Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order. 

Before we commence, it gives me great pleasure to announce that, in accordance with Standing Order 26.75, the Regulation of Registered Social Landlords (Wales) Act 2018 has been given Royal Assent today.

The first item on our agenda, therefore, is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs, and the first question is from Mark Isherwood.

Thank you. The Welsh Government continues to operate and offer successful agri-environment schemes through the rural development programme. The budget is fully committed and three further rounds of Glastir small grants are planned. The scope of future agri-environment support will target public goods and will be consulted upon over the coming months. 

Thank you very much for that. In a recent meeting with a group of organisations—the Countryside Alliance, the British Trust for Ornithology, Natural Resources Wales—I heard that agri-environment schemes for the curlew have been operating for 40 years, but they haven't worked. We've seen an 80 per cent reduction in the population in Wales over the last 22 years, and we're facing country-level disappearance completely by 2030 if we don't make urgent interventions. As you might be aware, in January there was a conference attended by 120 experts from conservation, farming, game and rural policy sectors in Builth Wells on the status and future of the curlew in Wales, and one of their key conclusions related to agri-environment programmes. They call for an evidence-based review of curlew prescriptions within existing agri-environment schemes, asking have they worked and are they suitable, and for pro-curlew policies embedded within agri-environment schemes, such as outcome-led prescriptive management. 

I'm grateful that I've got a meeting with Hannah Blythyn shortly to discuss the broader issues around the curlew, but, specifically about agri-environment issues, what engagement have you had, or will you have, with the sector to help guide the development of agri-environment schemes in the future that reverse this decline as a matter of urgency?

Thank you. As you said, there is a meeting arranged with the Minister for Environment, but what I think is very important is that we make sure that we monitor and evaluate all of our schemes in a way that shows us the outcomes. And, clearly, if there are concerns around this particular one, we'd be very happy to look at that. 

World-leading work is being undertaken in the north Wales marine demonstration zone. Marine energy could play an important role in delivering a low-carbon economy for Wales, with the creation of long-term jobs and exportable technologies. This is why we continue to support the north Wales demonstration zone.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Last week, the First Minister offered £200 million to enhance the prospects of the Swansea tidal bay lagoon. As usual, the whole focus has been on south Wales when the north Wales coast is ripe for consideration for this type of project. I'm sure that even a small percentage of that £200 million would really help to kick-start the concept being worked up by North Wales Tidal Energy. What support does your Government intend to give to get this project off the ground? North Wales stands to be the pathfinder project. It is now time to look north. 

I've had only one meeting with the company that are bringing forward tidal lagoon proposals for Wales, but, certainly, they were looking and considering one in north Wales. I mentioned that we are supporting the demonstration zone, which I think is very important, and we have multiple developers looking at what opportunities are there. I'm very proud that Wales has two of the largest zones for demonstrating wave and tidal stream arrays, and, clearly, we'd be very happy to look at all types of marine energy that's coming forward. I visited Morlais up in Anglesey, I think in February, this year. So, I am continuing, and my officials are, to have discussions with interested parties.

I've just come from a meeting of the cross-party group on sustainable energy, which I chair, and which is highly recommended to all Members, I'm sure you'd agree, Cabinet Secretary. But, amongst the presentations that we had was one about the work of the National Research Network for Low Carbon Energy and Environment, which is funded by the Welsh Government. Amongst a number of research clusters that this network has established is one particularly on marine energy, which clearly contributes importantly to innovation and research in this area. Now, funding for the network is coming to an end in December; there is no succession plan, from what I understand. The network has built up a great momentum—it has attracted renowned researchers from across the world, who are now leaving because they don't see a future for that particular network. So, given the importance of the work that they do in this particular sector, which is particularly promising for us here in Wales, what discussions are you having with Government colleagues to see what the Government can do to ensure that this Welsh Government-funded network continues with this work?

I have started having very early discussions and, hopefully, by December we'll be able to see how we can assist, because I think it's very important that we retain this knowledge. I'm a big fan of cluster policies, and I think we are seeing that happening in this area. But I'm sure you wouldn't expect me to announce a decision today, but it is work under way.

In addition to the north Wales tidal energy proposal for the lagoon, which you referred to, you also briefly referred to proposals off Anglesey. When the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee met Anglesey enterprise zone earlier this year, we had given to us a presentation on the proposals for deep green technology to produce electricity off the coast of Anglesey. You mentioned, I think, a visit in February. What consideration are you and your officials giving to the report they've produced, which shows the clear benefits that this might bring not only to clean energy generation, but also to the economy of Anglesey?

As you say, I did refer to the meeting I had with Morlais back in February. They gave me an update on the developments taking place and the work they are carrying out in relation to consenting. But I'm obviously unable to discuss particular aspects of the Morlais tidal array scheme because it could prejudice my consideration of the proposed transport and works order application, if and when it's made.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Minister, last month I welcomed the announcement that the Welsh Government's new economic contract will require businesses to have proposals to become carbon light or free. It is crucial that the Welsh Government sets standards to improve the green credentials of businesses in Wales, especially if we're going to invest and support those companies using public money. However, I also recognise that limiting action to carbon reduction alone is insufficient to create a resilient Wales, as defined by goal 2 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. What conversations is the Minister having with the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport to ensure that the new economic contract offers an integrated response to all seven well-being goals?

Can I thank the Member for his question, and, Llywydd, if I may, before I answer, pay tribute to Martin Bishop, the national manager of the Confederation of Forest Industries, who was a valued member of the Cabinet Secretary's stakeholder round-table group on Brexit, and a passionate advocate for the forestry sector, who sadly died in an accident at the weekend? I'm sure Members, and especially Members who knew him, will join me, and the Welsh Government, in paying our condolences to Martin's family, friends and colleagues. Diolch yn fawr.

The Member makes a very valid point, that, yes, it's good to have those ambitions to tackle carbon reduction, and our ambition is particularly for a carbon-neutral public sector, but also actually it's in the whole. One thing in terms of what we've been looking at too is actually how, and not just in terms of the economic action plan, we use public procurement as well, particularly in the public sector, and with any contracts and supply chains, and how we apply green public procurement. And, particularly within my own portfolio, we're looking at actually how, working alongside the National Procurement Service, alongside WRAP, and the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales's office, to develop a range of measures that allow us to identify trends and actions to help reduce the use of plastics, including things like straws within the public sector, particularly within schools. I'm sure other colleagues have received numerous articulate and well-argued letters from primary school children about their campaigns to get rid of plastic straws in their schools. In terms of conversations with the economic action plan, in particular, I and my colleagues across Government are working closely because we identify now that, actually, we need to work together and across Government on this—both myself and my Cabinet Secretary colleague as well.

Llywydd, on this side of the house, can I extend our deepest condolences to Martin's family?

Minister, to demonstrate that the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is being integrated across Government, it is vital that the resilience goals reflected in the contract by calling on businesses to demonstrate how they will contribute towards, for instance, sustainable management of natural resources. If put into practice, a contract that does this could require businesses to set clear and quantified targets that enhance ecosystem resilience within the period in which they receive Government support or are delivering a Government contract. So, what specific measures does the Minister have in mind for ways in which the contract can demand businesses to take action to contribute towards ecosystem resilience and the restoration of nature?

The Member is absolutely right that we need to take steps to not only halt the decline of biodiversity and reverse it, but also promote the value of our ecosystems, biodiversity and habitats to both communities and business alike. 

The economic contract and the calls to action provide a platform for us to make sure that we embed, as you say, the goals in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. I am particularly keen to explore potential—[Inaudible.]—already, like green procurement to place responsibilities on businesses to work with us in terms of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 as well. We will bring in Part 4 of the environment Act, which will place the same responsibilities on businesses to separate their waste for collection just as households have been doing for years.

But also, actually, how do we apply biodiversity goals? One thing is going around, working with local authorities in particular to work out how they've been doing it, but it comes back to actually these ongoing conversations with my Cabinet Secretary colleagues—not just the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, but across the piece—in terms of how we can apply that.

We've had conversations too with my colleague sat next to me, in terms of timber production within housing. So, showing the value of—. And particularly, for me, in terms of my portfolio—[Inaudible.]—the value of our circular economy not only to maintaining and restoring the sustainable management of our natural resources, but also in terms of the added value in terms of the job benefits that could bring to our economy in Wales.

Minister, I'm sure you'll join with me in commending the work of WWF, which has looked at this area of Government policy and would like to see more action. They've come up with some very specific ideas, including reducing the use of resources through increasing business resource sufficiency and resourcing from sustainable certified producers. Additionally, WWF suggests that we could improve biodiversity and restore ecosystem functioning through assessing impact on natural resources and actively investing in restoration. But isn't it true that, so far, this well-being of future generations Act, which is, I think everyone accepts, a landmark piece of legislation, has not been put to full, practical use yet? You really need to raise your ambition and ensure that they fully understand this in, for instance, the department of your colleague the Cabinet Secretary for economy, and really get to work, and you need to be co-ordinating this with the key players out there in the civic sector, like WWF.

The Member refers to WWF, who I have regular meetings with as stakeholders within the sector, and there is value in not just working with WWF, but collaboratively across the sector and across Government about—. And, yes, you're obviously right—we're rightfully proud about our landmark legislation and the ambitions and the aspirations contained in that legislation, but now, actually, we need to put that into practice and recognise that they may be environmental issues but sustainability needs to be embedded across everything we do, which is why there is value in working across Government to make sure that we see the outcomes that we want for future generations.

The UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. I'm sure the Cabinet Secretary will agree with me that it's regrettable that the UK Government has not made more progress in seeking consensus from devolved administrations on the future of farm support post Brexit. This is very important to clarify at the earliest opportunity. Michael Gove has said that he wants to seek a consensus with us. He's also said that farm support should be based more upon the industry's needs and not Barnettised, which, again, I think we can all agree on. But the Welsh Government will have, once the implementation period is completed, significant freedom to diverge from UK Government policy, where that's in the interest of Wales, and one area in particular I'd like to explore with the Cabinet Secretary is the possibility of introducing headage payments for upland farms. These farms are not economically viable by themselves—that's obvious from all the topographical and other difficulties that farmers have to cope with—and if we are to continue to farm the hills of Wales to produce good-quality meat in particular, they will require this kind of support. So, is the Welsh Government in favour, in principle, of having headage payments on the hills?

The Member makes a very important point about the lack of clarity that we are getting from the UK Government regarding funding for future farming support. I was very pleased that Michael Gove did say that about not Barnettising, because we said from the outset that that would not be a good result at all for Wales, and I'm continuing to make sure that Wales does not lose a penny, as we were promised, in relation to funding post Brexit.

I think you're already seeing a divergence in farming policy. Certainly, over the last 20 years when agriculture has been wholly devolved here, whilst it's not wildly different, there is a divergence, and clearly upland farms is an area that is very different to most of England. Probably, there are some areas where you could say it's similar. So, I think that is an area that we are going to have to look at in great detail.

I've already said publicly that I will be launching a Green Paper at the beginning of July, well ahead of the summer shows, to consult on the future of agriculture, and this is clearly something that will be in it.

Thank you for that response. We don't know yet what sort of agreement might be finalised with the EU. One thing we do know is that the UK as a whole is only about 75 per cent self-sufficient in food products. There is a substantial imbalance of trade between Britain and the EU in food and drink products, so there is enormous scope, if the EU should be so foolish as to apply substantial tariffs to imports from the UK, for us to retaliate and for the food currently emanating from the EU to be replaced by food that is grown in Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom. In dairy, for example, our exports to the EU are about £1 billion a year, but we import £2 billion from them. In the case of beef, we import about 400,000 tonnes a year, but we export only 180,000 tonnes. Pork, we import about 1 million tonnes a year, but we export a fifth of that—200,000 tonnes. So, there's tremendous scope here for import substitution. We don't know what sort of regime we're going to face, but it would certainly be sensible for us to plan on the basis of there being no real deal and therefore to gear up Welsh farmers and the industry generally to replace the exports from the EU to Britain, which we compete with. So, what support can the Welsh Government give to farmers and others in the agricultural sector to take up the gap in trade that we currently suffer?

We are very concerned around tariffs. I'm sure you won't be surprised to hear that. Obviously, trade policy is wholly devolved to the UK Government, but we've made it very clear that we need to be around the table from the start, and I think they are realising that. Certainly, last Thursday, I held a joint meeting with Alun Cairns, the Secretary of State for Wales, with my round-table stakeholder group, where we were hearing that the UK Government, for instance, are planning for a 'no deal' scenario, making sure they've got the legislation et cetera. It was very apparent that people sitting around the table were very, very concerned about this, because I think that's the first time they'd heard that.

I think you're right that there is scope, and part of our supporting the agriculture sector and the food sector at the moment to prepare for Brexit is in relation to this—looking at the gaps, looking at the opportunities. Last week, I was out in Catalonia and in the Basque Country with the food cluster teams, and there are clearly opportunities that we have not got the most benefit from. Certainly, the Basque Country are very keen to build on their relationship with Wales.

That was a very informative reply, and I'm very glad to hear that the Cabinet Secretary has taken those steps. The other area that the industry is very concerned about, of course, is the impact of controls on the movement of labour between the EU and the UK. We all want to see the maximum degree of flexibility in this respect, without prejudicing overall immigration controls. Where skilled workers are concerned, nobody in his right mind would want to see the opportunities diminish to have people from abroad to plug the gaps in skills that we have currently. Sixty-three per cent of abattoir staff, I gather, come from the EU, and about 90 per cent of slaughterhouse vets are European. So, these people do play a vital role in the UK and Welsh agricultural industry and every encouragement should be given to them to remain in employment. Regardless of one's views on the desirability of Brexit, I think there'd be a widespread consensus for that view.

But, as in relation to import substitution with goods and food products, clearly, we do have the opportunity with increased training and so on to kit out our own people with the kinds of skills that currently we don't have enough of. So, can the Cabinet Secretary also tell us what she's been doing recently to prepare, again, for a Brexit where we don't have a sensible deal with the EU because they won't come up with one and because the British Government has made its policy perfectly clear that they want to see as little friction as possible both on movement of labour as well as on movement of goods? It's the EU that is currently the impediment, and Monsieur Barnier himself is a personal roadblock to agreement, and that is part of its negotiating strategy. But it is vitally important—I don't want this question to turn into a speech—it is vitally important that the Welsh Government should do what it can to improve training opportunities, particularly in those areas where there are currently skills gaps, and if the Cabinet Secretary could give us an update on that I'd be grateful.

I think you make a very important point about workforce, and all aspects right across my portfolio are very concerned about the workforce. You mentioned that 90 per cent of vets in relation to, I think you said, abattoirs are EU graduates; 100 per cent of Food Standards Agency vets are EU graduates—100 per cent. So you can see why we're so concerned. And then, apart from the skilled labour, there's the unskilled labour. We're already seeing a drop, farmers are telling me, in the number of EU nationals who are coming to do seasonal work ahead of the summer. So, it's clearly a matter of great concern and something where we went into in great detail with the Secretary of State for Wales. I don't think he was left under any illusions about the concerns that we have to take back to the UK Government. It's very hard—. Some of the abattoirs have about 80 per cent of their staff who are EU nationals. It's very hard to make those jobs more attractive, so it is about making sure that we help to upskill, and this has been part of the work for the past two years, really, since the EU referendum vote, to make sure that our sectors right across my portfolio are prepared.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Simon Thomas. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Before I start, can I associate myself and Plaid Cymru with the condolences expressed by the environment Minister to Martin Bishop's family? He was only here, I think, about three weeks ago helping me set up a cross-party group on forestry and his enthusiasm and advocacy will be sorely missed by many of us.

If I could turn now to the entry scheme for young farmers. This is the result of an agreement between Plaid Cymru and the Government, and £6 million has been allocated for this. It’s open at the moment, and I know that many people have applied, and many people are discussing this scheme. Generally speaking, there’s been a warm welcome to it. Now, a few questions have arisen in response to the adoption of this plan, and I’d just like to mention these to the Cabinet Secretary. First of all, people are asking whether it’s possible to have more of a conversation and more of a response from Government in terms of submitting an application and how applications develop, to understand whether that application would be appropriate. People are also raising the desire to ensure that the plan focuses specifically on young farmers, some of them a year or two into their business, but able to benefit from this scheme to develop their business, and in so doing, as we discussed in the Assembly, developing a cohort of people that will lead the industry as we face some of the challenges that have already been discussed here. Could the Cabinet Secretary tell us whether she is content just to keep an eye on this programme as it gets towards the closing date and ensure there is sufficient flexibility within it to meet the needs and objectives agreed?

Thank you. I'm very happy to be working on this scheme alongside Simon Thomas. The expressions of interest—the window actually closed yesterday. I am keeping a very close eye on it. I actually attended the second meeting of the young people in agriculture forum, where, I'm sure you can understand, I was questioned in great detail about this scheme. As you said, there's £6 million being made available. I'm really keen to make sure that we target the funding where we're going to have the greatest impact. As you say, it's about making sure we've got the next young leaders, so we're going to offer them—. Alongside other advantages of the scheme, we're going to work with them, in respect of the agricultural forum, to make sure that they have access to myself and to my officials. I think a couple of them are shadowing me at the Royal Welsh Show. It is about making sure that we encourage them going forward. As you know, the funding's going to be offered in the form of working capital, and again, that will offer the new entrants that flexibility with their business.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. I am pleased to hear, in particular, that there will be no stop to the way that we’re collaborating with young people. Some will have been disappointed by this programme, but I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will still keep an eye on the possibilities of including young people in developing the future of the industry in Wales.

Could I now turn now to the question of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon? Of course, in drawing up my question today, I had anticipated that we would have heard an announcement, but we’re still waiting. What we don’t know, of course, is whether we’re waiting because a decision is yet to be made, or whether we are still waiting because they haven’t decided when to release this information quietly. And in that context, can I ask the Cabinet Secretary, as the Government has made it entirely clear now that there is £200 million on the table from this Government to assist and promote that scheme, has that offer been taken seriously by the Westminster Government? Have they responded? Have they offered negotiations? Have they invited you or any other Member of the Government to London to discuss how that money could bring the tidal lagoon to fruition? And in that context, have you made any decision on how to push this proposal forward, so that a decision that will be beneficial to Wales can be made?

Thank you. Well, I too expected a decision to be made. We were told that probably a decision would have been made last Monday, then we were told today. My latest intelligence is probably 10 days, so we just really don't know. Obviously, I have to be very mindful again about discussing a particular project because of my role in relation to planning and, obviously, marine licensing. You'll be aware that the First Minister wrote to Greg Clark last week. To date, he's not received a response. So, I think the funding offer has been taken seriously, and I know the First Minister has discussed it personally with the Prime Minister. I'm not sure if he's discussed it personally with Greg Clark, but certainly he has written, and we are awaiting a response.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that not wholly encouraging news, I have to say. From her perspective, I understand she's not the one responsible for this, but it's coming and going like the tide itself, actually. If we could harness the energy from the indecision of the Westminster Government, we'd be doing very well here in Wales at the moment.

But I think it was a serious offer, and it was an opening bid by the Welsh Government, and it could've opened all kinds of discussions around co-ownership, taking the technology forward, Welsh Government co-investing in a brand new technology in Wales. If the Westminster Government can co-invest in Hitachi in Wylfa, then there's no reason why the Welsh Government can't do something similar for the tidal lagoon. I think the Welsh Government, I discern, is up for discussions around these in order to get the project going.

Since we don't yet have a decision, and since my own personal view is that we are being softened up for a bad decision, can the Cabinet Secretary tell us whether any of this money that has been promised to the tidal lagoon can be made available for other renewable energy projects in Wales, whether she has in mind other things that we can take forward with our own powers, and our own planning powers, particularly under the new Wales Act 2017, and whether she has the opportunity now to reconsider her decision around a Wales national energy company, which £200 million would set up very nicely, thank you, to take forward a lot of ideas that I think Wales is ready for? If we are going to be disappointed by Westminster, our best response for that rejection is to show that we are better than them and can do better here in Wales.

I do admire the Member's tenacity around the Wales energy service. I know there was a debate last week in my absence that the Minister for Environment responded to. You make a very good point about the £200 million. Of course, there are lots of other renewable energy sectors we could put that funding into—onshore, offshore. I haven't had any detailed discussions as yet, because, obviously, that was a very serious offer that the First Minister made around the £200 million. So, we do need to await a decision, for however long it takes, from the UK Government, before I have those discussions.

The council’s public protection department have located the likely source of the recent infestation and arranged treatment of the site. The council is working closely with the regulator of the site, Natural Resources Wales. The Welsh Government has not been asked for support at this point.

Thank you for the reply, Minister. Since I tabled the question, I'm pleased that the likely site of the infestation has been identified and now handed over to Natural Resources Wales. There's still a good deal of stress and distress, particularly in the Morfa and the seaside parts of town where the problem was most intense, and it was deeply unpleasant for many families. There's a great deal of concern that the problem could reoccur over the summer. The council officers have worked hard to find the source, but I think there are some lessons to learn about communicating with the community, and there are, no doubt, broader lessons to learn too. Would the Welsh Government support Carmarthenshire County Council to see what they can do to improve the local environmental quality, in what is one of the poorest parts of Llanelli, but also reflect with them on what lessons can be learned for them and other councils, should another outbreak occur again?

Can I thank the Member for his follow-up? I completely empathise with the distress that it must have caused to residents in Llanelli, and particularly the area closest to where it happened, and how awful that must've been for people at the time.

Absolutely, there are always lessons to be learned from these things and we can always improve what we've done. Like I said, the council has not approached the Welsh Government for assistance to date, but we're open to those discussions. I understand that they have had advice from Public Health Wales and officials have been in touch with council officers. We know that the council have now handed over responsibility and potential enforcement actions to NRW, and when the enforcement paperwork has been served, we will continue to work with NRW and the council and the local community to ensure that incidents like this do not happen again.

Diolch. The Welsh Government has a strong track record of supporting renewable energy projects in this region. One example, Awel Aman Tawe, has received direct support in excess of £4 million for its first major project. The group is becoming a regionally important local energy company visible at the UK level.

Thank you very much for that response. Naturally, I was going to pursue the tidal lagoon—the much-vaunted tidal lagoon by now, because we are facing further delays on any announcement on the future of the Swansea bay tidal lagoon. As you know, we have been waiting since the publication of the Hendry report in January 2017. Now, the question is: have you had any recent discussions with Swansea council and with the tidal lagoon company locally—I’m talking recently now—on any possible way forward? Have you personally had any discussions with any Ministers in the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy in Westminster since the Financial Times reported that the tidal lagoon was unlikely to proceed? Finally, have there been any discussions with the UK Government on what needs to be done to make the tidal lagoon a reality? I hear what you say about correspondence between the First Minister and Greg Clark, the relevant Minister, but I do think that, given that this project is so terribly important for us in Swansea, we need to be more proactive than that, and insist that something happens, certainly, if they continue to say the £200 million is still insufficient—then what figure would be sufficient?

In response to the last point, I don't know what the figure that would be acceptable is, but I'm sure Greg Clark will inform the First Minister if that is, indeed, an issue. This is a matter for the UK Government. They are the ones who have delayed and kicked into the long grass the decision around the tidal lagoon. You'll be aware of the Hendry report, and if anybody's read it, it was a very positive report—probably one of the most positive reports I've ever read. So, we have to wait for the UK Government, but this ball is firmly in their court.

I haven't had any discussions myself with Swansea council or with the tidal lagoon company, but I am aware that other ministerial colleagues have. The meeting I've had, which I think is probably the most important one, was a meeting with Claire Perry, the BEIS energy Minister, around a variety of renewable energy sectors. I was able to express concern, for instance, around solar—people are still complaining to me about the feed-in tariff being removed; a very short-sighted, I think, policy decision—and, obviously, we had discussions around both onshore and offshore wind.

Does the Cabinet Secretary think it is fair that the cost of building the first tidal lagoon in the world is being compared to nuclear power provision at Hinkley Point, when the first nuclear power plant at Calder Hall was built in 1956, and where decommissioning and disposal costs are capped, and where, if the actual cost exceeds the cap, the cost is being borne by the Government, i.e. us the taxpayer?

Thank you, Mike Hedges, for that question, and I again repeat: I have to be very careful in what I say about particular projects—I'm very limited, and that, obviously, includes the proposed tidal lagoon for Swansea bay.

I think it's absolutely vital that costs of tidal lagoon power are compared with other technologies on a fair basis—I think you make a very important point—and you have to take into full account the very long life of lagoons, and all other environmental and social effects. The issue of considering the costs, energy outputs and strike price of any energy project is, of course, not a devolved matter, and therefore I think it would be more appropriate for the UK Government, really, to explain the rationale behind the recent comparisons to Hinkley Point C.

In respect of the comments about Calder Hall, again, nuclear policy decommissioning is a reserved matter, so the UK Government would have to explain their views and how they reached those decisions. We've not been party to any detailed discussions with the UK Government and the promoters of tidal lagoon power, for instance, so we don't know how the cost of the lagoon power compares to other options that they are considering.

Well, obviously, I share everyone's frustration about the speed of news coming out on the tidal lagoon. But I think we still need to keep our eye on the ball when it comes to other renewable sources of energy as well. The Stuttgart university of applied sciences recently advised that a combination of renewable energy sources is probably the best approach to reducing emissions in urban areas, and they've found that if you're taking biomass or geothermal into account, it's possible for those urban areas to contribute almost half their own energy from renewables. Welsh Conservatives, as you know, are proposing investing in these mixed renewable energy models, so that by 2030 our major cities can offset their electricity consumption. Will you look at the use of more biomass and geothermal as part of the mixed-energy production model here in Wales now, when we have a chance?

