Plenary

Thank you. Cabinet Minister, I was delighted to hear your announcement two weeks ago, including the launch of the Wales interim measures alarm grant and your commitment to holding negligent developers to account. Two weeks ago, I met with Swansea Point Owners and Residents Association, an incredibly inspiring Swansea residents association, who are fighting tooth and nail to get justice for those living in fire-unsafe buildings. Holding negligent developers to account is a tough battle. We expect them to delay, defend and deny at every opportunity possible. What makes this tougher again is, from my understanding, an inadequate fire safety legal landscape that we've inherited from the previous Labour Government—one full of loopholes, exceptions and edge cases, making it easier for developers to evade justice. Cabinet Minister, would you please state how you're going to make sure that developers do not evade accountability and that the victims of fire-unsafe buildings get the justice they deserve as soon as possible?

Thank you very much for highlighting this important issue. I would like to join you in praising the Swansea Point residents association. I had the pleasure of meeting one of their representatives a fortnight ago and I clearly remember his description of the stress and huge frustration that Swansea Point leaseholders have experienced over a period of more than 18 months. Thank you also for welcoming the Wales interim measures alarm grant. I was pleased to be able to provide some comfort to the representative of Swansea Point who came to see us—some comfort for him and other leaseholders in Swansea Point and those across Wales who are facing appallingly high bills for interim measures while remediation work is done. The grant is open for application, so I would encourage people to look at that.

In terms of your important question on the accountability of developers in this whole area of building safety, I did meet them all, all of the developers who have signed the Welsh Government contract. I met them a fortnight ago. I was entirely clear with them in that meeting that we needed to accelerate the remediation work. I warned them at that meeting that I would provide a progress report to you here in the Senedd in the new year. I look forward to receiving that progress report. I will be more than willing to name any developers who aren't acting under their duties to remediate in accordance with the expectation of the contract, and the expectation that the work should start before the end of this year. If they haven't reached that position, then I will have to name people in this Chamber.

Carmarthenshire's revised development plan allocates nearly 9,000 new homes within the county, and those new homes are needed and welcomed. However, the infrastructure to support them just does not keep pace. Glangwili is about to take on specialist critical care for the whole Hywel Dda area and people cannot see a GP or an NHS dentist. So, my question is: what can the Welsh Government or the local planning authority employ to ensure local infrastructure keeps pace with development? Diolch.

Thank you very much. I'm not familiar with that specific example, but 'Planning Policy Wales' does set out that local planning authorities should plan for the infrastructure needed to meet the needs of communities when new housing developments are considered. So, it is a requirement for local authorities to look at the infrastructure. Adequate and efficient infrastructure, including the types of things that you have mentioned, is crucial in providing new housing developments that meet the needs of current and future residents.

Residents of Coed Dyffryn and Tir Founder Fields in Cwmbach finally celebrated last month as their estate was adopted by the local council. It took a whopping 15 years for the developer, Persimmon, to bring the estate up to an adoptable standard, something that I've been campaigning for and working with RCT council to deliver since I was first elected in 2016.

I was also able, through very persistent badgering, to get the same developer, Persimmon, to carry out the works so two estates in Hirwaun could be adopted in the last Senedd term, nearly 20 years after being built. I'm now working on Persimmon estates in Church Village, Mountain Ash, Pontyclun and Llantrisant, the last of which was built a quarter of a century ago.

Cabinet Minister, it's just not acceptable for developers to leave estates unadopted, particularly some of the big four developers who make multimillion-pound profits, whilst they move on to make money with additional projects. Can this new Government make looking at how they can remedy this a priority?

Thank you very much for that question, and thank you very much to you for the work that you have done and continue to do in your constituency. I'm familiar, as a local Member, with this kind of scenario too, in terms of these developments not being appropriately completed, and particularly this issue of roads not being properly adopted and the work not being completed on time, and sometimes not being completed to the required standards either. This Government is very eager to work with you and other Members in order to try and address this problem. Certainly, I would like to have a further conversation with you, to see if you have any specific ideas as to how we achieve our objectives more quickly in this area.

Thank you for the question. We are supporting households across Pontypridd Cynon Merthyr to improve their home's performance in terms of energy, to improve living standards, to tackle fuel poverty and to reduce carbon emissions. I have allocated £17 million of additional in-year funding to boost delivery of this across Wales, including an investment of at least £1.6 million in your constituency.

Thank you, Cabinet Minister. I welcome the Welsh Government's commitment regarding warm homes and energy efficiency. We know that a warm, safe and affordable home is fundamental to a healthy and happy life, yet fuel poverty remains a significant challenge in communities throughout Pontypridd Cynon Merthyr. Rhondda Cynon Taf council has noted that around 65 per cent of homes are energy inefficient, which reflects the area's older housing stock, while fuel poverty continues to disproportionately affect low-income families, disabled people and older residents. How will the Welsh Government's plans benefit residents in Pontypridd Cynon Merthyr? And what action is being taken to ensure that work to improve energy efficiency will help to reduce bills, improve people's health and well-being and ensure a permanent reduction in fuel poverty? Thank you.

Thank you very much for outlining more about your question. While some of the existing plans have brought some positive outcomes—we are all aware of some good examples of where energy efficiency plans and programmes have made a very real difference and have brought people's bills down—there is still much more to be done, and there are too many homes that continue to be energy inefficient, and therefore are paying bills that are far too high. In a cost-of-living crisis, it is crucial that we give particular attention to all of those issues.

At the moment, perhaps people aren't entirely sure what energy-efficiency improvements are best for their homes. They don't know where to access funding and they don't know which contractors they should use locally either. But I am determined to remove those barriers, so that people do feel confident to invest in upgrading their homes so that they are far more energy efficient, whilst also, of course, there are plans for low-income households. The Nest programme has proved to be very successful in that regard. But you are talking about expanding that into plans across whole areas and across different tenancies, and that is central to the work that we are now developing within Government. And I am eager to get the best possible process for communities and to see that being implemented, and that's why I will be working, and I'm currently working, with partners to think ahead in terms of the programme that we need to develop.

I mentioned new investment, and as part of that new investment, £4 million has been allocated to support pilot schemes that are looking at area-based models. And there is one in Cardiff at the moment, and that is progressing. Applications are available for this pilot scheme for local authorities, social landlords and regional governing bodies. That pot of funding is open until 14 October, and I would encourage any qualifying organisation to make an application to be involved in that pilot.

I don't wish to speak, Llywydd.

Diolch, Lywydd. Cabinet Minister, I'm sorry to disappoint you by returning to a subject the Government clearly doesn't want to talk about, but the people of Wales, I believe, want answers. My office has asked all 22 Welsh councils about nationality in social housing. Last year, Cardiff Council allocated almost 30 per cent of new social housing to foreign nationals. In Newport, almost 20 per cent of social housing went to foreign nationals. Does the Welsh Government collect the nationality of people given social housing from councils, and what is the figure for Wales as a whole?

The priority of this Government is to ensure that people living here in Wales can access safe, affordable homes, and that goes for everybody living here in Wales. The allocations policy, the national allocations policy, is a framework set by the Welsh Government. The local policies then are set by the local authorities. We don't collect information within those regimes about people's nationalities. Houses are allocated according to need.

I expected that answer, Cabinet Minister, because many councils don't hold that data either. Either they couldn't or they wouldn't tell me the truth. From Swansea to Wrexham, many of them either refused to tell us on cost grounds or, even more shockingly, they didn't collect nationality data at all. And where the housing stock has been transferred to housing associations, they aren't subject to freedom of information requests at all.

Minister, in opposition, you tabled amendments on publishing housing register data. Will you now require every council and housing association in Wales to record and publish the nationality of applicants, new tenants and households in temporary accommodation? These questions matter when our own people are waiting years for social housing—it should be for the people of this country.

Why do we need to collect that data? I'm not quite sure. Because everybody in Wales deserves to have a safe, affordable home, and that includes social housing as well as other forms of housing. So, I really don't see why we need to collect information around what you call 'foreign nationals'.

Now, 'foreign nationals' is a very wide-ranging term, and the vast majority of social housing tenants in Wales are UK nationals, as it happens. But, then, foreign nationals are part of our society. They're important people within our society. They're people with children. They're people working in the NHS. They're care home workers. And, of course, they are welcome here and they are contributing to our economy. I think we have very different agendas going on here, and I'm not quite sure that what you're trying to talk about is quite on the same page as I am. Absolutely, it's not on the same page.

Well, Minister, I think data matters when it's taxpayers' money, and we need to know who is in our social homes. When we've got parents waiting for years for social homes, we need to be prioritising our own. So, Minister, there are actions you can take if you wanted to fix the problem right now and put our own people first.

Councils need both the data and the powers to act. Last December, you tabled an amendment that removed section 35 from the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill. You said social housing was—and you have said it—a universal resource. That provision would have allowed councils to decide who does and does not qualify for social housing in their area—the same kind of power English councils use to apply residency tests.

Will you now reintroduce that power for Welsh councils, so that social housing in Wales goes to the people of that country, and who have been waiting for years for social homes?

The problem is a fundamental one. We don't have enough social housing in Wales. We don't have enough to meet the demand, to meet the need that there is—absolutely, obviously, there is not enough there available. The queue is way too long for social housing, and creating division amongst people who are in the queue, which is exactly what you are doing, is not the way forward. The way forward is to build more social homes. And that is why this Government has a relentless focus on building and creating 20,000 new social homes before the end of this Senedd term.

Diolch, Lywydd. Launched by the Welsh Labour Government in 2022, and managed by individual councils, Leasing Scheme Wales allows councils to lease properties from private landlords. It helps councils move tenants out of temporary accommodation, and tenancy support is offered as part of the scheme. An independent evaluation found that empty properties accounted for over 60 per cent of the properties within the scheme, and the evaluation also found that the co-ordination and communications established by the previous Welsh Government were highly valued by councils, and, actually, all 22 local authorities in Wales had signed up to the scheme.

However, councils and landlords are now facing uncertainty as it seems that the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government will not continue the scheme beyond March next year, with no new properties onboarded after December this year. So, Cabinet Minister, can you provide clarity on the future of this scheme to councils, landlords and tenants, and what will replace Leasing Scheme Wales?

Thank you very much for that question. And I do recall when this plan was introduced, and, at the time, it was described as a five-year programme that had a specific purpose of bringing more houses up to standard so that they could be used to alleviate homelessness.

The scheme is to come to an end soon, but the properties that are within the scheme already and the applications in that pipeline will still exist. The truth is that that scheme had a particular purpose, and within the financial restrictions that this Government is facing, it is one of the things we are looking at now in earnest, in terms of the scheme's future.

Diolch, Cabinet Minister. I'd recommend you do look at that scheme because, as I said, the feedback from many was how effective it had been, particularly for reluctant landlords.

Whilst every town and city centre has its own unique identity, many are facing the similar challenge of changing footfall and empty properties. That's why the Welsh Labour Government's Transforming Towns programme boosted regeneration in town and city centres across Wales, with more than £300 million since 2020. Instead of confirming a continuation of this programme, Cabinet Minister, you've created a town-centre taskforce, and I've no doubt that the two co-chairs and 17 members announced last week have vast expertise. But I'd like to know what the Government expects of the taskforce and what it expects to deliver. How will the taskforce differ from previous reviews and recommendations, when will it report and how much will it cost to convene the town-centre taskforce?

Thank you very much for that question. As it happens, I will be announcing additional funding tomorrow for a number of towns, and one city, in Wales under the Transforming Towns funding. So, that funding has been a very effective means of allowing towns and cities to improve their town centres.

At the moment, as you know, we have established a taskforce, which is looking at all aspects of what needs to be done as we reimagine our town centres. You were asking what the purpose of the taskforce will be. It will look at everything, across traditional boundaries, perhaps, but will draw everything together, in terms of planning, in terms of business rates, in terms of finding additional capital—all of those issues.

The taskforce has met. I joined them at the beginning of their meeting last week. The feedback that I've had from that meeting was that they had been working all day identifying these important themes that need to be addressed. My message at the beginning of their meeting was this: I don't want you to describe the problem to me, I want you to find solutions. I want clear recommendations in terms of what we as a Government in Wales can do. There are certain issues—related to the economy and so on—that are beyond our practical powers here. So, I placed a clear emphasis on what we in Wales can do in order to improve the way that our town centres develop and to give them new life.

Thank you, Llywydd. Cabinet Minister, Wales continues to face significant housing pressures. We hear it all the time in this Chamber: rising homelessness, growing demand for affordable homes. Now, at the Conservative conference this week, which I'm sure you were following, the shadow chancellor announced some excellent proposals, aimed at reducing the costs of building new homes and reforming planning rules to support housing delivery.

Cabinet Minister, does the Welsh Government accept that planning delays, bureaucracy and developer contribution requirements can act as a barrier to delivering the homes Wales needs? In England, the Conservatives want to replace section 106 agreements as they are a real barrier for developers. Will you review Wales's approach and, in a similar way, bring forward changes where planning requirements are preventing or delaying the delivery of much-needed affordable and social housing?

Thank you for the question. In our programme for government, you will see that there is a clear commitment there to reform the planning system, to make the planning system more accountable to communities, and also to see how we can accelerate the process of providing planning consents and removing some of the barriers from the system. So, planning is a key area, and we recognise that it has a key role in delivering many other policies, particularly in the field of housing.

But planning can also assist us in tackling conflict between policies, where those issues arise. Therefore, I am convinced that we need to give particular attention to this. I did announce last week that we would be consulting on the national development framework. 'Planning Policy Wales' sits under that. I will also be making a call for evidence around how we can make meaningful progress with what we all agree on, namely the need to further reform the planning system. I would be delighted if you were to bring some of your own ideas forward, around 106 issues, certainly, but on other issues too. I encourage everyone in this Chamber who has ideas as to how we can make the system more accountable to bring their ideas forward.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Minister. That's reassuring, and I'll be very pleased to contribute some of our ideas. Clearly, if planning is a blocker to delivering the houses we need, we need to level some of those barriers.

Moving on to a different subject that you're responsible for, Cabinet Minister, and that's the Welsh fire service. They have continued to promote the Wales Wildfire Board's Burn to Protect campaign. Mid and West Wales Fire and Rescue Service and North Wales Fire and Rescue Service have both highlighted the need for preventative action following the horrific scenes we saw all through the summer. Recent scrutiny by Audit Wales has highlighted wider concerns around the financial sustainability of our fire service and the costs associated with improved programmes. Given the increasing threat posed by extreme weather conditions, what assessment have you made of whether Wales's fire and rescue services have sufficient resources and funding to respond to increasing wildfire incidents, particularly in south Wales, following the severe wildfire season we've just experienced?

Thank you very much for that question. I would like to take this opportunity to once again thank our firefighters, the police force, NRW, our communities and all of the agencies that worked so very hard during those wildfires over the summer months. I had an opportunity to go directly to a very difficult situation and saw the firefighters working in very difficult circumstances to try to extinguish those flames.

You're entirely right that the preventative work that happens through the fire and rescue services is crucially important. They go into our schools and they have a community service. The Welsh Government doesn't fund the fire and rescue service, of course. Just to remind you, on 22 October, the Welsh Government will hold a summit on wildfires. The First Minister will chair that event, and I and other Ministers who were involved with the whole issue of wildfires over the summer will be part of that summit. Certainly, there are important themes to discuss in light of the fires that did happen over the summer. We need to plan carefully for the future, including a way forward for the fire and rescue services. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll keep this short, then.

I am committed to engaging more efficiently with the community regarding the LDP process. I will be starting a conversation soon on how LDPs can be reimagined to better reflect the aspirations of our communities. A consultation on options and proposals for change will follow in due course.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. In December 2023, Wrexham councillors were forced, under threat of imprisonment, to vote for a local development plan that was not fit for purpose. The plan was based on population projections that were spectacularly wrong. Following a lengthy court battle, brought by councillors, including me, against the previous Welsh Government and housing developers, the High Court quashed the council's decision to adopt its LDP. To cut a long story short, to suit the Llywydd, the LDP has now been withdrawn and the council is preparing a new plan. As a former councillor, I want to improve the planning system throughout Wales by ensuring greater community engagement and involvement in the process. To test that, will the Minister consider Wrexham as a pilot scheme to ensure that the local voice is heard loud and clear in the planning process, and that we never again see local elected representatives threatened with jail for standing up for their communities? Diolch yn fawr.

I thank you, Marc, and Carrie Harper who is sitting alongside you. I know about the important work that you did in that period, and no-one should ever again face jail or that kind of situation for being a voice for local democracy. I hope that that is accepted and that everybody understands the importance of that message.

It is important, as the new LDP is put together, that lessons from that previous experience are learned, building on what did work and looking specifically at what didn't work so that the new plan does gain more support and confidence in the communities and provides a firm foundation for the future of Wrexham.

Given that I have powers within the LDP process, I can't take a direct role in the process of developing the new plan, but I am content to provide practical support for that process, and I would be very happy to meet with you to hear about how you think the community engagement should work. The Design Commission for Wales can also be of assistance, and I will be meeting them next week, and so there will probably be ideas there that we can explore.

Minister, if community engagement is to mean anything, residents in communities across Flint and Wrexham must see their local voices genuinely reflected on the ground. I want to take what Sarah Edwards, my colleague, said a little bit further. So, will the Minister ensure that locally prepared place plans and town plans are given full weight in the planning process and that area-wide infrastructure improvements, such as road networks, GP capacity and school places, are fully costed and funded before large-scale housing is approved? I just want to give an example of a place in my area where there is huge development, which is Oakenholt, where there are lots of houses being built, but the GP capacity is really under pressure because of that. It was something that my colleague Ben Hodge McKenna mentioned before. So, furthermore, does the Minister agree that, where vital local infrastructure cannot be guaranteed, local planning authorities should have the backing of the Welsh Government to refuse applications? Diolch, Lywydd.

