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 the first question is from Lee Waters.

Our programme for government sets out that we will ensure young people in Wales have the relevant skills they need for the future by developing coding skills in our young people. The Cabinet Secretary will be making an announcement as to how we are taking this forward in June.

Thank you, First Minister. My daughter was nine yesterday, and, for her birthday, she asked for a Raspberry Pi, which is not a fruit-based pudding, but, in fact, as you know, a small computer manufactured in your constituency.

No, in my constituency. [Laughter.]

In your area. [Laughter.] But when she leaves education, the ability to programme computers will be an essential skill, everything from programming a manufacturing line to designing the next innovation. But the chief inspector of schools found that ICT standards are strong in only a very few schools, and not enough understand the potential of digital learning to aid teaching and learning. Teaching our children to code should not rely on the enthusiasm of the odd teacher, or on a parent’s ability to buy a Raspberry Pi. It must be a key part of what our schools do, or we’ll be left behind. Now, as you indicate, the Donaldson curriculum will, of course, address this, but more than 150,000 young people will graduate the school system without this basic skills before that’s fully implemented. So, would you consider, First Minister, what interim measures you can put in place to ensure that every child in Wales gets the opportunity to learn computer coding as soon as possible?

Well, can I begin, first of all, by wishing the Member’s daughter a happy birthday for yesterday? She’ll be a teenager soon. [Laughter.] In answer to his question, we do know, of course, that we want to encourage coding skills. We’ve fast-tracked the publication of the digital competence framework, which will support the development and embedding of digital skills in everything a young person does in school. Many schools have already introduced coding skills into the classroom. We have invested £670,000 to the Technocamps and Technoteach programmes to deliver computer coding workshops to pupils and teachers in secondary schools in Wales, and we’ve made a commitment to expand code clubs in every part of Wales. And that is before, of course, the announcement next month.

First Minister, we do need to be part of the coding revolution, and it’s important that our young people learn these skills. But, of course, one of the problems that they’ve got is being able to do homework in relation to coding, because there is inadequate access to the Superfast Cymru high-speed broadband scheme. You’ll be aware that you made a clear commitment in your 2011 Labour Assembly manifesto, which gave a pledge to roll out broadband to all residential premises and businesses by 2015. That was a broken promise, wasn’t it? Don’t you think that it’s about time you delivered on that promise, and the others in that manifesto that you didn’t keep?

Well, our promise is to deliver to 96 per cent of premises by the summer of this year, in contrast to his party who made no promises at all when it came to broadband, and probably struggle with the very concept of what broadband is.

If we have the money to be spending on IT, wouldn’t that money be better spent on literacy and numeracy in schools, which has been failing for a while?

I see that 1951 has dawned in the corner over there. Well, of course, literacy and numeracy are important, but so are IT skills. We know, as Members here, that we couldn’t function properly in our jobs if we didn’t have at least basic IT skills, and it’s hugely important that our children have the same, if not better, IT skills, compared to other children in the world.

Each local authority is responsible for the collection of its debts as part of its own effective financial management processes.

I’m a bit disappointed with that answer, First Minister, as I thought you’d like to know what your local authorities are not recovering at a time when they’re claiming that austerity is depriving them of any money. I’m sure you’ll join me in congratulating all the newly elected councillors at Bridgend County Borough Council, including the 10 new Conservative members, and, hopefully, the new council will be able to reply to freedom of information requests within the statutory time limit so that I can ask questions like this with full information to hand. Can you tell me how much unclaimed debt is owed to local authorities, the main sources of those debts, and the reasons that local authorities give you for not pursuing them?

I can say that, in 2015-16, local authorities collected over 97 per cent of council tax billed—the highest level since this tax was introduced. Maintaining full entitlement to support for all eligible applicants via our council tax reduction scheme has helped to mitigate rises in the level of council tax debt in Wales, and we know that council tax in Wales is far lower than in England, under a Tory Government there. And, of course, I can say to the Member that collection rates in Wales are now at 97.2 per cent; they are lower in England.

I last saw Councillor Keith Reynolds, leader of Caerphilly County Borough Council, working at his desk some weeks before he died. Would the First Minister recognise that Welsh Labour’s victory in Caerphilly county borough is a testament to Keith’s leadership, his sound financial management, and a lifetime in public service?

Well, could I join the Member in expressing my regards, of course, to Councillor Keith Reynolds’s family? I know the illness was short and, in many ways, unexpected. And, of course, I’m sure that people in Caerphilly would have recognised the work that he and so many others did over the course of the last five years.

Would the First Minister agree that the third party that owes the biggest debt of all to Welsh local authorities is the Westminster Government, which has cut over a third in spending on adult care since 2011, which has had severe financial consequences in Wales and, obviously, terrible consequences in terms of the human cost to the elderly, the sick and the disabled? If this callous Conservative Government is re-elected, as seems increasingly likely, on 8 June, we need a plan to defend Wales. Where is it? What is it? Who’s going to lead it? Because I have to say, on the evidence seen from yesterday, we are in a dire position if it’s going to be him.

Well, according to last week, it’s him. He was talking about the need for leadership, he was talking about himself. We will happily stand up for Wales. We don’t want to see a future Conservative Government walk all over Wales. And we have stood up for our people, as the election last year showed, and, indeed, in 2011. The reality is—and he is right to point out the cuts that have taken place—we have lost, since 2010, the equivalent of the entire budget for health in the whole of north Wales. Despite that, we’ve maintained health spending at 1 per cent above the level in England per head, and maintained health and social care spending at 6 per cent per head higher than in England, showing a Welsh Labour Government delivering for the people of Wales in the face of Tory austerity.

I now call on the party leaders to question the First Minister. The Leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Llywydd. You launched your election campaign yesterday, talking a lot about unity. But you couldn’t bring yourself to utter the name of your leader. Is Jeremy Corbyn still your candidate for Prime Minister?

Yes.

First Minister, yesterday, you had a chance to put Wales on the political landscape, but, instead—I’m sure that Theresa May will be breathing a huge sigh of relief—three of your major pledges are devolved, and they were promises made ahead of last year’s election. And a fourth pledge, on policing, could have been devolved if only Labour MPs hadn’t had their own way. Now, the next few years will define the future of Wales and the UK. You should have made clear Welsh demands, to give Wales a voice, to defend Wales, but you failed to do that. We’ll now have to rely on Plaid Cymru MPs—[Interruption.]

Okay. Calm down. Let the question continue.

We will now have to rely upon Plaid Cymru MPs to best set out how we can defend Wales. Why did you choose to let Theresa May off the hook?

They don’t like the slogan ‘Standing up for Wales’, do they? It’s one of the things I’ve noticed. And I thank the leader of Plaid Cymru for reiterating our pledges—pledges that we in Welsh Labour are proud of—and she will find more to come in the manifesto that will be published in due course.

They were promises you pledged before the last election. You should have already delivered on some of those pledges. First Minister, the reality is you have airbrushed your leader out of this campaign. You talk a lot about unity, but I believe that you’ve airbrushed him out of this campaign because you know that Labour can’t win. Now, you want to make the election about your record, about the record of the Welsh Government, and we all know why you’re doing that, and that’s why most of your recycled election pledges are within devolved competence. Therefore, then, if you lose this election in Wales, as many polls are suggesting that you might, does that mean this will be a verdict on you? Will it be your fault? And if you become the first Labour leader to lose Wales, the first time in 100 years, will you be prepared to take responsibility or can we expect you, yet again, to blame somebody else?

Well, we had all of this last year. We saw the result. People trust us to stand up for Wales. We saw Plaid Cymru’s results in the local elections: very little by way of advances, backwards in Caerphilly. Only last week in this Chamber—only last week in this Chamber—the Member for South Wales Central was claiming he would be the leader of Cardiff council, and they won three seats. Three seats. He’s now claiming that—he’s not here, I know, and I recognise that—Cardiff West was a great victory for Plaid Cymru. Well, with three seats and Labour on 12, I’m more than happy to concede that victory to them if that is their definition of it. We have an election to fight. We will all, as parties, put our policies forward to the people of Wales, but, above all else, we will be standing up for Wales.

The leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Last week in the news, First Minister, there were some serious concerns raised about the Tawel Fan report and the progress being made on the reporting system around the Tawel Fan ‘disaster’—I’d call it—where people were actually, as the previous report talked about, being treated like animals, and other shocking revelations. Families were showing real concern over the progress of the information that’s coming back to them in order to satisfy themselves over the way their loved ones were looked after. There has been a call for the mortality report to be brought forward because Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board has identified that some premature deaths could be associated with the levels of care that were around the Tawel Fan unit at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. In fact, the head of the community health council in north Wales has called for this report to be made available because it has been finished. Will you, as a Government, commit to making that report available given that Betsi Cadwaladr are in special measures and you are responsible for that health board?

We will give full consideration to that on the basis that we want to be as open and transparent as possible. It is what people would expect, and consideration will be given to releasing that report if that’s appropriate.

Well, the head of the community health council believes that it is appropriate, and, to use his words, so that

‘It may stop this practice elsewhere’.

We know that report is available; it has been concluded. You are spending £5 million a year additionally running Betsi Cadwaldr because it’s in special measures, so you are responsible. When families and concerned clinicians want to see this data so they can fully understand what went on within that unit, why on earth are you not allowing that report to come forward, because it would add a huge amount of comfort to the families and to the individuals who’ve heard such horrific stories over the care within that unit? In particular, I draw your attention to the fact that, as has already been said, patients were treated like animals.

Well, the report is, as I understand it, with the independent overseer and, at the right time, consideration will be given to releasing the report. It’s important that as much information as possible is made available to those who have seen their relatives suffer and to those who have suffered in order that lessons can be learned.

I’m really disappointed you’re not prepared to give some firm indications of when that report will be available. As I said, this isn’t a politician who’s saying this report should be made available; this is the head of the community health council in north Wales, along with family members and clinicians. So, I’d be grateful, if you’re not in a position to give an indication of the timeline today because I’ve just put that question to you, that you would indicate that you will write to me to allow me to have sight of the timeline that you as a Government are working to. I think that’s the very least that someone can expect given the concerns that were raised last week.

But, also, I would ask you to confirm that you are satisfied with the level of bed capacity in north Wales for mental health patients, because it has come to our attention that there is a ‘sofa system’ working in north Wales, where, if a bed is not available in mental health, people are put on sofas to try and meet the targets. That cannot be right. It is putting vulnerable people in a position where they could be exploited. How can anyone feel that a ‘sofa system’ meets the requirement for providing safe and secure bed capacity in the north Wales health board area?

Well, if the leader of the Welsh Conservatives has evidence of a sofa system, as he describes it, I’d be glad to see that evidence. And I will, of course, write to him along the lines that he has asked for, providing him with more information regarding the timescale in terms of any release of the report.

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

The First Minister will know that the Cabinet Secretary for Education’s party is standing in this Westminster election on a policy of increasing income tax for people earning as low as £11,000 a year, and the Labour Party nationally is apparently going to stand on a policy of increasing the top rate of income tax from 45p to 50p. Does he agree with the Shadow Chancellor that we have a great deal to learn from Karl Marx and ‘Das Kapital’, and does he think that raising the top rate of tax is likely to raise more money?

Yes, I do. I think that raising the top rate of tax will raise more money. I don’t think that we have much to learn from ‘Das Kapital’; for those who’ve read it and tried to understand what it says, it is not an easy exercise. We will stand on a platform of ensuring that those who can afford to pay a little bit more do pay a little bit more in order to ensure that we have the public services that people would expect.

So, am I to take it from that response that it is now the policy of the Welsh Government, when tax powers are devolved to us in this Assembly, to follow the Labour Party’s manifesto nationally of increase top rates of tax in Wales, because the evidence from the last time that this happened in 2013 was that reducing the tax rate from 50p to the current 45p actually led to an enormous increase in revenue of about £8 billion? So, it seems to be rather counterproductive to stand on a policy that increases tax rates and actually reduces revenue, and makes it less likely that the Welsh Government will be able to put more money into the national health service.

As far as the Welsh rate of income tax is concerned, we’ve already pledged that we will not increase the rate of income tax during the course of this Assembly.

I’m delighted to hear that, but whether that means that the First Minister accepts that raising rates doesn’t necessarily lead to increasing revenue offers Wales a great opportunity to make our country into a kind of tax haven within the United Kingdom, which would help us to reverse the economic trends of many, many decades in Wales and give us a significant advantage, in the same way as southern Ireland has used differential rates of corporation tax to kick-start the Celtic tiger economy, which was very successful in that country—.

He raises an interesting point about corporation tax; there are no proposals to devolve corporation tax. What I do know is that tax havens tend to have very poor public services; in particular, they don’t have health services because they can’t raise the money in order to pay for those public services. So, I don’t believe that the future of Wales lies in being a kind of replica of the British Virgin Islands, or a replica, necessarily, of the Channel Islands. We have a very different model; the Channel Islands don’t have, for example, a health service along the model that we would understand, but getting the balance right between revenue and expenditure on public services to the level that people would expect is, of course, a matter for Governments to balance.

‘Static’ I think is the word that I would use. There’s been a tremendous amount of posturing on both sides. I hope that comes to an end pretty soon so that the task of ensuring a sensible Brexit is taken forward.

I thank the First Minister for that response. Although the UK Treasury has guaranteed full funding for all European structural and investment projects that have started before the UK leaves the EU, does the First Minister agree that it’s absolutely crucial that after the UK leaves the EU the total sum of money that has been available in the past for these projects in Wales is added to the Welsh budget, and is under the control of the Welsh budget?

I do. First of all, we know that structural funds are guaranteed to 2020. Farming subsidies are guaranteed to 2020, but nothing beyond. At the moment, farmers face the scenario where they’ll have nothing at all in terms of support beyond that time. I have an easy answer, and that’s quite simply for the pot of money to be made available, as it is now, and for it to be distributed as it is now to provide the certainty that structural funds have provided so far, and particularly certainty for our farmers. That’s a good way of ensuring that farmers don’t have to suffer as a result of Brexit.

Although Jeremy Corbyn has joined the Conservatives in saying he wants Brexit to deliver a fairer society and an upgraded economy, we recognise there are tough negotiations ahead. How, therefore, do you respond to his statement that the issue of Brexit is settled?

In terms of the question, it is settled, because Britain is leaving the EU and that question has already been answered. What I don’t see, however, is any semblance of any kind of plan from the UK Government. Nothing. I’ve sat there in meetings and I’ve asked. I’ve tried to see what the plan is. There isn’t one. Last Thursday, we saw panic on the part of the Prime Minister when she started to worry about what Brexit would mean for ordinary working people and she’s right to be concerned about that. But you can’t say on the one hand that no deal is better than a bad deal and then say, ‘Oh, but, of course, we need a deal to make sure that we don’t see an economic downturn.’ Now, what’s hugely important is that the posturing of last week goes and that we have ideas as to what Brexit might look like. She was a remainer. Let’s not forget that. She is somebody, like me, who has accepted the result and it’s hugely important, for those who have ideas, to work together to take those ideas forward, because we’ve had nothing at all in terms of ideas from those who campaigned for Brexit.

Will the First Minister agree with me that the kind of language being used by the Prime Minister to attack our friends and neighbours on the continent helps nobody in terms of the negotiations that are to come? It doesn’t only tarnish Theresa May’s Government, but it also threatens to tarnish the reputation of Wales. The First Minister’s asking for ideas in going forward, to mitigate the potential of tarnishing Wales’s good name around the world because of that language being used by Theresa May. Will he commit to implement a new international policy for Wales that would include designating a member of his Cabinet as the external affairs Cabinet Secretary for our country, in order to start rebuilding the bridges that Westminster is so determined to burn down?

Last week’s language was undiplomatic. I think both sides, actually, were guilty of posturing and that needs to come to an end. This is not a war. Nobody has invaded anybody else. We’re not about to face each other, to stare at each other over the channel or, indeed, across the Irish border. We want to be friends and allies and trading partners at the end of the day. We’ve already started looking at our international policy, in particular where we need to beef up our international presence. We know we’ve been successful. The Qatar Airways flight is another example of where Welsh Government has been able to support the airport to get that route, but the next stage forward is for us to make sure that we look to having sufficient presence and an increased presence in those markets that will become important to us.

We do promote existing retail and commercial centres as the most sustainable locations for new development. Local authorities should establish land use and regeneration strategies and policies to support vibrant, viable and attractive retail and commercial centres.

Thank you, First Minister. Morriston and Swansea are a major district shopping centre. There are other district shopping centres in Swansea and in other cities in Wales. I’d like to stress the importance of district shopping centres, such as in Morriston, Mumbles and Whitchurch in Cardiff. In Morriston, we have lost banks, public houses and shopping diversity. Will the First Minister agree with me that there should be a major bank in every one of these district shopping centres?

Well, ideally, we would welcome the co-location of bank branches within district shopping centres, but these are ultimately matters for the banks. But it is important that businesses and customers have the ability to pay in money and make cash withdrawals within their communities. So, where the banks are failing to accommodate this, we know that the Post Office is serving an important role, with 95 per cent of all UK banking customers having access to their bank accounts via the post office. What I’d be more concerned about is if there were any announcement by Post Office in the future about closing post office branches, because that removes, of course, the only banking function that remains in so many communities.

First Minister, footfall has decreased in Welsh high streets. By comparison, footfall to out-of-town shopping centres has increased by 4.6 per cent according to information from last year. Now, the Welsh Retail Consortium has called for local authorities and retailers to work together to market a high-street identity effectively. Also, they want local authorities to have more flexibility with regard to the planning system. So, can I ask you: how do you think the planning system can help to be more supportive to high streets?

We know that it’s hugely important that local authorities, when they develop their LDPs, look at how they can assist existing retail centres, including high streets. But it’s about more than that. It is hugely important for town centres to develop their own identity; how many town centres have a website? If I were to go to a town in Wales, can I find out what’s there? Is there a website? Have the traders got their own websites? And, of course, the reason why people go to out-of-town shopping centres is sheer convenience—they’re open. And they’re open particularly on Sundays when most people, these days, tend to shop. So, it’s hugely important that high-street retailers look flexibly at their opening hours as well. This isn’t 40 years ago when people went to shop in the week in the daytime and shops were open. In the main, people are shopping 6, 7, 8 o’clock at night, and they’re shopping on Sundays when a lot of high streets are closed, so there needs to be some flexibility as well with traders to make sure that they align their opening hours—there’s a limit to what they can do as sole traders—with the work patterns that people have now, not the work patterns people had, say, 30 or 40 years ago. It’s hugely important as well, as part of the LDP process, that sufficient room is given in town centres for more living accommodation and more office space. If you have the office workers during the day, you’ve got the footfall during the day to help the retailers.

Mike Hedges mentioned the closure of high-street banks and you mentioned post offices. Another important part of district shopping areas is sometimes the local pub. I wondered if there was any update regarding the Welsh Government’s talks with the Campaign for Real Ale, I believe, about how to protect community pubs.

