure the new rules are implemented effectively. I want to have an early meeting with them. There are other things that need discussion with Ofgem, I think, which, again, Members have alluded to. One of the concerns for me is around standing charges. There's also the call for the social tariff. So, I think there's a huge amount of work that we need to do as a Government with Ofgem.

Welsh Government will continue to keep a close eye on the situation, to ensure we do not see a repeat of the devastating impact of the forced installation of prepayment meters on our vulnerable households. I know Members will also be watching very closely. With the practice of forcibly installing prepayment meters resuming, I'm pleased to see the Petitions Committee report recommending actions in line with Welsh Government's policy positions and actions.

I think it's worth reiterating the point that, again, many Members have said this afternoon, that prepayment customers are usually among the most vulnerable in our society. We must ensure that there are safeguards in place to protect them, and that those safeguards are adhered to. We've long called for a social tariff to be introduced, which would provide an additional way to fairly protect the worst off. The Chancellor made a commitment in November 2022 to develop a new approach to consumer protection by April 2024, yet we know no such action has been taken. This is deeply frustrating and has meant that vulnerable households have now had to endure two difficult winters with soaring energy costs since the commitment was made.

And I call on Jack Sargeant to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Presiding Officer. Presiding Officer, I was very proud to bring forward this report and its recommendations to the Senedd and to the Welsh Government, and I was proud of the work fellow committee members did on this important report. As Jane Dodds said, this was all about protecting the most vulnerable people who we represent in our society, and it's important to do that. I'm grateful for the Cabinet Secretary's response this afternoon, but I think I should place on record the committee's thanks to your predecessor, Jane Hutt, the Minister for Social Justice in the previous administration, who was a champion on these matters and responded the way you did to the report.

The Cabinet Secretary today outlined that the recommendations are in line with Welsh Government policy positions, and it was really good to hear that you have written to Ofgem to request an early meeting with the chair and the executive team there, particularly around standing charges, which I know are of interest to many. Sioned Williams and I, on the day this report was published, questioned Ofgem in the cross-party group led by Mark Isherwood on that matter. I think the area, again, of recommitting towards a social tariff is one that is important to this Senedd, which we are pleased about, and then your comments on the debt collectors. I think, as I said in my opening contribution, energy suppliers or debt collectors shouldn't be able to mark their own homework, and the ECB accreditation is vital to that.

Presiding Officer, touching on the thoughts of Joel James, who offered a good contribution throughout the debate and certainly this afternoon, where he did note the scrapping of the prepayment premium, which is, of course, welcome. But, again, he spoke about the need for further understanding of what vulnerability is before installing. Peredur Owen Griffiths quite rightly mentioned, as others did, the difference in vulnerability between Ofgem's definition and the WHO's definition, which is quite surprising. One says 75 years and above, one says 65 years and above. There's quite a significant difference there, and not limited to that.

Peredur Owen Griffiths also said that we shouldn't go through the choice of heating or eating, but as Rhianon Passmore pointed out, the debate in the last couple of years moved past that. It moved towards life and death as well as having that very real impact everyday for our constituents. Rhianon Passmore mentioned in her contribution about compensation, where there is a number of people who have been forced onto prepayment meters during this scandal who still haven't received the compensation promised. This Senedd and this Welsh Government should hold Ofgem and the UK Government to account for that.

Again, Members pointed out that this isn't the only committee report. There are other working groups, there are other committees doing important work on fuel poverty, again, to protect the most vulnerable residents that we represent.

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 this afternoon is the Welsh Conservatives debate on the Cass review. I call on Laura Anne Jones to move the motion.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'd first like to start by thanking my party for tabling this important debate today, and I move our motion in the name of Darren Millar.

It is appalling, really, that, following two weeks of asking for a full statement to this Chamber and having those requests rejected by this Government, as well as having a topical question refused, despite the weight of the Cass review's findings, this Welsh Labour Government continued to bury their heads in the sand in the name of ideology. It has now taken the Welsh Conservatives tabling a debate today, Deputy Presiding Officer, to force the Welsh Government into finally giving us a full statement and, I hope, a commitment to reviewing its policies and plans in light of the findings of the landmark report by Dr Cass, which found that NHS gender care for children has been based on weak evidence.

We all have a duty to protect the health and well-being of all children and young people in Wales, and as a mother, I, for one, take that responsibility very seriously. This is why it's so vital to debate this today and for the Government to actually take action. This is not about political point scoring or culture wars—I find that extremely disappointing and a weak reaction to the importance of discussing those who are often more vulnerable than, maybe, ourselves. It is inherent upon us to take this responsibility and not play games with it.

The Cass review into NHS England's gender identity services for children and young people was published last month. It concluded that children who are confused about their gender have been let down by a lack of research and evidence. Research carried out by the University of York carried out alongside the report found evidence to be severely lacking on the impact of puberty blockers and hormone treatments, while the majority of clinical guidelines were found not to have followed international standards.

As I have said before in this Chamber, I first flagged my initial concerns over the Cass review when we were privy to the interim report, but sadly, that fell on deaf ears. We called for a Wales-specific review, yet this Government has ploughed on with its ideological path and decided to do nothing. Then came the release of Dr Cass's final report, the outcome of which has turned heads and shaken some institutions to the core. It is important to keep reiterating that these findings are hugely significant for Wales, as well as England, as this Government is fully aware.

The end of our gender pathways in Wales, as you know, end in England, under the control of both NHS England and NHS Wales, under both the UK and Welsh Governments, the only difference being that the UK Government have held a debate and statement on this and taken firm action already to protect children and young people. It is essential that every child struggling with gender dysphoria has access to the right treatment and safe treatment.

Back in 2009, very few people would've even heard of gender identity, and even fewer would've known that the Welsh health service had started making referrals to the NHS gender identity development service in England, located at the now famous—for all the wrong reasons—Tavistock, which was the only specialist gender clinic for young people in Wales and England. Nine thousand young patients received treatment at the now-shut service. An investigation by a Welsh media outlet revealed that 230 people from Wales who received treatment there could be recommended to take part in the study of the long-term outcomes for patients receiving gender care at such a young age. I would love to hear more detail from the Government on this today.

In 2009, the trust received fewer than 60 referrals for children and young people from across England and Wales, but demand surged, and by 2022, more than 5,000 children and young people were being referred to gender identity clinics that had sprung up across England. What was happening? Where was the demand coming from? Why were three quarters of these referrals female? Why were so many children? For years, parents, teachers, clinicians, women's rights groups and others in the UK have campaigned to ask these questions and more.

In Wales, they were often silenced—professionals and parents alike told that their fears were baseless, bigoted and even hateful. The Welsh Government brushed off concerns and embedded these principles in their own official plans and school curriculum. Thanks to the work of groups like Merched Cymru, we now see the effect in Wales. There have been children started on a journey of changing their gender in schools without parental consent, and this is still happening in schools in Wales today. Thanks to this Cass review, we now have clear answers to the questions that have been asked for many years, and it's now time for policy makers to respond.

The 398-page report highlights the dangers of prescribing untreated and irreversible puberty blockers to young people. The report found that healthcare professionals have not asked the right questions; they have instead sought to propagate dangerous political ideology at the cost of safeguarding and evidence, which flies in the face of alleviating psychological anguish, which is what we all should want to achieve. It concludes that there's clearly been significant failing in our healthcare services to protect the most vulnerable of patients.

The Cass review also warns against teachers making premature and what amount to be clinical decisions about the children whom they are supposed to be safeguarding. It is clear in its findings that social transitioning in schools is a precursor to irreversible medical intervention, yet here in Wales an affirmative approach to gender dysphoria is woven through the Welsh Government's own compulsory relationships and sexuality education code and guidance.

So, what needs to happen? Firstly, in schools, the UK Government is developing its own transgender guidance, and will now take into consideration these most recent findings. I urge the Welsh Government to withdraw its own guidance for schools immediately and carry out a review of it. Compulsory relevant elements of the RSE curriculum on gender and gender identity must also be withdrawn by this Government for review. Likewise, schools in Wales must be directed to carry out an urgent review of materials, activities and policies relevant to RSE and guidance for transgender pupils; it has to be the right guidance. We must ensure that children and their parents are supported with commonsense, fact-based guidance, as our motion calls for.

When it comes to health, NHS England have also made the landmark decision to stop routine prescription of puberty blockers to children with gender dysphoria. It announced that it would also be stopping under-18s from accessing adult gender services and has called for urgent review of clinical policy for cross-sex hormones. The Scottish Government have announced a pause on puberty blockers for children. Both are happening with immediate effect and without delay. Now it is your turn, Welsh Government, although I won't hold my breath, because your amendment deletes everything and only notes, with no actions visible at all, which is shameful, because the people of Wales want action on this. NHS Wales must carry out an immediate review, as is called for in point 4 of our motion.

Thirdly, the Welsh Government has made a commitment to consider options for the development of a service for young people in Wales in its LGBTQ+ action plan, launched in February 2023. I've heard from colleagues, professionals and parents across Wales who are deeply concerned by such a commitment to expand the gender service for adults, which, concerningly, fell outside this Cass review for NHS England, and we'd like to know, on these benches, what the Welsh Government plans to do about that to safeguard those people. Also, there are concerns around developing the service for under-18s. To do so now, in the light of the Cass review, would be irresponsible, particularly without a drastic change in tack by this Government.

This Government's LGBTQ+ action plan clearly needs to be reviewed, and this Senedd requires timelines on this. The response of the Welsh Government so far has been muted to the point of silence. What are you afraid of? You must act on this. This is a national scandal unfolding before us. The Cass commission has just one thing at its heart: to develop youngsters to thrive and achieve their ambitions. All children and young people deserve nothing less. The teachers, parents—

You need to conclude now. You've used your opening and closing allocation, and your Member who's closing hasn't got any time.

Sorry. The Secretary of State for Health—. I could talk for the whole half an hour, but I won't.

You haven't got the time, sorry.

The Secretary of State for Health in the UK Government has pledged urgent and effective action. She said that she'll be working closely with NHS England to root out the ideology that's caused so much unnecessary harm. My question is will the Welsh Government do it. Everyone in this Chamber has a responsibility to protect—

Laura, you need to conclude, please.

—and safeguard children and young people in Wales. These children deserve better, and I hope that everyone can support our motion today.

Just to highlight the point, the Member has used the whole time allocated to the Conservative group for this particular item. I will give the closing Member a minute of additional time, but, please, when you put 30-minute debates together, you have an allocated time and you have to share that between opening and closing. It's important to remember that, please.

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

Formally.

I call on Sioned Williams to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. The priority for Plaid Cymru when discussing this issue—and it should be a priority for us all—is that the well-being of our children and young people, their views and their experiences, are absolutely central to their care, and any changes to that care. We as a party stand firmly with trans people of all ages who have suffered greatly over recent years as a result of being used by some politicians and commentators as a weapon in a culture war, and there's no denying that. It is utterly disgraceful and utterly unacceptable. Our amendment highlights the fact that our young people in Wales need better support in terms of specialist gender identity services, and we call on the Welsh Government to develop a gender identity service for young people in Wales.

The review itself states that there is a need for a better understanding of the care and support that young people need, and draws attention to the lack of equal access for young people across Wales to gender services. In Wales, the absence of specialist gender services for our young people is a barrier to timely and appropriate support for young people, and without that access, these individuals are at risk of experiencing physical and psychological harm. And it's not a matter of simply addressing immediate needs in terms of the establishment of such a service; it is an investment in the well-being and resilience of our young people, and therefore our communities, into the future. By providing timely and appropriate support, we can empower young people to navigate their gender identity journey with confidence and with dignity.

Furthermore, a specific gender identity service for young people is in line with our nation's commitment to equality and human rights. It sends a powerful message that all individuals, regardless of their gender identity, deserve respect, understanding and access to appropriate healthcare and support services. All of our goals should all be to help our young people thrive. All representatives must guard against creating prejudice against them, but rather nurture a culture and society that manifests inclusive, tolerant and humane attitudes and that celebrates and encourage diversity.

Plaid Cymru supports the Government's amendment, but I would like to raise the following specific points. There are cases of young people in Wales self-harming as a result of not being able to access the care that they need and the support that they need to transition. So, how will the Government ensure that these young people and their families are now supported—those who are waiting to access services, those who are currently receiving services and those who have seen their access to certain treatments stopped?

How does the Welsh Government ensure that the review is not misused as a weapon against the trans community? And when exactly will the guidance for schools mentioned in the amendment actually reach teachers? This is an issue that I have raised several times in this Chamber. It is an urgent issue in terms of ensuring that our school staff—

Sioned, you have to conclude now.

—feel confident and empowered to support pupils, especially in view of the toxic and reactionary and sometimes misleading response that has developed following the publication of this report. Will the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that it's through supporting our young people through our schools, and by ensuring access to high-quality services in a timely manner and in their own nation, that we can actually protect the dignity of everyone equally and reach the aim of both our parties—

Now, please, Sioned.