I think it's really important that we keep our eye on a combination of different types of renewable energy, and I mentioned in my opening answer to Dai Lloyd about the Awel Aman Tawe community windfarm. That's wholly owned by the community. It cost £8 million, and I think we put forward half of that—I think it was about £4 million. They're now, again, ahead of schedule in making their repayments back to us. There's also the Gower Regeneration project that you'll be aware of. So, I'm very happy to look at all types of renewable energy, and if we're going to reach the very ambitious targets I set back last year, we need to see that combination.

Thank you. The Welsh Government will support the farming industry in Monmouthshire, as in all parts of Wales, to become more profitable, sustainable, resilient, and professionally managed. Agricultural businesses in the region benefit from Farming Connect support and are eligible for a range of grants and advice.

Diolch. I wonder if you could update us on your policies for tackling the ongoing problem of bovine tuberculosis in my area and, indeed, across Wales. Farmers in Monmouthshire continue to be deeply concerned at the rates of infection in what is a hotspot area and has been now for some time. I'm sure you'd agree with me that it's one thing to deal with the rates of infection within livestock—that's got to be done—but also within the wider wildlife reservoir and in the wider environment as well. So, I wonder if you could update us on exactly what's happening in hotspot areas like mine to make sure that this problem is either dealt with, or at least that farmers are given reassurance that we are on track to deal with it in the near future.

Well, we are making progress with this right across Wales. You will have seen the statistics have been published today. I think it's now about 95 per cent of herds across Wales that are TB free. As you say, the county of Monmouthshire does sit within what we classify as the high TB area (east), so we are currently monitoring it very closely. Again, you'll be aware of the refreshed programme I brought forward, and I have committed to report to the Assembly on an annual basis, and will be doing so.

Question 6 [OAQ52299] is withdrawn, therefore question 7—Mohammad Asghar.

Thank you. The updated welfare codes for dogs and horses are due to be laid before the Senedd this summer. Codes for laying hens, broilers, pigs, cats and rabbits are the next to be updated. I will provide an update on other animal welfare issues in my oral statement next Tuesday.

Thank you for the reply, Minister. Fifteen European countries have already introduced bans on keeping primates as pets, for either all or some species. In October 2016, RSPCA Cymru called on the Welsh Government to join those 15 countries and introduce the ban in Wales. When will the Cabinet Secretary be in a position to announce her plans to update the existing animal welfare codes of practice, and will she commit to ban the keeping of primates as pets in Wales, please?

The Member will have heard me say I'm making an oral statement next Tuesday, and I will be referring to primates in my oral statement.

Thank you.

The current code of practice on the rearing of birds for shooting purposes is eight years' old, contains no minimum space requirements for game birds, and is not backed up by any independent statutory inspections to check compliance, unlike the welfare codes for other birds such as chickens. Can the Cabinet Secretary say when action will be taken to independently monitor the enforcement of the code to ensure the welfare of these birds?

I can't give you a specific date when that will be done. We are looking at all the codes of practice right across the portfolio, and the priorities for which we do first is something we are working on alongside the stakeholders. So, I will certainly have a look at the plan that we have, and I will write to the Member.FootnoteLink

Last month the UK Parliament received signatures of 143,000 from a petition from supporters campaigning to ban the sale of puppies from pet shops and other third-party dealers. The campaign has been named 'Lucy's law', in memory of a rescue cavalier King Charles spaniel called Lucy, who was used as a breeding machine at a puppy farm with no regard for her welfare, and that campaign has cross-party support. Lucy's law will help to eradicate irresponsible breeding and selling, particularly from puppy farms, as it makes it illegal to sell puppies unless the mother is present. Cabinet Secretary, is Lucy's law something that Welsh Government may consider looking to introduce in Wales?

Thank you, Joyce Watson, for the question. Again, this is an area—third-party sales—that I will be bringing forward in my oral statement next Tuesday. I know there's going to be an event that a Member's sponsoring around Lucy's law in the Senedd, I think early in July. I've been very concerned since I've been in this portfolio to see the high demand among people wanting third-party sales. I think it's very important that we tackle this. So, I will bring forward further information in the statement on Tuesday.

Thank you. Work to develop a successor to the current food and drink action plan is already under way. This will provide clear direction to the industry beyond 2020. Brexit will not impact the Welsh Government's commitment to the delivery of the current action plan, which is clearly delivering results.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Brexit poses some major questions around the resilience of our food supplies to enable us to feed our populations. We currently import £9 billion-worth of fruit and vegetables across the UK, and that compares with a mere £1 billion-worth of vegetables and fruit that we grow here in the UK. So, there are some pretty major issues around food security if the UK Government were to fail to negotiate a seamless customs union. So, I'm very keen to understand what our plans are to deal with this possible threat.

You clearly don't need to have it pointed out to you that vegetables and fruit are going to deteriorate extremely rapidly if they are held up at Dover, Southampton or Cardiff Airport. And, given the importance of fruit and vegetables to a healthy diet, I'm sure you'll agree with me that this is a major strategic issue. Even today, we are having difficulty in getting the people to pick the produce that we do grow in this country because European citizens are being made to feel unwelcome or because of the change in the value of the pound. 

We know from the expert panels that you have been using to advise you on Brexit that the future already looks very challenging for sheep farmers under any of the outcome scenarios around Brexit. But, I have little tolerance for those who argue that Wales is not suitable for growing vegetables and fruit. They need to get ready to tell shoppers that they will have to either do without fruit and vegetables or pay a premium price for a scarce resource, and they need to acquaint themselves with the new ways of growing, like hydroponics and aquaponics. I know that Cardiff council is looking very actively—

You do need to get to a question now, Jenny. 

Okay. So, diversifying into horticulture requires planning, training and the development of new distribution mechanisms, even before we start talking about food processing, which already occurs across country boundaries. So, how does the Government plan to proceed to tackle these strategic issues, either through revising the food and drink action plan or some other mechanism?

Thank you. Well, part of the work we've been doing with the sector over the past two years is preparing them for a future post Brexit, and horticulture is one area where I think we can make great strides. So, when we go out to consultation at the beginning of July, this is an area that will form part of the consultation. You make a very important point about fruit and veg sitting on portsides and airport sides, and we are very concerned about that, along with seafood. Our meat shelf life is very important, so we need to do a piece of work around shelf life too, to make sure that the sector can compete with other countries that do have a longer shelf life for their food produce.

You mentioned that this is a public health issue. We clearly accept that food is already recognised as that. We don't want to see unhealthy diets. So, it's an area where I think we can make great strides. As you say, our farmers can grow fruit and veg, and I've certainly not heard people say to me that Wales isn't able to do that.   

When the Committee for the Scrutiny of the First Minister met last, we met in Newtown, and we spoke with a number of food producer businesses—Hilltop Honey, Monty's Brewery—and in our pre-discussion, before we met with the First Minister, those businesses suggested that designating food and drink as a tourism theme for a future year, to promote Wales through Welsh produce, would be an idea. We mentioned this to the First Minister, who said that consideration would be given. I wonder if you could update us on that.

I haven't had any discussions with the First Minister around it, but certainly I have had discussions with Ken Skates around food tourism. I think it's an area where we can make huge strides. I mentioned before in an earlier question that I was out in the Basque country last year. At the airport in Bilbao, they have the most amazing shop selling local produce. I think it's an area that we could do here in Cardiff Airport. It would be great to see a shop there with Welsh produce, and certainly, it's something that I'm going to work with colleagues to bring forward.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item, therefore, is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services. The first question is from Mohammad Asghar.

Presiding Officer, we have made tremendous progress over the past two years and will continue to build on that progress. I set out in my written statement in April the future support the Welsh Government will provide to the armed forces community.

Thank you very much for that reply. We earlier enjoyed a great Royal Air Force centenary in the Senedd with a whole group of Royal Air Force air chief marshals and the top Assembly Members there. It's a great day for the Assembly. The cross-party group on the armed forces and cadets recently undertook an inquiry into the impact of the armed forces covenant on forces personnel. This inquiry identified issues around how public sector organisations fulfill their obligations, including insufficient accountability for delivery of the covenant, a lack of awareness among public sector staff and unsustainability in how Government-related activities are funded. How does the Cabinet Secretary intend to address these concerns, and will he reconsider his decision to reject an armed forces commissioner for Wales, please?

Presiding Officer, I'm not sure that's an entirely—how shall I say—balanced view of that report, but, in terms of the support that we provide for the armed forces community in totality, I will continue to keep that under review. I've made a statement on how we will be responding to the report of the cross-party group—a report that I value greatly, I must say—and we will look at how we can strengthen different areas of support.

But, I will say to the Member that this is mainstreamed into our work as well. I spoke yesterday at a conference in Cardiff on how we provide specific support, and need to provide specific support, on additional learning needs to children who are from the armed forces community. Last week, I visited Parc prison in Bridgend and spoke there to members of staff who are working on the Endeavour wing, which is dedicated for members of the armed forces community. So, whilst we will continue to provide specific support for veterans and for those serving in our armed forces, we will also ensure that it is mainstreamed into all the work of this Government.

The Green Paper consultation is about having a constructive debate on how we can deliver strong and empowered local government.

Thank you for that brief response. I'd hoped you would have talked about collaboration in your response, because that’s what’s missing, it seems to me, at the moment in response to this consultation. I’m not sure why the Government is so enthusiastic for reforming and reorganising local government when they have proposals from local authorities themselves to collaborate more effectively and more strategically, in the light of all the changes that are going to occur as a result of Brexit. How does the Minister intend to respond to that consultation on the basis of local government’s response to date, which seems to show that they’re pushing against his ideas, and that he isn’t offering collaboration with them?

We have been discussing how we can work with local government, and we’ve been doing so for some time.

May I say this? What I wish to do throughout this process is to ensure that we are proposing not just the reform of local government, because there’s no purpose in doing that unless there is a good reason behind it. So, what I want to do is strengthen local government, strengthen councils, strengthen the way in which we elect councillors, strengthen the way we get local political accountability, strengthen political leadership on a local level, and strengthen the services that we get locally. So, this is a positive process of devolving power from this place to political centres across our nation. I would hope, at least, that that is something that he and his party would agree with. 

If I can just inform the Cabinet Secretary, I'm not sure that many in local government see this as a positive process. In fact, they actually see it as an arrogant process.

Anyway, in their response to your Green Paper, Conwy County Borough Council have stated that the real and realistic alternative to the proposals in the Green Paper is for the Welsh Government to provide a period of support and stability. And how let down were they when your predecessor actually promised them, only a year ago, 10 years of such stability? Moreover, Denbighshire County Borough Council have come out very strongly against your proposals, stating that a credible case for change has not been made, noting that the past experience of some authorities with regard to voluntary mergers, and Government's response to them, is hardly encouraging.

We know that the proposals put forward by Conwy and Denbighshire were rejected out of hand by your predecessor. So, can you explain to those local authorities, who saw their voluntary merger proposals thrown out without even an explanation during the fourth Assembly, and who then accepted the reassurance by your predecessor's promise of 10 years of stability just last year, why you have now sought to continue with this foolhardy approach towards forced local government mergers?

Presiding Officer, sometimes, this debate can be extraordinarily repetitive rather than illuminating. I've answered the question that the Member's asked on a number of occasions. I have to say that if we offered local government the same stability as local government in England is being offered, which is the stability of knowledge that there will be fewer resources next year than last year, fewer resources the following year than next year, that we will remove the revenue support grant, that we will ensure that local government has powers removed from them, is emasculated and sees significant reductions in their ability to shape the future of their local communities, I'm not sure that that's the stability that they would want. Do you know, I listen to Conservative Members time and time again in this Chamber, coming to me and telling me that they disagree with the approach taken by successive Welsh Governments, but I have yet to hear a Conservative councillor contact me, come to me, meet me, write to me and say to me, 'Please introduce Conservative policies in local government'? Not one local councillor from any part of Wales wants to see a Conservative-led policy to support, sustain and strangle local government.

Questions, now, from the party spokespeople. Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian.

How much will it cost to halve the number of councils in Wales?

That cost will reflect the kind of framework that we decide upon.

I don’t think that answers my question, and to be honest, it is a briefer response than I got from the First Minister the other day when I asked the same question. But, the answer I got was just as lacking in substance as that one, and I have to say that attempts by Ministers, time and time again, to refuse to answer simple questions is an insult to this Assembly.

Work has been done on the cost by a number of different organisations. Work was presented to the Welsh Local Government Association by the highly respected expert Professor Malcolm Prowle recently, with some organisations estimating that the restructuring proposals could cost up to £268 million. The research by Professor Prowle also provides evidence from England, and international evidence, that demonstrates that merging and restructuring local government has negative financial impacts. Is the truth, therefore, that either you haven’t carried out any assessment of the cost, or you are refusing to release that information? And that, in turn, deprives local government and this Assembly of those crucial facts that we need during this debate.

Llywydd, what would be most insulting would be to finish a consultation yesterday and inform you of the decision today, without considering any of the representations made to us over the past months. That would be most insulting to those people who have participated in this discussion. But may I make this quite clear? I met with Professor Prowle last week, and I had a long conversation with him, and I actually saw his presentation, when he discussed the kinds of figures that the Member has alluded to today. But may I tell you this? He finished his presentation by saying that nine councils would be preferable and better for Wales.

Well, let us move on from the question of cost for the time being, and turn to one of the questions I asked you when you were appointed as Cabinet Secretary for local government. That question was what kind of style you were going to adopt in dealing with local government. It may be true that we haven’t seen quite the level of argument and contention in the media between yourself and local authorities, but the stark disagreements continue, and the truth is that there isn’t support from local councils for the Green Paper proposals.

Debbie Wilcox, as you well know, has said that any sensible estimate would show that council mergers wouldn’t save money. 'Taking unnecessary attention', as the leader of Caerphilly put it, and yesterday, as we heard, we had a formal response from Denbighshire County Council, which is one of the few councils that was willing to merge during the last Assembly term, and Denbighshire noted that there isn’t a credible case for change that has been made in the White Paper. When you started in this role, you said that it was time to have a new relationship with local government. Was creating total disagreement between Government and local authorities what you had in mind?

When you posed the question, I replied here in the Chamber, and also on my blog, and you’ve questioned me on that since the publication of the article. And I was entirely clear at the time that I have a vision for the future and I have a vision of a different government in Wales—a model that devolves power from this place, and you and Plaid have—. I have heard many speeches from Plaid Cymru on that subject over the years, and now I'm proposing that. I am proposing devolution from Cardiff bay to Denbighshire, Anglesey, Caernarfon and even to Bangor. And I am holding that discussion with local government, and also beyond local government, because too frequently we talk about government as if we, the Members, and councillors, own it. I think it is the people of Wales that own the way that we govern, and not politicians.

Conservative spokesperson, Janet Finch-Saunders.   

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, your Green Paper on local government reform is unsurprisingly not going down too well with many local authorities and those working within the sector across Wales. Indeed, having received a substantial number of the same responses to your consultation myself, there is clear evidence already that your proposals are considered to be unworkable, without consideration of the massive challenges facing local authorities, and that they are, in fact, just a simple rehash of a previous Minister's plans. Some of the responses are as follows. The Vale of Glamorgan: the previous Cabinet Secretary promised 10 years of stability; this Cabinet Secretary has not even provided 10 months' worth. Newport: the proposals represent a distraction from the challenge of delivering services and meeting the needs of increasingly complex communities. Monmouthshire: the Green Paper is silent on the core issues that are at the heart of the debate. Caerphilly: we cannot see that a wholesale local government reorganisation is something that should be considered; the financial benefits are debatable at best. Ynys Môn: the First Minister needs to stick his Green Paper in the bin, where it belongs. 

Now then, given that local authorities and those responsible for delivering service to our most vulnerable on a daily basis are infuriated, demoralised and disenchanted by your Green Paper, and that, in real terms, these proposals are causing instability and distraction from their already constrained service delivery, what steps will you take to reflect the many well-informed voices speaking up to pull back on these unsettling and disastrous proposals going forward?

The Conservative Member uses—[Interruption.] The Conservative Member uses the fact of austerity as if it's the greatest gift that local government has ever received. Let me say this: there are significant issues facing local government today. Most of them are the result of the financial constraints that they face, but not all of them. Welsh local government has, at many times, been clear in itself that 22 local authorities is too many and that it is not sustainable. They've said that on a number of occasions. Now, what we have to do is look to a way forward.

Now, I've heard no response from the Conservative spokesperson on a positive way forward. It's the easiest thing in the world to read the newspapers to Members of the National Assembly, but I would suggest that it's an inadequate response to the challenges facing us. Now, I have said very, very clearly that I want to see a positive debate. I want to see an enriching debate. I want to see a debate about how we devolve powers across Wales and how we empower local authorities and how we empower citizens. And I'll be absolutely clear, as I was in an earlier answer to the Member for Arfon, that it is not politicians, whether in county halls or in this place, that own the governance of our country; it is the people of this country that own the governance of this country. 

Cabinet Secretary, I have actually responded to your consultation myself; I suggest you haven't read it yet. You continue to repeat the same old line that the Green Paper only sets out the debate on local government reform and the merging of councils, but that isn't really the case, is it? In April, I was made aware that the Labour Party itself was having internal discussions about how to force through your proposals and that one of the ideas discussed is to halve the number of councillors in merged areas, and, at the same time, increase their pay by 62 per cent, from £13,600 to around £22,000 per year, in order to sweeten the deal for mergers and the cutting of numbers of elected members. You may be surprised that I know this, or, there again, you may not know yourself, so far removed are you from the local government community in Wales. For those who have served their time and are wanting to stand down, another proposal of Welsh Labour is to pay those councillors who would lose their seats, based on years of service, around £500 per year, meaning, for someone who's served 20 years, they will get a £10,000 bung. Really, Cabinet Secretary—really, Cabinet Secretary—is this the way that you or a Welsh Labour Government or any Government should be carrying out local government reform, where it's more important to carry out backroom deals with your own Labour councillors than reach cross-party consensus with all across Wales? You'd make a start in this Chamber—during your last contribution, your own backbenchers were speaking up against these proposals. Surely, this does amount to nothing more than a shabby bung to Labour councillors. Personally, I believe the people of Wales deserve better—a pity you don't.

Presiding Officer, I was wondering if I'd have another opportunity to speak this afternoon. I have to say, I think she's diminished herself in that previous contribution. I think there was a question there somewhere, although I'm struggling to find it. Let me say this: there has been certainly no debate within the Labour Party of that sort, and, as I said, she diminished herself with that contribution. She may be referring to a report of the remuneration panel for Wales, which is an independent panel, and, if she has any comments to make on those, then she should make those on the record and face up to what she says there. But I have to say this to her: I am considering the report of the remuneration panel for Wales; I have not made any decisions on it, and, when I do take a decision on it, I will publish it. And that report will be from an independent panel. I do hope that she will take the next question as an opportunity to withdraw some of her remarks.

Cabinet Secretary, on a point of order, you should not be stood there, telling me that I'm diminishing myself. I have every right to be here to scrutinise and challenge you—and scrutinise and challenge you I will. I have been speaking to the local government community across Wales—I suggest you do. Your Green Paper consultation closed yesterday. This is, in real terms, the sixteenth Welsh Government document outlining reform of some kind to local government structure or working since 2004. And, indeed, in the 20 years of devolution, local government has gone round the table 10 times—there have been 10 Ministers for local government. That doesn't show much importance to this community, which delivers the most vital services. Now, in—. This year, in April, the three fire and local authorities asked you how your local government reform will fit with the reform to their structures—because you're even trying to challenge them at the moment—and you haven't answered that question. Additionally, we know that local government has integral links with other areas of the public service delivery, such as the health service, education, provision of housing and social care, and, particularly, the considerable concerns facing the health service in Wales, including nursing and doctor shortages, systematic failures to keep to waiting times, health board overspends—

I think you do need to come to your third question now.

—continuing direct governmental control of Betsi Cadwaladr University Local Health Board. I have asked you before, and I'll ask you again, and it'll go on record again: what discussions have you taken with your other Welsh Government Secretaries responsible for the delivery of those public services about working together in a strategic manner, or is it simply the case that those discussions haven't taken place, and this is simply you going off on a tangent to rehash old and tired plans that were firmly squashed once before?

Members may be shocked to discover that we have conversations between different Ministers on an almost daily basis, and I've discussed this matter with the Cabinet Secretary for Finance this morning. I'll be discussing exactly this matter with the Cabinet Secretary for health at the conclusion of our business today. I'll be discussing these matters with other Ministers on a weekly basis. But, more than that, in answering this question, Presiding Officer, I want to go back to a different proposition. What we need in Wales—. And, actually, almost by accident, the Conservative spokesperson may be right about one thing, and that is that, over a period of 20 years, we have not reached an agreed, mature relationship with local government, and that is a responsibility not simply of this Cabinet Secretary, but a responsibility of this place, this institution, yes, the Government, and also local government. For me, what is important isn't a deal between politicians, whether it's in a back room or in the front room, but to work in the interests of the citizens of this country, to empower people, to ensure that we have democratic accountability in towns and county halls up and down Wales, and to devolve power from this place to centres of decision making across Wales and to ensure that we take care and protect the public service workers who are delivering our services. And do you know what all of those people have in common? Not one of them has suggested to me that we need more austerity or more Conservative policies.FootnoteLink

UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Llywydd. I was interested in some of your remarks earlier, Minister, in response to Janet Finch-Saunders's contribution, particularly when—[Interruption.]—particularly when you talked about empowering the citizens and how the key issue facing local government is how to empower citizens, and you also said that it is the people who own the country, which are very noble sentiments.

Now, I'm interested in what you've been saying in the media recently, with your call for a second referendum on Brexit—a so-called people's vote. I was intrigued by this, as I thought we'd already had a people's vote. In my innocence, I thought that the referendum itself was the people's vote, but your public stance is intriguing and it's certainly something that we can perhaps develop today. 

Now, one of the problems that we have in Wales is that, at local government level, we have first-past-the-post, so that tends to mean that we can get councils elected—usually Labour councils, it has to be said—winning more than 50 per cent of the council seats on less then 50 per cent of the vote. Now, that's a generalisation, I accept that, but it is a broad picture of the local government scene in Wales that I'm sure you would recognise. You have recommended that councils consider moving towards a different system, which is the single transferable vote. Certainly, that system would be more democratic. With your well-known commitment to the democratic principles, how far will you be pushing local councils in Wales to move towards this more democratic system?

My views on support of proportional representation are well known and are already on the record. The policy of this Government has not changed since I made an oral statement on this matter in January.

Right. I think that we may accept the difficulty of actually getting local councils run by the Labour Party, which do well under first-past-the-post, actually going towards a different system. I think you may actually recognise that that may be a problem. But we will move on.

Another area where we have something of a democratic deficit in Wales is in the planning system. Many local communities feel completely disempowered. When they unite, form protest groups and campaign against unwanted local developments, like major roads and intensive housing projects, then they find that, despite almost total local opposition, the scheme gets planning permission regardless. UKIP contends that we should allow for a local referendum in this instance. The result would be legally binding. This policy would democratise the planning process. Again, thinking about your comments earlier about how to empower local citizens, would you think again about adopting this policy yourself? 

I think there are many arguments in favour of direct democracy and there are examples in different parts of the world of where it works well. California is a very good example, I think, parts of the United States—Switzerland might be an example of where, possibly, it doesn't work so well. But it's a part of a way of doing government—it isn't simply a policy that you can insert into a model that is otherwise designed to work in different ways. What is important to me is that we have accountability. I don't believe that we have effective accountability in all parts of Wales at the moment in terms of how we deliver local government. I want to strengthen that accountability, but I also want to see how we can ensure that we have a diversity in representation in local government. There have been a number of reports in front of this place over many, many years that have described the lack of diversity in local government. The Member for Arfon will be making a contribution later today on diversity in this place, and I will be looking towards how all our reform processes will strengthen both accountability and diversity in local government. But, for me, the absolute key ambition is empowerment and strengthened local decision making.

Diversity is something that we are about to explore on the local government committee, so we will, hopefully, feed into that process, and that is something that does concern us. You gave an interesting answer about the local referendum issue, citing the example of California, so I'm encouraged by that. Given your interest in these ideas and these different forms of democracy—representative democracy, direct democracy et cetera—I would be interested in how you look to incorporate these ideas going forward. Would you accept, though, at this stage, that there is a problem with public perception of the planning system in Wales—not just in Wales, but in the UK—and that it does seem to be unrepresentative of local citizenry?

No, I wouldn't accept that, and, of course, my friend, the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs has just answered questions on these matters, and so I don't wish to pursue any further debate or discussion on the particular issue of planning. What I will say in trying to answer the question in a positive sense is to refer you to the points I've made about the citizens owning the governance of this country and not politicians owning the governance of this country. And what is important to me is that we're able to look for different and new means and methods of holding us as politicians to account, as Ministers to account, as Assembly Members to account and local authority councillors to account. But also, how do you empower different levels of local government? I had a very good meeting with a panel of town and community councils this morning, debating and discussing some of their proposals, which, I hope, will be published in the coming months. But, for me, this is a positive and enriching debate about empowerment; it's not simply a debate about lines on maps, processes of mergers and how to either propose or avoid those matters. For me, the really important issue about the debate on local government reform is the ambition, the end point, the vision and not simply the process. 

