Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call the Members to order. 

And the first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, and the first question, Gareth Bennett. 

I thank the Member for the question. Despite deep cuts to our conventional capital budget, the Welsh Government has ambitious plans for investment in South Wales Central, including development of the south Wales metro, the new Velindre Cancer Centre and 43 different projects being taken forward through the twenty-first century schools programme.

Thanks for the answer. The Minister will be aware of the project to reopen the Rhondda tunnel as a footpath and cycle path. Following a recent report by Balfour Beatty, there has been an assessment that 95 per cent of the tunnel is in a very good condition. Now, the Highways Agency is responsible for the safety of the tunnel but isn't allowed to reopen the tunnel. Would the Welsh Government now consider taking over ownership of the tunnel from the Highways Agency in order to progress the scheme?

I thank Gareth Bennett for that supplementary question. He is quite right. The Welsh Government has provided some funding through or budget agreement with Plaid Cymru to fund what's called the tapping survey of the Rhondda tunnel. Once we are able to consider the outcome of that survey—and he is also right to say that ownership of the tunnel is one of the next issues that we would need to consider—I look forward to discussing what might be possible next with members of Plaid Cymru as part of our budget considerations. 

Finance Minister, the Vale of Glamorgan Council are out to consultation at the moment on improving transport links to the M4 from the A48 through the village of Pendoylan. Are you in a position to inform us how this project would be paid for? Is it from the city deal, or would a bid have to come directly to you, or to the Welsh Government, I should say, to release capital moneys for the development of this road, because, at the moment, certainly from the representations I've had from residents, there is uncertainty as to exactly who picks up the bill for this improvement of transport links?

Llywydd, as far as I'm aware, the discussions are still at an early stage on the funding arrangements, should that project ever get the go-ahead. There are precedents in the Swansea city deal for ways in which investment can be shared between the Welsh Government and a city deal. I will make enquiries, however, and if there is more up-to-date information than I have with me, then I'll write to the Member to let him know. 

I welcome what you've just said about the Rhondda tunnel, Cabinet Secretary. I've got a vision of a fully accessible cycle track covering the whole of my constituency. At the moment, it's patchy, to say the least. And the vision includes linking up the Rhondda tunnel with the neighbouring valley, Blaengwynfi. Now, I'm soon to be meeting various interested parties from a cycling perspective to see what can be done to turn this vision into a reality. Minister, are you on board? Will you agree to progress this question of ownership of the Rhondda tunnel as a matter of urgency, and would you, in principle, be prepared to work with us in the Rhondda on turning this cycling vision into a reality?

I thank the Member for the question and for the very interesting information she's just provided. What I can say, Llywydd, is this: the future of the tunnel has featured in the last two years' worth of discussions that I conducted with Plaid Cymru around the budget. I hope that we will have a chance to have a further round of those discussions alongside the current budget-making process, and I'm very happy to meet the Member, if that would be the right way to do it, to share the information that we have as a result of what we've agreed so far, and to hear of other possibilities that she thinks we ought to be aware of.FootnoteLink 

Will the Finance Minister highlight Welsh Government capital investment in the NHS and South Wales Central as a result of the Wales infrastructure investment plan, and does he agree with Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that there will be no Brexit dividend to help finance the additional funding boost to the NHS, or perhaps even agree with Dr Sarah Wollaston, who chairs the House of Commons health committee, who tweeted this was 'tosh'?

'The Brexit dividend tosh was expected but treats the public as fools. Sad to see Govt slide to populist arguments rather than evidence on such an important issue.'

I thank Jane Hutt, of course, for that. I'll take her question in the two parts that she asked it. Of course we wish to use Welsh Government budgets to continue to invest in the NHS in South Wales Central. That includes £37 million currently being provided as part of phase 2 developments to improve neonatal care at the university hospital here in Cardiff; £14 million at Prince Charles Hospital in Merthyr, as part of the upgrading of facilities at that site; and £8 million to create a diagnostic hub at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, which I think is one of the most exciting developments shaping the future of health services in the South Wales Central area. As to the claim that the uplift in the NHS, when we finally find out what that actually means for Wales, and any suggestion that this is part of some sort of Brexit dividend has fallen apart so rapidly in the Prime Minister's hands that she must be deeply sorry that she ever included that in her announcement. We know, on any of the surveys that we see, is that it is likely to have an adverse effect on the economy right across the United Kingdom, an adverse effect on tax receipts into the Treasury. And any idea—any idea—that necessary investment in the NHS is to be found in that way is simply to perpetuate a piece of nonsense that was used during the referendum campaign. And I agree with what Sarah Wollaston said—it is deeply disappointing to see something that is so plainly misleading being repeated again.

Well, the First Minister and I take every opportunity to discuss with the UK Government, and interests here in Wales, the need for the promise made to people in Wales two years ago to be made good: that not a penny in funding would be lost as a result of leaving the European Union.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. This Monday, I went to visit the new bay campus of Swansea University to see how European structural funds have been used there. And I was extremely impressed with the quality of their projects, particularly with their built-in, cross-cutting themes of sustainable development, tackling poverty and social exclusion, and particularly with the materials and manufacturing education, training and learning programme, which is a programme to upskill more than 360 people, from 30 different companies, in the field of advanced materials and manufacturing, also proactively encouraging women to participate. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree that we must ensure that such high-quality projects can be maintained in the future and that any future regional development progress must absolutely include high-quality standards, such as we see with European structural funds?

Well, can I thank Julie Morgan for that, and thank her, of course, for the work that she does in chairing the programme monitoring committee for Wales? And I know it's been a theme in recent considerations at the programme monitoring committee of the way in which European funding can be used to assist with those cross-cutting themes of equality and sustainability. And I know we've talked in the Chamber here before about the way in which European Union funding has been used specifically to encourage women to participate in advanced manufacturing and in materials as well. We are currently working, Llywydd, to the Chancellor's guarantee, which is that, if we commit European funding by March of next year, he has given an undertaking to cover all of that. My hope is that, at the October Council of Ministers, we will get a period of transition, and that will mean that we can go on using European funding up to the end of the current seven-year period, and for two years beyond. And that will allow us to do what Julie Morgan said—to make sure that the quality of the projects we're able to bring forward will equal that of existing projects.

Cabinet Secretary, I wonder whether you've had a chance to look at Professor Graeme Reid's report into research funding. He concludes,

'I have found great strengths and national assets in Welsh Universities and in research and innovation centres that have been developed in Wales during the last decade but I am not convinced that the potential of these assets is fully exploited for the benefit of Wales.'

And he goes on to say that the research community needs to work together to become more influential in pursuing competitive funding. And that's really important if we can continue at the European level for a little while or at whatever is going to come through the UK level in terms of shared prosperity funds or other mechanisms that may now be agreed. 

Well, I thank David Melding for that. I am familiar with the Reid review and with the conclusions that it draws. David Melding is absolutely right to highlight the fact that that review and others have shone a spotlight on Horizon 2020 funding from the European Union, in which Wales punches well above our weight. We get a considerably higher return through Horizon 2020 projects than you would expect for a higher education sector of our size, and that means that securing ongoing access to programmes of that sort beyond our membership of the European Union is vitally important for our research community. They do need, as Reid says, to go on increasing their capture of grants from major funders, such as the Medical Research Council and other UK councils, but the capture that they have, working with colleagues right across Europe from Horizon 2020, means that its successor programme and our ability in Wales to have access to it is especially important to research bodies here in Wales. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Conservative spokesperson, Nick Ramsay.

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, I'd like to ask you about the proposed use of the mutual investment model, and specifically with regard to twenty-first century schools. You will be aware that the Public Accounts Committee has been investigating the use of the mutual investment model for financing capital projects, specifically band B of the twenty-first century schools programme.

There have been concerns from the WLGA about the affordability of the model, based on their previous experience with PFI. There are also some wider concerns about locking local authorities and schools into 25-year contracts. Amongst them was the changing nature of the school curriculum over this period, which will inevitably lead to changing needs for school buildings in the long term. So, all these issues pose some concerns, which, as I say, the Public Accounts Committee has been looking at. I wonder if you could give us your insight into the development of the MIM and where you think we can go from here in terms of addressing some of these concerns? 

Well, I thank Nick Ramsay for that and I thank the PAC for the work that they're doing in looking at the model. I'm sure there will be things that we will want to learn from the work that the committee is undertaking. Llywydd, I hope to make a statement very shortly, updating Members on the latest developments in relation to the mutual investment model, including some close interest which has been taken in it at the United Nations in looking at ways in which the ground that we have been able to break in creating that model might be of interest to other countries who are also involved in looking for innovative ways to expand capital investment programmes.

Specifically in relation to band B of the twenty-first century schools programme, I think the correct analogy for local authorities to be looking at is not PFI, where we have very little use of it, but the way in which using ideas developed by my predecessor, Jane Hutt, we have been able to use local authorities' ability to make things happen, and then to fund the revenue consequences of that to allow them to use the capacity that they have to invest in the capital field, and that's what we would look to do in the twenty-first century schools programme. 

As to the argument about locking in local authorities to assets that they may not need in the long run, that's an important point. Local authorities need to think carefully about that in the way in which they bring forward proposals to use the mutual investment model in the twenty-first century schools area. For example, I think it is unlikely that special schools would be suitable for this model, because the nature of special education changes, and the intensity of use of a special school in terms of the physical fabric, inevitably, given the nature of the pupil population that they serve, is intense as well, and so the model will be suitable for some aspects of the school estate but not necessarily for all.  

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. You spoke about the way that the mutual investment model differs from PFI; I think this has been an area of some confusion. There is a lack of clarity out there as to the nature of the differences with traditional PFI. If I can just give some examples: in a conventional PFI—a PF1 or PF2 deal—soft services are usually considered to include catering and cleaning provisions. What services do you envisage being, either included or excluded, if that's easier, from the mutual investment model within the twenty-first century schools programme? I say this in the light of the fact that there have been concerning stories of PFI hospitals faced with significant charges to deal with minor maintenance issues, such as one PFI hospital that was billed £333 to have a new lightbulb installed—an extreme example, but nonetheless, these are some of the concerns that have surrounded PFI, and which currently concern the MIM as well.

Llywydd, I'll do my best in the statement that I hope to publish shortly to restate some of the key components of the model, so that people can be clear about them. Let me just mention three in relation to the question that Nick Ramsay has asked: it's a key feature of the model that it allows the private sector to share in any profits of the private partner and to take up to 20 per cent equity in such schemes in order to do so. The model removes soft services from contracts—soft services such as cleaning and catering—and it removes equipment from the model as well, because of the experience that Nick Ramsay pointed to, and because equipment can be funded more efficiently from public capital. So, we have looked to learn the lessons of models elsewhere, particularly Scotland's not-for-profit distributing model, and to make sure that the model that we invent here in Wales learns those lessons and removes from it those components that have been particularly unsatisfactory in previous ways of working.

I'm getting the message that my questions have pre-empted a statement that can be expected from the Welsh Government in the near future. Maybe I'm ahead of the game.

Thank you for that, Cabinet Secretary. Certainly in terms of the work that we've done in the Public Accounts Committee, there has been a message coming across that there's been a concern about a lack of communication between the Welsh Government and local authorities about the exact nature of the mutual investment model, but clearly with your statement coming forward, you obviously hope to address some of these concerns.

In evidence provided to the committee by the Vale of Glamorgan Council, it was explained that it's been thought that to pay back their liabilities under the model, local authorities could use the funding they allocate to individual schools for maintenance. However, the Vale of Glamorgan's representative went further to explain that the amount of funding that schools actually receive in maintenance wouldn’t necessarily be sufficient to cover that annual payment. So, that’s been a source of concern. Given the need of councils to rely on their revenue budgets to finance repayments to the model, and the need to balance that finely with the financing of other services, is it the case that there is an argument here for clearer guidance to local authorities so that, certainly in planning ahead with their budgets, they’re able to manage those budgets more effectively and also to find match funding where necessary to fill gaps that might emerge?

Llywydd, I look forward to reading the evidence that's been presented to the PAC and where there are areas where we need further discussions with local authorities to make sure that there is clear advice, we'd certainly wish to do that. I have been encouraged by the number of local authorities in Wales that have come forward with proposals to use the mutual investment model in order, as they wish to do—including the Vale of Glamorgan—to have an ambitious programme of investment in our schools estate. We will work with those local authorities, and where there are technical matters that need to be addressed to make sure that the model can deliver on the ground, of course we'd want to have those conversations with them.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Simon Thomas.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. And as we’ve just heard during this session, structural funds have been extremely important for Wales and for the Welsh economy. As part of the preparations for withdrawing from the European Union, the Finance Committee has started an inquiry into the structural funds, for example, what will replace them: the shared prosperity fund, Horizon 2020, which has just been mentioned.

In that process, we’ve asked the Secretary of State to appear before the committee to provide evidence and it didn’t come as much of a surprise to me, but it was a shock, in a way, to receive a letter from the Secretary of State for Wales saying that he didn’t think that an appearance before the committee was necessary. And, more than that, he hasn’t prepared any evidence for the committee. I don’t think that this demonstrates that the Secretary of State is dealing with the committees of this Assembly in a way that is appropriate and respectful, but could you tell us from your point of view as to whether you trust in the role of the Secretary of State for Wales in preparing the ground for structural funds for each nation within the UK, as we see the structural funds disappear?

Well, it’s not acceptable to me, and I’m certain it’s not acceptable to the Finance Committee either when they request that the Secretary of State attends, the person in Westminster—so they say—who is accountable to us in Wales, and he is not willing to come to give evidence to the committee.

I have read a number of submissions made to the committee by others, and a great deal of interesting evidence has been submitted. I saw Julie Morgan and others come before the committee, and I look forward to my attendance, too. This is not the first time for the Secretary of State to be offered the opportunity to attend the Finance Committee, and he is not willing to do it. I take every opportunity I have to raise the future of the structural funds with the United Kingdom Government, but that is not the only way of doing it. 

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his reply. The difficulty, I think, is that I can see this as part of a pattern of behaviour by several Conservative Ministers now, which, I'm afraid, I think that the Welsh Government is facilitating rather than preventing—inadvertently, perhaps.

I'll give you another example of this that's emerged in the last couple of weeks. As you know, you have an inter-governmental agreement on the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill, and that makes it very clear that the UK Government will commit not to bring forward legislation that would alter areas of policy insofar as the devolved legislatures are prevented from doing so by virtue of the clause 11 regulations. So, what you've told this Assembly is a double deal, if you like, on that.

However, there is the amendment passed in the Lords—the Letwin amendment, as it's called—that requires the Secretary of State to publish a draft Bill containing environmental regulations in England, but doesn't specifically say only for the public authorities in England. And, of course, environmental regulations are one of the 24 policy areas that make up your inter-governmental agreement.

Already this inter-governmental agreement has been described by Tim Lang from City, University of London, as showing that Wales is steamrollable by Whitehall. Are you still convinced that the agreement is robust enough to protect the interests of Wales? And are you still convinced that the Letwin amendment, and the response of the UK Government to that, does not in fact show that the agreement that the ink is barely dry on is already being undermined by the Westminster Government?

Well, Llywydd, Professor Lang is quite wrong, and he has no evidence for the assertion that he made because there has been no action under the inter-governmental agreement. So, he would have nothing at all on which to rely for the assertion that he has offered.

As to the Letwin amendment, the Member is aware, because the First Minister reported it yesterday, that there were explicit assurances given in the House of Lords that the amendment refers to England only; that it does not trespass into devolved competencies. There was a discussion, as I understand it, at the Business Committee yesterday as to whether or not an LCM needed to be brought forward. The Government would have brought one forward had the Business Committee concluded that there were changes to the Bill that had a material impact on the responsibilities that we hold here. The Business Committee concluded that was not the case, and I think that is a reflection of the strength of the assurances that we have received.

I think this one will run and run, and we'll see the reality of the agreement as other things emerge. One of the things that will be emerging today in Westminster, of course, is the final vote, in my view, to uphold parliamentary sovereignty and to make sure that Parliament, not Government, has the final meaningful say on the Brexit deal agreed and negotiated with the European Union.

In March this year, when asked on whether or not the National Assembly should be provided with such a meaningful vote, also on the final treaty with the European Union, the First Minister responded by saying, and I quote,

'It wouldn’t be right in principle for us to be bound by something that we had no role in negotiating nor agreeing.'

So, what do you now propose should take place to ensure that Wales, and therefore this Parliament, is equally given the vote to have our say on the final Brexit deal?

Can I begin just by agreeing with what Simon Thomas said, but not quite in the spirit that he said it? He's right to say that the impact of the agreement will now be lived out in the actual experience that we will have over the coming months, and it is our belief that the agreement secures the position of this Assembly. Any powers that we agree should be held temporarily, to be operated against the EU rule book until we agree something different, will come in front of this Assembly for approval. And there will be repeated opportunities for the Assembly to see whether or not the agreement that we have reached is actually measuring up to that.

As to the meaningful vote, there is a second decision point coming in the whole Brexit business, because there will come a point when there will be a deal struck between the UK Government and the European Union and that will set the terms for our departure. The meaningful vote in Parliament is designed to make sure that Parliament has proper oversight of that. Whenever I've heard the First Minister talk about this, he refers to the Parliaments of the United Kingdom having oversight of that, and that says to me that the views that he expressed to the Assembly earlier have not altered.

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Labour now believes, according to their proposed amendment last week to the EU withdrawal Bill, that we should have full access to the internal market of the European Union, underpinned by shared institutions and regulations, with no new impediments to trade and common rights standards and protections as a minimum. It's perfectly clear from the conduct of the negotiations by Monsieur Barnier up until now that he regards the single market as indivisible and it must include free movement of labour. The main aim of Monsieur Barnier's negotiation has been to discourage other EU member states from following Britain's example, rather than to reach a deal that's in the interests of ordinary people in Europe, still less in Britain. 

Jeremy Corbyn said, in the days when he was a Eurosceptic just under a year ago, that under Labour there would be no wholesale importation of underpaid workers from central Europe in order to destroy conditions, particularly in the construction industries. Given that full membership of the single market involves free movement of labour, how can those two statements be reconciled?

I refer the Member to the documents that the Welsh Government has published: originally, the White Paper that we published jointly with Plaid Cymru and then the subsequent paper that we published on fair movement of people, which I think gives him exactly the answer to the question that he has raised, because we set out in that paper a series of proposals that we think could be brought within the broad umbrella of free movement.

It's one of the myths of the whole EU debate that there are some sort of single standards about what all these freedoms—the four freedoms—actually mean. The way in which freedom of movement is interpreted in different member states varies very considerably from one part of the European Union to another. We set out a series of suggestions that we think would allow us to remain under that broad umbrella, but would have, also, the impact that Jeremy Corbyn pointed to—that freedom of movement must not become freedom to exploit. And there is no doubt that some of those people who voted to leave the European Union did so because they feared that freedom of movement had become a device through which wages were held down and the legal rights that people had were undermined by people being brought across the European continent to be exploited here. We set out a series of proposals to make sure that that doesn't happen and, together, they provide all the answers that the Member needs to the question that he's raised.

Of course, asking for something that's not on offer is not an answer to the question. He knows as well as I do—someone as well-informed and sophisticated as the finance Secretary must know—that the European Commission could never actually grant to the United Kingdom the kind of deviations from EU regulations on free movement that the Labour Party has been talking about. In fact, this is called 'cakeism' by the European Commission—having your cake and eating it. A source close to Guy Verhofstadt, the lead negotiator of the European Parliament on these issues, now says that 

'Labour are as bad as the Tories, selling a unicorn to paste over their internal divisions.'

Is it not clear that Labour policy now is that we'll be a rule taker on goods and European court rulings? That means not taking back control of our laws. Belief in full alignment means no free trade deals with the rest of the world, which means we don't take back control of our trade policy, and a compromise on free movement means that we don't take back control of our borders. This will all be at a price, as well; just like Norway, we'll be obliged to pay into the European budget, which means not taking back control of our money.

Well, Llywydd, I've never shared the Member's view of the Commission as some sort of malign force, forever out to do us down. In my experience of going to Brussels and talking to people there, I think we are fortunate to have a group of people on the other side of the negotiating table who recognise that it is in their interests and ours to agree a Brexit deal that does the least possible harm to their economies and to the economy of the United Kingdom. I think that's the spirit in which those negotiations have been entered into. The Labour Party's policy in Wales is the policy set out in our original White Paper, and that is an approach to Brexit that insists that it is the needs of our economy, it is the needs of jobs, it is the needs of working people, that should be at the very top of the negotiating list of the United Kingdom Government, and that all the talk of taking back control, of being in charge of our laws, all that sort of thing, leads us to a series of red lines that, in the end, will mean that the UK Government has managed something really remarkable—it will have managed both to damage our economy and to see to it that our political voice in decision making has been diminished. There is a different way, a better way, and the Labour Party has set it out.