—of being the most LGBTQ+ friendly country in Europe?

'We are in an age where it can feel like we are under attack, and that our rights are at risk of being rolled back: whether that is around the world or, sadly, slightly closer to home, with the apparent regressive position on LGBTQ+ rights being pursued by the current UK Conservative Government. There is a sense of history repeating itself, from the language of vilification, fear and othering targeted at the trans community...that many of us are all too familiar with.'

So said Hannah Blythyn in her foreword to the LGBT action plan. Laura Anne Jones is not the only person taking a messianic approach to anything to do with gender identity, and, I’m sorry, you have failed to understand that pursuing a culture war of this nature is what makes some clinicians fearful of working with gender-questioning people. Simply tacking this issue as if it didn’t exist is really not helpful.

Can I just say that—

I think you've just had a lengthy contribution.

Just to be clear, you're not taking an intervention.

No.

But she mentioned me, so that's—

She's not taking an intervention.

That's not the polite thing to do.

You've had your opportunity, Laura Anne.

Laura, she's not taking an intervention.

Cass said:

'Our current understanding of the long-term health impacts of hormone interventions is limited and needs to be better understood.'

That may be true, but the assumption that that should translate into an instant ban on puberty blockers, welcomed by the Tory motion, is some distance from being based on firm clinical evidence. A wide range of international clinical and academic opinion contests that position. If the evidence is weak, we may need to pause the service, as in Scotland, while we look further into it. But for a child who feels they’ve been born in the wrong body, having to go through puberty inevitably worsens their gender dysphoria.

The closure of the national GIDS service in London abruptly ended the service Wales had commissioned for people under 18. Cass had assumed that it would lead to the development of a suite of regional and local services. That hasn’t happened—not unrelated to the culture war noise coming from the UK Government and elsewhere. We cannot simply accept a ‘for Wales, see England' approach. We need to quickly develop our own child and adolescent gender identity service as envisaged in the LGBTQ action plan, building on our well-established adult Welsh gender service, operating for the last five years.

The clinical reference group warns:

'children and young people are waiting lengthy periods to access GIDS, during which time some may be at considerable risk. By the time they are seen, their distress may have worsened, and their mental health may have deteriorated.'

This cannot continue. We must act properly to deliver the service children and young people need in order to be able to thrive.

It's entirely appropriate that this debate is being held in the Senedd here today, because whilst the Cass review report was submitted to NHS England, it has a huge impact on us here in Wales, because over the years hundreds of children from Wales, who we represent, have been sent to England, to the gender identity development service, also known as the Tavistock clinic. For example, in 2022 this number was over 150 children who were sent there. And during their time there, we know that GIDS were giving vulnerable young people puberty blockers, and as the Cass review found, the evidence to support puberty blockers was ‘remarkably weak’, in their words. Not enough is known about the longer term impacts of puberty blockers for children and young people to know whether they are safe or not. [Interruption.] I’m sorry, I’m not going to accept, Jenny Rathbone. You refused my colleague.

This comes after the University of York’s systematic, independent research programme, as part of the review, which was the largest and most comprehensive work done on the issue, and I think it should be taken very seriously. So, put bluntly, those children were subject to medical intervention with unknown consequences, and they’re the children that we represent day in, day out. I certainly would not want my children sent into an environment with such uncertainty and experimentation, so I cannot justify this for other children in Wales.

These children were and are some of the most vulnerable in our communities, and are being let down by a system and by adults through a series of unknown outcomes, which to me is completely unacceptable. What children need in this situation is proper care and health support and not medical experimentation with such unknown long-term impacts.

And proper care also means parents not being sidelined in decisions. In my view, it’s highly dangerous and suspect when adults in these situations seek to remove parental involvement from their children’s lives. Parents, let’s not forget, are the primary carers of the children, and need to be involved, informed and to be decision makers in any medical intervention. So, support and education for parents as well is equally as important as they are for the children they care for.

So, I ask us in this room here today, do we agree with the Cass report that children with gender dysphoria deserve very much better than the current way they're treated, or not? And do these children deserve proper evidence-based interventions, or should they continue to be given drugs with unknown long-term impacts? A constituent of mine who wrote to me this week perhaps put it best, and they said: 'Children who are confused about their gender need care based on evidence of what works and what is best for the child long term. Care needs to be based on facts rather than ideology and emotions, and care that does not cause them harm or prevent their often complex needs from being explored.' We should send a message today that will follow the science and will put the safety and well-being of children first and last. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I speak to the amendment tabled in the name of Jane Hutt, which notes that

'NHS England has concluded there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty suppressing hormones for the treatment of gender dysphoria in children and young people at this time.'

Dr Hilary Cass in her review of gender identity services for children notes, and I quote:

'Polarisation and stifling of debate do nothing to help the young people caught in the middle of a stormy social discourse',

and they need and deserve better. We need to eliminate the toxicity of this debate and its politicisation. It helps no-one, least of all those young persons involved.

This Senedd Chamber should and must be a place where all reasonable views are able to be expressed, and nobody should be cancelled in a democracy for stating an honestly held and non-prejudicial viewpoint. I am an avowed feminist and champion of women's rights—I have been all my life—and a champion of equality and justice for all. And it serves our democracy and all our people ill where we are not able to share honestly held views that ordinary citizens going about their daily lives today will share.

As the leader of the UK Labour Party, Keir Starmer, stated yesterday, the Labour Party has championed women's rights for a very long time. It is important in a Welsh context to stress that NHS Wales commissions gender identity services, as has been said, for children and young people 17 and under from NHS England. Dr Cass states that doctors who might otherwise have treated young people questioning their gender identity for depression or autistic spectrum disorders felt compelled to instead refer them to GIDS, the gender identity development service run by the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, which has since been shut down.

Dr Cass found that there was no good evidence to support the global clinical practice of prescribing hormones to under 18s to halt puberty or transition to the opposite sex. Researchers at the University of York examined all available evidence—all available evidence—on how to treat children questioning their gender identity. They concluded there was wholly inadequate evidence to support medical intervention, making it therefore impossible to know whether it improves mental or physical health.

The Cass review is well researched and it is evidence based. So, Deputy Llywydd, we must all in this Chamber demonstrate leadership and empathy for others and fully comprehend and understand that turning such complex and divisive issues into articles of faith in some sort of culture war, so often stoked by online keyboard warriors, is wrong, and that does a disservice to all. Thank you.

It is vitally important that we take the poison out of this debate and put the compassion back in. That's got to be at the heart of the way that we discuss it, and the discussion that we must have with the transgender community, crucially, and including trans young people. There has been an attempt—. I don't doubt for one minute the professionalism and integrity of Dr Hilary Cass, but there has been an attempt, hasn't there, to weaponise this report, and to claim absolutely erroneously that it represents some kind of victory and vindication in a culture war? I think that does incredible disservice to transgender young people. Dr Cass herself has asked for respect, understanding and compassion, particularly for transgender young people, in the way that we approach this, and that's been ignored and has to stop. And I say this as well: the abuse and threats that Dr Hilary Cass has been faced with are wrong, and so are the abuse and threats that have been meted out to people who have legitimate criticisms or questions about the Cass review. So, let's stop that and have a proper, respectful, understanding and compassionate discussion.

I think there are many things in the report that people within the transgender community would agree with. The waiting lists are too long. How long have people in the LGBTQ+ community been calling that out? The services need to be local, provided locally—absolutely, and we need to build up the evidence base. People within the transgender community have been asking for that for years, so let's build that evidence to actually understand what works. That's what we do, don't we? It's called a scientific method, so it has to be the heart of this.

I'm not a clinician and I'm not a trans person, so I can't speak with authority about either of those issues, but I'm a gay man who lived in the 1980s, and when I hear people saying that there's no such thing as trans identity, it's a fallacy, or it's just the result of abuse, of trauma, of mental ill health or what have you, I remember what it was like, growing up as a gay teenager. I was told it was a phase. It was a phase. Homosexuality was then listed as a mental disorder, right, by the American Psychiatric Association. I was told evil, predatory people were preying on the minds of the vulnerable and impressionable young people, promoting a homosexual lifestyle or an agenda, and that those of us who succumb to it would regret it in later life. Can you see? Can you see the parallels? So, it's a genuine plea, okay? Let's actually put compassion and respect and understanding back where it belongs, at the heart of this debate, and think in particular of these transgender young people. They are an oppressed minority—

Adam, you need to conclude, please.

—and they deserve all of our support.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, Eluned Morgan.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to focus my comments in today's debate on setting out the work we're involved with to improve gender identity services for children and young people in Wales, in line with both the LGBTQ+ action plan and the Cass review.

The Cass review is key to delivering this commitment and, crucially, the Cass review, which I've read and I welcome, ensures that we take an evidence-based approach to how and when interventions should be made. And I with agree with Adam Price, his suggestion that we need to have respect, understanding and compassion for the issues that we're debating in this report.

I want to thank Dr Hilary Cass and all those who participated in the review of gender identity services for children and young people, which was, of course, focused on services delivered in England. This was a thorough and well-researched review designed to ensure children and young people who are questioning their gender identity or experiencing gender incongruence receive a high standard of care that meets their needs and is safe, holistic and, crucially, evidence based.

Due to the limited number of children and young people who need referrals to these very specialised services in Wales, like many other highly personalised health services, expert gender identity services are provided by NHS England. I'm pleased to say that our referral pathway in Wales, into those English services, already aligns with one of the core Cass recommendations, as it includes an assessment by the child and adolescent mental health service before a referral is made. NHS Wales has also been working with NHS England, as part of the transformation programme for gender services, to ensure we are aligned to the Cass recommendations, as part of the changes NHS England is making to gender identity services for children and young people. These arrangements will ensure the safety and quality of services to safeguard young people in Wales, which surely has to be at the forefront of our concerns. The transformation programme has set up two new children and young people's gender services following the publication of the interim Cass review in February 2022. They opened last month, and will accept referrals from young people from Wales. The waiting list will be managed by the national referral support service—

Will you take an intervention?

If you don't mind, no, I'm going to persevere.

The national children and young people's gender dysphoria research oversight board has also been set up and is chaired by Sir Simon Wessely to support wider research into children's gender services. The new NHS Wales joint commissioning committee is working with the transformation programme as it moves to the next stages of the delivery plan. This includes supporting the newly opened children and young people's gender services in London and the north-west, and accelerating work to develop additional regional services and consider how they can be brought closer to home for young people in Wales. This is delivering on our commitment to review the pathway for children in Wales to access gender identity services.

The Cass review includes recommendations for professional training and a competency framework to be developed, not just for specialist NHS staff working in gender identity services, but for clinicians in secondary, primary and community care. The NHS Wales joint commissioning committee is already working with Health Education and Improvement Wales to take this forward.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'll now turn to puberty blockers. The Cass review concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of puberty-suppressing hormones in the treatment of gender dysphoria to make the treatment routinely available. They are not available as a routine commissioning treatment option for children and young people in Wales who are referred via our gender identity services pathway, but NHS England is aiming to open a study into the use of puberty blockers in December to gather further evidence to inform clinical decision making in the future. Young people who are referred to the services from Wales to England will potentially be eligible to take part in this study.

One of the recommendations of the Cass review, which looked specifically at services for children and young people, was to consider how interventions impact on outcomes. For that to happen, there is a need to monitor the long-term impact through tracking into adult gender services. The Welsh gender service, which is based in Cardiff but also has a satellite clinic in north Wales, provides services for people who are 18 and over. This service is commissioned by the NHS Wales joint commissioning committee, and I have instructed it to take on board the recommendations of the Cass report and ensure these adult services are collecting relevant data in a consistent and comprehensive manner to support an evidence-based approach to this issue.

While the main focus of the Cass review was clinical services, it includes some important recommendations for other public services, which we will carefully consider in Wales. The Cabinet Secretary for Education has been working on national guidance to support gender questioning and trans learners. She's decided to take more time in the development of this guidance in order to fully consider and be informed by the best available evidence, including the findings of the Cass review and the views of stakeholders. I know that ensuring the well-being of learners is her key priority. We will publish this important guidance to support schools in line with our commitment to ensure LGBTQ+ inclusive education. The LGBTQ+ action plan for Wales sets out our commitment to defend the dignity of trans and non-binary people and to deliver on our goal to make Wales the most LGBTQ+ friendly nation in Europe.

Minister, you need to conclude now, please.

Finally, I think it's important we bear in mind Dr Cass's own words that:

'The surrounding noise and increasingly toxic, ideological and polarised public debate has made the work of the Review significantly harder and does nothing to serve the children and young people who may already be subject to significant minority stress.'

'A compassionate and kind society remembers that there are real children, young people, families, carers and clinicians behind the headlines.'