We work closely with the chief constables and police and crime commissioners on matters of mutual interest aimed at making communities safer.

Thank you for that brief answer. The Help Point in Swansea has been a positive addition to Swansea's night-time economy. It's a project, actually, supported by South Wales Police, and by Swansea council and St John Cymru as well, and their work has helped retain the city's purple flag status. But there are still a number of challenges as violent crime, as recorded, has gone up on Wind Street, where this Help Point is situated near, and, in this particular case, the Swansea business improvement district has contributed, as businesses, towards Help Point in order to help tackle that growth in crime. But what other avenues might be available to encourage partners in sharing those responsibilities for keeping town centres safer, if you like, bearing in mind that other towns are looking to develop their night-time economies?

Presiding Officer, I've met with the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Wales twice in the last week to discuss and debate community safety and how we take forward different means of keeping people safe in their homes and wider issues around the whole community. For me, it is important that we continue to support the Welsh Government-funded community support officers not just in this financial year, but in future financial years. Members will be aware that we're spending nearly £17 million this year on supporting and sustaining that individual programme. I will say to the Member that much of this work would be enhanced were policing to be devolved to this place and that we could take a more holistic approach to the management of policing services as part of a wider approach to both community safety and other matters.

We have read the report by Dr Robert Jones. It presents a very useful picture of what is going on in Welsh prisons and matters concerning Welsh people held in English prisons.

Thank you for that answer, Cabinet Secretary. I've got a quote from the second paragraph:

'Prisons in Wales are performing less well than prisons in England on a range of prison safety measures. The number of recorded self-harm incidents and prison assaults in Wales has increased at a higher rate than...in England.'

In fact HMP Parc had more incidents than any other prison in England and Wales. That surely shows, and the data within the report shows, the chaotic state and nature of the prison service in Wales at this point in time. In fact, it has a detrimental impact upon Welsh prisoners and their families and their lives when they leave prison as a consequence of that. It actually only goes to highlight the abject stupidity of the MOJ putting forward a proposal for a prison in Baglan, which is off the agenda now. But, your statement on 6 April stated that you wanted meaningful discussions on the future of penal policy in Wales with the MOJ, to ensure that we have a Welsh solution for Welsh prisoners. How far has that gone with the MOJ? Have you had discussions with the MOJ on the devolution of the penal system so that we can ensure that Welsh prisoners get the support and services they need closer to home, nearer their families, and are not being housed in some warehouse somewhere else?

I visited Parc prison last week and spoke to the director of the prison and other members of his staff who deal directly with people who are being held there, and discussed all of those issues with the director. I'm visiting Berwyn prison tomorrow morning and will be having similar conversations with the staff there. I share your concern. I share the concern about not only the report published last week, which I think followed on the heels of a number of critical reports about conditions in the secure estate in Wales. I think there is a need for a fundamentally different approach. I spoke in an earlier question to the need for a more holistic approach in these matters, and that is the case here as well.

I did have a meeting in my diary with Dr Phillip Lee, which I presume will now be rescheduled, and I would like to—[Interruption.] Dr Lee is one of that group of people who have contested Blaenau Gwent, so we do have something in common. I will pay tribute to him and the work he did whilst in office. I thought it was a refreshing change to speak to a Conservative Minister who actually understood many of the issues we're dealing with, and I very much regret that he felt the need to resign yesterday. 

But I will be pursuing these matters. I've asked for a meeting with the prisons Minister, Rory Stewart, and we're waiting to hear whether that will be able to go ahead. But, fundamental on this issue for me is that we address holistically the issue of penal policy in Wales. I do not believe that we can fundamentally address the issue of how we manage penal policy in Wales so long as that is managed by the MOJ, which follows the priorities and philosophies of a different Government and takes a fundamentally different approach. We do need to have a penal policy that is rooted in respect, humanity and rehabilitation, and one that serves the whole of our communities across the whole of Wales.

As another Blaenau Gwent electoral old boy, if that's the right way of putting it, I think we've all met with limited success. That's been turned around by you lately, but certainly Mr Lee and I found limited appeal. Can I commend the work of Robert Jones, who I know—and I've had the pleasure of hosting an event at which he was the principal speaker here in the Assembly—but also the work of the Wales Governance Centre? This is really quality material and we need to reflect on it.

I am pleased to see that the number of Welsh children in prisons has dropped from 116 in 2010 to 32 in 2017. I think it should be the ultimate last resort to put any children in prison. That trend going down is a good thing. But, it does mean more and more children have to travel to young offender institutions, which themselves are closing. So, we have a higher percentage of Welsh children now travelling large distances, and some of them are reporting they never get a parental visit because of the hardship that causes. Can you look at this and see if we can improve the situation of these families?

Absolutely. There is a significant correlation between the distance from home and the number of home visits received, and I think that's something that we do need to reflect upon. In fact, as to many of the young people and children who are held in the young offender institution in Parc, for example, the furthest from home are actually English-domiciled people who come from London or Birmingham or elsewhere. Whilst I have no issue with people's address or original nationality, my issue is distance from home, and we do need to have facilities—in the case of children and young people, a centre where they can continue in education, where they can be provided with support. Many of these people have some complex needs, whether it is in terms of mental illness and substance abuse, but also they come from, sometimes, some very difficult backgrounds, and they need help and support rather than harsh incarceration. What I would hope that we'd be able to do in a Welsh penal policy is to root that in a sense of rehabilitation, support, humanity and respect to enable us to move forward in a very different way.

We continue to provide significant support to public services in Monmouthshire.

I'm pleased to hear that, Cabinet Secretary. I listened with interest to your exchange with my colleague Janet Finch-Saunders earlier. It did strike me that it was very much groundhog day in terms of the conversation that you had. I have to say that I did agree with you on your comment that you should be—as I often do, actually; it's only big things we disagree. [Interruption.] I'm getting there. [Laughter.] I'm not used to being heckled by my own side. [Laughter.] We should be devolving powers to effective local centres of democracy, which is, I think, the expression that you used. I think also that you're right in saying that you, as Welsh Government, do need a meaningful relationship with local government. I think local government would love to have a meaningful relationship with Welsh Government as well. And I think there are two sides to this coin.

I think where we do differ, Cabinet Secretary, is that, whilst we all accept that there should be, over time, organic change and reform to local government and to structures of delivering public services across Wales—we've got the city regions as a classic example of how things change—what we have to do is put the citizen at the centre of this. Where our side differs from yours is that we feel that you're putting the structure first, and that is wrong. That hasn't worked in the past and that won't work in the future. So, will you go back to the drawing board, have discussions with your colleagues, in local government hopefully, or whoever you need to have those discussions with, but come back with proposals for how you're going to put the citizen at the centre and have a system that really does deliver the sort of regenerative, transformative change in local government that we all desperately want to see but which doesn't simply sacrifice everything on the altar of reorganisation? 

And he agrees with you. 

I thought that as well. There's a difference in tone and words, isn't there? Let me say this: I hear what my good friend and constituency neighbour has to say, and I understand the point that he makes. And I agree, at a terrible risk to myself, possibly, that putting the citizen at the centre of our democracy and how we deliver services doesn't simply depend on structures. I agree with that, as it happens. But we must be able to have structures that are resilient and sustainable in order to devolve those responsibilities and those services to them. We do need that and we don't have that at the moment, and local government accepts that. So, we need to find a structure that will enable us to devolve those powers and to provide for those responsibilities to reside at a more local level, and I'm happy to have that conversation. I've said on many occasions that I'm not wedded to any particular map and I'm not wedded to any particular structure. But what I am wedded to is sustainability. What I am wedded to its protecting the workforce. What I am wedded to is high-quality services, and what I am wedded to is effective democratic accountability.

What you can't say is that you want all these objectives but that you're not prepared to will any means in order to do it. So, there needs to be a serious conversation about that, and I very much welcome the contribution from Monmouthshire on this matter, but what I will say to him very, very seriously is that, in order to achieve those things, the conversation must move on from an argument over a map and an argument over lines on a map. What he has described is very similar to the sort of ambition that I have, which demands change; it doesn't demand staying as we are. Staying as we are is the worst possible solution for Welsh local government, because that will mean that, over the coming years, whoever sits in this seat and whoever sits in this place will manage decline and not expansion. I want to see a renaissance of local government in Wales; I don't want to be responsible for its decline.

The role of local government is critical to our society and the well-being of our nation. I am committed to ensuring the sustainability and quality of those services, and the engagement of citizens and partners in that process.

Thank you. At the beginning of the week, your fellow Members of Government the Cabinet Secretary for health and the Minister for social care announced a plan for the future of health and care, and one of the objectives is to ensure better collaboration and, indeed, integration between the work of local government and health boards. Now, one question that’s been playing on my mind, and that I know is playing on the minds of some of those in local government in Wales, is: surely, in putting a health and care plan together, one would need stability in local government in order to deliver that. Reorganising local government and, therefore, social care departments isn’t likely to help with that integration process. The suggestion, as I see it—and I would like to hear your view on this—is that the different department of your Government don’t seem to be speaking to each other.

Not only do we speak to each other, but we agree with each other. I had a meeting with Vaughan at the beginning of this week to discuss this issue, and I will be seeing him later on this afternoon to continue discussing that. May I say this? I don’t agree with your analysis. For me, if regional collaboration in the way that you describe, and in the way that the parliamentary review demands and hopes to see and is planning for—if that is dependent on local government's capacity and the capacity of their departments to contribute to that, it’s not a matter of one doing the work of the other; it’s a matter of creating capacity and strength within the councils. At the moment, the councils themselves are saying that the status quo is not sustainable, and so it’s not possible to build collaboration on an unsustainable system. So, what’s important to me is that we put a structure in place that generates capacity to collaborate in the future and to secure the future for social care, and the capacity to deliver for the plan that we have published. So, I don’t see it as a choice or an option; I see it as a process.

Cabinet Secretary, you talk about building capacity, and I seem to remember a lot of the conversations around when the health boards were reorganised back in 2009 being about, 'By creating bigger organisations you create capacity.' That hasn't exactly been a rip-roaring success. But one of the things you could say would benefit local authorities across Wales, in particular the further away you go from Cardiff, would be the devolution of powers and responsibilities in particular around economic development. With the development of metro mayors and city mayors in England, these relationships, cross border, are vitally important so that when you look at economic development in particular, where local authorities have a key role to play, they are empowered to make decisions that affect their local communities and benefit their local communities. What assessment, in the time that you've been the Minister, have you made about what powers would be beneficial at a local level rather than them being held at a Welsh Government level when it comes to economic development?

I fear, Presiding Officer, that there might be a bit too much agreement between myself and the Conservative frontbench on some of these matters. I'm very much in favour of the devolution of additional powers and responsibilities to local government; it's what I want to see. I want to see more powers held locally and more accountability locally. The Conservative leader will remember one of my first actions after my appointment was to write to all leaders of Welsh local government and to all Members here asking what powers they believed should be devolved to local government and what powers they would want to see held locally. Personally, I would like to see a more strategic and a more generous view of the powers that should be held locally. I'm attracted by models of government where local communities and counties—for lack of a better term—are able to take very significant decisions, and are able to pursue approaches that are appropriate to that locality and the communities they represent.

The Conservative leader will be aware that the Cabinet Secretary for the economy has published an economic action plan that does actually empower regions of Wales to act in this way. I see that as part of a process by which we do empower different regions and different parts of the country to take exactly the decisions that you've mentioned as well. The Member for Anglesey made a very similar point, in many ways, about regional working. The point I will make back to you in all seriousness is that you can't simply build castles on sand. If we don't have the structures and the fundamental building blocks, which are sustainable local authorities, then all that regional working will come to nothing, because we won't be able to sustain the services. So, for me, we do need to go through a process of reform and change, and when we have done that, we will be able to deliver the sort of devolution of responsibilities and powers that the Conservative leader has described and others have described today as well.

Welsh Government funding, along with a contribution from the Gwent police and crime commissioner, provides early intervention and diversionary projects for young people in communities.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Over the last few months, Gwent Police have been piloting a groundbreaking scheme with three schools in Newport, where 58 pupils from Millbrook, Pillgwenlly and Ringland primary schools have become members of Mini Police, or Heddlu Bach. The children, with permission, go out to help officers in community events and they start discussions to educate their peers at home, at school, and with their friends. And indeed, today, Pill primary school have been out checking the speed limits in their area. The scheme's a great opportunity to inspire the next generation of police and public servants, and it's having a palpable effect on the children involved, with teachers and parents reporting big changes in many, and it's proving very popular. And this isn't just an opportunity for improvement in police relations; the effect on those children, undoubtedly, is lifelong, promoting good citizenship. Will the Cabinet Secretary look at this excellent practice taking place in Gwent Police, and these schools, and look at what the Welsh Government can do to further extend the reach of projects like this throughout our communities?

Absolutely. Presiding Officer, it's a fantastic project that has been run in Newport there, and I think it's a testament to the creativity of the police force, working with different organisations in the city, to deliver exactly that sort of process. I pay tribute to Gwent Police in the way that they've worked to deliver this. As well meeting the commissioner for south Wales, I met the commissioner for Gwent twice in the last week as well, once in my constituency and once here. The conversations we have are very positive conversations about how we can ensure that the work of the police is integrated into the work of other services, delivering in exactly the way that the Member for Newport West suggests. I would very much like to pay tribute to the work of Gwent Police—the inventiveness, the creativity—but also an approach that embeds the concept of the active citizenship that we were discussing before, and a sense of citizenship and a sense of people in our communities able to take action themselves to improve and to benefit people who live within those communities. It's exactly the sort of initiative that we want to support and sustain into the future.

I wonder whether you could give us some statistics as to what is happening in terms of stop and search of young people here in Wales. The research I’ve seen shows that young people tend to want to break the law or participate in criminal activity because they have been treated poorly by the police because of stop and search. There are also various sectors of society that are more likely to be stopped—Asian or black men, for example—and that makes them feel that they are not part of society, because of the negative attitude that they develop towards the police. So, how can you engender a society where the police and young people feel that they are on the same level, and that you nurture a positive relationship between them, rather than this feeling that the police are constantly against them in many aspects?

I concur with the analysis of the Member for South Wales West, but may I say this? Firstly, policing is not devolved, and so our ability to influence this issue could be impaired on occasion, but I do see that the police are working very hard to reach out to various sectors of society. There are some exceptionally good examples in Gwent Police of that, and I’ve seen great changes in the way in which South Wales Police deal with these issues too. So, I am confident that we have the leadership in place in the police forces to create the ideal that you and I would share. But the point is this: until the police are part of Welsh public service and are devolved, it would be very difficult for us to develop the kind of holistic policies that we need.

Finally, Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Llywydd. In wanting to devolve policing to Wales, does the Cabinet Secretary nonetheless support the continuation of the elected police and crime commissioner model? He rightly here commends Gwent Police and Jeff Cuthbert for this particular scheme, but does he recognise that the elected and accountable nature of that role is crucial for that public engagement?

I see that the role has delivered accountability. I do see that and I think that is important, but we've just been discussing the future of local government as well, and I regret very much the loss of a direct input from local government into policing in Wales. All too often, we talk about the devolution of powers to this place. We're in different places here; I've spent the whole of my adult life campaigning for devolution and the devolution of powers to Wales. But what I don't want to do is to sit here and be responsible for building a unitary state in Wales either. What I want to be able to do is to deliver devolution within Wales, and that means looking creatively at how we can involve local government in exactly some of the decisions that the Member for South Wales East might be referring to. Certainly, in my constituency experience, I know that the police rely very heavily on the work of local councillors and the ability of local councillors to actually deliver some strong messages to the police. So, I hope that when policing is devolved to Wales, we'll be able to have a very good and rich conversation about how we ensure accountability, and I am clear in my own mind that whatever function or structure we deliver, the accountability cannot start and end in this place; it has to be accountability locally as well as accountability nationally.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. 

The next item, then, is the topical questions. I have accepted a topical question again to the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, and the question is to be asked by Mick Antoniw.

The Welsh Government has repeatedly pressed the Home Secretary to undertake a review into policing in Welsh communities during the miners' strike. Those requests have been refused. I'm looking carefully into the Scottish inquiry. I will be speaking to my counterpart in the Scottish Government this week and writing, once again, to the Home Secretary.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. The events at Orgreave in June 1984 during the miners' strike represented one of the most serious abuses of state power in recent times. Events during the miners' strike were, in my view, the closest this country has ever come to becoming a police state. Police officers were ordered to use maximum force against the miners, many of whom were from Wales, and many Welsh miners were violently assaulted, beaten and left bloodied. They were then charged with concocted common-law charges of riot and unlawful assembly, which, had they been proved, would've led to long prison sentences for many of the miners. The evidence was fabricated and manipulated in an attempt to secure convictions, and despite all this, Cabinet Secretary, all the cases failed. Every miner was acquitted, the state attempt to pervert the course of justice failed, the South Yorkshire Police were forced to pay £0.5 million in compensation and legal costs for malicious prosecution and false arrest, yet no-one has ever been held to account.

The UK Government has persistently refused to hold an inquiry. New evidence has emerged and the Independent Police Complaints Commission found that there is a reasonable basis for an inquiry to be held. The importance of this issue is that, had Orgreave been investigated, subsequent events at Hillsborough and Rotherham may well have turned out differently. Scotland is holding its own inquiry, but in Wales, policing is unfortunately not yet devolved, yet the call for the inquiry has been supported by all four police and crime commissioners.

The legacy of the miners' strike remains in Wales. Memories of Margaret Thatcher's victimisation of the miners and their communities is not forgotten—that is written into our memories and into our history. However, the legacy of the injustice of Orgreave, the abuse of state power and the undermining of the rule of law linger and continue to undermine confidence in our judicial system and, indeed, in justice itself in Wales and elsewhere. It is time for the UK Government to disclose all the files, to hold a public inquiry and to find out once and for all what happened, who gave the orders, who were the main conspirators and how the rule of law could be so undermined in a country whose constitution purports to be based on the supremacy of the rule of law. Cabinet Secretary, what I ask the Welsh Government to do is to do all it can to co-operate with and support the Scottish Government inquiry, and, again, to call upon the Home Secretary to commit to a public inquiry into the events at Orgreave. 

Presiding Officer, as the Member has pointed out in his question, policing is not devolved to Welsh Government and, consequently, we've not carried out an assessment of the issues he raises, since this is a matter for the United Kingdom Government. Members will be aware that the First Minister wrote to the then Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, in July 2016 regarding the possibility of an inquiry into those events that were described. In October 2016, the Home Secretary decided, after considering all the views put forward, not to establish an inquiry. Can I say I very much regret that decision? All of us who were active in supporting the miners during that strike—there were many of us who were standing on those picket lines at the time, supporting friends, school friends, colleagues and communities in struggle—we stood with the colliers in those days and we stand with them today. I witnessed that violence, I witnessed it at first-hand. I saw what happened when those communities were facing almost warfare from their own Government. Those communities deserved better then, the people deserved better then and they deserve justice today. I'm absolutely clear in my own mind that the United Kingdom Government has to recognise its responsibilities in this matter. There were people I knew, that I was in school with, who suffered the consequences of those actions. They deserve fair play, they deserve justice.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The 90-second statements is the next item. Ann Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Tomorrow marks the first anniversary of the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower that claimed the lives of 72 people, which remains the largest number of deaths from a single fire in living history. Behind each of those 72 deaths, there are families that have been broken and devastated, the immediate community of Grenfell Tower has been torn apart, and neighbouring communities deal with the anxiety and the fears post Grenfell Tower. Emergency service workers, too, are not immune from dealing with the aftermath of what they witnessed that day.

Today, as we did 12 months ago, we are able to stand with that community of Grenfell Tower to remember those who died and to offer our solidarity and our support to those who are still greatly affected by that incident. As we move forward, we must be ever thankful for the response from across the UK, including from many from Wales—many, many ordinary people who sought to help in those immediate days after the fire—and of those who are still in that community, offering support and help, be it the emergency services, be it the public sector or third sector, communities or just ordinary people who feel moved to help and support Grenfell. The greatest tribute we can pay to those 72 people who lost their lives that day is to provide a legacy by striving to work to ensure we take whatever steps we can to avoid similar incidents occurring. It's the least we can do to honour their memory, and we will not forget them.

Jane Hutt.

Llywydd, can I take this opportunity to praise the initiative of Joanne Cheek from the Beautiful Barry campaign? Joanne has led the way as an active citizen, encouraging Barry to become a plastic-free town. To help achieve this, Joanne wants to reduce the use of plastic water bottles, as she's found, as an ardent litter picker, that these make up most of the plastic she picks up. This has led Joanne to campaign for water fountains in Barry.

With imagination and flair, Joanne has drawn attention to historical sources as part of her campaign for water fountains in Barry. She has highlighted an article in the Barry Dock News from September 1906 entitled,

'Barry Sculptor’s generosity. Drinking fountain presented to the town. Splendid example to others.'

The article drew attention to the contribution of F. T. Mossford, a monumental sculptor, who presented the town in 1906 with a 'handsome granite drinking fountain'. Some of those can still be found, although they're not in use at present.

Can I welcome early responses, positive responses, from Barry Town Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Council to Joanne Cheek's imaginative and positive campaign, leading a team of volunteers to provide public drinking fountains across the town of Barry, leading the way in Wales with a clear example of citizen action taking forward this popular and important policy?

Thank you.

The next item is the motion to elect a Member to the Assembly Commission, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion. Gareth Bennett.

Formally.

To speak, Mandy Jones.

Yes, I object.

You're not speaking in the debate.

Yes, I will speak.

I'm calling you to speak now, if you want to speak.

Thank you. Sorry. I object on the motion to call Neil Hamilton for the Commission. The role of a Commissioner goes to the core of this place—how it is run, how it plans for the future, and how it is perceived by the public. The Commission—and I quote from our website—

'has responsibility for the provision of property, staff and services to support the Assembly Members'.

One of the key words there is 'staff'. Staff are our main support. They make this place work, and, frankly, none of this would happen without them. We should value them in the way that they deserve. In fact, we should value each other in the same way.

There are many reasons why I would object to Neil Hamilton becoming a Commissioner. However, the reason I wish to put on record is that, on 16 May, Neil Hamilton abstained on the vote in support of the emerging dignity and respect policy. The main crux of his argument appeared to be that it should only apply part of the time. Becoming an Assembly Member is an honour, and it should be respected as such. It is not a part-time job. The Nolan principles and the code of conduct, which we all promised to abide by when we were sworn in, do not get shrugged off like a wet coat when they become too uncomfortable. I do not see how his position is compatible with the role of Assembly Commissioner. Thank you.

Do you want to speak? Neil Hamilton.

Thank you, Llywydd. I wasn't anticipating having to make this speech, as no notice had been given to me by Mandy Jones of her objection, but having said that, I will now take the opportunity to respond.

I made my arguments in the debate on the dignity and respect policy, and I made the point that all people in public life should be entitled to a private life and, in the context of that debate, referred in particular to Michelle Brown's case, where she found herself before the standards committee because of a conversation that she had on the telephone, which was secretly recorded and then was maliciously published by a former employee. I don't seek to defend the words that were complained of, but I did think, in the context of our dignity and respect policy, that there ought to be a test of reasonableness and a test of proportionality in the sanction applied if someone was found to be in breach of the rules. That said, that was the point of view that I put in the debate. The Assembly took a different view. And just as, over many, many years, I voted in the House of Commons and, indeed, in this Assembly on proposed laws of the land, if I was on the losing side, of course I accepted that I lost the argument, or at least lost the vote, and therefore I would faithfully uphold the rules that had been voted through, and that applies in this instance too. We disagree honourably amongst each other in a democratic Assembly, and we're entitled to take different views on the desirability of proposed courses of action. That doesn't mean that any of us condones the kind of conduct, behaviour or words that are reprehensible or opprobrious and are likely to cause egregious offence, and still less those that are racist or whatever.

All I will say is that if the Assembly approves this appointment this afternoon, I will perform the obligations of a Commissioner to the best of my ability, with the kind of professionalness, honesty and integrity that I think I have displayed in the two years that I have been here. I think there are enough Members who have worked with me in committees, as well as in Plenary sessions, to know that I have always done my best to uphold the principles upon which this place is based. My party, which opposed its creation in the first place, has accepted the result of the people, and the will of the people is all. I would take the same view of the will of the Assembly in respect of the rules that it adopts in respect of the conduct of its own Members. So, that, I think, is a brief statement of my position—that I will uphold the dignity and respect policy, as it has been approved by this Assembly.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting on this motion until voting time.

The next item is the debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report: 'Life on the streets: preventing and tackling rough sleeping in Wales'. I call on the committee Chair to move the motion—John Griffiths. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I am pleased to open today’s debate on the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee report on rough-sleeping. I’d like to thank those who provided evidence to our inquiry, including the staff and volunteers we met at projects in Newport and Cardiff. We were struck by their dedication, compassion and positivity. They told us they never give up on those who need support. It is this perseverance, this stickability, that is crucial. 

I’d also like to thank those who shared their first-hand experiences and moving accounts of how they ended up sleeping rough. Many included a catalogue of events that even the most resilient amongst us would struggle to endure. Thankfully, they have been supported off the street and are making plans for the future, and we wish them well.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the heavy snowfall, biting wind and freezing temperatures of last winter brought the life-threatening perils of sleeping out into sharp focus, but our concern must not be dependent on the season. It is time to meet the challenge of preventing and tackling rough-sleeping in Wales. We hope that our report will provide a clear steer on the way forward.

