Plenary

The next questions will be to the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care, and the first question is from Mark Isherwood and is to be answered by the Minister for Mental Health and Early Years. Mark Isherwood.

As part of the special measures escalation, a comprehensive programme of work has been agreed to ensure that the health board is able to make the sustained improvements required by its mental health services. The health board is very much focused on delivering this.

Institutional abuse on the Hergest mental health unit and Tawel Fan dementia ward was validated and exposed in successive reports. The Tawel Fan families state that in October 2018, the then health Secretary, now First Minister, Vaughan Gething, told them that what they had seen was not institutional abuse, and that when they questioned him he walked out. Speaking here in November 2018, Vaughan Gething said he was content that the plans the health board had put in place to implement report recommendations were comprehensive and robust.

A new Royal College of Psychiatrists' report, looking at recommendations in four previous reports, has now found that fewer than half of these have been fully implemented. Further, the Nursing and Midwifery Council has now imposed a striking-off order on a psychiatric staff nurse, whose abusive conduct caused harm to vulnerable patients and witnesses on the Tawel Fan ward. So, what Welsh Government accountability and apology to the families will there now be, when this has exposed the same culture of cover-up, victim blaming and whistleblower bullying seen in the Post Office and infected blood scandals?

Thank you for that question, Mark. As part of the special measures intervention, Welsh Government commissioned the Royal College of Psychiatrists to undertake a review to assess the extent to which recommendations from the previous mental health reviews have been completed. The report has been shared with families and was discussed at the board meeting last Thursday, actually, on 30 May. It does indicate that progress against a number of the recommendations has not been sustained. This is very disappointing, and we will be working closely with the health board to ensure that they take and embed the appropriate actions. I will be meeting the health board vice-chair and mental health executive leads on a quarterly basis to discuss action in relation to mental health services and what support would be of benefit to deliver improvements. And I will certainly be discussing what has been done and looking in more detail at what needs to be done.

Look, time and time again, we've had Ministers stand up in this Chamber and tell us that things are being sorted. Report after report, as we've heard, have been commissioned, with recommendations made, and we've all been led to believe that things would change. Now, this latest damning report, of course, to the health board, reveals that the majority of recommendations in successive reports into mental health scandals in the north have not been implemented. Have you as a Government therefore been misled—or some would say, maybe deceived—by someone? And if you have, that in itself is another scandal to add to a very long list, I have to say. Now, given all of these failings, is it not now time to try a different tack? Should you not be establishing an independent oversight committee now, made up of Llais—the patient's voice—affected families, the third sector and others, to work with the health board to make sure that these recommendations are fulfilled, once and for all?

Diolch, Llyr. The health board has indicated it will take a period of time and reflection to consider the report's findings and the views of families and others, including Llais, as you mentioned, before drawing up its formal response. Just to say, the NHS Wales Executive meets with all health boards on a monthly basis to monitor performance as part of improvement, quality, performance and delivery meetings. In relation to Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, I can confirm that they are continuing to improve performance with additional milestones being set to support the health board to maintain progress. We will be developing mental health quality statements that will support health boards to deliver services that are consistent across Wales. And I can assure you, as I said in response to Mark, that I will be meeting the health board vice-chair shortly and mental health leads on that quarterly basis as well, since I've come into post recently, and I will do that and will continue to do that.

'A Healthier Wales' sets out our vision and our priorities, namely a comprehensive health and social care system with seamless services, which focuses on prevention and community-based care, and going to hospital only when needed.

Cabinet Secretary, one of the Welsh Government's public health priorities must be to safeguard people's health, and yet the community around the Withyhedge landfill site in my constituency continue to suffer from a sickening stench and potentially toxic emissions. Residents continue to experience serious health symptoms, such as painful and swollen eyelids, headaches and nausea. These are real people, suffering in our communities under your Government's watch, and enough is enough. What action will you now take as Cabinet Secretary for health to protect our constituents and ensure that they don't continue to suffer because of the scandalous actions of the Withyhedge landfill site operator?

Thanks very much. Well, I've obviously been keeping a close eye on the situation and, tomorrow, I have a meeting, along with the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, to seek assurances and get an update on the action that is being undertaken in relation to the Withyhedge landfill site. Of course, the Withyhedge landfill site is controlled by an environmental permit, which contains conditions that the operator must comply with to prevent harm to the environment or human health. Natural Resources Wales, as the waste regulator in Wales, is responsible for regulating the site and ensuring compliance with the conditions of the permit. Public Health Wales does not have any regulatory responsibilities or powers around the management or enforcement of the site, but they have taken a precautionary approach in response to this issue.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Altaf Hussain.

Minister, this week I had the pleasure to visit Llais at their headquarters in Abercynon, and during conversations about their fantastic community engagement work, it emerged that far too many members of the public are unaware of Llais's role in being the voice of the public in relation to social care. What action can the Welsh Government take to promote the fact that Llais are the independent body set up to give the people of Wales a say in their social care services, not just NHS interactions?

Thank you, Altaf, for that question. You're quite right, the role of Llais now has extended to social care. Of course, we do recognise them in their previous incarnation of the community health councils, and when they were set up under the recent legislation to become Llais, they took over responsibility for having the patient and client voice in social care. And one of their main objectives when they were set up was to promote that role as being the voice of the client, dealing with complaints and acting as advocates and specialist advisers to people in social care. So, Llais's remit does cover that engagement and representation across the whole of social care.

I think it's right to say that we probably should be doing more around the promotion of the work of Llais in social care, because previously there wasn't a voice for people in social care, and I think what we saw were direct complaints to the local authority. And Llais has been able to be the advocate and the intermediary between the local authority and the client. So, I'm happy to take that back, Altaf, and see whether there is more that we can do from a Welsh Government perspective to promote the role of Llais, but that is certainly something that we need to speak to Llais about, and making sure that they're doing that as well.

Thank you, Minister. Of course, one of the biggest complaints related to people’s experience of social care in recent times was the almost abandonment of the sector during the pandemic. We will probably never know the true number of people who needlessly died in our care homes during COVID-19. The fact that module 6 of the UK COVID inquiry has been delayed, and that we are unlikely to get the report during this Senedd, is very worrying. We can’t simply hope we don’t get another pandemic or serious seasonal outbreak before we implement the lessons from COVID. Minister, what action are you taking in the interim to ensure all care homes have robust infection protection and control measures in place, as well as making sure all staff have IPC training and adequate personal protective equipment?

Thank you, Altaf, for that very important question and, of course, as you say, we won’t be seeing the outcome of the COVID inquiry for some considerable time yet, or whether there will be any specific recommendations around that, but what I can assure you of is that there are robust infection measures in place. All of our care homes are subject to independent inspections from Care Inspectorate Wales and we have had no reports of any current concerns around care homes that have been the subject of inspections since COVID-19, so I’m working on the basis at this moment that we have no cause for intervention or cause for serious concern about the way in which our care homes are operating. But I do meet every month with the chief inspector of Care Inspectorate Wales, and I will certainly raise this with her when I meet with her next month, just to make sure that there are no issues that I need to be made aware of.

I am grateful to you, Minister. However, I believe we need a national strategy and a uniform set of standards when it comes to infection prevention and control in the care sector. Do you agree with me that we can’t allow a piecemeal approach to this, that no matter what local authority a care home falls under, or which regional partnership board is taking the lead, we need a national standard of care? Will you therefore commit today to work with Public Health Wales, Health Education and Improvement Wales, and the sector, together with myself and patient groups, to establish a universal approach to IPC in care homes and a requirement to train all staff in IPC procedures as soon as possible?

Again, thank you for that important point, Altaf, and of course we are moving across a whole range of issues in social care to regularise and standardise practices right the way across social services, and that includes our care homes and the commissioning of services in care homes, and we will be publishing a national framework on that by the end of the year. I’m happy to take that away, the points that you have raised with me and to see whether we can incorporate that into the national framework, and whether the work that we are already doing in that area can be standardised in the way that you’ve set out, because it is absolutely clear to me that the best way of getting regular outcomes is to have regular practice applied right the way across social care and across social services. As I say, that is very much what our national framework has aimed to do, and I will certainly make sure that we have a look at that in relation to the IPC training as well.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Mabon ap Gwynfor.

Thank you. Llywydd, I was pleased to see the Twitter messages of the Cabinet Secretary recently showing that she had visited the historic town of Harlech. That’s no surprise, because Harlech is a glorious town that has a great deal to offer visitors. But what was surprising was to see the Cabinet Secretary holding a campaign placard calling for the modernisation of the health service. Labour have been running the health service in Wales and have been doing so for 25 years, but it appears that that fact was lost on the Cabinet Secretary for health. The Cabinet Secretary agreed with me a fortnight ago, when I asked about the Langstaff report, that being open, transparent and honest were important principles. So, given this, does the Cabinet Secretary accept that what was suggested in holding that placard, namely that the state of the health service isn't her responsibility, is misleading, and will she apologise for that? And finally, does the Cabinet Secretary agree that it is her and the Welsh Government's responsibility to modernise our health service?

I'm not going to apologise for wanting to modernise the health service. I am modernising the health service but I want to go further, and if there was a Labour Government in Westminster, there would be an opportunity to go even further. So, I'm not going to apologise for that. We have invested a lot already in digital developments in the health service in Wales, but we could go much further if we had a Government that takes the health service seriously in Westminster.

Thank you for that response. Over recent months, the consequences of the lack of willingness of successive health Ministers to take responsibility for the systemic issues in our health service, as we've seen already today, have been all too clear to see. Last week, we saw them in the damning conclusions from the Royal College of Psychiatrists report into mental health and learning disability services in Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, which found that recommendations from previous reports, dating back as far as 2014, remained unimplemented at the cost of patients' lives.

We see these consequences too in systemic issues in Swansea Bay University Health Board’s maternity services, where a recent further unannounced inspection by Healthcare Inspectorate Wales revealed that recommendations stemming from the 2020 national maternity review have not been implemented. There were 22 such actions still outstanding, in addition to other concerns raised by inspectors. Swansea Bay University Health Board have been under enhanced monitoring for maternity since December 2023. For HIW to go in and still find major patient safety issues is deeply concerning.

So, Cabinet Secretary, do you agree that this record of unimplemented recommendations, outstanding actions and ongoing patient safety concerns reveals that the Welsh Government is failing to live up to its responsibility for delivering safe and effective health services?

I think my colleague Jayne Bryant has just comprehensively answered the questions relating to the investigations into north Wales—investigations, let’s not forget, that were commissioned by the Welsh Government, so that is our responsibility to make sure that we know what’s going on in that area. We’ve done that, and I think that question was answered very comprehensively.

In relation to Swansea Bay maternity, there were issues in relation in particular to recruitment. I’m pleased to say that there has been a huge recruitment campaign and there will be significant additional numbers starting in midwifery from September. So, that particular issue—which is the most important issue for them to resolve—looks like it is being resolved. I know that the health board is meeting this week along with my officials to make sure that things are progressing in relation to maternity issues in Swansea Bay.

I and others on these benches have been contacted by a number of families whose lives have been impacted by the critical failures to provide safe maternity care in Swansea Bay. These families have made it painfully clear that they have been let down, including by your predecessor in the role, the current First Minister. As health Minister from 2016 to 2021, he oversaw the adding of four critical risks on maternity to the health board's risk register, which were still there at the time of HIW's damning report in 2023. In 2019-20, the health Minister would have received 33 notifications relating to serious birth incidents in Swansea Bay. All of these red flags, all of these opportunities to intervene, were missed.

The families have also made it clear that, for good reason in my view, they lack confidence in the current review process. E-mails from the review's chair, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, could be interpreted as suggesting a desire to restrict families' involvement in it. The process has, so far, lacked sensitivity, and concerns have also been raised about the review's terms of reference. These concerns include that the terms of reference were not developed in consultation with the families, that they do not reflect the particular impact on black and ethnic minority patients, and that there is no patient involvement in the oversight panel. These families have called for a full public inquiry and I echo their call. Cabinet Secretary, will you commit to delivering such an inquiry?

The threshold for a public inquiry is not low, but, obviously, we will always keep these matters under consideration. The Welsh Government met with the health board on 3 June for the enhanced monitoring meeting in relation to maternity and neonatal services. And in that meeting, as I say, we gained that assurance that there were 17 new student midwives, but, also, that there's going to be a new director of midwifery, who will start this month. Leadership is absolutely crucial in any department, and so that, I think, is a key appointment. The health board also updated on the reopening of the home birth centre and community services. Following a successful gateway review, the health board are in discussions with the unions around a few issues, and I hope that this will be resolved. A decision taken by the board will then enable them to recommence these services from August.FootnoteLink

Despite the financial climate, we continue to invest in the sustainability of our NHS workforce, maintaining the significant levels of funding for training new workforce into 2024-25. We are also delivering nationally run programmes to both support ethical international recruitment to close the vacancy gap and invest in retention initiatives.

Cabinet Secretary, I won't rehearse the issues people are having trying to get to see a GP or a dentist. We all know the impact a lack of strategic workforce planning is having on access to care. However, I do want to concentrate on the impact staff shortages are having on the NHS's ability to respond to emergencies. Last week, the Welsh Ambulance Services University NHS Trust warned that handover delays, which, as you have identified yourself, are in part due to a lack of social care staff, will impact the service's ability to respond to major incidents, including terrorist attacks. Whatever the problem with our NHS, we could always rely upon it in a national emergency, but now, even that is not certain. Therefore, Cabinet Secretary, what steps are you taking to eliminate handover delays and allow ambulance crews to respond to major incidents?

Thanks very much. You will be aware that we have more people working in the Welsh NHS than we've ever had before—110,000 workers. That's 12 per cent more than three years ago. And when it comes to medical and dental, we have 12 per cent more. So, that's 892 more than three years ago. So, the numbers are going up, but the demand is also going up. And that's the real issue here: that the demand keeps rising. And you'll be aware, as a clinician yourself, that, with an ageing population, the demands are likely to continue to increase. There is always going to be a limit in terms of budget, and we're all aware that 65 per cent of the money that we spend on the NHS is spent directly on staff.

When it comes to the ambulance service, we have 13 per cent more people than we had three years ago, so significant additional numbers. You're quite right that, when it comes to handover delays, there's a real issue, and it is an issue that we are constantly going at. It is about the relationship, about where the responsibilities are within those health boards, who need to move people on, but also local government. Those constant dialogues, that constant conversation we have with them, being able to really identify where the problem is, what is the blockage, and whose responsibility is the blockage, is absolutely critical. We've done a huge amount of work on that. We've got things like trusted assessors now, so you don't have to wait for somebody from the council to come and check—other people have the confidence of the local authorities to do some of that work to move things on. We've got a long way to go. The key problem, again, is how do you recruit enough care workers. We are paying the real living wage, unlike situations in England; that was not an insignificant investment. But it is still very difficult to recruit people to those roles, and that's where the real challenge is.

When it comes to the terrorist attack, you're quite right, there's an assessment at the moment of what the recommendations were as a result of that attack. So, that is being assessed at the moment, and, obviously, I'll wait for some advice as a result of that.