Llywydd, the Cass report is an important review, which must be taken seriously. We want to ensure we provide appropriate and sensitive support to all those young people who are at the heart of the services. It's imperative that we act as a kind society—

Cabinet Secretary, you do need to conclude.

—when dealing with these sensitive issues.

I call on Gareth Davies to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. I haven't got long, but I just want to thank the Minister for that statement that you've given to the Senedd this afternoon, but it's come as the result of an opposition debate to get a statement out of the Government on this important issue. My colleague, Laura Anne Jones, has raised this in the Senedd Chamber, I think two or three times, without a tangible response from the Government. It's not a good way to govern, Minister, if it has to take an opposition debate to get a statement from the Government on such an important issue that affects the lives of children here in Wales, and I hope that, along with the contributions from Laura Anne Jones and Sam Rowlands this afternoon, will be enough to command the support of our motion, unamended, in tonight’s vote. Thank you.

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

Item 7 today is the second Welsh Conservatives debate today—leadership campaign donations and the ministerial code. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thought you were looking for me to translate then, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I always look to you for help, Andrew.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Do we need to wait for the First Minister to come, because, obviously, the debate is on the First Minister? Or is there another Minister responding?

He's not responding to the debate.

Oh. Oh, right. That is disappointing, that is. Okay, the First Minister hasn't come to a debate about, obviously, the conduct related to the ministerial code, which, on the statement of ministerial responsibilities, he is responsible for the ministerial code. So, I think that's disappointing, to say the least, that he hasn't turned up to this afternoon’s debate.

The debate is relatively straightforward and simple that we've tabled this afternoon. It says 'recognise', 'note', and calls for an outcome, it does. It calls for recognising the public concern and public worry, shall we say, of the actions that have gone on in connection to the donations to the First Minister. I don't think anyone can dispute that, with the level of public interest that has been shown in this particular aspect. And rightly so. There will be a debate later on this afternoon about the totality of that debate and the amount of money that was put forward in that donation, and, as we heard in First Minister's questions yesterday, there were additional substantial donations made to the First Minister's campaign from a taxi firm and others, all correctly declared and all identified and no rule breaking. I want to be quite clear on that—there is no rule breaking. But the perception—the perception—of such substantial moneys coming into a campaign to lead the country of Wales as First Minister has caused considerable public disquiet as well as considerable political disquiet amongst the Labour Party and other political parties. I just need to read through the names: Beth Winters, the Member of Parliament for Cynon Valley; Andrew Morgan, the leader of the Welsh Local Government Association; Jeremy Miles, the economy Minister, have all stated that they would not have taken that donation. And during the campaign itself, the Member of Parliament for Llanelli, Nia Griffiths, indicated on an interview on a Welsh language programme that, actually, if she had known about this donation, she might well have changed her voting choice. That is the impact that this could have had on such a serious election and the outcome to lead the country by being the First Minister of Wales. So, it is undisputable that there is recognition of the anger of the public and politicians alike when it comes to this particular matter.

It then goes on to highlight the problem. And the problem is quite clear—it is around the significant donation, as I've said in my opening remarks, from Dauson, the recycling company, which is obviously headed up by Mr Neal and owned by Mr Neal. Mr Neal has been proven to have two criminal convictions about environmental infringements on the Gwent levels. That is a matter of record.

And also there are other issues, which have been highlighted, of concern, such as the loan from the Development Bank of Wales, a lender of last resort, I might add. Again, I am not insinuating that anything has been undertaken underhand here, but when in the same financial year you are talking of a company taking £400,000 from a lender of last resort and then making a donation of £200,000, half that amount, to an individual—not to a party, not to a group, but to an individual and the individual's campaign to secure office—that surely is a matter of concern to all involved in public life. I would hope that that would find consensus around this Chamber. Then there is the remedy that, ultimately, instead of politicians making these assertions and the public showing disquiet, you can use the ministerial code and the precedent that Carwyn Jones set back in 2017 of appointing an independent person to advise on what might be a perceived or real breach of that ministerial code. And the ministerial code is quite clear in the point that we highlight, where it says that

I have selected two amendments to the motion. I call on the Trefnydd to move formally amendment 1, tabled in her name.

Formally.

And I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Next week, we will celebrate 25 years since the establishment of our own Parliament—an opportunity for us to do things slightly differently here in Wales, and to do things better. And it's because of that context that I, like so many people, feel anger and frustration about the turmoil regarding the donations to the First Minister's leadership campaign. It's an echo, isn't it, of the type of scandals that have been so prominent in or characteristic of Westminster politics in recent years. And the more you dig here, the more the questions emerge. It discredits our democracy and disillusions voters.

Now, the First Minister's 'nothing to see here' attitude is at best complacent, at worst contemptuous, towards the people we're here to serve. And people will come to their own judgment about his absence here this afternoon. So, Plaid Cymru's ask today is simple and is reflected in our amendment to the motion. Will the First Minister hand back the £200,000 he received from the convicted environmental polluter, Dauson Environmental Group Ltd? And should there be any unspent funds from that donation, will the Labour Party return that money? Two fundamental questions, arising from two fundamental principles: integrity and duty—integrity has to be a constant thread throughout our politics if we're to earn voters' trust—and duty because a First Minister has a duty to lead by example, to uphold good judgment always.

Now, as the motion before us today states, the ministerial code is clear:

'Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or appears to arise, between their public duties and their private interests'

and

'Ministers should not accept any gift or hospitality which might, or might reasonably appear to, compromise their judgement or place them under an improper obligation'.

Now, I wrote to the Permanent Secretary, asking for a review. I was told that it wasn't in his remit to do so. But the First Minister can call an independent investigation, and the case, I believe, for an external and wholly independent review is clear, and we support the main motion. And the more the First Minister disputes this, the more his judgment is brought into question, and we believe that our amendments would strengthen the calls for action. Now, we know Labour Members also, both here and at Westminster and in local government, have expressed their alarm in public and in private at the First Minister’s decision to accept the donation and his subsequent handling of the matter. I would therefore urge everyone who is of that view to support the motion and the amendments as a sign that whether it’s the First Minister or the rest of us in this Chamber, we are determined to earn the trust of the Welsh electorate.

I think I would be described as a reasonable person, I would hope, and I have to say that I disagree with everything that Andrew R.T. Davies has said. I’m not going to try and put any heat into at least this contribution. I will give some examples in the next contribution of some of the hypocrisy that exists, but we are, for the first time, asking for a politician who’s obeyed all the rules—demonstrably obeyed all the rules—to be investigated, and I think that is frankly absurd.

The code of conduct for Ministers has been addressed; it was addressed by the previous First Minister, who instigated an independent investigation, and no breach was found. Therefore, I don’t know what further can be done on that count. But the rest of it then becomes subjective and becomes a very subjective judgment that has already been addressed by the previous First Minister.

I’ve set myself some questions and I’ve investigated these myself; I’ve been very careful to do so. First of all: was the donation properly registered? Categorically and unequivocally, yes, it was.

I’m grateful to you for taking the intervention. I’m just querying: did you say that this matter has been investigated by the previous First Minister?

Yes.

Well, not all of the information was in the public domain, available for public scrutiny, prior to the previous First Minister investigating matters, including the convictions related to this company and the links to the taxi firm—

Are you making a speech or an intervention?

I'm just asking you; it's a genuine question.

Okay. Can I respond? So, you've taken up 20 seconds of my time already—

No, I haven't.

—I probably won't have that back. [Interruption.] The issues—

You've been very generous, Hefin. Members who take interventions should always take that into account.

The issues that were addressed by the First Minister, most of it was already out there. I think this idea—[Interruption.] Give me a chance. This idea that the more you dig, the more you find; actually, the more you dig, the less you find. But the issues that have come up since, I've addressed in my following questions.

Was there a chance that Vaughan Gething could influence any subsequent planning decision? Absolutely, categorically not, because the Minister who takes the planning decision is not taking that decision on behalf of the Welsh Government; they're taking a quasi-judicial decision to intervene in a planning dispute that the inspector has investigated, so that question is answered.

Could Vaughan Gething have tried to influence the Development Bank of Wales on their loan to the company? Perhaps that's what you mean by what's developed since. Well, absolutely not, because I asked them in committee, and Paul Davies was there. He saw them answer the question. In the eight years that Giles Thorley has been chief executive of the Development Bank of Wales, at no stage has any Minister tried to influence a loan, and he said in agreement with me that it would be inconceivable. [Interruption.]

No, I'm going to have to—. I've run out of time; I've only got three minutes. Maybe the next debate.

It would be inconceivable that any Minister, including the First Minister, would even try to do so. Did he try to do so? Absolutely, categorically not.

So, all of the evidence, all of the evidence that we've talked about has been addressed. What are we now trying to investigate? I don't think we're trying to investigate anything. What the Conservatives are trying to do is keep the story running, and Andrew R.T. Davies says in the Western Mail article—I do read his articles—that he wants to move on. If he wants to move on, he can start asking questions about the things we care about: the cost of living, children in care. These are the kinds of things he could start asking about at First Minister's questions instead of just going on about this non-issue.

Yesterday, the First Minister suggested that the public were not concerned by his donations from a convicted polluter. He knows that it's not true, and yet he persists in downplaying the matter. And when one of the BBC's top journalists, Teleri Glyn Jones, asked him about those donations, he arrogantly implied that she was somehow not a serious journalist. A remark that he's still not apologised for. But, thankfully, many other colleagues on the benches behind him—if he were in his seat—in the Labour Party don't agree with him, either on his donations or his respect for the profession of journalism, because they've been quick to go to the press to let them know their dissatisfaction with the way that he's handled the scandal. Here's what some of you said:

'Accepting such huge amounts of money from a source whose director has been convicted of breaking our own govt's laws is simply wrong.'

That was Alun Davies. The donation was 'completely unjustifiable and wrong', Lee Waters.

'I would not have accepted it,'

Jeremy Miles. It 'tarnishes us all', said an anonymous Labour MS. Clearly, one of you didn't want to put your name to that one. Here's what some other members of the Labour Party said:

'if I was in that position I wouldn't have simply because of the optics of it',

and,

'I would probably just have said no and looked for funding elsewhere.'

That was Andrew Morgan, RCT council leader, Labour Party.

'This causes damage to the image of Welsh Labour and it causes damage to the image of devolution as well.'

Leighton Andrews, former Labour Minister. Here's another anonymous senior Labour figure speaking to Nation.Cymru:

'The decision that accepting the donations did not amount to a breach of the Ministerial Code is astonishing. The rationale is that the funds were received by Vaughan in his role as an MS rather than as a minister. This is entirely irrelevant.'

And one more:

'I’m not going to come on a television programme to defend Vaughan Gething. He shouldn’t have accepted the money. He should’ve returned the money straightaway. And he accepted the money from someone who’s guilty of environmental crimes and there’s all sorts of serious questions that need to be answered—and we need an independent inquiry.'

Welsh Labour MP Beth Winter. I could go on and on and on. But the point is that I agree with Beth. With that much disquiet in his own party, I understand why he hasn't come today, and I also understand why he's chosen to launch an internal investigation inside the Labour Party. But, as many of his own colleagues recognise, this is about more than just the Labour Party, it's about the country. The First Minister famously said a few weeks ago in this Chamber, and I quote,

Last night, we spoke and there was, I understand, cross-party support on the steps that we should all be taking to restore trust in politicians. This entire episode has cast a dark shadow over Welsh democracy. This case, as serious as it is, merely, in my view, represents a symptom of the larger disease afflicting our democracy. It's the insidious rise of big money in politics. If we're not careful, we will end up just like the USA. It's a system that empowers the elite donor class, while shutting out the voices of ordinary people. It's a perversion of democracy itself.

That is why the wider goal should be to eradicate big money from our politics once and for all here in Wales. Surely the answer is simple, both in this debate and in the next one, and if the First Minister was here, I would say this: 'Give the money back. Let's stop this now in its tracks.' Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The Trefnydd to contribute to the debate. Jane Hutt.

Thank you, Llywydd. Having listened carefully, I haven't heard anything new today. We have responded to these points previously. Llywydd, Members have heard the facts from the First Minister himself in the Chamber and in the Senedd.

I would say to Members here today that I'm responding—

Will you take an intervention?

No, not at this stage. I've got a short period and I've got a lot to say.

I'm going to say, in response to the motion, that the First Minister and all of us in this Cabinet are committed to upholding the ministerial code. And it's entirely right that whoever is in Government in Wales makes a clear and public statement of the standards of behaviour that are expected of them and that they ensure that they abide by those standards, and furthermore, when questions are raised, those concerns are considered carefully and responded to appropriately. One of the first things that the First Minister did at his very first Cabinet meeting—and it's important to share this—was to emphasise the importance of the ministerial code and his expectation that his Government should adhere to the highest standards, as outlined by the code. We take very seriously the ministerial code and the responsibilities that it places upon Welsh Ministers.