I am pleased that the Welsh Government has responded positively and has accepted, or accepted in principle, 23 out of our 29 recommendations. We would like a clear indication of timescales for their implementation. Some of these seek to build on and strengthen the Government’s action plan and its guidance on housing first, both of which were published when our inquiry was already under way. The report covers a range of areas, but today I will focus on our key recommendations.

Priority need continues to be the subject of much debate. It is difficult to identify a group of people who have greater need of housing than those who are actually living on the streets. Yet, current categories and the way in which they are being applied means that many are simply not receiving the support they so desperately need. This needs to change.

We recommend a phased approached to abolishing priority need. The first step should be to add rough-sleepers as a new category under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014. In responding, the Government has told us it is planning to commission independent research to inform any future changes. We would like a clear indication from the Minister of the timeline for this work.

In the event that the Minister would not commit to abolition, we made a series of further proposals aimed at improving statutory protection. We recommended that the Government amends the meaning of 'vulnerable' within the housing Act, and that it reinstates automatic priority need for prison leavers. The Government has rejected both on the basis that it should first await the outcomes of its independent research. But providing a clearer meaning for 'vulnerability' to ensure consistency in decisions across authorities, which we heard is lacking, is not about changing the current approach. We do not believe that strengthening the code of guidance and providing best practice will be enough to achieve this. We received evidence that the removal of automatic status for prison leavers has had a detrimental impact. There is a link between rough-sleeping and reoffending, with all the personal and societal costs that involves. We are therefore disappointed with the Government's position. 

One of the key areas we considered as part of our inquiry was the causes of rough-sleeping. These are wide-ranging and include a combination of structural and personal factors. We focused on the two main structural causes: welfare reform and a lack of affordable housing. Changes to benefit entitlements, the increase in sanctions and the introduction of universal credit are having a profound effect on some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, substantially removing the safety net available to those at risk of rough-sleeping. Worryingly, the full effect is yet to be felt in Wales.

We heard that providing greater flexibility over payments could reduce the risk of eviction resulting from rent arrears, and called for the Welsh Government to seek the necessary power. This was rejected on the basis that such flexibility already exists, yet organisations directly involved in the delivery of homelessness services appear not to know of these payment options. So, today, I ask: will the Minister commit to raise awareness with the housing and homelessness sector, and with third sector financial advice services, as a matter of priority?

As well as the lack of affordable housing, we also heard that mental and physical health issues, as well as substance misuse, are common among rough-sleepers. Many have multiple and complex support needs that will not be addressed purely by helping them find accommodation, important though that is. So, joint working between the housing and health sectors is vital. There is a real risk that without it, the move to a housing first model will fail to deliver the results that have been seen elsewhere.

The Welsh Government has accepted our recommendation 17, calling for responsibility for the implementation of its action plan to be shared jointly between the Minister for Housing and Regeneration and the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services. However, it also states that the Minister is leading on implementation, but will work with the Cabinet Secretary. This would appear to fall short of what we believe is necessary, and we would seek clarification today.

Dirprwy Lywydd, there are high hopes across the homelessness sector that widespread adoption of the housing first model will bring about valuable change. However, academics expressed strong reservations about using the congregate model, which is included as an option in the Government’s guidance. We seek further assurance from the Minister on this point, and, in particular, concern about any use of converted hostels. 

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, the future of the Supporting People programme grant featured heavily in the evidence we received from those involved in the delivery of services to the homeless community. They remain deeply concerned about the proposed merger of the grant and the impact on rough-sleeping. With the next budget round a matter of months away, we reiterate the need for the Government to set a timeline for publishing the findings of the flexible funding pathfinders and to provide a firm indication of when a final decision will be made. Can the Minister clarify that the findings of the pathfinders will be available ahead of the next budget round?

Dirprwy Lywydd, we do not want to repeat our calls for more decisive action following the publication of the 2019 rough-sleeper count. But let me be clear: this is not about numbers, statistics or trends. It is about improving the lives of the hundreds of people who sleep rough in our communities. It is about the immeasurable human cost of rough-sleeping. It is ensuring that people who find themselves living on the streets are given the support they deserve, the home that they need, and the chance to live, not merely to exist.

I am pleased to be contributing to this debate, after an eye-opening inquiry into rough-sleeping by our committee. The estimate of 300 rough-sleepers across Wales is a worrying one, and I know that a number of towns and cities in particular have seen noticeable rises in their rough-sleeper population over the past few years, with studies showing increases of between 10 and 33 per cent over the past 12 months only.

Work undertaken in England, including bringing forward the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 earlier this year, complements the UK Government's aim of halving rough-sleeping by 2022, and eliminating it altogether by 2027—targets that have been most clear. I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary might confirm today whether, further to the recently published two-year rough-sleeping action plan, the Welsh Government have in mind a specific target date for the elimination of rough-sleeping in Wales. Certainly, our inquiry highlighted the need for such ambition, and it was disappointing to note that the Welsh Government has rejected the committee's request for the quarterly report on the rough-sleeping action plan to be published on the Welsh Government's website. The Cabinet Secretary may be able to explain how elected members, third sector organisations and the public are able to fully scrutinise progress on this issue without such data.

I also appreciate the number of recommendations made in this report. A number of which in relation to priority need, though, I have to say, I do not support, as I do not feel that the current model of priority need, under the Housing (Wales) Act 2014, should change. I was involved in this Assembly prior to that, when a lot of evidence came forward to the late Cabinet Secretary, when this was coming about, and I actually believe that the fundamental reasons for that priority need status to be there are still there. The Welsh Government have noted the commencement of an independent assessment of priority need, and I do await with interest the findings of this assessment. Ultimately, of course, we would like to be in a position where we do not need to have the priority need classification, when we reach a situation where we are able to house everyone in need in an appropriate setting.

I note the intention of the Welsh Government to introduce a duty to provide an offer of suitable accommodation for all homeless people. Some responders noted financial concerns for local authorities in relation to suggestions for the abolishment of priority need. So, I would like to seek assurances that the designation of such a duty would be supplemented with the appropriate funding and support, for local authorities to be able to carry this out effectively. I know in my own constituency we have actually managed to re-home people who have been rough-sleeping, but, sadly, without a network of support to sustain them throughout, it hasn't always worked, and they've ended up back on the streets. So, I think we do need to look at this in its entirety.

Increasingly over the past few weeks, I have received approaches from people who are, or are in imminent danger of, becoming homeless. The local homelessness team undertake great work once they are contacted by someone, but it is that initial contact, and knowing where to go that people struggle with. There is certainly a way to go in tackling homelessness in Wales, improving accessibility to homeless teams within local authorities, and finding the appropriate financial resourcing for those local authorities.

I fully subscribe to supporting our homeless, our rough-sleepers, but I do solidly believe that it is down to the Welsh Government and our local authorities to work together in a very strong and robust partnership, and it does need to be on an ever-rolling forward programme of monitoring. Thank you.

Thank you for arranging this debate today, and I'd like to thank all the team supporting the committee as well, because I think this was a really important piece of work. And, to put on the record, I think what I found most valuable was talking to people at the various locations that we visited—homeless people who could give us their everyday life experience of living on the streets. There's nothing more valuable to me than hearing how people are struggling to survive, and how we as politicians can change that, if we have the will to do so. I think their eloquence in taking part in this particular inquiry was phenomenal, and I'd like to thank them wholeheartedly for that.

There were differing views on whether or not rough-sleepers were given priority need, as has been exemplified, with some councils stating they would classify those sleeping rough in priority need and other organisations, such as Shelter, stating that, in practice, this wasn't always the case. Related to this is obviously the Pereira test, which is problematic as the meaning of 'vulnerable' isn't being interpreted in the same way or applied consistently.

For the record as well, I was deeply disappointed to see that Janet Finch-Saunders did not support this recommendation. I personally would have believed that the Conservatives would have supported the concept that those living on the streets should be a priority to be given a roof over their heads. We tried to accommodate Members in the report, and I can quote paragraph 64, saying, 

'we believe that a phased approach to abolition provides the most pragmatic way forward. For example, by introducing new categories of priority need, such as rough sleepers'.

So, if she cares as much as she says she does, then I would have thought that a phased approach would have sufficed in that regard. We're not suggesting that it could be done overnight. We know that there would be financial implications, but I think that's as much as we would deserve to do for those people who are currently being defined as not a priority—mostly young men—when they should be just as important as other homeless people.

You would expect me to talk about recommendation 10—devolution of welfare administration—and I was pleased that we got cross-party support, to an extent, on this. We've been crystal clear on this: it's all well and good for politicians to criticise welfare changes as one of the root causes of poverty in society, but when there is no willingness to even attempt to gain control over some of those welfare powers, then it undermines the credibility of the argument entirely. Do we want to complain about welfare changes or do we want to influence and change them? Let's not have empty words about solidarity across the UK in terms of our welfare system either—Scotland and Northern Ireland already have powers over the administration of welfare. The desire to see a unified, UK-wide welfare system is an argument that has already passed. It's a semantic view that does nothing to help people in Wales, living on the streets or in any other difficulty. So, I hope that we can progress this argument and that we can look at this further as a committee. The committee seems to be working positively; I just wish the Welsh Government were listening to that voice as intently as we'd hoped they would.

In relation to housing first, I think it's really, really good that we've set our stall in saying how important housing first is. But, I've had a Twitter conversation this week with Peter Black, a former Assembly Member, who runs the homelessness working group on Swansea council, and he's been asking Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Local Health Board for months to go in to speak to him to talk about housing first and how they can work together on this. And only because, I believe, we had this Twitter conversation, suddenly ABMU said they would come to the meeting to discuss housing first. It shouldn’t have to take two politicians having a live debate on social media for ABMU to suddenly realise that housing first is part of their problem, or not a problem, but part of the solution to homelessness here in Wales. I think that housing first is a wonderful concept, but we have to get buy-in, not only from the housing sector, but from health, social services and education, so that we can make housing first work. I would urge the Minister to make sure that if this is going to be the future of housing and homelessness prevention here in Wales, we have to be serious, therefore, in getting people around the table.

Just to finish quickly in relation to some of the comments. The Big Issue has noted in evidence that a large proportion of its vendors were European economic area citizens with no recourse to public funds, and this is something that, again, is not currently devolved, but the consequences of this policy and the hostile environment efforts from the UK Government are something that we all should be concerned about.

We need to be solving some of the current issues surrounding the preparedness of social and private rented sector landlords to offer places to homeless and rough-sleepers. Evidence in the report showed that many social landlords did not feel equipped to help rough-sleepers or those with some of the problems that often arise as a result of being on the streets. I could probably talk all day on this issue, but I won't—my time is up—but I think it's really important that we put forward these recommendations and that we make sure that homelessness can come to an end here in Wales, and I think that this committee report has gone a long way to putting this on the political map.

First of all, can I thank the committee for this hugely important report? I'm not a member of the committee myself, but I can see from the amount of work that's gone into producing it and from the significant evidence taken, it's going to be a great help to Welsh Government and I think that Welsh Government's response to it is largely to be welcomed as well.

It's fair to say, I think, that Welsh Government is providing a very clear focus on well-being in our communities and I can think of no more significant contribution to personal well-being than a safe, warm, affordable home—it's the foundation to so many other aspects of life. 

From my limited experience, based on volunteering with the night shelter in Merthyr Tydfil and talking to both the residents and the more experienced volunteers, it’s very clear that the causes and the reasons for homelessness and rough-sleeping, as identified in the inquiry, are varied and complex. Indeed, in many cases, as is highlighted in the report and by other speakers, the housing situation of an individual may reflect a myriad of other chaotic problems within their life. That’s why I wanted to refer specifically to recommendation 17 in the Welsh Government’s response. It is absolutely right that there should be a shared responsibility between health and housing Ministers to tackle rough-sleeping, and the Government’s acceptance of this recommendation is therefore welcome, albeit with the caveat and clarification that’s been sought by the committee Chair, John Griffiths. However, as the Government’s response states, all Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers have a shared responsibility to help deliver more progress in reducing rough-sleeping. So, I’d like to hear more from the Minister about the whole-Government approach to the issue. For example, is the Cabinet Secretary for the economy pushing the private sector in Wales to up the contribution that they can make through their corporate social responsibilities? Is the Minister for culture pushing people in the arts sector to engage more with the homelessness sector to use the capacity of the arts and music to reach out to people? In education, is Government alert to those children who are placed at great risk by the lack of a safe, stable home? And similar questions could be put forward to all Government departments, so I await with interest the response to that.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I also wanted to speak on the recommendation 28 and the reference to the Supporting People programme. We know that pathfinders are currently testing the possibility of flexible funding, but, even at this point, like others, I believe, I want to put down a marker. I remain to be convinced that providing some local authorities with extra flexibilities will not carry with it significant risks to what we're trying to achieve, and that is a concern I know is shared by those in the housing sector. For example, in some places, we are already seeing risks to school budgets after the Welsh Government removed ring fencing from education money. In my view, we need to look and learn from those experiences. If the current Supporting People programme can deliver with an even clearer move to improving outcomes then it would be unwise to put that at risk. With ring fencing, we know that all the money allocated will go to that purpose. Some local authorities may even add to it. However, removing the ring fencing—it is clear to me that some councils will respond to their priorities in a different way, and that could undermine all the good work that we're doing in this area.

So, can I once again thank the committee for its report and hope that it will go a significant way towards assisting the Government to deal with an issue that has become a source of shame in Britain today? And let’s hope that, in Wales, we can show that we can do things differently, that we can devote time, energy, resources and commitment to dealing with this distressing and unnecessary blight on the lives of so many vulnerable people in our society today.

Thanks to the committee Chairman for bringing today's debate and also to the people who took part in the inquiry, including the homeless people who took the time to recount their personal experiences to us, which, as Bethan Sayed mentioned, was very illuminating—probably the most illuminating part of the inquiry.

One factor that became clear to me during this interaction was this intimate relationship for many homeless people—of course, not all homeless people—between their homelessness, alcohol and substance misuse, and mental health issues. Although, of course, we can’t characterise these issues as being interrelated for all homeless people, there is a high incidence of these common themes, and that did emerge during the visits—in my case, to the Salvation Army hostel in Bute Street, just down the road from here.

Somebody, during the inquiry, characterised the relationship between these issues as a bit like peeling away layers of an onion, where you peel away the homelessness and you discover, oh yes, there's substance and alcohol misuse. But then you can peel that away and you discover that what's behind that, in many cases, is mental health issues, often caused by adverse childhood experiences. So, these are complex issues that we're dealing with, and it's sometimes difficult to find viable solutions to such complex problems.

Looking at the practicalities that arose from the inquiry, there are certain barriers to rough-sleepers in finding temporary or even emergency accommodation. For instance, the Huggard centre told us that some individuals will find themselves excluded from emergency provision for anti-social behaviour, because this includes substance misuse. So, clearly, if people are misusing substances, it's an addiction, it's going to be something that they're not going to be able to stop instantly, so it's rather difficult when they can't be housed, even under emergency provisions, because that behaviour will be defined as being anti-social behaviour. So, this is one of the practical difficulties that we face. These sorts of things create a barrier to those who are seeking refuge from homelessness.

Given the complex nature of these issues, there's a very clear concern that access to mental health or substance misuse services is of paramount importance. Left untreated, and with long waiting times for some specialist support services, there is a very real danger that some rough-sleepers will find it impossible to break the cycle that leads to life on the streets. So, we do have to look very closely at provision of mental health services.

The committee report did call on the Welsh Government to ensure that the responsibility for implementing the actions was shared, as the committee Chair mentioned in his contribution, between the housing Minister and the health Secretary. We're awaiting what the Government Minister has to say about that today, because the issues of rough-sleeping, together with substance and alcohol misuse and mental health issues, are so interlinked that we do need to have cross-governmental working as the only way in which we can realistically tackle the problem.

We also did call on the Government to publish quarterly reports on the rough-sleeping action plan. We felt that this would ensure transparency and enhance accountability. Unfortunately, the Government didn't agree with us on this specific point and felt that quarterly reports would be overly bureaucratic. Of course, there is a question of resources also. I know that the Welsh Government have committed funding towards their aim of eradicating rough-sleeping, but there's a need for human resources in addition to financial support. For instance, when we visited the Salvation Army hostel, concerns were raised by the staff that there simply weren't enough trained people able to deal with the complex substance misuse and mental health issues faced by the people coming to them who sleep rough. So, we do have to address this shortage if we are serious about dealing with this issue. Diolch yn fawr.

I welcome this report. I do believe it seeks to examine some of the areas that currently lead to people sleeping on the streets and see where the policy gaps are. I think it's already had a broad welcome across the sector, so congratulations on that. I think the recommendations are constructive and well thought through, and, as is noted, the legislative framework is a pretty robust one now, and it is aimed at prevention above all. And I think it's fair to say that it's attracted some attention around the UK, so we start with that foundation.

But where there's been a much tougher challenge, I think, is dealing with rough-sleepers, especially those that are already on the streets or on the verge of going onto the street. At that level—and I think it's fair to say that, when a lot of the public think of homelessness, it is rough-sleeping, often, they're thinking about, rather than the broader question of homelessness in its many dimensions. So, this issue of how we actually deal with that end, the really severe end, was clearly a common theme arising from the evidence sessions, as the majority of respondents, including the Wallich, the Salvation Army, the Huggard centre, Cymorth Cymru and Shelter Cymru, all highlighted that the 2014 Act in particular had limited impact on those who were already homeless, particularly rough-sleepers. I note that Dr Peter Mackie of Cardiff University stated, and I quote, that the Act

'had a very positive impact on prevention and alleviation with the broader homeless population.... But, actually, with rough-sleepers, arguably the most vulnerable group of homeless people, it’s not been overly effective.'

And, again, I want to be targeted and moderate in my criticism there, because this is a very, very difficult policy challenge before us and there have been achievements with the Act that we shouldn't gainsay.

Can I just quickly touch on a couple of the more controversial issues, starting with priority need? Amongst some of the recommendations that I would disagree with a little bit is this notion that we should be abolishing priority need. I simply don't see this as a viable option at the moment. As long as homelessness  and rough-sleeping exist, there's going to be a need to balance priorities. Ideally, as my colleague Janet Finch-Saunders said, we would all want to see a scenario where priority need simply didn't exist because we had solved the housing supply problem. But we are not in that situation, and I have to say the local government representations that were made made this very clear and highlighted the financial implications that could be associated with abolishing priority need. It is linked very much to the supply problem and that is going to take quite a while to tackle. Cardiff Council even went as far as to state that, if priority need was abolished, it may increase the number of homeless applicants coming forward, quote,

'rather than people trying to solve their own problems'.

Now, I think that's quite a rigorous view and may even be a harsh view, but there's a balance here. We need to be a little careful about this.

If we look at why people end up homeless, and rough-sleepers at the most severe end, for single men, it is being vulnerable to old age, poor health, followed by leaving prison and the risk of violence or abuse, and, for women, violence and abuse, followed by old age, poor health and being pregnant. I do believe, however, that rough-sleeping should, in nearly all cases, qualify for priority need status, which currently it doesn't. And this is something of a paradox and a challenge, because I'm sure most members of the public would think that, if you're on the street, you are a priority case for housing. So, I think that is something we should confront head on. I note that the Welsh Government's code of guidance argues that rough-sleepers are likely to be vulnerable for some other special reason due to the health and social implications of their situation, but there does seem to be a bit of a difference in practice when you actually look at the evidence. And many, or some anyway—a significant number of—rough-sleepers do not qualify as priority cases. So, I do think these things need very careful examination.

Can I finally move on to Supporting People? This, obviously, has received very high-profile media attention today because of the excellent 'Housing Matters' report that has been produced by a number of organisations in this sector. Now, recommendation 28 of the committee report asks that should the

'Flexible Funding Pathfinders show a reduction in funding for the Supported People Programme, or cast doubt on the sector’s ability to maintain service delivery at existing levels, we recommend that the Supporting People Programme Grant should remain a separate, ring-fenced grant.'

And I do agree with that. I think this is too important an area to disturb at the moment, and the report is clear that the current funding plans present a considerable risk to the support that is available for vulnerable people through homelessness and housing programmes in Wales. So, I do hope the Welsh Government will take care in this public policy area. You can also see from the Public Accounts Committee's report their very considerable concern and the concern right across the sector about what is going to happen to the Supporting People programmes. And, without them, those in the most need of support in their tenancy or on the edge of becoming homeless and rough-sleepers are really in a very, very vulnerable situation. We must protect the funding streams that they rely so much on. Thank you.

I think it's very heart-warming that a lot of Members who weren't on the committee and involved in the inquiry have shown an interest in it, because, obviously, I hope that you've found it useful. It was certainly a very interesting inquiry to be involved in.

I just wanted briefly to pay tribute to a couple of local organisations that I deal with on a regular basis. One is Cardiff Council's homelessness service and the way in which they have trained up at least five people to go out, three nights a week, up until midnight, to talk to people who are living on the streets to ensure that they get an assessment of their needs, because these are people who may not make their way to the homeless service on Dumballs Road. I think that that shows that they really are at the forefront of working with people on this difficult issue.

Secondly, I'm very pleased that the Government has accepted recommendation 24 to encourage all police services to use the video cameras they wear on their uniforms for these difficult conversations with people on the street, because it gives a proper record of the conversation, which can be a very difficult one if somebody's in the middle of a mental health episode or is inebriated, but it's also a fantastic training opportunity for those who are having to deal with what can be very difficult and challenging people who have a multiplicity of needs. So, I think that it's very good that we endeavour to see this good practice extended to all our police forces who are involved in these difficult conversations.

Thirdly, I'm very pleased that the Government has accepted recommendation 4, agreeing to re-establish the prisoner accommodation and resettlement group, because we received very clear evidence that the revolving door is alive and well and that some prisoners are falling through the cracks. The homeless and housing services don't know about people when they're being released in a timely fashion and some of these people are ending up back on the streets and inevitably then end up back in prison, at huge cost to the public purse. So, I think it's great that we endeavour to ensure that that is not happening.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Housing and Regeneration? Rebecca Evans.

Thank you very much. I really do welcome the opportunity to respond to this important debate and I'm very grateful to the committee for their examination of rough-sleeping. As I set out in my evidence to the committee, I do recognise that homelessness takes many forms and the majority of people who are homeless are not on the streets—they're staying with friends, family or in other temporary accommodation following the end of a tenancy or a relationship or as a result of a family dispute. But, I really do welcome the real focus that the committee has put on homelessness in what is its most severe form. Talking to the people who I meet who are rough-sleepers or have had experience of rough-sleeping, I've heard harrowing accounts, as I know the committee has, in terms of family breakdown, domestic violence, mental ill health, financial problems, substance misuse and bereavement. These are all issues that can lead to the loss of a home and spiral, creating a vicious circle of rough-sleeping, which as we know is the most acute form of homelessness.

As the committee report recognises, the Housing (Wales) Act 2014 has made a significant difference in preventing homelessness across Wales and has been widely acclaimed for its preventative approach. In the last two years, since it began its implementation, we've prevented more than 14,000 households from becoming homeless, but we do recognise still that much more does need to be done. As we've set out in 'Prosperity for All', it's not acceptable that anyone should be forced to sleep on the streets in a prosperous society. As I set out earlier this year, my concerns are regarding the rise in numbers of people who are sleeping rough. I also set out the commitment of this Government to do all that we can to reverse that trend. I announced in February our action plan to tackle rough-sleeping, together with our housing-first guidance and principles document. The committee's report therefore is an extremely timely document in terms of helping us build the evidence base to inform the evolution and the implementation of that plan. 

My written response to the committee sets out our detailed reply to the 29 recommendations in the report. Whilst there are some differences around the preparatory work required before determining specific actions, the Government has accepted the majority of the committee's recommendations. I've previously set out to this Chamber my willingness to review the approach needed for priority need. As the committee acknowledges, it is important that any change to the current approach is only taken when all the implications of such a change are fully understood. So, I can confirm that we're already in the process of commissioning an independent assessment of the potential impact and unintended consequences of changing the current approach to priority need in order to inform the way forward. This also has implications for local connection. Consideration will also be given to that as part of the independent assessment.

Will the Minister give way? I was interested to hear the Minister mention local connection and also the fact that rough-sleeping numbers have risen, because I think that, in Cardiff, since 2014, the actual number of rough-sleepers has doubled, and obviously the issue of a local connection does come up with a small number of those people. Does she think that, sometimes, the determination of where a person has actually come from does militate against them getting the best help?

I think something that the committee heard evidence on was that the issue of local connection is not addressed in a way that is consistent and coherent across Wales. So, this is something that I'll certainly be ensuring that the independent assessment does take into account in terms of identifying the best way forward there, because I know that there was strong evidence heard by the committee about the way in which that is being applied.

On my recent visit to Scotland, I had the opportunity to visit some third sector providers of homelessness services, and I was exploring with them their experiences of the abolition of priority need in Scotland. That was a really enlightening opportunity to talk to people who have had that experience. We did discuss the impact that it's had on increasing the use of temporary accommodation and once again highlighted the importance of understanding those potential unintended consequences before making changes. Anecdotally, I heard that the population that is staying for long periods in temporary accommodation in Edinburgh, for example, has risen from 200 to over 600, following the abolition of priority need. And, of course, walking around Edinburgh, it was clear to me that the issue of rough-sleeping still is very much a concern and it hasn't been eradicated in the city. My discussions also reinforced the fundamental importance of the availability of good-quality housing in tackling all forms of homelessness. Meeting housing needs regardless of priority is primarily a housing supply issue, and I'm proud of the work that we're doing in Wales on this and the progress that we're making towards our 20,000 affordable homes target.