I have to declare an interest as a CAMRA member at this point. It’s a tricky issue because we know that, in planning terms, it’s not difficult to change the use of a pub to another commercial or retail use. That said, of course, quite often pubs are not sold and they become derelict because they’re empty after a while, so it’s not an easy issue to resolve. We know, and even CAMRA itself recognises, there are still too many pubs, given people’s current social habits. What’s hugely important is to be able to work with the market-leading pubs—there are many of them, some small, some big—in order to provide a good example to others. But, ultimately, it’s a question of ensuring that the pubs are able to offer the widest range of services possible to customers. I’ve been to countries where the pubs double up as shops—in Wales, actually. I think Cwmdu is one example, near Llandeilo, where the pub is also a shop. So, looking at ways in which pubs can also act as business hubs in communities, where the local shop can be, possibly, the post office—that’s one way forward to ensure that pubs have a viable future.

‘Together for Mental Health’, our cross-Government mental health strategy, and the related 2016-19 delivery plan set out our priorities for improving the mental health and well-being of people in Wales.

Thank you. Two weeks ago I was proud to speak alongside the health Secretary at the first-year celebrations of Valleys Steps, a community projects that seeks to improve emotional well-being through mindfulness and stress control courses. Now, Valleys Steps has helped nearly 2,000 people during their first year, and Mental Health Awareness Week seems an appropriate time to celebrate their success. With one in four people experiencing mental health issues, what best practice can the Welsh Government draw from Valleys Steps and promote amongst other health boards across Wales?

Well, Valleys Steps is an innovative approach: it aims to improve mental health and reduce antidepressant prescribing. I do congratulate them on reaching their first anniversary, and we are keen to spread the word of innovative models such as this to encourage similar collaboration to support people with mental health problems, and that work, then, will inform new initiatives, including the development of the well-being bond and the social prescribing pilots. So, we’ll consider the work of organisations such as Valleys Steps in order to ensure that what we are doing is strengthened as a result of looking at their experience.

First Minister, a number of deaths by suicide have occurred in the recent past in schools in my constituency. Now, earlier this year, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom made an announcement that every secondary school in England should be offered mental health first aid training, which teaches people how to identify young people who might be developing a mental health issue, and this policy has been very well received by charities and professionals especially, and we must remember that many young people do struggle with issues such as anorexia and self-harming as well as suicidal thoughts. And I just wondered, First Minister, if you might consider a similar initiative to go on in our schools to try to prevent these wasteful deaths.

Well, I did note the Prime Minister’s announcement recently where she talked about having somebody in every school in England and Wales. I know that was a mistake on her part, and the idea behind what she suggested is one worthy of examination. But, of course, what I remind the Member of is that we have a counsellor in every secondary school in Wales already able to provide that service. I think the trick is not just to provide the counsellor, but to ensure that young people feel able to go and see that counsellor. And that’s a more difficult nut to crack. Actually going to see somebody and people maybe finding out, even though it’s confidential—young people see it that way. That can be quite a step for them as well.

We already have the counsellors in schools, but that’s not enough of itself. We also need to make sure, of course, that young people are able to access assistance outside school as well, particularly in an environment where they feel comfortable.

Does the First Minister truly understand how much of a crisis there is facing us in terms of mental health care in Wales? In Ynys Môn, I understand that there is now not a single psychiatric consultant for mental health patients between 18 and 65 years of age. Mental health professionals are working under huge pressures that they can’t cope with and they fear that they are having to make decisions that will be a risk to patients. The shortage of beds means that people are taken as far as London to be treated or receive care. There are dozens of children and young people who are sent to England for treatment, and over 200 mental health patients in north Wales have been transferred out of Wales in the last 22 months. The whole system is on its knees. When will the Government take action in order to safeguard some of my most vulnerable constituents?

I do not accept the figures that the Member has listed in the Chamber. First of all I must say that the funding for mental health has gone up to £629 million for the ensuing financial year, and that is safeguarded. Health boards have attained their targets as regards mental health services and have actually exceeded them in some areas in the past 12 months. And of course although more people are transferred into CAMHS, the health boards are confident that the situation will demonstrate that every CAMHS service in every part of Wales attained the 28-day target before they get a new appointment. And so very many improvements have taken place over the past year.

Well, of course, there is business to be discussed before 8 June, which has interfered at the moment, but I do discuss EU issues in bilateral meetings—trilateral meetings, I hope—with the First Ministers of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland.

Wouldn’t the First Minister agree that these tripartite discussions are more important than ever, given what’s contained within this White Paper with a sky-blue cover on exiting the European Union, produced by the UK Government, which mentions the situation post Brexit that the powers that the EU currently has in terms of common frameworks will return to the UK, allowing the rules to be set there by democratically elected Members? What’s happening to us in this place? How are our views in the devolved administrations to be part of those discussions?

Wel, fy marn i yw hwn: dylai’r pwerau hynny ddod i bobl Cymru ac nid eistedd yn San Steffan nac yn Whitehall. Mae’n hollbwysig i gael fframweithiau mewn rhai rhannau sef pysgodfeydd, er enghraifft, ond dylai’r fframweithiau hynny gael eu cytuno, ac nid cael eu rhoi ar bobl heb eu bod nhw’n cytuno. Rhaid cofio, os ydym ni’n mynd i gael marchnad sengl tu fewn i’r Deyrnas Unedig—ac rydw i’n cyd-fynd â hynny—mae’n rhaid cael rheolau. Os nad ydym yn berchen y rheolau, nid ydym yn mynd i gymryd sylw ohonyn nhw. Ac yn ail, wrth gwrs, os oes rheolau, pwy sy’n mynd i blismona’r rheolau hynny heb fod yna lys yn gwneud hynny? So mae yna lawer o gwestiynau sydd heb eu hateb ar hyn o bryd. Mae rhai yn Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig yn meddwl bod pethau yn mynd i symud yn ôl i fel roedden nhw yn 1972, ond nid felly yw’r Deyrnas Unedig dim rhagor. Nid gwlad gydag un Llywodraeth yw’r Deyrnas Unedig dim rhagor ac mae lot fawr o waith i’w wneud er mwyn sicrhau bod y pwerau hyn yn dod i gael eu trosglwyddo o Frwsel i Gymru ac nid mynd drwy Lundain.

When the external affairs committee visited Brussels last year, we met with the Canadian trade delegation and I was struck by the role of the Canadian provinces in the negotiation and the approval of the CETA deal with the European Union. We also know, of course, since then, of the role of the Wallonian Parliament in approving the deal. Trade negotiations with the EU and, indeed, beyond are going to become increasingly important for Wales and the UK, and they’re about much more than foreign affairs and the Crown prerogative; they’re about the bread-and-butter issues of daily economic life. So, does he agree with me that future trade negotiations, both with the EU and beyond, should include a voice for Wales and the other devolved administrations in the negotiation and approval of those agreements that are so fundamental to our economic well-being?

Yes, I do. Even though trade, of course, per se, is not devolved, it’s hugely important that we have a strong voice, because we may be called on to implement the results of any trade agreement, even though we might virulently oppose any particular part of a trade agreement. That is hugely important. So, for example, if there were to be a free trade agreement with New Zealand or Australia, that would have a massive impact on our farmers. Even though that’s not devolved, I’m sure nobody would argue rationally that somehow we have no locus in putting forward a view in that regard. We heard voices from Australia over the last few weeks saying that it was not possible to have a free trade agreement with Australia and protect the interests of Welsh hill farmers. Well, that I know, because if we have a free trade agreement in terms of agriculture, then, for many of our Welsh hill farmers, they will have no future. It is hugely important that the Welsh Government and this Assembly are able to express a very strong view and influence, and reject, actually, parts of trade agreements that will have a hugely adverse impact on our own farmers.

The issue raised by the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd is crucial, and it’s been identified for several months now that the future governance of the UK’s internal market will give an indication of the future of the constitution of this country. So, can I ask the First Minister what progress he has made in terms of persuading his counterparts in Scotland and Northern Ireland to agree that the future UK internal market should be governed jointly by the nations of the UK, and should not be imposed upon us by Whitehall?

There are differing views amongst the Governments. The view in Scotland is, basically, ‘Independence will resolve the issue.’ The view in Northern Ireland is mixed. Certainly, I’ve heard the former First Minister of Northern Ireland say there shouldn’t be any state aid rules at all. Now, we have to come to a position, which I think is perfectly reasonable, where we all say where powers are transferred back from Brussels, they come to the devolved administrations. I see no reason why that can’t be agreed—the First Minister of Scotland is in agreement with me on that, so we’re in the same position. My view is, and I’ve not heard a voice dissenting from this, that if we are to have an internal single market, the rules have to be agreed and they have to be policed by an independent adjudication body, not by the UK Government. How can the UK Government police it anyway? If we decide to ignore them, there’s nothing they can do. Now, that’s in nobody’s interests. We have to have a clear system. We have to have faith in a system that is seen as genuinely independent—not as we have now in the JMC dispute resolution process where, if there is a dispute between ourselves and the UK Treasury, ultimately it is resolved by the UK Treasury. Those days have to go. This can be done perfectly sensibly and perfectly properly in order to safeguard the interests of Wales.

Yes, up-to-date advice for trips is produced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That advice is also signposted in the all-Wales guidance for education visits, written by the outdoor education advisers’ panel for Wales and the Health and Safety Executive, and that is accessible from the Welsh Government’s website.

On several occasions, I’ve implored the Government to intervene further in the case of Glyn Summers, who lost his life on a foreign college trip to Spain. Glyn’s parents, with great dignity, have demanded full transparency in terms of the woeful investigation that followed their son’s death, and they believe that there should be an automatic right to an independent investigation in such circumstances. In his last letter to me on this matter, the First Minister said he did not believe there is anything further that he can do with regard to their concerns, but since then, the public services ombudsman has found that the investigation into Glyn’s death was flawed. The ombudsman has called on the local authority to apologise to Glyn’s parents and have further called on the Welsh Government to review its policies further. Will the First Minister say sorry and will he reconsider his opposition to the right to a full and independent investigation into death and serious injuries on foreign field trips?

The Member misrepresents the position that I gave. First of all, it was an awful event that occurred, and it’s been a very hugely difficult few years, as we can all imagine, for Glyn’s parents. The matter has rested with the ombudsman. The ombudsman has now reported. There are recommendations for us as a Government, and we will, of course, take those recommendations exceptionally seriously. The issue for me was: was there anything else that we could do as a Government that would add to what the ombudsman has already found as part of his investigations? I will keep that as an open question, because I think these things have to be looked at hugely carefully, and as a result of the ombudsman’s findings, I’ll look once again to see whether there’s anything more that can be done following the report itself.

I’d like to echo Steffan Lewis’s concerns, and also offer my condolences to the family of Glyn Summers. I think the question is: how can the Welsh Government ensure that schools are able to reflect on occurrences—those rare occurrences—when something adverse happens on school trips? And the First Minister said he’d keep it as an open question. Would he be willing to elaborate on how schools can learn from each other in these circumstances?

The ombudsman’s recommendation is that he will invite us as a Government to consider reviewing our policies and guidance in respect of educational visits abroad. As part of that process of review, it’s hugely important to understand where the best practice lies, to consult, once again, with the outdoor education advisers’ panel, in order to make sure that the recommendation that the ombudsman has put to us is satisfied in full.

I share the concerns that have already been expressed in the Chamber, and, of course, the sympathy to the family of Glyn Summers, but would you agree with me, First Minister, that we need to get the balance right here in respect of any changes that might need to be made, going forward, to improve the risk-assessment processes regarding school trips? Because we do want people to be able to access an enriched educational experience by taking part in trips, so it’s important that any change to Welsh Government guidance, any local education authority guidance or, indeed, any regional consortia guidance, is something that doesn’t prohibit trips from taking place and is fair and proportionate to all those taking part.

I couldn’t disagree with the words that the Member has used, but in these circumstances, there has been a death. It’s hugely important that there is as much transparency as possible, and that as much information as possible is used in order to strengthen policies as far as the future is concerned, but, yes, of course nobody would want to see a situation where school trips don’t take place because of what are seen as regulations that are overly burdensome. But it is important, in the circumstances that we’ve outlined today, that a full investigation leads to a full set of recommendations in order to minimise—we can never remove risk; it’s impossible; life is not like that—but to minimise any potential risk in the future.

Those powers are to be found in our draft government and laws in Wales Bill, which we published.

Okay. Thank you for your answer. I note that earlier you pledged not to increase income tax during the term of this Assembly, but will you also pledge to use your devolved powers to reduce costs to businesses, so that employers can start being attracted to Wales and providing much-needed jobs?

I’m not sure what powers she’s referring to. Many of the issues she refers to are not devolved. Business rates are—that’s true—but in terms of issues such as national insurance or corporation tax, they are not devolved. We know we will see some devolution of income tax in the course of the coming year, but from our perspective, we have a very good record: we have unemployment that’s lower than England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and of course we’ve just recently had the best figures for foreign direct investment for 30 years.

First Minister, as Michelle Brown has just said, the Wales Act—the current legislation—will of course deliver a range of new fiscal powers for the Welsh Government, ranging from borrowing to income tax powers and stamp duty. Whatever you want to do with those taxes in the future—whether you want to leave them where they are, raise them, or lower them—will be dependent on a strong Welsh Revenue Authority, and that’s currently in the process of being set up, and the Finance Committee has been looking at that. Are you happy with the progress being made with the development of that authority? And what mechanisms do you have in place to make sure that that progress keeps on track, because it’s, clearly, vitally important?

We have no concerns about the progress of the Welsh Revenue Authority. We know that it will be in place in good time for next year. Of course we need to ensure that when taxes are devolved, there’s an authority in place to make sure that those taxes can be collected. We’ve understood that there is a pressure on Government, and that pressure we have met. We’re confident that when the time comes next year, the Welsh Revenue Authority will be in place and ready to start its work.

Prif Weinidog, will you distance yourself from comments made by Diane Abbot MP, Labour’s shadow Home Secretary, who told BBC Radio Wales last week that the Labour Party did not think it was, quote, ‘right at this time’ to devolve policing to Wales? Have you asked Diane Abbott why she feels that the Welsh Government, uniquely, is less capable than the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives in terms of delivering police services? The Welsh Government, packed full of Labour elected representatives, as I’m sure you’re aware—whereas in fact the Scottish and Northern Ireland Executives have no such lumbar encumbrances.

I’m fully aware of the fact that the people of Wales decided that there should be a Labour-led Government in Wales last year. I thank him for reminding me of that. I do not agree that policing shouldn’t be devolved. Policing should be devolved. There is a debate in this Chamber tomorrow afternoon when the issue will become clear in terms of the way that votes occur. There’s no reason at all—not at all—why policing should be devolved to Scotland and Northern Ireland, should be devolved to Manchester, to London, but not to Wales. There is no rational reason for that to be the case. We know that there will need to be co-operation in terms of counter-terrorism; there are some issues that need to be dealt with at UK level. When it comes to community policing, why is it that Wales is seen as a second-class nation by the Tories?

Thank you, First Minister.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. I have two changes to report to the timing of business this week. I’ve reduced the length of today’s debate on Stage 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Bill to 120 minutes. Likewise, Counsel General questions tomorrow have been reduced to 30 minutes. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Leader of the house, I’m sure you’ll join with me in congratulating the many local councillors who’ve been elected across the length and breadth of Wales, but in particular the ones who have been elected in the Vale of Glamorgan, and in particular from the Conservatives, who now make us the biggest group on that particular council, and, hopefully, looking forward to an exciting five years in the Vale of Glamorgan. One of the issues that you—[Interruption.] One of the issues—. I hear the Member for Blaenau Gwent chuntering away there. I don’t think he had a particularly good night on Thursday. One of the big issues, as you’ll be aware as the constituency Member for the Vale of Glamorgan, was the Barry incinerator. This, time and time again, came up in the local elections on the doorstep in Barry, and there was widespread concern, in particular, around the need for an environmental impact assessment, which wasn’t undertaken at the time—and that was allowed through by the council—and also the ability for Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board to do a full assessment of the health implications. Given that Barry, as a town, has a higher than average national incidence of asthma within the community there, would you commit to issuing a statement on behalf of the Welsh Government, because I think you’re undertaking the duties of the planning Minister at the moment, as to exactly what measures the Welsh Government is taking to address some of these concerns that are raised time and time again by constituents in the Vale of Glamorgan around the lack of an environmental impact assessment and, in particular, an assessment by Cardiff and Vale University Local Health Board into high incidences of asthma and the potential effect that an incinerator might have within the locality, and, above all, the role that Natural Resources Wales are now playing in assessing the licensing of the plant, where many people do call into question the ability and the robustness of that system to actually meet and address local concerns? I would further ask for a statement in relation to how the Welsh Government is going to engage with the new Vale council to deliver a Dinas Powys bypass. In fairness to the economy Minister, he has indicated in previous correspondence to myself last year that he was up for working with the council to make resources available to address the chronic traffic problems that exist in the Dinas Powys area that saw the removal of four Plaid Cymru councillors and their replacement by four Conservative councillors who will work night and day to make sure that these issues are addressed.

I think the first question you ask, Andrew R.T. Davies, on the Barry incinerator—. I’m very glad, in fact—and, indeed, it is in my Assembly Member capacity—to report on the fact that I chaired a meeting last night, a meeting that was attended by a delegation from the Docks Incinerator Action Group, with senior officials from Natural Resources Wales, and I put out a statement today, which was agreed by all there last night. This was a very constructive meeting in order to make sure—the First Minister came to Barry, as you know, and had a very robust exchange with members of the public at his Carwyn Connect meeting where, as a result, we were able to then move forward in getting an extension on the consultation of the environmental permit, and, of course, that extension has been agreed by Natural Resources Wales.

What is very important and was discussed last night—and the points put to Natural Resources—is that they will, and agreed to, and, indeed, it is their duty to, fully consider the impact of proposals on public health and the environment. Indeed, of course, there will be further opportunities for consultation on that, as they now, later in the week, issue a schedule 5—we saw a draft of it last night—that asks further questions to the company, Biomass 2, in terms of the concerns not only that the public have raised during this consultation period, but also Natural Resources Wales themselves. So, I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to give that very constructive update on that very constructive meeting last night. And we, indeed, agreed to meet again, and I’m sure you will hear that from the Docks Incinerator Action Group.

On your second point, of course, yes, the Vale council, the new Vale council, will have many challenges to face ahead of them in terms of difficult decisions. I’m very proud of the fact that a Labour-led Vale council for the last five years actually was deemed to be the best performing local authority in Wales, and very proud of the councillors, the new Labour councillors, who were also elected on Thursday. But, clearly, the priorities lie ahead, and the challenges, for the new Vale council.

I’m sure many Members saw the Conservative party’s targeting of key regional publications all over the UK last Friday, including newspapers in north Wales and the ‘South Wales Echo’, with paid-for front page advertising wraps that gave a misleading impression of political bias to the readers. So, could the leader of the house arrange for a debate on electoral coverage in the print media and the need for balance and fairness in reflecting Welsh politics?

