Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call the National Assembly to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and I have received notification, under Standing Order 12.58 that the leader of the house, Jane Hutt, will answer questions today on behalf of the First Minister. Question 1, Nick Ramsay.

The Welsh Government has announced an extra £20 million to support businesses affected by the rates revaluation—£10 million through our transitional relief scheme and £10 million for high-street rates relief. This is in addition to our £100 million small business rates relief. We’ve acted to provide certainty and security to ratepayers in Wales affected by revaluation.

Thank you for that answer, leader of the house. Businesses in my constituency continue to be deeply concerned by the business rate revaluation. Whilst any additional support is welcome—I hear about the relief that your Government has announced—the additional discount is a drop in the ocean for those businesses facing the biggest hikes. What assessment has been made of the number of businesses who will not benefit from the scheme of support that the Welsh Government is putting in place, and will the Government look again at raising the threshold at which businesses start paying business rates in order to avert some of the large-scale business closures that I fear are going to happen after April?

Our £10 million transitional rates relief scheme will assist businesses whose entitlement to small business rates relief would be adversely affected by revaluation. Our £10 million high-street rates relief specifically targets businesses in your constituency. I know there are high-street ratepayers, including shops, pubs and cafes, and, of course, we listened to the concerns and responded to the small businesses in Wales. These are bespoke-funded schemes, and, indeed, they are in addition to our £100 million small business rates relief. As a result, three quarters of businesses will receive help with their bills in 2017-18.

Leader of the house, as a result of revaluation, the average rateable value in Rhondda Cynon Taff has decreased by 6.1 per cent. With this being a fairly common pattern across the area, what impact could this have on the Welsh Government’s policies towards promoting economic prosperity across the south Wales Valleys?

Well, of course, the statistics that were published by the valuation authority show that total rateable value will fall in all of the Valleys authorities. That does mean that the majority of ratepayers in these areas will benefit from a reduction in their bills, and we’ve acted to provide that additional support to businesses through an extension of £100 million small business rates relief scheme. But, of course, Business Wales, and all the other levers that will assist businesses in your constituency, will have a bearing on economic opportunity, including the city deal, in which Rhondda Cynon Taff is a key partner.

Notwithstanding the point made by the Member for the Cynon Valley, this is fundamentally an unfair tax. It’s wreaking economic carnage on our high streets. Isn’t it time just to scrap this tax altogether and replace it with something like an internet sales tax?

Clearly, this is an issue where we have worked over a period of time, as a very pro-business Government, to take action to help new and existing businesses, and to indeed look at the impact not just in terms of revaluation, but our business support scheme. We are looking at a new permanent scheme in terms of small business rates relief from 2018, and it’s important to target support in ways that reflect the needs of Wales. We have engaged as widely as possible about our schemes in the short time available between the Valuation Office Agency’s publication of its draft rating list and the date by which these regulations had to be in place. But it is their scheme. We have to make sure that it redistributes the amount payable between properties, reflecting changes in the property market. That’s their responsibility.

Leader of the house, the business rate revaluation is putting our high street at risk. Many small businesses are facing huge hikes in their rates bills, yet their turnover is not increasing. For many, the only alternative is to seek rental properties with smaller rateable values off the high street, and this could be the final straw that breaks the camel’s back for small, independent high-street retailers. The UK Government’s latest budget proposes a cap on the business rates increases for those small firms set to lose their rate relief. Leader of the house, will your Government consider doing something similar for small high-street retailers here in Wales?

Can I just make it clear that we’re doing more than the UK Government? If you look at the funding for the rates relief measures that the Chancellor announced last week, it would amount to just over £12 million. If we’d relied on that, it would have meant £8 million less support for small businesses in Wales. We’ve got two fully funded bespoke schemes. I’m sure many of the businesses in your constituency will particularly benefit from those two—not just the transitional scheme, but also the new scheme that is specifically targeting those high-street ratepayers.

Investing in housing, including its energy efficiency, is already an investment priority in the Wales infrastructure investment plan. Our long-term vision and the actions we are taking in this important area are set out in the energy efficiency strategy, published last year.

There is a lot of excellent work already being done in Wales, but putting domestic energy efficiency alongside other nationally important infrastructure programmes could have multiple benefits, including dramatically boosting efforts to tackle fuel poverty, providing those warm and cosy homes, improving the health and well-being of our older citizens, reducing the carbon emissions through energy efficiency, reducing energy consumption, reducing the number of new power stations we need to build, and creating thousands upon thousands of jobs in every street and every community throughout the land. So, far from being a win-win, it would be a win-win, win-win, win-win, ‘ac ati’. As we await the results of the recent consultation on the national infrastructure commission, could I ask the leader of the house and the First Minister and his Cabinet to consider seriously the huge potential for Wales of putting energy efficiency as national infrastructure and the transformative effect if could have on future prosperity and well-being?

Well, I concur completely with the Member. If you look at the opportunities that we have in terms of our infrastructure, not only delivering on our carbon reduction commitment, but the multiplier benefit effect on so many outcomes: better insulated homes, tackling fuel poverty, helping health, education and well-being outcomes, creating jobs and economic activity. But I will say that it is important that we’ve been refining the remit and terms of reference for the proposed national infrastructure commission for Wales following our response to the feedback from consultation. It will include economic and environmental infrastructure, including energy, and it will be looking at the interactions with social infrastructure on housing and cross-cutting delivery issues.

Cabinet Secretary, our housing stock is amongst the oldest in Europe, and we really need to focus on schemes of retrofitting because a lot of that housing stock is occupied by people who have low incomes or are otherwise vulnerable. Indeed, if we improved these skills and developed retrofitting products, we would then find a market in other parts of the UK for those skills and products, and indeed in other parts of Europe.

Indeed, and I think this is where it’s important that we’re working with industry in terms of the opportunities for the skills base. We’re looking at ways in which we can develop the skills and experience not only of our workforce and our young people, but also, clearly, through the apprenticeship schemes that we’re supporting.

I agree with the original questioner’s proposition—there’s no better example of what we debated last week here of a foundational economy than investing in this area where you link in skills at a local level and you ensure that Welsh Government capital spend is spread across Wales as well, because this is not a regional problem; it’s spread across Wales in terms of the older housing that we have. What we’re looking for from Welsh Government is a clearer cited purpose around investment in energy efficiency and, as has already been asked, something that is put into the national infrastructure commission as a task and aim of that commission.

I’ve already said that we are going to change the remit as a result of consultation in terms of the infrastructure commission. It is important that we recognise we’re continuing to invest £108 million annually to ensure that over 222,000 social homes meet and maintain the Welsh housing quality standard. David Melding referred to the older housing stock in Wales, but the standard does require all existing social homes to be brought up to an energy rating of D or above. Of course, this is an all-Wales programme with a budget of £20 million to be made available to support this programme.

Questions now from the party leaders. The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. Leader of the house, although our economic potential is yet to be fulfilled, we can already see that Wales is a strong exporting nation. Last year, we had a £2.2 billion trade surplus with the EU. Our surplus was higher than in 2015, when it was £1.5 billion. With non-EU countries, we had a trade deficit of £2.3 billion, while the UK as a whole had trade deficits with both EU and non-EU markets. What future do you see for our EU trade surplus if we are taken out of the single market?

It is important that we recognise the value of exports for Wales for the year up to and including 2016—£12.3 billion, an increase of £725 million on the previous year. Of course, as the leader of Plaid Cymru says, Wales benefits hugely from current integration with the EU single market, with access to over 500 million customers. So, that could clearly be a huge impact in terms of the prospects in terms of how we exit and how we make sure that Wales’s interests are safeguarded.

Plaid Cymru predicts a difficult future for those exporters who rely upon the single market. We now have some in the UK Government talking about leaving the EU without any deal at all, which will effectively mean World Trade Organization rules. That would be the hardest possible type of Brexit. It could lead to future tariffs and other barriers. And on the social and environmental side, it could lead to deregulation and to lowering standards. The UK Government has now indicated that the article 50 letter will be sent later this month. That means there’s a window of opportunity, a window where there can be some influence. The Welsh Government has said that it wants to be consulted. I wonder if you can tell us: have you been consulted yet? And what are the implications of the UK Government issuing that article 50 letter without fully consulting Wales as to its content?

Clearly, we want an article 50 process that does reflect the interests of Wales within the wider UK negotiating framework and, in fact, we set out together with Plaid Cymru the Welsh Government position that is comprehensively set out in our White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’ around those six points, including continued participation in the single market and ensuring that Wales does not lose out on a penny of funding as a result of leaving the EU. So, we certainly want and expect to be consulted on any article 50 letter before it’s issued. The First Minister made it very clear to the UK Government that anything less would be totally incompatible with the approach that they agreed at the Joint Ministerial Committee after the referendum result. We have, as you know, together sent a copy of our White Paper to the European Commission.

It’s fairly clear what your Government wants What’s not clear is what you’ll do if you don’t get it. Yesterday, we saw how the mishandling of Brexit will lead to a new referendum on Scottish independence. That referendum could end the United Kingdom. The state, as we know it, could cease to exist, and that would be a radical change for Wales. But it would also create the opportunity to be bolder, more ambitious and more confident about our own future, and I suspect that there may even be people in this Chamber who supported the Scottish ‘No’ campaign last time who would now feel less comfortable doing so. Leader of the house, the First Minister’s statement yesterday on a Scottish independence referendum lacked detail. It said almost nothing about the future of Wales. Can you add more detail on where you see the Government taking Wales over the next two years? What is your vision? And what plans does your Government have to put in place for the constitutional and economic future of this country?

I do go back to your second question about engagement and influence in terms of the article 50 letter, and just to say that the point I would make and the First Minister would make is that we need to work together on this to make sure that securing Wales’s future and the delivery of that are as a result of support across this Chamber, particularly as the co-signatories of that White Paper, and that we use our clout to say what we expect in terms of engagement on that article 50 letter.

Of course, in terms of your third question, it’s right that the constitutional future of Scotland is decided by the people of Scotland. We’re clear that we believe that the UK remains better together, and last year, Welsh Labour was elected on a message of togetherness. That remains our watchword for this Government. But I think the important point for us today is that, as a party and as a Government, we remain committed both to the union and to the ongoing joint ministerial committee process relating to exiting the EU. Indeed, the Scots say that they’ve no intention of walking away from the JMC where we have common cause on many issues in terms of our negotiations on exiting the EU.

Leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Leader of the house, many of us would’ve seen in the media over the last week the shocking images of drug abuse, with people comatose in public places, and one can only feel a huge amount of sympathy for the individuals who have fallen so low as to be in that position, and equally want to make sure that as many safeguards as possible are put in place to try and rectify the problems that people have in their lives that have found them in this very, very tragic position. Regrettably, much of that media coverage has painted a very negative image of a certain town in Wales, an image that many of us in this Chamber won’t recognise from our visits to that town, but it is a fact that those images have been in the national media.

Today, we have the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Wales calling for the legalisation of drugs as a solution to this issue. On this side of the house, we certainly do not believe that that is the case, but I’d be grateful, in your role as leader of the house in responding for the First Minister today, if you could give us a Government response as to what action you are taking as a Welsh Government, given that you held a meeting last week between the police and crime commissioner, yourselves and other agencies to try and address some of the shortcomings in this particular area.

I think it’s important, if we look particularly at north Wales, the Welsh Government provides over £4.9 million of the substance misuse action fund to the north Wales area planning board. That’s about commissioning a range of needs-led services delivered by the providers in that region. I think, in terms of the issue of paraphernalia and the current visibility of individuals with substance misuse issues within the town centre, clearly, that has had to result, as it does, in a multi-agency approach. That includes, of course, North Wales Police, the police and crime commissioner, Wrexham local authority and voluntary sector organisations.

I had hoped that, with the time that’s lapsed since this initial story ran some 10 days ago, we might have got a fuller answer from the leader of the house, given the points that I raised. Because the Welsh Government, in 2008, brought forward a strategy, ‘Working Together to Reduce Harm’, and from what we see in these types of images, that strategy, from what I can see, clearly doesn’t seem to be working. What evaluation has the Welsh Government taken of this strategy and the support that is in place for local authorities, for the police forces here, the police and crime commissioners and support agencies in the health and social care areas, to actually address these issues that are happening day in, day out, week in, week out, on the streets in towns and villages across Wales, that are crying out for a solution and support from central Government here—the Welsh Government? In particular, you have had this 10-year strategy in place that is now starting to come to the end, and yet, we are seeing these horrific images that have been portrayed in the media as happening in public spaces as we speak.

Of course, I have identified our investment in the substance misuse action fund and that is available to those who are delivering on the ground—the north Wales area planning board. But I would like to say also that, when they have come together to look specifically at the most recent issues, they have developed a comprehensive town centre action plan. It’s got a number of actions. It has to be about the constantly changing needs and circumstances in terms of substance misuse, but there are a number of planned projects co-ordinated by Cais through the Champions’ House recovery hub and also the identification of hotspot areas. And, of course, clean-up has taken place. But it’s also important that we recognise that this is about the substance misuse that we need to look at in terms of best practice, and that’s where the new substance misuse delivery plan is so pertinent.

Leader of the house, Andrew Atkinson, who is the chair of the Wrexham town centre forum steering group, has identified that everyone seems to be blaming everyone else, rather than actually getting to grips with the problem. I heard from a sedentary position on the other side, from the Welsh nationalists, that they believe that legalising drugs is a sensible alternative here. From this side of the house, we definitely do not believe that legalising drugs is part of the solution. And, in particular, when you see that the deaths from drugs have doubled since 2012, and 114,000 died last year, that clearly is not a road to solving this problem. What you as the Welsh Government—[Interruption.] There’s lots of mumbling coming from the other side of the house. [Interruption.] From the Government here in Cardiff, there clearly does need now to be a working group set up by the Welsh Government to pull together the charities, the health bodies and the Police and Crime Commissioner for North Wales to make sure that we can get a co-ordinated approach to dealing with this issue, especially in Wrexham, where there does seem to be a blame culture developing, rather than the ability to get to grips with the very serious issue that many of these people are facing, and the tragedy that their lives have spiralled out of control. Ultimately, they need the support of Government working with sponsored bodies to put the measures in place. Can I confirm that you will do that?

I have identified not only our strategy, updating it, and the investment, but I would hope that also Andrew R.T. Davies is also speaking to the Conservative councillors in Wrexham, and indeed the independent councillors, who are at the sharp end of being responsible for this, but with our support and with the support of that multi-agency panel and the action plan that they’ve devised.

The leader of the house will have seen that last week’s budget was not an unqualified success for the Chancellor and for the Government. Does she and the Welsh Government draw any lessons from that experience, with a view to how they’re going to exercise the tax-varying powers we’re about to obtain under the Wales Act 2017?

Well, I do think that, in terms of last week’s—I think it’s been described as the ‘omNICshambles’ budget, certainly a budget that has hit self-employed people very hard with a £2 billion hike in national insurance contributions. And that is affecting many of the people we talk about, and the FSB talks about, in terms of self-employed people who are the risk-takers, spearheading growth and productivity in the economy. So, we need to have no lessons. The UK Government and ‘Spreadsheet Phil’ need lessons from us, and I would say from our Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, because, the additional funding—[Interruption.] Can I say, you’ve asked me the question, Neil Hamilton—?

Let’s listen to the leader of the house, please.

The additional funding doesn’t alter the magnitude of spending reductions we’re facing for future years. Despite the small additions, our capital budget in 2019-20 will still be 11 per cent lower in real terms than in 2010-11, and our revenue budget will still be 8 per cent lower.

With respect, the leader of the house didn’t answer my question. What I was keen to elicit was whether it makes it more or less likely that the Welsh Government will use its powers to vary rates of income tax, put them up rather than down, or vice versa. There is a lot of economic evidence to show that lower tax rates can actually produce higher tax revenues. In the 1980s, when Nigel Lawson reduced taxes, that was the effect. In 1979, the top 1 per cent of earners paid 11 per cent of all tax revenues. By 1997, they paid 21 per cent, despite the fact that the top rate of income tax had been reduced from 83 per cent in the pound to 40 per cent. So, is it not sensible for the Welsh Government to think in terms of making Wales into a kind of tax haven within the United Kingdom?

You know, I don’t think we’d expect anything different from the leader of UKIP. I would’ve hoped that the leader of UKIP would be considering the impact of the Chancellor’s budget last week, the impact on the people that we represent, the impact of the fact that the sting in the tail of that budget and forecast is there’s a £3.5 billion cut planned by the UK Government for 2019-20, which could mean another £175 million taken out of the Welsh Government budget. That’s what I am concerned with and, of course, we have to look at that in terms of the implications of this budget, not just for the self-employed, but some of the poorest people in Wales. What we’re spending per head of population will decline by 4 per cent in real terms over the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast period.

With respect, I’ll try again. I still haven’t had an answer to my question. Does the leader of the house accept that lower tax rates can produce higher tax revenues? In which case, everybody wins.

Well, as far as the UK Government is concerned, we take responsibility and, indeed, we have our responsibilities that we are now taking through in legislation in terms of the devolved taxes that are coming our way, and we look forward to a debate on this in the next couple of weeks. But I think we need to recognise, and I hope Neil Hamilton recognises, the adverse impact of the decisions that were made by ‘Spreadsheet Phil’ last week where he fumbled his first budget, and recognise as well that that’s bad, the fact that it is undermining their mission to promote the UK as a place to start a new business.

Question 3, Adam Price.

‘Taking Wales Forward’ details our priorities and the investment Welsh Government is making to benefit all parts of Wales in every aspect of society.

The Government’s own figures show that the level of Welsh Government’s capital expenditure on infrastructure in south-east Wales is twice that per head in north Wales, and three times the figure for mid and west Wales. I mean, it’s concern over that huge investment gap that led my party to vote against the supplementary budget last week. What assurance—[Interruption.] What assurance—[Interruption.]

Let’s hear the question.

What assurance can she give my party and Members on all sides who represent those regions that we will have equal investment for all parts of Wales so that we can see prosperity shared across our country?

Well, I think that the Member has seen the combined Welsh Government allocations for local authorities, health boards and police authorities for 2017-18, and has seen that there is only one area where there’s a slightly different per-head allocation, and I would want to share this again with the Member. In terms of capital expenditure, on an all-Wales basis that’s crucially important in terms of our investment in social housing, our investment in twenty-first century schools, and our investment in transport. I can, again, give you the investments in, for example, flood and coastal risk management, supporting the whole of Wales with £144 million; £700 million to improve our trunk road network; and in terms of north Wales, particularly important, £50 million to advance the developments of the north-east Wales metro, with potential to expand west in the future. But, I do have to say that, in terms of the supplementary budget, what was in that supplementary budget is very important to the people of Wales. It is £170 million to support the Welsh NHS—just to give one example—and £16 million for a treatment fund for new types of treatment; an additional £20 million funding for higher education; and an additional £55.5 million to support the construction and maintenance of the trunk road network in Wales, including plans to accelerate delivery of the Llandeilo bypass as a result of our budget agreements. So, let’s recognise the importance of our considerations.

Cabinet Secretary, there’s a Cardiff capital region city deal, there’s a proposed Swansea bay city deal, and there’s a north Wales growth deal. What consideration has been given to a mid Wales growth deal on the same scale, to ensure that there’s a similar level of investment in the fourth remaining economic region of Wales?

Of course, there has been work done, as you know, Russell George, in terms of how we can respond to growth opportunities in mid Wales, but I think it is also relevant to say—and I’m going to be very pertinent to your patch—that these are about budget choices in terms of those cuts to the capital programme that I’ve already spoken about. But five new primary schools we are building in Powys—recently announced as part of the twenty-first century schools programme. That is so important for the prospects of your children and young people in terms of growth opportunities in mid Wales.

Leader of the house, though you wouldn’t believe it, there was quite a degree of consensus last week during the debate on the foundational economy, which has already been mentioned by Simon Thomas, and it was agreed unanimously in the Chamber that indigenous small businesses connect with each other in a way that doesn’t happen in large firms. Networks of social capital need to be extended beyond local social contexts, it was agreed. It was further agreed that the geography of the south Wales Valleys has been a barrier to this in the past. Would the leader of the house therefore accept that for Government investment focused in this area to be successful, the northern Valleys should be seen as interdependent communities, linking east and west, and not simply spokes linking into a city hub?

It’s always good when we get back to consensus in this Chamber, as we did, very much, on that debate on the foundational economy, which, of course, the Cabinet Secretary for economy and transport responded to very positively. I was also interested to see the very strong arguments for the points you’re making, Hefin David, on the northern Valleys’ interdependency, with Vikki Howells, in an article in ‘The Western Mail.’ It is a very pertinent point in terms of the city region deal, because we have to make sure that we recognise the northern Valleys and it’s not just pulling down, it’s going up, and it’s that mutual interdependency.

Wales was the first country in the UK to take a national approach to autism. We’ve provided £6 million for a new national integrated autism service. Our latest strategic action plan was published on 30 November as a result of extensive consultation.

Thank you for that response. The National Autistic Society Wales has asked for a record of the number of people on the spectrum in order to assist local authorities to plan services more effectively and in a more comprehensive manner. One would expect a record of people of autism who have a care plan from next April onwards, but there are a number of people who are autistic who don’t have a care plan and there are others who go in and out of the system. Can I ask, therefore, when will your Government insist that a full record is kept in order to ensure that the proper resources and facilities are provided, where needed, in all parts of Wales?

I thank the Member for that question. It’s very relevant to the work that’s been taken forward by an implementation advisory group for the autistic spectrum disorder strategic action plan for Wales. In fact, the National Autistic Society is sitting on that implementation group, and, as it’s World Autism Awareness Week later this month, the group’s going to be meeting for the first time at the end of the month. But, of course, looking at that plan, it needs the data; we need to work on those data. But it’s also about the new 26-week waiting-time target from referral to first appointment for children with autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions to speed up access to support.

Minister—sorry, leader of the house—I understand that, obviously, the strategic action plan’s only been in place for some five or six months now, but what we really need to see is how the gaps in the provision of services, particularly for adults, are going to be filled. Within Pembrokeshire, there’s a massive gap in the provision of services for adults with autism and neither Pembrokeshire County Council nor the local health board appear to have a cohesive enough method of being able to plug those gaps. So, what can you, as the Welsh Government, do to encourage that to happen, because I can tell you now, your strategic action plan isn’t even touching the sides on that?

I think the £6 million we’ve put into developing our new integrated autism service will start to have the kind of impact that the Member would want to see. It’s an investment over three years. It’s going to be rolled out across Wales by 2019, and it’s going to see new specialist teams in every region providing adult diagnosis, support in the community, and advice and information for adults with autism and for their parents and carers.

The Welsh European Funding Office is continuing to implement our EU funding programmes, as agreed with the European Commission, to deliver jobs and growth. Nearly two thirds of the funds have been committed to date, and our aim is to invest all of the EU funds available to Wales by early 2019.

Thank you for that update. You may already know that, as well as indicating that equivalent money should come to Wales after exit, witnesses giving evidence to the external affairs committee have said that this is an opportunity to do things differently in terms of regional funding. Can you tell me how many of the applications currently with WEFO are predicated on the private sector taking the delivery lead? And what advice is WEFO giving bidders for that remaining money to make sure that its long-term projects are structurally flexible enough—perhaps I could put it like that—to make sure that they can last once the days of the Commission directing regional funding have gone?

Well, clearly, multi-million EU projects include Business Wales apprenticeships, directly relevant for the private sector, south-west workplace plus, which you will be very aware of in your region, making an impact by boosting business, helping them to increase work prospects and skills of our people, but also ensuring that, through the programme monitoring committee, we’re engaging fully with Welsh stakeholders, including the private sector in terms of a common Welsh position on future arrangements for regional funding in Wales. That’s critically important—of course, the PMC is chaired by Julie Morgan—in terms of safeguarding those investments.

Leader of the house, as Suzy Davies pointed out, WEFO operates under EU regional policy rules at this point in time, but in two years they’re not going to be there, effectively. What I’m asking is: what discussions have you had with the UK Government about a future regional policy, and are you taking the opportunity to be creative in the agenda to ensure that what happens in Wales can actually be unique to Wales?

I think our White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, is vitally important because it does lay out what we made clear as far regional economic development—. It’s very clear that that is a devolved competence, and it must remain so. We would resist firmly any attempt by the UK Government to reverse any form of devolution and take control of regional policy. So, I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to put that on record today. It is important that we have got our engagement through the Joint Ministerial Committee on European negotiations, at which the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government represents us. He presented our White Paper at their meeting on 8 February.

Further education contributes significantly to skills development, improving employment and careers prospects for learners in Wales and the performance of companies and public services. It ensures our young people can access the skills that they need to develop their careers and that adults can develop their skills to support our growing economy.