We are determined to reduce long waiting times across Wales. The number of people waiting for two years has fallen every month since we published our planned care recovery plan. In March 2024, the number waiting two years was 71 per cent less than in March 2022, the lowest since July 2021.

Thank you, Minister. It's good to hear that the two-year waiting lists are reducing, but figures published at the end of last month by Digital Health and Care Wales show the challenge facing the health service—almost 600,000 on the waiting lists, 18 per cent on the strategic pathway for over a year, compared to 4 per cent in England.

The waiting lists for cancer treatments are terrifying for individuals and their families. Constituents have contacted me worried for their lives and for the lives of their relatives. Forty per cent of patients in Wales are waiting more than 62 days to start treatment after cancer is first suspected. This is a time of great anxiety for people, and, as you know, Minister, behind every bare statistic, there are individuals and their families. So, what is the Minister doing to respond to the lack of progress on the target that 75 per cent of cancer patients should start their treatment within 62 days? Thank you.

Thank you. I think, first of all, that we need to say that, on average, people in Wales wait 22 weeks to get treatment. But you're quite right, when it comes to cancer, we need to move more swiftly, and that's why I think that the situation at present is not acceptable. One of the problems that we have is in the area of diagnostics. You have to remember, in terms of diagnostics, a lot of different areas use diagnostic capacity, not just cancer. The number of people who are sent to receive diagnostic tests—people on the suspected cancer pathway—has increased 50 per cent over the last three years. So, they hit a bottleneck, and that's part of the problem. That's why we have a diagnostic plan. We are investing in diagnostic capacity at present, and I do hope that that will make a difference, and will mean that more patients will be seen more quickly.

Cabinet Secretary, the diagnostic and treatment hub at Llantrisant, developed by Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board, working together with Aneurin Bevan and Cardiff and Vale health boards, launched the first of its services in April this year, and has already made inroads into waiting lists by fast-tracking over 200 patients through its MRI scanners. Cabinet Secretary, do you agree with me that this hub has significant potential to further reduce waiting lists as its services get up and running, and can you reaffirm your commitment to supporting this innovative new model?

Thanks very much, Vikki. Isn't it absolutely true that straight after the cancer question, we come straight into a diagnostic question? That is where the bottleneck is, as I say, and this is an example of us actually investing in the diagnostic capacity. What we've got there at the moment is a mobile diagnostic service. I think that's good as we go ahead, but what we're looking at is developing a really comprehensive regional diagnostic system that covers three health boards in that situation in Llantrisant. So, that's where we're heading for. The initial feedback from the people even using the mobile diagnostic system has been really positive, especially around good access to the site and to the scanner, but, as I say, what we're trying to do is to develop that regional capacity and to build that up. So, this is the first step in a much more comprehensive plan.

Question 5 [OQ61201] has been withdrawn.

All calls to the Welsh ambulance service are prioritised based on the relative clinical severity of symptoms as described by the caller, to ensure those with the greatest clinical need are prioritised to receive the best possible response to maximise their chance of a positive outcome.

Diolch. I recently met with the daughter of a constituent, her father, who died waiting for an ambulance in 2022. The daughter subsequently complained to the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales for the way that the call had been handled. The ombudsman found that the initial 999 call was categorised correctly as amber 1, but they also found that correct procedures were not followed for the welfare call and this could have changed the category of the initial call and upheld that part of the complaint. Her father went into cardiac arrest only 20 minutes after the welfare call and his daughter believes that vital signs of deterioration were missed. She feels strongly that the call should have been treated with more seriousness and undertaken by appropriately qualified staff. My constituent's daughter also believes that amber 1 calls, which include conditions that have therapeutic response times, should have a response time target, and getting the appropriate medical treatment within these time frames could potentially be the difference between life and death. She's very concerned that, when it comes to these kinds of calls, the welfare call is fully understood as to what it means for the people who are receiving the care. Will the Cabinet Secretary, therefore, ask the Welsh ambulance services trust to review both how it prioritises amber 1 calls and welfare calls, to make sure that welfare calls are done appropriately and ensure that an occurrence like this could not happen a second time?

Thanks very much, and I'm really sorry to hear about that example, Hefin. I hope you'll send my condolences on to the family. Obviously, I can't comment on an individual case, but I think the principle of the welfare call is something that I will look into and just find out exactly how that fits in with the prioritisation that already happens.FootnoteLink

I'd like to thank Hefin David for asking this very important question, and please accept my heartfelt condolences for your constituent on their loss as well.

Cabinet Secretary, a constituent of mine recently had a heart attack at home and, when his wife called for an ambulance, she was told there was a three to five hour wait. As a result, and following a conversation with 999 call operator, his wife in fact drove him to the Grange hospital, and, after having a cardiac arrest at the Grange, my constituent was then transferred to the University Hospital of Wales in Cardiff where he had an artery blockage removed and two stents fitted. Thankfully, my constituent is doing well following this medical episode and has a lot of praise for the NHS staff who helped treat him. Now, after he approached me for help, I was left wondering why, as my constituent explained to me, would an ambulance call handler direct patients suffering from suspected heart attacks to the Grange when there are no cardiac specialists actually at the hospital itself? It's since been revealed to me that the cath lab at the Grange is only funded between the hours of 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday to Friday, and Saturday mornings, so will you please commit to looking into providing additional funding to expand the lab's opening hours?

In response to a letter on this matter, Cabinet Secretary, your office explained that health boards had developed ambulance improvement plans, so will you please kindly provide me, as well as other Members here in the Chamber, with an update on the success of these plans so far and outline any additional steps the Government will be taking to improve outcomes for patients? Thank you.

Thanks very much. I'm afraid there are longer waits, you're quite right, for non-urgent cases. It's all categorised according to some very medical and technical issues. The average response wait for a red call is about 15 minutes, but, obviously, this was a different category. I'll look into the issue of why somebody was sent to the wrong place. I think that is a fairly fundamental problem. That doesn't sound right to me. So, obviously, there does need to be some training in relation to that if that is happening. I will look into that. What I can't commit to, obviously, is extending lab hours. All of that means massive additional finance, which we don't have at the moment. We simply don't have the additional finance. Anything that asks for more resources that goes into a particular area is really, really difficult for us at the moment. But I certainly will look into why they were sent to the wrong place.FootnoteLink

Question 7, Rhianon Passmore.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, Robert Holcombe, the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board's finance chief—

You need to ask the question on the order paper first, please.

I missed the first bit. Sorry, I do apologise.

Each NHS organisation submits its financial plan as part of the integrated medium-term plan process. Formal monthly monitoring by my officials is then undertaken throughout the year, with additional support by the NHS executive. This is further supported through regular meetings between my officials and senior finance staff from the health board.

Thank you. And I'll repeat, Cabinet Secretary, that Robert Holcombe, the Aneurin Bevan University Health Board's finance chief, told the board's main meeting that it has a worst-case scenario of a £60 million deficit and a best case of a £48.9 million deficit. He then went on to detail the board's month one report of just under £5 million, equating to the established worst-case scenario. Cabinet Secretary, the financial state of the health board of Gwent, with all of its industrial legacy and population acute demographic, will be of concern to my constituents in Islwyn. One aspect highlighted by the health board is the number of patients stuck in hospital beds, as there are no care plans in place for them to return home. This is a long-standing endemic issue across the UK, caused by a lack of UK focus on social care, but, across Gwent, there were 289 patients at the end of April, costing more than £1 million a month and around £15 million over the year. Cabinet Secretary, I know this is a strong focus for the Welsh Government, but what actions are the Welsh Government intending to take now to alleviate the pressing issue of delayed transfers of care? What urgent improvements to social care can be achieved now in a devolved setting to ease the pressure on hospitals, and will she commit to explore now the Scandinavian intermediate rehabilitative care model?

Thank you very much. You've put your finger on the button there in terms of where the problem is. Certainly, delayed transfers of care are absolutely in my sights constantly, as they are within Dawn's sights as the Minister responsible for social care. So, we're working together very much on that, and we're also speaking to the Minister responsible for local government. Delays in hospital discharge are not the sole factor that affects access to services, but they certainly are one of the key issues. Social care assessments are one of the largest reasons for delays in patients leaving hospitals. We've got a really comprehensive database now that tells us exactly why people are in hospital, why they are still there, who's chasing them down, whose responsibility it is, so that we can really hold people to account for that.

The truth is we have seen a significant reduction in these figures over the last year, but we have to go further. So, what we need is a joint approach to this, and you know that local government is also feeling the pinch as well as the NHS, but it is important, I think, that we don't take our eye off this particular issue. I can assure you that this is absolutely up there in the top four of our priorities, and certainly the performance relating to urgent and emergency care in the Grange is not where it should be. Some of that is as a result of the delayed transfers of care.

In terms of the intermediary model, I don't know what the Scandinavian model is, but I can assure you we've got lots and lots of examples of intermediate care. We have a £144 million fund that can only be used if the health boards co-operate and work with not just local authorities, but the third sector. So, we are very much in that space already.

A great question from my colleague across the floor, actually—I'm glad you've asked that. I'd like to ask you a more general one, Cabinet Secretary, if that's okay. There can obviously be no one-size-fits-all approach to monitoring and aiding health boards. I just want to ask you: how do you and Welsh Government recognise the specific and often different and diverse needs of each individual health board?

We're monitoring each health board all the time. So, we have a team of experts, we have the NHS executive, and we're doing that on a regular basis. We are benchmarking, we are making comparisons on a whole range of areas. I now have monthly meetings with the chairs of the health boards to hold them to account for a whole range of things, where they can see how they're performing in relation to the others across Wales. It's not just me doing that, obviously; the chief executive of the NHS in Wales does the same thing with the chief executives of the health boards themselves. And then, officials are doing that at an operational level, as well. So, there is a lot of monitoring going on and we are seeing some movement. We do need to see a bit of modernisation, frankly, in some circumstances. We need people to follow the clinical pathways that are the optimum clinical pathways and not keep to the same old way that they used to do things; things move on in medicine and they need to move with the times. So, it's monitoring and making sure that that happens. And what's clear is that we are seeing real diversity across Wales, and that's not acceptable. It's not acceptable to the patients and it shouldn't be a postcode issue, according to where you live, which is why there is a responsibility on us, at the centre, to make sure that every single one of those health boards is performing to its optimum ability.

The Welsh Government is working closely with the health board to improve access to safe and timely health and care services. This includes an additional £2.74 million to support improvements in urgent and emergency care this year.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. In January 2022, Hywel Dda University Health Board announced a timetable for the building of the new west Wales hospital. This suggested a timescale of seven years from the identification of the final site to the opening of the hospital, with the aim of opening in late 2029. Following a written question to you and questions asked of the health board by The Pembrokeshire Herald newspaper, it has become apparent that no firm date exists for the final decision to be taken on the hospital's location, let alone any revised indication of when the hospital will open, if at all. An axe has hung over the futures of Glangwili and Withybush hospitals for over 17 years now, leading to uncertainty for staff and patients alike. So, please, provide some clarity: what on earth is going on?

I will, but let me remind you that it was the Conservatives who stopped the proposal to build a new hospital in west Wales several years ago. And if it had been followed through at that time and if you hadn't led a campaign—you, the Tories, led a campaign against the west Wales hospital—it would've been up and running by now. The Conservatives have got to take their share of responsibility for the fact that there is not already a west Wales hospital. There has never been an axe hanging over Withybush or Glangwili. And let me be absolutely clear that—[Interruption.] Let me be clear that part of the responsibility for the fact that there is no west Wales hospital already lies directly with the Conservative Party.

The drug tariff is published monthly by the Department of Health and Social Care and covers both England and Wales. It specifies remuneration to pharmacies for NHS prescription medicines and services. The reimbursement values are reviewed and updated regularly.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. As she has explained, this drug tariff is an England-and-Wales tariff, but, from my understanding, it is set according to the average sales from pharmaceutical companies representing the sector. But, none of these companies are based in Wales; they're large companies in England. So, it doesn't reflect usage or sales in Wales, and the result of that is that pharmacies in Wales are losing out. What discussions have you had, therefore, with the UK authority in order to have a tariff that reflects Wales, or even to devolve this to Wales?

So, prices charged by suppliers and wholesalers for medicines are unlikely to differ between England and Wales, so Welsh pharmacies are not disadvantaged. Pharmacies in Wales make around £55 million each year from retained purchase profits. So, whilst sometimes they may lose out on purchasing specific products, overall there are more occasions when they don't. And I think it probably is worth emphasising that, between 2017 and 2025, funding has increased by £21 million, from £144 million to £165 million. If you look at the funding per pharmacy, it's significantly more in Wales than it is in England: £317,000 on average, compared to £240,000 on average.

Julie Morgan isn't in the Chamber to ask question 10 [OQ61186]. So, finally, question 11, Luke Fletcher.

I have not had any specific discussions with the Cabinet Secretary regarding fire and rescue service health policy. I am, however, fully aware of her commitment to address risks to firefighter health and safety through the social partnership forum for fire and rescue services.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. Of course, I'm sure you're also aware of the research conducted by the University of Central Lancashire and the Fire Brigades Union into firefighter health in the workplace. As I've mentioned previously, instances of cancer among firefighters aged 35 to 39 are 323 per cent higher than in the general population. That is a startling figure, so what will it take to get the Government to implement, at the very least, a preventative monitoring programme for firefighters? Firefighters are dying right now—that's the reality of the cancers they are catching in the workplace. At the very least, we need to catch up with the rest of Europe in ensuring that we are monitoring firefighters' health so that we can get to grips with this issue.

Thanks very much. Our social partnership forum for fire and rescue services considered the University of Central Lancashire's studies, resulting in a recommendation for action in 2023. The fire and rescue authorities in Wales are taking significant positive action to implement the FBU's recommendations, which the FBU and other firefighter representative bodies have endorsed. Now, I know that the First Minister indicated in Plenary on 23 April that we will continue to monitor the recommendations for occupational cancer screening from the UK National Screening Committee, and the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, Local Government and Planning continues to discuss this through the FRS social partnership forum.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

We'll move on now to the topical question, to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice and to be asked by Sioned Williams.

The operational running of HMP Parc is reserved to the UK Government. I'm extremely concerned at the recent events and have sought frequent meetings with the relevant senior leadership teams.

Diolch. The tragic and unacceptable situation that has been allowed to develop at HMP Parc in Bridgend is an absolute scandal. Last Wednesday a 38-year-old inmate died at the prison, bringing the jail's death toll to 10 in just over three months. Nine other inmates have died since 27 February, including four believed to be drug related, while one prison staff member has been arrested in connection with drug dealing there. Last Friday around 20 prisoners were reportedly involved in a riot; three inmates had to be rushed to hospital following the unrest. And, yes, while running prisons is the responsibility of the Westminster Government, these are Welsh citizens, Welsh families, that are paying a terrible price for the fact that prisoners' safety and health have not been assured.

Parc prison is run by the private security giant G4S and is the only privately operated prison in Wales. Yesterday evening the director in charge of running the prison, Heather Whitehead, stepped down. When Plaid Cymru raised this matter with you back in the middle of last month, you stated that the Welsh Government

'is liaising with the UK Government and other partners to ensure action is being taken following the deaths.'

