Plenary

Thank you, Llywydd, for giving me an opportunity to correct the Record in terms of the statement on the supplementary budget yesterday. During the discussion, I used two different figures in error for the level of unallocated capital—the first, which was correct, a figure of £29,000, and, secondly, the figure of £29 million. The correct figure is £29,000. In addition, the current estimate for the capital remaining in the Welsh reserve is £50 million. So, I hope that the Senedd will accept my apology for that error, and I will write to you too, Llywydd, separately, to ensure that that correction is placed in the Record of Proceedings for yesterday.

During my first meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week, I emphasised that fiscal reform, including fair funding and addressing the Barnett formula, are key priorities. We agreed that we would work constructively together to deliver better outcomes for the people of Wales.

Diolch, Weinidog. The Wales Governance Centre has argued that long-standing procedural issues relating to the operation of the Barnett formula should be resolved. Its report on fiscal funding highlights that the UK Treasury remains judge, jury and executioner when disputes such as on HS2 and national insurance contributions take place. It also found that Wales's relative spending is higher for devolved public services, such as health and education, than it is for services that remain reserved to the UK Government, such as rail infrastructure and justice, where spending is below a population-based share. Will the Cabinet Minister outline what discussions she has had with her UK counterparts on fiscal reform? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Yes, and, as I said, I met with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week. She was even newer in her post than I am. I'm not sure how long, given possible Treasury reshuffles in the future, she will be in that post, but I wish her well. We had a positive discussion and I was able to outline this Government's position on a need to have a constructive conversation with the UK Government to ensure that we have a funding settlement for Wales that is fairer than we have at the moment, and that this judge, jury and executioner that you referred to is put right. The Barnett formula is opaque in nature, it lacks transparency, but, almost more than anything, when there are disputes—of which there have been many and may be many in the future—there is no dispute resolution mechanism that is independent of the UK Treasury. And this is nowhere more obvious than, of course, the UK Treasury's classification of HS2 as an England and Wales project. It decided that that was the case, despite there not being a single piece of track of HS2 in Wales, and it sticks to that position to this day. And it means that, in this current spending review period, Wales is short-changed by £850 million just in this one spending review period because of that classification of HS2, because of the UK Treasury acting as judge, jury and executioner.

Cabinet Secretary, while we all want to see Wales receive a fair funding settlement, people in areas such as my constituency of Fflint Wrecsam will be wondering what difference that actually makes to their daily lives. After more than a quarter of a century of Labour-led government in Wales, often sustained by Plaid Cymru, many communities in the north-east of Wales still feel they have been left behind, with underinvestment in transport links, infrastructure and economic regeneration. So, can the Cabinet Secretary explain how securing a fairer funding formula would deliver tangible investment for constituencies like Fflint Wrecsam, and why local people should believe that more money sent to Cardiff Bay will produce different results from those delivered under Labour and Plaid Cymru over 25 years of this Senedd? Diolch.

You've almost answered your own question within your question. The difference for people in Flint and Wrexham that would be made by a fair funding settlement, by having that £850 million short-changed currently from the current spending review that I spoke of because of the classification, the wrong classification, of HS2 by the UK Treasury, that would actually have allowed the previous Government, as well as this Government, to be spending on that exact rail investment that you asked for in Flint and Wrexham. It would never be money for Cardiff Bay; it would always be money for the whole of Wales, fairly shared by this Government to every part of Wales.

What would you replace the Barnett formula with? We know that Wales gets 10 per cent more than England on total expenditure, including HS2. We know, in devolved areas, Wales gets 20 per cent more than England for the same responsibilities. How much more does the Minister think Wales should get, and why would the Treasury not suggest that we get our population share of everything, which would have a devastating effect on our income?

Well, we know that as a result of the review of fairness and the needs-based analysis of the Barnett formula from 2016 onwards that that has been of benefit to the public purse in Wales. But, as I've said already, the analysis of this Government, as it was of the previous Government, is that, in this spending review period, we are short-changed on just the HS2 classification by £850 million. And I'm sure that you would want to see part of that funding spent in your constituency, just as I would like to see it spent in mine.

A regulatory impact assessment and an integrated impact assessment were published alongside the legislation in the previous Senedd. It's a matter for local authorities to decide now whether they introduce the levy in their area, based on their own assessments of the impacts and following consultation with their communities. To date, Carmarthenshire has not consulted on whether to introduce this levy.

Diolch. Given that the Government has stated that the visitor levy is designed to create sustainable tourism in Wales, could you quantify exactly what sustainable tourism entails, and how much is it going to cost to achieve this, as the feedback from my constituents suggests that we need an impact study on the negative effects of this tax on visitor numbers?

This policy is now passed over to local authorities. They have the discretion to introduce or not the visitor levy in their areas, and there are requirements of any local authority that's interested in introducing a visitor levy to undertake those assessments that she speaks of. If your constituents have views, negative or positive, about the visitor levy, should there be, at any time, a consultation in sir Gâr about the introduction of a visitor levy, I'm sure that it will be an active and engaged consultation. It is now over to local authorities to decide on whether this is a good thing or not for their local areas.

Diolch, Lywydd. Minister, I'd first like to say something nice by putting on the record my thanks for the multiple meetings you've held with me regarding the budget ahead of yesterday, and for releasing the supplementary budget hours rather than minutes before announcing it in the Chamber. It's professional, and I'm sure all voters in Wales will appreciate that.

Minister, your supplementary budget documents refer to the fiscally challenging environments you say you have inherited. I pointed out that the last Welsh Government budget was supported by Plaid Cymru, and that therefore your party shares responsibility for the state of public finances here in Wales. You told us that, quote, in opposition you don't see the books, and that the funding plans that had no allocation for them weren't visible to Plaid Cymru. But your predecessor Mark Drakeford has said of Plaid, quote, 'They had access to all the information that was available to the Welsh Government'. Minister, is Mark Drakeford right, or are you?

Now, you started well and then you posed me probably one of the most difficult questions I will get as Minister—to compare myself to Mark Drakeford. I have huge respect for him, as he knows, and as this Chamber will know. There is a level of truth in both our positions, I suspect.

For clarity, therefore, Plaid Cymru's role in the decision and voting on the previous budget was to share a responsibility on part of the allocation of that budget. So, we were able to agree with Labour that a significant part of that allocation would go to local authorities to increase their ability to spend, and also to the NHS. What was unseen by me and fellow Members of Plaid Cymru at the time—and, in fact, all non-Government Members of the Senedd at the time—was the in-year pressures that even an allocation of that nature would lead to in terms of what the NHS and local authorities and other public sector organisations would need.

That's what I'm looking at now, and that's what I can see now, is the level of in-year pressures that our NHS in particular is carrying and is reporting. If you look at local health boards in their monthly reports, the level of in-year pressures that they are working on, and how we as a Government are working with health boards to ensure that they are able to deliver the efficiencies in what they do in year, to mean that they are able to work within the budget that has been allocated to them.

I'm sorry, Minister, I can't accept that wishy-washy answer. Mark Drakeford is not only the former Minister of finance, but was also a former First Minister. If we want the public to take this Parliament and Welsh Government seriously, the public need a clear response from you to this accusation from an historic figure in Welsh devolution, not to deflect it. So, I ask again: is Mark Drakeford right to say Plaid Cymru had full access to the books or not? It's just a 'yes', 'no', we can move on.

I'm intrigued, and I think Mark Drakeford will be even more intrigued, to know that his chief cheerleaders in this Chamber, in the seventh Senedd, are Reform. I'm sure that he'll welcome that.

We did not have full and open access to the books, and we probably—and I would expect that opposition parties here today—would not expect that. The detailed management, day to day, of the operation of the public budget in Wales is within the Government and scrutinised by the Senedd.

Minister, in your manifesto, you say you want to increase borrowing powers by increasing the Senedd's total capital debt limit to £3 billion. Reform is clear: we are against further borrowing powers, because there's only one thing worse than having your taxes spent on tree planting in Uganda, and that's your children being forced to pay the interest on those trees. Every pound of interest on debt is a pound that can't be spent on future classrooms or cancer wards. That isn't borrowing for Wales, that's borrowing from Wales's next generation. People like the economics Nobel prize winner James Buchanan have been warning about this issue of Government debt for 50 years. Do you accept that there could be substantial negative consequences for future generations if there is more borrowing for Wales?

We want to see equality between ourselves and Scotland in the powers and levers that we have. Prudent borrowing for any country, for any company, is not a bad thing. It allows a Government to invest. Investment of that kind is a component of getting our economy going and also of improving our public services, our hospitals and our schools. Therefore, prudent borrowing is the right thing to do. What I don't want to see is that we are hampered unilaterally from doing that by UK Treasury rules that apply in an unequal way for us compared to other countries, or even other regions in England. I want that equality. It would be for the Government of the day to use that prudently and to be scrutinised here in the Chamber on its use.

Diolch, Lywydd. Cai Parry-Jones has sought to raise the bar in terms of being nice, not just to the Minister, but also to Labour First Ministers, so I will try and follow suit and acknowledge the good dialogue that's taken place in the lead-up to the publication of the supplementary budget. I sincerely hope that that's not the end of the dialogue ahead of the vote.

Yesterday, Minister, you and other Ministers, in referring to the supplementary budget tabled, repeatedly made the point that this was enacting Plaid Cymru priorities. Last night, several of us from this Chamber, including the Cabinet Minister for Rural Resilience and Sustainability, attended a screening of the People's Emergency Briefing, organised by WWF Cymru and Climate Cymru. The message about the urgent need for Governments to step up their efforts in tackling climate change was sobering, stark and urgent, and I'd really recommend every Member should watch that documentary. But, Minister, of the hundreds of millions of additional funding you announced yesterday, not one extra penny went towards tackling climate change. Can the people of Wales conclude, therefore, that tackling climate change is not a priority for this new Government?

No. From one supplementary budget, which is about part of the in-year adjustment of this Government's spending allocations, the people of Wales and nobody in this Chamber should, for one second, interpret that as a lack of commitment to climate change and to pursuing our net-zero objectives. We are clear that that is a cross-Government initiative and that we will work across Government on how we contribute to tackling climate change and to achieving net zero. In that respect, I accept that it didn't feature in any of our additional resources. It is, of course, funded within the budget that we are operating and that was inherited from the previous Senedd. We will look at this across Government properly in order to align our future years' budgets to progressing what remains one of our main manifesto commitments, and that is to achieve net zero and to ensure that we are able to contribute our bit as Wales in tackling climate change, which is affecting our everyday lives.

I thank the Minister for that response. Certainly, we in Welsh Labour will continue to look at the developments in that area.

If I could turn now to something that is certainly a priority for the new Government: reviews, consultations, commissions, meetings and committees. A whole host of them have been announced in the first 100 days of the Plaid Cymru Government. I asked the Cabinet Minister for Government Effectiveness and the Constitution yesterday about the costs attached, but I wasn't given a clear response. So, I wonder whether the Minister for finance can inform the Senedd today how much, in pounds and pence, will the various reviews, commissions and consultations that have been announced cost to taxpayers. Thank you very much.

As little as possible, I would say. I want to spend the Government's money on outcomes that stem from that preparatory work. I'm sure that you would share with me the desire, as we develop new policies or implement current policies more effectively, that we do that after consultation and discussion and receiving the most recent evidence. To do that, we have to take some time and we have to do some work to develop those plans. So, I don't want it to cost more money or time than it needs to, and I want us to move quickly to be able to take action on what's important in terms of the effectiveness of those public policies, and introducing new ideas and momentum to policies in the public sector in Wales.

Diolch, Lywydd. Cabinet Minister, will the Welsh Government be carrying out a council tax revaluation in this Senedd term?

The Welsh Government is currently considering whether it will do so or not.

Thank you for your response. There is clearly growing public concern around the potential revaluation of properties and the introduction of new bands. Households across Wales are already under real pressure from the cost of living. Many will therefore be worried about changes to the system leading to higher bills, at a time when they can least afford it. And you would agree, of course, that any revaluation must be approached with real caution, being transparent, evidence-based and subject to full consultation with the public and with local authorities. People would also expect reassurances that this would not be a tax-raising exercise in disguise, but a fair and balanced reform of the system. They will want clear detail on the impact of any changes, who would pay more, and crucially how the Welsh Government intends to prevent unfair pressures on ordinary households. So, will you be able to give assurances today that, if you do go ahead with the council tax revaluation, ordinary households will not be left worse off as a result?

Well, you've raised many of the considerations that the Government is looking at at this time, when it considers its position on the revaluation and any further changes to council tax. We are committed as a Government to look to see how council tax can be made fairer. It is not the most progressive of taxes that are raised in Wales, and we need to make sure that it is as fair as possible for the taxpayers in Wales. There is, in legislation, a revaluation that is planned for 2028, and if it's to be completed by 2028, then it would need to start pretty soon. So, there is some early work that we need to do in taking decisions on this.

But I would see that any revaluation or council tax changes that happen in Wales are done so not on the basis that they need to be there to raise more revenue for the public purse in Wales, but that they are to make the council tax fairer in Wales. It's not a revenue-raising exercise. I would not see it as that, but it is about making the payment of taxes fairer for people in Wales. I agree also that if these changes are to happen, then they need to be done with caution, and with ensuring that people are consulted fully and are aware at all times of the implications of any changes to them directly. We know that council tax is a very immediate tax on people—it arrives on their doorstep every year—and we need to make sure that people are engaged early on, if there are to be changes to this tax.

Local taxes help to pay for vital public services across Wales, including in Ceredigion Penfro. This Government will also reform business rates to better support high-street businesses and explore ways of making council tax fairer.

Minister, people running tourism businesses across Ceredigion Penfro have made it very clear to me that they find it very difficult, because of a number of policies and tax regulations introduced recently, which is leading some businesspeople to consider whether it's worth running their businesses at all. I'm sure you will have received the same kinds of comments that I've received. So, can you tell us how you will ensure that tax policies and fiscal measures from the Welsh Government in this Senedd understand the concerns that are being raised by the tourism industry in west Wales, and that they don't lead to more and more businesses considering closing their doors?

One advantage of having stood for election in the same constituency as Paul Davies is that I have also picked up on those same comments from the hospitality and tourism sectors. So, there are a number of aspects of the work of this Government—some of which I'm responsible for—that are going to set about looking at how we can improve the conditions or the pressures that these important sectors are facing. You will know that there is a manifesto commitment from Plaid Cymru, for example, to look at the 182-day rule facing the self-catering industry currently. And we will be looking to take action to assess that and to assess whether it is possible or desirable to introduce additional national exemptions. We'll be moving forward with that work, and, as I said in my previous response, ensuring that we look at how business rates are reformed in order to improve the economic climate of the sectors that you've mentioned, particularly the high street.

As another Member representing Ceredigion Penfro, I've also heard the same concerns that you have, so I welcome the Minister's clear commitment to keep the 182-day rule on self-catering lets under review. I recognise the impact that second homes and short-term lets are having on the housing crisis and communities, and it's important that the policy was developed in that context. But, as I said, I've heard the comments of constituents and I'm concerned that it's failing to deliver against the initial policy purpose in a number of aspects, and instead putting some people's livelihoods and homes under threat. And I've seen first-hand as well the impact that this kind of level of stress is having on people's mental health and well-being. So, can the Minister confirm that she will move quickly, where there are clear and reasonable practical exemptions that can be introduced, for example, where the holiday accommodation would not qualify as a private home?

Yes, thank you for those supplementary questions. As you outline, striking the right balance on some of these policies is very important indeed, so that the pressures on the hospitality and self-catering sectors aren't too great, which means they're unable to continue with their business, as Paul Davies mentioned, but there is also the need to ensure that no-one can take advantage of the taxation system and the regulations that we have in place. So, striking that right balance is important.

We as a Government, and I as Minister, will be progressing quite swiftly now to look at how we assess this policy. And I am making an open offer to Members of this Senedd, who have been canvassing over recent months, to provide their comments and ideas to me in terms of how we could change some of these policies for the benefit of the tourism sector, whilst also understanding that any new loopholes shouldn't be opened as we reform these policies further. So, I hope to hear ideas from Members and I would appreciate that.

Thank you to the Members for the original questions. What assessment has the Welsh Government made of whether council tax premiums and land transaction surcharges on second homes are actually increasing the availability and the affordability of housing for local people in Ceredigion Penfro?

Thank you for that question again on Ceredigion Penfro. Of course, as we commit to assessing many aspects of the policies affecting businesses and the housing sector—such as council tax, such as business rates, such as the 182-day rule—we'll be doing that with a full impact assessment of the most recent developments and what we can deliver for the benefit of these very important sectors in our economy. So, that assessment, as you outline, will be important to deliver.

Although the plan for a net-zero Wales is the responsibility of the Cabinet Minister for Rural Resilience and Sustainability, it's a commitment for the entire Government. Strategic investment decisions will be made jointly, therefore, as we prepare for the autumn budget.

Diolch, Weinidog. Every spending decision will have an impact on climate change, the resilience of our rural communities and the sustainability of our nation. The Plaid Cymru manifesto stated that you would embed decarbonisation across all portfolio areas. So, it's critical that budget decisions made now are sustainable and consider the broadest range of possible benefits. For instance, replacing fossil-fuelled heating with low-carbon alternatives will have an impact on air quality, which will, in turn, reduce the pressure on our NHS. The heat pump industry alone will provide an estimated 5,500 people in Wales with secure, well-paid jobs. How will you assess the true value of potential spending decisions against a broader range of criteria than simplistic financial measures?

Well, certainly not by just simplistic financial measures, and I say that as the Minister for Finance. As I said in an earlier response, the responsibility to meet our net-zero objectives is a responsibility that cuts across all Government Ministers and departments, and we want to see a truly engaged and innovative approach to how we invest every single pound of the Welsh budget to ensure that they are long-term, good investments, to mean that our impact on our climate is less than it needs to be. Because that investment will make a difference not just in terms of achieving net zero, which is an objective—a high-level objective—that a government needs to have, but also it makes a difference to everyday lives in Wales. So, it can mean that people may have more efficient, healthier housing, for example, and it can mean that our businesses can have cheaper electricity costs to run their businesses. So, it is truly a cross-cutting piece of work for this Government, and it needs to feature prominently, and it will, in our budget-setting process for the future.