Another important area that the committee recognised is improving access to the private rented sector, which has seen a significant share of the transitional funding allocated over the last few years to local authorities to increase their supply of private-sector properties available for people who are homeless. For people who rent, issues of affordability, quality and security of tenure are very real, and that's why this Government has placed, and continues to place, a great emphasis on ensuring that the private rented sector is well regulated and well managed. And it is in this way that we can help ensure that it offers a viable long-term solution for people who choose or need to rent in the private rented sector. Just yesterday, Bethan Sayed sponsored an excellent event in the Assembly, where Tai Pawb and the Residential Landlords Association had worked together through the Open Doors project to ensure that there was information and support for landlords to open up the opportunities for the private rented sector to people who they wouldn't necessarily traditionally think of renting to, and that could certainly include homeless people. And Rent Smart Wales will be looking at that project in terms of offering training for landlords.

So, as well as a good-quality home, we also need to ensure that vulnerable individuals have the right support in place, and the committee rightly recognised the benefits of housing-led approaches, such as housing first, which centres on quickly moving people experiencing homelessness into accommodation and then providing additional support and services as required. Key features of that approach are that the service user should have choice and control and that housing is not conditional on support or treatment. The approach is intended for people with the most complex needs, and it might not be suitable for all rough-sleepers. It's one of the range of housing options that may be offered to rough-sleepers, and we know that there is much more work needed in order to increase its use. But, again, I'm really clear that the principles of housing first must be adhered to. It's not about repackaging supported accommodation, it's not about ghettoising people who are rough-sleepers; it's about offering a genuine, new and innovative way to support them.

As the evidence presented to the committee clearly demonstrates, the reasons for rough-sleeping are extremely complex and the solutions are not solely housing focused. Health, social services, community safety and others all have a role to play, and I do take Members' comments about having meaningful engagement from all partners. We're certainly, in Government, working across traditional boundaries to deliver the rough-sleepers action plan, and we are taking a whole-of-Government approach. For example, the Cabinet Secretary for health leads on substance misuse, but in the action plan there there are clear actions regarding homelessness. The same applies again to the mental health delivery plan; there are specific actions in there to take forward on homelessness.

So, to conclude, as a Government, we are investing heavily in tackling all forms of homelessness with an additional £10 million in each of the next two years, plus an additional £10 million for youth homelessness in 2019-20. As I outlined to the Chamber earlier this year, I've deliberately not laid out how every penny will be spent this year. I'm currently reviewing progress and the evidence from the pilots last year and will consider this evidence alongside the research reports, which are due in the summer. I will also continue to work with partners to consider how the action plan needs to evolve and respond to the committee's report and other emerging evidence to ensure the effective delivery of this vital agenda. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Chair of the committee to reply to the debate? John Griffiths.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. May I thank Members for their contributions and echo comments already made that it's particularly good to have contributions from Members who are not sitting on our committee?

May I begin, then, with Janet Finch-Saunders and recognise Janet's right to differ on some points, but nonetheless thank Janet for her contribution to the report in general? Of course, it is absolutely right that Members differentiate their views and what they are able or not able to support during the proceedings at committee and have that recorded in the report, and all of us, I'm sure, are grateful for that opportunity at various times on various issues.

One thing that I think is absolutely clear, Dirprwy Lywydd, is that there is quite a broad consensus that recognises the importance of these issues: the plight of people sleeping rough on the streets, the progress that's already been made—and it is substantial—and, as was said, the new housing Act that we have, which is effective in addressing homelessness, but not so effective in terms of rough-sleeping, which is so complex and does present such great challenges. But we must recognise the general progress made, which is very important to prevention, including preventing rough-sleeping, but, I think, again, there is a consensus that more does need to be done by Welsh Government and, of course, a range of partners. And, yes, some of that is about effectively joining up across Government and joining up outside Government across Wales, and it was good to hear some of the examples that the Minister gave of the approach that's taken in Government on those matters. We had recommendations that I mentioned earlier that addressed that need for cross-Government working and joint responsibility, and I'm sure that we'll follow with interest how Welsh Government does take a true cross-cutting approach.

In terms of what Dawn Bowden said, I think it is important that we do see progress from the private sector, from the arts world, from education, as examples of what needs to happen for that cross-cutting approach to be a reality. It is a shared Government responsibility, but also shared by many other players in Wales that have a contribution to make.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I said in my opening remarks that priority need, obviously, is at the heart of the debate in many ways, and that was reflected in some of the contributions that we heard. I also said that it's controversial, as we know, and that too was reflected in some of the contributions that we've heard. We do recognise that there are difficulties, that abolishing priority need isn't something that could happen overnight, and does indeed have a cost, which must be factored into the equation and decision making. So, we do talk about a phased approach to abolishing priority need, recognising that it would need to happen over a period of time, and also that there were other things that could happen to address the issues short of abolition.

I do recognise the Welsh Government has commissioned research and wishes to wait for the outcome of that work before making any decisions, and I can see some strength in that view, but, obviously, we want to see urgent action taken. And, as I say, there are ways in which that action could address some of the issues short of abolition. One of those is the test of vulnerability. David Melding talked about the fact that people sleeping rough would, as a matter of common sense in most people's view, be seen to have priority need that needed to be addressed, but that isn't always the case, as we heard in taking our evidence. But that test of vulnerability that might give priority need to people sleeping rough is actually a harder threshold to cross in Wales than it is in England at the moment, because of case law in England under the Hotak case, as it's known, which puts a new interpretation on their legislation that doesn't apply in Wales. So, we suggest that we adopt, clarify and make clear that we would like to see the definition currently in place in England observed in Wales. So, the comparator for a rough-sleeper would be with an ordinary person if made homeless, not an ordinary actual homeless person. So, that is quite a significant difference that we would like to see adopted here in Wales.

Other matters that were very important to us, I think, were prison leavers, and, obviously, Government isn't minded to restore automatic priority need for those prison leavers. But I was pleased that Jenny Rathbone mentioned what Welsh Government does accept, which is the need to re-establish the working group on accommodation for prison leavers, because we did indeed hear that, often, there isn't timely notice that somebody is about to leave prison. It's particularly difficult when people are serving short sentences. People are coming out of prison without accommodation, and, obviously, they can very quickly fall back into real difficulty, and, indeed, re-offending, which then continues that cycle that we are trying to break.

I see that my time has very quickly elapsed, Dirprwy Lywydd. Could I just say, in closing, echoing what Dawn Bowden said, actually—I think there is a clear public view that it is a source of shame that in the UK, the fourth or fifth biggest economy in the world, we still see people in this extreme vulnerability sleeping on our streets, with life expectancy in their late forties. People do feel very strongly that whatever it takes needs to be done. And that's the spirit within which I'd like to see us move forward in Welsh Government and beyond: whatever it takes needs to be done to eradicate rough-sleeping. And as a committee we are determined to return to these matters. We will follow up our recommendations—we will ensure that that necessary action is carefully and strongly scrutinised.

Thank you. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36, the motion is agreed.

We move on to item 6, which is the Welsh Conservatives' debate, and I call on Suzy Davies to move the motion. Suzy.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I move the motion.

Members, I suppose the easiest way to start this is to just say that it's Carers Week, and let's have a debate about carers. This awareness raising is very valuable, and it's useful to have a point, I think, at which to mark our appreciation. But I suspect that what most of the 370,000 unpaid carers would like us to do is show that appreciation by acting rather than just talking about it. 

Three hundred and seventy thousand people is over 11 per cent of the population. It's just about twice the number who work in our health services, including all the dentists and administrative staff, and scientists and doctors and nurses and health visitors, the paramedics, the technical staff, the midwives and the therapists. They provide over £8 billion-worth of unpaid care, and that's the equivalent of over half the Welsh Government's budget. I think that is one hell of a 'thank you' that this nation owes its unpaid carers.

I hope that this debate will prove a profitable and open-minded exchange of ideas, speaking directly to those things that matter to carers themselves, and perhaps not getting too hung up on structural changes without a clearer explanation of cause and effect. But I am pleased to see that it has attracted a number of amendments that I'll come to in due course.

But I'd like to start with the one that I think has really missed the mark on good faith carers, and that is the Government amendment—No. 1. It's not the substance of the amendment, which simply sets out the Government's stall, which is fine, but the fact that it deletes point 4 of the original motion—the very point that holds you, Minister, to account on the most valuable, indeed statutory, promises that you've made to carers so far. You could've come, Minister, to this Chamber and told us in good faith that of course you'd publish figures on how many carers' needs have been assessed and then met under the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, and you could've told us, quite reasonably, that, with 370,000 carers in Wales, this number of people couldn't conceivably have been reached since 2014, but perhaps given us an indication of how local authorities were recruiting for the work, or maybe outsourcing the work—not just assessing and meeting the needs of carers, but identifying new carers for which you also have a statutory responsibility. You could've told us, maybe, that it was even difficult to find assessors, or even pay them, and I think, to a degree, we would've understood. But to refuse to be scrutinised is shameful. Have you really been put out so much by Carers Wales's 'track the Act' findings last September, which said that there was, and I quote, 'little evidence' of the first full year of the Act improving the lives of carers?

Silence is never golden, as other Government colleagues have found out this week. It gives rise to suspicion, and I suspect that failure to guide councils to consistency on what constitutes assessment and what constitutes meeting needs has meant confusion about what those statutory requirements actually mean. How can you be sure that councils are acting lawfully if carers don't know the legal basis of the various conversations they're having with local authorities. So, please don't tell this Chamber that you don't know what it is that you would be counting to produce these figures. The social services and well-being Act was flagship legislation and it should be capable of post-legislative scrutiny. 

I was already worried that the rights that you referred to in your amendment may be proving meaningless, despite their being agreed by the last Assembly. Arguably, any statutory right is meaningless unless there is a corresponding statutory remedy, which, of course, doesn't exist here, but it's definitely meaningless if you deny the legislature holding you to account on it.

Your ministerial advisory body, which we welcome, had better really have its bottom-kicking boots on to get you to catch up with making this legislation effective and I urge Members to support amendment 5 to make sure that we can scrutinise how hard they're kicking. You can also be expecting us to watch how well the health and social care plans unroll. I mean, obviously, there's a lot of goodwill towards these, but their success must be measured on more than joining up innovative services or improved status and responsibility for intermediate and social care professionals, happier patients or even care receivers. They have to improve the lives of that 11 per cent of the population that we're talking about today as well. If the health of our carers does not improve, especially their mental health, if our young carers aren't getting more time in school, if our young adult carers are dropping out of further education, training or apprenticeships because of their caring responsibilities, if businesses don't get anything meaningful from the new employers for carers hub, which we're looking forward to hearing more about, and if we are still talking about gaps in respite at the end of this Assembly term, then the parliamentary review will have failed.

I'm disappointed but not surprised that Welsh Conservative plans for a young adult carers future grant has gone down less well with the parties here than with the young adult carers themselves and with the Carers Trust, which speaks for carers of all ages. But despite your disconnect with this policy, I think you—I'm sure you will, actually, join me in congratulating Lucy Prentice and all at Carers Trust Carmarthenshire Crossroads Care for their campaign to reform carers allowance. I wish her every success in taking that argument to the UK Government and I will be supporting her in her aim. 

However, we don't support amendment 2 on this, because there is no guarantee that the devolution of powers would result in the reform as claimed, and I would rather use the powers that we have now to achieve the same result, allowing young adult carers to prepare for and invest in their own futures at the same time as keeping their families together.

Looking quickly at the other amendments, I don't really see how Plaid's amendment 3 makes much sense. We don't really support exploitation or abuse of flexible working options anymore than you do, but surely you can see that flexible working may actually help young adult carers who cannot commit to regular hours.

Amendment 4—nothing we can disagree with there. Amendment 6 we would've supported, as we do support the campaign for an ID card, if you hadn't muddied the picture with a transport reference, because our own future grant goes hand-in-hand with our own transport green card, which empowers all young people under 25 to expand their horizons.

We support amendment 8, but I'm a bit wary of amendment 9. It may just be the way it's phrased, but I think it's too much to ask children as young as eight to take responsibility for direct medication or treatment of another. Your further detail may give us a bit of reassurance on this, but we cannot support the wording, I'm sorry.

Finally, I just want to offer my own thanks to those members of the community who care for carers—who may meet their needs, assessed or not. We will all have examples in our regions or in our constituencies, but I have a special affection for Louise Barham, who has set up the Memory Lane Cafe in Pyle. As you probably realise, it's a chance for people with dementia to get out and socialise, maybe share some activities, but its greatest value, I think, is that it gives their carers that chance too to spend time with others facing the same dilemmas, the same guilt, the same grief, and to take heart from the fellowship of each other. Government strategies will never replace human kindness, but we must absolutely make sure that nothing gets in its way. Thank you. 

Thank you. I have selected the nine amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. Can I ask the Minister for Children, Older People and Social Care to move formally amendment 1 tabled in the name of Julie James?

Formally.

Thank you. I now call on Bethan Sayed to move amendments 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Bethan.

Diolch. This being Carers Week, as has been exemplified, it's an important opportunity for us to have this debate, one that deeply affects the lives and experiences of so many people, so I thank you for bringing this debate forward. I myself brought forward a motion on young carers last summer. And just last week, I had the pleasure of welcoming some young carers from Swansea YMCA and Cardiff to the Assembly to meet with the children's Minister so he could hear their concerns directly. But as the motion makes clear, it's important that we focus on carers of all ages too. They play an invaluable role, and without the efforts of carers, our public services would be under significantly higher pressure than is currently the case. But I do feel that we can offer carers more support than is currently out there.

There are a number of Plaid Cymru amendments, which I would like to propose here today, and many of those amendments have actually come directly from those young carers, who, I'm pleased to say, are here today. Our amendment 2 is something Plaid Cymru have raised on previous occasions, and we will continue to raise it, for the simple fact of how anybody can claim to be serious about tackling the problems inherent to the welfare system if we show no appetite to take at least some control of that system ourselves. I simply do not accept any semantic argument that we must protect the solidarity of the welfare system across the UK, because it already has been fragmented. Scotland has its own administration rules and so does Northern Ireland. I'm tired of the arguments that only have the effect of anchoring us with an English policy that does nothing to help our citizens here in Wales.

Amendment 3, we believe, is also important because it notes the very real economic problems and uncertainty that exist for so many people. For a young adult carer with responsibilities at home, the uncertainty and lack of stability inherent to zero-hour contracts is a real barrier. Carers of any age need employment that may allow them to remain as a carer.

Our other amendments focus on young carers, as I've already talked about, because their needs have often been forgotten when it comes to policy. Last year, in a debate on this subject, I drew attention to the fact that there simply wasn't enough progress being made in terms of implementing proper and consistent guidance for authorities and schools on recognising and providing support for young carers. I think it's fair to say that guidance and training are still ad hoc, with some places doing far better than others, as with access to respite services and leisure time. I'd appreciate more regular updates from the advisory board now that it has been established, because young carers told me that the pace of change is not fast enough and, in the meantime, they are having to leave school, as Suzy Davies has said, without the qualifications that they need ongoing.

Furthermore, I would like to make the argument that there should have been more involvement from groups such as the YMCA in this process. They've had hands-on experience of being able to make the care assessments, for example, to be commissioned to do that work. Also, I am a bit curious as to why you're launching another investigation into ID when the YMCA have actually done that work. It seems to have gone into the ether.

One of the issues I've been told about by young carers is the practicalities of carrying out their role. We included transport in that, because they said that they didn't want just a card to be able to show to somebody, they wanted something tangible on that card, and transport was the key thing for them. I think discounts in, perhaps, local shops or local places would be something else. They just don't want a card that might stigmatise them further, so that was something from them.

In relation to the amendment on the appropriate training on the administration of medication, that again came from a young carer, because she told me that she was injecting morphine into her father and she hadn't had any training on that. She hadn't had anybody actually ask her whether she was okay with that, whether it was something that she felt comfortable with, but she just had to do it. So, that is what is important for me. You may think that a certain age is too young and I may agree with you, but these young carers have to do it because they don't have an opportunity to not do it. I give way.

Thank you. I completely recognise what you're saying. Young carers and young adult carers will find themselves in this position. And my question for the Minister is: why on earth are they in that position? Maybe there's a way around it that way.

Yes, and I know there's guidance to GPs—and I've had this briefing—but young carers are raising this with me: that the chief pharmaceutical officer for Wales sent out a guidance note in 2013 about dispensing medicines and access for young carers. That's the other issue—they go there and they're told they can't get the medication. That was 2013, and they're still telling me now, in 2018, that this isn't happening and that they're being refused access to medication. If they don't get it, their loved ones don't get the medication at all. So, if this is a guidance document, then really it's not working currently at all.

I think I would finish with what Suzy Davies has said quite strongly as well. In terms of the care assessments, we know that some areas are simply not doing them, and some areas simply don't know how many young carers they have. If we don't know that, by virtue of this being an Act, then we need to monitor that, and we need assessments in place. I think that Swansea YMCA seems to know more about how many young carers there are than the actual local authority. So, I really think that this has to be made clear, and I would support that deletion not happening because we have to be able to hold the Government to account on this for the benefit of young carers. That's what this is all about: so that they can see progress, and then we're not here in another five years saying, 'Well, what's happening on this piece of paper?' They really want to see a change happening now.

Can I call on Caroline Jones to move amendment 4 tabled in her name? Caroline.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I would like to thank the Welsh Conservatives for bringing forward this debate today. I agree wholeheartedly with the motion before us, and my amendment purely seeks to highlight the invaluable contribution made by Wales's army of unpaid carers.

We would have to more than double our entire health and social care budget, if not for the thousands of people caring for a loved one, a friend or neighbour. The sheer scale of their contribution proves, without a shadow of a doubt, that Wales is a caring nation, but who cares for the carers? Sadly, not enough is being done to support carers, and because of a lack of support, many are struggling. Two out of three carers do not get enough sleep. Over half don't get enough exercise and have suffered depression because of their caring responsibilities. If we don't look after these carers, they will end up needing care for themselves. The Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 was supposed to enhance the support for carers, but the sad reality is that many carers are not receiving the carers needs assessment to which they are entitled.

Age Cymru's 'Care in Crisis?' report found wide variation in the numbers of over-65s receiving needs assessments, and that when care packages were provided, there was often no night-time support. Carers of all ages need help and support, and I hope that the Minister's review of the social services and well-being Act will address the variation in support from local authority to local authority. We have to put an end to the lack of round-the-clock support, an end to three to four-year waits for overnight respite care, and an end to carers providing over 50 hours of care with little to no support.

While I do not support Plaid Cymru's amendment calling for the devolution of welfare, changes have to be made to the benefits system. It is perverse that young carers are forced to choose between pursuing full-time, further and higher education or continuing to receive carers' allowance. It is perverse that carers' allowance is the lowest amount of benefit of its kind, and it is perverse that those clearly unable to work are losing their benefits, forcing them and their carers into greater poverty. So, I urge the Welsh Government to continue to press the UK Government for welfare reform that is fair and equitable.

As we celebrate Carers Week, it is incumbent upon us all to do more to support the unpaid carers. The Welsh Government believes they have done so with the introduction of the social services and well-being Act, but it's clearly not working as intended as two thirds of carers have not been offered or requested a needs assessment, and three quarters of carers say that they do not get any support at all from their GP. The Welsh Government does need to do more.

I urge Members to support the motion and all amendments, with the exception of amendments 1 and 4. By doing so, we will be showing Wales's 370,000 carers how much we appreciate them and will do more to support them in future. Diolch yn fawr.

I'd also like to begin my contribution, as has everyone else, with a heartfelt thank you to all of the carers of Wales who, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, are never off duty and very seldom have down time. As others have said, without them, truly, our society would grind to a halt. I was staggered by Suzy Davies's figures about the fact that the numbers of carers actually outnumber our NHS in its absolute entirety, and I think we should all really just think on that very, very carefully.

Many of us in this Chamber have been carers or will be carers in the future—for example, being a parent. But, of course, these kinds of caring roles have an endpoint. Children eventually grow up and leave home, hopefully, and you no longer have to have a responsibility for them. But, of course, if you're a carer, you're caring for someone who may never leave home. You're caring for someone who will never have an improvement, will never get better, will always be relying on you to care for them. You have no light at the end of your tunnel. Therefore, it is incumbent upon us to shine some of that light.

As a constituency Assembly Member, I find a lot of my casework brings me into contact with carers of all ages, and we've discussed quite often in this Chamber older carers and the kind of help that they need. I had one case that came to me last week. Actually, it was a neighbour, and she has a very elderly neighbour, who has absolutely nobody left in this world. This elderly neighbour needs to go to Morriston Hospital for treatment, so this neighbour—who is not financially well-off and has a battered old car—takes her up there a couple of times every month for this treatment. She was basically contacting me to say, 'I love doing it. I don't mind doing it. I cannot afford the petrol money. How can you help?' This person is performing that care function. So, it's not always regulated. It's not always, you know, so-and-so looking full time after somebody else. It's the kindness of strangers, and that's what we need to inculcate and to expand, but we need to support that kindness of strangers.

For the rest of my contribution I actually want to just talk about young carers very briefly, and I know that Bethan has made some very, very good points. When I was a very new Assembly Member, I went to meet a young carer in Pembroke Dock, and she had just received a detention from school. I think, at that time, she was about 13 and a half or 14. She hadn't been able to put her homework in on time. When I arrived at her home, I was shocked to find that she looked after her very, very depressed mother. Her mother was depressed because her mother was looking after her older, difficult, autistic son, and her husband who was in a wheelchair. So, that one small girl was actually bearing the entire brunt of that family. The school had no idea that she had that kind of caring responsibility, so when she went into school looking older than I probably look, they had no sympathy for the fact that she hadn't been able to do her homework.

So, Minister, my very first question to you is: I want to pick up on the point that Bethan, I know, also made about how we must ensure that schools pick up on young people who are carers. The average is that young carers will miss some 48 days' worth of school. Gosh. If you say that quickly, it doesn't sound like very much, does it? 48 days. That's over nine and a half weeks of school. That's not skipping off to play truant or going on holiday with your pals or whatever. That's because you are looking after somebody and you're too exhausted to come back in. Minister, I would like to see some kind of system where every child in every school, if they have a caring responsibility, is registered, is logged, has pastoral support, and has another adult who is bigger than them, with slightly larger shoulders, who can help them fight their way through the very difficult situation that they find themselves in.

One more case I'm going to leave you with: a young boy and his mother. That young boy would come home every day, his heart absolutely beating, hoping his mother would be okay. She had an illness that meant that she would collapse at the drop of a hat. They lived in a house with stairs. The only loo in the house was upstairs. So, he'd be frightened that she'd go upstairs during the day and would fall down those stairs. After much lobbying, we finally got the county council to find that little family unit a bungalow to move into. Problem solved, except they said, 'No, you can have this lovely new bungalow, but guess what, little boy? Get rid of your pet dog.' Come on. We have to be kinder. We are saying that we rely as a society on the kindness of strangers to help pick up the shortfall that is in our system because we don’t have enough money, we don’t have enough people, but, boy, do we put obstacles in it? And sometimes the state itself doesn’t display that very kindness we ask.

So, Minister, a card or some kind of recognition that every child in school gets picked up. And, finally, an integrated way of a young carer having some kind of support that interrelates into local county councils or a social carer for them to help them navigate it. They don’t want to abrogate responsibility; they love their family member, but they need our help. They’re children first and foremost. Even if they are 16 or 17, it’s still a huge, heavy burden.

We absolutely have to cherish carers, because if we don’t, we are not operating prudent healthcare, and we will end up causing the system to be far more expensive as well as far less responsive to the needs of individuals who need that care. I have in mind an elderly constituent, in her late 80s, who is still looking after her autistic son in his 50s. I do worry about that, because I do feel there is not a plan for what is the inevitable demise of this carer. But, obviously, that’s something that social services need to be mindful of.

I also think that we need to recognise absolutely the lifelong commitment of parents who have children who are never going to grow up into independent adults because of the disabilities that they have. I think about these parents who know that their child has the cognitive ability of a five-year-old and, inevitably, they are going to depart before the child, and ensuring that they have long-term arrangements for after their death is so important to them. Even if they've got money, they have to know who is going to be looking after this individual when they’ve gone, because that is not the normal pattern of things, and it’s absolutely essential.

Looking at the 'A Healthier Wales' plan, which was published on Monday, I note that we talk about working in true partnership, but then I can’t really see anything very much on how we are going to be working in co-production with carers in developing these plans, because I think that that is absolutely crucial. I am delighted to see on Twitter that the Cardiff regional development partnership has today launched their commitment to carers, which is an indication of how that organisation, at least, takes seriously the contractual arrangement they must have with carers. So, I’d be very interested to hear from the Minister how we’re going to engage parents, not just talking to them and listening to them, but working on co-producing solutions that will enable them to go on being successful carers.