So, what action has been taken, Cabinet Secretary? You stated that you'd met and written to the Minister of State for Prisons, Parole and Probation, so could you provide us with an update on how those discussions went? Did you push for Parc prison to be returned to public control? Do you support calls made by Plaid Cymru that private companies should not be running prisons in Wales and that the privatised model has utterly failed at Parc?

Plaid Cymru believes that if Wales had its own justice system, we could most effectively focus on tackling the root causes of offending and reoffending, and emphasise prevention rather than perpetuating a cycle of violence. Do you agree that devolved control of services at all Welsh prisons would allow the Welsh Government's health and social policies to be better aligned with justice? In your answer, when we raised this issue with you last month, and so much has happened since then, you stated that you did support the devolution of justice to Wales. So, will you pledge today to make that case to Keir Starmer, should he be leading the new UK Government come July?

Thank you. Well, I will certainly be making that case, as you say, hopefully to a UK Labour Government, but I shall be doing be doing it to any colour Government, because I absolutely think the Welsh Government's position is very clear: we do believe that justice and policing in Wales should be run by the people of Wales in the interest of Wales. I disagree with very little of what you have said. I am greatly concerned about the brevity of the incidents, which really alarm me, at Parc prison. As I said in my original answer to you, I have sought frequent meetings with a variety of people in relation to the prison. I did meet with the prisons' Minister once; I've asked to meet with him again. I appreciate we're in the middle of an election period, but my concern is so great that I would very much want to meet with him again. I've just met with the executive director again today, of HMPPS in Wales, to seek some assurance. The press notice that went out for G4S yesterday about the director was not shared with me. I don't think it was shared my officials, but it certainly wasn't shared with me ahead of that happening. I've asked for the action plan that G4S have brought forward, following their improvement notice, to be shared with me as a matter of urgency. I don't think profits should feature in the running of prisons anywhere in the UK.

Cabinet Secretary, recent events at HMP Parc have been deeply disturbing and I welcome the resignation of the prison's director. While we await the outcome of the inquests to the tragic deaths at the prison, we have to ensure that the current prison population and their families are fully supported. The responsibility of prisons remain a matter for the UK Government, but the Welsh Government is responsible for the health services provided to the prison estate in Wales. Therefore, Cabinet Secretary, what discussions have you had with the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care about the actions taken to support the mental health of the prisoners, and their families, who have been impacted by recent events?

Well, as I say, the operational running of the prison is absolutely the responsibility of the UK Government, and it is imperative that the staff and inmates are not impacted again in the way that they have. My thoughts certainly go out to the staff and the inmates. My last meeting with the deputy directors of HMP Parc was a joint meeting with my colleague Jayne Bryant, the Minister for Mental Health and Early Years, to discuss absolutely that. So, from a health point of view, as you say, the Welsh Government is responsible for health services within the prison, and it was a very useful meeting that I held with Jayne Bryant and myself, along with officials from HMPPS, and also the deputy director, as I say, at Parc prison, and, obviously, those conversations will continue. I've been in post around 10 or 11 weeks, and every week it seems to me there is something that concerns me, and the UK Government really need to get to grips with this.

Drug dealing and illegal use of drugs is not exclusive to Parc prison, but it's undoubtedly exacerbated by the gross overcrowding in most of our prisons, as well as the shortages of staff. So, people are spending far too long locked up in their cells, rather than involved in activities to rehabilitate them. Given the numbers of vulnerable people in prisons—people with mental health problems and learning difficulties—what conversations may you have had with the Cabinet Secretary for health, given that the services that are delivered to help people with their drug addiction and their mental health difficulties are run by the Welsh NHS? I wondered if this is something that you might be able to take up with Will Styles, who's recently been appointed as the governor, to ensure that those staff are able to reach all of the vulnerable prisoners, as well as are able to work safely and not be subject to violence themselves?

Thank you. I will certainly be seeking a meeting with Will Styles who, as you say, is the new director at HMP Parc. I mentioned in my answer to Altaf Hussain that I had a joint meeting with the Minister for mental health because I thought it was really important that we both expressed our concern around recent events. I don't want to speculate in relation to the 10 inmates who have died. Obviously that is now a matter for the ombudsman. But there is clearly an issue that I think has been addressed by the staff at HMP Parc. It's really important that that work continues, and I will certainly continue to have discussions with the Minister.

Of course, everything that has gone on in Parc right now has caused serious concern for a number of people. G4S are proving that they're unable to run the prison, just like they proved they were unable to run Birmingham, and just like Birmingham, it should be taken back into the hands of the prison service, and out of private hands.

You mentioned you had meetings with partners. Could you tell us what was discussed in those meetings and what you asked them to do? And finally, I just want to emphasize as well the support that is provided to the prisoners, to the staff at the prison, but as well the families, because with everything that's gone on at the moment, no doubt this is having a serious impact on their mental health.

Absolutely. I mentioned I'd had meetings with the senior leadership team, so obviously the officials in the probation service, the representatives for Wales, and I met with the deputy directors—that was on one occasion—from Parc prison. And we did discuss just that point that you've made around the impact on families—well, so many people, communities and families. They are undertaking work, but that work needs to continue at pace. But as I say, the operational running of the prison is a matter for the UK Government. I think it's really important that I do meet again with the Minister for probation, policing and prisons. I appreciate we're in the middle of an election period, but nobody's eye can be taken off the ball in relation to this, because as I say, the frequency of issues that really raise concern with me is alarming.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

Item 4 today is the 90-second statements, and first, Peter Fox.

I caught you by surprise, Peter.

You did. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Today, I want to pay tribute to the rugby league legend Rob Burrow CBE, an incredible man who sadly passed away earlier this week at the young age of 41. He was a selfless man who dedicated the final years of his life to raising awareness of motor neurone disease, a cruel and devastating condition that sadly took his life. Rob Burrow was diagnosed in 2019, just two years after he retired from his 17-year career playing with the Rhinos and Great Britain.

While his incredible sporting achievements will be long talked about, I want to thank him and pay tribute to his drive and determination in advocating for people with MND and the search for a cure. He was an inspiration for all of us, and certainly for the many people suffering with MND, many across Wales. Following his diagnosis, Rob Burrow was involved in raising an astonishing £15 million in just five years towards tackling the condition.

This man who lived life to the full with passion, drive and unmeasurable fortitude—I just want to end with a powerful message from the man:

'My final message to you is whatever your personal battle be brave and face it. Every single day is precious. Don’t waste a moment.'

Wise and powerful words from an inspirational and strong man. We thank him for all he did. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family.

Eighty years ago, on 6 June 1944, during D-day, the largest amphibious invasion in military history took place. Welsh servicemen and women played a critical role in the liberation of Europe from Nazi tyranny. Over 150,000 troops, including countless Welsh servicemen, landed on the beaches of Normandy in operations codenamed Utah, Omaha, Gold, Juno and Sword. These brave soldiers faced heavily fortified German positions, and tragically over 10,000 Allied casualties were sustained on D-day alone.

The bravery of Welsh soldiers on the Normandy beaches, like the 2nd Battalion, the Welsh Borderers, was absolutely remarkable. Wales itself became a training ground for the Allies. Locations like Mumbles served as a rehearsal site for US troops, simulating everything from unloading ships under fire, treating casualties and handling prisoners. Mock hospitals were even constructed, like the one near Carmarthen, on today's site of the Glangwili General Hospital. Wales's dedication to the war effort was profound. The unwavering spirit and sacrifice both on the beaches and in the factories that supplied the invasion stand as a testament to their critical role in securing victory on D-Day and the ultimate liberation of Europe and the freedom that we all enjoy today. Diolch, Deputy Llywydd.

Thank you, both.

Item 5 is a debate on the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee Report, 'Annual scrutiny of the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales: 2023', and I call on the committee Chair to move the motion—Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m pleased to be able to contribute to today’s debate on the committee’s annual report on the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales. Our report, which was published in April, looks back at the commission’s work in 2022-23 and considers progress towards its wider work programme. It also considers, of course, the commission's future in the context of the Welsh Government’s commitment to reviewing the status, remit and objectives of the body. We have made nine recommendations as a committee. Three of these are to the commission, to which it has responded positively, and six are to the Welsh Government. The Welsh Government has accepted four of our recommendations fully and it has accepted the other two in principle.

2022-23 was the second year of the commission’s three-year term. When the commission’s new remit was set in 2022, it was tasked with investigating and making recommendations to the Welsh Government on renewable energy policy for the future. The commission began work on renewable energy in early 2022, and it published its report to the Welsh Government in October 2023. We were encouraged to see that several of the commission’s recommendations accorded with those the committee had already made in its reports on renewable energy and marine management policies.

Now, at the time of writing our report on the commission’s work, the Welsh Government’s response to the commission’s renewable energy report was overdue, having been promised by the end of January. We recommended that the Welsh Government prioritise its response to the commission, and at long last a response was issued last month. Although the committee hasn’t had an opportunity to collectively consider the Welsh Government’s response, I do hope that committee members won’t mind me taking this opportunity, if I may, to make a few general observations that are relevant to our role of scrutinising the commission.

As a committee, we’re keen to understand the impact of the commission’s work, looking at how it’s influencing Welsh Government thinking and decision making. The obvious way of doing this, of course, is by considering how many of the commission’s recommendations the Welsh Government has adopted and then subsequently implemented. Cabinet Secretary, the commission’s terms of reference commit the Welsh Government to, and I quote, stating clearly whether it accepts or rejects the commission’s recommendations. I’m afraid that you have failed to meet that commitment in the response to the commission’s report on renewable energy. In fact, it’s difficult to determine from the response which of the recommendations the Welsh Government will be taking forward, if any at all. I would therefore like to ask the Cabinet Secretary and her cabinet colleagues to reflect on this when responding to reports by the commission in the future.

By and large, the response sets out the steps that the Welsh Government is already taking to accelerate the deployment of renewable energy. There is no sense of whether the commission’s recommendations will help deliver change, or how they will do so. This leaves us questioning what impact the commission’s report has had, or whether it has had any impact at all. Of course, I’m sure the commission will have its own views on this, and I know that the committee will be keen to explore those views during our next scrutiny session with the commissioners.

Before moving on, it’s worth mentioning that the recent reconfiguration of cabinet portfolios means that, although the Cabinet Secretary has responsibility for the commission, it is her cabinet colleagues who will be responsible for responding to recommendations made by the commission on policy-specific matters such as renewable energy, flooding and climate resilience and so forth. So, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary could, in responding, say a few words about how she’ll work with her cabinet colleagues to ensure that the commission’s work is afforded appropriate priority.

Turning to the wider matter of what comes next for the commission, the commission performs an important function, providing the Welsh Government with an outside perspective on Wales’s infrastructure needs. The current commission comprises experts who demonstrate dedication to their work, and a passion for that work as well. However, the commission is small and has limited resources, particularly compared to bodies with similar functions, such as the UK National Infrastructure Commission.

The commission was established almost six years ago, so, particularly in looking at this recent period, you could argue that it's still in a nascent phase. That said, the committee does believe that now is a good time to take stock and consider whether it is delivering on expectations. I want to state clearly that this isn’t a criticism of the commissioners; rather, it’s a matter of ensuring that the current model will allow the commission to achieve its full potential over the coming years.

Recommendation 1 in our report has done what we intended it to do, namely to provide a nudge to ensure that the Welsh Government delivers on its commitment to undertake a comprehensive review of the commission before the end of this year. We’re pleased to hear from the Cabinet Secretary that scoping work for that review has started. I’d like to ask the Cabinet Secretary to share the terms of reference, the time frame, and any further details of that review's process with the committee as soon as they’re available.

Our other recommendations in the report call on the Welsh Government to consider various matters in the review. First, there is the term of appointment for commissioners. Currently, it is three years, which is short given the commission’s role and remit and compared with those of other public appointees, such as the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, for example. Secondly, there is the time frame for the Welsh Government to respond to the commission’s reports. The current time frame of between six to 12 months is excessive, in our view. We have recommended a response time of between six weeks and three months, in line, of course, with that for reports by Senedd committees and, by the way, the Interim Environmental Protection Assessor for Wales.

Finally, we’ve recommended that, as part of the review, the Welsh Government should consider whether there is merit in asking the commission to undertake a national infrastructure assessment, comparable to the five-year assessments undertaken by the UK National Infrastructure Commission. Given the constraints that the current commission operates within, it would be unreasonable to expect it to do this, but, as the commission evolves, it’s certainly something that we think, as a committee, could be a worthwhile exercise.

I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has agreed to consider all the matters that I’ve referred to as part of the review. I’d like to ask the Cabinet Secretary to report back to the committee on the outcome of the review as soon as it’s available. I see today’s debate as something of a listening exercise, which will help inform the committee’s scrutiny of the commission in future. But, without doubt, it will also give the Cabinet Secretary food for thought in taking forward the review, and I look forward to hearing Members’ contributions. Thank you.

Delyth Jewell.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you also to the committee team and our Chair for their work on this issue. I'd like to start by acknowledging the important work that the infrastructure commission has done in Wales. In assessing our infrastructure needs from an environmental and economic point of view, it is work that will benefit our nation for years to come, and their focus on renewable energy and the flood resilience of our nation is so vitally important, and that is true, yes, in response to the climate emergency, but also for our future.

We must, of course, acknowledge the unease that has arisen regarding a commissioner's links with a public affairs agency that counts renewable energy developers among its clients. Transparency is central to maintaining public trust, and we as a committee have called for measures to manage any conflict of interests within the commission. Now, the commission must, of course, be seen to be entirely independent. That's something that Dr David Clubb has said, and we know that that is something the commission is very much aware of.

I would like to emphasise that Plaid Cymru played an important role in demanding that the national infrastructure commission be established. Its establishment was agreed through a fiscal negotiation. Now, there have been some problems with how it was set up, with a cap imposed on its resources and independence. This stands in stark contrast to the infrastructure commission in Denmark, which enjoys cross-party trust and has such an influence on policy. This is no reflection on the members of the commission or the chair; they do extremely important work in difficult circumstances. The problem remains the lack of resources available to the commission and the lack of powers.

Now, what Plaid Cymru had envisaged would be a body that would prove a focal point for nationwide engagement, ensuring debates on controversial decisions occur early in the process. It would also ensure long-term stability beyond electoral cycles, across different Governments.

Now, it's no secret that Plaid Cymru have always championed the cause of devolution. We believe that full devolution of powers over infrastructure and our natural resources to Wales would allow far more localised and effective decision making. So, we're glad that the commission has backed our calls for the full devolution of the Crown Estate, and that the body's aim should be the reinvestment of all funds in Wales for the long-term benefit of the people of Wales in a sovereign wealth fund. That would enable us to address the unique challenges and opportunities that Wales presents and ensure that our infrastructure development is tailored to our specific needs, while of course reaping the financial benefits of our own natural resources.

Now, I recognise that there is work to be done, and, as the Chair has already said, perhaps it's too early for us to set out exactly what we would expect. Certainly, our committee will continue to look at how the infrastructure commission works. I have my own hopes that further resources could be available to it in order to enable it to do so much more work.