I think that many of us have had to suffer these wraparounds that have appeared in many of our constituencies across Wales. I will make some very factual points about the fact that political advertising isn’t covered by the Advertising Standards Authority. It’s not permitted, as Members will be aware, on television under the Communications Act 2003, but is allowed in print. It was covered by the ASA until 1999, when the Committee of Advertising Practice decided to exclude it. Also, the Human Rights Act 1998 did lead to concerns about controls on freedom of political expression. But I think the crucial point as well that has to be made is that costs of advertising must be declared in central party election returns to the Electoral Commission. So, that is an important point for public scrutiny. But none of those factual points mean that there shouldn’t be a debate on this issue, of course, and, if there was widespread support for that from across the Chamber, I think we would want to move forward. Because, clearly, the need for balance and fairness in reflecting Welsh politics is what we all seek to achieve.

Leader of the house, last week, we had a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children highlighting the statistics regarding grass fires across Wales and the reduction we saw. That was very welcome news, but two days later there was a huge grass fire within my constituency, which damaged a lot of the Mynydd Dinas areas. Can you also join me in thanking the firefighters for the work that they did? The efforts they put in made sure that that fire was controlled and maintained, and that no property was damaged. But can we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary perhaps on discussions that he has had with the fire and rescue services as to the strategies they’re putting in place to ensure we keep that down to a minimum, and, when one occurs, how we’ll respond to it to ensure that minimal or no damage is done?

On a second point, this morning we actually received a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport regarding nurse training here in Wales. I very much welcome the announcement of an additional year of nurse bursaries to support the development of nurses here in Wales, compared to what’s happening in England, but can we actually have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary perhaps to look at the other areas that we need to look at, which is the specialist nurses in paediatrics, mental health and neonatal, and what the Government is going to do to support them in those areas? Perhaps he can actually add on whether he will then further support the bursaries for the nurses, because he's only made it for one year, and it would be nice to see it actually committed for the remainder of this Assembly term.

And, on a final point, the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, could we have a statement from him on steel? Now, last week, we had the news that IG Metall, the trade union in Germany, was very concerned about the possible merger between Thyssenkrupp and Tata and, as such, that merger might fail. Can we have a statement as to what discussions he’s having with Tata to look at the implications for steelmaking here in Wales and what’ll happen to our Welsh steel plants?

Three important questions from David Rees, and, in response to your first question, yes, the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children did issue a statement last week following a number of very serious grass fires, and I think we need to firstly start by thanking the firefighters for their courage and bravery particularly, and not just in terms of the most recent fire that, unfortunately, occurred, but across Wales, affecting so many of our constituencies. It is a difficult one in terms of fire and rescue services—fully engaged, as you could see from the statement by the Cabinet Secretary, in addressing the way forward in terms of prevention as well as control.

I think your second point is very important in terms of part of the announcement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport of a major new recruitment campaign, launched to increase the number of nurses in the Welsh NHS, which everyone would welcome, I'm sure, across this Chamber. But, of course, this is a recruitment campaign led by this Welsh Government. And, of course, that will have to seek the recruitment of nurses across the board in terms of general, specialist, and also, I would say, primary care as well, because we have to recognise the increasingly important role played by the practice nurse and the nurse specialists that we see at primary as well as secondary and specialist level. But also the most important announcement of the arrangements for the NHS bursary scheme—. He made it clear that Wales is open to business, and we are supporting our nurses, we're interested in how we can support their education and training programmes in Wales, and also looking at how they can ensure that those arrangements that are now put in place for the coming financial year—and then, as his statement says, looking towards further considering longer-term arrangements in light of the outcomes of the Diamond review, with full consultation. A very good news story for our nurses and for those young people and mature students who are considering going into nursing.

Your third point: yes, I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure will want to update on progress in terms of Tata and the steelworks, which, of course, particularly affect your constituency.

I wonder if we can find time for a debate, ideally in the next couple of weeks, on the Welsh Government's role in community safety. We all know, as Assembly Members within this house of all parties, the importance of community safety, particularly in terms of a uniformed presence on the front line, and I was fortunate, or unfortunate, enough to spend 13 weeks on the Home Office Bill that introduced the police community safety officers, which the Welsh Government—I looked from a distance at the time—invested heavily in the year after year, consistently. And even though I do recall on that committee they were argued against vociferously by Conservatives at the time, they now seem to be universally welcomed, so it's a good step forward. But, such a debate, if we had it in the next couple of weeks, would also allow us to discuss, then, investment not just in PCSOs, but also in front-line police officers and the commitment that UK Labour has made to introduce 800 more on our streets—800 more bobbies on the beat—if we were to win the general election.

Well, I think the fact that we have, against stark financial challenges as a result of Tory UK Government cuts and austerity—against all of that, we have chosen as a priority, this Welsh Labour Government, to continue to support our 500 community support officers. And what is very clear is that those community support officers play an important role in supporting the police forces across Wales, and they play such a visible role in our communities, engaging in the very point you made about addressing and safeguarding community safety, particularly in the areas where, in fact, people are experiencing that disadvantage, that difficulty, in terms of the need for community safety. We do, of course, see this as a real priority, and it just shows again what our value base is to our communities as a Welsh Labour Government.

Thank you very much, leader of the house.

Item 3 on the agenda is the debate on the general principles of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Hoffwn i ddechrau drwy ddiolch i Gadeiryddion y Pwyllgor Cymunedau, Cydraddoldeb a Llywodraeth Leol a’r Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol am eu gwaith wrth iddyn nhw graffu’n fanwl ar y Bil drwy gydol Cyfnod 1. Hoffwn ddiolch hefyd i Gadeirydd ac aelodau’r Pwyllgor Cyllid. Hoffwn i hefyd ddiolch i’r rhanddeiliaid a’r partneriaid cymdeithasol sydd wedi cymryd rhan yn y broses graffu, gan roi tystiolaeth ysgrifenedig a llafar i’r pwyllgor, a chyfrannu at ein hymgynghoriad i ddefnyddio gweithwyr asiantaethau yn ystod gweithredu diwydiannol.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I set out the purposes of this Bill on introduction in January, and do not intend simply to go over the same ground this afternoon. In summary, the Bill will disapply a number of provisions in the UK Government’s Trade Union Act 2016, ensuring that they do not apply to devolved public services. These provisions include check-off, facility time and ballot thresholds. We do that in order to defend and promote the successful model of social partnership in Wales, carefully and consistently developed by successive Welsh Governments, involving three different political parties elected to the National Assembly since 1999.

For the avoidance of doubt, let me also place on record again that this Bill will be unaffected by the commencement of the Wales Act 2017 next year. This Bill has been introduced and will be enacted under the current devolution settlement. Provided the Bill has reached the end of Stage 1 by the time the Wales Act is commenced, it can proceed through this Assembly. Under the current timetable, this Bill, if it succeeds, will have not simply reached the end of Stage 1, but will have reached Royal Assent before the Wales Act comes into force.

Dirprwy Lywydd, in late March, I wrote to the committees with my decision to bring forward an amendment to the Bill at Stage 2 to prohibit the use of agency workers to cover industrial action in public services following consultation late last year. This additional information was intended to assist the relevant committees to scrutinise the legislative options in their deliberations, and I hope that our consultation process, flagging the prospective action in this area, was able to provide them with the scope for informed discussions with social partners about the proposals. I look forward to the scrutiny of this policy aspect of the Bill during the rest of the Assembly process.

Dirprwy Lywydd, there are only a small number of recommendations from either committee, and I’m therefore happy to provide a summary response to them in this debate, having written to both committees to address some of the more technical issues raised in their reports. First of all, can I say that I’m grateful for the overwhelming support from social partners, and from the ELGC committee in bringing this Bill forward? That committee’s report contained a single formal recommendation: for this Assembly to support the general principles of the Bill this afternoon. The committee also welcomed the commitment to bring forward a Stage 2 amendment, noting their belief that it would strengthen the Bill and would be entirely consistent with its stated purpose and intended effect. That recommendation reflects the overwhelming evidence, I believe, received by the committee, and I welcome very much its report.

The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee made three recommendations. The first asked that I explain in this debate why I had not included the proposed amendment to the Bill at an earlier stage, and I’m happy to do that, of course. The answer lies in the nature and timing of decision making at Westminster. The Government elected there in May of 2015 passed an Act against the advice of its own law officers, of the Welsh Government and of this National Assembly, which imposed arrangements on public services that are devolved to Wales. At every step in that process, our opposition was made known. My party, and others elected here, was elected with a manifesto commitment to bring legislation before the Assembly to reverse those changes.

Alongside their Bill proposals, in the summer of 2015, the UK Government also consulted separately on proposals to rescind regulation 7 of the employment agencies regulations, which prohibit employment agencies supplying agency workers to cover industrial action. At the point of the National Assembly elections in May of last year, no outcome of that consultation had been reported. Because the National Assembly had not, therefore, previously expressed a view on the matter, and because it was not set out in any manifesto, I decided that a separate consultation on this matter would be required. That consultation has concluded and my decision in relation to it has been made known to the committees. The two aspects will come together, should a Government amendment at Stage 2 succeed. And, as I noted earlier, the ELGC committee supported that approach.

Recommendations 2 and 3 of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report are about the power in section 2(2) of the Bill to make transitional and saving provisions. This power was included at the time of publication, because, at that point, it was not known how the UK Government would go about commencing its Trade Union Act 2016, which included similar powers. Sensibly, I think, we mirrored those powers in our own drafting. I said to the committee when I appeared before it that we will probably not need to make transitional provisions. Now that the relevant provisions in the UK Act are in force, we can see, indeed, that those powers will not be needed. As it is a power that is now without a purpose, I’m happy to say this afternoon that I will bring forward an amendment at Stage 2 to remove it, and thus address the recommendations in the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report.

Dirprwy Lywydd, mae llawer iawn mwy yn yr adroddiadau pwyllgor, ac rwyf wedi ymateb yn fy llythyrau at Gadeiryddion y pwyllgorau. Hoffwn ddiolch iddyn nhw unwaith eto am roi ystyriaeth fanwl i’r Bil yn ystod Cyfnod 1, ac am wneud hynny mewn ysbryd mor adeiladol. Er fy mod yn disgwyl i’r Bil achosi rhwyg rhwng y pleidiau yma yn y Siambr, yr hyn sy’n glir oddi wrth y dystiolaeth a gafwyd gan randdeiliaid a phartneriaid cymdeithasol yw bod consensws llethol o blaid y Bil.

Mae fy ymateb y prynhawn yma yn cael ei wneud yn ysbryd y consensws hwnnw, ac rwyf wedi mynd ati hefyd i ymdrin ag argymhellion y pwyllgorau gerbron yr Aelodau. Fel yr argymhellwyd gan y Pwyllgor Cymunedau, Cydraddoldeb a Llywodraeth Leol, rwy’n gofyn i’r Aelodau gymeradwyo’r Bil y prynhawn yma. Yn y ffordd yma, gallwn ni barhau i fynd i’r afael ag unrhyw faterion yn ymwneud â’r gweithlu drwy weithio ar sail partneriaeth gymdeithasol, gan ddarparu gwell gwasanaethau cyhoeddus i ddinasyddion Cymru. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much. I call on the Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee, John Griffiths.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m pleased to be able to contribute to today’s debate as Chair of the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee. I’d like to thank all those who provided evidence to the committee to help inform its work, including those who took time out to attend our focus group discussions.

The UK Government’s Trade Union Bill, introduced at Westminster in 2015, aroused considerable controversy and heated debate. In carrying out our scrutiny of the Welsh Government’s Trade Union (Wales) Bill, we consulted widely with stakeholders and sought a range of views, including those of organisations that publicly supported the UK Government’s legislation. We focused our efforts on testing the Welsh Government’s assertion that the provisions in the Trade Union Act that the Bill seeks to disapply would have an adverse impact on the social partnership in Wales, and on the effective delivery of devolved public services.

We find ourselves in the unusual position today of presenting a report that contains a single recommendation—that the Assembly agrees the general principles of the Bill. This recommendation, supported by seven out of eight committee members, is based on the overwhelming support for the Bill in the evidence we received. It is unusual for a committee not to be recommending amendments at Stage 1 scrutiny, but that is the case.

Technically speaking, Dirprwy Lywydd, the Bill is straightforward. It disapplies specific provisions of the 2016 Act to devolved Welsh authorities. It does what it needs to do simply and, we believe, effectively. The Bill itself is a short Bill of three sections. But we know that the length of a Bill is no marker for its importance, and this Bill is no exception. On the contrary, we heard that without this Bill, the 40 per cent ballot threshold, which is already in force in Wales, combined with the future changes to check-off and facility time, pose a real and imminent threat to social partnership.

It is this social partnership that respondents told us is essential to the management and delivery of public services in Wales, particularly in the face of continuing financial challenges and ongoing transformational change. It is this social partnership that, the NHS in Wales told us, had

‘supported the development of effective and mutually beneficial solutions to significant challenges’

that the service had addressed. It is this social partnership that, local government told us, had

‘played a significant part in ensuring that service continuity has been at the heart of some difficult decisions’

in recent years. It is unsurprising, then, that those organisations directly responsible for delivering services to our communities were keen for this social partnership to be preserved. They firmly believed that the Bill was needed to ensure this.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I will speak briefly about the Bill’s substantive provisions. There was widespread support in evidence for disapplying the restrictions in the 2016 Act on check-off. Respondents reported that check-off arrangements were well established, efficient, of benefit to all parties and were of minimal cost to employers. At best, restrictions are likely to be an inconvenience for trade unions and employers. At worst, they could result in the withdrawal of check-off, which could ultimately weaken density of union membership and hinder unions’ ability to operate effectively as social partners. The restrictions single out trade union subscriptions from other payments made by employers on behalf of employees. They are unnecessary, unwarranted and we see no valid reason to apply them to devolved authorities in Wales.

We heard that access to facility time is essential to enable trade union representatives not only to carry out their duties around individual representation and collective bargaining, but to engage in the wider public service improvement agenda. We also heard compelling evidence about the benefits of facility time and the associated potential cost savings. This leaves us in no doubt that facility time is a prudent investment in public services and should be viewed as such. If trade unions are to continue to operate effectively as social partners and to contribute to the improvement agenda, then the existing arrangements for facility time must be safeguarded.

It is clear that the crux of any successful partnership is a balance between partners. The 40 per cent ballot threshold will undoubtedly undermine the ability of trade unions to engage with employers as equal partners. The right to undertake industrial action is an important element in the principle of collective bargaining. Without this right, or, in the case of the 2016 Act, where this right is inhibited by means of the additional ballot threshold, it will be much more difficult for unions to negotiate on behalf of their members. We do not believe that this is in the best interest of partnership working. We heard about the very real danger that the additional threshold would lead to heightened industrial tensions and could inadvertently increase the likelihood and duration of industrial action.

Moving on to agency workers, Dirprwy Lywydd, we heard that a move by the UK Government to lift the existing ban on using agency workers as cover during industrial action would have a similar effect on the social partnership as the 40 per cent ballot threshold requirement. And so, we welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s commitment to amending the Bill to ensure that the prohibition continues, regardless of the outcome of the UK Government’s considerations on this issue.

In conclusion, we are in no doubt that the relevant provisions in the 2016 Act will all, to varying degrees, adversely impact on the social partnership and, in turn, on the continued delivery and improvement of devolved public services. In recognition of this, we support the general principles of the Bill and we recommend that Members here today do the same.

Thank you very much. I call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m grateful as well that I’m following my colleague, John Griffiths, who has covered in detail the policy context that his committee has considered. The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has a much more narrow remit in looking at this Bill and I’m going to speak to that particular remit. Can I, in so doing, thank, as always, my fellow committee members for their very robust and diligent scrutiny of this small Bill, as it went forward, but very important Bill in the matters that we considered, and also thank the Cabinet Secretary for making himself available for quite robust questioning and also for his robust and considered answers?

We reported on this Bill on 7 April, and the report is available both in hard copy and online. I recommend it not only to Assembly Member colleagues but also to members of the public who are interested and other interested observers to the progress of this particular Bill.

When we reported on the Bill on 7 April, we made three recommendations to the Cabinet Secretary. I’ll go to those in detail but, before doing so, if I could quickly make some general remarks, which are important on the clarity of our consideration of this particular Bill. As with our scrutiny of all Bills, we consider matters relating to the competence of the National Assembly. However, in doing so, and as we state in our report, it is not our role to express a view on whether a Bill is within or outside the legislative competence of the National Assembly. Rather, it is to highlight any issues that Assembly Members may wish to take into account in deciding whether to agree to the general principles of the Bill or to table or support amendments during the later stages of scrutiny.

So, on this Bill, we explored the Llywydd’s statement on competence, which she is obliged to provide, with the Cabinet Secretary. As part of her statement, the Llywydd indicated that while the Bill was, in her opinion, within the Assembly’s competence, she noted that the issues were not straightforward and that her consideration was, in her words, a finely balanced one.

Now, our report highlights the evidence we took from the Cabinet Secretary and the questioning and the evidence we heard, and I hope that that will be helpful to Assembly Members in making their decisions on this Bill. But ultimately, any question about whether a Bill such as this falls within the legislative competence of this National Assembly could indeed ultimately be a matter for the Supreme Court to decide if the competence is duly challenged.

So, I turn now to our three recommendations. Our first recommendation relates to the Cabinet Secretary’s decision to table an amendment to the Bill at Stage 2 to prohibit the use of agency workers during strike action on Welsh public authorities. Now, our preference as a committee, as we state in the report, is that a provision of such policy significance should ideally have been included within the Bill on its introduction. Including the provision on its introduction would have allowed the Cabinet Secretary to take account of a committee report that explores and considers the views of stakeholders on the use of agency workers during strike action. Whilst we do acknowledge that the Welsh Government undertook its own consultation on this specific proposal, as the Cabinet Secretary has outlined today, such a consultation is a different process from a committee of the National Assembly engaging with the principles and the actual wording of a Bill as part 1 of the Stage 1 legislative scrutiny process.

So, our first recommendation sought an explanation from the Cabinet Secretary about why the Bill did not include a provision on its introduction about the use of agency workers during strike action, and, in a similar vein, we asked why the Bill could not have been the subject, perhaps, of a short delay to accommodate such a position. But I am very grateful today for the Cabinet Secretary’s detailed response and further explanation and justification. I note that, as we’ve just heard, the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee—whether through serendipity or, otherwise, perfect planning, I don’t know—was able, indeed, to take evidence on this issue during its own Stage 1 scrutiny and incorporate it within that, including wide stakeholder engagement, and that is reassuring in terms of our first recommendation.

And the second and third recommendations we made relate to the single power contained in section 2 of the Bill to make subordinate legislation. And, as we've heard from the remarks of the Cabinet Secretary this afternoon, great reassurance on that, and I welcome the proposed changes to the Bill that the Cabinet Secretary has outlined this afternoon when he was on his feet. Our analysis of this Bill is very technical and very precise and narrow in its remit, but I do recommend to Assembly Members the report if it will help them in their consideration.