Llywydd, there is simply no link between the donation made to the First Minister's campaign for the leadership of the Labour Party and any loan decision made by the Development Bank of Wales. The development bank provides commercial loans and equity investments to businesses based in Wales, and the decisions it takes are wholly independent of the Welsh Government. The framework document between the Welsh Government and the development bank sets out how the relationship between the Government and the bank is managed and operated, and it explicitly states that Welsh Ministers and Welsh Government officials shall take no part in day-to-day operational matters, commercial matters or decision making throughout the DBW group.

And the First Minister, in his previous Cabinet role, had absolutely no involvement in this loan and it really isn't right to make or imply such a connection when the facts do not bear it out. The Development Bank of Wales confirmed this, as Hefin David has said, in a recent scrutiny session, that Ministers do not play a role in these decisions. Yes, Members are aware, and it's been reflected on again today that the former First Minister did consider whether accepting this donation might constitute a breach of the ministerial code when he received a letter regarding this, and he took advice on it and he was advised that it did not constitute a breach. He accepted this advice and the proper process was followed for considering alleged breaches of the ministerial code.

Finally, Llywydd, in responding to the motion and the amendment, I state once again that our decisions comply with the rules and the code has not been broken. There are steps in place to keep constituency business apart from ministerial business. This is in accordance with the requirements of the Electoral Commission and therefore an independent inquiry would not be appropriate.

Can I just say finally that I'm glad, too, that the leader of the opposition wants to move on? We're moving on as a Welsh Government—[Interruption.] We're moving on as a Welsh Government to address the challenges facing the people of Wales—

Are you taking an intervention, Minister?

I'll take an intervention.

I'm grateful to the leader of the house. This portfolio responsibility sits firmly with the First Minister. He has chosen not to turn up today to this debate to respond to the points that have been put to him. Much of the information that you recited in your reply to this debate was not available to the previous First Minister, such as the loan that was made from the Development Bank of Wales. Can you explain why the First Minister has not turned up to speak to an issue that is in his ministerial portfolio, because I think, out of courtesy, the Senedd deserves that response from you today?

It is also very appropriate that I, as Trefnydd, am addressing and responding to this debate that you've put forward today. And I will repeat the point I made that I'm glad that the leader of the opposition does want to move on. I think the whole Senedd yesterday—. And let's remember, we're moving on as a Senedd in terms of our Senedd reform. But the Welsh Government and the First Minister, who is, himself, going to Mumbai—and I think that was welcomed across this Chamber—he is addressing, with his economy Minister, the challenges that the people of Port Talbot and south Wales, and much further afield, are facing in terms of what's happening to steel making, with the recent Tata decision.

It is the Welsh Government who are addressing the challenges facing the people of Wales. But I'm also glad that it is the Senedd that is facing these challenges as we move forward to progress with Senedd reform, for a more representative democracy here in Wales. I think that's what we are addressing together in this Senedd. But I'm glad that I've had the opportunity to put the record straight and to repeat the facts here today, and it's the facts that should guide us in our decision making and in our voting. I move our amendment.

Samuel Kurtz to reply to the debate.

The fact of the matter is that the First Minister hasn't turned up for a debate on the responsibility that is his, and the disgruntlement and silence from the Labour benches I think speaks volumes as to the feelings within the Labour Party at the moment.

Andrew R.T. Davies, in opening this debate, mentioned 'recognises', 'notes' and 'calls'—the three points to our motion, which I think he put across incredibly eloquently. He raised, too, his disappointment that the First Minister wasn't in his place and, also, the regret that we see in the Welsh Government bringing forward a 'delete all' motion.

Rhun ap Iorwerth mentioned the anger and frustration felt over this, and said that the 'nothing to see' attitude of the First Minister could either be seen as complacent at best or contemptuous at worst.

Hefin David, being put forward to defend the First Minister in his absence—

Nobody put me forward.

You're a very willing person, then. But in terms of the point that you raised there, and Andrew R.T. Davies made it in an intervention to the Trefnydd, not all of the information was available to the previous First Minister when that initial investigation was taking place. The story is moving forward because more information is coming to light. If he wants the story to stop moving forward, if the Trefnydd wants the story to stop moving forward and if the Labour benches want the story to stop moving forward, then all the First Minister has to do is agree to our motion.

Will you take an intervention?

I'll take an intervention.

One of the things that was not in the public domain at the time that the previous First Minister undertook his review as to whether there had been a breach of the ministerial code was the fact that a £200,000 donation had been made by a company that had accepted a significant loan from the Development Bank of Wales as a lender of last resort. That was not information that was known in the public domain at that time. Clearly, if there's a perception of potential influence, then that is an issue that the code refers to. Don't you agree with me that, given that that is new information, and given that there's further information about other links with the taxi firm, for example, that we discussed in this Chamber yesterday, that also needs to be looked at?

Well, it'll be of little surprise to the Chamber that of course I agree with you, Darren Millar, on those points there—that as new information comes forward, that information should be taken seriously and, therefore, an investigation must be conducted.

Tom Giffard listed those Labour Members who've shown their discontent with what has happened here, and Jane Dodds mentioned the dark shadow that this has cast over Welsh politics. It's quite clear that we need an urgent independent investigation. And while the First Minister says that he's acted to the letter of the rules, this donation and all that surrounds it is, well, just not cricket.

So, let's remind ourselves of how it looks to the general public that we serve. Vaughan Gething took a £200,000 donation from someone convicted of environmental crimes to fight an extremely tight leadership election, which he ultimately won by a narrow margin. Businesses owned by the very same convicted individual had previously borrowed £400,000 from the Development Bank of Wales that the then economy Minister oversaw. For residents in Paul Davies's constituency, there's an additional layer here too, because the Withyhedge tip, causing foul, polluted air, is operated by the very same convicted individual who donated the £200,000 to Vaughan Gething.

Our motion is clear, as is the ministerial code: an act only has to appear to have a conflict of interest, or only has to appear to place a Member under an improper obligation. This whole saga—the donation, the loan, the poor judgment shown by the First Minister because he knew about the conviction when accepting the donation—is just like that Withyhedge tip: it stinks. So, if there's nothing to hide, why vote against our motion? If there's nothing to hide, then surely you'd welcome the opportunity to be fully exonerated. If there's nothing to hide, then join us and vote with the Welsh Conservatives this afternoon.

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

Item 8 is next, the Plaid Cymru debate on a cap on political donations. Rhun ap Iorwerth is to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. We also note how incredible it is that the First Minister himself isn't here to listen to these debates this afternoon.

The average property price in Wales is £225,000, so you can buy a house for that or you can use a similar amount to build your case to be leader of the Labour Party in Wales—an internal party election; the sum is eye-watering. We've seen nothing like it in Welsh politics.

Two-hundred thousand pounds is not only out of kilter with what the public would deem acceptable, but it also dwarfs the size of donations given to recent successful and unsuccessful candidates for the Labour Party leadership in Wales. Carwyn Jones and Mark Drakeford won their contest having received between £10,000 and £20,000. I can tell you that, in Plaid Cymru, the cap for an election like that is £5,000. Donations to Jeremy Miles's campaign, although a significant amount, came, in total, to less than a third of what Vaughan Gething received from one donor.

We can safely assume that money like that could have a material impact on the result, and not just who became the Labour leader in Wales, but, ultimately, on who became First Minister. Yes, Labour has admitted that some questions need to be asked, but the review will be conducted by a former leader of Labour in Wales, who you would expect to gravitate perhaps towards maintaining party discipline, rather than rocking the boat.

Plaid Cymru's motion today calls for a cap on individual political donations. Carwyn Jones has said that his internal review will consider that. So, I must say it's so disappointing that Labour here today would seek to delete our motion in its entirety, seemingly rejecting any cap outright, without even suggesting, in their amendment, that they're happy with exploring the idea. Nothing in the Government's amendment gives even the slightest nod to the fact that donations of hundreds of thousands of pounds are in any way problematic.

In defending the donation yesterday, the First Minister glibly said that the issue wasn't a priority for the people of Wales, his contention being that they're more concerned with the cost-of-living crisis. He may not be able to square that circle, but during the campaign, Lee Waters rightly did when he said, and I quote:

'I'm sorry but £200k on an internal election in a cost of living crisis is completely unjustifiable.'

I agree with him. I echo those sentiments. And we're left to question the future direction of policy making, frankly, if a Labour First Minister can't find it within himself to acknowledge that him accepting hundreds of thousands of pounds to meet his own ends, when so many can hardly make ends meet, calls into question his political antennae.

This chapter raises broader concern about the fundamental health of our democracy. There is a risk of a poison affecting our politics here. The lack of regulation of funding in politics is a problem, and we must truly guard against politics becoming a game in Wales that can be played by those who want to buy influence only, or to give the impression that political favours are being bought. Even if the individuals themselves, as the First Minister in this case says he is, are determined to ensure that there is no conflict of interest in reality, the impression and the optics are so important here.

Canada, France, Ireland, Estonia and Slovenia—according to the research that we've been doing over the last few weeks—are all examples of nations that have put measures in place to limit the donations that individuals can accept. They're all different systems tailored to their own political needs, and we have an opportunity here in Wales to plan and to agree on rules that are most appropriate to our democracy. It is within the gift of the Senedd to present motions to change Senedd Standing Orders, and the Members' code of conduct, which would put a cap. In doing so, we should jointly plan the system with those people whose trust we are asking for: the public. With the support of the public, we can agree on a cap that allows the necessary level of political activity and agree on a level that the public considers to be reasonable.

If you agree that money, or lack of money, shouldn't be a barrier for people to enter politics, if you agree that money, or lack of money, should not affect one's ability to either develop a policy platform or to influence the route through political ranks, and if you agree that it's not possible to justify a donation of £200,000 to an individual's campaign to become First Minister, then I urge you to support the motion today.

Firstly, I need to ask the Trefnydd to propose formally amendment 1.

Formally.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute to another debate on an issue that has captured many people’s imaginations outside of this place as well as much Plenary time and debating time as well. I’ll put on record for the second time this afternoon my disappointment that the First Minister isn’t here to respond to this important debate, because it clearly is another debate that sits within his portfolio of responsibilities. I did invite the Trefnydd to give us the reason why he hasn’t come here in the previous debate, and there might be a perfectly legitimate reason why he’s not here, but at least give us the courtesy of a response to that question so that we can be satisfied that it’s of such urgency and magnitude that he cannot show us the courtesy to come and address the points that have been put to him today. I hope Members, even speaking in support of the First Minister, would agree that this is an important debate, and the previous one is, and the First Minister should be here responding to it given it’s his ministerial responsibility.

I said in my previous contribution that the public are rightly anxious and concerned about the news—. Hefin David, the Member for Caerphilly, points to the gallery as if there’s no-one up there. There are actually three more people up there than there were for Senedd reform yesterday, when we were told we were talking about historic legislation, and there wasn’t anyone. Oh, sorry—I missed the people sitting over there. There are five people in the public gallery today. To dismiss it so flippantly and say that the public aren’t concerned most probably shows the detachment of the current First Minister, and his supporters’ inability to grasp what is going on in the voters’ minds when it comes to this. [Interruption.] I’ll gladly take the intervention.

What I find difficult about some of this is the hypocrisy. Your party took £10 million from someone who said they were going to shoot black people. They wanted to shoot black women. How do you feel about that?

Anyone who makes those comments should never be near a political party or take those donations. I agree with the point that you just made. But we are debating here an issue about an individual, because as I said in my speech in the previous debate, this money wasn't given to a political party. This money was given to an individual to secure a position that ultimately would secure the leadership of the country that he lives in and is proud to represent, just like all of us are. That is the point we are talking about here, and it is about judgment—the judgment call that the now First Minister made in the knowledge that this individual who made this substantial donation had two criminal convictions from the company that he owns, and also had taken a loan from the Development Bank of Wales for £400,000, and in the same year gave a £200,000 donation to the leadership campaign.

And as I said in First Minister’s questions yesterday, if you read the annualised accounts of this company, it highlights one of the benefits that the company sees going forward is in legislation, and legislation to improve the prospects of that company. They’re not my words—they’re in the accounts that are filed at Companies House, which highlight what the company wants to achieve. So the company has put £200,000 in a pot that it identifies is a route to maybe having the ability to influence legislation that governs the prospects and profitability of that company. That’s there. That’s in their own words. You can’t dismiss that.

And as we saw in First Minister’s questions yesterday, the Gwent levels were raised by John Griffiths, and we saw then Julie Morgan from Cardiff North highlighting the taxi firm that also made a substantial donation of £25,000. How many areas are going to be out of bounds for the First Minister to speak on because he has this conflict of interest, because of this level of donation and taking of money to secure the role of First Minister?