Well, I'll reiterate what I said earlier, really, that the infrastructure absolutely needs to be at the heart of the planning process and in bringing LDPs together. They are a matter for the local councils, but my message is quite clear and the message in 'Planning Policy Wales' is quite clear that infrastructure around any housing developments, et cetera, have to meet that need as well.

I'll try and be brief. Minister, you'll be aware that Cardiff Council is delivering one of the UK's most ambitious and award-winning council house building schemes. A key factor in achieving that was having an LDP in place that enabled the council to secure greater social housing contributions from large-scale developments. Without a plan in place, Cardiff would have lost control of the process and seen piecemeal developments dispersed across the city. Too often, though, engagement on LDPs is dominated by well-organised voices opposed to development. So, Minister, in your rethinking of LDPs, how will you ensure that the voices of those on housing waiting lists, those living in temporary accommodation who desperately need social housing, are also heard, given they are far less likely to participate in these consultations compared with well-resourced, well-organised groups who don't want to see any houses built?

Diolch yn fawr. Yes, your point is well made, Huw.

Thank you very much. It is important that the process of creating a local plan does include everyone, isn't it, and the needs of everyone within that community. From my personal experience of being part of the development of a local development plan in my village, the process of engaging with the entire community and showing the entire community that there were housing needs, for example, within that community, that ensured that we did have a plan that was robust for the future, and when housing plans were brought forward that were proportionate—and, of course, that's the problem, isn't it, that they're not always proportionate—but when plans were brought forward that were proportionate in relation to the size of the village but also in relation to local need, there were no complaints about them. So, I do think it's important to include everyone, including those voices that are not heard, and I think we as local councillors have a role in leading and being a voice for those needs that are often forgotten.

I refer Members to my declaration of interest. In the programme for government, Minister, there is a piece that talks of the Government looking at examining the permitted development rights and bringing into beneficial use redundant farm buildings for housing purposes. When councils are developing development plans, they require clear guidance from central Government so that those plans can be enacted and deliver the houses that many local communities are desperate to have. If that measure was introduced, that would have a big impact on freeing up redundant buildings for beneficial purposes and creating properties that people could live in in rural settings. It's already been enacted in many parts of the United Kingdom. When will the Welsh Government be giving that guidance to councils to bring forward those properties to be redeveloped out of redundant buildings that exist in the countryside?

Well, I agree with your ambition for creating a more robust and resilient rurality here in Wales. I am in active discussions with Llyr Gruffydd, the rural affairs Minister—whatever the title is now—

Resilience.

—and we are looking at this and are in active discussions around it.

Strengthening tenants' rights is a priority for this Government. Renters deserve a safe, warm, secure and affordable home, and they should feel confident challenging poor conditions. Positive change requires good law, and the first phase of our legislative programme will better protect tenants, tackle poor landlords and make renting more secure.

Diolch, Minister. Strengthening the rights and protection for renters is, as you know, fundamental for ending the housing emergency in Wales. The Government's response so far does not meet the scale of the challenge. We are approaching another winter where people will be living in cold, freezing, damp, inadequate homes, and this is already a crisis. Families in Wales are spending over a third of their income on rent in the private sector, and they are still subject to the risk of a no-fault eviction, something that has been outlawed in England and Scotland but not in Wales. People across Wales need reassurance that you will stand up for their rights and protect them from unscrupulous landlords. Will you commit to ending no-fault evictions at the earliest possible opportunity, and will you now commit to an immediate freezing of rents in the private rental sector to give people much needed breathing space in the cost-of-living crisis? Diolch.

Thank you very much for those questions. The private rental sector does play a crucial role in our housing system, with around one in six households renting, and therefore it is hugely important that we give particular attention to those people who are facing increasing costs in their rent and thus in their costs of living. We, as a Government, intend to do this via a phased approach. You will realise that we are a minority Government, and so perhaps the ambition that you and I share won't be able to be delivered in full, but I am determined to improve the position for renters. The first renters Bill will be the first phase in a programme that will develop as we proceed. The first renters Bill will enable us to gather the necessary data that we need in order to see exactly what the situation in terms of renting in Wales in different areas. And that will provide us with a foundation to build on for a second and third Bill. And the aim ultimately, of course, is that we place in law in Wales the right to an adequate home, and that that is an important part of the Welsh legislative landscape.

The Welsh development quality requirements ensure that new social homes provide an environment where households can thrive, and which adapt to their changing needs. We have a strong pipeline of housing that meets these standards, delivering homes that are sustainable and affordable to run, while helping to create vibrant communities across Wales.

Thank you for that response, Minister.

Over the summer, I had the opportunity to meet with Trivallis, who are undertaking a development in Penrhys, in the Rhondda, to deliver around 1,000 new homes over the next 10 years. They raised with me some challenges presented by the current development quality requirements. Trivallis has relayed to me that the current development quality requirements require housing associations to build to standards above those set by building regulations, including achieving energy performance certificate A or an alternative approved design. In Penrhys, I've been told that this is adding around 15 per cent to construction costs and achieving the required standard can be technically challenging for high-rise developments and other homes in urban areas. I'd be keen to hear your view on this, Cabinet Minister, particularly around whether we are striking the right balance between ensuring high-quality, energy-efficient homes and cost-effectiveness. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr. I have heard other social landlords cite this as something that we need to look at, and that they think that maybe the balance should be redressed a little bit. So, my officials are available to discuss any challenges Trivallis or other social landlords are facing in bringing forward proposals. I've asked my officials to look specifically at the issue raised around EPC A, and so I hope to see that work come forward in the near future.

On high-rise developments, we are pragmatic that, as long as all attempts to comply with the standard are taken, we'll accept schemes that achieve below EPC A—for instance, high EPC B with good levels of airtightness.

Thank you. Planning policy sets out that local planning authorities should support the provision of all types of infrastructure required to meet the needs of communities when new housing developments are considered.

Diolch. Minister, most communities in my constituency are already stretched to the limit. It's already hard to get a GP appointment, seeing an NHS dentist is almost impossible, and schools already have too many children in the classroom without the right support, yet more homes are being approved without the infrastructure there to support them.

We all want to see more housing as soon as possible, as has been said today, but there has to be some common sense attached to it. I know this has been brought up quite a number of times today in this Senedd, and I want to just reiterate points made by the Member for Carmarthenshire and the Member for Fflint Wrecsam, because my constituency shares those same pressures, and that's why I welcome the consultation that is open right now. But how do you envisage better infrastructure planning around new housing developments? And, as you develop the new national development framework following the consultation, will you work with local authorities to look to reform planning policy to ensure that any large housing developments are only approved where there is the necessary infrastructure already in place, or there is clear funding commitment to deliver it alongside the housing? As you've said today, that should be happening, but as you know and I know and this Chamber knows—

—it's not. Diolch.

As you say, that should be happening, and I agree with a lot of what you said on this subject. Planning authorities, along with key providers, should take a strategic and long-term approach towards providing infrastructure in drawing up plans. That can, of course, include collaboration between local authorities and key infrastructure providers to ensure that that is sustainable and fit for purpose. So, my message is clear, but, of course, it is for the local authorities to create the LDPs. I do think that all of us should take a lot more notice when those LDPs are created and should take part in the process as Members of the Senedd, as councillors and as community councillors, so that our voice, on infrastructure and other issues, is heard.

Thank you. Swansea Council has been allocated over £38 million in social housing grant funding and £9.5 million through the transitional accommodation capital programme this year alone. Together, this will contribute to the delivery of 541 additional homes across this Senedd term.

Thank you, Minister. Minister, your Government promised 20,000 additional social homes by 2030, despite Wales's nation of sanctuary and Swansea's city of sanctuary status potentially drawing further claimants into our lands, and you just said that we do not have enough social housing. My understanding is that Swansea Council does not collect immigration status data for social housing applicants. I consider that remiss. I was also surprised that you said that you were not sure why we would collect that data. The people of Swansea and Wales deserve transparency to understand the full scale of the situation. Will your Government take concrete action to close this unacceptable void in the data and publish clear comparisons of social housing allocations and waiting times for established local residents versus newly arrived people and how crucial allocation decisions are made?

I will just repeat once again that social housing is allocated according to need, not according to nationality. When you use the term 'foreign nationals', I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to there. 'Foreign nationals' include people, families, children, who work in our NHS, who work in our care homes, who drive our buses, who do excellent and important work that needs to be done here in Wales. Their needs for social housing are considered in the same way as everyone else's needs. Everyone who lives in Wales deserves to have an adequate home, whatever their nationality, whatever their background or their sex. Everyone living in Wales deserves a home.

Thank you very much. There is significant interest in this today. Our planning system must operate in a timely fashion, but it must also, of course, make robust decisions to deliver our ambitions for Wales, especially in terms of the economy and communities. That is why our programme for government has committed us to reform the planning system.

Minister, people in Pontypridd Cynon Merthyr have been asking me how many more years will communities and businesses have to wait for a planning system that delivers decisions promptly. Will you commit to clear, measurable targets for reducing delays? Will you introduce clear planning performance targets for councils and Welsh Government, and publish the results so that the public can hold both to account for the delays? Thank you.

I don't think it's quite as simple as you point out. There are delays in the system, but there are all kinds of reasons why these delays come about. I absolutely want to hear your views in the call for evidence that we are holding, some of which you've talked about now, but there are lots of other matters that can be taken into account to try and make the system more streamlined. But I do give a caution: the capacity within the planning authorities has dwindled. It's become smaller and smaller because of austerity, because of cuts that have happened where councils have had to try and protect education, social services. Quite often, it's the planning and the planners that are affected. So, please can we bear that in mind as well when we're talking about streamlining of the planning process?

Today, I stand to remember the victims of the horrific attacks in Israel on 7 October 2023. We remember the 1,200 people who lost their lives. We remember the families torn apart, the communities devastated and all those who were taken hostage. And today, I particularly want to remember two little boys, Ariel and Kfir Bibas. You may remember Ariel, a beautiful young boy in his Batman outfit running through the streets, and I wear my badge in memory of him today and anyone lost in this attack. Ariel was just four years old when he was taken, and Kfir was only nine months old. Their faces became known around the world as a heartbreaking symbol of innocent lives caught up in the horror of that day. We remember their mother, Shiri, too. We think of their father, Yarden, and the unimaginable loss endured by the Bibas family.

Whatever our politics, there should always be space in this Chamber for humanity. There should be space to mourn innocent people, to condemn terrorism and to say clearly that deliberately targeting and taking civilian hostages can never be justified. So, today, from the Welsh Parliament, I, we, remember Ariel and Kfir and Shiri and Yarden and every innocent life taken on that day as a consequence. May their memories be a blessing and may all those who mourn find strength and peace.

This week is the first National Cadets Week, and I wanted to take the opportunity to recognise both the young people involved in the cadet forces and the volunteers who give up so much of their time to support them. I've been involved with the Royal Air Force Air Cadets for more than 40 years, first in uniform as a cadet and a member of staff, and now as a civilian trustee, so this is something very close to me.

Over those years, I've seen many young people come through the organisation. Some have gone on to join the armed forces, but many haven't, and that's not the point. What the cadet movement does particularly well is give young people opportunities; it gives them confidence, responsibility, friendships and experiences they might otherwise never have had. And none of this happens without the adult volunteers who turn up week after week, often after a full day's work, and give their evenings and weekends to make it happen. His Majesty the King has recognised their contribution during National Cadets Week, and I would simply like to add my thanks. After more than 40 years, I am still very proud to be involved. Diolch.

Just over 18 weeks ago, Venus Lamey turned up at the Nova Prestatyn parkrun dressed as a chicken. Since then, she has run 16 different parkruns across north Wales, dressed in a variety of costumes, including a dinosaur, a unicorn and Winnie the Pooh. Several of these parkruns have been in my constituency, Pont y Bala, Dolgellau and Hafan Pwllheli, where I went to meet her and to hear her story of why she chooses to run in some very eye-catching costumes. Venus believes in shifting shame. She runs because it helps her and to raise money for the Rape and Sexual Abuse Support Centre North Wales, who support the victims of sexual violence. Venus says, 'Through the hundreds of conversations I've had, it's highlighted to me just how many people in north Wales have either been affected by sexual violence themselves or know someone who has.'

Venus wants to shift the shame from the victims of sexual abuse to the perpetrators. Last week, she ran the Nova Prestatyn parkrun again, wearing a Teletubbies costume, but this time, she wasn't the only one in an embarrassing costume: 64 people dressed up for Venus's Shift the Shame campaign. Venus will run her final parkrun this Saturday on the prom at Abermaw—Barmouth. So, if you're in the area, do go and cheer her on. Diolch, Venus, for everything you do.

I formally move the motions.

Thank you, Llywydd. Before having the honour of being elected, I worked with some of the most vulnerable people in north Wales. As a Member of the Senedd, I have continued to champion their cause. Members, we should be deeply concerned that our country has a much higher rate of children in care than in England. In 2025, there were 114 children per 10,000 in the care of Welsh local authorities, compared to 67 children per 10,000 in the care of the local authorities in England. There are currently around 7,000 children in placement. In Wrexham, there are over 300 young people living in such a situation; Swansea has 475 and, in Cardiff, it's nearly 1,000.

These figures are alarming, but they are not just numbers; they're human beings whose lives can be seriously impacted by their experience. Young people with care experience told the previous Senedd that, for example, some school teachers made it really obvious that they were in care, meaning that they never had a break from their experience of the care system. They told the previous Senedd that they had very little support to help them move on from foster placements and that they lacked the basic skills needed to live independently.

We know that care leavers are underrepresented at universities and are on what Crisis describes as a 'predictable route' into homelessness. According to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, they are approximately four times more likely to have a mental health need compared to children living with their birth families. Overwhelmingly, professionals and academics have made it clear that corporate parenting has not been achieving for care-experienced children and young people.

Parents are being failed too. Research shows that parents who go through care proceedings once are more likely to find themselves in proceedings again with subsequent children. Forty-seven per cent of newborn babies subject to care proceedings in England were born to mothers who had previously had children subject to care proceedings. The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory found that mothers and fathers who are frequently involved in care proceedings are dealing with complex and unresolved trauma, which is compounded by the court experience. The adversarial proceedings, formal language and impersonal process compound anxieties and triggers self-protective behaviours, which negatively impact the relationship between the professional and the family unit. Parents feel that they are not being listened to. As the independent review of children's social care in 2022 found, court proceedings are, by their nature, adversarial and have a high human and economic cost.

Members, it doesn't have to be like this. There is another way: family drug and alcohol courts. How are these different? I want to answer by quoting the words of a parent who had previously had children removed, comparing the FDAC process to the standard process. Of the standard process, she said, 'We felt like we had no voice and that we were powerless, and that we were just being accused of things and that there was no opportunity to defend ourselves.' Speaking of the family drug and alcohol court process, the same parent said, 'It feels like we have the power to actually have our say, get things done, have our side heard, and then they try to work with us to improve things and meet in the middle.'

Unlike standard proceedings, FDAC uses a trauma-informed approach, which includes listening to parents without judgment, focusing on parents' strengths and the resources that they currently have available to them, and allowing flexibility. Parents are given a key worker from the FDAC team and a judge who provides them with support and a problem-solving approach. There is weekly substance misuse testing, which involves the parents, and fortnightly non-lawyer reviews with consistent legal monitoring that creates a forum for judges and professionals to problem solve with the parents, set clear goals and delegate tasks for the following two weeks. Parents have a multidisciplinary team to support them, who help them to gain access to services and agencies. They provide transparent information and set up multiple sessions per week to address the intervention plan.

Clearly, it’s a very different model to the standard process, but how do we get families there? One challenge that arose from the Welsh trial was that the number of referrals was hampered by confusion over the threshold. Professionals were thought to be pre-screening referrals themselves and only referring if parents' substance misuse was particularly severe. Some legal representatives were under the impression that the local authority was responsible for determining which cases met the threshold, while the judge suggested that there was a general lack of awareness and exposure to the model.

That lack of awareness can be overcome when we follow the model used in London, which is that the usual threshold for proceedings applies, meaning that if a family is not selected for the model, they will enter the usual family proceedings court instead, and a family will qualify if they have a history of parental drug or alcohol misuse. So, now that we know what these courts are, I want to show you why the FDACs are a more effective model.

The evaluation of the family drug and alcohol court in Wales found that the number of parents misusing substances decreased from 83 per cent at the start of the process to 54 per cent. The number of parents misusing alcohol, thanks to the proceedings, reduced from 91 per cent to 60 per cent. Not perfect, but a marked improvement. The number of parents recorded as misusing drugs fell from 94 per cent to 51 per cent. Those supported by the experience of family drug and alcohol courts in England and, more recently, the national FDAC impact evaluation, found that a higher proportion of parents stopped misusing drugs or alcohol by the end of the proceedings. The pilot in Wales showed that the number of children in the care of one or both of their parents more than doubled from the start of the proceedings to the end. That is supported, again, by a study in England, which found that 52 per cent of children were returned to their parents, compared to only 13 per cent in the standard process. The family teams almost halved the number of children being placed in local authority care. That's more family units kept as one.

There are other proven benefits too. Unsurprisingly, feedback from parents is overwhelmingly positive. The Bedfordshire team evaluation saw parents describe the process as non-judgmental and inclusive, whilst parents in London described the system as transformative. And here in Wales, a parent who was reunited with their child at the end of the proceedings described the service as a lifesaver and said, 'My life's back on track because of the FDAC team. I can't recommend them enough.' 'I can't recommend them enough'—what a contrast to how parents feel about the standard process.

It is a serious failure that whilst England has 13 of these specialist teams, we don't have a single one in Wales. The current situation goes against recommendation 35 of the 'Justice in Wales for the People of Wales' report. It goes against the recommendation in the evaluation of the Welsh pilot. It goes against the best interests of children, young people and their parents. There is no reason why this injustice cannot be stopped. This is confirmed when also considering the economic case.