It is somewhat regrettable that I do feel the need to stand and fundamentally oppose the general principles of introducing this Bill through the National Assembly for Wales. I do so on behalf of the Welsh Conservative Assembly group, but also on behalf of our taxpayers in Wales. Last year, the UK Government Trade Union Act 2016 was passed by Royal Assent after considerable consultation and engagement with our front-line workers, trade unions and with a clear mandate from the voting population of our country. [Interruption.] It was in the manifesto. The UK Act sets out provisions on turnout and support for strike action, a transparent process for subscriptions, and the requirement that payroll deductions for subscriptions are only administered where the cost is not funded by the public. Now, the Trade Union (Wales) Bill seeks to disapply sections of that Act here in Wales.

Now, as the first piece of legislation introduced by the Welsh Labour Government this year, this Bill is considered unnecessary, burdensome and costly, and I think taxpayers will be dismayed to know the time and energy that's been put into this, and cost, which could have been put into developing an autism Bill for Wales, or legislating to address the many and significant failings of this Welsh Labour Government.

Openness and transparency over the actual cost of trade unions and public service workers undertaking union activities is essential.

Will you take an intervention?

No.

Ultimately, funding for this activity comes out of the public purse. The Taxpayers’ Alliance found that, in 2014, unions were provided with over 273,000 sq ft of office space by public sector organisations in the UK. The market value of such office space in Cardiff would be over £6.2 million, yet unions were charged just £307,000, meaning the taxpayer is actually subsidising union activity by millions of pounds. The UK Act required greater transparency on information relating to facility time, simply extending those requirements that already apply to the civil service. I believe that it is right that the Government monitor this to ensure it is a sensible use of taxpayers’ money, and that levels of facility time remain appropriate and necessary. Clearly, the intention is that efficiency savings will be made simply by virtue of the requirement to publish this information. The first relevant period starts on 1 April. Therefore, the first reports will be due by 31 July. It is concerning that the Welsh Labour Government do not think it would be prudent to wait to see the initial results of this element of the UK Act. Instead, here the Welsh Labour Government seem to be pushing ahead with little statistical evidence. The Cabinet Secretary is concerned that the 40 per cent threshold creates the potential for wildcat strikes—

Will you take an intervention?

I can’t.

[Continues.]—yet, we’ve been offered no firm evidence to support this assertion. Further, it is concerning to note that whilst those giving evidence in committee spoke of the apparent low cost of processing payroll deductions, not one could provide an actual figure for this. Prior to the UK Act, just 22 per cent of public sector organisations in the UK charge unions for this service despite another cost to the public purse. In local government alone in Wales, we know that over 30,570 employees pay subscriptions through payroll deductions. The combined cost of which cannot be insignificant. So, we welcome the UK Government’s actions to ensure that costs incurred by unions are covered by unions.

The UK Government legislation also recognises there are sectors in which industrial action has a wider impact on members of the public that is disproportionate and unfair. Allowing agency workers to cover striking workers will ensure that businesses and many of our vital services will be able to continue to operate to some extent. So, it is concerning to note that the Cabinet Secretary intends to include provision in this Bill to prohibit the use of agency workers as cover during industrial action involving devolved Welsh authorities.

Llywydd—Deputy—the Conservative-led UK Government is committed to transparent and clear Government legislation that does not cause undue administrative burden or create legal confusion for employers. We understand that regulations in relation to check-off and facility time will not include devolved Welsh public bodies within their scope until the Wales Act 2017 comes into force, and we know that the Wales Act will clarify that industrial relations are a reserved matter. The UK Government, I am confident, will act at the earliest possible opportunity following commencement of the Wales Act to ensure the protection of our public services. The introduction of this Bill is an insult to the people of Wales, who face far greater issues: a lack of GPs, poor transport, reduced classroom support for teachers, inaccessibility to life-preserving drugs and raised council tax.

Are you winding up please?

Yes.

The Welsh Conservatives fundamentally oppose the general principles of this Bill and we will be voting against this motion today. I ask other Members with any conscience to support that aim.

Thank you. Hannah Blythyn.

Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate, Deputy Presiding Officer. I speak in this debate as somebody who is proud to have served working people in my previous role, working for a trade union, and is committed to continuing to do so in my role as Assembly Member. It also means that I come at this debate with a little bit more of an understanding perhaps than some of how the principles and practices of social partnership work within the public and private sector in Wales. We make a lot of this social partnership and doing things differently in Wales, and it’s not just for the sake of being different. I know about that clear red water we talked about many years ago, but it’s actually because it’s the right thing to do and it actually reaps rewards not just for workers and workplaces, but actually for our economy and for our society. To not bring in and repeal these elements will definitely have an adverse effect on the social partnership approach that we so value here in Wales. I think the Conservative spokesperson said it was in the Conservative manifesto. Well, actually, to repeal these elements was in the Welsh Labour manifesto that was voted on last year.

You didn’t get a majority.

We got more than you. [Laughter.]

I feel it’s necessary to stand up again in this debate to actually try and rebut some of the rhetoric and the misunderstanding about how trade unions work in practice. So, the first thing to touch on, and I’m sure other colleagues will, is the collection of subs through check-off. It is a pretty straightforward and accessible means of doing this and, actually, in the vast majority of cases, including my own local authority, the unions actually cover the cost of check-off and save the local authority money. For those employers where there is an agreement in place—mostly in local government—the arrangement actually generates income for the local authority, albeit a modest sum. So, it’s not necessarily to the financial detriment of the local authority. I couldn’t understand when my colleagues were trying to make an intervention—we hear a lot of opposition from the opposition about check-off for paying trade union subs, but we don’t hear the same fuss being made about the numerous other deductions being taken from employees’ salaries, when charges are levied like childcare vouchers, cycle-to-work schemes and even national insurance.

When it comes to facility time, I think that’s quite an easy target. We hear a lot of attacks on facility time, but trade union facility time provides staff with a way to voice their experiences, and puts a clear mechanism in place for resolving grievances and disputes, whether informally or through collective bargaining, before it escalates to a stage when actually it does then cost the employer money to step in and take control of the situation. Restrictions on facility time for local reps and the damage to social partnership will erode the work done by trade unions to improve equal opportunities practice, and remove the best protections employees currently have from discriminatory treatment.

Would you take an intervention?

Of course.

Would you agree with me, Hannah Blythyn, about the research by the University of Warwick and the comment made by Professor Kim Hoque who undertook that research, who said:

‘Overall, the evidence suggests that both full and part-time workplace union representatives help improve performance in the public sector and that managers widely recognise this to be the case.’

Absolutely, because, obviously, it provides a mechanism for these things to be resolved and to be talked through before they actually reach a stage when it actually places an extra burden on the management and on the organisation.

Just in closing, at lunchtime today it was my pleasure to step in and host an event to celebrate 10 years of the life-changing learning partnership between the Open University and the TUC in Wales. Before being elected for the first time last year, I spent the best part of a decade working in the trade union movement and I saw first-hand the difference that trade union learning makes to people’s lives, and the doors to development and workplace learning that this unlocks and the opportunities that it opens. In Wales, we continue to support initiatives such as the Wales Union Learning Fund, whilst in Westminster the Tories have taken an axe to this opportunity for working people’s chance to achieve. I think that highlights to me, contrary to what some people would like you to believe of the negative—that trade unions are this ogre, if you like—that, actually, trade unions have a positive role to play, and they bring benefits not just to the workplace but, actually, to our economy and to our society. I think this Bill rightly seeks to reverse elements of the Conservative legislation that relate to our devolved public services, and that would not only slice away at social partnership but also our very social fabric.

Plaid Cymru supports the principles of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill, and we also welcome the desire to introduce an amendment on the use of agency workers, although we do agree that it would, perhaps, have been better for it to have been included from the outset, as the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has stated.

This Bill, of course, will disapply aspects of the UK Government’s Trade Union Act 2016, and that Act was enacted in March of this year, undermining the rights of workers. Any attempt to safeguard those rights are to be welcomed, but ultimately, we in Wales need to have the full powers to defend and protect workers’ rights and to develop a fair way of collaborating between workers and the employers—a way that would reflect our values as a nation.

The Trade Union Act of 2016 is an unnecessary attack on workers’ rights. It will be far more difficult for workers to get pay rises, to stop job losses or to negotiate better working conditions in the workplace as a result of this Act. The Act makes it more difficult for unions to do their day-to-day work in dealing with problems in the workplace before they develop into disputes, and the Act actually limits protest, and that is a real problem for a crucial part of our democracy. It is difficult to avoid coming to the conclusion that the Conservative Government is determined to weaken trade unions in order to attack workers’ rights, pay and working conditions.

Bargaining between the employer and the employee works, because both sides have power. That is why most negotiations end not in a strike, but in agreement or resolution, and such an approach helps union members and those who aren’t union members in the same way. That helps to maintain public services. Treating workers with dignity and respect leads to a workforce that is willing to put the public first, from the patients in our hospitals and those receiving care to those collecting our rubbish and dealing with our recycling. Treating the workforce with respect makes business sense. But the Trade Union Act 2016 has shifted the power, and it is now far too heavily biased in one direction.

This is the latest attempt by the Conservatives, in their long history of attacking workers’ rights—rights that are at even greater risk following the decision to leave the European Union. Over the 1980s and early 1990s, a number of pieces of legislation were passed, drawn up by the Conservative Government, attacking the trade unions and workers’ rights. These include the Employment Act 1980, the Employment Act 1982 and the Trade Union Reform and Employment Rights Act 1993. Now, Labour, between 1997 and 2010, had an opportunity to undo the work of the Conservatives, but that opportunity was not taken. In its manifesto for the general election in 1997, the Labour Party stated that key elements of trade union legislation of the 1980s would remain in place. So, the prohibition on picketing and most restrictions on ballots remain in place. It is true to say that an attempt was made, but a very weak attempt, to strengthen rights through the Employment Relations Act 1999 and the ensuing Act in 2004. But in terms of many of the important rights that were withdrawn from workers during the 1980s and early 1990s, when Labour had the opportunity to put them back in place, their efforts were weak, to say the least. There was no real attempt to roll back the damage done. There was no real attempt to safeguard workers from the ill-doings of the Conservatives.

The Welsh Government has to rush this Bill through now. Once the Wales Act is in place and enacted, then industrial relations will be specifically reserved to Westminster. The attempt of the Welsh Government to use the benefits of conferred powers will be scrapped by the UK Government, and that is the fundamental weakness of the Wales Act, and why we need another Wales Act as a matter of urgency. It’s political motives that are at work here, with the Conservatives in Westminster attempting to ensure a uniform and cruel policy across Wales, England and Scotland, ignoring the devolved competence of the Assembly as it currently stands, ignoring the fact that we are not uniform nations. That is, there is a power grab happening here.

The Wales Act is a mechanism to roll powers back from this National Assembly, reducing the scope of what we can do for the benefit of our people here in Wales. There is a very real risk that the Conservatives are planning to grab more powers back to the centre as a result of leaving the European Union—

Are you winding up, please?

Plaid Cymru will safeguard workers and public services in Wales, every step of the way. Thank you.

This Bill is about the kind of public services that we want to see in Wales. Do we want public services where collaboration is the mark of them, or do we want public services where that is ever harder? We, on these benches, want strong public services, effectively delivered, and fair employment. We believe in the social partnership model that we have heard so much of today, and I was struck by the number of employers responding positively to the inquiry by the Equalities and Local Government Committee advocating support of the Government’s position here, reversing the Tory legislation of last year.

Social partnership is not the absence of dispute. There are going to be plenty of disagreements, there are going to be differences of view, and, from time to time, there’ll be differences of priority. But it does offer a framework for managing disagreement effectively and with as little disruption as possible. But it isn’t just a way of managing disagreement. It’s also a way of managing change and delivery in the public services, generally in the public interest, and often that is about managing difficult change and adapting in partnership with other stakeholders.

But it’s incumbent on us also to look forward at some of the threats and pressures that public services will face, as a consequence of a political choice by Conservative Governments in Westminster to impose a regime of austerity. That, compounded by increasing demand, and the risk to the public sector workforce of the uncertainty around EU nationals are potentially a threat to the resilience of some public services, not just in Wales—across the UK. The answer to those profound challenges is more collaboration and not less. It’s not just about avoiding conflict; it’s also about a framework that encourages a creative dialogue about how we tackle some of those threats and pressures ahead. But the truth of the matter is that this legislation, the 2016 Conservative legislation, is a purely political move. Strike action in the UK has never been lower—it’s low in England; it’s even lower in Wales—and the political nature of the attack is clear when you look at some of the core provisions in the Act, making it harder for unions to organise in the workplace. And as we’ve heard, at a time when good employers are making it easier for employees to buy bicycles, join a gym, contribute to pensions, this Act actually makes it harder to do something as basic as pay your union subscription.

So, make no mistake about it. This Bill reverses a nakedly political attack by the Conservatives in Westminster—a Tory attack on working people’s right to organise, a Tory attack on collaborative public services, and a Tory attack on the very resilience of public services right across the UK. And I’ll be proud to support the Government’s Bill.

The Trade Union Bill that the Welsh Government has brought here to debate today is a piece of legislation that has been scrutinised at some length in the Equalities and Local Government Committee, of which I’m a member, as well as the constitutional committee, of which I’m not, so I can only talk about it from the side of the committee I am on.

We heard a lot of evidence, and a clear consensus did emerge on both the employers and the unions’ side in favour of this Bill. UKIP broadly supports this Bill as we believe it does further the cause of improving working conditions in Wales, which is a laudable aim. Of course, we should strive to improve working conditions for all workers, not just the ones in the public sector, who happen to be in trade unions. But there is no logical sense in deliberately worsening conditions for the public sector workers, and a worsening of conditions is what the Minister, Mark Drakeford, has told us will happen if the Conservative Government’s UK legislation is not repealed. Nearly all of the witness we heard in committee tended to concur with this view, including, notably, the employers themselves.

There was an issue over legal competence. Did the Assembly rightly have legal competence over employment practices in the Welsh public sector, or did competence rightly lie with Westminster? Well, the committee was assured by Mark Drakeford that there was a strong legal case that the competence lay here. So, we in UKIP have taken him in good faith, and we backed the Bill on that basis, although, ultimately, it may be the courts who decide who is right.

What wasn’t really mentioned in the committee stage and hasn’t really cropped up today was that the Conservatives’ UK Trade Union Act, passed last year, is all a bit of a red herring. The original intention behind the Act was to cut off some of the funding for the Labour Party from the unions. But because Theresa May wanted Labour support over Brexit, this part of the Bill was kept from the legislation eventually passed by Westminster. What we were left with was a series of quibbles over things like facility time, the check-off and the turn-out threshold for legal strike ballots. In our view, workers should have the legal right to strike if a ballot has been won, and should not be constrained by some arbitrarily set threshold. Facility time, probably, in general allows union reps to deal with worker management issues before they come to strikes—a point that Hannah Blythyn made when this subject was first debated, and she’s made effectively again today. Facility time, if it could be calculated, probably saves public money, and also, in this respect, aids the delivery of public services. What we don’t want to do now is waste time by endlessly trying to record, minute and calculate facility time. This would actually constitute a real waste of public money. The check-off is simply an automatic deduction from a worker’s salary—little difference, in essence, from any other deduction. Nobody from the employers’ side in the committee hearings expressed any desire to end or limit the check-off. So, in summary, we support the principle of workers’ rights, and we also support the effective delivery of public services. We think this Bill will aid both, so we support the general principles of the Bill.

Thank you very much. Vikki Howells.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’m proud to speak today in support of the Welsh Government’s Trade Union (Wales) Bill. I applaud the prompt way that the Cabinet Secretary has brought forward this legislation to protect the rights of workers in Wales. In stark contrast to the approach of the UK Government, it is the Welsh Government that has shown the strong and stable leadership that Wales needs. The UK Government’s approach has been draconian and divisive. The UK Government has not only tried to affect the way trade unions work, undermining their ability to represent their members; they’ve also made an attack on the devolution settlement itself, trying to unpick the powers devolved to Wales.

Prior to being elected in May of last year, I taught in a secondary school in Caerphilly. As such, I was employed in one of those important public services that the UK Government’s Bill was aimed at, despite control over education being a key part of the devolved settlement from the word go. What were the implications of the UK Government’s regressive anti trade union Bill for me and my colleagues? Firstly, section 3 would have placed a threshold on our ability to vote for strike action. For all workers, strike action is the last resort—the final chance to stand up for workers’ rights. As we saw in the case of junior doctors in England, the Conservatives are intent on eroding and corroding the rights of public sector workers to an extent even Thatcher could not dream of. But at the same time as the UK Government limits the right to strike, they make no attempt to push similarly undemocratic quotas on other types of election. As always with the Conservatives, it’s one rule for one, and one rule for another.

Secondly, sections 13 and 14 would have aimed to undermine the principles of facility time. Trade unions represent their members on a regular basis in disputes where employees need help and in meetings with management on a range of issues. The ability of trade union stewards to do this and to keep their members informed would have been curtailed. Workers would be less well represented; union powers reduced.

Thirdly, section 15 would have equally threatened the viability of unions. The reduction in payment of at-source subs is a blow clearly aimed at the ability of unions to function. The purpose of the UK Government in this is clear: trade union membership could be limited. Trade union time and resources would be wasted in chasing after the payment of subscriptions.

All four sections would have threatened not just the ability and the viability of my union to represent me and my former career, they would have threatened the ability of public sector unions to represent public sector workers across Wales. As around three out of 10 Welsh workers are employed in the public sector, the impact of the UK Government’s legislation was considerable. Furthermore the UK Government’s vindictive approach would have been based on trampling over the devolution settlement and the powers of this body. This is not acceptable and does not augur well ahead of the return of powers from the European Union.

I followed with great interest the Stage 1 inquiry by the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee into the Welsh Government’s proposed Bill, and would like to pay tribute to the Chair and committee members for this useful piece of evidence. What struck me was the overwhelming support for the Bill’s general principles. This came not just from those we would expect to back the Bill, like the trade unions, it also came from evidence supplied on behalf of professional associations and, crucially, public sector employers. All these voices were joined in a chorus of approval for the Bill. A chorus that proclaimed that the stubborn dogmatism of the UK Government was intent on overturning the principles of social partnership on which successive Welsh Governments have based their approach to industrial relations. What is more, the committee heard that the UK Government plans would not only wreck the doctrine, but also should partners have an equal stake in the delivery of services, their plans would also impact on the delivery of those public services themselves. As the Society of Radiographers said, the impact of the UK Government’s changes would make it

‘more difficult for our members to put patients first’

and would ‘adversely affect patient care’.

I look forward to supporting the Welsh Government’s Bill, and, in doing so, supporting public sector workers and public services today.

Thank you very much, and I now call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. As you’ve heard, there is strong support for the Bill in the Assembly this afternoon. I thank John Griffiths for what I thought was a succinct summary of the evidence that his committee took. In each aspect of the Bill, there was overwhelming support, as he said, from stakeholders for a simple and effective Bill. Members have heard from Gareth Bennett, who sat through the evidence and who was convinced enough by it to sign up to that simple, clear conclusion of the committee that the Bill should be supported.

Wrth gwrs, rydw i’n cydnabod cefnogaeth Plaid Cymru, fel roedd Sian Gwenllian yn ei ddweud, i’n helpu ni i ddiogelu hawliau gweithwyr yma yng Nghymru ac i roi tegwch yn y gweithlu i bobl sy’n gweithio yn ein gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yma yng Nghymru.