That is the debate, and that is the discussion. It’s about judgment and a solution, then, to put in place to find that independent opinion that will either say, ‘No, there is no conflict of interest in terms of the ministerial code here, and there is no perception of a breach of that code’—. Because it is important that perception appears within that ministerial code. It’s worded there, it was read in the summing up of the last debate, and in my opening remarks, and the Trefnydd didn’t respond to that point whatsoever. She just regurgitated many of the arguments that have been put forward by the Government that, frankly, haven't silenced the critics when it comes to this particular point. And many of those critics aren't wearing blue rosettes, they're not wearing yellow rosettes, they're not wearing green rosettes—they're wearing red rosettes, and that is an important distinction on this issue, which is something I do admire in the Labour Party, which is the discipline and the collective responsibility that you will always take to make sure that you continue in Government. But here, you can clearly see that there is wrongdoing going on in taking this donation that has had an impact on your prospects. And I am just amazed again with this motion that the Government have put a 'delete all' amendment down to it.

Andrew R.T. Davies has made the same speech twice now, and it doesn't get better with repetition. I do need to respond to Sam Kurtz's point. The Development Bank of Wales said the loan—he was in the same committee I was, so he should have remembered it—the money, was allocated for a specific purpose that it was loaned for and could not be spent on any other matter because there was an audit trail. [Interruption.] Well, you can't perceive something that's already been proven not to be the case; there is no perception.

So, I'd like to address two issues: public approval and the annual maximum cap, because I think they are serious issues that do need to be addressed and I will finish with my views on it. And I know that my colleague Vikki Howells, as Chair of the standards committee, will address the final point of the motion.

Public approval—well, I think the problem we've got is if we start looking at these things from this lens, you're going to be bringing down the whole of this Senedd and damaging the Senedd's reputation across the political groups, because in 2019 £140,000 was donated to Plaid Cymru by Julian Dunkerton, co-founder of Superdry, and in 2022 that company had to pay £96,208 to a female employee after being found guilty of unfair dismissal and age discrimination. Now, the thing about that, businesses—they have these kinds of histories. Do we then say 'no' to all donations? [Interruption.] I'm not taking an intervention.

[Inaudible.]

I'll come back to that in a second—

[Inaudible.]—to respond.

I think this needs to be highlighted. Just to be clear, I'm not criticising you for it. I'm not making a criticism. What I'm saying is—. [Interruption.] Two seconds. Let me just finish what I'm saying. This needs to show the inconsistencies that different Members in different parties are expected to comply with.

If you're taking an intervention. I'm grateful to you for taking an intervention. You draw attention to one particular donation. I have to point out a number of things: (a) that was a party donation rather than an individual donation, which is what we're talking about today, and it pales into insignificance, by the way, compared to gifts and donations given to the Labour Party. That is a donation that was accepted three years before concerns were raised about employment rights.

You don't need to defend yourself.

The First Minister accepted this—three times the amount accepted by Plaid Cymru, after convictions for environmental crimes were pointed out. He also says that the questions around the Plaid Cymru donor—

This is more than an intervention now.

[Inaudible.]—intervention.

This is a speech. [Interruption.] No, this is a speech.

[Inaudible.]

But this is crucial—

I'm happy, Llywydd, to—. Whatever he's unhappy with about what I've said—

No, no. Let Rhun quickly finish.

I will quickly. And this specifically is around employers' rights. The First Minister also accepted £25,000 from Veezu taxi who have been the subject of complaints about employment rights within the last year.

Right. So, first of all, I'm happy to accept whatever he says, but it isn't the subject of the motion; the subject of the motion is a cap on donations. It isn't the subject of—. It doesn't actually mention the issues being raised—[Interruption.]

Allow the—

Okay, let's talk about individual donations then. On 10 March 2014, Ynys Môn Plaid Cymru received £121,891.43—[Interruption]. No. It received £121,891.43 from an individual—Ynys Môn Plaid Cymru. It was a few months after Rhun ap Iorwerth had been elected, in August, to this Senedd Chamber. It's on the Electoral Commission's website and, again, I'm not criticising that—[Interruption.] But the total donation to one constituency party—[Interruption.] The total donation to one constituency party—[Interruption.]

It's for the Member to accept an intervention or not.

I'm not accepting an intervention. [Interruption.] I'm not accepting an intervention. [Interruption.] So, the total donation to one constituency party—

Sit down, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

—of £141,584.92 from one donor. Now, I can tell you the Caerphilly constituency party has probably got about £3,000 or £4,000 in the bank—I'm sure Delyth will be glad to know. But the Ynys Môn party was receiving a donation from the Electoral Commission for a total of £141,000. Now, why, then, didn't Rhun ap Iorwerth say, in 2013, when he had this in the bank in his constituency party, that there should've been a cap on donations then? It's an interesting question. [Interruption.] No. Because what I'm saying—. I'm not taking an intervention, no. I'm not being shouted down, Llywydd. Llywydd, I'm being shouted down by two sides for making reasonable points in a debate. [Interruption.]

[Inaudible.]—shouted down by anybody other than me. You carry on, Hefin David.

Thank you, Llywydd.

You can sit down now, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

So, we do ask, 'Why didn't he raise the cap on donations then?' It's a reasonable question to ask, and I don't criticise him for it. If your constituency party receives that kind of money, then, absolutely fine, but don't be hypocritical. Let's remember that sanctimony is a close cousin of hypocrisy, and if you engage with sanctimony, sooner or later you're going to bump into hypocrisy, as Plaid Cymru have, unfortunately, today. [Interruption. ] No, I'm out of time.

So, what I would say is I don't really agree with the idea of publicly funded—getting the taxpayer to fund—political parties; I don't think that's right. But having said that, it is an interesting point that Plaid Cymru make in their motion. I won't be supporting it, because I think you would need to look at it in much more detail before you ask taxpayers to fund political parties and, indeed, individual candidates. But I think we do need to recognise the hypocrisy on all sides of the Chamber, both sides of the Chamber, here today, and if you just avoid sanctimony, you can avoid that. If we care about our democracy today, now's the time to move on.

I think that was a very poor contribution from my fellow Senedd Commissioner. I hope he wouldn't mind me saying that at the outset.

Look, money in politics, concerns about it—it's been one of the drivers of what we were talking about yesterday, the collapse in trust in democracy and in politicians, in politics. We've mostly been immune from it in Wales, because there haven't been many people with deep pockets that wanted to invest in politics. We now have that problem, as a result of what's happened, and I think it's important that we have a mature discussion about how we solve that problem.

There's been reference to approval ratings, hasn't there, in the context of what we're talking about. Look, set aside the party-political knockabout that we've just heard, right? Let's elevate the discussion to what's really important. I'm not really, in the short term, medium or long term, that interested in individual politicians' approval ratings or even parties; I am really concerned about the public approval for this institution and for our Welsh democracy. And, look, just objectively, I think it's very difficult to deny that that trust in our politics will have taken a hit, as a result of this donation and everything surrounding. I'm trying to be objective and step back here. I think it's undoubtedly the case. What this motion is trying to do is to come up with a solution to that, right?

We don't have the power to legislate in relation to campaign donations, political donations; that's reserved to Westminster. But we do have the power over our own Standing Orders and our code of conduct, which is what this motion is suggesting: that we actually introduce a cap in relation to that. Because there will be people out there, in a close election, who will perceive that the leadership of the Government, the leading position, the First Minister's job, was bought as a result of a donation. Political donations are given for one of two reasons. In one case, you have high net-worth individuals that actually have genuine—. You know, they have a record of political engagement, they strongly believe in a particular cause, a political party—that's one case. The other one is, suddenly, out of nowhere, they sign a cheque, and you're left wondering, 'Why did I sign that cheque?' Does anyone know why David Neal gave this money to Vaughan Gething? Because I certainly don't, and I think many people will be asking that question.

We have to respond to this situation collectively, across parties, and the way we do that is to set a cap on what's acceptable for Members of the Senedd to receive. I'm disappointed the Conservatives aren't able to support it now, but I hope, in further discussion, that they will. Certainly, on the Labour benches—set aside what's happened for one minute, and think about the future. Think about the future. You say you want to move on. Well, think about moving on, right? Think about actually having rules, so that we can go out there and we can all be proud of the rules that we have over our democracy in Wales.

I want to make it clear that I'll be speaking this afternoon in my capacity, and solely in my capacity, as Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, and I will be addressing the points in the motion, which refer specifically to that committee.

As Chair of the standards committee, I welcome any debate about Member accountability; it serves as an important reminder to all Members of their responsibility to register and declare both registerable and relevant interests to ensure maximum transparency and confidence in this Senedd.

The register of interests is key in allowing the public to see the interests held by Members. The guidance on the registration, declaration and recording of financial and other interests is quite clear that these requirements are neither optional nor voluntary. Standing Order 2 sets out the requirements for Members in terms of registering and declaring interests, and the annex to that Standing Order has 10 categories of registerable interest. There is also a requirement to register relevant interests captured under Standing Orders 13.8A and 17.24A. This is broader in scope than the requirements under Standing Order 2. And candour is essential from each of us in deciding whether a declaration is required under this Standing Order or not. The committee has a responsibility for ensuring that the register is maintained and accessible. We have periodically reviewed the requirements on Members, and we will continue to ensure that regular reviews of the register and the registration process are undertaken.

Last summer, as part of this review process, the committee ran a public consultation on the registration and declaration of interests. The evidence we gathered from this consultation raised a number of issues that we are in the process of taking forward. These include, for example, the need for Members to now add an estimated value for gifts and hospitality, as well as the introduction of a new miscellaneous category to allow Members to register matters that may be of interest to the public, but which are not captured elsewhere in the register. This consultation was shaped in part from issues brought to the committee's attention by Members on the registration and declaration of interests. The responses received highlighted a need for some changes to what interests are registered and the information that needs to be provided and published to ensure maximum transparency. We will be looking carefully at best practice elsewhere to ensure that the Senedd's register is as transparent, if not more so, as those of comparable Parliaments. The committee will therefore be bringing forward proposals to amend the registration requirements as set out in Standing Orders for the seventh Senedd.

Alongside the responsibilities of the committee and the Senedd, the Electoral Commission, of course, also has an important role in regulating donations and loans to political parties and politicians. Currently, the Senedd and the Electoral Commission require different levels of detail of Members when registering the same donations, so we will look to ensure consistency in this regard in future.

I particularly want to just thank you, Adam, for just bringing the debate back to what's important here, and reflecting as well, whilst listening, both to the previous debate and this one, about some of the debates we've been having, looking at Senedd reform, about the barriers to participation, why people don't stand for election currently, and why we don't reflect the whole of the population. And some of that is money, because how many people can afford to take unpaid leave? How many of us actually went into debt standing for election and started here with a minus bank account? Because that is the reality for some people here, and many of those that weren't successful in being elected here. And I'm passionate about ensuring that money should never be a barrier to anyone thinking that they couldn't be here.

But neither should money be a barrier for anybody wanting to be First Minister of our country. Every child in Wales that visits here, when we go into schools, should also be able to believe that they could, one day, be First Minister. That's something we tell them. But if they look at the donations here—and many of them are interested in this, they've picked up on it, just as they did with 20 mph—. To think we're not talking about £200,000 are we, really, we're talking about £321,600 in cash, £24,200 in kind, for one leadership campaign—that's really difficult to justify. When we are going round our constituencies and regions, yes, the issues that the First Minister wants us to discuss, such as cost of living, are what we're seeing, but how can we say that we're addressing some things but act in a different way? And I think that's the crux of the matter here—that something has happened that we can debate whether any rules were broken, but the current First Minister's judgment has to be brought into question, and that's why this question isn't going away, and why we need to take steps to restore trust.

The review into campaign finance we need is public, and it should be answerable to the people of Wales, not the membership of the Labour Party. We are calling today, therefore, for the Senedd to up its game, to ensure that our democracy, as has been said, cannot be bought. We know the damage that questionable campaign finances can have on our democratic institutions. It's been brought into sharp focus in recent weeks. And as we've already heard, there are many international examples of best practice that we might look to draw on as we seek to prevent any further undermining of the integrity of Welsh democracy. Isn't it apt that we have this debate at a time of Senedd reform where we talk about making ourselves more accountable, more representative? Well, why not ensure that we are completely different in terms of donations as well? We are calling for that cap on political donations that any individual Members of the Senedd can receive from any individual or entity, and I see no reason why this proposal should not garner the support of all of us in this Siambr.

I've been struggling to process my feelings about the issues before us today, and this is a speech I would rather have avoided. Immediately on the news of the donation coming out, I said I thought it was unjustifiable and wrong—that's a matter of record—and I've not changed my view. Two hundred thousand pounds is a staggering amount of money, unprecedented in Welsh politics, and over four times larger than the £45,000 spending cap the Labour Party set to ensure a fair contest. And the fact it came from a waste company with a conviction for damaging the Gwent levels, at a time when some of us were fighting hard to protect this sensitive area, really shocked me. Genuinely, it shocked me.