The Centre for Justice Innovation and Mutual Ventures' economic analysis shows that, for every £1 spent on FDAC operations, £3 is generated in savings to the taxpayer. A reduction in the cost of children's services needs to be taken extremely seriously, especially when we consider that overspends in Welsh local authorities arising from children's social care last year alone came to nearly £30 million. Bearing in mind the benefit to the taxpayer, the benefit to some of our most vulnerable children and the benefit to some of our most vulnerable parents, I urge the Senedd to back my motion today. Let us together create a care system that builds, not breaks families. Thank you.

I was three weeks old when I came into care in Newport. I was seven when I was adopted. So, when the Senedd talks about children whose parents cannot look after them, I am not talking about a policy area, I'm talking about the thing that decided my life before I could speak. That does not make me an expert on anybody else's family, but I think a great deal about the moment before a child is taken into care, because nearly everything we do for children, like me, happens afterwards, when the hardest thing has happened.

In December 2021, Wales opened a court designed for exactly that moment, a family drug and alcohol court sitting in Cardiff, serving families from Cardiff and the Vale, with three judges trained for it. It cost £450,000. In November 2023, it closed, but not because it failed. Researchers at Cardiff University looked at it and found that it worked here, that parents were getting better, that children's lives were changing. They said that Wales should keep it and build on it. The judge who sat in it wrote down his regret in the judgment. He could see what it meant for the families still in front of him. It closed because the money ran out.

Let me tell you about what that court actually did. A judge who heard your case properly, rather than whoever happened to be sitting that day. A team of people around you who were there to help, not to judge. Parents were given a chance to get clean while the case was still running, instead of being watched and measured and found wanting. And when it worked, a child stayed at home. They were not moved, not placed, not separated from their brothers and their sisters—at home with a mother who had been given the help that she so desperately needed. Everywhere else, these cases take about a year. Think about what a year is to a three-year-old. It is a sixth of everything they have ever known spent waiting to be told where they are going to live.

Let's be clear about what I'm not saying. I'm not saying that every family can be saved. Some children are inevitably safer away from their parents, and the courts are right when they say so. I'm one of those children. But care should be the last thing we try, not the first thing that happens. A child who stays safely at home keeps their family, their school and their peer group, their brothers and their sisters. A child who goes into care loses all three, and we become their parent instead.

The Senedd agreed unanimously across four parties that we do take corporate parenting seriously—that when the state steps into a parent's place, it accepts the parental responsibility. I believe that, but a good parent does not wait until a child has already lost their family before deciding to help. If we mean what we said about corporate parenting, it cannot begin at the moment a child comes into care; it has to begin before.

The question is not whether this works. England has many of these teams, but Wales has none. The question is why Wales could not keep it. Wales paid for this court; Wales paid for a court in a justice system it does not control. The courts belong to Westminster—the judges, the rules, the whole structure. But what belong to us are the social workers, the health services, the drug and alcohol teams—the people who made the court work, funded from here.

Wales could pay for a pilot; what Wales could not do was put it on a statutory footing, because that at the moment is not ours to build. Wales could fund the team year after year and still never make the court itself a permanent part of the justice system. When the money ran out, there was nothing underneath it—it wasn't on a statutory footing. So, this is what happened—not a decision anyone took, not a judgment that this was wrong for Wales, just a court that existed on borrowed time and stopped existing.

The Commission on Justice in Wales spent four years looking at this. It said in 2019 that these courts should be established in Wales. It also said that justice and policing should be devolved, because a system split down the middle serves nobody, least of all the people caught in the middle of it. I think they were right, and I do not know of a clearer example than this one. Wales paid for this court. It worked, it closed, and Wales never had the power to make it permanent in law. It was never able to be put on a statutory footing—there's no clearer example than this.

Can I please thank Tom Montgomery for bringing forward this debate today? I'm pleased to be a co-subscriber of this motion.

Family drug and alcohol courts can play a pivotal role in creating better outcomes for children and parents. By taking a different approach to normal courts, with treatment and practical support, they can help parents overcome substance misuse and help keep families, ultimately, together. In my mind, doing all that we can to keep families together, instead of breaking them up, should indeed be the first course of action. Of course, there will undoubtedly be cases where that isn't appropriate or indeed safe, but families should be given every reasonable chance to stick together. Instead of the court simply deciding whether a child should remain or enter care, these specialist courts aim to give the parent a structured opportunity to address the ongoing problems.

And the evidence is really strong. In England, as we've just heard, a major evaluation of 106 families who went through family drug and alcohol courts found that 40 per cent of mothers and 25 per cent of fathers stopped misusing substances. In comparison, only 25 per cent of mothers and 5 per cent of fathers who went through ordinary care proceedings stopped misusing substances. The long-term data is indeed promising. Five years after proceedings ended, the evaluation found that 46 per cent of mothers had stopped misusing substances and that 37 per cent of families who went through family drug and alcohol courts had been reunited or continued living together.

As well as bringing family benefits, it also fits into the Government's preventative health agenda and can deliver savings to the public purse long term. According to the Centre for Justice Innovation, these courts have the potential to save local authorities nearly £10,000 per case in legal costs compared to the standard care proceedings. The Department for Education echoed these findings with their own analysis, concluding that family drug and alcohol courts generate significant savings whilst also achieving significantly better outcomes for children and families.

Countries around the world, including America and Australia, have some sort of family drug and alcohol court system in place, yet sadly, here in Wales, we do not have anything. The previous Labour Welsh Government committed to introducing these courts here in Wales and launched a pilot. The pilot, which was carried out in Cardiff and the Vale, found that parental substance misuse fell from 83 per cent to 54 per cent, and that the number of children living with one or both parents at the end of proceedings was more than double the number at the start.

Last year, the previous Welsh Government established a working group to consider scaling, funding and the wider use of family drug and alcohol courts. Since then, we haven't heard anything. Given that the proposal of introducing family drug and alcohol courts here in Wales appears to have cross-party support, from what I'm hearing and from what I'm seeing, it is now time for this Plaid Cymru Government to pick up this mantle and put this back on the agenda. Thank you.

I speak to support this motion and the powerful case that my colleagues in this Chamber have already established.

Family drug and alcohol courts were something that I was not very aware of before Tom brought this forward, so I'm really pleased that we're talking about it today. Of course, it was not dreamt up in a think tank; it was born of a judge's frustration. District judge Nicholas Crichton sat in a family court in London and watched the same mothers return again and again. He asked a simple question:

'Just what is it that family courts are there to do? Just take away children?'

'If we are looking to remove the 8th, 9th or 10th child, the family courts can't be doing very well by this family'.

Inspired by family treatment courts in the United States, he set up the first London FDAC in 2008. As we've heard in the Chamber already, an international review of 17 studies of family drug treatment courts found that families were significantly more likely to be reunited. From Australia to New Zealand, this works.

The most senior family judge in England and Wales, Sir Andrew McFarlane, said:

'The ultimate goal remains for FDAC courts to be available in all areas of England and Wales.'

England and Wales. Members, the judiciary is ready, and it is waiting for us.

Mothers reunited through FDAC were more than likely to still be off drugs or alcohol five years on. This is not a performance for the courtroom. This is a life rebuilt. Even when children cannot go home, FDAC keeps parents in treatment so that they can still play a healthy part in their children's lives, so the next baby does not end up in court and maybe taken away from the family.

The motion asks that FDACs form part of a strategy to keep children out of care. Bedfordshire shows the way, and we've heard quotes from Bedfordshire across the Chamber today. Bedfordshire is not just about children's services running this. It is also backed by the local integrated care board, who evaluate its work and bring support from every partner. Here in Wales, we have partners around the table already. We have health boards, we have substance misuse area planning boards, we have regional partnership boards, and we have police and crime commissioners—for now. Every one of them gains when a parent recovers and a family stays together. Every one of those organisations, and us, should help own this.

I urge Members to support this motion. As Tom said, we need to build a care system in Wales that builds, not breaks, families.

Thank you very much to Tom for raising this issue. This is actually the Senedd at its best, when we hear views on something really important for our citizens, but, in this case, really important for our children. I've worked in childcare proceedings over 25 years, under both FDAC in London and non-FDAC courts as well. As you've heard, in England, there are 13 teams working in 18 courts. In Wales, we have none.

Rhys ab Owen and I, in the previous Senedd, raised the need for FDACs. We've done this since 2023. And here we are, three years later, with no FDAC in Wales. So, I'm giving a warning, if I may: we do need to hear a plan for how we're going to get FDAC into Wales. There is no doubt about it that FDACs save money, save lives, and give our children the best chance.

I want to paint a picture of some of the work that I did as a child protection social worker. We know that the best place for a child is with their parents. But imagine if you were a parent, possibly with a care background, possibly experiencing mental health difficulties, stressed, living in poverty. I've described it as you are trying desperately to get up the escalator that is coming down—you have very little chance. So, you start using drugs and alcohol as a way of forgetting about it and trying to remove yourself from the world you're in. You don't mean to get addicted, but it happens. You have your own children, and you can't look after them. Social services—people like myself—then become involved. As a parent, you fight—of course you do; every single parent wants to keep their child. There is absolutely no doubt, in terms of my 25 years of experience, that that is the case. But you have no resources. You have no services that work with you. Instead, services make you jump through hoops. More stress, more drugs, more alcohol.

That's what happens in normal family court proceedings. You do not have the services there ready for you. They are there to try and make you show that you want to keep your child, and that stresses you out even more. Or you go to FDAC, and you have a chance, and, most importantly, your children have a chance. They have the best chance that they can have in life to stay with you.

I'll finish by saying the evidence is there. It's indisputable. Family judges that I've worked with—because I did work in the London principal registry—have said it very clearly. I don't know what else the Welsh Government needs to hear. But you need to hear the evidence and you need to act on it, because children cannot wait any longer. Please, just do it. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I rise today in support of this motion, because, at its heart, this debate is about one thing and one thing only: children. Quite rightly, we have heard a great deal about court processes, social services, addiction, public spending. But behind every statistic is a child whose future may be shaped by the decisions we make in this Chamber today. When a child enters care, it's often because adults around them are struggling with complex problems: substance misuse, poor mental health, trauma, domestic instability. None of those challenges should ever be minimised. But neither should we forget that, wherever it is safe and possible, most children want the same thing: they want love, they want stability, and they want the chance to remain connected to their family.

The reality is that children who enter care often face significant disadvantages later in life. We know care-experienced young people are less likely to attend university, to attain the qualification level that they could have, and are more likely to experience homelessness, and even more likely to experience mental health difficulties as they grow up. Those outcomes are not inevitable, but they are deeply concerning and should compel all of us to ask a simple question: is there a better way of helping families overcome the issues that bring them into the court system in the first place, and if there is, why would we not pursue it?

What strikes me about family drug and alcohol courts is that they do not lower the standards or compromise children's safety; they do the exact opposite. They recognise the best way to protect children, and it's often to address the root causes that place families in crisis and not simply manage the consequences. The evidence presented today shows that, when parents receive intensive support to overcome addiction and address traumas, and child benefit too, more parents successfully stop misusing drugs and alcohol, more families achieve stability, and more children are able to remain safely or return safely to their parents and family. That matters, because every child who can safely remain within a loving family environment is given something that no institution or service can ever truly replace—a sense of belonging, a sense of identity, a sense of permanence.

The Welsh pilot demonstrated that the proportion of children in the care of one or both of their parents more than doubled during FDAC proceedings. Evidence from England shows substantially more children being united with their families compared to conventional proceedings. Those outcomes are not just policy successes, they are life-changing opportunities for children. Children who may stay in the same school, maintain friendships, remain connected to brothers and sisters, preserve relationships with grandparents and wider family networks, and avoid the additional trauma that can accompany family separation.

Of course, there will always be cases where children cannot safely remain at home. In those circumstances, protecting the child must remain our overriding priority. But where recovery is achievable, where parents are willing to engage, and where evidence demonstrates better outcomes, we should ensure those opportunities exist.

What concerns me is that Wales once had a pilot programme, yet today we have nothing—no family drug and alcohol court operating in our nation at all. Meanwhile, England has continued on the journey and expanded the model. That leaves Welsh children with fewer opportunities to benefit from an approach that has repeatedly shown promise. We often speak in this Chamber about early intervention, about prevention, about breaking cycles that pass from one generation to the next. Family drug and alcohol courts embody those principles more perfectly than anything I've ever seen. They are not simply about responding to addiction, they're about giving children the best possible chance of a stable future, they're about preventing trauma rather than merely dealing with the consequence itself, and they are about recognising that helping a parent recover can transform a child's entire life trajectory.

Members, every child deserves safety, every child deserves stability and every child deserves the opportunity to grow up in a nurturing family environment where that can be achieved safely. That is why I support this motion, and that is why I urge my colleagues across the Chamber to support the expansion of family drug and alcohol courts in Wales. Diolch.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. And thanks to Tom for bringing this debate before the Senedd, and thank you to Members who have taken part in this vital debate. As others, I followed the development of the pilot scheme and found myself asking similar questions to those that have been raised today.

The evidence to support the model is strong. The evaluation of the pilot scheme concluded that provision in Wales should be expanded, as we've heard. The experience of these courts in England demonstrates positive results. The Thomas commission also recommended that problem-solving approaches should be used routinely, and that such courts should be established in Wales.

Of course, the evaluation also noted that there were many barriers and complications associated with the courts model. That is particularly true in Wales due to the combination of devolved and non-devolved responsibilities. The commission also recommended that the law relating to children and family justice in Wales should be brought together under one coherent legal system that is compatible with functions in the areas of health, education and welfare.

The devolution of justice would create opportunities to plan services around the needs of Wales, rather than just reproducing arrangements that have been developed elsewhere. The experience with these courts demonstrates that effectiveness is only one consideration, we must also weigh up sustainability, workforce requirements and opportunity costs when making decisions on the most appropriate way of using resources.

So, this is not simple, but work is proceeding in this context. The model requires commitment from local authorities, the judiciary and the courts. It also requires prioritisation from many services, including substance misuse, domestic abuse and mental health.

We need to ensure, of course, that funding is available and is sustainable for whatever model we use, because in England the loss of funding has sadly seen some teams disband. This isn't exclusively a decision for the Welsh Government, but we are forefront in relevant conversations in Wales and in the development of the family justice strategy with the Ministry of Justice. Our priority is moving the whole family justice system to a more empathetic and understanding environment, where families feel supported and, crucially, that they have hope. Now, that requires a cultural and systemic change that is wider than just FDACs, of course, and that's already under way. There is so much more that can be done. Last year, the FDAC working group recommended work continues on problem-solving approaches and intensive support for families going through court proceedings.

Dirprwy Lywydd, this is an evolving picture. It was discussed in more depth at regional workshops that were facilitated by the Centre for Justice Innovation earlier this year. The subsequent CJI report highlighted all three regions had a clear appetite for further exploration and development of FDAC problem-solving, trauma-informed approaches within public law proceedings in Wales. The report went on to recognise regional variation, system pressures and the need to build on existing good practice. Overall, the workshops identified a shared set of recommendations to guide the next steps, which will move forward under oversight of the family justice network.

Recently, I met the Deputy First Minister and the Minister for Government Effectiveness and the Constitution, who share policy interests in family justice. We intend to work closely together on reforms to the family justice system, some of which will closely align with those of colleagues in the UK Government, of course, through the family justice strategy.

Would you permit an intervention?

Of course.

Thank you so much, Minister, for doing that. I hear exactly what you say, and I can hear that you've got a big plan, which I think is the reasonable interpretation of that. However, I don't hear a clear timetable—maybe you're coming to that at the end. I also really still want to know the answer to why you are not pushing forward on FDAC, given all of the evidence, and that you're actually harming children whilst you wait for your big plan to materialise. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I regret the second part of that contribution. Look, I understand, of course, none of us want to cause harm to children, and we have to make sure that the decision that is made takes into account all of these different complexities. If I could be in a position today and say, 'Yes, we are able to do this', of course I would want to do that. I do acknowledge that there is really positive evidence around FDACs.

The options that we need to consider within the Welsh context, which is what the working group have been looking at, need to look at additional structures and whether they would be the best option, looking as well at some of the approaches that have been taken in Scotland, that do follow different but maybe comparable models, and looking to see whether that would be possible. Of course, we need to make sure that whatever future approach that's taken complements existing provision, rather than adding any further complexity. We need to look at sustainability, workforce capacity. We're not delaying for delay's sake. It's so that we make sure that we get this right, although I do utterly appreciate the fervour that is in this Chamber about wanting to move quickly. I understand that entirely.

So, thank you, Jane, for that. Our programme for government states that prevention and early intervention are central to all policy development processes. We want to see a family justice system that supports families to stay together and that prevents children, their parents and their wider families from going through the trauma of court cases.

Drug and alcohol family courts offer a model of intensive support for families once court proceedings have been initiated. But in Wales, our Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 already includes a similar model, namely the integrated family support service. This intervenes earlier by providing intensive support to families with multiple needs. This model has evolved and different forms of it can be found across Wales. I therefore intend to review this service and have an open discussion about which elements work well and what needs to work better. Clearly, there are some of those.

We will also work with the UK Government to develop a method of solving problems in family courts. We have shown how we can drive change by introducing child-centred courts across Wales, and the data have shown that this is successful. This established a way of working that puts the child at the heart of the process and uses a problem-solving approach. That puts us in a good position to capitalise on that experience and learning in the future.

I want to assure Members, Dirprwy Lywydd, that our family justice system will continue to focus on keeping children safe with their families wherever possible. Services will work together to prevent needs from escalating and to help families make sustainable changes. When families come into contact with the courts, we want a more empathetic experience that focuses on the best outcomes for the child.

Of course, these responsibilities extend across different parts of Government and a contribution will be required from the judiciary and the UK Government. There will also be a need to capitalise on what has been learned from the drug and alcohol family courts model and from families with direct experience, and I'm finishing here. Although this is a complex change, I believe that our partners share the same enthusiasm that I've heard across the Chamber this afternoon to work together and move this work forward urgently. Thank you.