Dirprwy Lywydd, you heard from other Members here explaining that the purpose of this Bill is to support the success we have had in Wales in developing a social partnership approach. Jeremy Miles was absolutely right when he said that the social partnership approach is not about the absence of dispute; it is about the much, much harder work of facing up to challenges, to get round the table together, to think through, to talk through, to argue through and, in the end, to reach an agreement on a way forward where the problem itself is difficult and where the solution is not easy to find, but social partnership demands that you do that hard work, rather than, as in the way that we’ve heard from the Conservatives here this afternoon—they would rather retreat behind the barricades of a socially divisive confrontation of an adversarial approach to the conduct of industrial relations.

What this Bill does, Dirprwy Lywydd, quite certainly, is that it exposes the Conservative Party here in Wales. It exposes them as the reactionary force they are when it comes to social partnership. There is a Pavlovian response—there is a Pavlovian response from the Welsh Conservative Party. You mention the words ‘trade unions’, and they immediately begin to salivate over battles long ago. Time after time, in this Chamber, I’ve had to listen to Conservative Party Members talk about the heroic efforts of public service workers here in Wales, while they seek to condemn the services that those people provide, yet when those people turn out to be trade unionists, they go from being heroes of public service to people against whom the public at large have to be guarded against the dangers that they pose. Well, that is an argument that will not pass muster on the floor of this Assembly.

The second reason why the Bill exposes the Conservative Party, and I thought this was an authentically shocking part of the one contribution we heard from the Conservative Party, is that it exposes them on the devolution issue as well. This is a Bill that is being taken through the democratically elected forum of Wales. It is a Bill that seeks to do things in our public services in the way in which we in Wales would choose to organise our affairs, and yet the Conservative Party is willing to wave the stick of a Westminster Government prepared to reverse the democratic will of this National Assembly. I think there will be a democratic outrage, should it take place, and I’m very disappointed and saddened to hear it being suggested on the floor of the National Assembly this afternoon. Instead, this small, but important Bill will do things in the way that we want to do them here in Wales—a way that we know is effective; a way that we know will save money, will stop strikes, will protect the public and will improve our public services because it will use the enormous reservoir of goodwill and effective action that trade unionists in all parts of our public services bring to the work that they do, making the contribution they make: a contribution recognised by employers, recognised by social partners, recognised by other parties here in the Chamber this afternoon, and I hope will be reflected in the vote that we will hold on it.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, thank you. I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Motion to approve the financial resolution in respect of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill. Can I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion?

Formally, Chair.

Thank you very much. There are no speakers in this debate, and as we have deferred voting on the general principles of the Bill, I will defer voting on this item until voting time.

We have agreed that voting time will take place before Stage 3, before we enter the Stage 3 of the Public Health (Wales) Bill, and therefore unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will now proceed to voting time. Ring the bell. Okay. Ring the bell please.

Right, we’ll move to vote on the general principles of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Mark Drakeford. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 36, one abstention, 11 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

We now move to approve the financial resolution in respect of the Trade Union (Wales) Bill, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 37, one abstention, 11 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

Before we move to the Stage 3 debate on the public health Bill, the session will suspend for 10 minutes. The bell will be rung after five minutes, and can I urge you all to return to the Chamber as soon as possible in order to proceed with expedience? Thank you.

I call the National Assembly to order. The next item on our agenda is the Stage 3 debate on the Public Health (Wales) Bill.

The first group of amendments relates to tackling obesity. Amendment 3 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you, Llywydd, and it’s a huge pleasure to move these amendments formally today to commence our proceedings on the Stage 3 debate on the Public Health (Wales) Bill. We have been here before, of course. But, as this Bill reached this stage on the last occasion, and it was resubmitted in this Assembly, there was no reference at all to the major public health problem that we as a nation are facing. Now, there is an opportunity, through our amendments to change that and to put tackling obesity on the face of this Bill, and to ensure that a strategy is published and implemented to tackle this crisis, because it is a crisis.

I’m grateful for the broad-ranging support that has been given to these amendments today. I’m grateful to Cancer Research UK, for example, who, I know, have been encouraging Assembly Members to support this amendment. The link between obesity and cancer is clear, according to them, but there are too many people that don’t yet realise that. With their figures showing that 59 per cent of Welsh adults were overweight in 2015, and over 25 per cent of children were either overweight or obese, then Cancer Research UK is convinced that having a national strategy will be a means to start to tackle this situation.

Rwy’n falch iawn o fod yn cyflwyno'r gwelliannau heddiw, yn y cyd-destun o fod wedi cael trafodaethau cadarnhaol gyda'r Llywodraeth ynglŷn â hyn, y problemau iechyd cyhoeddus mwyaf difrifol, o bosibl, sy'n ein hwynebu ni yng Nghymru. Ac rwy’n ddiolchgar i'r Gweinidog am gytuno â mi mai dyma'r lle, ar wyneb y Bil hwn, i roi mesurau ar waith i geisio mynd i'r afael â'r argyfwng cenedlaethol hwn.

Mae hwn yn fater yr wyf yn teimlo'n gryf iawn amdano yn bersonol. Ond mae un dyn yn fy etholaeth sydd wedi bod yn ddylanwadol iawn o ran cryfhau fy mhenderfyniad i sicrhau bod y Cynulliad, a Llywodraeth Cymru, yn cymryd camau gweithredu yn y maes hwn. Ray Williams enillodd y fedal aur am godi pwysau yn y dosbarth pwysau plu dros Gymru yng Ngemau’r Gymanwlad 1986, ond mae'n dal i fod yn bencampwr o hyd—pencampwr o ran sicrhau bod ei dref, Caergybi, ac Ynys Môn, a’n cenedl, yn iachach ac yn fwy heini. Siaradais â Ray y bore yma ac mae'n falch ein bod bellach mewn sefyllfa lle gallwn, heddiw, gobeithio, ennill cefnogaeth y Cynulliad ar gyfer y gwelliant hanfodol hwn lle mae rhywbeth sydd, yn ei farn ef, wedi difetha lles ein cenedl ers degawdau bellach am fod yn ganolbwynt i strategaeth glir y Llywodraeth. Os cawn ni’r strategaeth yn gywir, mae ef yn credu y gallwn nid yn unig fod yn genedl iachach a mwy heini, ond yn un hapusach hefyd—a bydd yn arbed arian, mae’n dweud. Ac mae'n iawn, wrth gwrs. Mae Cancer Research UK yn amcangyfrif bod gordewdra yn costio £73 miliwn y flwyddyn i’r GIG. Pan eich bod yn ychwanegu afiechydon fel diabetes math 2 at hynny, a achosir yn bennaf gan ordewdra, yna mae'r ffigwr yn codi i gannoedd o filiynau o bunnoedd bob blwyddyn.

Nawr, gyda'r gwelliannau, gobeithio, wedi’u pasio a'r Bil wedi’i ddeddfu, yna bydd y gwaith yn dechrau, wrth gwrs, o wneud yn siŵr bod gennym strategaeth gref, â phwyslais, uchelgeisiol, ac y gellir ei chyflawni. Bydd Ray—rwy'n gwybod—a llawer tebyg iddo ond yn rhy falch o gyfrannu at y gwaith o lunio’r strategaeth honno. Mae er budd pob un ohonom ni yn y fan yma, pob un ohonom ni yng Nghymru, ond yn gyntaf gofynnaf i chi gefnogi ein gwelliannau heddiw.

The Welsh Conservatives intend to support all the amendments in this section as we’ve been most concerned that the proposed public health Bill had done so little to tackle the issue of obesity. In debate after questions after statement, concerns are raised from all parties over the prevalence of obesity in Wales and the corresponding pressures that illnesses such as diabetes, high blood pressure and heart disease, which are exacerbated by or caused by obesity, will have on the individual and the NHS. The economic and human cost of obesity cannot be understated. Being overweight or obese can lead to both chronic and severe medical conditions. Over the next 20 years, rising levels of obesity could lead to an additional 230,000 cases of type 2 diabetes, an additional 80,000 cases of coronary heart disease, and over 32,000 cases of cancer.

Over £1 million a week is spent by the Welsh NHS on treating obesity, and it is predicted that by 2050 as many as 60 per cent of men and 50 per cent of women could be obese. With rates of being overweight and obesity continuing to rise, by 2050 this will cost the NHS in Wales £465 million per year, with a cost to society and to the general economy of some £2.4 billion. There are no indications that obesity levels are currently declining, therefore we believe that it is vital that the Welsh Government develop a cross-portfolio solution to tackle this growing challenge.

Although this lead amendment, for which we are most grateful to Plaid Cymru, is a step in the right direction, there are concerns that there’s not the evidence base to underpin a meaningful and effective strategy in Wales. Therefore, the Welsh Conservatives believe it is critical that the Minister should consult and engage widely across the public sector in Wales to ensure that all organisations are working collaboratively together to deliver these objectives. This way, duplication can be reduced, localised challenges can be targeted, and we can begin to develop a more detailed understanding of the complexities surrounding obesity levels and what can be done to reduce them.

I’m very pleased to rise to support these amendments on the need to tackle obesity. As we’ve already heard, this has seen quite a journey in our discussions with regard to the public health Bill, and we’re very grateful to the Minister for agreeing to this fundamental change, having heard all of the evidence that has come before the health committee. As we’ve heard, 59 per cent of adults are overweight in this nation—one in four is obese. And yes, obesity is important as an issue. It’s that link with heart disease and diabetes as well, but, as we heard from Rhun also, there’s that link with cancer. You’re not aware sometimes that there is more of a chance of suffering from cancer if you are obese or overweight. That’s a fact now, and there have been plenty of medical trials that have shown that.

So, obesity is the most timely and pressing challenge facing us at the moment. So, it’s appropriate that our first public health Bill now gets to grips with this significant challenge. Yes, education has a part to play—healthy eating and so on. Keeping fit also has a part to play, as I’ve mentioned before—10,000 steps every day. But, of course, legislating as well also has a part to play, such as legislating to ensure nutritional standards in our food, in our hospitals and in our care homes; and getting to grips with the sugar tax. We do have powers and rights at present, but perhaps we won’t in the future under the Wales Act 2017. It would be good to have the minimum price of 50p on every alcohol unit. We have those powers now, but not perhaps in the future under the Wales Act 2017. So, there are several challenges in this place. It would also be good to restrict the advertising of junk food. So, that combination: education is vitally important, but as we’ve also seen with smoking—. We as doctors and nurses had been educating the public for decades about how bad smoking was for you, but what has made that genuine step in decreasing smoking levels is legislating on the subject, and the ban on smoking in public places. So, education and legislation come together to improve public health standards, and that’s why I’m pleased to see this amendment to the public health Bill this afternoon, so please do support the amendment. Thank you.

UKIP will be supporting the amendments in this group. We found it hard to reconcile the fact that the public health Bill did nothing to address the biggest public health challenge facing our nation—obesity. As I highlighted during last week’s debate on diabetes, it is a matter of national shame that nearly two-thirds of Welsh adults and a third of Welsh children are overweight or obese. We must make it clear that tackling the obesity crisis is a public health priority for the Welsh Government, and requiring them to produce a clear strategy with clear actions is the best way to achieve this. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Tackling obesity is a major challenge to all Governments in the developed world. It requires joint action from a wide range of organisations from the public, private and voluntary sectors, as well as from individuals themselves. I am grateful to Rhun ap Iorwerth for bringing forward proposals for a national obesity strategy at Stage 2 of the Bill’s consideration, and for the revised amendments being considered today. When the original amendments were tabled at Stage 2, I indicated that I could see the value in bringing a range of measures together through a coherent national obesity strategy. However, due to some concerns about the detail of the proposals, I was unable to support the amendments in their original form. I therefore thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for agreeing to work with the Government to consider the issue further, and for the revised amendments before the Assembly today. I am confident that the amendments now achieve both our objectives to the benefit of the people of Wales. I am pleased to now be able to support all of the amendments in this group. I am grateful to the Member for taking on board the points I made, and for working collaboratively to further refine the details of the proposals. I am particularly pleased that the revised amendments allow for broad stakeholder engagement and for a focus on prevention. I am confident these amendments will strengthen the Bill by placing the work of the Welsh Government to tackle this major public health challenge on a statutory footing. I am confident the amendments will deliver positive change for the people of Wales, and therefore ask Members to support them.

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd. I appreciate that the consensus that has been achieved during the passage of this Bill through the committee stages has been reflected here again in the Chamber. Each and every one of us at the beginning of this journey was aware that we were talking about a problem and a crisis here, and we all wanted to find a way of including it on the face of the Bill. What we have delivered through negotiation and through seeking a joint way forward between ourselves and Government is to ensure that we have reached that objective. I repeat that the challenge now—or the reality now—is that this is just the beginning of the journey. In having agreement to working towards a strategy, then we have to turn that principle into a strategy that will make a real difference. I look forward to seeing these amendments formally approved now, and I look forward to seeing the development of that strategy, which could be the start of the journey to tackling this crisis, which is so damaging for us as a nation.

If amendment 3 is not agreed, amendments 4, 2 and 1 will fall. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, so amendment 3 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 4, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next group of amendments relates to smoke-free premises. Amendment 6 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on the Minister for Social Services and Public Health to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Bill, as it currently stands, would, for the very first time, make three outdoor areas smoke free. These are: school grounds, hospital grounds and public playgrounds. I've been pleased to see the broad support for this significant step that has been clear throughout the scrutiny process. During Stage 1 consideration of the Bill, a number of suggestions were made for additional outdoor areas that should be smoke free. I've been clear throughout that there are inherent complexities in such provisions, but I indicated that I would give active consideration to a fourth setting, namely early-years settings, directly in response to the evidence of stakeholders and the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee's deliberations. As a result of that consideration, I'm pleased to have brought forward the amendments in this group that would add the outdoor areas of registered care settings for children to the list of smoke-free premises. This is a natural next step that further protects children from the harmful effects of smoking and from seeing it as a normal, everyday activity.

Amendment 8 is the primary amendment in this group. It gives details of the settings to be covered, which are registered day care settings for children and child minders providing care in their own domestic premises. The outdoor areas will only be smoke free if the premises are being used for the care of children. In the case of child minders, the outdoor areas of their homes will only be smoke free if one or more children are being cared for in the outdoor area. This ensures an appropriate balance is struck between the protection of children and the rights of any smokers living in the child minder’s home.

Amendments 6 and 7 relate to those who control or are involved in the management of the day care premises, or are registered to act as a child minder. They will be required to take reasonable steps to stop people from smoking in the smoke-free premises, and the amendments also make it an offence not to do so.

Amendment 5 reflects the additional smoke-free requirements in the long title of the Bill, and amendment 9 adds the new section to be introduced by amendment 8 to a list of premises designated as smoke free by the Bill.

The remaining amendments in this group clarify that premises used wholly or mainly as dwellings cannot be made smoke free using the power under section 10 of the Bill. They also provide the conditions that must be met before premises used partly as dwellings may be made smoke free in the future, using the regulation-making power in section 10.

I ask Members to support all of the amendments in this group, which will provide important additional protections for children in Wales.

Whilst the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting the amendments in this section, we are concerned that this legislation is likely to have the largest impact on the working practices of small businesses. In many aspects, the success of this Bill is dependent on the ability of small firms to comply with the changes in legislation, so it is vital that businesses are able to fully understand the implications of the Bill.

At Stage 2, we tabled amendments to the Bill that sought to provide greater clarity on the implementation of smoke-free premises, particularly for those who are self-employed or working from home, calling for the Minister to issue targeted and thorough guidance to small businesses that could demonstrate what is expected of them in regard to changes in the law. At that stage, the Minister gave her reassurances that any guidance issued with regard to smoke-free premises would, and I quote,

‘set out people’s responsibilities in lay terms, and will therefore help persons affected by the legislation to understand what their new responsibilities are.’

The Minister went on to give further assurances that the guidance issued on the smoking ban in public places in 2007 would be updated and reissued. So, on these grounds we agreed not to re-table the amendments at Stage 3.

In regard to amendment 6, assurance must be given by the Minister that guidance will be issued to provide clarity as to what is expected of individuals in regard to this duty, as this is not yet set out in the explanatory memorandum. It is vital that some example scenarios are presented to determine what is expected of childminders to promote compliance with the law.

In this section, the initial wording of this Bill created a power for Welsh Ministers to implement additional smoke-free premises on the grounds that—and I quote—if they’re

‘satisfied that doing so is likely to contribute towards the promotion of the health of the people of Wales.’

That could potentially result in a blanket ban across the whole of Wales. Now, the Welsh Conservatives raised this issue extensively, because although we accept that it was highly unlikely that a blanket ban would be implemented, we believe that it is critical that we demonstrate that politicians in the National Assembly do create robust legislation, and that this blanket power was restricted. Despite that, at committee level, the Minister gave an assurance that there was no intent to enact a blanket ban and struck out our amendment. Therefore it is marginally ironic, but very welcome, to see that at Stage 3 the Minister has tabled further amendments to section 10 of the Bill that seek to restrict this clause, despite her assertions that it was not necessary. This restriction is welcome, and therefore we will support amendment 10. However, it is regrettable that the Minister urged others to reject a similar amendment at Stage 2.

UKIP supports extending smoke-free legislation to all settings where children could be exposed to second-hand smoke and will therefore be supporting the Minister’s amendments in this group. Diolch.

I call on the Minister to reply to the debate.

I thank Members for their support for these measures within the Bill. I would just take this opportunity to reiterate the assurances that I did give at Stage 2 regarding appropriate guidance being issued.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 6 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 7, Minister.

Yes, formally.

The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to, does any Member object? Amendment 7 is agreed to in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 8, Minister.

Formally.

If amendment 8 is not agreed to, amendment 5 falls. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 8 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 9, Minister.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 9 is agreed.

Amendment 10, Minister.

Yes, move.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 10 is agreed.

Amendment 11, Minister.

I formally move.

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 11 is agreed.

Amendment 12, Minister.

Formally move.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 12 is agreed.

Amendment 13, Minister.

Yes, move.

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 13 is agreed.

Amendment 14, Minister.

Move.

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 14 is agreed.

The next group of amendments relates to smoking and enforcement. Amendment 15 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on the Minister to move and to speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. The amendments in this group are all technical in nature and make minor changes to aid understanding of the provisions. They reflect changes made at Stage 2 to name the enforcement authorities for the smoke-free-premises provisions on the face of the Bill, rather than designating them in regulations as initially planned. None of the amendments make a substantive change to the provisions and I urge Members to support these technical amendments.

There are no speakers on these amendments. Therefore, I take it that the Minister doesn’t want to reply to the debate. Therefore, the question that follows from that is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 15 is agreed.

Amendment 16, Minister.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 16 is agreed.

Amendment 17, Minister.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 17 is agreed.

Amendment 18, Minister.

Yes, formally.

The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 18 is agreed.

Amendment 19, Minister.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 19 is agreed.

Amendment 20, Minister.

Yes, formally.