I welcome the Cabinet Minister for Rural Resilience and Sustainability's announcement yesterday of a new climate and nature plan to deliver net zero by 2040, in line with Plaid Cymru's manifesto commitments. Given that individuals, small business, and local authorities across Wales are already showing leadership, practical action and financial commitment to drive progress towards net zero, as Cabinet Minister for Finance, can you provide assurances that you'll be discussing the polluter-pays principle with the relevant Cabinet Minister, so that those most responsible for emissions, rather than those least able to pay, are bearing the greatest share of the cost?

Yes. Most definitely, the cost of bad decisions should never be borne by those least likely, least able to afford to pay those costs, and they should be borne by those people who have initially transgressed. In our manifesto, we're committed to establishing a just transition board to guide the net-zero strategy, and this will bring together relevant experts, ensuring key stakeholders have a meaningful role in shaping policy. The Cabinet Minister for Rural Resilience and Sustainability will be making an early announcement on the just transition board that seeks to achieve the very things that you've outlined to do.

People across Carmarthenshire are no longer confused by the language around net zero, they are frustrated by it, because when Ministers talk about strategic investment and a just transition, many hear spin. What they actually see are higher bills, disruption in their communities and decisions being imposed upon them. We were told this would protect the environment, but tell that to the residents in the Tywi valley facing proposed pylons and 200-metre wind turbines dominating their landscape. Tell that to the people in Bynea and Pumsaint dealing with vast solar developments—years of dust, noise and disruption. And we were promised lower bills, yet families are seeing that the opposite is happening. So, will the Minister answer this directly: where is the evidence this approach is delivering for ordinary people? And will the Government change course if this continues to drive up costs and lose public consent? Diolch.

You'll know that the responsibility lies with the Minister for enterprise and energy on matters of renewable energy and infrastructure in Wales. The Minister, who happens to be one of the Members for the area that you also represent, in line with Plaid Cymru's manifesto commitments, will be making new policy on renewable energy in Wales and the deployment of infrastructure, and the expectations that this Government will have from it. That will give clarity as to how we see renewable energy needing to play a very positive role in our need to, yes, achieve our net-zero commitment, but also to make us less dependent on fossil fuels and oil and gas markets in the middle east. We know how vulnerable they are and how many of these issues mean that Wales as a country is less self-reliant in energy production. We need to increase our energy production in Wales from sources that can be trusted into the future, and not the sources of the past.

Securing fair rail funding for Welsh railways and addressing the HS2 injustice is a very important priority of ours. The UK Government has recognised that rail infrastructure in Wales has not been historically funded properly, and therefore it’s time to take action. I raised this when I met with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury last week.

Diolch, Cabinet Minister. While HS2 has often been criticised for its spiralling costs and delays, what is arguably an even greater scandal and injustice is the significant loss of funding to Wales because of these projects being classed as England and Wales. Communities across my constituency in Clwyd have experienced repeated disruption from flooding and severe weather, as we are seeing this week, whilst Wales stands to lose billions in rail consequential funding that could be invested in preventative infrastructure. Now, you say you have had discussions with the UK Government to secure fair consequential funding. Will you commit to intensifying these discussions to ensure Wales is no longer disadvantaged by these classifications?

I can certainly commit to intensifying those discussions. I hope that the UK Government can also commit to that level of intensity of discussions that we need to have. We need to reach a place between the UK Government and the Welsh Government where we are not constantly having to discuss whether a funding allocation is fair or not. We need clarity and transparency, and we need also that independent arbiter to enable the people to know where the fair allocation would be received.

As I said earlier this afternoon, the classification of HS2 as an England and Wales project is meaning at this point in this current UK spending review period that Wales is shortchanged by £850 million, and, over further spending periods, that will only increase. So, we need to get this right. There are at least, probably, four parties, five parties in this Senedd that agree that that’s an underfunding of Wales, and we need to use that cross-party leverage to ensure that we get to a better place in order to ensure that the people of Wales are not disadvantaged.

Our manifesto included a commitment to keep the 182-day letting threshold under review and create reasonable new exemptions where self-catering accommodation would not qualify as a private home. I will set out further details on our proposals in due course.

Thank you, Cabinet Minister, for your response. The steps taken in recent years, thanks to Plaid Cymru's contribution in opposition, to reduce the number of holiday lets and to grow the housing stock in our communities are to be welcomed. However, cases have arisen in which genuine letting businesses, those that play an important role as part of our tourism offer, are being penalised. I was proud to stand on a manifesto that committed to creating new and clear exemptions in cases where that accommodation would not quality as a private home. So, will the Minister provide an update on the work that will be undertaken by the Government to develop and implement the new exemptions?

I have already, as a relatively new Minister still, started the work of discussing how we can move ahead in reviewing the 182-day threshold and to consider whether new exemptions are required on a national level in relation to this policy. I know that the policy hasn't landed in the right place at the moment and that we do need that review, and so I am currently discussing options as to how I can come to a conclusion and make a decision as to how we should review this, and I will include this Senedd and, more importantly, the relevant sectors in the wider debate as to what the most effective reforms of this policy would be.

The Cabinet Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning is taking forward a review of the local government funding formula in partnership with local government.

It's great to actually be here in the Senedd, because I have spent the last nine years complaining about the funding formula from the council chambers up in Conwy, and all the time we would be asking our leaders to go and ask Welsh Government Ministers to review the funding formula based on the ageing demographic that we have, particularly in Conwy, which affects our social care budget. So, here I am—and you're going to be sick of this question—but, please, please, when you're looking at the funding formulas, can you consider the ageing demographic that we have along the north Wales coast? People are living longer lives, healthy lives. It must be the north Walian sea air. But we need some consideration for the high level of social care costs that are now overtaking education budgets, particularly in Conwy. Diolch.

Making sure that the local government formula does reflect adequately the various characteristics that our different local authorities have is important to this Government, and making sure that we understand wholly from local government and from councils how the current formula is working, either to their advantage—I suspect they won't be as upfront about that—or to their disadvantage, as you've outlined for Conwy. The Cabinet Minister for local government will be the person having this open conversation with local government as to how this funding formula can be reformed in a way that meets the various needs and requirements of disadvantage and sparsity that our wonderfully varied country of Wales has. We need to get to that place soon as a Government, and those discussions are happening now. Within our 100-day commitment as well, we have a commitment to align policies with rural-proofing and we need to ensure that any changes to the local government formula would do so in step with our alignment to rural-proofing.

The first supplementary budget, published yesterday, provided an additional £164 million revenue and £130 million capital funding to our key priorities. This includes £145 million for NHS Wales to cut waiting lists and build a health and care service fit for the future.

Thank you for the answer. Back in January, the now First Minister boasted that Plaid Cymru had secured £300 million of additional funding for front-line services and put the next Welsh Government 'on a firmer footing'. In the mini-budget yesterday, you diverted millions away from the most vulnerable in our society—those being children with additional learning needs—and refused to acknowledge that councils and schools across our country, like mine in Merthyr, are being pushed further into the red because of rising ALN demand. Minister, it's clear that this Plaid mini-budget is an exercise in misaligned priorities and I'm beginning to lose track of Plaid Cymru's uncosted promises. How will you balance a £1 billion ALN spend with promises such as the third Menai crossing and a £587 million childcare offer that hasn't been fully costed yet, all while protecting front-line services? Are you an economic magician, or are you storing up bad news for budgets yet to come? Diolch.

I didn't divert a single penny away from additional learning needs in yesterday's supplementary budget. The allocation for additional learning needs and for schools was voted on by the Senedd, introduced by the Labour Government and supported in part by Plaid Cymru in the previous Senedd. That allocation remains in full to local authorities in Wales.

We are committed, because of the pressures, as you've outlined, on additional learning needs and on our schools, to working to design a service and fund it so that we are better prepared for the challenges and the delivery of additional learning needs in Wales. It is not a competition for funding; there is funding needed to run a variety of public services and public infrastructure in Wales. We seek to strike the right balance and we will listen to views across this Chamber on where that balance needs to be struck.

My fault.

The consequentials from the UK Government's Warm Homes plan were confirmed in the autumn budget 2025. Wales will receive £17 million in 2026-27, £26 million in 2027-28, £26 million in 2028-29 and £17 million in 2029-30.

Diolch. The UK Government's Warm Homes programme announced by the energy Secretary commits £15 billion to upgrading homes in England. However, it remains unclear what funding Wales can expect. Yet, from estimated calculations, we know that Wales is owed around £800 million in consequentials. We also know that policies such as the requirement for private rented homes to reach EPC C by 2030 are likely to have a disproportionate impact in Wales, given the age and condition of our housing stock. That makes it all the more vital that Wales receives the full resources it needs to meet these ambitions. Will the Cabinet Minister for Finance therefore assess the full impact of the Warm Homes programme on Wales and seek to secure the consequentials necessary to deliver a truly tenure-neutral approach here in Wales?

You've outlined the aspiration that you have for the Warm Homes work that needs to happen in Wales and the benefits that it can reap for households throughout Wales. I outlined in my original answer the consequentials we've already received as a Government. They fall significantly below the estimate that you've contributed this afternoon. That in itself outlines what I've said throughout my question session this afternoon: the opaque nature of how the Barnett formula and consequentials work, and how that, across UK Government departments, can mean very different things in how it comes through to Wales. But I will discuss with the Cabinet Minister for housing the true level of consequentials required for this area of work, to ensure that we consider clearly whether we have received the correct consequentials and what further representations we would need to make if that wasn't the case.

We have implemented our response co-ordination arrangements in order to monitor the impacts of extreme heat across the areas that we are responsible for, working with partners, local resilience forums and the UK Government. I encourage everyone to follow public health advice, to drink plenty of water, and to stay out of the sun during the hottest part of the day.

Thank you, Minister. Today, we're facing yet another extreme weather event. On this occasion, it's a red warning, meaning that there's a real risk to life, particularly to the most vulnerable people in our society. People will be very worried about not just themselves, but also their loved ones this week. I'd be very grateful if the Government could set out what additional preparation and planning was put in place ahead of time to support public services like schools, hospitals and social care settings during this extreme heat event and what response systems are in place to support people during this red weather warning.

I know from my previous experience in transport how challenging extreme heat can be for workers, particularly for bus drivers and train drivers, who cannot and should not operate vehicles if there is a risk of them passing out due to that extreme heat. What work is the Government doing with businesses and with unions to ensure that long-term planning for the protection of workers takes place? Because temperatures are likely to reach 45 degrees on occasions within the next 30 years. This will be a more frequent event.

Finally, in these sort of events, like flooding as well, a single point of truth is vitally important for the public. Are you able to outline what the Welsh Government's view is of creating that single portal that can capture all information about events such as this and the disruption and the risk that can be caused? Diolch.

Thank you. I agree with the comments made about the severity of the extreme weather that we see today, and over the coming days. As I mentioned, we've co-ordinated activities nationally in order to try and manage and monitor the situation every day. The national security and resilience department is co-ordinating that work and working with officials on the ground and public health officials as well so that we can have that cross-government response, as you mentioned. The national response increased to level 1 on the morning of 22 June, Monday morning, as we monitored the situation. We brought policy civil servants together in a practical way to look at the operational elements so that we could respond.

We recognise the risk in terms of co-ordinating activities, and, as you said, the risk to life is very severe and we have to take that seriously. In terms of the health areas, we know that Public Health Wales has given out advice to the health sector. The chief medical officer contacted partners back in May to ensure that plans were in place for these kinds of events, which are likely to become more frequent now because of climate change. Certainly, that's a priority for us as a Government: to ensure that we recognise the fact that climate change does exist, recognising that we will need to work across the Government to prepare for these incidents more frequently, unfortunately.

Over the coming days, schools across Wales are closing their doors because of the extreme heat, forcing parents and carers to make childcare arrangements at short notice. I've just had my own watch ping with the same notice for tomorrow. But this disproportionately affects those families on the lowest incomes, parents who can't afford to take time off work or can't find affordable childcare at short notice. I know that you'll agree with me that this is a real concern. At a time when low-income families are yet again the ones to bear the impact, how will the Welsh Government work with schools to ensure that they can remain open in periods of extreme weather, given that this is likely to become a more frequent occurrence due to climate change?

Thank you, and I do share those concerns and those comments on the impact on families as schools and childcare facilities close. But we don't take these decisions lightly in terms of the red weather warning. We've never had such a red warning in Wales because of hot weather. School closures and the closure of childcare facilities is something for headteachers or local authorities.

Clearly, as you'll be aware, every building is different in terms of size and the ability to cope with high temperatures, so it's right and appropriate that those decisions are made based on local risk basis, and particular conditions locally, in order to keep our children and young people safe.

We know that children and young people, in particular, are more vulnerable, more susceptible to hot temperatures and can't control body temperature, so we are all duty-bound to ensure that we look after children, young people and older people and people with particular health conditions during these times. So, that is why, of course, we do need to consider school closures in these areas. And, of course, we are monitoring the situation on a daily basis and ensuring that that support is in place.

Thank you, Deputy Minister, but I also share the concerns raised about the impact of the extreme heat and our resilience as a nation to cope with such events. Whilst, of course, safety is paramount, our ability to withstand extreme weather does not feel as robust in Wales as it should. Not only were rail services severely impacted yesterday, causing chaos and leaving communities stranded, many businesses felt compelled to shut, damaging them financially, and critically, as has been raised, many schools across Wales have closed today and tomorrow. Now, not only does this leave working parents struggling to find last-minute childcare, but it's yet another educational absence that has already been imposed on our children, many of whom have already lived through the COVID era and have already missed a great many months of their education.

We should be able to withstand severe weather, whether snow, rain or extreme heat, so that transport, businesses and education are not negatively affected as they have been this week. As has been said, it's likely to happen again, and we don't know—. We're actually coming into the hotter part of this summer. So, Deputy Minister, I would be grateful to know what conversations are happening now to plan more for longer term future events and how do you plan to mitigate the impact, so we don't see the chaos that's transpired here in Wales this week?

Well, I'm pleased to hear those comments, and the understanding that this is something that we need to tackle, and that climate change is a priority. Of course, it's a priority for this new Government, and we'll be very pleased to see the support for the fact that we are prioritising measures to deal with climate change impacts, and, as you mentioned, the real impact that is happening now in terms of the transport system, as well as schools and so forth.

So, this is a priority for the Government. It's something that we are going to embed throughout all portfolios—the need for us to look not just at climate change measures, but also at how we prepare our services, particularly the health and social care services, to ensure that plans are in place, as we have done over recent months. And we must ensure that when issues such as the red warning do arise, there is support and an understanding that we need to implement those plans urgently, and that we do monitor them and that the support is in place to do that as necessary.

Diolch, Lywydd. Armed Forces Week is a moment for us not only to reflect, but to recognise, promote and stand firmly behind our armed forces community. Across the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force and the army, our service personnel demonstrate courage, discipline and an unwavering commitment to protect our nation. They stand ready to serve, often in dangerous conditions, so that we can live in safety and security. But the armed forces community is much broader than those in uniform. It includes veterans who continue to contribute to society long after their service ends. It includes families, spouses, partners, children and friends who carry the weight of the service life through separation, relocation and uncertainty. They're all part of one community and they all deserve our support. That is why we believe support must go beyond words. Promoting the armed forces community means ensuring they are treated fairly, with proper access to healthcare, housing and education. It means recognising their sacrifices in practical ways, not just ceremonial ones, because a nation that asks so much of its armed forces must be prepared to give something back. So, during this Armed Forces Week, let us do more than simply say 'thank you'. Let us show it through action, through support and through a renewed commitment to those who serve and those who have served and the families who stand beside them. Diolch.

At this time of global football fever, I am pleased to welcome the fact that the Football Association of Wales will be hosting the UEFA European under-19 championship in north Wales this summer, between 28 June and 11 July. It's an important moment for Welsh football and for our wider communities. The tournament will bring together some of the most talented young players from across Europe, showcasing the next generation of elite international footballers on our doorstep. It's particularly significant that matches will be hosted across multiple venues in north Wales, including at the Racecourse in my own constituency of Fflint Wrecsam, bringing international football directly back into the heart of the city and building on Wrexham's growing profile within the game. Training will also take place across a range of community facilities, including in Fflint Wrecsam at Colliers Park, highlighting the importance of our grass-roots infrastructure in delivering international events of this scale. This championship, Llywydd, presents a real opportunity for people of all ages to experience international football in their own communities, inspiring the next generation. I would encourage all Members to support efforts to raise awareness of the tournament and get to a game in north Wales if you can. Diolch yn fawr.

Between 1948 and 1971, the UK Government invited people from the Caribbean and Commonwealth countries to help rebuild the country and fill labour shortages after the second world war. On 22 June 1948, HMT Empire Windrush docked in Tilbury. There were 1,027 people on board, mainly from the Caribbean—Jamaica, Saint Lucia, Grenada and Barbados. Many had served in the British armed forces during world war two. The most common sectors that people worked in were the construction industry, public transport, manufacturing and our NHS. In my constituency, we still have Windrush elders. They continue to be important and essential voices in our community. So many have made and continue to make an outstanding contribution.

Vernesta Cyril OBE arrived from Saint Lucia and she is a much-loved midwife in Newport, serving in our NHS for over 40 years. Despite being treated with hostility, Vernesta says it made her strong. She continues to be an inspiration and a leading voice in our community. Roy Grant moved from Jamaica to become an engineer. After arriving in England, he made Newport his home. Roy works relentlessly to make sure young people understand the struggles of the Windrush generation and to help build connections between communities. These are just two people who have made such a positive impact. The elders and their families have made invaluable contributions to Wales. They deserve the respect and gratitude of all of us in this Senedd and across Wales.

I'm very pleased to speak today to mark the unveiling of a new statue celebrating the life and legacy of Elizabeth Andrews, one of Wales's most remarkable political activists and champions of social justice. Tomorrow, at Rhondda Heritage Park in Trehafod, a statue created by sculptor Billy Bond will be unveiled as the fifth and final monument installed by the Monumental Welsh Women campaign to honour those Welsh women whose contributions have too often been overlooked.

Born into poverty in Hirwaun as the seventh of 11 children in a mining family, Elizabeth Andrews left school at 13 to help support her family. Arguably because of those circumstances, she became a pioneering internationalist, suffragist and socialist who dedicated her life to improving the lives of working-class women, children and families across Wales. She helped women exercise their newly won right to vote, she campaigned tirelessly for better maternity and childcare provision, helped establish one of Wales's earliest nursery schools and led the successful campaign for pithead baths, transforming conditions for mining families. She also gave evidence to a royal commission on mining, highlighting the impact of the industry on family life and played a pivotal role in supporting communities through the hardships of the 1926 lockout. Elizabeth Andrews understood that social justice begins with giving a voice to those too often unheard. This statue is a fitting tribute to a woman whose work changed lives and whose example continues to inspire us today. Diolch.