So, we welcome the 2023 report and the work of the commission. We call for transparency, for robust conflict of interest management and further devolution of powers, and we reaffirm our commitment to investing in infrastructure and working towards a sustainable future for Wales. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Housing, Local Government and Planning, Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you very much for the opportunity to reply on behalf of the Welsh Government to this debate today to highlight the really important work of the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales. I really would like to thank the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee for their report on the commission and their ongoing scrutiny of the projects that it undertakes. The commission has, as both speakers have said, firmly established itself as an authoritative voice in the sector that is respected and whose opinions are actively sought out by stakeholders, and I do believe this is a sign of maturity for the organisation and we are seeing a real difference from its work.

The commission's latest annual report highlights the range of activity that NICW, as we call it, has undertaken in its first full year of work, and they are to be congratulated on the breadth of issues that this relatively small team has covered. The commission's year 1 resulted in an in-depth report on renewable energy, which was published last year. This covered a variety of aspects relating to energy strategy, grid, planning, community benefits and the Crown Estate. Dirprwy Lywydd, I expected the recommendations to be bold, innovative and to help Wales progress towards meeting our renewable energy and wider carbon reduction targets, and I think it's fair to say that they've certainly lived up to that expectation.

While, in our response, we could not agree to all of the sometimes radical suggestions put forward, they are absolutely helping shape our future work programmes in this area. My colleague—. As the Chair of the committee pointed out, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Welsh Language is now responsible for renewable energy in the Welsh Government, and he will be meeting with NICW to discuss how we can integrate their recommendations into our future work programmes. It's also a subject of discussion in the regular meetings between him and me as part of our ongoing work.

I'm really pleased to say that the infrastructure commission's work on flooding is also reaching its conclusion. The research phase on the project is to look at minimising the risk of flooding by 2050, and that is now complete. The Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs and I are looking forward to receiving the report from NICW towards the end of this year, and we expect that their recommendations will provide food for thought on new ways for us to think about our response to flood management—

Can I—? Sorry, Cabinet Secretary, but there's a little bit of noise in the Chamber and the Chair can't hear what you're saying, so can you perhaps repeat the last sentence, and can Members in the Chamber please ensure that they're quiet so that the response can be heard?

Yes. Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I was simply saying that the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs and I are looking forward to receiving the report from NICW on flooding towards the end of this year, and we expect that their recommendations will provide much food for thought on new ways for us to think about our response to flood management across Wales. And whilst those significant reports are very important, and they will assist us to map out ways forward on big policy issues, I do think that one of the big strengths of the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales is to generate debate and discussion on very complex issues. For example, late last year, in conjunction with the Royal Town Planning Institute, the commission held an event on the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill, which generated significant discussions on the contents of the draft legislation. This in turn helped to inform evidence to the committee for their scrutiny of the Bill.

And another example of the new ways in which the infrastructure commission generates debate is through social media linked to blog posts of thought pieces that they're doing. A growing number of these are appearing on the commission's website, and I really would encourage Members to have a read of these thought-provoking articles. And again, I think this is real proof that the infrastructure commission is not afraid to ask difficult questions and to promote active discussion and debate.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'm really pleased to say that the commission is not just sitting in Cardiff, but has also been up to mid and west Wales to look at our ports infrastructure and our rural economy, talking to local stakeholders and getting a variety of opinions on these issues. We really need these helpful contributions to cut through all of the complexity and to allow sensible and pragmatic recommendations and suggestions to the Welsh Government on some of the most difficult environmental issues affecting us today.

The committee report and the debate today have been helpful in assessing the new commission's progress to date. The committee's recommendations refer frequently to the review of NICW, which is to take place this year, and indeed the chair just specifically asked me about it, so I'm pleased to be able to say that my officials are working with the Welsh Government's internal audit service to carry out that review, which will be completed by the end of 2024.

The review will consist of an assessment of the robustness of the Government's arrangements, the evaluation of internal reflections undertaken by the commissioners, external engagement with stakeholders and a benchmarking exercise across similar organisations. The review will also look at NICW's remit, form and function and will be commensurate in scale to the size of the commission, seeking a diverse range of opinions and views before raising observations. The commission will, of course, be fully involved throughout this process. And I just want to be very explicit in saying that that will of course include the term of office for the commissioners, as both Members who contributed mentioned.

I call on Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm not sure if I'm disappointed that only one Member has contributed to this debate, but perhaps we could take that as a vote of confidence in the commission, rather than a lack of interest.

Thank you to Delyth for highlighting transparency. That is something that we as a committee did emphasise, because we were given an assurance by the chair that there were processes in place, but that is something that we do have to be watchful of.

We will look forward as a committee to seeing the outcomes of the review of the work and role of the commission, particularly the governance element, and the external engagement that the Cabinet Secretary mentioned. I do think perhaps that there is room for improvement there. That is something that the commission itself would recognise and we would be very eager to understand how that might be strengthened in moving forward.

The Minister said a great deal about how the work of the commission engenders debate. The question for us, as a committee, is: how do the work and recommendations of the commission lead to change in Government policy? That is something that we will continue to keep a close eye on. Thank you.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No, there are no objections, and therefore the motion is agreed.

Item 6 is the next item. It's the Welsh Conservatives' debate on confidence in the First Minister, and I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move the motion.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I move the motion on the order paper in the name of Darren Millar, addressing the vote of confidence in the First Minister. And I want to highlight that this debate is not about the Welsh Government in its entirety; it's not about the Labour group, it's not about the Labour Party; it's about what the First Minister has undertaken during his tenure as First Minister and in the campaign leading up to that nomination and vote to become the First Minister. It's about judgment, it's about transparency, and it's about honesty—those three key caveats that we have debated and discussed time and time again in this Chamber at First Minister's questions, and sought answers to the questions that constituents are putting to us.

The first point about judgment is the judgment call that the First Minister took to accept a record-breaking donation of £200,000 to his leadership campaign from an individual and company that has two environmental convictions to its name, and is, as we learned on Monday, currently under criminal investigation. Is that a sensible judgment, to take such a donation from someone with such a track record? There are those on the Labour benches who have indicated that they wouldn't have taken that money. There are those outside of this Chamber, in the Labour movement, who have indicated that they wouldn't have taken that money. It is the judgment that the First Minister exercised in accepting that money that first caused people to have concerns over the way the First Minister has acted. And it is worth noting that, in the accounts of Dauson, the company that made the donation, they specify that, when it comes to future opportunities, the statement they make in those accounts says:

'Therefore, the external opportunities created for Dauson Group to succeed continue to be mainly legislative driven'.

The legislative arena that this company operates in is predominantly solely governed by the Welsh Government, because it is in the field of environmental waste management and environmental management more generally. That is a statement from the accounts that are lodged in Companies House by the company, that they see the growth opportunities governed by the legislative environment that they operate under.

The ministerial code also refers, in 1.3, that:

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

It goes on, in paragraph 5.1, within the ministerial code, to state:

'Ministers must ensure that no conflict arises, or could reasonably be perceived to arise, between their public duties and their private interests, financial or otherwise. It is the personal responsibility of each minister to decide whether and what action is needed to avoid a conflict or the perception of a conflict taking account of advice received from the Permanent Secretary.'

That's what governs in the ministerial code.

Also, there is the perception again of this company that made the £200,000 donation of taking a £400,000 loan from the Development Bank of Wales. The Development Bank of Wales is a bank of last resort. You have to have exercised all the other commercial opportunities before you seek a loan from that bank. So, in a short period of time—several months—that company took a loan of £400,000 that the economy Minister was accountable for as the sponsoring Minister for the Development Bank of Wales. And yet, in the same year, made a £200,000 donation to his leadership campaign. Most reasonable people would question what was being secured by that £200,000 donation to the leadership campaign. Any reasonable person would form that judgment, and I put it to the Senedd today that the First Minister has not been able to give satisfactory answers on that particular account.

Election—

That is not a gimmick. This was talked of prior to the general election, and I heard what the Member for Swansea East said. One thing we did see on those iMessages was the disparaging remarks that were made about the Member for Swansea East, and using the algorithm to elect the Member for Swansea East. I'm surprised that he is speaking in such tone here today. [Interruption.]

I have put the points down before the Senedd today. It will be for colleagues to determine how they wish to vote. But it is about judgment, transparency and honesty. Those are the three points before us. It is not general electioneering. It is not a vote of confidence in the Government. It is not a vote of confidence in the Labour group or the Labour Party. It is about what the First Minister has undertaken and the calls that he has made. And I hope that we can gain the confidence of the Senedd and a majority support in this motion, and that the motion of no confidence will succeed, and I urge Members to support it.

In 25 years of devolution, we have been relatively fortunate that we've had few financial scandals infecting the politics here in the Senedd. We're fortunate that opposition parties have been able to scrutinise, disagree, yes, and co-operate, of course, but also provide alternative answers and solutions to the Government of the day, without having to ask only once before whether the leaders of those Governments, our First Ministers, through their actions, were deserving of the trust of the Senedd.

Today, therefore, is a very grave day in the history of the Senedd, because we are of the view that the First Minister has lost not only our confidence, but, far more importantly, the confidence of the people he is accountable to: the citizens of Wales.

Nobody here is beyond reproach. I've given much thought to what the context is in which I am speaking before the Senedd today. What are the standards by which we measure our political leaders? We could consider the seven Nolan principles of public life. Let's look at the first one, selflessness. Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. Was it really the public interest that was being served by the First Minister's decision to accept a £200,000 campaign donation from a convicted polluter?

Let's look at the second Nolan principle, integrity. And remember, on the first one, the First Minister denies doing anything wrong. That second principle is:

'Holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try inappropriately to influence them in their work.'

Again, I repeat the First Minister's assertion that nothing inappropriate happened. But if the perception that accepting the money exists, that in itself undermines the integrity of the office of the First Minister. And of course, another guide to how we can hold our leaders to account, the ministerial code, makes clear that:

'It is the personal responsibility of each minister to decide whether and what action is needed to avoid a conflict or the perception of a conflict taking account of advice received from the Permanent Secretary.'

The First Minister's defence that no rules were broken is no defence if the charge is about perception. Next, we have accountability:

'Holders of public office are accountable to the public for their decisions and actions and must submit themselves to the scrutiny necessary to ensure this.'

I need not remind this Senedd that the First Minister has repeatedly questioned the actions of opposition Members and parties and journalists in holding him to account. In the same vein, the principle of openness has been undermined by the First Minister in recent weeks. It states that:

'Holders of public office should act and take decisions in an open and transparent manner. Information should not be withheld from the public unless there are clear and lawful reasons for so doing.'

In this case, we're left asking why did the First Minister delete his WhatsApp messages and neglect to inform the UK COVID inquiry and why is the First Minister so reluctant to publish details of the leak inquiry that led to the sacking of Hannah Blythyn. And critically, of course, we have the principle of leadership. Taken together, the First Minister's lack of judgment and contrition, along with a bunker mentality when faced by indignation from all sides of the Chamber and the Welsh public, I believe, do not demonstrate the required skill set for the office holder of First Minister.

In 29 days, the people of Wales and the UK will get to vote in a general election—arguably, the most important general election since 1997, a chance to rid this country of a disastrous Tory Government. It's a Government that has been responsible for a decline in living standards for the first time since world war two, a Government that crashed the economy with Liz Truss's disastrous mini-budget, seeing the cost of mortgages and rents rise extortionately, a Government that, even before COVID, has been responsible for life expectancy falling for the first time since world war two, a Government that has cut the real-terms funding of successive Labour Governments here in Wales by hundreds of millions of pounds, placing a stranglehold on our ability to deliver the public services our nation depends upon. With the Tory Party tanking in the polls and quite possibly facing the prospect of being wiped off the electoral map in Wales on 4 July, as happened in 1997, it's no wonder that they will do anything, anything at all, to try and shift the spotlight from their own record of abject failure, a failure that directly affects the lives and life chances of every single person here in Wales.

And so we come to this motion before us today. Politics at its worst. A cynical Tory gimmick to deflect attention from the predicament of Rishi Sunak and his super-wealthy chums. Vaughan Gething is the democratically elected leader of Welsh Labour. Welsh Labour is the democratically elected party of Government, and in the 11 weeks since he was sworn in as First Minister, Vaughan Gething's progressive Government has been hard at work, listening to the people of Wales and delivering for them: listening to farmers about the sustainable farming scheme and taking time to pause to get the scheme right; listening to road users and pedestrians over the 20 mph default speed limit, working with them and with local authorities to ensure the guidance is fit for purpose and any difficulties can be worked through; listening to pupils, parents and teachers over the proposed changes to the school year, listening to the results of the consultation and pausing to allow our schools the breathing space they need to implement the raft of changes that we have already asked of them; listening to consultants and pulling out all the stops to try and come to an agreement to avert further strike action in the NHS.

Llywydd, I have always been proud to be a Member of this Senedd, I've always been proud to be a Member of this Labour group, and, for the past seven years, I've been proud to chair the Senedd Labour group. But I have never been more proud of the direction of travel of the Welsh Labour Government's policies than I am now. I believe it would be a travesty if this non-binding Tory gimmick of a motion was to be used to subvert democracy and prevent our leader, democratically elected by party members and trade union affiliates, and this Welsh Labour Government, democratically elected by the citizens of Wales, from fulfilling our manifesto pledges. When I'm out knocking doors in Cynon Valley and speaking to people there, as I am every weekend, and increasingly now on weeknights too, the issues that they want to talk about are clear: a cost-of-living crisis; a Tory Government that has starved our public services and brought the country to its knees; their hopes for a UK Labour Government, led by Keir Starmer, which can work together with this Welsh Labour Government to improve living standards and breathe life back into our public services. And so I, along with my Welsh Labour colleagues, will be voting against this cynical and transparent Tory motion today, which is, unfortunately, aided and abetted by Plaid Cymru, as we continue with our commitment to deliver a stronger, fairer, greener and more prosperous Wales.

This is an unprecedented moment in the history of devolution in Wales. Let's not forget why this debate is being held here today: the First Minister accepted a £200,000 donation for his leadership campaign from a company owned by someone who has two environmental criminal convictions; the First Minister privately shared that he intended to delete messages from his time as health Minister during a pandemic, before telling the UK COVID inquiry that he didn't delete any; and the First Minister sacked a Minister from his Government but refuses to publish any supporting evidence for the sacking despite the protestations and denials of this Minister.

This debate today is not merely about a difference of political opinion. This, for me, is about three things that are fundamental to the role that we hold in this Chamber, especially that of the First Minister, namely integrity, responsibility and accountability. Integrity is adherence to moral and ethical principles, the high standard that we are all expected to abide by, and is further explained by the Nolan principles, which Rhun ap Iorwerth mentioned earlier, such as that holders of public office must avoid placing themselves under any obligation to people or organisations that might try, inappropriately, to influence them in their work. And in public office we don't just stick to the rules and letter of what is expected—we are expected to hold ourselves and each other to a higher standard of perception and judgment. It's this pattern of perception and judgment exhibited by the First Minister that is deeply concerning and something that clearly concerns very many people across Wales.