I know the Labour Party doesn't believe in red lines; it believes in raising white flags on these issues—the white flag of surrender to the EU on all matters of major importance. Labour is an internationalist party, and constantly virtue signalling on the interests of poor countries in other parts of the world for reasons that I, to a great extent, share. The customs union of the European Union is a protectionist racket that disrupts our trade with the rest of the world, holds back the poorest overseas, whilst increasing prices and costs for the poorest at home. That, therefore, makes a nonsense of the statement that the Cabinet Secretary has just said of putting the interests of working people, whether at home or abroad, at the top of the agenda.

Well, Llywydd, it's absolutely in the interests of working people throughout Wales, whether they are in manufacturing industries, where goods pass across the border of the United Kingdom and other parts of the European Union every single day, or whether in our food and agriculture sectors, where exporters rely on their goods arriving fresh at the point where they are to be consumed—it's absolutely in the interests of Welsh businesses and Welsh working people that we have free and frictionless trade. That's what the customs union delivers, and, when we have barriers at the border, and we have businesses in Wales that can no longer trade as a result of the prospectus that he sets out, we'll be diverting them to the Member so that he can explain to them just the position that he has led us to.

Well, I thank the Member for that very pertinent leading-on question. The UK economy has already moved from being one of the fastest growing major economies to the slowest in the G7, due to the uncertainty created by the UK Government's chaotic handling of Brexit. Any reduction in access to European markets will reduce growth, cost jobs and threaten the resources available to fund public services.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I'd like to focus on the possible implications for the food we import if we suddenly find ourselves having to impose tariffs and chaos at our borders. We currently import £9 billion of fruit and vegetables from the European Union, compared with the £1 billion-worth of fruit and vegetables that we grow in this country, so this is a very significant issue in terms of the type of food that we need to eat to keep healthy. I know that some elements in the Conservative Party are enthusiastic advocates of importing cheap food from the United States, like chlorinated chicken and hormone-induced beef, but, for the majority, we want to know the conditions under which our food is grown and, in particular, I wondered what consideration has been given to the issue of food security, because, if we cannot get hold of the products that we currently rely on, clearly, there is going to be a massive spike in the cost of those products and simply not enough available to feed the population. We still don't know what the future of pillar 1 payments might be. Gove talks a good game on pillar 2 and the environmental benefits of public goods, but what is going to be the implication for food production, for the feeding of our very own population, if we do not have free movement of these essential goods from Europe?

Well, I thank Jenny Rathbone for that follow-up question. In my answer to Neil Hamilton, I focused on the impact on food exporters of a hard Brexit, but she is absolutely right to point to the impact on food that we use in this country if we either were to have a hard Brexit that meant we were no longer able to import fresh food in a timely manner, or the sort of Brexit that Brexit hardliners point to, in which we would sacrifice environmental and food standards in order to try and earn a living across the world. Neither of those are acceptable to the Welsh Government, nor to people here in Wales. I was the health Minister during the period of the horse meat scandal, when we saw what can go wrong when you don't have proper standards—[Interruption.]—when you don't have proper standards to ensure that the food that ends up on people's plates here is of a proper—[Interruption.] I'm afraid there are no—[Interruption.]

Mark Reckless.

I'm amazed the Cabinet Secretary should absolve the EU of all responsibility for the horse meat scandal. Extraordinarily, he describes Jenny Rathbone as 'absolutely right' when she refers to us having to impose tariffs, but, Cabinet Secretary, isn't it a choice for this country whether we impose tariffs? Given that we've had a free trade area with the EU, we could maintain that unilaterally for up to 10 years without having to change our World Trade Organization tariffs elsewhere. And is it not the case that, in the scenario where we did go to WTO tariffs, which I certainly do not support, there would be positive implications for many sectors? We currently have—. A quarter of our whole beef consumption is supplied by Ireland. If we suddenly see a 50 per cent tariff on dairy and beef coming from Ireland, will that not give huge opportunities to the beef and dairy sector in Wales?

The Member is a purveyor of some of the most pernicious myths about Brexit, it seems to me. I'd like to take him to meet some people who are in the beef industry in Wales to hear what they have to say about the risks posed to their livelihood of the sort of policies that he would pursue, and it is absolutely not the case, Llywydd, and it is one of those Brexiteer myths that are peddled time and again, that, somehow, by leaving the European Union, we move into some rule-free space in which we can do anything we like whenever we like it. That will never be the case. Whatever arrangements we are in, there will be rules that we will have to take, and, because we will no longer be part of the European Union, we will no longer have the negotiating capacity that comes with being part of a major world bloc, the terms on which we will have to strike the sort of deals that he takes will be terms that will be highly disadvantageous to this country.

I think Jenny Rathbone's made some very important points there on the implications of Brexit for communities right across the United Kingdom. My constituency is a perfect example, really, with a constituency that voted to leave, but one with industry at its heart, and a very important industry at its heart. Getting that right balance between leaving the European Union and getting exactly the best deal is extremely difficult, but it's one that is crucially vital. Airbus, within the constituency, is a perfect example of European contribution and collaboration. My question is simple, Cabinet Secretary: does the Cabinet Secretary share my concerns that businesses are already having to plan for the worst type of deal just because there is no clarity or leadership from the UK Government?

Can I thank Jack Sargeant for that? In the comparatively short time that he has been a Member of the Assembly, he has already been clearly identified as a major spokesperson for the aerospace industry, because of its importance to his own constituency. Llywydd, there are some serious analyses that suggest that the aerospace industry in Wales is the most exposed of all to a tariff-infested Brexit. That's not surprising, is it, because the aerospace industry relies on components passing across borders every single day in order to succeed. So, Jack Sargeant is absolutely right to point to the dangers posed to industries and jobs in his parts of Wales if we don't manage to negotiate a sensible Brexit that puts jobs and our economy at the forefront of those negotiations.

Can I thank Mandy Jones for that question? The setting of council tax is the responsibility of democratically-elected local authorities. They are answerable to their local populations for the decisions they make. We have again continued to protect local government in Wales from the worst effects of austerity in the settlement for 2018-19.

Thank you for that answer. I welcome the fact that eight local authorities have given an exemption to care leavers in their areas from paying council tax until they reach the age of 25, including one from my region, Anglesey. This gives care leavers the opportunity to better transition to independent living without the fear of a disproportionate response by councils if they are unable to make their council tax payments. Would the Welsh Government work with the remaining councils in north Wales and the rest of Wales to ensure that all care leavers have access to this exemption to avoid a postcode lottery?

Can I thank Mandy Jones for that supplementary question? Because I completely agree with what she has said. I am glad to see the number of local authorities in Wales rising that provide a blanket exemption to care leavers from paying the council tax. I know that Carl Sargeant, when he was responsible for this area, wrote to all local authorities, encouraging them to join that list. It's a message that the current local government Secretary and I continue to give to local authority colleagues, and those who have tell you that the costs to them are very modest indeed, because, sadly, so many care leavers qualify for help with council tax in other ways from schemes that we already have in being. But to have a solid scheme universally available, where care leavers could be guaranteed to be provided with that help—that's the position we'd like to get to as a Welsh Government, and we will continue, as she has suggested, to work with colleagues in local authorities to get all 22 into that position.

Cabinet Secretary, your colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, in his Green Paper on local government, states that, over time, there has been convergence in council tax levels and

'in the majority of places the differences today are small and this should not be an insurmountable issue.'

However, the figures tell a different story, with council tax payers in north Wales potentially—if these ludicrous proposals go ahead—facing an increase of £160 per annum in Ynys Môn, and over £80 each in Conway and Wrexham. Given the fact that, in Wales, we've seen a 201 per cent increase in council tax bills since devolution, and notwithstanding the many concerns that we have raised—and others—regarding the financial integrity of the Cabinet Secretary's Green Paper on local government reform, have you been invited to any discussions with the Cabinet Secretary as regards moving forward with local government reform, and, in particular, what agreements are in place to mitigate any further exorbitant council tax increases?

Of course, Llywydd, as finance Minister I take a close interest, and will continue to, in the outcome of the consultation on the Green Paper that the Cabinet Secretary has conducted, and the issue to which the Member points—differential rates of council tax between authorities—has undoubtedly been a theme in that consultation. Of course, the biggest differential lies not between Welsh authorities but between authorities in Wales and authorities in England, where English council tax payers on average have to pay £179 extra every year.

Given the cuts to Denbighshire County Council’s budget last year, Denbighshire will have to increase its council tax by 20 per cent, it seems, just to catch up with where they are at the moment. Now, whilst we know that budgets are shrinking, costs are increasing, and many of us will welcome the fact that a number of staff in the council are going to receive a pay rise, particularly those on the lower bands. But the questions I’d like to ask you is: for how long do you, as Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for finance, believe that it will be sustainable for councils to continue to deliver not only non-statutory services, but statutory services too in such an unsustainable financial context?

Well, Llywydd, we are in a period where we are all under pressure from the Westminster cuts, and I acknowledge the fact that people in the local authorities are coping with an exceptionally difficult situation. As a Government, we have worked hard to attempt to give local authorities funding. There was no cut in cash terms in this financial year, and I will continue, with the Cabinet Secretary responsible for local government, to work hard together to prepare the budget for the next financial year.   

In setting the budget for next year I will give very careful consideration to the range of vitally important services, including education, housing and social care, that are provided by local government. An indicative budget has been published for 2019-20 and further details of plans for that year will be presented in the draft budget in the autumn.

Thank you for that answer. The Cabinet Secretary for public services is considering reorganising local government and the cost of the reduction from 22 to 10 principal councils has been calculated at between £200 million and £400 million. Is the Cabinet Secretary able to add that amount to the local government revenues budget to pay for reorganisation, or would reorganisation have to be paid for by service reductions?

Llywydd, the cost of reorganising local government will, I'm sure, have been thoroughly rehearsed during the consultation period on the Green Paper. That consultation period has only just come to an end, and the conclusions are still being worked through. But Mike Hedges is right to suggest, as were previous contributors this afternoon, that, as the Cabinet Secretary for finance, the financial implications of the Green Paper and the proposals that will flow from it are bound to be of direct interest to me.

I thank the Member for the question. The Welsh Government works with others to increase the share of annual public sector procurement budget that is spent in Wales, and to maximise the economic, social, environmental and cultural impact of the £6 billion of expenditure that this entails.

Minister, you're in charge of the National Procurement Service, and you'll know from previous correspondence that I've got concerns about the way in which larger firms are able to navigate and score higher within the procurement tendering process much easier than smaller firms who don't have a dedicated procurement department like their larger counterparts. I gave you a specific example as to how this impacted a firm in the Rhondda, and that's meant that money has leaked out of my constituency now and gone to a firm that is outside of Wales, which is obviously going to have an impact on local jobs and other businesses as well. What pressure can you bring to bear within your Government to ensure that there is a level playing field for all businesses, whether large or small, when it comes to the tendering process?

I thank the Member for that question, and thank her for the letter she wrote to me about that specific case. She will know that there is a review of the National Procurement Service and Value Wales that is currently under way. It's there to make sure that, if there are any opportunities to us to adjust our procurement procedures the other side of the European Union, we are able to take those opportunities. One of the things that we may be able to do—and I must emphasise, of course, Llywydd, that this is still part of the discussion—will be to amend the rules, so that the sorts of firms to which Leanne Wood referred—local firms without the capacity to be constantly involved in the procurement field—that there is a more level playing field for them as compared to some of the rules that we currently have to abide by.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item, therefore, is questions to the Leader of the House and Chief Whip. The first question is from Russell George.

None. I have held discussions with the mobile industry, Ofcom, landowners, business organisations and local authorities in designing the mobile action plan.

Thank you, leader of the house. National and local press and television will frequently hear about how both the UK and the Welsh Governments are encouraging energy providers to install domestic smart meters in order to combat fuel poverty. Now, I've been contacted by people in rural areas of my own constituency who have reported that installation of smart meters is impossible because of the lack of mobile phone signal, which is required for smart meters to work. Can you outline what discussions you've had with the energy sector on this issue and have you given any thought into designing this and these issues into the priorities for the Welsh Government's mobile action plan?

I haven't had any conversation with the energy companies about smart meters. We have had some conversation with the industry round-table about getting energy to the masts themselves. But I agree entirely with Russell George's analysis that the lack of mobile coverage is a real issue for a whole range of services, including smart meters. Any number of services rely, increasingly these days, on data particularly, and he will know that we've been lobbying both the UK Government and Ofcom for a range of measures to be put in place to ensure that we can get decent amounts of mobile coverage from more than one operator across Wales, for exactly the reason that he outlines.

Yes. Our strategic equality plan details our equality objectives that are ensuring the way we govern has an effective impact on making our society fairer and more inclusive. The rapid review of gender equality, which is under way, will identify actions to drive forward equality and fairness in Wales.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that answer? The greatest inequality, if not the greatest, is the difference in life expectancy between the more disadvantaged areas and the more prosperous areas of Wales, often within the same local authority area, and, in fact, within the same constituency, as the Cabinet Secretary is aware. Since the ending of Communities First and the work it did on reducing smoking rates, reducing obesity and increasing exercise, what is being done to improve life expectancy in the most disadvantaged communities?

Improving health for everyone, especially those in poverty, is a central ambition of 'Prosperity for All' and we're prioritising actions to both tackle the root causes of that poverty and to target support for people within the most deprived areas of Wales. The Member has correctly identified that there are a range of issues that affect life expectancy. What we need to do is get upstream actions, as they call it—so, at-source actions—to redistribute social determinants, and also to help people better cope with the circumstances that they find themselves in. Mike Hedges will know that, in Swansea, we have communities that can actually see each other, because of the ways the hills work, where the life expectancy is quite severely different. That has a range of issues around poverty, but also around air quality and a number of other issues. The Government has a whole plan in place to make sure that those social determinants are not determining people's quality of life as we go forward.

Talking of Swansea, you may recall a few years ago that the council failed to apply for a second tranche of Government funding for discretionary housing payments, and that was not long after they'd had to return almost £1 million to Government as they could not find a way of using it to reduce poverty. This is a council which has a history of spending money on things that perhaps we don't value, but why does its current Labour leadership find it so difficult to spend funding that's dedicated to tackling the inequalities of poverty? 

We've worked very hard with the council, actually, in a number of areas, to make sure that they have a good plan in place to address social inequality across the city. One of the big issues for everyone is the employability of some of the areas of Swansea. We do still have, across Wales, small pockets of high unemployment and some parts of my own constituency, Llywydd, are affected by that, and obviously Suzy Davies's region. Our employability plan is specifically designed to assist people who find themselves in those circumstances to get not just work but well-paid work to lift them out of the poverty that we know affects many of their lives. We're working very hard with Swansea and the city deal in general to make sure that those moneys are well spent.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. UKIP spokesperson, David Rowlands.

Diolch, Llywydd. Leader of the house, last Tuesday, I attended the cross-party group on human trafficking. It was gratifying to note the progress being made in combating this evil trade. Whilst we may differ on the causes of these manifestations, we all find this scourge on our society, and its attendant human misery, an abhorrent one. Leader of the house, can you assure us that your Government will remain committed to ending slavery in all its forms in Wales?

Yes, absolutely. We are the first and only country in the UK to appoint an anti-slavery co-ordinator, as I know David Rowlands is well aware. We've established the Wales anti-slavery leadership group to provide the strategic leadership and guidance on how we tackle slavery in Wales, and to provide the best possible support for survivors. We're in the process of the sharing the learning from Wales with other partners, including UK Government departments and with the UK independent anti-slavery commissioner, and we're starting to gain an international recognition for our work on this agenda.

I thank the leader of the house for that comprehensive answer. For the year 2016-17, over 10,000 adult survivors and nearly 4,000 children and young people were provided with support by domestic abuse services in Wales, which include refuge and community-based advocacy. Figures show the national domestic abuse helpline received over 28,000 calls. It is therefore extremely disturbing to hear that at least 500 women in Wales could not be accommodated by refuges because there was no space available. As these refuges afford one of the most important elements in helping domestic abuse victims, why is it that from 2016 to date there have been cuts to refuge services that mean no new refuges are being provided and existing ones may even have to close? Does the leader of the house believe this is an acceptable situation?

No. We're working very hard indeed to make sure that services for people fleeing domestic violence or any kind of sexual violence across Wales are fit for purpose. We have, as David Rowlands knows, the rapid review of gender equality currently under way. I'm due to discuss that on Thursday morning of this week. One of the aims of that, and of the violence against women, domestic abuse and sexual violence Act in Wales, is to do a proper needs assessment across Wales so that we can properly respond to the need and to make sure our resources are well targeted.

I thank the leader of the house for that answer as well. In case you were having withdrawal symptoms, leader of the house, my last question concerns digital infrastructure. So, given that there are still a number of communities, such as Llangenny village in Powys, that are not able to benefit from the Superfast Cymru digital roll-out, is the leader of the house in a position to indicate how the new delivery plan will be designed to include those who are not connected in what we have to say was a very successful first roll-out phase?

Yes. We're in the process at the moment of procuring the second phase of Superfast Cymru. There are a number of tranches to that. It is specifically designed to pick up those communities with the least good service, either of mobile data services or poor broadband download speeds. In addition to that, we have a particular pool for communities who wish to get together to get a solution for their whole community of whatever sort, and we're very happy to talk to any community that wants to come together to get a bespoke solution for them.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you. Yesterday, we had a statement from you on Wales as a nation of sanctuary for refugees and asylum seekers, and I responded to the debate expressing Plaid Cymru’s support for that ambition. I also highlighted one of the major challenges, namely the prejudice that exists towards refugees and asylum seekers, and the misinformation that is distributed. I called for a constructive debate in order to create cultural change. If you look at my Twitter account, you will see that there are responses that are highly prejudicial that appeared as a result of my speech yesterday, and, unfortunately, this does prove why we need to challenge that prejudice at all possible opportunities. My party will continue to make the case for the creation of a nation of sanctuary. Will you commit today to give specific attention to the action that needs to happen in order to deal with this clear prejudice that exists? 

Yes, I share Siân Gwenllian's horror—an appalling reaction to it. I had a similar issue with my own Twitter feed, and I follow Siân Gwenllian on Twitter, so I'm very well aware of what she speaks. Part of the point of the plan is to do exactly that, to combat the prejudicial, prejudiced responses from people who really haven't understood at all what people from other countries bring to the culture and to the service of our country. And, as I said yesterday in the debate, and I very sincerely mean it, it's a two-way process. We assist people who are fleeing all kinds of issues in their home countries, and, in turn, they enrich our country with their art and culture and food and society and skills, and for that, we're very grateful. 

One way of dealing with prejudice is by allowing refugees to play an active part in communities and the workplaces around them. And to do that, of course, they have to be able to get fluency in both languages of our nation, both Welsh and English. Families from Syria who have been welcomed to my area have had an opportunity to make swift progress in acquiring language skills, and recently I had a conversation in Welsh with two young refugees, as well as hearing them speak English fluently, too. But doing away with the minority ethnic achievement grant, which was specific funding for responding to the needs of pupils from minority groups, is going to slow that process of teaching languages to refugees, and will make it very difficult for teachers to give specific attention to this area. Will you commit to try and convince the Cabinet Secretary for Education to reintroduce this grant? I raised this point yesterday and I didn’t get a response on it.

Apologies. You did indeed raise it yesterday. I think there were a series of questions and I neglected to answer it, so apologies for that, Siân Gwenllian. We haven't abolished the grant. It was subsumed into the overall grant, but I take your point. There is a real tension, if you like, between hypothecated and unhypothecated funding across local government, given the austerity agenda still being visited upon us by the UK Government. What we're looking to do is give local authorities flexibility in their funding so that we don't have rigid lines about what they know locally they need to fund. But at the same time, we do need to make sure that our priorities are being met, and so we're looking at a protocol of working with them, which we're reviewing this autumn, and I will undertake very much—in fact, I'm having constant conversations with my colleagues across Government, not just the Cabinet Secretary for Education, because there are a number of grants caught up in this—to make sure that we target the same people, but that the local authority has the flexibility to make sure that the service locally benefits that. And, of course, we have given additional money specifically to cover off some of the issues that the MEAG grant conversation with local government raised.

I share her concerns. We're very keen to hit the right balance between hypothecation, which sometimes has unintended consequences, flexibility, and making sure that the money reaches the communities that it was intended to benefit. 

Thank you for that. It is important that there aren’t unintended consequences happening as a result of changing the way this funding is distributed.