Diolch. Before I begin, I wish to declare a personal interest. Unbeknown to me when I tabled this debate, members of my wider family are today going through this very situation. While that is a separate and deeply personal matter, I want to begin with the story of a baby boy called Gwilym. Six months ago today, on Christmas Eve, Gwilym died at just 11 days old. His parents, Brooke and Wil, from Pontypridd in my constituency, spent those 11 days doing what every new parent does: loving their son, getting to know him and looking forward to the future they believed lay ahead of them. Instead, they were left facing the unimaginable reality of saying goodbye to Gwilym and trying to understand why he died.

In the six months since his devastating loss, they have worked tirelessly alongside other bereaved parents and organisations, such as Sands, to campaign for changes that will help save babies' lives and improve support for bereaved families across Wales. Gwilym's story is heartbreaking, but, sadly, it's not unique. Every year families across Wales experience the devastation of stillbirth, neonatal death and pregnancy loss. Behind every statistic is a much-loved baby, sometimes babies, a grieving family and a future changed forever. This is why this debate matters, and that is why I am proud to open this debate on saving babies' lives.

I would like to thank my co-submitters, Elyn Stephens and Vikki Howells, and Members across the Siambr for their support on this very important issue. As a newly elected Member, it is a privilege to open my first debate on a matter that affects every community across Wales.

This motion recognises a reality that should concern every Member of the Senedd. Wales continues to have the highest stillbirth rate in the United Kingdom. There has been no sustained reduction in stillbirths since 2018, and too many families continue to experience the trauma of losing a baby. More than 1,000 babies in Wales may have survived between 2019 and 2023 had outcomes matched those of the best performing countries in Europe. We should never accept this as inevitable, because this is not just about understanding the problem, it is about preventing it and saving babies' lives wherever possible. We have to ask why this is the case in Wales, recognising that baby loss can occur for many reasons, including infection, complications in pregnancy and wider health factors often beyond anyone's control. But we must also look widely at the factors that we can influence, such as inequality and maternal health, and ensuring that women, particularly those at higher risk, receive the support they need before, during and after pregnancy. This includes, for example, women living with conditions such as diabetes, in particular type 1 diabetes, a condition I've lived with for over 35 years, and one that did influence my own fertility decisions, where we know that improving access to specialist support and modern technologies represents one of the clearest opportunities to reduce risk and improve outcomes for both mother and baby. However this goes wider than any one condition. It is about how we support women's health overall and how we work across Government to address the inequalities and wider health challenges that too often shape outcomes in Wales.

It was clear from speaking to families that the loss does not end, it continues. Too often, the grief is carried in silence, because the stigma surrounding baby loss can make it difficult to speak openly. Parents are living their lives while grieving the life they should have lived, the milestones never reached, the moments never lived, not just in childhood, but every year that follows. For some families, their grief places immense strain on relationships, changing the course of lives in ways that are difficult to articulate. So, today, this debate is not only about remembering babies such as Gwilym, George, Henry and Megan Jane, and every baby whose life has been tragically cut short, it is about honouring their memory by asking what more can be done to save lives, reduce inequalities and ensure that bereaved families receive the care and support they need, wherever they live in Wales.

When a family experiences the devastating loss of a baby, they must be able to access the high-quality bereavement care and support they need. Sadly, this is not the reality for many in Wales. Research by Sands found that only a very small proportion of bereaved parents in Wales were able to access the support they wanted through the NHS or charities, whilst more than a third were unable to access support at all. This must change, and we have the opportunity to do better. I would like to take a moment to recognise the incredible work of charities such as Sands Cymru and 2wish and their staff and volunteers, who give their time to support families when they need it most. These organisations provide vital support at the most difficult times in families' lives. However, access to bereavement support should not depend on the third sector alone. Families should be able to access consistent, high-quality support through the NHS, wherever they live.

We must also recognise that bereavement support needs to be available to both parents. Too often, fathers, partners and non-carrying parents can feel invisible in the aftermath of baby loss, despite experiencing profound grief on their own while supporting the person they love. Our services must be designed to meet the needs of the whole family, recognising that every family’s experience and structure is different. I want to mention Rafe, whose dad is listening from the Oriel today, and Seren too, whose family cannot be here. Through their family's loss, they remind us powerfully why this debate matters so much.

I therefore welcome the Welsh Government’s commitment to publish the new national bereavement care pathway Cymru. For families struggling to access support today, this publication cannot come soon enough. In responding to this debate, I would welcome further detail from the Deputy Minister on when the pathway will be published and, crucially, how the implementation will be monitored, evaluated and delivered consistently across health boards.

My thanks to Sara for tabling this motion today and for inviting me to be a co-submitter. During the recent Senedd campaign, I'm sure like many candidates across Wales, I received the greatest number of campaign e-mails to me in response to the Sands pledge to save babies' lives and improve the care and support for parents. So, my thanks to Sands. It was a really successful piece of lobbying, which has paid off in terms of today's debate, and I hope will pay off in terms of Government action too. I'd also like to thank all those constituents who reached out to their prospective representatives calling for change and often sharing the most heartbreaking stories.

I believe, in today's debate, there will, rightly, be a lot of duplication of key points, and I'll try not to cover the same ground as Sara did, but I do want to go back to that story that Sara started the debate with, about our constituents Brooke, Wil and their son Gwilym. This is crucial because, when we have such a strong statistical evidence base, it is all too easy to lose sight of what a debate is about. This is about, as Sara said, families losing babies during pregnancy or shortly after birth, lives being transformed in an awful and overwhelming way, and then the support needed at this terrible moment just not being there. I've met with Brooke and have been struck by her courage and the way that she is using her experience and the memory of Gwilym to make things better for others, particularly around that support that parents affected by bereavement can and should expect.

One aspect of that is how parents can get answers as to why this traumatic and awful event has happened. A report earlier this year from the Royal College of Pathologists said that paediatric and perinatal pathology is in crisis. Two out of five consultant PPP posts in the UK are vacant, and there are just 46 full-time PPP consultants in the whole of Britain, and only two covering Wales. This leads to longer turnaround, longer periods just waiting for answers, with one in five recently bereaved parents now routinely waiting six months or more for post-mortem results.

However, it is also about the support that parents access after this loss. In my own local health board, I understand there is not currently a specialist bereavement counsellor in place. What makes this particularly inexplicable to me is that having this role in place shouldn't be radical or revolutionary or out of the ordinary. Sadly, that is even more the case when we recall the breakdown in maternity services in the former Cwm Taf health board some years ago. The review that went on into that was a really thorough piece of work. Families contributed, sharing their experiences and dredging up their deepest psychological traumas. There were some positive outcomes from that. I'm thinking of the Primrose suite in Prince Charles Hospital, a specially designed room with caring, dedicated and protective staff who guide the family through their loss. But the overall picture still is that there are problems that just shouldn't be there. I've raised the lack of a specialist bereavement counsellor with Cwm Taf Morgannwg health board, but I'm also keen that Welsh Government ensures sufficient support across Wales too. This is a point captured in our motion and one that's really crucial to drive change and make things better across Wales. Indeed, a really stark figure from Sands is that only 5 per cent of bereaved parents in Wales could access the mental health support that they wanted and needed through the NHS.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and I want to begin by paying tribute to Sands and to every bereaved parent and family who has campaigned, shared their story and demanded the change in the most painful of circumstances. This debate is about data, targets, accountability and health services, but before that it's about babies: babies who were loved, babies who are still loved, babies who were named, babies whose families had imagined futures with them, babies who are not with us but whose lives matter.

I recently met with a constituent, Jasmine, who is here today. She experienced baby loss. She started the Better Maternity Wales campaign, which is calling for safer, more compassionate and more consistent maternity care across Wales. Behind that campaign is not only a call for change, but a baby whose life and memory mean so much. His name is Wyatt. I say Wyatt's name today because bereaved parents have told us very clearly that their babies must not be reduced to statistics only. They were here, they were loved, they are still loved. They are part of their families' stories.

One issue Wyatt's mother raised has stayed with me. Why are mothers still being asked in maternity settings how many children they have, only for their answer to be brushed aside or wrongly corrected when staff realise that one of those children has died? That may seem like a small interaction for some, but for a bereaved parent it can really reopen a wound. It can make them feel, intentionally or not, that their baby does not count, that their motherhood, their parenthood, their grief and their love somehow does not fit into the right box on the form, and that has to change.

Compassionate care is not only about clinical pathways. It's about language, it's about records that reflect those families' realities. It's about not forcing bereaved parents to explain again and again that the baby they are naming is a child they have lost. But compassion on its own is not enough. This debate must also be about accountability. Sands Cymru, as we've heard, have made a clear and reasonable ask. Wales needs clear, measurable targets to reduce stillbirths and neonatal deaths—not vague aspirations, targets. Because, without targets, it becomes too easy for progress to drift; it becomes harder for families, staff, health boards and for this Senedd to know whether things are improving. We know that Cymru has not made the sustained progress that families deserve. And, as Sara mentioned, between 2022 and 2024, Cymru had the highest rate of stillbirths and neonatal deaths of all four UK nations. We know there are inconsistencies between health boards. We know that access to good care, bereavement support and specialist psychological support can depend far too much on where someone lives, and that's clearly not acceptable.

I'd like to begin by thanking the Members for bringing forward this important and deeply sensitive debate. And I won't make any apology that some of what I will say will be repeating messages already said, but I feel those messages are important.

At the outset, this is not a policy discussion, this is about families—parents who go into hospital expecting one outcome and leave with something they will carry for the rest of their lives. That is the reality behind every statistic, every report and every line of this motion. So, we should be clear about where we are. And as the Member has said, and it needs repeating, Wales continues to have a higher stillbirth rate than the rest of the UK, and that has not improved meaningfully since 2018.

If we matched the best outcomes in Europe, over 1,000 babies might still be alive today—over 1,000 lives. That's not a marginal issue. That is a system that is not delivering what it should. We've had reports, we've had reviews, we've had commitments, but outcomes have not improved. The question is: why hasn't it worked, and what will we do differently now?

We need clear accountability, a stronger focus on front-line care, and an end to the postcode lottery in bereavement support. This motion is about results, fewer deaths, better care and equal standards. Families do not need more reports; they need fewer babies dying. This is not partisan. It's about whether more children live and fewer families grieve. That is the standard we should all hold ourselves to. Behind every statistic is a name, a family, and a future that never had the chance to unfold. If we cannot come together on this, we must ask ourselves, 'What are we doing here?' I urge all Members to support this motion and commit to real change, because until fewer parents leave hospital without their baby, our work is not finished. Diolch.

I thank the Member for tabling this important debate, given that Sands Awareness Week was just last week. And I speak on behalf of Natasha Asghar, who isn't able to be with us today for her own personal circumstances on another matter.

It is all too easy to think that Wales as a nation is impervious to the loss of our babies. However, it is shocking to see figures from Sands and Tommy's showing that if we improved our maternity and neonatal care to the levels of the best performing countries in Europe, 1,000 babies, which has been said, born between 2019 and 2023, could still be alive today. The number of stillbirths and neonatal deaths remain higher in Wales than the rest of the UK. Behind every baby lost is a mother, a father and a family, all coping with the loss of a life they have waited for and nurtured. It is so important to recognise those who have lost a baby and to support them through their immense grief. And I should know, because I too have been through this process.

So, obviously, I agree entirely with the point that bereaved families must be able to access the high-quality bereavement care they deserve. This is all the more important after we saw truly awful accounts of poor maternity and neonatal care in Cwm Taf Morgannwg in 2019.

Pregnancy is actually one of the most dangerous times in a woman's life. The problem is that it is now still happening. Maternity services in Swansea bay are still in targeted intervention because of repeated failures in the level of care of mothers and babies. This cannot and must not be repeated. The largest maternity review in the history of the NHS is being published today, which details widespread failings that led to the deaths of babies and avoidable harm. More than 2,500, and more than 800 members of staff, have contributed to this review at Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust. So, I therefore hope that, as a health Cabinet Minister, you will look at these kinds of learnings, because it's imperative that we up our game here.

Obviously, there is a lot to unpack in this report, and there is an ongoing criminal investigation. But there will undoubtedly be lessons that need to be learnt as a result, to ensure something as horrifically tragic as this does not happen ever again. These reports are imperative, but they do not bring those lost ones back.

This week, my colleague Natasha Asghar MS, who was hoping to contribute to this debate, met with Sands, and she also has met with bereaved parents to discuss the new Welsh Government's priorities for maternity and neonatal care. What the parents felt was simple and raw, and they told Natasha, and I quote,

'Grief is love with nowhere to go.'

What they also asked for is simple, better care for mothers and babies, and better bereavement care. It is heartbreaking to hear accounts from parents that there is either one bereavement midwife that covers the whole health board area, or other bereavement midwives who are only available once a week—babies are born every day—leaving families without the required support for weeks. We also see parents given different types of support. In some cases, perinatal mental health is being used for parents who do not have a mental health condition. In others, bereavement support is simply not there. Just one service provides specialist support here in Cardiff, which only provides support for one year. Believe me, grief like that goes on for longer than a year. And while we seek to ensure that all of Wales can access this specialist support, we need an evaluation of how well it's working. So, I would be grateful to the Deputy Minister to see whether this will be carried out.

Each health board also has different guidance on bereavement. So, there is a lack of joined-up thinking, and a lack of data sharing on how many parents and families have been affected. I note that, before the Senedd election, the Deputy Minister had been calling for targets on stillbirth and neonatal mortality. So, I would also be grateful for confirmation that these targets will be introduced, data collected, and whether a single set of guidelines will be introduced.

I speak for those of us in this Siambr, those of us who represent our constituents, and those of us who want to see improvements across Wales. And for those of us who have suffered baby loss, I do thank Sara for bringing forward this really important debate. Our first Member debate of the new Senedd tells us where our priorities should lie, and I am glad that they lie here, with families, with babies, with the people who care for them. This should not be a comfortable debate, and it is encouraging to see so many people here in this Siambr to listen to this important debate. It's not an opportunity to note reports or to recite statistics because it is an opportunity to focus in on those babies and families affected. It should be a moment to reckon honestly with how this institution—the Senedd—and the Welsh Government allowed a culture to take hold in our maternity services where recommendations were made, accepted and then forgotten.

Over the past decade, maternity and neonatal services in Wales have been subject to more than 500 recommendations. Five hundred. That's extraordinary. We know that the Welsh Government previously accepted the recommendations from the 2026 assessment by Professor Sally Holland, but previous Governments accepted previous recommendations too. Acceptance is not implementation, so we do need to see real action.

Like others, I want to highlight the amazing work of our midwifery, nursing and neonatal services across Wales, but let's grapple with some of the reality here. Between 2015 and 2023, over 22 per cent of midwives left NHS Wales within their first four years. Sickness rates remain high among neonatal nurses as well. The workforce planning tool Birthrate Plus has been widely criticised for underestimating postnatal workload and failing to account for sickness and skill mix. We cannot plan our way to safe care using numbers that do not reflect reality. I want to pay tribute as well, in the Siambr, to the work that Jenny did for us in raising this issue constantly. And I also want to echo the Royal College of Midwives Cymru, who say that staff shortages must be treated as an immediate safety issue. So, I'd like to hear, if I may, from the Deputy Minister, what additional planning and support is being made available to midwives to support them.

Finally, as has been touched on, I want to outline how bereaved families in Wales are being failed twice: once when they lose their baby, and again when they reach out for help. Only five per cent of bereaved parents could access the mental health support that they wanted to access through the NHS. Myself and my family, we were very lucky—after our third baby loss, we were able to access mental health support. But what we see is the third lowest figure in the entire United Kingdom, with the highest stillbirth rate in the United Kingdom. The assurance assessment found that families who experienced loss were further traumatised by defensive responses from health boards. And I know myself that there is an element of shame in being able to both report and talk about the issues. Families cannot be made to feel blamed. People who come looking for answers need to find a system that is open. Every bereaved parent, regardless of where they live or what they have experienced, must be able to access that specialist support.

During the COVID pandemic, I led the Welsh part of the But Not Maternity campaign. We exposed the profound unfairness of families being separated at the most vulnerable moments of pregnancy, birth and loss. It was a time when you could still sit in the pub in a small group, but partners were barred from being present for labour, scans or devastating news.

There is one family who contacted me that I will never forget: a mother who was in hospital awaiting a medical procedure after losing her baby. Her partner, the baby's father, was not allowed to be with her because of the COVID restrictions. They were both heartbroken, both alone, and all they wanted to do was hold each other in their grief. That kind of experience leaves scars. It's not something that you can simply recover from, and it's why compassionate, consistent mental health support must be a core part of baby loss care, not an optional extra.

We must also remember the parents whose babies arrive far too early. Families with premature babies often spend weeks or months in neonatal units, living in a state of constant fear and exhaustion. Many describe the trauma of watching their tiny baby fight for life whilst navigating employment, limited visiting and the emotional whiplash of good days followed by terrifying setbacks. Neonatal care saves lives, but the emotional toll on parents is immense, particularly parents leaving those units without their precious babies. These parents need structured psychological support not just in the moment, but long after they leave the unit.

I also want to recognise a Bridgend constituent, Mark Williams, who has led the How Are You, Dad? campaign. His work reminds us that dads and all non-birthing parents experience trauma too, whether through baby loss, premature birth or the long weeks of neonatal care. Their mental health matters, their grief is real, and their inclusion in support services is essential for the well-being of the whole family. If we are serious about preventing long-term trauma, then mental health support must be embedded throughout maternity, neonatal and bereavement pathways, accessible, timely and offered to every parent, not only those who know how to ask.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to start by thanking every Member who has contributed to this important debate. It is significant that this is the first Member debate in this Senedd, and I welcome the opportunity to respond.

Stillbirth and neonatal death are not statistics to those who experience them. They are the loss of a baby, of a precious life surrounded by hope and dreams. The death of a baby is one of the most profound and searing pains that any family will ever endure. It is a grief that parents and families go on experiencing for the rest of their lives. I want to thank every parent who has reached out to me, who has reached out to Members in this Senedd to share their experiences. They are determined that other families should not have to face the anguish they have been through to campaign for better care, for stronger support and safer services. I am so grateful to them for their bravery and for their courage in the memory of those they have lost.