Whilst our debate has mentioned our young carers and the fantastic and heart-warming work they do, as the Welsh Conservatives' older people's champion, I would like to highlight the work of our older carers within Wales. Of our 370,000 unpaid carers, around 24 per cent—that's 90,000—are over the age of 65, which is the highest proportion in the UK. Sixty-five per cent report having long-term health problems themselves, or, indeed, a disability of their own. Indeed, over two thirds say that being a carer has an adverse effect on their mental health and well-being. Whilst the social services and well-being Act widened the definition of a carer and implemented changes to carers assessments, Carers Wales have noted that there is little evidence that the Act has improved the lives of our carers.

Now, there are two key points I would like to address in terms of how the lives of older carers, and indeed carers of any age, might be improved: effective assessments regarding the help and support needed to continue caring, and effective, quality respite. As regards assessments in particular, Carers Wales note that councils may be acting unlawfully if carers are not made aware of the legal basis of the conversations or assessments they are having, with some councils allegedly using 'what matters' conversations as an assessment, rather than a formal and a distinctive meeting. So, I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could confirm what steps he is taking to ensure that full clarity is provided by local authorities to carers in this regard. More worryingly, too, was the admittance by the Cabinet Secretary, on a written Assembly question last year, that it would not be possible to determine how many carers had an assessment by local authorities due to differences in definitions and timescales for data collection. So, of course, I would urge the Welsh Government to take serious steps to improve the situation, and would ask how it is possible for the Government to monitor outcomes and the success of this policy without the relevant data.

With regard to respite, the Carers Trust have highlighted the need for access to flexible and high-quality respite. Flexibility here is key, because respite doesn't just mean a weekend away, or a week in supporting accommodation; it can be just an hour's cover to enable a carer to pop to the shops, the bank, or for a quick coffee with their friends. Just imagine the impact that not being able to do those things that we so often take for granted, what that, might have on a person.

We talk a lot about the isolation and loneliness of older people in this Chamber. This can affect carers too. Although they have the company of the person they provide care for, this can often prevent them from having the time and the flexibility to see their other friends and members of their own family. We note the commitment of the Welsh Government to bring forward a national respite strategy, and a pledge last year of a £3 million fund for local authorities to support this. But, again, we're seeing little evidence of progress, and I would welcome an update from the Cabinet Secretary as to how this is being taken forward, the structure that this strategy takes, how this funding is being used by local authorities, and how many actual people are seeing the benefits and have received respite under the scheme.

Llywydd—Deputy—we know the invaluable work carers do here in Wales. We know that they save our economy upwards of £8.1 billion a year, but investing in carers can save almost £4 for every £1 spent, and in monetised health benefits could save the health system £7.88 for each £1 spent. We must all work harder to recognise the selfless dedication with which they support our most vulnerable people, and we must ensure that they are given our utmost support.

I look to the Welsh Government to support our motion today and to commit to improving the lives of carers of all ages in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I’m very pleased to take part in this vital debate. I thank the Conservatives for bringing this debate forward. I don’t know whether I've mentioned before that I have been a GP for some time, and I've had to deal increasingly with the kinds of situations that have been mentioned already, and also recognising that I’m still an honorary vice president of the Forget Me Not dementia clubs in Swansea, and, for several years in the past, I’ve been involved in the Alzheimer’s Society in Swansea and Crossroads—Caring for Carers in Swansea and Neath.

So, we have heard the figures. We’ve heard about the dedicated work by carers, and the vital work, indeed, by carers of all ages. And what we’re talking about here is informal carers, of course. We have a system of formal care, employed carers, but, essentially, this afternoon we’re talking about informal carers, who aren’t paid. We’re talking about what Angela Burns was saying, about kindness, natural kindness, because that’s what we’re talking about here—we have our statutory services such as the health service, social services, but those statutory services are entirely dependent on informal, unpaid carers, as we’ve heard, or the system would simply fall apart—about families and so on who have to care for their loved ones, and delight and take pride in their ability to care for their loved ones, and want to do that, but want more support, and, indeed, training to be able to deal with those difficult situations that they face from time to time.

Now, of course, the social care system is under pressure because of the effects of austerity, with insufficient funds, which raises the threshold to receive statutory care from local government. You have to have a very serious illness now to receive homecare, and, in terms of the health service, our GP surgeries are full of people who are in their 80s. Twenty years ago, it was very rare to see someone in their 80s, because there weren’t that many people in their 80s. But now our surgeries are full of people in their 80s, which is a cause for celebration of the success of the health service, but these people often have several illnesses and they have to remain in their home now. And, of course, the care is in their home as well. The pressure then falls on the shoulders of the husband or wife, who are also elderly, as we’ve already heard.

So, that’s why—. And, in talking with people who have to deal with these situations, and indeed want to deal with these situations of illness in the home, they want their loved ones to remain at home, but they also want to know more about the situation. They want training, as we’ve heard— the need for morphine injections and so on. That’s a relatively common situation, and people want to know how to do that. They don’t always want to call for the doctor or the nurse—they want to provide the care themselves—but they’re concerned about whether they’re doing the right thing or not—they don’t know. There is a genuine need for that specialist support and training, so that they feel more comfortable in their ability to care for people at home, without thinking, ‘Oh, maybe I’m doing the wrong thing.’ They need that information and the training.

Of course, naturally, there are excellent examples of support available from the voluntary sector, and not just from those groups that I’ve already mentioned, such as the Alzheimer’s Society and so on, but also Age Cymru, and specifically these Forget Me Not Clubs in Swansea—providing a cup of tea to show support to carers, just to give some respite for a few hours to those who have dementia and those who care for them to be able to go out together and to have some respite from the pressures that face them at home. And we’ve heard about the initiatives that support our young carers as well.

The clock is ticking, but there is also a need for greater respite services. When you’re in a situation of pressure at home, yes, you do receive some information from the nurse or from the doctor, but the pressure of having to care is around the clock, as we've heard, and what you want and need is respite. There’s a need for greater respite, both formal and informal. There are those in the voluntary sector that can provide that respite—just sitting with someone for a few hours. That’s what Crossroads does, for example, just to enable someone to go out to the shops. The pressure is so great. People need that respite just to deal with the situation. 

But mainly—this is the point that I wanted to make in concluding—there is that need for more information, to give more training, informal and formal, to those who provide care in the home to enable them to cope with the situation better. It’s difficult enough as it is without them being concerned as to whether they’re always doing the right thing or not. Thank you.

It is clear that carers play a vital role in our society. Whether it is financially or socially, the contribution made by carers simply cannot be understated. Not only are more people caring, but they are caring for longer. And the number of people needing care and those needing care for longer periods of time has increased significantly. It is imperative therefore that we recognise the extent to which our economy relies on unpaid care provided by families and friends.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I'm hearing all these colleagues here. My wife has been disabled for the last 12 years and very recently she had a stroke. No carer—I and my family are looking after her day after day. What we do, we put, actually, her medicine, which she has to take five times a day, in different pots, put the timings on it, and then, when I come here, I put an alarm on her mobile phone and the mobile near her. She has problems getting up in the morning—that is another thing. She cannot get up. For the last 12 years, I haven't seen a holiday, the reason being I can't leave her alone. She looks as fit as a fiddle, but in a real sense she's totally disabled. Her body takes a lot of medicine a day. As a matter of fact, I can imagine—. What carers are doing in this country is one of the most noble jobs, unpaid, for their loved ones. I don't think the nation can pay them enough, with youngsters between 12 and 18—one in 20 of our youngsters are actually missing school because they are caring for their loved ones. I am sure my daughter—actually, when she comes home, then I go on Assembly tours and other things. Otherwise, I cannot leave the country.

If just a small proportion of people providing care were no longer able to do so, the cost burden would be substantial. This debate this afternoon is about supporting carers so they are able to continue to do the vital work that we value so highly. I wish to address my remarks this afternoon to one aspect of this support: the right to flexible, high-quality respite. If you are a carer looking after a family member or friend, it is highly rewarding but also extremely demanding. A break, even if just for a few days, can boost your energy levels and enthusiasm. Just knowing that you are able to escape for a break is a great incentive, particularly when you are confident that the person you care for will be well looked after in your absence.

But, as Carers Trust recently told the Finance Committee, it can be particularly difficult for carers to access respite care, despite their right to do so. The trust went on to suggest that funding for short breaks and respite should be ring-fenced by local authorities as a part of a long-term funding stream. This would be co-ordinated by the third sector and delivered in partnership with local authorities and local health boards. Carers Trust estimates that a carers well-being fund, similar to the short breaks fund in Scotland, would be an invest-to-save preventative measure. They claim—I quote—investing

'£1.4 million a year would...generate over 53,000 hours of additional breaks for carers'.

This would have a huge impact on their health and well-being but also the sustainability of caring for increasingly complex needs at home. In return for a relatively small investment, this fund

'would have the long-term benefit of helping mitigate against additional or unsustainable demand on local health and social care services.'

I recognise the Welsh Government is committed to introducing and developing a national respite strategy. They have pledged £3 million of additional funding to support local authorities to provide respite care. But progress against the commitment has been slow and we do not yet know how this funding has been used by local authorities. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, an impact assessment published by the department of health in England in October 2014 suggested that every £1 spent on supporting carers would save councils £1.47 in replacement care costs and benefit the wider health system by £7.88. Carers are doing more than ever to support others. It is for us to ensure that they get the support and recognition they need and deserve in Wales. Thank you.

Like many colleagues here today, I too have made my pledge to do what I can to support and to promote the work of carers during Carers Week 2018. So, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate today. As has been said, there are 370,000 carers in Wales, and that constitutes 12 per cent of the population, which is the highest proportion anywhere in the UK. We know that carers providing support saves the state the equivalent of over £8 billion per year. That's a staggering amount, highlighting the debt that we owe carers. It is only right that we recognise this by ensuring that we meet the needs of carers themselves.

I am glad that this duty is enshrined in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014. I will be supporting the amendment in the name of the leader of the house that reflects this. I'm also glad that the role of carers and, most importantly, the need to continue to support and invest in their unpaid and all-too-often-unrecognised work is included in 'A Healthier Wales'. In achieving the important goals contained in the Welsh Government's long-term plan for health and social care, we must be careful that there are no unintended consequences placing more on the shoulders of carers. We must also remember that becoming a carer is something that can happen to just about any one of us. As Carers Wales reminds us, every day, 6,000 people become carers. Carers Week, which importantly coincides with 2018 Empathy Day, is the chance for us to put carers centre stage and make sure that we can respond to what can be a daunting and isolating experience.

I want to turn now to address the specific challenges faced by young carers. This is an area where I do have some professional experience. As a secondary school teacher, I was involved in providing pastoral care and support to young carers, and I know all too well the impact that their responsibilities can have upon their academic studies, their social lives, their confidence and their well-being. All too often, the challenge for teachers is actually identifying those who are carers, because children can come to you or be sent to you for a range of different issues, but it's only when you investigate and you strip away the layers of problems that you find underneath that they are actually caring for a relative. They don't classify themselves as carers; they just think that they're doing what needs to be done to help to support their families.

So, I'm pleased that the Welsh Government has worked closely with Carers Trust Wales on the development of a step-by-step guide for schools on young carers. It has been designed to help identify and support carers in educational settings as early as possible. I also look forward to the thematic review Estyn will undertake into how young carers are identified and supported at school and in colleges that Ministers have announced.

In my own county borough of Rhondda Cynon Taf, every secondary school has a designated young carers champion, and the process has started to introduce similar roles into primary schools too, ensuring that every child and young person who is a carer has an easily identified person to whom they can go for support and advice. And that really is so important. I'm fortunate—

Will you take an intervention on that, if you've got time? Thank you. The carers champions that you're talking about within schools—do you foresee that part of their role will be to ensure that they actually get the formal assessment by local authorities or whoever the work is outsourced to and that those carers' needs are then met? And then do you also, as a backbencher of the governing party, agree that that information should be published?

Well, carers champions have more of an informal role of supporting young people and then, of course, there are other services that can come into play, such as social services, really. So, this is an on-the-ground, grass-roots kind of response providing that day-to-day support and care.

Within my own constituency, I'm fortunate to have a really strong young carers project. Action for Children's RCT young carers project does some really important, innovative and positive work. At present, they provide services to 79 five to 18-year-olds across the county borough. These are just children caring for parents, as a separate project provides support to sibling carers. It could just be the tip of the iceberg as there could be many more children and young people providing care who have not yet been identified. The project provides age-appropriate group activities in community settings, giving children and young people the chance to get away, have a break, have some fun and just be children. They also provide emotional and practical support. That could be in terms of schooling but also practical things. Some stories of the tremendous young people they help are overwhelming, like the young child who helped her mother make up bottles, change nappies and wash clothes for their newborn sibling. The mother had had a stroke giving birth, and that young carer was just three years old.

Whilst the project aims to support young carers and families to get the best service, I want to close by placing those young carers centre stage. One of the ways in which RCT has helped them is by setting up Young Carers Aloud, their award-winning choir. Their songs are all available on YouTube. I would encourage AMs to listen to this. As their lyrics say, what they would like is for people to help them to get there, not some day, but now.

Thank you. I call on the Minister for Children, Older People and Social Care, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I’d like to thank my fellow Assembly Members for all their contributions this afternoon. The strength of the debate shows clearly that this Government has to prioritise ensuring that carers do receive the support that they need to live positive lives.

I'll do my best to address the main points raised, though time, as always, will be the enemy here, because there's a lot of amendments and a lot of points have been raised.

I'd like to start with amendment 4. Unpaid carers, indeed, provide 96 per cent of care in Wales at a value of in excess of £8 billion. This is quite incredible; it shows the hidden economic value that is added to the compassion and the love and the care that they show. It does concern me that some carers indeed do feel unvalued, but we're increasingly talking to carers now who do feel valued, who do feel that not only Welsh Government but partners on the ground are taking notice of them and that we're taking really proactive steps to ensure that they can access practical support to maintain their own health and well-being as well.

Our transformative legislation, which has been mentioned, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, gave carers an equal right to support as the person they care for. All carers in Wales have a right to a carers assessment to identify the support they need and local authorities must meet eligible needs. And if I can turn to Suzy's point there: Suzy, I don't know if you're aware of the publication of the first annual report on data relating to adults receiving care support, which was published in October 2017. It stated that, from 6 April 2016 to 31 March 2017, 6,207 assessments of need for support were undertaken, leading to provision of 1,823 support plans, but we're also currently working with the local authorities and stakeholders to develop new, more robust data for 2019-20 onwards. We're also about to commission an independent evaluation of the social services and well-being Act—[Interruption.] I'll turn to other aspects in a moment. I'm going to be limited on time, but if I can, I'll give way in a moment—

Very quickly, thank you for that information. Of course, what we didn't get from that report was a clear understanding of what 'assessment' meant, so I was encouraged to hear your following remarks.

Indeed. Thank you very much. Thank you for that intervention.

Now, last year—. By the way, this assessment also includes the respite care reference in point 5 of the original motion, and I've been taking actions to ensure that these enhanced rights are realised, and that's what this is about. Now, last year, I announced £3 million of new, recurring funding to support local authorities to provide additional respite for carers, including young carers, who have been mentioned. And with regard to amendment 7, this supports local authorities to develop additional respite care based on the needs of carers in their area. They are best placed to judge how this should be used. But, also, regional partnership boards can also use the integrated care fund to support carers. We've made £50 million revenue funding available in 2018-19, and carers are recognised as one of the core groups that this funding should go towards.

In relation to point 4 of the original motion, Welsh Government is committed to monitoring the impact of the social services and well-being Act, as I said, and publishing data and making it more robust. The first annual report I referred to showed that not enough carers are currently accessing assessments. So, knowing this, and based on engagement with carers and the representative organisations, I published three national priorities for carers in Wales. They were: supporting life alongside caring, identifying and recognising carers, and providing information, advice and assistance to carers. Alongside that, I committed in excess of £1 million in 2018-19 to support progress against these national priorities. But, in addition, a ministerial advisory group for carers will provide now a national forum to steer the delivery of improvements for carers and provide a cross-sector response to the challenges that carers face. With reference to amendment 5, and in recognition of the issues affecting young carers, we have invited Children in Wales, the organisation that Welsh Government fund to run the young carers network, and the children's commissioner, to join this group. I will be attending the first meeting, which will meet this month, and we'll be receiving regular updates from the ministerial group.

Now, the impacts of caring are seen in many various parts of people's lives. So, support for carers has got to be cross-departmental, cross-Government. So, with reference to point 3 of the original motion, we know that young carers face additional barriers to education, and they include financial barriers. So, I am therefore delighted that changes made following the Diamond review of higher education funding and student finance means that from 2018-19 every student will be entitled to financial support equivalent to the national living wage while they study. But Welsh Government has also been working, as has been mentioned by Vikki and others, closely with schools and colleges to ensure that young carers, who may have more absences than their peers, are not disadvantaged in accessing educational grants. Carers can be confident that they will receive appropriate financial support whilst studying.

Moving now to amendment 3, we do recognise the difficulties all carers can face in balancing a job against the demands of being an unpaid carer. We have awarded funding to Carers Wales in 2018-19 for the new Employers for Carers Wales hub, which I was pleased to launch this morning. This project will support employers big and small across Wales to create a more carer-friendly workplace through one-to-one support, training and events. For young adult carers entering the workforce, the support offered by Careers Wales should be bespoke to the individual. For young carers, advice should take account of caring responsibilities whilst focusing on options available—raising aspirations, building confidence and supporting longer-term planning.

If I can turn to amendment 6, young carers and young adult carers have expressed a strong interest in the young carers ID card. Now, Welsh Government is currently funding Carers Trust—. I was delighted, by the way, to meet with the YMCA with Bethan last week—I'll turn to that in a moment. But we are currently funding Carers Trust to support the development of these cards. The ID cards, which will prevent young people having to repeatedly disclose information about their role as a carer and explain, and to support them to access support, will be designed with young carers and tested with professionals, including teachers, doctors and pharmacists. [Interruption.] If I can just turn to some of the detail, because it's—. The YMCA piece of work was very useful in itself, but this is beyond that. It's about providing Welsh Government with a range of options for the design of the national ID card, developed with young carers, tested with a range of professionals, producing the bilingual electronic toolkit, guidance and resources, facilitating a quarterly national round-table for carers services to enable troubleshooting, peer-to-peer support, learning, facilitating the national process for young carers to have the ability to anonymously feed back their experiences of applying for and using an ID card, and providing quarterly reports then to Welsh Government and carer services—[Interruption.] I'm against time, Bethan. I'm really sorry. I'd love to, but I'm against time. We're promoting the young carers ID card through network partners and social media channels, and regular progress reports will be presented for the attention of the ministerial advisory group for carers.

Now, a couple of other things in closing. I've spoken to the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport, who's very keen to work with me to examine existing and potential future support available to help young carers in Wales with transport costs and to explore whether this could be linked, indeed, to the ID card. So, I would urge Members to support amendment 1 to the main motion, but also, in the spirit that this debate has been held in, and in a spirit of cross-party support in this Carers Week, amendments 4, 6, 8 and 9. Some are not perfect, but the spirit and the intention is good and we can support them.

I'm up against time, so—

Carry on. Go on.

Deputy Presiding Officer, we cannot afford to sit back on the issue of supporting carers. The physical and mental well-being of those who contribute most to our society shouldn’t be at the bottom of our list of priorities.

They shouldn't be at the bottom of the list; they should be at the top of the list. So, I'm looking forward to working with the ideas that Members have brought forward today—ideas that we are currently working on, and the ministerial advisory group—to make real the way that we support carers, young and old, going forward, because we know that their compassion, their love, their care is invaluable, and the economic impact if we had to replace them would be simply unaffordable. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much. Can I call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate?

Thank you to everybody for their contribution in this, Carers Week 2018. As Suzy Davies said at the beginning, we have to improve the lives of the 11 per cent of the population that we're talking about today. And she said for the Welsh Government to refuse to be scrutinised is shameful, following their failure in practice to guide councils on what the statutory guidelines in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 actually mean. No surprise, she said, that the Welsh Conservatives' proposal to support young adult carers has gone down better with young adult carers than the Welsh Government, although I do note the Minister's comments at the end. And, of course, she thanked those who care for carers.

Bethan Sayed raised a number of very relevant points. She referred to young carers and zero-hours contracts—and it is a deep concern that Wales has the highest level of non-permanent contracts, including zero-hour contracts, which are appropriate for some, but too many are forced into them when it's the wrong route for them—the guidance, training and access to respite services being ad hoc; the importance of transport to young carers; barriers to young carers' access to medication to help their own loved ones; and the need to hold the Welsh Government to account.

Caroline Jones asked, 'Who cares for the carers?' And many are struggling—two out of three don't get enough sleep, and there are too many suffering depression, and Age Cymru identifying wide variations in care. She said that we need to do more to support unpaid carers and enable young carers to combine caring with access to education and training.

Angela Burns gave a heartfelt 'thank you' to carers in Wales without whose contribution our society would grind to a halt. She talked about the kindness of strangers and then she referred to a couple of cases, particularly a pupil not getting homework in on time, but the school not having any idea about her caring responsibility, and another young carer who was told to get rid of their dog when they were successfully otherwise rehoused.

Jenny Rathbone talked about prudent healthcare, meaning that we must value our carers, and the need for long-term arrangements after a parent carer's death, and, key, that we need to work in co-production with carers.

Janet Finch-Saunders praised young carers, but then highlighted the work of older carers, where many are disabled or with long-term health problems themselves, and many living in isolation and loneliness. She pointed out that councils may be acting unlawfully. She talked about lack of data on carers' assessments, the need for flexible and high-quality respite, and that investing in carers could save the health system £7.88 for each £1 spent. 

Dr Dai referred to statutory services being entirely dependent upon informal unpaid carers, about GP surgeries now being full of older people requiring care in the home and therefore the need to support their carers with information and support, and key there, again—the work of the voluntary sector in providing support.

Mohammad Asghar talked about more people caring and caring for longer. He spoke movingly about his own personal experience with his wonderful wife, and I say that because I know her and she is wonderful. He talked about the well-being benefits of flexible high-quality respite and he said that we don't know how local authorities are using the funding they're receiving. 

Vikki Howells spoke of the need to avoid unintended consequences, about the increased burden on carers, young carers who don't classify themselves as carers, and the role of young carers champions in schools.

Then, Huw Irranca-Davies, the Minister responding for the Government, said that the social services and well-being Act gave carers an equal right to support as the person they cared for, that all have the right to assessment and all local authorities must meet that requirement. He talked about recurring respite funding to local authorities, how he'd invited Children in Wales and the children's commissioner to join his ministerial group, and that from 2018-19, carers can be confident that they will receive financial support whilst studying. He talked about funding the development of carers ID cards, particularly relevant for teachers, doctors and pharmacists. I would point out that this was piloted successfully, with the support of the children's commissioner, by Barnardo's Flintshire. Many years ago, they came here, they presented on it and nothing happened. So, I hope that, this time, history doesn't repeat itself. Because as the Minister concluded, we cannot afford to sit back on the issue of supporting carers.

Now, the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014 Part 2 code of practice says that

'Fundamental to the whole approach and system is that practitioners co-produce with children, young people, carers and families, and with adults, carers, families…so that people are equal partners in the design and delivery of their care. This will include determining what matters to them and the want to achieve. Local authorities must not make any judgments based on preconceptions of a person’s circumstance.'

And, again:

'People must be involved in the design and delivery of services'.

However, I know that the Minister is familiar with the Age Alliance Wales winter newsletter—I think they subsequently met him to discuss it. Referring to the social services and well-being Act, they said that the realities arising from the Act are not meeting initial expectations; that there's an ongoing lack of advocacy provision; that 'what matters' conversations are not happening as anticipated; that local authority information advice services are still seen as problematic in many parts of Wales; that third sector representatives on regional partnership boards have reported feeling excluded; that the third sector is being seen as a bit player, with little or no strategic involvement and little input into programme planning; and that the needs of individuals still don't appear to be properly met in too many cases.

Judicial review proceedings last month relating to the failure to assess and then meet the needs of a young autistic adult and to take full account of her parent carer's willingness and ability to meet need was settled prior to full hearing only because Flintshire council agreed to provide a formal apology and make a damages award. This case highlights the importance of comprehensive assessments of people in need of care and support and their carers, in accordance with the legislation. And although this case was settled before a full hearing, it nonetheless provides a valuable insight into how this legislation is intended to be applied, but how, still, local authorities are getting it often very wrong.

Only yesterday, a Flintshire parent carer e-mailed me to say:

'As an autistic adult myself, I struggle to identify where lapses in duty are occurring.'

She referred to her own three children, two of whom are already diagnosed on the spectrum, and concluded:

'As school seems determined that the issues that the boys struggle with are not related to their autism, I'm utterly lost in terms of how to secure the support that they need.'

Another Flintshire parent carer e-mailed me during this debate, a parent of an autistic child with multiple unmet needs, and she said:

'I still haven't had a carer's assessment of my needs and my daughter's needs, despite my first requesting it in January 2014 and raising it repeatedly.'

We know that the integrated autism strategy interim evaluation said that the top-down approach, rather than co-production, has stifled the way forward.