Thank you for that answer, leader of the house. There’s been a lot of talk about the need for parity of esteem between higher and further education in this Chamber over the past 10 years, but successive Welsh Labour Governments have failed to deliver on that talk and that ambition. The Wales Audit Office, in fact, has confirmed in a recent report on the oversight of further education colleges’ finances that there has been a significant cut of £22 million to our FE colleges over the past five years and that that has stifled them being able to make some progress. In fact, we now see nearly half of our Welsh colleges carrying large deficits and being forced to eat into their reserves. I wonder, leader of the house, whether you can tell me what action, specifically, the Welsh Government might be able to take as a result of the savings that will be secured through changes to higher education student support in terms of some of that cash being invested into our FE sector in order to rebalance the situation in terms of parity between both forms of education.

Well, you know—you may talk. We deliver, actually, as a Welsh Labour Government. [Interruption.] I have to say that, in terms of our approach in Wales, where not only have we established—[Interruption.] We’ve established an approach to vocational and technical qualifications that we’ve actually developed in consultation with employers. We’ve benefited from collaboration, engaging with Northern Ireland and Scotland. We’ve got an internationally-recognised approach to apprenticeships, vocational and technical qualifications, as we can see by the investment and our commitment to 100,000 apprenticeships, and we have the regional skills partnerships to determine the need and demand for skills in Wales. Now, I don’t recognise the points you make at all and, of course, those employers that, for example, I met last week, who are concerned to get young people into science, technology, engineering and maths—and indeed Julie James addressed many yesterday—they see that, actually, parity of esteem with vocational opportunities is vital for young people. The apprenticeship route is one that young people aspire to and actually are now engaging with.

Along the same lines, there is YouGov research last year that showed that only 7 per cent of those between 18 and 24 were considering an apprenticeship as the best option for them, compared to 68 per cent who saw higher education as the best option for them. So, the perception still exists, doesn’t it, that there isn’t parity of esteem between vocational and academic courses. So, can I ask what the Welsh Government is doing, for example, to promote the perceptions of the Sutton Trust research, which shows that the probable earnings of the best apprentices are many thousands of pounds more over the course of their careers than of students who have been in higher education outside the Russell Group of universities—without, of course, the debts that emerge as a result of higher education?

Yes. I mean, that clearly is—. The impact of our investment in 100,000 quality apprenticeships speaks for itself: a key plank in ‘Taking Wales Forward’, recognising the value of the post-compulsory education training sector, and also the fact that it enables young people to reach their potential. As you say, the Sutton Trust research is very valuable, very pertinent, and, clearly, as well, in terms of our statutory duty to provide education for learners up to the age of 18, we have actually protected, and mitigated the brunt of funding reductions imposed by the UK Government. But, as a result of a budget agreement, we have put an additional £30 million to support further and higher education as well, which, of course, is having a huge impact in terms of targeting investment and making those opportunities for our young people real, because they can progress anyway from apprenticeships into higher education routes and into very well-paid and long-lasting jobs and careers.

Our local energy service supports communities across Wales to run share offers, gaining local support, raising local capital that keeps the benefits of renewable projects within Wales. We are looking at how these projects can continue to be developed following the UK Government’s removal of support for solar and wind.

Cabinet Secretary, these mechanisms stand within the very proud co-operative tradition of promoting local enterprise and social benefit, and particularly, for technical reasons, they are easier to use and more flexible than traditional charitable approaches, which may form alternative funding routes. And they’re an excellent way to promote community schemes in particular, and they keep income and, importantly, assets, in the local community. I do commend the efforts that have been going on in the not-for-profit sector, but I do think some Government push in this area would also be very welcome.

I agree with all the points that the Member has made. The local energy service has supported community share offers that have raised over £5.5 million since 2010, and you’ll be very aware of many of those community projects, but we want to see commercial developers work more closely with communities on shared ownership and investment. I think, importantly—and you mention the co-operative model: well, we’re very proud to have a Wales Co-operative Centre, which we are supporting to set up Community Shares Wales, and that does help communities to share experience of how they can develop these local energy services.

Caiff swyddogion traffig Llywodraeth Cymru eu lleoli yn ardal coridor ffordd ddeuol yr A55/A494/A550 o gyffordd 8 yn Llanfairpwll hyd at y ffin â Lloegr yn Sealand a Brychdyn.

As the leader of the house has just confirmed, traffic officers in north Wales patrol the A55 until Llanfairpwll. Of course, the A55 doesn’t stop at Llanfairpwll; it continues all the way across Anglesey to the port of Holyhead. This, according to police officers, is causing them problems, because it ties up resources in dealing with road accidents and so on, which doesn’t happen in other parts of north Wales. Will the Government look again at the current strategy that does stop at Llanfairpwll, in order to ensure that the A55 in its entirety benefits from the work of these traffic officers?

The Welsh Government traffic officer service, as the Member will be aware, was originally devised to cover those busier sections of the Welsh trunk road network. We actually inherited this PFI contract, as you will be aware, which has, in terms of the responsibilities—we need to look carefully at the impact of that in terms of covering those areas. But, in the north, the service area, of course, was the A55/A494, as I said, from the English border to junction 11. And we then saw that we needed to extend that cover to the Britannia bridge and thus improve its resilience.

And finally, question 9—Dafydd Elis-Thomas.

Llywydd, may I ask the leader of the house, in responding on behalf of the First Minister today:

The First Minister spoke to the Scottish First Minister yesterday and continues to have regular discussions with her, both bilaterally and in meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee and British-Irish Council.

I’m very grateful for that response, and I’m sure that the First Minister will have had an interesting conversation, as always, with the Scottish First Minister. Because there is so much in common, leader of the house, between the Scottish Government’s White Paper, ‘Scotland’s Place in Europe’, published before Christmas, and the red paper of Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government, ‘Securing Wales’ Future: Transition from the European Union to a new relationship with Europe’, does the Welsh Government see the importance, whatever the decision taken by Scotland on its constitutional future—and that’s a matter for them, of course—that there is a role for collaboration in the current negotiations within the UK and between the UK and the European Union, particularly to safeguard unfettered access to the single market for both nations?

Indeed, there is considerable common ground between our White Paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’ and the analysis by the Scottish Government on the impact of the UK leaving the EU. In particular, ‘Scotland's Place in Europe’ does emphasise, as we have, the economic importance of the single market, the vital contribution that migrant workers make to businesses and public services, and the critical need to respect devolution settlements and to develop new constitutional arrangements within the UK. And, of course, that's where the First Minister has taken the lead in calling for those arrangements. You will recall his call for a constitutional convention, and he did convene an extraordinary British-Irish Council summit last July to allow us to continue to discuss the implications of the referendum and then to take us forward in terms of ways in which we can work together and strengthen our voices.

Thank you, leader of the house.

I have accepted four urgent questions under Standing Order 12.66, and I call on Dawn Bowden to ask the first urgent question—Dawn Bowden.

I thank the Member for her question. Welsh Government met with the special rapporteur on human rights and hazardous substances and waste on 24 January. His preliminary findings and recommendations were presented in an end-of-mission statement on 31 January, and the full report will be presented to the UN human rights council in September of this year.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Before this news broke on Friday, I had met previously with some of the local residents, protesters and Merthyr council, and I'd undertaken a site visit to Ffos-y-fran, including a lengthy meeting with the operators. So, I was already very aware of the concerns surrounding the operation there, and for some time I've been seeking assurances about a range of environmental and health issues. However, I wasn't aware that a United Nations representative was visiting the area, meeting with local residents and proposing to make a public pronouncement.

It is of course right that the rapporteur undertakes whatever studies he deems fit, but I was somewhat surprised that he appears to have made statements to the media without detailed discussions with those bodies criticised in his report. Nor did he seek discussions with the local elected representatives, either at the council, with myself as the AM, or with my colleague Gerald Jones as the MP before producing his report, to establish a wider view of actions taken.

At this stage, Cabinet Secretary, I think it’s probably difficult for me to take an informed view on the rapporteur’s conclusions, although I would of course welcome any legitimate call for an inquiry into any potential health impact of the Ffos-y-fran operation if the evidence suggests that that is necessary.

One particular area of the report where I do absolutely share his concern, however, is the future maintenance of standards in the UK of public health and environmental protection post Brexit. If you’ve seen the report, Cabinet Secretary, you will know that he calls on the UK Government to fulfil its human rights obligations on air pollution, protecting the rights of children, women of productive age, the elderly and those of poor health, who are especially vulnerable to toxic chemicals, in developing the new plan to tackle this air pollution crisis.

So, can you assure me, Cabinet Secretary, that the Welsh Government will work with the UK Government and the United Nations to consider any concerns highlighted in this report in relation to Ffos-y-fran in particular, but also, more generally, those relating to human rights around environmental protections, both now and post Brexit?

The very short answer to your question is ‘yes’. We will continue to work with all of those parties. I am aware that the Minister did meet with the rapporteur, and it is certainly unique, his opinion. But if the Member has any concerns she would like to raise specifically about Ffos-y-fran, I’m sure the Minister accordingly would welcome a letter from the Member.

Cabinet Secretary, further to my colleague here, residents living alongside the Ffos-y-fran opencast mine have long campaigned against air and noise pollution. There is anecdotal evidence of very high rates of childhood asthma and cancer clusters within the community. I would like to ask a couple of questions, Minister, if you’d kindly reply. If there is no independent investigation, what action will the Welsh Government take to monitor the potential health impact on the community of this opencast mine, and will they commission their own study?

The second is: the Welsh Assembly has imposed a 500m buffer zone between new opencast mines in Wales and the community that surrounds them. I remember in previous Assembly sessions Bethan Jenkins raised this point in her area. A lot of points were actually agreed by the Assembly that opencast mines should not be near the housing areas, yet the nearest houses to Ffos-y-fran are only 40m away from the mining activities, which is against our laws and rules here. Does the Cabinet Secretary believe that the residents should be entitled to some form of compensation for the disturbance they are being forced to suffer in this case?

The other one is: what discussions have the Welsh Government had in the past, and what discussions do they intend to have, with Miller Argent, the mining company, about negating the effect of their mining operation on the local community?

Finally, Minister, will the Welsh Government agree to consider the contents of this report and bring forward a statement to this Assembly in the near future with any changes it proposes to make to planning regulations on opencast sites in Wales? Thank you.

I’m very aware of the emotive issues around opencast mining. The Ffos-y-fran site was granted permission in April of 2005. It was subject then to an environmental impact assessment. This meant that all relevant issues, including cumulative effects, and those relating to health, were taken into account as part of that decision-making process. The report the Member raises is being presented to the UN human rights council, and not to us. I will ask the Minister on her return to have a consideration about this, and I will ask her to write to Members in accordance with her views.

First, I think I need to say that the response of Miller Argent to this report is insulting and undermines the severity of the situation. Describing this as ‘fake news’—a report from a UN rapporteur—is frankly disgusting and is outrageous considering that the local community have been raising these concerns for some time. I’m also very concerned that Merthyr county council responded by dismissing legitimate concerns and everyday experiences of residents as

‘limited and unsubstantiated comments from some members of the community’.

So, first, I’d like to ask you here today: will you join with me in condemning those very comments, considering that these are not unsubstantiated and these are views that have been raised with you when you were the former environment Minister for this Assembly? I’d also like to understand where your plans are now with regard to the restoration discussions that you had in your previous role as Minister. Many of us took part in that. Where do they stand? Restoration at Ffos-y-fran is very piecemeal as opposed to it being constructive and long-term and we’d like to understand where that is going.

I’ve also raised concerns about the coal MTAN and the fact that that is not strong enough. It needs to be amended and changed. It needs to be put into legislation. Can you commit, if this UN rapporteur is to be taken seriously, that you as a Government will try and work to your best possible action in making sure that we have these issues dealt with, so that future opencast mining applications are not dealt with in the same way, and that ones in areas such as East Pit in Cwmllynfell and Margam are also treated in the same manner?

I thank the Member for the question. As always, she is very robust in her views on opencast mining. This Government takes very seriously the health implications and planning conditions presented in all our communities and takes that very seriously in the technical advice notes and planning guidance that we issue to planning authorities. What is really important is that any observation made by the special rapporteur is evidence based. I will be very interested to see the detail of that plan and his completed presentation.

The Member will be aware that the planning Minister will make views on the MTAN 2 and the subsequent discussions that took place around the deliberations around what MTAN 2 was made up of. I will ask her to respond to you directly on that issue as I’m no longer the planning Minister in those terms.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

I now call on Lee Waters to ask the second urgent question—Lee Waters.

The BBC board member for Wales must be fully able to champion the diverse needs of the Welsh people. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport did not agree and we could not support her recommendation. Strong candidates were available. The Secretary of State refused to discuss them with me.

Thank you, Minister. The BBC, in their reporting of Dr Carol Bell as the preferred candidate of the UK Government, has quoted a UK Government source as saying that the Welsh Government had

‘seen fit to veto the secretary of state’s choice of candidate’.

Could you explain to the National Assembly the Welsh Government’s role in the process of having a BBC board member for Wales? Was it simply as a rubber stamp or was it meant to have a substantive role? Did it, in fact, have a substantive role? Would he also tell us where he thinks this leaves us now? What is the timeline for the appointment of a Welsh board member? The rest of the board is now in place and is beginning its work.

Finally, the Assembly’s Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee strongly recommended that any Welsh representative of the BBC board should be subject to a pre-confirmation hearing by the National Assembly. That did not happen in this case. As I understand, that’s because of the timeline being hurried. Now that there’s less time pressure on the appointment of a BBC board member for Wales, would he agree with the cross-party committee that it should have a chance to talk to and question the person who is appointed, before you give the consent of the Welsh Government to that appointment?

Presiding Officer, I’m sure you will agree with me and Members across the whole of the Chamber that the deliberate, I assume, leaking of the name of any individual who applied for this post, as happened yesterday, is to be regretted and is entirely contrary to the standards we expect of the public appointments process. It is a gross infringement of their personal privacy.

At the same time, it is clear from media reports that the United Kingdom Government and their sources have sought to undermine this Government, undermine me as a Minister, and to brief against decisions that we have taken, all done unanimously. Let me say this: however we seek to conduct inter-governmental relationships within the United Kingdom, this is a textbook example of how not do it. The Welsh Government reached an agreement with the United Kingdom Government on the appointment of this person to represent Wales on the board. The Welsh Government was represented on the recruitment panel. Interviews for the post took place in Cardiff on 14 February. It was clear from those interviews that there were a number of very well thought of candidates and a number of appointable candidates. Not all of these were unanimously agreed upon, and some were judged to be stronger than others. Their relative merits were set out very clearly in the panel report, which was seen by both the Secretary of State and me. I was confident of being able to make a good appointment. I was therefore shocked to receive a letter from the Secretary of State on 27 February, where she said she was minded to recommend a candidate who was not one of those unanimously agreed stronger candidates. I was also shocked that I was given 24 hours to respond to this letter. I was even more shocked to discover that the Secretary of State was unwilling to even discuss the other candidates with me. She insisted that we either accept her choice or, in her words, we veto it, forcing a rerun of the competition. This, Presiding Office, despite her own Permanent Secretary accepting via e-mail that there were other stronger candidates, and despite my assurance that we would be happy to agree a choice from those other stronger candidates.

Presiding Officer, at no point have I expressed an opinion as to who I believe the strongest candidate for this post would be. What I’ve said very clearly is that Wales deserves the best, and the candidate that the appointment panel believes is the best candidate. And I will not be told by any Secretary of State that I have no choice in this matter, and I will not be told then by anonymous UK Government sources that I have the temerity to exercise the power available to me. I have the right to exercise that power available to me, and whenever the UK Government behaves in this way, we will exercise that right.

Presiding Officer, I am profoundly disappointed with where we are. I am profoundly disappointed with the actions, the attitude and the tone of the Secretary of State, and I am profoundly disappointed that the United Kingdom Government is not willing to act in the best interests of Wales in this matter.

I’m profoundly disappointed as well, Minister, because the bottom line here is that there is an empty chair on that board. Wales is not there. The board itself has an incomplete skill set and it’s missing a range of skills, which the Secretary of State clearly believed her preferred candidate had. That decision was made from a shortlist after open competition. They were interviewed by a panel, which included a Welsh Government representative. That panel will have agreed the candidates who were over the line and recommended accordingly. There was, as I say, a Welsh Government representative on that panel. In those circumstances, I think, Minister, you must give your reasons, beyond what you’ve already told us today, about why you disagreed with the Secretary of State’s individual conclusion. There is a skills gap on that board now. What was wrong with the individual candidate who was chosen, and what that individual could have offered?

You may not have expressed a preference about who you would have liked to seen appointed. Will you tell this Assembly if there was a candidate you had a preference for, and whether any candidate on that shortlist might have had a closer relationship with your party than the one who was chosen? If not, if you’re not prepared to tell us those reasons today, I will draw my own conclusions on cronyism.

I will not join the Conservative Party this afternoon in rubbishing individuals who apply for public appointments, and I will not join the Conservative Party in making those allegations against individuals who apply and who have a right. I believe that everybody who applies for public appointments has the right to expect their application to remain confidential. It is a matter of record that the United Kingdom Government sources have placed these names on the record and I regret that. I will not join you in doing so.

But let me say this to the Conservative Party: the panel that interviewed the candidates and who made an agreement was very, very clear in who it felt were the stronger candidates and who it did not feel were the stronger candidates. My representative on that panel wrote to the Permanent Secretary of the DCMS the following day on 15 February. He said in that e-mail, ‘That makes this candidate’—and I’m paraphrasing—‘not appointable.’ That e-mail I can read from this afternoon. The Permanent Secretary to the DCMS replied to my official agreeing that the candidate in question was not the strongest candidate. It would not be acceptable for me, as a Minister, in this role to accept any candidate who is not the strongest candidate, whoever they might be. I understand the roles and responsibilities of this place. I recognise that we have to have the very best people on the BBC board. The BBC board needs a wide range of those different responsibilities, experiences and skills. But one of them, one of them, must have the role to be the very best representative that Wales can have on that board and I will not compromise on that.

I think from hearing the questions so far they exemplify the point made by Lee Waters as to why we do need to have pre-hearings within the parliamentary structures. The UK Parliament does have that condition when they are putting forward names and I think that’s something that we should be able to do. But I didn’t hear you answer the question with regard to whether you think that that is something that, now we’re in this new position, we should be able to do as a communications committee. We have written as a committee to the Scottish Parliament to ask what they’re processes are and whether they had a pre-parliamentary hearing. I would like to hear your views here today because whatever the names that are floating about, whatever the personalities involved, I think it’s important that, as a legislature, we have that view. Considering the fact that under the new charter there will be a new licence for Wales, there will be new conditions placed upon BBC Wales and this, surely, is a new hinterland by which we can have that discussion. I am very concerned to hear that they did not listen to your views as Minister. I would like to be satisfied here today that in any future process you will be able to work with them constructively and that we will not face this issue again, because, of course, it’s important that we do have the Welsh representative there, but we need a Welsh representative there who understands Wales and who can then bring our views forward on a more positive basis in the future. Thank you.

It’s clear, Presiding Officer, that there’s a great deal of concern across the Chamber. I will, therefore, place my final letter to the Secretary of State, dated 7 March, in the library of the National Assembly for all Members to be able to take a view on that and the process that’s been followed.

In terms of the question asked by both Bethan Jenkins and Lee Waters on the role of the communications committee, I see a significant role for that committee and for this legislature in holding to account the BBC and other broadcasters. I believe that this process in its entirety needs to be reviewed, and prior to us moving forward with a rerun of this process, we need prior agreement from the DCMS on the structure and nature of that process. I felt, quite frankly, that we could work on the basis of trust and respect between administrations in this country. It is clear to me that we cannot work on that basis and that we need to review the process.

I feel very disappointed that we have not had the opportunity to have the conversation that we needed to have. The Secretary of State refused to discuss any other candidate with me, despite my repeated request to discuss any other candidate. Contrary to the views I hear being expressed opposite, I did not during the process, I have not today and I will not express a preference for any single candidate. I regard the best candidate for appointment as the one who I would want to see appointed to represent Wales, whoever he or she may be. But I certainly do see a significant role for the National Assembly for Wales in the future in holding Governments and broadcasters to account.

Thank you Minister.

I now call on Andrew R.T. Davies to ask the next urgent question. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Yes. Can I thank the Member and refer him to the written statement issued yesterday. The intra-Wales air service review has been completed and once findings have been analysed I will make a further announcement. In the meantime, I’m pleased that we have agreed a rolling contract with Eastern Airways to operate the service.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, and thank you for your statement that was issued yesterday clarifying some of the measures that the Welsh Government has put in place. As a user of this service, I can literally leave my front door and be in north Wales by 8.40 a.m., and coming off the Isle of Anglesey. I fully support the service if it was commercially viable, and it is disheartening now that this is the third time in 18 months that the operator has either gone out of business or had its safety certificate withdrawn. There is a considerable Government subsidy that is put into this air link of £1.2 million. I believe that £0.5 million is also spent on the terminal and the running of the terminal up in north Wales on RAF Valley.

So, what is crystal clear now is that, with the review that you’ve commissioned, there does need to be a full evaluation of the options available to make this route more commercially viable or, regrettably, actually bring an end to this route because, obviously, the taxpayer really is not getting value for money when you look at the sums involved and, regrettably, the passenger numbers who are using it. And I regret that, because, as I said, as someone who supports the service, I’d like to see a more commercially viable route developed in this instance, but we can’t carry on as we are, every six months or so, with an operator either going out of business or having its safety licence withdrawn. Can you indicate what the current commercial terms are that you’ve had to engage the new operator on, because in your statement you indicate that there is an additional expense that you’re having to incur, and I think it is only right and fair that we understand what that expense is, because you have a limited budget and that money must come from that budget? Can you also indicate the timeline where you will be bringing forward the evaluation that you have made as Cabinet Secretary of the report that you’ve commissioned? You talk of a number of weeks. I’ve most probably been here long enough to know that a number of weeks can be many things in response—and I mean this with the greatest respect—from Government Ministers, and I think it is important that we get clarity on that. And thirdly, can you confirm that this evaluation has looked at all the options? There were no no-go areas, because I know my colleague from Clwyd West has championed the ability to establish a route to north-east Wales, rather than just focusing solely on north-west Wales.

Can I thank the Member for his questions and his keen interest in this area? I’m pleased, first of all, that the intra-Wales air service was saved; it was the only one of Van Air Europe’s air services to be saved, and that was as a consequence of tireless work by my team within Government over the weekend, and particularly during Saturday. My heart goes out to the many passengers on other Van Air services who have been left stranded in Northern Ireland and on the Isle of Man, but we do now have a rolling agreement with Eastern Airways to provide the service.

Now, we are using, as I’ve outlined already, the budget that we would ordinarily use for Van Air and Citywing. However, as the Member indicated, we are having to contribute a small but not insignificant sum to maintain the service during this period. This resource is available within the existing budget for the north-south air link. However, last year, as the Member outlined, I did request a thorough—a thorough—review of the intra-Wales air service, which has looked at a wide range of options, from ceasing the service entirely to changing service patterns, increasing provision, looking at the actual type of aircraft that’s used and also assessing whether alternative options in terms of connectivity are available in the short and medium term. We’ve also looked at the potential of using other airports, not just in north-east Wales—but I take what the Member says about Hawarden Airport—but other small airports in Wales.

The report has taken longer than expected due to a range of factors, but it is being finalised this month, and I’ll therefore be in a position to assess it over the Easter period, with a view of making an announcement on the future of the service in the next term. This service is not just important to Anglesey; it’s also significant for Cardiff and south-east Wales, ensuring that we are a better-connected and united nation. But I will need to consider the recommendations of the review alongside the recent operator problems. And, as I say, I aim to make an announcement as soon as possible regarding the long-term future of this air service.

I’m grateful to the Minister and officials for making sure that the service was able to continue without a break. The leader of the Conservatives says that he lives within spitting distance of the airport in Cardiff and he says that he uses the service from time to time to get up to Anglesey, but, as somebody who is somewhat isolated from those five-hour journeys from north to south Wales, it doesn’t surprise me that he is sanguine about the possibility of losing the air service, unless it is commercially viable.

We know that all transport, to a lesser or a greater extent, is subsidised by public funds. That is the reality of the way transport works, and I would be grateful for a few assurances from the Cabinet Secretary now that he agrees with me that this isn’t, by now, a desirable service, but that it is a vital part of the transport mix, that it is a crucial business link for many people in businesses wishing to do business between north and south Wales, and that it has become crucial for the conduct of public service in Wales. This is not just a means for people from the frozen north to come down to Cardiff; this is a means for Government Ministers to make sure that they are able to keep close ties with the north of Wales. So, I’d be grateful if he would confirm that it is vital, now, as part of our transport mix.