Every death of a baby matters. Every stillbirth and neonatal death has to be treated with compassion, and parents deserve answers. We have to ensure that families are listened to, that care is safe and can be accessed by everyone, and that the whole system learns when things go devastatingly wrong and acts to reduce avoidable harm. The motion rightly draws attention to the stillbirth rate in Wales, which is higher than the UK rate. It's vital we take this data seriously. We need, of course, to interpret the figures carefully, particularly in a nation like Wales, where relatively small numbers of births mean annual rates can fluctuate significantly.

It's true that MBRRACE-UK has advised caution when interpreting year-on-year changes. They recommend looking at trends over a longer period. And it's true, of course, that since 2016 Wales has seen an overall downward trend. But I contend it is not enough. None of that context will lessen a parent's pain. No caveats can make better what any of the families we've heard about today have gone through. We have to see sustained improvement. We need to understand and address what happens when things go so disastrously wrong. And that means focusing on prevention, safety and quality. It means ensuring women receive the right care at the right time, that concerns are heard and acted on, and that families are treated with dignity and respect. I am horrified to hear of the parents being corrected or brushed aside in the way that Elyn raised. It should not be happening.

It also means that we need to identify inequalities. We know that outcomes can vary significantly as a result of deprivation and ethnicity. That's why we must align these necessary improvements in maternity and neonatal services with our commitments to reduce health inequalities and to deliver the anti-racist Wales plan. I also commit to strengthening our women's health approach to improve health in the early years, to secure better health outcomes across the course of one's life, and, more importantly, that women's needs are heard and acted upon.

The report 'The path to safer beginnings in Wales' will be central to our actions. This assessment was steered by data, by site visits, discussions with staff, the voices and experiences of women, families and communities. The recommendations of the panel set out that we need to provide a standard care offer to everyone to address urgent clinical safety priorities, to secure safe staffing levels, and to understand the needs, experiences and outcomes more effectively.

This Government accepts the recommendations and we will act on them. A three-year programme has been established to oversee delivery, with the oversight board meeting for the first time this month. This is not a report that will gather dust. It is a delivery programme focused on action, on accountability, and on measurable improvement. Work is already under way. All health boards in Wales are now live with Digital Maternity Cymru, which replaces hand-held paper notes with a shared digital maternity record, strengthening data quality and national oversight.

I want support to be there for parents when they need it. We are working closely with health boards and the Welsh ambulance service on a dedicated triage and labour line, and supporting improvements to neonatal care with the support of Bliss Cymru. I expect all neonatal units in Wales will achieve at least bronze baby charter accreditation this year. We are also continuing work on early warning surveillance, safer pre-term birth care bundles, and structured learning from incidents where babies' lives are lost.

The motion rightly highlights bereavement care. Families must receive compassionate, consistent, high-quality support. I’m deeply concerned about the incidents highlighted today, where clearly that has not always been the case. Bereavement midwives are in place in every health board, alongside third-sector care services. I've heard the point raised about specialist bereavement counsellors. I'll be taking that away, so thank you very much for raising that. The NHS has been working with Sands on five bereavement care pathways covering miscarriage, termination of pregnancy for fetal anomaly, stillbirth, neonatal death, and sudden unexpected death in infancies. These pathways have been published today, with additional implementation support in place.

I know the Onnen service in Cardiff and Vale has been raised by a few Members. That will be evaluated robustly to ensure that any national roll-out is as effective as possible, that we learn from lessons there in terms of eligibility criteria, in terms of the length of when that is available as well.

Members have called for clear targets to reduce stillbirth and neonatal mortality—I understand why. Targets can focus attention; they can signal ambition. Of course, they must be the right targets, supported by robust data. England's experience shows setting a healthcare target is not enough by itself, but I am interested to look at how Digital Maternity Cymru could improve this, could improve our data.

I want to focus as well, of course, on how working across all Government portfolios to tackle causes of health inequalities can play its vital part, and so we will consider carefully how measurable ambitions could be framed for Wales, including how they reflect our population, our data and our commitment to reducing inequalities. [Interruption.] I will take an intervention.

I'm very grateful to you for taking an intervention. Deputy Minister, you referred earlier to bereavement care. No-one hasn't been moved this afternoon by the contributions we've heard from Members or, indeed, the e-mail communications and letters that we've had from our constituents about baby loss. One of the things that both you and I have campaigned for in the previous Senedd is for losses to be recognised through the provision of baby loss certificates. It's a great frustration of mine, and I know it's a frustration of yours, that those certificates are not available yet for parents in Wales who lose a baby. They're available in Scotland, they're available in England and, as of this week, they've become available in Northern Ireland. Can you give a commitment today that you will make sure that this is addressed in the future so that those people who suffer this experience of baby loss can have that recognition through the provision of an official document recognising that baby?

Diolch, Darren. As you'll know and as you've referred to, this was something that I have raised in previous years as well. It is something that my teams are working on now to evaluate how this could be done. There are problems technically that have hindered, I think, bringing them in before, partly because we don't have a national records service, which means we're different from Scotland and Northern Ireland. We need to make sure that there's a way that that can be done in a way where the bereavement pathway is supportive of parents. But I can assure you that that is something that we are looking at with urgency, and I'm really grateful that you've raised that. It's something that would support, I know, so many families. Thank you so much for raising that.

Dirprwy Lywydd, if I could end, please, by speaking directly to parents who are watching this who have lost their babies. Your babies' lives mattered. What happened to them matters, and the loss you have suffered is something no parent should ever have to undergo. I know I can't begin to imagine what you are going through, but I feel it in my heart. I know I don't have all of the answers, but I want to do everything I can so that fewer families have to face this most devastating of griefs, and that those who do get the support they need when they need it. You are not alone, and I promise we are listening.

Thank you, Minister, for your response, and I thank all Members who have contributed to this debate today. It is clear, I think, that there is strong cross-party support on the topic of the motion before us today. For the sake of all families and parents—and I'm aware that some of them are in the gallery watching our discussions today—and for the sake of everyone who has suffered the loss of a baby—and statistics tell us that more women in this room will have also experienced that, and my heart goes out to all of you—I really hope that a strong demonstration of support for this motion today will lead to action from the Government, and that that action will lead to improvements in the experiences of families and in the outcomes that we see when looking at the alarming statistics in terms of the number of babies who die needlessly across Wales.

I'd like to echo many of the comments made by Members throughout the debate; time is against me and I cannot reference them all. However, in particular, Elyn powerfully spoke about the importance of recognising every baby as an individual and not a statistic, the need for compassionate care that respects families' experiences at every stage, and the strain on staff. Vikki also highlighted the gaps in bereavement and psychological support, and the need for consistent specialist services to be available to families across all health boards in Wales. I want to put on record as well that also includes how we look after people in Powys, because we always say Powys is different, so across all seven health boards. And I also want to thank Andrew, Janet and Jane for sharing. When we share things in this Chamber, other people see it and it really matters, so I'm really grateful and I extend my love to you both for sharing how you did that today as well. Diolch. And I want to thank Sarah as well. And also, an important point was raised about the news that's come out today in relation to Nottingham, and we should be looking there to see what we can do to learn, to ensure that we can give the best possible care to the people of Wales.

I acknowledge the Deputy Minister's response and I know that this is an issue that you care deeply about, one that you raised during the sixth Senedd. It is also something that I care deeply about and one I will continue to raise in the Siambr, because I am determined to move beyond fragmented services and towards genuinely joined-up care, care that is seamless across every stage of life and grounded in compassion.

People should not be left to navigate disjointed systems, but supported through clear pathways that meet their physical and mental health needs. And babies—. I've lost myself now. Sorry. When services are not joined up, people are let down, and in the most serious cases, we see avoidable harm, poor maternal outcomes, deteriorating mental health and babies’ lives cut far too short. Where that happens, families must be cared for with compassion and given the space to grieve. This is my first contribution, but it will be one of many where I will work with Ministers to deliver the joined‑up, compassionate care across Wales that people deserve.

The real test will be how we translate these commitments into action. Too many babies and families have been let down before. We now have an opportunity here, and we must work together to deliver better outcomes for families across Wales. We need a joined-up approach across Government. A baby’s care spans maternity services, neonatal care, health visiting and wider community support, and Ministers must work together to ensure that nothing falls through the gaps. Within this Siambr, we must all play our part in honouring the pledges we made to families. We owe that to those watching today and online, to every family living with the heartbreak of baby loss, and to Gwilym, Henry, George, Megan Jane, Rafe, Seren and Wyatt, and all babies no longer with us.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I agree with you, it's very difficult to start this debate following such an important and emotional debate, and I commend the Member for bringing that forward.

However, I am pleased to move the motion tabled in the name of my colleague Paul Davies. Llywydd, the Welsh Conservatives cannot stand by and support the continual systemic downgrading of our healthcare services across Wales. Today, we are calling on this new Welsh Government to draw a line in the sand and rule out the managed decline of our local hospitals. Every Member in this Chamber represents a constituency where local hospitals are facing serious structural and maintenance issues, but simply rationalising services and closing local facilities without addressing the root causes isn't just short-sighted, it's completely missing the mark.

We do not need further downgrading, what we need is targeted, urgent investment to clear the staggering backlog of repairs. Now, I note that this new Welsh Government administration has pledged £20 million to begin addressing these estate issues, but to call that a beginning is a massive understatement. It is barely a drop in the ocean when you compare it with the £1.4 billion that the Welsh Government itself admits is required to bring our NHS estate up to scratch. We can't afford to wait decades to see the improvements needed. What we need from the Welsh Government is a clear plan as to how much they are going to be allocating to these much-needed repairs and how we are going to see improvements to the backlog of maintenance work required.

It's no secret, Llywydd, that the Welsh NHS estate is quite literally crumbling after decades of underinvestment. To make matters worse, serious structural and maintenance issues have now been identified at all 12 of Wales's main hospitals. These aren't just cosmetic problems, they are causing severe operational crises. We saw it clearly when the Princess of Wales Hospital was forced to close its accident and emergency department due to major water supply disruption, as well as the roof collapse there in 2024.

Let's be completely clear, the centralisation of NHS services and the downgrading of community hospitals are purely political choices. They are decisions made by previous Welsh Governments, and they are decisions that this new administration can choose to reverse today if they have the political will.

We are constantly fed the narrative that the Welsh NHS is being moved closer to home, yet for patients on the ground nothing could be further from the truth. Services are being routinely stripped away from the very communities they are meant to serve. If the Welsh Government were to support our motion today, Wales would take a massive step forward. We would finally show the public that the old, failing way of running our health service doesn't have to be the status quo.

But, sadly, Plaid Cymru, looking at their amendment, have refused to back our motion. For the Welsh electorate, it will seem like a depressing case of same old, same old, business as usual, just a slightly different shade of Labour, which is hardly surprising given Plaid's close links with successive Labour administrations.

Formally.

Diolch, Lywydd. As you will see from the Welsh Labour amendments, we agree with the general principle of the motion. Our first amendment adds the obvious caveat that all such decisions should be made whilst prioritising patient safety, given that emergency situations may occur. Our second amendment goes further, approaching a longer term solution.

Of course, there is a roster of necessary maintenance work across Wales. We all know this. But rebuilding the University Hospital of Wales and Wrexham Maelor Hospital and a new hospital development in west Wales would help reduce that in a far more long-term and sustainable way. I have seen for myself the need to rebuild Wrexham Maelor Hospital. It has grown organically over many, many decades and is now a sprawling array of buildings that simply don't lend themselves well to improved productivity. I do believe that the Welsh Government should be ambitious for Wales and willing to use all the financial levers available, and in the case of new hospitals, that would mean utilising traditional and conventional borrowing and also borrowing through the mutual investment model.

The approach set out in our amendment is ambitious and would ensure state-of-the-art hospitals that would serve swathes of people across Wales.

Moved.

Diolch, Lywydd. I formally move our amendment, tabled in the name of Llŷr Powell. The motion before us is very clear: it calls on the Welsh Government to rule out hospital closures and the downgrading of hospital services for the duration of this Senedd. That matters to people across Wales who are worried about the future of local health services. That concern is felt in north Wales, west Wales, our Valleys, towns and cities and in our rural communities across the country. For patients, this is about whether services will be there when they need them. It's about whether emergency departments and minor injuries units, maternity services, diagnostics, planned care or local treatment will continue to be available, and it's about whether people can have confidence that the services they use today will not be weakened tomorrow.

I accept that the NHS cannot stand still. Services do need to change over time. Clinical practice changes, technology changes. No-one is saying that every service can or should be delivered in exactly the same way forever—that would be totally irresponsible, because patient safety must also come first. If there are genuine clinical concerns about a service, they have to be taken seriously and we'll support the Labour amendment that mentions patient safety. But there is a difference between improving a service and downgrading it. There is a difference between making a service safer and taking it further away from the people who rely on it. And there is a difference between reform and managed decline.

Too often, communities are told that the service changes are temporary. They are told it's because of staffing pressures, estate issues and the need to review how care is delivered. But people have heard all that before. They all know that a temporary change means it's becoming permanent in the end, and that is where trust breaks down. Because people are not against improvements. They're not against better services. What they object to is being told that a service is going to be improved when in reality it's going to be reduced. And if the Welsh Government does not support this motion, then it needs to be honest about what that means. Is it prepared to leave the door open to the possibility of hospital closures during this Senedd? And is it prepared to leave open the possibility of the further downgrading of services? I think that's what the Government amendment means, for everyone to see. And if so, our communities deserve to know that clearly from the Cabinet Minister today, because the answer to fragile services should not be simply about being able to move them elsewhere; the answer should be to fix the problems that made them fragile in the first place. And I know the Cabinet Minister and I share some common ground on how we intend to do that. That's the kind of reform that Wales needs. But time will tell if this Government is up to the challenge of reforming our health service.

I'm pleased to take part in this very important debate. Now, over many years, the people that I represent in west Wales have seen a steady and deeply concerning pattern from Hywel Dda University Health Board, and that's the gradual centralisation of vital services away from the communities and people that rely on them. Services have been downgraded, transferred or reconfigured against the will of the very people that these services are meant for. Each time the health board takes a service away from the local hospital and moves it further eastwards, it has been presented as necessary. And yet, taken together, they tell a clear story—that the health board wants to pull services further away from west Wales and centralise them at Glangwili Hospital in Carmarthen. The latest centralisation proposals have been the removal of emergency general surgery at Withybush Hospital and a shake up of stroke services across mid and west Wales.

Now, removing emergency general surgery is not a minor adjustment, it's a fundamental change that will have huge consequences for patients and increase travel times in an emergency situation. And so let me be absolutely clear from the outset that I oppose the health board's decision to remove this service from Withybush Hospital, and I will continue to campaign for the Welsh Government to intervene to stop this from happening. When minutes matter, distance matters, and I believe that expecting patients to travel further in an emergency situation is not just inconvenient, it's potentially dangerous.

Of course, with a new Government in place, the people that I represent have hope for a change of direction. And given that the party of Government campaigned on these issues during the election and made it clear just how dangerous centralising emergency general surgery is, it's frustrating that there hasn't already been action from the Welsh Government on this issue. The Welsh Government has both the authority and the responsibility to intervene, and the people that I represent, understandably, want to know why action hasn't already been taken. The people of Ceredigion Penfro deserve clarity, transparency and accountability. And, above all that, they deserve safe, accessible healthcare closer to their homes.

Now, for years, the previous Government did nothing while the health board removed service after service from Withybush Hospital, and I sincerely hope that this Government will not go down that same route. And it's not just emergency general surgery that is at risk. As I said earlier, stroke services are also under threat too. The health board is consulting on plans to downgrade stroke services to treat-and-transfer models at Bronglais and Withybush hospitals, and, if the health board follows through with its plans, it will mean that patients with acute stroke symptoms will have to travel significant distance for critical care. This is not right and it's not acceptable. It's another example of the health board centralising care in Carmarthen at the expense of communities further west.

Firstly, can I thank the Conservatives for tabling this important debate today? Standing up against the centralisation of services and the downgrading of hospital services in Withybush and Bronglais is a priority for me and colleagues in Plaid Cymru in Ceredigion Penfro. We need to invest in, not downgrade, our rural hospitals, and we need to invest in primary care to secure more NHS GPs and dentists and we need to introduce treatment centres to reduce waiting lists urgently, and I'm pleased to see the new Government is already getting to work on these issues. I want to recognise the citizen campaign groups who are playing a vital role in standing up against the downgrading of hospital services in west Wales. I want to thank representatives of the Save Withybush Action Team for discussing their priorities with me, and Protect Bronglais Services, which Elin Jones MS has worked with closely, for their work, not least the demonstration in Aberystwyth in February involving some 800 people and a recent petition with over 17,800 signatories. They've also played an important role in collating evidence. I was also pleased to have an early opportunity to meet with Hywel Dda health board, where I was able to raise my concerns.

In an ideal world, we wouldn't be starting from here, and I was considering outlining the impact of 14 years of Tory austerity, of Brexit, and the decades of managed decline in Wales, but I don't want to focus on political divides. Rather, I want to tap into the scope here for working together across parties and constituencies to build alternatives, and, indeed, working with a new Welsh Government, whose health Minister here has a clear understanding of the challenges in rural healthcare and, as has been mentioned, has spoken out strongly on these issues. Neither do I want to focus on looking backwards. The original motion makes it sound as if this is about just keeping things the same and stopping further change, but what we have now is far from good enough for residents in Ceredigion Penfro. People in west Wales deserve better. We need to look forward and work creatively together, involving communities, to drive innovation and create a rural healthcare system that delivers the health outcomes our communities deserve. Finding those solutions is far from straightforward. Our health system is complex, and we need to see it as a whole. I urge you to support Plaid Cymru's amendment, which gives that context.

Developing community-based services and investing in primary care is key to reducing pressure on acute hospitals. Cardigan Integrated Care Centre is an example of how doing this can work well, and I hope Hywel Dda will listen to calls for a similar centre in Fishguard. We need evidence-based services, but evidence from lived experience is just as important as any other evidence. I have heard harrowing stories from constituents about their experience of hospital services. Some of this is specifically related to rural challenges, not least long distances between hospitals and difficult access via public transport. Clinical leadership is of course important, but solutions that work in urban areas do not always work in rural settings. We also need to look at the real lived experience of patients. The reality of long distances and travel time in rural areas can be a matter of life and death.