Another group that is suffering extreme prejudice is the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, and a report published today demonstrates that 45 per cent, almost half, of members of the trans community fear identifying themselves in terms of their gender identity, because that would lead to discrimination. I’d like to ask for an update from you on the plan to create a gender identity scheme here in Wales. I spoke to a person who was working in a gender identity clinic in London, and he said that there were many people travelling there or were travelling to Leeds in order to receive services. The delay before establishing this service in Wales is unacceptable, and it was part of the deal struck between your party and my own at the beginning of this Assembly, but that is two years ago now.   

We've got a number of things happening on that front. We fund Stonewall Cymru—. I just want to start off by saying that, obviously, that kind of discrimination is appalling, and I too was appalled by some of the reports that the BBC was carrying this morning about some of the discrimination. I'm very proud, Llywydd, that the Commission has been recognised for its work in this area, and, clearly, we want to be an exemplar, and make sure that, as part of our economic action plan, we push those kinds of values out.

But there are very specific things that need to be done, so we fund Stonewall Cymru, and that does include funding for a new transgender engagement officer post, specifically to lead on transgender equality issues. And then, in terms of the health department, we absolutely feel that transgender people should have their healthcare needs met as close to home as possible, and we are absolutely committed to doing that. The Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services has outlined the improvement agenda for identity services in Wales. They are being implemented in a step manner, and supported by an additional £0.5 million. Following detailed discussions, and exploring a number of options, all parties agree that the favoured approach is to develop a service that encompasses both a specialist provision and a bespoke primary care network of prescribing general practitioners. So, in terms of progress, the business case for the Wales gender team was agreed in April, and the senior clinician lead took up post on 1 June. He's taking a lead role in the implementation of the service, and our expectation is for health boards to commission an integrated gender identity service in Wales from April of next year. 

The Conservative spokesperson, Russell George.

Diolch, Llywydd. Leader of the house, during an exchange a few weeks ago, you said, and I quote here from the Record of Proceedings from 16 May:

'The mobile phone operators...will tell you that all they need is to be able to build bigger masts and everything will be fine.'

And they want to be allowed

'to build any size mast they like, anywhere they like'.

You also said, and I quote here again:

'they want me to get my Cabinet colleague to allow them to build any size mast they like, anywhere they like, and take all the tariffs away...and then they'll build a whole network right across Wales.'

Now, I understand Welsh Government officials were due to meet with operators yesterday to discuss the mobile action plan, so I'm sure you'll be well briefed in this area. Can you tell me which mobile operators have told you this?

There has been a range of meetings with them. I haven't actually met recently with the entire network, but we're in the process of arranging that, and there was a meeting in Llandrindod Wells yesterday. So, we are very much under way with that.

What we're trying to do, as I keep saying—we're out to consultation at the moment on the permitted development rights—what we're trying to do is hit the right level of masts and protection of our countryside. So, my colleague the Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for planning has a consultation out at the moment. And I will reiterate what I say all the time: this requires a concerted action from people to cover off things where there is market failure, particularly in rural areas. So, there isn't a particular problem in the conurbations or the heavily populated areas of Wales, because there are a lot of commercial customers. But we can't be expecting tourist destinations in mid Wales, for example, as I've said to you many times, to say, 'Come to my marvellous tourist establishment, but don't bother if you're not a customer of this one provider that provides a mobile service here.'

So, there's a very big conversation going on—it's not just the things that you just outlined, and I was perhaps being a little tetchy that day, as a result of some of the conversations. But it is about a balance between having a shared network, or roaming, or some agreement with them, to make sure that we have better mobile coverage—(a) in some places in Wales that have one provider, and (b) for everyone who wants to come and visit Wales and spend their tourist pounds in Wales to be able to use the provider of their choice, so either roaming, or to have a deal with the networks. So, I'm looking for compromise between permitted development rights, and the consultation, as I say, is out, and we'll be looking to see with interest what comes back from that, and compromise from the mobile phone operators, who have a duty to more than just their commercial need in terms of their customers.

Thank you, leader of the house. I think you are confirming perhaps you don't now agree with what you said to me in May.

No, I wasn't saying that.

Well, perhaps I would ask you to take the opportunity to look at the record of what you said to me last time, and then perhaps correct the record if you feel that's appropriate. But the mobile phone operators do feel that you misrepresented—they were misrepresented in your comments a few weeks ago.

Now, the issue of taller masts is, of course, just one consideration if operators are to overcome the challenges that we have in rural Wales, with low density of population, and the higher costs as well, in terms of delivering power supply and transmission links. But I would ask you: do you now recognise that the extension of permitted development rights, like what's already happened in England and Scotland, is a way that would give greater service reach, meaning that fewer—fewer is the point I'm making here—shorter masts will be required in any given area? And would you agree with me that bringing outdated regulation into the twenty-first century is now what we need? In terms of mast sharing—mast sharing, of course, is already happening in other parts of the country and that's what operators are doing already. It's this that will reflect the importance of digital communication in today's Wales. 

Well, no, I don't agree with quite the way he characterises that. I don't think there is a silver bullet. Permitted development rights after the consultation may well be one thing in an armoury of things that we need to bring to bear on some of the really poor provision that we have, and, bear in mind, this isn't a devolved issue here. And I reiterate a conversation Russell George and I have had on a number of different occasions. There is a real issue here with treating something that is effectively infrastructure as if it's a luxury product that is at the mercy of the market. He and I have a real political disagreement about the way forward for this. But, in the end, it's not devolved to us, would that it were, or I would be doing a number of things that I think would improve the situation for users of the networks much better in Wales than just allowing the commercial interests of the operators to take the reins. 

Well, leader of the house, you have previously accused the mobile network operators of land banking and said that, and I quote again, 'One operator owns Wales'. So, I would say that instead of criticising the mobile network operators, what plans does your Government have to respond favourably to Mobile UK, as  the body that represents the mobile industry, who are calling for—and these are their words—decisive action from the Welsh Government to support mobile infrastructure by using the devolved policy levers at your disposal, and commit to a public date in which reform should be delivered? I wonder whether you will commit to this date today, and when will that date be? 

Well, as I've just said, that's just talking about the planning permitted development rights. I was talking, when I was talking about one operator, about spectrum. So, there's a big issue with the way that the UK Government sells spectrum. And if the spectrum isn't being used by the person who purchases it, then it just sits there doing nothing. So, we can't do anything about the fact that we have no fourth generation services in some parts of Wales, if the operator that owns the spectrum isn't prepared to roll it out there. I don't have the power to do that, would that I did. 

Yes, indeed. Good progress is being made on improving digital inclusion across the South Wales Central region. Digital Communities Wales is working in close partnership with a wide range of organisations and programmes to support more people to gain maximum benefit from the life-changing opportunities digital technologies offer.

Thank you, leader of the house, for that answer. I've always highlighted some of the concerns in rural Wales and, in particular, the inability for many communities to get connected up, because of the logistical challenges that are faced there. But in my own electoral region of South Wales Central, in Pentwyn, in Cardiff here, there's a community of 200 residents who, because Openreach will not empower the cabinet to enable high-speed broadband, are excluded from the process. So, even in our capital city there's that exclusion going on. What pressure are you bringing to bear on Openreach, as the sole contractor, to provide these services, so that communities, such as the one in Pentwyn and others around Wales, can benefit from high-speed broadband, which is hugely frustrating when residents are walking past the facilities they know are in their community but they're not switched on and are able to be used by that community? 

Yes, well, there are several different strands to that. So, in the superfast intervention area, so outside the central conurbations, if you bear in mind that the whole of the superfast programme is a market intervention, we can only go where the market doesn't go. So, assuming you're in a superfast intervention area, and that's happening, then you'll be part of the next procurement or the discussion that we're having with BT about the use of the gain share, or you could be part of a community-based solution that might act for you. Unfortunately, if you're outside of the intervention area and you're in the commercial roll-out area, then you're at the vagaries of the commercial operators, and we've put a lot of pressure on them in terms of influence, but I have no direct ability to intervene in one of the areas that isn't.

I'm afraid that I'm not familiar enough with the area you're talking about to know if it's in or out of the intervention area. Assuming it's in the superfast area, so it's outside of central Cardiff—I think that's what you were saying—then either we can help you to get together a community bespoke solution for that—and I'm happy for one of my officials to come and see if we can help you with that; I'm off down to Paul Davies's constituency tomorrow, I think it is, actually, to meet with a number of people, so I'm happy to facilitate that for you—or it'll be in one of the next-stage roll-out programmes, which is designed to assist with either lack of capacity in a cabinet or lack of connectivity with a cabinet. But I'd welcome a conversation with you about a specific community. 

My officials will work closely with the successful delivery partners of the successor scheme to develop a robust, comprehensive communications and engagement plan, details of which will be made available following completion of the procurement process.

Thank you, and whilst I understand that details will be available and when, as you're no doubt aware, I have a considerable number of home owners and business proprietors who have not benefited at all from the current superfast roll-out. It did take some time to drill down to establish—I sent all of these to you, or many of them—and it took some time to realise that they were not included: 4.5 per cent remain unable to receive any form of fibre broadband whilst a further 3.5 per cent received just 2 4Mbps or less, often considerably less, with many receiving just 1 Mbps or 2 Mbps. In such circumstances, it is now becoming impossible to run a business, for children to do homework, or complete required farming forms online. How will we, as Assembly Members, be able to work with you, as the Government, and how will you and the new successor project communicate the property details of those missing out in our communities, who have approached us to do so, because I just think there's been too much wasted time? And with any successor project, I want to be able to get right in there and establish quite quickly whether they will benefit from the next project.

Yes, absolutely, and, as I said when I was at the meeting in your constituency, we very much take that on board and so successor projects are being designed to go to specific properties. So, if you'll remember, the first one was a bit of a fishing pool: they could go to 690,000-plus properties across Wales—any property they wanted—because we had a massive problem when we started off that programme. Now we're down to the last 95,000 premises. So, what we've asked for in the next procurement is that it's targeted, so that those people who are successful in the successor programme, we will know exactly where they're going and why and how much that will cost. So, we will know both who's in and who’s out. For the people who are in, we'll be able to get a communications strategy, so, if there are delays and so on, we will know exactly what the issue was. And for the people who are out, we'll then start to work on bespoke plans for those. Because, I've been very clear: at the moment, with the gain share and the amount of money in, we haven't got quite enough money to get to absolutely everyone, although, with the intermediate investment programme that we're aware of now, we have had another £31 million to put into that, but it still won't be quite enough, so we will have to have those bespoke community solutions as well.

I've already said thank you to the leader of the house for the incredible work that she did at Castle Reach in Kingsmead estate to get Openreach to fund broadband fibre to the premises, which wasn't covered by Superfast Cymru because the estate was built after the programme began. What we didn't know at the time was that that only covered 165 of the houses on the estate. A further 50 now will be trying to get community-access broadband through the Access Broadband Cymru scheme, and I'm working with residents and resident volunteers. Fortunately, the Welsh Government money should fund them fully to cover those houses.

However, there remain houses on that estate, which we didn't know about at the time that she spoke to Openreach, which will still not be covered. I think the only way we're going to get a resolution here is if Openreach and Taylor Wimpey, the developer, work together. So, can I suggest that the leader of the house, if she's willing, meets with me, with Openreach, if they're willing, and with Taylor Wimpey, if they're willing, to finally put this matter to bed on this estate and make sure that that whole estate of Castle Reach in Kingsmead is covered by broadband? And I'm asking her, once again, one more time, to bring that pressure to bear, which she did so well at the end of last year.

Yes, I'm very happy to come and meet them, if that will facilitate the process. There are a number of issues, as Hefin David knows, with new-build estates and the arrangements between the house builder and Openreach—Openreach is the contractor for that estate—and how the connections work. It can be very frustrating for residents as the cabinets are capacitated, as it's called, and rolled out, but I'm more than happy to come to meet with the house builder and with Openreach to see what we can do to facilitate the process.

I've contacted you, as a Minister, in the past, reporting problems with broadband in Ynys Môn. I made an appeal back in April for the latest information. I have another report—I'm sure that I can send you a copy. It's evident that there are a number of areas that have missed out by a hair's breadth, perhaps, on Superfast Cymru—Landdona, Llansadwrn, Brynsiencyn, Cefniwrch and Rhydwyn are some of those that have come to prominence.

In those areas, work had started on preparing for connection. Evidently, there was great disappointment in seeing the programme coming to an end without the work being completed. Are you in a situation to give assurance to these constituents that they will be a priority—that is, that finishing the work that was started previously will be a priority under the new programme, when that comes to pass?

Yes, that is a matter of negotiation between ourselves and British Telecom—Openreach being their contractor, of course, so it's important not to confuse the two as the split occurs. The way that the first scheme worked, to explain to Members—. I actually met with Rhun ap Iorwerth in his constituency, as well, quite a while ago now, actually, wasn't it—it was a few years ago—to talk about some of the issues there. Because of the way that the premises target in the contract worked, and because of how vigorous it was, Openreach built out to a large number more premises than they needed to be sure to hit that figure, because it was a very stringent target in the contract.

That has meant that they have got a lot of infrastructure into the ground. No public money has been paid for any infrastructure that didn't get to completion. So, we have had a long conversation with them around the commercials for that—about who should pay for that. They've invested that money already. Should the public purse pay for the last bit? Why don't they just do it themselves? There's a conversation to be had, and that conversation is running in parallel with the procurement. We'll see what the outcome of those procurements will be.

So, should BT be one of the people who are bidding for the procurement, no doubt they will make some proposals in that. As I said to Janet Finch-Saunders recently, we're asking for specific promises—specific plans for specific premises. So, I'd be very surprised if those weren't included, but we are live in the procurement at the moment, so I haven't got any information about what they're currently proposing.

Yes, the Welsh Government is fully committed to supporting the LGBT community in Wales. Related action includes work on relationships and sexuality education, updated anti-bullying guidance and improvements to gender identity services. We also provide funding for Stonewall Cymru to support LGBTQ+ people and improve our understanding of issues that affect them.

Thank you, leader of the house. I was pleased to share a cross-party platform recently with the First Minister at an event sponsored by PinkNews to mark the thirtieth anniversary of the introduction of section 28, and also to welcome the progress in recent years by governments of all colours in advancing the rights of the LGBT community. You mentioned funding for Stonewall Cymru, and I'm sure you'll share my concerns that the latest Stonewall Cymru figures—in the media today, as it happens—show that more than a third of LGBT workers in Wales hide their sexuality over fears of discrimination.

There were also other worrying statistics there, such as 16 per cent of LGBT people saying that they are the target of negative comments or conduct in the workplace. So, clearly, we've come a long way over recent years, but we still have a considerable way to go. You've already outlined some of the areas where you're hoping to make inroads into tackling the problem of discrimination in Wales. I wonder whether you could tell us a little bit more about how your policies are going to deal specifically with this sort of discrimination, which shouldn't have any place in the modern workplace.

Yes, I absolutely agree—it absolutely should not have any place in the modern workplace. As I said in response to earlier questions, we're all appalled to see that it is still such a concern. As I said in my previous answer, there will be work with the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport around making sure that the economic action plan picks up matters around discrimination of all sorts.

We are also working on our anti-bullying guidance. The Cabinet Secretary for Education recently announced relationships and sexuality education being a statutory part of the new curriculum, which is around education and acceptance. We are also running the 'This Is Me' campaign, the anti-gender-stereotyping campaign, which has been very successful indeed and has been embraced by a large number of organisations across Wales, to start the process of ensuring that people know that that kind of discrimination simply is not acceptable. What I would say to any individual who is experiencing that, of course, is that they should come forward. There are organisations that can help people combat that kind of discrimination in the workplace because it is, after all, illegal to discriminate in that way against people with protected characteristics.

I always welcome the Member’s help and support on the digital transformation agenda. We are reviewing progress on the use of digital and data in public service delivery to ensure we maximise these. I am very interested in the both the Reid review’s recommendations and your suggestion for the challenge board. I'd very much like to meet with you to discuss how we could take that forward. 

Thank you for that response, Cabinet Secretary. There's been much discussion, as ever, here today on the digital infrastructure, but there's far too little attention in my view on how we use that infrastructure to transform the way we design and deliver public services. It's clear that this is a challenging agenda for all Governments, and the evidence that the Public Accounts Committee and the Economy, Infrastructure and Skills Committee have taken shows that there's a particular challenge in both central and local government to get the wherewithal to allow them to be intelligent clients. I was just wondering about the suggestion of gathering people from the outside world who are desperate for progress on this agenda to come together to help—not as some kind of standing committee to receive presentations and papers, but to act as critical friends for officials and Ministers to help them understand this complex environment to bring about the change that we so desperately and quickly need.

Yes, I welcome the suggestion. I'm taking a paper to Cabinet in the autumn on public sector digital service transformation, which will bring together the wide range of activities already under way and focus on the next steps. So, it's a perfect opportunity to get that kind of challenge into that process to make sure that we have the best information to skill up our people in order to make that transformation happen. So, I very much welcome the suggestion and I hope we can take it forward.

Cabinet Secretary, can I support Lee Waters's call and remind you that, under the UK's digital strategy, they do have a digital skills partnership, which brings together public, private and third sector organisations to tackle the digital skills gap in a co-ordinated and coherent way? Do you not agree that we should be focusing on a cross-sector approach to spark innovation across the public, private and third sectors in Wales, because there are real promising benefits when we all work together?

Yes, I absolutely agree with that. I chair the cross-Government group, which pulls together various bits of the Welsh Government, and I've been collaborating with my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for health on taking forward the health digitalisation agenda, which is a very important part of this. There are several aspects to it, as various Members highlight. There is the skills aspect, there's the technology and hardware aspect, the infrastructure aspect, but there's also the service transformation and life transformation aspect. We don't have all the good ideas for that, so I absolutely do welcome a wealth of ideas from across the piece for how we can make sure that we ride the wave rather than being overwhelmed by it.

Yes. New agreements are in place between connectivity providers and home builders that will enable a superfast and full fibre service to be deployed from the outset. We are monitoring progress and we will identify whether we need any further measures to be put in place.

Well, thank you for that answer. I've raised with you previously the issue of Dyffryn y Coed, a new estate in Church Village in my constituency. The problem appears to be this: they only have a copper connection although an earlier part of the estate actually has fibre; a lot of people living there require high-speed broadband because of their work in order to do that. The problem appears to be that, seven or eight years ago, a planning application was made, permission was given and that was the end of the matter. It's left to BT to then decide what they're going to connect, what they think is appropriate, and it's now left to the residents to either persuade BT to pay for it or to apply for grants to go through a bureaucratic process in order to get that higher speed broadband, which they need. It seems to me that it should be a matter of course that the highest available speed that is reasonably available should be provided. But the system appears to be breaking down because there's no obligation on either the local authority or on BT, and the house developer, obviously, is somewhere within the middle of all that. What can be done to actually ensure that, where these new developments take place, there are proper levels of broadband actually provided; that there is an obligation on the providers, that the system actually works to ensure that that happens?

Yes. It's a fundamental small-p political problem because this service is an infrastructure, but the UK Government persists in regarding it as a luxury product that you can buy if you want it, and that's the fundamental difficulty. So, it isn't treated as an infrastructure, or a public service that people require, it is treated as a sort of nice-to-have, which it clearly isn't.

The head of planning has recently written to local authorities reminding them that they can include planning obligations for new build. We have had an agreement with some of the major providers to do that, and as I said, we are monitoring that, but if you're aware of specific estates that were built in between the intervention area and now, then we'll be looking to include those in the new procurements or to get bespoke solutions for those estates. So, it's worth me having a conversation with you, or with my officials, to see if we can find a bespoke solution for that particular problem. But fundamentally, the issue is one of how you politically view this particular service, and I take the view, fundamentally, that it should be an infrastructure.

Yes. There are very few asylum seekers in Mid and West Wales, but there are over 200 refugees who have been resettled under the Syrian resettlement scheme. In most cases, they are integrating well and are successfully building a new life for themselves here in Wales.

I thank the leader of the house for that statement, and I'm very pleased to hear what she says. The UK has a long history of resettling those who've fled persecution in their homeland, and this is something of which we should be proud and must continue to do. But there is a big difference between refugees fleeing war and persecution and economic migrants, and it's vital that this distinction is not blurred.

I was therefore disturbed to hear the leader of the house say yesterday in response to David Rowlands that: 

'I simply cannot find it in my heart to say that somebody fleeing war is a proper refugee, but somebody fleeing starvation or grinding poverty is not.'

The definition of a refugee is a person who's forced to leave their country in order to escape war, persecution or natural disaster. If we blur that distinction with those who are economic migrants, then there's virtually no limit to the number of people who we have to admit, and that would, I think, raise a considerable amount of animosity amongst very large numbers of people, which we don't want to see.