It has been compounded, because since this motion was first tabled, a BBC Wales investigation has revealed that the company who made the donation was linked to a criminal investigation at the time. Despite that criminal investigation, it was judged acceptable to take significant amounts of money. Likewise, the deletion of WhatsApp messages and the possible accusation of the misleading of a public inquiry is very concerning, to say the least. Covid-19 Bereaved Families Cymru are a group who have been devastated by this. In a statement, they said:

'How can we now have any confidence in finding out what happened to our loved ones? It’s a heartbreaking blow for the Covid bereaved families in Wales'.

After all, people who are suffering and people who are victims are who we are here to represent, who we try to do our best for. To be perceived to be misleading them and the country on an issue of national significance is simply not acceptable.

This is where my second point around responsibility comes into consideration, because the fact that those messages were revealed allowed the public to see that the First Minister's words did not match his actions, and his response to that revelation was to sack a Minister who has denied any wrongdoing, yet there has been no evidence made public to support this decision. It could start to paint a picture of someone who isn't willing to take responsibility for their own political actions but rather blame others. And in this place, we often hear the refrain that, 'We do things differently here in Wales.' I, for one, hope that this is the case, because I want a type of leadership that is full of integrity, takes responsibility for its actions, and then is accountable for them.

I think integrity, respect, judgment and timing are everything. And what have you done today? My father was involved in the D-day landing. Before that, he'd been a prisoner of war for four years. What you've done today is put a focus here. You have prevented people like me being represented by the First Minister down in Portsmouth. I spent this morning watching those veterans. If my father had survived and lived long enough, he would have been one of them. I can tell you now what he would have thought of your actions. He would have thought they were absolutely disrespectful to all veterans, to all armed service personnel that you profess, from those benches, time and time again, to have some care about. Well, you don't. You have picked this day. You could have picked any other day. You have no end of opportunities to pull this stunt you're doing today, but you chose this day.

What I say to you is this: I will never forgive you for doing what you have done on this day, today. You want to hang your head in shame that you have stopped Wales being represented by their First Minister in Portsmouth. That's what you need to—[Interruption.] I am not taking an intervention. You had plenty of time to think about what you were doing when you were doing it, why you were doing it, and who it might affect. It's been well known in this Chamber, because I've spoken many times, that my father was in the war. It's well known that other people in this Chamber's fathers also did fight in the war. They do command, at the very least, that the First Minister would have an opportunity. Why hasn't he got that opportunity? Because you denied it. You denied that opportunity, and you denied the best wishes of Wales, going forward, so that they could be spoken in Portsmouth today. My daughter lives not far from there, and I can tell you that if you think that this is only resonating here in Wales, you are sadly mistaken. The country is looking in today, and they know that your actions—your actions—knowing what this day was, prevented that from happening. You will not be forgiven.

Heledd Fychan. [Interruption.] I've been very tolerant of members in the public gallery applauding some contributions. If we can allow the democratic discussion in this Chamber to continue without applause. You've had your two chances, that's great, and I'm grateful that you've come here this afternoon, but if we can allow the debate to continue now without any further applause, please. Heledd Fychan.

Thank you, Llywydd. Some politicians like to attack people from other parties at any opportunity and see politics as a game. I'm not one of those. Since being elected to this Senedd, I have tried to be fair and constructive always, challenging when necessary and questioning robustly when necessary, but also supporting and collaborating with Members from other parties where there is agreement among us. That's why I prefer this Senedd to Westminster and the type of democracy that we have in Wales. It's not for nothing, therefore, that I stand up today to declare that I have no confidence in our First Minister, and that I believe, for the sake of the Senedd’s reputation, that Vaughan Gething can't continue in this important role—the most important role in our nation.

Regardless of how often the First Minister says that people don't care about where the £200,000 came from or how much was spent on his campaign, that's just not true. Ask people the question in my region—in Pontypridd market, on the streets of the Rhondda, Cynon valley, the Vale of Glamorgan and in our capital—and the answer is clear: the First Minister should not have accepted the money and he should not have spent so much of it either.

The First Minister says time and again that he did not break any rules. But, certainly, you breached the spirit of your own party's rules on leadership campaign spending by using a loophole in the rules, as spending on staff was not included in the maximum amount. You bent the rules, or found a way around them, and you did so thoughtlessly. And then, of course, there are questions regarding the potential conflict of interest relating to the donation in question and why the First Minister believes it is appropriate and right to accept money from a company that was run by someone who has been found guilty of breaking the law for environmental pollution, and that he knew that that was the case.

Surely, First Minister, you must understand why, when you continue to defend the decision to accept the money, people question your judgment and your cavalier approach to donations. Either due diligence didn’t take place or you just didn’t care where the money came from. Winning was everything and nothing else mattered. And whilst we’re used to this being commonplace in Westminster, it’s not right and it’s not how we want politics to be done here in Wales. In fact, even your masters in London understand how tarnished the money is, as is evident from the fact that they don’t want the £31,600 left over. A political party not wanting money during a general election campaign—extraordinary.

We didn't need to get to this point of a vote of no confidence, and I'm saddened that it has come to this. When the donation from Dauson came to light during the leadership campaign and there was public outcry, including from Labour members, it could have been paid back before being spent. The First Minister could have acknowledged that he’d made a mistake. We’re all human, mistakes happen, and an apology then, as well as paying back the donation, would have meant that he could have spent his first weeks as First Minister delivering for the people of Wales. There’s also been ample opportunity since then for the First Minister to concede that he understands why people are angry and pay the money back, but, no, he has consistently doubled down, dismissed concerns, and allowed the narrative to run away from him.

So, First Minister, are you prepared now today to stop making excuses for accepting this donation and for spending so much to become First Minister? You must know that deep down this is wrong, and you must regret accepting the money. It is not too late to stop hiding behind the rules and loopholes in them; it is not too late to apologise. This, combined with the other serious lapses in duty represented by the deleting of key messages between Ministers during the COVID pandemic and the ongoing questions around the dismissal of the former Minister for Social Partnership, has led to this moment and this vote. I genuinely regret that it has come to this, and I hope today the First Minister understands why we have been left with no choice but to support this vote of no confidence in him.

I was proud to not support in this Chamber the vote of no confidence in Lee Waters when he was Deputy Minister for transport. I was proud to vote against a vote of no confidence in our health Minister, Eluned Morgan, who has done incredible work in the health service in Wales. And I’m proud today to support Vaughan Gething against this cynical motion that has been put forward.

I want to set out some of the questions I’ve been asking myself about the First Minister and the way he’s been treated these past few months. I hope Members will listen to my speech and think carefully about the implications of what we’re being asked to consider today. Long before the starting gun was fired on the Welsh leadership election, the very people who are out there condemning him today were attacking him on social media, which leads me to my first question. Is Vaughan Gething being judged, as social media suggests he is, as arrogant and angry, where his predecessors exhibiting the same emotions would be considered committed and passionate? I think he is. Is he being judged by standards that would be applied less rigorously to his contemporaries? I think he is. Is he being pursued relentlessly by a small section of the media with a very clear agenda? I think he is. I should add that in this age of the wild-west social media, the BBC, ITV and WalesOnline, among others, remain trusted sources of news offering right of reply, even where you disagree with their analysis of recent events. But there are others. And when we come to disagreement, we argue that leaders of other parties have values with which we disagree and policies we wish to challenge. We criticise them in the strongest terms, yet we accept they will eventually be judged by the electorate. Not so for our new First Minister. We’re being asked to consider our confidence in him in this Chamber despite the fact that he has broken no rules and before a public vote can be cast. Unlike his predecessors, he is denied the chance to prove his ability to meet our collective ambitions, to have his ideas tested and to have his arguments examined. Every other politician who stands to defend him is asked to make their own subjective judgments on his past choice. That’s completely understandable, but their answers should not decide his future as a leader at our next election. He has a duty to be challenged, but with that, a right to stand on his record as First Minister, and I think, by 2026, that will be a record of tackling poverty and the cost of living, in tandem with a new UK Labour Government.

And I as an observer have the right to ask if his ethnicity has an influence on the motives of some of those outside of this Chamber who seek to break him on the wheel. We cannot ignore that question and we cannot dismiss the lived experience of those black, Asian, minority ethnic people who feel it to be the case.

It is incredibly disappointing and, quite frankly, sad that we are in the position of having to bring forward this debate this afternoon. But the reality is that there is a huge lack of transparency over the decisions that have been made by the First Minister, and his judgment has rightly been called into question, not just by opposition politicians, but by our own constituents. There has been a catalogue of failings by the First Minister when it comes to transparency over his leadership donations, the intention to delete messages in relation to the COVID pandemic, and how he dismissed a Minister from his Government. If we'd seen a little bit more humility and a little bit more transparency from the First Minister, then he might not have found himself facing a vote of no confidence here today.

I'm standing up today on behalf of the people who are living with the impact of that lack of transparency and judgment every single day. You will already be aware of the Withyhedge landfill site scandal in my constituency, and the company responsible for that site, which has a direct link to the First Minister. That site is emitting potentially toxic emissions and a horrific stench that is deeply affecting the lives of many people in that community. This is a situation that has been ongoing since last year, and there appears to be no end in sight. My constituents are quite rightly very angry and very frustrated. The people living in that community are experiencing health problems as a result of this operator's behaviour, and despite chasing the relevant authorities to take action, little has been done to safeguard the people living in that area.

Llywydd, I just wanted to take a moment to read some of the public comments that have been made by local residents about how this operator is affecting their lives. One resident said, 'Anyone else finding their eyes so painful first thing that it's difficult to open them?' Another said, 'My eyelids swell and it takes days to go.' And another said that they woke up with a headache, a feeling of nausea and had a job to open their eyes, which felt sore and gritty.

Now, many of you'll be asking, 'What's all that got to do specifically with the First Minister?' Well, I say, 'Absolutely everything.' The First Minister has accepted a huge sum of money from this operator, an operator who has several past environmental convictions and is now facing another criminal investigation because of the actions at the Withyhedge landfill site. This, therefore, calls into question the First Minister's judgment in accepting a huge donation from this company in the first place. The lack of action in dealing with the operator is telling, and many of my constituents believe that the operator has been allowed to get away with his behaviour because of his relationship to the First Minister. There are people—[Interruption.] There are people who believe that the £200,000 donation has bought this company influence to do whatever it wants without being held accountable.

Allow the Member to carry on. He's saying something very important. Don't heckle him.

Diolch, Llywydd. Even though I hadn't broken any laws or rules, it was still the right thing to do, because it's about judgment and it's about taking responsibility. No politician is above accountability, and we are elected to stand up for our constituents and ensure that our actions and decisions are open and transparent.

We now have a First Minister who is denying the public valuable information, who has accepted money from a business that has been allowed to make so many people's lives miserable and who provides no transparency over his decision making. It's not right and we cannot allow this to continue. Public confidence in politicians is already low and we have to change that. We must all strive to be the best possible leaders we can for the people of Wales, and that means taking tough calls and being held accountable for our actions. Llywydd, I did the right thing. Now, the First Minister must also do the right thing.

I stand here, actually, in sadness and with reluctance. This has not been an easy decision for me. There are just two things that are different for me in relation to the opposition parties. I have never voted in a vote of no confidence here in the Senedd. I don't see this as a political stunt; I don't see this as a gimmick at all. Secondly, I voted to confirm you as the First Minister on 20 March. I felt it was very important that we support the democratic process. Indeed, I asked for congratulations to be passed on to you and I was delighted that, for the first time, the three nations of the UK at the time had a black or Asian minority First Minister or leader. Those text messages, if you want to read them, are now in the public domain—I have to say, without my permission—however, I'm proud to say that I passed on those messages, because they were important to me. So, I take this situation very seriously.

Why have we arrived here? Well, when anyone in politics accepts a donation of £200,000 from any individual, let alone this individual, voters from across the political spectrum have a right to ask whose side you're on, because it wasn't too long ago that Labour's general election slogan was, 'For the many and not for the few.' The average Welsh person's take-home pay is £24,000, but, with this kind of action, it's easy to see why the average Welsh worker is questioning why your leadership campaign took a donation that would take more than eight years for those people to earn. Your failure, sadly, to see why someone who's just bought a three-bedroomed house worth £180,000 in Builth Wells, or someone earning an average wage in Brecon, would think that you're out of touch by accepting this donation is clear. And this, for all of us, is a massive part of the problem, and that is why I am, sadly, standing here saying that you have lost my confidence. On 1 May, I asked you in this Siambr to repay the £200,000. I said it was simple; it would all be over, we could move on. Nothing has happened, and, for me, actions speak louder than words. When trust in politicians is, sadly, at an all-time low, it's more important than ever that we show that we are representing our people here in Wales. We want to make Wales a better place for everyone. Rules are rules and we've heard you say that often, that you haven't broken any rules. But doing the right thing is doing the right thing. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I will begin my contribution today by saying something that may shock a lot of you here in this Chamber today. First Minister, I can honestly say that, party politics aside, I was genuinely happy to see you take up this role and become the first black leader of any European country. It was a trailblazing move and you had a real opportunity here to make your mark as Wales's first ethnic minority First Minister. As a person of colour—and I can speak from experience here—sadly, even in 2024, people from an ethnic minority origin, especially politicians, are often held in a different light. We're held in a different regard, and, more than often, there is more pressure put on us than our peers to be honest, to be the best and to uphold our positions of integrity at all times and prove ourselves to be worthy of our jobs, each and every single day, not just polling day.

That said, I cannot stress how disappointed I am to say that the golden opportunity that you were given was completely wasted, and the suggestion that you are receiving this level of scrutiny because of your skin colour is, quite frankly, insulting. The continuous cycle of controversies has not only tarnished the office of the First Minister and the Welsh Parliament as a whole, but it has, sadly, eroded trust and confidence amongst the public towards politicians at large.

Presiding Officer, the First Minister has bounced from scandal to scandal, which all started with him accepting a questionable, as many have mentioned today, £200,000 donation from convicted polluter David Neal to bankroll his leadership campaign. Not only did the First Minister show a terrible lapse in judgment when accepting this cash, but it is clear even now that he still has no regrets and has refused to return the donation. As if that wasn't bad enough, it was then revealed that another one of Mr Neal's companies had also received a £400,000 loan from the Development Bank of Wales, which is wholly owned by the Welsh Government and overseen by the economy Minister. It's worth remembering that, in February 2023, at the time of the loan, Vaughan Gething was, indeed, our economy Minister.

We have since learnt that the company was linked to a criminal investigation at the same time it handed over the £200,000 donation that everyone is talking about today. This really does stink, and, whilst the First Minister previously said that the public are not concerned with the saga, I can safely say that, after an influx of e-mails, calls and messages from constituents all across south-east Wales, this is simply not true, and it's a topic being raised time and time again.

Fast forward a couple of weeks more and then another scandal hits, this time around the deletion of text messages during the pandemic. The First Minister had previously said that he did not delete messages relating to decisions made around the COVID pandemic. He argued that, in fact, messages had been removed from his phone by the Senedd's ICT department, yet evidence later emerged that proved that Vaughan Gething, who was health Minister at the time, had, in fact, deleted the messages himself. Just days following this revelation, Hannah Blythyn was sacked as social partnership Minister because the First Minister claimed that she was responsible for leaking the messages, something that she categorically denies; she insisted that she had never leaked anything. So, here we have two completely different stories, yet only one can be correct. First Minister, you were urged on countless occasions to publish all of the evidence supporting your decision to fire Hannah. You've had ample time and opportunity to set the record straight by releasing the evidence, and I think your reluctance to do so has left everybody here perplexed. The way that this has been handled has been atrocious and deeply unfair.