I first want to ask a question of the Cabinet Minister on what can only be described as a growing crisis in confidence in the way that rural healthcare decisions are made in Wales. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment, but I have to say at the outset that warm words will not be enough to reassure the people of west Wales if they are not matched by action. The reality is this: rural Wales is not being treated on an equal footing with urban Wales when it comes to healthcare planning. Geography is being ignored and access to care is being steadily eroded. Bronglais Hospital is the most rural general hospital in Wales; Withybush serves a vast and dispersed population alongside it. Together, they support around about 196,000 people across west Wales. In any urban setting, that population would typically be served by multiple easily accessibly sites. In west Wales, patients face long journeys, poor transport links and significant delays simply to access basic services. That context is everything, yet it is consistently treated as secondary in decision making.

Bronglais is now facing proposed changes to stroke services that have caused serious alarm across the constituency and beyond. I have received a large volume of correspondence from constituents and the message is consistent: people are frightened that access to time-critical stroke care is being weakened. We all know the clinical reality when someone suffers a stroke: every minute counts. Extending travel times to Glangwili Hospital is not a neutral administrative adjustment. It is a decision with potentially life-altering consequences.

Minister, before the election, you were unequivocal in your criticism of these kinds of proposals. You spoke in this Chamber about grave concerns about patient safety and about the risk of harm. You said clearly that sustainability must never come at the expense of access, and I agree with that. Those were not vague comments. They were clear commitments. Yet in Government, your office is telling local representatives that they are matters for the health board alone, with Ministers standing back and simply encouraging participation in consultation. With respect, that is not leadership, it is abdication.

It is also the same approach that has been taken by previous health Ministers, some I worked for, who also relied on passing responsibility down to health boards, rather than exercising clear leadership from the centre. People in west Wales are noticing. The sense growing in our communities is that nothing is changing, except the people sitting on the Government benches.

This issue is not isolated to Bronglais. In Pembrokeshire, communities are increasingly alarmed about the future of emergency and acute services at Withybush Hospital. Once again, services are being pulled further away from rural populations in the name of centralisation. Let's be honest about what this means in practice. For people in cities, it's an inconvenience. For people in rural Wales, it can be the difference between timely treatment and serious harm. That difference should be shaping Government policy, but it is not clear that it is.

I was going to say that I'm pleased to speak on this debate today, but I have to say, I didn't think we would have to be raising this again so soon, but appropriately, in a new Government. We’re now six weeks into the seventh Senedd, so that’s nearly halfway through your 100 days plan, and I have to say, it is now time to see real action, not more words, not more reviews or strategies. We need to see more action from you.

You said, Cabinet Minister, that nothing less than bold, radical action is needed to create a strong, resilient and thriving health and care system. I agree. Whilst £145 million of the supplementary budget is no small amount, I see no real plan to support your words in terms of action. You talk of recruitment and summits with NHS chairs. This doesn’t sound bold and radical to me. It sounds like a rehash of what’s been said before.

In my constituency of Bangor Conwy Môn, Betsi Cadwaladr being in special measures is the norm, and corridor care is now shamefully a part of everyday working life for staff and patients alike. Now, you know, Cabinet Secretary, in the previous Government, which you were very keen to support at all times, I raised corridor care. It's just inhumane. I've put a freedom of information request in, asking how many times the previous First Minister/health Minister attended the A&E department at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. Because she told me, when my colleague and I suggested that she came with us, especially when she was coming up to open and grandiose the opening of the new surgical hub in Llandudno General Hospital, she told me she'd been there several times. And I said, 'Well, what have you done? Have you seen people lying in the corridor, on the floor, being treated in cupboards, on chairs?' 'Oh yes, rest assured, I have been.' So, I put a freedom of information request in. Not once had the previous Minister—[Interruption.] You were, but you've not come back and actually told us what was the point of your meeting, did you address corridor—[Interruption.] No, not really. Did you address corridor care? Corridor care is a stain on this Welsh Government, no matter who the ones in power are.

The Welsh Conservatives would have grasped this. It would not be happening today. We would have focused our attention. You cannot have a situation when the most vulnerable and the elderly go there and come out with bedsores, after being sat in a chair for three days. I've even got constituents now who have told me, 'No matter how ill I am, no matter the situation, I will not go in an ambulance again to the local A&E department at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd.'

We've also seen A&E waits increasing from 10,000 in April 2016 to 11,066; waiting lists in Wales increasing to 680,000 different pathways; two-year waits rising to 3,694; and one in three of the sickest emergency department patients in Wales now experiencing corridor care. It should be a never happen, but it's now expected that it will happen if you go in to the A&E department. I do not blame the nursing staff, the junior doctors or the consultants. They are desperate for the beds. They're desperate for the nurses to support those beds. Previously, Mr Drakeford said—and I had a lot of respect for him—'We do not need any more beds.' Well, oh yes we do, and I hope you have got that message loud and clear.

Cabinet Minister, everyone, we all, other than the career politicians, walk into this Chamber carrying the ghosts of our past experiences and previous professions, and I am no different here. The devil is in the detail of this thing, and it says, 'any and all hospital and unit closures'. And I now don my previous llywydd—a far less powerful llywydd position—of the Royal College of Ophthalmologists in Wales's hat to try to answer this question as to why I respectfully—and it is with respect—disagree with the motion.

First of all, we need more than ever to improve efficiency within the national health service, and I don't think myself that this is a party political issue, because it involves everyone across this Chamber, their friends, their families, their constituents—everyone—and themselves. They want to have their healthcare provided, and the motion didn't specifically say about emergency care, for which there is a different case, but for 'all', as an examiner, any question with 'all' is always wrong, as any question with 'always' is always also wrong.

There are demographic challenges coming in the coming decades as well: the ageing population. In my own profession, for example, in ophthalmology—I'm a medical retina specialist dealing with age-related macular degeneration—there's no surprise that there is an epidemic of age-related macular degeneration, mainly because it has 'age' in the actual name of the disease itself, and providing services for neovascular age-related macular degeneration is one of the greatest strains affecting ophthalmology in Wales.

And we have to strike the right balance between improving efficiency and ensuring people can access the care they need. When I was llywydd of the royal college, I had the privilege of travelling all over Wales to see the different eye units, to see how things could be improved. GIRFT—I don't know if you're all aware of that organisation. It stands for Getting It Right First Time. It's similar to NICE, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. It tried to get health economics involved to try to make the national health service more efficient. And I've been to north Wales; I went to Abergele. I saw the cracks on the wall of the Stanley eye unit, and there's a nice measuring device, so that a graph can be drawn as to how rapidly the wall seems to be expanding and how close it comes to collapse. But yet, the cracks are still there. And I've been to many units. GIRFT says you have to do eight or more cataracts on a list. I'm proud to say that my own hospital in Swansea does so, but there are some units in Wales that do not do so and will never do so.

I spoke to a person, a consultant colleague in a neighbouring health board, before coming in here today, and I asked if I could use his name; he said 'no', because he didn't want to be sacked, mainly. But, essentially, he said that even if eight patients came to his unit, and he didn't do any operation but laid a hand upon their head and they went back to the ward, he would not be able to get through eight patients because of the infrastructure problems in the hospital. There are some units in Wales that will never be able to provide eight cataracts on a list. And this is just a microcosm.

I echo a lot of what has been said in the Chamber today. It is concerning, the backlog in the maintenance. That's why we added the amendment today, and I'm proud to be supporting it. That money is urgent. Hospitals need it now. We've all seen the scary reports; I don't want to repeat them. We've all had constituents write to us. It's not good for constituents' confidence in going to hospitals when they're reading reports like that. It's not good for recruiting staff, retaining staff. It's not good for patients going forward. I hope that the Government does consider bringing forward more information on how they're going to cover the maintenance backlog.

Lots of Members today have spoken about the closure of a hospital. In my constituency of Caerphilly, we saw it in 2011, in the closure of Caerphilly District Miners' Hospital. That hospital, we were told, was going to be replaced with a new hospital, and that services would be transferred to Ysbyty Ystrad Fawr. But the problem was, Llywydd, it wasn't that. It was downgraded. The signs that were put for the new hospital actually said at one point 'local emergency centre'. Now, a sticker replaces that sign that now just says 'minor injuries unit'. That is a real concern to constituents. I have constant correspondence. Members will remember that I stood in a by-election in October, in which I heard lots about that very thing—that constituents couldn't get to hospitals when they needed to. There was concern about loved ones travelling. Again, in the last election, we heard about it, and I know that Members across this Chamber will feel the same.

I'm glad that the Minister is here today, and the finance Minister. I'm sure she's very happy to hear that we're asking for more money for things again—[Interruption.] But this really is something that I hope all Members across the Chamber—. And I am grateful to the Conservatives for raising it, and for contributions from the Government as well. I do agree with you that not all services can be protected, but in the cases that we've heard today from west Wales, rural Wales—. I will be messaging the finance Minister, because I'm looking for an upgrade of Ysbyty Ystrad Fawr as well. But right now, we need to take this seriously. I'm glad the Minister is here, and I hope he is listening, because constituents now need answers. We've all heard his words over the past Senedds. I know he's been very strong on it then. I hope, in answering some of his advisers in Cathays Park, he's as strong on it today.

There's clearly a health crisis in Wales. We've heard it from many Members across this Chamber so far in this debate. I was pleased to hear the previous speaker from Plaid Cymru—and I certainly appreciate his clinical experience in this field—but we've also heard so far of the experience of many people in this Chamber of broken promises. When those services have been rearranged, it often leads to that downgrading. To address the point from the Member for Plaid Cymru who spoke a moment ago, what we're calling for as Welsh Conservatives is trying to deal with that fear of ongoing future adjustments, which inevitably leads to downgrading of those services.

When I speak to my constituents in Fflint Wrecsam about healthcare in Wales, they talk about access and waiting times. People tell me it's not working as it should. It's very much the same message that I've been hearing across this Chamber so far. The Minister will know that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board has been in special measures for a decade now. Despite the efforts and professionalism of staff on the ground, people in north Wales have faced years of pressures on services, long waiting times and real difficulty accessing care when they need it. As part of dealing with this, as an example, we are here to call on the Welsh Government to provide clear, long-term stability for our local healthcare network, specifically asking for that definitive commitment that rules out any further hospital closures or the downgrading of services. On this, I speak for the constituents of Fflint Wrecsam. They need a guarantee of that service continuity to give that confidence back into my constituency that those services are there for them in the future.

To understand why this is so important, we must see how our healthcare system is functioning on the ground. Consider the position of Wrexham Maelor Hospital. The Maelor acts as a central acute anchor for my constituents. It's no secret that the hospital is already operating at and often beyond its intended capacity. If services are downgraded or removed from surrounding areas, those patients, as the Minister understands, will not just disappear, they're simply displaced, and the vast majority will end up at the Maelor's emergency department and clinics. You cannot reduce capacity in one part of my constituency without creating an unmanageable domino effect at the main acute site at Maelor.

Sadly, we're seeing other examples of this taking place currently. I have a group of residents in Saltney Ferry who can't even register with a GP, they're not covered by a GP practice. It's a strange anomaly. Many of those in that community are now having to access primary care in England because that availability is not there for them here in Wales. What we then see, if people can't access their GP, is that they're ending up at the A&E departments. They've got nowhere else to go.

Thank you, Llywydd. When we talk about change in the NHS, we are talking about something that is extremely personal to every individual in Wales. We are talking about the services that people rely on when they are at their most vulnerable and concerned and need support. At those times, people want exactly what we want our own families to have: safety, high-quality care and the best chance to recover. That is why this debate is an important one.

I want to start by recognising the very real concerns underpinning the motion. Any proposal to reorganise hospital services, however strong the clinical case appears on paper, will engender strong feelings in the communities affected, and that is quite understandable. I know that the Member who tabled the motion has been advocating strongly on behalf of his constituency over the future of Withybush and Bronglais. I encourage residents to continue to participate in consultations that are in the pipeline. Your voices are important, and they must be heard.

But, as a Government, we must also be entirely honest about the challenges facing us. Very often, the choices that we face are not simple, and they are almost never black and white. I've been participating in health campaigns over many years, and there was one fundamental truth in relation to all of those campaigns: it's not the bricks and mortar that's important, but the services and the outcomes. This is a debate about the way that we arrange healthcare so that it is safe, sustainable, resilient and of the highest possible quality, because this isn't a debate about buildings ultimately, but a debate about our loved ones.

Part of that challenge is the state of the NHS estate that we have inherited. Much of the infrastructure was created for an entirely different age in healthcare. Some 10 per cent of our estate was built before the existence of the NHS, even. These buildings weren't planned for modern technologies, high-quality infection control or the complex needs of our patients today. In some areas, the age of the buildings actually hinders our ability to run services safely. That is important because it has an impact on patient safety, the working conditions of staff and the resilience of services. The challenge is significant and we cannot ignore it.

There is a need for an honest conversation about how we ensure our NHS estate keeps pace with modern healthcare. The question we must ask is how we best support our staff with the space, the technology and the environment they need to deliver the absolute best cutting-edge care. It's about actively designing services around modern models of care that improve outcomes and save lives. Unfortunately, that honesty is entirely missing from the amendments laid by Labour and Reform today. In the case of Labour, we see a cynical uncosted call to build three new hospitals without a single word of acknowledgement for the staggering £1.4 billion maintenance backlog that developed entirely on their watch. Nor do they acknowledge that the Welsh Government's capital budget is being squeezed by 9 per cent in real terms over this Senedd term, a direct result of funding decisions made by their own Westminster partners.

Meanwhile, Reform continues to be intensely interested in the spending plans of other parties while remaining incredibly coy about their own. That silence is telling from a party that idolises the economic chaos of Liz Truss, wastes millions in local government and whose manifesto proposed uncosted tax cuts that would completely devastate front-line NHS services. In contrast, this Government is getting on with the job. We are taking decisive steps to tackle the estate backlog we inherited, because I refuse to accept the status quo. That's why I've already announced an additional £20 million in essential maintenance, marking the first step in a sustained effort to put our NHS estate on a stronger footing. [Interruption.] Sorry, you've had an opportunity to contribute.

We're also acting immediately to deliver structural change. I recently announced £25 million for new surgical and diagnostic hubs across Wales. These hubs are a prime example of doing things differently, separating planned surgery from emergency care to sustainably drive down waiting lists. But, Llywydd, investment in buildings alone—[Interruption.] I'd like to make some progress, thanks. Investment in buildings alone will never be enough. If we're serious about improving outcomes, we must be serious about changing how care is delivered. On taking up this post, I was struck by the absence of a single national clinical plan to provide clear, consistent direction across NHS Wales. That's why I've empowered the director general to develop one, so that we can move forward with a shared vision and a stronger, more coherent health service.

Success for this Government will not be measured by how many people we end up treating in a hospital bed, but by how many people we keep healthy enough to avoid needing one in the first place. We must shift our focus upstream, towards prevention, early intervention and powerful community-based services, ensuring more people receive care closer to home. By investing heavily outside hospital walls in primary care, pharmacy, rehabilitation and integrated social service, we can intervene earlier. This is how we reduce the avoidable pressure on our acute hospitals, improve patient flow and ensure that those who genuinely need a specialist hospital bed can access it faster. To achieve that, our focus must always be on what works best for patients. The NHS is at its strongest when it evolves to meet the needs of the communities it serves. That's why we must always listen to the people who know our health service best: our front-line clinicians, our nurses, our doctors, our wider NHS staff and the local communities who use these services every day. When clinical experts tell us how we can improve survival rates or how we can make a service safer and more resilient, it's our duty to listen. This isn't about arbitrary decisions or top-down changes, it's about a shared commitment to ensure that, when a loved one faces a medical crisis, they are met with the highest possible standard of care, backed by the best clinical expertise available. Our guiding principle will always be to listen, to engage and to deliver the care that people in Wales deserve.

Isn't this what we all want for our own families and aren't we duty-bound as political leaders to fight for the solutions that truly improve survival rates and good health outcomes for patients, rather than just protecting the status quo because that's politically comfortable? It means challenging health managers to be innovative, but it also means challenging our own prejudices and showing real leadership. When change is proposed, the process must be entirely right. We must have early, open and meaningful discussions with the community, and we need to all see the evidence and understand the reasons for change and weigh up the options honestly.

In Wales, our geography, the rural nature of parts of the country, transport links and workforce pressures influence the daily reality of accessing care. We cannot ignore those factors. We must weigh them up appropriately and we must tackle them. That is why any change that is proposed to a service must be properly tested to measure its effect in terms of equality and fairness, and fairness can't be an afterthought, it has to be a core test of success.

Llywydd, I will say this in closing: this debate is not black and white, between keeping the past or leaving it behind. Ultimately, it's a debate about people, and what's important is the public, the patient, the individual and the member of your family. And the question is whether the decisions we make in this Chamber will provide better care, better access and better survival rates for our loved ones. That means investing in the estate when it can be modernised, it means strengthening services in the community, it means having the political courage to support change that is evidence based. Thank you.

Well, well, well, Cabinet Minister, you've changed your tune, haven't you? Your tune before the last election was very clearly, 'Let's save our hospital services and let's save our hospitals from closure', but now you're giving a green light for hospital reconfiguration, centralisation of services, putting patients at risk and for closing hospitals across Wales, because otherwise you'd be backing our motion. You'd have backed this motion if it was before the election, but now, since the election, you've changed your tune completely. It is dreadful to see, and the public can see it. You were campaigning for services in your own constituency, in Tywyn Hospital—yes, Tywyn Hospital. In that hospital that he has been campaigning for for years, temporary service changes—temporary service changes—were brought in, with ward closure because of those temporary service changes, because of staffing challenges. I was looking back at when the health board last advertised for staff. It was January 2024, I believe—January 2024—for nursing staff in order to work on that hospital ward. Now, these are the sorts of things that you're now abandoning as the Cabinet Minister.

You agreed wholeheartedly with Paul Davies, who's been leading the charge against the changes in terms of the proposed downgrading of Bronglais’s stroke services. You were on his side when it came to championing Withybush Hospital, when they were scrapping the emergency surgery services from that hospital. You, yourself, have complained in the past about the salami slicing of hospital services away from some of these important centres that treat people in our communities, and yet, now, it's a completely different tune, isn't it? You're singing along to the same tune and the same song sheet that the Labour Government previously sang along to. That's your problem, and it doesn't look very good from the outside.