Diolch. I'm grateful to everyone who has spoken today, to those Members across parties who have given their time to understand what is quite a complex policy area and have shown willingness to work with me to bring this motion forward today to try and create positive change for Welsh children, parents and families in crisis.

As I referred to in my opening remarks, the Centre for Justice Innovation undertook a financial analysis of the FDACs in 2024. That analysis demonstrates that FDACs generate significant savings in comparison to standard care proceedings, as well as being a better way to help children be cared for safely by their parents.

The work shows that FDACs is an invest-to-save option, offering local authorities the possibility of significant revenue savings. The potential fiscal benefit is incredible: for every £1 we spend on family, drug and alcohol courts, £3.20 of net savings can be returned. Is it worth investing now to save in the near future? I think so. This is especially true when we consider the better impact of FDACs have on people and children's lives: keeping families together as one unit, drug misuse down, alcohol misuse down, mental health improved and case reoccurrence down. I've heard from several Members and I'll do my best to mention you all.

We heard from Sarah Cooper-Lesadd. Thank you for sharing your personal experience, as you have done time and time again in this Chamber. The lived experience that you bring is really beneficial to the debate, and thank you for highlighting the impact that the Welsh model had on families and cases. While I accept the point that you're trying to make about the powers of this place, what I will say is we don't need more powers. We can do this, because we've already done this. We've already created the trial and spent the money. So, I'm concerned that the point that you're making risks dragging us into a constitutional debate with Westminster instead of getting on and actually bringing forward this change for families and young people.

Natasha, thank you so much for your powerful contribution and highlighting the impact that these courts have, not just on the family but on bringing down substance misuse and for the potential savings that we can see for local authorities—up to £10,000 per case.

Louise Emery, thank you for highlighting that the courts are waiting for us. They're ready to go; we've got the model set. We just need to be brave enough to make the decision here today.

Jane Dodds reminded us of the human impact that we can all have by supporting this motion. And Art, thank you for reminding us of who is at the heart of this debate: it is the children that we're all tasked to care for.

I want to be clear with the Senedd, there were several weaknesses in the Cardiff and Vale trial court. The economic analysis was outside of its scope. The FDAC team was undermined at the start by a lack of space to operate from. A vacancy for a qualified social worker wasn't filled, the referral pathway into the court was not clear. A low number of team members resulted in fewer cases being taken on and the ambiguity around the future of the pilot caused serious uncertainty as to whether additional cases could be accepted. All of those problems can be overcome by developing and implementing a better trial in Wales.

Minister, thank you for once again speaking so passionately about the people that you are charged with protecting. But as I said to Sarah, we have the power to do this. We can do this. We have the money to do this. Getting dragged into a wider debate about the constitutional future of Wales may be laudable to some, but it risks delaying a plan that has cross-party support now, that has a model that works now and that we have the evidence to prove can make a real difference now. The evidence we've heard in this Chamber today, and that is to be found in the family drug and alcohol courts across in England, should make us all realise that creating them in Wales is worthwhile. The proposal will enable us to build a system that builds, not breaks, families, and I hope I can count on Members' support today. Diolch.

I formally move, Dirprwy Lywydd.

The Welsh Rugby Union tells us that the Scarlets or the Ospreys must go because Welsh rugby is not financially sustainable. I, from Gŵyr Abertawe, want to ask the question to the WRU, 'Why?' Why is Welsh rugby so financially unsustainable? Given the massive implications of axing a region, the answer to this question should be public knowledge. Instead, their finances and decisions are in a total black box. There is no good reason to believe that a professional Welsh rugby body, if managed correctly, would not be financially sustainable—of course it can be successful. But if the Welsh Rugby Union want us to believe rugby in Wales is not sustainable, they must ensure that we have full—full—transparency.

I would like to thank the Member for bringing the matter to debate and the words that were said a few moments ago. No rugby region deserves to be axed. However, we must face the fact, the reality, that the WRU is an independent body, independent from the Welsh Government, and is responsible for its own governance.

A motion calling for the Government to ensure that all four regions are retained is not much more than a political points-scoring exercise as it stands. However, it doesn't help the regions at the moment whatsoever as it stands like that. What we must do is unite across parties, demanding meaningful accountability and transparency from the WRU. This is what will protect the legacy of Welsh rugby in Wales. I thank the Cabinet Minister for Culture and Sport for engaging with the WRU so far, stressing the huge concerns held by players, coaches, staff, volunteers and fans about the implications of axing a region. The WRU need to understand that the game belongs to the people and not the board.

The financial sustainability of sport ultimately comes down to two things—how it's managed and how it's marketed. Both responsibilities currently lie with the WRU. The WRU's deliberate financial and decision-making secrecy makes judging them on their own merits impossible. But what we can do is compare them to other rugby nations, Ireland for example. In 2024-25, Ireland's rugby union reported around £86 million of revenue; the WRU somewhere in the region of £106 million. With less money and a bigger population, you'd expect Ireland's international team to lag behind, but obviously it's completely, totally, the opposite. Ireland's men rank third in the world, and the women fifth. Neither of Wales's two teams, men and women, could crack the top 10, meaning that the Welsh Rugby Union's Ymlaen Cymru strategy for both teams to be in the top five is completely and totally disconnected with reality. Ireland are far outperforming Wales despite having around £20 million per year less to spend. So, what gives? Why is that happening? If the issue is purely financial sustainability, we must ask why Ireland doesn't have the same issues as us here in Wales. Wales, therefore—. Axing one of the four regions is not the only answer; it cannot be the only answer. It's the lack of transparency from the Welsh Rugby Union that makes it impossible for us to give an answer, leaving us to rely on the word that comes from the board.

If the Welsh Rugby Union want us to believe that rugby is unprofitable, then show us the numbers, show us the reasons, show us the rationale that they base this on—it's as simple as that. If there's nothing to hide, why are they hiding? People across Wales, the rugby world, feel completely and totally in the dark. The fans feel alienated. The Welsh Rugby Union are meant to be the stewards of the grass roots. The Welsh Rugby Union have become nothing but a bloated corporate body managing the game's slow decline.

They are cutting costs instead of continuing the game's legacy. If we are to save the game, we need to act as one in this Chamber today. It has to be cross-party. This debate is about money, yes, decisions, yes, but it's also health and happiness.

It's so much more. Rugby defines us; it's in our blood, it's in our soul, it's in our DNA.

The Welsh Rugby Union are at risk of destroying all this. The only ones who can change it are us here today in the Chamber. So, I hope all of us realise that that's what we need to do.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. The proposal by the Welsh Rugby Union to reduce the number of professional men's teams from four to three would represent one of the most significant changes to the professional game, and, if this proposal is implemented, it would fundamentally reshape the sport in Wales for a generation.

Now, in my view, given the implications of any decision to reduce the number of teams, there is one principle that must come first, and that is transparency. And I'm going to say this as clearly as I can: the Welsh Rugby Union must publish in full the business case underpinning these proposals. If the WRU is asking the rugby community, supporters and the wider public to accept such a huge restructuring of the professional game, then I believe that we have a right to see exactly how it has come to that decision. The WRU must publish the financial evidence that supports a reduction from four teams to three. We have to understand the metrics used to determine the WRU's position. What assessments have been made of geography, the club's impact on culture and our language, the women's game, grass-roots development, transport connectivity, international success? The list goes on. The WRU cannot reach a decision behind closed doors and then present it as a fait accompli. The future of Welsh rugby is simply too important for us not to scrutinise this proposal.

Now, let me be clear, I acknowledge that professional rugby across the world faces significant financial pressures. Wales is not alone in that sense, and we have seen clubs collapse, budgets squeezed, and governing bodies are having to make difficult choices. And I don't believe that any serious observer of the game would claim that the finances of the game are in perfect health. But acknowledging those challenges does not mean accepting the WRU's proposed solution without scrutiny. In my view, the fundamental question remains: why can Wales no longer afford four professional sides? We have to look at countries operating in a similar rugby market, and we have to ask what lessons can we learn from others and adopt here in Wales.

And that brings me to the issue of accountability. I believe that we should also be willing to ask difficult questions about the governing body itself. What if the WRU is, at least in part, part of the problem? What if some of the challenges facing Welsh rugby stem not only from the performance of the elite team and the clubs, but from decisions made at the centre by the governing body?

We have to ask ourselves what assessment has been made of the WRU's own governance arrangements, spending priorities and strategic decisions over recent years. Dirprwy Lywydd, in my view, accountability cannot flow in only one direction. If the rugby community is being asked to accept such a huge change, and if one area is being asked to lose part of their sporting and cultural identity, then the governing body must be prepared to subject itself to the same level of scrutiny.

Of course, most people would agree that rugby should remain independent of Government. Ministers should not be selecting teams, determining sport structures, or directing the sport's day-to-day affairs, but independence does not mean an absence of accountability. We also have to remember that, in this whole process, the WRU has a conflict of interest as the owner of one of the four regional teams. That is why transparency matters, that is why accountability matters and that is why publishing the business case matters. Now, few would dispute that Welsh rugby needs reform, but I believe that reform must be achieved with transparency, evidence and accountability; not imposed through speculation, uncertainty and closed decision making. And, so, maybe it's time for some tough questions to be asked of the WRU in this regard.

And so, in closing, Dirprwy Lywydd, I want to put on record the Welsh Conservatives' support for a four-team model. And in all probability, the reason that the WRU has not published its business case for reducing the number of professional men's teams from four to three is because the business case isn't strong enough. Cutting one of the teams will take the game away from a huge part of the rugby community, have a detrimental impact on the grass-roots game, which, in turn, harms our competitiveness in the future.

Rugby belongs to us all. Many people across Wales have memories of playing the game, whether in school or for a club. It's part of our national character and we must find a way forward that safeguards the professional game for future generations, so we will be supporting this motion this afternoon.

We support the Ospreys. We support keeping all four professional rugby teams in Wales. We want this Plaid Government to fight for them. Saving the Ospreys should never mean sacrificing the Scarlets. We want the Ospreys, the Scarlets, Cardiff and the Dragons to have a future—a sustainable future. Our motion asks the Government to protect all four regions. Plaid's amendments, as usual, are wishy-washy and remove that commitment. Exhaustingly, it talks about discussions, evidence and concerns, but crucially, does not call for all four teams to stay. Minister, why take that commitment out?

You've written five points without answering one simple question: do you want to keep all four teams? That should not require another meeting. Surely Ministers can tell us what outcome they're working towards, or are they, like Pontius Pilate, washing their hands of a situation? If the answer is four teams, say so and support our motion. If it's three, explain to the communities affected why the Welsh Government is prepared to accept that. The Minister has met the WRU and raised concerns; we acknowledge that, but what have those meetings achieved? If there were prizes for holding meetings, this Government would need a bigger trophy cabinet.

Meanwhile, local businesses need customers. Picture a match weekend: supporters booking rooms, buying meals, visiting pubs and taking taxis—spending money in the local economy. That spending can help pay wages and keep businesses going. If a professional team disappears, what happens to that trade? Will visiting supporters still come? Will they book hotel rooms? Will they spend in our hospitality businesses?

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. Before any team loses its licence, we need answers. When asked about economic consequences on 15 September, the Minister referred to business rate support and concerns she had raised. Her answer gave no timetable for a Government impact assessment. Business rate support is welcome, but a pub needs customers. Ministers should work with councils and businesses to scope what would be lost and how to protect local jobs. These are real businesses, run by people who need to plan ahead. They deserve practical help before decisions are made, while alternative action remains possible.

There is public investment at stake as well. Has this even been taken into account? Swansea Council, as stated by Louise, has invested £5.1 million—that's £5.1 million—in the redevelopment of St Helen's for the Ospreys' professional rugby and community use. What happens to their plans if the Ospreys lose their professional licence before those plans and opportunities for income generation have been realised? Ministers should be asking that question now. The ground will have community uses, and this matters. How will the Government's preventative health agenda through sport be maximised with the potential loss and uncertainty around the professional team? We need to understand how uncertainty affects business confidence and investment, the stadium's income, its future use, the current sunk costs and, of course, the benefits promised to local people.

We recognise the WRU's financial problems. It says it cannot fund four competitive teams beyond 2028, but it is also making a series of financial choices. We want to see properly funded options, with clear figures and commitments. Every proposal should explain its costs, its risks, where the money comes from. The same standard should apply to a plan for three teams as well as for four. Let independent experts examine it, let supporters see the reasoning. Any reorganisation of such scale and such significance should be open to try and bring along public and stakeholder opinion. This is blatantly something the WRU has failed to do. All I see, as John said, is alienation and despair. The WRU does make its own decisions, but it is the responsibility of a competent Government to challenge them, especially where jobs, livelihoods and one of the pillars of our nation are under threat. Nobody is asking the Minister to pick the team; we are asking her to fight for the teams we have.

The licensing process is due to begin in December. There is still time to act if the Government pulls its finger out. Bring the WRU, all four teams, councils, supporters and businesses together. Examine options, including a funded plan to retain four teams. Assess the consequences for local jobs and communities, and give businesses a voice in that work. Ask the hotelier, the publican, the restaurant owner what match weekends actually mean to them. Their livelihoods deserve more than a passing mention in a discussion about rugby. Government should listen to these answers and explain how they will shape its response, before the licensing decisions have been made, then report with clear actions and deadlines.

Minister, supporters have made their position clear. It is now time for the Government to do the same. We support the Ospreys. We support all four teams. Plaid, while in opposition, said that the WRU risk losing the soul of Welsh rugby. Give us the commitment to their future and a plan to help secure it. Support the motion. Thank you.

Having raised the issue on three separate occasions, and having written to the WRU, I finally received their response on 15 September this year. In that response, the WRU stated that Cardiff Rugby and the Dragons were confirmed as the preferred licence holders, given that they are the incumbents. Well, the Scarlets and the Ospreys are also incumbents, so I don't know how they came to that conclusion. Yet in the west, the two incumbent clubs must compete for one place. The letter does not explain why they are being treated differently. However, more worryingly, as Paul has mentioned, the capital licence is earmarked for a club the WRU itself owns, whose £2.4 million loss was excluded from the group's own adjusted operating figures. That is not fair nor transparent.

In October last year, the WRU said if consensus could not be reached, it would run a fair and transparent tendering process for the three licences. Instead, two licences have effectively been earmarked and one is being contested. This is not a level playing field. It is a play-off for the west. Llywydd, a decision of this magnitude needs the right people, in the right place, at the right time. That was a principle drummed into me in business. I'm afraid to say, at this moment, we have the wrong people, in the wrong place, at the wrong time. A board that promised a fair and transparent tender, then earmarked two of those three licences before it began. A board that owns one of the clubs is licensing, and will sit in judgment of the others.

On finance, the WRU says £20 million a year is available for the professional clubs and that split four ways it is not enough for each to compete consistently. Perhaps that's the case. Who knows? But that £20 million allocation sits within a group that turned over £106 million in its last published accounts. The WRU says the funding gap is too significant to close through commercial growth alone. Then, let's publish the gap for all to see and let's have some transparency, because there's been no scrutiny for the public or us.

The Minister told this Chamber last month that decisions on the professional game are for the WRU. That may describe the Government's approach, but the public purse is already involved. In 2021, the Welsh Government's survival package was £13.5 million, as was already confirmed, and each of the regions received £2.7 million in a non-repayable loan. In Carmarthenshire, the council lent the Scarlets funding and owns the freehold of Parc y Scarlets. So, Carmarthenshire taxpayers have a right to know what happens to that loan and that ground if the Scarlets lose their licence. But this is about far more than a loan and a freehold. If the Scarlets were to close, it would be the final nail in the coffin for Llanelli town centre, a town that has already lost too much. Too many shutters down, too many shops gone. Every home game brings thousands of people into Llanelli. They fill the pubs, the cafes, the restaurants. For some of those businesses, match days are the difference between staying open and closing forever. Take the Scarlets away and that trade does not move somewhere else in Llanelli, it simply disappears.

On the Government amendment, I agree with much of what it asks for: a full assessment of the consequences, transparency and meaningful engagement. That's exactly what I've been asking the WRU for for the last four weeks. But the amendment removes the central point of this motion that I support: the call to protect the future of all four regions. So, I ask the Minister for three things. First, will she bring the WRU, all the four regions and the affected councils together to examine the options before the licensing process begins in December? Secondly, last month, she undertook to take this Chamber's concerns to the WRU. What response has she received from them, and will she press for the WRU to publish its own full, transparent report? And third, will she work with Carmarthenshire and Swansea councils to establish what happens to the publicly backed loans, grounds and community programmes if either of those clubs lose their licence?

Finally, to the bit that I really care about, numbers do not always tell the full story. For a century and a half, rugby has been part of Welsh identity. It's woven into our history, our fabric and our towns and cities. It forms part of our everyday chat in pubs, schools, hair salons, town centres. Heroes of yesteryear like Mervyn Davies, Scott Gibbs, Scott Quinnell, Ray Gravell, Phil Bennett—too many people to mention and too many to honour right here in this speech—their memories and deeds are timeless. And whilst we may never see their like again, this proposal removes any opportunity for tomorrow's legends to aspire to take their rightful place amongst them.

These clubs are not franchises to be shuffled around a map; they are generational—grandparents who stood on the terraces of Stradey and St Helen's, parents who now take their own children to the game. You cannot rebuild 150 years of sporting heritage. Once it's gone, it's gone forever. The amendment by Plaid isn't a solution. It's not even half a solution. It is an abject surrender by a party that speaks of passion, and then surrenders our national game to a business model that treats the game like a commodity, and it is no such thing.

Welsh rugby is the passion that lights our souls. It's the hopes and aspirations of young children who long to emulate their heroes. It's the memory of the elders who wish to see the glory days return, and must never be the bottom line on a financial spreadsheet. I urge Members to think today on the decision they make that will consign possibly one of our greatest regional clubs to the footnote of history. With that, I reject the amendment and support this motion fully.

