Plenary

So, the next item on the agenda is questions to the First Minister, and the first question this afternoon is from Darren Millar.

Thank you for the question. Llywydd, as this is the first health question I'll answer, and the first opportunity to do so on the record following yesterday's infected blood scandal, can I just place on record my own direct response, as this will definitely affect constituents not just in Conwy and Denbighshire, but across the country? The extraordinary scale of the hurt and the cover-up that the infected blood inquiry report revealed was truly shocking. It's a decades-long cover-up that has affected Governments of all shades, and our national health service, and every Member in this Chamber will have constituents affected.

I will come to the question.

I, in particular, want to pay tribute to those who campaigned on this issue, across parties, and not just Julie Morgan in different Parliaments, but the people directly affected themselves, and to give a direct and unequivocal apology on behalf of the Welsh Government, and to indicate that a debate will take place on 4 June.

Directly on other services in Conwy and Denbighshire, we will work closely with the health board to improve access to safe and timely care and to high-quality services.

Thank you for that response—

Can I just intervene? That was an inappropriate use of question 1. I would have expected, if the Government was to make a statement, and the First Minister wished to do so, any request to me to make a statement on this very important issue would have been accepted today, and I'm sure the Business Committee would have accepted it in a similar vein. I'll ask Darren Millar to continue with his supplementary question.

Thank you, Llywydd. First Minister, healthcare services in Conwy and Denbighshire are not in a good place. We know that the health board in north Wales is in special measures. One of the problems that I have in my own constituency is the problem of the Colwyn Bay West End Medical Centre. It's a managed practice, run directly by the health board, and I receive multiple complaints about the services from that particular surgery each and every week. In fact, 100 per cent of the complaints that I have received about GP services since the start of this year have been about this one individual practice in my constituency. Patients are complaining about not being able to get appointments, not being able to get through on the telephone, not getting answers to e-mails, not getting call-backs that they're promised, not being able to access vaccinations that are available in other surgeries, and not being able to get prescriptions in time and actually running out of the essential medication that they need. It's not good enough. It's putting patients at risk of harm. This health board is in special measures, as I said earlier on, and this practice is run directly by the health board. What action are you and what action is the Welsh Government going to take in order to resolve these problems, so that my constituents get the services they deserve?

Thank you for the question. I'm aware that the West End practice is a merger, I understand, of previous practices that were not able to function successfully. My understanding is that this is a directly managed practice that has been recruiting for new staff to come in, including doctors as well. I'll happily talk both with the Cabinet Secretary, but also with the health board, to ensure there's a direct note for the Member on what is taking place. It may be helpful if not just for the list of issues he's raised now, but to be clear about any particular issues he wants to have raised and to ensure they're covered in a response from the health board, because I do take seriously, in this or any other practice, that residents are able to access high-quality care and services, and, where that is not the case, that we're aware of it so we can do something about it. I'm sure the Member will take up opportunities to speak directly to the health board themselves, as well as those directly running the practice.

Thank you for the question. An update on 'Period Proud Wales' was published on the Welsh Government website on 8 March, to coincide with International Women’s Day. Progress has been made in all areas of the plan and will continue, ensuring period dignity remains a key commitment of this Government.

Thank you, First Minister. I have read that update, but, clearly, in terms of the practical side, you will be aware that, in August 2022, legislation was introduced in Scotland that made it a legal requirement to provide period products free of charge.

You will know that this was a world first, with the aim of tackling period poverty, promoting period dignity and breaking the stigma, and Northern Ireland followed suit earlier this month. Whilst the Welsh Government is committed, according to the plan, to tackling period poverty in Wales, and, as you outlined in your response, this has been updated, but it isn't a legal requirement. It means there's an inconsistency in terms of access and the types of products available, depending on where people live in Wales. I still hear of products being funded by the Welsh Government being locked away in school cupboards gathering dust, with learners not able to gain access to products that they desperately need. So, how is the Welsh Government monitoring the success of the action plan in getting the products to the people that need them? And has consideration been given to enshrining the right to access products via legislation? If not, why not?

Thank you for the question. I'm disturbed to hear any examples of products being locked away and not available for easy access and use. That's the whole point of what we've been trying to do. So, I'd be very grateful to hear specific examples, to make sure that the agreed intent and purpose of our plan is actually dealt with in practice. We of course consider the case about whether legislation will deliver on the practical change we want to see. Actually, in the learning that takes place between Wales and the other four nations, we find that there's a lot to learn from what other nations are doing, but, also, other countries in the UK are interested in what Wales is doing. So, we don't have any plans at present to copy the legislation in other parts of the UK. We're interested in the practical progress that we are making. And part of this is making sure that there is a normalised conversation about periods and menstrual health, that it isn't something to not be discussed, but, actually, to be discussed openly and make sure that access is practically delivered for period products. I'd be more than happy to work with relevant Ministers in the Government, if the Member provides me with the instances that she's shared, because we do need to address those.

Members, the old New Labour catchline went 'Education, education, education'. Now, as Plan International state in their 'Break the Barriers' report, the taboos and lack of education surrounding menstruation have had a number of tangible negative impacts on girls' day-to-day lives. Of course, the Welsh Government's 'Period Proud Wales' plan sets out an ambition to embed period dignity in schools, but it could take until 2027 for that target to be met. Now, I do agree with the words of the previous social partnership Minister, Hannah Blythyn MS, who stated earlier this year that more must be done to improve education around menstrual cycles if we are going to tackle period dignity in schools. And Hannah is to be commended for not only championing this case, but taking direct action in the education sector to help tackle period poverty. Given the Member's untimely departure from the Welsh Government, what steps will be taken by you to ensure that the open and strong leadership that she showed on this issue is, in fact, continued? Diolch.

There is a commitment from the whole Government to deliver not just against the plan, but the practical changes we want to see take place. If you consider the deliberate choice to ensure that, in the code on relationships and sexual education, menstrual health is a key part of that, to make sure it's a conversation for everyone in a classroom. That work is being taken forward, and I can assure you that every member of the Government takes seriously within their portfolio how this is taken forward, whether that's Lynne Neagle as the Cabinet Secretary for Education, or whether it's part of the work that Eluned Morgan is leading on having a proper women's health plan, including for the first time a national clinical lead. So, this Government has made commitments that we will keep.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of the Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Could I just endorse the comments that the First Minister made in his opening remarks and pay tribute to the Member for Cardiff North, if I may, who has led for many years on this very important subject not just in this place, but in Westminster as well? Sometimes, we have differences across the Chamber, but those differences can be overcome when we see that co-operation on such an important issue. And I commend that Member for the work that she's done on it.

First Minister, last Thursday, you dismissed from your Government the Deputy Minister for social justice. The reason you gave was that you professed to say that you had evidence that showed that she leaked information out of the Government to the media. Could you confirm exactly what evidence you have got, and how that evidence stacks up, when the Deputy Minister's made it quite clear that she did not leak information and she maintains her integrity?

Well, this has been a very difficult time for members across the Government, including, of course, the Member who has now left the Government. No Government in any part of the UK would either give a running commentary or publish all of the information. Some of that information is sensitive to other Ministers. It's important, though, that once you reach a conclusion properly that you have not just a choice, but, in this office, a responsibility to act, which is what I've done, despite all the difficulties and the challenge that causes.

I do, though, want to thank him for recognising the work not just of the Member for Cardiff North, but of people across this Chamber and in other Parliaments too on the widespread campaign to reach a conclusion to the inquiry on infected blood, but also the way in which we now need to work together on the compensation scheme for constituents across our country and, indeed, represented by people of all political shades.

First Minister, when there are two such differing sides to a decision—your decision to dismiss the Member from the Government, based on the evidence that you said you have assessed and that the health Minister says that, I presume, she's had sight of, because in her interview yesterday she supported the decision that you'd taken based on the evidence, and then you have a Deputy Minister who's served within the Government clearly saying that she is not the source of that leak, and she goes on to say integrity is important in politics and she maintains her integrity—can you not see, not just from me as a rival politician, but from the general public's perception of what's going on here, that those two stories cannot be correct? One of them is right, one of them is wrong. Will you make that evidence available so that this can be put to bed, the Government can get on with its important job of governing in the best interests of the people of Wales, and we can, actually, see who is telling the truth here? This isn't the leader of the Conservatives saying it; this is the First Minister saying one thing and a Labour colleague who he dismissed from his Government saying another. There is a discrepancy there. That discrepancy needs to be clarified.

I'll repeat what I said. This is an extraordinarily difficult choice to have to make, but nevertheless there is a responsibility for me to make that choice. In understanding the position, I both acted in accordance with the ministerial code and the Government Cabinet handbook, and I sought advice from the Permanent Secretary on the process. I won't give a running commentary and I won't publish information, because no Government in this position would do so, of any shade, in any part of the UK. I do recognise what the Member has said, though, that this Government has a mission to govern for the whole of the country, which is what we're doing. If you look at the things that we are already taking measures on, whether it's on the future of sustainable farming, the conversations that are taking place to pause industrial action with the British Medical Association, the work that we're doing on trying to have a different future for steelworkers, this Government is getting on with the job that we are here to do. I recognise a Member leaving the Government is an event in itself. We're trying to handle that difficult situation as sensitively as possible. I still think there is a future for the Member in this institution, and potentially in the Government in the future. I'll carry on behaving in that way, in a good faith way, in the way that I need to make choices, and I take my own integrity seriously, as the Member would expect.

The Member for Aberconwy highlighted the good work that the Deputy Minister did in relation to her portfolio responsibilities. I've seen that good work being undertaken in respect of south Wales fire service. But that Member's reputation lies in tatters today because you dismissed her from the Government because you said she was the source of a leak to the media. That is a very serious accusation to make, especially when that accusation gets contested.

I accept the First Minister's assertion that no Minister can stay within a Government and leak information from it. No colour of Government could tolerate that. There has to be collective responsibility. That isn't the argument or the debate here. The argument or the debate—[Interruption.] I can hear the Member for Mid and West Wales chuntering there. If you want to say something, it would be good to hear it and to hear the defence that you have for the First Minister. But the point being here is that there are two different stories here, and not unreasonably people are wondering who is telling the truth. Who is telling the truth here when it comes to this career-ending moment? Because I hear what you say about a route back into Government, but the accusation you've levelled against the former Deputy Minister is career ending if it stacks up. You will not release that information, which is to be regretted. I ask you to pause and reflect and think about putting that information in the public domain. As Hannah Blythyn has said, her integrity remains intact; does yours, First Minister?

I'll repeat again the point that I've made. No Government of any shade that has had to take action on this basis would publish that information. We've actually seen that in other instances as well. When it comes to the future, I have recognised the work that the Member has undertaken, not just in the very difficult conversation that has taken place, but also in my written response to her. I would say that, actually, we have found, in previous instances where Ministers have broken the ministerial code, they've had opportunities to return in other places and indeed here as well. Two previous Ministers have had more than one time in Government. So, I don't accept the Member's assertion that this is the end of the Member's career. I think it is perfectly possible in the future for there to be a return, and I look forward to an opportunity to work with her to undertake and to build on the work she's already undertaken. I'm very clear about my integrity and the very difficult choice that I had to make, but I'm very clear about the choice being the correct one for the Government and for the work we need to do on behalf of the country, and that underscores all the decisions I have made in this matter.

Leader of Plaid Cymru, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd. Last Friday I informed the First Minister that the Plaid Cymru group had decided to bring the co-operation agreement to an end. We on these benches are very proud of what was achieved through that agreement, and I emphasised to the First Minister our commitment to continue to work together on issues where we are agreed. I reiterate that message sincerely today.

The decision to withdraw from the agreement was based on a number of factors, and those factors meant that too much attention was being taken off the important work of the agreement. The new First Minister has every right to set a new direction for his Government, but we weren't agreed on his new timetable for reforming council tax, for example. But, of course, we do have this ongoing crisis around the First Minister's leadership.

Another thing that did happen last week was an announcement that £31,000 left over from the £200,000 campaign donation from a convicted environmental polluter was being handed over to the Labour Party centrally. We're told today that it is being donated to progressive causes. Let me just ask this simple question: does the First Minister think that this is somehow the end of the matter?

So, there are a number of points that the Member has raised. I'll deal first with the donations point, and that is that, in accordance with the rules of the contest I'm required to return the money to Welsh Labour. They've agreed to my request to provide that money to progressive causes, and the Welsh executive of Welsh Labour now need to decide that. I want to be clear that I won't take a part in making that decision; I think they need to have that conversation freely and without me in the room.

On your broader point around the co-operation agreement and its coming to an end, I do regret the early departure of Plaid Cymru from that agreement. It's a matter for the Member, as the leader of Plaid Cymru, to choose the timing of that. I would have been happy to have seen the agreement go all the way through to the end. There is much that we have done together. I was in Ringland Primary School last week, celebrating the twenty-millionth meal that we have provided under our universal free-school-meals policy for primary school children. There was a joint press release with comments from the leader of Plaid Cymru. There are more things we still have to do as well: the launch this week of the culture strategy; in the future, the work that is being done on the round-table on the sustainable farming scheme; and much, much more. I would have liked the opportunity to carry on working together, and I do want to thank the leader previously, but also the two designated Members for the really professional and constructive way in which those meetings took place and the professionalism of the Plaid Cymru special advisers who supported that agreement.

We will, of course, have disagreements on a range of things within and outside the agreement, but I'll carry on working in a way that tries to do the right thing for the country and to take forward the commitments that we have already reached, those we have yet to reach as well, and that will be the way that my Government carries on. I should also note, of course, that the Member is the chair of the cross-party group on haemophilia and infected blood, and he and others have had a real role in making sure that campaign has a real voice in this Parliament too.

I'm encouraged by the First Minister's comments in agreeing with me that we should continue to co-operate, of course, where there are areas where we share priorities. But I saw that he wanted to move fairly quickly on from the issue of the donations. We can't move that quickly on. The money was paid to Labour centrally, of course. For one thing, I'd say that the decision to give the money now to progressive causes puts those causes in a rather difficult position, but I'm not going to criticise them.

Secondly, passing on the residual £31,000 is the easy bit, isn't it? We still think, as do many Labour Members, that the right thing to do would have been to pay back the money in its entirety. But also we have confirmation now that Labour won't take the money. That money would have tainted the whole Labour general election campaign. So, doesn't Labour's decision to reject it prove the First Minister's serious error of judgment in being more than happy to take it in the first place?

I think actually it shows that they have taken seriously the request I made for the money to be used for a different purpose. As ever, not only have I acted within the rules, but I've also recognised the points that a number of Members have made, which is why there's a process within my own party to look at the future rules to understand the tests that everyone needs to meet. But also I think it is appropriate to look at this on a cross-party basis, because individuals and parties all need to understand the test they need to meet, whether that is about caps on donations, whether that is about any other information you want to see from the source of the donation so that everyone understands the tests that they need to reach. And I think that's important to make sure that we're not seeking to have different tests at different points in time.

I am very confident about the election campaign that my party will run here in Wales and right across the UK. If you listen to what people say on a regular basis, they are fed up with the current UK Government, they are desperate to see a change and, actually, here in Wales, I think there is a real understanding that two Labour Governments working together can make a real difference for people in every community across the country. That's the case that I look forward to positively making, and I believe that that is a case that people in Wales are ready to hear and ready to support.

I certainly agree with the First Minister that there are implications for all future leadership campaigns when it comes to setting caps on donations, but what the First Minister is absolutely rejecting to admit to is that it's his actions and his judgment around this particular donation that's brought us to the position of needing to shine a light on this. Now, I've used the word 'distraction'. The Government is distracted; all of this is paralysing its work. I believe in cross-party working, as I've said. We should all believe that. I reiterate again my commitment to co-operate with Government on delivering what was in the agreement, but, of course, I want to constructively influence Ministers to deliver, as any opposition party should, on all of those other issues that matter to the people of Wales. It's why we wanted to move swiftly on council tax, but it's also why we continue to press for a change in approach to bring better results in the NHS and in education; it's why we urge Government to support businesses and to push for the powers we need to run our own affairs. But right now, as I say again, Government is desperately distracted. How long is the First Minister willing to give himself to turn the ship around? And how long should the people of Wales have to wait?

Well, I can tell the Member that, since coming into office, I've been focused on priority needs for the people of Wales. The first three groups of people I met were steelworkers, doctors and farmers, looking to take direct action, working with a new ministerial team that I'm very proud of. There's the focus we have on the first 1,000 days in a child's life; the review on 20 mph; the extra investment in transport infrastructure; the fact that we still made sure that we went ahead with Senedd reform—a real commitment being carried forward, and there will be more to do; the elections Bill that is going through the Senedd, as well; and the first of its kind scheme in the UK to help protect public services from cyber attacks. This is a Government that is focused on the job of meeting and serving the needs of the people of Wales. I believe that we can and will make a difference for the people that have elected us, and I believe that we can and will do even more if we can persuade people in Wales and across the UK to elect a progressive Government as a partner in power, not an aggressive competitor determined to take away our powers and our money. That is a future well worth fighting for and well worth winning.

Thank you for the question.

The issues related to the quality of care in several mental health units in north Wales are recognised and well documented. They were part of what contributed over the last decade to the health board being placed in special measures. A comprehensive programme of work is under way to ensure that the health board makes the sustained progress that is required in mental health services for the staff and the people they care with and for.

Mental health units, such as Tawel Fan, of course, have been making the headlines, as they have done for a number of years. But this time, I'm aware that the Nursing and Midwifery Council has decided to strike off a psychiatric nurse after a hearing for what they describe as institutional abuse at the unit, going back over 10 years. Now, obviously, the abuse happened before your time as health Minister, but during your time as Minister, you stated that no institutional abuse had taken place. So, in light of the new evidence, do you wish now to revise your previous view? Should you not have done more at the time to get to the truth? And do you now regret painting a very different picture when you were Minister, given that we now know that the reality was very, very different?

I think there are two slightly different things here. So, the use of the term 'institutional abuse' is one that I don't shy away from in the NMC's decision—the Nursing and Midwifery Council. I should say that I represented people in regulatory practice hearings during my former career as an employment lawyer; I know the hearings are difficult. But actually, in this case, it was particularly upsetting, not just because of the conduct of the individual in question and the impact on the patient, but also the impact on other members of staff. A trainee witnessed the incident and complained, and she found it so upsetting it took her away from nursing as well. So, there is a point about when senior people in an organisation behave in that way, there are multiple layers of harm that come.