Now, I will say this: I think that everybody in this Chamber should get behind our motion today. It sends a very clear and unequivocal message, not just to patients who want to know that the services are going to be in their communities when they need them, but also to staff, because many of the recruitment challenges that we face in our health service here in Wales are because of the uncertainty that service reconfiguration brings to the staff. If you know that your service is finding it challenging to recruit people, the last thing you need to say is, 'We might close that service down at that hospital, but we'll stick a job advert out there anyway.' It doesn't wash. And this is why we've got so many problems.

I was delighted that Gwyn Williams paid a visit to my constituency to see for himself the excellent services being provided at the Stanley eye unit at Abergele Hospital. The last time I went to that hospital and visited the orthopaedic team in that hospital, there was only one bed in the whole hospital that was occupied. It's got capacity to do a lot more. And what we're at risk of doing is laying that capacity aside, not using it—not just in Abergele, but in other places as well, across Wales—and still allowing that pressure to build in our main district general hospitals. And this is why the existing network of hospitals across Wales matters. They were built in those locations for a purpose, and that's why we need to maintain them.

Now, I fully accept that some of them are old, cranky and need rebuilding. That's why we're fully behind the amendment that has been tabled by the Labour Party, in terms of needing to get a new hospital built at the University of Wales Hospital site, because, frankly, there are more pigeons in some of the theatres there than there are patients, and that is unacceptable too. People can't work in those sorts of environments, it's unsafe for people, and that site needs investment. We also, of course, need to see investment at Wrexham Maelor Hospital. Anybody who's been there can see that it's shouting out for a rebuild, to make sure that it's fit for purpose and for the twenty-first century. We've had the twenty-first century schools programme. We need a twenty-first century hospitals programme in Wales, with structured investment over the longer term in order to rebuild our hospitals and make sure that they work for staff and that they work for patients too.

And when it comes to west Wales, what we don't need is the centralisation of services in Glangwili. For the sake of the Cabinet Minister for Finance's own constituents, and for others in this Chamber, we need investment in Bronglais. We need investment there at Bronglais in Aberystwyth, we need to make sure that we secure the future of Withybush, with proper investment in the theatre capacity, in the bed capacity, so that it can do the job that it always has done in the past, with a fully functioning emergency services department that is able to cope with anything that arrives at the hospital front door.

Do you see the benefit of the prevention agenda, though, and the rehabilitation of people and how sport and physical activity can actually help with that to get people fit and ready for their operations? That does fit, in part, with the cultural budget as well. I just wondered if you recognise that.

As you can see, I'm a great fan of sports. [Laughter.] A great fan of sports. Of course I see. Of course I see the importance of the preventative agenda. We need to invest in the preventative agenda. But the question I have for the Cabinet Minister is if you're going to invest from the same budget quantum, if you're going to invest more in community services and if you're going to invest more in the preventative agenda, whether that be sports or anything else, then that means that you're going to be taking away money from something else that you're already spending on. And that happens to be our hospitals. So, we need to guarantee the future of these hospitals—[Inaudible.] Well, why don't you make an intervention and tell me where you're going to get the money? Go on.

I'll give him the grace, I'm very happy to. So, listen, I urge everybody in this Chamber to get behind the original motion. I appreciate the amendments that have been tabled, and we support the Reform amendment, we support the Labour amendments too, but we reject the Plaid Cymru amendment, because it gives absolutely no security at all to staff or patients, and that's unacceptable.

Diolch, Lywydd. I'm pleased to bring forward our motion today that's laid before you, and formally move it in the name of Llŷr Powell and Reform. It calls for the Welsh Government to introduce a Welsh rivers Act, which is long overdue. I think that every single one of us in here agree that the state of our rivers, our seas and waterways, and the amount of pollution that is in them is totally unacceptable. I hope that it will be this Senedd, all of us here, cross-party, that will be the first to take proper action to rectify this situation.

We in Reform think that culminating those actions within an Act will show our commitment as this Senedd to do this, and it ensures that we are held to account on those promises. It is heartbreaking to see the state of our rivers that run through our beautiful country and the seas that surround us full of green algae and raw sewage. Our motion is simple—it calls for sewage discharge accountability, catchment-wide nutrient management and rewards for measurable water quality improvements that are practical, reasonable and long overdue. Every Member in this Chamber knows the truth—we are failing our rivers, their wildlife, their habitats and our constituents on this.

For me, this issue is close to my heart. I grew up in Usk, a stone's throw from the River Usk. When I was younger, I was fiercely proud that it was a famous salmon fishing river, with a worldwide reputation that brought tourism, life and pride to our area. Famous faces used to come to fish there, from some of the James Bonds, Billy Connolly and some royalty. The Sweet's Fishing Tackle shop there was known far beyond Wales; it had an international reputation as far as China. That was the reputation that the River Usk and Usk once had. And not only was the river fantastic for fishing, it was a wonderful place to play and for families to enjoy. I regularly played and fished there myself growing up. But now, sewage, pollution and algae have replaced the abundance of salmon and trout and the ecosystems that support them, damaging tourism, local pride, wildlife and leaving children now entering our river at their own risk.

And sadly, the River Usk in my constituency is not an isolated story; it's a problem that blights the whole of Wales, as my colleagues and I'm sure others across this Chamber will outline further during this debate. The national evidence is damning. Natural Resources Wales has warned that the resilience of freshwater ecosystems has not improved since the last 'State of Natural Resources Report' in 2020. Salmon are now predicted to be locally extinct in some of our Welsh rivers by 2030. And only 40 per cent of water bodies in Wales are classed as being good or in better overall condition. So, this Welsh rivers Act that we are proposing today is an urgent response to serious and measurable decline after years of inaction by Governments at both ends of the M4.

Looking at the amendments, we see Plaid's. We can fully agree with most of the shared aims that we both want to, clearly, achieve, but do we really need the full devolution of the water sector to achieve this, when we already have the powers here in Wales that just haven't been used properly? And how long would that take? How long would that take? We have a body in NRW that is far too under-resourced and performs way too many functions to fully concentrate on our waterways and give them the attention they deserve and need.

Having looked at the supplementary budget, I can't see any indication of your intention to clean up water in there, and wonder why the Minister did not mention this in his speech yesterday where he outlined—[Interruption.] I can quote what you said. You said that children and families deserve clean waterways, which they do, but you did not go into detail on that, Minister.

Yes, thanks, I will. [Interruption.] Okay. I'd appreciate hearing what you have to say later.

I hope that you'll now take this opportunity, Minister, to support our motion today and show the people of Wales that cleaning up our rivers, seas and waterways really is a priority for your Government too. We want our motion to be the one that kick-starts real action on this, to motivate the Government and Senedd into action.

The Conservatives—we fully agree with your amendment that NRW is no longer fit for purpose and able to perform its functions, which I know, actually, it wants to, but it's constrained by the amount of work, its diversity, and from being underfunded to meet those demands.

And again, with the Labour amendment, there is much to agree on. What is abundantly clear is that we're all singing from the same song sheet in terms of what we want to achieve here. It is clear that we must use the powers that we have and ensure that it is this Senedd that saves our rivers, our seas, our waterways and protects them for future generations to enjoy. It is fair that Labour have mentioned the Bolton review. It's sensible, and I know that the Government and Minister stood here and already committed to looking to the findings of it.

My hope is now that this Government will listen to and work with our farmers hand in hand, to get away from farming by calendar, ensure that there are those technical solutions in place to tackle pollution, which I know that the whole of the agricultural sector also wants to achieve. It is easy for people to stand here and blame farmers, but the previous Senedds are equally responsible.

We welcome the UK Government's water Bill, but that alone will not bring back the clean, healthy rivers that my constituents and yours quite rightly demand. This Senedd needs to act now. It feels deeply wrong that households are being asked to pay more through their water bills while this failure continues. How can it be right that Welsh water bosses are receiving eye-watering amounts of bonuses and money whilst river pollution remains? Our rivers belong to Wales, to the communities built around them, and to future generations who should not have to ask why we allowed them to drastically decline in this way.

The Welsh rivers Act would give Wales a framework to deal with the sewage discharge accountability, catchment-wide nutrient management and measurable improvements in water quality. I look forward to what the Minister has to say, and I urge all Members in this Chamber to reject amendments today that have watered down our motion, and to support our clear call for a Welsh rivers Act and to move beyond warm words and weak accountability and finally start to restore the rivers, seas and waterways that Wales should be proud of with the urgency that it requires. Diolch.

Move.

I move.

Apologies, Dirprwy Lywydd. Thank you. I formally move the amendment tabled in the name of Lynne Neagle. As I do, as we gather here in this extreme heat, I think we can all agree that water is at the forefront of our minds, whether it's water for the garden, water for farm crops or water to cool down in. Water is essential for life and it is also part of our identity here in Wales. Our rivers have a unique place in our hearts, but they also perform a necessary function in enabling nature to thrive. If we are to meet biodiversity and nature recovery targets, they are vital.

Since the Tories privatised the water industry in an ideological crusade in 1989, we cannot say that things have got better for our rivers. We can and must do better to regulate, and I'm pleased that we have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to right past wrongs with a fundamental reset of water governance in Wales. Our Welsh Labour and UK Labour Governments have laid the groundwork for this. We recognise the urgency of cleaning up our rivers and seas and improving our water system. We also recognise this is something for which there is overwhelming public demand, as recent polling for the WWF has emphasised.

Last year, both Governments jointly established the Independent Water Commission to undertake the most comprehensive examination of the water sector since privatisation. It told us that the current system is too complex. It lacks the transparency and responsiveness people expect. I think we can all agree on this. That's why we support the creation of a new Welsh economic water regulator, with the authority and independence to act decisively for Wales. We need to strengthen accountability, rebuild trust and create a system that is simpler, stronger and more transparent. We want to see that new water watchdog underpinned by new legislation and a modern regulatory framework that encourages investment and drives a water system that works for Wales.

In our manifesto, we said we wanted to introduce a clean water Bill for Wales to address all forms of water pollution, not just in our rivers, but in our seas also. Many voices in this Siambr today will no doubt make similar calls. And we must go further in addressing the causes of this pollution. Will the Plaid Cymru Government urge Dŵr Cymru and Hafren Dyfrdwy to prioritise investment to tackle the scourge of sewage pollution?

But it's not just the water companies that pollute our rivers. We want to reduce agricultural pollution, which harms water quality. The control of agricultural pollution regulations are designed for this purpose. So we urge this Plaid Cymru Government to adhere to all the recommendations of Dr Susannah Bolton's independent review of the control of agricultural pollution regulations and increase enforcement of these regulations. It's important to note that Dr Bolton did not recommend removing closed periods at this time, and highlighted that any alternative developed should require a farm to, and I quote,

Will the Member take an intervention?

Yes.

Thank you. Do you not recognise, though, that farming by calendar doesn't work? What you can have is a very dry period during the closed period when farmers cannot spread slurry, but then in the open period they could actually go spreading when it's pouring down with rain, which is totally irresponsible. So, actually, a more farming-based approach that the Minister actually, in fairness, is moving to is probably the better way to deal with this in the long run, and it was actually recommended in the Bolton review.

Yes, absolutely, James. Thank you for the intervention. I take your point on board. In fact, when I was a member of the agriculture and environment committee, we undertook a really interesting visit to see some of these new forms of technology in action. We absolutely support them. It's just really important that we ensure that they are fit and ready for purpose before we move to that form of ending the closed periods.

Alternatives that meet this bar then, as quoted from Dr Bolton, present technical, financial and regulatory challenges for Government agencies and farmers at the moment, and, on this point, we must remember that reducing nutrient run-off or the need for overapplication actually improves the financial resilience of farm businesses too. Wastage of available nitrogen resources costs our farmers approximately £21 to £52 per hectare per year in fertiliser costs.

Lastly, I want to turn to the final part of our motion, namely support for citizen scientists, who can be so valuable in monitoring river pollution. There are groups right across Wales, including Friends of the River Wye, who are doing a great job in collecting that data. They say—and I agree—that we need better monitoring to find out where nutrients, particularly phosphates, are entering our watercourses, so that we can identity pollution hotspots and use that information to drive change to clean up our rivers. We need to better engage with citizen science groups and a wider range of partners in a system-based approach to restore our rivers through catchment level management. People across Wales want the Government to clean up our rivers and seas, and we believe this Welsh Labour amendment goes far further than the proposals from other parties towards achieving just that. Diolch.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the amendment in the name of Paul Davies on the order paper this afternoon. We will be supporting the motion this afternoon, but I have to say I start from the premise, as a Conservative, that, actually, legislation should be one of the last resorts that you should use, because all you do is create an argument between solicitors at the end of the legislation and actually don't solve any problems for people at large. So I'd like to see a small state rather than a big state, but, on this particular issue, people do feel disempowered and they do feel that nothing is happening to help them.

Recently, I undertook a visit to the Kenfig National Nature Reserve and looked at the River Kenfig. I know other Members in this Chamber have done the same. To see a completely dead river is actually quite stark, to say the least—to see it putrid and smelling. We were talking about this in the office this morning, about this visit, and the one thing that really stuck in people's minds who came along with me to that visit was the complete lack of any birdsong in there. Because you could tell that the river was dead and everything in the river was dead with it, but actually the surrounding wildlife, through the putrid stench and the other pollution that was coming from it, killed off that wildlife as well then.

I'm really grateful to the Kenfig wildlife trust and the two Martins who met me on site to show me first-hand what was going on there, because Kenfig isn't a one-off; it is happening across the whole of Wales and, indeed, the United Kingdom, but, sadly, Wales is worst affected. If you look at sewage discharge across the whole of Wales, there have been 118,000 sewage discharges in 2024. If you compare that to England, that's 450,000 in England, with a population 18 times bigger than Wales. So, we've got a bigger problem here in Wales and we can't sit back and allow it to continue.

I've been really grateful to Surfers against Sewage, who wouldn't be a natural bedfellow of the Conservative Party, I might say, for the information that they've provided and this comprehensive report that they put together, looking at all aspects of the situation across the UK. We're not unique, but the point that I was making in those statistics was that we are, sadly, top of the poll when it comes to some of these numbers, and we need to be doing far better.

The reason why we have put that amendment down about NRW is because, sadly, NRW, as the regulator, are not doing the job that they were envisaged doing in the first place when they were created. And that's no fault of the staff at NRW. They work tirelessly to do the job that they can, but they really do face huge pressures over the organisation and the way it was constructed in the first place.

Thank you very much for taking the intervention. You talked about not supporting NRW, but I wonder if you would support them with additional powers and additional resourcing.

Well, that's the point of our amendment and it's something that I've stood on since 2019, when I had this job at that time, and called for NRW to be reformed and reconstituted, so that you spun out the commercial operations, such as the Forestry Commission, and you created a regulatory body that brought the expertise together, was budgeted properly to enforce the regulations that this place and other places put out there, and actually did the job that people wanted to see them doing. At the moment, they are too big and they lack focus, and you need to spin out the Forestry Commission side of it and build a regulator that can actually do the job that we're charging them to do.

And I'll be really listening hard to what the Minister says in his reply, because I can recall that when he was in opposition, he had some very harsh words for NRW, he did, and I wonder whether he has done the same journey as the health Minister—listening to the health Minister earlier this afternoon—and the officials, as I said to him yesterday afternoon, have now put him in that civil service cage, and the speech that we will hear this afternoon will be a civil service speech, rather than that passionate articulate opposition spokesperson that Llyr used to be. I hope that he will be bold this afternoon in responding to this debate. I hope he will show us a road map to empower communities such as those I was speaking to in Kenfig and the volunteers of the Kenfig wildlife trust. Don't disappoint them, Minister. Give us something to go out from this debate with. Let's re-engineer the regulator, let's get behind the call for legislation on water pollution, and let's be that exemplar of good practice rather than, sadly, that laggard of pollution across the whole of Wales. Thank you.

I'm pleased to speak in support of Laura Anne Jones in the debate here. For me, this is not simply a policy discussion, it's deeply personal for me. I've lived alongside the River Dee for a long, long time. I don't know whether any of you know, but it's actually known as 'the river goddess' in Celtic folklore. My home town of Flint sits neatly on the River Dee estuary and was once a spa town. It's not a spa town anymore. A lot of industry has come there over the years—employers such as Courtaulds and John Summers & Sons Ltd. I even remember a company called Glanzstoff chemical works that were there at the beginning of the last century. But prosperity came and it gave opportunity to lots of people, actually, who lived alongside the River Dee, including my own family.

My dad worked in the steelworks. Many parts of my family worked in the steel and rayon industries, which were there as well, and their hard work built the prosperity of north-east Wales, never mind just Flint. Yet the economic development that benefited so many people also contributed to the long decline in the health of the river, which had sustained those communities for a long, long time. They understood something that we risk forgetting today. Rivers like the River Dee, they're not ours to own whatsoever; they are ours to protect. We are merely custodians, entrusted with their care before passing them on to the next generation. That's why, today, this debate matters.

After more than two decades of Labour Government, much of it supported in recent years by Plaid Cymru, we are still debating polluted rivers, sewage discharges and failing ecological standards. The public are entitled to ask a question: where are the results? People in north-east Wales are tired of hearing about strategies, action plans and consultations. The real test is whether those ambitions lead to cleaner rivers and measurable improvements on the ground. If consultation documents cleaned rivers, Wales would have very, very clean rivers by now, I'll tell you. But instead, we're here again just talking about it.

Let me tell you a little bit about myself and the River Dee. My first job was as a beach guard alongside the river in Oakenholt—that was back in 1974; that shows how old I am. Back then, I spent my days keeping an eye on the River Dee estuary. I never imagined that, half a century later, I'd be standing in this Chamber discussing many of the same concerns about pollution.

Welsh Government, Natural Resources Wales, Dŵr Cymru, local authorities and other agencies all have a role, yet when rivers fail, nobody appears to be fully accountable and that's a real, real worry. The public shouldn't need a flow chart, if you'll excuse the pun, to discover who is responsible for pollution in their local river. That's got to change, absolutely. Indeed, Welsh Water itself points to water companies, regulators, local authorities, highways authorities, developers and agricultural sources themselves. If so many organisations are involved, it becomes even more important that someone is ultimately accountable for outcomes.