This debate is not about nostalgia, and it is not about politicians trying to run the Welsh Rugby Union. It is about whether Wales should lose a quarter of its men's professional game before anyone has shown that it must. The union has already fixed the destination: three teams from 2028. Cardiff and the Dragons have been offered the capital and east licences, and the Ospreys and Scarlets are left competing for one licence in the west. Yet, by the Welsh Rugby Union's own timetable, the process is set, the licensing framework does not begin until December. So, how can the destination already be decided when the framework has not yet been determined? We know one region must go before. We know the test that it will be judged by. That is the wrong way round.

I accept the financial argument must be taken seriously. The union says there is no realistic prospect of the game generating enough revenue to fund four professional teams competitively beyond 2028. We should not dismiss that because we dislike the conclusion, but the assertion is not a demonstration. So, publish the evidence, the business case for the three against four and the impact on the community that loses its team.

Because Afan Ogwr Rhondda is not excepted. Aberavon are playing their hundred and fiftieth season this year, with Ospreys-allocated players in their squad. That is what a player pathway looks like in practice. And once it is dismantled, rebuilding it is far harder than removing it. My constituency and yours, Cabinet Minister, knows what losing a region feels like. In 2004, the Celtic Warriors, the region built on Bridgend and Pontypridd, were wound up after a single season. The Welsh Government cannot simply reply that the union is independent—of course it is—but independence is not immunity from scrutiny.

In 2021, £13.5 million of Welsh Government survival funding went into rugby; £2.7 million went to the union, and the rest was divided equally between the four regions, the Ospreys and Scarlets included. And Sport Wales put £434,945 into the Welsh Rugby Union in 2025-26. On 16 September, the Cabinet Minister told this Chamber that it's important to ensure that any decisions are transparent, evidence based and take full account of the wider impact on Welsh rugby. Those are her tests. But you cannot take full account of the impact nobody has measured. As my colleague Steven Rodaway told this Chamber, the day before, the Minister's answer to his written question confirmed that the Welsh Government had undertaken no assessment of the economic or community impact.

The amendment tabled by the Cabinet Minister would delete the call to protect four regions. It says that

'decisions of this significance must be informed...by a full assessment of their wider social, community and economic consequences.'

I welcome that recognition, but if the Government does not assess them, who will? And will the assessment happen before the decision or after it?

So, my question to the Cabinet Minister is this: she has told the Chamber that there are always discussions between the Government and the union. Will she use those discussions to ask the union, before the licensing process begins in December, to publish the business case for three teams against four and its assessment on the impact on community clubs and player pathways, and will she publish the reply? There is a difference between asking for another round of engagement and standing up for the future of four regions. People in my constituency are not asking Ministers to run rugby. They are asking them to stand up for the communities rugby depends on. That's why I support the motion as tabled. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and let me also thank everyone who has taken part in the debate this afternoon. I want to be clear at the outset that I don't think that any difference of opinion has been expressed in this Chamber, and certainly I won't be expressing any difference of opinion in terms of what has been noted. I share the concerns that have been expressed. I have made that clear time and again. But if we look at the wording of the motion from Reform, that's where the disagreement lies:

'to ensure the Welsh Rugby Union protects the future of Wales’s four rugby regions.'

It calls on the Welsh Government to do that. I can't give that assurance. That's what you're asking me to do: that I can give that assurance. And that's why I think that our amendment does reflect what we have heard today, which does create agreement between us all. We all want transparency. We're all insisting on transparency. We are also scrutinising, correctly, these decisions. But you'll also be aware that I'm here as a Minister and that many of the questions that have been raised today are questions for the WRU. Certainly, it is right that everyone from all parties does ask those questions, and I'd like to make it clear as well that I think it is important that the WRU listens to this debate today and responds to those concerns.

As we've already heard today, rugby is very important to communities throughout Wales. Many of you have mentioned that it is part of the identity of so many people—whether they're members of club, volunteers, players or supporters in every corner of our country. Many of you have also mentioned that it's part of our identity as a nation. The strength of feeling and the genuine concerns about this are clear, and I do recognise all of them. These changes are going to mean, if they come to fruition, that there would be a social, linguistic and economic impact. And that's why, as a Minister, I have challenged the WRU to show that the decisions are transparent, that they are evidence based and sustainable, and that the impact of any changes on players, fans, staff, communities and the wider game have been fully considered, as many have suggested, before any decision is made—not afterwards, but before. But we can't, as a Government, direct the WRU to maintain a specific structure for the professional game.

I've heard many of you saying that you don't want me to be responsible for picking the team, and I'm glad that I don't have that responsibility. I'm not an expert, nor do I have the power to direct. The WRU is an independent governing body accountable through its own constitutional arrangements, and the WRU is responsible for the administration of rugby in Wales. Its independence is also recognised within the international framework established by World Rugby. That independence is important and it's important to recognise it. Issuing political directives on sporting decisions would raise serious legal and governance questions, and would threaten to undermine the independence on which international support depends.

The commitment sought by this motion is, therefore, one that the Welsh Government cannot provide. That's why, turning to the amendment, I've expressed a view that any significant change like this should be supported by a clear, long-term case, rather than a short-term response to the current challenges. We expect the WRU to explain how any change would support the future of the game in Wales and how progress would be measured.

The union must engage meaningfully with those whom the proposed plans will affect by conducting a full consultation and by explaining the evidence underpinning their plans, and they must be clear about how risks will be managed. Supporters and communities deserve more than warm words alone. You're right—many of you have mentioned that there is a need for transparency about the options under consideration and that we need to know the basis for any decisions, and how the long-term future of the professional and community game will be safeguarded.

As I've mentioned and shared in a previous session of questions, I met with the union in August and used that opportunity to convey directly to them some of the concerns raised with me through correspondence. In addition to that, following discussions in the culture and sport committee, and in the questions raised in this Chamber last month, and the range of correspondence that has reached me from Senedd Members on behalf of their constituents, I wrote to the union seeking more information about their engagement with supporters and communities, about the evidence guiding their approach, and how the union will assess and communicate the implications of decisions that are affecting the regional game. I'm still expecting a response to that letter, and, of course, I will update the Senedd once I've received any further information.

We need to be clear, therefore, that it's not the Welsh Government's role to run Welsh rugby from day to day, but I also want to give the assurance that this doesn't mean that we're not willing to scrutinise. We will continue to support participation, invest in facilities and work with partners to strengthen the game at every level. On the figure that was identified by some, in terms of £434,945 in 2025-26, which was provided by Sport Wales, this was, to be clear, to support the development of the game at grass-roots level. To put this in context, this represents 0.4 per cent of the total turnover of the WRU. So, that was for the development of the game at grass-roots level.

There's also been mention made of investment during COVID, and that was about a grant through the spectator sports survival fund. Reference was also made to the commercial loan of £18 million, which was fully repaid in 2025. So, the Welsh Government and Sport Wales do not provide funding for the professional game.

Today, as Members, you have expressed across the Chamber your concerns and you've offered a variety of solutions, but the one thing that is very clear between us all is that we have common ground, that we want to see a prosperous future for the game here in Wales and that we do recognise the genuine concerns that exist. That requires leadership, trust and a clear vision by the union. They have to treat supporters as partners in that conversation, not just informing them after a decision is made.

The loyalty of supporters has sustained the game through good and bad periods, and those voices should be central to shaping the future. So, while we sympathise with the spirit of the motion, we can't support a motion that asks the Welsh Government to guarantee an outcome that it doesn't have legal authority to enforce. But rejecting that motion is not the same thing as not recognising the concerns behind it; those concerns are real and they deserve to be heard, and it's vital for the union to respond to them. For those reasons, I ask Members to reject the motion but to support the Welsh Government amendments, so that we are united in our calls on the Welsh Rugby Union to consult transparently and to consider the voices of communities, clubs and supporters in shaping the future of the game in Wales.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. I want to thank all Members who've contributed to what is an important debate. As Members have said in this Chamber, rugby is a lot more. I know that the Minister, in her response, said that she doesn't want to dictate sport, but the Welsh Government, in the past, has stepped in when employment is at risk. As well as clubs that are supported, these regions are employers. Right now for the Welsh economy, the four regions are estimated to contribute between £50 million and £55 million. That is a lot of money. When you say in your motion today that we need to speak with the WRU and give them more time and the rest of it, I think time is running out, Minister. December is coming quickly, and those employees need assurances about whether they'll have a job in the future. So, I'm unafraid today to vote for our motion that's trying to get clarity for people's livelihoods, and I'll never apologise for that. I think the Government has got a role to step in and get involved—

Can I ask on what legal basis you think I can force the WRU to do what you're asking? I think the amendment offers everything that you have just outlined. Isn't it time for us now to unite, on a cross-party basis, to ensure that we all get what we want? You have to acknowledge that I don't have the legal power that you have just said that you believe I have.

I think, Minister, the role we have to play is the same as when Tata was going under. We stepped in to protect jobs. We saw the Welsh Government bringing them to the table, taking action. That's what I want to see from the Welsh Government. Time and time again, when my colleagues have asked questions in this Chamber around what was going on here with the WRU, they did not get a satisfying response. I asked at the end of last term for a statement from you, as the Minister for sport, on the WRU, and we didn't get one. Our constituents are concerned right now about the future of sport, and we have been forced to bring this debate here today to try to get answers for our constituents. There is a transparency question. That is the concern here.

I think we could have worked together. I think we should press pause on the WRU's plans until they can come forward and tell us what the numbers really are. How did they come to this conclusion? What are they trying to hide? I think protecting four regions until we know those answers is vital, and that's why we are saying we need to send a clear signal.

The First Minister, the Prif Weinidog, stood in this Chamber leading a Government debate not long ago, in which he spoke about the power of this Chamber, in a motion that the Welsh Government didn't control, on fair funding, calling for fair funding—a motion similar to ours today—and said that this place can send a clear signal. He said the power of all of us in this room working together and voting together can send a clear example. We could have sent to the WRU today a clear message that this is unacceptable, that players deserve better, fans deserve better, taxpayers deserve better, like the local authorities that could be on the hook for these stadiums.

Back in February, the Deputy First Minister said to this Chamber, to the last Labour Government, 'You simply can't wash your hands of this'. That was, now, a Plaid Minister who said those words—that Government can't wash their hands of this. What did she expect that Government to do? There's the question now: what did she expect? Nothing. She said it on the record that she expected action because she believed that this Chamber and this Government can have a strong voice. That's what we're doing.

In the election campaign, in The Pembrokeshire Herald, I'm sure you all would have read:

'Plaid Cymru Senedd election candidates emphasize call for Scarlets’ survival'.

Plaid Cymru put a press release out during the election saying that they wanted to save the Scarlets. And today, they're saying that their Government can't get involved. [Interruption.] You just stood up and said, 'What do you expect me to do?' Minister. That is what you said. And your party put a press release out saying that you could get involved. That is unacceptable. There is a standard here in which we tell the electorate things and we should honour them—[Interruption.] Minister, every time now. Come on, you've just had eight minutes to speak and two interventions. I'm trying to address the point you were raising, Minister. I'm pointing out that your party called for these actions.

You're misrepresenting that.

How? That is the headline under which the party put out a press release there, and today you're saying you can't do anything about it. I think that is an integrity issue right there, absolutely.

Rugby is so much more important, and the WRU have hidden at every opportunity. They've invited Members in this place for a briefing. The briefing wasn't clear and transparent—I sat in it. I've spoken to council leaders that have real concerns about what they could end up with—[Interruption.]—serious money that's going to—. No, Minister, it's not clickbait. When it's real jobs on the line, you'd think you'd actually listen to that. When we see talent leaving Wales now to go and play in English leagues because of the uncertainty here, I think the Government should be listening. That is a concern. Think of the jobs. Think of what we're sending—. The young people that have aspired to play rugby in Wales, looked up at their heroes, and that jersey will no longer exist if the WRU have their way. Heritage gone.

I refuse to stand by and tell my constituents I was not willing to vote for this motion today. I will not tell constituents who have e-mailed telling me about the uncertainty of rugby—I won't be saying, 'I did nothing, I said we were going to let the WRU carry on.' I think we should send a clear signal to them.

To get to the point, the economy relies heavily on these. We've heard from Members like Steven talking about the pub industries. We've heard Carmelo talking about Llanelli in particular. Our economy is struggling in these areas. What the Scarlets and the Ospreys represent, especially the Scarlets in particular, in west Wales, an area that doesn't have a lot of sporting events sent over—. Here in Cardiff, we're quite blessed that there are a lot. We're seeing growing football and rugby in Newport. But in west Wales, it's not so much.

The outreach programmes that the Scarlets are a part of down there help get young people off the streets, get them out from in front of a computer screen. They're a part of the preventative health scheme that we hear this Government talk so much about. But, actually, via this motion here, we could be taking people off the front line that are delivering these services for young people. That's a concern, the wider impact.

Rugby isn't just a sport. Rugby can be a family when you're stood on a terrace, even with opposition fans. It's good for people's mental health. It's a good way of getting out of the house, getting out of the office. For those fans who are e-mailing us on a regular basis, it's a sign of desperation that their lifeline, as they feel, is going away. Their identity could be stripped off them. Why? Because someone called the WRU, the worst-run union right now, won't tell them why their club could be stripped from them, that a competition, a fight between the west must take place. It's unacceptable. You can't treat livelihoods, identities like this.

We've heard from Steve of the Celtic Warriors, when we were promised by the WRU, then, no more restructure, this is it. We've seen the damage it did to Pontypridd and Bridgend, two strong, proud rugby communities no longer there. Are we really prepared to say—

Could I make an intervention now?

Yes, you can, by all means.

It's all very well, and what you're saying is completely—. We understand that. Everybody agrees with a lot of what you're saying, and you know that. Most of the country would agree with it. But the fact is, we are not in a position to be able to tell them to do that. What you're asking for is not what's within our remit. This is not what we can do. But what the amendment is saying is exactly what we can do, and all those things are included in that amendment. That emotion that you're putting behind it is behind that amendment too.

Well, no, the amendment there right now is saying that WRU have actually consulted people on the outside and they continue doing so. I've spoken to stakeholders in this. They haven't felt consulted. We're hearing from people in the industry that are saying they are—

[Inaudible.]—going to be an intervention, sorry. Actually, WRU have been scrutinised to a large extent. They're coming before the committee again. So, we are doing what's right for our country, for rugby in our country. What you're trying to do is point score here, to try and get some sort of feeling of, 'We love rugby. We are the only people—.' Well, actually, we all love rugby—

Is this an intervention or a contribution here, Llywydd? Is this an intervention or a contribution? Because so far, you had an opportunity to speak in this debate, but only one of your Members chose to stand up in the 60-minute debate to contribute. That's the difference there. Now, in terms of what you're saying there, 'This is point scoring.' It's not. You say the WRU have come before the committee. Where are the numbers now? What's the rationale for this? Even the Minister said she's trying to urge them to do it. You say, 'What's the point of this?' Let's send a clear message to them that it's unacceptable, that we're not allowing it to continue. [Interruption.] No, you're having so much time now. If you wanted to speak, you could have put your name forward. [Interruption.] Oh, Llywydd, come on. This is student union style here—

[Interruption.] What? But if she wanted to contribute—. You can put your name forward. That's a Parliament. You should know.

Thank you, Llywydd. But on the point, right now, out there, what are we sending to the people of Wales that this place does? With an issue where they step forward and tell us they're concerned about something, that we say, 'It's not our responsibility here.' Government should be oversight. We've heard the case. The taxpayers' money is on the line. That's why we must intervene here. Bring them forward.

Now, Minister, as I said, I tried to ask you for a statement on this. None was brought forward. We were forced to bring the debate. The December deadline is coming. There isn't assurances with the regions now. So, if you are going to vote for your amendment, and you try to stop ours today, and you're going to say you don't support the four and that you're going to let the WRU continue with its unchecks and balances, we'll be back here when the danger comes if you don't support them now, because we know the WRU will push this through. They have history of doing it, they will do it again. Right now, rugby, regional rugby across Wales, needs us to support it. I hope Members will give them the same support when they need it now as rugby has offered support to so many communities across Wales in the past. I urge Members to support our motion.

Thank you for taking the intervention and for outlining those two local authorities. There are 21 local authorities in Wales—

Twenty-two.

—so could you just tell us what the data is from the others? This Senedd relies on facts and evidence. We had a fantastic debate previously on family drug and alcohol courts, all about the evidence, so please, could you tell us what the evidence is?

Really good question, Jane, and you raise a good question, because those questions I've actually asked the 22 local authorities. Some, they don't even hold the data. So, why not? Why not? They don't hold it. If you look at Neath Port Talbot, they outsource their housing register so you can't—. If you were in the debate earlier, or the spokespersons' questions, you'll know I actually mentioned that. They outsource their social housing so they're not subjected to FOIs. [Interruption.] Yes, go on.

Could I ask you to clarify, are you talking about nationality as self-recorded or are you talking about citizenship and UK passport holders, because there is a difference between both?

It's the latter. And like I say, 22 councils—they don't have that data, most of them, and this is of what's actually been recorded. And that was my question: why isn't it recorded? Our taxpayers want to know. So, I'll carry on.

But this is only part of the story, because many councils refused to answer my request, either on the grounds of cost or because they don't record nationality at all, which I just mentioned. So, many of the areas either can't or won't tell the taxpayer the truth. How did we get here?

Allocations in Wales still run on Part VI of the Housing Act 1996. Councils must give reasonable preference to people in housing need. There is nothing in that framework about how long you have lived here, nothing about citizenship. In 2011, England gave its councils the power to decide who qualifies for social housing. Hundreds now apply a residence test in England before anyone joins that list. Wales didn't do the same.

Last December, Wales had the chance to fix it. Section 35 of the Homelessness and Social Housing Allocation (Wales) Bill would have given Welsh councils that same power. It was removed by an amendment tabled by the now Minister who's now responsible for housing, who described social housing as a 'universal resource', which should be accessible by everyone. It is not a universal resource. It is a national resource, and it should belong to the people of this nation.