Now, the First Minister has said that the donations to his campaign were checked and filed properly with the Electoral Commission and declared to the Senedd and there is no case to answer. But I think the issue is not whether the paperwork was correct; the issue is whether the judgment was correct. Now, I welcome the appointment of Carwyn Jones to look at the rules for future elections, and the suggestion in Plaid's motion of a spending cap for each of us is worthy of consideration, but to agree to it today would prejudge the review. And I suspect he may well come up with something similar, but I want to give that process time to test the arguments properly and to consider unintended consequences. So, I won't support the Plaid motion. I will support the Government. But I hope the First Minister reflects on my concerns and takes them in the spirit that they're intended.

The Conservative motion, as Hefin David quite rightly said, is based on a false premise. As a former Minister in the economy department, I know that decisions on loans from the development bank are made at arm's length, precisely to avoid conflicts of interest. So, the First Minister is absolutely spot on about that. And the Tories, if I may say, would have more credibility if they had stood up when the last two Home Secretaries, the Chancellor, and even the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, were not just accused of breaking the ministerial code but were judged to have actually broken the ministerial code. But what did Rishi Sunak and the Welsh Conservatives have to say about that? Not a dicky-bird.

So, we can all see through their double standards, but the reason I'm speaking this afternoon is because we're meant to be better than that. The point about devolution, this place—a Parliament we have created from scratch—is that we set higher standards. Twenty-five years ago, we talked of devolution as the beginning of a new politics, but the reputation of politics and politicians seems to be lower than ever. The First Minister has said that he does not believe his approval ratings have been affected by the controversy, and I must say that surprised me and it troubled me. Whether the polls bear that out or not, it really isn't the point. Surely the question isn't what any of us can get away with; it's what is right. And the fact that some voters just shrug their shoulders—that's what should worry us. Far from being an endorsement, I fear it's a reflection that we are all tarred with the same brush. And we all get it: 'You're all the same,' 'You're in it for yourselves,' 'You're on the make.' Not only is it demoralising for many of us who see politics as a genuine public service, a sacrifice, but it is also dangerous to the fabric of our democracy at a time when it's already under huge strain. Academics call it 'norm spoiling'. They say that when accepted standards of behaviours—norms—are undermined, it lowers expectations, and that lays the ground for a new set of weaker standards to take hold. That's why we need to confront this situation, and I'm deeply uncomfortable the way I'm now, in effect, being expected to endorse something I just think is wrong, and I haven't spoken out since the donation came to light 10 weeks ago, because I wanted to give time for the issue to be addressed, but it hasn't been.

A hundred and fifty miles from here, there is a palace on the Thames where the stench doesn't only come from the dirty water. In Westminster, the rot has seeped into the walls, bringing down the house with the weight of a corrupt and festering culture. We do not want our Senedd to be sullied with the same scandals that are common in Westminster. The whole point of devolution is that we can and should do things differently in Wales, that we can and should expect better for our Welsh democracy. More than a motorway should separate this Senedd from that rotting palace, the place of brown envelopes, cash for honours, illicit lobbyists, a place where, in the midst of a public health crisis, the Government set up a crooked VIP lane to make their rich friends richer, a place where policy can be bought and influence sold to the highest bidder, where—in the words of a former Cabinet Minister—an integrity vacuum has been created.

We should not seek to follow their example, because let's remind ourselves of that culture from which we must differentiate ourselves. Frank Hester gave at least £10 million to the Conservative Party in the past year. His healthcare technology firm TPP has been paid more than £400 million by the NHS and other Government bodies since 2016. He has profited from £135 million of contracts with the Department for Health and Social Care in less than four years. In March of this year, comments that Hester had made about a former Labour frontbencher, Diane Abbott, making him want to hate all black women, were reported by Abbott to the Metropolitan Police. Malik Karim, who has given the Conservatives £1.6 million since 2014, and is a former party treasurer, won two major contracts in 2023 through his finance firm Fenchurch Advisory, worth £1.5 million and £175,000 respectively, to advise the Post Office. These are all the examples from which we must differentiate ourselves.

Another Tory donor, Simon Blagden, was part of the Fujitsu leadership team at the time when postal workers were being wrongly convicted of false accounting and fraud by the Post Office because of its faulty software. Blagden was made chair of Building Digital UK, the Government agency responsible for delivering faster broadband in 2022, three years after his former company's software was found to have been at fault in what became the Horizon scandal. Since 2005, Blagden and companies he is closely associated with have donated £376,000 to the same party. During the COVID pandemic, Meller Designs Ltd, headed by Tory donor David Meller, who has donated more than £300,000 to the Conservative Party since 2009, was awarded—[Interruption.] What's this got to do—? I am saying why we need to differentiate ourselves from this. I will take the intervention, I will.

This whole debate just shows—. You used the word 'pantomime' yesterday, and I'm really—. Oh, no, it was Heledd, actually. This debate is probably one of the worst debates I've ever sat through. When the First Minister decides to not even be here, that is an insult to this Chamber and the people of Wales. So, do you not—? Be honest with me now. How can anybody actually defend the indefensible in this Chamber, in this institution—

Janet, I am in no way trying to defend that.

—in this Senedd. It's nothing to do with the UK Parliament or Government, this. This is this Senedd, yes or no?

Janet, I would not defend what you're discussing here, but I'm saying why this Senedd should be different, and we should be different from what's happening in Westminster, because the list—. I won't go on with those examples, but I could go on and on and on. Many of them were the result of the so-called COVID VIP lane, which gave those privileged donors access to key contracts. The public paid over the odds for those goods and services; they were all too often defective or ineffective. The UK Labour Party is not without fault either. Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves received a donation from prominent climate sceptic Lord Donoughue in the days before her party in Westminster dropped its £28 billion green energy spending commitment.

Llywydd, this is precisely the kind of rot we should turn our backs on, not embrace. The kind of politics we should offer in Wales should be different, better, because this Senedd should be better than that. This Senedd must be better. We cannot allow our politics to follow the same path as Westminster; that way, ruin lies.

If I may, I'd like to focus my contribution on the importance of considering the unintended consequences of motions when they come to the floor of this Senedd. As we've heard already from many contributions, all parties of this Chamber have received donations far bigger than the particular donation in question this afternoon. In this debate, I think we have to consider what the consequences would be for donations provided by our trade union colleagues in particular, and, Presiding Officer, I'm proud to put on record my declaration of interest as a member of Unite the Union and Community union. Those are individual donations provided on behalf of thousands of workers across Wales on a democratic basis, and those donations are already subject to strict regulation. So, I do share the concerns of the trade unions, of the ones I've been in conversations with, when considering how proposals like the ones mentioned in this afternoon's motion from Plaid Cymru would work in practice.

As has been said already, and as I've said, all parties have had donations and received far larger single donations, which would not be captured by the cap proposed by the motion from Plaid Cymru, so we must consider this, as well, when voting on the motion this afternoon. Presiding Officer, we've heard lots of discussion around today, and it's an important discussion to have, no doubt, but I am disappointed in some Members who do seek to attack the integrity of the First Minister based on insinuation. Like many others in this Chamber, the First Minister has a proven record when it comes to fighting for social justice and fighting for workers' rights, and the governance of political donations is a subject that should be designed in a thoughtful and serious manner. It's not simply for political attacks in the Chamber by some. I say this as someone who likes political attacks as much as the next person in this Chamber.

I find myself reflecting throughout this debate on the contribution Adam Price made, a valued contribution to the debate, as it often is from Adam. Adam said in his contribution that he's seeking to find a solution to the issues around donations. I understand the premise of what Adam is trying to do; I don't think this motion does find the solution that you're looking for. That's my opinion, it's the opinion of many trade union colleagues that I have spoken to, and it's those unintended consequences that we have to look at. I will give way, because I did mention the Member.

Let's be clear, in terms of the motion, we're not having that wider debate, which I understand, at Westminster, led the Labour Party to oppose a cap on individual donations for the reasons that he's outlined. What we're talking about here is donations to individual Members, yes? Not to political parties. Would he accept that there is a distinction there that would still allow the kind of trade union contributions to political parties that he's referring to, but would introduce a cap on individual donations to individual Members, to avoid the kind of problems that we're talking about?

I do understand where the Member is going with the argument. What I would say to the argument is that I don't think that distinction has been definitive enough for the trade union colleagues that I have spoken to about this debate. I don't think the motion finds the solution that you're looking for, and I can understand why, perhaps, you might be looking for it. But it doesn't find that solution there. The conversation needs to be had at a different level and with more involved. So, I won't be supporting the motion in front of us today. I think it's important to distinguish and reflect on the facts in a serious conversation, in a serious and forceful manner, rather than political attacks from some—not all, but some—today and in the past. And I hope we can reflect on that, Llywydd. Diolch.

I originally wasn't going to speak, but I was strangely inspired to speak by the leader of Plaid Cymru's opening remarks, when he said that the average house price in Wales is £225,000. When you represent a constituency like the Vale of Clwyd, where I've got constituents who are living in the Westminster hotel in Rhyl; the average salary in Denbighshire is roughly about £20,000 per year, which is significantly lower than the national average minimum wage; I've got constituents still living with their parents at 30, who can't get on the housing ladder; I've got the worst-performing hospital in the worst-performing health board in Wales; and I represent similar communities to what some of the Labour Party Members do, and what message does that give out to people who are low-income families, who are working hard to keep a roof over their heads, if they have the luxury to do so? They have high waiting times, they struggle to see a doctor, a dentist, and all of that money that the leader of Plaid Cymru mentioned could remedy some of those problems. It would certainly buy a house in the Vale of Clwyd; it would get you a pretty good house, to be honest, £200,000. It would get you pretty far in Rhyl, actually, because a three-bed semi is, roughly, I don't know, £150,000 to £175,000 in some areas, so you'd probably get a bit of change out of that as well. So, where does it lead in terms of socialism, as well, which we talk about? Because we hear all the time from Labour Party Members, talking about poverty, which is great, which is fine—I'm not demeaning that at all—but what does it mean in terms of socialism? What's the Labour Party built on? What's socialism built on? It's built on fairness, it's built on equality, it's built on inclusion—

It was.

Well, it was, Janet, yes. It certainly was. But what message does that even give out to your voters that £200,000 can buy you a seat at the Cabinet table and the most influential, the most powerful job in the land? [Interruption.] Yes, certainly, yes.

I mean, you're absolutely right in your criticism, but imagine what you could buy with Tory money. [Laughter.]

What sort of figures would you be talking about? Well, again, it's the—[Interruption.]

Allow the Member to carry on. I think he's being disturbed by his own Members at this point. Carry on, Gareth.

Thank you, Llywydd. Again, it's the Party of Wales who are talking about—

Would you take an intervention?

Yes, I will. Yes.

I think the question here, Gareth, is obviously on the money, as you've mentioned, but it's also on the judgment, I think, of the First Minister in this case. The First Minister, earlier today, I read in the Daily Express, said that he was aware that there was a conviction at the time he took that donation. So, his judgment is called into question and it is that same judgment that is being used every day in his role as First Minister. Is that not what we should be worried about, as well?

Absolutely. And it brings an integrity issue. It's a good point you raised, Tom. But I'll just go back to that principle of socialism that we hear about all too often from Labour Members and the Government: what does that give to equality, what does that give to fairness, that £200,000 can buy you a seat at the Cabinet table and the most powerful job in the land? It doesn't send a good message out to the people of Wales, and my constituents, who genuinely struggle. My inbox is full of it; you can come and see it anytime you like. What message does that give out to the people of Wales, that £200,000 can get you the most powerful job in the land?

The Trefnydd to make a contribution. Jane Hutt.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. In response to this debate, Llywydd, it has been good to talk about standards today. Scrutiny in an open and constructive way is welcomed.

So, Llywydd, as the First Minister has repeatedly set out, all of the relevant rules have been complied with, and that's been acknowledged again this afternoon. I think, for the record, it's important to again state that the Welsh Government's propriety and ethics team has considered and responded to questions raised by Members, and are clear that no wrongdoing has taken place. And, as with all Ministers with registered interests, the First Minister will recuse himself from any involvement that presents any conflict of interest in the normal way.

Llywydd, the protections that are provided within our existing system are important. They're proactively upheld by Ministers, and that's been recognised in this debate.

Will you give way?

Mabon.

You say that there was no wrongdoing, and I accept that according to the rules there was no wrongdoing. Your colleagues have said that they wouldn't have accepted the money; Jeremy Miles, for instance, has said that. Would you have accepted the money?