I welcome Reform UK's new-found interest in environmental protection, as it's not an issue you usually associate with this party. So, I genuinely hope that today marks a real and lasting commitment to the rivers, landscapes and ecosystems that define our communities, our economy and our way of life.

But I have to be honest, there is a deep contradiction at the heart of today's motion. You cannot stand in this Chamber and demand clean rivers while spending your political energy attacking the very environmental policies that protect them. You cannot claim to love Wales while dismissing the science that tells us what is happening to it.

People across Wales are angry, and they have every right to be. Six of the 20 most polluted rivers in the entire United Kingdom are here in Wales. Rivers that have been at the heart of our communities for generations are being poisoned. For too long, companies have taken the profits while our communities have been left to live with those consequences. People want accountability, they want action and they want the places they love handed on to the next generation in a better condition than they found them.

But you do not protect rivers by denying environmental realities everywhere else. You do not restore nature by attacking the policies designed to safeguard it. You do not become environmental champions simply because you have noticed that tackling water pollution is popular with voters.

This is a party that has consistently dismissed the science, ignored the evidence and undermined environmental policy at every opportunity. And that ignorance has consequences—real consequences—for real communities, because healthy rivers, restored wetlands and protected natural landscapes don't just look beautiful, they hold water back, they reduce flood risks and they protect people's homes. When you attack the environmental policies, you are not scoring political points, you are leaving communities—communities that you represent, that we all represent—more exposed, more vulnerable and more at risk. Welsh communities deserve better than that, and Plaid Cymru will do things differently.

We will protect our rivers, we will fight for the control of our water, we will reform regulatory oversight, strengthen the accountability of polluters, and drive real improvements in the environmental protection of our rivers, lakes and seas. If Reform is serious about our rivers, then be serious about the wider environmental emergency too, because the people of Wales deserve more than political opportunism dressed up as principle: they deserve sustained, credible, honest action. You don't get to spend years kicking down the door of environmental protection and then walk through the rubble claiming to be the ones who will rebuild it.

Well, I've spoken about this issue so many times in this Chamber, and I have to say, the hypocrisy I've heard here today, where we've seen—with your Government now, and in cahoots with Labour—where, for years, it was always the farmers that polluted our rivers. Well, I can tell you, in my constituency, of the 15 pollution incidents where we've seen huge numbers of fish die—when I first came here, it was six pollution incidents—not one of them was down to farmers. It was down to Dŵr Cymru, people logging into the system illegally, which is something that NRW were not doing much about.

If I look at my own area, 13 pollution alerts were issued for our own sea in Llandudno last week. Four alerts were issued last week within a space of 48 hours: West Shore, Llyn Padarn, Craig Du beach central, and Barmouth. I've raised the issue about river pollution, lake pollution and sea pollution. In 2025, untreated sewage was discharged into waters in England and Wales 400,000 times, for more than 2.5 million hours. Raw sewage was discharged into Welsh rivers alone for 777,545 hours, a total of 94,974 times. These figures are just unacceptable. They pose a serious risk to our wildlife, our public health and our environment.

Dŵr Cymru has played a key role in these horrifying statistics: 2,266 overflows, 96,653 discharges, 783,268 hours. It's due to these breaches that Ofwat have now imposed a £44.7 million enforcement package in place of a fine, and that means if Dŵr Cymru do not spend money on the infrastructure to stop these overflows breaching, then they will actually be in more serious problems. Ultimately, who picks up the can for this? That is our taxpayers. This enforcement package will fund measures to reduce spills at specific overflows and improve river water quality in highly sensitive catchments, and this funding will be provided by the company rather than initially added to customers' bills. Preventing as many of these spills as possible will help to keep our waters cleaner and healthier. It is important to remember that this is not a one-off incident; this has now become the norm.

Where Natural Resources Wales are concerned—. I don't know whether any of you as new Members have actually reported a breach, but the water company is then supposed to contact NRW. Too often, I have to do it, and quite often I report Dŵr Cymru to NRW. I actually believe there's a clear and direct failure of our water companies and Natural Resources Wales. When the chief executive of Dŵr Cymru took home just about £800,000 as a salary—we've had him before our committee, previously, that is—it's just not good enough. I admire the passion that we all are joined together on. And I would just say to Plaid Cymru that this is another debate you should be backing today because, at the end of the day, if you want this cross-party cohesion to go forward, to improve our rivers, to make our environment better, then you've got to put your money where your mouth is. It's a sensible proposal, it's a sensible motion. Back it.

I just really wanted to comment on some of the debate so far. I can understand some of the points that Niamh has shared. But I do want to say that, in this debate, Plaid Cymru are not doing things differently by the 'delete all' approach. I'm afraid we spoke consistently in the opposition about Labour and their 'delete all' amendments, and yet you're doing it, and it's very sad, because, actually, you could propose something really positive and get what we've heard, which is the cross-party working. So, at the moment, I can't see that Plaid Cymru are doing anything differently.

I do also want to comment on the hypocrisy of Reform UK and the Conservatives in not talking about the effects of Brexit on our ability to hold water companies to account. Let's just hear from the experts, because you haven't talked about it, and you haven't owned it. And, yes, you may say that we're doing Brexit bingo— absolutely, I am going to go for it, because you do not take responsibility, both parties. So, let's just be clear what leaving the EU has meant for our water. We have diverged from EU rules governing hazardous substances, which you've talked about. The EU have introduced much stronger environmental laws, which is what we want here in Wales and the UK, because many of our rivers go cross-border—they go not just across Wales, but they go into England. So, you have taken us out of the EU and those strengthened laws.

And finally, unfortunately, the Wildlife Trust—and I know some people in this Siambr, really support wildlife, but, the Wildlife Trust, let's listen to what they're saying—report that coming out of the EU 10 years later—this was only a report from yesterday—we have weaker environmental governance since Brexit to hold polluters to account. So, please, please, whatever you do in this debate, take responsibility for the decisions you've made.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course I will, Darren. What a delight.

Will you accept some responsibility for the fact that the Liberal Democrats were in Government here in Wales when NRW was created and that that is a failed regulator, and, therefore, you have to accept some responsibility for getting it wrong?

Darren, I wasn't here at the time, and I'm speaking now from a position of being here over the past six years. So, please be respectful of that. I could go back years in terms of what you and your Government have done in Westminster, but I don't play those petty games. We're talking about rivers here. We're talking about the importance of our water.

So, let me just say that there are three things that I just want to focus in on. We must close the monitoring gap. Afonydd Cymru has highlighted that 90 per cent of Welsh water bodies have been assessed as being in high status with no actual chemical monitoring data, but Dŵr Cymru's self-reporting data sits at 74 per cent, and Hafren Dyfrdwy's fell to just 60 per cent. So, we are regulating in the dark, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how we're going to regulate both Dŵr Cymru and Hafren Dyfrdwy, because some of us represent water users from Hafren Dyfrdwy as well. We must demand more from our water companies—from the two—and many of us have spoken here about Dŵr Cymru. It presents itself as fundamentally different from shareholder-owned companies, and yet its outgoing chief executive received £500,000 in 2025-26.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course I will, Janet. What a delight.

The reality is that whilst the pollution levels have been going up, so have the bonuses the chief exec got. He actually got bonuses, which are supposed to be for when you're providing a good service. He actually got more bonuses when we saw the pollution levels at some of their highest. That is just insane, and how any previous Government could allow that baffles me now to this day.

I share your bafflement, Janet, yes. So, we share this, that we are concerned that Dŵr Cymru is actually almost operating as if it is a shareholder-owned company.

We were promised in the last Senedd that there would be a review of Dŵr Cymru. I do appreciate that there's a new Government now, so I'm interested to hear whether there will be a review of Dŵr Cymru and actually the whole system and situation.

Finally, may I just say this: we need to make sure that the polluter pays. There needs to be a system that holds polluters to account. There are a range of polluters, and I'm absolutely clear that we need not to be blaming one place or another. We need to be looking at it and working with people across the piece to make sure that we have a much better water regulation system. I do know that I'm running over here, Dirprwy Lywydd, but I have had a few interventions.

Diolch. Can I just finish off with this: the communities of Wales are not waiting for us; they are testing their own rivers now? They are in the courts, they are fighting for the rights of nature and the very least that we can do here in the Senedd, and that you as the Welsh Government can do, is to match their courage. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I start by thanking two people? First of all, Laura Anne Jones, for holding this debate, and Janet for bringing the debate back to the debate rather than using this as a platform for political point scoring.

Members of this Senedd, I recently met with residents and councillors to discuss concerns regarding water quality at the beaches in south Pembrokeshire. We are incredibly fortunate that several of our beaches hold Blue Flag status, which is of significant importance to the area's visitor economy. In addition, some of our waterways form part of Pembrokeshire's marine special area of conservation. As Blue Flag status depends on bathing water being classified as ‘excellent’, there is particular concern that the streams often flowing across our beaches and into the ocean are not designated as bathing water by NRW. However, they continue to attract small children who often play in the water there. Some of these streams are monitored by local citizen science groups whose data indicates seriously high levels of E. coli. They are consistently far worse than those classified as ‘poor’ under freshwater bathing water standards. E. coli can cause serious illness and may pose a particular risk to young children. I remind Members of the tragic case of Heather Preen, eight years old, who tragically died after contracting E. coli in 1999. E. coli is also only an indicator organism for sewage contamination, which may include other harmful substances such as pharmaceuticals, hormones and viruses.

In addition, the Cleddau Project, also in Pembrokeshire, has recently presented the findings of a 12-month citizen science initiative assessing water quality across 49 sites within the Cleddau catchment. The project, led by local surveyors and analysed by Professor Paul Withers of Lancaster University, identifies a significant decline in river health, primarily attributed to sewage discharge. The data indicates elevated levels of phosphates and nitrates within tributaries. Preliminary testing has identified concerning levels of E. coli in upper catchment areas near Haverfordwest, raising potential public health concerns for rivers, their users and our ecology. Species such as Atlantic salmon and otters are reported to be in decline. Salmon populations are now considered by Natural Resources Wales to be at risk, reflecting broader ecological stress within the river system.

In addition, the River Teifi has similar problems with pollution. For the 2026 citizen science water quality report, over 70 sites were tested. There are 27 with data covering over 12 months. Of these 27, 15 produced annual mean orthophosphate results above the targets utilised by Natural Resources Wales. Taking into account the possible limitations of the equipment used, six of the sites completely fail the NRW targets, and nine are above the target but fall within the error range. The failing sections are mainly in the lower Teifi catchment area, which is below Newcastle Emlyn, whilst those above target but within the error range are mainly from the central catchment area, which includes Newcastle Emlyn to Lampeter. And, I think, Members of the Senedd, what is interesting here, and I quote from the report directly, is that

I'd like to thank Laura Anne for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important matter. There are merits in the original motion and in elements of the amendments. The motion itself critically mentions nutrient management—a really serious issue—as well as sewage discharges. The 'delete all' approach to amendments is, I suppose, sometimes appropriate, but I think, in this case, it's a bit unnecessary. As Greens in the Senedd, we believe in the careful consideration of the merits of amendments on a case-by-case basis. So, amendment 1's main weakness, we see, is the loss of the nutrient management features of the original motion.

Amendment 2 has got a number of points, so I'll take them one by one. On point (a), I agree—all forms of pollution must be addressed. We're given to understand that the two main sources of pollution in Wales are industrialised agriculture and waste water. So, stronger regulation and enforcement is, of course, required across both. An expansion of the existing environmental permitting regulations could already be used to monitor and address cumulative impacts more effectively.

On point (b) in the amendment, we would take this further. Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water is not fit for purpose for tackling the problems that it has created, especially the scourge of sewage pollution. So, nationalisation is an essential first step, which the amendment sadly misses.

On point (c), addressing agricultural pollution is paramount to delivering benefits for health, nature and climate, and producing a more sustainable food and farming system. The Government could address this by bringing forward water pollution targets under the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Act 2026 to deliver robust biodiversity targets, including a 50 per cent reduction of excess nutrient loss by 2030, putting all water bodies under active annual monitoring by 2027, and putting in place catchment-specific action plans for all river catchments by 2027.

On point (d), an integrated systems approach needs to be taken to tackle all sources of nitrogen overuse and waste. Due to insufficient monitoring, we don't know enough about hazardous chemicals, pharmaceuticals and microplastics entering our water environment across Wales. For example, soil data collected already by farmers under the sustainable farming scheme could be made available to Natural Resources Wales to focus actions on those catchments where nutrient run-off is a major factor in poor river quality. Funded citizen science can be a powerful tool and it's one we support, but it shouldn't be at the expense of statutory responsibilities to collect data and ensure that it's shared. We expect action plans resulting from new data and insights to follow the principle we heard about earlier—that the polluter pays. So, perhaps those multinationals whose products end up in our water across Wales should be held to account too.

The state of our rivers, lakes and seas is one of the most pressing environmental challenges facing Wales today. Communities across the country have watched waterways deteriorate, while confidence in the bodies responsible for protecting them has steadily eroded. Plaid Cymru has long argued that the current system is not delivering for the people of Wales. We have consistently called for the establishment of a new Wales-specific regulatory body for water, one that is capable of holding water companies properly to account, driving up environmental standards and ensuring better value for money for customers.

The evidence before us demonstrates why that reform is urgently needed, and we've heard from other Members this afternoon. After years of increasing water bills, well over 100,000 people in Wales live in water poverty. Customers pay more; Welsh waterways continue to suffer. Last year alone, there were more than 100,000 sewage discharges into Welsh rivers and waterways. Dŵr Cymru has failed to buck that trend. We have a water company that is falling short on multiple fronts, while the public are left wondering why they're paying more and receiving less.

At the same time, there are documented failings within Natural Resources Wales. While many dedicated staff work hard within the organisation, it is clear that the regulatory system is not functioning as effectively as it should. As we've heard, too often pollution incidents have come to public attention not because regulators identified and acted upon them, but because local campaigners and community groups carried out investigations themselves. For too long, the discharge of sewage into our rivers was only being exposed because local people were prepared to do the work that others should have been doing. It is therefore welcome that this Government is proposing meaningful reform and is prepared to do the hard yards necessary to restore confidence in the system and protect our waterways.

Last month, I met with A Peace for Nature and heard directly about the devastating impact pollution is having on local ecosystems. The situation at Afon Cynffig in my constituency is a stark example. After repeated sewage discharges from the Marlas sewage pumping station polluted the river, residents reported unpleasant odours—and that's a euphemism—discoloured waterways and damage to fish and wildlife in an area that runs through the Kenfig national nature reserve, one of Wales's most important conservation sites as a site of special scientific interest. A Peace for Nature said it was one of the worst pollution incidents they have ever seen, and I witnessed it onsite myself. No community should have to tolerate conditions like this, and no nationally important conservation site should be subjected to repeated pollution. The people of Wales are rightly frustrated. They are paying more, seeing sewage pollution continue, and questioning whether those responsible are being held to account.

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. Although my committee has not met yet, I'd just like to say that I am speaking in a personal capacity, not that of the committee.

The motion calls for a Welsh rivers Act to address sewage discharge accountability, support catchment-wide nutrient management and reward measurable outcomes in water quality. The evidence shows why this is needed. Natural Resources Wales water quality assessments show that only 40 per cent of water bodies in Wales are at good or better overall status. For rivers specifically, the figure is at 43 per cent. That means the majority of river water bodies in Wales are still not meeting good overall status.

We have seen some progress in some areas, and that should be acknowledged, but the overall picture is still not good enough. The position on protected rivers is also concerning. In Welsh special areas of conservation, only 40 per cent of assessed water bodies passed phosphorus targets in the most recent assessments. There have been improvements in places, including parts of the Usk and Wye, but NRW also records the failures across a number of those SAC catchments.

We also need to be honest about sewage discharges. Storm overflows are part of an old Victorian combined sewer system. They're designed to operate in certain circumstances, particularly during heavy rainfall, to prevent sewage backing up into people's homes and businesses. The issue is not that every single discharge is automatically unlawful; the issue is frequency, duration, environmental harm and whether water companies are being properly held to account when systems are not performing as they should. NRW's storm overflow report says that there are over 2,000 permitted storm overflows in Wales, and NRW's own figures show that only 7 per cent of permitted storm water overflows in Wales did not spill at all in 2024, while 15 per cent spilled between 100 and 299 times. That is not a position that any of us should accept as normal.

We also know that Dŵr Cymru's performance has been a serious concern. NRW reported that the company was responsible for 155 pollution incidents, including 132 from sewerage assets. Those figures show why accountability has to be central to any Welsh rivers Act. It should not be enough for companies to publish data after the event. There should be clear duties, clear reporting, independent auditing of discharge data and clear consequences when performance falls short. The public should also be able to see not just how often overspills happen, but what is being done about it, when the improvements are being delivered and whether those improvements are making a difference to water quality.

But this motion also is right to go beyond sewerage. If we're serious about improving rivers, we have to look at the whole catchment. Pollution and nutrient pressures come from a range of sources—waste water, urban run-off, highways, legacy mine pollution, septic tanks, development pressures and land use across the catchment. If we only focus on one source, we will never solve the problem. That is why catchment-wide nutrient—[Interruption.] Yes, I'll take an intervention, Mike.

I didn't realise you were going to go on from sewage pollution. The River Tawe, which runs through your constituency—and acts as a border between your constituency and my constituency now—has very serious problems with the Trebanos pumping station and the fact that that continually releases raw sewage into the River Tawe—raw sewage you can actually see going into the River Tawe, which has caused children to be ill. Do you agree with me that what we need is NRW to stop being nice to Welsh Water and start prosecuting them and making them pay a price for letting the raw sewage go out there, and in which case, they'll stop doing it?

Yes.

This is why catchment-wide nutrient management matters. The Bolton review into the control of agricultural pollution regulations is clear; it recognises the need for a more evidence-based, proportionate and risk-focused approach. This is important because farmers should not be treated as the default problem whenever river quality is discussed. Many farmers are already working hard to improve soil health, manage nutrients carefully, protect watercourses and invest in better infrastructure. They live and work alongside these rivers, and that's why they want clean water as much as anybody else. A Welsh rivers Act should recognise that farmers and land managers are a part of the solution and are not the problem. That means moving away from blanket approaches that punish many of them for their actions and don't actually do anything about dealing with the polluters, who sometimes base that into their profit and loss margins. They're the people who need to be addressed.