So, here is what the Welsh Government must do—

Will the Member take an intervention?

Yes, go on.

As a Reform UK Member, you previously wrote online that, in your words, those on benefits should be put down, so are you saying that those on benefits shouldn't be entitled to housing now as well, or is it just based on skin colour?

Perhaps the Member would like to put that into context, actually, and then you can come back to me and we'll have a chat later about that.

I'm okay. If you can't answer it now, then you can't answer it. [Interruption.] You can't answer it.

I have answered it, on record, in 2019, so you might want to go back and refer to that post then.

You said it.

No, I didn't say it. I said put it into—

It's online. You said it.

Absolutely, it's on record, and if that's the best you can come back with, have a little time to think, and I'll take another intervention.

So, first, bring back section 35, legislate to give every Welsh council the power to set qualification rules for its register, and use it to close the register to foreign nationals. Second, amend the allocation of housing and homelessness regulations. Welsh Ministers decide who is eligible. Strip it back to the absolute minimum devolved legislation allows. Third, rewrite the code of guidance and the preference framework so that British citizens with a connection to their communities come first every time. Fourth, houses in multiple occupation. Councils license these properties—wait two ticks, Ken—and Welsh Ministers set the conditions attached to those licences. Every licence holder should be required to verify and record the nationality and immigration status of every occupant, and the use of HMOs across Wales as asylum accommodation must end. Yes, go on.

So, forgive me if I'm wrong, but it appears that you're saying that, if you're not Welsh or English, you shouldn't be entitled to social housing. Would that extend to Gurkhas in the UK?

No, if they've got dual nationality—.

And would it extend to Suella Braverman?

Well, if you want to—. You talk about political point-scoring. I'll be precise about where this meets the UK law—[Interruption.] No, no. Because that—[Interruption.] Well, you want to political point-score—that's fine, but there we go. Because that is exactly why our motion names the UK Government. Under the Equality Act 2010, nationality is part of the legal framework definition of race. The Act already carries expectations for acts required by immigration law. That is why a landlord in England can lawfully refuse a tenant with no right to rent. So, the UK Government must act. Where bogus equality and human rights laws stand in the way, it must legislate to put British people first.

Reform UK would end access to social housing for foreign nationals, with tenants required to find private accommodation not at the taxpayer's expense. The criteria for occupation of new and existing social housing should be overhauled, with priority given to veterans, our workers, alarm-clock Britain and our most vulnerable. We would overhaul HMO licensing to prevent migrant HMOs. Licences will be refused, revoked or suspended when a landlord is caught knowingly housing illegal immigrants. The people of Wales sent Reform here on a promise to put our own people first for housing. This motion does exactly that, and I urge Members to support this motion.

Formally.

Diolch, Lywydd. I move the Conservative amendment in the name of Paul Davies.

Now, there is no doubt that people across Wales are concerned about pressure on housing. They see growing waiting lists, rising rents and increasing difficulty for local people to access affordable homes. They expect politicians to take those concerns seriously and to offer practical solutions. Unfortunately, what we have before us from Reform today is not a serious attempt to solve a problem. As usual, it is a headline-grabbing motion that falls apart the moment you examine how it would work in actual fact. We believe—the Conservative Party believes—that social housing must prioritise those with a genuine and established connection to our country. We also agree that accommodation should not be provided to people who are here unlawfully. That is why we have tabled an amendment that takes a practical and deliverable approach and a position that is shared by the UK Conservative Party. What we do not support is a policy so carelessly drafted that it would sweep up people who are legally entitled to be here, legally entitled to work here and legally entitled to housing support under existing arrangements.

The reality is that Reform's motion would not just affect the groups they want to talk about. It would affect foreign students renting rooms in HMOs while studying at Welsh universities, it would affect workers who have come here legally, and it would affect Irish citizens whose rights are protected under the common travel area. Most significantly, it would also affect EU citizens who were given settled status after Brexit. These are people who were explicitly told that there would be no change to their rights if they were already lawfully resident in the United Kingdom. Those commitments were written into the withdrawal agreement and form part of our international obligations. So, Reform need to answer a simple question: are they really proposing that the United Kingdom should tear up agreements it freely entered into, creating uncertainty for British citizens living abroad and risk retaliatory action from our European neighbours, all to pursue a policy they have no realistic route in implementing? That is the logical consequence of what they are proposing.

Now, many of the very people now championing this motion were enthusiastic supporters of the 'leave' campaign, which repeatedly assured EU citizens already living here that their rights would be protected. Back then, they said one thing; today, they are saying another. So, which position is right? We believe in controlled immigration, secure borders and fairness in the allocation of public services. But we also believe that promises made should be promises kept. That is why our amendment takes a different path. We call for reform of social housing eligibility rules where needed, while protecting the rights of British and Irish citizens and those covered by the withdrawal agreement. We call for action against the use of HMOs to accommodate those who are unlawfully present in the United Kingdom, including those who have arrived illegally. Those are measures that can actually be implemented—they are legally sound, they are proportionate and they address legitimate public concerns without descending into gesture politics.

We should also be clear that Welsh Government cannot escape responsibility. Labour have overseen years of pressure on housing supply, years of failure to deliver the homes that Wales needs, and years of inaction when local authorities and communities have raised concerns about housing availability. So, while Reform offer slogans, Labour try to defend their record and Plaid set out their next 100 days of uncosted aims, the Welsh Conservatives are offering solutions—solutions that recognise the pressure on housing, uphold the rule of law and can actually be delivered. For those reasons, Members should reject Reform's flawed motion and support ours. Thank you.

I'd like to start by declaring an interest as a recent tenant in the private rental sector. Hopefully, this makes it clear from the outset where my priorities lie, because my priority lies with people who need a home, not people who profit from other people's basic need for shelter—and I'm not sure the same can be said about the party opposite on that. However, Nigel Farage's Welsh branch have identified a genuine problem: Wales does not have enough affordable housing. But, once again, they are taking a genuine problem and looking for someone to blame. People who arrive here illegally, asylum seekers and migrants on student or work visas are not eligible for social housing. According to census data, there are an estimated 28,000 non-UK-born people living in social housing in Wales. Meanwhile, an estimated 170,000 people are waiting for social housing in Wales.

The housing crisis is way bigger than the question of migration. Even if the party opposite got their disturbed dream of making 28,000 people homeless, it would not begin to tackle the problem. And this is the only answer they have got: scapegoating migrants. The Reform UK Wales manifesto does not even commit to building a single council or social home. Not one. Not a commitment to a single one. They have no plan to ensure the adequate supply of social housing for everyone, whereas this Plaid Cymru Government is getting on with their commitment to build 20,000 social homes.

The only plan Reform do have, actually, would make the problem worse. Thatcher's right to buy decimated the supply of council homes in the UK, and the Conservatives' right to buy in the 2010s—which many of them will remember as they were members of the party at the time—contributed massively to the UK housing crisis. More than 40 per cent of homes that were sold under that scheme are now in the private rental sector. So, it is laughable that a party advocating for right to buy is complaining about HMOs in Wales, because right to buy would actually increase the number of HMOs in Wales.

And take this in—I won't say it often—Reform is right: there are issues with HMOs. But they have not identified the right issue. Houses in multiple occupation too often result in overcrowding and poor living conditions, while generating profits for the wealthy from this poor standard of living. Instead of asking, 'What kind of home does someone need to thrive?', the market asks, 'What is the minimum amount of private space that someone will pay for?' It is exploitative. We will not solve this housing crisis by making people live more densely on top of each other inside existing homes. I'm not objecting to shared living, because students or friends may genuinely choose it—I've been in that situation myself many times—but too often, with HMOs, economic necessity is masquerading as consumer choice. When someone is living in a bedroom in subdivided housing simply because they cannot afford anything else, that's a housing crisis. Why should people with money get proper homes to live in, but people without money get a bedroom in a subdivided house? Reform UK are on the record complaining about HMOs, but would Reform UK be willing to take on the landlord lobby and reduce the number of legal rooms in HMOs, or strengthen tenants' rights, or end no-fault evictions? What do you think? Because the Reform 2024 manifesto wanted to abolish the Renters' Rights Bill, which set out to end no-fault evictions and strengthen renters' rights, and it will be really interesting to see how they vote on the package of renters' rights that this Welsh Government wants to bring through.

So, to summarise, Reform don't want people born outside the UK to access social housing, but they also don't want them to access HMOs. Their manifesto means they're clearly not interested in building social housing and, through right to buy, they actually support decreasing the supply of council housing, which will increase dependence on the private rental sector and increase the number of HMOs that they want to see fewer of, but they aren't planning on building social or council homes as an alternative and actually support selling them off, remember. Does that make any sense to anyone here? No, it doesn't. But at least one thing is clear from Reform's motion today—Reform don't like people born outside the UK—. Sorry, Llywydd, let me correct that. Reform don't want people born outside the UK in social housing or private HMOs in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Foreign nationals living in Welsh and British social housing should be given a grace period of three months to find private housing, after which, they should be deported. It isn't the responsibility of the Welsh or British taxpayer to fund the living arrangements of people from overseas. People moving to the UK should be able to afford to buy or rent a house at normal market rates before they move here. If they can't afford to live here without help from the taxpayer, then they shouldn't come to the UK.

Now, Kiera Marshall is right, there is a shortage of social housing in this country, but Reform would build tens of thousands more. But those homes should go to British—[Interruption.] No, thank you. Those homes should go to British people. There is no point in building thousands of new homes when net immigration is bringing in hundreds of thousands of people every year to fill them.

The British state and the Welsh state do not exist to provide social housing to the rest of the world, they exist to serve the interests of the British and Welsh people, and putting the people of Britain and Wales first necessarily means putting the rest of the world second. It isn't racist or xenophobic or unkind to regard your countrymen as your priority. Those closest to you get preferential treatment. And as a Welsh politician representing Wales, that is right, that is just and that is normal. [Interruption.] No, thank you. [Interruption.] [Laughter.]

I'm sure that was a very funny joke. Thank you. If you ask me to choose between my countrymen, the people of Wales, who are my first and only priority, and strangers, every time, I will proudly choose my countrymen. The people of Wales deserve to be a priority in their own country. They are a unique and special people with a shared history that goes back thousands of years. If, like some of my colleagues, you want to move here and join us, you are more than welcome, but you cannot require the taxpayer to fund your lifestyle.

I cannot even fathom—. I cannot even fathom the entitlement required to look at a country with failing—[Interruption.] No. I cannot even fathom the entitlement required to look at a country with failing public services, patients dying in hospital corridors, and think yourself entitled to subsidised housing when you aren't even from there. If I moved to China or Eritrea or Bangladesh and told them to house me, they would flatly tell me 'no'. They are right to do so, and we should do the same. I do not accept for a moment that it's the moral responsibility of the poorest nation in the UK to give up its social housing for people that aren't even from the UK.

Once foreign nationals have been banned from social housing, and those who cannot or will not find private accommodation are deported, the allocation system should be overhauled. It should prioritise British workers under the age of 35, young married couples, veterans, victims of domestic violence and care leavers. Being in work should also be a requirement to access any newly built social housing. These measures would go some way to reflect the fact that we live in a world of finite resources and that our own come first. So, I'll be voting in favour of the motion.

Homes are the foundations of our entire lives, from health and well-being to education and jobs. This motion is divisive and misleading, and it's important to put the facts front and centre of this debate.

I'll start with houses in multiple occupation. HMOs play a crucial role for university students, single individuals, people on low incomes, people who arrive to a new area, for whatever reason, or people who only want short-term housing as an option. The most recent Welsh Government data accounts for under 15,000 HMOs in Wales. A mixture of types of accommodation within communities is important, and the concentration of HMOs in certain areas is something that warrants further action. But that is a separate issue to the misleading motion that's being debated today.

The proposals put forward today to restrict the rights of people who live here legally would mean evicting workers, carers, colleagues and friends. That's the reality. If today's motion passes, this Senedd would be pitting neighbour against neighbour. It would not represent Wales and Welsh values. The evidence shows that the vast majority—94 per cent—of social housing tenants in Wales were born in the UK, and nearly 80 per cent were born in Wales. Out of almost 0.5 million residents living in social housing in Wales, 463,000 were born in the UK. Of those who are not British citizens, there are people with settled status, refugees who have been granted protection, people granted humanitarian protection, and people with a lawful immigration status, which gives them that entitlement. It's clear that social housing should continue to be allocated according to housing need and in line with legal obligations.

We know that there is pressure on local services, including housing, across communities in Wales—nobody is denying that. But the way of alleviating that pressure is to invest in public services, grow our economy, build more homes and deliver effectively across Government, not to rip up legal rights and deny people the services that they're entitled to.

Social housing in Wales is allocated based on housing need, and there are strict rules that determine eligibility. That means most people subject to immigration control aren't eligible for social housing. That is a fact, but one that some people in this Chamber refuse to recognise. There is significant disinformation and misinformation when it comes to social housing and the wider debate about immigration in Wales. It's important to emphasise that social housing allocations primarily work to serve the people of Wales. The reality is that local authorities across Wales apply tight controls around eligibility, and there's always a need to follow the correct process to ensure that housing needs are properly assessed.

Housing associations also play an increasingly important role in supporting people and communities, helping residents sustain their tenancies, improve their well-being, and access opportunities that enable them to thrive. As a result, social landlords are balancing the need to build more homes, invest in existing homes, and deliver services that respond to wider social and economic challenges. This requires strong investment, long-term investment and a shared commitment to addressing Wales's housing needs. The biggest challenge facing the housing system in Wales isn't the eligibility criteria but the need to invest in more social homes.

In the last Senedd term, the Welsh Labour Government invested £2 billion to deliver more than 20,000 homes for rent in the social sector, and that was record levels of investment and record levels of delivery. I'd like to know how the current Government is going to maintain that momentum and increase the supply of social housing across Wales, reducing the social housing waiting list. The focus of the Welsh Government should be on building more homes, bringing empty properties back into use, and making sure councils and housing associations can develop plans to increase the supply of social housing. That is what this Senedd should focus on and scrutinise.

Finally, Cabinet Minister, fear is being stoked in this Chamber today, so what is this Government doing to challenge the disinformation and misinformation around social housing eligibility? Diolch.

Diolch, Llywydd. Llywydd, the Member for Caerdydd Penarth has set out the principle. I will set out what it looks like on a street in Bangor. A house that used to hold a family now holds six men who arrived in this country as adults. The bins overflow, the parking goes, the neighbours stop letting their children play outside, and when the neighbours complain, they're told they are the problem.

This is not a housing policy; it's a choice to socialise the cost of a failed system, a transfer of the cost from the people who made the decision to the people who live next door to it. HMOs for foreign nationals have become the mechanism by which hard political choices are avoided. Wales does not have a spare stock of family homes. We have long waiting lists. We have young couples forced to live with their parents into their 30s. We have veterans and key workers who can't get housing in the town where they were born. And we have a licensing regime for HMOs that's treating it as a growth industry.

Every family home converted into a HMO is a home taken out of the market for a local family and put into a market that pays better, where the tenants are transient, the houses are crowded, and rental income is backed by a public contract. Landlords did not invent this incentive—Government did. So, let us be precise about what this motion does and does not do.

Will you take an intervention?

In a moment.

It does not say Wales is closed. It does not say that a nurse, a doctor or an engineer who can house themselves in the private market is unwelcome. It simply says,

'end access to HMOs and social housing for foreign nationals'.

That's taxpayer-funded accommodation.

Thank you. So, would you agree that we shouldn't be placing that issue onto more vulnerable people, particularly people who are seeking asylum in the United Kingdom and end up in Wales? And so, we're just combating these two groups that are both in need of housing, when the issue itself is what needs to be resolved in supporting people who do actually deserve to have housing. We should have enough appropriate housing for everybody to live a safe life.

If we had unlimited money, I'd agree with you, but we don't have unlimited money and we have vulnerable people in this country. They should be prioritised.

In Gwynedd alone, we have over 2,000 local people in need of social housing, often waiting for over two years. This motion will simply ensure people who already belong to this country have priority. Reform has been clear. Foreign nationals should not be in social housing. The order of priority should be British families with children, British veterans, British workers. This motion simply asks the Government to stop pretending that eligibility is somebody else's problem, even as constituents are pushed aside.

Just a quick one, sorry. Just to look at the actual wording of the motion, which says that you would

'end access to HMOs and social housing for foreign nationals'.

I just wanted to pick up on a point that I would have said earlier on. I believe you're Canadian originally, so—. Well, sorry, I'm not sure. Or there are other members of your group who weren't necessarily from here. [Interruption.] But this motion—. Originally, originally. But this motion would say—

Originally?

Yes, originally.

I'm not a Canadian at all. [Laughter.]

Sorry, sorry. The point I'm trying to make, and I'll try to make it succinctly, is that under this, if this passed, you would not be allowed to be in a HMO. Is that right, that you would not be allowed to live in a HMO?

My mother is Heulwen Roberts from Llangefni. My father—[Inaudible.]

I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I didn't know that. I didn't mean to offend you.

—from Manchester.

The order of priority should be British—. Well, actually, where Westminster—. Okay, this motion simply asks the Government to stop pretending that eligibility is somebody else's problem. Where Westminster holds the power to act, this Government must use its influence to ensure Westminster respects the interests of the Welsh people.

The Senedd could also make it harder to dodge the local connection test for housing. Gwynedd already uses one: five years residence, or a close family member resident for 10 years, or five years of work in the community. We could set a Wales-wide minimum qualification period, stop short placement counting as a connection, and require a local connection to outweigh other factors.

Some Members may try and claim that this is unfair. I will tell you what is unfair. It is unfair that a person who has paid tax into the system for decades can wait longer for housing than somebody who has just arrived. It is unfair that a street in Bangor absorbs the disorder while people who designed the nation of sanctuary live nowhere near it.