I would be grateful for assurances that any changes to services—and, of course, services must be reviewed—would not lead to a position where a flight from the north would get into Cardiff later, or would leave Cardiff earlier, because a flight needs to be practical and it needs to work in a way that allows people to conduct their business. In actual fact, I would ask him also to confirm whether he has considered means by which the flight could arrive in Cardiff earlier in the morning and leave later in the day in order to extend the working day for people connecting to the capital city. Also, it is a frequent request to expand air services, and I’d be grateful for comments on what kind of expansion he has in mind, including, perhaps, links to London that I know we had an opportunity, informally, to discuss yesterday.

Finally, on a practical note for those who’ve already bought tickets with Citywing, there was an issue when the last company went out of business and people had to reclaim their money from a company that had gone into liquidation. We know how difficult that was and that will be the same in this case. Could the Minister tell us what efforts the Government will put in to ensure that those who have paid for tickets will be able to have the best chance possible of getting reimbursement?

Can I thank the Member for his questions and take the last question first? Officials are already talking to Citywing about the potential to claw back the cost of the tickets. We’ve been very clear—and we were over the weekend—that passengers are able to go to either Anglesey or Cardiff airports and catch the flights on Eastern Airways with the bookings made through Citywing. But, in terms of those bookings that may have been lost, or where passengers are not willing to travel with Eastern Airways, consumer protection law applies as normal, as well as the well-established air travel organisers licence protections. But I would gladly take up any cases that the Member may have of passengers who have been left out of pocket as a consequence of Citywing’s demise.

It’s not just the public sector—although the public sector clearly has considerable benefit from this service—that relies on it. We believe that approximately half of the journeys that are taken on the air service are taken by people representing private sector interests. So, it’s actually a very important service for both the private and public sectors. The review will consider whether it’s merely important or whether it is, indeed, vital. I wouldn’t wish to prejudge the outcome of that review. I’ll also consider whether the North Wales Economic Ambition Board has deemed the intra-Wales air service to be a key component of any growth bid deal, and I’ll also be listening to the views of local authorities across north Wales.

It is essential that we have good, frequent transport links with the north of the country, as a Member, like Rhun ap Iorwerth, who represents a northern constituency. But any form of public transport must be sustainable, and we must ensure that we don’t just keep pumping subsidy into a service that is seeing a reducing number of passengers. There must be alternatives, whether that’s through increasing the number of passengers, and, in this regard, I think it’s important that we consider the future demand through Wylfa coming on stream and other economic developments on Anglesey and in the north of Wales. All of these factors are being considered within the review, and I’m looking forward to receiving it in the very short term.

Cabinet Minister, I understand that Loganair has operated a successful operation connecting the Orkney islands to Kirkwall on the Scottish mainland for some eight years. Would the Cabinet Secretary consider looking at the model used for this service, given the collapse of the third operator on the north Wales-to-Cardiff route? And will he also consider the use of Hawarden aerodrome as an alternative to Valley, Anglesey? And I also understand that there are new models of aircraft now—single-engined—which carry the same number of passengers. When he’s looking at those who will provide the service, will he be considering the type of aircraft used?

Can I thank the Member for his questions? One of the big challenges that we have with Anglesey is the type of aircraft and civil aircraft that can fly into and out of Anglesey without the need for additional investment in the infrastructure there. So, we would need to look at investing in facilities and the infrastructure if we were to increase the size of aircraft that operate to and from the airport. I’ve always held the belief that Hawarden airport could offer considerable benefits for the north Wales economy as well, but there are problems again with the infrastructure there, because the runway is quite a bit shorter than normal airport runways. So, again, investment would be required there. There are also challenges to overcome in terms of securing the slots that would satisfy Airbus, who rely on that particular runway to bring in and to take out components for aircraft manufactured in Toulouse.

The Member does raise the interesting point of Loganair. This is a service that we’ve examined very closely. We’re trying to learn as many lessons as possible from around the world insofar as how air services can operate in a sustainable way within a small country. Again, that information will be available to me as part of the review that’s being undertaken.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

I now call on Darren Millar to ask the fourth urgent question. Darren Millar.

Thank you for the question. The servers were provided by a third-party company named Landauer. They informed Velindre NHS Trust on 17 January 2017 that they had been subject to cybersecurity attack on 6 October 2016 and that staff information had been accessed. Landauer has confirmed that the breach occurred on its UK servers at its headquarters in Oxfordshire, and full details of the incident were provided to Velindre by Landauer on 26 January 2017.

Thank you for that statement, Cabinet Secretary. This is an astonishing data security breach affecting thousands of NHS workers right across Wales. At the moment, we know that NHS staff in the Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board have been informed, all 654 of them. We know also that the Velindre trust has informed its members of staff, but, as yet, we’re unaware that other members of staff in all the other health boards across Wales have been actually informed. I wonder whether you could tell us today: when will they get to know about the fact that their personal details, including their dates of birth, national insurance numbers, alongside their names, have potentially been leaked to third parties and could be abused in terms of fraudulent activity? People can change their bank account numbers, they can change their passwords, but they cannot change their national insurance numbers. This is something that goes around with them for the rest of their life, and potentially this information could be misused five, 10, 15, 20 years down the line.

So, I wonder what action the Welsh Government is taking to ensure that health boards take their responsibility to inform staff very quickly seriously. Can you tell us why there has been a delay between the NHS having been informed of this breach and staff being informed? When did the Welsh Government first become aware of this data security breach, and why did we not receive at that time a briefing as Assembly Members in order that we could liaise with health boards and reassure our constituents about the problems that this might cause? And did the Welsh Government give instructions to sit on this information at all? I think these are important questions. I don’t doubt that there was some discussion between the Welsh Government and the health boards about this particular breach, but I wonder what advice was given to those health boards, when they became aware of the breach, about communicating with their staff. It’s very clearly the biggest data breech that I’ve ever been aware of in the NHS in Wales. It’s a serious breach, and we need to understand precisely how this happened and what can be done to prevent it from happening again in the future.

Thank you for that series of questions. Presiding Officer, it might be of help to confirm that I will issue a written statement to Members during the course of this week to provide some fuller detail, which I don’t think we’ll be able to deal with in today’s urgent question. I appreciate that a number of Members will have a range of questions and interests for their own constituents. But if I can be as helpful as I can in answering the series of questions that the Member has asked: the data breach is serious—of course it’s serious—and it’s a breach that affects staff in both England and Scotland as well as in Wales. The company involved provide an integrated service for a range of different healthcare organisations right across the UK. So, they take this seriously, but there are obvious questions to ask, and that I myself will want to be reassured on, about the time lag in the breach occurring, the company being aware and NHS Wales organisations being informed. There is a full and proper investigation that is being undertaken. I don’t think, in honesty, Presiding Officer, I’ll be able to inform Members of all those matters because I don’t expect that the investigation will be completed this week, but I’ll certainly reassure Members that, as soon as that information is available, I will provide a further statement to Members as well.

We should not forget that this breach took place as a result of a criminal act. I can also happily confirm that no instruction whatsoever has been provided by the Welsh Government to NHS Wales to sit on this information. I think that sort of accusation is deeply unhelpful, and there will be members of staff, who are our constituents, who will be worried, but NHS organisations inform us that they expect every single member of staff to be informed by the end of this week. Part of the challenge though, Presiding Officer, is that a number of the staff who were affected by data security breach no longer work for the national health service in Wales, as well. That explains part of the challenge, but obviously I’ll want current and former members of staff to be told as quickly as possible. As I say, I’ll provide a written statement within the course of this week, and subsequently when further and fuller detail is available.

Before I ask my question, can I remind the Chamber that my wife’s a radiographer and is therefore probably on that list of those whose data was breached? Cabinet Secretary, thank you for the answers you’ve given, and I look forward to the written statements you’ll be providing. But, clearly, as well as the data breach issues, there are questions as to what type of information was held and what type of information should be held, because I don’t think that the information I’m hearing about is appropriate for such a database, in that sense. What is the Welsh Government doing to ensure that, in future, the data that are going to be held on personnel are only relevant to the particular topic that they are being held for, and not actually on a wider basis. For example, I’m hearing about perhaps even addresses. Well, people’s addresses are not relevant to this information. So, it is important that we clarify what data is going on, and will he undertake a survey and a review of that type of data to ensure that, in future, only relevant data are held on individuals for particular purposes?

And can he also ensure that people are informed? You’ve indicated this week that they will be. My wife, when I spoke to her yesterday—she was off yesterday—hadn’t been informed of the breach, and therefore I’m assuming her colleagues hadn’t been informed of the breach in ABMU. In that sense, it is important that people are told what information is being held about them, what could have be lost on their behalf, so that they can review that information. Because, I’m hearing that Landauer are actually offering two years free access to Experian. Well, this could be longer than that to start with, and why should somebody have to keep looking at this website day after day to see if they’re in risk of actually having their identity stolen?

There are transparently serious consequences that flow from the data breach, and, for example, the national insurance numbers were used in order to have a unique identifier for individuals, because this is about tracking the individual’s exposure to radiation. So, you need a unique identifier, and there are challenges to review, again, how that is done. I also accept that there are challenges to be properly dealt with about the appropriate level of personal information to be kept and transferred, and then to ensure that people are properly informed, not just at this point in time, but I accept that this is not something that is necessarily going to just disappear over a period of months. So, there are plainly questions to resolve, and, as I said, Presiding Officer, I don’t think I can honestly give Members all of the answers to the questions they will quite rightly have and expect to be answered. That is why I’ll issue a written statement now and I’ll issue any further statement once that full and proper investigation has been done, because the questions David Rees raises are entirely understandable, and Members across this Chamber will have those concerns on behalf of their constituents, regardless of whether they are relevant or not. But, they are entirely fair questions.

Cabinet Secretary, this is the latest data breach to hit our health service, and this particular breach is devastating for the staff concerned. Although no patient data were involved on this occasion, it does highlight the concerns of many that the NHS cannot be trusted with personal information. Earlier this month, a former nurse was sacked by Hywel Dda university health board for breaching patient confidentiality. Yesterday, we learned that a north Wales physiotherapist has been suspended for removing patient files without consent. Cabinet Secretary, these data breaches do little to restore faith amongst the Welsh public that their sensitive health information is in safe hands with the Welsh NHS. Other countries have introduced legislation protecting health information over and above the existing data protection legislation. Do you think it’s time that we followed suit so that we can reassure the Welsh public and NHS staff that their sensitive information is safe?

I do try to be constructive in response, Presiding Officer, but I think that much of what was just said was deeply unhelpful. The accusation that the NHS cannot be trusted with information and then trying to draw a link between a data breach from a criminal act, where, of course, we want to ensure that cybersecurity on sensitive information is appropriate and up-to-date, as far as possible, against what we know is a continually evolving criminal community who are acquiring these data—to try to draw a link between that and individual professionals who have failed in their duty to their profession and to the people they are responsible to and for, I just think is deeply unhelpful. I do not accept that there is an appropriate link to be drawn.

Rather than attempting to scare members of the public about the safety of NHS data and suggesting the answer lies in the law—I don’t think the answer does lie in the law. It’s about our systems for protecting those data and in providing assurance for people who access those data that they can be trusted. If they breach their very clear obligations, either as employees, as healthcare professionals or in terms of breaching the law, then they can expect to be pursued for those breaches, but, actually, the important point about health data is of course you want them to be secure, but we want them to be shared. Members regularly ask me in committee and in this Chamber, ‘How can we ensure that health data and information are shared between healthcare professionals, because there is much healthcare gain to be made in the sharing of those data?’ We want secure systems, we want professionals who can be trusted and held accountable if they breach those obligations, and that is the basis on which I will continue to act in balancing all of those different aspects, but ensuring, ultimately, the best interests of the patient will guide what we do and do not do.

I feel great sympathy towards the individuals working in the NHS who have been affected in this way and also, of course, those who are working outside the NHS in Wales who also have been affected. I do, however, think that the Velindre hospital trust that runs the radiation protection service based in my constituency of Cardiff North has responded appropriately to this incident, which was, of course, beyond their control. I do feel reassured that, certainly in the case of the Velindre staff who have been affected, enough support has been given to the 530 individuals affected. I know that as well as having the letter—individual letters sent to the individuals involved—there has also been the opportunity for individual consultation with all those people affected where they can ask any particular questions and can raise any queries. So, would the Cabinet Secretary agree that the other health boards that are in the process of informing their members of staff that this breach may have occurred—that individual consultation is also offered, because I think that is a way of reassuring, so that they are able to have face-to-face meetings?

Also, I think that it is important, obviously, that individuals are informed as swiftly as possible, but it’s also very important that the right individuals, at the right addresses and in the right trusts are informed. With the thousands who have been affected by this, it’s absolutely essential that there is time to establish that you are not, for example, contacting somebody who may have died in the interim, but you are actually contacting somebody who is actually there, working in the trust, and has been affected by this. So, there is bound to be an inevitable time lag while all these details are looked into. Would the Cabinet Secretary agree that it is essential that care is taken over reaching the individuals involved, but that it should be done as quickly as possible?

I thank the Member for pointing out the balance to be struck in ensuring that people are informed as soon as possible and, at the same time, that there is accuracy in those people that are informed. You’re right; over 3,000 NHS staff have been affected, but there are a number of people outside the NHS affected as well. I do think that other health organisations could look at what Velindre have done in providing the support and guidance that you mentioned, and also the fact that all Velindre staff have now been contacted and provided with that support and guidance. I believe that Velindre have also managed to write to their former staff now as well. So, there does need to be care taken and attention paid when reaching staff within and outside the NHS—those who are no longer employed by the NHS—ensuring that there is real accuracy in that and, of course, that those members are updated as the picture evolves as to what happened and why, and what will then be done afterwards as a consequence.

I draw Members’ attention to my register of interests and my wife’s employment as a radiographer. Can I welcome his reassurances today, but also the fact that he’ll bring forward a more detailed written statement? I suspect that we may have to come back at some point in the future as well with an even more detailed statement. Perhaps some of the questions I have might help guide his subsequent responses. First of all, do we know now the full extent of those who have been affected by this data attack—this cyber-attack—or do we feel that it could actually spread beyond those that have already been reported in the press and media? Secondly, have all those who have been affected—that we know have been affected—been informed? It would be good to get that reassurance. Secondly, if not now, how soon can those who suspect that they may have been affected, but actually are in the clear, be informed that they have nothing to worry about? Thirdly, do we know that this is, or will the investigation tell us whether this is the result of an aggressive cyber-attack that could not be defended against? Or if we find that, actually, this is a—. We don’t know this yet, but if the investigation turns up that this is a lapse in the defence and the levels of defence that were there, what liabilities does the private company or the health board have to those people who are affected? Finally, looking further ahead, and following the questions from Darren, knowing that the repercussions of this could spread, not in the months ahead but the years ahead, could we seek some assurance of what responsibility and what liability the company, the health board and others may have to those individuals who may be affected, who may be affected by data theft, credit loss and many other more serious eventualities way down the line? What protections are they now given because of this data breach?

I thank the Member for the series of questions. I believe that the figures published are accurate. They identify the—. Our understanding is that over 4,700 staff in Wales had their data stolen from the server of the private contractor—as I say, from their servers based in Oxfordshire. I’m not aware of those affected in Scotland or in England. Those are matters for colleagues in the UK Government and in the Scottish Government. Again, I’m happy to say that my understanding and expectations are that, by the end of this week, all staff who have not been informed will have been, and that should provide reassurance to people that have not been informed. But I take on board the point that there will be people who will be genuinely concerned about whether their data has been accessed and they have not been informed as of yet.

On your finishing point on whether or not there is potential liability, well, that’s what we will need to understand as the report concludes, as to what happened in this instance, how promptly action was or was not taken, and then ultimately the respective obligations of both the NHS and the contractor. This is a specialist contractor who provides healthcare services of this type, as I say, within the UK, but also on a global basis as well. It is my understanding this is not a data breach that results from a careless leaving of a disk or a pen drive in a public place, as we’ve seen, sadly, in the recent past, but that this was a cyber-attack upon the servers. So, it’s not a case of data being left carelessly, but of course we want to look at what sort of cybersecurity this particular company had at the time, and equally, I know that Members want to be reassured that there has been an appropriate response to the attack that has taken place. So, as I say, I’ll provide as much information as I can do to be helpful in my first written statement, but as I’ve said earlier, I expect to provide a second written statement once a report is available and we’re able to share that with Members and the wider public, who will understandably be concerned.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on our agenda is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the leader of the house, Jane Hutt.

There is one change to this week’s business. Business Committee has agreed to reduce the time allocated to tomorrow’s questions to the Assembly Commission. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, could we have a statement, please, on the St Athan aerospace park? We’ve only recently had the good news around the Aston Martin development of the Red Dragon hangar, but some years ago, obviously, Cardiff Aviation set up at the aviation park, and they’ve faced some considerable commercial challenges. Welsh Government put a considerable sum of money into Cardiff Aviation locating at the aerospace park, on the pretext of creating a certain number of jobs, running into the hundreds. They have had a challenging commercial time there and trading has been quite challenging. There are also other businesses located on the aviation park that have obviously experienced difficulties with the runway being open over weekends and night-time working, in particular. So I would be grateful if you could secure a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for the economy to outline those two aspects: one, how the aviation park is now working—in particular around 24/7 working, and in particular the ability to bring planes in and out; and, secondly, with the specific request about Cardiff Aviation, considering the considerable amount of public money that went in to secure this relocation, and in particular, the jobs associated with the company, what measures is the Welsh Government taking to make sure that job targets are being met? And if there are any doubts about those job targets, what action has been taken to safeguard the public money that has been put into this company?

Thank you for those questions. On the first question, St Athan aerospace business park, of course, is part of the enterprise zone, and I’m very familiar, again, with the 24/7 working issues, which obviously is where Welsh Government has to secure the support of the Ministry of Defence and also the Civil Aviation Authority. So, I certainly will ask the Cabinet Secretary for an update on those arrangements, but obviously it’s not just Welsh Government here, in terms of responsibilities for securing that, in terms of security and aviation safety. On your second point, again, in terms of Cardiff Aviation, that is a matter that I will draw to the attention of the Cabinet Secretary.

I’m just raising the issue with regard to Juhel Miah in my constituency, my region, again. I know that other AMs have. I’ve had communication with him this week, you see, stating that he hasn’t had any response from the First Minister. The First Minister obviously wrote to the US authorities with regard to the fact he was taken off the train to America—. Train? Plane. That would be interesting—new technology. And so, he’s very concerned that he hasn’t has a response from the First Minister. Obviously, he welcomes the fact that the First Minister has made those representations, but would like to know what has come from those communications, so that he can understand what next to do. I’m going to meet him at the end of this week, but I think if he could get assurances from the First Minister before I meet with him, I would be very grateful, considering that he feels in quite a vulnerable position having been treated in this way, but not understanding why, as a schoolteacher, as a British citizen, he has been treated in this manner.

I will certainly raise that with the First Minister. I am aware that he not only, of course, as you know, wrote the letter clarifying the position, but he has also—. I think I understand that he might have had a response from that letter from the Foreign Secretary, so it is now an opportunity to update on that position. Thank you for raising it.

Last week, I held a meeting with the senior management of Barclays bank after it announced it was making 100 people redundant at its Llanishen mortgage advice centre. Many of these people have been working there for many years—20 years or more—and are highly skilled. So, it is a real body blow that these skilled workers are going to be made redundant. Would she be able to ask for a statement about what the Welsh Government can do to support workers like these, who have been working for this one company for many, many years and who feel that their skills have been thrown away?

I think this is another disappointing announcement from another major high street bank, and we’ve had them in all our constituencies across Wales—and also, indeed, Yorkshire Building Society; another one very recently. We've been aware of Barclays’s restructuring programme, and it obviously is a trend, as we've said—an unfortunate trend—in terms of the banking sector. So, the Cabinet Secretary for infrastructure and economy has written to Barclays, urging them to reconsider the decision. We want to safeguard jobs across Wales. We will, obviously, help in terms of staff facing redundancy. I think it's worth mentioning the ReAct III programme. That provides a comprehensive package of support to people in Wales affected by redundancy, and, of course, that is something where possible new employment is to be found soon after redundancy, preventing progression into long-term unemployment. So, there's been contact made between Barclays and Careers Wales and Jobcentre Plus. We've also alerted our employer contacts, including the Welsh contact centre forum, about the possibility of skilled staff coming into the jobs market over the next few years, and they're going to work, where they can, with Barclays and affected employees. Yesterday, a fast-expanding customer service venture, Firstsource, announced that it's going to begin a two-day recruitment event later this week, hoping to create a further 300 jobs in Cardiff—Discovery House, as we know, in Cardiff Bay, and Oakleigh House in the city centre. Also, we have the Vodafone announcement of 100 new customer service jobs. So, I think all these connections will be made to give some hope and prospects to those people who may unfortunately lose their jobs, particularly in terms of your constituency and the Llanishen mortgage advice contact centre.

Could I call for a single statement on police funding in the context of the apprenticeship levy? As you may know, police forces in England can access funding for apprenticeships through the new digital apprenticeship service account there, but, in Wales, the Welsh Government approach, which is different, means that Welsh forces can't. When I raised this in the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee, regarding our inquiry into the apprenticeship levy with the skills Minister, I highlighted their need for access to funding for accredited courses in Welsh colleges, where they are contributing over £2 million a year to the levy, but currently can't access it. I was told that the Welsh Government would instead strike up a grant or contract arrangements in dialogue with the college policing, and that they had meetings in the diary with the police and crime commissioners in Wales. Well, last weekend, I was informed that those meetings with the police and crime commissioners had been cancelled and not rescheduled. In that context, this Assembly merits a statement to bring us up to speed so that we can ensure that officers in our police forces in Wales are not penalised and can access that funding for their vital training and apprenticeships.

Well, do I detect someone who has now converted, Mark Isherwood, to devolving policing to Wales? Because we certainly haven't got responsibility in terms of policing, and we’re not, certainly, responsible for introducing the apprenticeship levy, which we have huge concerns about. Obviously, we will look into the situation in terms of how to take the dialogue forward with the police and crime commissioners.

Can I ask the leader of the house when she thinks the Government is likely to allow time for a debate on the annual report and accounts of Natural Resources Wales, which were laid on Friday? I don’t know how many Members have had the chance to look at this yet, but if I can inform everyone that the accounts have been qualified by the Auditor General for Wales, and qualified in a very specific and heavy way—. The qualification, which details over five pages, which I won’t read out at this stage—I hope to have a debate where we can go into it. But I would say that it relates to a sawmill and timber operation worth £72 million over 10 years, and the main conclusion that stands out for me from the auditor general’s qualification of the accounts is his conclusion at paragraph 16 that says,

‘the decision to award a number of very significant contracts to the sawmill operator was, in my view, contentious and repercussive.’

On that basis, he has qualified the whole of the accounts, as well as those relating directly to the £72 million account.

Now, there are a number of issues here. For example, one of the reasons for the contract volume awarded to the sawmill operator was designed to enable it to make a major investment in its sawmill. However, the auditor’s qualification refers to information received that

‘the required contracted investment in the operator’s Welsh premises had not been made’.

The auditor doesn’t come to any conclusion on value for money, because that’s not his job when he audits accounts. However, he does say this:

‘In my view, the commitment of NRW to sell the sawmill operator a high volume of timber over a ten year period would appear to be an opportunity which other operators may have been interested in.’

The inference is that £72 million-worth of contracts were laid without a proper tendering process, not meeting state-aid rules or general rules of public law. This is very serious, and it’s compounded by the fact that the introduction to the annual report by the chair and chief executive of NRW makes no reference to this whatsoever, and doesn’t say what they’re going to learn from this process, or what steps they’re taking to ensure that this doesn’t happen again. In fact, they contend that the auditor general has—that his qualification is ‘disproportionate’ to the shortcomings identified. I think £72 million-worth of shortcomings are rightly highlighted by the auditor general, and I would like to see the Welsh Government bring forward as early a debate as possible on these accounts and the annual report so that we can hold Natural Resources Wales to account.

Thank you, Simon Thomas. If I can clarify, and you obviously raise this in your question, the qualification does relate to Natural Resources Wales’s record keeping in relation to a sales contract let in 2014. It is an issue for the Natural Resources Wales accounting officer, who is the chief executive, and this matter should be considered, I would say, by the relevant Assembly committees. In fact, NRW have been invited to appear before the Public Accounts Committee on 28 March and 2 May, so those, I think, are the first appropriate steps to take.