When I was both the Deputy Minister for health and, indeed, the Cabinet Minister for health, I was always really clear about the fact that there were significant failings in healthcare, and at the time when I made those comments, there wasn't the evidence to support the finding of institutional abuse. What we did, though, was to have a searching investigation into what had taken place there, and, indeed, that continues now, not just in the one unit but actually to look at mental health services across north Wales. So, the Government, Eluned Morgan, has ensured that the Royal College of Psychiatrists have undertaken an independent review of mental health services to understand and provide assurance on progress that is being made against previous recommendations.

So, this isn't simply about going back to specific language; it's looking at the challenge that we have today, and understanding where the health board is making progress. That report will be published and discussed in public at a board meeting at the end of this month. That openness, I think, is really important to rebuild relationships and trust in the service, to make sure that we learn from times where that hasn't been the case, and to want to move forward and to improve the service that people should be entitled to rely on today and in the future.

The Vale of Clwyd has a long history of mental health institutions and facilities, dating back as far as the 1800s, with the north Wales hospital in Denbigh and, most recently, the Ablett unit with the Tawel Fan ward. Given those historical cases of abuse, my constituents have been subject to the most harrowing situations of mental health abuse perhaps across the whole of north Wales in recent history. So, given that Betsi Cadwaladr is under special measures, which means the direct control of your Welsh Government, what direct strategies or frameworks can you develop with Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board to make sure that cases like this never happen again?

Well, that is always part of the challenge, is it not: to recognise when there are failings, to never try to minimise the failings that have taken place and to listen to the voices of people who are complaining or people who say that they have been failed, and, at the same time, to make sure that you don’t condemn an entire service and try to say that nothing good ever happens. Because, actually, not addressing the very real problems that are highlighted actually undermines the position of all of those dedicated professionals who do provide high-quality care. So, this is actually about trying to do all that we can to make sure that lessons are learned from failings in the past, and to make sure that there is proper accountability, where you can identify who is responsible at either a leadership level or an individual level. But you've got to have a culture where, if people feel they're being blamed, you understand that, if that’s the process you have in place, people won’t come forward, and, actually, your opportunity to put right the things that have gone wrong will be put to one side, and the situation will get worse, not better. So, the cultural challenge is a really important one for what improvement looks like.

I don’t want to see any constituent in any part of Wales who has to go to a healthcare facility where they're not treated with the dignity and the respect that they deserve, and they don’t get the quality of care that they deserve, and that our staff feel that they're working in an environment where their concerns will be listened to and they will provide the quality of care they need to and want to. That’s why the report from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, for example, is so important—to give that assurance that recommendations previously have been listened to and are being worked through.

This is, of course, part of the special measures framework: to see improvement in this area and to get independent, objective advice before the Cabinet Secretary for health can make a decision about the next stages in special measures, whether they continue or, indeed, whether there is a path to de-escalation. I’m confident that those processes and those conversations are in place, with external assurance, to do just that.

Thank you. For too long, there have been deep-seated and entrenched inequalities in the healthcare provided to women. I've regularly said in the past that, if the same healthcare inequalities existed for men, they would have been acted on long ago. We are committed to change and improve women’s and girls’ health and are taking action to improve the health outcomes for women in Wales, including the development of the women’s health plan.

Thank you, First Minister. It has been almost a year since I held my short debate on PMDD, premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Women who suffer with PMDD experience debilitating symptoms, both physically and mentally. The illness affects work, relationships and social lives in a way that non-sufferers will never understand. When I suffered, I was unable to do anything for three weeks out of each month.

The pressure for too many women gets too much. Many want to take their own lives. It's thought that one in 20 women suffer with PMDD, but, due to lack of awareness, this figure is likely to be higher, with some women wrongly diagnosed with endometriosis and other conditions.

In her response to my short debate, the Cabinet Secretary for health stated that there has been insufficient recognition of PMDD, that better training and awareness is needed, including amongst practitioners, and that more information must be provided on health boards’ and 111 websites. So, will the First Minister please provide an update on the progress made over the last year, and please outline any plans that are due to take place in the future?

Thank you. And thank you for the question, for raising this issue in the first place some time ago and for coming back to it to ensure that progress has been made. And I do agree. I'm not sure what the Member has said, but the Cabinet Secretary for health has said previously about providing greater awareness on a range of women's health conditions, including PMDD. And it goes back to the point I made in an earlier question about normalising questions around women's health, including menstrual health. So, what we have done is we've ensured that information about PMDD is included on the NHS Wales 111 website, so it's publicly available, and that signposts information to the Mind website, where even more information is available and has been assured.

Menstrual health is an important broader well-being matter, and I go back to the point that it's an important part of our relationships and sexuality education code—it's a mandatory part of that. So, it's about making sure that each generation coming through our school system learns that this is a normal part of life, to want to make the space for it to be a normal conversation, in the way it still isn't today.

There has been some progress made, but there is much more to do, which is why we have a Period Proud action plan, which is why we do need to keep on taking the steps that have been set out in the women's health plan for the first time with a national clinical lead, both to ensure that women's health issues are recognised and that we deal with issues like misdiagnosis as well. So, I recognise that we have some things we can point to where we can say there's progress being made, but I also recognise that there's much more for us to continue to do, and I'm sure the Member will continue to raise the issue in this Chamber and beyond to make sure we do that.

First Minister, I was struggling with the menopause without knowing what it was for a few years, with symptoms getting progressively worse at the end of last year to a point where I thought I was actually dying. I shared my story in the press to try and help others and increase awareness of menopause—something that half the population deal with in some form, at some level at some point. Since my diagnosis in December that I was in the middle of the menopause, not even perimenopause, and now having the help I needed, talking to others it's glaringly apparent there's a lack of education or awareness of menopause amongst girls and ladies, but also amongst men and boys and family members. Nine-hundred thousand women left a job in 2022-23 because of menopause symptoms. First Minister, it's important that all people, businesses and organisations have a greater understanding of the effects and symptoms of menopause. It's clear there's an awful lot more that needs to be done to normalise and ensure greater awareness of menopause. What will you and this Government commit to undertake to ensure that this is the case? Surely, an investment in this inequality will pay dividends in health, in the workforce, in the future and for future generations. Thank you.

Thank you for the question. I welcome the comments that the Member has made. We will, of course, as part of the women's health action plan, be considering what more we can do around better services for the menopause. Many years ago, I went to a menopause cafe to have a conversation with women who were directly affected, but also men who wanted to find out in a way where they didn't feel they'd be judged, but were curious and wanted to know what they could do. Again, we go back to, if this was an issue that men faced and, at some point, often at the most productive part of your career, when you've had lots of experience, if you then faced the situation of actually it could affect your own productivity, where you question yourself and potentially employers could lose you, because some women do leave the workforce during this time, then I'm confident it's an issue we would have resolved a long time ago. And I'm pleased the Member has felt confident and positive enough to share her own story.

Carolyn Harris, the Labour Member of Parliament, has talked about this issue a lot, and I think it's one of those areas where there is genuine cross-party support. And I mention her because she arranged for some men to put on a menopause suit to experience some of the heat and hot flushes. When that was then reported in some sections of the media, it was seen as an attempt to be woke, in a way that I thought was really unhelpful. The men were criticized for actually doing something, because some of them were in leadership positions in public and private sector organisations. I think it's more important, not less, that men recognise that we have to be part of the answer in this, and what that looks like is still about listening and understanding other people's experience, and understanding what we can do to make the change that takes place one that is as easy as possible, with all the reassurance we need, because it's in our interest for that to happen, as well as the direct work that is being taken forward on the medical services and the healthcare support to be provided. It's a much, much bigger issue than that, including for the future of the economy.

I welcome what you were saying, First Minister, because the menopause is one of those taboo subjects that our society has decided that we shouldn’t talk about. It’s one of the most natural things that can happen to our bodies as we get older, but there’s nothing natural or normal about being made to feel like you can’t talk to your employer about how the menopause is affecting you. As we’ve heard, menopause symptoms can be extremely difficult, they can be isolating, from exhaustion to crippling anxiety, a sense of disconnection, and it can isolate women terribly.

Now, the European Court of Human Rights has issued guidance to employers on steps that they can take to help employees, but the guidance itself is not legally binding. So, building on what you’ve just said, what more do you think the Welsh Government can do not just to alert employers to their obligations, but also to empower women so that they can feel less alone when they’re going through this?

I think the Member talks about a couple of things that I think are perhaps worth while. There’s a point around where does guidance go, even when it’s not statutory, but to understand what ‘better’ looks like and to make the case that this is actually good for any public service or any business. Any employer should see there’s a benefit in getting this right and being as supportive as possible. There’s the broader point, though, about how you normalise a conversation about an entirely normal subject. It is an event that will take place, and so how do you understand it for your colleagues, for people around you, potentially for you as well? Because part of the disconnection that women regularly talk about is that they weren’t sure what was happening, they didn’t really know, and so that understanding, for yourself, but for others as well—that’s why people need to be genuine allies in listening to consider this. If there were to be changes in the employment field, those are things that I think a future Government should take seriously, but, more than that, to change the culture, to normalise the conversation and to make it a supportive one so people really can reach out and talk to people, and not to be embarrassed about an entirely natural event in a person’s life.

Good afternoon, First Minister, and I do associate with my colleagues Buffy and with Laura Anne, and with Delyth as well. Thank you for raising this issue. But I wonder if it would be okay for me just to take a zoom-out position, really, on women’s health inequalities and look at the link between poverty and women’s health. According to figures produced by the Office for National Statistics in March, healthy life expectancy at birth in Wales has steadily decreased since 2011, with the decline particularly pronounced for women, who can now expect just 60 years of good health. These statistics become even more stark when factoring in poverty. Data from 2022 shows that women in the most deprived areas of Wales have a healthy life expectancy around 20 years lower than women in the more affluent areas. So, women in our poorest communities can expect to live more than a third of their entire lives with an activity-limiting illness or a disability. So, my question on this issue is: what specific measures is the Welsh Government taking to tackle poverty in order to raise healthy life expectancy for women in the poorer parts of Wales? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you for the question. I don’t think I can do justice to the scale of the challenge the Member has laid down in a minute response. I do, though, recognise the point she makes about inequality and about the intersectionality of living in poverty. It has a direct impact on health outcomes, on life outcomes, and I think, actually, for the first time now, the average life expectancy is lower for women than men, which is extraordinary.

I also recognise a number of the causes. So, people in single-parent households are more likely to be living in poverty, more likely to be led by an adult woman. People in part-time working households, again, exactly the same picture. And actually, particularly now with the cost-of-living crisis in addition, women are much more likely to skip meals to feed their children as well. That all exacerbates and adds to the picture of poverty.

Now, our child poverty strategy does focus on removing barriers to employment and career pathways. There’s a whole range of measures that need to take place. We’ve talked about workplace culture and action—that’s part of it. We’ve talked about valuing women’s work on a regular basis, and making sure that women aren’t underpaid for the job that they do—that’s a big part of it. And we talk about the support we already provide through our employability programmes and beyond in making sure people have the skills to return to work and the childcare to allow women with children to go into the workplace or to go into education and training to allow them to go into the work that they have chosen to do. There’s a multiplicity of measures that we are already taking that we describe in our tackling poverty plan, but there is always more that we can do, and then the assessment of what difference we are making, together with those measures where we need to see a change in approach from the UK Government, and I'm hopeful that will happen in the not-too-distant future.

Thank you for the question. Our employability programmes continue to provide support as officials work through the evidence that will shape our proposals for the future. The Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language is planning to make a statement in the autumn regarding the new single operating model for Welsh Government-funded employability programmes.

That's very useful to know about that statement. I've worked closely with Engage to Change, which is led by Learning Disability Wales and is based at Cardiff University, and what they do is provide a job coaching scheme for people with additional learning needs, particularly autism, to find work placements and other forms of employment. Some forms of supported internships outside of that programme, such as Jobs Growth Wales+ and job support in further education, aren't always appropriate for people with very severe learning disabilities and forms of autism. Engage to Change have filled that gap, and they've proved that job coaching support for those people had a 41 per cent project employment rate in Wales, compared to the 4.8 per cent employment figure for similar people in England. So, it's a significantly successful project.

It's also a matter of equality. The Welsh Government should ensure that all people have opportunities for job coaching. So, does the First Minister agree that ReAct Plus and Communities for Work Plus should have job coaching support available for those who could not get a job without it, particularly those who were part of the Engage to Change project?

I think the way the Member put the question was particularly skilful—'for those people who could not get employment without it'—and that's the challenge about our understanding that there'll be some people that don't need job coaching support. The Department for Work and Pensions have talked about job coaching support as part of their back to work programme. And we do know, and the Member will know—I have visited people on the Engage to Change programme with him—that, actually, for this particular group of people with additional needs, it does make a significant difference, and the fact the Member's highlighted it's already a part of the approach in Jobs Growth Wales+.

So, what we'll be doing is examining the broader evidence for a single operating model to understand the role that job coaching plays, and where it can be of most benefit. And I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language will, in particular, consider the report 'Transitions to Employment', which Dr David may be aware of, which references job coaching and the potential support it provides as one of its key recommendations. So, we are working that through seriously to make sure that when there is a statement in the autumn, we can set out what role does this play and where should it be, and, at the same time, try to make sure that we don't have a contradictory approach with the work that the DWP are themselves doing.

First Minister, while job coaching support is important in ensuring that employability and skills programmes can help retain workers to meet the demand in the job market, with the planned change at Port Talbot the latest in a long line of heavy industry job losses across my region, we must ensure that those skills are the basis for bringing new sectors to the region, such as green energy production. First Minister, how are you ensuring that Welsh Government programmes are adapting to future skill requirements?

I thank the Member for the question. I think it asked a different question to the one posed by Hefin David about the role of job coaching and where it's particularly appropriate. I think lots of the workers in and around Tata, certainly directly employed by Tata, will have a different challenge, and a lot of those longer-standing employees may not have undertaken an interview for a very long period of time. They'll have a different need to more recent employees who may well have proactive offers made to them, particularly the skilled workforce, if we see the scale of redundancy going ahead that's being talked about.

We'll still need to see how we also validate the skills people have had. They may not have externally recognised qualifications for the job they're doing. So, there's a range of different measures to work through if we do see the eye-watering levels of job losses that are proposed. There'll be a much bigger impact, though, in the contractor workforce and the wider economy that is reliant on the spending power of the Tata workforce. That's where we can have a much more significant impact.

That'll be much harder to identify at the outset, but that is part of the job that we want to do, and it's why the economy Secretary has written to the Secretary of State for Wales, around the way the transition board operates, to make sure it is more nimble and focused on what the transition board could do, and different practical agencies need to do, to provide the level of support, but also the speed of support that will be required. There is a really practical piece of work to be done by the Welsh Government, by partners in local government, but also with different parts of the UK Government as well, and then we could do something that could be more effective than what otherwise might take place, if the current way of working of the transition board keeps on progressing.

Building on that skills and employability agenda, and, to a degree, on what Altaf Hussain has just asked, one of the troubles that we are seeing in Tata is actually proving why we need to be on top of our skills strategy. The uncertainty that has been experienced in the area of Port Talbot and wider region has meant that a number of workers have begun to leave working for Tata to work elsewhere, sometimes outside of Wales. We know of a number of people who have gone to work at Hinkley Point, so taking vital skills with them, skills that we know that are going to be vitally important to the future of the Welsh economy. So, I would be interested to know what assessment the Government has made of what this impact might have on the wider Welsh economy and achieving the ambitions that we have around net zero and other ambitions.

Well, this highlights the frustration that myself and the economy Secretary have about the lack of information on the current workforce, who are likely to be told that their jobs will be displaced, but in particular, the contractor workforce as well. Now, that information is available to the company, and sharing that with us is hugely important for us to be able to assess properly the impact of that. We're left with broad assessments of the understanding of the impact of a steelworker's job, their spending power, the number of other jobs in the local economy that are reliant on them. We know there's a skilled workforce where other employers will be interested in the highly skilled workers. What we can't see with the granularity we want is the number of those people that could be affected and how we provide an offer for them to stay in the economy in Wales. Hinkley and other projects are attractive, they're well-paid and they're not very far away from us. The danger will be if those people move permanently and are dislocated, that is then, potentially, a permanent loss to the Welsh economy, as well as its wider impact on the community. It is entirely consistent with the case we have made not just to the company, but to the UK Government, about the way the current approach is being run and, potentially, a significant and generational impact if we cannot get this right for a significant chunk of the people who live in south Wales.

Thank you for the question. With the ever-increasing threat posed by cyber attacks, the Welsh Government’s cyber resilience unit works closely with public bodies to ensure that they are as resilient as they can possibly be. This work forms an important part of our commitment to deliver the 'Cyber action plan for Wales' that I announced last year, in my previous role as the Minister for Economy.

Thank you for that answer. And, of course, as our reliance on the digital world grows, so the risk to our data from cyber attacks increases exponentially. So, I was pleased to see the launch of CymruSOC, a security operations centre, earlier this month. It's a Welsh-led scheme in collaboration with Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council, managed by a Cardiff-based firm, Socura, and it's a great initiative. CymruSOC will help ensure that key organisations, like the local authorities and the fire and rescue services in Wales, are able to run critical services without disruption in the event of a cyber attack. And, of course, as people apply for those things that they really need, like marriage licences, birth registration, death registration, we can see how useful that data really does become. That national scheme, I believe, is the first of its kind in the UK, and it's to be applauded, so do you agree that this collaborative approach to cyber security is key to providing and protecting our public services from ever more sophisticated cyber attacks?

Yes, I'm very proud of the fact that this is a genuine first across the UK. And it comes from partnership as well as expertise in wanting to grow the sector as a business, but also to understand the nature of the threats that exist as well. And this step forward doesn't mean that this is the end of the road; there is much more we need to carry on doing: partnerships within Wales to protect local government and fire and rescue services, but also partnerships with the National Cyber Security Centre, who are part of Government Communications Headquarters.