I've got many other examples in many other counties. I could have gone on to Wrexham and Conwy and a range of different conditions where things are not working as the legislation intends, because too many people in power don't want to share that power and are cherry-picking from the guidance, the codes and the legislation. Unless the Welsh Government is prepared to actually rise to the box, stand and confront them, and make them acknowledge what this involves, with appropriate training and support when necessary, then stories like this, sadly, are going to continue.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

The next item on our agenda this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on school funding, and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move the motion. Llyr.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move this motion on school funding in the name of Plaid Cymru. May I say, at the very outset, that I am not blind to the reality of austerity, and you will note that this isn’t a motion that says, ‘Just give more funding to schools’? But neither am I deaf to the warnings coming from the sector that we are reaching a point, after years of cuts and reducing budgets, with costs, of course, often increasing, where it is now unsustainable to continue to provide the level of service that we have come to expect over the years. And, of course, it’s not just me saying that. Each and every one of you, I’m sure, as Assembly Members, will have received correspondence from headteachers, governors, parents, councillors, teaching unions, all saying the same thing. They, of course, are now using the words ‘funding crisis’ openly in this context.

So, what is the reality of funding? Well, we know that school budgets and the per-pupil funding has reduced in real terms over the past years. In this academic year, the education budget in Wales has fallen, from £1.7 billion in 2016-17, to £1.6 billion. According to BBC Cymru Wales, school budgets have reduced by around £370 per pupil in real terms in six years. We know that 10 years ago the average individual school budget per pupil was some £3,500 per annum. In the last financial year, the budget of individual schools, on average per pupil, was £4,234. And, by the way, there was a difference of up to £1,000 between some counties in that figure, which tells us another story about the funding situation, and we might come to that during the course of this debate. But if per-pupil expenditure had risen with inflation, of course, it would be quite a bit higher. Indeed, it would be almost £400 higher per pupil. Therefore, that is a reflection of the real-term cut that we have seen. It's no surprise, therefore, that school budgets have become unstable and that there's a risk that the education of those pupils will suffer unless urgent steps are taken to tackle this funding crisis.

Where does this leave us? Well, we know that schools across Wales face a situation where they can't avoid making substantial cuts in order to cope with the financial deficits, and that means, of course, cuts in staffing levels, in resources, in continuing professional development for teachers, and many other aspects of school activities. The teaching unions have drawn our attention to some of these examples. Fewer teachers inevitably will mean that class sizes will increase—something I know that's very close to the heart of the Cabinet Secretary; less individual attention to the learners; an increasing workload for staff, of course, particularly in terms of marking and assessment, and that, in turn—and we will come to this later—leading to greater stress and long-term ill health in many cases.

There is an increasing reliance on support staff rather than qualified teachers. The staff-pupil ratio is worsening, as I mentioned, and it's increasingly challenging to give due attention to each pupil. There's also an increasing reliance on headteachers, particularly in smaller schools. Now, headteachers very often have their own teaching timetable but also have to do additional teaching hours in order to ensure that their staff get their planning, preparation and assessment time, which is statutory, of course. As a result, they don't have the time required by them to manage the school that they should have.

There are also negative impacts on the curriculum specifically, of course. The reduction in the number of contact hours for curricular subjects is an obvious one, teachers often having to teach a broader range of subjects, which, of course, means that then they teach fewer hours in their area of expertise, and subjects, according to some of the unions, disappearing entirely—music, drama, modern foreign languages, vocational subjects—because, very often, one can't justify running a course with a relatively small number of pupils. That has an impact.

We have seen intensification of unnecessary competition, in my opinion, for pupils because of the funding that comes with them, not just between schools, but also between schools and further education colleges in the post-16 sector. There are negative impacts on working conditions too. We see inappropriate use of teachers doing supply in place of their colleagues, where they are in a situation of being under pressure. There is a restructuring of allowances, although those additional responsibilities are still necessary. Staff are agreeing to reduced hours in certain circumstances rather than facing redundancy, and, of course, if they are made redundant, then that redundancy payment is based on the part-time salary. I could go on, of course. 

Naturally, these ongoing threats to jobs creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety among the profession. It undermines working conditions and causes stress and ill health, as I've mentioned. I've referred to these figures in the past: 90 per cent of teachers now say that they can't manage their workload within their agreed working hours. Estyn says that teachers in Wales work, on average, 50 hours a week, and it's no surprise, therefore, that we have seen the number of working days lost as a result of stress more than double over the past few years to over 50,000 working days per annum.

And the greatest irony in all of this, of course, is that this goes entirely against the Government's own ambition in terms of moving towards the new curriculum—something that we're all eager to see: a curriculum that will be broad, flexible and multidisciplinary—never mind, of course, the Government's desire to promote things like modern foreign languages and STEM subjects, which I mentioned, while we are now struggling to see those parts of the curriculum being delivered as we would want to see. The Government's ambition to provide support to our most vulnerable pupils is also undermined, and to transform the additional learning needs system, and reach the 1 million Welsh speakers too—all of this is being undermined because of the funding situation facing our schools.

Now, these cuts, as we all know, have already had an impact on much of the non-statutory activities—music lessons and so on are raised regularly in this Chamber—but now the cuts are having such an effect that they are a threat to statutory requirements too.

Now, everyone understands that the situation emerges from the financial settlement that local authorities receive from the Welsh Government, and that the Welsh Government's settlement derives from the settlement from the Westminster Government. But now, of course, the situation has reached a point where the impact on the profession and the pupils alike will be so detrimental that we must consider it to be critical. We must therefore raise our voice against these ongoing cuts, and we must see what we can do to work together more effectively to reduce these detrimental effects on our schools.

So, Plaid Cymru’s motion essentially calls for three things. The time has come for us to bring together all the key stakeholders in the education system in Wales to consider what options there are to, once again, review the way in which schools in Wales are funded. I say that because the second point in the motion, namely that the financial landscape for schools in Wales, as it currently stands, is very complex, multilayered and bureaucratic, and is inconsistent across Wales too. As a result, that isn’t in keeping with a system that is transparent, where one can ensure accountability and hold people to account. I will expand on that a little.

I’ve raised in the past the way in which the Government funds the education system and how the funding reaches schools in many different ways, but mainly through the local authorities, of course. Most of the funding passes through the revenue support grant, the RSG, and some, of course, is provided in grant form for specific purposes, which has been ring-fenced, very often. The Government also provides some funding for the education consortia. Some funding is provided more directly to schools through the grants and other programmes. Then, sixth-form funding happens through a different system again, and I think we start to see how confused and confusing that landscape can be. And then add to that, of course, the fact that you have 22 local authorities, 22 funding formulas, which are different in all counties, and the situation is exacerbated.

There are also inconsistencies to be seen in the Welsh Government’s approach to the way in which funding is targeted to improve educational outcomes. This is something that the education committee has referred to and highlighted on a number of occasions. We recall the way in which the Government scrapped the education improvement grant for learners who are Gypsy, Roma and Travellers, and those from ethnic minorities, and it was mainstreamed into the RSG, claiming that that wasn’t going to lead to the loss of the educational outcomes that the Government wished to ensure when that grant was ring-fenced.

But then, the Cabinet Secretary for Education strongly defends the need for specific funding that is ring-fenced for the PDG, in order to endure educational outcomes for those who qualify for free school meals. Therefore, those two views from the same Government are contradictory, to all intents and purposes, and I think that’s just an example of the inconsistency that we regularly find within the funding regime.

Let me be clear here: Plaid Cymru certainly isn’t calling for the direct funding of schools, in case anyone thinks that that’s my direction of travel in this area. We see a key role for local authorities in all of this as a means of ensuring that there is more co-ordination and coherence. It brings opportunities to share expertise, resources, all of the economies of scale, and all of these other reasons that have been validly outlined in the past, in order to ensure that there is co-ordination at a local level. But I do think there is room to look at a simpler regime that is also more consistent. Local authorities and schools have also been calling, for example, for longer term funding, which would allow them to plan more effectively and to use the funding more efficiently as a result of that, particularly in relation to staffing issues.

I do realise that time is against me. Some stakeholders, including some of the teaching unions, have called for a national funding formula in order to bring an end to that postcode lottery—I mentioned that £1,000 difference earlier—and to provide the same rights to all pupils, as they would put it, and fair funding. That brings us to the third point of the motion: what would represent fair funding? Does the Government have an idea of how much should be spent per pupil in order to ensure that every pupil receives quality education? I don’t know. People often compare England and Wales, and I think that’s a false comparison, but I will respond to some of the other amendments at the end.

The NAHT has said that there needs to be a national inquiry into school funding in order to ensure that sufficient resources are available in the system to enable schools to introduce this exciting agenda of reform that we all want to see. I believe that that would be a good idea. A national inquiry or audit would give us a more honest and a clearer picture of the current situation in all parts of Wales, and it would be a starting point for this national debate that we need to have on school funding in Wales.

As I said, I will deal with the amendments in concluding, having heard all of the contributions. But, as I said at the outset, this isn’t just a debate saying, 'Well, give more money to schools.' I do understand the reality of austerity, but I am also convinced that a time of austerity is the most important time to invest in our young people in order to empower them to build a better, more prosperous future than the one that they have inherited. And if this Government doesn’t prioritise education funding sufficiently, then we will all pay a price for that.

I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James.

I formally move. 

I call on Mark Reckless to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Mark Reckless.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the amendment in the name of Paul Davies. I also complement Plaid on their motion, with which we agree. I’ll ask them to understand that our only reason for voting otherwise will be to ensure a vote on our own amendment.

The school funding crisis in Wales is severe. NASUWT Wales calculates that there is now a £678 funding gap per pupil between England and Wales. We believe it’s important to note that that is despite the new fiscal framework agreed with Westminster currently delivering £1.20 of Government spending in Wales for every £1 spent in England. Given this apparent disparity, we have to ask what it implies about where education is on the priority list for the Welsh Labour Government. We will be opposing the Government amendment, but it’s important to note that much of the extra funding to which they refer in that amendment was only grudgingly agreed with our sole Liberal Democrat AM to ensure Labour’s continuing hold on power.

I know Labour now run away from anything Tony Blair ever said or did, but I think many of us around this Chamber would appreciate it if they made an exception for 'Education, education, education'. Perhaps if the Cabinet Secretary agrees, she should open discussion with others in this Chamber about how we can make education a higher priority than a new Labour leader would allow.

In practice, what has less funding per pupil meant? Most obviously, it affects standards, and we’ve debated it many times in this Chamber. We’ve fallen further behind England in all three Programme for International Student Assessment scores, and our GCSE A* to C pass rate is the lowest in more than 10 years. We’re also seeing a reduction in choice for pupils. We’ve seen school closures, especially in rural areas, reduce the choice of where children can be educated and increase the distance that they have to travel. Over 10 years, there were 157 maintained school closures, according to a written answer to Darren Millar, and 60 per cent of those were in rural areas.

Will the Member gave way?

Of course I will.

On spending, I realise the Member is new to the Conservative group in the Assembly, but not that long ago, the Conservatives had a pledge to ring-fence health spending in Wales. The consequence would have been a massive cut in education spending. So, it's a little rich for the Member now to give us lectures on health spending levels when we've protected it and grown it.

Well, the fact is that, overall, there is 20 per cent more spending in Wales and that has been secured under a fiscal construct agreed by the Westminster Government. If you want to compare spending levels in Wales and England, the big difference is—and we heard some of this earlier—that local government does have higher allocations in Wales—I'd question how efficiently that money is used in many local authorities—and then we have seen cuts in the health service that we haven't seen in England in real terms. And then we have this very significant gap in education spending. Labour, you must decide what your priorities are, and if education is less of a priority for you in Wales than it is for the Conservatives in England, and than we would like to make it in Wales, then that is the situation.

We're also seeing reduced choice in post-16 education. In my region of South Wales East the trend is for all post-16 education in a local authority to be provided by one further education institution. I don't criticise particular establishments, but there are many reasons why you might want to attend an A-level specific institution, continue into a school sixth-form or not wish to attend a particular college. Unless students are willing to travel long distances out of their council area for education, that choice is too often being removed from them.

We must not limit the ability of children in Wales to fulfil their potential and to chase their own dreams and ambitions. We need a recognition from Welsh Government that the current levels of funding are not sufficient to maintain an education system on a par with the rest of the UK, let alone a better one to which we would all aspire. We need serious and decisive action now if we are to rescue our creaking education system. It is time the education Secretary looked beyond the Labour benches if she wants to provide it.

I call on Michelle Brown to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Michelle Brown.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move our amendment in the name of Caroline Jones.

UKIP believe that it's the people in the education system at all levels who have a better idea of where the waste is and where any incorrect spending priorities are. They're the people who know what changes are needed to release more money for front-line teaching. One of the things that has gone wrong in the Welsh education system is that decisions have been taken at arm's-length from those who really know what's going on. We therefore support much of Plaid's motion, but the reason that we are proposing an amendment, and will vote against Plaid's motion, is that although there's a need to reconsider funding models, we think the people with the pragmatic and most effective solutions are to be found among the people who have to work with those funding models every day. They should be given a wide enough remit so that they have the freedom to think outside the box.

The fact that Plaid mention looking at other funding models suggests to me that they already have a preferred funding model in mind. We agree that a cut in bureaucracy would be a good thing, and obviously we all want a system that's transparent, so neither objective is a new one. But, again, the answers to where cuts in red tape should be made, and how this system can be made more transparent, aren't to be found in this place; they're to be found amongst the stakeholders who are having to work with this system day in, day out, week in, week out.

Labour's amendment is nothing short of an admission that they've got it wrong, saying that they're taking steps to reduce the extra workload they've created, to reduce the classroom bureaucracy that they themselves have increased, and to boost the professional learning that they have let slide for the last 20 years. For that reason, the fact that they are the ones who have let Welsh education sink, they cannot be trusted to know how to fix it when they haven't known how to for the past two decades.

The Labour amendment rehearses a number of steps that have previously been announced, but I would suggest that if these measures were bearing the required fruit, we wouldn't be having this debate now. So, although UKIP are largely supportive of this motion, we have proposed our amendment to make it clear that it is the relevant stakeholders who should be the ones making the recommendations to Welsh Government, rather than Welsh Government bringing in academics—who are very worthy, don't get me wrong, but, again, the answers lie on the front line—to advise them, as in other areas of education policy.

Our amendment proposes that stakeholders be brought together and provides for a wider remit for that work, in the form of considering how budgets can be streamlined and simplified, rather than asking those stakeholders to focus on the particular issues of bureaucracy, to push money away from mysterious management and into tangible teaching. So I'll say again: let the stakeholders give their advice and make their recommendations free from any pet proposal proposed from above. I therefore ask you to support our amendment. Thank you.

I accept that the Welsh Government has ambitions for the curriculum, the target to reach 1 million Welsh speakers, and a renewal of the system for additional learning needs. I want to see many of these ambitions achieved. Without adequate funding, though, not only will these ambitions not be realised, but the next generation is going to be let down. According to the education front line, including education teaching unions—UCAC, NEU and NAHT—there is a funding crisis in Welsh schools.

I want to focus my comments on three key issues. Firstly, I want to question how the Cabinet Secretary expects any new curriculum to be implemented at the same time as such drastic cuts. I'll move on to highlight the terrible physical state of our schools that this funding squeeze has created. And, finally, I want to illustrate the effect that this funding crisis is having on schools in the Rhondda.

Much of the Government's plans for the curriculum change are to be welcomed, but, with so little funding, I'm not too hopeful for its implementation. We know that there will be fewer teaching hours for some subjects, while some subjects could disappear altogether. Music, drama, foreign languages and vocational subjects are at risk. This is largely due to the difficulties in recruiting specialist teachers and schools not being able to justify running courses with small numbers of pupils. In turn, this leads to fewer options for pupils, particularly at A-level and GCSE, and an even further loss then of specialist staff. Even where such courses are on offer, hours of teaching have often had to be reduced as schools can ill afford to pay for specialist teachers. In order to counteract the cuts, some teachers are being asked to teach a wider range of subjects beyond their level of expertise, and I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary will agree that this is unfair for both teachers and pupils. 

Perhaps the most striking outcome of this funding crisis is the state of school buildings. The Welsh Government's twenty-first century schools programme was meant to deliver futureproof, state-of-the-art schools, with solar panels and all the very best facilities. That ambition has not been realised. Old, inadequate school buildings are unpleasant and sometimes even dangerous places for pupils and staff. Now, I know I don't need to convince the Cabinet Secretary of the positive impact of school buildings, but I briefly want to highlight—[Interruption.] Yes.

I thank the Member for taking the intervention. I accept there are schools that are in some of the conditions you're talking about, and they should be on either band A or band B of the twenty-first century schools programme, but do you also accept the fact that there are brand-new schools being built? I've got three comprehensives in my own constituency, plus two new primaries, which are modern, state-of-the-art facilities for our young children.

Well, it's fantastic when children have those new schools, but there are still way too many children who are being educated in inadequate and dangerous buildings. A recent UK-wide poll found that 90 per cent of teachers believe that well-built and designed schools improve educational outcomes. So, we have an obligation to ensure that our children are educated in buildings that do not harm their education or their health, regardless of budget constraints.

I welcome your reference to the Rhondda, and indeed to Rhondda Cynon Taf, but their twenty-first century schools programme will mean, by 2020, they will have invested £0.5 billion in new schools. It is the most phenomenal school building programme in generations. Surely, that's something you very much welcome as transformational to the education system, particularly in Rhondda Cynon Taf.

But that won't ensure that every single child is educated in an adequate building, and that is the point that I'm making.

This funding squeeze represents difficult decisions for schools right across Wales, not just in the Rhondda, but I recently wrote to schools in my constituency and I just wanted to note a couple of responses here today.

One Rhondda primary school has had to make cuts of over £15,000, including cutting the school caretaker's hours to save £5,000. That headteacher anticipates further cuts over the next two years. This is a new school, but there is a need for internal painting and new carpets, which can't be afforded. While that school is facing cuts, pupil numbers are increasing.

Treorchy Comprehensive School faces equally difficult decisions—£230,000 has been cut this year, with no corresponding drop in pupil numbers. This would be much worse if they hadn't spent huge amounts of time and effort generating an independent income through staff and volunteers. Further cuts are expected, with the local authority indicating that it will make what it euphemistically calls 'school-based efficiency savings'.

To a certain extent, I do sympathise with the Cabinet Secretary. I recognise that Westminster, through its policy of austerity, has pursued relentless cuts that have seen our funding squeezed, but how much more can our schools take? We cannot afford for the education of our future generations to suffer because of austerity. So, I implore the Cabinet Secretary to look again at these cuts that are being imposed upon our schools and do everything in her power to reverse them.

Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this debate. As Members will appreciate, the Children, Young People and Education Committee has taken a very keen interest in funding issues since the time we were established. One of our earliest inquiries was into the decision to amalgamate the funding of the previously ring-fenced grants for minority ethnic learners and Gypsy/Traveller learners into the new education improvement grant and, since the decision was taken in the most recent budget to put that money into the revenue support grant, we have maintained a constant dialogue with the Cabinet Secretary and are continuing to scrutinise the impact of that decision on those groups of learners.

On 4 July, we're going to be debating here the committee's major inquiry into the emotional and mental health of children and young people. The overarching recommendation in that calls for ring-fenced funding to be made available to schools so that they can become hubs of emotional and mental health support for our children and young people, because we recognise that when the system is stretched it will not be possible for our teachers to invest the time and the resource that is needed into that work and also because, as part of the inquiry, it was evident that there is an enormous amount of good practice out there in Wales in terms of supporting young people with their mental health but also that much of that is being funded through things like the pupil deprivation grant. We heard that there were schools that were unable to fulfil that role because they didn't have access to the PDG.

Our most recent inquiry into targeted funding on educational outcomes will be published next week, and the sufficiency of school funding was a very strong theme throughout that inquiry, with lots of evidence being given to the committee that things like the pupil deprivation grant are now being used as a result of pressures on wider school budgets. So, as a result of that, I'm very pleased that the committee has decided that now is the time for us to take a rounder look at school funding. As Llyr and Mark will be aware, we are discussing tomorrow terms of reference for an inquiry—a broad, wide-ranging inquiry—on the sufficiency of school funding in Wales, which I think is very important. I think it's important that that work is undertaken independently of Welsh Government, and I think that our committee will be the right people to do that job.

I do have to take issue with Mark Reckless's contribution. I think it is just a little bit rich for the Welsh Conservatives to come to this Chamber and lecture us on the record of this Government in trying to protect our public services in the face of record-breaking austerity from Westminster. I would suggest, Mark Reckless, that your efforts might be better employed in lecturing those in Westminster who are handing down these ongoing budget cuts to us.

Would the Member give way? Our efforts have been deployed in getting a fiscal agreement where we are currently getting £1.20 of Government spending in Wales compared to £1 in England. Now, I'll ask her: does she think spending more than £600 less per pupil in Wales than in England is right or something she and her Government are proud of?

Well, I have to say that I don't recognise this largesse that you've described from the Westminster Government, and I also think it's very difficult now to make comparisons between England and Wales on school funding, and that is one of the issues behind why I think this inquiry is so important. We do have to get to the bottom of exactly what is being spent, how much is going into the RSG, how much is actually reaching the coalface for our pupils, because where I completely agree with Leanne Wood is that we do have a very ambitious reform agenda in Wales—not just the new curriculum but also the plans for teacher training, continual professional development, and it's undoubtedly the case that those plans are going to need additional funding. I recognise the commitment that the Cabinet Secretary has to taking forward those plans. This is a matter for the whole Welsh Government. I hope that there will be some lessons learned as we go into the budget round about some of the decisions that were taken to place things into the RSG, which I do not believe have worked in the interests of our most vulnerable pupils this time around. But we do need now that wider look at how we fund our whole education system in Wales—

Will the Member give way? Just on that point, I very much welcome what she's just said about the committee looking at the funding of education. I think the Finance Committee would be interested to look at your conclusions as well. But, on the point she's just made, she will know—because she's written to me as Chair of finance—that her committee asked the right questions about the movement of money within the RSG, but, to be frank, weren't given the right answers in terms of a full, transparent explanation of where that money was going. Is that something that she would look to see now in the new budget round—a much clearer explanation of how this money's being used?

Well, as Simon Thomas is aware, one of the key issues we've raised with the Welsh Government is around the whole transparency of the way that the budget is set out, and I hope that, in the budget round that we will be going into, that will be more transparent and that we will be able to better scrutinise those decisions. I hope, too, that our inquiry will make a big difference, because investment in education is investment in the life chances of our young people, and there is nothing more important than that.

The well-being and education of our pupils in schools across Wales should be at the forefront of our minds in this Assembly. Now, schools in Wales have faced a challenging financial situation for a number of years, and have already made great savings. The leaders and the staff in schools have done their best and made the best of a very difficult situation to safeguard the education and well-being of pupils, but the situation has reached a point where the effect on the profession and on the pupils is so damaging that we have to consider the situation as one of a crisis.

The situation does stem from the financial settlements that local authorities have received from the Welsh Government, which, in turn, arises from the settlement from the Westminster Government. We know that, but the Welsh Government does need to accept responsibility for trying to tackle the crisis facing the field of education today.

In a letter to the Plaid Cymru shadow Cabinet Secretary for Education, the Cabinet Secretary says that it’s local authorities that are responsible for school funding, and that the Welsh Government expects local authorities to ensure that sufficient provision is available for the needs of every learner. In order to ensure that, of course, we also need to ensure that the councils receive sufficient funding. In a report by Wales Public Services 2025, the budgets of councils were considered between 2009-10 and 2016-17. Over this period, there was an increase of 48 per cent on expenditure on health services, and a commitment by the Welsh Government to safeguard funding for schools and social care. In the field of education, there was a specific commitment to increase expenditure on schools over 1 per cent above the change in the Welsh block grant, a block that was shrinking.

There was no commitment to safeguard funding for councils, and by 2016-17 grants from the Welsh Government had decreased 17.1 per cent, a decrease of almost a third of all the expenditure on schools by councils in Wales. Although councils have used council tax and other measures to make up for this in part, there was still £529 million less funding in 2016-17 as compared to 2009-10. This is almost the same as the total funding spent by councils in Wales on social services for older people. As a result, local government expenditure across Wales decreased almost £223 per head, and, despite the efforts of councils in Wales to avoid salami-slicing and to safeguard schools and care, expenditure on school budgets decreased 4.4 per cent, or £254 per head. Funding reserves were used in schools and the reserved funds of schools decreased 41.3 per cent in the period that we’re talking about. This is a clear sign of the financial crisis that’s facing our schools.

According to the same report, the previous Government’s commitment to safeguard budgets for schools made some difference, but there is no such commitment in place from this current Government, and so it’s understandable that unions, the education workforce, parents and pupils are extremely concerned about their schools.

In the short term, the Welsh Government and local authorities need to take steps to ensure that the information that is available to schools is as comprehensive and transparent as possible, that the information is complete, and they need to receive that information as early as possible so that schools know what the budget is going to be. UCAC, for example, has called for the possibility of setting budgets every three years to be considered, and some local authorities are able to plan ahead on that basis.

The Welsh Government also needs to undertake a full review of the financial situation of schools in Wales, along with stakeholders, as a first step towards trying to solve the financial crisis in our schools.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Education, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. On Monday, I had the great privilege of visiting Adamsdown Primary School, just up the road here, in the community of Splott. Thanks to the Welsh Government investment of £2.8 million, pupils and teachers there are benefiting from a new extension to the school and significantly improved outdoor facilities in response to a significant growth in demand for school places in that part of the city. In discussion with the headteacher, Mrs Thomas, and meeting staff and pupils, I was struck by the commitment to high expectations for all learners across what is a transient and diverse pupil population. This included pupils from refugee backgrounds, and I was delighted and moved to meet a young boy from Syria. Paralysed from the waist down, we can only begin to imagine the trauma that that little boy has witnessed in his life. Indeed, when we first arrived at school, he arrived in a pram, not even a proper wheelchair. But, with the English that he has learned, he has told me about how his education at Adamsdown, how the Welsh education system, was pushing him forward and allowing him to set new goals and ambitions. He told me about the new sounds that he was learning that day.