It is dishonest to pretend that every arrival is a net contributor. Some are; many in the HMO system are not. A housing policy that cannot tell the difference or simply ignores these outcomes is not compassion; it is an invoice sent to my constituents, paid not only with money but also by sacrificing community cohesion. In a world where Government is spending more than it can afford, where the reality of scarcity is a growing fact of life, the moral duty is first to our people and then to the people of the world.

This choice is now becoming acute and urgent. HMOs must not be used as a solution for our failure to control our borders. We have done more than enough. The test now is whether this Chamber will say so. I support this motion.

I will try and be brief because I fear that just like this isn't the first time we've ended our day having this sort of debate, it won't be the last time that we have to stand up at the end of the day and rebut this ugly, divisive and hateful rhetoric. I am ashamed that we have to keep having this discussion. Going back to something that was said earlier today by the Minister: everyone has the right to a safe and adequate home. Everyone. Without it, how can you begin to build a life? How can you begin to participate and contribute to society? How can you begin to choose to call Wales your home as so many of us have? I repeat: the right to safe and adequate housing for everyone is a key test for this Senedd.

As I say, it's disappointing to see yet again more divisive rhetoric from the usual suspects in this Siambr, who are using—[Interruption.]—I can shout louder than you, believe me—what is a basic human right to stoke fear in our communities and cause division. Shame on you. When we say HMOs, the image that might come to mind may not be particularly pretty. But this image of what can be some of the worst quality, unsafe, overcrowded homes is now being used by Reform once again to scaremonger people about perceived dangers in their communities.

The situation in some HMOs isn't ideal. That doesn't take anything away from the fact that everyone deserves a place to live—a safe, secure and warm place to live. Due to the lack of social homes that so many of our colleagues have mentioned, people are stuck in the cheapest, inadequate private housing options. And Reform are disgracefully arguing again that we need to look after our own—what do the words even mean—while ignoring the fundamental problem that there are not enough good-quality, affordable homes for everyone who needs one. And I would like to pay credit again to the housing Minister for making that point so clearly earlier on today.

Foreign nationals or not, everyone needs somewhere to live. It is their human right. We need more social housing that meets the needs of everyone in our communities. Scarcity must not be used to pit communities against one another.

This motion is nonsensical, hateful and inflammatory. And words have real consequences. I have said this time and time again in this Siambr, but, sadly, it bears repeating. [Interruption.] No. Divisive rhetoric, such as we've heard today, only stands to cause division in our communities. And this fearmongering is the sort of thing that leads people to feel even more unsafe in their homes and communities than they already do. People across Wales see this for what it is. They see you for what you're saying.

I represent the most diverse constituency in Wales, and its diversity makes Cardiff what it is today. People from around the world have chosen to make Cardiff their home, and the people of Cardiff will not allow you to divide our communities. People, time and time again, have stood up to this divisive rhetoric and shown solidarity with their neighbours.

Reform are not interested in community cohesion. Reform are not interested in finding housing solutions. Reform are only interested in dividing our communities to distract from the fact that you have no answers to the problems facing the people of Wales. Diolch.

I want to focus on the HMO element of this debate. My family and I live next door to a HMO and have done for the past 15 years. One in five of the homes in our street is a HMO. HMOs are private houses, not subsidised, and it's odd that a political party that professes to be for the free market should seek to limit that housing market. But I'll come back to why this is such an odd debate.

In a past life, I was vice-chair of planning on Wrexham council, and the issues of HMOs have been a hot potato for more than a decade—not for the reasons stated by the people over there, but because an overconcentration of HMOs can impact a community in terms of overdevelopment, highway matters and waste disposal.

Houses in multiple occupation are a small but integral part of the housing mix. They provide accommodation for people who can't afford a house or a flat, and there are loads of reasons for that. Let's hope that no-one here loses their job or income. Let's hope that no-one here has a health issue. Let's hope that no-one here has a messy divorce, a breakdown in the family or, God forbid, is forced to flee domestic violence or coercive control. These are all issues that can lead people to look for a housing option that suits them temporarily.

I won't go into other issues, because Kiera Marshall and Peter Fox have very eloquently mentioned them, but I'll mention one: students living away from home are living in HMOs. Does the Member want to prevent all foreign students from having accommodation? Do you? Perhaps you can talk to the vice-chancellors about what that would do to our Welsh universities.

As it happens, the owner of the HMO next to me is a responsible landlord, but there are unscrupulous landlords who are cramming in as many people as possible to maximise profits. That's the real issue with HMOs. In the wrong hands and without sufficient oversight, they become dumping grounds for people with very real problems of substance misuse and mental health issues, but without any support. You don't care about that, obviously. You're just concerned about the people who look and sound different to you.

People in my town are paying £87.50 a week for a shared room. There are eight other people in the house, with no communal space, apart from a family kitchen and a small back garden. That's not the fault of tenants, it's the fault of those unscrupulous landlords who fail to treat tenants as human beings. And these are working people, not on benefits. They're nurses, they're care workers, they're people I hear getting up at 6 o'clock in the morning to go to the industrial estate.

I said earlier that this focus on a certain type of housing was odd. I think we know why—people have told us why very eloquently. The track record of the party involved is all about seeking to divide and rule, fuelled by hatred, not compassion. Since the UK Government moved from housing asylum seekers and refugees in hotels—I believe there's one hotel in the whole of Wales now—those who were busy rioting, burning and hating outside those hotels have looked for a new focus, and they've found it, haven't they, in HMOs.

Like those unscrupulous landlords, they don't see the people who live in HMOs as human beings; they see them as inferior, as problems. What we've seen today is people deliberately conflating foreign nationals with asylum seekers, deliberately conflating people on benefits with foreign nationals. It's a mess of a debate. It's scaremongering and demonising for clickbait and social media. It's not a serious proposition; it virtue signals their hatred for people who look different, who sound different. It could be written in crayon.

Before I begin, can I just say that the huge numbers of people who put these Members in these seats to represent their views need to have those views heard? Because you don't like them doesn't mean to say that those views are irrelevant. There have been enough interventions this afternoon to try and stop those views from being heard, so politely and respectfully, I won't be taking any during my speech.

Many of my constituents ask a simple question, Llywydd: who is housing for in Wales? They work, pay their taxes and raise their families here, yet when they need a secure, affordable home, too often the answer is to keep waiting. Shelter Cymru's 2025 research estimated that around 170,000 people, including approximately 45,000 children, are represented on social housing waiting lists. At the building rate used in that report, providing enough additional homes to meet that demand would take more than 35 years. That is a generation of unmet need. Children grow up, families struggle, people put their lives on hold, while the Government produces another promise.

Shelter Cymru attributes this crisis to decades of failing to build enough social homes. On that, they are right. But acknowledging that failure does not remove the need to make choices today. Building more homes and deciding who has access to them are both responsibilities of this Government. We must build more, faster, but construction takes time and our constituents need help now. Where homes are scarce, eligibility matters, priorities matter and British taxpayers are entitled to ask whether the system that they support puts their needs first. My answer is that it should. That includes British citizens who cannot work through disability, those caring for relatives, pensioners, children and, of course, our veterans. Putting our citizens first must mean protecting those who need support, as well as recognising those whose taxes sustain it.

In Ceredigion Penfro, constituents tell me that they have worked here and paid in all of their working lives and raised families here, and still, they are told to wait. They deserve more than sympathy; they deserve a clear priority in housing policy. That goes beyond asylum accommodation, and we should say so plainly. The argument is about housing capacity and national priorities, not claiming that somebody's nationality determines their character.

Social housing is scarce. Reform UK believe that access should be reserved for British citizens. On HMOs, our stance is clear: immigration policy must reflect housing capacity and British citizens must come first. The Welsh and UK Governments must work together to deliver that policy with clear rules, a managed transition and firm enforcement.

Constituents have also raised concerns about what they describe—and these are my constituents' concerns—as asylum seekers arriving in HMOs after dark, with little explanation to neighbours. Arriving after dark does not establish wrongdoing, but silence from those responsible leaves fears growing and questions unanswered. Residents deserve information about management, occupancy, safeguards and who will respond when concerns arise. Those responsibilities apply whatever eligibility rules are adopted. Restricting access cannot replace proper enforcement. British taxpayers should not be an afterthought in the housing system that they sustain. That is why I support this motion. Build more homes, put British citizens first and make the Government answer for the decisions that it takes.

Llywydd, I'd like to raise a point of order about the proposing Member's speech at the beginning. I believe that there was an error of fact and I invite the Member, in her response, to correct that. There was a conflation of nation, nationality and citizenship. The census provides us with accurate data on social rented housing in Cardiff and can be accessed by all Members on the census website. Of social rented housing, there were 19,400 UK passport holders, and 1,800—less than 10 per cent—who held other passports. Of rented from the local authority, there were 19,605 UK passport holders. Other passport holders were 1,848. So, I invite the Member, as a matter of order, to correct the record. Passport holders are those numbers. I believe the Member was talking about self-described nationality. Diolch, Lywydd.

I'm happy to follow up with the data, Llywydd. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I strongly reject this motion. Thank you to Lynne Neagle for co-tabling the amendment. I was pleased to work with her on such an important issue. The Government's aim is clear. Everyone in Wales should have access to a safe, warm and affordable home. HMOs of good quality can play a part in that, as long as they are regulated and managed locally. Decisions on social housing must follow our legal framework, and they must be fair and reflect housing need—that is, the needs of everyone who legally qualifies to live here in Wales.

I do understand the frustration that can be caused by long waits for housing and by poorly managed homes. The solution is to increase the supply of social housing, prevent homelessness, uphold standards and support local authorities, not to divide communities or to pit groups of people against each other. The queue for social housing is too long, but don't create unnecessary division. Don't pit people in need against each other. Rather, we should work together to create more social homes in Wales.

Reform says, 'End access to social housing for foreign nationals.' That's your policy. Does that mean that families who have a legal right to be here—families and their children—would be asked to leave their homes, turfed out onto the streets? Well, yes, I got the answer from Joe Martin. He said exactly that. They'd have three months. They would have three months to leave. That is what you said. That is an inhumane proposition, and it's a very, very sad day for this Senedd to hear those comments.

The Reform motion calls for a restriction on access to social housing on the grounds of nationality. We cannot, of course, support that proposal. Social housing is allocated on the basis of housing need among those who are legally eligible. It's not allocated on the basis of nationality, ethnicity, or place of birth. Legislation already controls the right to social housing. Immigration status and legal residence are already key considerations by which to determine someone's eligibility. It's only people who have the right to remain who are eligible for housing support and social housing.

Social housing is not allocated to people seeking asylum. We've heard that time and again. The UK Government provides temporary accommodation while a claim is considered. If someone is granted refugee status—and I remind Members that this means that the UK Government has found that the individual has fled from war, fear or persecution—then they may seek housing assistance under the same rules as other households.

This motion, therefore, misrepresents the current system. The challenge we face is one of housing supply, and the solution is to build more homes and make the best possible use of the homes that we have. Where is the Reform policy on increasing the supply of social homes? You have no policy on that. People seeking sanctuary and people from other countries who live lawfully in Wales do not get any preferential treatment for housing, and they are not responsible for the shortage of affordable housing that we are currently experiencing. And the causes of the pressure on housing stock in Wales are complex and have existed for a long time, and it makes no sense—the facts don't actually back up that we can actually solve the problem by exempting a particular group. Making different groups compete with each other doesn't create housing or reduce pressure on services.

I will turn in conclusion to HMOs. These are shared homes, not an immigration category. They provide homes for students, young professionals and others who need housing, and only a small minority are used to house asylum seekers. Wales has a clear regulation system. You need a licence for HMOs, which are larger and face greater risks, and local authorities can expand the licensing requirement when local factors justify that. They can place conditions, search properties, they can penalise and prevent unsafe accommodation from being used, and they can prosecute landlords. They can also use planning powers when appropriate.

Accommodation used for asylum seekers is not exempted from planning or licensing requirements, but it's local authorities who are best placed to use those powers because they understand the local housing situation and the pressure on communities. We continue to work with councils and the Welsh Local Government Association to assess whether the framework is effective and whether further support is required, and I have made it clear that licensing should protect residents and ensure appropriate regulation.

Our stance is quite clear: social housing is allocated according to need, in accordance with who qualifies through law. Local authorities manage licensing and planning processes in relation to HMOs within the national framework. The Home Office decides where asylum accommodation is provided. The original motion suggests a simplistic and divisive approach to a complex housing problem. The Government's amendment, with the support of Lynne Neagle and the Labour group, reflects the law, respects the responsibility of each level of government and focuses on actions that can make a real difference. I therefore ask Members to reject the motion and support the Government's amendment.

Diolch, Lywydd. May I begin by thanking all Members across the Chamber who have contributed to a lively debate? Let me focus immediately on the people at the heart of this debate: those whose interests Reform believe are in urgent need of our support, the Welsh people.

At the end of the summer, 1,954 homeless people, including 102 children, were living in temporary hostel accommodation. A further 2,539 people, including 268 children, were in hotels and bed and breakfasts. That is nearly 4,500 people in Wales without a proper home of their own, nearly 400 children without the security that a proper home provides, and in too many cases without a bedroom of their own.

Those are not abstract figures, they are the families whose lives are put on hold because our social housing system is failing to meet their need. Housing is a finite resource—there are only so many homes available at any one time. In the midst of a housing crisis, it is the duty of this Senedd, of the Welsh Government, to decide fairly who should get priority. The position of Reform is plain: Welsh homes should go to Welsh people first, and social housing should serve people with the longest established link to Wales and the United Kingdom. But let me also be clear about what this means: EU nationals who have been granted settled status here have a lawful right to reside here. Reform respects that, and they would not be the target of this policy. Our concern is with a system that can put recent overseas arrivals ahead of the British and Welsh families who have lived, worked, paid taxes and raised their children here, only to find themselves in temporary accommodation or unable to secure a home in their own town. We must not allow subsidised social housing to become a further incentive for people to come here illegally from abroad. At a time when Welsh families are living in hostels, hotels and B&Bs, the first duty of Government must be to the people it is elected to serve.

We have heard important contributions from colleagues. Joe Martin offered a prospect that I'm sure many on other sides of the Chamber would be pleased to see: him moving to China. [Laughter.] However, should he move there, he would have to find his own house. He would not be housed at the cost of the Chinese state. Our moral responsibility is to put the Welsh and British people first. John Clark rightly highlighted that it is unfair that a person who has paid taxes to our country for decades can be waiting longer for a house than those who have just arrived. And Francesca O'Brien shared some serious—[Interruption.] I think we've had quite enough interventions today, thank you. She shared some serious figures highlighting the scale of this issue and a lack of transparency from some local authorities.

I'd like to take a moment to respond to some of the other comments that have been made, starting off with the leader of Welsh Labour. For clarity, Suella Braverman was born in London and is a British citizen, so would be entitled to social housing under this policy. Peter—[Interruption.] Peter, as I've just clarified, EU citizens are not impacted by this policy when they have settled status, although I must say it is hard to take lessons from the Tories about seriousness on immigration. Kiera, the right to buy—[Interruption.] The right to buy gives people the chance to own their own home, one of the greatest equalisers of wealth this country has ever seen. Now, can it be done differently? Of course it can be done differently. But selling one social house can give you the equity to build three more. To simply say that we will not allow—[Interruption.] To simply say that we will not allow working families the opportunity to get on the housing ladder and own their own home is nonsensical. Jayne, it is not divisive to say that the Welsh Government should put the Welsh people first. And to the leader of the Welsh Greens, there is nothing more ugly and hateful than your party declaring that believing that the state of Israel can exist is racist.

Of course, reforming allocations alone is not the whole answer. We need to build more homes, but here, too, Wales is being failed. Minister, you spoke about the importance of house building. However, we have exchanged very recently frustrations with the planning system. Planning decisions take months and sometimes years, holding up investment and house building. Rather than acting now to relieve the pressure on planning departments, the Welsh Government has embarked on a three-year review of the national planning framework. Wales cannot afford another three years adrift. The backlog is already severe. The Bevan Foundation estimates that Wales is short of some 9,600 homes. That is the equivalent of building another Llandudno, another Bangor, nearly building a whole other Rhyl. These homes were needed yesterday, before we even start to begin to meet today's targets.

That is why Reform wants practical planning reforms, making it easier to create desperately needed homes above high-street shops, seriously restricting the conversion of hotels into HMOs and relieving the burden on overwhelmed planning and housing teams. But while we build for the future, we must also be honest about the homes that we have now and who should have first call on them. This motion proposes a sensible and proportionate measure. It will help ensure that the scarce resource of social homes are available first to the people with the strongest claim on them. This is a principle that this Senedd should be able to support, and I urge Members to do so. Diolch.

I have visited both the Port of Barry and the Port of Tyne, and the contrast is instructive. No two ports in the UK are the same. Some are privately owned and some by trusts. It is easy to assume one company runs most of them. That's not how it works. The Port of Tyne is the largest trust port in the UK. No shareholders and no owners. Everything it earns is reinvested in the port and the river. In 2024, it added £680 million to the north-east economy.

Barry is a different kind of port, but no less important. No containers, no ferries, no passengers. Liquid bulks for the chemical industry, steel, scrap and aggregates. But that specialism is why it matters now. ABP and px Group are developing a clean growth hub here. Over 100 acres for battery materials, rare earth processing, carbon capture and hydrogen. The Tyne shows where that leads. It is the operation base for Dogger Bank, the world's largest offshore windfarm, with over 400 long-term roles. Barry is ready to make the same turn. Wales exported coal from that dock to the whole world. We should be no less ambitious about where we build there next.