It's really important because the nature of the data that we're now able to exchange that helps to enable public services to provide a more rounded and sometimes a more individual service also means that the value in that data is even more. Cyber criminals are utterly unscrupulous; they'll attack the health service for health service data, they'll attack local government. In fact, in Leicester recently there's been a school that's been attacked, and of course the publicly confirmed attacks on the Ministry of Defence. There are individuals, there are organisations, and there are state actors in this field as well, so we're going to need to continually invest in what we're doing and to make sure we're constantly looking at have we still got the best model, are we attracting and keeping the best people in the public and in the private sector, because all of them now understand that cyber security is an everyday part of life, not a nice to have.

Thank you for the question.

Following Great British Nuclear's recent confirmation that Trawsfynydd is not a preferred site for a first-of-a-kind small modular reactor, Cwmni Egino is focused on retaining an option for development at a later date. In dialogue with the UK Government and GBN, a more immediate future for the company is sought, working more widely across north Wales.

Thank you for that response. Well, of course, back in 2012, the Government established the Eryri enterprise zone to create a favourable economic environment in the area—the Llanbedr and Trawsfynydd area—that would lead to economic growth ultimately, but that zone was a total failure. Over a period of 10 years, it didn't create any jobs at all, only then for the Government to go on to create an arm's-length body called Cwmni Egino. In turn, we've heard that Egino is going to have its focus changed and moved. I wonder whether perhaps Egino is going to look to develop another area in Wales, or whether Cwmni Egino will be wound up in its entirety. So, I'm seeking assurance from the First Minister today that the Government will continue to focus economically on Meirionnydd and that the purpose of Egino will be adapted to develop other alternative projects in Meirionnydd that will bring economic benefits to the area.

Thank you for the question. There is more than one point that I want to make in response. The first is that, for Cwmni Egino, they have been successful in the process around the decommissioning work at Trawsfynydd. Lots of that work has been kept, and kept locally—it wouldn't necessarily have had to have been to the scale that it has been. That's good for local workers and it's actually good for the language as well because two thirds of that workforce are Welsh speakers. So, that's work that Cwmni Egino have already done.

I'm interested in what they can do. They were set up to be more specialised in the nuclear area, so they're interested in the potential for a research reactor. We still have a significant problem in making the type of radioisotopes that we need as standard for diagnosis and treatment in the health service. I think it's something that the UK Government should support; that would be a significant project anchored in north-west Wales. Cwmni Egino are also looking at a role in conversation with GBN about whether they can play a more active part in potential options around Wylfa as well.

I'm interested in a future that anchors jobs over the longer term in north-west Wales, to make sure that that economic benefit can't simply be taken elsewhere and jobs done remotely. So, yes, of course I'm interested, and there is more to do in this part of the world as well, not just two projects in the nuclear sector; I have much greater ambitions for the future of renewables, the future of food, farming and land. I think there's a lot that Meirionnydd has to offer Wales and the wider world.

Finally, question 8, Jack Sargeant.

Thank you for the question. AI is a key global enabler that has the potential to create significant societal benefits, to be a catalyst for economic growth and prosperity, and to enable wider public service improvement. The use of AI technologies should be undertaken responsibly, ethically and with a social partnership approach from the outset.

I thank the First Minister for his answer. The First Minister will recall an event that Sarah Murphy and I recently co-hosted with the Wales TUC to launch their report on AI in the workplace. I was grateful to the First Minister for attending the event and listening to the concerns of trade unionists in Wales. The report from the Wales TUC documents for the first time how workers are being negatively affected by the unregulated introduction of AI into Welsh workplaces. As the international community begins to come together to talk about how we can regulate AI and ensure it works for all of us, what steps are the Welsh Government taking to learn from the report of the Wales TUC and ensure that there is a just transition to AI in workplaces across Cymru?

Thank you for the question and the way in which it's been put, which recognises there are significant challenges. That was a large part of the focus of the event that you co-hosted with Sarah Murphy, who is, now, not able to co-host such events in the future. In particular, I was struck by the presentation from the Communication Workers Union about the way in which they thought that AI was being inappropriately used in the workplace, and the lack of controls that came with it, and also the lack of understanding about the information that was being provided.

There is a real challenge there about what looks like inappropriate AI use, and also the potential use in security and law enforcement activity as well. That goes alongside the potential benefit of AI use, both in the private sector, in the field the Member used to work in, as well as in the health service and beyond. This is all topical given the headlines around Scarlett Johansson having her voice copied and the AI company then removing that voice.

There are real threats as well as opportunities that come with this, and it's why I do think it's important that we work internationally. If you think about the approach that the UK Government has taken, they're looking at voluntary regulation—a voluntary code—which I don't think is going to work, not just because the scale of opportunity and concern that exists, but other parts of the world are looking at a regulatory environment. If you think of what the EU is doing in taking forward regulation in this area, that is important not just in the way they see the coverage, but in the fact that AI services are already exported from Wales into the EU. The services that can be provided here into the EU will need to comply with EU regulations in the future. If we aren't able to do it, it will affect the data adequacy standards we have and it will affect much wider trade.

Whether we want to or not, the fact that the rest of the world is looking at a regulatory approach to AI will matter to all of us. I would rather we were part of not just a conversation but the decision making. It is the clear view of the Welsh Government—we've responded to the UK Government consultation—that we believe there should be a regulatory framework that provides the safeguards people would expect to see, and to want to have it designed in at the outset. I think it would be good not just for individuals and for services, but, actually, and ultimately, good for businesses and good for public services too.

I thank the First Minister.

The next item will be questions to the Counsel General. Question 1 this afternoon is from Luke Fletcher.

Thank you for your question. We continue to support the devolution of policing and justice to Wales, as recommended by numerous independent commissions over the years, including most recently by the constitutional commission.

Thank you for the answer, Counsel General.

Last week, I asked the Cabinet Secretary for social justice about the concerning situation at His Majesty's Prison Parc, specifically whether there was support for the calls for the Ministry of Justice to replace G4S in running the prison. The role of private prisons will no doubt factor into the debate around the devolution of justice, so in the work the Government is doing, what consideration is being given to what a devolved prison system might look like, how it might be structured, and what potential legal conflicts could arise in its devolution?

Thank you for that very pertinent question. The recent deaths are deeply concerning, and I would certainly like to offer my condolences to those affected. There have been, I understand, a total of nine deaths within the past two months at His Majesty's Prison Parc. Whilst the operation of prisons is reserved, the Welsh Government is working with both Public Health Wales and His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service in Wales to discuss the deaths, and also to agree actions to help mitigate the risk of future harm, given the interface between prisons and devolved areas.

As the Member will know, of course, although they are reserved, we have a very specific function and role in terms of health and education within those prisons, and we also have a very specific function in respect of prisoners once they are released from prison in terms of things like employment, in terms of things like housing and other devolved functions. I can tell you that the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice has written to the UK Government Minister of State for Prisons, Parole and Probation, Edward Argar, on this matter, and is awaiting a response. And, again, as with all deaths in custody, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman will investigate.

Good afternoon, Counsel General. The latest projection from the Ministry of Justice has forecast a staggering 30 per cent rise in the prison population over the next four years, potentially reaching 115,000 inmates by 2028, a projection described as utterly untenable by the Howard League for Penal Reform. The United Kingdom already grapples with some of the highest rates of incarceration per population in western Europe, with our overall system being overcrowded every year since 1994. As of April this year, the UK stands at 145 prisoners per 100,000, which is almost double the regional median, at 73. It is evident that we must reject the flawed solution of superprisons, like HMP Berwyn in Wrexham. Despite promises of rehabilitation, one in 10 Berwyn prisoners stated that their experience made them more likely to reoffend. And the latest inspection, last year, revealed alarmingly high rates of self-harm, which Luke Fletcher has highlighted at Parc Prison, inadequate support, and 43 per cent feeling unsafe. So, I would like to ask you, Counsel General, when we do get criminal justice devolved here to Wales, will you close HMP Berwyn in Wrexham? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you for the question and the very important points that you raised. The former Minister for social justice and I visited Berwyn and other prisons to look at a lot of the issues that you've raised. You're correct to say that there's been a continued population pressure in the adult male prison estate, and I understand that the UK Government are taking forward a range of measures to relieve those pressures. It's very clear that the prison population has risen, and that prison policy is a significant failure. We are an outrider in terms of progressive policy with regard to prisons and rehabilitation in the whole of Europe. The pressures on the current criminal justice system I think reflect the impact of decades of a punitive and regressive approach to crime and justice issues. It is increasingly clear that a different approach is needed. That in many ways is what underpins the arguments we've put with regard to the devolution of justice and criminal justice—not in terms of taking control of something for the sake of it, but in order to do it differently, in order to integrate it with all those social functions that are so important to rehabilitation.

I can tell you also that the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice has recently met with Amy Rees, the director general of His Majesty's Prison and Probation Service, and Ian Barrow, the executive director of HMPPS. That took place on 22 April, where some of these issues were actually discussed. Our officials, even within this reserved area, continue to work in partnership with them, and we continue to make interventions in those areas that are within our responsibility, to try and make that particular difference, but also to understand the developments and what is happening and how that impacts in terms of the support and the services that we provide as a Government.

Thank you for that question. The rise of AI will create opportunities, but it will also create significant ethical challenges. The Welsh Government recognises the significant economic, public service delivery and wider social benefits that could be gained from its use, but also the need for a strong focus on embedding ethical considerations and social partnership from the outset.

I'm grateful to the Counsel General for that. The use of AI is growing at an exponential rate. It has serious legal implications for residents of Wales in a whole host of fields, and it is vital that we get the regulations right. That means a just transition, where workers benefit and do not lose out. As the MP Darren Jones said in the House of Commons, 'Having left the EU, I see two roads ahead of us. We either keep doing what we are doing, or we modernise our country.' Counsel General, do you agree with me that, in order to modernise our country, all Governments in the UK should look to implement the UNESCO AI framework, and that it is the responsibility of all Government departments and all Parliaments in the UK, including this Senedd, to keep up with the speed of innovation of AI by legislating where appropriate?

Thank you for those points. Perhaps following on from some of the earlier comments made by the First Minister, we have, of course, as a Government, been advocating the need for appropriate regulation and an appropriate governance and assurance mechanism guided by key principles. Of course, the key principles that are directly relevant to us are those that arise from the UNESCO recommendations, and the United Kingdom is the member state of UNESCO. Those recommendations were adopted about ethical, trustworthy values and interests et cetera, about accessibility, inclusivity, innovation, collaboration, but also, very importantly in terms of what you are saying, that AI should be transparent, it should be accountable, and it should be subject to appropriate governance and oversight.

Of course, there is some very interesting work, as has already been mentioned, going on with the European Union—the fact that there is already an Act being worked on that is there, that has a number of key elements to it, which are related to the use of AI, but also the protections that are needed from the use of AI, and also what follows on from the other aspect, and that is the accessibility and use of data that arises from the EU general data protection regulation of 2018. So, although we may not be a part of the EU now, due to the fact that so much of our trade and engagement is with the EU, what is happening there and the innovations taking place there are fundamentally important to us.

There is, within the Welsh Government, a cross-organisation AI working group, which has been established to embed AI thinking into policy and delivery. The workforce partnership council has established a working group as well to develop those principles and guidance. And we continue to work with all relevant partners in order to stay in touch, to be aware, but also to be able to look at the steps that we can take in order to implement the principles that we've adopted and that underpin the use of AI.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Welsh Conservatives spokesperson, Mark Isherwood.

In June 2023, you published a White Paper consultation entitled 'A new tribunal system for Wales', which closed last October, after receiving just 54 responses. As you know, the proposals in the White Paper set out the intention to create a unified tribunal system for Wales, comprising two new tribunals: the first-tier tribunal for Wales and the appeal tribunal for Wales, respectively. As you develop the legislative changes you propose to reform the tribunal system in Wales, how will you respond to the 91 per cent of positive responses to the question in the consultation asking whether respondents agree the jurisdictions of the Welsh tribunals should be transferred to the first-tier tribunal for Wales, with some of them making the important point that disruption should be kept to a minimum with no adverse impacts on the ongoing business of each tribunal?

Thank you. Again, that's a very important question, because, following on from the Law Commission recommendations, legislation is in preparation in respect of those recommendations, with a view to a tribunal Bill, to implement the work the Law Commission has done, but also to bring up to date to the twenty-first century in a proper judicial way all those tribunals that have come to Wales in an ad hoc way—very important tribunals, but tribunals that have different structures depending upon the nature of the tribunal and how they've arrived. The intention, as you say, is to create a first-tier tribunal, and also, as I've said in the past, for the first time in Welsh history, for over 600 years and probably more, an appellate structure.

This part of the judicial system that is already devolved comes with a number of additional challenges. Firstly, I think there was a considerable amount of support. The consultation, the White Paper, I think, was very supportive of the direction in which we're going. We do want the minimum of any transitional problems to be overcome, which is why it needs to be planned very carefully. One of the issues, of course, that is very important is the independence of the tribunals and the need to look at those tribunals to be in a separate structure, but also to be proper tribunals that have the informality that we would expect from tribunals. Also, tribunals are, of course, something that offer an opportunity in terms of much greater use, I think, of the Welsh language within that part of the judicial system.

What I can assure the Member of is this: there would be no sudden shock transformation in terms of the tribunals and the way they operate, but there will be a greater modernisation of them, a greater assurance of the independence of the way in which they operate, the facilities, the resources and support that's necessary for that part of the Welsh judiciary, and also, as the tribunals develop, to look at other areas that would come naturally within a tribunal structure to see how that can actually be facilitated.

I was very impressed and learnt a lot by attending the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service in Scotland, who introduced legislation on this in 2014. They, of course, have a very different history, but it was a very useful exercise to learn from their own experience, and those lessons are ones that I'm giving considerable consideration to in looking at how we can benefit from those.

Thank you. You referred to the independence of the tribunals. As you develop the legislative changes you propose to reform the tribunals system in Wales, how will you respond to the 94 per cent of positive responses to the question in the consultation asking whether the respondents agreed with the proposed statutory duty to uphold judicial independence applying to all those with responsibility for the administration of justice as that applies to the reformed tribunals system in Wales, with the president of the Education Tribunal for Wales stating,

'Most definitely. It is an imperative step that needs to be clearly established in advance of the transfer of jurisdictional powers',

with Dr Huw Evans of Cardiff Metropolitan University stating that,

'in addition to the Welsh Government upholding the independence of Welsh tribunal members, the Counsel General must defend that independence',

and with SNAP Cymru expressing support for the Law Commission's recommendations of a statutory duty to uphold the independence of the devolved tribunals?

The independence of tribunals is something that has come up on a number of occasions, not only in the consultation but also in discussions with the new president of tribunals, Sir Gary Hickinbottom, who I am meeting later this week. There is absolutely no question about the importance of the independence of the system. As they have come to us, there is a need to formalise that independence. My personal view—it's an area to be considered—is I don't think it's necessary to legislate for the independence. What is necessary is that we have actually a court structure that actually operates independently within a proper judicial framework. And it's not a jurisdiction that's been transferred to us; this is already with us in a whole number of areas, and what we are doing is bringing it together into a proper first-tier system that secures the benefit of Welsh judges being able to sit in more than one tribunal, but also, as we pass legislation that may create offences or appeals structures or matters that would be referred to a tribunal, that that would be the natural home for those matters to actually be considered.

Thank you. My final question on this theme: responding to your statement here last June on tribunal reform and Wales's evolving judicial landscape, I again raised concerns with you that vulnerable children and their families in Wales were being let down because the Education Tribunal for Wales lacks any enforcement powers and cannot take further enforcement action when the relevant public bodies fail to carry out their orders. Despite the High Court ruling in 2018 that the exclusion of an autistic pupil for behaviour arising from their autism was unlawful, I continue to receive north Wales casework where this is happening. So, as you develop the legislative changes you propose to reform the tribunal system in Wales, how will you therefore respond to the 80 per cent of positive responses to the question in the consultation asking whether respondents agreed that the jurisdiction of school exclusion appeal panels should be transferred to the first-tier tribunal for Wales, with the president of the Education Tribunal for Wales stating that,

'The specialist expertise of our Tribunal Specialist Members mean that we are best placed to make fair and just decisions which are independent of an individual School or Local Authority process'?

I agree with those latter points that you've made on this, and I think the intention is that the issue of school exclusions is a matter that will come into the tribunals in due course. Whether it comes in right at the first instance is another matter. As you know, there is already a mechanism in respect of school exclusions. But, of course, what we do recognise, and I certainly recognise it in terms of the number of times I've sat in now in the youth courts, is we see how important the issue of exclusions is, the role it plays in the pathway of young people, whether it's into criminality, and so on. So, in many ways, in terms of our social objectives of keeping young people out of the criminal justice system, out of eventually the prison system, addressing the problems they have and early interventions, I think exclusions are actually a really significant part of that. We've got to make sure that we handle it properly, and I think certainly the direction we're in is that exclusions are a matter that will, in due course, come into the first-tier tribunal system, once it is actually established. And I think that would be, probably, in keeping with the outcome of the consultation and the comments that were made during that consultation process.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Adam Price.

Diolch, Llywydd. Counsel General, you and I have had the opportunity on more than one occasion now to discuss the proposal to introduce a prohibition against deliberate deception by current and prospective Members of the Senedd. Now, that proposal is incorporated in a new section, section 64, of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill, following the committee stage of that Bill last week. You opposed the proposal at committee stage, but I'd be grateful if you could tell the Senedd what the Government now proposes to do at Stage 3 in relation to this proposal. Will you seek to remove it, or will you bring forward amendments to refine it, addressing many of the issues that you raised?

Well, thank you for that. On the amendment, as you will know from the contributions I made during that Stage 2 session, I have very serious concerns about that, in connection with whether it will be in competence, together with the issue of the rule of law, the clarity of the legislation, the capacity for it to be implemented, the creation of potentially a criminal offence where there has been no engagement or proper consultation, and so on. I will be, certainly, analysing the amendment that was made. I will be giving consideration to it, and I will certainly be coming forward with a view prior to Stage 3, which I think is around about 17 or 18 June. But, you are aware of the views that I have on it.