So, would the leader of the house agree with me that it is very important that we should be exact in our use of language in this area in order to maintain the maximum possible public acceptance of taking as many refugees, who are true refugees, as possible?

Well, I could not more fundamentally disagree with you if I tried. You were correct in your definition of the word 'refugee'; I was simply talking about the humanity of the situation. I, myself, was an economic migrant across the world, where I was accepted with a very good response in every community to which my family moved, and we moved there in order to have a better economic outcome for our family. I cannot find it in my heart, as I said yesterday, to treat anybody else any differently.

Yes. Although we don't hold information specifically for Swansea East, under the Superfast Cymru project we have provided access to fast fibre broadband to 25,115 premises across all parts of Swansea, equating to just over 93 per cent completion. The average download speed across Swansea is 83.16 Mbps.

Can I thank the leader of the house for that answer? I won't ask what the upload speed is because that will probably be lower. The point I wanted to raise with the leader of the house is a key one. We've got a very high provision, but we haven't got a very high take-up. What is the Welsh Government doing to promote take-up by those who have access to superfast broadband, but either don't know it's available, or who have decided they don't think that they perhaps need it? I will just quote you from a few moments ago: it is a basic service, not an add-on only for the rich. So, what can be done to promote it to get more people using superfast broadband, because it would be of great benefit to them and their families? 

Yes, I agree entirely. Since October 2016, we've been delivering a regional level communications and marketing programme across Wales to encourage take-up of superfast broadband for all the reasons that Mike Hedges has just pointed out, but also for the reason that we're still getting a gain share, so the more money we get back from the gain share, because we're well over the 21 per cent take-up, the better, because the Government has pledged to reinvest all of that gain share back into the infrastructure. So, it's very important on both sides of that equation.

The phase of advertising communications take-up began in April of this year and includes a blended approach of PR, advertising, events and social media. I don't know if the Member has seen that we have a big lightning bolt that says, 'Superfast has arrived in your area' and it comes and parks itself on village greens. It was at the Hay festival and it's at the Royal Welsh and it's been in various parts of Wales. It's very striking and youngsters in particular like it and they're attracted to it, so we can use that as the hook to get people to do it.

Fibre services take-up is currently 44 per cent, so we're well on course to reach our target of 50 per cent by 2023, which is the gain share. This is an interesting curve for new technology. We all perhaps think that less than half of people taking it up is very poor, but if you look at technology curves, which I know the Member is familiar with, actually, it's well in advance of the curve for most take-ups of new technology, which underlines the point I make about it being an essential infrastructure already in its early history and not the luxury product that the UK Government still persist in thinking it is.

Thank you very much, leader of the house.

Item 3 is questions to the Assembly Commission and the first question today will be answered by the Llywydd. Mandy Jones.

The Commission is making progress in this area and is engaging with the people of Wales in a number of different ways. Significant progress was seen in our news and digital output over the past year. We’ve held events across Wales to promote and encourage involvement in the Assembly’s work, and we’ve started on the process of setting up a Welsh Youth Parliament, and we will be holding Senedd@Delyn next week in the Member’s region.

Thank you for that answer. I know that the Senedd is in my region in Delyn next week and welcome very much the opportunity for people in all corners of Wales to see and hear about what happens in this place. I'm particularly interested today in the ambitions stated in the strategy to focus on reaching the disengaged face to face and through improved targeting. What is the Commission doing to achieve that aim?

Senedd@Delyn, like the other examples of Senedd@ that we’ve held in other areas so far, will make a specific effort to engage with communities and individuals who don’t naturally engage with the work of this Assembly. So, that work of engagement through Senedd@ is very important to promote our engagement with groups and individuals who don’t engage normally. And then I’ll take the opportunity once again to point Members towards the important work we’re going to be doing with young people in particular over the months to come, to promote the fact that there is going to be an opportunity for young people in Wales to be parliamentarians in their own right, and, of course, we’re all aware that there is a great need to ensure that our young people know about the democratic opportunities that exist here in Wales by now.

Question 2 is going to be answered by the Llywydd. Simon Thomas.

The Commission will continue to support Members’ participation in a number of international networks, as well as in less formal affiliations and bilateral engagements, both within and outside the European Union. The Commission agreed our framework for the Assembly’s international engagement in May last year, and the framework is ambitious and was developed with the departure from the European Union in mind.

I’m grateful to the Llywydd for that response. She will be aware, of course, that it’s been common practice for Assembly Members to use this ability to engage and to meet fellow parliamentarians, not only in Brussels, but in countries that are member states of the European Union, with some flexibility under the Commonwealth approach in order to visit countries that are further afield, although Malta isn't particularly far and neither is Cyprus. But in the context of this new strategy, will there be greater encouragement to use these connections as the usual channels in terms of Assembly Members being able to rely on the Government’s engagement and then reporting back to this place—perhaps we as individual Members will be more duty-bound to maintain these networks, because learning from best practice in other nations will continue to be important, Brexit or not?

I agree with the thrust of what the Member says. We have a greater responsibility, perhaps, as an Assembly and as individual Members in this place now to promote those international contacts, whether those are with member states or regional parliaments within the EU as it will exist, and also beyond the EU. So, I want to ensure that we continue with a system of supporting Members to make contacts either individually or as committees, or as groups of Members, and myself as well, as the Llywydd, will meet other Presiding Officers in other regional Parliaments. I had the opportunity recently to visit the parliament of Valencia as well as in Catalunya, and I’m looking forward in the coming weeks to welcoming the Presiding Officer of the Basque Country to the Senedd here. So, we have a greater responsibility now to support and promote our contacts or connections as a Parliament with other regions and countries around the world.    

Thank you. Question 3 is to be answered by Commissioner Joyce Watson. Question 3 is from Julie Morgan.

Thank you for that question. I'm pleased to confirm that the Commission provides an extensive range of facilities and support to promote cycling to work. That includes an onsite cycle store facility for 67 bikes. Shower and locker facilities are also available, as well as two tumble dryers, tools for minor bike repairs and maps of local cycle routes—all that to encourage further numbers of people who wish to cycle here. 

I thank you for that response and I congratulate the Assembly on what it does generally to encourage cycling. Last week, Sustrans published its 'Bike Life' report into the cycling habits of women in seven cities across the UK, including Cardiff. It showed that in Cardiff only 14 per cent of women cycle once a week, compared with 27 per cent of men, and the ratio of female to male bike riders is 1:19. So, what is the Commission doing to particularly encourage more women members of staff to cycle to work? Does it have a breakdown by gender of the members of staff who do cycle to work? It'd be interesting to see whether the findings of the Sustrans report are reflected in the staff of the Assembly. Is there any more that the Commission could do to encourage women members of staff?

I have seen the study. In fact, I've got a copy of it on the back here. I don't know that we break down the numbers, but I think it's something that we can do and I think it'd be quite useful. In terms of what more we can do, we do offer all of the facilities that are available to everybody, so there are gender-specific showers here, six of them, for male and female. But I suppose what we offer mostly is the opportunity to cycle to work and to give some provision once you get here. We have teamed up with Cardiff council, because one of the big issues and reasons why people aren't cycling is because they feel afraid. So, we have teamed up with Cardiff council to provide free cycling proficiency lessons and that ought to go some way to help. We have also teamed up with Dr Bike, and that's a minor cycle repair service for bike users. We have looked at Sustrans and we do look to them to provide information and support to help us to help people cycle around Cardiff and Wales.

Thank you. Question 4 will be answered by the Llywydd. Mark Reckless.

Decisions on the investment allocation for the Assembly Members' pension scheme are the responsibility of the pension scheme's board, and the Commission has no involvement. The decision on where to invest is based on advice received from the board's investment advisers, and is agreed by the pension board as a whole.

Members have recently received notification from the board of a new investment allocation where, instead of one portfolio manager—I think, sensibly—we've moved towards a handful of different portfolio managers. However, I would query the decision in the allocation to invest over a tenth of the pension fund in index-linked gilts, which currently guarantees that, over the term of investment, we will lose 1.5 per cent or so per year. And when the Commission is having to put in, I think, around 3 per cent extra per year because of lower projected investment returns, doesn't that, in turn, reflect that allocation decision, where we also see no specific allocation at all to UK equities, which have a dividend yield of between 3.5 per cent and 4 per cent and are currently on valuations compared to earnings that are relatively low compared to other developed markets?

Well, whilst I understand the point that you've made, as I said in my answer, the Commission itself has no direct involvement in the decision taken in the investment allocation decision that the pension board has just taken, but I think it is appropriate for you, should you wish to do so, to make representations to the pension board. As Assembly Members, we have representatives on that board that we've elected as Assembly Members, and also, of course, the Commission has representatives on that board. I'll make sure that the Commission representatives are aware of the views that you've expressed, and I hope that you use your representatives on the board equally to make the views that you've said at this point.

Who is it?

Thank you. Simon Thomas.

Mike Hedges.

I think that was an answer to the previous question. [Laughter.] Now, it’s very possible, in light of what the Llywydd has said, that she won’t be able to answer this question, but she will be able to convey the message to the Commission side on the board. I noticed recently that the future generations commissioner had written to all pension funds in the public sector in Wales outlining how to decarbonise pension investments. I also realise that these pension funds, for example, have come together to offer an investment in the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, and they are seeking these opportunities. So, two questions, therefore: is the Assembly pension board part of the public sector regime in Wales? And, secondly, has the board received this letter from the commissioner, and what actions are being taken as a result of that?

I can’t answer that final point, certainly. I’m not aware of whether the pension board has received correspondence from the future generations commissioner, but I would encourage her to contact the pension board directly, because I would hope that the pension board would want to look very carefully at the points that she’s made to and encouraged on the public sector pensions in Wales. So, I hope that she will contact the pension board directly.

Thank you. Question 5, again to be answered by the Llywydd. Bethan Sayed.

There are 32 bookable venues for closed activities and three public spaces across the Assembly estate. An average of 137 meetings are held per week during term time. These can be booked by Assembly Members, support staff, Commission staff and contractors.

I tabled this question because I wanted to urge you, as a Commissioner, to change the policy whereby Assembly Members can only book 10 sessions on the estate in a period of a year. I think this discriminates against Assembly Members who are proactive in arranging events. For example, if I organise 10 events and another Member only arranges one, then that means that there isn't an opportunity for me to arrange my next event, which may be of great importance to the public. I would like to ask you whether that takes into account the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officer also, because, very often, we can't find space on the estate because of the lack of space available.

The second question I had on this issue was whether we could have more information about how the estates team approves Assembly Members' activities. I have a concern that the civil service is making decisions over what Assembly Members think is appropriate use of the estate. I'm given to understand that there is guidance available, but on occasion I find that these processes are very, very slow because the estates team has to make a decision as to whether an event is appropriate or not. We as Assembly Members want to advertise these events, to encourage attendance, whilst the estates team is in a bubble discussing what should happen. These are people who are not elected, of course. So, I wanted to know what your thoughts were on that, and what input you have into that process, because I do think that it needs to work more effectively for us as Assembly Members.

Well, operating policies and guidance that have been approved by the Commissioners is what our staff do. They don't make decisions as to whether an event is appropriate or not; they simply operate according to the policy. If you have any examples where you think any decision by any member of staff has been unfavourable to you as a Member, then please do write to me. Note publicly, here, if you so choose, what that was, but do raise that issue with me, and I'm happy to look into that.

In setting a maximum of 10 events for Assembly Members to book on the Assembly estate the intention wasn't to discriminate against Members. Indeed, it was quite the contrary—namely, to ensure that all Members in this place have the same opportunity to book space, because the evidence that we received from Members did demonstrate that some Members would book a huge number of events and would do so regularly, and, mainly, those were Members representing this particular area and representing constituencies around Cardiff. So, we wanted to ensure that there was a level playing field for Members across Wales.

Now, this question was raised in Commission questions the last time we had these questions, and Jenny Rathbone raised the same point. I made a commitment at that point to review this new guidance and to see whether it has a negative impact on the democratic activities of Members in this place. So, I would welcome any correspondence from you, Bethan, with any examples you may have. I would welcome such correspondence from any Members surrounding me with any examples of how these new guidelines have negatively impacted the democratic work that you do, because I can assure you that that was not the intention, and, if it has had that impact, then certainly we will need to review it.

Item 4 is topical questions, and this afternoon the topical question by Julie Morgan, to be answered by the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport. Julie.

I thank Julie Morgan for her question and say that it is very deeply disappointing that Barclays have made this decision. We will do all we can to assist workers affected by this decision as a matter of urgency. I'll be speaking with Barclays management on Friday, and I met with union representatives this morning.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. I'm sure he's aware that 170 jobs are going to Northampton, and a small number of jobs are going to India. But I think it's important to make the point that these are not the first losses of jobs in Cardiff, and in Cardiff North in particular, of financial services jobs and call centre jobs, because we fairly recently lost 1,100 jobs at Tesco, from Tesco House. Last year, Barclays also closed its mortgage centre in Llanishen. That was a loss of 180 jobs. There have also been five bank branch closures by Barclays, NatWest and HSBC within my constituency of Cardiff North. So, that all adds up to 1,500 jobs lost in the last two years in the financial and call centre industry.

So, I don't know what the Welsh Government can do to try to persuade financial services companies and call centre bosses to stop this outpouring of jobs, because the jobs don't necessarily end—they're just going to other places, such as Northampton, and the Tesco jobs went to somewhere else. What can he do to keep up an ongoing dialogue with the financial services, with Barclays? I wonder is there any forum where they would discuss with the Cabinet Secretary what their future plans are, what are their plans for the city, because I think the loss of all these jobs in this particular service is very dismaying.

The Member is right that there has been a significant number of jobs lost as a consequence of churn that's taking place within the call centre sector at the moment. But, equally, there have been a huge number of jobs that are being created in Cardiff, and, as a direct consequence of Welsh Government support, there is a good story to tell about jobs that have been secured at TUI in Swansea, at Which?, who are opening their first ever call centre in Cardiff, and Aon, as well as MotoNovo—all companies that have been helped by Welsh Government in creating valuable jobs.

However, with regard to this specific issue, again, my deepest sympathies go to those who were affected by the decision. Now, Barclays have assured us that 250 roles will be retained, including 44 vacancies that Barclays are aiming to fill in Cardiff, but this is a commitment that I want to see set in concrete, and I'll have a number of questions for Barclays on Friday. My message to the business will be very clear—that they have five values, based on respect, integrity, service, excellence and stewardship, and they need to demonstrate that their values go right to the top of the company in how they now deal with those workers who will be affected by the announcement. What's quite clear is that the decision will lead to a difficult task for Barclays in employing new people in Northampton, because at the moment they are struggling. My understanding, based on this morning's discussions, is that they're struggling to recruit people who are readily available in Northampton, and instead what will happen is that Barclays may find that they have to pay a premium in order to entice people away from other businesses. That's not good for them, it's not good for the people who are going to lose their jobs here in Cardiff, and it's not good for the businesses in Northampton, who will find that they will lose valuable staff as well. This is not a sensible decision in my view, and this is the message that I'll be conveying to Barclays.

Now, the reason behind the churn that I mentioned is that there is a significant change in consumer behaviour, and, subsequent to that, we are seeing a huge degree of consolidation take place across the UK, involving outsourcing and indeed resourcing to the UK. Whilst there have been wins for Wales—clear wins for Cardiff in recent times—and I've identified some of those businesses that we've assisted in creating jobs, there have also been losses. What is crucially important is that the Welsh Government goes on supporting new businesses to create jobs here but also goes on helping existing businesses to grow their operations. We've had a very, very good success story in recent times in terms of our customer contact centre sector, and also the wider financial and professional services sector, and it was the Wales contact centre forum just yesterday that announced figures concerning the south Wales economy and the number of jobs that are currently available.

The figure at the moment, the number of vacancies that are available in the sector, amount to—I believe it's over 1,145. Now, in addition, as a consequence of the investment Welsh Government is making in businesses, we'll see a further 800 jobs created by the end of this year, demonstrating that the sector is vibrant and strong in Cardiff and in Wales as a whole. But our attention right now—just as we've been assisting those who were affected by the Tesco decision, the Member is aware of the enormous help that's being given to those who are affected by that, and the consequence of which has been to find a huge, huge majority of workers alternative employment. We will do the same for those affected at Barclays, but first and foremost I will be relaying my views to Barclays that this is a bad decision for the company and a bad decision for those who will be affected by it. 

Cabinet Secretary, obviously, we all share those concerns and hope that families who face the prospect of losing the breadwinner's job get security as soon as possible, because if you've got a mortgage or you've got dependents, you want that security as soon as possible. But what is really concerning here is that this is another financial service provider moving jobs out of Cardiff, when Cardiff, obviously, is supposed to be at the centre—an enterprise zone for financial services. The Member for Cardiff North highlighted at least 1,500 jobs that have moved out of the Cardiff North area in relation to financial services, and certainly in my discussions with providers of financial services here in Cardiff, there is a drift, certainly at senior level, of personnel being moved out of Cardiff to other regional centres—Birmingham and Bristol. And whilst I take at face value what you say about the call centre business being robust, and the vacancy rate that you highlighted was talked about yesterday, there is definite evidence out there that at a certain level within the banking and finance sectors, the senior positions are moving away from Wales. And to hear the analogy you make about Northamptonshire, which has gained from this job announcement—this company has made a decision knowing that it's going to go into a jobs market where it's going to pay a premium for jobs. So, what are we doing wrong here in Wales that isn't retaining these jobs here in Wales, and, importantly, retaining the high-value jobs, the decision makers, that can add so much to a company and the ability of that company to expand here in Wales?

Can I thank the Member for his question? Our intelligence suggests that the opposite is happening and will continue to happen: that as we see a reshoring of jobs into Wales—and there is evidence that that is already taking place—we will see senior-tier opportunities created. But, of course, the global shift, driven by automation and artificial intelligence, will see a significant number of lower-tier jobs lost. But those lower-tier jobs are those that were offshored in the 1990s and the noughties. What we will see in the future is Wales benefiting from a reshoring of jobs. Actually, in terms of jobs that have been created more recently, particularly in Cardiff and Swansea, those businesses that have moved here have also shifted senior appointments here. So, they include the likes of Aon, Which? and TUI—good opportunities right through the progression of a career, from entry level through to a senior managerial position.  

On the decision that was made by Barclays, my understanding is that the decision was reached not just within the UK, but as a consequence of deliberations overseas, far afield, where people may not be aware of the relative difficulties that there might be in securing suitably skilled employees in Northampton. Again, I wish to understand exactly where the decision was made, when it was made, and what sort of consultation took place, and particularly whether any consultation took place with the trade unions before the decision was reached. 

Obviously, the Barclays call centre is on the edge of my constituency, just a few hundred yards from the top of my constituency, so many of them live in my constituency. Having listened very carefully to the trade union representatives, many of whom are personally affected by this move, this morning, I'm concerned at the apparent thinness of the business case for doing this. They've made no case for reducing the number of jobs based on technological advances. It seems to be all down to an investing campus site, whatever that might mean, invented by people who are not familiar with the geography of the UK, and perhaps haven't had pointed out to them that Northampton is not close to Cardiff, and is certainly not going to be used as a way of people commuting slightly further. 

So, I'd be very keen if you, Cabinet Secretary, could ask the Barclays senior management, based in the United States, what is the substance of this location strategy, given that there's no reduction in the number of employees, that it's reported that there's great difficulty in getting appropriately qualified people in Northampton, and that the Cardiff site currently serves some of their highest value customers—high-end businesses who require the highest quality service otherwise they'll obviously take their business elsewhere. So, I'm very concerned, not just about the impact on the 200 individuals affected by this in Cardiff, but that there's a lack of any strategic substance to the business case for this level of disruption.

Well, I agree with the Member, and I think my comments so far suggest that her views and mine are fully aligned in questioning the business case and the rationale for the decision that's been announced. We should remember as well that it's not just workers in Cardiff who will be affected by this decision, but also in Coventry. Again, we need to question why it is that Barclays have decided to pursue the course of action of consolidating activities in a smaller number of centres in the UK, whilst, at the same time, essentially splitting two halves of the same service in Cardiff, which runs completely against what they're suggesting, which is that they would wish to see services consolidated in one area. And this is why I wish to see that assurance that the 250 roles are going to be remaining in Cardiff. I want that promise set in concrete, as I said. I wish to have clarity as well over what appears at the moment to be that contradiction that has emerged from Barclays, saying that they wish to consolidate into a fewer number of centres in the UK, whilst also splitting services across two distinct geographical areas. To me, it does not make sense. I wish to have clarity over that, and I think the workforce deserve clarity as well.