I would like to ask for a Government statement on the current GP contract. I’ve been told by constituents recently that one surgery is refusing to change dressings and referring patients to the hospital. Another surgery will only provide repeat prescriptions via computer request, which is exceptionally difficult for some of my elderly constituents. The same surgery refuses patients an appointment until the doctor has spoken to them. The patients aren’t able to know whether that is right or wrong, and whether the GP surgery can do it. I’m unable to tell them that, and, most importantly, when I contact Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board, they say that GP surgeries are private contractors to the NHS, and they’re not happy to take it up with them. So, I thought someone somewhere must know what the contract is, because I think what they’re doing is unacceptable.

Thank you, Mike Hedges, for that question. I think—well, in terms of the GP contract, as you will, of course, be aware, it was agreed with the Welsh General Practitioners Committee on 4 March 2017, and, in fact, that contract—. There are important changes to the GP contract that you’re trying to clarify on behalf of your constituents. There is going to be an increase in general medical services of approximately £27 million. Now, that includes an uplift of 2.7 per cent for GP pay and expenses for 2017-18. It also includes provision for GP practices to provide new enhanced services, including care homes, warfarin management, diabetes, and the delivery of secondary care initiated phlebotomy tests to improve the quality and safety of patient care.

As we announced, and as the Cabinet Secretary announced, this is about negotiating an improvement and updating the contract, but it’s about modernising it to better meet the needs of the public and the profession. So, that obviously—. In terms of the experience, this is not yet—this is for 2017-18, so, within the next few weeks, it will be implemented.

Can I request a statement please on Welsh Government making payments to suppliers in a timely manner? I am aware, from bus operators that have raised the issue with me, that late payments are, of course, causing cash-flow problems for some bus operators, particularly smaller operators. I’m aware that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, last week, during the statement on bus services, said that this issue is a local government issue. But it is very much a Welsh Government issue. So, I would very much welcome a statement confirming that the issue of late payments from Welsh Government in this regard will be addressed.

Obviously, this is an issue that Welsh Government needs to be made aware of, and in terms of the role of local authorities as well. Certainly, this can be brought to the attention of the Cabinet Secretary. I think that there’s a lot of interest at the moment in the opportunities for bus services in terms of the bus summit that was held on 23 January.

I declare an interest because this matter does relate to Cardiff council. It’s an important matter and relates to transport. The cabinet member for transport on Cardiff council is refusing to act on dangerous routes to school. Two roads come to mind: Heol Isaf in Radyr, where cars speed at up to 70 mph, and Caerau Lane in Caerau, where the road heads towards Mary Immaculate High School and children have to cross over, hundreds of them, a busy road, which is really dangerous. [Interruption.] With the greatest of respect, I’m trying to ask the Minister for a statement and I would like your attention, please, instead of heckles.

Carry on with the question, Neil McEvoy.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Your colleague is quoting the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008 to defend his position, because, technically, he is legally correct, but, morally, I would say he is wrong, because there’s a world of difference between the aspirational routes in the Act and where children actually walk and how they actually get to school.

So, will your Government write to the council reminding them of their responsibility to keep our children safe? I would like some kind of statement about this matter, because safer routes to school are extremely important, and, for a very, very small amount of money, we can keep our children safe. Diolch.

Well, the Welsh Government is responsible for a very pioneering and important policy in terms of Safe Routes to School, providing funding for local authorities. Of course, they apply for that funding and present proposals for safe routes to school and safe routes in those communities. The council, of course, is well aware and clear about their statutory obligations in relation to the learner travel Measure.

Leader of the house, on Friday evening, an ambulance crew was attacked while trying to care for people. Unfortunately, this is not the only case, and recent figures have shown that there’s a rise, year on year, in the numbers of staff who are attacked across Wales. Friday was another unacceptable and deplorable attack on our public servants while trying to do their job. Can we have a statement on what support the Welsh Government can give to safeguard our front-line ambulance staff and indeed all our emergency services who come to work to save lives and provide care and assistance, often under difficult, traumatic circumstances?

I respect the fact that the Member has brought that to our attention and I think it does bring to light again those totally unacceptable incidents of violence against—. We have zero tolerance to violence against our staff. These are staff who are working under huge pressure. This is an issue that, of course, we take very seriously in the Welsh Government in support of the Welsh ambulance services trust. It is important, of course, again, that the local health board also is aware of that and it is followed up and, if necessary, action taken to protect the staff.

I thank the leader of the house.

The next item on our agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children on the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Llywydd. I was pleased yesterday to introduce the Abolition of the Right to Buy and Associated Rights (Wales) Bill, together with the explanatory memorandum, to the National Assembly for Wales. Our supply of social housing is under considerable pressure. Between 1 April 1981 and 31 March 2016, 139,100 local authority and housing association homes—that is 45 per cent of the 1981 social housing stock—were sold under the right to buy and right to acquire. The reduction in the stock during that period is forcing many vulnerable people to wait longer for a home today, and according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, developing and protecting social housing is one of the best ways in which housing policy can be used to tackle poverty. Given the pressures on social housing and the need to build more homes, the time has come to end the right to buy as one of the ways to address the pressures. As well as abolishing the right to buy, the Bill will encourage social landlords to invest in new social housing, safe in the knowledge that it won’t be at risk of having to be sold after only a few years. The Bill has been developed following consultation on a White Paper in 2015. A wide range of stakeholders, including young people, have also been engaged through workshops. I would like to place on record today my thanks to all who have contributed to the development of that process.

The responses from stakeholders, including Shelter Cymru, local authorities and housing associations, show clear support for the aims of the Bill. The Bill will protect the social housing stock for rent by people who are unable to buy or rent a home via the private market. This includes many vulnerable people who benefit greatly from the safe, secure and affordable homes that our social housing provides. In summary, the Bill will abolish the right to buy, the preserved right to buy and the right to acquire for social housing tenants. The rights will end for new homes not previously let in the social housing sector two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent. To ensure that tenants are aware of the effect of the Bill, abolition of rights on existing properties will not take place until at least one year after the Bill receives Royal Assent. All affected tenants of social housing will be informed in writing within two months of Royal Assent, and the Bill complements the Welsh Government’s wider aims of a more prosperous and fairer Wales. It will assist in tackling poverty and it will help to preserve a stock of safe, secure and affordable housing for use by people on modest incomes or who are vulnerable.

The legislation to abolish the right to buy and right to acquire supports other action being taken by the Welsh Government to increase the supply of housing—for example, setting the ambitious target of 20,000 affordable homes during this term of Government. The Welsh Government remains committed to helping people on modest incomes to own their own homes too, for example via the Help to Buy—Wales scheme. Help to Buy—Wales is now firmly established, and our £290 million investment in the second phase will support the construction of over 6,000 new homes by 2021.This has been widely welcomed also by aspiring homeowners and housebuilders alike.

We are strengthening schemes that support low-cost home ownership, but not at the expense of reducing the social housing stock, and not via schemes that, in the long-run, can end up costing tenants, and all of us, more than the social rented alternative. There is evidence that many properties sold under the right to buy eventually end up in the private sector. When that happens, that can involve higher costs for tenants, and where housing benefit is claimed, that can cost more to the public purse. I recognise that some people will oppose the Bill, pointing to the contribution the right to buy has made in assisting tenants to get home ownership. But we need to consider those apparent benefits in the context of the housing system as a whole. I am concerned to encourage as many people as possible into home ownership also. This Bill ensures we safeguard the investment made in social housing over many generations so that it can be used to support the most vulnerable families now and in the future.

Llywydd, our manifesto commitment to end the right to buy will contribute to a fairer Wales by helping those for whom the housing market doesn’t work. The Bill will help make a real difference to many people’s lives. I look forward to the wider debate surrounding this Bill and I look forward to the contribution of Members and the many stakeholder groups who I know want to see this Bill become law.

I have to start by saying quite directly that this is a very sad day for Wales. After all, nearly 140,000 families have benefitted from the right to buy since 1980 and home ownership is an aspiration that tens of thousands continue to have across Wales. Now, an important route for them will be closed. If there was ever a public policy that was in endorsed year in, year out by public acclamation it is this: 140,000 families.

This is a statement—

There are no interventions on a statement, sorry.

Indeed, I think one can reasonably claim that the right to buy has been the most popular housing policy in British history and particularly popular, incidentally, in Labour’s traditional heartland. I’ll leave that dilemma to you and your colleagues.

You’ve also selected the wrong target. We need to build more homes—many more homes. That’s what should be taking up our time at the moment. We need annual house building in the region of 12,000 to 15,000 in the next generation, just to make up ground. We are currently struggling to build the Welsh Government’s target of 8,700 new homes a year. The last time we achieved that inadequate target was 2007-08. In his statement the Cabinet Secretary said the Welsh Government aims to provide 20,000 affordable homes during this term. But that is only 2,500 more than previous plans. Now here’s the truth of the matter: about 250 homes were subject to the right to buy on an annual basis in the last five years. This has declined considerably as the benefits on offer have been reduced, but it is still an important policy and one I think more people should have access to—250 homes each year for the last five years. Yet, we are falling short of our house building targets—or need, anyway—by something like 6,000 houses a year. That’s our undersupply at the minute and I just think it’s shocking that a Government chooses to withdraw the right to buy and not concentrate on building more homes.

Can I just say that if the Government had concentrated on reforming the right to buy, you would have had support from us? Because no policy is fixed and final. Even the most successful policies need adjustment and we would have looked at ways to make the right to buy even better for the twenty-first century. I think all of us would have agreed, for instance, that all receipts from right to buy should be reinvested in social housing and that is something that should have been done from the start, frankly, and may have avoided some of the controversies.

And now my questions. Unfortunately, Deputy Presiding Officer, we will have to oppose this Bill and subject it to very extensive scrutiny. It has been brought forward despite the fact that the right for local authorities to suspend the right to buy has only been taken up by three, with two more pending. So, 17 out of the 22 have not actually activated the suspension and now you are forcing their hand. I would like to know, Cabinet Secretary, whether sections 6 and 7 that are contained in the Bill relate to the commencement or the actual implementation of the Bill. This means, as you’ve said, that there will be a period of notice of one year on the existing social housing stock and that would allow tenants currently in social housing to consider whether they should exercise their right to buy. But I would like to know if this notice period will also apply to those local authorities that have already suspended the right to buy, or whether it’s not going to be comprehensive.

Can I finish just by commending the Government on one thing, and that’s the quality of the explanatory memorandum? Because this will help us scrutinise the Bill effectively, and I do think, Deputy Presiding Officer, that the legislature is greatly assisted when the Executive exercises this sort of candour. So, on that, I do commend you.

I thank the Member for his contribution. I was not expecting anything less, but I was hoping that the content in David Melding’s contribution would have extolled some more detail in the fact that I understand that there are political differences between the Conservative policy and the Labour policy in this space—and I wasn’t expecting any support in that field. But the Member suggested that we are focusing on the wrong area. This abolition of the right to buy is only part of a suite of tools to enhance the housing market. We are investing heavily in our housing stock. Over the last term of Government, we exceeded our targets of building social housing with local RSLs, and I’m encouraged that already we are seeing local authorities starting to build new council properties in constituencies. Indeed, my own in Flintshire, and that of Hannah Blythyn, are already on the way with people living in those homes. We need to secure those for the future.

We have lost 45 per cent of social housing stock since 1981. This is significant, and I’m glad the Member recognised that part of the problem with this is about the Treasury rules that applied in terms of the lack of ability to reinvest back into social housing. Actually, our money from here went back to London, so we lost on both levels; we lost social housing but also lost the finances to reinvest—a double-whammy for Wales. So, that’s why we are introducing this scheme as part of a package; a suite of things.

The Member asked a very specific question on the issue of authorities that are already under suspension and will the 12 months allow them to have grounds for application during that. That will not be the case. The suspension period that is starting now will continue during the introduction as well, so the scheme will not apply for the five-year suspension period that applies to those authorities. There are more than three; I’d just also correct the Member on his application. There was Carmarthen in January of 2015, Swansea in April of 2015, Anglesey in September of 2016 and Flintshire in February of 2017. Denbighshire is already being considered also, and another two authorities are seeking a potential application. We’ve had some discussions with them also. So, a significant number have already sought to suspend this on a temporary basis.

I’d like to say that we support this Bill and the policy intent behind it. It’s been a long-standing position of Plaid Cymru and we’re looking forward to the scrutiny process. I will say in reaction to the Conservatives that many people cannot simply afford to buy their own homes, and we always need social housing for that purpose. I wouldn’t want to seek to try and play working class people against other people in their own communities, because I think that’s irresponsible. The intentions of this policy are the right intentions and I think that it’s one that we should try and support, although I understand that there will be ideological reasons why people in this room will not.

One of the questions I wanted to ask was: are you planning to create more mixed communities where housing is a mix of social and private in relation to this particular piece of legislation? I know that in the past, maybe there have been communities where there’s been more of a propensity for people to buy in a certain area of a council estate and not in another area of that estate, and then it’s intensified the issues around social housing and the right to buy. So, I was wanting to ask on that.

Obviously, by giving notice that right to buy is going to be abolished, there will be existing tenants thinking of buying who will start to look for ways to finance this, and this potentially puts people into a vulnerable situation. There have been numerous examples over the years of companies providing the finance to help people take advantage of the right to buy that then evict the tenants when the finance isn’t repaid, knowing that they have equity in an asset that was acquired for far below market value, and would have probably risen then as a consequence. So, what actions will you be taking to minimise these risks as we approach the end of right to buy?

Your statement also mentions the Help to Buy—Wales scheme as support for people to get on the ladder, but this scheme only applies to new builds. So, last year, the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment reported on the quality of new-build houses throughout the UK, and they found that 93 per cent of buyers report problems to their builders, and of these, 35 per cent report 11 or more problems. So, now, there are questions about whether the National House Building Council is able to appropriately resolve these complaints and ensure that new builds are fit for purpose. So, is the Welsh Government planning to examine this report and take action against poor-quality new builds? And given these problems, is it really appropriate to restrict Help to Buy to just new builds?

My final question, at the moment—of course, we’ll be scrutinising this Bill on the communities committee on which I sit—is: are you satisfied that a year is enough time to provide scope for people who are in the process, mid process, of right to buy? I know that Scotland took a two-year decision when they were allowing people to still put forward cases to buy their homes. So, I would want to be satisfied that you are giving tenants the correct information, timely information and that they understand their rights, because this is integral, because it’s changing, fundamentally, and that we can encourage people to understand, via, perhaps, a public campaign, as to why you’re taking this decision to do this as part of a Government initiative.

I thank the Member for her contribution and I welcome her party’s commitment to support the Bill process, moving forward. The Member is right about the mix of communities, but we have to remember that 45 per cent of the stock has already been sold and has now gone into the private sector, so it’s very diverse from what it originally started out as in the first place. So, we must plan better in terms of the way we create communities, and that’s part of the planning guidance that is issued. The creation of new social housing, which is being developed by RSLs and local authorities, is, again, about how it satisfies local need, which is important to engage local communities in.

On the Help to Buy—Wales programme, I’m interested in the Member’s comments with regard to the quality of some of the builds. I’ll look at that report carefully. I would not want to be funding any organisation that is providing poor-quality properties. We recently invested up to £20 million in an innovation fund for new housing ideas and concepts, on which we’re having some great responses back. I hope that—alongside this Bill, I said there’s a suite of tools that will help us develop new opportunities, and the innovation programme, alongside the social housing grant will also add to the opportunities that will be given in the housing division.

The one-year period of respite after the introduction—I’m confident of the ability of tenants to act, should they wish to do so, in terms of purchasing, but I would also be mindful of this in terms of our engagement with tenants. So, we will write to all tenants within the two-month period of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. But I think it’s also something that you may want to scrutinise us on about the detail after that event, about making sure that we give confidence to the tenants that if they are seeking to make a significant purchase like that, they are not drawn into the traps of loans sharks and otherwise to make the finances available. It’s something for which we think the 12-month period we believe will be adequate in that space.

Cabinet Secretary, we know that safe, secure and affordable homes are a crucial part of the fabric of fulfilling lives and strong, cohesive communities, and safeguarding and ensuring decent standards of Wales’s housing stock is a core component in achieving this. As you’re well aware, in February this year, my own council, Flintshire, was successful in its application to suspend right to buy in respect of all council dwellings, with, between 1996 and 2016, a total of 1,606 properties being sold against a backdrop of oversubscribed demand and ever-growing housing lists.

Cabinet Secretary, as you alluded to in a previous answer, the council has led the way in starting to build the first lot of new council homes in a generation through the strategic housing and regeneration programme, and I’m sure I don’t really have to ask whether you’ll join with me and welcome the precedent set by Flintshire County Council and its innovative and trailblazing approach. But I do have an additional question: in your statement, you say all affected tenants across Wales will be formally written to regarding changes under the legislation. Can I ask what guidance or resource will be provided to make sure that this happens? And also, can information be more widely publicised regarding the availability and eligibility for Welsh Government schemes such as Help to Buy and rent to own?

The Member raises some fair points in terms of the information for future tenants and future positioning of support from Welsh Government. We do have a website already with links to the suite of financial support or information available for new tenants. That is available from the Government. Of course, I’ll congratulate my local authority—our local authority—it would be unwise not to do so. Councillor Bernie Attridge, the lead member on housing, is a tremendous champion of social housing, and along with other authorities, I must say, they’re starting to turn the tide in terms of investing carefully in new housing stock for local people, which is very important.

I should just remind Members of a very stark fact that in England, there was a promise that for every one sold they would reinvest and build another home on the back of that. But, actually, the stats suggest that, for every seven that is lost to the market, only one is then rebuilt, which is unfortunate. Therefore, we’re never going to have enough social housing stock unless we make investments and protect them for the future, which is what we’re going to do here in Wales.

Thanks to the Minister for his statement today. In UKIP, we do broadly support the right to buy, but we also recognise the practical difficulties that this policy has led to. It’s interesting that the right to buy has become an ideological battleground between Labour and the Conservatives, because it was actually Labour that first proposed this kind of scheme in their 1959 general election manifesto under Hugh Gaitskell. However, Labour lost that election and it was the Conservatives who eventually, 20 years later, began to enact the sale of council houses, and it proved to be a popular policy, as David Melding has articulated earlier today.

However, sometimes it does take a distance of a few years before we can see if a policy has really worked or not. So, has right to buy helped to facilitate more home ownership in the UK? Well, up to a point, it certainly has. In 1980, when the Act came in, 55 per cent of British householders owned or mortgaged their own home. After the Act, this steadily rose, peaking at 71 per cent in 2003. Unfortunately, since then the figure has declined to its current level of less than 64 per cent, which means that, for the first time, we actually have lower home ownership rates than in France. So, it is a bit of a mixed message and I can see your concerns over right to buy.

The figures do become more concerning when they apply to the young. In 1990, 45 per cent of 25-year-olds were on the property ladder. In 2000, that figure had gone down to 34 per cent, and in 2010, it stood at 21 per cent. So, it certainly seems that today the young are being priced out of the property market. Indeed, the flip side of the 1980 Housing Act seems to have been that the severe restrictions on councils’ ability to build new council houses has ended up in a shortage of housing. Revenue from council house sales was directed by the central UK Government to go to reducing councils’ debt. So, we have had a period in which councils have been severely restricted in their ability to build council houses. We now enter a period in Wales when, as you, Minister, elucidated earlier, we are now seeing some council houses built again, which is a welcome development. But you are now addressing the problem of the depletion of stock, and that seems to be principally why you want to end the right to buy in Wales. We in UKIP think that there should be ring-fencing of revenue from the council house sales, with councils obligated to reinvest this into either new-build council houses or regeneration of existing stock.

We need to continue to push for job investment away from the major coastal towns and cities as far as we can, because this could then help to address the problem of the depopulation of the Valleys.

I haven’t heard a question yet. Are you coming to a question?

Well, I will start to introduce some questions. Thank you for reminding me, Deputy Presiding Officer. So I wondered, Minister, what you thought about this as part of your joined-up approach, presumably, to the housing issue. Because perhaps you can comment on this when I suggest that what we don’t really want are endless new private estates on the green belt, with only grudging and very minimal elements of social housing, whose residents clog up the road when they travel into their jobs in the city. Is this a good idea for the future? Perhaps you can elucidate your vision on this? Far better in my view—in our view—to try to keep jobs in the Valleys as far as possible, and to regenerate housing in the Valleys themselves, and also to develop brownfield and infill sites in the city. So, I wondered what your thoughts were on those ideas.

There are also other external factors—[Interruption.]—that you may be able to shed some light on—and I thank you for your interest, Members over there. For instance, we are leaving the EU—

Are you coming to a conclusion, please, with some questions?

I am indeed. I am indeed, Deputy Presiding Officer.

Thank you.

There are other issues, such as leaving the EU. I see that the EU forces member states to allow international investors to buy into their housing markets. This may now change. Is this a welcome development, therefore, noting that two Cardiff postcodes are in the top 10 for properties being owned by offshore companies? So, that could be addressed by us leaving the EU. So, a series of questions, we just took a while to get to them. But I’d be glad if you answer them. Thank you.

Before I call the Cabinet Secretary, could I just remind Members, all Members in the Chamber, this is a statement and it should be four spokespeople, a short preamble, and then a couple of questions per spokesperson? And for the rest of you, it is a straight question to the Minister, not a case of taking however much time you take to go around the houses, shall I say, to get to questions. They are questions, and I have a number of speakers. Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, again. There were a lot of questions there—lots of those questions will be resolved through the scrutiny of the Bill as it take passage through the Assembly, which I’d be happy to debate with Members and the Member who asked those questions earlier on. Look, I’m not saying that the right to buy was a bad theory that was introduced, but it was fundamentally flawed. Mrs Thatcher had the opportunity to change many people’s lives and having the right to buy was one of their proposals too, but the problem was we weren’t reinvesting back into creating more housing stock. The public purse was shrinking and the issue of the housing revenue funding was going back disproportionately to Treasury. We’ve changed the rules now in terms of the HRA, and we’ve exited that programme where authorities are now able to keep 100 per cent of their capital receipts, but the stock level is so low. And that’s why we have to make sure, where we are making investments in these for the future, we protect them for the long term. Planning for the future is a piece legislation we introduced here in Wales, and this Act—hopefully, if passed by this Assembly—will help us complete that programme. But the Member did raise many issues, indeed, including the issues around Brexit, which I’m sure will come up during the discussions through the scrutiny of the Bill.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for your statement here today. This is an important announcement and, moreover, one that was endorsed by voters in Wales during last year’s Assembly election. As you’ve pointed out, for every 20 social housing properties in existence in 1981, nine have since been sold off, and whilst the right to buy did help many families onto the housing ladder, the policy was not introduced in a sustainable way. We are facing the social consequences of this today, so I welcome your action.

My questions: I note from your statement will still give social landlords the option to sell homes to their tenants. If this does happen, what safeguards will be in place to make sure that any such sales will not impact on the provision of housing stock? How will the Welsh Government encourage social landlords to invest any money made in this way back into providing more housing to make up the shortfall? And finally, it’s important that Welsh citizens know about these changes, and I note the duty on social landlords to inform their tenants, but how will you monitor this to make sure that it has actually taken place, and what consequences will there be if social landlords do not convey this information accurately?

I thank the Member for her questions. She’s right to raise the issue: for every 20, nine have been sold off since 1981. Even more stats to add to that: we’ve sampled around eight authorities in Wales where we already know the ones that have been sold, so, of that 48 per cent of the ones that have been sold, 12 per cent of them have got into the private sector rental market, as well, so they’re not even being used as right to buy; they’re being used as profit-making programmes for investors—again, something that is not helpful for the provision of affordable homes for individuals.

In terms of the last point about information sharing, we will give that some further thought, whether that be information that is sent out by Welsh Government or whether it’s by social housing. But it is something that I’d be very keen to ensure, that where a voluntary sale takes place by an RSL or a council, that that money is back, reinvested into housing policy again, and that would be an important principle that I will be hoping to follow through in terms of the committee.

Cabinet Secretary, I just wonder, before you launched this Bill or indeed popped it into your manifesto before the Assembly elections, whether you considered reviewing the qualifying criteria. Did you look at all as to how many people who have bought their homes then stayed in them for successive years and, indeed, decades, or passed them down to their families? Because, of course, when people talk about this, there’s an assumption that, suddenly, these 140,000 homes would be available for people now, today, to inhabit. Of course, they’re not, because where are those people going to go? The same could be said of the 250 people who are trying to buy their homes now. They’re not going to suddenly disappear; they’re still going to remain in those homes. It will not increase the housing stock.