What options may be open to the Welsh Government to either improve it or ensure the efficacy of the legislation are still under consideration. As you know, my preferred direction would be that this is a matter, together with the issue of recall, that would be best considered and explored by the Standards of Conduct Committee, which has actually started that work. My primary objective is not in terms of the intention of what that amendment is, but what is the actual best way to create law that is good law but is also effective law. I have considerable doubts over the nature of that part of the legislative amendment that was made, but it's still under my consideration.

In your comments last week at committee stage, you said that the Government had not yet produced a comprehensive, deep-delve—I think that was your phrase, Counsel General—legal analysis of the proposal. We have discussed it on many occasions now, but that analysis to date has not been conducted, you said. You've provided again, I think, a short summary of the areas where you think there are concerns, but will you now be commissioning that comprehensive legal analysis from the Government's legal advisers? And, in order to facilitate the widest possible parliamentary and, indeed, public scrutiny of the proposal and the Government's interpretation of it, will you be publishing that legal analysis so that we can have a shared basis for understanding where the Government has identified issues that we need to resolve at Stage 3?

Well, thank you for those comments. Of course, when the amendment came in, there was barely a couple of days' notice to actually give consideration to that. So, it is a concern to have significant legislation that comes in that has not already had that detailed work done on it or that earlier scrutiny, and that is one of my concerns about making an amendment such as this on the back of a piece of legislation within a couple of days. Those issues of competence that I want to explore are issues to do with the Perjury Act 1911. They're also to do with the Human Rights Act 1998. There are also some rule-of-law issues.

Now, I'd be very careful in terms of how I consider the issue of competence because, firstly, I have to form a view on it. But, secondly, I also have a particular function at the end of a piece of legislation, as Counsel General, which I conduct independent of Government, which I can only exercise once legislation has been concluded, which is whether or not to refer it to the Supreme Court, or whether it might be referred by the Attorney General to the Supreme Court. In which case, I have to take a position on it at that particular stage. That's why, really, I have the concern about the nature of such a significant amendment, creating a criminal offence that has not been subject to any of the normal engagements or scrutiny of that. And, of course, don't forget, if the matter were referred to the Supreme Court, it is very unlikely this Bill would be able to come into force for the 2026 election. So, that is also a consideration I have in how this legislation should pursue through Stage 3.

I'd just point out to the Counsel General that 18 June will be the fourth formal opportunity for the Senedd to be discussing this proposal. This is what Parliaments do—they amend Government Bills, and probably we should do it more often.

Does he not accept that the infected blood inquiry, in the most horrifically graphic way, has shown that there is a culture of lying and cover-up in politics? And there's an asymmetry of suffering at the moment, because the politicians who lie face no consequences, but the people who are victims of those lies face the most terrible consequences, and that's what we're trying to change with this proposal. Could I suggest to him, given that context, and in the current climate of public opinion, it would do no good at all to the reputation of this Government if you were to seek to remove a proposal to ban, to prohibit lying in politics? So, instead of doing that, work with us on a cross-party basis to get this right, because it's what the public want to see.

I certainly agree with that latter point, which is why I actually think that, in the area in terms of issues of recall, in the issues of standards, and the issue in terms of deception, having a properly considered piece of legislation and scrutinised piece of legislation, and legislation that has properly engaged people and relevant parties and stakeholders as well, is actually the most effective way of achieving legislation that actually works.

Now, you're absolutely right—in terms of events, whether it by Hillsborough, whether it be the calls in terms of Orgreave, whether it be in terms of the contaminated blood, Horizon and so on—that what is needed is really what my colleague Jack Sargeant has asked for, and that is a statutory duty of candour. What I'm concerned with is an amendment on legislation that purports to resolve a problem but, actually, solely amounts to little more than bad and ineffective law. That's my concern—that we see something as a quick, silver-bullet solution, but turns out, once it is scrutinised, to be nothing of the sort. So, I think it's very, very important in this place that the legislation that we do on such important matters is legislation that will actually work, that will actually be effective and that will actually deliver what we want it to do. I have considerable doubt whether the amendment that was passed actually overcomes those particular hurdles.

Thank you for your question. Not unexpectedly, turnout at the recent police and crime commissioner elections in Wales was low. Of the numerous reasons for this, poor public engagement around these elections is obvious. To strengthen public engagement in elections more broadly, I'm taking forward legislation to improve access to information and break down the barriers to participation.

Diolch, Cwnsler Cyffredinol. I'm glad you mentioned breaking down barriers to participation, because that was going to be my supplementary question with regard to the introduction of voter ID. I think it's fair to say that the introduction has been done in a chaotic manner and without any real logic. You're able to vote with an older person's bus pass, but not a young person's bus pass. You can use some passports, such as UK, EU and Commonwealth passports, but not any others. There were some reports of those with Bangladeshi and Pakistani passports being incorrectly turned away at English local elections. Polling staff themselves might be unsure of the rules. And when it comes to a person's right to vote, it's essential that we get it right. Has the Welsh Government been gathering data on the impact of voter ID, and whether there has been a racial disparity with those turned away from the ballot box? Diolch yn fawr.

Well, thank you for this ongoing issue. Of course, there has been a lot of comment on the recent council elections, particularly in England. Of course, the police and crime commissioner elections in Wales had very low turnout, because they were the sole elections, where actually the candidates have no support in terms of putting out publicity and material and information to electors. So, any analysis of how things happened in Wales will obviously be something of interest. We may learn more lessons from what happened in England, where we know, last time, there were at least 14,000 who were turned away from elections; others who were turned away and came back; and others, I suspect, who didn't bother going out to vote at all on the presumption that they didn't have the necessary ID. I do remember the former Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, of course said, of ID cards, that he would tear it up and he would eat it with his cornflakes. Well, he must have done that, because he turned up to vote, didn't have an ID card, and they sent him home.

More troubling, of course, is concern over people like the veteran who turned up with his veteran ID and it wasn't accepted, and of course there are many students who have ID cards, but for some reason—we can only imagine why—student ID cards are not acceptable. So, there is very real concern about that and the ID card system and the impact that it has. As you know, Welsh Government's position is one that is oriented towards removing hurdles for participation in elections. And we know, from the comments that were made by the former Conservative Minister Rees-Mogg, that this was a measure that was introduced with the objective of actually restricting ability to participate in voting—an idea that has come from the voter suppression tactics of America. But what I can assure you is that when there is further analysis from the Electoral Commission—I do meet with them periodically—this will be one of the issues we will want to consider. But also we will want to consider in respect of how, in devolved Welsh elections when they take place, there isn't confusion for people as to their entitlement and ability to vote in Welsh elections without ID cards.

I disagree with the Counsel General. He said turnout was low; I'd say it was very low. There was a lack of interest in the election. People who vote in all other elections stayed at home. It was possibly the first ever election where people voting by post outnumbered those voting in person. There was confusion over what police and crime commissioners are responsible for. Does the Counsel General agree with me that the major cause of people not voting was the absence of party literature, especially when the police and crime commissioners cover such a large area, and it is very difficult to be well known in that very large area? Will the Counsel General press for freepost delivery for all candidates at the next election? That’s how democracy works.

You make an extremely important point. The fact that you have an election that’s been established for police and crime commissioners who have a particular function to carry out, and unlike any other election, where candidates have the right to a certain amount of literature, police and crime commissioners have none. It seems to me a fundamental reason for councillors and Senedd Members and MPs to have a certain number of freeposts, is because it’s important that people know who the candidates are, know what they are standing for, any manifesto issues they have, so it’s part of good democratic process. It can only be bad democratic process if you have candidates who people don’t actually know who they are, are not entitled to receive any facilitated literature or information about them, and it undermines the democratic process and confidence in it, so I agree with you entirely. Of course police and crime commissioners are not devolved; well, not yet devolved, and hopefully, if they were devolved, we would be able to resolve this. But I can assure you, taking on board what you say, we do have an inter-ministerial group on elections. I think one of those is due imminently and those are points that I will make at that particular meeting.

Thank you.

Question 4, Rhys ab Owen. [Interruption.]

No, no point of order; not at this point, we're in the middle of questions.

Question 4, Rhys ab Owen.

Thank you for your question. The Welsh Government remains of the view that the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 is offensive to Wales as it seeks to severely undermine the powers of the democratically elected Senedd. The issues with the deposit-return scheme are yet another example of the problems with this piece of legislation.

Diolch, Cwnsler Cyffredinol. I agree with you and agree with what Huw Irranca-Davies wrote last month in his written statement that this is another example of misuse of the internal market Act by the Westminster Government. Devolution should allow us to explore new ideas, but the UK Government doesn’t seem to share this aspiration for Wales. Instead, something as simple as including glass in a recycling scheme is turned into a political football. It’s a shame that the deposit-return scheme had to be delayed by the Welsh Government until 2027 in order to match the UK Government’s timeline, especially when we really do need to encourage recycling now more than ever; waterways are being polluted with rubbish, beaches are tainted with plastics and the smell of landfill is harming people’s health, as Paul Davies raised recently with regard to the Withyhedge landfill site. Therefore, will the Welsh Government be considering legal action in the event that a deposit-return scheme is blocked by the UK Government? Diolch.

Again, thank you for your question. The issue of legal action—I’ll take that last point first—of course, is one where we took legal action and, of course, we had the single-use plastics legislation that went forward and, of course, the UK Government chose not to challenge that. I think it upheld, de facto, our position in respect of the supremacy of our constitutional statutes over the internal market Act, which is the issue between us, that it does not have the capacity to change the core constitutional protected legislation.

Now, on this particular issue, in terms of the deposit-return scheme, well, of course, our policy is to introduce a deposit-return scheme. The problem with it is that the UK Government have appointed themselves as judge and jury for the internal market Act, which is not how you would achieve effective regulation of a single market. As you know, we have common frameworks that have been achieved and arrived at through co-operation between the four nations of the UK, and the problem with the internal market Act is that it enables UK Government to drive a coach and horses through that.

Now, agreement had actually been reached with the UK Government in terms of the inclusion of a glass deposit-return scheme. It was agreed between the nations. Scotland, in fact, was very advanced in the implementation of that, but it was the UK Government that, having agreed a common way of moving forward on this, chose to diverge from what had been a collectively agreed position that had been consulted upon.

So, our preference remains for a fully aligned scheme across the UK, as previously agreed. However, we note the threat that the UK Government have made to repeat their actions in bringing down the scheme in Scotland by using the internal market Act to restrict our ability to go further and impose a watered-down deposit-return scheme. I think that misusing the internal market Act to stop Welsh Government and other Governments from bringing forward an effective deposit-return scheme, which would have been very much within competence, is something that is extremely unfortunate. We are intending to go forward with this; there is still work that is ongoing. There are certainly benefits from a deposit-return scheme. It does make it much more difficult with the position that the UK Government have taken in respect of England, and, obviously, this is a matter that remains, as I said, under consideration.

The Bill does not use the term 'man'. The quota rules deal with the proportion and placement of women on lists of candidates to be Members of the Senedd. The Bill is not about defining a woman, or defining a man.

So, the Bill being proposed states that at least half the candidates on an electoral list must be women, whereas as explained by the Trefnydd, Jane Hutt, this Bill does not include a definition of 'woman', because the Bill is not about defining a woman. Nor would it appear it is about defining what a man is other than the antithesis of an undefined woman. Perhaps this is good news as the last thing I want to hear is a stumbled, illogical, politicised definition of a man. The issue is that, unlike in other legislation that uses gender quotas, a definition is not necessary, because when they refer to women, it pertains to biological sex, rather than a self-identified gender. Other countries have negated legal challenges because of this fact. It's biological rather than emotional for them. So, why are we any different? Wales is making itself vulnerable to needless legal challenges if candidates falsely identify their gender on electoral lists. Therefore, would the Counsel General agree with me that this ambiguity makes the Welsh electoral system vulnerable to abuse, potentially leading to increased distrust by the public, and thus how will legal challenges to election outcomes based on false statements made by candidates be addressed and mitigated?

Thank you for the well-intended question. I'm not sure where your confusion arises or where the purported ambiguity arises. As I say, the purpose of this Bill is to work towards a more effective Senedd, achieve some better gender balance. The Bill sets out rules in respect of proportion and placement of women on party lists, as the under-represented majority in this Senedd, as you obviously know from the under-representation of women within the Conservative Party group.

Gender quotas are a mainstream mechanism; they're used in many countries across the world to strengthen democratic institutions. Over 130 countries, more than half of the world's nations, have some form of gender quotas. The rules have been designed to accord with the electoral system proposed in the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill and existing rules with regard to nominations that involve candidates providing accurate personal information. It'll be for candidates and parties to ensure that the statements they make alongside other personal information required as part of the nominations process are accurate. But, perhaps just to repeat again, the quota rules only deal with the proportion and placement of women on lists, the Bill does not use the term 'man', and so no definition is required. The Bill is not about gender recognition.

Thank you very much for the question.

It is estimated that up to 400,000 eligible Welsh citizens may not be properly registered to vote in local government and Senedd elections, and I've raised my concerns with the Electoral Commission. This is one of the reasons that we will be introducing the automatic registration of electors through the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill, which has gone through Stage 2 and is now headed towards Stage 3 later on in June.

Well, thanks to the Counsel General for that. I listened carefully to the earlier exchange with Rhys ab Owen on ID cards. I think what Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg actually said, Dirprwy Lywydd, was that the Government's ID policy was a failed attempt at gerrymandering, and, on that matter, I think we ought to bow to his expertise. By contrast, your own proposals will tackle that astonishing number of Welsh citizens who never have an opportunity to vote at all. I believe, as I know others in the Chamber do, that taking part in a democratic election is a duty of citizenship, but if 400,000 Welsh citizens aren't even on the register, they never have that opportunity, and the work that you are doing on automatic registration will go a very long way to putting that democratic deficit right. So, I'd be grateful if you could give the Chamber an update on how quickly you think we may be able to make that progress here in Wales.

Thank you for that question and those comments. I think there is an amount of very transformative legislation that has been going through the Senedd, which started at the beginning of the session, and that is that not only are we reforming the Senedd and we're removing I think the undemocratic first-past-the-post system, the big challenge we have is to start talking seriously about democratic health. That is, the stability of any society is dependent on the extent to which people are prepared to participate and give it its support. The fewer people who participate, the weaker the mandate of any Government, and I think this is something that is beginning to resonate through, I think, countries where you have had falling participation.

Now, we cannot force people to vote, but what we can do is to ensure that the first step is there, that people are actually in place and able to vote. And, of course, as the Electoral Commission noted, in Wales, we are 400,000 people short of those who should be. That is probably something like 8 million in the UK. That raises a real credibility issue in terms of democratic mandate. We can't force people to vote. Obviously, we want to ensure that people do vote, but, unless they're on the register in the first place, then that becomes something that we know from elections is not possible.

So, this is not a silver bullet, but it is a starting point on greater reform in terms of the recognition of the weaknesses within our current structures. I actually think that the legislation, which I think goes to Stage 3 on 17 or 18 June and I hope will have completed its passage this summer and gone for Royal Assent, that it will apply, then, for the 2026 elections—. And I think this is legislation where we show how it can be done, and other countries in the rest of the UK, I think England and, indeed, Scotland, and other places, will see this as a model to follow on, as a starting point for improving our democratic health and greater participation in elections.

I do find it somewhat astonishing that the Counsel General and former First Minister haven't made any reference at all to the fact that any UK resident can apply for a voter authority certificate, which is completely free of charge on the UK Government's website. And if we are serious about increasing voter turnout, which I do agree with—it was woeful during the police and crime commissioner elections recently; in my constituency, I think some ballot boxes were as low as 8 per cent in some areas—if we're really serious about increasing voter turnout, will you join me in putting on the public record that people in Wales can apply for a voter authority certificate via the UK Government's website, completely free of charge?

Well, you make a partly valid case in the sense that the Electoral Commission did a lot of work to tell people, but there are still many people who actually weren't aware. Where you have to go back to is, of course: what was the motivation for introducing this? Was this motivation because of some great concern over electoral fraud or over the robustness of the electoral system? There was no—[Interruption.] There was no evidence—[Interruption.] There was no evidence—

Can you allow the Member to respond please?

Yes, it's difficult when you are heckled by your own side, isn't it? There was no evidence for this. As Mark Drakeford mentioned, the purpose it was introduced—. Let's be clear—because the cat was out of the bag from Rees-Mogg, wasn't it?—it was about voter suppression. It was about trying to make it more difficult for people to vote. Clearly, that happened when one of your former Prime Ministers turns up and he can't vote, when a veteran can't vote, when a student on his ID card can't vote. It raises the question as to why is it necessary to actually produce an ID card if there is no evidence that they are actually required. You know as well as I do that the purpose behind it is voter suppression, because there are categories of voters that you don't actually want to participate in our elections. That is the reasoning behind it. Rees-Mogg let the cat out of the bag and you're afraid to admit it.

Migration policy is not devolved, but Welsh Government does have responsibility for supporting migrant integration in Wales. So, we will continue to play a full, proportionate part in supporting asylum seekers, and we will aim to ensure they have access to relevant services and information to fully contribute to Welsh community life.

Thank you. People around the world are facing turmoil and violence, and so, rightly, are seeking sanctuary throughout the world. In Britain, we are no different, and I'm proud of the tens of thousands of yearly asylum applicants that the UK Government processes. However, we here in Wales must approach this topic with caution, because there does not seem to be a definitive—or a difference between asylum seekers and illegal immigrants. Now, we also cannot afford to be giving out the vast amount of £1,600 a month to asylum seekers who are not eligible. For comparison, let’s remember that the standard allowance for universal credit is under £400. This is the feedback I am getting from my residents. I hope that this figure isn’t being tested as part of the wider feasibility study for Labour’s universal basic income. Can you imagine the cost if the Government has to give £1,600 a month to every Welsh citizen? I think that that is the utopia, really, here. Can the Counsel General justify how the Government can afford to keep giving these handouts when Welsh residents, my constituents, constituents across north Wales and other places, they cannot be seen by a doctor for over six months, they cannot afford to heat their homes because their council tax has risen 20 to 30 per cent in the last two years, and some people cannot even access a home? Diolch.