First of all, I would like to offer my sympathies to all the workers who are going to be hit by this, and I regret once again that we see a very skilled workforce being let down. My concern is the pattern of seeing jobs being cut in Wales, and that the Welsh Government, to all intents and purposes, doesn’t have information about these cuts until the decision has been made. I’m sure that that is a concern for the Cabinet Secretary as well. I don’t think that I’m recommending that the Welsh Government should be included within board discussions of these companies, but, somehow, the communication is failing, and we need to question, I think, as part of our work of holding the Government to account, how effective the relationship is between the Government and these major employers such as Barclays, particularly given that Pentwyn is located on the outskirts of the Cardiff enterprise zone, which specialises in the financial services sector.

So, in terms of my questions, when was the last time you met with Barclays before finding out about this news, and was the possibility of job cuts in Cardiff discussed at that time? My second question: given that one of the heads of Barclays is a member of the sector panel for the financial services sector of the Government, you have to ask whether these panels are doing their work properly, because, even though you are using these panels to collaborate in order to attract new companies in the sector to Wales—that is one of the aims of their existence—isn’t it key to use the panels in order to find out how we safeguard jobs within the sector that already exist, and being a radar to acknowledge problems? Now, you said that you’re proud that new jobs are being found for those who have lost their jobs in call centres—and can I make it clear that I welcome the fact that jobs have been found? But let me ask: given the instability of the sector, which has come to prominence here, how sustainable is it for the Government to continue to place its faith in the call centre sector?

Because we've got great confidence in the ability and the quality and the expertise of the workforce in Wales who are employed in the contact centre sector. I should just inform the Member that the sector panels have been wound up—that includes the financial and professional services sector—with a new ministerial advisory board that has consolidated all of the sector panels into one board that provides advice and expertise.

Our intelligence regarding the contact centre sector comes from the Welsh Contact Centre Forum. They were not informed in advance, nor was the UK Government, nor was the local authority. And I do question whether the Member is suggesting that we should have had commercially sensitive information ahead of the announcement, and to have done nothing with it, because if we'd been aware that there was any suggestion of job losses in Cardiff, we would have acted on it immediately. It's for the business to determine whether or not to approach us with any concerns over future operations. That business did not approach us. I want to know whether it approached the trade unions, because my impression, based on discussions that I've had this morning, is that the answer is 'no'. Nobody was informed in advance of the announcement that jobs would be lost.

I would also reiterate the point that I made: that the sector as a whole is in an incredibly strong position in Wales as a direct result of the investments that Welsh Government has made and the support that the Welsh Government has been able to offer businesses, with 1,145 jobs in south Wales alone currently available in the sector and, by the end of this year, a further 800 jobs. What we wish to do now is, first of all, of course, try to prevent the jobs being lost from Barclays, but if we cannot do that, we wish to ensure that every single person affected by the decision gets an equal or better opportunity, either within Barclays in Cardiff or in an alternative and suitable place of employment. They deserve the very best and that's what Welsh Government is going to help give them. 

Like everyone else, I find Barclays's decision quite baffling, and I do have some sympathy with you; quite how you can anticipate such a random decision is very difficult to consider. I think what you say about the resilience of the sector is key, because jobs continue to be generated, and perhaps against expectation with automation the service is becoming more skilled—highly skilled in many places with complex calls and use of social media platforms. I commend the work of the trade unions in emphasising how important these skilled and better-paid jobs are.

So, my specific question, then, given that you've referred to the vacancies and the fact that—. Incidentally, we want lots of smaller providers to establish greater resilience so that when we do get a rather random decision, it's one amongst many employers, thankfully. Anyway, there are lots of skilled people now, unfortunately, who are going to have their work disrupted for at least a while until they find other employment. So, are you working with the Welsh Contact Centre Forum to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of the opportunities that currently exist in the sector? Because I would imagine many of them really do have the potential to shift quite quickly into those jobs and it's very, very important that we provide that sort of practical assistance.  

Can I thank David Melding for his questions and also welcome his astute observations and wise opinion regarding this sector? In the coming years, industry commentators predict that technological disruption will lead to, yes, a reduction in lower-skilled jobs, but actually an increase in higher-quality jobs that are demanding higher levels of skills and commanding higher wages right across the UK. As I said earlier, this could see, and should see, a reshoring of jobs that were lost abroad. What we will also see is a greater focus within the sector on retraining and reskilling people in order to take advantage of those higher-salaried jobs that require new and additional skills, particularly in the fields of data science, cyber security, artificial intelligence and behavioural science as well—incredibly exciting areas of activity. For that reason, we developed the economic action plan with a specific call to action to drive investment in innovation, to ensure that businesses are future-proofed and embrace the industries of tomorrow. As a consequence of publishing that economic action plan we are now well positioned to be able to take full advantage of the development of new, higher-quality jobs within the sector. 

Meanwhile, David Melding is absolutely right that we need to work very closely with the Welsh Contact Centre Forum, who have proven to be invaluable in identifying other jobs for people who lost their employment at Tesco and who face the prospect of losing their jobs at Virgin. We work incredibly closely with the contact centre forum. I'll be calling on Barclays, when I speak with them on Friday, to allow not just representatives of the forum into the business in Cardiff, but also Welsh Government officials and representatives of those bodies who are able to provide employment advice. Also, given that many people will be facing the prospect of losing their current jobs, there will be anxious people, so I wish to see Barclays open the doors to practitioners in particularly mental health, who will be able to provide support during what will be a very insecure period.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 5 on the agenda is the 90-second statements and the first today is from Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much. Thank you for the opportunity to wish a happy birthday to an institution that’s made a huge contribution to health and fitness on Anglesey, and which also happens to be a centre of sporting excellence of worldwide renown.

One of the highlights of the Gold Coast Commonwealth Games was Welsh weightlifter Gareth Evans's stunning gold medal-winning performance. His lifting was immense, but just as impressive was the passion he showed in running over to his coach, Ray Williams, to celebrate. Ray himself had realised a dream as a coach, but before coaching, he himself had won gold for Wales at the 1986 games in Edinburgh. Ray had been introduced to lifting by Bob Wrench, a bronze winner in the Christchurch games in 1974, and it was Bob who had the vision to establish the Holyhead and Anglesey Weightlifting and Fitness Centre 50 years ago. 

A high-school sports teacher, not only was he hugely talented at weightlifting, he could see what lifting could offer to the area's young people, many of whom would otherwise not have such opportunities. Ray and Gareth were among thousands to benefit. To give you an idea of HAWFC's success, Ray himself has coached lifters to 97 gold medals of youth and senior at Welsh and international levels. But it's the community aspect of the club that's just as important. This is a centre with its doors open to all. So, happy birthday Holyhead and Anglesey Weightlifting and Fitness Centre. 

Happy birthday and a long life to an institution that’s done so much for its community and, through its excellence, has done so much to put Holyhead and Anglesey on the global sporting map.

Vikki Howells.

With the death of Frank Vickery yesterday at the age of 67 after a short illness, Wales hasn’t just lost one of its most prolific playwrights, we've also lost one of the most perceptive observers of the characters, humour and wit of the south Wales Valleys.

The son of a Rhondda miner, Frank left school at 15. He worked in various jobs, whilst acting and writing in his spare time. His first play, written at the age of just 21, was After I’m Gone, and won the Howard De Walden trophy in the British Final Festival of One-Act Plays.

In a long writing career, Frank wrote for theatre, radio and television, but he was most famous for his 30 plays. He ascribed his popularity to being able to pick up the music—the rhythm of how people spoke—and in this, he was phenomenally successful. Frank captured the recognisable and realistic personality of the communities where he was born and raised. That is why Valleys communities took him to their heart, his plays often forming the mainstay of theatres like the Coliseum in Aberdare.

Frank was also not averse to treading the boards, reaching out to new audiences with his show-stealing pantomime dames. Frank did so much for the Valleys and the arts during his life. While his infectious on-screen presence will be sorely missed, his humour will live on through his comprehensive collection of outstanding plays.

Thank you.

Item 6 on the agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Chair of the Finance Committee on the report on the remuneration board's determination underspend, and I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Simon Thomas.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. For some months, the Finance Committee has been undertaking work in relation to the Assembly Commission’s use of the underspend resulting from the remuneration board’s determination. We've published a report, but the situation has changed during the last few weeks. So, we were hoping that a statement and questions would be a better way of dealing with this, rather than a formal debate on the report. We’ll see if the Members agree on that.

The Finance Committee has shown a keen interest, as I said, in the way in which the Commission approaches budgeting. In determining how to budget for the determination, the practice to date has been for the Commission to budget for the maximum possible spend for each Member or party, and then to use any underspend to fund its investment priorities. We have been concerned about this approach for some time, as we believe it entails that the Commission’s total spend is not sufficiently transparent. As a result, the committee decided to undertake a short inquiry into how the underspend is used and to consider how other Parliaments in the UK and around the world budget for expenditure related to Members’ pay and allowance.

During our inquiry, the remuneration board issued a consultation on the flexibility of the allowances within the determination. That consultation has now resulted in more flexibility for Members’ allowances. This, in turn, has impacted on the Commission’s budgeting decisions, which I will talk about later. 

One of the key areas that we were keen to explore with the Commission during our scrutiny was the way in which it budgets and forecasts its spending. We have previously recommended that the Commission provides an in-year update before the end of each calendar year on the likely determination underspend, along with any significant changes to planned projects to be funded using this underspend. We were pleased to see the Commission included more detail in its information for the 2018-19 budget regarding the funds it estimates will become available from capital and operational budgets, and from the remuneration board’s determination. As a committee, we welcome the steps taken by the Commission during the last budget round, as we believe it aids scrutiny.

One other area of concern for us has been the way in which the Commission has used the underspend to fund investment priorities. We were not comfortable with the principle of the Commission’s budget relying on an underspend to fund projects and priority areas of work, such as the maintenance of the Assembly estate. Although we appreciate this could lead to projects being brought forward, the intention to fund some projects through the underspend, over multiple years, remains a concern for us, as the Commission is then reliant on an unpredictable resource. We believe that core projects should be identified and funded separately.

After considering our report and the remuneration board’s decisions to allow more flexibility over Members’ allowances, the Commission has confirmed, and we welcome this, that it has reviewed its approach to funding projects, and that priority projects identified for completion during 2019-20 will be identified in the budget document, and will now be fully funded from the Commission’s core budget line. We believe this decision will aid scrutiny. Projects will be identified in the Commission’s budget planning, the Finance Committee will scrutinise them and will follow up on them in future years to ensure that the Commission is accountable for delivering projects. In this way, the Commission will be brought into line with the planning and budgeting processes of other directly funded bodies.

However, the Commission has stated that this is likely to result in a compensating increase in the Commission’s core budget, reflecting the expenditure that the underspend would have otherwise funded. This contradicts, on the face of it, a previous recommendation made by the Finance Committee, to which the Commission agreed, namely that its budget should not increase beyond any increase to the Welsh block grant in the remaining years of this Assembly. While we accept that the Commission will not use any underspend from the determination’s budget line, we are concerned that the budget may increase. At a time of austerity, when other public services in Wales are facing extensive and continuing real-term cuts, we highlight the comments made by the Assistant Auditor General for Wales that some of the Commission’s possible projects were probably nice-to-haves, rather than absolute essentials, and we would therefore urge the Commission to consider its priorities carefully to ensure that projects are genuinely required to meet the Commission's strategies and goals. Thank you. 

Can I thank the Chair for his statement? You've covered most bases there, actually, Simon, and we considered this in-depth during our short inquiry on the Finance Committee, so I've only got a couple of questions, a couple of areas I'd like to highlight.

This probably isn't the subject over dinner tables across Wales, but it is, certainly—[Interruption.] Well, maybe yours, Simon. [Laughter.] It's certainly important to the way that this place operates and, indeed, a lot of the issues that we look at on the Finance Committee—maybe some of the minutiae that other people and other committees don't look at, but they are, nonetheless, important to efficiency and making sure that our structures and procedures here are, not just fit for today, but fit for purpose for the future as well—the next Assembly and beyond. As you highlighted, key to our recommendations in the report is that there should be greater clarity over how underspends are utilised and used in future. Clarity and transparency are words that we often return to in this Chamber and in committees in this Assembly, which are equally as valid and important in the case of the spend of the Commission as they are in other areas. 

I think there's a part of the report that says that, relative to spend of the block grant, 1 per cent of the Commission budget probably looks a lot smaller. But, of course, in terms of the efficiency of the Commission and ensuring value for money, it's just as important that £100,000 or £200,000—whatever the buffer that's been identified might be—is spent as wisely as the millions and the billions that we talk of when it comes to talking about the wider Welsh Government budget.

That issue of clarity and transparency is key, so I suppose one of—it seems strange asking questions to my Chair in this context, but key to my questioning of you is: are you confident that this report will indeed result in that greater transparency and clarity, and not just now, but that it will be responsive to the future when this place becomes a Parliament in name and goes on to get further tax powers as well and further powers in the future? Will this report be just as relevant then in ensuring value for money?

There have been some major concerns that the Commission has been overtly reliant on underspends, as you said, to fund key core investment priorities. This can't be a sustainable way to proceed. I think the committee appreciated how that had developed over time and over a number of Assemblies. Perhaps in the past it wasn't such an important issue, perhaps it could be explained away, but, clearly, if you're going to be relying overtly on underspends to fund some of our key commitments or some of the Assembly's key commitments as an organisation, then that does leave the door open in future for a pretty major problem should there be issues or should those underspends not develop in the way that's foreseen. 

I only briefly looked at the forecasting aspect of the report, and I think that that's obviously an area that, across the board, we really need to get a lot better at. We've looked at the forthcoming tax powers on the Finance Committee as well, and the setting up of the Welsh Revenue Authority, and we've said that the Welsh Government needs to have a far better forecasting function when it comes to anticipating economic growth within Wales over the years to come. I think, in its own way, the Assembly itself and the Assembly Commission also needs to have a more robust forecasting mechanism. That doesn't mean always getting it right, as we found on the committee. Actually, forecasts are normally wrong. But it's the forecasts that actually give you that base level by which you can then evaluate progress in the future and you can say, 'Actually, the Commission did do everything that was necessary, it did take the steps necessary, and although we might not have got it quite right, we did do what we could for the people of Wales, to make sure that there was value for money in the money that we were spending and the Assembly was overseeing.' 

The Commission approach in terms of dealing with underspend—I'll close on this—should be more closely aligned to Treasury guidance. That does seem to be common sense, but, of course, common sense doesn't always operate naturally, unless someone gives it a push along. So, I do hope that the recommendations of the Finance Committee in this short, niche but interesting report will be taken on board and it will end up with a Commission procedure and Commission budgeting over the years to come that will be not just ft for today but fit for the future as well.

I thank Nick Ramsay for his comments. As he suggested, this may be the bubble debate to end all bubble debates, but I think it is actually quite important, because how we budget and spend our own money—because I talked in the statement about the Commission, the Commission is the Assembly, of course—so how we spend and budget our own money has to look and feel like how we expect other public bodies in Wales to behave. So, if we, the Assembly that passes the budget for the Government, and then for the directly funded bodies, including our own directly funded body, which is the Commission—. We should look and behave like the best practice in that example. 

I think I'd like to pick out the word that really struck me from what Nick Ramsay said, which is 'clarity'. We do have transparency, because things are able to be followed through, but was there clarity there in the past? And, of course, when you have up to £1 million that's in an underspend and is then utilised in a particular way, then I don't think that is clear, and that is what was concerning the Finance Committee at the time. 

Nick Ramsay asks me if I'm confident that this now enables us to go forward and prepare for our further responsibilities, and growing fully as a Parliament, and I would say to him 'yes'. I also would like to put on record thanks to the Commission for the way that they've responded to our report and have been in dialogue and negotiation with us. And of course, the fact that the other decisions, which are nothing to do with the Assembly itself, because we do not decide our allowances and our pay—that's done separately by the remuneration board—but nevertheless the decisions taken there have also added to the need to address this.

So, I think there is more clarity there now. I think that the Commission will present a budget that will be very clear about its priorities, about its future spending plans and about its investment plans. It's clear that any underspend within the remuneration board will be returned to the block grant, but, of course, that, in turn, has an implication for how the overall budget will look, which we won't be able to judge until we see it in the autumn. But, of course, the Finance Committee as a whole would expect the Commission to act like other public bodies in Wales in terms of the general funding and the finances that flow from the Welsh block grant.

Can I first of all welcome the statement made by the Chair of the Finance Committee, and also the comments made by Nick Ramsay? It's a strange position that I could've actually made either of those statements—either the statement or the comments and questions from Nick Ramsay—without any problem at all, so I think there's a level of unanimity amongst those of us who are serving on the Finance Committee.

Can I just reiterate something I've said several times before? I think it's still worth saying: the National Assembly for Wales Commission cannot be immune to the austerity facing the rest of the public sector. Difficult though it may be, and difficult decisions may have to be made, it cannot be seen to be growing while large parts of the public sector—some parts that people think are very, very important—are losing money.

The budgeting process, with the Commission setting all Members' support at the maximum possible, with staff pay set at the top of each grade, will always produce savings. In the first year of each Assembly, it will produce substantial savings, because almost everybody who starts working here will start at the bottom of a grade of five points.

I also share the committee Chair's concerns about funding projects from underspends, not least because when projects are being funded by underspends they're not getting light shone on them by the Finance Committee of this Assembly, and then by the Assembly itself, over whether those projects are good or bad. I don't want to make any comments on projects that have been carried out in the past, but, really, it is important that we do have it being dealt with so that each and every one of us here is individually and collectively responsible. We might not like it, but we should all be taking any credit or blame.

I've only got one question, and it's something we agreed earlier in the discussions, but seems to have been rolled back by the Commission now. Does the committee Chair still believe that the Commission's budget should not increase by a larger percentage than the Welsh block grant, albeit the Welsh block grant as amended by taking in tax raising by the Welsh Assembly? So, that is, effectively, what the block grant would've been, which may mean that they have a reducing amount of money every year, because as we get more tax devolution that will come off, but that is, effectively, the amount of money that is available to the National Assembly for Wales to distribute to the Welsh Government and the other two bodies that we directly fund. Do you still believe—? I'll start the remark like this: do you still believe, like I do, that there has to be a very good reason for the Commission to have an increase that is better than that which is coming to the rest of the Welsh public sector?

I thank Mike Hedges for his comments, which have the value of being consistent. He's consistently said this, and they've been consistently clear and transparent as well, so I thank him for that. I don't disagree with him, and he reflects the points that I was making earlier that in our own spending and our own budget setting we have to act like the rest of the public sector in Wales. We're not entitled to treat ourselves differently—I very much think that that has been taken on board.

He asked a specific question around an earlier recommendation by the Finance Committee that the Commission's spending should be in line with the Welsh block grant for the rest of this Assembly term. That remains the recommendation, of course, of the Finance Committee, but I think it is important to put on record that there have been changes in the way money is now allocated. The remuneration board changes mean that the money that was set aside for Members is now more flexible in Members' hands. Members will be aware that they can vire, I think, up to 25 per cent of that money for their purposes now, and I think what we will need to do when we scrutinise the draft—well, it won't be the draft budget. When we scrutinise the actual budget of the Commission in the autumn, we will be, I hope, as a Finance Committee, looking to take into account—I think it's appropriate that we take into account the fact that there will not be such a large underspend that will be flexible to be used. So, I think it's appropriate to take that out, if you like, of how we look at the budget, because that wouldn't be fair, because that's a decision by another body in other circumstances. So, we take that one out and then we look at the overall budget, and I would agree then with Mike Hedges that, having taken out the remuneration part, because that's no longer part of this equation, we would be surely looking to see that the recommendation of the general block grant rise is there, and if it isn't because of a specific reason, then we'll be looking for the investment decision behind that reason, the project that's concerned, where it might be in terms of—it might, for example, be in a spend-to-save-type approach. All these things, I think, we have to be open to, but our basic principle there is that, having taken out this change now with the remuneration board, the recommendation of the Finance Committee does still stand. 

Thank you for the statement, Simon. Part of me thinks that I wish this had been a debate because it would have given me the opportunity as the relevant Commissioner standing here today to pick up some of the points that Mike Hedges and, in fact, Nick Ramsay have made, but the question I wanted to ask you relates actually to what you were saying at the end there, Simon. The situation is going to be this: as you know, we can't use the underspend for our investment fund anymore; if we want the building to be looked after and so forth, we need an investment fund. If we add an investment fund to the bottom line, as things look now, particularly including the remuneration determination, over which we have no control, as you said, the chances are very strong that our bottom line will go over the amount by which the block grant has gone up, and the reasons for that will be partly because of the remuneration board determination, and we don't know what that's going to look like, and partly because some of that is going to have to go back, so the spend will look less than the bottom line in the original budget. So, I wanted your reassurance on this, in as much as we've committed to staying within the block grant increase, that the Finance Committee won't be coming back to us in whatever period it is and saying that we've exceeded it, when it's through no fault of our own. So, that's the reassurance I was seeking.