Presiding Officer, no-one in this Chamber needs to tell me how hard our teachers are working day in, day out on behalf of the children and young people of Wales. And no-one needs to tell me that we must battle for every penny to get to that front line in the face of continuing austerity from the Tories in Westminster. And no-one needs to tell me that we do indeed need to bring together all of our partners in a mission to raise standards for all and ensure we continue to properly fund our schools and our teachers.

So, firstly, I'd like to set a few things straight. Collectively, as a Government, we have done our very best to maximise resources going to local authorities, whether that's been in the overall total given to them in the revenue support grant, or in the introduction and implementation of a funding floor to ensure that some local authorities enjoy better protection from cuts than otherwise would be because of the funding formula.

Now, the formula for distributing core funding to local authorities is developed and agreed in consultation with local government through the Partnership Council for Wales and its sub-group. Within this system, there exists the potential to make significant changes to the funding formula, but this must be done with a collective buy-in from local government through the partnership arrangements that we have in place. To date, we have not received a consistent message on this from our local government partners, but we will continue—

Will you take an intervention?

I will.

Would you recognise that the minority who receive the least—and there's a funding gap in delegated budgets to schools of over £1,000 per pupil between the best and worst funded—and who suffer the most financially have only a minority voice? Those who benefit clearly aren't going to support because there's a disincentive for them to do so. So, we need to be objective about this and see how effectively the money that does exist is being used fairly and equitably across the whole of Wales to target the needs of all pupils. 

Mark, I know that the Cabinet Secretary for local government is more than happy to discuss with the local government family any changes to the funding formula for overall spending or, indeed, the data that are used to calculate notional spends on education. What you're talking about—that disparity in funding between individual schools—shows the complexity of the Welsh education system and why it would be extremely difficult to find a single national funding formula. How do you find a single funding formula that accounts for the needs of a school in a highly deprived area or a school, like the one in Adamsdown, where the children speak 44 different languages, compared to the challenges of delivering education in a tiny, tiny rural school, where it is inevitable that the cost per pupil in that school is going to be significantly higher than it would be in a larger establishment? I mean, we cannot, Mark—we cannot use these challenging circumstances around funding as an excuse. I know, in my own constituency, the high school that has the best results constantly tells me that because of the system that Powys County Council uses, they're the school that gets the least funding per pupil, but their results, the outcomes for their children, are better than everybody else's.

But I will try to make some progress. We will continue to work with local government, regional consortia and schools to ensure that our shared vision for improving educational outcomes for all learners in Wales is realised. Llyr, I want to give you my assurance that, where there is concern that money is either being held inappropriately at local government level, or being held inappropriately at regional consortia level, then we will go in and we will have a look at exactly how that money is or isn't getting to the front line, and there is a regional consortia at this very moment where we're doing that piece of work so that we can satisfy ourselves that my ambition to get as much resource into individual school budgets is happening.

We are providing more than £187 million over the next two years through the pupil development grant to help our most disadvantaged learning and we will invest £225 million through the education improvement grant. We're also investing £36 million to reduce class sizes, targeted at those areas that will benefit the most, and there are additional teachers being employed throughout Wales to assist us in this aim. Over this Assembly term, we're investing £100 million to raise school standards, and more than half of this investment is prioritised towards improving teaching and learning, because I recognise that our teachers are the single greatest agents of change and improvement in the classroom.

Now, Leanne, quite rightly, in her contribution, talked about the ambitious curriculum reforms that we're undergoing, and, Leanne, we will ensure that, over the next two years, the £20 million is invested specifically in the implementation and preparedness for that curriculum work. I also know that time and funding is taken up by school maintenance issues—indeed, Leanne mentioned these herself in the contribution that she made—as opposed to supporting learners. Now, I want teachers not to be worrying about those leaking roofs, I want them to be thinking about their pupils, about pedagogy and about the curriculum. So, that's why, in March, we made available an extra £14 million allocated directly to schools. This helped address small-scale maintenance issues, relieving pressures on budgets, and every single school across Wales benefited from that money, and it went directly to the front line.

Leanne also talked about the state of our school buildings. Well, Leanne, our twenty first century schools programme represents the largest single investment in building new schools and colleges since the 1960s—£1.4 billion will be invested over band— [Interruption.]

I recently wrote to you about a school that I visited where a large lump of concrete fell from the ceiling and landed on the floor, and had those pupils been in school at that time, there could've been a serious injury or even worse. Are you saying that that's not a problem?

Of course, I'm not saying that it's not a problem. I am saying what we are doing about it, and, as I said, we will spend, in band A, £1.4 billion on schools and colleges across Wales. Band B of the programme will see an additional investment of £2.4 billion in schools and colleges across Wales, and that is the single largest investment, as I said, in our school estate since the 1960s. We are working closely with our partners in local government to identify the priorities that they have in their local areas for which schools need to be replaced, refurbished or expanded. If you have concerns about individual schools in your constituency, then I would suggest that you have a conversation with the local authority to ascertain what their plans are to be submitted to this Government, because those plans I have given a commitment to will be funded by this Welsh Government.

But if they're not prioritising Welsh-medium education, what do you do then?

Well, the Member, from a sedentary position, talks about promoting Welsh-medium education. I'm sure the Member is aware that we have a new fund directly for the expansion of Welsh-medium education places to support the Government's ambition for a million Welsh speakers by 2050. We have a specific fund exactly for that that local authorities are able to bid into, and I am pleased to say we have had significant interest from local authorities in accessing that additional capital funding programme that did not exist a year ago.

The forthcoming devolution of teachers' pay presents us with a real opportunity to do it right and do it well, and I am determined to ensure that Wales is an attractive place to come and teach, and to have a nationwide approach that best suits Wales's needs.

Now, Presiding Officer, I guess that out of courtesy I must turn to the Conservatives' amendment. If they can't even start by recognising that the budget for Wales has been reduced by over £1 billion, then I'm not sure that they've got a leg to stand on. Lee Waters, you are absolutely—[Interruption.] Lee Waters, you are absolutely right—the last time the Conservative group had the courage to publish an alternative budget in this Chamber, they proposed swingeing cuts to the education budget.

Presiding Officer—[Interruption.]

The Cabinet Secretary is out of time, so I don't think there's time for interventions.

Presiding Officer, I do recognise, even with the additional resources that we are making available, that schools' budgets are stretched. I understand that. It means tough choices to ensure that funding does indeed get to the front line, and I will continue to work closely with heads, teachers, the unions, the regional consortia and local authorities to ensure that we're focused on raising standards for every single pupil in every single school, and I welcome the attention that the children and young people's committee is giving to this issue. Indeed, although we have not heard directly from Plaid Cymru today what their actual proposal would be for an alternative model, I note that Llyr has ruled out direct funding of schools, so it's not that model they're in favour of. But I am happy to work with people across the Chamber to look to see how we can collectively prioritise the needs of the children of our nation. Through that collective endeavour, we will set high expectations, we will reduce the attainment gap and we will deliver an education system that is a source of national pride and enjoys public confidence.

Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I've been told I have 90 seconds to close, so apologies for not being able to respond to all the points made, but I will start by thanking everyone who has contributed to this debate.

I do need to respond to the amendments, so I will do that. We will not be supporting the Welsh Government amendment. In true Welsh Government form, it starts with, 'Delete all,' so that's as far as I go, really, when it comes to reading your amendments. But what your amendment does, actually, is list a whole host of additional funds and schemes that you've put in place. Many of them are very positive, don't get me wrong, but I think it rather illustrates the point that we're trying to make here. It underlines the fact that if core budgets were sufficient, then we wouldn't need an extra pot for class sizes, we wouldn't need an extra pot for this, that and the other. So, I feel that the Welsh Government amendment rather makes our point for us.

The Conservative amendment—well, comparing Wales to England is, in this context, I think, caveman economics, because you're not comparing like for like. Let's not forget, it's the Tory austerity agenda that's driving school funding down this cul-de-sac in the first place. For you to come here and try and tell us that the situation is very different in England—well, I'll tell you something: I was reading a few weeks ago that schools in England are now closing early on a Friday to cut costs. So, we won't take any lessons from the Tories on what they're doing in England.

Again, UKIP want to delete the substantive part of our motion, so we won't be supporting them.

The bottom line here, of course, is that the current school funding climate is unsustainable. Budgets are reducing, costs are increasing, and the cuts are cranking up the pressure on an already struggling workforce. So, what do we do? Do we wait until we see the impact of that on the education of our children, or do we act now and properly fund our schools to give the next generation the start in life that they all deserve? I hope you all support the Plaid Cymru motion.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting, therefore, until voting time.

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move directly to voting time.

The first vote is on the motion to elect a Member to the Assembly Commission. I call for a vote on the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, three abstentions, 31 against, and therefore the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is on the Welsh Conservatives' motion on carers. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, no abstentions, 35 against, and therefore the motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, no abstentions, 25 against, and therefore amendment 1 is agreed and amendment 2 is deselected.

Amendment 3. I call for a vote on amendment 3 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 3 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 4 tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 48, no abstentions, four against. Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 5 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed.

Amendment 6. I call for a vote on amendment 6 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, no extensions, 11 against. Therefore, amendment 6 is agreed.

Amendment 7. I call for a vote on amendment 7 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 27 against. Therefore, amendment 7 is not agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 8 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 52, no abstentions, none against. Amendment 8 is agreed.

Amendment 9. I call for a vote on amendment 9 tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, 11 abstentions, none against. Therefore, amendment 9 is agreed.

I call now for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, 11 abstentions, 14 against. The motion as amended is agreed.

The final vote is on the Plaid Cymru debate on school funding. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 9, no abstentions, 43 against. The motion is not agreed.

Amendment 1. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 27, no abstentions, 25 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

Amendment 2. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 17, no abstentions, 35 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is not agreed.

Amendment 3 has been deselected, and that brings us to a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 28, no abstentions, 24 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

If Members are leaving the Chamber, can they do so quickly, please?

We now move to the short debate and I call on Siân Gwenllian to speak on the topic she has chosen—Siân. 

Thank you very much. The subject is whether allowing Assembly Members to job-share would lead to the creation of a gender-balanced Assembly and one that is more representative of the population as a whole. I’m very pleased to lead this debate this afternoon. Jane Hutt and Julie Morgan are eager to contribute too, and I look forward to hearing their contributions.

A few weeks ago, I led a short debate in this Chamber about the need to improve gender equality and representation among minority groups at this Assembly. I do believe that having more women—indeed, an equal number of women—in posts where decisions are made is important as we strive to be a nation of equality, to be the kind of feminist nation that others have talked about that we need to create here in Wales. In the previous debate, I talked about research undertaken that shows that issues that are important in women’s daily lives and issues that should be focused on, in terms of creating equality, are far more likely to be raised in discussions led by women. Striving towards equal representation in public life, therefore, helps to improve women’s lives in general. And that’s not the only element that demands our attention—nowhere near. I’m not trying to say that, and I am fully aware of the wide range of work that needs to be done. That’s why I would like to see a national action plan on gender quality. But it is one element, and one that we as elected Members can influence if we wish to do so.

In the previous debate, I talked about the work of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform, and the report 'A Parliament that Works for Wales', which was published in December 2017. I believe that adopting all of the recommendations in that report would help to create a more equal and diverse Assembly, and that efforts should continue to seek consensus around the report’s findings. In the previous debate, I drew attention to a recommendation relating to requiring political parties to introduce quotas to have an equal number of candidates. Today, I want to draw attention to another one of the panel’s recommendations, which was also part of the work of considering how to improve diversity at the Assembly. According to the report:  

‘Enabling candidates standing for the same party or as independents to stand for election on the basis of job sharing arrangements could lead to an increase in the diversity of representation within the Assembly. The flexibility to stand on the basis of job sharing could be particularly beneficial for older candidates, those with disabilities, or those with caring responsibilities.’

Professor Rosie Campbell and Professor Sarah Childs—who shared their role, as it happens, as members of the expert panel—have contributed a great deal to the debate on job sharing, and both contributed to work undertaken by the Fawcett Society on the possibility of Members of Parliament sharing jobs, drawing attention to the advantages. And in 2012, John McDonnell MP introduced a 10-minute rule Bill at the House of Commons, which received cross-party support. However, during the 2015 general election, two members of the Green Party who hoped to stand for election to the UK Parliament were refused permission to do so.

It’s true to say that there’s been limited discussion about job sharing for elected positions. I was very pleased, therefore, to see the recommendation of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform, and it is now an opportunity for us to have this debate here. Job sharing is a form of flexible working and, put simply, it enable two employees to share the responsibilities and the duties of one full-time post. It’s not a new concept; it dates from the 1970s, and job sharing has increased over the past 40 years, particularly in some managerial roles and across all sorts of careers, and there are several examples of good practice.

In a report entitled ‘Working Families’ researchers looked at 11 cases of job sharing, and these posts included the chief executive of a health trust, a detective inspector, the manager of a large shop, a director in the civil service, a head of department at an international bank, a manager with a water board, and a chief executive of a charity. And looking at one of these in brief, the joint directors of the Judicial Studies Board shared their role for over 20 years, in a total of seven posts, and this was a great success. They shared the same values and the same attitude towards work and leadership, but they had different personalities and they benefited from each other’s strengths. Sharing the job was valuable in terms of discussing and supporting each other, and sharing a job encouraged a more collaborative approach to leadership, which was beneficial to the whole team, encouraging delegation and therefore creating empowering opportunities for other members of the team.

I believe there would be clear advantages to allowing Assembly Members to share the job. Disability rights campaigners also see clear advantages to job sharing, and others see that those in professional positions could continue to maintain their skills as doctors, teachers and scientists and so on, while having an elected role, and decreasing the risk if they were to lose their seats, meaning that putting their names forward for election in the first place would be more attractive.

The expert panel’s report noted that the central guiding principle for job sharing is that parties who wish to share a job should be treated as one person, and this would mean, for example, that if a partner were to resign, it should be assumed automatically that the other would resign as an Assembly Member. Furthermore, clarity and transparency would be needed regarding remuneration and financial support for such an arrangement. The report recommended that the principle at the heart of arrangements of this kind is that candidates should explain to constituents the agreement that they have to share the job and that those partners that share should not give rise to any additional costs greater than the cost of one Assembly Member.

Job sharing has clear advantages in providing opportunities for women with caring responsibilities—caring for young children or for older members of the family. As women still make up the majority of carers, creating opportunities to combine caring responsibilities with work as an Assembly Member could lead to increasing the number of women represented here at the Assembly. Job sharing could be a much more convenient option if you're a women with young children, particularly so if you live far away from Cardiff Bay and need to spend a period of time every week away from home.

So, how would it work, then, in terms of Assembly Members sharing their jobs? These are some of my ideas, and some of the ideas that have arisen from the work of the Fawcett Society. These are things for us to discuss, clearly, if we want to pursue this path. But, initially, the two people would need to present themselves as one team from the outset. Both candidates would need to be judged by their parties as being qualified and having the appropriate qualifications—both. In being selected by their parties, and again in being elected, a clear and comprehensive statement would need to be made about what they believe, their priorities, and their objectives that have been agreed jointly. Candidates for job sharing should detail the rules that will be adopted to determine their working arrangements on a daily basis.

It's important that there isn't a need to be too prescriptive here. Flexibility is vital in terms of these working arrangements. Perhaps they would work at different times of the week or different parts of the parliamentary year, working the in the constituency, or in Cardiff, sharing constituency work on the weekend, based on a rota perhaps, sharing portfolios or campaigns. The working pattern could vary according to circumstances and change over time. One could travel to the Senedd in the middle of every week and do the work here in the Chamber and on committees, while the other could deal with casework in the constituency. But, truth be told, this would be a matter for discussion, with flexibility being key.

This could also change over time as well, perhaps with a Member with caring responsibilities for young children spending more time in the constituency at the beginning, but with this pattern changing over time. This would be a good way of attracting women with children to the role, and the job share could come to an end as these responsibilities decrease, allowing for a period of mentoring to engender confidence, which would make being a candidate for the Assembly much more attractive to many more people, including, of course, women.

Two people would share the work of representing their constituents. Two Assembly Members sharing a job would have one vote, and the public should be clear who will be voting and when. The Assembly Members would win or lose an election as one person and would be held to account as one person by constituents. Of course, a protocol would need to be agreed to deal with any differences of opinion. This is important, but there is a way around it. Having that communication clear at the beginning is very important. And remember, of course, that Members of parties are accountable to their parties, and parties have their own procedures for dealing with any disagreement if that kind of situation were to arise. Clear communication between the two candidates for job sharing, between the candidates and their parties, and between candidates and constituents is vital to the success of job sharing.

And it is easy to draw attention to some of the problems, and I see that the issue of voting could be one of the issues here, but that's just one issue. It's easy enough to draw attention to some of the problems, but I think that we need to discuss the concept in a great deal of detail, because I do believe that no stone should be left unturned in the effort to achieve a nation of gender equality in Wales. This could be a small part of the jigsaw—a very small part—that we need, and we here at the Assembly have an opportunity to consider this part of the jigsaw as part of the suite of electoral reforms that are being discussed at present. So, let us consider this and discuss it, and let us come to a decision, hopefully, that will allow us to move in this direction. Thank you.

I'm very pleased to speak in this debate, and congratulations to Siân Gwenllian for obtaining this debate and really focusing attention on this very important area. I want to speak here today because I want to give my wholehearted support to—well, I want to see job sharing introduced here for elected Members. I think Siân has done a really good job in explaining and all the difficulties—well, not difficulties, but all the positive things—and the sort of areas that we would have to look at if we were going to bring this in. 

Now, I know that there aren't any examples in Westminster, and certainly there are no examples here or in local government, I don't think, of people actually standing as job shares to be elected, but there are examples of people holding executive posts. For example, in Swansea council, the future generations portfolio is held as a job share by two councillors, and there's the example in Wandsworth, where the two Labour deputy leaders share the deputy leader post, which seems very good progress. So, I think that's something we ought to be considering here as well. So, although we haven't got any actual elected people in that sense, there is a movement towards it with these executive posts being job shared.  

So, I think it's absolutely crucial that we do make our Assembly more representative, that we have disabled people, women with caring responsibilities, men with caring responsibilities, and this is just one of the things that we can do to enable that to happen. So, I support very strongly the recommendation from the expert panel, and I hope that we'll all be able to move together and work towards perhaps making this the first elected place in the UK where we actually have councillors and Assembly Members elected on a job-share basis.  

Okay. One second, Jane—oh, we've gone over time. No, I'll let Jane Hutt have a minute, so it's a minute. 

Thank you very much. 

Or 'ish'; I might not be able to count. Go on. 

Right. I'm really delighted to say a few words in support of Siân Gwenllian in this debate. It took me back to a book that I wrote, Making Opportunities—A Guide for Women and Employers, when I was director of Chwarae Teg. Believe it or not, this was 26 years ago that I wrote and published this book, and there are chapters on everything we need to know and that we're still trying to do in terms of trying to make Wales a more representative place—chapters on recruitment and retention, childcare. There are interesting points, of course, throughout this book about how we can make Wales more representative in terms of our workplace, and I'll just read from the chapter on job sharing: 

'Job sharing is being seen as a major attraction in the recruitment and retention of women employees, particularly for those who are having or have had a job or career break. It is also being used by male employees as a way of combining work and home responsibilities, and diversifying job experiences.'

So, I can perhaps hand that to the remuneration board as they look at the practicalities. But I think what is important is that we now take this forward. You've done a great deal of work to explain how we could address this, and I think it's a good example of how we can respond to the expert panel, and I fully support your debate and your intentions today.  

Thank you very much. 

I call on the Llywydd to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank Siân Gwenllian for bringing this debate to the Chamber and for giving us an opportunity to discuss this interesting and important issue, and for the supportive comments also made by two other Assembly Members. As has already been explained, it is very timely that Siân Gwenllian has chosen to raise this issue now, as the Assembly Commission will soon begin the process of deciding which elements of the Assembly electoral reform agenda should be progressed, and at what timescale—whether it should be by 2021 or 2026.

Any decision on any element of electoral reform will, of course, need to achieve broad consensus across this Chamber, and a two-thirds majority of Member votes will be required for that—a little more than we have in the Chamber at the moment.

Siân has chosen to focus on one important aspect of this agenda, one that ensures greater diversity of representation in our National Assembly, and within that, she's raised the question as to whether allowing Assembly Members to job share could lead to the creation of a more gender-balanced Assembly. The Member, as she has described, will be aware that this was a matter raised by the expert panel on electoral reform in its report, ‘A Parliament that works for Wales’. The panel’s report points to the fact that:

'One of the principles integral to the Assembly’s ethos is that, as far as possible, family friendly working should be embedded in its culture and procedures.'

From the outset, we have adopted and developed a timetable of business and practices that have attempted to reflect that principle. Although, I would be the first to admit that, in part due to issues of capacity and increased responsibilities, we have not always been able to adhere to that. The truth is, as the expert panel’s report suggests, that Members here have very limited flexibility in terms of their working days, and this is compounded, in my view, by the increasing demands and responsibilities on an institution whose Members are too few.

The impact of this has been laid bare in a number of reports and studies, for example the work produced by Bangor University in 2014 to evaluate the barriers to entering the Assembly. This study examined the impact of being elected to this institution on individuals and families and how these factors could serve to deter others who may wish to stand for election. The potential solutions are numerous, of course, and bring about various complexities, but all are worth consideration if we are to secure greater diversity in our national Parliament.

Partly with this in mind, the expert panel explored the potential for candidates to be selected and to stand for election on the basis of job-share arrangements. The panel cited the arguments raised in a pamphlet published by the Fawcett Society, which said that job sharing would be a proportionate step towards making it possible for more people to consider standing for election and making parliamentary representation more diverse. Moreover, they concluded that job sharing could be particularly beneficial for older candidates, those with disabilities, or those with caring responsibilities.

The panel’s recommendation, therefore, was that electoral law and procedures should be changed to enable candidates to stand for election on the basis of transparent job-sharing arrangements, and they set out some very broad and general principles that could be followed to achieve this. The Assembly Commission subsequently decided that the recommendation was indeed an interesting one that merited being included as a topic in the public consultation on Assembly electoral reform. That consultation was held between February and April this year, and we intend to publish initial headline responses before the summer recess.

This work requires detailed analysis in order to ensure that it is able to fully inform the decision of Members. I can confirm here today, however, that the Commission has received over 3,200 submissions to the consultation process. I’m sure you’ll agree that that is very encouraging, that there was such a substantial response to that consultation. I’m looking forward, therefore, to reading some of the comments of the consultation and to hear the comments of Members on this quite complicated policy area. It's an issue that certainly offers opportunities, but I’ve no doubt that it also raises a number of practical, political and legal challenges.

One reason for this, as was noted in the panel's report, was the recent High Court case determination that job sharing is not currently permitted for Westminster elections according to electoral law. The same would also stand for Assembly elections, as things currently stand. In that particular case, two women made a request to the returning officer in Basingstoke to stand jointly for a Westminster election on behalf of the Green Party, as Siân Gwenllian mentioned. That request was rejected by the returning officer and the decision was challenged unsuccessfully in the High Court in London.

The initial legal advice that I have received also casts doubt on the competence of this Assembly to make all of the changes needed to implement such a policy, particularly if Members would wish to allow a job-sharing Member to become Minister or Cabinet Secretary.

On a more practical note, it remains the case that there is no precedent elsewhere of elected Members job sharing. There are examples within the European Parliament that are not dissimilar to this arrangement, but they are arrangements within political parties rather than a statutory electoral system. I am aware, for example, of Members of the European Parliament giving up their seat during the term in order to allow the next person on the list to undertake that role for the rest of the term. In the European elections in 2014, the Peoples Decide alliance from Galicia won one seat. The alliance decided that they should allow one Member to serve for part of the term and another to serve for the rest of the term—Ana Miranda Paz—and she has just been elected for the second part of the European parliamentary term as the other Member stands down in order to allow her to be elected. A job share of a different kind, of course, but a job share nonetheless.

As I mentioned, this current system was established within a political party or alliance rather than through legislation and that is quite different to the situation where two politicians are elected to undertake a single role. Certainly, for this to work, constituents would need assurances in relation to the practicality of job sharing, particularly in terms of who is accountable and responsible, and in terms of costs.

There are questions also to be asked as to whether creating a law to allow job sharing would necessarily lead to political parties adopting candidates on a job-share basis. That's a matter of politics, not law, of course.

None of this is an excuse for inaction, of course, nor a reason for dismissing the idea out of hand. I am proud that this Assembly is innovative and forward-thinking, but a significant amount of work would be required before the Assembly Commission, Members and, indeed, electors could feel confident that such a policy could be implemented effectively. But now, of course, the powers for Assembly elections sit in this Assembly, and we can have this kind of innovative, interesting debate where, in previous Assemblies, we would have discussed something that wouldn't be possible for us to deliver as an Assembly.

Therefore, I'm grateful for this initial discussion today. I think it sets a clear precedent for this Assembly to be innovative in how we draw up our electoral systems for the future.

Diolch. That brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.