My second question to you is about the grace period. You said earlier, and I just want a clarification on this, that the grace period would not apply to those people who wanted to buy, but who haven’t because the council has suspended the right to buy. Therefore, can you explain why you are not going to give them that grace period as well? Because I have a number of constituents who wanted to buy, haven’t been able to and were told, ‘Don’t worry, this is just a temporary measure.’ Now, that opportunity to own the home of their dreams is going to be taken away from them for ever.

I think, finally, I wanted to know if—sorry, I think it’s just completely gone out of my head. Oh, sorry. Finally, I just wanted to know, in your qualifying criteria, whether you would have considered actually, with the sale of any home, that money now being earmarked for the rebuilding of social housing. I totally accept that, over the last 35 years, people didn’t build the homes they had the opportunities to, but that doesn’t mean to say that you couldn’t have made a change to this. One last quick question: does this mean that you do not trust your county councils to suspend where they need it, because you’re taking this power away from them permanently? I would have said that was against the localism agenda. Thank you.

I’m grateful for the Member’s balanced comments, again. This was a manifesto commitment that we took through all the channels of the manifesto programme. We took it to the people and the people voted for it. We were privileged to be voted in as Government, and now we’re completing that manifesto promise as indicated.

I’ll take the last point first, if I may, in terms of the ability to make sure that funding is reinvested back in housing. We have changed the rules now, but the problem is we’ve had a loss of housing stock. Authorities are able to now maintain 100 per cent of the sale and put it back into the housing provision. So, we have made amendments to the financial process that was started 35 years—it’s very different today. But we have lost an awful lot of stock, and that’s why—. I also recognise the point the Member makes, saying that this won’t increase the numbers of stock, but what it does is it preserves them as entities. When these are sold, as I said earlier, in eight authorities that we’ve sampled, over 12 per cent of those have gone into the private rented sector, so they’re not in the social sector that they were created for.

The Member is correct in her assumption about the temporary grace period and the ability of the ones that are already in suspension; they will not get the premise to apply for the 12-month grace period. It does not apply to them. The reason for that and the reason this was introduced in the first place is because there is a housing pressure in that particular area and, therefore, we wouldn’t want to see increased sales in those areas now or within the five-year period. Lots of analysis goes into the testing of local authorities when they apply for the suspension. So, in 12 months’ time, that position wouldn’t have changed. We wouldn’t have suddenly increased the housing supply by 250 or whatever that number may be. Therefore, it will not apply to those who are already currently within the temporary abatement in terms of right to buy.

I think I’ve covered the Member’s three questions.

I was pleased to hear the Cabinet Secretary put this measure in the context of a suite of policies designed to preserve social housing stock, and increase the supply of affordable housing. Does he share my worry about what the effect would be on the supply of affordable housing in Wales if Plaid Cymru, the Tories and UKIP had succeeded last week in their attempt to block the Welsh Labour-led Government from investing a further £30 million in affordable housing?

I think the Member is right to raise that issue of making sure that we are able to take this Bill forward and protecting the housing stock for the future. I’m really grateful to the finance Minister who recognises the very big challenge of providing 20,000 more new units in Wales. It’s not an easy challenge, and it can’t be on a light-switch moment; it has to be delivered early on, and we’ve started that process. So, that’s why, despite challenging financial times, the finance Secretary has allowed the Cabinet and us to make significant investments with local authorities, with RSLs, now, to make sure that we can deliver for people over the next five years.

I’m sure that you will recall coming to Kidwelly and visiting the new houses being built at Morfa Maen in 2013 under the then Labour leadership of Carmarthenshire County Council—the first council to build council houses in Wales since the 1980s. We now have 11 home-owning Welsh authorities that have exited the housing revenue account subsidy, and that does mean that they now retain their rent revenues locally rather than sending them back to the Treasury, and can invest that money in local stock. So, my question to you, Cabinet Secretary, is whether you feel, as part of this Bill, that by ending the right to buy, it will add to the protection that councils will have, and actually embolden local authorities to resume their historic role as major house builders?

Thank you for your question. I do remember vividly the visit to Kidwelly, back in 2013. From then I moved onto the environment division, and now I’m back, as they say in California. The issue in terms of the great scheme I saw in Kidwelly was something about local people investing in their communities and having the vision to do that. I congratulated the authority at that point in time.

Exiting the HRA: I claimed all credit for that, but actually, it was partly to do with Jocelyn Davies, who was the housing Minister previously, who instigated that programme. I just picked it up at the end, and I was fortunate enough to be the one who delivered it. But there was a lot of work that went into the background of that, making sure again that we were able to deliver longer term with an investment there.

I did miss one question that Angela Burns raised about whether I trust local authorities. I absolutely do trust local authorities to build more homes, but the problem is that the legislation doesn’t protect them in the long term. That’s why we are seeing progressive authorities, like Flintshire, like many others across—. Rhondda Cynon Taf is another local authority that’s doing some great investments. We have to give them the tools to be able to deliver as well, and that’s why this Bill will be not just a Bill to end the right to buy, but to make sure that our clever investment in building new homes and social housing stock is protected for our young people for the future.

Thank you. Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. After you chastising other Members, I’ve cut this down quite considerably from what I was originally going to say. Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his very welcome statement, setting out another example of the Labour Welsh Government delivering on one of its manifesto pledges in its first year in office? I would have to say that this is absolutely in stark contrast to the recent broken promises that we’ve seen from the Tories on their manifesto pledges on national insurance, and actually, on building affordable homes, which they’ve backtracked on this week as well.

So, Cabinet Secretary, the legacy of the right to buy in the 1980s, as you’ve already touched on, left us woefully short of housing stock and, as we’ve already heard, local authorities were prevented from reinvesting moneys from the sale of those houses. When I hear the Conservatives and UKIP talking about reinvesting that, it’s all—I’m afraid—too little too late. We needed that in the 1980s, and we didn’t have it, and that, both directly and indirectly, led to the housing crisis that we’re still trying to deal with. So, while I understand the issue of home ownership aspiration, I do think that needs to be addressed in different ways, as you’ve already also highlighted in your statement.

I’ve had some recent discussions, Cabinet Secretary, with Merthyr Valleys Homes on the right to buy. Bearing in mind this is the smallest local authority in Wales, they’ve still sold 93 of their homes at a cost of £5.5 million—[Interruption.]

Am I hearing a question, please?

They have had to discount that by £1.5 million. So, what I want to know, Cabinet Secretary is: given all the points that you’ve made in your statement today, have you made an assessment of how many homes you expect this policy to safeguard, now and into the future in the social housing sector, and more importantly, have you made an assessment of how this might relieve the pressures on council housing waiting lists?

I thank the Member for her question. The policy that’s happened in England is a matter for the UK Government. I also agree with the Member that the housing White Paper and the issues around their promise on developing new homes is collapsing, but we’re not in England—yet. The fact is, we’ve got to concentrate on what we can do here. That’s why we’re making a very positive statement in ending the right to buy, but also all of those other actions that the Member raises, about help to buy, rent to own, and working with a very nimble set of organisations. The RSLs in Wales are very organised and deliver lots, in many cases—more so the housing plus agenda. So, they don’t just build homes; they build communities, and I’m really interested in how we make sure our money goes further in terms of ensuring, when we create communities, we can create sustainable ones. So, this housing division is just part of the suite of tools you’ll have heard me talking about, about how we create a resilient community, a stronger, empowered community, and this is just part of that jigsaw. Working with my colleagues, right across Cabinet, we can deliver a different Wales, which will present an opportunity for people who want to buy homes in the future—we’ve got products to do that—but our social housing stock, which is under extreme pressure, is protected for our generations to come.

I think very few people believe in selling stock off and not replacing it. My question really is: what is wrong with selling off social housing responsibly, and reinvesting to build more social housing to create a virtuous circle and enable people to become more independent? And I suppose, really, this may be addressed to everybody, because everybody here owns their own home. Now, I won’t embarrass people; some people own more than one home. And yet, do you find it ironic that people here, everybody owning their own home—don’t you find it ironic that you’re telling working-class people that they’re not able to own their homes?

That’s a really interesting point that the Member raises, and what we’re saying here is that we’re not stopping people owning their own home. We are making sure that there are products available that will allow people to get into the housing market, and those are the schemes that I’ve talked about: the help to buy and the rent to own programmes that always are supporting the ability of people to do that. I don’t disagree with the Member in terms of the circular economy and making sure that if we were to sell one, we build one. That hasn’t happened in the past, and that’s why we’re trying to protect the stock that we do have now, whereas in the past—and the Member will be aware of this—the homes have been sold and the HRA only allowed the capital spend of 75 per cent to be kept back in, so you were always at a deficit and you couldn’t build new properties for that. And that’s why it’s important for us to stop that proposal happening. We are going to be building more social housing for people who want that, but we’re also providing products for people to get onto the housing market ladder, if that’s what they want to do, as well.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

We’ll move on to item 4 on the agenda, which is a statement by the Minister for Lifelong Learning and Welsh Language: Welsh in education strategic plans—the way forward. And I call Alun Davies, as Minister, to speak to the statement. Alun Davies.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I begin by placing on record my thanks to local authorities for their work on the 2017-20 Welsh in education strategic plans? Some plans show an ownership and commitment to the Welsh language, and I welcome this. However, there are others who need to demonstrate a greater level of responsibility for the growth of Welsh-medium education, because the level of ambition I had hoped for is not as evident as I had expected. By now, you will all be aware that we are on the threshold of launching a new strategy that aims to secure a million Welsh speakers by 2050, and that we, as elected Members and citizens of Wales, can’t achieve this in isolation. We want everyone in Wales to come on this journey with us.

We acknowledge that education is the main vehicle for creating Welsh speakers. We already know that there are just under 9,000 five-year-olds attending a Welsh-medium or bilingual school. We cannot afford to be content with this. Wales needs an inclusive education system that both sustains and creates Welsh speakers. By creating demand for Welsh-medium education and ensuring access in those all-important early years before statutory education, and through reviewing the sufficiency of Welsh-medium places, we must seize these opportunities to strengthen and grow the infrastructure of Welsh-medium education. I believe strongly that collaboration in a positive way between the Welsh Government and local authorities is the only way forward. That’s why I want this partnership to be stronger and to develop further, so that these plans will work better, thereby reflecting the need to secure and grow the offer. The legal framework has served us well by securing statutory status for the planning of Welsh-medium education. We are now in a new period. So, to prepare for the next phase of plans, I will be asking my officials to look again at the legislation in more detail.

It’s time now for decisive action. That’s why Aled Roberts has been appointed to conduct a rapid review of the current system for Welsh language education planning. This will include the 2017 to 2020 plans—the current plans. Aled will, of course, bring his considerable experience and keen eye for scrutiny to this role. He is a former local authority leader, a school governor and, of course, a former Member here for the Welsh Liberal Democrats in north Wales. Aled has the background and experience needed to get to the root cause of why Welsh language planning is not as effective as we need it to be. Aled will provide a set of recommendations to take the Welsh in education strategic plans forward. These recommendations must give me a clear direction of travel for change. A collaborative approach between Welsh Government and local authorities during this phase will be essential for a successful outcome. I will ask all local authorities across Wales to contribute to this review.

This rapid review will be the first phase of implementing change. I can’t foresee what the outcome of the review will be, but any development work in future must include those who deliver education on the ground: teachers, governors, headteachers and support staff—those who have such a significant part to play in achieving a million Welsh speakers. My officials will be in touch with all local authorities regarding the timescales of this review and when we will be providing feedback on their plans. The actions we take now will influence the Welsh speakers of the future. We want the Welsh language to be the language of choice within our communities. Whoever is standing here in my shoes in 2050, I want to ensure that he or she looks back at this time as a period of change, and the catalyst that really made a difference to the language and its speakers.

In my first statement to you as Minister, I said that I wanted to ensure that the plans would result in concrete and timely action in a way that leads to growth in Welsh-medium education. We have moved forward, but it’s not enough. We still need to do more. In that same statement, I referred to the importance of the new curriculum for Wales, which will include one continuum of learning for the Welsh language. This will provide many opportunities for those pupils in the education system, as well as the pupils of the future. I therefore want plans to better reflect the uniqueness and diversity of Wales, so that we celebrate these differences and allow the plans to demonstrate the individual and unique nature of our localities and regions. In partnership with local authorities and other key stakeholders, Presiding Officer, we will make these plans work for Wales.

Thank you for your statement, Minister.

Rwy'n falch iawn eich bod wedi cyflwyno’r datganiad hwn heddiw, oherwydd byddwch chi’n gwybod cystal â minnau bod Comisiynydd y Gymraeg, Rhieni dros Addysg Gymraeg, Cymdeithas yr Iaith Gymraeg a llawer iawn o rai eraill—corws o leisiau, mewn gwirionedd—wedi mynegi eu pryderon am ansawdd a diffyg uchelgais cynlluniau strategol y Gymraeg mewn addysg sydd wedi cael eu llunio gan awdurdodau lleol ar draws y wlad.

Rydym yn gwybod ein bod yn wynebu brwydr anodd. Gwelsom nifer y siaradwyr Cymraeg yng Nghymru yn gostwng rhwng cyfrifiad 2001 a chyfrifiad 2011, ac nid oes gennym ddigon o bobl ifanc mewn addysg cyfrwng Cymraeg i wrthdroi’r sefyllfa honno a chyflawni’r targed uchelgeisiol hwn—ac mae'n darged gwych yr ydym yn eich cefnogi gydag ef, Weinidog—sef cael miliwn o siaradwyr Cymraeg yma yng Nghymru. Nid ydym ni byth yn mynd i gyflawni’r targed hwnnw oni bai bod mwy o gamau gweithredu ar y cyd yn cael eu cymryd, gan Lywodraeth Cymru ac awdurdodau lleol a rhanddeiliaid allweddol eraill, er mwyn cynyddu’r niferoedd hynny. Felly, er fy mod i’n croesawu'r ffaith eich bod wedi penodi Aled Roberts i gynnal yr adolygiadau cyflym hyn, rwyf yn meddwl tybed a yw dim ond gofyn i berson annibynnol ddod a bwrw golwg dros y pethau hyn mewn gwirionedd yn mynd i gyflawni o ran maint yr her sydd o'n blaenau.

Er enghraifft, rydym yn gwybod bod arnom angen mwy o leoedd gofal plant ar gyfer plant cyn oed ysgol sydd yn lleoedd cyfrwng Cymraeg, ac eto mae’n ymddangos nad oes unrhyw strategaeth yn cael ei gyflwyno gan y Llywodraeth i gyflawni cynnydd yn y ddarpariaeth honno. Rydym yn gwybod bod gennym broblemau, o ran dilyniant addysg pobl drwy gyfrwng y Gymraeg, o ran sicrhau darpariaeth ôl-16 mewn colegau addysg bellach ac, yn wir, mewn prifysgolion. Nawr, mae rhai camau sydd i’w croesawu yn cael eu cymryd yn y maes hwnnw. Mae gennym yr ehangiad posibl yng nghwmpas y Coleg Cymraeg Cenedlaethol i ystyried addysg bellach, ond mae'n mynd i olygu tipyn o adnoddau er mwyn i ni allu cyflawni hynny. Ond y sialens fwyaf o bell ffordd yw nad oes gennym ddigon o athrawon sy'n siarad Cymraeg yn y gweithlu addysgu, a bu gostyngiad, gostyngiad gwirioneddol, yn y niferoedd sy'n cyrraedd y gweithle. Felly, mae angen strategaeth lawer mwy cydlynol ar yr holl bethau hyn os ydym ni’n mynd i sicrhau bod gennym yr amgylchedd iawn i dyfu nifer y siaradwyr Cymraeg yma yng Nghymru i’r math o lefelau yr ydych chi a minnau yn dymuno eu gweld.

Nawr, rydych chi wedi cyfeirio at benodiad Aled Roberts. Fel y dywedais, rwy’n croesawu ei benodiad. Nid dyna’r unig beth y mae angen i chi ei wneud. Yn amlwg mae angen cymryd camau gweithredu ynghylch y meysydd eraill hyn hefyd. Rydych chi wedi dweud bod yr adolygiad hwn yn mynd i fod yn gyflym. Erbyn pryd ydych chi'n disgwyl y bydd yn gallu adrodd yn ôl? Oherwydd: nid ydym ni byth yn mynd i gyflawni’r targed hwn os ydym ni’n parhau i’w ohirio tan y tu hwnt i'r flwyddyn academaidd nesaf. Felly, a ydych chi’n disgwyl iddo gyflawni’r gwaith ac adolygu'r pethau hyn cyn yr haf, ac yna bod awdurdodau lleol yn cwblhau eu diwygiadau i’w Cynlluniau Strategol y Gymraeg mewn Addysg cyn yr haf? Gallaf weld eich bod yn nodio eich pen, felly byddaf yn edrych ymlaen at gadarnhad o hynny mewn ychydig funudau. A wnewch chi ddweud wrthym pa gamau penodol y mae Llywodraeth Cymru yn eu cymryd—rwy’n sylweddoli bod eich cydweithiwr, Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Addysg, yn yr ystafell yn awr—yn enwedig o ran bwrsariaethau i annog mwy o athrawon cyfrwng Cymraeg i'r gweithle? Oherwydd nid oes gennym system bwrsariaeth sy'n addas ar gyfer Cymru ar hyn o bryd. Nid yw’n ddigon deniadol i gynyddu nifer y siaradwyr Cymraeg sy'n dod i'r gweithlu addysgu, ac rwy’n dymuno gweld pa gamau penodol yr ydych chi’n mynd i’w cymryd i fynd i'r afael â hynny.

Fe wnaethoch gyfeirio at y cwricwlwm newydd. Mae hynny'n rhoi cyfle i ni wneud rhywbeth gwahanol, ond, ochr yn ochr â'r cwricwlwm newydd hwnnw, mae angen i ni weld continwwm yn cael ei ddatblygu er mwyn gallu asesu cynnydd o ran y Gymraeg ochr yn ochr ag un cymhwyster. Roedd hwn yn addewid a wnaed i bobl Cymru—y byddai yna un cymhwyster i asesu cymhwysedd pobl yn y Gymraeg. Nid wyf yn gwybod beth yw’r sefyllfa ynglŷn â hynny, ond byddai o gymorth mawr pe gallech roi'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf i ni heddiw i weld a oes unrhyw gynnydd wedi'i wneud. Rwy'n cymryd yn ganiataol bod Cymwysterau Cymru yn rhan o’r broses benodol honno.

Yn ychwanegol at hynny, os ydym ni’n mynd i sicrhau bod mwy o rieni yn anfon eu plant i ysgolion cynradd cyfrwng Cymraeg yn arbennig, mae angen iddynt gael cymorth i ddatblygu sgiliau yn y Gymraeg eu hunain. Felly, pam na allwn ni gael mwy o arian yn cael ei fuddsoddi mewn cyrsiau Cymraeg i oedolion? Nid oes digon o gyrsiau ar gael i bobl, ar hyn o bryd. Nid ydyn nhw bob amser ar gael gyda’r nos neu ar benwythnosau pryd y byddai pobl yn awyddus i fanteisio ar y cyfleoedd hyn. Ac, a dweud y gwir, mae angen iddynt fod yn rhad ac am ddim os ydym ni’n mynd i annog y math iawn o amgylchedd i dyfu nifer y siaradwyr Cymraeg yma yng Nghymru. Nid yw hyn yn ymwneud â phobl ifanc yn unig; mae oedolion hefyd sydd eisiau dysgu’r iaith a'r her o ddysgu’r iaith a defnyddio'r iaith yn eu cymunedau lleol. Felly, tybed a wnewch chi ateb y cwestiynau hynny, Weinidog.

I’m grateful to Darren Millar for his kind words. As ever, he’s roamed far and wide, using the statement as a starting point rather than as the purpose of this debate this afternoon. But, let me say this, Darren: there is a lack of ambition in some of those plans, I think you’ve absolutely right in that. The challenges that you’ve laid out in your questions, and the totality of your analysis, is a challenge I accept. I think you’ve outlined many of the key challenges that we have to overcome.

So, let me say this in responding to you: yes, we do need concerted action from both the Welsh Government and from local government. How do we do that? What we don’t do is point fingers and create screaming headlines where we go to war with local government and the rest of it. We don’t do that. What we do is we work together. We work together on the basis of mutual respect and our shared visions and our shared ambitions. That’s what’s at the heart of this.

This is about a mission, if you like. Kirsty Williams has talked about our national mission for education on a number of occasions. This is about a shared vision for the future. It’s Welsh Government and local government working together to deliver on that shared vision. I hope that Aled will be able to report by the early summer and that we will have the WESPs, the strategic plans, in place at that time to enable us to have that framework, if you like, going forward.

And, as we go forward, we will need to meet all of the challenges you’ve outlined, from workforce planning through to Welsh for adults and issues around the new curriculum. All of those are key challenges that I accept and that we do have to meet. The points that have been made about childcare provision are well made. We do need to ensure that the childcare offer that is being developed at the moment—. My colleague, the Minister for Communities and Children, is working on and leading the work on that. Let me say this to Darren: we meet regularly in order to discuss the Welsh language elements of that, together with the Cabinet Secretary for Education and the Minister for Skills and Science, to ensure that we do have that skilled workforce to enable us to meet that challenge. That’s certainly something, again, I accept.

The continuity of education post 16 is also something that I accept. The Member will be aware that Kirsty Williams made a statement at the Eisteddfod last year, setting up a working group with Delyth Evans. We expect that to report by the early summer or mid-summer of this year. That, I hope, will chart an outline, chart a way forward, for the future of post 16, especially the potential expansion of Welsh-medium education in the further education sector. I agree that is the sector that’s absolutely critical to creating the workforce that will enable us to deliver on our ambitions and our plans. And a coherent strategy, which you asked for, is absolutely essential to underpin all of these things.

But what we are debating today, Darren, is the strategic plans from local government. What these have to do is to create the vision that we all, I think—I hope—share for the future. That will lay the basis then. We will understand the numbers of teachers that we will require, we will understand the number of support workers that we will require, we will understand the sort of childcare provision that we will require, where we will need those people, the sorts of skills that we will need them to have, and how we take that forward, not just for 2017 to 2020, which we’re discussing today, but using the plans for 2017 to 2020 in order to build the foundation for the future.

So, I hope I’ve covered most of your questions there. Of course, Welsh for adults was covered by the budget agreement with Plaid Cymru, where we did provide additional funding for Welsh language courses through the national centre for teaching Welsh to adults. But the challenges you’ve laid out are a good way to perhaps describe the sort of challenges that we’ll have to meet as a consequence of these plans and this way of working.

May I thank the Minister for his statement? It is one I welcome, and it does give me greater confidence that the Welsh Government is taking its responsibilities in terms of the growth of Welsh-medium education seriously, and that the Government understands that business as usual is not sufficient, and that that would not meet the aims identified.

You will know that I and other Members have written to you some weeks ago calling on you to reject the majority of these WESPs, because they lack ambition and they lack detail. Very often, they ignore much of the direction of Government. They tend to be descriptive rather than developmental in terms of the growth of Welsh-medium education. We have heard how the Welsh Language Commissioner is clear that the majority of these plans are inadequate. Estyn, too, has called for an assurance that the targets of the plans reflect the ambitions of the strategy more closely and that all local authorities give more strategic import to achieving the targets in their plans. We also recall the report of the Children, Young People and Education Committee of the previous Assembly in December 2015, which was quite damning of these WESPs and their value. So, the fact that we have got to this point today is something that I would welcome, although the fact that we have had to come to this point is a cause of disappointment.

I am pleased that you do recognise that we need to strengthen these plans significantly, but I would appreciate if you could tell us whether you expect there to be changes to the plans of all local authorities. Or do you feel that some of the plans presented are adequate? This is just so that we can understand what your expectations are, and where you are actually placing the bar.

I would also like to welcome the appointment of Aled Roberts as an appropriate person to undertake this role. But again, I would be grateful for a little clarity. It appears to me that there are two roles here—one making recommendations for specific improvements to the individual WESPs that have been presented; and secondly, making recommendations to the wider regime. In that context, I would want to better understand what exactly the remit will be. What specific scope is there? How broad is that remit that you intend him to fulfil? Clearly, the new strategic plans for Welsh in education will be crucial in terms of setting the future pattern. But, in the context of this specific piece of work that you are asking Aled Roberts to undertake, for example, will you expect recommendations around more robust means of measuring demand—something that I believe is deficient at the moment? Also, will you seek suggestions, perhaps, on specific duties in terms of meeting the identified demand? Further to that, your statement mentions generating demand, and I am sure that you would agree that we need to be far more proactive in promoting the benefits of Welsh-medium education and bilingual education.