I think it's fairly well known that I did not support Vaughan in the leadership election—read Nation.Cymru. It may be less well known that I did not support him in the previous leadership election. It's probably known only to a few of my friends that I have never voted for him in any internal Labour Party election. I am not a natural Vaughan Gething supporter. At the leadership election in Wales, I supported Jeremy Miles, but only after both Eluned Morgan and Hannah Blythyn refused my request to stand. He is on the list of people I don't even ask to support me if I'm standing for election to be a committee Chair.

The reality is that Vaughan won the Labour leadership election and the vote to be First Minister. We have the election system I wanted in the Labour Party: one member, one vote. I was on the losing side, but it would be perverse of me to oppose the winner. 'One member, one vote' is now entrenched in Welsh Labour elections, as opposed to the previous system of one member, several votes, including supervotes for Senedd Members and Members of Parliament, which stopped my friend Julie Morgan becoming deputy leader of the Labour Party despite winning the vast majority of the votes. When Carolyn Harris beat Julie Morgan, I voted several times—legally, within the rules. The ending of voting many times was a very positive move, and there's no going back to the old system. There's no allegation of vote rigging, no allegation of vote harvesting, no allegation of phantom members and no allegation of members being denied a vote. And, unlike Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives, we had a leadership election for the Welsh Labour leader, not a coronation.

On a personal note, I was sad to see Adam Price, who is not a friend of mine, but somebody I have huge respect for, being removed as leader of Plaid Cymru and being replaced by probably the most right-wing leader that Plaid Cymru have had in the Senedd.

Come on, Mike, that's ridiculous.

Compared to what?

Don't get distracted by Llyr Gruffydd at this point.

It is not ridiculous. Pro-nuclear weapons—. Do you need to keep on going?

What happens next? [Interruption.] What happens next? There is, as far as I can see, nothing in the rules to stop the debate happening every week until 2026. As the public are about to discover, Wednesday's debates are not binding on the Government. Just to remind Andrew Davies and Rhun—[Interruption.] Just to remind Andrew Davies and Rhun ap Iorwerth, you were both, just a few weeks ago, defeated by Vaughan Gething for the post of First Minister—remember that? A clear vote in favour of Vaughan Gething. If the Senedd votes to remove the First Minister, then my personal preference is a new Senedd election. Let the voters decide. Because a number of you over there may not be coming back, on the current boundaries. The only winner in debates such as this is the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party. They approved it, they elect a First Minister and then vote to remove him a few weeks later.

There have been concerns expressed about the financial support Vaughan Gething had—all legal, all declared, all reported to everyone it had to be reported to. That the opposition don't like the person donating is well known.

Can I go to the text messages, because I was a major person in that? It was about using teachers' assessed grades, rather than using the algorithm, which—. Fortunately, we went to the right decision, despite the Cabinet spending a long time getting there, which I am severely disappointed in. Vaughan was protecting me. Do you want the truth of the matter? Jeremy Miles wanted to use an algorithm and to remove me as a Member of the Senedd for Swansea East—that is what was removed. It has nothing to with the COVID inquiry, but it was to protect individuals, including me. I don't care. That's what happened, and I'm prepared to fight my case, but it was an attempt to defend me, which I very much respect and like.

Can I just quote about one Conservative donor, because this is quite enlightening?

'I can get access via the Leaders Group. It is usually senior ministers and 15 or 20 people. Sometimes in person. Sometimes on Zoom. The last thing I attended was a lunch with Michael Gove in July. It was all donors who were there.'

'To become a member of the Leaders Group, you have to have donated £50,000 in the last year.

'Two to three lunches a week are arranged, to which around a dozen donors are invited.

'Groups don't tend to be bigger than this, to ensure all those who turn up get a chance to feel part of something that isn't impersonal.

'Some donors are very regular attendees, others don't come to any.

'Does this amount to buying access, and influence?'

I ask people to come to a conclusion on that. I think most of us actually think it is, and this idea of having a leaders group of people paying hundreds of thousands of pounds annually, not a one-off in an election, is fundamentally wrong. I think we really do need to clean up the donation system. And also we need to clean up our rivers. As somebody who's complained about the Wye and Usk being polluted, along with the Tawe, I'm sure the Conservatives will not accept any money from anybody who's polluting those.

To briefly respond to Mike, I'm sure the current leader of Plaid Cymru would welcome a head-to-head debate with the British leader of the Labour Party to see then who is the most left-wing leader.

Last week, while this Chamber was quiet, the theatre next door was echoing to the words of one of the Labour Party's most iconic figures in that epic morality play for modern times, Nye. The man in the title role, Michael Sheen, said of Aneurin Bevan that he had a cast-iron integrity and a raging passion. Sadly, I don't think you can say either of the leadership of this Government at the moment. As we heard yesterday, the Government is systemically removing all the more radical elements out of its own programme, from reform of the school year to reform of the council tax. So, if anyone for a moment thought that some of the First Minister's failings could somehow be justified in the spirit of the end justifying the means, then I challenge you to describe that end, because this is a Government that, in a matter of a few short months, has become shallow and rudderless, shorn of any sense of greater purpose other than the political survival of the First Minister himself.

And let us turn to those issues of integrity. The question of dirty money, which bedevils most western democracies, has thankfully not been much of an issue for us in Wales. Welsh millionaires have not been interested in politics and Welsh politics has not been interested in millionaires. That happy circumstance the First Minister has brought crashing to an end. To quote Bevan himself,

'Christ drove the money changers out of the temple, but you inscribe their title deed on the altar cloth.'

Indeed, we could say the First Minister has stitched it into the very fabric of the seat he occupies.

A public inquiry into the deaths of over 10,000 Welsh citizens is, it is reported, taking very seriously the First Minister's failure to inform them of deleted messages, and now that same lack of candour is extended to us. Ten days ago, I asked the First Minister whether a formal leak inquiry was held into the alleged disclosure of a chat group by the former Minister for Social Partnership. I’ve yet to receive a reply. I asked the Welsh Government's director of propriety and ethics whether he knew. His response: 'I'm not aware.' Now, the Government's silence clearly raises very serious questions as to whether such an inquiry was held, and raises the possibility that the case against the former Minister was neither forensic nor formal, and that she was sacked without a proper investigation and with little in the way of due process.

I've asked the First Minister whether there was a written report into any alleged breach of the ministerial code by the Minister. Again, I've received no reply. I've asked the Government's director of propriety and ethics if he was aware of any such report. He said he wasn't. He was walking in the hills of Spain at the time. He was also on holiday when the ministerial code investigation into the current First Minister was held, but on that occasion he was asked to give advice, which was reflected in a written report. No such courtesy was afforded to Hannah Blythyn.

The First Minister, Vaughan Gething.

Diolch, Llywydd. I regret that the Conservatives have brought forward this motion today. I do not regret it because I think I'm above criticism. I do not regret it because I think I have made and will continue to make mistakes. I am human, I am fallible. I do not even regret it because of the issues it raises, because I have nothing to hide. I regret the motion because it is designed to question my integrity.

Like so many of you in this Chamber, I have dedicated my adult life to public service and to Wales. Even in the midst of an election campaign, it does hurt deeply when my intentions are questioned. I have never, ever made a decision in more than a decade as a Minister for personal or financial gain—never. I do not doubt the sincerity behind some of the questions that the motion touches on today, even if the motion is transparently designed for another purpose. I hope the people in this Chamber and beyond will take a moment to reflect on the sincerity with which I have answered and continue to answer these questions. I will not shy away from scrutiny and challenge. I have reflected on donations and, as Members know, I've instigated a review into how that is handled in the future in my party, and I've asked the cross-party Standards of Conduct Committee to look at Senedd rules for all of us.

We cannot, of course, retrofit new rules to old campaigns where we don't like the result. That is not how democracy works, but I do take seriously what people have said to me outside the cut and thrust of this Chamber. The support that I've received in recent weeks from Labour Party colleagues across Wales and the UK has been overwhelming, and I'm grateful for their incredible generosity of spirit and solidarity. More than that, I want to thank the many members of the public for their support in person, online and in a variety of means. Diolch o galon i chi. I also want to recognise that, like me, so many people of colour have been traduced and vilified merely for raising concerns about how some of these debates have been handled. Our lived experience should matter and be respected. We still have a very long way to go.

We still have a long way to go.

Pairs are a normal part of how this Parliament and many others work. It preserves the democratic balance determined by the electorate. Welsh Labour has always paired with other parties during ill health absence. We did so for three months with the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. The refusal to do so today when two of our Members are unwell reflects poorly on opposition parties. This is meant to be a motion about confidence, but we know that it is not. The timing tells you everything that you need to know.

If Andrew R.T. Davies and his colleagues were genuinely concerned about the issue of political donations, they would have spoken out at a different time. They would have stood up when it really counted. They would have rejected the millions of pounds given to their party by a man who boasted about wanting to shoot a black female MP, or the millions given to their party by a man who served as a Minister in a foreign dictatorship.

If that party had genuine concerns about how decisions were made and actions taken during the pandemic, they would have stood up when it counted. They would have walked away from the party that partied in Downing Street whilst the country was on its knees; walked away not defended a Prime Minister served with a criminal fixed-penalty notice.

If that party had genuine concern for the integrity of devolution and democracy in Wales, then they would do well to look to their own benches before casting the first stone—to demand of anyone else standards they have no intention of meeting themselves. They can talk about confidence until they are blue in the face to match their blue rosettes. If they want a real confidence motion, then table one properly in line with Standing Orders.

I will tell them what I have confidence in. I have confidence in Wales and in our younger generation. I have confidence in our campaign to change our country. I have confidence that we do have brighter days ahead of us, and the kind of populist politics that are being promoted day after day by the Tories, I hope, is about to be dealt a hammer blow at the ballot box.

I know that some will try to reframe this confidence as arrogance. It is absolutely not the same thing. And if that word did pop into your heads, I challenge you to ask why. I can make apologies for many things, but I will never shy away from a positive approach to politics, our country and our Government. I want us to to be a confident Cymru.

To Plaid Cymru I say this: we have worked together in the past. I have offered you the hand of friendship, practical action and co-operation. I continue to do so. You yourself recognise the hypocrisy of the Tories. You say you want to see an end of the Tories in Wales, yet you come here today to link arms with them. There is nothing progressive about joining the Tory lead in an anti-Labour alliance. It is the very opposite of the co-operation that we have worked through. It is of course for you to explain to your voters, members and potential supporters why now, of all times, you would side with a party that makes enemies of the vulnerable, that smashed our economy and treats Wales as an afterthought.

Darren Millar to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. And I'm surprised with the First Minister's response. I didn't hear an apology. It implies that the First Minister would again accept a similar donation, if one was made in the future, in the same circumstances as he accepted the first one from Mr Neal.

As the leader of the opposition said in his opening speech, this debate today is not about anything other than you, First Minister: your judgment, the lack of transparency that we have seen, and a question about your integrity and honesty. It's our duty as an opposition party to reflect the mood of the country and the mood of people in this Chamber, on all sides, including your own, who have concerns about the judgment that you have shown.

To accept hundreds of thousands of pounds—a record-breaking donation, as Andrew R.T. Davies said—to an individual in a leadership campaign, in Wales, without doing appropriate due diligence is, frankly, astonishing. Absolutely astonishing. And when we consider that, even just earlier this week, we heard it implied that there were attempts for you to prevent the release of information about questions that were being raised, and questions that were being put to Natural Resources Wales, it seems that there's more emerging every single day about your judgment, and that is what this debate is about.

It's not about your Government, it's not about the Labour Party, and it's not about a general election. It is about your judgment, First Minister, and I'm afraid that without the apology—without the apology today—I find it astonishing that we're sat here, listening to you saying anything other than sorry, because, frankly, that's the first word that should have come from your lips. And it didn't. And you've let yourself down and you're letting your party down and you are letting this Senedd down, because I'm afraid that this reflects on the Senedd and it reflects on our democracy. Because when the First Minister of Wales, a nation that I am proud to live in, and a Senedd in which I am proud to serve, cannot apologise—cannot apologise—to the people of Wales for a lack of judgment, and reflect, I think there's a serious problem.

You've tried to deflect to others, talk about all sorts of other things rather than your own judgment. You've refused to accept accountability for the behaviour to accept that donation, you are scrambling, frankly, to survive, by dismissing this vote as though it means nothing. I tell you, First Minister, every vote in this Senedd should be respected, and that includes the vote that will be taken today, which, if we are correct by the media reports, you're set to lose. And I think it's extraordinary that you would dismiss that and say that it's inappropriate to listen to that, because, again, it shows a lack of judgment. A lack of judgment.

Are you taking an intervention from the Cabinet Secretary?

I'm not taking an intervention; I've made that clear.

There are questions to be asked about your judgment. There are questions to be asked about your integrity. And there are questions about whether you're being honest with your own party, with the people of Wales and this Senedd. And I'm afraid that, because of that, we will be voting in favour of this motion, which recognises the concerns of the people of Wales.

You say that this thing isn't being discussed on the doors across Wales. We're in the middle of a general election; there are thousands of conversations taking place each and every day with Labour supporters, Conservative Party supporters, Plaid Cymru supporters, Lib Dem supporters across the country, and I can tell you this is a frequent topic of conversation raised by people on the doorstep—not by politicians prodding them about these things, but by them asking questions about your judgment and your integrity. We have a duty, therefore, in this Senedd to make sure that those views are reflected. And I can say this: if the people of Wales don't have confidence in you, then neither do we.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections. The vote will take place after the next debate, during voting time.

The next debate, under item 7, is the Plaid Cymru debate on HS2 funding, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. This is not just a debate about a railway line; it is about how Westminster disregards the needs and the voice of Wales. HS2 is a railway line in another country that we are nonetheless funding, a track that does not break our border but that is costing us billions to run, so we lose money by something that makes us even poorer. Time and again in this Senedd, we have agreed that the situation is unjust, unjustifiable, and yet nothing changes. Not even that; Westminster does not deign to notice.

If there were elsewhere—say, in eastern Europe or South America—somewhere far away, where a nation was starved of funding for its own infrastructure but paid towards enriching its neighbouring nation, it would be seen as absurd. Whole opinion pieces would be written in newspapers aghast at such a blatant stitch-up, yet beneath the noses of the broadsheets, we get barely a mention. Wales is a nation to the side of what commentators consider worthy of their attention. As one Guardian journalist wrote some years ago, 'Forget Wales, which does not matter.'

Well, Llywydd, it matters greatly to us. It matters greatly that our own tracks need repairing, that our only electrified lines are there to get passengers more quickly to England, that the billions we've been starved of for HS2 could have been used to connect our own communities, that it matters to us that neither Labour nor the Tories have pledged to put this right if they win power in Westminster. Wales is alone amongst the nations of these islands in paying towards a railway line that does not trouble our terrain. The farce of calling iT an England-and-Wales project could not be more blatant. But that's the attitude: forget Wales, which does not matter to them.