Thanks, Suzy Davies. And, of course, I'm always open to debate; I enjoy debates as much as anyone here, but I thought we'd try a different approach on this occasion. I'll take feedback and see whether it is the best way, but it has allowed her to make her points, to be fair. I really can't, I think, do more than reiterate what I said to Mike Hedges, which is, to be quite clear, that I think it's perfectly reasonable for the Commission, in approaching this budgetary process, to take out now the consideration around the remuneration board, because that is completely separate. It can't be used for, as she put it, the baseline, if you like, and if there is any underspend there, it will be returned to the block grant.

I think that when we come to consider your budget—. I don't want to completely tie the hands of the Finance Committee when we look at your budget in due course, but I think it would be reasonable, and I hope that you, in your budget presentation, will show to us very clearly how that remuneration money has now been dealt with—how it's been taken out, if you like, from the overall allocation—so that that doesn't confuse anyone looking at the baseline into thinking that there has been an increase above the block grant simply because you are no longer able to use what is up to about £800,000, possibly £1 million. So, I think we will take that into consideration when we consider that.

We will then look at the rest of your baseline, I would suggest, and say, 'Has there been an increase there above the block grant level?' And, if there has, 'What's the reason for that?' I think that's where the final comments I made in the statement and earlier comments I made—. It would have to be (a) a very good case, and you'd have to not only persuade the Finance Committee but ultimately, of course, the whole Assembly, and (b) it would have to be in line with the assistant auditor general's comments about the prioritisation of the programmes—the ones that are nice to have, the ones that are absolutely essential. 

We understand that we're getting some more responsibilities and powers around income tax. There are some things that need to happen within the wider, if you like, empowering of the Parliament here. That does have some finance implications, but also I'm aware that the chief executive has been looking at overall staff numbers, redeployment and using the staff numbers to the best of her ability. I think we'll take a look at it in the round; I think it's only fair to do that. But, to reiterate, let's take out the remuneration board part now because that's no longer part of the deliberations, and look instead at the rest of the budget and how that has been increased or not. Maybe you'll come with a decreasing budget. Who knows? I think that's highly unlikely, but the Finance Committee would certainly welcome it.

But more seriously, we will need, I think—it's reasonable as a committee—to set aside the remuneration board determination now; that's a completely separate issue, more in the hands of Members themselves as well. So, Members will also be more directly accountable for the spending of their own. It may lead to more, perhaps, direct accountability of Members and people asking questions about what Members have spent their allowances on, but that's not for me and not for you, that's for the wider accountability of Members here to the Welsh public.

Just finally, your question does give me an opportunity to say, as well, and remind Members, that we do have Commissioners and they are ultimately responsible for preparing the budget. The Finance Committee does the job of scrutinising the budget, but in advance of that, there is surely a way of people discussing with Commissioners around their, either concerns or priorities, that they'd like to see in the budget.

May I question the assumption that the baseline should automatically be changed to reflect the subsequent decisions of the remuneration board? Because I would question whether that is the way in which other public sector bodies operate. Very often, they'll prepare their budget on one set of assumptions and then things will change and they'll have to absorb those costs and make savings elsewhere.

Just to take an example, in the new pension arrangements across the UK for previously opted-out pension schemes, such as in the NHS, it's a very big issue. Suddenly, they had to pay an extra 2 per cent national insurance, but that didn't mean they got a 2 per cent uplift in their budget to compensate for that. So, to the extent that the external frame has changed, and the remuneration board has decided that, of our budget, a somewhat greater proportion should go to Members with more flexibility to spend on their staff, I would question whether we should, or, indeed, whether the previous finance report—I was a member of the committee at that point—implied that there should be some adjustment for that. Couldn't we instead look at where savings might be made elsewhere, to the extent that Members have greater flexibility over their allowances and staffing allowances, could they take on perhaps some of the things where the Commission had been providing services before?

I question again, just as another example, that the amount we're all having paid into our pensions by the Assembly Commission is going up by about 3 per cent per year. Again, that's something we had to consider and how to adjust it. Why are we putting our money into investments where we know they're going to fall in value over time? Shouldn't we actually be taking decisions that mean there has to be less money put in because the investment return might be higher?

And I think the most important thing, and I just wonder if you agree, chairing the Finance Committee, is that the rest of the public sector has had significant austerity when our budget's being growing quite significantly. I thought, as the Finance Committee, that we took a view that henceforth we should be like the rest of the public sector.

I thank Mark Reckless. I'm not going to be tempted to a debate on austerity, wearing a more political hat, and I'll just deal specifically with his questions.

I think there's a slight confusion here, if I may be clear around it. The overall budget that the Finance Committee considered, presented by the Commission, included that sum of money for the remuneration board, in effect. As there is now less—well, put it this way—as there is now more flexibility within those resources for individual Members to spend what would have been an underspend held, if you like, in common by the Commission, that is now broken up into 60 different underspends that we can then use and spend ourselves.

So, in his general charge, which the Finance Committee agrees with, and did agree with—that the Commission should behave like the rest of the public sector in Wales—we now need to add 60 Assembly Members who also need to behave like the rest of the public sector in Wales. And I hope that no Assembly Member thinks that simply because they have more flexibility over their spending, it means they have to spend up to the limit, because they will be asked to justify that, and will be rightly asked to do so. 

But I do think—and this is what's changed since he was a member of the committee, and since we've published the report, received a further response from the Commission and a response in light of the remuneration board—I do see it fair that we take out that remuneration board when we judge whether the Commission has increased in line with the Welsh block or not, because the Commission cannot now either use that money or control that money. It is in, as I say, 60 different pairs of hands. The Commission has no decision making around the overall sum—that is for the remuneration board to decide. And so I think it is reasonable that we take that bit out and then challenge the rest of the budget precisely in the way he suggests, precisely in the way that the Finance Committee asked for, and I don't see the Finance Committee being less rigorous on that aspect than it has been in the past.

In that regard, I go back to what I said in the statement: we would expect the Commission to act like the rest of the public sector, to take on board austerity, to know that we're all answerable, not only for those individual spending decisions, but for the overall spending decisions of the Assembly. There are potential big projects on the horizon and the Commission will need to consider how that best fits its approach, as a public body, like that. So, I don't think we've resiled from that, but I think we've been reasonable in the changes that have emerged since the report was first published.

I thank the Chair.

We move on now to the next item, which is a debate on air quality, and, believe it or not, I'm about to call on Simon Thomas to move the motion.

Now I can be political, Chair. [Laughter.] Thank you very much. I'm very pleased to open this debate, which, of course, is a cross-party debate, supported by Members from all parts of the Chamber on Clean Air Day, which is tomorrow, and we, as Plaid Cymru, have used it as a good way of making a clean air action week, but, whichever way you approach it, I know that there is great interest in all parts in clean air. I just want to set out why this motion is so important to me, but also to other Members and our communities, and what we can do to mynd, to get hold—I've come out of Welsh into English and I'm struggling still—what we can do to get hold of some of these issues.

So, we do know—and the chief medical officer's report has made it clear—just the effect of clean air, or, rather, polluted air, in Wales. We have 2,000 early deaths in Wales as a result of this and we have some of the most illegal and damaging levels of air pollution—Port Talbot, Chepstow, Cardiff, Newport and Swansea reported those in 2015. I want to particularly emphasise at the start of this debate the effect on vulnerable people, particularly children. Children exposed to severe air pollution are five times more likely to have poor lung development and increased infection susceptibility as well. There's also a real link with poverty here, because there are five times more carcinogenic emissions emitted in the 10 per cent most deprived wards in Wales than the 10 per cent least deprived areas of Wales. We just need to think a little bit about how we live in our communities and the tendency of people with more money to congregate around—well, to live in avenues, and avenues have trees, and to live near parks, and the tendency of people who are less well off to congregate in housing that directly faces onto the street where there's no barrier between yourself and the pollution emitted by cars.

So, these are the reasons for some real failures in Wales—lately, the fact that Client Earth has taken the Welsh Government to court. Welsh Government has responded with action plans. Last week, it announced 50 mph limits, which will need to be tested, I think, because it's not absolutely clear that that will do enough to clean up the air. There's a theory behind it, but it's not absolutely clear that that will do it, and we need to take further action as well, which is the reason for the motion today.

Just for an example, I'm particularly concerned that we put more power in the hands of our citizens to monitor and know more about the air that's in their local communities. The British Lung Foundation found out, through a freedom of information request, that only one school in Swansea had a pollution monitor nearby and not one single school in Cardiff has a pollution monitor nearby. So, if you're talking to children and parents about taking alternative routes to school, cycling, walking or whatever, or just turning off the engine when they're idling outside the school, you don't have the evidence to give them, because we're not collecting it. And even when we go further, about what we should be collecting—because some of these air pollution monitors say that we have safe levels, but they collect over a long period of time; they're not real-time collecting at 8.15 a.m. when all those engines are running, and that's where we need to get to. So, it's very important, I think, that we strengthen and embolden that aspect as well.

Now, as part of this, I certainly think we should have a clean air Act for Wales. There are individual things that are being done, but I think we need to bring them together, have a piece of legislation, show our ambition and demonstrate that, in the way that we have done with the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and the future generations commissioner as well. That very much, I think, would turn around empowering clean air zones in towns and cities. Now, clean air zones are seen and known to work. Awyr Iach Cymru, the coalition of bodies campaigning for clean air in Wales, say that they're the most effective way of reducing emissions and changing behaviours in the shortest possible time. Just for an example, one introduced in Berlin in 2008, and expanded two years later, led to particle and nitrogen oxide emissions that were 50 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively, lower than the predicted trend. So, there's a way of empowering and using Welsh Government to empower local authorities to deliver clean air zones. That's why, I'm afraid, we won't be accepting the amendment tabled in the name of UKIP, because I think the clean air zones are actually a really essential tool in tackling air pollution in Wales.

We also need to look at how we replace our reliance on fossil fuel cars. In my initial proposal for a clean air Act, I proposed that we phase out fossil-fuel-only cars by 2030. I thought that was a bit of a punt, and, as the First Minister himself said yesterday, it's

'too early; I don't think the technology's ready.' 

Well, the mayors and leaders of cities in the UK, representing 20 million people, precisely called for that only on Monday, and they happen to include the mayor and leaders of Cardiff city council as well. I'm not trying to make this a party-political thing in that sense. I think the First Minister needs to get on board, needs to understand that, in fact, this is already happening. China, which is the world's largest vehicle market, is considering a ban on the production and sale of fossil fuel cars in the near future. It's no coincidence that China is also the leading investment country in hydrogen. Copenhagen, countries all over western Europe, are considering—not considering, implementing bans, bans on sale and bans on fossil-fuel-only cars entering those cities.

Now, I think we can use technology to tempt people away from cars that are polluting and we can use technology to encourage people to look at alternatives. So, I think there can be a vision for a clean and green and non-polluting public transport sector powered by hydrogen. We'd like to see the Wales train franchise—it's up and running now, but there are break clauses in it. I'd like to see those used as a way of putting pressure to get hydrogen trains introduced. They're already in Germany. They're already being developed. There's talk of Alstom building hydrogen trains in the north-west of England. Let's be at the forefront of this technology.

We already have an agreement with the Welsh Government on electric vehicles. I confess I've been campaigning for an electric vehicle point to be put in here in the Assembly. It's here, and I'm very pleased to see it, and I know there are at least two members of staff using it, but no Assembly Member yet, because I haven't made the jump to electric vehicles. I can't travel from Aberystwyth here—. I come by train most of the time, by the way. But I can't travel—I know sometimes you need to use a car, and you can't do it. So, that infrastructure has to be there to encourage people to change their mode of transport, and I think we can easily move people to a new technology that's exciting and new, but, in turn, we have to use that as a reason to encourage them to use the car less, as well. So, that has to be part of the equation.

There's an awful lot, therefore, that we can do here in the Assembly, and I think the main thing, to conclude, is that I want us to use not just this debate, but the debates that we'll be having over the forthcoming weeks and months, to show that Wales isn't just at the forefront of thinking about the environment, but at the forefront of investing in the sort of technology that will take us beyond that. To give a plastics example, we've been talking about plastic straws for quite some time in the Assembly. It was very good to see that a new start-up company in Ebbw Vale is now the one that's making paper straws that have been taken up by McDonald's and, I'm sure, other companies as well. That shows that this green economy is not about returning to the past, it's not about rejecting technology, it's about embracing the best to ensure we have clean, green environments, clean air for our children and young people, and jobs, as well, in our cities and towns.

David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and I'm delighted to take part in this—

I do apologise, David Melding.

I'm sorry. I should have called the amendment first. I jumped, sorry. I thought you looked surprised at me calling you. [Laughter.] I do now need to call the amendment introduced in the name of Caroline Jones, and I'll call Gareth Bennett and apologise for not for not having called—.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thanks to Simon and the others for bringing today's debate, and I formally move our amendment. We do seem to have talked about clean air quite a lot lately in the Chamber, but, of course, the air quality is not signally getting any better, so I suppose it's still a pertinent issue, so we can talk about it again. And there are developments, as Simon Thomas made clear, in places like Berlin and other cities, where they are going ahead with various initiatives, some of which we do have reservations about: clean air zones—I'll raise that later on. But we, of course, agree with the spirit of today's debate in that we agree that we need to make moves to improve the air quality. So, in that respect, I gather most, or all, of the parties, in fact, would be in agreement.

Looking at the issues, traffic congestion, of course, is a major issue. Schools have become bigger and less local, and more children are in families where both parents work most days, so we now have large numbers of parents driving their kids to school, and the school run is a major component of the traffic problem at rush hours, as can be evidenced by the noticeably less traffic at these times during school holidays. So, one thing we need to think about—all of these things are interrelated. It's a whole tapestry of things, and it's difficult, sometimes, to think about how a Government would deal with these issues, but one thing is we need to encourage more kids to walk to school, through supporting initiatives such as the walking school bus and other similar walking patrols.

We also need better public transport. In Cardiff, and no doubt in other major towns in Wales, we have business parks and such like built in places on the edges of cities, without any real public transport links. This is a failure of the planning system. We need more arterial bus routes going around the edge of major towns. Certainly, we need them in Cardiff; probably in Newport and Swansea they would be an advantage as well. They have a lot of arterial bus routes in London; we don't really do them in Cardiff.

Active travel is another key point. We need infrastructure such as cycle and footpaths, although, of course, there's always the physical difficulty of incorporating all of these elements in limited urban spaces. But there are opportunities. There are some disused railway lines, which could be utilised. There's one in the west of Cardiff, which runs between Fairwater and Creigiau, which is still there from being cut in the Beeching era, I imagine. The line is still there; it wouldn't take that much of an effort to actually clear the line and use it for some purpose. We do have the campaign to reopen the Rhondda tunnel, which I asked a question about earlier today, so I'm hopeful that that scheme will progress.

Another planning issue is the large number of fast food outlets, which sometimes congregate closely together in certain parts of certain towns. This, because of the large number of extractor fans in operation, will tend to have a noticeably poor effect on the air quality, and this, again, leads to issues of planning, because, in my experience, when I used to cover council meetings—a long time ago, but I think the situation hasn't changed a lot—planning officers will sometimes face local opposition from members about planning applications, but they tend to say, 'Well, you know, the applicant will win this on appeal, so we have to push this through.' So, planning permission gets given. Then, the next case comes up, and they cite the precedent and they say, 'Ah, well, we gave the planning permission to this one, so we have to give it to that one.' So, we then end up with large numbers of fast food joints in condensed areas, which certainly does not do the air quality a lot of good. So, I think we do have to address a lot of these things through looking at the planning system.

We do now have a future generations commissioner here in Wales, which is potentially a good development. She's a very able person. I hope she will be able to have a meaningful input into these things. But she has to be able to have some, as I say, meaningful input into putting a stop to things like councils building willy-nilly on green belt land, and councils knocking down their bus stations to build huge office block complexes, which will drag more commuters into central urban areas. And the Welsh Government will need, ultimately, to take proactive measures in these areas, rather than simply talking about issues and sometimes passing legislation, like the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, which doesn't seem to really do much to alter the situation, although I'm sure it was passed with good intent. We need to look at how that actually works, how that policy works, and make it work in a more meaningful way.

Looking at today's motion, as I say, we support the aim of improving air quality. We do have an issue with clean air zones, because we feel that we need to provide better alternatives first before we start banning people from driving particular cars into towns and cities. After all, if we banned all of the drivers with fossil-fuelled cars from driving into Cardiff and Swansea tomorrow, I'm sure there wouldn't be the capacity on the buses and trains for people to get into those places at all, and we don't currently have the infrastructure for electric cars. Sure, we need to progress with these things, and my sentiments are with Simon Thomas—let's move forward with developing this kind of infrastructure—but at the moment, it's not there. In UKIP, it does feel to us like putting the cart before the horse, so we don't really currently support that particular notion. So, for that reason we oppose today's motion, unless it's amended by our own amendment, which raises that issue. Thanks very much.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can I congratulate you on the alacrity with which you readjusted your position there? On two occasions I forgot to call Ann Jones when she was the Chair of a relevant committee, and I felt so bad on the second one I bought her a box of chocolates. [Laughter.] I'm not suggesting that that's a precedent.

I'm not buying you a box of chocolates. It's not going to work. [Laughter.] 

I didn't correct myself very quickly, so my error was more egregious.

Can I thank Simon Thomas for taking the lead in today's debate and getting a really good consensus? I thought we even had UKIP, but it seems, unless their amendment passes, they won't quite come on board, but it was a largely constructive contribution that we've just heard. I do think that the motion as put this afternoon really does forcefully convey the feeling that is shared, I think, across this Chamber, but really strongly amongst the public, who, again, I think, are pushing us harder on this important area of public policy than we have been in the past, and are ahead of us. It should surprise no-one, given the importance of clean air and its benefits for health and well-being.

Can I just say that I will be referring to some of the Conservative Party's policy development? Because we've looked at this and we believe tackling air quality is really, really essential. We've put it at the heart of our urban strategy, 'Liveable Cities', which we launched last month. I raise this, really, as an example of how the consensus is forming, and not in a way of, 'Look, we've done this, we are very clever, you should all copy it', because much of what's in the strategy builds on what's already out there, and has been advanced by all people, really, from around this Chamber. So, I think it's very, very important. We had a particularly good response from some of the key stakeholders, such as WWF and the British Lung Foundation, and I know they work with all political parties. Again, I claim absolutely no specific endorsement from them. They are worthy organisations with excellent expertise that can help us improve our public policy. Having said that, there is a hard edge to this as well, because we do have some very poor air quality in Wales, compared to other parts of the UK—and the UK doesn't do that well overall. Cardiff and Port Talbot have higher particulate matter levels than Birmingham or Manchester, and as we've discussed several times in this Chamber, there's a road in Caerphilly that's the most polluted outside London. As the motion says, air pollution contributes to around 2,000 deaths per year. That's 2,000 premature deaths, and it is, really, a tragedy for those people and their families—a very, very big impact indeed.

These facts should trouble us, and I know that they do trouble Members, but we do need, I think, to move on to some very specific ways forward and build on the consensus that we now have. So, we are taking some very specific actions, because it is human activity that is largely driving that. There are some forms of natural activity that can affect air quality, but the one we're talking about is pretty much what we are doing in terms of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. These levels of pollutants are pretty much determined by everyday human activity, and many of us undertake these things, like travelling by train, using cars to an extent perhaps that is way over what the optimum would be given the consideration of reasonable alternatives, the type of power plants that are still in operation—Aberthaw's been discussed several times in this Chamber—down to household appliances and what we spray in the air to allegedly freshen it. I could go on and on. The list is a very long one. So we need to come up with some specifics, and we've started to do that now in the strategy by calling for clean air zones in Wrexham, Newport, Cardiff and Swansea, and a commitment to make Cardiff the UK's first carbon-neutral city. We could be leading the way. We could be really presenting Wales as a leader in this sector, and attracting those young people that want to come and live and work in a very clean and innovative environment. That's what we should be doing, because if we don't do it, we'll be dragged along to do it as the fiftieth or sixtieth city or whatever to do it, whereas we could be the leaders.