Are you also looking to ensure that the Welsh Government’s ambition in terms of the growth of Welsh-medium education is more strongly reflected in the requirements of the twenty-first century schools programme, for example? What about transport policies for schools, which can often influence parental decisions in this area? A question was asked on the timetable earlier. Just so I can better understand this: are you strengthening the current plans and then possibly looking at a new regime, post 2020? Or, is it your intention to look at a more fundamental change sooner than that? As I say, I do welcome the statement, but I do feel that we would all benefit from a little more detail on the work that you are asking Aled Roberts to undertake.

Presiding Officer, I would like to start once again by thanking the Plaid Cymru spokesperson for his welcome for today’s statement. I will start by agreeing with your initial analysis that it is important that we acknowledge that this isn’t business as usual and that we do want to change things. I hope that by setting a very ambitious target, such as a million Welsh speakers, we are changing the way that we are working in all parts of our work. In what we are discussing this afternoon, we will be changing every aspect of the different ways of working within the Government and outwith the Government. I am eager, as I tried to say to Darren Millar, that we collaborate with local government, and that we see this as a joint project, a joint initiative—that we see the future in the same way and that we work together to ensure that we do have the plans that we need. So, I don’t want to oppose any plans that we currently have; what I do want to see are plans that we can accept.

You asked a difficult question for me to answer on amendments to all plans; you are tempting me, Llyr. But, I will say this: the ambition in different parts of Wales will be different, and we’re starting from different positions in different regions of our nation. What I want to see is the appropriate ambition for each part of Wales. That will mean that some plans will need to be changed more than others. What I am eager to do is create an atmosphere of collaboration. That’s what I very much hope that Aled will do. As a former leader of Wrexham council, he has experience of running a council, of leading change in local government, and I think it’s important that we do appoint someone with that kind of experience and someone who understands the nature and requirements of Welsh-medium education for the future. The questions that you asked about transport are a part of that. I think that you are entirely right in the way that you’ve described the scope of the role—the initial function is to ensure that we do have Welsh in education strategic plans for the future, and that has to be the first and foremost role. It also has to happen soon, over the coming months.

I have said in response to previous questions that I want to see, perhaps, a different legislative framework for the future. The White Paper on local government, published by Mark Drakeford, anticipated changes in the way that we plan Welsh-medium education for the future. That’s something that I do want to consider, because I do think that we have to change the way in which we think about this and whether we need change. We have a White Paper in the pipeline for the Welsh language, and perhaps that will be an opportunity for us to discuss these matters in greater detail. Certainly, I do see the second aspect of this role as being one of considering more broadly the planning and provision of Welsh-medium education for the future. Measuring demand will perhaps be a part of that, and I am open to that being another aspect of the role.

I also hope that we will have a new framework after this period, after 2020. That period and new framework, post 2020, will be for the provision, planning and development of Welsh-medium education across Wales.

Can I welcome the statement and the appointment of Aled Roberts to his important new role? I’d like to commend the Minister for his common sense and realistic approach that he brings to this important task, in particular what he’s just said in response to Llyr Gruffydd about tailoring our policy according to the area or region of Wales, and the different needs that we have in order to achieve our objective of 1 million Welsh speakers, depending upon the degree of Welsh language penetration that an area already has.

I’m sure that the Minister has read with some care the response of Rhieni dros Addysg Gymraeg to the WESPs, which I think is an extremely interesting and informative document, and actually quite impressive. There are a number of very important points that are made in there that I think are important to dwell on, in particular, the importance of nursery and reception classes in creating, as the statement says, a demand for Welsh-medium education. The statement doesn’t mention Mudiad Meithrin, for example, who’ve given evidence to the Welsh language committee, and which I think was extremely interesting in itself. It does seem to me, as a strong supporter of the Government’s policy, that this is an absolutely vital element before anything else; the younger that children are introduced to the Welsh language, then, of course, the much more successful this policy is going to be.

I would also like to support what Llyr has just said in relation to measurement of demand. In this document by Rhieni dros Addysg Gymraeg, they refer to the case of Torfaen, where it says—if I can find the paragraph, it’s worth referring to—that some councils have conducted a survey to measure demand recently, for example Torfaen, which shows that over 22 per cent of parents are eager to choose Welsh-medium education, but the county decided not to include this information in the plan, choosing to submit a plan that will stick to the existing provision, which is about 15 per cent. That, I believe, is one of the areas in which we can make some significant advances towards the achievement of our common objective.

The other thing that I would like to say, in the light of recent controversy that has arisen over the school in Llangennech, is how important it is for us to bring parents along with us in this policy. Because if the steamroller approach is adopted and confrontation is created then it’s going to be much more difficult for us to move on from where we are now to where we want to be in 30 years’ time. Because there are significant parts of Wales where there is very little Welsh spoken as a first language and it would be much more difficult to persuade those English-speaking monoglot parents that this is the way that Wales should go in the future. I would like to see a fully bilingual nation within my lifetime, and it is important, therefore, that we carry people with us. I wish that the Minister might say something about this today, because I think we all have to be evangelists for the Welsh language, but if we take too dictatorial an approach—well, if a local authority takes too dictatorial an approach—then it’s going to create resentment, which is actually going to do the opposite of what we need to do in order to make the Government’s policy successful.

I’m grateful for those remarks, and if I might start where you finished, I think the measure of our success will be the silence in the media, in many ways. I hope that we will be able to move forward and deliver a policy that is done not through confrontation and not through a steamroller, but through persuasion, through support, through promotion and through conversation with people. I sense a great well of goodwill towards the Welsh language across all the different communities of Wales. I represent a community and communities where very little Welsh is spoken in Blaenau Gwent. But I know that there are very many parents who wish that they could speak the language themselves and who want their children to either speak the language, or have a familiarity with the language.

What we, I hope, will be able to do as a Government, is to work with that goodwill to ensure that people feel comfortable with what we are proposing and to work with the grain of communities across the country. And that means that our expectations in different places will be different and our anticipations and our ambitions will be different in different parts of the country. But what, I hope, will not be different is our determination to create the bilingual country that you have described. And in doing so, I hope that these plans will put in place both the option to have Welsh-medium education across the face of Wales and to ensure that people feel able and comfortable to take that option for their children, and that that option is available with all the resources and facilities that were described earlier by Darren Millar.

So, we’re working, I hope, in a way that is constructive, which puts common sense ahead of ideology and ensures that people across Wales will have the option of Welsh-medium education for their children without the difficulties of having to transport their children many, many miles to receive that education, whilst worrying about the sort of education that they will receive—to ensure that Welsh-medium education is seen to be a choice that is made by parents increasingly in the future. I would certainly hope that the plans that we can put in place will put in place a structure that will see many, many more young people being able to learn Welsh, leaving school fluent in Welsh and being confident about using their Welsh throughout their lives.

The points that you made about Mudiad Meithrin and Rhieni dros Addysg Gymraeg are points that I accept. The points about nursery and reception classes in education are points that I accept, and the issues you’ve raised about measuring demand, which was raised also by Llyr Gruffydd, are points that I accept. So, I hope that, in taking forward this policy, we will be able to do so together with communities across Wales, and not against communities throughout Wales.

May I welcome the Minister’s statement? He will know that I was one of the joint signatories to the letter to him asking him not to settle for unambitious plans. So, I am pleased to hear such a clear statement today on the issue of ambition.

May I ask two questions of you? The first is on the relationship between this process and the process of introducing the new strategy. This process will commence now, I suppose, before the new strategy is introduced. What will happen when the new strategy is published? It may be that a sense of urgency emerges from the detail of that strategy that will have an impact on this process. That’s the first question. The second question is: you’ve mentioned how important it is to collaborate between the Welsh Government and local government. Do you also see this process as an opportunity to introduce a new impetus to sharing best practice between local authorities, because we do understand how important that is in terms of understanding what’s happened and worked elsewhere and to appreciate the scale of the challenge facing us?

You were right, in writing that letter, that some of the plans lacked ambition. What I have tried to do this afternoon is try to respond to that in a positive way, and not by overreacting, if you like, but to respond in a way that affirms our ambition and our vision for the future, and to ensure that we achieve our ambition through joint working. I very much hope that we will be able to do that.

This process will continue and the strategy will come as part—well, this process will be part of the strategy, of course. When we publish the strategy in the summer, you will see that there are several elements to the strategy. The WESPs have to be an important component of the education strategy, and the education strategy will fit into a wider framework and strategy, if you like. So, there will be a strategy that is more holistic for the future, but these education plans will be a crucial part of it.

I very much hope that we can publish plans that will have the ambition that you say that you want to see, and I agree that we do need to see that ambition, and that will then be an important part of the strategy for the future. And I very much hope, as we collaborate, that we can share best practice and ensure that we learn lessons as well. There has been some mention made about how we can measure demand for Welsh-medium education. That’s an example, perhaps, of where councils can collaborate to learn from each other to ensure that we don’t just share the same ambition, but that we share different ways of achieving that ambition. My emphasis this afternoon is on ensuring that the process over the next few months is a positive process, where we collaborate to reach the aim that we all agree we want to reach.

May I welcome this statement, too? By now, of course, the detail of all schemes is what’s important now, not the existence of a statutory framework, and I do hope that the review will be valuable. We’re not talking here about Welsh in education strategic plans in isolation, of course, We are talking about Welsh in education plans. Will the review consider the growth of the Welsh language used occasionally as the first part of the continuum as part of the curriculum in English-medium schools and any work placements they arrange for pupils? Given your comments on childcare, which you have mentioned already, will you be asking the review to consider the value of having Welsh speakers in the front line in all Flying Start locations?

This review and this process will consider the Welsh-medium education plans. That’s the purpose and the point of the WESPs, and we will be considering how we can expand Welsh-medium education over the coming years. This will be an important foundation for how we create more Welsh speakers for the future. But it will also enable people to learn Welsh early on in their life, and the hope is that the Welsh language will remain with them, so that they have the opportunity to study through the medium of Welsh at school, post 16, and then, if they choose to do so, in the workplace after that. I very much hope that that will then reflect on the remainder of the education system, in that there will be more room for the Welsh language throughout the education system, to ensure that young people, when they leave school, when they’re 16, and wherever they’ve been to school—an English-medium or Welsh-medium school—are able to use and speak the Welsh language. Because that’s what we need to do if we want to create this bilingual Wales.

May I welcome the Minister’s statement this afternoon and the fact that he’s taking a fresh look at the WESPs, and wish Aled Roberts well in his work? I hope that he hasn’t been handed a hospital pass by the Minister, and I say that for one reason, namely that his predecessor, Leighton Andrews, when he was discussing these issues in the last Assembly, always talked about the possibility of turning the strategic plans into statutory plans, unless the local authorities worked with Government. The Minister didn’t mention that during his statement this afternoon, and I would ask him, therefore: is it still an option for Government to make these WESPs statutory plans if the councils do not collaborate?

Now, the Minister has mentioned collaboration with councils as a way forward, and I very much hope that that is successful. But I would like to return to the issue of Llangennech school as an example, and to return to the case of the BBC earlier on, of how not to do these things, but that wasn’t from the point of view of the local council. The Welsh in education strategic plan for Carmarthenshire specifically mentioned that the council was working closely with staff and governing bodies in dual-stream schools in Carmarthenshire in order to turn them into Welsh-medium schools. That was the objective of the WESP. That was accepted unanimously by the cabinet in Carmarthenshire back in July of 2014, when the council was, of course, led by the Labour Party. In the light of that, governors at the schools in Llangennech—the infant and junior schools—approved it, the community council supported the proposal, the council scrutiny committee supported the proposal, the cabinet supported it—although that was Plaid Cymru-led at that point—and the full council had also supported the proposal. Despite that, there are still people saying that the proper processes hadn’t been followed and that local people had been ignored. Well, as far as I can see, the county council, in the case of Llangennech, and in their Welsh in education strategic plan, have followed all statutory steps and all steps required by Government. Therefore, it is disappointing that the Government wasn’t more willing to stand by the council in this case. How can we avoid in future this kind of situation arising again—when there is a WESP that is approved by the council and all proper steps are taken, and then some—some—people try to make this a linguistic argument?

I’ll answer your first question first. Yes, it is an option to ensure that the plans are statutory in future. It’s also an option, of course, to move the planning process to consortia across the nation, and we are considering that at present. I don’t have any proposal to put forward this afternoon on any particular ideas, and I don’t want to propose anything yet. I want to work through the process as it stands over the coming months and to come to conclusions when it’s appropriate to do so—probably over the summer. There will be an opportunity for us to discuss that as part of the White Paper process, and that’s the kind of timetable that I have in mind for different options of doing this and putting it on a statutory footing.

I have avoided discussing the other matters over the past few months, because I don’t want to be part of the kind of debate that we’ve heard and have witnessed over the past few months. I did say in response to Neil Hamilton that silence can be an ally in these things, and I very much hope that we will, over the process of discussion and debate, and through the process of hearing what people say, come to conclusions that are shared across communities wherever they are. And it’s not my intention today to reject any plan. It’s not my intention this afternoon to accept any plan. I want to go through the process of discussion, sharing ideas and visions and coming to an agreement at the end of this process, and then move, on a joint basis, towards the future. What I want to see, wherever we are in Wales, is a way of working that will recognise that people have different ideas and different visions, sometimes, for education in our communities, but that we can agree that there is an appropriate place for the Welsh language, and that the Welsh language does have to be part of the education process. And when we come to an agreement, we will all then collaborate in future.

I thank the Minister.

The next item on our agenda is the legislative consent motion on the Digital Economy Bill, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you, Llywydd. I move the motion.

Diolch i chi am y cyfle i esbonio cefndir y cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol hwn. Cafodd y Bil Economi Ddigidol ei gyflwyno ar 5 Gorffennaf 2016 gan Lywodraeth y DU. Nod Rhan berthnasol y Bil i’r cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol hwn, Rhan 5, yw gwella darpariaeth ddigidol y Llywodraeth trwy alluogi rhannu data i wella gwasanaethau cyhoeddus, mynd i'r afael â thwyll, rheoli dyled sy'n ddyledus i'r sector cyhoeddus mewn modd mwy cydlynol a gwella ystadegau swyddogol ac ymchwil. Byddwn yn gofyn i'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol gefnogi’r darpariaethau hyn yn y Bil, gan fod manteision amlwg i’r cyhoedd wedi eu cynnwys yn y darpariaethau hyn sy'n cyfiawnhau deddfu, ac, ar yr un pryd, yn darparu amddiffyniadau cyhoeddus angenrheidiol a hanfodol. Rwy’n cydnabod y ffordd gydweithredol y mae Gweinidogion Llywodraeth y DU wedi gweithio gyda ni i ddatblygu darpariaethau a fydd yn caniatáu i Gymru ddatblygu ei dulliau ei hun, gan ddarparu ar gyfer system gyson a chydlynol ar draws y DU gyfan.

Credaf ei bod yn deg dweud, Lywydd, nad yw hynt y Bil trwy ddau Dŷ'r Senedd wedi bod yn rhwydd. Awgrymodd fy nghyd-aelod dros Orllewin Caerdydd, Kevin Brennan AS, sy’n arwain yr wrthblaid swyddogol ar y Bil, nad oedd y Bil yn barod i’w gyflwyno pan roddwyd caniatâd i wneud hynny. Yn ddiweddarach yn y broses, adroddodd Pwyllgor Pwerau Dirprwyedig a Diwygio Rheoleiddio Tŷ'r Arglwyddi gyfres o bryderon yn ymwneud â nifer o agweddau ar y Bil. Y canlyniad fu cyfres barhaus o ddiwygiadau i'r Bil ar bob cam o'i ystyriaeth, gan gynnwys y camau olaf. O ganlyniad, nu’n rhaid cyflwyno memorandwm atodol gerbron y Cynulliad, yn ychwanegol at y ddogfen wreiddiol, fel y nodwyd ym mis Tachwedd 2016.

Rwy'n ddiolchgar iawn i'r Pwyllgor Cymunedau, Cydraddoldeb a Llywodraeth Leol am ei ddealltwriaeth o'r anawsterau hyn a’i ystyriaeth o’r memorandwm cydsyniad deddfwriaethol cychwynnol ym mis Tachwedd. Roeddwn yn falch o gymryd y cyfle i egluro'r sefyllfa o ran hawliau dynol mewn gohebiaeth â Chadeirydd y pwyllgor, John Griffiths, a nodaf nad yw’r pwyllgor wedi mynegi unrhyw wrthwynebiad i gytuno’r cynnig sydd gerbron y Cynulliad y prynhawn yma.

Os mai dyna’r canlyniad, Lywydd, bydd yn sicrhau cyfres bwysig o bwerau newydd i'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol ac i Weinidogion Cymru, a fydd â phwerau i wneud rheoliadau er mwyn pennu amcanion mewn cysylltiad â rhannu data at ddibenion gwella gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yng Nghymru ac i enwi'r awdurdodau cyhoeddus yng Nghymru y bydd y cymalau ar wella gwasanaethau cyhoeddus, mynd i'r afael â thwyll a rheoli dyled sy'n ddyledus i'r sector cyhoeddus, yn berthnasol iddynt. Bydd unrhyw reoliadau a gyflwynir gan Weinidogion Cymru yn ddarostyngedig i'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol, ac, felly, bydd yn destun craffu ar lawr y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol.

Er bod Gweinidogion y DU yn cadw'r pŵer i bennu amcanion darparu gwasanaethau cyhoeddus ar draws y DU, ceir arfer y pŵer hwnnw erbyn hyn dim ond mewn ymgynghoriad â Gweinidogion Cymru ar faterion sy'n effeithio ar Gymru a'r dyletswyddau cyfatebol sydd ar Weinidogion Cymru pan fyddant yn ceisio pennu amcanion gwasanaethau cyhoeddus. Gadewch i mi fod yn eglur bod yr holl bwerau hyn yn rhoi awdurdod ac yn rhoi caniatâd a cheir eu cymhwyso at ddibenion penodol yn unig. Un o’r dibenion a fyddai'n bwysig i Aelodau yn y Cynulliad hwn yw rhannu data i ddarparu mynediad awtomatig at gynlluniau sy'n rhoi gostyngiadau i filiau ynni pobl sy'n byw mewn tlodi tanwydd ac, o ganlyniad i ddiwygiadau hwyr i'r Bil, mewn tlodi dŵr hefyd.

Nawr, Lywydd, fel y mae’r Bil wedi mynd rhagddo, un o’m prif bryderon fu sicrhau bod trefniadau diogelu llawn ac effeithiol o ran rhannu data. Mae hon yn agwedd ar y Bil sydd wedi cael ei chryfhau’n sylweddol yn ystod ei hynt drwy'r Senedd fel bod amddiffyniadau helaeth wedi eu cynnwys ynddo erbyn hyn. Mae'r ddeddfwriaeth yn gyson â Deddf Diogelu Data 1998 ac mae'n cyflwyno troseddau newydd am ddatgelu gwybodaeth yn anghyfreithlon. Mae'r Bil hefyd yn ei gwneud yn ofynnol cyflwyno codau ymarfer statudol ar rannu data y mae'n rhaid ymgynghori â Gweinidogion Cymru arnynt. Mae fy swyddogion eisoes wedi gweld drafftiau o’r cod arfaethedig ac wedi gwneud sylwadau arnynt.

Hefyd, mae mesurau diogelwch cryf ar waith erbyn hyn yn narpariaethau pwysig hynny’r Bil sy’n galluogi awdurdodau cyhoeddus i rannu data at ddibenion ymchwil. Mae’n rhaid i’r data hynny i’w rhannu fod yn ddienw, ceir eu rhannu dim ond ag ymchwilwyr achrededig mewn cyfleusterau diogel, sy’n gwneud gwaith ymchwil er budd y cyhoedd. Mae’n rhaid i Awdurdod Ystadegau'r DU achredu'r rheini sy'n gobeithio gwneud defnydd o'r pwerau i sicrhau bod y rheini sy’n trin y data yn gwneud hynny at ddiben priodol a bod ganddyn nhw’r mesurau diogelu angenrheidiol ar waith.

Lywydd, rwy’n credu bod y rhain yn fanteision cyhoeddus y byddem ni eisiau eu gweld ar gael yng Nghymru. Nid oes gennym unrhyw gyfrwng deddfwriaethol yn ein rhaglen gyfredol a fyddai'n addas i gyflawni'r dibenion hyn, a chan fod y Bil hwn yn cwmpasu materion datganoledig a materion heb eu datganoli, bydd yn cyflawni cydlyniad o ran rhannu data rhwng cyrff datganoledig a chyrff heb eu datganoli. O gofio ein bod ni wedi sicrhau pwerau addas i Gynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru, a mesurau diogelu angenrheidiol i’r dinesydd, byddwn yn gofyn i'r Aelodau gefnogi'r cynnig a rhoi cydsyniad deddfwriaethol y prynhawn yma.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his opening to this debate, and also for the conversation that we’ve had on this measure recently? As the Cabinet Secretary has outlined, we are today requested to provide our consent to Part 5 of the UK Government’s Digital Economy Bill. As the Cabinet Secretary alluded to, at times, that section has proved highly controversial as the Bill proceeded through the legislative process in both Houses of the UK Parliament. Having said that, I also agree with the general thrust of this matter before us. However, it is worth noting that, as it proceeded through the House of Lords, the Lords’ Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee report said—and I quote—

‘we do not consider it appropriate for Ministers to have the power to decide by delegated legislation which authorities should be entitled to disclose or receive information under this potentially far-reaching and broadly-drafted gateway’.

The broad powers to share information with a range of ‘specified persons’, which could include private sector bodies, in particular, could be an area of concern, and plainly was an area of concern in the deliberations at the other end of the M4. It noted there, in the House of Lords, that the powers would very significantly broaden the scope for the sharing of information across Government departments, local authorities and other public bodies, and I understand that it is intended to allow recipients to match the data against that already held to identify individuals ‘facing multiple disadvantages’.

However, one could have an issue with the broad definition of the list of bodies that citizen data could be shared with under clause 30 of the Bill. The power to be described as a ‘specified person’ means that private sector contractors could be entitled to receive and disclose citizen information. So, could I just ask, what representations has the Welsh Government made on the specific point of whether the specified persons should be listed on the face of the Bill? And does the Welsh Government believe that the Bill should include such a list on the face of the Bill? The provisions within the Bill would, as was said in the explanatory memorandum, allow information to be shared between gas and electricity suppliers and public authorities, in relation to customers living in fuel poverty. Any move towards supporting people who are in fuel poverty is obviously very welcome. However, it does raise some serious questions that information on customers will be provided to commercial companies. Therefore, what steps have been taken to safeguard the people in Wales to ensure that companies do not breach any privacy rights?

The Cabinet Secretary alluded that this legislation was compatible with human rights legislation. Could he just confirm that again? And back to the data sharing of information with gas and electricity companies. Obviously, if it helps people in fuel poverty and in water poverty, and with debt control and all the rest of it, those moves are to be welcomed, naturally, but what happens to the data when those customers who at one point were in fuel poverty are no longer deemed to be in fuel poverty? What measures are used to stop the sharing of that information when it is no longer materially necessary so to do?

I'm glad the Cabinet Secretary has confirmed this afternoon that the relevant parts, when relevant public bodies are being discussed and measures are brought forward here, will be subject to the affirmative procedure here. That’s a move that I welcome. And, having said all that, Plaid Cymru will not oppose this LCM today. Diolch yn fawr.

I will say I'm grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for briefing me around this LCM yesterday. Given the protections of the positive resolution procedure, given the lack of objection from the local government and human rights committee, and also given that the Cabinet Secretary's comments about the very significant improvements in the legislation as it progressed, and the openness of co-operation between him and UK Government on this, we are also happy to support this LCM.

He says that it will allow Wales our own approaches, in addition to providing for a coherent and consistent approach across the UK. Is he really saying that all tensions between those two approaches have been ironed out, and is there not a necessity for some trade-off between those two objectives? When he talks about tackling fraud and managing debt, I assume by ‘managing debt’ he means chasing debt and trying to get people who owe money to pay it, notably to the Welsh Government. Is that the intention there?

I welcome the work to try and ensure that people in fuel and water poverty do get the discounts that they are entitled to—very large numbers of them do not. It has not always been easy to apply for those discounts or for people to have awareness of their eligibility. And I recognise the privacy concerns that Dai Lloyd noted, but nonetheless do think this is a worthy objective and I’m pleased that the legislation is doing that.