Time after time, vote after vote, this Senedd has spoken with one voice telling Westminster to give us back the money we're owed from this project, to reclassify it based on reality not falsehood. But those motions don't matter to them. Mr Sunak and Mr Starmer see fit to ignore Wales—beneath the notice of one and outside any interest of the other, either taking us for granted or for fools. That is the lot under this rotten Westminster system for Wales. They know we are owed this money, but we are told it isn't a priority, that Wales is not a priority. Forget Wales, which does not matter—that is how they view us.

But we have had enough of their indifference, of being told to wait and see what we will get given—always 'maybe' for Wales, always the least of their concerns, foisted always to the background, always 'wait your turn'. We will not make do with waiting, waiting for investment that is rightly ours. We have waited and waited in vain for fairness to be shown us by Westminster. They build railways that make us poorer, and charge us for the privilege of our poverty.

Forget hoping for the best from Westminster. Doing what is right does not matter to them. We have been here before in Wales, with this track that gets us nowhere. Instead of waiting for fairness to be shown us, it's time we demanded what we are owed. Let's send a message to them in Whitehall that these billions matter to Wales and they're a matter that must be met.

Can I thank Plaid Cymru for bringing this debate before the Chamber this afternoon? Let me start by being crystal clear. I've said it before and I'll say it again today: the Welsh Conservatives have long called for Wales to receive its share in HS2 consequential funding. I've had many conversations with my transport counterparts in Westminster on this matter on a few occasions, and I know some of my colleagues, from MPs to MSs, have done exactly the same. We will continue to make that case, and indeed we have wholeheartedly supported previous motions to reclassify the rail project as England only.

It is important to note, however, that we do not want this extra money to go straight into the Welsh Government's bank account, as we all know how reckless they are when it comes to spending taxpayers’ money. Instead, we believe the money should be given directly to Network Rail, as it is better placed to invest wisely in our transport infrastructure, and I have confidence that they won't fritter the cash away on vanity projects. Whilst we do believe HS2—

Will you take an intervention?

Go ahead.

But Network Rail are in charge of the railway infrastructure, aren't they, so—

To an extent, but, as you're aware, Carolyn, because I know you're very passionate about transport, a lot of the train lines have links between Network Rail and Transport for Wales, and that's where the money’s going to go.

Whilst we believe HS2 should be reclassified and Wales should see extra money as a result, there is no denying that our country is benefiting from the UK Conservative Government's decision to axe the Birmingham-to-Manchester leg of the rail scheme. As a result, the UK Government announced it would be investing £1 billion in electrifying the north Wales main line, which will bring parts of the country within an hour of Manchester. It would also lead to more reliable and punctual journeys on the route between Crewe, Warrington, Chester, Llandudno and Holyhead. This is genuinely good news for Wales, Presiding Officer.

Will you take an intervention?

Not any more, please, I'd like to carry on. Labour leader Keir Starmer has time and time again refused to commit to giving Wales extra HS2 money should he—and this is an incredibly frightening thought—become Prime Minister in the next few weeks. Hopefully he will never get his hands on the keys to 10 Downing Street, but, if he does, he has been clear that no cash will be forthcoming to Wales. So, I'd be keen to know what discussions Labour Minister here have had with Keir Starmer and his team in London, and what their response has been so far. And, in fact, has the First Minister raised this issue directly with him after their meeting last week? Perhaps the Cabinet Secretary for transport could shed a little light on the sorts of discussions the Government has had with Keir Starmer when he responds to this debate a little later on.

Presiding Officer, whilst there may be some discrepancy on how we'd like to see the funding administered, it's fair to say we are all in agreement that Wales should receive extra funding for HS2. Regardless of what happens on 4 July, we must all keep the pressure on to ensure that it happens and the Welsh public gets what is due to them. To that end, we will be supporting this afternoon's motion. Thank you.

I would like to start in the spirit of glorying in the fact that there are some issues in this Senedd where we have more in common across parties than separates us. It's a cause of real pride that we as a Senedd had stated with one voice, a little over a year ago, that HS2 should be redesignated as an England-only project. One can't hide from the fact that there is a fundamental injustice in the fact that taxpayers in Wales are to all intents and purposes paying for a railway in England, which not only brings no benefits to Wales but, according to studies, is actually damaging to the Welsh economy. But, having identified that injustice and agreed upon it, the question, 'What next?' still hasn't been answered.

When we debated HS2 last April, the then deputy climate change Minister, Lee Waters, said it was a scandal that Wales wasn't receiving its fair share of consequential funding. But arguably, the greatest scandal is that even in a general election campaign—traditionally the time of big giveaways and pledges and promises—we've heard nothing from either the Conservatives or Labour on righting the HS2 wrong. Committing to HS2 consequentials, I would argue, is one of the most obvious litmus tests for any would-be UK Government when it comes to being serious about fairness for Wales, because there is nothing fair about the current state of our railways. The line between Glasgow and London was electrified half a century ago, yet the north Wales main line is still waiting for electrification, the south Wales main line only as far as Cardiff.

Wales is home to around 12 per cent of the UK's rail infrastructure. We receive 2 per cent of the UK's rail investment. All the while, Transport for Wales train services accounted for more than 1 million minutes' worth of delays in 2023. Now, £4 billion is a good estimate of the fair share from this project that should be coming to Wales—a project that won't see a single mile of track built here. Whatever the exact figure, it could be ploughed into transforming our public transport network: buses, and we know how much they've suffered; rail; improving road links between north and south, east and west. That could go so much of the way towards making up for the decades of chronic underfunding by successive Tory and Labour UK Governments.

Back in October, the UK Labour shadow Secretary of State, Jo Stevens, claimed that Labour couldn't commit now to HS2 funding for Wales, stating that a Labour UK Government would have to work out what the needs for Wales are in terms of transport after an election victory, that they haven't seen the books. Of course, only this week, Keir Starmer was able to make a cast-iron pledge to renew Trident, again without having seen the books, so why not on this injustice? That is why the motion in front of us today is so important. It's a way that the Senedd can send a clear and united message to the next UK Government, and that UK Government is almost certain to be a Labour Government, regardless of how Wales votes, which is why a vote for Plaid Cymru in this election is so, so valuable. But the message in this vote today is that Wales deserves that fairness and the funding that we need to build connectivity and a rail network fit for the twenty-first century. I urge all Members who share that view to support the motion today.

HS2 has been a complete disaster by the UK Government: ripping up countryside, destroying homes, and costing the taxpayer billions. I met someone who is now living in Flintshire whose home was compulsorily purchased. He was so angry at the scheme and the devastation that it caused, plus the massive costs as well.

In 2011, costs were projected at £32 billion, but by 2020, they were projected to be £106 billion, and I believe that the first phase from London to Birmingham will now cost £66 billion. It's an extremely expensive white elephant, and a distraction from the reality of that investment that's desperately needed into the Victorian rail infrastructure right across the UK, and particularly in Wales. And the railway infrastructure, I think, is mostly in the control of the UK Government through Network Rail. HS2 will now just save a few minutes to get from Birmingham to London—that's all, with all that investment. And the decision to label HS2 an England-and-Wales project is ridiculous. In reality, it could have a negative economic impact of up to £200 million on Wales, and I believe it was a cynical move to cheat Wales out of much-needed investment through consequentials.

Three times rail infrastructure bids were put to the UK Government for levelling-up funding and rejected, and these priorities in Flintshire included the Deeside Industrial Park station to create access to thousands of jobs and getting freight off the line at Hanson Cement in Padeswood. There was also the Wrexham gateway project as well, which was rejected three times. They were bids that were comprehensive and had cost lots of valuable time and resources. The feedback was that, while the projects were good, available UK levelling-up funding was limited. But then, this year, levelling-up funding has been given to Canary Wharf in London that is more than the whole of Wales combined, and I don't understand the lack of fairness at all for Wales.

Fourteen years of underinvestment in the pursuit of austerity has led to real-terms cuts for railway maintenance, which will see a severe reduction in scheduled maintenance tasks, which really worries me further. To make railways safe, we need that investment. Network Rail will cut 1,850 maintenance jobs as part of the modernising maintenance programme, and we need to be concerned about that. This is at a time when we should be investing in flood prevention, as the instances of severe weather events come to intensify. And I'm increasingly concerned about the future viability of the north Wales main line, as the threat of changing weather and climate change looms. I know we had a high tide where the tide nearly overcame the railway line recently.

I want to see a new UK Government that understands the importance of transparency and an end to Westminster departments finding money down the back of the sofa so that they don't have to pass on the consequential funding to Wales. We need a UK Labour Government that respects the importance of devolution and is willing to work collaboratively with the Welsh Labour Government to deliver positive change for Wales, going forward, with true transparency. And this will be in stark contrast to the Tories, who have attempted to bypass and undermine our Welsh Government and the Senedd at every opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I want to focus on how more investment could transform the provision of public transport in rural communities, like the areas that I represent in Mid and West Wales—communities that suffer because of poor public transport.

When I go out to meet constituents across the region—and I've done quite a lot of that over recent weeks—one of the issues that most affects them, and they tell me this time and time again on the doorstep, is a lack of public transport. And this particularly impacts young people and pensioners. The absence of public transport options is among the biggest issues that they are concerned about.

For too many rural communities, the idea of convenient rail links is just a pipe dream. And often, these are the same communities that face losing their bus services as well.

A lack of access to public transport is a driver of rural poverty and social exclusion. It makes it harder to do business, and more difficult for people to access education, training and other essential services like doctors, dentists and pharmacies. Where rail services do exist in rural Wales, these are regularly beset by delays and cancellations. The Heart of Wales line has the dubious honour of having the worst customer satisfaction ratings across the whole of the UK. And recently, we have seen cuts to services on this and the Cambrian line.

But it doesn't have to be this way. The consequential funding that Wales is rightfully owed from HS2 could help to transform rail provision. By investing in our railways, we could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of our services, providing faster, more frequent and more reliable connections across the region. And it could deliver a pathway to reconnecting north and south Wales by rail, plugging the gap in our national transport infrastructure left by the Beeching cuts. Improving connectivity in north and west Wales would support businesses and help them overcome key obstacles to investment, and investing in our public transport is, of course, absolutely central in the fight against climate change. Quite simply, there is no way to make that modal shift we need if public transport remains so unreliable and inconvenient—where it exists at all.

It is a matter of gross injustice that Wales has yet to receive what it is owed from the investment in HS2. And why—why—as we’ve already heard in this Chamber, is Labour under Keir Starmer not committed to providing that funding? Every one of us—and we’ve already heard in this Chamber—literally all of us have called for this to happen several times. There is an agreement between all parties and beyond that this should happen. Even the shadow Secretary of State—again, as we've heard—Jo Stevens, has said publicly that this is unjust and deprives Wales of economic benefit worth £150,000 million per year. Why doesn’t she force Starmer to provide this funding that is owed to Wales as a manifesto commitment?

People in Wales deserve train services that are efficient, reliable and sustainable that connect them to each other. They deserve investment in their local economy that creates jobs and reduces poverty. But vitally, they deserve the money that they are owed, which is about £4 billion to £5 billion—billion—from HS2. We in Plaid Cymru demand fair funding for Wales, and it’s high time that both parties in Westminster commit to delivering it, whoever wins the general election.

I’m also happy to support this motion. High speed 2 construction would have seen the line connect London and Birmingham; it would have run nowhere near Wales and been of no benefit to Welsh rail passengers. Up until next year, Wales will have missed out on around £350 million as a result of the incorrect classification of HS2 as an England-Wales project, and that amount due is also likely to increase considerably in future years. And in Wales we still have Victorian-era signalling on some of our key routes, which should be a priority for investment. Only a mere 2 per cent of the rail network in Wales under the control of the UK Government is electrified, compared to 40 per cent of the railway in England. Wales deserves better, and deserves its share of the UK electrification cake.

If Wales received its fair share of funding from the UK Tory Government, it would make a significant difference to our Welsh public services in Wales and the tough, very tough, financial decisions we have to make. The reality is that the current funding system is flawed. The Welsh Labour Government have set out proposals in reforming the union for a new principles-based approach to UK funding, enshrined within a new fiscal agreement overseen and operated by a body independent of the UK Government.

Wales needs a funding structure that is fair, that is based on need, and that delivers for people in different parts of the United Kingdom. But despite the lack of rail funding coming from Westminster, the Welsh Labour Government has invested £800 million in a new fleet of new trains that means that passengers across Wales are now starting to experience the benefit of increased capacity, improved accessibility and higher quality comfort, which is set to also gear and scale in the future. The results of the Welsh Labour Government’s £1 billion upgrade of the core Valleys line are now being seen with brand-new electric trains entering service this year. The investment shows what the Welsh Government can do where it has the powers and the funding. It remains rightly the Welsh Labour Government’s ambition to secure full devolution of the railways in Wales, and end the fragmentation inflicted. [Interruption.] Yes.

I'm very grateful. The metro is co-funded with the UK Government. Will you acknowledge that point? Because it's via the city deal, and I think it's nearly 50 per cent of the money that comes from the UK Government.

It is, but we cannot escape, can we, the abysmal record in terms of rail electrification that hasn't happened in Wales, and we cannot negate that lack of rail spend for Wales, and we must look at this with clarity.

The Welsh Labour Government has further invested £160 million upgrading the railway line running through Islwyn communities. This is an investment responsibility of the UK Government. The Ebbw Vale line, which runs for around 13 miles was brought back into operation in 2008, having been in disuse for 40 years, and it is a travesty that Victorian Wales had a better transport infrastructure than we do today. This Welsh Labour Government and our Welsh local authorities have been investing, truly investing, in the Welsh rail network, despite virtually no infrastructural and UK moneys to match. It deserves now—we deserve—a time for us to see fair funding and fair railway spend for Wales.

In a crowded field, the story of HS2 in Wales is one of the biggest financial injustices we have seen emerge from Westminster in a long time. Not a single mile of track will run close to Wales, let alone through it, yet taxpayers in this country are having to pay for it. This is because the Tory Government have classed it as an England-and-Wales project. This confirms that they are not only incompetent when it comes to the economy, but also incompetent when it comes to geography.

By way of contrast, Northern Ireland and Scotland will get extra money that they are owed for a project that is England-only. The Treasury knows better than to deny Scotland or Northern Ireland money that is rightfully theirs. Has the Westminster Government come to the conclusion that the Labour Government in Wales will not rock the boat too much over this? By their own estimation, this Government suggests that we should receive around £5 billion based on the country's population if the project was changed to England-only. We would get that extra money through the antiquated Barnett formula, which calculates how much funding the devolved administrations receive from the Treasury to spend on devolved areas.

Now, Natasha might want to reflect a little wider on the implications that giving the money directly to Network Rail would have. It would erode the devolution settlement and the democratic processes in this place.