Where there are genuine problems, they should be dealt with, but that should be based on evidence, local conditions and a proper source of—. I can't say that word. Not assumptions. My staff are putting words in here that I can't even read. A Welsh rivers Act could provide that framework, I think, going forward. I think it's very important that all Members across this Chamber today support this motion. It needs cross-party support. I do not think there's any need to play party politics with this. Let's just get this done and let's start cleaning up our rivers.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. May I thank everyone who's contributed to this debate? I think it's true to say that we are all speaking from our hearts when we discuss this issue. Although the words might differ in emphasis, I think we all want to see the same outcome at the end of the day.

The Welsh Government will protect our rivers, but we will do that by taking control of water in Wales so that we can strengthen regulatory oversight, improve accountability of water companies and drive better environmental performance across our rivers, lakes and seas. As I said, there's no disagreement about the scale of the challenge that we face; water quality in Wales is not where we want it to be. While progress has been made, only around, as we heard, 40 per cent of water bodies in Wales currently meet good ecological status. That underlines how far we have come, but certainly how much further we need to go.

Public concern is high and people rightly expect urgent and visible action. I agree with the public strength of feeling. We want clean water, we want a healthy environment and we want a system that delivers for communities, not one that tolerates failure. That is why the Welsh Government is taking forward a comprehensive programme of water reform, which is focused on three things: taking control of our water, strengthening regulatory oversight and company accountability, and improving environmental performance.

At the heart of our approach is a simple principle, and that is that decisions affecting Wales should be made in Wales. The First Minister has already made that case to the Prime Minister, because this is about ensuring that Wales has the capability to act decisively in the interests of our people and our environment. A central part of this reform is ensuring that regulation reflects the reality of devolution and isn't stuck in the past. The current system, of course, is based on an outdated 'wholly or mainly' model, which no longer aligns with the way Wales is governed.

We're working with the UK Government to align water regulation with Wales's geographic border, and good progress has been made. I hope to confirm more about that shortly. This is about clear accountability, it's about coherent regulation, and, of course, for all of us here, it's about stronger democratic oversight for customers as well, on both sides of the border. This Government will reset how Wales manages water. We will create a clearer, more coherent system for Wales that supports long-term strategic decision making, that directs investment to Welsh priorities, and strengthens regulatory oversight in Wales. This isn't just about structural change; we want to see better outcomes for Wales.

Under a Welsh-focused regulatory framework, companies will be subject to clearer expectations, stronger performance oversight and more direct consequences when they fail to meet standards. This includes the ability to set price controls for Wales, it includes delivering value for money for Welsh customers, and direct investment to priorities determined here in Wales. We will honour our manifesto commitment that water company bosses should not receive bonuses where companies fail to meet the standards the public rightly expect.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I'd like to thank everybody who contributed towards today's debate. There were a lot of really great contributions, some of them I think slightly better than others, but one key theme I think that we heard from a lot of the contributions was the cross-party nature of this. We all agree that the quality of our rivers is hugely important. We heard about the River Dee, the River Usk, the Kenfig river in my constituency, the beaches in south Pembrokeshire and, indeed, the Towy river as well. This is an issue that affects all of Wales, and I believe, by supporting the Reform motion today, we can show that we can activate some cross-party action to deliver something for the people of Wales that everybody is looking for.

I do have to say I found it interesting to hear Brexit being blamed for the quality of our rivers. I've heard it blamed for a lot of things, but water quality in Wales isn't one of them. But what the Liberal Democrat Member failed to mention in her comments was that by leaving the European Union, we regained the power to make our own legislation to clean the waters. That power is something that we are trying to utilise today with our motion.

Will you take an intervention?

I'll take the intervention.

Thank you so much. Would you also accept the fact, and it is a fact, that 60 per cent of the EU laws have had to be put into UK laws, so, actually, we are not making our own laws?

What I would accept is that, in regards to the legislative position today, we are trying to use the power to make our own laws in Wales to improve the quality of Welsh rivers. That's regardless of EU legislation. But rather than getting down that rabbit hole, I would also like to thank Sera Evans for her intervention. We've both visited the Kenfig river with A Peace for Nature, and it was a river, when we visited it, that you could smell before you could see. It was absolutely horrendous, and the presence of fungus in the river indicated that sewage discharge had been going on for weeks, which is absolutely unacceptable, in my opinion. We both also attended a community briefing on Friday where residents expressed their concern about the sewage discharge in that area, and one clear thing that came out of that briefing was a call for legislation. Residents directly called on this Chamber to legislate to improve the quality of the rivers in Wales.

I'll finish by just referring to the Minister's comments. He said that once we have the power, the legislative agenda will come forward to try and solve this issue. I say that we already do have the power to solve this. We have devolved power over water quality. [Interruption.] I'll take the intervention, yes.

Thank you, Ben. I think I recall, from last Friday evening, that there was a call for nationalisation, rather than legislation specifically.

I don't recall anyone specifically talking about nationalisation, but I do specifically remember the question coming from a resident on when are we going to legislate on this issue. I know we had different comments and there were a lot of questions raised, but when it does come to legislating, we do have the power to do that. We have the devolved power over water quality, we have the devolved power over the environmental affairs in Wales, and so today, by backing the Reform motion, we can all use that power to good use and improve the quality of all of our rivers in Wales. So, I'll finish by urging everybody to vote for the Reform motion and show all of our constituents that this Chamber can take action and improve the quality of our rivers in Wales. Thank you.

Diolch, Lywydd. Ahead of today's short debate, I proactively reached out to all political parties representing the city of Cardiff, and have received confirmation from Anthony Slaughter, Shav Taj and Leticia Gonzalez, who wish to contribute, and I look forward to hearing their contributions.

Members of the Senedd, a baby boy is born in Cardiff on the same night as another baby boy only a few miles away. One is born in Adamsdown, within Cardiff's southern arc, and the other is born in Lisvane. They will grow up under the same national health service, the same city council, the same education system. They will breathe the same air drifting in from the coast and walk streets under the same Welsh sky. And yet the evidence before us shows that one of those boys can expect to live more than a decade longer than the other and spend a significantly greater proportion of his life in good health. That is not fate; it is structure.

I have chosen to bring forward this contribution on life expectancy inequalities in Cardiff's southern arc because it is here that the consequences of deprivation are most concentrated and where the gap between communities within the same city becomes most stark. The picture is not simple and it is not driven by a single cause. Life expectancy trends in Cardiff over the past decade show only modest changes overall. Some measures have risen slightly and others have fallen. More recently, life expectancy has largely returned to pre-pandemic levels. And on the surface, that can appear like stability, but healthy life expectancy tells a very different and more troubling story. It has fallen over the past decade. In 2021-23, healthy life expectancy stood at 60.3 years for males and 59.6 years for females, both lower than a decade earlier. In other words, while some people are living longer, fewer of those years are being lived in good health. This matters because healthy life expectancy is a national indicator under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, measuring not just how long we live, but how fairly and how well those years are shared.

In Cardiff's southern arc, that inequality becomes visible in its most acute form. If the southern arc were a single local authority, it would be by some margin the most income-deprived in the whole of Wales. Within it are communities in my constituency such as Trowbridge, Llanrumney, Pentwyn, Rumney and Adamsdown, where deprivation is lived through income pressure, housing insecurity and poorer health. These consequences are seen in early mortality. Between 2015 and 2024, premature death rates for under-75s in parts of Plasnewydd were six times higher than in the least deprived parts of the city. When we look at life expectancy itself, the gap within Cardiff reaches over a decade. So, to take that, the gap in male life expectancy is 10.3 years between the most and least deprived areas of the city, and for women it is a gap of 13.2 years, and these inequalities begin long before adulthood.

In Adamsdown, almost 40 per cent of children live in low-income families after housing costs, in contrast to other parts of the city where that figure is below 10 per cent. That inequality then carries forward into daily life. Around 21 per cent of people in Wales experience food insecurity, with almost 30 per cent of those in Cardiff's most deprived communities reporting that they skip meals, reduce their portion sizes or go without food completely.

Fuel poverty, while reduced since its peak during the energy crisis, remains above pre-crisis levels, meaning that, for many households, heating and eating are still competing necessities. These pressures accumulate into health outcomes that are visible across the life course. Of course, these inequalities are not produced by a single factor. They arise from a complex interaction of income, housing, education, employment, the environment and access to services. Socioeconomic conditions account for a large share of variation in premature mortality, though not all of it. Some will argue that such variation is inevitable in any city, that differences in health outcomes reflect individual behaviour or wider societal complexity, and that systems cannot fully equalise these outcomes. And there is truth in the complexity, but the pattern is still consistent and persistent.

The gap in life expectancy within Cardiff is around eight to nine years, and the gap in healthy life expectancy is around 18 to 20 years. And this carries wider consequences. Poor health that prevents people working costs Wales an estimated £19.4 billion per year through lost output, lost tax revenue, increased welfare spending and pressure on our services. But the most profound cost is not to the economy. It is the loss of healthy years of life—years lived with illness, limitation or preventable poor health. This is why healthy life expectancy matters as a national indicator under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. It is intended to show whether progress is real and whether it is shared. And on that measure, the direction of travel remains concerning. Healthy life expectancy has declined since 2011 to 2013 for both males and females, and the gap between the most and least deprived areas has widened again after periods of fluctuation.

So, the question becomes one of response. Because health is not only created in our hospitals. It is shaped in homes, schools, workplaces and communities, in whether families can afford nutritious food, whether housing is secure and whether prevention is prioritised. That is why approaches such as the Marmot principles, early years investment through childcare support and place-based community health models matter, because they focus on the wider determinants of health, rather than only treating the consequences. And it is why current calls for action on food environments are relevant—improving access to affordable fresh fruit and vegetables for low-income households, strengthening nutrition in public settings and reducing the presence and promotion of ultra-processed, high-fat, salt, and sugar foods where public bodies have influence. Because, if we are serious about narrowing the gap in healthy life expectancy, prevention must be practical, local and sustained.

So, I return to where I began: two boys born in the same city on the same night, a few miles apart in geography, but worlds apart in lived experience. One will likely live more than a decade longer than the other and spend far more of his life in good health. The city does not change between them, but their chances in life do.

It is clear that health inequalities in my constituency, Caerdydd Penarth, and the rest of the southern arc are stark and on the rise, as they are in communities across Wales. Almost half—48 per cent—of adults in Wales live with a chronic health condition, and the prevalence of long-term illness is projected to rise, according to Public Health Wales. The causes of this are many, but they are the responsibility of Government to address. Where poverty is rising, like here in Caerdydd, it brings poorer health. With increasing food insecurity, parents are skipping meals. Now, this is being picked up by so many wonderful volunteer groups; tomorrow morning, I'm visiting Splott Community Volunteers for their breakfast club. But it shouldn't be the work of volunteers to address these stark inequalities. And where families live, whether it be in poor housing conditions or breathing polluted air, determines whether they spend up to two decades longer than necessary living in poor health. This geographic inequality within Cardiff paints a stark picture of what is a wider trend, and it says much about our ability to tackle the issue across Wales as a whole. It is, as always, the most vulnerable in our communities who bear the burden. The intersectional nature of the challenge is that those already under stress face multiple health and social risks, and these are often those with the least resilience to extreme heat and wider climate change impacts that we are experiencing right now, here today.

Wales already has a framework through which to view these challenges and identify cross-cutting solutions. The Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which, at its inception, put Wales on a leadership footing, is more pertinent now than ever before. A healthier Wales and a more equal Wales are key well-being goals. Cymru is uniquely placed to respond differently, to act today and make an immediate and long-term commitment to tackling health inequalities and social inequalities, as well as the structural and environmental inequalities that burden the southern Cardiff arc. The Government needs to take bolder steps to tackle inequality, which will deliver cross-cutting benefits for more resilient communities now and for future generations. Diolch.

So, you've heard all the stats, and we can talk about the socioeconomic issues, but what we have to really address is what that future looks like for people in Wales.

I think that the fact that Cardiff Council took the decision to prioritise the southern arc is very clear. The fact that we have seen the twenty-first century schools programme, for example, all the new schools that we've had in Wales—. And I would say to the Government now that they should really stick to that because it is genuinely bringing about changes. And, of course, projects like the Cardiff Parkway, that's going to bring 6,000 new jobs to Wales.

Now, the best way out of poverty is to know that you've got a future ahead of you, particularly for young people. And again, when it comes to social housing, when it comes to building affordable housing, the previous Government started that work. We hope that the new Government continues that work, because people seem to think that, when it comes to Cardiff, the streets are paved with gold. They honestly aren't, because, actually, as the Welsh index of multiple deprivation tells us, in Cardiff East alone, 10 out of 23 neighbourhoods are ranked amongst the most deprived 10 per cent in Wales, which again backs that up.

Now, I'm someone who comes from a working-class background. I was in receipt of free school meals before they were universal, where, actually, it was a bit embarrassing for you to have a ticket. It was a ticket system. And to be honest with you, many of us used to sell that ticket so that we could get chips from the Chinese chippy across the road, right, because that was what it was like back in the day. So, yes, there are lots of things that we are doing, but the reality is that unless we actually really focus on the big issues that matter to the everyday person, put money back into people's pockets, we are not going to see any changes. We can say all the nice things and we can talk about the Michael Marmot review and all the other reviews—which, honestly, I could get my list out; I've sat around so many different tables and conducted so many of these reviews myself—but no-one is ever going to forgive us unless, actually, we see change on the ground. There's work that's already commenced, let's keep going and let's not get to a position where, unfortunately, we see funding taken out from a particular council that is doing a lot of good work in this area.

I thank the Member for bringing to the debate the sharp inequalities we face within our constituencies. As mentioned, the issue of inequalities in life expectancy is complex, but one significant contributor is often overlooked. Social isolation and loneliness remain mostly absent from how we measure and respond to health inequalities, despite its significant contribution to premature mortality and shorter life expectancy. There is strong evidence of an association between loneliness and reduced life expectancy. In the last national survey for Wales, where data on loneliness was collected, more than 12 per cent of people in Cardiff reported feeling lonely.

If we are serious about tackling health inequalities, we must consider not only the individuals, but the health of our communities as a whole. Strong communities provide connection, support and a sense of belonging, all of which play an important role in improving well-being and reducing health inequalities. Diolch.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you very much to the Member for bringing such an important debate forward on her birthday, and happy birthday. Behind every statistic we've heard mentioned during this debate today, there is an individual, a family and a community, people living with pain or illness that could be prevented. Children across Cardiff and Wales are growing up with health prospects that are very different, not because of their own choices, but because of their life circumstances. That's why this debate is so important.

The number of healthy years we can expect to live in Wales is lower than in other nations across the UK, and the situation is deteriorating. A baby born between 2022 and 2024 can expect to live just 59 years in good health. That is lower than England for men and women, and is worse than any other part of the UK for women. Cardiff, of course, is a microcosm of what we see across Wales.

But the figures themselves aren't the greatest concern. What they mean is that more people are spending more of their lives living with illnesses, health challenges and limitations, more time dependent on our health and care services, more time away from work, from families and from those things that provide purpose and quality of life. And the trend is moving in the wrong direction.

Since 2017-19, healthy life expectancy has declined by over two years for men and almost three and a half years for women in Wales. That's not a gradual change; it's a clear warning that the nation's health is in decline. And that decline is hitting some communities far harder than others, as we've heard. In some of our most deprived communities, men live 18 years less in good health than in some of our most prosperous communities. For women, the gap is 19 years. That should cause concern to each and every one of us, because this is not just health inequality, but inequality in opportunity and quality of life.

Much of the ill health that blights lives across Wales is neither inevitable nor unavoidable. In many cases, it's predictable. In many cases, it is preventable. That is why it is so troubling that healthy life expectancy is falling and health inequalities are widening. When we talk about avoidable deaths, we're not talking about statistics on a page. We're talking about parents, partners, friends and neighbours whose lives could have been longer and healthier. We're talking about people spending years living with illness that could have been prevented, years that should have been spent working, caring for loved ones, pursuing opportunities or simply enjoying life.

We know that around 23 per cent of deaths are considered avoidable. We know that around 40 per cent of cancers could be prevented. And we know that without action, the number of people living with four or more long-term conditions could almost double by 2035. The question before us is not whether we can afford to act, it is whether we can afford not to. That is why this new Government is taking a different approach. Ensuring that people across Wales have the means, the opportunity and the support to live healthier lives is at the heart of the work in this new Government. Prevention is no longer something that sits at the margins of policy; it is at the centre of everything we do.

For the first time since devolution, Wales now has a Minister with specific responsibility for preventative health, which is a significant step forward and a clear statement of intent from the First Minister that preventing ill health is a priority. But this role extends far beyond the boundaries of the health service, because, as you mentioned, health does not begin in a hospital, a GP surgery or through a prescription. Health begins in the homes that people live in, the jobs that they do, the food they can afford, the schools their children attend and the communities they are part of. My responsibilities reflect this Government's understanding that improving health means tackling the factors that shape people's lives. It means creating healthier food systems. It means giving young people the knowledge and skills to make healthy choices. It means designing places that support active lives. It means reducing poverty, improving housing and creating the conditions for secure and rewarding work.

For too long, we've accepted a false economy in the way we manage and fund our health services. Previous Governments have prioritised responding to illness rather than preventing it. Too little has been invested in keeping people healthy, and then we have paid a far greater price when people become unwell, require treatment or are forced out of work. That approach is neither sustainable nor fair. We are determined to correct that imbalance by placing greater emphasis on prevention and by ensuring that policy making across Government addresses the social determinants of health, including housing, education, employment and poverty reduction. Because the greatest opportunity before us lies not simply in treating illness, but in preventing it from occurring in the first place.

For too long, we have built a system that responds when people fall ill, rather than doing everything within our ability to help people to remain healthy, and that must change. We cannot accept a Wales where two children are born just a few miles apart in Cardiff, and in other parts of Wales, and face entirely different futures in terms of their health, happiness and opportunities.

Good health should not be a privilege. And the simple truth is this: we will not close the gap in life expectancy unless we also close the gaps in poverty, housing, education and opportunity. That's why preventing illness is more than a health policy; it's an issue of social justice. The challenge is great, but the cases are well-known, and if we are brave enough to address those, rather than just treating their consequences, we can build a Wales where everyone in every community gets the opportunity to live longer, healthier and better lives, and that is this new Government's intention. Thank you.