I would hope that you'd be ashamed of the points that you started off with, which you know are not only untrue but are grossly—[Interruption.]—grossly misleading and misrepresentative. Can I say that, in that knowledge, how disappointing it is and unethical it is to actually make those comments in that particular way?

Can I just say? The Act, the Rwanda Act, is fundamentally incompatible with the UK's human rights obligations and the fundamental principle of universality of human rights for all. Furthermore, the UN Refugee Agency has described the Act as amounting to an asylum ban, which would breach the 1951 refugee convention. There is absolutely no doubt that it also undermines the UK's standing in the world as a leader in human rights observance and respect for international law.

Let me just give this one comment, when this matter was debated in the Lords, by a former Conservative MP, Viscount Hailsham KC. He said:

'In my opinion, we should not put into a Bill a statement that is manifestly untrue...what, in other circumstances, would be described as a lie'.

Is the sovereignty of Parliament dependent on a lie? Is this what Brexit means? Is this what you have brought this country to: to pass legislation that says that a lie is a truth in order to achieve an objective that is, essentially, unlawful? I really think you should be ashamed of yourselves.

I thank the Counsel General.

Item 3 is the business statement and announcement. I call on the Trefnydd, Jane Hutt.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. There is one change to this week's business: the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education on consultation on the school year has been postponed until 4 June. Draft business for the next three weeks is set out in the business statement and announcement, which can be found amongst the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Can I call for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary on health in respect of NHS dental services in north Wales? We know that NHS dentistry in the country is in crisis. We've had big price hikes for those people who can register with an NHS dentist, well above the rate of inflation. But, of course, in Conwy and Denbighshire in particular, we seem to have had a bit of an exodus from the NHS sector, with people deciding to hand back their contracts, and, even within the NHS sector, we've seen the Colwyn Bay community dental health clinic essentially say that it's rowing out of general dental services. Now, clearly, this is causing a great deal of angst for my constituents, many thousands of whom are not registered with an NHS dentist. One constituent contacted me last week to say that she'd been quoted £23,000 for the NHS dental treatment that she now needed and she couldn't access via an NHS dentist. We've got orthodontic patients, young kids, waiting 222 weeks, according to the latest correspondence from the health boards. That's four years. It's completely unacceptable. We need action to sort this out. People aren't getting the service that they need. There's a postcode lottery across north Wales and the rest of the country. Can we have a statement on this, as a matter of urgency, so that we can hold the Government to account for its failure to deliver improved dental care?

Thank you very much for that question, Darren Millar. Clearly, the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care is not only addressing this in terms of north Wales, but, as you say, the whole of Wales, to ensure that we have dental services, particularly for our children and young people, and, of course, that is where the focus is. I will ask her to give you an update specifically in terms of the services available in north Wales, but, of course, the move forward with the dental contract has been important, and, indeed, the funding and release of dental services. But I'm also aware of the developments in Bangor, for example—it's in the north-west of north Wales, but those, I think, are really important in terms of the dental services that are being developed there in terms of access, training and encouraging the profession to not only come to Wales, but stay in Wales when they're trained.

In Wales, our culture is our lifeblood, the thing that makes us who we are, but cuts to culture are threatening this crucial part of identity, and I'd ask for a statement, please, from the Government setting out how it will get to grips with the storm surrounding cuts to our cultural institutions. Now, there has been commendable recognition in recent weeks that this isn't sustainable. I welcome the fact that the new culture Secretary has said that the national museum in Cardiff won't shut on her watch, but the crisis is so much deeper than that. We know that the cuts—. And we've known for a long time that they would be biting, but it's becoming more apparent just how bare the bones will be of what is left without drastic intervention. Welsh National Opera, who sang so beautifully outside the Senedd this afternoon, could soon be without a permanent chorus or orchestra. Our national theatre is in crisis. Magazines like Planet have been forced to stop printing. Michael Sheen has warned that our culture is under attack. So, can a statement urgently address this, please, and reassure the Senedd that the Welsh Government recognises just what is at stake here, and that they will do all they can to reverse these calamitous cuts to our culture?

Thank you very much for your very important question.

Yes, I think we heard the wonderful singing from the Welsh National Opera and so many of us appreciate the wonderful opera, the Welsh National Opera, and what they have delivered in terms of their track record and that that continues into the next seasons as well. I think it is important, as you raised, it's about the whole picture in terms of the whole set of circumstances, in terms of culture, that our Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice did launch today the culture strategy. I think that's very important, and I know there's a huge contribution gone into that as a result of our co-operation agreement. And that doesn't go away. That influence and that collaboration, I hope, will continue, and I'm sure it will do, because that's what we would like.

But, obviously, these are extremely difficult financial circumstances that we are in as a Welsh Government, and then, of course, that also does put the pressure onto our arm's-length bodies—and we have that very strong arm's-length funding principle in terms of funding through the Arts Council of Wales. So, the investment review has played a part of this in terms of those decisions. But I think it is important, just in terms of the Welsh National Opera, which we heard about today, that it is still receiving the largest multi-year funding offer of all of ACW's 81 organisations.

But this does go back to the cuts that we've had to our budget by the UK Government, and the difficulties in terms of the priorities that we've had to set with the budget for this year, which, of course, you're also familiar with. But can I just say again how important it is that we've got that culture strategy, that you played your part in it, and that, also, as chair of the cross-party committee, these issues will be fully discussed and scrutinised in terms of impacts and a positive way forward?

I was pleased to hear that there'll be a debate on the infected blood scandal, on the report that was issued yesterday, and, obviously, this will require quite a lot of consideration by the Senedd, because this is one of seven books that were issued yesterday—massive tomes. And can I ask also that the debate will consider the issue of compensation, because a separate statement was made in the House of Commons today about compensation, with Sir Robert Francis appointed as the interim chair to the committee looking at compensation, as I understand, to the delight of the campaigners who were present in the gallery? So, does the Trefnydd think that we're going to be able to cover all this in one debate, or does she think that we need a separate debate or statement about the very detailed issues that have come up about compensation?

And just to say, very swiftly, I had the great privilege of being in the final hearing yesterday, with a group of infected and affected people from Wales, including the Trefnydd's constituents, which was a very moving occasion, because I think it's very important that we do remember that 70 people died in Wales and 400 people were infected in Wales. So, I'd like to pay tribute to that band of people who have campaigned for so many years, and also to all the politicians here in the Chamber who have also done the same, and the cross-party group as well, under the chair of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch yn fawr, Julie Morgan. And can I, once again, thank Julie Morgan—and I'm sure this is expressed across the Chamber—for her decades of campaigning on behalf of her constituents? And I think this is the measure of the role that Julie has played, firstly as an MP, as Member of Parliament for Cardiff North, and then as a Senedd Member, that her constituents came to her on this issue and she took up that campaign in such a robust way and has contributed to the way in which I believe this inquiry was set up to investigate the scandal of infected blood products and tissues that were supplied by the NHS in the 1970s and 1980s. And this was well before Julie came and was elected to this Senedd, but playing that part in the cross-party group, and I know, of course, we have colleagues across the Chamber who were engaged, and Rhun ap Iorwerth.

And can we just also say thank you to Julie? She went up to London, was with the families yesterday, and that does include my constituents and many constituents of Members across the Chamber. And, of course, it is the worst treatment scandal in the NHS. It does pre-date devolution, but we have to then look at ways in which we can respond, as we always have done. And indeed, I recall that in my former role as Minister for Health and Social Services.

I think it's important that you made this contribution today and raised the question, Julie, in the business statement, because we are looking to have this Government debate. It was announced today by the First Minister. He gave his full apology today, following the apology given by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care in her written statement. Of course, this issue about compensation is a matter for the UK Government, and we're working on a four-nation basis to ensure that those affected and their families are compensated. So, we need to look at—. I know that the Cabinet Secretary, and, as you said, in her written statement, is looking now at the report, is looking at each stage of what the response should be. And I think that is very helpful that you have raised this issue, in terms of the context of the debate.

And I think also, just to perhaps reflect on the fact that we did have a debate back on 7 May. And of course, in your former role as Deputy Minister, I want to acknowledge the role that you played then, and confirming that our position in relation to the UK Government's proposal to set up an arm's-length body to provide the vehicle by which the compensation could be paid was really important. The work that you did leading up to that was really important, the work you've done on a four-nation basis, the work you did with a number of health Ministers as well.

I just also want to say that Julie Morgan has shared with us the impact this has had on the survivors and their families—and this has been acknowledged by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care—and the confidence that they had in Sir Brian Langstaff, the chair of the inquiry, who started taking evidence in 2019, now publishing his final report. I have spent some time in responding to this question, Dirprwy Lywydd, because it is so important. Today is the day that we're reflecting on it, but then we will have a full Government debate, taking on board the points and the questions that the Member for Cardiff North, Julie Morgan, has made. We will take those into account when looking at the motion that will come before the Senedd.

Trefnydd, I don't know how many times I need to stand up in this Chamber and raise the Withyhedge landfill site scandal, but, sadly, the local community still continues to live with potentially toxic emissions coming from the site, despite the fact that Natural Resources Wales's latest enforcement notice deadline to the operator was this time last week. It's infuriating that people living near the site have to put up with this awful situation, and there appears to be no end in sight for them. The community feel that they're going round and round in circles.

Natural Resources Wales hasn't confirmed whether the operator has complied with the latest enforcement notice, nobody will confirm how toxic the emissions are, and, quite frankly, it appears as if nobody cares what happens to this community. Well, I do, and I will raise this issue again and again and again until the community gets the answers and the support that it deserves.

Trefnydd, I've written to Natural Resources Wales, I've written and met with Public Health Wales, but it's quite clear that this is not being dealt with appropriately as my constituents continue to suffer. I believe now that there needs to be an independent public inquiry into the handling of this. Therefore, can I request a statement from the Welsh Government, outlining its position on this scandal, and whether it will support the calls for an independent public inquiry?

Diolch yn fawr, Paul Davies. I can quite understand, as an elected representative, why you are bringing this and bringing it forward to me in my business statement, and I'm sure you took the opportunity to bring it forward to the Cabinet Secretary when he had his oral Senedd questions. But this needs to be resolved. That's the call again today.

Just to give you the update: I understand that Natural Resources Wales have increased their presence onsite, and they are updating the community, via their website. Enforcement notices have been served on the landfill operator, who's required to cover all exposed waste and complete landfill engineering work to contain and collect landfill gas. And if the landfill operator fails to comply with the final deadline of the notice, Natural Resources Wales will be looking to take appropriate enforcement action in line with their enforcement and prosecution policy.

I won't repeat some of the reports back I've given in previous weeks, but, just to say, in terms of latest developments, that I'm aware that the council—Pembrokeshire County Council—is considering an injunction, requiring the operator to abate the public nuisance, but obviously working with NRW to determine if the operator has addressed all the steps in NRW's notice, before taking further action.

I would like to ask for a Government statement following the court judgment with regard to the former head of Ysgol Friars in Bangor. Children in my constituency and beyond have suffered a great deal. My heart bleeds for them and for their families, and I admire the bravery of those who came forward to report their nightmarish experiences. The crimes were genuinely appalling. I do understand that the child safeguarding board in north Wales will hold an inquiry, and, of course, we welcome that. I would like to understand exactly what the scope of the inquiry by the safeguarding board will be. But I'd also like to know what other kinds of interventions and independent inquiries could be held. What is being considered by the Government? What is the guidance that the Government is sharing as a result of the seriousness of the situation? So, I would emphasise the importance of a Government statement at the Senedd, following recess, setting out what exactly is happening, so that we can learn lessons for the future. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your question, Siân Gwenllian, and for your important statement this afternoon.

We all share with you and your constituents, and all those who have been affected, the shock and disgust that Neil Foden was able to abuse his position of authority to commit those crimes. And our thoughts here today—. And I can see that across our Chamber our thoughts are with his victims at this time. So, now the criminal process has ended, the regional safeguarding board, as you said, will undertake a child practice review. It is an independent review. It will consider the involvement of relevant agencies, it will identify learning and make recommendations to improve future safeguarding practice, and we stand ready to fully support and engage with the review. It is important that we understand the full extent of any failings in current safeguarding arrangements, and ensure that appropriate measures are put in place without delay to prevent such occurrences in the future.

I wanted to raise another toxic waste issue, which is that of the sewage in our seas and rivers. You will be aware, Trefnydd, that people were ordered out of the water at Barry Island on Saturday, because of the water quality, and this was while there were huge numbers of people there because of the Gwŷl Fach y Fro festival of music and street entertainment. Surfers Against Sewage have warned that 19 beaches in Wales have been polluted by storm sewage or given poor water classifications.

I'm very keen to understand how this happened on Saturday, given that there was no substantial rainfall during Thursday and Friday. So, I wondered if we could request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for climate change on conversations that may have taken place with Dŵr Cymru and how we address this. It's a situation that's disastrous for tourism and potentially for public health. And that comes in the context of the inadequate interim environmental governance arrangements that we have, so that although NRW are the regulator, we also need to have an organisation that's able to, actually, deal with any of these major pollutions. So, I wondered if you are able to add anything, given your particular constituency interest in this.

Thank you, Jenny Rathbone, for that question. Yes, it’s in my constituency. In Barry, the town where I live, Whitmore bay, which is where this incident happened, has consistently met stringent bathing water quality standards. In 2023, it achieved a good bathing water classification. My understanding is that, on Saturday afternoon, Dŵr Cymru observed activity on the monitor at Barry's overflow, and that prompted the relevant agencies to undertake due diligence measures, including the RNLI issuing a red flag on the beach and making announcements advising beach users not to enter the water. Following an investigation, Dŵr Cymru confirmed it was a false alarm caused by a monitor fault, which is possible. They're currently addressing the issue with the monitor and apologised for the incident and the confusion. Vale of Glamorgan Council have assured and reassured the public that regular testing of the water at Barry Island takes place. There's no reason currently to consider the water at Whitmore bay to be unsafe.

As a Government, we've always been clear that we expect water companies in Wales to work hard to deliver both operational and environmental improvements, in addition to delivering excellent services to their customers. But, of course, this is a huge cause of concern in terms of the people. The sun came out, people come to Barry, it's a great beach on the doorstep of south Wales in terms of the opportunities to come. I think this is something where we need to look very carefully at what is happening in terms of Dŵr Cymru and that mistake in terms of the monitor. They've installed, I understand, event duration monitoring for 9 per cent of their storm overflow assets, which does provide data on when there could be storm overflow discharge, and that's real-time information. So, there is close monitoring, and that's what we now need to see delivered, and effectiveness of warning systems in our bathing waters.

Trefnydd, can I ask for a statement that sets out the call-in process from the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, Local Government and Planning, please? My concern is the length of time it takes for the Welsh Government to consider a call-in request. I've got several cases where businesses and applicants' lives are being put on hold for considerably long periods of time whilst Welsh Government Ministers determine whether a call-in request should be accepted or not.

There's a particular case that I would refer to. The example here is that a request for a call-in was made on 7 February last year, or rather the Cabinet Secretary—Minister at the time—Julie James requested to the local authority that the planning permission would not be granted, and it's taken 15 months and still we're waiting for a response from the Welsh Government on whether that application will be called in or not.

Secondly, and more frustratingly, I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary on 15 May last year—not this year, last year—to ask for an update on this application and had a response in July of last year, which was a holding response. I've since sent five e-mails that have gone unanswered, on 25 October, 21 November, 4 January, 5 and 26 February of this year. It really is uncourteous not to reply to me, and I am unable to respond to my constituents to tell them what is the outcome and why there is a delay on the determination of the Welsh Government deciding whether there should be a call-in for this application or not.

Can you, Trefnydd, raise this with your colleague Julie James in terms of this specific case, which I'm very happy to send to you, Trefnydd, in writing, and could I also request a statement with regard to the call-in process to understand why it takes so long for Welsh Government Ministers to determine an application?

I'm sure, Russell George—I thank you for your question—you will appreciate I can't comment on specific planning cases of this kind that lead to a call-in for the Welsh Government to then give the response from the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, Local Government and Planning. These are happening all over Wales, so there will be different circumstances in each case, but I will certainly raise your concerns with the Cabinet Secretary, and I'm sure she will want to confirm the arrangements in terms of the overall picture of how call-in is managed and operated.

May I ask for a statement with an update on the Wales cancer service improvement from the Cabinet Secretary for health, please, and particularly levels of progress in identifying breast cancer in north Wales? I have a constituent who suffers breast cancer, and unfortunately the specialist oncologist at Ysbyty Gwynedd is unwell, which means that breast cancer patients from the north-west have to travel to Wrexham to see an oncologist, who works there as a locum. Unfortunately, because of the staffing position, patients who need to make appointments to go there are having their appointments cancelled late and are having to cancel hotels, and so on, which means that they are missing appointments, which causes difficulties for them. This means that women in the north-west of Wales are missing out because there isn't fair provision for prospective breast cancer patients in the area. This is inconsistent with the cancer service improvement plan in Wales, so I would be grateful for an update from the Cabinet Secretary for health on this issue.

Diolch yn fawr, Mabon ap Gwynfor. We have the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care with us. This is a matter for Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, but I think the Cabinet Secretary will look at this circumstance in terms of the consistency and accessibility of care to your constituents with breast cancer in north-west Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, Governments are ultimately the leading responsible custodians of our cultural heritage and of the architecture within it. I wish to ask for a statement to this place that outlines the analysis made of the combined impacts of the cumulative cuts from both the arts councils in England and Wales on the ability of WNO to function, perform and tour; the assessment made of the impact of the loss of highly trained and qualitative jobs to Wales's largest arts employer; the impact of a part-time delivery model on retaining and recruiting quality and excellence; and finally the assessments made of the diminishment of WNO's first-class community, well-being and schools outreach across Wales.

Minister, we can never be bystanders to cultural vandalism, and we in this place cannot be bystanders, an audience, and watch from these chairs as the jewel in the Welsh performance crown dissolves in front of us. I ask that the statement articulates the necessary funding needed to keep WNO full-time and outline the progress of a refreshed binational funding agreement. We have, in this place, a collective duty of care to protect our national institutions, and, as the world-renowned conductor Carlo Rizzi has just said a moment ago on the Senedd steps, to protect one of the finest opera companies in the world—a company born in Wales, bred in Wales, in the land of song. It is brand Wales. Thank you.