We also think that monitoring's important, particularly around schools and nurseries, and how we move people around—we heard about the school run just now from Gareth. Again, anyone of my age, born in 1962—I still am flabbergasted when I see evidence all around me of the school run, because to my generation it was just completely something we did not experience, and we had better lives for it, I think, in terms of how we got to school. But other proposals in our document include policies for green rooms, green spaces, active travel, electric vehicles, energy efficient housing, renewable energy and tree canopies. There are other things. These are all achievable and they need to be done in a comprehensive, coherent way so that we have a real change, and we can go to the likes of the World Health Organization—I'll conclude on this—showing that we are leading best practice rather than being quoted for some of the highest pollution levels in western Europe. Thank you.

Julie Morgan. 

Thank you very much for calling me to speak in this very important debate, which is so important to our children and to future generations. Congratulations to the cross-party group of Members who have put this motion forward. I think it is, when you think about it, absolutely shocking that 2,000 people in Wales are dying as a result of air pollution, and obviously for people with asthmatic conditions and different lung conditions it is such a dangerous situation to be in polluted air. It's something that I think we are all very concerned about.

In Cardiff, Public Health Wales estimates that 225 deaths a year—that's 5 per cent of all deaths—can be attributed to particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide in the Cardiff and Vale health board area. The ClientEarth report, which has already been referred to this afternoon, in September 2017 showed up the unacceptable pollution levels at schools. In Cardiff, of the seven schools that were mentioned, three of them are in my constituency of Cardiff North—that's Cathays High School, St Joseph's school and Ysgol Mynydd Bychan. Those are all situated along Whitchurch Road, along North Road, along the arterial roads that are coming into Cardiff, where all the traffic pours down those roads to people who work in Cardiff centre, or work in this area. So, those schools are within 150m of a road that exceeded the legal limit on air pollution, and I think that is an absolutely shocking situation, and it is shocking that our children are actually exposed to these levels.

We don't know, really, what the long-term impact will be on the health of children living in heavily polluted areas or going to schools next to very busy roads, and of course, it is interesting reading one of the briefings for this debate, which said that, of course, because children are so much smaller than adults, they are much closer to the fumes, much more likely to be affected by them. There is also the issue of inequality, and we know there are more fumes in poorer areas. So there are huge issues related to this subject. So, I'm very glad that the Welsh Government is taking action, that there are already going to be the temporary lower speed limits on some of our major roads, and the £20 million new air quality fund. But I think that it's important to be aware that many of the levers to tackle these issues are within our grasp. It's already been said in the debate that this is a problem that is caused by us, and by our activities, and one of the ways that we can, of course, address it is by promoting active travel.

I hope very much that the metro and the increased number of stations and services will really help encourage people to use public transport and to get out of their cars. I'm particularly pleased that, in Cardiff North, we're going to have the development of the new Velindre hospital, and I'm very pleased that there is now a plan for the train or tram to go right into the middle of the hospital. And so, the fact that, over a year, there will be thousands and thousands of people going to that hospital, and the fact they'll be able to go straight there—I think that's the sort of initiative that we need to have: that when we do have new projects like that, we absolutely build in, right from the beginning, the ability for people not to use their cars, but to use public transport easily and conveniently.

I support the efforts that Cardiff council is making. I support clean air zones; I think it's the way forward. Cardiff council published its transport and clean air green paper this year, and its vision of Cardiff as a 20 mph city—the whole of the city—I think, again, is something that would take us forward. Earlier in the day, when we were on questions to the Commission, I mentioned the Sustrans 'Bike Life' report, which showed that more people would cycle if there was more investment in cycling infrastructure. I know in Cardiff, there are cycle superhighways in the pipeline, which would be great, but also, there's a great need to join up cycle journeys, and people do need to feel safe cycling along residential streets. For example, I think there's always a great nervousness that someone will open a car door and knock people off their bikes. I just think you've got to make people so aware of people that are cycling and to provide safe places to cycle. I also mentioned the importance of encouraging more women to cycle and referred to this particular report showing that women, in particular, are lagging behind in terms of using bikes and being involved in driving this forward.

So, I think that this is a very important debate, I support it entirely and I think this is something that the Welsh Government is behind. I think we need to drive it as much as we can with all our actions and with all the different levers that we have here to take it forward.

Llywydd, I very much welcome this debate today as well, which is very, very important for health in Wales and quality of life in Wales, and there are practical things that can be done. One thing I've mentioned previously, for example, is the possibility of having LPG conversions for taxi fleets, which would be one important and significant contribution to improving air quality in our town and city centres. It's very affordable and very quickly repays itself in terms of lower fuel costs. We had the active travel Act, which Julie Morgan has just mentioned—it's there, it's on the statute book. Local authorities are working up their policies and implementing their new routes and, as Julie mentioned, we have examples such as here in the capital city around some of these cycle highways.

But there is also the need, of course, to make sure that it does all connect up, as Julie said. I think one way of facilitating that is by having a default 20 mph speed limit as a national policy, right across Wales, which would then be the starting point for local authorities. They could exempt certain roads from that blanket policy for valid and particular reasons, but that would be the starting point. What that would do then would be to help create these more cycle and walking-friendly urban environments that would facilitate people feeling safe and secure to cycle from their homes and connect up with the new cycle network under the active travel Act. We also have other important drivers—we have the metro system going forward, new possibilities for bus travel with the greater powers that Welsh Government will have to make sure that we do make this modal shift to a properly integrated transport system. It's not going to happen overnight, but there are, I think, a lot of policies now aligned, pointing in the same direction, which offers new momentum and real possibilities for us.

That '20's plenty' campaign that I mentioned, Llywydd, to have this default 20 mph speed limit right across Wales, is a very important part of this wider picture. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NICE, strongly advocate it, for example, and they make the point, with the research that they've done, that it would facilitate more walking and more cycling in our urban environments, create more friendly environments for children to play outdoors, and as they point out, and indeed as an article by Dr Sarah Jones in the British Medical Journal has pointed out, it does meet the public health challenges of addressing air pollution, addressing road traffic casualties and addressing obesity. They link those three together as perhaps one of the very major public health challenges that is faced in the UK at the current time and identify a default 20 mph speed limit as one of the most obvious and effective ways of addressing all three of those major challenges.

NICE also point out that as well as addressing creating more walking and cycle-friendly local environments, a 20 mph default speed limit would also address the particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide aspects of air pollution. So, I think, looking at what that policy has to offer in the round, and the fact that it is being implemented in the UK by a number of local authorities—you know, it's something that's practical, it's something that's very affordable, and it's something that's becoming an increasing reality in the UK—gives us a worked-up policy that we could adopt in Wales that would be a major contributor to many of these air pollution issues and much else besides.

I’m very pleased to participate in this important debate, and I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague Simon Thomas on the leadership that he’s shown on this very important issue. I don’t know if I’ve mentioned in the past that I’m a doctor by calling, but, naturally, I approach this issue from the point of view of the public health impact of these issues. It is crucially important for us to realise that air pollution has a dire impact on all of our lungs, but particularly on the lungs of young children, and there is increasing evidence that it impacts on the lungs of unborn children—that is, even the unborn are affected by the pollution breathed in by expectant mothers. That could scar your health throughout your life. So, we can’t over-emphasise the importance of this issue.

Many years ago, we were willing as a society to suffer water that wasn’t clean. Now, you wouldn’t suggest any situation where we should put up with water full of impurities, but we are willing to put up with air that is full of impurities. We need a major change of attitude, because we need to move forward and create these clean air zones, as Simon and many others have already suggested and supported. Many years ago, we had to put up with that smog in our largest cities—the pea soupers, as they were called, in Manchester and London—where the air was so dark you couldn’t see your hand in front of your face. Well, we saw legislation then to clean the air, but, of course, things are far more subtle these days. We are still suffering as a result of those impurities, but they aren’t visible now. So, on the face of it, we think everything is fine, but things aren’t fine—they’re a very long way from being fine, and we need to legislate to ensure that they are put right.

Just on that point—reminding us of legislation in the past—one implication from the London Clean Air Act was opening the phurnacite plant in Cwm Cynon in order to clean the coal to be used in London, and it was the people in the Valleys who had that smoke. That’s what we need to avoid, and that’s why modern technology is so important.

Yes, exactly, and, of course, that builds upon the perception that many years ago we were happy to accept our miners working underground and having all of this dust in their lungs, and that air pollution that they had to breathe in. It was seen as okay because it was so important to have those jobs. Well, we need to move away from that kind of mindset. We are starting to do that, but there is far more work to be done. As has already been mentioned, the situation is worse in our most deprived areas. People are always asking: why do people have to suffer greater ill health in our most deprived areas? Well, it's because there are all sorts of impacts that are more common in those areas, and air pollution is one of those. It is far more prevalent in our most disadvantaged areas, therefore we must focus our clean air zones on those most deprived areas.

Broadly speaking, the point is—. I’m pleased now because as doctors and nurses we’ve known about the impacts of air pollution for decades, but there has been no action because people thought that the air was sort of clean, because it was no longer visibly unclean. I’m pleased to see now that there is a change of mindset—yes, as David Melding has said, under public pressure—but, sooner or later, we have to take action on this. Therefore, we as an Assembly must play our part, because the health of our people, and mainly the health of our children, relies on the fact that we breathe clean air. A breath of fresh air in every sense of the words.

Members might be aware that I should be speaking in this debate as the constituency representative of what was only a month ago labelled the most polluted town in the UK. I'd like to put on record that they got it wrong, and that the figure that they quoted of 18 mg/cu m in fact should've been 9.6 mg/cu m, which brings us down to the average level and hitting the limits. So, I'll make sure that's on the record—that's an error of transcribing data.

What I want to highlight is the fact that, clearly, there are issues we need to address, but there are complications. Very often this afternoon, what I heard—so far—is mainly a discussion of vehicle emissions, effectively, and PM2.5, but, of course, in my town we also have industrial issues that we need to be facing. We need to address both, and it's very difficult to address both. I'll try to highlight both points.

Clearly, industrial emissions are part of the historical development of our industry over the years, and Port Talbot—the steelworks—is clearly the biggest one. When Dai Lloyd was talking about the impact of particles and the issue of PM10 from the steelworks—you see that. You can see it shining sometimes in the light as it comes down, and you can see the dust and the particles affecting people. There is clear evidence in our communities where that falls. The number of complaints continue to rise as a consequence of the pollution emanating from the works—they're rising, unfortunately—but I do give credit to Tata, because they have made huge strides in addressing some of these issues. They still need to make further strides—no-one's going to hide from that fact—but we have to look at the question as to what our point of acknowledgement is of an industrial past and an industrial future that give a strong economy. Is it one in which we basically get rid of that industry and remove that element of pollution, but, of course, suffer the economic consequences of that?

That's a very difficult thing to do, and I expect, perhaps, the Minister to give me an indication, in her answer, as to how Natural Resources Wales will be attacking some of those questions, because it's their responsibility to monitor these, and it's their responsibility to enforce the regulations and to ensure that the organisations that are emitting that type of level of pollution are abiding by the EU rules—yes, EU rules, for some of those who don't remember. They are actually the ones making sure that we have those limits, and it's important that we get them right. 

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I'm grateful. He's touched on a very important thing, which, as he's quite rightly said, hasn't been—apart from a short contribution from Dai Lloyd there—aired in this debate. He may be aware—well, he is aware, I know, but I just wanted to get it on record as well—in his own area, of course, there is the start of some of the answers to this twin dilemma of vehicle emissions and industrial emissions. He has the hydrogen research at Baglan. I understand that Tata put out a lot of hydrogen as waste gas at the moment—if only we could capture some of that and use it. It's right on the railway line—it could be used in a hydrogen train. The idea is just so exciting when you look at it that way. As well as monitoring the pollution in his constituency, which is important for everyone in Wales, we need to build on some of the technology that's there to plot that cleaner future.

I fully agree that the technology to look at, not just the hydrogen but the recycling of some of the waste gases released, and the emissions as a consequence of that, and how you can do some carbon capture on the stacks and those issues—these are technologies that we are advancing and we need to build upon them. We need to encourage people like Tata to actually invest in that research as well, so I totally agree with you on that.

In the remaining time, I want to focus also on the legal emissions aspect, because clearly we also have a problem. The M4 in Port Talbot was one of the areas reduced to 50 mph, and I will question the actual section, and I would love to have an understanding of where the measures were taken and how they were measured, because if you know Port Talbot, the M4 works its way through it and the section that had the speed limit put on is actually in the open air, it's above the River Neath and it will disperse quite easily. The section that wasn't put on is right against mountains and jammed in between the coastline and the mountains and where you would expect, actually, greater measurements of pollution to be recorded. So, there are some questions on that, and we also have the railway line going through it. Please don't ignore railway lines.

When people talk about the solution as the metro, please remember that the metro doesn't go west of Bridgend. In fact, it doesn't even go into Bridgend; it might go into Maesteg a little bit but it doesn't go to Bridgend. So, if we are talking about solutions, we need to look at solutions for Valleys that haven't got railway lines, Valleys that have limited transportation where people are forced to use their cars. And if we're also looking at ways in which we can have better flows on motorways, junction 41—Dai Lloyd might remember this; Suzy will—junction 41 was trying to be a solution to get traffic flowing easier, and then the worst polluted street, which is in Caerphilly—I'd have had four or five that would have beaten that easily because of all the congestion that was created. So, when you look at solutions, look at the wide solution; don't look simply at a simple solution to one problem, because you are creating more problems.

So, the air pollution is something that we have to address. I welcome the £20 million air quality fund. I really want to see how that works. I really want to see how the action plan in Port Talbot in particular will work, because even though we have got it now down to 9.6, we still have an issue to address, and the residents of Port Talbot clearly will tell you that we need to address it.

So, please, can you assure me that the action plan that is being put in place is going to address both aspects of pollution, not just vehicles, and will also look at how we can ensure that we can live with an economy and the pollution simultaneously.

I call the Minister for Environment, Hannah Blythyn. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm grateful to Members for tabling this, the latest in a series of debates on air quality. It's a subject that we've all said before, and I as Minister for Environment have said, is a top priority not just for me in my own portfolio but across Government as well. I think today's debate sponsored by Members from all parties is a testament to the consensus we have in this place and in Wales on the need to take action, and we must take action across sectors to reduce the impacts of air pollution on both the health of our communities, our environment and our economy.

I support the motion as originally tabled. The Welsh Government marked the first Clean Air Day last year with the publication of statutory guidance for local authorities, reshaping the air quality management duties in the context of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Today's debate to mark the second Clean Air Day tomorrow provides a platform for us to promote Clean Air Day and to encourage awareness and involvement both within this place but outside it as well. I think we are all in agreement that this must go beyond simply a day and we must sustain the interest generated through Clean Air Day in the activity around it and ensure not only that it stays at the forefront of people's thoughts but more importantly informs all of our actions.

Reducing public exposure to air pollution is one of Wales's national well-being and public health outcomes framework indicators. Earlier this year, we issued guidance with Public Health Wales to the NHS. This acknowledges that the NHS in Wales makes a contribution at local, regional and national levels to dealing with air pollution risks. The guidance includes action to support the assessment and mitigation of air pollution and its associated health risks and also provides information on behaviour change using the planning system and improving environmental sustainability and managing public health risk.

Our local air quality management guidance to local authorities states that nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter are the pollutants of primary concern from a human health perspective. We are clear that we must achieve compliance with legal limits, but actually this is about going much further and striving to reduce levels of these pollutants across the board. Our consultation on 'Planning Policy Wales' reiterates these points.

The local air quality management guidance also identifies the role of schools in tackling air quality. The first is a contribution we've heard much of today about the school run. Like David Melding says, it seems to be a modern phenomenon. When I went to school, the school run to me was actually me running away from my mum on the way home rather than cars around schools, so we need to look at how we tackle traffic congestion and air pollution, particularly during term-time rush hours.

And the second is educating both children and parents on air quality issues and exploring solutions collectively, such as car sharing and no idling policies around schools. To support this guidance, I will provide funding to raise air quality awareness through the Eco-Schools initiative and the Young Dragons project. In fact, I met with pupils and staff at Pen-Y-Bryn school in Cardiff just this morning to see what they were doing and how they were starting to implement this project, to see it in action and show my support for this scheme.

Schools that are involved have been sent 10 diffusion tubes, and they are invited to put these up at various locations around the school. The examples I saw today were by the main gates, by the car park, and one was right the way through, across the field by the trees, but there was also one that was neighbouring a busy road going past the side of the school. Those results will then be sent off to be analysed and then will come back to the schools and the children can develop their own campaigns in terms of how they can tackle this and how they can encourage the adults around the school to take this on board. They already had quite a number of ideas today, so I look forward to hearing how they take them forward. The project introduced pupils to the cause and impacts of air pollution, and information on how they can make these changes.

In addition, our clean air plan for Wales has set out key pollutants, including both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, and their effects on public health and the natural environment in Wales. I know a number of Members brought up the issue in terms of how it affects children and how we need to take action for our children and future generations, including my colleague Julie Morgan. This plan will help us to actually highlight specific activities that might already be under way to address air quality at sensitive receptor points, such as schools and hospitals, but also to determine what action could and should be done to take that further as well.

So, if I refer to David Rees coming in in terms of—. I applaud your efforts to come in and actually correct, once again and on the record, the WHO's figures for Port Talbot, labelling it the UK's most polluted town. You're absolutely right to correct that, but I think, as we said, we must not be complacent: we know action needs to be taken in that area. And you acknowledged, as other Members did, the particular challenges: the combination of both heavy industry and major roads, and actually how we strike that balance in terms of the economic, the environmental and health impacts as well in terms of the action we take.

In terms of looking at the specific location on the M4, that's an extension where it was, and it's where the monitoring we have shows that we are exceeding our legal limits. As you can imagine, bringing in speed restrictions is not always the most universally popular move—I've had some interesting feedback, shall we say. Somebody said to me, 'You're obviously not familiar with this stretch of road', and David knows that I have become more familiar over the last couple of years with that stretch of road, and I hopefully will continue to be so.

The action David and others will be familiar with is the Welsh Government's action plan on clean air for Port Talbot, and this reaffirms our commitment to proactively tackling poor air quality in the area. I've already asked officials to re-examine this plan, and the approach that it takes and the evidence that underpins it to make sure that it is still the best way to tackle the specific issues in the Port Talbot area, and to see what additional action we may need to take to bring that into line. To actually emphasise the importance of that, I intend to meet with Tata Steel, Natural Resources Wales and Neath Port Talbot council as soon as possible to support this process and see what action we need to be taking collectively.

Members will also be aware of action under way to tackle persistent air pollution in terms of clean air zones. Our 'A Clean Air Zone Framework for Wales' and the supplementary nitrogen dioxide plan aim to address those problems of traffic pollution. And building on actions on air quality and soundscapes in 'Planning Policy Wales', I am pleased to inform Members that the Welsh Government will also conduct a review of technical advice note 11 on noise. We will replace it in this Assembly term with a new technical advice note on air quality and soundscape.

Our clean air zone framework provides a consistent approach to the introduction of clean air zones by local authorities. It will help businesses and individuals and support cities to grow and transition to a low-emission economy. We know that clean air zones will deliver targeted action on air pollution hotspots to improve air quality and health and support economic growth. They encourage the replacement of old polluting vehicles with modern, cleaner technologies, such as ultra-low emission vehicles. But a clean air zone may not always be appropriate outside some urban areas where no alternative routes are available—other action may be required. Welsh Government is working with local authorities to identify local solutions to both achieve compliance in the shortest time and the best for our communities in the long term. 

You talked about the links to the decarbonisation agenda and the need to move away from fossil fuels, and use modern technology, and you obviously talked about the Riversimple hydrogen-powered cars, which is supported by the Welsh Government. I think it's how we strike that balance in terms of being at the forefront and managing the transition with those major car manufacturers that may already be in Wales, to make sure that we manage that, and, again, balancing the economic and the environmental, but for us to be at the forefront.

I'm aware that I'm running out of time, so I will try and draw to a close, but just one point: the importance of behaviour change I don't think can be overstated. So, work is under way to raise awareness of poor air quality and we're working with the What Works Centre for Wellbeing to develop a communications plan and raise awareness of the impacts on health and I've committed £70,000-worth of funding for this.

Can I close by just thanking Members again for bringing forward this debate? I think everyone made clear that it's not simply about the environment; I think it's a pressing social issue as well, as we've heard, and it has implications for our children and future generations if we don't take action. So, I thank Members for all their calls to action and I just want to close by reiterating this Welsh Government's commitment to taking action using all those levers at our disposal to ensure clean air for our communities and our country. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on Jenny Rathbone to reply to the debate.