The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 20 is agreed.

The next group of amendments relates to retailers of tobacco and nicotine products. Amendment 32 is the lead amendment in this group and I call on Angela Burns to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendment in the group—Angela Burns.

Diolch, Llywydd. In keeping with the Welsh Conservative policy intent to protect small businesses from undue penalisation from this legislation, we have tabled this amendment that sets out an intent to protect retailers and their data by ensuring that only relevant information is held about them on a retailers register. We welcome the willingness of the Minister to work with us in this regard and to share our concerns as to what is reasonable when it comes to storing information on retailers. At the committee stage, the Minister stated:

‘One of the key considerations when developing the retail register was ensuring that the appropriate balance is struck between achieving the policy aims whilst minimising the burden on retailers. In line with this guiding principle, we would not want to include extra details, such as photographs, unless it became absolutely necessary. Nevertheless, it is important that the ability to add additional information to the retail register is retained in order to be able to respond to changing circumstances.’

I raise this as a major concern because, actually, small businesses are usually very tight on time, don’t have rafts of experts to help them and could be put under immense pressure if a county council or any other authority chose to try to extract more information from them. So, I’m very pleased that the Welsh Conservative amendments at Stage 2 prompted a reconsideration of section 27(6) by the Minister. I would like to thank both the Minister and her lawyer in helping us to review this section and the lawyer for her help in redrafting it. I would ask Members to support this amendment.

I call on the Minister. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. I’m grateful to Angela Burns for bringing forward amendment 32 following an issue that she raised at Stage 2 about the potential for the registration authority to include information on the register that is not consistent with the policy intent. I’m happy to confirm that the Government will support this amendment. However, the acceptance of amendment 32 raises an issue that needs to be addressed.

Amendment 32 would prevent information being included on the register about whether or not a retailer offers home delivery or collection services. It’s important that this information is available to enforcement authorities to aid with the enforcement of the new offence of handing over tobacco and so on to persons under the age of 18, to be introduced by Part 2, Chapter 4 of the Bill.

Amendment 21 is required to allow that information to be available on the register. Therefore, I ask Members to support both amendments in this group, which together ensure that only appropriate information is included on the register and that enforcement authorities can access the information they need about provision of home delivery and collection services.

I call on Angela Burns to reply to the debate.

Just to say: thank you very much, Minister, for your co-operation. I would like to reiterate once again that the Government lawyer was most helpful in this matter.

The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 32 is agreed.

Minister, amendment 21.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 21 is agreed.

The next group of amendments relates to special procedures and licences. Amendment 22 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on the Minister to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Rebecca Evans.

The amendments in this group propose a series of changes to the part of the Bill creating a new licensing system for special procedures, namely body piercing, tattooing, acupuncture and electrolysis. I am encouraged that these proposals have attracted widespread general support, as they will provide important protections for the public who choose to have these procedures.

The first amendment in the group is the result of the careful consideration I have given to concerns raised by Rhun ap Iorwerth at Stage 2. These specifically related to the potential serious health implications of tattooing of the eyeball and the need to ensure this practice should only be carried out by appropriately qualified individuals.

In response to these concerns, I made a commitment to work with the Member to ensure the consultation on the mandatory licensing conditions captures tattooing of the eyeball to enable appropriate and proportionate safeguards to be put in place. Amendment 22 fulfils this commitment by putting it beyond doubt that mandatory licensing conditions can make provision about standards of competence relevant to performing a special procedure on a specific part of an individual’s body, such as an eye, including by reference to qualifications or experience.

It’s my intention that the consultation on the mandatory licensing criteria and conditions will seek views on the controls that should be put in place for special procedures, such as the tattooing of an eyeball, including controls linked to qualifications, competence and experience. The objective is that such a procedure should only be carried out if the practitioner is qualified and considered competent to do so.

To perform a special procedure without holding a licence to do so would be a criminal offence punishable by an unlimited fine. This is a better approach than the amendments proposed by Caroline Jones, which we will discuss in the next group. My amendments will provide a more flexible approach to address, through mandatory licensing criteria and conditions, any special procedure developed in the future that raises similar concerns.

Turning now to amendment 23: this is a technical amendment to make it clear that guidance issued by Welsh Ministers must cover matters to be taken into account when deciding whether, and to what extent, an applicant’s fitness to perform a special procedure has been called into question, as a result of their having a conviction for a relevant offence. This builds on changes that were made to the Bill at Stage 2 relating to relevant offences, and will help ensure a consistent approach across the Bill.

Amendments 25 and 26 in this group also seek to address important concerns raised by Angela Burns at Stage 2 about ensuring access to information for the public. The amendments clarify that a local authority must both maintain and publish its register of special procedure licences and approved premises and vehicles. This means that the local authority would have to produce and publish its register, for example on its website, rather than merely making it open for inspection by the public at its offices. It therefore helps ensure that up-to-date information about valid special procedure licences and premises approvals will be more accessible to those individuals considering having a special procedure.

Amendment 24 is a technical change that removes superfluous wording to add further clarity to section 65.

I thank the respective Members for highlighting important issues in relation to Part 3 of the Bill that are addressed in this group. I urge Members to support all of the amendments in the group.

We will be supporting all the amendments in this group. However, I wish to put on record that the Welsh Conservatives believe that no individual should be exempt from obtaining a licence if administering a special procedure. Therefore, that is why at Stage 2 we tabled amendments that sought to remove this exemption. If an individual does not have that specific regulated competence to do the procedure, in our view they should not be able to do so. This is consistent with much of the evidence given at committee stage, and recommendation 12 of the committee report, that the Bill should be amended so that there’s no provision for a blanket exemption on the face of the Bill for any healthcare profession. However, we do appreciate that in order for this Bill to remain within its devolved legislative competence, exemptions are needed to ensure that this legislation does not infringe on the medical regulatory bodies, such as the General Medical Council.

At committee stage, the Minister stated that she could confirm it’s her intention to carry out consultation with those regulatory bodies to determine whether each of the special procedures listed is within the scope of the professional practice of their members. The exemption is, therefore, subject to their regulatory body confirming that they are competent in the procedure they wish to perform, and if not they will be brought back into the licensing system through regulations and will be required to apply for a licence.

In our view, it is critical that the Minister does proceed with her consultations with regulatory bodies to ensure that only those who are most competent are undertaking these procedures for medical or surgical purposes. Therefore, amendment 22 as tabled strengthens this legislation to ensure that standards of competence are assessed prior to obtaining a licence. This has the potential to regulate a specialist area and procedures and make sure that they are being undertaken by competent and experienced individuals. Given the subject matter, I think it is very important that we do just that.

We will be supporting this group of amendments from the Government. Amendment 22 in particular reflects the concerns that I raised, as we heard from the Minister, during the Committee Stage in relation to the level of ability that we think is required for the tattooing of an eyeball. We proposed that only those registered with the General Medical Council, possibly, should be allowed to undertake such proceedings. You will see in the next group of amendments that Caroline Jones has tabled those amendments that I tabled during the Committee Stage, and the Minister referred to those. My intention, quite simply, was to seek assurances that we could restrict this tattooing, which has a high risk level. At Committee Stage, and then in discussion with Government, I do believe that I have received those assurances that I was seeking. I’m grateful for that. I’m also extremely pleased that I was able to raise this issue, and that it has been discussed, but having succeeded in gaining those assurances, I am happy to support these Government amendments rather than those in group 6.

I call on the Minister to reply to the debate. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. I particularly thank Rhun ap Iorwerth for his support of the amendments within this particular group, reflecting the concerns that he raised at Stage 2, and also thank others who will be supporting these amendments. I would like to take this opportunity to confirm that I will be consulting with the professional bodies on the exemptions issue as a matter of priority, as confirmed at Stage 2.

The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 22 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 23, Minister.

Yes, formally.

The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 23 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 24, Minister.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 24 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 25, Minister.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 25 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 26, Minister.

Yes, formally.

The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 26 is therefore agreed.

The next group of amendments relates to the tattooing of an eyeball. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 36. I call on Caroline Jones to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. I wish to formally move the amendment in my name.

When we first started taking evidence about special procedures, I must admit I was shocked by the range of things people did to their bodies. However, the one thing that did disturb me the most was the tattooing of eyeballs. It’s not the fact that someone wants to inject ink into their eyeball that shocks me but the fact that someone would put their health at risk in order to alter the colour of their eyes. Eyeball tattooing involves inserting a needle into the sclera, the white of your eye, in several places and injecting coloured ink, which slowly spreads to cover all of the sclera. The inks used in this procedure are usually not designed for the purposes of tattooing, and are mainly designed for use in commercial printing processes or for adding colour to car bodywork. People who have undergone this procedure report that they have wept coloured tears for days and experienced a burning sensation in their eyes, and that is when there are no complications.

According to the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Ophthalmologists, who looked at this issue, the health risks are significant. They include perforation of the eye, which can lead to blindness as the sclera is less than 1 mm thick; retina detachment, an urgent medical condition that may leave the patient blind; endophthalmitis, an infection inside the eye that can also lead to blindness; sympathetic opthalmia, an autoimmune inflammatory response that affects both eyes and can result in blindness; bleeding and infection at the injection sites; delayed diagnosis of medical conditions, as the true colour of the sclera is now hidden—for example, jaundice is often a first symptom of many diseases; adverse reactions to the ink; sensitivity to light; staining of the surrounding tissue due to ink migration; and they state that the long-term risks are not yet known.

It is for these reasons that I have tabled these amendments in my name—35, 36, 37, 38 and 41. There are medical reasons why scleral tattooing may be necessary, so it is not possible to prohibit, as Rhun had stated in one of his amendments, its use outright. Instead, these amendments restrict eyeball tattooing to those properly licensed by the GMC—the General Medical Council. I urge Members to support the amendments in group 6. Diolch yn fawr.

Due to previous provisions in the Bill, Welsh Conservatives will be abstaining on the following amendments relating to the tattooing of eyeballs. We accept that the intent of the proposer is to ensure that this extremely risky procedure is only carried out by highly skilled individuals. However, this procedure was not raised as an issue at committee stage by the medical community, and there are concerns that the proposed amendment infringes on an individual’s ability to make decisions about their own life and health.

The provisions created by amendment 22 will, we believe, ensure that there will be a duty placed on those issuing licences to assess an individual’s capability to administer these procedures, as they will need to have previous experience and be competent in their ability to do so. Although this is not necessarily preventative, it will give greater assurance that these procedures will be undertaken in a competent and proper way, and we would suggest to the Minister, especially given the very powerful and descriptive way that the proposer has described the problems that can arise from the tattooing of an eyeball, that this is an area that she might wish to consult on further with a view to adding the tattooing of an eyeball to the list of special procedures as soon as possible.

I call on the Minister. Rebecca Evans.

The amendments in this group seek to create a standalone criminal offence of tattooing an eyeball in Wales, unless it’s done by a person regulated by the General Medical Council. I share the general concern about the risks of this procedure, which underpin the amendments. As I outlined in the discussion on the previous group, amendment 22 tabled in my name makes it clear that the mandatory licensing criteria and conditions can make provision about standards of competence relevant to performing a special procedure on a specific part of an individual’s body, including by reference to qualifications or experience.

Would you take an intervention?

Yes.

Thank you for taking the intervention. What kind of experience do you think will be necessary to convince people that they’re capable of carrying out this process?

When we develop these regulations, obviously we will be consulting widely, particularly with the medical community in terms of what they think would be appropriate in terms of undertaking special procedures of this particular nature.

As I outlined in the previous discussion, the amendment that I tabled does make it clear that the mandatory licensing conditions and criteria can make these provisions, and as such, the criteria and conditions will be able to make specific and targeted provision about tattooing an eyeball, and I do believe that this is the most appropriate mechanism for dealing with this important issue, rather than the approach suggested by the amendments in this group. This approach also provides the flexibility needed to deal with other procedures that might emerge and present similar health concerns in future.

It is my intention that the consultation required on the mandatory licensing criteria and conditions will seek views on the appropriate controls and restrictions that should be put in place for procedures such as eyeball tattooing, including controls linked to qualifications, experience and competence. The objective will be to ensure that such a procedure could only be carried out if the practitioner was qualified and considered competent to do so.

The approach that I have outlined would mean that the tattooing of an eyeball would be prohibited from being carried out by anyone who does not meet strict licensing criteria and conditions. To carry out such a procedure without being licensed to do so would be an offence punishable by an unlimited fine. The approach ultimately achieves a similar effect to that envisaged by the amendments in this group, but in a more coherent way that aligns with the overall special procedures licensing system. Therefore, I am unable to support the amendments in this group.

I call on Caroline Jones to reply to the debate. Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Obviously, I’m disappointed that these amendments were not supported. One of the reasons that I am very disappointed is that I believe that this procedure should be used for medical reasons only. I’m disturbed that someone can go out, have their eyeballs tattooed and have complications such as those I have listed. I’m also concerned that this procedure could add significantly to our waiting lists in hospitals, and that ophthalmologists already have 18-month waiting lists where people risk becoming blind. Therefore, I think this procedure, if left to its own devices as we are doing—leaving it optional instead of just for medical reasons—can only add to that. What I ask, in this instance, is that it is reconsidered.

If amendment 36 is not agreed to, amendments 37, 38, 41 and 35 fall. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll therefore proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour four, 11 abstentions, 35 against. So, the amendment was not agreed.

The next group of amendments relates to the provision of toilets and local toilets strategies. Amendment 39 is the lead amendment in this group. I call on Caroline Jones to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Caroline Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. I wish to move the amendment formally in my name. Amendment 39, tabled in my name, seeks, by way of Welsh Government guidance, to strengthen local toilet strategies by making clear the actions a local authority must take to address the need for public toilets in their local area in an effective and timely manner. I believe that this is the best way to achieve what the majority of witnesses who gave evidence during Stage 1 and 2 proceedings wanted, which is a way to ensure that local authorities guarantee that there is adequate provision of public toilets in these areas.

In an ideal world, we would not be looking at ways to maximise the number of available toilets that the public can access; we would already have enough facilities to cater for this most basic of needs. But we don’t live in an ideal world; we live in a world where the elderly and the disabled are trapped in their own homes, unable to venture outside because they don’t have widespread access to public toilets.

The fact that the Bill simply requires councils to prepare a public toilets strategy will do nothing to improve provision or allay the concerns of those affected by the lack of provision. These concerns were shared not only by patient groups and the older people’s commissioner, but also by the NHS Confederation, the Association of Directors of Public Health, and Public Health Wales, who told the health committee that financial pressures on councils will mean that a strategy will not improve provision.

Amendment 39 strengthens the language used, and makes it clear to local authorities than they must take action, not merely put forward proposals, and that the actions they take are the most effective possible and are delivered in a reasonable timescale. I fear that, given the financial constraints placed upon us, this is the best we can hope for. Throughout the Stage 1 proceedings of this Bill I’ve felt that the Welsh Government needs to have a grasp of the overall picture of public toilet provision across Wales. It is no good to have 22 local toilet strategies if there is patchy provision in some parts of the country. Hence amendment 40 tabled in my name puts the onus on the Welsh Government to ensure that, combined, the local toilet strategies provide sufficient national provision.

I’m grateful to the Minister for accepting my argument during Stage 2 that we need to ensure that the guidance on toilet strategies covered collaboration between local authorities. I will support the Minister’s amendment 27, but feel that it could be strengthened to show that the reason for collaboration between authorities is to ensure adequate toilet provision across the respective regions. For this reason, I hope Members will support amendment 27A tabled in my name. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Minister. Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. The Bill includes a statutory duty on Welsh Ministers to publish guidance to which local authorities must have regard when developing their local toilet strategies. Section 110 of the Bill sets out a number of issues that this guidance must cover. The amendments in this group tabled by Caroline Jones seek to make changes to the content of that guidance. When amendments 39 and 40 were considered at Stage 2, I explained that I was unable to support them as they go beyond the policy intent, and would produce inconsistencies within the Bill. This remains my view, and I am unable to support them today. However, at Stage 2 I also made a commitment to give further consideration to one of the issues raised in a related amendment, namely collaboration between local authorities in addressing needs for toilet provision, which could involve more than one authority. This might include, for example, provision on a major route that crosses two or more authorities. This consideration is now addressed in Government amendment 27, which requires the guidance issued by the Welsh Ministers to make provision about collaboration between local authorities on this issue.

Amendment 27A, however, seeks to extend this amendment by putting costly duties on local authorities during a period of austerity. Again, this would go beyond the policy intent, which is to improve the planning of toilets available to the public, so that they better meet the needs of communities. It would also result in inconsistencies within the Bill. I would therefore ask Members to reject amendments 39, 40 and 27A and to support Government amendment 27 in this group.

I call on Caroline Jones to respond to the debate.

Diolch, Llywydd. Obviously I’m disappointed that the amendments I’ve tabled have been rejected. I feel that in the interests of our elderly and in the interests of our disabled people who absolutely depend on the provision of toilets to just go about their daily duties, it is those that I’m speaking for. Diolch yn fawr.

The question is that amendment 39 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 22, there were no abstentions and there were 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 40, Caroline Jones.

Formally move.

The question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Minister, amendment 27.

Yes, formally.

Before disposing of amendment 27, we will first dispose of the amendment to it. Caroline Jones, amendment 27A.

Formally move.

The question is that amendment 27A be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

The question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Does any Member object? Amendment 27 is agreed.

The next group of amendments relates to improving and protecting the health and well-being of young persons. Amendment 33 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on Angela Burns to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Angela Burns.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Welsh Conservatives have tabled this amendment inserting a new section into the Bill that seeks to ensure that Welsh Ministers have to produce a comprehensive report on an annual basis detailing progress made in the delivery of public health objectives, with emphasis on those that protect and improve the health and well-being of young persons. There is no doubt that ensuring people stay well and maintain a healthy lifestyle is of vital importance to the individual, and, consequently, is of enormous benefit to the public purse. Educating the younger generation is an obvious place to start. If we can prove their physical and mental health and sense of well-being, then we are all alleviating the pressures of the future. Public health researchers at Cardiff University found that following a healthy lifestyle—not smoking, maintaining a healthy body weight, limiting alcohol intake—are integral in curbing the likelihood of chronic illness.

This amendment also seeks to ensure that focus is maintained on the vital importance of public health to ensure that all Assembly Members are able to effectively scrutinise the outcomes of this legislation by virtue of an annual report, which will provide both Welsh Government and Assembly Members the opportunity to benchmark and monitor progress. The data produced by this exercise will also inform the wider debate over the acute challenges we face in public health. The OECD report 2016 identified that Wales lacked robust data-reporting mechanisms to accurately reflect key parameters needed to improve health services across Wales. When you consider that socioeconomic deprivation is directly linked to public health outcomes, personified by the fact that lung cancer prevalence is highest in south-east Wales valleys, it is clear that we need not only to collect data to improve public health outcomes, but we also need to promote a prevention-first strategy, in which children and young people are put to the forefront of public health messaging in Wales.