Thank you, Rhianon Passmore. I have responded to a question on the overall cultural position earlier on this afternoon. I think it is important that we heard Rhianon Passmore this afternoon with her views. I recognise that you tabled a statement of opinion as well, as a Labour backbencher, with support. Again, as you said, it's world-renowned, Welsh National Opera, for its excellence, performance and outreach, and I hope that a way forward can be found for the cultural sector, as I said earlier on. And it is good that we have got the culture strategy published today by the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice.

Trefnydd, could I request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health regarding the provision and availability of phlebotomy services in the region of South Wales West? I've had numerous constituents contact me detailing their struggles attending these appointments due to the centralised model for these services and the impact that limited transport links might then have on those patients. One constituent took four hours to get to the hospital for a simple five-minute procedure. I understand, having spoken to one of the health boards in my region about the centralisation of services, that it was due to the minimisation of time spent transporting blood samples and alleviating pressure on local practices, and I understand that, but it does put additional pressure on patients, particularly those that struggle to get to their appointments. Can I ask, therefore, for an update on the Welsh Government's strategy to make sure that these services are available for everybody who needs them?

Thank you for that question. You’ve done the right thing to draw this to the attention of the health boards, who are responsible, and your point has been recorded today.

And finally, Gareth Davies.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. Can I call for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language this afternoon? As we embark on the summer months, the Queen's Market in Rhyl is still without an operator, coming up to six months since the Mikhail Hotel & Leisure Group sadly pulled out. Local people are starting to see the new development as a white elephant, with over £12 million invested into what was envisioned a year ago as the nucleus of retail activity, but that, four years on, is now just an empty building. I believe that the Queen's Market could be a catalyst to rejuvenate the town, but it's unacceptable that, after a considerable length of time and a considerable amount of taxpayers' money invested, the market still isn't operational.

My constituents would like to see some oversight on how their money is spent. They'd like the Welsh Government to ensure that, when they spend taxpayers' money on the development, they ensure that taxpayers see the results of their investment and the money isn't forgotten about. So, can I have a statement to confirm to my constituents that this Government will work with Denbighshire County Council to ensure that this long-overdue project secures an operator and starts to benefit the town rather than it being an expensive white elephant that nobody can access?

Which, of course, we wouldn't want to see. You have raised the question of Queen's Market, and it's important that that is a partnership approach with funding from a number of sources. Clearly, the Cabinet Secretary will be aware of this point, and we will follow it up in terms of the latest position, particularly the responsibilities of Denbighshire County Council.

I thank the Trefnydd.

Item 4 today is the statement by the Minister for Social Care on the Health and Social Care (Wales) Bill. I call on the Minister, Dawn Bowden.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Yesterday, I laid the Health and Social Care (Wales) Bill before the Senedd. Can I place on record my thanks to both my predecessor, Julie Morgan, and to the former designated Member from Plaid Cymru, Siân Gwenllian, for the work that they have done on bringing the Bill to the point where it is now? Diolch yn fawr.

The Bill sets out two principal provisions: to prevent the extraction of private profit from certain types of children’s social care, and to give people the ability to request direct payments in relation to NHS continuing healthcare. It also supports the ongoing effective operation of our two flagship social services Acts.

All the proposals set out in this Bill have been the subject of extensive consultation and engagement with the public and with stakeholders. The eliminating profit provisions will restrict the extraction of private profit in the provision of care home services provided wholly or mainly to children, secure accommodation services, and fostering services. It will do this by ensuring that any new provider of a restricted children’s service other than a local authority must be a not-for-profit entity after the provisions come into force.

A 'not-for-profit entity' is defined in the Bill as a charitable company limited by guarantee without a share capital; a charitable incorporated organisation; a charitable registered society; or a community interest company limited by guarantee without a share capital.

The children’s social care market is fragmented and complex and there is a lack of placements of the right kind, in the right places. This means that children do not have access to care and accommodation that meets their needs, and that too often they are being placed far from their local communities where they have established links.

In developing this Bill, we have been guided by what young people have told us. They have very strong feelings about being cared for by privately owned organisations that profit from their experience of being in care. Under our proposals, the future residential care, secure accommodation and foster care of children that are looked after in Wales will be provided by public sector, charitable or not-for-profit organisations.

The Bill is one part of our wider programme to transform children’s services. We want fewer children taken into care. We want services to provide the right support for families, at the right time, to help them to stay together, wherever possible. When children are taken in care, we want them to be looked after as close to home as possible, with the right support for their needs. And when young people are ready to leave care, we will support them to plan for the future and to lead independent lives.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the second main provision in the Bill relates to the provision of NHS continuing healthcare. It seeks to amend the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006 to allow the Welsh Ministers to make direct payments to individuals who, having been assessed as having a primary health need, are therefore entitled to receive continuing healthcare. This will enable them to directly secure services to meet their assessed needs for social care and some delegated healthcare tasks, in lieu of receiving services provided or commissioned by the NHS in Wales. This will give this group of people a greater voice and greater control over the management of their health needs.

The Bill also makes a number of amendments to the regulation of social care services and the social care workforce, to help the regulatory framework operate more effectively. Part 1 of the Regulation and Inspection of Social Care (Wales) Act 2016 provides the regulatory regime for regulated services, service providers and designated responsible individuals. Here, the proposed amendments aim to improve the functionality of the regulatory framework and assist Care Inspectorate Wales in fulfilling its regulatory responsibilities in relation to registering, inspecting and taking action to improve the quality and safety of regulated care services in Wales.

The amendments cover four main areas. These are: the duty to submit and publish annual returns; information to be provided in relation to an application for cancellation of a service provider’s registration; cancellation of a service provider’s registration without application; and a power to require information in relation to inspections. In addition, the Bill makes an amendment to the 2016 Act in relation to the functions of Social Care Wales as the registrar and regulator of social care workers in Wales. The amendment relates to the powers of Social Care Wales to review and extend interim orders. Interim orders enable temporary restrictions to be imposed upon a registered person while investigations are undertaken into allegations made against that individual.

The amendment seeks to provide an interim orders panel, or a fitness-to-practice panel before which interim order proceedings are brought, with the power to extend the duration of an interim order up to a maximum of 18 months from the date the interim order is first made, without an application being required to the first-tier tribunal.

The Bill also amends section 79 of the 2016 Act to provide Welsh Ministers with the power, by regulations, to extend the definition of 'social care workers' for the purpose of the Act to include all childcare and play workers. For the purpose of this amendment, childcare and play workers are the individuals who are employed by, or who work for, a person registered under Part 2 of the Children and Families (Wales) Measure 2010 as a daycare provider, to provide care and supervision for children. The amendment will enable regulations to be made modifying the definition of 'social care worker' as it pertains to childcare, thus providing a formal basis for the support Social Care Wales provides to all those in the childcare and play workforce.

Thank you for your statement, Minister, and thank you for briefing opposition spokespeople this morning. Let me say at the outset that there is much to be welcomed in this Bill, and it will have our general support.

I was concerned, before our meeting, that the goal of this Bill was ideologically drawn based upon an imperfect stance that profit is bad. For-profit is not incompatible with caring for the most vulnerable in our society: children in care. The majority of independent care providers, which provide three quarters of all looked-after children's care services in Wales, are small operators who provide excellent care. We should not be penalising these providers because they are private businesses. Profiting, on the other hand, is something else. When you speak to the majority of independent providers, they agree that public money should not be used to benefit sovereign wealth funds and large corporate shareholders.

Qatari and United Arab Emirates private equity firms have no place running children's services in Wales, but the likes of Amberleigh Care and Landsker Child Care should absolutely be allowed to continue providing excellent care. They are not in it for profit; they run a business to invest in outstanding care for looked-after children. I was therefore relieved to hear you say that profit is not the issue; it is what happens to that profit that matters. In this you have my full support and, I dare say, the support of the majority of providers in Wales. As ever, the devil is in the detail, but we can all agree that nobody should be profiting from the wonderful children. Public money should not be taken out of Wales to benefit hedge-fund managers overseas. Minister, what steps are you taking to encourage private for-profit providers in Wales to move to one of the models outlined in your statement prior to this Bill achieving Royal Assent?

With regard to Part 2 of the Bill, the introduction of the direct payment of continuing healthcare is most welcome. This will help ensure equality for many people, particularly disabled people, giving them choice and control over their treatment. Minister, direct payments have been transformational in social care for many people. How will you encourage more people to take up direct payments?

Regarding the final part of the Bill, while much of it is technical in nature, it is nonetheless also important—ensuring the full competence test applies to the social services and well-being Act is vital for ensuring the quality of continuing healthcare services. Minister, one of the changes is the redefinition of those who provide care and supervision of children as social workers. What assessment has been made of the impact that this will have on the childcare workforce?

Diolch yn fawr, and thank you for those comments, Altaf, and I welcome very much your general support for the Bill. We've set out very clearly what we're looking to achieve in this Bill, because we just don't believe—. Our starting point is that we don't believe that there should be a market for the care of some of the most vulnerable children in our society. These are children who have been through the most traumatic of times who end up in the care system, and we have to offer them the best care that we can in whatever way we can. That means that any money coming into the system must be reinvested into the system. That's why we're looking to take the private profit out of childcare, so that that can be reinvested, because this market is not currently functioning effectively. We want to ensure that that money goes back into the system.

You're quite right, there are many good private providers out there, and what we have done is we have set up an elimination implementation board that has been operating for a couple of years now in preparation for the work that we're seeking to do through this legislation, and there are private providers on that board, there are third sector providers, there is the local authority that sits on that board, the children's commissioner, a representative from Voices from Care Cymru, who are in the gallery today, we have trade unions there, we have the service commissioners, all sat around the table working through how we model this changed approach to the provision of children's residential services. And I know that many of those private providers are in active and encouraging conversations with us about how they can transfer their operation into a not-for-profit model. There will not be a cliff edge for profit providers of children's services; there will be a transition process that we go through, and throughout that period, up to the point where not-for-profit will be the only provision available in Wales. Those providers will be involved in that discussion.

In terms of direct payments, you're absolutely right. The direct payments for continuing healthcare, which has been available in England for about 10 years, and the feedback that we have had from the recipients of direct care payments for continuing healthcare in England has been very positive. The well-being and the response and the resilience of individuals in receipt of those direct payments has been vastly improved by them having that choice and that voice over the way in which that continuing healthcare is provided to them by somebody that they directly employ to provide that support for them in their home.

So, I'm very hopeful that the few people that we have that are not in that space at the moment, when we promote what we are seeking to do, will apply for a continuing healthcare assessment from the NHS so that they can use their voice to direct the way in which their care services are provided. For many of those people, they are already in receipt of direct care payments for social care, but their care—some of those people—extends beyond what social care provides, but they have resisted transferring, if you like, to continuing healthcare, because that will take away the control and the direct voice that a direct payment would give them. So, I'm very hopeful that by introducing a direct payment for continuing healthcare we will see people get the appropriate care they need from their health provision.

Plaid Cymru is firm in its belief that health services and care services should be run for the benefit of the people, not for commercial gain. Unlike the Conservative Party and not unsubstantial elements of the Labour Party, including the shadow health Minister in Westminster, we totally reject the belief that the market knows best when it comes to health and social care. We therefore welcome the fact that this legislation will deliver on our core principles, and it is something that we have been working with the Government on through the previous co-operation agreement to remove the element of profit from childcare.

The need to reform this area has been clear for some time, and, as a party, we've often referred to the damaging impacts to the quality and provision of these services through market forces.

As was made clear in the Competition and Markets Authority report of 2022, the market for the sector is currently skewed heavily and disproportionately in favour of private suppliers, who have been able to charge premium prices, as the ability of local authorities to provide their own foster care has been severely compromised by the impact of 14 years of Tory-run, driven austerity. In many cases, this has opened the door for equity firms to cash in on the plight of some of the most vulnerable individuals in our society—a shameful indictment of the creeping privatisation of our health and social care service.

From a practical perspective, the over-reliance on private suppliers in Wales, which currently account for almost 80 per cent of all placements of children looked after, has also engendered considerable insecurity in the sector. The CMA report showed how the prevalence of debt amongst private providers carries a high risk of companies leaving the market at short notice, with disruptive consequences for the children under their care.

The state of the market also pays little regard to geographic location, which is a factor of paramount importance for the well-being of children looked after. As such, whereas 84 per cent of children in local authority foster care in Wales remain in their local area, ensuring a vital degree of continuity in their lives during a period of inherent uncertainty, 79 per cent of children in private fostering are cared for outside their local area, and 6 per cent are moved out of Wales entirely.

But the most compelling case for change surely comes from the testimonies of the children themselves, which demonstrate widespread dissatisfaction and discomfort at how their circumstances can be used as a vehicle for profiteering. Their voices must always take precedence in this debate, and by creating new requirements for all care providers in Wales to register as not-for-profit entities, we can ensure they are being listened to.

But while this Government have funded local authorities over three years to prepare for the transition of this legislation, there is a question mark as to the preparedness of many local authorities. So, can the Minister give us an assurance that local authorities are in fact prepared for this change?

Turning to the other aspects of the Bill, we support the introduction of a legal duty for reporting on children and adults at risk of exploitation, in line with the recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. It is essential this duty is underpinned by robust support mechanisms for the affected individuals, which should include a children's rights approach in the case of minors. The reporting guidelines should also be developed so as to prevent creating a de facto hierarchy of abuse cases. The Minister will also be aware that the UK Home Office intends to legislate for mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse as part of the Criminal Justice Bill, and I would welcome her view on how this will interact with the proposals in this piece of legislation in front of us today.

Thank you very much again for the statement, and I look forward to working with the Minister in order to push this Bill forward.

Diolch yn fawr, Mabon, and, again, thank you for your support for the Bill. It is a joint ambition. It has been a joint ambition of both Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru, and I'm very pleased that we've got to this point now and, as I say, I'm very grateful for the work that we have done with Plaid to bring us to this point. And I absolutely agree with all the points that you made around the for-profit provision and the work that's been done by the Competition and Markets Authority, the work that they identified, or how they identified, the research that they produced that identified that we're seeing these organisations producing profits in the region of 22, 23 per cent. There was an article that you may or may not have seen over the weekend in The Guardian—it was a George Monbiot article over the weekend—that was talking about this—. It was from an English perspective, but the issues are exactly the same, and this is being addressed in a very similar way now in England. I think they've recognised that they have to do something like this. The costs that were being associated with placing one child in a residential care setting for a large for-profit organisation were something in the region of £280,000 for one child—around about £5,000 to £6,000 a week. Now, if you put that in the context of how much it costs to send a child to Eton, which is £46,000 a year, we could send six kids to Eton instead of putting one child in a residential setting run by a private company.

So, we absolutely know the challenges that exist. But you make a very good point about local authorities and their resilience and their ability to be able to plug the gaps that may come from removing private providers from the market. What I would say is, in the work that we've been doing on the elimination programme, we have been factoring in different scenarios. So, we have to look at—. We could have scenario A, which could be that no private providers transfer into the not-for-profit sector, to the very other extreme, where 100 per cent do, or somewhere in between.

Now, we're having some very positive discussions with a number of these providers, who are indicating their willingness to talk to us about moving their model of operation to not-for-profit, but we do appreciate, of course, that there could be some gaps, with not all of these providers wishing to move into the not-for-profit market, and so, therefore, we have to work with local authorities in building that resilience into the system that will enable them to deliver a not-for-profit service, whether they deliver it themselves directly as a local authority, or through one of the models that I set out in my statement.

But what I think is important to set out very clearly here is that this piece of legislation is not to be seen as a piece of legislation that sits in isolation. We have a whole transformation of children's services programme in Wales, which is largely preventative, and which is largely about working with families to keep families together, so that we have less demand for residential children's services, because it's the demand that's pushing the profits up. If a private provider can come in and can see a market, they will fill that market. That's what the private sector does. So, we are working with local authorities to build that resilience in through the different processes, and we know that there will be a cost to that. What I can't tell you at this moment in time, because that modelling is still taking place, for all the reasons I've just set out, is exactly how much that is going to cost. But we have made a commitment to delivering this legislation, and we will work with local authorities to find a way in which we can ensure that the resources that are required to deliver this are made available. But, as I say, this is not something that I can set out exactly at this moment in time, but through the course of the progress of this Bill, we will get a better idea, because a lot of the providers want to see more detail before they commit one way or the other.

I thank the Minister for this important statement today. The Bill and the ambitions of the Bill have my full support, and I should place on record also thanks to Julie Morgan and indeed Mark Drakeford for the courage to bring and start this work. Minister, if I relate my comments to a petition that the Petitions Committee is currently considering from a resident of the Wrexham constituency, Lesley Griffiths's constituency, the petition calls for an increase in clarity and rights for people on direct payments or the Welsh independent living grant to live independently. The petitioner does have concerns; despite the principles of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, he calls for action to be taken, including better advocacy support, a dispute resolution process, better communication channels and a complaints procedure that has knowledge of Welsh law. I'm not sure if this has the scope of this particular Bill, but perhaps for its journey it may have. I'd be grateful for your thoughts on these calls, whether it's in this Bill or in other avenues.

Thank you for those points, Jack. And no, it doesn’t relate directly to this Bill, but the broad principles do, and I think that that’s important, because, more broadly, what we’re doing is we’re taking forward the programme of work that was set out by the disability rights taskforce, which would encompass the independent living allowance, and that brings together people with lived experience, the Welsh Government policy leads and representative organisations, and the work of that taskforce is based on that common understanding of the social disability model and co-production and so on. So, what we have done is we have introduced new guidance for local authorities that will require them to self-assess their performance and delivery against eight quality standards. That includes demonstrating with evidence how they promote the voice and control of individuals needing care and support to help them live as independently as possible, and they need to demonstrate how the views of the service users and carers are reflected in the authority’s assessment of its performance. So, we’re just continuing to work across the sector to ensure that those commitments are delivered in a timely manner, and I do expect to see clear progress made on them during the year, and I’m quite happy to report back or to write to you again, Jack, as we develop that as time goes on. Thank you.