Could I also just flag the data science park around Newport, and the ONS being there and the opportunities that there may be for employment and economic activity, particularly in that area, through having this public sector data available to researchers accredited by the UK Statistics Authority? Does the Cabinet Secretary agree with me that this is a further significant opportunity for that data park around Newport? Does he also recognise that the UK Government and, I think, probably working with devolved administrations in this context, has been a leader in terms of ensuring open data? When these data are shared by researchers, will they then be available through their research on an anonymised basis? And does he feel that the right balance is still being struck between that and the importance of open data to the economic opportunities that will give, but also to the protection of appropriate confidentiality?

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. Thank you to both Members who’ve participated for their very interesting and pertinent questions. Dai Lloyd is absolutely right that the Bill has been controversial at a series of points during its progress. It’s partly as a result of the House of Lords report that he referred to that UK bodies will now be listed on the face of the Bill, as a result of late amendments in the House of Lords. Welsh bodies will be listed as a result of regulations that Welsh Ministers will have to bring in front of the National Assembly and which will be subject to the affirmative procedure as Dr Lloyd noted.

There are a series of safeguards, I believe, in this Bill now that allow us to have some confidence against some of the potential pitfalls that Dai Lloyd outlined. The requirement to have new, specific codes of practice that sit alongside the Bill, on which Welsh Ministers will have a direct ability to be consulted and to comment, and so on, I think will give us an opportunity to pick up a number of the points that he made, and to make sure that they are reflected in the necessary safeguards that need to surround the new data-sharing possibilities that the Bill allows for. It is very important to be clear that the Bill allows data to be shared in specified circumstances between specified bodies and for specified purposes, and when those purposes fall away—if someone is no longer in fuel poverty, for example, in the example that Dai Lloyd gave—then the data-sharing possibilities of this Bill fall away with them.

I’m pleased to confirm again that we have looked independently at the position taken by the UK Government in relation to article 8 human rights compliance. We believe the Bill is compliant. Any regulations that we bring forward under the affirmative procedure will have to be separately confirmed by Welsh Ministers as being Human Rights Act compliant. So, there will be further opportunities for this Assembly to scrutinise that matter, too.

Turning to Mark Reckless’s points, no, I don’t imagine that all tensions between devolved and non-devolved perspectives on data sharing have been ironed out, even as a result of the close working relationship we’ve had over this Bill, but what we have secured are new sets of consultation rights in both directions, which are now written into the Bill, which means that if there are issues where tensions need to be further pursued, we will have a vehicle for doing so.

The issue of debt is an interesting one, and I think the Member is right to raise it. I think there are two different ways in which the Bill might be relevant there. There will be people who the Bill will be able to help by being able to consolidate debt, to bring debt together, and to allow debt to be more manageably pursued when debt is owed to a range of different public sector bodies. There is work that I am keen to do with local government in Wales to look at the way that that part of the public sector pursues the debts that are owed to them. But we know as well that there are people who are not simply in debt because of straitened circumstances, where there are legitimate bills that are owed to public authorities, and where there is a right on behalf of the public to make sure that those bills are paid, because paying those bills pays for the services that we all rely on, and the Bill will allow for some extra capability in the hands of public authorities to do that effectively.

I entirely agree that data that are made available for research purposes as a result of the Bill, that the results of that should be shared with the public. The way that the SAIL database in Swansea operates is, I think, a very excellent example, which we promote elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as to the way in which we make sure that data that are contributed by Welsh citizens are put to use for important purposes, and done so openly and accessibly.

Finally, to agree as well that the ONS data park in Newport is developing a cluster in which we are attracting people into Wales, and we are developing a future workforce of our own. A leader in the field, Professor Bean, recently said that Newport was emerging as a hotspot for the data profession right across the United Kingdom, and in a small way, the powers that will come to Wales if this LCM is approved will help us to develop that important new industry for Wales.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item on our agenda is the debate on municipal waste and recycling. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to move the motion—Carl Sargeant.

I thank the Presiding Officer. Members will be aware that Wales is a world leader in recycling and resource management. It was announced yesterday that we are now second in Europe and third in the world. This is thanks to a comprehensive package of Welsh Government policy and investment and the actions of local government and people across Wales.

The policy of England and Wales has diverged since devolution in 1999. In 1999, Wales recycled 5 per cent of our waste. This was broadly in line with England and Scotland. In the first half of 2016-17, we recycled 62 per cent of our waste. This was significantly better than England, Scotland and Northern Ireland. In England, recycling rates are getting worse and, last year, were under 44 per cent for the first time since 2011.

Today, I want to set out the agenda for building on this position to become the best in the world and to maximise the associated employment, economic and environmental benefits. Wales is on course to meet our 70 per cent recycling target in 2024-25, probably several years ahead of the schedule.

The 70 per cent target is, of course, a milestone on the journey to zero waste by 2050. In preparation for the revised Wales waste strategy in 2018, the Minister will publish shortly a consultation on our direction of travel in waste and recycling. This will include potential consideration of future targets, including setting an 80 per cent recycling target for local authorities.

The waste composition analysis published in June of 2016 shows that almost half of the rubbish people are putting in their residual waste bins is easily recyclable. This includes food waste, paper, card, glass and metals. Llywydd, getting as much recyclable material as possible out of our rubbish bins and putting them into recycling is one of the key objectives of this Government. If everybody put all recyclable material in the recycling instead of the rubbish bins, it would drive up the recycling rate to almost 80 per cent. It would also save local authorities money by avoiding the cost of disposal, and at least some of the materials collected can be sold to earn an income.

In 2015-16, the total spend on waste services by local authorities was at its lowest level since 2009-10 and, over the same period, recycling increased from 41 per cent up to 60 per cent. Higher recycling can contribute to reducing service-delivery costs, as long as the right services are introduced.

We continue to support local authorities to introduce the right kinds of services through the collaborative change programme. Technical support and capital funding is available to local authorities to help them plan and deliver changes where necessary. This exemplifies the benefits of the Welsh Government’s approach to recycling. Through the efforts of our local authorities and residents across the country, we’re reducing the costs, improving the environmental impacts, and increasing economic activity and the number of jobs.

To help achieve our ambition in this area, we are considering a range of other options—improving awareness raising on what can and can’t be recycled, work with people who do not currently recycle to change their behaviour, a more radical approach like deposit-return schemes and additional charges or preventing the use of single-use food and drink containers, and legislating to enable local authorities to encourage residents to put more of their recyclable material into their recycling and not in the rubbish bin. Local authorities have asked us to consider introducing these powers.

As well as higher recycling, we need to focus on waste prevention, Llywydd. Food waste per person is around 9 per cent lower in Wales compared to the average for the UK. Between 2009 and 2015, there was a 12 per cent decrease in the amount of household food waste in Wales.

I want to build on this performance and go further. The Minister has asked her officials to consider how we can drive up food-waste prevention across Wales in the home, in food processing and across the whole supply chain. There have been some calls from stakeholders to ban certain food or drink containers, apply levies, or bring in deposit-return systems for drinks containers. The Minister intends to give due consideration to these issues in the review and refresh of the waste strategy, ‘Towards Zero Waste’.

Will the Member give way?

I will.

Just on that point—and I’m very pleased to hear that the Government’s going to consider a deposit-return scheme—will he take into account, and the Minister, when she returns, take into account the fact that major companies like Coca-Cola have now dropped their opposition to a scheme like this?

I know the Member will be aware about the ministerial responsibility and she’s very interested in these schemes and is pursuing some further advice from her officials.

The Minister’s asked for a study on the potential for new legislation to extend producer responsibility in Wales and to make the producers of products and packaging more responsible for the costs of the end-of-life management of waste, including litter. High recycling rates are only part of the story and the Minister’s spoken many times of the need for a more circular economy for Wales to realise the benefits of being a high-recycling society. It is now time to take some steps to accelerate that process.

There are some materials in household rubbish for which there are not yet market solutions. We’ve already had successful programmes to secure new waste treatment services, such as anaerobic digestion and energy from waste, but we also need new collection and treatment options for a wider range of products like plastics, absorbent hygiene products, such as disposable nappies, and we also need facilities for hard-to-recycle item, such as carpets, mattresses and textiles. Again, the Minister has asked her officials to work with local authorities to look at how this can be achieved. They’re also looking at the opportunity to develop additional infrastructure to take advantage of changes in packaging and waste composition.

Many people in Wales shop online and have items delivered to their households in cardboard packaging. The Confederation of Paper Industries is the largest trade body representing paper and corrugated card manufacturing companies in the UK. It advises that the UK is the biggest net importer of paper and card in the world. One of the reasons is the lack of capacity to recycle paper and cardboard in the UK. The opportunity, Llywydd, exists to create additional paper manufacturing capacity to recycle this recovered paper and board into new products and create the much-needed jobs in the communities these projects would bring. Making sure these opportunities come to Wales is a priority. The Minister intends to announce in the future the measures she will take working with Cabinet colleagues to ensure additional infrastructure for us here in Wales. It’s against this backdrop and with great pride that today I move this motion.

I have selected the five amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on Gareth Bennett to move amendments 1 and 4, tabled in the name of David J. Rowlands—Gareth Bennett.

Thank you—diolch, Lywydd. I move the amendments tabled in the name of David Rowlands. We don’t support the Government today because we do have profound doubts over where they are going with their recycling policies and what the effect will be on householders.

We do support the Plaid amendment 5, but we will be abstaining on Plaid’s amendment 2, relating to the deposit-return scheme. This does seem to be a good idea in principle, but we believe that it needs further development, and there are some specific areas that would need to be addressed. For instance, how would it operate in the border areas, relating to the Wales-England border? In addition, the deposit-return schemes would place a considerable burden, potentially, on retailers, particularly small convenience stores. Indeed, the Association of Convenience Stores are concerned about various issues, including space for storage of returned containers, in-store delays and staff costs whilst handling returns, the cost of setting up the scheme initially, and the cost of transporting returned containers to waste-handling sites.

So, we are interested in a deposit-return scheme, but we would like those points to be addressed if the Government is going to go along with it, or perhaps from Plaid we will get some more details on those points. We will support the Welsh Conservative amendment 3.

Returning to our own position, the Government’s performance in meeting recycling targets is, in itself, very good, but we are worried by the apparent connection between pushing for zero waste by reducing waste collections and an increase in fly-tipping incidents. To relate recent incidents of that, in Conwy, there is currently a trial of four-weekly waste collections in part of the county borough; the rest of the borough is having three-weekly collections. Over the past two years of recorded incidents, fly-tipping has increased by 10 per cent. In the Gwynedd authority, we have had three-weekly collections in part of the borough since 2014, and, in the same period, of 2014-16, reported fly-tipping incidents were up by 22 per cent.

Will the Member give way?

Certainly.

I recognise the points that you make. Isn’t that an argument, though, for better enforcement, and for working with families to help them to change their behaviour, rather than simply saying we should abandon the push for greater recycling?

Yes, it could well be that there is a case for better advice given to householders, and if there is going to be some meaningful programme of doing that then we wouldn’t rubbish that policy. But I merely point out that sometimes good intentions can lead to worse consequences, so we do have to be very mindful of the fly-tipping problem, but I do appreciate the point you’re making.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I listened very carefully to your contribution there in terms of the issue that you’re linking between fly-tipping and changes in collection. The Government doesn’t hold any data that would support that. Do you have data that supports that?

Yes, we—. I would have to look into that, but when I had a—. [Interruption.] Thank you, Joyce. To continue, when I had this exchange with the Minister responsible, Lesley Griffiths, we did actually have this difference of opinion over data. So, I apologise; I will look into it. I am being given data; I haven’t actually—. I can’t personally verify where it came from at this point.

Right. We do have therefore problems of fly-tipping in various areas. Okay, we’ve done that. Looking at Cardiff, we have had almost weekly instalments in the ‘South Wales Echo’ of admittedly anecdotal evidence, but there have been plenty of photographs that have been provided by concerned local householders in recent years pointing to their belief that fly-tipping has increased rapidly in the last couple of years. Recently, there has been a clearance of bushes on land around the main railway line that has revealed the huge amount of waste deposited illegally on this land over the past few years, and that didn’t become apparent until the bushes were actually cut back, and it’s quite a dramatic sight. Clearly, the so-called ‘zero waste’ policy is not leading to zero waste at all, and, indeed, it seems to be actually increasing the amount of waste that is illegally fly-tipped in Wales. In Cardiff, the Welsh Government’s policy has, in fact, been undermined by the Labour council’s decision to close down two of the city’s four recycling depots, which seems a curious way in which to try and achieve zero waste. So, I wonder what observations the Minister will have regarding that decision.

Over the past couple of years, Cardiff council has tended to hide behind the need to comply with EU waste recycling targets when they have been asked why the policies of waste collection are changing. They always say this: Bob Derbyshire, who’s in charge of it at cabinet level, he has always recited that they need to comply with EU waste recycling targets, but now that we are leaving the EU, we can ourselves, as a—. [Interruption.] Ah, okay, perhaps you can elucidate on that, but he is still claiming the need to comply with EU targets. We now have our own target of zero waste, so it’s not an EU target. So, we do need to consider the cost of slavishly adhering to very stiff targets. I think that we now need to have a good hard look at our own zero waste policy, and perhaps the debate today will help us to do that. Thank you.

I call on Simon Thomas to move amendments 2 and 5, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd, and I move the amendments. Even in discussing rubbish, I think we need facts. Generally speaking, Plaid Cymru supports the Government’s efforts to move towards zero waste. Indeed, our policy seeks to speed up that process, because we believe that we can achieve that by 2030 in Wales, and, in so doing, create jobs within the local economy and generate wealth from waste too, because there is always some value to waste.

Some councils in Wales are setting the pace. It’s true to say that Ceredigion is ahead, having reached over 68 per cent of recycling now, almost 10 years ahead of the target of 70 per cent that the Government has for 2025. We can therefore praise councils when they do make progress and say that they are providing a template for other authorities. We can also regret that some councils are not only failing to achieve the targets set by Government, but are taking retrograde steps. Blaenau Gwent, for example, is now recycling 5 per cent less of its waste than was the case four or five years ago, and that is disappointing.

Having said that, it is not Plaid Cymru’s policy that we should have the same collection methods across Wales. The nature of those various areas—and rurality in particular—can mean that we must provide some freedom for local authorities to work together to come up with solutions that are relevant to them but are within the envelope of achieving a zero-waste Wales.

But there is a gap—even given the fact that Wales is performing so well in recycling—in terms of the waste that is going to landfill and non-recyclable waste. That includes waste such polystyrene packaging and styrofoam—something that is banned in some nations now and something that we should consider banning in Wales in earnest. If we don’t have the powers under the new Wales Act, then we should work with other nations within the British Isles and our European partners to ban this kind of packaging.

Plaid Cymru is also strongly of the opinion that there should be a deposit-return scheme for plastic, glass and cans, and we see this in general across Europe, and I see more and more small shops in nations that do espouse these methods than we see in Wales. I therefore don’t believe that this is any sort of barrier to the local economy, but rather will add to the local economy. We can ensure that that is a benefit to shops and customers, as is already the case in Germany, among other nations.

The main problem we have is plastic. Plastic is a kind of fuel; it is oil based. With plastic there is also the issue of microbeads, which is still a problem in our environment. Although we are to ban them from cosmetics over the next year, the impact on our fisheries and our beaches, particularly, is very detrimental. We want to see more done to tackle these kinds of plastics, and to cease using oil-based materials in creating unnecessary packaging, but to use the resource of oil for its main purposes while we have it—for energy and for chemicals that can benefit the economy more widely.

I do think it’s possible, if we were to put in place a deposit-return scheme and a ban on some plastics that can’t be recycled such as polystyrene, and a proposal to ensure that any street food sold should be placed in biodegradable packaging—we could assist the Welsh Government in achieving a zero-waste economy by 2050. Plaid Cymru and the Plaid Cymru amendments are seeking to assist the Government in achieving that.

It’s good to see the Minister back in place in leading on this work, as he did in the previous Government, and this is also an opportunity to wish Lesley Griffiths well and wish her a speedy recovery.

I call on Darren Millar to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Diolch, Lywydd. Can I move amendment 3 in the name of Paul Davies calling for sustainable development outcomes to be achieved through a more circular economy here in Wales? And, before I go into my speech, can I also echo the comments of Simon Thomas wishing Lesley Griffiths a speedy recovery?

I think it is important that we continue to promote the reduce, reuse and recycle agenda, and that’s why we’ve been fully supportive of the ambition in ‘Towards Zero Waste’, which has been set out by the Welsh Government. In fact, we were very pleased to hear the announcement that was made recently about the £6.5 million, which has been made available to businesses in order to help to promote the circular economy in Wales, because we know that, if a truly circular economy is actually developed here in Wales, it could save us in the region of £2 billion per year, which is money back in the Welsh economy that can be spent in more productive areas, so that, rather than burning waste or putting waste into landfill unnecessarily, we can actually be using that waste in a more responsible way that also adds value to our economy.

We support further investigation into deposit schemes for glass, cans and, indeed, for plastics. And it has been a welcome turnaround by some major companies in recent weeks with their attitudes towards deposit schemes. But I do wonder whether there’s more action than can be taken, particularly in terms of levy schemes sometimes. We know what a huge impact the carrier bag levy scheme had on consumer behaviour. A similar scheme was proposed, of course, by me for a chewing gum levy, because chewing gum litter is one of the banes of my life, and trying to address that problem is something that perhaps the Minister might want to comment on.

But in terms of the situation around Wales, whilst it is indeed fantastic news that we are the second country in Europe in terms of the recycling league table, and third in the world, and whilst it’s fantastic that many local authorities have made excellent progress, including Conwy and Denbighshire in the areas that I represent, I think there is more work to be done in terms of rationalising the various recycling systems that we have here in Wales. It’s entirely inappropriate that we’ve got 22 local authorities all operating different systems. There are huge efficiencies that could be realised for taxpayers in getting some of those local authorities working together in order to organise their waste collection services. It’s entirely wrong that we have such variation, notwithstanding the need, of course, to have different arrangements in very rural areas or semi-rural areas compared to urban areas, as Simon Thomas quite rightly referred to.

Will you give way?

Of course.

I understand that point that he’s making, and I accept some premise to it, but the other side of the argument, of course, is to get some of the manufacturers and food producers and supermarkets to also rationalise how they produce their food and products to us.

I absolutely agree, and that’s why I think the Welsh Government, the UK Government and indeed all the legislatures across the UK need to work together in order to secure some change in attitude from manufacturers and supermarkets and other retailers. One thing I will say, though, is that it’s really important to take the public with you on this journey. We’ve been successful as a nation in doing that to date, but when you reduce waste collection services to a four-weekly basis, which is the situation in Conwy at the moment, you really do begin to lose people’s goodwill, and that is precisely what is happening in Conwy at present. We’ve got 10,000 households there who are on a four-weekly general refuse collection scheme. There has been an increase in fly-tipping reports. There has been an increase in rodent sightings. There are not just the issues of helping to educate people about how to dispose of waste more sensibly, but there are public health risks as well related to this. It cannot be right that pet waste sits in people’s bins for four weeks at a time, because that can cause public health risks to the council workers who then go on to collect that waste. It cannot be right either from an equalities point of view that we have older people, sometimes with clinical conditions, having receptacles outside their front doors that identify them as being vulnerable. Because that is the situation in my constituency at the moment, and people are very unhappy about the new regime.

So I would urge you, Minister, to consider what you might be able to do as a Welsh Government in order to promote the ability of local authorities to work with their residents rather than against the goodwill of their residents in taking this agenda forward. We’ve called for residual waste to be collected no more frequently than fortnightly. I think that that would be a good step forward; it would reassure residents that, whilst they continue to go on this journey and to make every effort to recycle, that they’re not going to be abandoned in terms of their public services.

Just one final point if I may, and that is: local authorities also need to get their act together. I think it’s wrong that we still see litter bins that take just one form of waste without being able to separate it in the way that you can in some local authority areas. Cardiff actually does a good job of this. There are very often bins with three holes in: one for paper, one for plastic products and one for other general refuse. But places like Conwy, whilst they’re expecting the public to recycle in a certain way, don’t have those sort of bins widespread across the county. So, local authorities need to get their house in order as well.

If there is one area of public policy that has improved over the last 20 years, it’s recycling. Thanks to the ambitious targets set by the Welsh Labour Government and action taken by local authorities of all political persuasions, and most importantly by householders, Wales is leading the way in recycling as well as on waste prevention and reuse. While recycling used to be done by the most environmentally aware—and some people will remember a time when, in some authorities, people had to pay for the privilege of recycling by having to buy special bags for recycling—now recycling is done by the majority of the people of Wales. The challenge is to make it all of the people in Wales recycling everything they can all of the time, and that’s a big challenge. We’re now on course to become the highest recycling nation in Europe, and the aim has to be to see a zero waste Wales. Recycling rates in Wales have already increased by more than anywhere else in the UK in the past decade, and Wales now leads UK in the recycling of municipal waste. Eurostat figures for European municipal waste recycling rates show that UK as a whole is in 10 place on 43.5 per cent. However, in the 12 months to September 2016, Wales recorded a 62 per cent recycling rate, which is not only ahead of the 58 per cent target set by the Welsh Government for 2016-17, but also shows Wales outperforming the UK as a whole by over 18 per cent. I think we’ve got to say well done to local authorities on this. Far too often people are very critical of local authorities and local councils, but they are the ones at the sharp end who are making sure this is achieved. Ministers can have policies, but unless the Welsh local authorities go out there and ensure that what we’re asking for is carried out then we will not get to where we need to be. I really do think we need to show our appreciation for local authorities of all political persuasions in what they’ve done.

The landfill tax has driven local authorities to recycle. It is now much more expensive to place rubbish in a hole in the ground than it is to recycle materials. Also, greater environmental awareness by individuals—and again, credit to the schools for promoting recycling—has meant that and more people are willing to recycle. Schools have pushed environmental matters for very many years, and the people who were being pushed on recycling in the schools 20 years ago are now having their own homes and they are making sure they do recycle. I think that some of the things that schools do like this, whilst not examined—they don’t get any marks from Estyn, and don’t get any marks from PISA—do actually make Wales a better place.

One of the problems stopping recycling from increasing further is a lack of clarity, especially with plastics. What can and cannot be recycled? UPVC: can it be recycled? What about Tetra Paks? What about plastic-coated cups? Are plastic wrappers around magazines, which we all get in large numbers, recyclable? And also, having watched ‘The One Show’ last night, I discovered that the black plastic microwavable packaging is not able to be recycled. That came as a shock to me, and I consider myself knowledgeable on this. I always assumed that anything that was hard plastic could be recycled. What we need is for all plastic to be recycled. Too often members of the public are confused over whether something can be recycled or not, and what they do is they take the easy option and they send it to landfill. What we’ve got to do is make sure that that doesn’t happen. Recycle for Wales, a Welsh Government grant funded campaign, recently launched a campaign that persuades people in Wales to increase the food recycling rate by 50 per cent. Wales already recycles half of its food waste and leads the UK, but there’s more to be done. Again, clarity is needed. When food recycling was introduced in Swansea, bones and chicken carcases could not be recycled as food, now they can. Does everybody even know about the change? Also, as in Swansea, food waste needs to be collected weekly. People don’t want to leave food waste out for longer than that or some people will not recycle it, they’ll just get rid of it.

Whilst I support a deposit-return scheme for plastic and glass bottles and cans, and will support the amendment—I remember the Corona bottles with 5p deposit on them, which then went up to 10p deposit on them, and I spent many a happy time down the beach collecting such bottles and returning them—I do not see how it can work on anything but an England-and-Wales basis, otherwise you may well have waste tourism going the wrong way. Otherwise cans and bottles bought in England without a deposit, especially on the border, will be returned in Wales. But I think it really is something that’s very important. People say it won’t work. It worked for very many years. For those people who remember Corona bottles, they always had money on them, people always took them back, and if they didn’t there’d be no shortage of children collecting them to take them back to get the money. So, I think that it is something that is very good, and we do need to go at it. It’s the need for it to be on an England-and-Wales basis, not to have confusion around the border.

Finally, I want to commend Swansea on its recycling. Recyclable materials are collected separately. Those taking black bags of mixed rubbish ready for landfill have their bags opened and those items that can be recycled identified for them. For the first 11 months of 2016-17, unconfirmed recycling figures in Swansea are almost 64 per cent. In terms of the household waste recycling centres initiative, the monthly tonnage of residual waste has dropped from about 1,000 tonnes per month to under 200 tonnes per month. So progress is being made—well done local authorities.