That recent OECD report acknowledged a 10-year decline in reporting across Wales. The report went on to stipulate that there is potential for community health councils to play a valuable role in reflecting the patient voice across Wales. It is critical now that the Welsh Government acts to not only strengthen its reporting arrangements, but widens the public engagement process. This is crucial in putting the role of an integrated health system that serves Wales collectively into place. This amendment would also help to promote collaboration between local health boards and local authorities with an emphasis on schooling and engagement. Central to this is ensuring that public health messaging from health boards and the effective marketing of public health initiatives is taken forward in collaboration with educational bodies. For example, when we seek to improve the health and well-being of young persons, we must recognise that inactivity is a hidden killer, contributing to one in six deaths in the UK, the same level as smoking. More than one in three people in Wales are inactive, failing to be active for more than 30 minutes a week. We already know that physically inactive individuals spend an average of 38 per cent more days in hospital, they make 5.5 per cent more GP visits, and access 13 per cent more specialist services and 12 per cent more nurse visits than an active individual. Yet the Welsh Government, despite its list of commitments to increase physical participation amongst Wales’s population, has cut its funding to physical activity programmes.

In the 2016-17 budget, the Welsh Government cut the delivery of effective sports and physical activity programmes from £26,891,000 to £22 million. This represents a real-terms decrease of 7 per cent. And the number of hours dedicated to PE at primary school level have also declined across Wales. In 2010-11, an average of 115 minutes per week were spent on PE lessons at primary school level. However, the latest statistics show that this currently stands at 100 minutes in 2014-15, and this is in contrast to the noted successes of the UK Government, who introduced the PE and sport premium, which was designed to help primary schools improve the quality of the PE and sports activity they offer their pupils, and they have invested over £450 million during the last three academic years.

This amendment would reinforce the importance of public health being integrated and promotes collaborative working, which, in turn, would lead to a more effective use of the budget and would ensure greater outcomes. Furthermore, it will drive a partnership between health professionals and schools to ensure that factors such as nutrition are also considered when schools are putting forward their lunch menus, because, despite all the talk, currently, healthy eating guidelines are not being achieved by many people in Wales. Guidelines promote eating at least five portions of fruit and vegetables each day with meals based on starchy carbohydrates like potatoes, rice, and pasta. However, these guidelines merely promote having a balanced diet. With regard to tackling obesity, there should be more detailed advice and targeted support available so people at risk of obesity can make informed decisions about their nutrition.

Make no mistake: messaging to children, young people, and, indeed, adults, needs to step up in effectiveness and cohesion. For example, we should note that the Welsh health survey, which measures the daily consumption of fruit and vegetables as an indicator of health and well-being, shows that just one in three people eat the recommended amount of fruit and vegetables each day, and there are questions as to whether current guidelines on healthy eating are actually able to promote healthy lifestyles and tackle obesity. The National Obesity Forum has produced a damning report that highlights that current dietary guidelines are failing to tackle the ever-growing challenge of obesity. The report criticises existing guidelines that promote low-fat diets and high-carbohydrate intake in order to have a balanced diet. Creative, informative, and motivational messaging is critical to helping to improve public health in Wales, and we need to ensure that public health messaging from health boards and effective marketing of public health initiatives are taken forward in collaboration with educational bodies.

This amendment, Minister, will also ensure greater data collection is taken forward in terms of identifying the parameters that allow better public health outcomes. Finally, this amendment will require Ministers to report progress to the National Assembly for Wales on a yearly basis and, as such, allow all Members here to benchmark and scrutinise Welsh Government progress in improving public health for the youngest in our society, and I ask Members to support it.

Plaid Cymru is pleased to support these amendments. We often hear about the difficulties that patients of all ages face when there is a variety of public bodies responsible for the services that they receive. This, of course, includes young people. They are no different. Indeed, one could argue that they are in more complex positions on occasion, if you add the school or educational institution as another layer of public service that plays a part in decisions on care and support for young persons.

I, like many here, I’m sure, have dealt with a number of cases in my constituency relating to mental health problems suffered by young people—some of them very serious problems—and the role of the school in the treatment and care provided is often centrally important. Therefore, collaboration is important. It doesn’t always happen as we would like to see it happen, and this amendment would at least lead to the need to report back on the level of collaboration that currently exists. I’m also pleased to see that the amendment specifically notes that reports should refer to obesity levels—something that we’ve already discussed here this afternoon—and to nutrition. It also emphasises the need for public health messages to be communicated effectively to young people, and communicated in a way that is seen as relevant to young people. Therefore, we are happy to support these amendments.

I was very struck by the points made by Angela Burns, and, before the Minister replies, I wondered if she could say whether the Government supports the approach of the Soil Association certification of school meals, and their approach to good food for all, which ensures that children are eating freshly produced produce rather than stuff that’s being brought in and cooked from chilled, and also with an emphasis on the schools actually ensuring that children are encouraged to eat new vegetables and fruit, and taste things that they may not get at home.

I call on the Minister, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, and I thank Angela Burns for bringing forward the amendments in this group, and I do recognise the intention behind the amendments and share the view that improving and protecting the health and well-being of our young people should be at the forefront of public health policy in Wales, and, in response to Jenny Rathbone’s concerns as well, I would refer all Members to the letter that I sent recently to all Members of the National Assembly for Wales, which outlined our approach to nutritional standards, both in school settings and also hospital settings, and extending them to early years settings and care home settings in future as well.

I would, with regard to this amendment, however, emphasise that safeguarding the health of children and young people is already a central theme right across the Bill and across other policies and legislation. The Bill provides a series of important protections for children, for example by restricting smoking in settings such as school grounds and public playgrounds, and by protecting children from the potential harms caused by intimate piercing. In addition, the long-term focus of health impact assessments will be another important way of ensuring that the future health and well-being of children and young people is protected.

Whilst I understand the good intentions behind these amendments, I believe they are inappropriate for a number of reasons. The well-being of future generations Act requires a public body in Wales to collaborate with others to meet its objectives and also to report annually on the progress made in meeting its objectives. Among the objectives that the public bodies listed in Angela Burns’s amendment should be considering and reporting on are public health issues relevant to young people, such as obesity, nutrition and mental health. These amendments would, therefore, effectively duplicate requirements in other legislation. Elements of these amendments also seem to duplicate other work being taken forward under this Bill—for example through the national obesity strategy that will be developed as a result of the amendments agreed earlier this afternoon.

The national obesity strategy amendments require the Welsh Ministers to publish a strategy on preventing obesity and reducing obesity levels in Wales, and this would include—but wouldn’t be limited to—obesity levels in young people. In addition, the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport has committed to developing a children’s health plan to describe the national priority areas that health services should be addressing to improve outcomes for children and young people in Wales. It’s envisaged that the plan will be published for consultation before the end of the year, and an annual progress report will also be published. This important work will provide another way of achieving the desired effect of these amendments, and of providing strategic direction in a broader sense than these amendments would achieve.

Finally, in terms of outcomes, there’s already a range of mechanisms in place in Wales that enable us to monitor trends in the health and well-being of young people and children. For example, the annual reports of the chief medical officer and various surveys provide us with valuable information in this regard. So, taking all of these things together, the amendments in this group risk duplicating some of the existing and planned work without adding extra value, and for these reasons I’m unable to support the amendments in this group and would ask Members to reject them.

I call on Angela Burns to reply to the debate. Angela Burns.

Thank you very much indeed. I’m very disappointed to have your response, Minister. I do not believe that the fragmented approach that you’re having of looking at the various outcomes for child health will have the desired effect of these amendments. Time and time and time again this Assembly sits and talks about public health issues. We all bang on about how much smoking people are doing, how overweight people are, how unhealthy we are, and what a time bomb it is to the future of our NHS and how we’re going to have to deal, in five, 10, 15 and 20 years’ time with an increase in chronic conditions that will—to be frank—cripple the NHS if we’re not careful. [Interruption.] Sorry, I have a real frog in my throat today. I wish it would go. Yet, this simple amendment is actually targeted at our young people—the future of Wales. This simple amendment asks that, every year, the Welsh Government should bring forward to this Chamber, for all of these Assembly Members who talk on this issue week after week, month after month, year after year, the ability to actually look at whether or not we are delivering true public health measures to young people, to make a difference, to alleviate that time bomb that may be going off in five or 10 years’ time.

There are varying pieces of legislation out there at the moment. You know, we can run through them all: the well-being of future generations Act, the imminent additional learning needs Bill, this Bill. Let me just take one: the healthy eating Measure. I remember being an Assembly Member and sitting on the committee that brought that forward. Has it actually made a significant difference to the food quality in schools in Wales? No. My children have just left primary school, and for the years that they were there, as they were in a school that didn’t have its own kitchen and had to have everything shipped in, they never saw a green vegetable. Thankfully, they had a parent who would make them eat broccoli in the evenings, but if I didn’t do that, they wouldn’t know what a green vegetable is. So, we’re not—despite all of our intent and our bits of legislation squirrelled away here and squirrelled away there, we are losing that focus. So, this amendment was purely to bring that focus.

I am very sad that you’ve decided that you can’t accept it, because the Welsh Government has never had a problem with the fragmentation of policy intent in numerous Bills, and you’ve never had a problem before with repetition. So, why you’ve got a problem on this issue, I think, is really sad, and I believe you’re missing a trick, and we are going to lose focus on really making that change to the lives of young people in Wales.

If amendment 33 is not agreed to, amendment 34 falls. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

The next group of amendments relates to air pollution and air quality. Amendment 44 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on Simon Thomas to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Llywydd. I hope that I will be more successful than Angela Burns. I’m not sure that I will be. But certainly, to date, the discussion on this Bill has seen greater discussion between the two main opposition parties on improving the Bill in a collaborative manner. I’m pleased that we are dealing with this second stab at the Bill in a more inclusive manner than we did the first time.

Amendment 44 and the rest of the amendments in the group set out a framework for ensuring that we use this Bill as an opportunity to safeguard the public from the detrimental impacts of air pollution. In doing so, I want to say at the outset, and emphasise at the outset, that there is no safe level—in health terms, there is no safe level of air pollution, be that nitrogen oxides or other PMs, which are the very minute particles in the air. Now, of course there are legal levels, there are statutory levels, and there are directives and legislation around those. But, in health terms, there is no safe level. Therefore, it is important, I think, that we do look at this Bill as an opportunity to improve the situation in that context. I noted that Stage 1 discussions had seen a number of stakeholders raising air pollution as an issue that needs to be tackled, with evidence from the heart foundation and the lung foundation both saying that there should be at least a reference to the general principle of reducing air pollution. Now, Plaid Cymru is of the view that we should go a little further than that, because we do agree with the EFRA committee in Westminster that stated that the current air pollution levels were a public health crisis in the UK. Therefore, we want to see this Bill and the Government taking this opportunity to take action on that health crisis.

In the Welsh context, air pollution is second only to smoking—which is very prominent in this Bill—as a cause of early deaths in Wales, causing 2,400 early deaths annually. That’s 6 per cent of the total early deaths in Wales. The case is split in two: the PM2.5s—the very small particles that I mentioned—produce some 1,300 early deaths, and nitrogen oxides lead to 1,100 premature deaths. Those are Public Health Wales figures presented to the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee back in January of this year.

Of course, air pollution isn’t restricted to one nation or to one community—it crosses borders and boundaries. It is covered by European legislation, for the UK Government, and the Government here in Wales has relied upon a national framework in the UK context in terms of dealing with this. Now, I understand why the Government has chosen to address this in that way, because it’s more convenient, and it reduces the burden, but I certainly can’t place my trust in the current Government, which is currently being re-elected—perhaps we’ll have to wait and see—in terms of tackling air pollution. Andrea Leadsom, of course, didn’t want to publish the strategy on tackling air pollution at all before the election, using purdah as an excuse for saying nothing at all on the issue. Environmental lawyers from ClientEarth had to take this to court to ensure that the strategy was published by the Government in Westminster, and it was published at the end of last week, after these amendments were tabled, so there is something in these amendments that perhaps would be altered by that strategy. What’s important in my view, and in Plaid Cymru’s view, is that we shouldn’t rely on the Westminster Government to produce a strategy, but that the Welsh Government should also provide, prepare and publish an air pollution strategy that sets out how air pollution can be reduced.

There is a broader context to all of this, of course. We are to leave the European Union, and will therefore lose—unless we transfer them to national legislation—some of the directives already in place relating to air pollution. One clear case of that is one that came to a decision on the Aberthaw power station recently in Wales. Therefore, if the Government’s argument is that there is reference to air pollution in other legislation, that is a case that could be made, but there are two reasons for including it in this Bill. One: that any other reference is in the environmental context, but we’re talking about the health context here. Secondly: as we are to leave the European Union, it is more important than ever that we should be very clear in the legislation that we pass here that we want to maintain the standards, if not improve those standards, if truth be told.

Therefore, that is the context in which I seek to move amendment 44 and the other amendments. Now, amendment 44 recognises that the UK Government does lead in this area and states that we need to publish a national Welsh strategy no later than six months after the publication of the UK Government’s air quality programme. I think, in seeing the report published at the end of last week, the Government has already committed to some response within 12 months. So, it’s six months in the amendment and I think the Government has said that it would respond within a year.

I do think it’s important that we have a Welsh strategy so that we can respond to any policies that don’t work, or to any changes in the science that underpins policy. The most prominent example of this, of course, is that we have moved, over the past 15 years, away from petrol engines for most transport in Wales and in the UK and moved towards diesel engines. Now, this was done for very a good reason at the time, with the increase in the number of diesel cars from 10 per cent of vehicles sold at the beginning of this century to over 50 per cent, which is an increase of 3.2 million to 8.2 million by 2010. I don’t blame Gordon Brown or the Labour Party here, if truth be told, because they were responding to the situation as they saw it then, but the problem was that the car manufacturers had conned us. They’d misled us. They’d fixed the test to demonstrate that these diesel engines weren’t emitting PMs in laboratory conditions, but once you put them on the roads in a day-to-day scenario, then the emissions were extremely damaging from these diesel engines. And I admit that I was one of those people who did switch to diesel for those reasons. I now find myself in a situation where I am polluting the air every time I use my car.

We need to tackle this issue and, unfortunately, the Government’s strategy makes no mention of any diesel scrappage scheme or introducing electric vehicles, but rather pushes responsibility down to local authorities. Well, if that is the case, then it’s even more important that we in Wales respond with a national scheme.

I do think that we do have other legislation in Wales—the environment Act and also the well-being of future generations Act—but there is nothing on the face of this Bill that mentions reducing air pollution and this is our opportunity to put that on the face of the Bill passed by the Assembly today.

Er mwyn bod yn glir am welliannau 45 a 46, sy'n ymwneud â gwelliant 44 a’r hyn y maen nhw’n ceisio ei wneud—i fod yn glir bod gwelliant 45 yn ceisio gosod cyfrifoldeb ar Lywodraeth Cymru, nid yn unig i gynhyrchu strategaeth, fel yr wyf newydd sôn amdano, ond hefyd i gyhoeddi canllawiau i fyrddau iechyd lleol ynghylch sut y dylai byrddau rybuddio trigolion am lefelau uchel o lygredd aer a ragwelir ar gyfer eu hardaloedd. Mae yna wefan y gallwch edrych arni; caiff ei rheoli gan fforwm ansawdd aer Cymru. Gallwch edrych arni a gweld beth yw ansawdd yr aer yn eich ardal chi, ond mae'n gyffredinol iawn. Nid oeddwn yn gallu cael gwybod beth oedd y lefel ar y stryd lle’r wyf i'n byw, er fy mod yn byw yn llythrennol rhwng ysgol a ffordd fawr. Byddwn wedi meddwl bod honno’n ardal ddelfrydol i wybod beth yw ansawdd yr aer, ond ni allwn ddod o hyd i hynny o’r wybodaeth sydd ar gael yn gyhoeddus ar hyn o bryd. Rwy’n meddwl felly y byddai gwelliant 45 yn gosod y cyfrifoldeb hwn. Mae'n rhywbeth y mae Sadiq Khan, y maer Llafur yn Llundain, yn ceisio ei wneud ar hyn o bryd, fel bod pobl yn deall beth yw ansawdd yr aer yn eu hamgylchedd lleol a’u bod yn gallu cymryd camau i’w wella os gallant, ond, yn bwysig, cymryd camau o ran iechyd y cyhoedd i ddiogelu eu hiechyd eu hunain, ac mae hynny'n arbennig o wir am bobl ifanc a phlant ag asthma sy'n byw mewn ardaloedd o'r fath.

Byddai gwelliant 46 yn gosod cyfrifoldeb ar Lywodraeth Cymru i gyhoeddi canllawiau i awdurdodau lleol ar sut y dylai awdurdodau lleol fonitro ansawdd yr aer o dan Reoliadau Safonau Ansawdd Aer (Cymru) 2010 y tu allan i ysgolion ac ar lwybrau teithio llesol. Mae hyn yn mynd i'r afael yn benodol â hynny. Mae Sefydliad Prydeinig yr Ysgyfaint, er enghraifft, wedi canfod nad oedd llawer o gynghorwyr lleol—tua 20 y cant a ymatebodd i gais rhyddid gwybodaeth—yn ystyried ysgolion yn flaenoriaeth ar gyfer monitro ansawdd yr aer, a chyfeiriodd 53 y cant arall at ganllawiau cyfredol DEFRA, yr ydym yn dibynnu arnynt yng Nghymru—am ryw reswm rydym yn barod i ddibynnu ar ganllawiau DEFRA —nad ydynt ychwaith yn blaenoriaethu ysgolion. Mae'n bwysig, rwy’n credu, bod lefelau llygredd aer ar lwybrau i ysgolion yn cael eu monitro, fel bod pobl yn deall effaith y cyfan, trafnidiaeth o wahanol fathau, ond hefyd yr effaith wrth i blant gerdded a seiclo i ysgolion.

Mae gwelliannau 47, 43 a 42 yn welliannau canlyniadol a fyddai'n galluogi’r newidiadau pwysig hyn yn y Bil hwn i gael eu deddfu. Diolch yn fawr.

Air pollution must be regarded as one of the many growing challenges to improve public health in Wales. Air pollution is a direct result of human activity, whether through vehicle usage, agriculture and industry, and burning fossil fuels. Although there have been some vast national improvements in air quality management in recent years, the need to target localised pockets is essential to improve the inequalities that exist in Wales’s air quality. Simon Thomas made the comment about walking to schools. Well, let’s be really clear about this—Wales is home to some of the most polluted areas in the UK, and if you were a schoolchild walking along the edge of the A472 near Crumlin, you’d be walking through a place that has the highest rate of pollution in any area outside London. It’s predominantly caused by congestion from heavy-duty vehicles—it’s the fold of the hills—but ultimately the people living in that area are increasingly being exposed to harmful pollutants, which is denigrating their health.

Research is enabling us to have a far fuller understanding of just how harmful long-term exposure to air pollution is for our health. In order to curb the impacts of air pollution on our health, we need to explore what can be done in our devolved capacity to manage our air quality effectively. Fundamental to this is delivering infrastructure projects with sustainability and pollutant reductions in mind, but also by raising awareness through public health messaging, so that individuals are aware of the threat air pollutants pose to their health. These amendments tabled by Simon Thomas have laudable aims and are a step in the right direction when it comes to confronting the need for collective action on air quality.