Thank you so much for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. It’s really encouraging to hear this development. I am one of those former social workers who, out of desperation, would, sadly, end up placing a child in the last possible place that I wanted to place that child. We heard—. Some of us who were at a workshop last week on missing children, we heard powerful testimonies from local authorities and children’s organisations about how, tragically, children are going missing from residential establishments because they are desperate to get home. Now, how heartbreaking is that? That is what we’d all want to do, that is what we would naturally do, so I’m glad to hear from you that this is part of a transformational process, because, actually, we should be looking at the front end, as you say. So, we need to avoid children being placed in care, and, sadly, in Wales, we’ve seen the numbers go up in the last decade— not acceptable at all. So, I really want to appeal to you: what are your measurements for ensuring that we keep children at home? What are your targets for the next three years to ensure that we reduce the number of children looked after, and that we put the money into our front-line services, because that’s where it needs to be? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you, Jane, for those comments, and I absolutely agree with everything you're saying. We are spending a huge amount of money on residential children’s services. If I tell you that, in 2017, we were spending £65 million on children’s residential services and this year that has risen to £200 million, and 80 per cent of that is going to private providers, for-profit providers, you can see the scale of the challenge that we face. And the reality of it is that, just on a financial basis, let alone the moral case for doing this—which I’ll come on to in a moment—but, just on a financial basis, that’s unsustainable. If we’re seeing those costs rising, trebling, in less than 10 years, and we carry on that trajectory for the next 10 years, we could be looking at children’s services, children’s residential services, costing us nearly £1 billion. The children’s services budget at the moment is around £350 million a year, £200 million of that on residential services, and a lot of those residential services and those residential placements, as you absolutely rightly say, are not where children want to be. And so, we have to make sure that the transformation programme that we are seeking to deliver is that preventative measure that reduces the number of children that are going to require residential care, and that will include—. Because this is not just about residential homes and residential placements in that sense; this is about improving the numbers—or increasing the numbers, sorry—of foster carers that we have in the system. We know, from the statement that I made last week, that we were talking about the need for us to find another 800 foster care families across Wales to meet some of the current demand. But the key to this, and I can't put figures on it at the moment, Jane, I wish I could, is we have to see how all of these policies are working, but they have to work for us to be able to bring the numbers of children in care down.

So, I am absolutely determined that these measures will be implemented, that we will put money into the preventative services where we will work with parents and with children to keep them at home where it is safe to do so. We've just had the report come in now from the family, drug and alcohol court pilot, and I'm taking some time to consider that. We've seen that where that has been piloted, that's been very successful at keeping families together. So, I think if that has been successful, we need to seriously consider rolling that out as well. So, there are lots of things in the pipeline, and they all have to come together. This piece of legislation is the final piece of the jigsaw in terms of bringing in a repurposed and remodelled children's care sector.

Thank you for answering the question about the costs that would escalate if we do nothing. But, following on from Jane Dodds and, indeed, from Mabon ap Gwynfor, I am concerned about the ability of local authorities to commission the services locally, so that children who do need either fostering or residential accommodation are able to receive that service within their locality, because otherwise it makes life almost impossible for the corporate parent in that local authority to assure themselves that the service that's being provided is fit for those vulnerable young people. That particularly applies to secure accommodation. So, I really do want to emphasise the importance of the role that we all have to protect vulnerable people.

I strongly agree with legislation to allow people with enduring healthcare needs to be allowed to directly commission the services that will best meet their needs for themselves, and I applaud you for taking on the feedback from England.

In terms of childcare, what consideration has been given to transferring the regulation of childcare and play workers to Estyn? I am concerned that childcare is sitting on the jagged edge of regulation here, and I hope we all agree that we need child-focused inspections of services that promote the emotional resilience of children. As we increasingly have childcare delivered co-located with primary schools, it seems really odd to have Care Inspectorate Wales inspecting the early years service, and then a different organisation, Estyn, inspecting the nursery and the primary school. So, I hope that this will be explored by the Health and Social Care Committee.

Thank you for those comments, Jenny. I know I'm in danger of repeating some of this, but I'm very clear that we have worked very, very closely with local authorities about this. This isn't something we're just dropping on them now. We've been working with them over a number of years preparing for this. It does not come without its challenges. I am not going to stand here and pretend that this is going to be something that is going to be easy to deliver. Local authorities are under tremendous financial pressure, as we all know. But what I do know, and I have met with all the social care leads from local authorities, is they are committed to doing this. They know this is the right thing to do.

Some local authorities have been able to move quite a way already with the support that we've given through the elimination programme. If you take an authority like Carmarthenshire, for instance, they have hardly any private provision already. At the other end of the spectrum, not surprisingly, there are significant issues in Cardiff, and that's not surprising. So, I know for Cardiff that will be a much greater challenge than it will be for Carmarthenshire, but they are committed to doing it. There will be a plan that I will expect all local authorities to produce, which is about their resilience to be able to deliver this.

Now, where they can't deliver it, then we won't be able to take the private provider out of the market for that period, and the Bill does allow for Ministers to make exceptional decisions around placements that will continue in for-profit providers where that is the only alternative and where that is in the best interests of the child. But that is the key to this, because it is the interests of the child that are the most important, and the type of accommodation that they need to be in.

Direct payments—you've already made the point and I agree with you.

In terms of childcare, we haven't looked at transferring the inspection to Estyn as part of this Bill. That isn't something that we have had any discussions about through this process. It is something that I'm happy to have a conversation with the Cabinet Secretary for Education about—whether or not Estyn would want to take this on, or whether they feel that this is in the appropriate place at the moment because of the impact on very young children. This is also something that I would probably need to speak to my colleague Jayne Bryant on, as she has the responsibility for early years. I wouldn't say that we'd rule it out, Jenny, but at the moment, it's not part of the consideration for this particular Bill because I think we have a much, much wider and pressing issue that we need to deal with around the elimination of profit agenda at this point.

I very much welcome this move to remove profit from the care system. As you mentioned, it's one piece of work alone that needs to be done to ensure the radical reform of the care sector that we very much need in Wales. And as Jane Dodds mentioned, we have to do more to prevent so many children and young people—far too many of them in Wales—from entering the care system in the first instance, where it's possible to do so. And one way of doing that is to tackle the structural prejudice that is experienced by young mothers as a result of their experiences of care, which means they can be referred to child safeguarding services whilst they're pregnant, sometimes without explanation. NYAS Cymru, of course, with a Welsh Government grant, provides intensive support for young mothers with experience of care, through the Undod project, and it can contribute to breaking that cycle, that cycle of care, by helping to foster confidence in young mothers and empower them to voice their opinions and to access training, education and other opportunities.

The Government accepted in principle the recommendation made by the Children, Young People and Education Committee on radical reform to the care system, that a model such as the Undod project should be available as a statutory right. So, I'd like an update on that. Is it possible to have a commitment from the Minister too in terms of long-term funding for the Undod project, as this preventative work, as you have mentioned, is so important?

Thank you, Sioned, for those comments. You're absolutely right about that structural prejudice of young mothers, particularly mothers who have been in care themselves, and the predisposition to assume that, because the mother has been in care, that's the best place for the child to be in. That absolutely flies in the face of what we are seeking to do here. And you're quite right: the work that NYAS has been doing in this area has been quite transformational in a lot of places, and it has helped to keep mothers and babies together, and we would want to continue to support that.

In terms of that statutory right, Sioned, I'm going to have to come back to you on that, I'm afraid. I don't have that information at the moment. Suffice to say that, within the wider programme, we are looking to that preventative aspect of keeping mothers and babies together, keeping wider families together and keeping them together in locations as well. We heard earlier on—I think it was Jenny who made the comment—about children being placed too far away from where all their ties are and where their families are. And if we are serious about wanting to keep families together, then whilst we're going through those discussions, those kinds of offers of support, the advocacy that we can assist parents with, all of that has to be done within a location where everybody can stay together and do that. So, I think that is absolutely right. Everything you were saying is absolutely right. We have a very clear focus on what we want to do. We don't look at any of these things in isolation. But the specific point you raised, I will get back to you on that. Thank you.

Diolch. Thank you very much to the Minister for bringing this statement to the Senedd today. I think eliminating profit from the care of our looked-after children is a bold and clear statement that, here in Wales, we put the experiences and rights of our children first. And it's absolutely great that we've got children in the gallery today, listening to this debate.

Obviously, this is absolutely what our children want. Children and young people have told me time and time again that, in a market system, they feel as if they are commodities for sale, with people profiting from their unfortunate situations, and I know that they will have told the Minister that as well. So, I think that by bringing in this Bill, we are sending a strong message to our children in the care system that we have listened to what they have asked of us. Because they certainly asked before the last election, and they have asked at every summit that we have had since, that this is something that they want.

Does the Minister agree that listening to what children are saying and following it up will help develop a bond of trust with the children, and that that is something that is very important? And does she also agree that removing profit from the care system will also have better outcomes for children and young people? I know that it is difficult to get evidence about that because there is very little private provision worldwide. I think that we are fairly unique, with a couple of other countries, in having any private provision at all, so it is difficult to compare. But would she agree that, with what evidence there is, it is more likely that children will benefit and thrive from a not-for-profit situation than from a private profit-making situation?

Several people have mentioned the issue about being close to their own families, and prevention, and I’d just like to emphasise that I feel very strongly that those are really important issues. And finally—

Thank you, Julie. It's a statement, and therefore you have gone well over your time.

Okay. Can I ask one more?

No. [Laughter.]

You can talk to me afterwards, Julie, about your final point. Thank you, and again, I absolutely agree. The one thing that has struck me when I have been, over the last few weeks, talking to care-experienced children, whether they are children who have experienced residential care in institutions, if you like, for want of a better term, or with foster carers, the thing that has come through time and time again is their objection to their being used as a commodity; their objection to being used for the purpose of profit.

As I said right at the outset, these are some of the most vulnerable people in our society, and we are using them as market commodities—or the private sector, in certain circumstances, is using them as private commodities. And you are absolutely right: we have to have the trust of these children. We have to co-produce all of these policies, don’t we?

We have to do what we said we would do, and listen to the voices of those children who told us the way in which they want their care to be delivered. If we don’t listen to them, we will have breached that trust, and I hope that they feel—. They are here to listen to this today, and I hope that they do feel that we have listened to them, and that bringing this forward today is an indication of this.

I know, Julie, that you and the former First Minister signed this document—this declaration—last year. I and the new First Minister are going to resign it, so that we will be making our personal declarations as the new Ministers that we will carry forward this programme of work as well.

Just finally to say that, absolutely, what you are saying in terms of removing profit, how that will deliver those better outcomes, because we will then be able to see those profits that go to the shareholders being directly reinvested back into the service, to ensure that those overall objectives of providing better care for those children, in a design, in a way that suits the needs of those children, will be more affordable than they are now, and we will be able to deliver them.

And finally, Joyce Watson.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I just want to welcome this Bill that is coming forward. I particularly want to mention—. I don't want to repeat anything else, but the people who are in the public sector—and I think that we want to draw this out—the private sector, sorry, providing care, the workers there do care about the children. They are putting in long hours, some of them probably beyond the hours that they are being paid for. And of course, Minister—and it will come out when you make further statements—if a placement is good for the child, even though it's in the private sector, it will continue for that child's welfare for as long as they need that placement, and also that private provider will have an opportunity to bring that into the public sector. I think it's worth saying that, because nobody else has.

The only other point I want to raise today is about the direct payment for continuing healthcare. Of course, that's a good thing, but it's not necessarily what people want all the time. So, I want to know about the safeguards for vulnerable people, whether they're disabled or elderly, to make sure that, if that decision is made, it's made in the best interest of the individual, rather than being pressurised from elsewhere.

Thank you, Joyce. I think it is absolutely right to say and to put on record that the vast majority of people that work in for-profit organisations and are delivering care for these children are doing that for the right reasons, and some of them are some of the lowest paid in the sector. Again, from my point of view, I see it as totally unacceptable that the largest profits are made by organisations that are paying the least to their workforce. Local authority organisations and third sector organisations tend to have far better terms and conditions than those in the private sector. I think it's right to say that we're talking not necessarily about the staff that are providing excellent care in many, many circumstances. It's also right to say—you're quite right to say this, Joyce—that where a child is with a for-profit provider, where that placement is considered to be in the interest of that child, that will continue. We have written into the legislation the right for Ministers to be able to authorise that. So, as I say, this is not about a cliff edge, this is not about just cutting everybody out of the system at the moment the legislation is passed; it is about a transition period, it is about taking every child's situation on its merit, looking at what the best care for them is.

In terms of the direct payments, the thing to say and to be very clear about is that the direct payments are voluntary in terms of whether they seek an assessment for a direct payment under continuing healthcare. So, nobody is going to be forced to do this. This will be a voluntary process that they can go through if they consider that that would be in their best interests. They will be able to decide who they appoint to carry out that care, and whoever they appoint to carry out that care will, of course, be subject to DBS checks as well—if it's somebody they're bringing in from an outside organisation, or whatever. But quite often, of course, it's members of their families, it's people they trust. It's the choice they have to identify the person that they believe will deliver the best care for them. But to make this absolutely clear, this is not a compulsory route for anybody; it will be absolutely voluntary. Thank you.

Thank you, Minister.

Item 5 has been postponed until 4 June.

Item 6 is next, therefore, a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care on the national immunisation framework for Wales. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Eluned Morgan.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's just over 18 months since I launched the national immunisation framework for Wales, and I'm pleased to be able to provide an update about the progress we've made and to share some of the plans we have for the rest of this year.

I want to start by saying that vaccination is one of the safest and most effective ways of preventing the spread of, and protecting people from contracting, potentially life-threatening diseases. Vaccines are part of the arsenal we have at our fingertips to fight illnesses and diseases—illnesses that have previously killed tens of thousands of people every year in the UK, let alone worldwide. We have successfully eradicated smallpox globally, thanks to the heroic efforts of teams around the world to vaccinate whole populations, and we are well on our way to wiping out other deadly diseases.

We all saw how effective vaccination was during the pandemic. The COVID vaccine has saved thousands of lives and prevented even more cases of serious illness. Our experience delivering the COVID vaccine led to the development of the national immunisation framework for Wales. Just over a year ago, we created a national vaccination team in the new NHS Wales Executive. The team is providing national support and performance management, while also ensuring health boards have flexibility to deliver vaccination programmes in the way that works most effectively for their local population.

Our commitment to ensuring equitable access to vaccination for every citizen in Wales remains a core priority. The pandemic brought into sharp focus the serious health implications vaccine inequity can cause. It was inspiring to see the advances made in tackling inequities by removing barriers and reaching into and working with communities. Maintaining that momentum has been challenging post pandemic, and we have seen a reduction in uptake in some vaccines, with some very worrying consequences. But I am absolutely clear that we must maintain momentum to reduce inequities where they exist and to improve uptake where it has dipped.

The national immunisation framework set a requirement for health boards to develop vaccination equity strategies to clearly set out ways inequities are being actively reduced. This work is being prioritised and I look forward to seeing the real-world impacts. Closely aligned to our commitment to equity is the commitment in the framework to improved vaccine literacy. Public Health Wales will publish a vaccine literacy strategy, which will help to improve public understanding and awareness of vaccines and support informed decision making. Ultimately, this will help to maximise vaccination uptake.

And at its heart, that is what the national immunisation framework is all about: maximising uptake across all our vaccination programmes. It’s sometimes easy to forget just how many dangerous and potentially life-limiting and life-threatening diseases we vaccinate against in Wales. Even before a baby is born, the mother will have been offered a number of vaccines to protect their baby in the first days and weeks of life. One of those is a vaccination against whooping cough. I am very concerned about the increase in the number of cases this year. Last week, it was reported that five babies in England had died from whooping cough this year. Fortunately, there have been no deaths in Wales to date, but this tragic news should act as a warning to all of us. I appeal to pregnant women in Wales to please come forward to have this very safe and effective vaccination.

Over the past year, we’ve also seen a significant resurgence in cases of measles around the world. Last autumn, there was an outbreak in Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan. We are currently dealing with another case in the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board area. It is hugely disappointing to see the return of measles outbreaks in Wales. With several sustained outbreaks over the border, the risk here remains high. It is therefore vital that we take action to improve protection against this serious illness. In February, the Chief Medical Officer for Wales wrote to health boards asking them to ensure 90 per cent of learners in schools were fully vaccinated by the end of July. I realise the amount of work this involves for our immunisation teams and school nurses, and I would like to offer my sincere thanks to everyone engaged in this catch-up effort.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I now want to turn to the next steps in the framework. Members will be aware that the development of digital solutions to support vaccination in Wales has been an important milestone. I asked Digital Health and Care Wales to undertake digital discovery work to consider the way forward. I’m pleased to say that work has been completed and next steps to move to the implementation phase are now being considered. I want to thank everyone involved in this important piece of work. Our seasonal vaccination programmes continue to offer important protection to vulnerable people, and to the health and care services. The COVID-19 spring booster programme is currently in full swing, and the winter respiratory programme delivered more than 1.7 million COVID and flu vaccines.

The national immunisation framework sets out our ambition to move to a centralised model for the procurement of flu vaccine. This would remove the burden of procurement from general practitioners and pharmacists, and create a more flexible system to support the wider ambitions of the framework. Significant progress has been made, and I hope to be in a position to give more details about this in the coming months. Finally, I just want to say what a privilege it was to address the Welsh immunisation conference last month. It was fantastic to witness the energy, passion and commitment to developing a world-leading vaccination service. My sincere thanks go to everyone involved in delivering this valuable service to the people of Wales.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for today's statement on the national immunisation framework for Wales. Let me also join you, Cabinet Secretary, in saying that the importance of that effective immunisation programme is an absolute must for any nation. Of course, it serves to protect everyone in our society, but particularly those who are at vulnerable points in life, such as children, infants and pregnant women. As such, it's so important that people get the vaccines that are relevant to them at the time that they can, because, of course, it protects them and it protects others as well.