The Tory Government absurdly claim that HS2 is a project that benefits both countries and says that Wales has benefited directly from any increases in the Department for Transport's budget that have been driven by HS2. In giving evidence to the Senedd's Finance Committee in the last fortnight, in our current inquiry into fiscal inter-governmental relations, the respected constitutional expert Paul Silk declared the justifications that HS2 benefited Wales were, and I quote, 'rather threadbare'. It is not right that UK Government is able to make these unjust decisions arbitrarily. This isn't a one-off, they've done it twice. The Northern Powerhouse Rail is a proposed major rail programme that will see big upgrades to the connectivity of northern parts of England. Originally, it was supposed to build a new line connecting areas such as Manchester and Leeds, but has since been scaled back. It will still include significant improvements to rail in the north of England, including Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds, Bradford and York. The Northern Powerhouse Rail, like HS2, has also been classified by the UK Government as an England-and-Wales project, despite being entirely in England. This means Wales will miss out again, this time on more than £1 billion-worth of funding for transport. Commuters in Wales would do well to remember that at the ballot box in July, but also in 2026 at the next Senedd elections, because Labour leader Keir Starmer appears to have rubber-stamped these unjust decisions by refusing to commit to reversing them if elected as Prime Minister, but, of course, we might get a late manifesto commitment from the Cabinet Secretary on his behalf tonight. Diolch.

The Cabinet Secretary for finance to contribute to the debate. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. So, the facts of this matter are very simple. HS2 is a railway line between London and Birmingham, and not an inch of track will be built on Welsh soil. It doesn't benefit Wales and it should be reclassified as an England-only project.

Up to the end of 2024-25, Wales will have missed out on around £350 million as a result of the incorrect classification of HS2 as an England-and-Wales project. That amount is likely to increase considerably in future years. The Welsh Government has been pressing for comparability with HS2 in the future and for the funding that would have come to Wales so far, if that comparability had been in place in the past. Looking ahead, the value of comparability will depend on future UK Government transport spending plans, but would be likely to deliver significant additional resources to the Welsh Government, and this could be in the region of £60 million to £70 million per annum. The UK Government should also conduct a wider review of comparability with the Department for Transport to ensure greater objectivity in funding decisions and to address the impact of the classification of future rail projects.

If Wales received its fair share of funding from the UK Government, it would make a significant difference to our public services in Wales, and could alleviate some of the tough choices that we have to make. Not only is our settlement this year worth up to £700 million less in real terms than expected at the time of the 2021 spending review, it's also £3 billion lower than if it had grown in line with GDP since 2010. Our general capital budget this year is worth up to 8 per cent less in real terms than expected at the time of the spending review in 2021.

We also face rigid limits on our ability to borrow and to carry forward or draw down funds from our own reserves, and yet our Wales infrastructure investment strategy sets out a pipeline of projects that we could invest in to boost the Welsh economy if only we had the tools and the resources. The reality is that the current funding system is flawed. We have set out proposals in 'Reforming our Union' for a new principles-based approach to UK funding enshrined within a new fiscal agreement overseen and operated by a body independent of the UK Government. And this would enable a more rational, transparent allocation of public spending across the UK and ensure that decisions as to whether a programme is comparable or not are made on an objective basis. We need a funding structure that's fair, that's based on need and that delivers for people in different parts of the United Kingdom.

The Conservative Government has failed to support priorities in Wales. The UK Government is directing a managed decline of the Welsh rail infrastructure for which it is responsible. Their plans for Network Rail in Wales for the next five years will see a reduction in the amount of money that Network Rail has in cash terms to look after vital infrastructure. The result will be reduced asset reliability and more infrastructure issues, causing delays to rail services in Wales. The Welsh Government has refused to sit back and watch this crisis unfold. We have intervened with an £800 million investment in a new fleet of trains, which means that passengers across Wales are now experiencing the benefit of increased capacity, improved accessibility and high-quality comfort. But this has opportunity costs, and has meant difficult decisions elsewhere in our budget.

Delyth Jewell now to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I thank everyone who has taken part in this important debate.

Diolch, Natasha, for indicating again your support for reclassifying HS2. The point that Natasha makes about Network Rail, that raises the point, of course, about why we need the powers over transport infrastructure devolved to Wales, or else we will forever be short-changed and short of tracks. Thank you for your contribution.

Yes, Rhun, this is one subject that does unify us as a Senedd. That's why it's so powerful and so insulting that the Westminster parties do ignore us—it's so much more insulting.

Committing to HS2 consequentials is, indeed, a litmus test, I think, both for Mr Sunak and Mr Starmer, a test they are failing. They ignore us because either they don't care or they don't care to notice. Mr Starmer has, indeed, committed to Trident spending. Why not give us the billions we are owed?

Now, Carolyn set out the eye-watering sums of money being spent on HS2. I welcome—I really do welcome—the fact that parts of England are getting that investment and that citizens in England are going to benefit from that. I welcome it for them, but pretending this project benefits Wales is to subvert the reality of morality and of maps.

Cefin mentioned the impact on residents in Wales in terms of the poor standard of public transport—those services that would benefit so much from the investment of billions of pounds from HS2. As Cefin mentioned, this is an issue of social fairness. Our poverty as a country is a decision made in Westminster, and, yes, it's a question of rights as well, I agree. Why don't we in Wales have the right to have better services?

Now, Rhianon signalled her support too for the reaffirmation of reality, almost, by setting out that HS2 will not come into Wales. It shouldn't be noteworthy that Member after Member has been reaffirming the blatant realities of geography, but Westminster seems determined to ignore it. We don't matter to them. Now, I agree with Rhianon about the funding. I cannot understand why the UK Labour leader can't see this too.

Peredur talked about the financial injustice at the heart of this scandal. As Peredur pointed out, both Scotland and Northern Ireland will receive this funding. Why on earth should Wales matter less? And, yes, with Northern Powerhouse Rail, with all of these other projects, these injustices are set to continue until Wales has powers over our own transport infrastructure.

Now, as the Cabinet Secretary put it, the facts of this matter are clear. Again, they are clear to all of us, but Westminster sees it through another lens, the lens through which Wales does not matter. Now, I welcome that the Welsh Government has argued for this reclassification, and, yes, our funding system is flawed. What a dire indictment it is of our devolved settlement that it's up to the whims of Westminster to see whether what is right—what is reality—gets obeyed.

Now, what this Senedd says should matter to Westminster, because a railway line is about more than tracks and trains; it's about setting a direction for the future. This is not some hypothetical question that is yet to be answered, or something for future years. It's a question of correcting a wrong that's happened, a mistake that's already been made, a trick that has already been played. Now is our chance to tell that upcoming Westminster Government, whatever their hue, that Wales is not for waiting any longer. No more 'maybe next time' for Wales; no more being told to wait our turn that never comes. These billions are owed to Wales, they are direly needed to help our communities and we, in this Senedd, demand them.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No, there are no objections. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

That brings us to voting time, and unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to the vote.

The only vote this afternoon is on the Welsh Conservatives motion on confidence in the First Minister. I call for a vote on the motion without amendment, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 29, no abstentions and 27 against.

The motion is therefore agreed.

It is now for the First Minister to reflect on the view that the Senedd has just expressed and the motion that has been agreed. Confidence motions are political, yes, but they are also intensely personal, and, while a vote of this nature will have consequences, whatever they may be, I ask us all to treat each other with respect and kindness now—the people of Wales expect that of their Senedd.

That concludes voting.

We will be moving on now to a short debate. Some Members may be leaving; I ask them to do so quietly whilst Altaf Hussain prepares to introduce his short debate. We'll allow Members to leave first, in order for you to be heard in silence.

Thank you. A little over 20 years ago I published a research paper, 'Evaluation of one-year mortality rates in elderly patients with proximal femoral fractures'. During my career as a consultant orthopaedic surgeon, I was seeing a worrying rise in elderly people dying from a hip fracture. When I conducted the research, I found that a delay in operating within 48 hours of the fracture occurring resulted in a doubling of the mortality rate, regardless of age; a 65-year-old person was just as likely to die as a frail 95-year-old. This is one of the factors that led me into the Senedd, swapping the scalpel for a lectern. No matter how well the surgery went, external factors delaying the treatment had the greatest impact on the outcome of the surgery. In the intervening years, mortality rates have remained stubbornly high. One in three adults aged 50 and over dies within 12 months of suffering a hip fracture. Older adults have a five to eight times higher risk of dying within the first three months of a hip fracture, compared to those without a hip fracture. This increased risk of death remains for almost 10 years.

It is not just hip fractures that we have to worry about. There has been an alarming increase in a whole range of musculoskeletal disorders. They are the most common cause of severe long-term pain and physical disability, affecting hundreds of millions of people around the world. Common disorders such as osteoarthritis and osteoporosis are the leading chronic conditions in the elderly, affecting almost 50 per cent of people aged 65 and above. Forty per cent of people over 70 suffer from osteoarthritis of the knee, and 25 per cent of all those over the age of 60 have significant pain and/or disability from osteoarthritis. Eighty per cent of patients with osteoarthritis have some degree of limitation of movement, and 25 per cent can't perform their major daily activities.

Using disability adjusted life years, osteoarthritis is the fourth most frequent predicted cause of problems worldwide in women, and eighth in men. Fragility fractures have doubled in the last decade. Forty per cent of all women over 50 years will suffer an osteoporotic fracture. Osteoporosis causes bones to become weak and brittle—so brittle that a fall or even mild stresses, such as bending over or coughing, can cause a break. And it is well said that you stumble, you fracture, then you try to put weight on that limb, you can't, and you fall. So, it is the fracture first, then you fall.

Osteoporosis-related breaks most commonly occur in the hip, wrist or spine. Bone is living tissue that is constantly being broken down and replaced. Osteoporosis occurs when the creation of new bone does not keep up with the loss of old bone. Osteoporosis affects men and women of all races, but white and Asian women, especially older women who are past menopause, are at highest risk.

And that is the picture now, yet according to the latest stats and forecasts, the number of over-65s in Wales is predicted to rise by around 45 per cent in the next two decades. So, unless we do something radically different, we are going to see a dramatic rise in unnecessary deaths and avoidable disabilities, to say nothing of the strain we will place on our health and social care services.

We can’t seem to get a grip on waiting times despite the doubling of the health and care budget over the past quarter of a century. The average median wait for hip surgery was 452 days in Wales. Swansea had the longest wait times for hip replacements with an average 668 days' wait. Ninety-six thousand five-hundred patients were waiting for trauma and orthopaedic surgery across Wales, with nearly half waiting longer than nine months. A lot of local authorities had an average wait in days for admission over 379 days.

This means we need to redouble our efforts on falls prevention. After all, prevention is better than cure. This is the focus of this short debate. I want each of us to think about how we can protect our joints and protect our bone health, so we can prevent falls in later life. Of course, for those of us already in later life, maintaining joint and bone health is equally important. If we do have the misfortune to take a tumble, we have a much better chance if we have strong bones and healthy joints. And we can take simple steps to take care of our joints and bones: making simple changes to diet, taking simple exercises, and simply being aware of our surroundings to prevent falls.

We also need a women’s health strategy that addresses the impact menopause has on bone health. It’s a fact that women lose bone density following menopause, but with preventative treatment, sometimes as simple as a vitamin D supplement, we can ensure that those women don’t go on to develop osteoporosis.

There's a great number of interventions we can take to lower our risk of joint disease, fractures and the resulting premature deaths, which cost little or are even free. We can stop smoking and drinking too much alcohol. Research shows that both smoking and regularly drinking too much alcohol can lead to bone loss and increase the risk of breaking a bone. If you have smoked or drank a lot of alcohol in the past, your bones may have weakened over time. It's very important that you get enough calcium and vitamin D and exercise regularly to keep your bones as healthy as possible.

And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Care to reply to the debate, Eluned Morgan.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to thank the Member for South Wales West for tabling this short debate today about the important topic of tackling joint and bone health in Wales. It's always intimidating to respond to Altaf Hussain, this incredible clinician, but this is his specialist area, so it's particularly intimidating this evening, but I'm sure he'll be pleased to hear that I attended and I spoke at the second national bone health conference in Wales at the end of April.

Our long-term strategy for health and care, 'A Healthier Wales', emphasised the importance of well-being, prevention and early intervention to ensure that our health and care systems are more effective, equitable and sustainable. It highlights the need for better management of long-term and chronic conditions, and giving people the confidence and ability to manage and take greater control of their own health. It focuses on the need to enable and encourage good health and well-being throughout life, while anticipating and predicting poor health and well-being.

But despite this preventative agenda and the particular focus on improving bone health, people are still experiencing falls and breaking bones. Now, the data tells us that one in two women and one in five men over 50 will break a bone in their lifetime. So, just imagine, that's half of you lot. Well, you're not all over 50. [Laughter.] But it's a lot of you. Let's just say that a lot of you will break a bone at some point. And the fact is that there's almost a million people in Wales with a musculoskeletal condition; that's about a third of the population. Now, with an ageing population and the added risk factor of more people living with chronic conditions, that I think is an incredibly high number.

Despite how common some of these conditions are, how frequent fractures and falls are, and the impact on people's lives, the fact is that joint and bone health do not always receive the level of attention that other major health conditions do. It's because of the impact it has on an individual's life and their independence, and the impact and the cost for the health service—not just the health service, as he pointed out, but social services—and the wider community that I've made it a priority.

So, the evidence shows that fracture liaison services bring clear benefits to individuals in the long term, and have been shown to be clinically effective and cost-effective. That's why, last year, I made a commitment to achieving 100 per cent fracture liaison service coverage in Wales by September 2024, which would be I think nation leading, and we're well on our way to achieving that. Much of this progress would not have been possible without the excellent clinical leadership of Dr Inder Singh. He's working closely with members of the fracture liaison service, the quality assurance group, and the dedicated health board clinical leads. And I've made £1 million available specifically for this service.

There's a lot more for us to do to reduce long waiting times, but these reductions do show the attention that we and the health service have been giving to orthopaedics. With partners, every health board has a local action plan, and these follow good clinical practice in terms of the Getting It Right First Time approach, GIRFT, and a local review of that approach. Assistance before and after treatment has also been important, and our national policy supports people on the orthopaedic pathway, particularly in managing symptoms. It also assists them in strengthening before treatment.

In addition, the national 3Ps policy, waiting well, has been developed with Cymru Versus Arthritis. It addresses the needs of people on the musculoskeletal pathway, or MSK, who perhaps need more support as they wait. This focuses specifically on secondary care, but prevention is also very important. We need to ensure that people are aware of these conditions and the support available through primary care and in the community, and we're very fortunate that the third sector supports us in this regard.

I'm pleased that the new body of the NHS executive has acknowledged the importance and impact of these conditions. It has given priority to the strategic clinical network for MSK and established clinical operational networks for bone health and orthopaedics within this network. These groups will bring health workers, the public, primary care, secondary care and tertiary care together with the third sector and with communities.

Last year, we published the quality statement for MSK. We are now creating a quality statement for bone health. These documents set out our vision for improved healthcare for MSK and bone health throughout people's lives and across Wales, and they will assist us to integrate health services, to provide tailored care and to make improvements to the quality of care for musculoskeletal conditions.

So, thank you once again for raising this issue, and for the opportunity to highlight the steps that we are taking to make improvements in bone and joint health in Wales.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary, and that brings today's proceedings to a close.