Although there are a number of initiatives in place, it is critical that all public bodies are accepting their responsibilities and are working in tandem together. At present, local governments have a requirement to effectively monitor the local air quality and alert the public when levels exceed guidelines. Equally, they have a responsibility to deliver localised air management strategies, so it is essential that these are tied in with national strategic objectives.

However, although we will be supporting all bar one amendment, we do have concerns with amendment 45, and we’ll be grateful for further clarity from the proposer. We’re concerned over the potential impact that amendment 45 may have on the finances of local health boards, because, of course, not everyone has access to a website. Not everyone can access good health messaging in that way, and we have concerns that we are not keen to give Welsh Government a power to issue guidance that may be extremely difficult for the local health boards to follow through, because we are firmly of the view that we can drive public health improvements without adversely impacting on the funding available to overstretched health boards, and we have concerns that that amendment might bring forward a much greater level of pressure on their already overstretched funding. But the rest of the amendments we absolutely accept, and we’d like to thank Simon Thomas and Plaid Cymru for bringing them forward.

I support the intention behind Simon’s group of amendments, and support the majority of them. We cannot, however, support amendment 45. We agree with the need to alert the public about high air pollution but believe this would be better undertaken by local authorities, or even the Welsh Government, but not local health boards. Therefore, we will be abstaining on this one amendment, while supporting all the other amendments. Thank you.

I call on the Minister, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. These amendments seek to introduce a specific provision on air quality in the Bill by adding a new part. I share the concerns behind the amendments. The quality of the air that we breathe is a matter of critical importance to public health.

As I have consistently stated, the Welsh Government has continued to demonstrate the importance that it attaches to this issue. This was most recently shown by a wide-ranging consultation led by the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment and Rural Affairs. Air pollution is an issue that requires true cross-Government working, and we are fully committed to taking this agenda forward through a range of existing and planned work. To illustrate this, a number of commitments have already been made that meet the objectives behind amendments in this group. For example, in relation to amendment 45, the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment and Rural Affairs and I have already written to the Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee to outline that the Welsh Government will issue guidance to local health boards encouraging them to support local authorities in their air quality work.

Similarly, relevant to amendment 46, the Welsh Government has committed to issuing new air quality policy guidance to local authorities in the next few months. This guidance will recognise schools and active travel routes, amongst others, such as care homes, hospitals, nurseries, and sports grounds, as sensitive receptor locations. It will also note that older people, those with pre-existing medical conditions, babies, children and people undertaking prolonged physical activity are not confined to the aforementioned locations and deserve the same level of protection wherever they may be.

Local authorities must therefore take a risk-based approach in siting their monitors. This should be informed by where the evidence indicates people are likely to be exposed to the highest levels of air pollution. Our steer to local authorities is that, in working towards the well-being of future generations, they should give specific consideration to the long-term risks to babies and children posed by exposure to air pollution, whether in their own homes, in their school or nursery, or travelling between the two.

In relation to amendment 44, section 80 of the Environment Act 1995 already requires Ministers to produce an air quality strategy containing policies with respect to the assessment and management of air quality. It would be inappropriate for this to be duplicated in this Bill. Due to the trans-boundary nature of air pollutants, the current air quality strategy, which was published in 2007, is presented in a document with common aims covering all parts of the UK.

Members may also be aware that, sitting alongside the UK-wide strategy, DEFRA has now published a joint UK consultation for a new draft plan. The plan focuses on the specific goal of achieving compliance with EU legal limits for nitrogen dioxide on certain roads in the shortest possible time. This draft plan focuses on one important aspect of air quality and does not replace the existing UK air quality strategy. The consultation on the draft plan for nitrogen dioxide closes on 15 June.

The plan includes significant new commitments by the Welsh Government to consult, within the next 12 months, on the detail of a proposal for a clean air zone framework for Wales. This critical new development is one of a number of significant pieces of work that we will be undertaking on the subject of air quality in the coming year. Others include making revisions to ‘Planning Policy Wales’ in relation to air quality, implementing the recently agreed improvements to local air quality management in Wales and reviewing what more can be done in relation to the trunk road network.

I am, however, disappointed with aspects of the UK Government’s draft commitments in the nitrogen dioxide plan, given the lack of information within the consultation on what further action will be taken to address emissions on a UK basis. For example, beyond Wales, there are many areas of non-devolved activity that are needed to bring down emissions as quickly as possible. For example, the House of Commons Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and others have called for the UK Government to launch a diesel scrappage scheme that would give grants to cut the cost of a low-emission vehicle for an owner scrapping their diesel vehicle.

Another major concern with amendment 44 is that the drafting is defective as no definition of public bodies is given. This is problematic in two respects. Firstly, from a practical perspective, it’s not clear who is caught by the term ‘public body’. This could lead to confusion. Lack of clarity over the scope of the duties could lead to public bodies inadvertently breaching the duty to have due regard to the air pollution strategy placed on them by amendment 44. Where a legal duty is imposed, there needs to be certainty about its scope and this amendment doesn’t provide that.

Secondly, and more importantly, the drafting of amendment 44 is outside the legislative competence of the Assembly. As drafted, the reference to public bodies would include public bodies exercising functions of a Minister of the Crown. To place such a duty on these public bodies would require the consent of the UK Government. If the amendment as drafted is passed, it could lead to a reference, which would delay the coming into force and implementation of the other much-needed public health provision contained within this Bill.

For all these reasons, I am unable to support any of the amendments in this group, but would reassure Members of action taken to tackle this important issue through the various activities I have outlined.

I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I thank the Minister for responding to the debate and at least welcome in part what she said in terms of some of the action that’s been taken. I’ll attempt to restate my arguments in a more persuasive way for Angela Burns and possibly for Caroline Jones.

Amendment 45—I think it’s important to remember that the Welsh Government has already stated that it intends, as I think the Minister just mentioned, to produce national guidance for local health board directors of public health, local authority directors of public protection, and Public Health Wales, encouraging them to support the delivery of local air quality management. So, I think there’s already in the pipeline some of this obligation coming through. I admit this is a more statutory approach, but some of that has already been done. I also would like to draw everyone’s attention, really, to the fact that the British Lung Foundation think that this could actually save money in the long term. The amendment itself is not prescriptive about the method in which alerts—if I can put it that way—are delivered. So, it may well be that local authorities would be the delivery mechanism; it’s just an obligation on the health boards to prepare that information. It's similar to what’s being proposed at the moment in London, where it’s seen as a very important part of living in that city: that you know what your public health is when you walk out of the door, which area is polluted or not. The British Lung Foundation, as I said, say that this could reduce the risk of unavoidable exacerbation for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other prevalent lung conditions and, therefore, potentially reduce hospitalisation. So, I think there's a way of trying to ensure that this is affordable and is a reasonable approach to ensure that people do not unnecessarily expose their own health or the health of their children to very poor air pollution.

The Member herself mentioned Hafodyrynys, where there’s very poor air pollution in Wales. I think there are four areas in Wales: Hafodyrynys is one; Mountain Ash is another; and somewhere in Swansea, I think, around the Swansea high street, by the station, is a third. I can't remember the fourth off the top of my head. I really would wonder if you asked people walking in those areas, ‘What is the air pollution here? Is it safe or not?’ I don't think that they'd be able to answer you, and I think that is the information we need to get out there so that they can take the necessary steps to protect themselves and their families.

I think the overall debate, and why I'm not completely convinced by the Minister's response, is that we've had a process for dealing with air quality for quite some time in Wales now. We have 40 air quality management areas—no significant improvement in those areas, otherwise some of them would have been revoked or changed in some way. That hasn't happened. Our current system is not working in areas of high air pollution, as Angela Burns mentioned. Really, I think it's not enough to rely on the UK Government to produce its own statute and then to, sort of, dovetail the Welsh bits into that.

The 2016 state of natural resources report by Natural Resources Wales says that breaches in emission targets pose a threat to human health and the natural environment. So, as I said earlier, the fact that it’s in environmental legislation already is not a reason for not putting it in public health legislation. In fact, it's a really good way of making that, sort of, circuit close and it’s a really good way of making sure that the ambitions in previous legislations, such as the well-being of future generations Act, are really carried out in practice and in detail in statute.

The final point, if I may: there's a social justice issue to this. The areas that have already been mentioned as suffering from poor air quality you might notice are also areas of quite real social deprivation as well. Huw Brunt, who’s the head of Public Health Wales, has undertaken a study of air pollution, deprivation and health, and that revealed that health outcomes for people living in deprivation were even poorer when they were located in areas of high air pollution. Mr Brunt argued for an effective air quality management approach, one which combines national level actions to assess and reduce risks for all, and local level intervention, targeted in high-risk communities to reduce air pollution and health inequalities. Only today, a study was quoted in ‘The Times’, for the United States, pointing out that those living in areas with the worst air pollution are about 10 per cent more likely to get cancer, a greater impact on cancer rates than either dirty water or toxic chemicals.

So, I would argue, and Plaid Cymru argues, that without a national Wales strategy on air pollution, the Welsh Government is failing to deliver on its own targets of a healthier, resilient, more equal and globally responsive Wales.

If amendment 44 is not agreed to, amendments 47 and 43 will fall. If amendments 44, 45 and 46 are not agreed to, amendment 42 falls. The question is that Amendment 44 be agreed to, does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour, 23, no abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore amendment 44 is not agreed.

Amendment 45, Simon Thomas.

Move.

The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We therefore proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 19, four abstentions, and 28 against. Therefore, amendment 45 is not agreed.

Amendment 46, Simon Thomas.

Move.

The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 46 is not agreed.

The final group of amendments relates to guidance about entering dwellings. Amendment 30 is the lead amendment in this group and I call on David Melding to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I move amendment 30 in my name and I speak also to my amendment 31.

Amendment 30 requires the Welsh Ministers to issue guidance to enforcement authorities, constables and authorised officers about entering premises used wholly or mainly as dwellings, that is, people’s homes under the Bill. It stems from a recommendation in the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report on the Bill and a concern that the communication plan for the Bill will not go far enough in ensuring that human rights obligations are instilled in enforcement officers. The main human rights that are engaged in the context of people’s homes are article 8, which provides for the human right to respect for the home and private and family life, and article 1 of protocol 1, which provides the human right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions.

The amendment, therefore, makes a specific requirement for the guidance to cover those two human rights. The guidance can always include other wider guidance about powers to enter people’s homes, but it must include guidance to cover these two human rights, because they are a very real risk or there is a very real risk, rather, that these human rights might be breached when powers of entry are used.

I accept that there are certain safeguards built into the Bill. For example, a warrant to enter a dwelling must be issued by a justice of the peace, and after pressure from the committee the Minister did agree that enforcement authorities will always be public bodies. That is a significant advance. However, the amendment provides an opportunity to go further by providing for targeted guidance that enforcement authorities can easily find, read, understand and implement. That goes to the core of the amendment that they are there at hand for enforcement officers who are usually local authority employees, and may not be widely knowledgeable about the area and the obligations created by human rights law.

The amendment covers all powers of entry under the Bill, not just the powers of entry that apply to the smoking ban in Part 2 of the Bill. So, the areas covered by the amendment are powers of entry that apply to the smoking ban, the register of the retailers of tobacco and nicotine products, the licensing regime for special procedures, such as acupuncture, body piercing, tattooing and electrolysis, and the offence of performing intimate piercings on people under 18. In my view, requiring guidance to be issued in this specific context would in no way cast doubt on other legislation that does not contain a duty to issue guidance.

In her letter to the committee on 10 March, the Minister suggested that public bodies will see a duty to issue guidance and become confused about the operation of other legislation that does not include this duty to issue guidance. I suppose the Minister has visions of enforcement officers and other relevant public servants meeting occasionally to discuss the whole broad range of legislation, particularly that which pertains to human rights, observing there’s a specific call for guidance in this area because of the dangers of enforcement procedures breaching human rights, and then observing that similar stipulations are not in antecedent legislation, and therefore somehow this throws them into the most dreadful confusion. I invite her to make some sense of that incoherence that I’ve just described.

In a subsequent letter of 18 April, the Minister also commented that the amendment has the, and I quote,

‘the potential to cast doubt on the overall coherence of the law, and on the operation of specific restraints on the use of the powers.’

I do find the latter bit menacing, but I do feel the whole comment and approach by the Minister has been incredibly vague to these very specific and constructive amendments that were made by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, and I do think that casting doubt on the coherence of the law, should the amendment pass, is very unfortunate. Perhaps I could bring to the attention of the Assembly the Supreme Court judgment issued last year in the case of the Christian Institute and others against the Lord Advocate of Scotland, where the judgment issued by the Supreme Court warned about the dangers of legislation simply relying on a public authority being aware of its human rights obligations. And in paragraph 101 of that judgment, the Supreme Court said that guidance was needed in order to reduce the risk of disproportionate interferences that breach human rights. I couldn’t think of a better definition of what entering people’s homes to ensure proper enforcement could be, in terms of a better illustration, really, of the danger that we face here.

Can I just say, then, that amendment 31 concerns the commencement of this new provision? And I’ll just explain to Members that without making any specific provision around commencement, this new section, if it’s agreed, would automatically fall within section 133(2) of the Bill, meaning that it would only come into force whenever the Welsh Ministers decide to bring it into force. The purpose of the amendment is to commence the proposed new section on guidance on the day in which the Act receives Royal Assent, there providing a clear message that the Welsh Government intends to issue the guidance within a reasonable period of time. I so move.

I call on the Minister, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you. The amendments in this group would require the Welsh Ministers to issue guidance for enforcement authorities on exercising the powers of entry and inspection across the Bill. The guidance would cover how to ensure compliance with convention rights in respect of premises that are used wholly or mainly as a dwelling. This issue has been discussed by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee earlier in the scrutiny process for the Bill, and I have engaged in correspondence with the committee on this specific point.

In considering the amendments, my starting point has been that I fully agree that compliance with human rights obligations is of paramount importance. I therefore have no disagreement with the intention underpinning the amendments, and I appreciate David Melding’s strong views on this. However, as I recently outlined in correspondence to the committee, my view remains that specific amendments that refer to compliance with human rights obligations on the face of the Bill are unnecessary. Importantly, they also risk unintentionally causing confusion as similar provisions are not included in other legislation. I note David Melding’s rather sarcastic questioning of this principle, but it does remain my view.

I have reached this conclusion for a number of reasons. Firstly, public authorities are already subject to an overarching statutory duty under section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to act compatibly with convention rights in the performance of their functions. Public authorities such as the police and local authorities are already very familiar with the requirements, and should act accordingly. Secondly, appropriate consideration has already been given to this issue on the face of the Bill. A series of specific restraints and safeguards have been included in the Bill in relation to how powers of entry and inspection are to be exercised by authorised officers. For example, authorised officers cannot enter premises by force unless they have a signed warrant from a justice of the peace, and such a warrant is only valid for a limited period of time. These safeguards were further strengthened at Stage 2 when amendments were agreed that provide additional protection for home owners. These help ensure that powers of entry are exercised in a proportionate and appropriate manner, which is particularly important when considering private dwellings. For example, where the occupier of a premises is present when a warrant is being executed, the Bill provides that the authorised officer would need to provide their name, documentary evidence that they are an authorised officer, and supply the occupier with a copy of the warrant.

I believe that such specific, practical safeguards provide a better way of protecting individual rights than the approach suggested by these amendments. They also demonstrate the detailed thought and work that takes place in respect of human rights considerations, and how seriously the Welsh Government takes these issues. I would also emphasise that public authorities will be the enforcement authorities under this Bill. This means that only organisations that are already bound by and well versed in compliance with human rights obligations will be the enforcement authorities, again helping to ensure that the powers are used appropriately.

There is already well-established guidance in place under the code of practice for the exercise by police of statutory powers of entry, search and seizure, known as PACE Code B, which sufficiently covers this issue. This applies both to the police and local authority officers when investigating offences, and places clear emphasis on acting in accordance with the Human Rights Act 1998. If separate guidance were to be produced for this Bill, there would be a significant risk of unintentionally causing confusion, and of casting doubt on the overall coherence of the existing legislative framework that is already well embedded across Wales. For these reasons, I am unable to support the amendments in this group.

I call on David Melding to reply to the debate.

Well, Presiding Officer, you’ll not be surprised that I’m entirely unconvinced by the Minister’s defence, really, of the Government’s obduracy, despite the very real concerns evidenced. One of the sources I quote is the Supreme Court.

Can I, however, thank her for entering into correspondence and at least telling us of the Government’s position? That was helpful. The movement on defining enforcement officers as having to be public authorities, I think that was useful. I welcome that as well. But, you know, ‘unnecessary and confusing’? So, if something already exists in law, you can never make a clear statement about it. If there’s an antecedence, no matter when—you know, PACE is from the 1980s, I think, originally—you can’t state it because you might confuse those who now read this new law, because of course they’ll be thumbing through legislation dotted about the statute books—some of it decades old. I mean, really, can this pass for serious objection to what I would hope would be a reasonable process of making law? I find it very depressing.

Then this business about public authorities is already captured and may be confused, but they already get captured under general obligations. Did you hear what I said about the Supreme Court judgment saying you cannot rely on that assumption, and that you have to develop in guidance clear understanding of specific actions that may infringe human rights? Like under this proposed Bill, enforcement powers resting with people in local authorities entering people’s homes, because we’re talking, usually, about fairly small practitioners who may be using their homes as part of their premises. I do have to say that I think we can expect a bit better than just a simple dismissal when we use an authority like the Supreme Court.

And then, PACE. Can I just—? I did anticipate that this may be used in a rather desperate form of defence by the Government: the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and its codes. What the Minister’s talking about mostly are codes for police officers, designed to illustrate how to respond in certain situations that police officers often find themselves in in the practice of their important duties. We’re talking about local authorities and people who work for them, who are designated enforcement officers. They’re not police officers. We cannot assume that they would have the detailed knowledge and training that police officers get in PACE, which was introduced originally because of poor and inconsistent practice, and, above all, the requirements in PACE are dotted all about it. There’s nothing in PACE that says how to act appropriately while enforcing obligations under a public health Bill or public health Act passed by the National Assembly. I do think it’s the task of the Government sometimes to really test and scrutinise its own advice that it’s getting from its advisers, and in this case I think you’ve fallen woefully short.

If amendment 30 is not agreed to, amendment 31 falls. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Does any Member object? We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 20, four abstentions, and 26 against. Therefore the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 28, Minister.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Does any Member object?

Dim gwrthwynebiad.

Amendment 28 is agreed.

Amendment 2, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

We missed one out there, I think.

Apologies, I’ve made a mistake. Amendment 29, Minister.

Yes, formally.

The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 29 is agreed.

Amendment 2, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 2 is agreed.

Amendment 5, Minister.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 5 is agreed.

Amendment 1, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Formally.

The question is that Amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 1 is agreed.

And we have now reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Public Health (Wales) Bill, and I declare that all sections of and Schedules to the Bill are deemed agreed.

And that concludes Stage 3 proceedings, and today’s proceedings.