You mentioned in your statement, Cabinet Secretary, the good news we know of the global eradication of smallpox. Other examples of diseases that have been tackled spring to mind as well, such as diphtheria and tetanus, both having been reduced dramatically due to vaccination programmes rolled out across the UK in the 1940s and 1960s respectively. It's so important that those cases are understood and tracked, and the important work of the framework in doing that as well.

We also have to recognise that this isn't the case in every country around the world, and it shows the importance of both the effective vaccinations, and also having a population that trusts the process to take the vaccine to protect them as well. I think we all have a role to play as politicians in encouraging take-up of vaccines to our constituents when they are available.

On the national immunisation framework that you referenced, of course, a statement relating to that was published in 2022, and I've got a few questions. The first is in relation to the role of the framework as it assigns responsibility for implementation to the NHS Wales delivery unit, and the oversight of that, of course, is with the Welsh Government and the Cabinet Secretary. I'm just interested to understand how satisfied you are that the delivery unit is working and that, as the Welsh Government, you have sufficient grip of the situation and governance in place to take a lead if things aren't working as they should. I understand you are interested in governance structures at the moment; I'd be interested in that area, in particular.

You rightly referenced the COVID-19 response in your statement, and I certainly join you in commending the efforts of all those involved in the roll-out of that important vaccine. We also know that these bacterial infections and illnesses don't stop at borders or administrative boundaries, so I'd like to understand a bit more about how you're working with other bodies, such as colleagues at UK Government level and local authority level, to ensure we maximise that immunisation take-up, and also have a response in place if and when we have further outbreaks or global pandemic levels as well.

Thanks very much, and I think it's good to recognise—and thank you for recognising—the fact that, actually, this is probably the most cost-effective public health tool we have. This is what saves us money, so it's definitely an investment—not just here, obviously, but across the world. And it's good to see that that is increasing across the world, and even things like malaria now, there are examples of where that's moving on.

I think one of your questions was about the delivery unit and how that's working and, obviously, this is now sitting in the NHS Wales Executive. This is an area and a group that I have real confidence in. I think they are delivering really well, developing a real cross-nation approach, just making sure that they've got that focus, making sure that the kind of postcode lottery situation is not something that arises. So, having that overall structure within the NHS executive is actually really useful. I think this particular group—you know, they learnt their trade during the pandemic. These are people who've been tested, they know what they're doing, they're absolutely on top of it. There are other parts I'm not quite so confident in, but this is a group that I'm absolutely sure are doing very well. And, obviously, I'll be looking forward to publishing the governance and accountability group's report very soon.

In terms of working with the UK Government, one of the things we do is to work very closely and take recommendations from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, and where possible, because of some of the misinformation that's around, we try and do that on a four-nations basis, and I think that, I hope, will give more confidence to people to take up the opportunity. And, yes, we are confident that we have the ability to build up the capacity very quickly in future, if we have another kind of pandemic. So, we've tried to make sure that that capacity is in place.

I'm very worried about whooping cough, as you say, but it is also part of a cycle, so it does come around every, I think, four of five years. So, it does happen, but, obviously, that's more of a reason to get people, to make sure that they are covered and they're having their vaccinations. That target for MMR reaching 90 per cent by the end of July, Public Health Wales has said, by about December, it was up to 89 per cent. But the problem is we're worried about equity. So, what you might have is in some areas, it'll be up to 95 per cent, and in other areas it'll be a lot lower. So, equity for us is really, really key, and making sure that we do that outreach work into perhaps those schools that may have seen a lower uptake. So, it's not just about hitting the 90 per cent, it's about making sure there's a minimum of 90 per cent everywhere, if possible—that's got to be our goal, if we can. So, I hope that's given you some answers to those questions. Diolch.

We know that, since the Cabinet Secretary's previous statement on the national immunisation framework last year, issues around misinformation have contributed to ongoing vaccine hesitancy, which in turn have contributed to dangerous and entirely preventable outbreaks of measles. In England and Wales, there were 1,603 suspected cases of measles in 2023, an increase from 735 in 2022, and just 360 the year before. Last year we asked how use of an app would help to combat the spread of misinformation about vaccinations. The Minister—the now Cabinet Secretary—responded:

'In terms of misinformation, I do think that this is a serious subject. It does affect people, some people listen to the nonsense they see online in particular. That's why it's important that people can go to websites and other places where they can have confidence that the information that they are getting is factual, scientific information that they can rely on. That's why I think there is a prominent role, not only for the app, but also for the NHS locally in ensuring that people have that confidence. People still have a lot of confidence in the NHS and the people who lead the NHS.'

So, my questions are, given the role that the spread of misinformation is continuing to have in promoting vaccine hesitancy, does the Cabinet Secretary agree that more needs to be done than providing information via an NHS website alone? Does the Cabinet Secretary agree that there is an urgent need for a cross-departmental approach to combating disinformation and misinformation, including about vaccines, and what conversations is she having or will she be having with her ministerial colleagues about this? And does the Cabinet Secretary agree that without the devolution of powers over broadcasting in particular it will be harder to counter the spread of misinformation?

Moving on to digital infrastructure, I'm concerned that developing the digital infrastructure is a painfully slow process and we need to see greater impetus on this front. Last year we also asked how the digital infrastructure would underpin and help to deliver the framework, and how this would interact with the multiple computer systems already being used in the NHS in Wales. The Minister responded, and I quote again:

'we are doing a lot to transform our digital systems in the NHS. I'd like to do a lot more if I had more funding. I think it's an area where we would get great value for money, but there are problems, evidently, in financial terms at present, so what we're trying to do is ensure that the computer systems are in place, and our digital team is spending a lot of time ensuring that that is in the right place.'

So, can the Cabinet Secretary provide an update on, and/or more specific information about the development of relevant IT systems? What progress has been made on integrating these with existing systems, and what work has been undertaken to streamline and simplify these systems? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr, Mabon. You're quite right, I think misinformation is something we should all be very worried about and having people being able to have access to secure advice where they can have assurance is important. That's why I think Public Health Wales has a really key role to play here, and obviously the JCVI as well. You're quite right that vaccine hesitancy, in particular in relation to MMR—what happened is that we know there was a blip when there was all that misinformation a few years ago, so there's a cohort of children that we're particularly worried about, and we would ask them to come forward, or at least to check their records just to make sure that they are covered, because it's not something that you want to get, and we are seeing these increasing cases. We've got cases—. We've seen cases in Aneurin Bevan, in Cardiff, and also now we've had a single case in north Wales.

You asked about cross-departmental work. Well, obviously, the vaccination is a school programme, so obviously there is a lot of work happening with education already.

In relation to broadcasting and whether a centralised and a Welsh controlled broadcasting authority, in some way, would be able to manage this, I mean, I think that's quite difficult because young people, for example, a lot of them, get their information from TikTok. Well, good luck if you think you're going to control TikTok. So, I just think we've got to be realistic about where we're able to influence.

Just in relation to your question on digital infrastructure, the national immunisation framework, it did set out an ambition to develop the digital infrastructure that's needed, and the whole point was that that was supposed to be a system that works for practitioners and patients. So, Digital Health and Care Wales was commissioned to review all the vaccination systems, to conduct a technical, digital discovery, and to provide options that would enable us to realise these ambitions. Now, what I can tell you is that that work has been concluded by DHCW and they've provided options for implementation of a programme of digital vaccination transformation. So, we're considering these options, and I am currently waiting for the advice on that. So, I think the digital changes do offer that opportunity that you were talking about—a single source of truth, that's what we'd like to see—and a complete and accurate vaccination record. I don't know about you, but if you ever try and go abroad, you have to try and find your vaccination record. It's always a trouble. We need to get modern. We need to get a digital system. So, I think no more paper vaccination records—that's where we need to get to. We're on course to move on towards that, and I'm just about to receive some advice on that. Diolch yn fawr.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that statement.

Item 7 is next, the Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (Wales) Regulations 2024. The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs to move the motion. Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. Animal welfare is a priority for this Welsh Government. We want our farmed animals to have a good life, and we take welfare at slaughterhouses seriously. The Mandatory Use of Closed Circuit Television in Slaughterhouses (Wales) Regulations 2024 will require CCTV cameras to be installed in slaughterhouses in areas where live animals are unloaded, kept, handled, stunned and killed. Recorded images will need to be retained by the slaughterhouse operator for a 90-day minimum period, and made available to authorised persons, for example official veterinarians of the Food Standards Agency, to view, to copy or seize for the purpose of monitoring and verifying animal welfare standards.

So, subject to Senedd approval, the regulations will come into force in two stages. First, regulations 1 to 4 will come into force on 1 June. These are the requirements to install and operate a CCTV system and to keep CCTV footage and information. Second, regulations 5 to 14 will come into force on 1 December. These are the offences and the powers to inspect, to seize and enforce the regulations. So, this provides a six-month period where the FSA will support slaughterhouse operators to ensure they are compliant with the requirements of regulations 1 to 4 ahead of the regulations being enforced. We have worked with the FSA to develop guidance to help operators comply with the regulations. Just to say, slaughterhouse operators have been aware of our intention to require CCTV in slaughterhouses since 2021, when the chief veterinary officer first wrote to advise them of this programme for government commitment. He then wrote again recently to advice operators that the regulations had been laid.

Now, let's be clear, CCTV cannot replace direct oversight by slaughterhouse management or official veterinarians of the FSA, but we know it can improve the efficiency of monitoring and enforcement. FSA data for 2022/23 indicate at least 15 per cent of slaughterhouse non-compliances are identified either by live or retrospective CCTV viewing, and CCTV is routinely used as evidence to support enforcement action. A review of CCTV in slaughterhouses in England, where it has been mandatory since 2018, identified benefits to animal welfare and the assurance of welfare standards. CCTV recordings can also be a useful tool for slaughterhouse operators when training new and existing staff. So, all of this supports improved consumer confidence that welfare standards are being delivered.

When my predecessor, the Minister for rural affairs, consulted on proposals, there were over 16,000 responses. The overwhelming majority agreed that CCTV cameras should be installed in all slaughterhouses in areas where live animals are present. And to be clear, most of our slaughterhouses do already have some form of CCTV in place. Our larger slaughterhouses, which process the majority of animals, already adhere to a protocol jointly developed by the FSA and industry bodies to enable official veterinarians access to CCTV footage. The cost to slaughterhouse operators in complying with the requirements to the regulations will vary, depending on the size and the layout of each premises, and the explanatory memorandum and the regulatory impact assessment give a fair and reasonable view of the expected impact of the regulations, and I'm satisfied the benefits justify the likely costs. I would also like to take this moment to thank the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee for its report on the regulations, which we have noted. So, Llywydd, I ask Members to approve the regulations. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I'd like to thank the Cabinet Secretary for bringing forward these regulations. Today, my colleagues and I in the Welsh Conservative group will be supporting these regulations that you have tabled, as we firmly believe that the mandatory use of closed-circuit television in slaughterhouses across Wales is required to drive up standards across the industry. Animal welfare is a cornerstone of our values in Wales, and these regulations, we believe, are a vital step towards ensuring humane treatment of an animal throughout their life. Right now, upholding animal welfare in slaughterhouses relies on inspection and self-reporting. While these methods are valuable, they do have their limitations. A 2021 report by the RSPCA found that over 22 per cent of investigated welfare concerns stem from slaughterhouses, so CCTV offers a solution to addressing this issue. We also have to consider the public's trust in the food industry, and this hinges on openness. CCTV provides an objective record of animal handling and welfare, thus fostering the public confidence that these regulations are being followed, and driving up standards. As you said, Cabinet Secretary, authorised persons can review footage, allowing them to identify potential issues and investigate concerns more efficiently. Studies by the University of Bristol show that CCTV footage significantly improves detection of animal welfare breaches. People who work in slaughterhouses, if they know they're being recorded, it encourages those staff to be more consistent and adhere to practices and to not do anything that falls foul of the law.

I understand that some may be concerned about the cost or misuse of footage. However, I and the Conservative group believe that the benefits far outweigh these. The cost of implementing CCTV is minimal compared to the ethical and economic benefits of improving animal welfare. Stricter regulations ensure footage is solely used for monitoring and enforcement purposes only. The Welsh Government's own impact assessment on these regulations highlights that, while larger slaughterhouses already have CCTV, there are many across the country that do not. This creates an uneven playing field and limits oversight. So, we believe that this is another reason why it is needed.

But, as you said, Cabinet Secretary, this is not about replacing inspections; it's about strengthening the entire animal welfare monitoring system right across Wales. I know there have been concerns from smaller slaughterhouses right across Wales, but I would say to those people: do not see this as a hindrance. See this as a help in actually improving animal welfare standards and improving public confidence in the food that we're producing here across Wales. We do have a long and proud history in Wales of championing animal welfare, and these regulations demonstrate our continued commitment to that. By implementing these regulations, we are sending a clear message that cruelty towards animals will not be tolerated. We must use every tool at our disposal to ensure every animal's well-being, right through the food chain. So, I urge everybody in this Chamber today to give your full support for these important regulations, and we'll be supporting the Cabinet Secretary this afternoon.

Likewise, Plaid Cymru will be supporting these regulations as well, although I do have some concerns around the financial implications for the smaller abattoirs, which obviously will have this expected of them. There are already many of them operating on a very tight margin, and they are a vital part of rural economies. They offer a higher value route to market for native and rare breeds, which is something that the larger abattoirs don't tend to do, or they're unable to, maybe, sometimes, or even unwilling to do so, so we need to be careful here that we don't lose something in introducing these regulations. And they also do support higher standards of animal welfare, by the way, because smaller local abattoirs help, of course, to reduce journey times to slaughter, so we don't inadvertently want to find that we have fewer of the smaller abattoirs and subsequently animals have to travel further, because that will obviously introduce a different element of welfare concern.

So, my question, effectively, that I would ask you to maybe address in responding to this debate is: what kind of financial support measures would you be considering, potentially, as a Government, to support the smaller abattoirs to comply with these new regulations? Because I think the total capital cost is £40,000 for CCTV installation. It wouldn't be a huge contribution from the Welsh Government, but, for the smaller abattoirs it would make, I think, a big difference. I know that the UK Government a few months ago announced a £4 million smaller abattoirs fund. They've actually had to increase the maximum level of grant allowed because smaller abattoirs are struggling and need more support. So, I’m just wondering—. There may or may not have been a Barnett consequential to that, but, if not, do you have anything in mind in terms of helping the smaller players, in what is a very important contribution that they make in so many ways, to implement these regulations effectively? Diolch.

Llywydd, earlier in the year, I was part of a Senedd delegation to the Falkland Islands with Members of the Senedd, where we talked of mutual areas of interest and the spokesperson for the Welsh Conservatives this afternoon, I can say with confidence, demonstrated his knowledge on this particular area and spoke at length during our period overseas and certainly brought me up to speed on this topic.

Presiding Officer, if passed today, these regulations will deliver on the actions sought by a petition, P-04-433, 'CCTV in Slaughterhouses', which was first submitted back in 2012. That petition was submitted by Kate Fowler on behalf of Animal Aid and it received over 1,066 signatures in support. Back in 2020—I think the Chair was Janet Finch-Saunders then—the committee wrote a report and made the following recommendation:

'The Welsh Government makes the installation and maintenance of CCTV monitoring systems mandatory in all slaughterhouses in Wales.'

I was pleased to read that, in 2020, the Welsh Government did accept the recommendation in principle, and I’m pleased, with the support of the Senedd and Senedd approval after today, that it will be accepted in practice.

Llywydd, the journey of a good idea from conception to national policy is not always a straight line, it is not always as straightforward as it may seem or we may wish it to be, but I do hope yourself and the Cabinet Secretary in responding can join me in congratulating the petitioner and all those who signed that petition over a decade ago now. Diolch.

The Cabinet Secretary to reply.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd, and thank you to everybody who has contributed to this debate, and can I thank everybody for their support as well? I’ll deal with the questions that have arisen in a moment. But, James, thank you so much for the way you’ve spoken, signalling support for this, both on animal welfare grounds, but also, as I touched on in my opening remarks, on consumer confidence as well, and the fact that we need to speak strongly about our good animal welfare standards and then make it happen right across the piste, and reiterating as well some of the evidence that shows that this actually works; it really does work.

I thank you as well for what you’re saying, that the fact that the cost is really minimal compared to the benefits that accrue from this, which brings me, Llyr, to your points, and, again, thank you for your support on this as well and for Plaid Cymru’s support on this. The first thing to point out is that the cost is indeed, as James mentioned, fairly low in terms of the overall costs of the operating even of a small abattoir, and I have small abattoirs in my own town that I live in. But just out of interest—. I mentioned earlier on the long lead-in time we gave them in order to allow people to prepare for this. But, on the funding, first of all, let me say we will keep on working with the FSA and with slaughterhouse operators in a very supportive relationship to make sure that this is rolled out. We have already made funding available through the food business investment scheme to support small and medium-sized slaughterhouses to, amongst other things, install and upgrade their CCTV systems. Now, the food business investment scheme closed previously. There were eight applications invited, of which three projects were successfully completed, with several thousand pounds of grants supported for CCTV installation. Then the food business accelerator scheme opened up in November 2022 to provide capital grants to support investment in manufacturing equipment and modernising to increase efficiency. Interestingly, there weren’t any applications from slaughterhouses for this fund, but if funding does become available—and that is an ‘if’, I have to say, at the moment, bearing in mind the situation we’re in at the moment—if funding becomes available, that scheme may reopen.

But just to say as well that the Welsh Government food division provides a range of industry support that small abattoirs in Wales can access to enhance productivity, including business growth, skills, scale-up and finance support. The reason I say that is, whilst we don’t have a dedicated scheme right here, right now, which we've had before, which could have been accessed for CCTV installation, there are other schemes there that a small abattoir, with some advice, speaking to the operators on the ground, with the support of the FSA, can access for their overall business that might help mitigate the other minimal costs here of actually putting in place CCTV.

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

There will be no votes this evening.

All that remains for me to do is to declare the result of the vote for the Chair of the LJC committee. Alun Davies received 26 votes, Mike Hedges received 27 votes, one Member abstained and one Member spoilt his or her ballot. Fifty-five votes were cast in total. So, Mike Hedges is elected Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and we wish him well in his work.

That brings our proceedings to a close for today.