I would like to, first of all, declare an interest as a Powys county councillor. I would agree with the Cabinet Secretary, I think that the Welsh Government has got a good story to tell with regard to its recycling rate—not only, of course, the best in the UK, but one of the best recycling targets around the world. I think that’s to be absolutely commended. As well as that, the Cabinet Secretary said in his opening comments that he wants to build on that performance, and I want to see that happen as well. But what I wanted to do today, I hope, constructively, was to bring forward some examples in rural Wales where I do believe that there is a stumbling block to that actually happening, and I hope I can do that in a productive way today.

But I think it’s right to make you aware that rural authorities, I think, in particular, are facing a real challenge when it comes to recycling. I would like to bring some examples from my own constituency, but note that they’re happening across Wales in rural areas. For example, I look at Machynlleth in my own constituency—the local authority closed the recycling centre there last year, and now residents there have to travel on a 60-mile round trip to dispose of their recycling waste.

I held a surgery, actually, just before Christmas, and one constituent came to my surgery with a big tub of oil and helped me put it into my boot—he asked me where I was going next. I said ‘Newtown’, and he said, ‘Can you take this to the recycling centre?’ He had a motorbike and couldn’t do it, and, of course, that’s all he wanted to see me about, and he was making a very important point that was received by me, as that oil sloshed around the back of my car all the way back to Newtown.

The other issue as well is that, at the moment, the two largest towns in my constituency, Newtown and Welshpool, both have a recycling centre open seven days a week—very well received by the public, very busy. I use them myself. One of the recycling centres—the one I use—actually often has queues to use particular skips within that centre, but what the local authority is doing now, due to a cost-saving measure, is reducing that, as of next month, from seven days to three days a week, and there’s a big public backlash against this. What this does, of course, is make recycling more difficult for people. This is done as a cost—yes, I’ll take an intervention from Mike Hedges.

As a councillor in Powys, what are you doing to stop the council doing that? [Laughter.]

What I’ll say, Mike Hedges, is that, just in the same way that I’m not a member of the Welsh Government, I’m bringing forward issues here today, I’m not a member of the council’s cabinet, and I think it’s right in this debate today—surely it’s right, is it not, for me to represent my constituents in this building today and say what some of the issues that are affecting them? I’m certainly very willing to work with the local authority and be constructive in working with them and bring forward solutions as well. That’s why I want to have this debate today. I want the Cabinet Secretary to bring forward solutions as well to help me to help my local authority, Mike Hedges.

But what I would say as well is that the other issue that is particularly relevant, I think, in rural areas is recycling for businesses. I do genuinely look to the Cabinet Secretary to come forward with a solution or acknowledge the problem, but many local authorities in rural areas are actually now reducing the list of items that can be taken to their recycling facility areas. They’re reducing the list, so I’ve got one business in my constituency that’s got recycling waste building up in a corner of their warehouse, because the local authority will no longer take it in their depot. What’s happening there is that they’re saying, ‘Well, go and ask a private company to come and take this from you.’ But, of course, there aren’t any private companies that are willing to go into rural parts of Wales. It’s not commercially viable for them to do so, and this is a very real problem as well.

The other issue is, of course, that the local authority has stopped collecting from businesses last month. So, businesses are now expected to take their recycled waste to their nearest depot. For one business I’ve got, it’s a 45-mile round trip. They’ve got a large amount of recycled waste, but they’ve not got a commercial vehicle. I look at the Cabinet Secretary waving his arms at me—well, I’m genuinely looking for solutions to some of these problems, and I’m wondering whether there is an opportunity here to either change legislation or amend legislation to make it easier for people and businesses in Wales to recycle their household goods and business waste.

But I do want to bring these forward today. I know a lot of businesses are very happy to pay for a service for collection, but that they can’t do so because it’s not commercially viable for companies to come in and offer that service. I think, therefore, the Government needs to step in and fill that market failure.

I share Lesley Griffiths’s ambition to enable us to become a zero-waste nation. We have to keep up the pressure to reduce, reuse and recycle, and our first obligation must be to reduce the amount of waste we create. It is nothing short of shocking that one third of food produced never reaches the table or the plate. On a farm visit yesterday in the Vale of Glamorgan I heard how one leading supermarket insists in their contract with the grower that so-called wonky cauliflowers that don’t meet their cosmetic requirements for perfectly round white cauliflowers have to be ploughed back into the ground rather than sold on to people who are more interested in the taste than the shape of a cauliflower. And more outrageous, waste of perfectly good food that is hard to find, in the context of severe famine today facing at least four countries in Africa, is downright offensive. Frankly, such contracts should be banned, but not, apparently, according to UKIP, who want to delete all mention of further initiatives to achieve sustainable development. I appreciate that this is not something that municipal waste functions of local authorities can address but it may well be possible to use public procurement to change such wasteful practice. The role of the supermarkets in driving evermore unsustainable farming practices is something that requires a separate debate.

Turning to the role of Cardiff council and its strategic role in helping Wales to become the best recycling nation in the world, as it is the largest municipal waste authority that we have, its ‘Stay Out of the Black…Move into the Green’ campaign has made huge strides in driving up recycling. In terms of reusing materials, their free recyclable bulky waste collections has been massively popular and reduced the amount of fly-tipping, because it’s not credible to think that people fly-tip residual waste because there’s hardly any of it. That is where you get fly-tipping, apart from the actual criminal organisation of the fly-tipping of commercial waste.

However, in terms of talking to our populations, there’s obviously a lot more that we can do. I had a conversation this morning with a constituent who assured me that she and her neighbours found it impossible to confine their residual waste to the size of the bin provided for fortnightly collections. I was not convinced, and during the conversation it emerged that this person was indeed placing recyclable items into the non-recyclable bin. It illustrates the fact that 50 per cent of what is in non-recyclable household waste could be recycled. So, we obviously have a major challenge there. I’d be happy to talk to any of my constituents who think they can demonstrate that they cannot reduce their non-recyclable waste to the restricted bin that Cardiff provides, bearing in mind that there are separate collections for clinical waste, including nappies. I have yet to meet any household who cannot comply as opposed to can’t be bothered to comply or is not aware of what can and should be recycled.

An irresponsible person’s waste has to be paid for by other members of the community, whether it’s the cost of picking up litter or disposing of recyclables as if it were general waste. I look forward to seeing the landfill disposals tax community scheme being used to address the fact that there’s no such thing as throwing away. Every tonne of non-recyclable waste costs £80 a tonne in landfill tax, as well as the cost of disposing of it. That opportunity cost translates into other essential services that are not provided. So, we have an obligation to reduce our greenhouse emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050, and landfill is not it because of the methane produced.

So, we can see exactly how well we’re doing, as non-recyclable waste is one of the 40 national well-being indicators in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Local authorities all need to adopt best practice to increase recycling rates. So, therefore, I oppose amendment 4 that UKIP proposes. If Isle of Anglesey County Council can have three-weekly residual waste collections, and Conwy is moving towards monthly collections, I do not understand why other local authorities cannot do that.

Plastic bag use is down 70 per cent since we introduced the levy. Could we not apply a similar levy to wasteful packaging, as described by Simon Thomas? Plastics Europe, the trade body, says that two thirds of plastics used in UK is for packaging, and we can learn from the German Government, who introduced legislation in 1996 to compel manufacturing companies to design out wasteful packaging from their processes. It's no coincidence that Germany is now the top European nation in recycling, and we should obviously be embracing the way they've done things.

In the fourth Assembly’s environment—

You need to bring your comments to an end now.

[Continues.]—committee legacy report, it was suggested we should abandon weight-based recycling targets to carbon-based targets, to avoid perverse incentives and, more radically, we could convert waste collections—

Bring your comments to an end.

[Continues.]—to a pay-as-you-go service like electricity and gas. And I look forward to hearing the Government's comments.

Any initiative that reduces our carbon footprint is, of course, welcome, but, yet again, we are seeing a proposal that is wrongly blaming the consumer over the manufacturer. I would like to see a proposal that puts the emphasis on those who can actually prevent the production of waste in the first place, and that can only be done by those who are making and selling the products—coincidentally, those who make a lot of money out of the Welsh consumer. It is always better to preserve the use of energy than to try to militate against it, and a reduction in waste is much more preferable to recycling, which often uses a lot of energy itself. Often, the greenhouse gases caused by the process of recycling are forgotten, as people consider recycling as environmentally friendly. It's as if we consider recycled material as being carbon neutral, whereas it clearly isn't.

Manufacturers make great play of their recyclable packaging, hoping the consumer will ignore the fact that it would be much better for the environment had the packaging never been made in the first place. A reduction in packaging would not just save on the original production, but would also mean more of the product could be transported at once, and a reduction in the need for transporting waste to recycling plants. Manufacturers and retailers have been given a free pass on this issue, as the cost of disposal and recycling has always been passed on to the consumer. The consumer has no meaningful choice of a lower-packaged option at the shelves, so it is vital that much more is done to force manufacturers to lower their use of packaging. So far, all the initiatives have protected big business and hammered the consumer. I would like to see this reversed. Let's stand up for the consumer, who, after all, has to pay for a bag to carry the packaging in and council tax to get rid of it, and make sure those who are in a position to do something about it, i.e. the manufacturer and retailer, actually do something.

An example of the wrong impression that can be given is over the carrier bag charge. It is disingenuous to use the figures that are bandied about on the reduction of bag use, because it does not necessarily reflect a comparable drop in the amount of plastic used. The 5p bags from some retailers have significantly more plastic in them than the old single-use bags. So, the reduction in the number of bags used does not necessarily reflect a corresponding reduction in plastic disposed of, and all of those bags for life, which have a lot more plastic in them as well, will have to be disposed of at some point in the future anyway. Let's set a meaningful target that relates specifically to the carbon footprint.

The motion also ignores some other major factors creating waste and greenhouse gases. Estimates suggest that discarded food produces more than 21 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year. The amount wasted of just one food product, chicken, equates to greenhouse gases equalling those produced by 290,000 cars a year, yet we are doing next to nothing to tackle this issue. The amount of food that households in Wales throw in the bin is less than the rest of the UK, and that's very good, but in 2015, households in Wales threw away £13 billion-worth and over 300,000 tonnes of food. Think about what the food banks would have done with all that food if it had been donated to them on the way out of the supermarket instead of sitting in a fridge and then being put in the bin because it's out of date. It's a waste of food, of the energy and resources that went into producing it, and, in the case of meat, a huge waste of life. Where is the Welsh Government's policy on this?

The proposals outlined in the motion are fine in themselves but are simply not enough and seem to be more about targets Welsh Government can use to boast, rather than boost our tackling of greenhouse gases. Aiming to be the best country in the world for recycling is a target that essentially means nothing. It would be possible to be the best country in the world for recycling and have the worst carbon footprint at the same time. If the Welsh Government go down this route in an attempt to look like the king or queen of recycling, the risk is that we will instead end up as the emperor of the environment wearing some rather questionable clothes. Thank you.

Thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak in this very important debate. I’d like to start by saying, as the Cabinet Secretary did in his introduction, how proud I am of what we’ve managed to do here in Wales about recycling. I’m sorry that UKIP is so grudging in some of their comments, because I think where we’ve made such really good progress, we need to acknowledge it. I do think that the tax on plastic bags was a huge success, and certainly has been one of the most imaginative ways of catching people’s commitment to recycling.

So, I also welcome the fact that we are now in Europe second only to Germany, with a recycling rate of 62 per cent compared with Germany’s 66 per cent. I think it’s very important that Wales has set statutory recycling targets. I welcome the 70 per cent recycling by 2025 and I commend the thrust of the ‘Towards Zero Waste’ strategy, and I’m sure soon we’ll be the first in the world.

Now, in Cardiff, as Jenny Rathbone, my colleague, has already said, the council has taken a strong lead in pushing up the rates of recycling. In fact, in the north of the city, in Cardiff North, 95.4 per cent of Cardiff North residents actually use the city’s waste and recycling services. I’m looking forward to the commitment that there will be a new recycling facility in the north of the city as well as the very successful free service now offered by the council to pick up bulky goods, which has been a huge success, and my colleague Jenny Rathbone also mentioned that.

Cardiff and the Vale of Glamorgan councils—which is a great thing, because the two councils are working together—are also now able to recycle 97 per cent of food waste at the new anaerobic digester plant in the city, which was officially opened last week. As well as being able to deal with 35,000 tonnes of food waste, it is already generating green electricity as a by-product and will soon be producing enough power for 4,000 homes as well as a soil conditioner product. So, it is covering many areas.

I do welcome the fact that councils are working together to deal with food waste. However, I think we should remember that it is the individual responsibility of us all to try to reduce waste ourselves, and also that I think the supermarkets do play a key role in this. I held a short debate on food waste in November 2015, when the present Cabinet Secretary was actually then the Minister for Natural Resources. I think we did say at that time that perhaps the Assembly could look at the legislative competence we have here in terms of controlling the waste produced by supermarkets, following legislation that had been introduced in France. I wondered if perhaps that was something that we could return to and see whether there is any legislative competence to act on that.

I would also urge the Government to move forward with plans for deposit-return schemes for drinks bottles and cans, possibly. We know that Scotland has announced that it is going to have a trial of a deposit-return scheme for drinks containers, so I think we’ll be able to learn by what they’re going to do. But also I hope we can start a similar trial in Wales as soon as possible.

Simon Thomas mentioned Coca-Cola’s support, which has already been mentioned, and I think it’s very important that we do get these big organisations to come on board. I think a deposit-return scheme should be part of an overall strategy. It should play a part in a circular economy. But Coca-Cola actually said that, through their research, 63 per cent of their consumers support a deposit-return in the UK, and 51 per cent say they would be more likely to recycle if such a scheme was brought in.

So, in conclusion, I feel that Wales has made great strides in this field. I think we’ve got a lot to be proud of. There’s a long way to go, but I think there are lots of ideas and new initiatives that we can follow up to boost our recycling rates even higher.

I share the remarks about Wales. We should congratulate ourselves on being third in the world. That is actually a very, very significant accolade and obviously presents an opportunity to maintain our leadership position in terms of recycling as a contribution to our environmental goals, but also it provides us with an opportunity to grasp to put sustainability at the heart of our economy. This presents opportunities for us more broadly.

In her consideration in due course of this debate, when the Cabinet Secretary is back with us, I would ask her to consider the contents of the Bevan Foundation report in June 2016, ‘Tax for Good’, which actually makes some very interesting recommendations that are pertinent to today’s debate. It looks at the power under the Wales Act 2014 for the Assembly to propose completely new taxes in devolved areas.

One of the taxes that it explores in the report is the idea of a takeaway packaging tax, identifying expanded polystyrene, which is a very popular form of packaging, in particular with the takeaway food industry because of its thermal properties, it doesn’t affect the food and drink and it’s also highly cost effective. It comes in at about half the cost of biodegradable alternatives, which are significantly more expensive as a result.

The challenge for us of course is that there are only very limited recycling opportunities in Wales, as elsewhere, for polystyrene products. So, as a result, it’s a waste that tends to end up either in landfill or in litter. Two weeks ago, I think it was, I spent a lovely Saturday morning on the Neath canal cleaning the litter from the banks there. A significant proportion of that, it seemed to me, was polystyrene. It’s very light and it floats and therefore is a particular issue in terms of waterways and seas. So, I think there’s a particular challenge for us there.

This sort of tax is not without its obstacles and not without its limitations. There are significant potential compliance issues, although a number of the outlets that use it are ones that have existing relationships with local government, for food hygiene purposes and so on. So, there are mechanisms to deliver this outcome. We need to be careful about the employment consequences of introducing a tax of this sort. There are lots of jobs in some of the packaging sectors that would be affected. But, I think, on that latter point, we should look to some of the experience that they’ve had in some of the Scandinavian countries where there have been very progressive steps taken in relation to this sort of measure.

In Finland, for example, when they introduced a similar tax there, although the tax doesn’t raise very much revenue, it seems to have led to the production of new packaging industries and to other industries emerging, such as cleaning reusable glass. So, there are potential opportunities that arise from this. I think it’s a reminder to us that the circular economy—yes, it’s about recycling, but it’s also about a fundamentally different set of relationships with our assets and what we deal with in daily life, beyond disposability. There are opportunities for economic development that might arise out of this as well. So, I hope the Cabinet Secretary will give that careful consideration.

Thank you for allowing me to take part. I don’t want to repeat anything that’s already been said, so I want to focus my contribution to today’s debate on the different methods of waste collection. There are three main types. The method advocated by the Welsh Government in its collection blueprint is kerbside sort. That involves the users sorting the dry recyclable waste into different materials at the points at which it will be collected.

At the opposite end of the scale, there is another method called co-mingling, where all the dry recyclable materials are collected into a single container or bag and sorted at the materials recovery facility. The problem is that the co-mingled waste collection method often results in a higher rate of rejected recyclable waste due to cross-contamination. There are pros and cons of course for each method. I’m also very aware that where kerbside sort has been introduced, it has been met with some strong opposition and also some lower rates of recycling. I do recognise also that this sort of kerbside sorting won’t suit everybody—that there are people in flats, that there are people who are frail and vulnerable—and that there might be some difficulties that could be addressed by local authorities playing their part and finding solutions for those families. We’ve heard some of those issues here today. I believe that having an all-Wales waste collection method could help alleviate the confusion that we’ve been talking about here today with these multiple methods, and create a single understanding of what is to be recycled.

I also recognise that in order to achieve a circular economy in Wales we do need to utilise as much as possible of the recyclable material collected in Wales, and municipal waste has an important role to play in that part. In order to achieve the 70 per cent recycling target by 2025, the collection blueprint recommends the collection of other waste for recycling from the kerbside, for example, of textiles, shoes and other non-packaging material that nobody has mentioned here today. I wonder, Cabinet Secretary, whether you will ask your colleague, when she returns, whether she might consider that.

Another issue that I want to raise today is the issue of bulk waste disposal licensing. I know that, very often, householders will call people because they’ve heard that they will get rid of their waste, and they will do it cheaper, sometimes, than those others who have licences. I think there’s a big issue here. I don’t think that people realise that there is such a scheme. I think they do this in ignorance of that scheme. Of course, the waste that’s collected for £2 or £3 finds itself at the end of perhaps their street or not very far away.

The other issue I want to bring, because I’m staggered today to hear that Cardiff council collects bulk waste for nothing. In Pembrokeshire it’s £40. You can, of course, recycle up to 10 items, if you like, but I don’t know many people that have got that many items. The £40 minimum charge is, in my opinion, an outrageous charge, and it’s certainly going to add into, probably, the prospect of fly-tipping.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children to reply to the debate—Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Llywydd. A really interesting debate, with the contributions raised by many today. Thank you for the opportunity to respond. I’ll consider all of the points made in charting our way forward, and I know that the Minister’s officials will be watching closely, not just about what I say but about what you’ve said in terms of the opportunities that will present in the future. I’m sure that they will give advice to the Minister on those issues.

The Government opposes amendment 1 to the motion, and supports amendments 2 and 3. We are considering the deposit-return scheme. I know that Julie Morgan has long made reference to this, and it’s something that I know the Minister is keen to pursue. The Government also opposes amendments 4 and 5. The Government is not aware of any evidence on collection, only the anecdotal ones that Members have raised here today about the difference between residual waste collection frequencies and fly-tipping. There are many local authorities exhibiting best practice, and many Members today have alluded to that. These authorities cover different sociodemographic and different service types. Singling out any individual authority in this context might be difficult, but we have, as the Senedd today, celebrated the fact that Wales is a world leader in recycling. Julie and others are absolutely right to say that we should be celebrating this. It just shows the example of what Wales can achieve when we work together.

Can I pick up some of the points that were raised by Members today, if I may, Llywydd? Lots of people mentioned the issues of thanking communities—people in our communities that deliver on these services with local authorities, and I congratulate them too. They are an important part of this process. It’s not about what the Government can do. We all have a duty to take care of our environment and make sure that we manage the waste product that is created in society.

Jenny Rathbone raised issues of food and food waste, and she’s absolutely right. At the weekend I bought a wonky veg box, because there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it, but it makes a great Sunday dinner. And the issue is very serious, actually. This is about long-term food security that we have to think about carefully, and, therefore, the Member is right to raise this issue, and the shocking statistic that she raised on food waste is something I know the Minister is concerned about.

The issue that was raised by Julie Morgan and others, Jeremy Miles mentioned a very important position about—. Actually, it’s not just about the food waste programme; it’s about the technology that comes from there as well. I remember when I was the Minister responsible for this department, I visited a place in north Wales that was making egg boxes and different cartons out of grass, which is a sustainable product, and it was all recyclable.

That brings me quite nicely to the contribution by the UKIP Members and the Conservatives. [Laughter.] The issue of Gareth Bennett, his opening contribution was, ‘We don’t know where you’re going with recycling, so we won’t be supporting this.’ Well, Gareth, we’re second in Europe and third in the world. That does tell you something, I hope, that we are a world, groundbreaking nation in terms of delivery. I also saw recently on the internet some great work that’s going on across many communities, including Cardiff, where you’ve got many fantastic councillors, but our local councillors Ed Stubbs and Huw Thomas, there the other day, with their local community, picking up some litter, with their residents, doing a great job. We should not underestimate the opportunities that that there brings. But we do know there is history in this. Gareth Bennett, I picked up the article, actually, a ‘Western Mail’ article, from when the Member was standing prior to the election, who then was blaming ethnic minorities for litter picking in Cardiff. I think the Member—. I don’t remember if the Member has ever responded to that or apologised to our ethnic—

Will you give way?

Yes, I will; I’m more than happy to.

You are partly correct, but I would actually advise you to look at the original piece that Martin Shipton wrote, because I didn’t solely blame ethnic minorities; I also blamed students as well.

So, not just ethnic minorities, but others as well. I think the Member would have been better using that contribution to apologise to the people in Cardiff, rather than make opportunities there.

And the issue that Michelle Brown raised as well, I listened very carefully to that. She belittles the issue around carrier bag charges. Long gone are the days, I hope, where we saw trees covered in carrier bags. We used to grow them in Wales, but now that doesn’t seem to appear. We’ve managed to control that issue. There is also the issue that we have to be responsible for the population, but everybody’s got a responsibility around waste. In my contribution, at the start, I did mention to the Member and the Chamber about enhanced producer responsibility and the issue around food waste as well, so I would hope that I’ve given the Member some confidence in terms of what we’re able to do here in Wales.

Simon Thomas, again, very supportive with his contribution, and is long a campaigner on environmental standards.

Can I just pick up on the last two points with the Conservative Members? Russell George gave me some challenges. Well, I’ll give him some responses, and Darren Miller, his companion, the chewing gum champion from the north. They say one thing, but really they mean another. They say that they’re supportive of recycling and it’s going really well, but, actually, when it comes to the proof of the pudding, they want to object to all the changes that local authorities need to do in that process. [Interruption.] It is true, because let’s take the Russell George. I understand, Russell. You asked me about what can Powys do—you’re a councillor in the authority—and what else we can do to help. What it does help with Powys council is when they’re able to spend their budget, but I believe that you voted against their budget in terms of allowing them to create a better environment for recycling.

So how can they keep their waste recycling centres open when you’re taking the money away for them to do that? Let me just also remind the Members—[Interruption.] I will take an intervention. I’d love it. Let me just also remind the Members opposite. [Interruption.] Llywydd, let me remind the Members opposite: they talked about what we’re doing for the environment and what we can do to help businesses as well. I also recall when we introduced the environment Act in the last Government, those people voted against that, too. So, don’t claim to be the champions of the environment; you’re no champions of the environment, you’re political—. You’re just trying the political circle, trying to win votes where it doesn’t help.

Llywydd, finishing off, we are second in Europe, third in the world in terms of our recycling opportunities, and I move the motion today. [Interruption.]

Can we hear the Minister finish off? [Assembly Members: ‘Hear, hear.’]

The Cabinet Secretary has finished. Thank you for that. As important as your contribution has been this afternoon, I’m sure that we will all look forward to Lesley Griffiths attending, once more, this Chamber and that we, more importantly, wish her well in her recovery from her accident.

Y cwestiwn felly yw: a ddylid derbyn gwelliant 1? A oes unrhyw wrthwynebiad? [Gwrthwynebiad].

Therefore, we move to voting time on this item. That brings us to voting time unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung.

I will move immediately to the vote. The first vote, therefore, is on the debate just staged on municipal waste and recycling and the first vote is on amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of David Rowlands. Open the vote. Close the vote. Four in favour, no abstentions, 46 against. And, therefore, amendment 1 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 35, 14 abstentions, three against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 3, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 51, no abstentions, one against. Therefore, amendment 3 is agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of David Rowlands. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 16, no abstentions, 36 against and therefore amendment 4 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on amendment 5, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, 28 against and therefore amendment 5 is not agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 51, no abstentions, none against and therefore the motion as amended is agreed.

That brings today’s proceedings to a close.