I think in terms of responding to this debate, Mabon, which I'm doing as Trefnydd, I was going to actually say, and I think you would welcome this, Mabon, that I'm very glad that this debate has, actually, constructively debated your motion. That's what you would expect and that's what Adam Price has asked us to do: that we, today, constructively—and that's what I'm doing in response to your intervention as well. This debate, I think, has been robust and it's been respectful. We'll see what—. You know, people who are watching us are recognising that we have to be respectful and robust in debating the Plaid motion.

I think it has also been really helpful, some of the engagement from Members. I'd like to thank Jack Sargeant, for example, for his contribution, because he acknowledges the important role—the integral role—played by trade unions in the Welsh Labour movement. Of course, can we just reflect on that for a moment, colleagues and Members? The Labour Party was, of course, founded by the trade union movement. It's a source of pride that the party is supported by the collective contribution of shop workers, steelworkers, council staff and health workers, among others.

Trade unions are highly regulated, but there are huge constraints placed upon them by your Government—anti-worker legislation as well, by your Government. But, also, those constraints are on issues like not just the internal operation of unions, but relating to political funding. I think, Jack, it's important that you recognised, and you stated the fact, that you've had feedback from trade unions that they provide funding based on the collective contribution of thousands of workers in the form of donations to Members, not always provided to an individual Senedd Member, but they're often delivered in that way and there's no reason why that should not be the case.

But it's the rules providing for transparency that are important on that point. Llywydd, any reform—and, again, it goes back to respectfully debating this motion this afternoon—any reform involving a cap should be considered very carefully, and it should be thought through by all parties today. I welcome the fact that this was acknowledged by the leader of the opposition today. So, you've opened a debate, and it's been respectfully discussed this afternoon. As we set out in our amendment to the motion, we believe that the current rules for transparency, for declaring and, where necessary, for notifying donations function very well in ensuring that there's openness and opportunity for scrutiny in this area. Our view is that existing requirements are sufficient to be binding upon all parties in the Senedd, and that above those it's the responsibility of each party to decide on the arrangements for its own business.

Will you take an intervention?

—of the Labour Party.

I'm grateful to you for that. I'm grateful to the First Minister for establishing this review—I think it is important. Carwyn Jones, of course, who's leading it, has already said he's going to investigate a cap on donations, and I think we look forward to seeing where he reaches with that. Do you also agree with me—because I think the points that Lee Waters made in his speech were very important—that we should also introduce the test of a fit-and-proper person from whom donations may be accepted?

I'm grateful to Alun Davies for making that intervention today, because I think this is precisely why this debate can be respectful and can also feed back into the discussions and the review that will take place. As I said—and it goes back to what Andrew R.T. Davies said, actually—this is about thinking through; it's about thought-through reforms that I think we all need to take into account.

I would say, finally, Llywydd, that I want to, again, endorse the work of our cross-party standards committee, and I want to welcome and thank the Chair of the standards committee today, Vikki Howells. Let's look at this standards committee. We talked this afternoon about the fact that we want to move on—we want to move on—and I think the standards committee will help—[Interruption.] Let's just recall what Vikki Howells said today. She recognised that the work of the standards committee is a vital part of the operation of upholding the high standards of behaviour by our Senedd Members in taking action where there are suggestions that those standards have not been complied with. I have sympathy with Heledd Fychan's point, after having a really robust and positive discussion in the Senedd Reform Bill Committee this morning, about how we can ensure that we move forward with our Senedd reform, as we will do, I'm sure, next week, to also ensure that we reach out to the diverse people of Wales who we want to come and join us, and that they can trust in and respect the way that we conduct ourselves. That's crucial for the standards committee in terms of its work.

So, just very finally, Llywydd, I do want to thank all Members who've contributed to the debate this afternoon. It is about moving on. It is about recognising that we can debate these issues with respect, and also with respect that our First Minister is here today leading this Government—[Interruption.]—going to Mumbai next week on behalf of the thousands of people in our steel-working industry who expect that from a First Minister for a Welsh Labour Government.

I can't hear the Trefnydd. Please quieten down.

And I think the Senedd, by hopefully next week, will also move to Stage 4—symud ymlaen—with Senedd reform, to make sure that we can extend the democratic mandate effectively of this Senedd, and devolution 25 years on. There's a lot we can celebrate next week.

Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. I think it is important that, in his presence now—he did arrive towards the closing stages of these two debates—I do express to the First Minister the real disappointment that he wasn't here to hear and, indeed, to respond to these debates today. I will, of course, welcome an intervention, should he wish to make a statement at any point during my comments this afternoon.

We have just heard more appeals, as we have over recent days and weeks, to move on. I’m afraid we can’t simply move on as long as so many questions remain unanswered, and the fact that the First Minister himself doesn’t think that there are unanswered questions that remain doesn’t satisfy me, and I don’t believe it satisfies the vast majority of people in Wales.

I’d like to contrast, if I could, the contributions of two Members on the Labour benches. Firstly the Member for Caerphilly. We were talking, weren’t we, yesterday, in the discussion around the reform Bill, about the issue of misleading people in politics. One has to ask whether, in defending the First Minister, Hefin David hadn’t realised that today’s motion was about capping donations to individuals and not political parties, or whether he was conflating the two on purpose. He even referred to one donor to Plaid Cymru being found guilty of an issue around employees’ rights three years after that donation was made, when the First Minister received funds from one company, Veezu, that’s been the subject of challenges around employment rights in the past year. So, I think, be very, very careful when making those kinds of allegations.

Will you take an intervention?

Now, or after I've said my next few sentences? And he then went on to make insinuations around a payment to my constituency party—not to me, to my constituency party—in 2013. Some donations, Hefin David, can certainly not be deemed to be made in order to try to gain political influence. The late Mr Parry bequeathed that sum in his will, and we are not talking here about stopping payments being made to political parties, including yours, in wills. We're talking about payments to individuals, not political parties, and I'll remind you that, in the last year, your party received £9 million, I believe, in payments, to put it in context.

I think I should say I wasn't criticising you. I was just pointing out the fact that there is a degree of sanctimony and hypocrisy in your party. You received, or your constituency party received—which is what I said—£141,584.92 from a single donor. There's nothing wrong with that. I imagine it was used in the campaign to re-elect you in 2016, so please don't misconstrue what I'm saying. I'm actually supporting you.

I didn't hear that very well, but I don't think it matters. I’ll just leave it to you to reflect on whether there is a fair comparison to be made between a sum—[Interruption.]—bequeathed to a political party in a will—

Allow Rhun ap Iorwerth to finish the point he's trying to clarify. Thank you, Rhun ap Iorwerth. Diolch yn fawr.

I'll leave it to the Member to judge whether it’s a fair comparison between a sum of money left in a will to a political party by somebody who believes in democracy and a payment of £200,000 to a candidate for the leadership of the Labour Party in Wales by a company that had been found guilty of environmental offences, who were looking to the Government to make a decision around a solar farm, et cetera, et cetera. I absolutely accept what the First Minister says in terms of having registered everything properly, and that he cannot use his influence, but let’s remember what that ministerial code says about whether a reasonable judgment could be made that there could be a conflict between a decision made in a personal capacity and one’s work. I believe the threshold has been found, and I’ve said so on a number of occasions.

The comments made by the Member of Caerphilly reflect poorly, I’m afraid, on him today. I contrast his comments with the comments made—the very honest comments made—by the Member for Llanelli. Lee Waters said in very succinct terms, talking about the low reputation of politics as it is, that it shouldn’t be—ever, should it?—about whether we can get away with it; it’s whether it’s right. And I think in the context of these payments to the leader of the Labour Party in Wales and the First Minister, people have come to a conclusion about whether it is right or not. He said, Lee Waters, that he was unable to support the motion today because he feared that it prejudged the outcomes of an internal review by the Labour Party. I said in my comments initially that I regret the fact that Labour, in deleting all of our motion, didn't take the opportunity to say that there was a welcoming of that kind of approach that could lead to an investigation of how such a system could be put in place, and I think that reflects badly also on the Government today.

Simply, the decision to accept donations of this scale, never mind the source of those funds, the fact that it is allowed under the absence of rules that we currently have doesn't sit comfortably with the people of Wales. It gives an impression, even if all rules are respected, that influence can be bought.

I invite the Conservatives to reconsider their decision to abstain. On this, no decision is being made on what the cap should be, on what model should be brought in for that cap. I'd ask them to consider whether abstaining reflects poorly on them, given the controversies around the Conservative Party and political donations. So, I appeal to you to support the motion.

This episode reflects terribly, I'm afraid, on the First Minister himself and his judgment, but we can take a stand here today to defend the integrity of our democracy as a whole.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection and, therefore, we will defer voting until voting time.

That brings us to voting time, and unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to the first vote. The first series of votes is on item 6, the Welsh Conservatives debate on the Cass review, and I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1 will be next. A vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 14 against. Therefore, that amendment is agreed.

Amendment 2 is next, in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, no abstentions, 41 against. Amendment 2 is not agreed.

Finally, the motion as amended by amendment 1.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 52, no abstentions, nobody against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

Item 7 will be the next series of votes, on the Welsh Conservatives debate on the leadership campaign donations and the ministerial code. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1 is next. A vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, no abstentions, 25 against. Amendment 1 is agreed.

Amendment 2, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. That amendment is not agreed.

The final vote under this item is a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, no abstentions, 24 against, therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

The next set of votes is the Plaid Cymru debate on a cap on political donations. I call for a vote, first, on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Heledd Fychan. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 11, 14 abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, 24 abstentions, 1 against, therefore the amendment is agreed.

The final vote is on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, 25 abstentions, none against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

That bring us to the end of voting time today, but that's not the end of our proceedings. There will be a short debate held next.

We will move to the short debate now. Members leaving, if you could do so quietly. Peredur Owen Griffiths will present the short debates on Gaza, a Welsh response.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. When my name came out of the ballot for this short debate, it's always a privilege, because you get up to 15 minutes to talk about something that's important to you. I'm allowed to give up some of my time to other Members to speak, for up to a minute each, and tonight I've been inundated with requests. But I've gone on a first come, first served basis and agreed to give a minute each to Rhun ap Iorwerth, Sioned Williams, Mabon ap Gwynfor, Jenny Rathbone and John Griffiths. The Cabinet Secretary will then respond to the debate on behalf of the Government, and there's no vote on short debates. So, as I say, it's a great opportunity to speak on a subject that is important to me. I knew I wanted to talk about Gaza, and, in particular, to note our Welsh response.

Our response was almost immediate, with statements made by all party leaders in this Chamber on 10 October, condemning the Hamas attack on 7 October and calling for the release of the hostages. Plaid Cymru went further and called for a ceasefire back then. It's hard to believe that it's almost six months since 8 November, when we then held that historic vote in the Senedd to call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza. Thanks to support from Jane Dodds and some Labour backbenchers, the Senedd vote in favour of the immediate ceasefire motion tabled by Plaid Cymru passed. Plaid Cymru received some criticism from some quarters for this action, with some people saying that we should concentrate on matters in Wales. There are two things to say about that. Firstly, Plaid Cymru have a proud tradition of standing up on the world stage and raising our voices when we need to. Secondly, there are Welsh citizens who have been directly affected by events in Gaza. Earlier this month, we heard from Gillian and Pete Brisley from Bridgend who lost their daughter and granddaughters in the attack by Hamas on 7 October, and I have attended prayers next to a man in Dar-ul-Isra mosque who has lost over 20 members of his immediate family in Israel's war on Gaza.

Our job in this place is to represent all people in Wales, and that is what Plaid Cymru is doing. While I'm proud that we played our part in condemning what was already a dire situation for the people of Gaza in early November, the bombing, the starvation and the killing has continued relentlessly. According to Al Jazeera, the death toll stands at 1,139 people in Israel and 34,979 Palestinians killed since 7 October. In reality, the death toll is likely to be much higher, as more and more bodies are pulled out of the rubble and the grim discovery of mass graves at two different burial sites outside Nasser and Al-Shifa hospitals, where 390 bodies were recovered. This is devastation and sorrow on an unimaginable scale. Quite frankly, it's hard to talk about, and it's hard to watch. But talk about it we must. We must bear witness. And many have felt called to action. I see some people in the gallery that have been doing that.

In Wales, the response from a large number of people to these horrors has been clear: 'Not in my name'. People have attended rallies and vigils, people have marched, people have fundraised for relief efforts, and people have boycotted firms with connections to the Israeli military. Just like the Senedd ceasefire motion, they send a clear message from the people of Wales that we do not support Israel's continuing military offensive against the civilians in Gaza. To stand by, watch, and do nothing is not an option when the consequences of Israel's incursion into Gaza are so grave. I've been on marches and rallies, and at fundraisers. I've witnessed the passion from people who just want better from this world. Has that passion and determination been matched by our Government? Sadly, it has not. I was surprised last week when the First Minister said to me that—and I quote—

'It's been the position of the Welsh Government for some time that there should be an immediate ceasefire.'