Thank you, Ben, for allowing me to join your debate today. Holyhead should be a warning about what happens when strategic infrastructure is admired in speeches but neglected in practice. In 2024, Holyhead handled more than 85 per cent of Wales's lorry and unaccompanied trailer traffic to and from Ireland, yet, when the port closed, the vulnerability of this vital economic artery was exposed for everyone to see. The previous Labour Government had years to strengthen the infrastructure around it. Instead, Wales was left talking about the A55 resilience, Menai crossings and freight capacity after the weakness had already been exposed.

Now, the new Welsh Government promises to strengthen port resilience. Fine, but resilience is not a slogan, it is roads, crossings, contingency capacity and investment. So, my question is simple: what will this Government actually deliver at Holyhead, by when, and how will it measure it? Because Wales does not need another strategy describing the opportunity, we need a Government capable of seizing it.

Dirprwy Lywydd, we are a maritime nation. Our ports have always connected Wales to the wider world, and now they can be at the heart of a renewable energy future. We need that infrastructure, we need the investment and we need secure and affordable energy. But we've also always got to ask who actually benefits. TUC Cymru has warned that the jobs and supply chain opportunities from offshore renewables could end up bypassing Welsh communities, and that cannot be our future. We need apprenticeships, we need good, secure jobs, and we need Welsh engineering, fabrication and marine businesses to benefit. P&O showed us exactly why economic growth must come with decent employment standards, and that's why I welcome the UK Labour Government's progress towards a mandatory seafarers charter that strengthens protections on pay and working conditions. So, my message is a really simple one: I don't want Wales simply to host that infrastructure while somebody else gets to take all of the economic benefit. Investment in Welsh ports must deliver good Welsh jobs, stronger Welsh supply chains, and real benefits for each of our communities up and down the whole of Wales. That is what a just transition will definitely look like.

When we talk about ports, we should remember that not all Welsh ports play the same role. For Pembrokeshire, Milford Haven is not just a local asset, it is nationally significant infrastructure. In 2024, it handled almost 33 million tonnes of freight and has since become the UK's third largest port by tonnage. It is also responsible for handling the overwhelming majority of liquefied natural gas entering the United Kingdom. This means the Milford Haven port authority is not only supporting jobs and businesses across Pembrokeshire, it is helping to keep the lights on and homes heated across Wales and the wider UK. But strong ports cannot exist in isolation, particularly in rural Wales; they rely on resilient transport links and long-term industrial investment. The question for the Government is not whether Welsh ports are important; the evidence clearly shows they are. The question is whether the Government is turning its commitments on port resilience and economic growth into real investment that allows ports such as Milford Haven to compete, grow and create high-quality jobs for future generations. Diolch.

I'd like to thank Ben Hodge Mckenna for giving me a minute of his time to contribute to this short debate.

Let me be clear, I am also championing the brilliant Port Talbot. I worry that some of our work, however, around port readiness has come to a bit of a standstill. As our ports evolve into multifunctional industrial hubs, there has to be an expansion of their capacity and readiness to capture the value resulting from flow. It needs to happen simultaneously and at scale. We know that ABP has plans to invest £500 million to this end, as well as an additional £64 million, which was committed in March by the UK Government. But we really still have little idea as to who, in practice, is exercising strategic leadership over port readiness. At present, no single body appears to be orchestrating efforts around Port Talbot's investment needs. It strikes me that the Welsh Government and the local authority should co-lead, but lines of accountability remain opaque. Numerous overlapping groups, with variations of the same individuals appearing across them, have generated, I fear, a diffusion of responsibility. The anticipated capital requirement for Port Talbot of just north of £500 million raises questions that I hope the Cabinet Minister can illuminate for us in his response, namely: do we know who this funding is or should be going to, what it is delivering, and over what timeline? Diolch.

I have two family members working in the merchant navy.

Ports are how the north-west Wales economy breathes. Holyhead is the second biggest roll-on, roll-off port in the United Kingdom. In 2024, it handled 1.5 million passengers, nearly four out of every five sea passengers between Wales and Ireland, and 4.3 million tonnes of freight—that is, food, parcels and exports—moving every night across the Irish sea. When storm damage closed the port last winter, the backlog showed how much Britain and Ireland depended on it. The port and its supply chain are worth more than £100 million a year to north Wales, and around 1,000 local jobs rely on it. In Holyhead itself, port work is a major share of local employment. Cruise ships are adding a new stream. Almost 50,000 visitors came ashore at Holyhead last year, spending in shops, on coaches and attractions, from Anglesey and into Snowdonia. And it's not just the ferry port; we've got Caernarfon, Porthmadog and our smaller harbours that sustain fishing, marine services and the visitor economy, the tourist economy, along the Menai strait and all around Anglesey and down the Llŷn peninsula. Reliable berths, reliable roads and rail into them are not a luxury; they are the foundation of our jobs, our trade and our tourism in the north-west. We need to support our ports. Thank you.

Can I thank my fellow Member from Afan Ogwr Rhondda for allowing time within this debate? Across the Siambr, we can often agree that certain issues are important, even if we don't agree on what should be done or the specific actions that are necessary. We must also learn from history. I don't intend to go quite into the historic depths that Ben did, and just think about the last 150 years, but we must learn from history to ensure that we don't repeat the mistakes of history, where ports were seen as the quickest way to export wealth out of our communities. So, how do we build wealth within them?

We also need to acknowledge the damage that Brexit caused to a number of our ports. But there are opportunities. [Interruption.] But there are opportunities. In Port Talbot, the ambition to become a global hub for floating offshore wind fabrication and other forms of energy is one that should be supported. Indeed, many of these ports can see real opportunities relating to emerging low-carbon technologies or even 'net stupid zero', as some Members describe it. And doesn't it make sense that, in order to maximise the benefits to Wales of the maritime economy, we seek ownership and control of the Crown Estate so that those opportunities are ours to explore and we can invest the profit into further developments? Diolch.

Thank you, Ben, for the one-minute opportunity here. Ports are gateways to jobs, investment and growth. They are vital to communities across Wales, yet Welsh businesses are being squeezed by high energy costs and held back by poor infrastructure. Congested roads and bottlenecks increase costs and make it harder for exporters and importers and manufacturers to compete. We live in a digital age, but the physical economy still matters. Our ports, roads, railways are foundations of trade and prosperity. The reality is simple: when transport fails, businesses suffer; when energy costs rise, investment goes elsewhere. If we want economic growth, we must back our ports, improve connectivity and remove barriers to investment. In times of potential global food shortages, or even war, and when imports of food are at 40 per cent, one thing is clear—strong ports are not a luxury, they are a necessity.

Thank you to Ben for bringing forward this debate and for being so generous with your time. I had a feeling you'd concentrate on Port Talbot, as will I. We cannot allow ports like Port Talbot to be places where the components of the green transition simply arrive and leave. The greater opportunity lies in building the supply chain around them. For floating offshore wind, that means fabrication, welding, pipe fitting, mooring and anchor systems, cables, logistics, installation and long-term maintenance. Port Talbot already has many of those black skills, built through generations of steel making and heavy industry, as other Members have alluded to. We should utilise those transferable skills alongside the robotic mechanics, digital and engineering skills that those new technologies will require. We must also widen who gets those opportunities, with clear routes in for women, school leavers and people from disadvantaged backgrounds into those skilled, well-paid careers. This must be about innovation as well as infrastructure, linking ports, colleges, businesses and research institutions so that Cymru is not simply deploying new technology, but designing, developing and manufacturing it here too.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. And thank you to Ben for giving me a minute to contribute. Wales's ports are not simply gateways for freight, they are strategic economic assets, and nowhere is more at stake than Port Talbot. The UK Government is backing the development of a floating offshore wind port there, and the Celtic Freeport projects up to 11,500 jobs. But the port alone won't deliver; it needs roads, rail, grid and skills. The free port's own five-year plan names grid connections as a blocker, and for the first five years prioritises laying the foundations for future skills interventions. So, will the Welsh Government publish every year how many of these jobs go to Welsh workers, and how much of the spending reaches Welsh businesses, so our ports become engines of prosperity rather than gateways through which the economic value passes? Thank you.

I'm grateful to the Member for raising the importance of port infrastructure and marine traffic to the Welsh economy.

You're probably not going to realise how much I actually like ports, but you'll find out after this, because I've got quite a lot I want to say. I'm sure you'd like to go home, but there's a lot in ports. Wales is home to a strong and diverse ports and maritime sector, comprising businesses that consistently demonstrate resilience, innovation and adaptability. Their contribution is fundamental to our economic success, facilitating the movement of vital imports and exports, supporting key industries and providing rewarding careers for thousands of people across our coastal communities.

The most recent recorded data from the British Ports Association suggests Welsh ports account for approximately 1.2 per cent of Welsh gross value added, about £560 million, and support almost 11,000 jobs. We recognise the immense value these businesses bring to Wales. While much of their work takes place behind the scenes, it is vital to our daily lives and to the smooth functioning of our economy.

As a nation with an extensive coastline, deep water access and a strategic position between Ireland and key international shipping routes, Wales has long relied upon its ports to support trade, investment and economic growth. Today, that role is more important than ever. Perhaps the greatest opportunity for our ports is the transition to clean energy and the growth of offshore renewables. Wales offers many very attractive propositions to the offshore wind sector. For example, in Port Talbot, ABP are completing the essential design and engineering work needed to build one of the first floating offshore wind ports in the UK. This new development will help unlock an initial 4.5 GW of floating offshore wind projects in the Celtic sea, enough to power 6.5 million homes.

Another example is Erebus, a proposed floating wind development off the Pembrokeshire coastline. Its significance is not only the turbines offshore, but what comes with them onshore, both in terms of supply chain opportunities and the infrastructure needed to support new offshore industries, such as fabrication, logistics, marine services and long-term maintenance work. In the north, the Awel y Môr offshore windfarm off the coast of the north of Wales is now moving towards construction, and a final investment decision. It will be developed by RWE on behalf of project partners for an area of sea bed to the west of the existing Gwynt y Môr offshore windfarm. Once completed, it will generate power equivalent to the needs of more than half of Wales's homes, as well as creating opportunities throughout its construction, operational and eventual decommissioning process.

The Morlais tidal stream energy project manages an area of 35 sq km off the sea bed near Ynys Cybi on Anglesey. The scheme has the potential to generate up to 240 MW of low-carbon clean electricity, and provides further economic opportunities for operations and maintenance of our Welsh ports. The port of Mostyn, a privately owned and operated port in the north of Wales, has been leading the way for fixed offshore wind development, with around 240 people directly employed servicing the offshore wind sector.

We will continue to support ports to maximise the opportunities off the coast of the north of Wales and in the Irish sea, at least 7.6 GW with Gwynt y Môr and Mona projects in Welsh seas. Our forthcoming national energy strategy will set out how Wales can secure more clean energy, increase Welsh ownership and retain more economic value within our communities and businesses. Renewable energy will be at the forefront of the national energy strategy, including innovative opportunities such as offshore wind in deeper waters, tidal stream and range, and significant stakeholder input has been collated through activities such as the renewable energy sector deal and offshore wind action plan, to which our major ports have contributed. Much of our offshore and marine renewable energy strategic infrastructure will be located in and around our ports. This will ensure that more of the value created from Wales's natural resources, infrastructure and clean energy transition is retained in Wales, supporting communities, workers and businesses and creating long-term public benefits around the port's hinterlands.

Alongside supporting renewable energy generation, the maritime sector itself is undergoing significant transformation as it moves towards decarbonisation. Ports will play a crucial role in enabling the adoption of alternative fuels, supporting cleaner vessel technologies and developing the infrastructure required for low-carbon shipping, and supporting the decarbonisation of transport. This transition presents both challenges and opportunities, creating the potential for innovation, investment and new high-skilled employment across Wales.

Maritime traffic remains fundamental to Wales's trading relationships, particularly with Ireland, one of our most important trading partners. The port of Holyhead is—I repeat my line from earlier—the second busiest roll-on, roll-off ferry port in the UK and it is a vital gateway into Wales. In recognition of this, a £150 million scheme is in place to secure the port's long-term future through the refurbishment of its essential and historic breakwater.

Holyhead and our other major west coast ferry ports, Fishguard and Pembroke Dock, provide vital international connectivity for goods and people. Despite the adverse impacts of Brexit on the volume of freight using the UK's land bridge between Ireland and the rest of the EU, these ports remain essential to the UK and Irish logistics sector. The economic importance of these Irish sea links were highlighted in December 2024, with the prolonged disruption at Holyhead having a significant impact on businesses on both sides of the water. In response to this, the Irish sea taskforce was created to examine what could be done to avoid a repeat scenario and respond effectively if similar events ever happened again at any Welsh port. I intend to publish a six-month update to the Irish sea taskforce recommendations this autumn.

Following this and other similar incidents, the Holyhead Port Authority, Stena Line, has committed to a multi-million pound port infrastructure investment in the berths to strengthen the long-term resilience of this port and modernise its infrastructure for the future. Separately, Stena Line has invested a further £20 million into a new linkspan at Fishguard port, which will strengthen future resilience and connectivity and enhance opportunities for them to increase their roll-on, roll-off traffic and expand their cruise ship offering at the port.

Cruise tourism plays a significant role in our maritime economy and, for many visitors, our ports provide their first welcome to Wales. Cruise Wales is a partnership between Welsh Government, our six cruise ports, Welsh tourist destinations and many outside stakeholders. We market six cruise ports in Wales, which are Cardiff, Swansea, Pembroke, Milford Haven, Fishguard and Holyhead. Cruise Wales is an established global brand attracting new cruise lines to Wales. Our ports continue to support a thriving cruise sector. In 2026, 88 cruise calls are scheduled at Welsh ports, bringing over 73,500 passengers and 35,000 crew. This is expected to generate circa £7.6 million in visitor spending, providing a valuable boost to local economies across Wales.

Our ports are not simply points of arrival and departure. They are centres of economic activity that support investment, innovation and employment across Wales. Welsh ports have the potential to attract significant investment, stimulate innovation, strengthen strategic industries and create high-quality employment opportunities across Wales.

Another example of how important port infrastructure is to our economy is the recently agreed long-term lease and commercial agreement between Associated British Ports and Valero at the port of Cardiff, securing critical supply and storage solutions for liquid fuels across south Wales. The agreement underpins the ongoing operation of Valero's 12-acre liquid fuels terminal at Roath Dock, the largest such facility at the port of Cardiff, and represents a commitment to the future of the port and the Wales energy supply chain. The deal safeguards skilled jobs on site and supports the reliable supply of fuel for households, businesses, airports and commercial fleets across the south of the country. It also takes thousands of HGVs off the road network by using coastal shipping routes to link Cardiff to Valero's Pembroke refinery at Milford Haven, the UK's leading energy port.

Since taking office—I almost said 'leaving office' then; that would have been good. [Laughter.] Since taking office, I have visited—[Interruption.] Don't start. [Laughter.] I have visited many of our ports to see first-hand the essential role they play in supporting trade, industry and local communities. Whether handling passengers, facilitating freight movements, supporting steel production, construction projects, agriculture or manufacturing, our ports form an integral part of the supply chains that underpin the Welsh economy. It's been fascinating to observe how modern ports operate with such precision, co-ordinating the movement of vessels, cargo and people in a highly complex movement. I was on the bridge of a ferry that docked in Rosslare and I was able to witness the captain be able to berth the ship within six inches of its desired place. This is incredible precision and incredible skill.

Welsh ports have a rich sense of history—sorry, I'm going to go to the history now, I've got to go to it—have a rich sense of history and a social and cultural connection to their local communities and surrounding hinterland. I had the pleasure of learning about the connection ports have to their communities during my visit to Fishguard and Rosslare, where they were celebrating the first sea crossing from Fishguard to Rosslare that took place on 30 August 1906. This year marks the hundred and twentieth anniversary of this vital link between Ireland and Wales, connecting generations of families, holidaymakers, businesses and communities on both sides of the Irish sea. It was in 1906 that a newly built harbour and railway opened in Abergwaun, which also brought transatlantic liners to the port, and is still from where Stena Line runs its passenger service to Rosslare.

In 1807, Captain John Macgregor Skinner astonished mariners by successfully bringing his ship into Holyhead harbour during an exceptionally severe gale. Little of the current harbour infrastructure, including the sheltering breakwater, existed back then. Captain Skinner had to navigate rough waters and pass numerous rocks and small islands. This continues today, as every operation is carefully managed to ensure goods and services move safely, efficiently and on time, maximising economic value and supporting businesses across Wales and beyond.

I recently toured Rosslare port's impressive operations, which are completely different to those that were in place 126 years ago. Rosslare Europort is today a key infrastructure hub for transportation from Ireland to Europe and the UK. Post Brexit, Rosslare has experienced significant growth, particularly in freight traffic and direct ferry services to Europe. Weekly sailings to Europe increased more than sixfold. Welsh ports were not so fortunate. Holyhead and Fishguard ports saw a 30 per cent drop in traffic in 2021, according to their operator, Stena Line.

When in Ireland, I met with one of Ireland's leading temperature-controlled logistics companies to better understand their operations and experiences of using the Irish sea crossing between Dublin and Holyhead. We discussed the location of Welsh truck stops for driver welfare across the A55 corridor and how we could best support drivers to use alternative routes across Wales should their usual route not be open. This was followed by a meeting with my counterpart in the Irish Government, Seán Canney. Our discussions focused on strengthening resilience, deepening co-operation, and building the strong relationships necessary to support this vital maritime corridor.

These partnerships ensure that, when challenges arise, we can engage rapidly and work collaboratively to deliver effective solutions. I've also—and this talks directly to the point about resilience—asked officials to prepare an internal resilience exercise over the coming months, with key stakeholders on both sides of the Irish sea, focusing on scenario planning in the event of an unforeseen Welsh port closure.

The contribution made by Welsh ports in maritime traffic cannot be overstated. They enable trade, support critical supply chains, attract investment, strengthen energy security, create skilled employment, and connect Wales with key international markets. They are essential to our economic prosperity today and will be equally important in helping us to achieve our ambitions for a greener and more resilient economy in the future. Diolch yn fawr iawn.