That was news to me. It was also news to my colleagues, and it was news to the anti-war campaigners I'm in touch with, because when the Plaid Cymru ceasefire motion was brought to the Senedd, all Government Ministers abstained. I'm still waiting for clarification from the First Minister on when that position changed, and how it was communicated. What is concerning is how nobody knew anything about it.

I received an e-mail from a member of the Wales Overseas Agencies Group that said that they had sent a letter to the former First Minister, Mark Drakeford, in February. The letter addressed the UK Government's decision to suspend funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which is still not yet reinstated. As WOAG are yet to receive a response to the letter, they did resend this to the new First Minister last week following his comments that the Welsh Government supports an immediate ceasefire. Maybe the Cabinet Secretary will clarify this in her response and encourage the First Minister to answer the letter.

Thank you, Peredur, for bringing forward this debate today and for allowing me to make a brief contribution. The danger always is that the passage of time makes people lose focus and get used to something that's happening over there, regardless of how terrible it is.

We cannot allow the world to forget the horrors of this war. We can't forget those killed and taken hostage on 7 October, and we demand their release. And we must never forget the tens of thousands killed and still being killed in Gaza, the hundreds of thousands of Palestinians facing absolute destitution, malnutrition and homelessness. We must re-emphasise our condemnation of those responsible, demand an end to the atrocities, a ceasefire, sanctions, a massive increase in humanitarian aid. I am proud of how so many people in Wales have responded. Our Senedd can and must continue to speak up as part of a global community taking a stand for tolerance and for peace.

Humanity must prevail in Palestine and Israel. My constituents tell me that they want an immediate and permanent ceasefire, the release of hostages, proper levels of humanitarian aid, and the beginnings of a political solution that will last. António Guterres, the Secretary General of the United Nations has spoken very powerfully during this awful period of time. He has said, 'These are moments in history—do not be a bystander.' I'm very proud that people in Wales have marched, have gone to rallies, have protested—and I've been very privileged to be part of that—to make their voices heard for humanity and peace. I believe now and throughout this terrible crisis it has been so important that political representatives and political leaders at all levels have spoken out and made their views known—spoken in favour of that immediate and permanent ceasefire, those proper levels of humanitarian aid, the release of hostages and the beginning of that political solution. That's the Wales I want to be part of, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I believe we must strengthen those voices now, at this critical time, for so many caught up in this terrible carnage.

More than 34,000 people have been killed in Gaza and, according to the UN, 72 per cent are thought to be women and children. As a woman, parliamentarian and as a representative of Welsh women in this place, I have a moral duty to use my voice to condemn the deaths and suffering of those innocent women and children. The Welsh Government can't talk about the importance of maternal health, period dignity, children's well-being and the right and importance of education without taking a stand and using every platform and every ounce of influence to call out the appalling, unjust and illegal treatment of children and women in Gaza.

Although we don't have powers over international affairs, we can and should as a nation, as a national Parliament and Government make a powerful statement for peace. We've got a long tradition of using that voice for peace, from Greenham Common to the Iraq war, and we should never underestimate the legitimacy and power of that collective voice. Because when it suits them, the Welsh Government will discuss international affairs at length, often referencing international matters in response to LCMs, treaties, trade agreements, committee reports, and we need only think of the attention given by Ministers in speeches and statements on the appalling invasion of Ukraine and its devastating consequences. So, the essential point here is that the Senedd and Government of Wales cannot be silent, especially now when we see Israel determined to enact even more death and destruction in Rafah. We need them to speak up and speak out, and the words we must hear are 'Ceasefire now'.

As Rhun ap Iorwerth said, we cannot get used to the level of carnage that's going on; we must not turn away. Jana Ayad is a child, roughly the same age as my second granddaughter. She's all skin and bones, starving to death because of a deliberate policy not to allow enough food into Gaza to feed all these people displaced by the bombing. With the right nutrition, Jana could be saved, if the blockade of Gaza was lifted.

On Monday night a journalist, Salem Abu Toyor, and his son, were killed when an Israeli bomb struck their house. Israel has killed more journalists in Gaza than all journalists killed in the second world war, in just 200 days. Whether Israeli military are deliberately killing journalists—or does it just have laissez-faire attitude towards killing civilians living in Gaza, and journalists, like health workers and aid workers, get in the way of their campaign?

We're told that the latest ceasefire package is a generous offer, says Antony Blinken. One month without bombing and starvation, followed by a massacre in Rafah, or an immediate assault on Rafah doesn't feel like either generous, attractive or in line with the rules around the conduct of war. This occupying army has a duty to care for civilians in the area, not met in either Gaza or the West Bank. The US Government must insist on an immediate and endurable ceasefire, or withhold all military aid to Israel, and we must continue to shout for an immediate ceasefire and an endurable, sustainable solution.

Thank you very much, Peredur, for your wonderful and very powerful contribution to this debate. Those who defend the actions of the state of Israel say that that state is protecting itself, but killing 35,000 people is not an act of defence. It's not an act of defence to kill a third of them being children. It's not an act of defence to bomb patients in hospital, and it's certainly not an act of defence to prevent humanitarian aid from reaching a population that is about to starve to death. Indeed, according to the International Court of Justice definition, these acts could be described as genocide.

Now, the news that we received some weeks ago on the bombing of the World Central Kitchen vehicles was devastatingly sad, and we heard that three people from the UK were killed. All of a sudden, the UK Government took an interest. What we saw in reality was that the life of one white person from Britain was equivalent to the lives of 11,000 innocent Palestinians.

Now, those bombings have been allowed because Israel is able to buy weapons without any restrictions from the nations providing them. So, I’d be interested to hear in the Minister’s response what steps the Welsh Government is taking in order to ensure that no arms from Wales or components from Wales are sold to the Israeli Government. We must prevent that sale of arms and the licensing of those sales. Thank you.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice to reply to the debate—Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you, Peredur Owen Griffiths, for bringing forward this very important debate. All of us around this Chamber have been horrified by the onset of and continuing violence in Israel, Palestine and the wider region. The Welsh Government is conscious that whilst foreign policy issues are not devolved, there are very real and lasting consequences in our Welsh communities. It is valuable we have this opportunity to discuss those consequences in more detail.

Today’s debate also builds upon the ceasefire motion that Peredur referred to, which was debated in this Chamber on 8 November last year. In keeping with convention—and I just want to clarify this—Welsh Ministers abstained from the vote on that motion as matters of foreign policy are not devolved to Senedd Cymru. However, in the debate itself my predecessor, the Minister for Social Justice, was clear the Welsh Government wanted to see a full ceasefire as soon as possible. This position has been repeated in Plenary by both the First Minister and the former First Minister, and I know the First Minister will answer the correspondence Peredur referred to.

There must be a renewed sense of urgency amongst the international community to deliver a full and permanent ceasefire, ending the suffering on all sides as quickly as possible. As the First Minister said last week, there is a very real humanitarian crisis taking place. We sincerely hope all relevant partners ensure a significant and immediate increase in aid entering Gaza, agree to release all of the hostages, end the violence, and meaningfully engage in the development of a lasting two-state solution.

A cessation of violence must be the essential platform for a longer term and determined political process towards the establishment of a two-state solution based on a sovereign Palestinian state and a secure Israel. There can be no security for anyone in Israel and Palestine without a long-term peace that is fair to both. There has been and continues to be unimaginable suffering for innocent people on all sides, and it is imperative that everyone recognises the common humanity of all victims.

In Wales the challenge for us is identifying the influence we can have to help bring about the changes we all want to see, to stop the hatred and its consequences. The history and geopolitics of the region, as well as the continuing violence and the fact that foreign policy is not devolved, severely limits the scope of what we can do, despite our deep sorrow. [Interruption.] Can I just carry on for a minute, please? Nevertheless, there are things we can and we are doing in Wales to support the communities living here who are affected.

You'll remember that, in the Scottish Parliament, there was a debate held calling for an immediate ceasefire. During that debate the former First Minister Humza Yousaf said that he had sent a letter from the Scottish Government to both Rishi Sunak and Keir Starmer asking them to call for an immediate ceasefire. Has the Welsh Government done the same?

'I don't know' is the honest answer.

That speaks volumes, really.

I will look into that for you, and I will obviously write to you and let you know.

We have been monitoring any community tensions relating to this conflict via our community cohesion programme, and monitoring any spikes in hate incidents via our Wales hate support centre. Although there have been some hateful incidents, thankfully these have been isolated, and we have not seen the spikes we feared. Ministers have met with Jewish and Muslim leaders to discuss the impacts of the conflict in Israel and Gaza on our communities here in Wales. We've encouraged inter-cultural solidarity and dialogue in partnership with our faith communities forum. To address any issues in schools, we were able to co-author a letter for schools, colleges and universities in Wales with the Muslim Council of Wales and the Board of Deputies of British Jews. We will continue to work in partnership with all faiths, as we have done so well since the forum was established after 9/11, to promote recognition of our common humanity.

Prejudice and hate have no place in Wales. We expect allegations and incidents of racism and racial harassment to be fully investigated, with appropriate action taken to address the matter and prevent further incidents from happening.

The Welsh Government has made donations to a number of Disasters Emergency Committee appeals in recent years—

Will you take an intervention?

Can I just make some progress, please? We have not been able to do this to alleviate some of the suffering in Gaza, because DEC has been unable to launch a campaign. At this time, DEC believes only a lasting ceasefire will enable its agencies the opportunity to effectively provide much-needed aid in Gaza. We continue to see proposals to increase maritime delivery and air drops for aid, which we hope will increase more effective aid. We will keep our position under review should DEC feel the criteria for an appeal can be met.

Thank you very much for that. Do you share my grave concern about aid workers, who are in not just Gaza but in the West Bank at the moment? Some of my former colleagues in ActionAid Palestine were trapped in Gaza for a long time at the beginning of this conflict, and are now in the West Bank in terrible conditions. We've heard about what happened at World Central Kitchen as well. Do you agree with me that these people are people who want to keep other people alive, that they give up their lives in order to make this world a better place, and it is only an urgent ceasefire and an end to killings that will actually make sure that they can get the aid to the people who so desperately need it?

Yes, absolutely. As you say, those people go to these countries to keep other people safe, and it's horrific that they are obviously put in that position.

The Welsh Government is keeping in regular contact with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office to understand UK efforts in relation to the conflict, and to understand any perceived impacts for Wales. Members will know that, last week, the Brisley family situation was raised in First Minister's question, and the FCDO has confirmed to us that support is being provided to the family in these horrific circumstances. The First Minister committed to working with Members who may have constituents with family members who were victims on 7 October, or who are being held as hostages, to understand if further support is needed. Each and every day hostages remain in captivity prolongs the agony of the atrocities, and we want to ensure appropriate support is available.

Since 7 October, Welsh Ministers have asked UK Government Ministers about opportunities for resettlement from Gaza for those most in need. It appears to us there continues to be no current prospect of a Gaza resettlement scheme for the UK. In recent years, Welsh local authorities and our communities have provided a welcome to Ukrainians, to Afghans, Syrians and asylum seekers from many countries. Accordingly, as a nation that aspires to be a nation of sanctuary, we would also aim to play a full part in any Gaza resettlement scheme if one was established.

We've been following the campaign for a Gaza family reunion scheme with keen interest. The Welsh Government already funds the British Red Cross to support family reunion, helping those with refugee status to bring their family members to Wales via a safe and legal route established by the UK Government. However, referrals to the project from Gaza are complicated by the barriers to exit Gaza. The painful history of the region affects the willingness of Palestinians to leave, and the willingness of neighbouring countries to permit entry. There is a clear concern that Palestinians may never be able to return if they leave now. Reassurances—

[Inaudible.]

I can't take any more, sorry. Reassurances about the right to return for anyone leaving Gaza are clearly beyond our control. However, solutions need to be found if we are able to support reunion in Wales.

We have not called specifically for a Gaza family reunion scheme. Instead, we have called for a more progressive version of the UK family reunion scheme, which builds upon some of the successes of the now closed Ukraine family scheme. The Ukraine scheme supported 57,000 arrivals in a very short period, largely because the definition of 'family' was broad and application processing was quick. This same approach for Palestinians and others could have a very beneficial impact for the well-being and security of many families.

Family reunion is vital for any sanctuary seeker living in Wales, regardless of where in the world their separated family member is living. Our approach is to advocate for a family scheme that could support Palestinians or any other person who has found sanctuary here in Wales. And we will continue to call for this.

In conclusion, Welsh Government will play a constructive role to support affected communities and families in Wales, and seek to play any part we can in supporting international efforts. We call again for a ceasefire, for an increase in aid, and for the hostages to be released. Diolch.

I thank all Members. That brings today's proceedings to a close.