I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I think it illustrates that there is cross-party support for really tackling this incredibly important issue. Simon started off by pointing out the 2,000 early deaths highlighted by the chief medical officer and the problems that we face in Chepstow, Newport, Cardiff and Swansea. He was one of several people who mentioned the link with poverty, which I'll come back to in a moment. He recognised that the Government is taking action on speed limits on some of our motorways and that this is supported by people like the British Lung Foundation, but that we don't know nearly enough about what is going on, particularly how it's impacting on children, and he pointed out that only one school in Swansea has a monitor nearby, so we simply aren't collecting the information that we need to know what we need to do and the extent of our problem.

He pointed out the need for a clean air Act for Wales and I would support that call. He reiterated that clean air zones work because they lead to reductions in the noxes and the particulates that are killing some people—leading to an early death—as well as permanently disabling many of our children. He also mentioned the need to reduce the number of fossil-fuel cars and the fact that he'd taken a punt on 2030, but that was reiterated by many city authority leaders, including Cardiff, who have pledged that we should indeed phase out dirty vehicles by 2030. So, that is going to happen as far as I'm concerned.

We obviously need to think about what's happening in terms of technology, with China being a leading investor in hydrogen and we want to see more hydrogen trains being introduced by the new train operator. I didn't know that we have an electric vehicle charging point, but that's great.

Gareth Bennett is resisting the idea of clean air zones, but nevertheless, he made some important points, which I think we can all support, about the school run being a major cause of pollution, but I don't think there's a causal link between both parents working. I think it's much more to do with attitudes about what is the appropriate way for children to get to school. When I was seven, I always went to school on my own, I crossed busy roads, I got on a bus or I walked. It's just the mindset that children are not capable of taking themselves to school and they are, and we need to—

Will you take an intervention on that point?

Sure.

I accept that point, but I think it's also fair to accept that the roads are far more dangerous than they were when you and I were going to school, and drivers themselves are not always aware of what is on the pavements today. So, it's not just one, it's a combination of things.

I agree, but I think 20 mph zones in urban areas would tackle that problem, although I appreciate that some of the most dangerous driving is done on infrequently used rural roads.

Gareth also made the point that fast-food outlets mean there's a cluster of additional vehicle movements, and I agree that more attention needs to be paid to this sort of thing in planning considerations. Councils building on green spaces without the transport links is absolutely a no-no as far as I'm concerned, and he also questioned whether the active travel Act had been effective.

He also said that if we banned diesel and petrol cars tomorrow, we'd have chaos—we simply don't have the infrastructure. Well, I'd just like to point out to him that tomorrow there will be a clean air zone in force in Cardiff for four evenings this week, starting tomorrow, in order to manage the Ed Sheeran concert at the millennium stadium. So, it's perfectly possible to do, if we have the will to do it, and I'd like to encourage Cardiff council to do this more often and not just when there are major entertainment events on, when we wouldn't need to be disrupting the public transport, which is a major disincentive to people leaving the car at home.

David Melding rightly pointed out the important contribution to public policy that the Conservative Party has made with its urban regeneration strategy that's been supported by various organisations like WWF and the British Lung Foundation. He also pointed out that Cardiff and Port Talbot have higher levels of air pollution than Birmingham and Manchester and that that should trouble us. He acknowledged that it's human activity driving the problem and, therefore, it's perfectly possible that we have solutions.

Julie Morgan pointed out the numbers of people in schools in her constituency who are close to major roads, particularly around the Gabalfa roundabout, and the people travelling into Cardiff by car. I have to say that's a feature of—the nine most polluted schools in Cardiff are all near major roads. Some of them, we can imagine proposals to dampen that down, but in other cases, it will be about reducing absolutely the number of commuters. 

John Griffiths talked about the need to convert our taxi fleet to LPG, and I'd point out that taxis in London will have to be clean by next year, and private hire vehicles will have to be clean by 2020. So, if they can do it, there's no reason why we can't do it. This is something where we're oversupplied anyway, so we need to raise the bar. He pointed out that the metro could have a possibility of achieving modal shift, but it won't happen overnight. Sadly not. Many of the proposals that are being offered are things that won't happen for the next five years, so we have to do other things in the meantime: 20 mph speed limits would encourage more walking and cycling, and also tackle obesity as well as road traffic accidents.

Dai Lloyd, interestingly, highlighted the impact on the unborn child because of the air breathed in by pregnant mothers. We previously tolerated unclean water, we no longer do. We shouldn't now be tolerating unclean air.

Dai Rees reminded us that Port Talbot is not the most polluted town in the UK, but I would remind him that the plume goes up to Maesteg, where one of the highest levels of child asthma is being suffered, so there are some problems around industrial pollution—some are historic and some are current—and there are complex issues around how we resolve them. We have to, I agree, seize on solutions that don't create new problems and have unforeseen consequences.

The Minister agreed that we need consensus. We've got the consensus to take action, certainly amongst those who spoke, and we need to ensure all our colleagues are doing the same. We don't have time to mess around, we absolutely have to seize the moment and take action now, because we are impacting not just on today's children, but future generations, as well.

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

That brings us to the next item, which is the Welsh Conservatives' debate on the health and social care workforce. I call on Angela Burns to move the motion. Angela Burns.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to move the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. We recognise the immense contribution made to our society by the health and social care sectors, and we want to demonstrate the need for integrated workforce planning, and put forward ideas on how to improve the recruitment and training of staff. Today's debate has four key aims, as set out in our motion. Cabinet Secretary, I am sure you will join the Welsh Conservatives in recognising the vital contribution made by Wales's health and social care workforce, and I'm sure that you will agree that a valued, supported and healthy workforce will be key in driving forward the transformation that NHS Wales needs to be sustainable in the future. However, when we asked you, the Welsh Government, to publish a comprehensive, integrated strategy for Wales's health and social care workforce by January 2019, you appeared to cavil. And, again, our point 4: you appear to be baulking at the idea of supporting the NHS workforce by implementing priority access to treatment for NHS workers. Sure, we must make sure that we have in place the right people in the right places in order to effect the transformation that we need.

Now, I know that, across this Chamber, Members will acknowledge the vital contribution that Wales's health and social care workforce makes to our nation, and, if any of you haven't had direct experience of their care, I'm sure most of us will have had loved ones who've made use of the services they provide. However, all too often, staff feel underappreciated, under pressure and voiceless in an environment that is more about finances and politics, and less about patients and staff. And we want to pay tribute to this workforce, from the consultant undertaking the operation through to the nursing team, all the way to the cleaners and catering staff who manage to keep our NHS operating.

In its seventieth year, let's just take a brief look at what the NHS does in Wales on an annual basis. Last year, the Welsh NHS was there when over—well, in fact, I'll give you the exact number—when 33,729 mothers gave birth. And, in 2016-17, over 8,500 people were supported by mental health services. In 2017-18, an average of 93,000 people went to accident and emergency departments. That's 1 million people a year supported by our NHS, and I'm sure that you will agree with me that this figure reinforces the value of the NHS to Welsh people. However, it does not mean that the operation of the NHS is beyond improvement or challenge, and, Cabinet Secretary, you've been very quick in the past to dismiss our comments on this side of the Chamber by saying we're talking down the NHS and diminishing the efforts that the staff put in. You could not be further from the truth. We all value the NHS. When the chips are down, it is there for you.

Turning the clock back 70 years, Henry Willink, Nye Bevan and the other architects of the national health service would never have envisaged the role it's playing today, and it's worth stressing that however much money is spent on maintaining machines, upgrading equipment, providing sparkling new buildings, the common denominator remains the members of staff. We need staff to administer the machines, read the x-rays, care for the sick, clean the floors. Without them, the NHS would cease to operate, and that's why it's so important that we get to grips with ensuring that the well-being and health of our NHS staff is truly prioritised. The latest set of figures surrounding NHS sickness absences for the quarter up to December 2017 saw a rise in absence nationally of over 5.5 per cent. What concerns me more, however, is how the figures differ so greatly between staff groups. So, for example, the Welsh ambulance service records a sick rate that is well above the average.

Last year, I highlighted the extent to which mental illness is affecting NHS staff. The figures then showed that close to 8,000 staff members accumulated nearly 350,000 days of absence due to anxiety, stress and depression, and this was the equivalent of 948 years—an unbelievable figure, almost—lost to mental health illness over the course of one year. Figures from the Royal College of General Practitioners survey last year showed that severe workforce pressures mean that the well-being of many GPs is suffering. Almost one in three Welsh GPs are so stressed they feel they cannot cope at least once a week. And other survey results by Mind Cymru found that 35 per cent of GPs had personal experience of a mental health problem, while 12 per cent said they use, or have used, mental health services on a consistent basis.

Cabinet Secretary, these issues alone further demonstrate the need for more effective health and well-being practices to be employed across the NHS in Wales. It's ironic, isn't it, that a profession that looks after sick people finds it so difficult to keep its own staff physically and mentally fit. I believe there is a very good case for NHS staff to receive rapid access to treatment and rehabilitation. An NHS Employers publication in January 2016 demonstrated the case for rapid access with clarity, saying that it will contribute to substantial savings for the NHS, it will lead to a more consistent and healthy workforce, resulting in better patient care, and reduce pressures on colleagues resulting from sickness absence. They also stressed that it will not prioritise the health needs of NHS staff to the detriment of other patients, but that the organisational benefits of such a scheme will result in a reduction in demand for agency staff and provide a reduction in low-level sickness absence.

There are a number of ways that rapid access can be implemented, and I urge the Welsh Government to look at this. The NHS Employers' paper on this matter highlighted a couple of case studies. Southampton university hospital—the occupational health and human resources team ran a return-to-health scheme, which offers employees a tailored package of care, from treatment and personal consultation through to follow-up and continued support. The project helped to minimise the adverse effects of long-term sickness on both staff health and well-being and on the finances, and it created a personal service where employees felt cared for. The benefits to the organisation were seen in a reduction of the overall absence rates, down to 3.1 per cent from over 4.5 per cent, and in the reduction in agency costs by 26 per cent. Imagine how much the NHS would save in Wales if our agency costs were cut by 26 per cent.

Colchester Hospital University NHS Foundation Trust, they introduced a triage looking at supporting staff that are off sick, which also reduced absence. When an individual reports as sick, their line manager contacts the occupational health and well-being department with details of the absence. That department conducts a five to 10-minute telephone call with the member of staff to establish any support that is required and signpost them to relevant resources. This has resulted in mental health and musculoskeletal conditions being identified on day one, enabling early support and intervention to support staff. So, following the phased roll-out, these were the findings: mental health issues—71.5 per cent of the staff returned to work within four weeks. Compare that to our over 900 lost days a year. Musculoskeletal disorders—there was a 100 per cent increase in referrals to physiotherapy, but 53 per cent remained at work, 21.5 per cent returned to work within eight days, and a further 15 per cent returned to work between nine and 14 days. That really shows the benefit of caring for the people who are caring for us.

Both of these studies make an extremely convincing case, and it's also worth considering that, if we do not keep up with schemes such as this across the border, we will find it increasingly difficult to attract staff to work in our NHS today. That's why I'm so disappointed that both UKIP and the Welsh Government have rejected this element of our motion.

One final aspect that I would like to address is the need for improvement in workforce planning. Findings from a Welsh Conservatives' freedom of information request showed that the Welsh NHS is haemorrhaging nurses. The health boards that provided us with figures—there was a combined deficit of 797 nurses in the three-year period between 2015 and 2017, and, since then, further numbers have come in, which have showed that as an increase, and I'm very happy to provide those to you, Cabinet Secretary.

Coupled with these worrying numbers is the massive amount of money that's being spent across the country on agency staff. The latest figures from 2017 have this at £54 million. In fact, it's £55 million, because it's £54.9 million, and it's indicative of the difficulties that health boards have in employing full-time nursing staff of their own. The British Medical Association recently produced figures that health boards spent £29 million on consultant overtime and private providers. Cancer Research highlighted how the shortfalls in staff are having an enormous effect on the provision of top-quality cancer treatment. Cabinet Secretary, all of this goes to show that we need the staff. The shortage I know you're aware of, but what you do not seem to be doing is pulling that together into an integrated system that would save us money, give us good people in the right place at the right time to provide an NHS that will go on for longer than a simple 70 years.

General practice—I'm just going to end on general practice. It's integral, absolutely integral, in achieving the healthcare model that you outlined in 'A Healthier Wales', your vision for the future, and it's vital that a strategy is developed to boost both the numbers of GPs and the numbers of allied healthcare professionals. We have an ageing workforce out there in primary care, demonstrated by figures from the NHS Confederation that stated that more than 45 per cent of Welsh NHS workers are currently aged 45 or over. People are retiring; not enough recruits are coming in to replace them.

Cabinet Secretary, I'm going to wind up there because otherwise the person who is closing will be very cross with me, but I do want to just make this point once again, that, without an integrated health and workforce plan that incorporates social care, that really looks at great ways of retaining people and values our people, then we are not going to be in a position to offer a good NHS service. I really would urge you to have a good look at the rapid care systems that are around the world. I'll leave you with that last figure: over 900 years of work lost due to mental health issues. We know the stress our staff are under. If we can get the staff we have well and back into work, that in itself will make an enormous difference to the state of our NHS.

I have selected the five amendments to the motion. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call Caroline Jones to move amendments 1 and 3, tabled in her own name. Caroline.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I would like to formally move the two amendments tabled in my name, and I thank the Welsh Conservatives for bringing forward this important debate today. As you can see from my amendments, I agree with 99 per cent of the Welsh Conservatives' motion. I cannot support granting priority treatment to NHS staff, and, while I have sympathy with the need to get staff back on the front line as quickly as possible, I fear this proposal would lead to a two-tier NHS. We could see a situation where an NHS worker and a police officer are both waiting for a transplant and, under these proposals, the NHS worker would have priority, regardless of the clinical priorities. I therefore urge Members to support amendment 3.

Getting to the crux of this debate, it is regrettable that Wales is facing staff shortages in a number of key areas, and it's because we have had woefully inadequate workforce planning in recent decades. Wales has failed to take account of demographic changes and the pressures this will place upon health and social care services. As highlighted by the parliamentary review of health and social care, the population of Wales is set to grow by 6.1 per cent. The number of over-65s is set to increase by 44 per cent, and the number of working adults will decrease by over 5 per cent over the next two decades.

Unfortunately, age rarely comes alone. Over the same time frame, the number of adults living with a long-term limiting condition will increase by almost a quarter. The situation we find ourselves in today is made much worse because a lack of future planning has led to shortages of many key staff. Year on year, month to month, we have around 20,000 patients waiting for more than 36 weeks for treatment. We have seen a 400 per cent increase in the numbers of patients waiting more than a year for surgery. Thirty-nine per cent of Welsh people find it difficult to make a GP appointment, and, according to the Royal College of GPs, we are suffering from a severe GP shortage. Wales has 136 training places and, if we are to consider training places per patient, we should be training 184.

The royal college believes we need to train 200 new GPs each year in order to meet the demand and account for the large number of GPs approaching retirement age. But it's not just GPs we're short of. Wales has the lowest number of consultant psychiatrists per head of population, despite Wales having a higher than average proportion of people suffering from mental ill health. Wales has some of the worst cancer survival rates in the western world, yet we are desperately short of clinical oncologists, medical physicists, radiographers and diagnosticians. We are desperately short of nurses. The NHS is currently spending £1 million per week on agency nurses just to cover shifts.

Would you take an intervention?

Yes.

Thank you very much indeed, Caroline Jones, for taking the intervention. You've highlighted the case exceptionally well for why we have such a big shortage everywhere, which is why—and I'm going to read the figure out again—948 years are lost because of mental illness. If only some of those people were put back into the workforce more quickly, instead of having to recruit people. We can't magic them out of thin air. We've got them there; let's make them well, let's get them working.

Angela, I take your point, but for the reasons I highlighted in the beginning I can't accept your—I had to put my amendment in. So, I do apologise. Thank you.

These shortages don't just contribute to longer and longer waits for patients; they are placing existing staff under unbelievable strain, and one out of every three Welsh GPs feel they are so stressed they cannot cope at least once per week. Nurses have revealed they are leaving work sobbing and patients are dying alone because of these staff shortages. We would need an additional 78 clinical oncologists if our oncologists were to stick to their contracted hours. Our NHS is being tested to breaking point and the pressures are due to continue to pile up. 

Yes, the Welsh Government are to implement new ways of working, but we need the staff to carry out these roles. We have to plan for future need. We can't just recruit doctors and nurses overnight; they take years of training. Our health and social care workforce are our most valuable resources, let's support them by ensuring they are not overworked and undervalued. We need an urgent national workforce plan and I urge Members to support the motion and my two amendments. Thank you.

I call the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services to formally move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James.

Formally.

Can I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move amendments 4 and 5, tabled in his own name? Rhun.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I've spoken many times here about the importance of workforce planning and I'm very pleased that we are now talking regularly about health and social care workforce planning; both are vital, of course. Look at many of the problems that we face in terms of health and care—capacity, waiting times, integration. Workforce is central, I think, to the answers that we are seeking. I think it's clear that a failure on the part of this Government to adequately address those issues of workforce is directly undermining the sustainability of our NHS staff, putting them under unacceptable pressure and putting patients in Wales at risk. I'll turn to our two amendments.

I will mention both amendments. There are no surprises, it’s fair to say, and I make no apologies for that, because we will be unable to provide the NHS that we want unless we establish a centre for medical education in Bangor and expand medical placements across Wales. And the other amendment: we’re not going to be able to provide the healthcare that we want and the health services we want unless we recognise and acknowledge that Welsh language services are not an additional option that can be deferred to that mythical future when there are plenty of resources available, but rather that it is a crucial part of delivering safe clinical care today.

I will start on that point. There is some idea out there still that the vast majority of the people of Wales can speak English and, therefore, it makes no difference to them if they speak to their doctor or nurse in Welsh or in English. The Welsh Language Commissioner has talked about more than one health board referring to the fact that some of their staff have difficulty in understanding the need to provide services through the medium of Welsh, when their perception is that there is a clear lack of demand from the public for such services. Many health boards have a neutral attitude towards this, and this in and of itself is problematic. Although it is not hostile, considering English as the norm or the default is a barrier to proactive action in finding solutions to linguistic needs.

The ability to describe symptoms accurately helps diagnosis. Describing symptoms in your first language makes it easier to give an accurate description, as I know Dai Lloyd would confirm as a GP. It becomes more and more important when you talk of young children, and of people with dementia, learning difficulties or mental health conditions. So, the recruitment of Welsh-speaking staff and providing a bilingual service isn’t something that should be seen as a box-ticking exercise because those nuisance people in Plaid Cymru were able to influence Government once. It is related to the fact that vulnerable patients could die if you don’t provide that service. But, there are still signs of contempt, I’m afraid. The Welsh Government don’t even believe that they need to publish the number of Welsh speakers within the NHS, with the exception of GPs—those are counted. So, we have no idea where the gaps are and what the trends are. [Interruption.]

Yes, of course.

I'm grateful to the Member for taking the intervention, and I agree with the points he's making on bilingualism. But, equally important are other languages to be considered, especially in the city that I represent here in Cardiff, which has a diversity of languages, and the translation system that is available for patients and medics within our health service does need a complete overhaul so that no-one feels excluded and they can use the tongue that they choose to speak in.

The point that I made about the ability to describe symptoms in your first language is equally true whichever language we are talking about, but, of course, there is—I won't even use the words 'special case' for the Welsh language, seeing as we are in Wales. But, of course, the Member makes a perfectly valid point.

To return to the figures, with GPs, we know that there is a shortage of GPs in any case, and Government figures published today show an increase in the number of people complaining that they have to wait a long time for treatment, but the number of Welsh speakers has significantly declined too. So, action is needed now.

We have seen that the statistics in terms of training places for GPs are lower in relation to the population than is the case in England and Scotland. Therefore, turning to that other amendment on medical education, we are facing a problem with a shortage of doctors—we know that. So, let’s start to overturn this by investing and setting an ambition in terms of increasing the number of medical students and the number of placements available for medical students.

We have a whole host of examples that demonstrate the value of training in a rural area in order to persuade people to work in rural areas—examples from Norway, from Calgary, from the USA and, indeed, from across the world, if truth be told. There is good work being done in Swansea, in the university there, to expand the number of training places in west Wales. Cardiff may, then, be the most natural partner to work with Bangor University on a new centre for medical education, because that is truly needed. Ireland has seven medical schools and Scotland has five, which suggests that a medical school for every million of the population is something that works. We need another in Wales. 

In evidence—I think it was to the health committee—the Welsh Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services Cymru said that

'Key determinants of health are largely outside the control of health services and so the quality of, and spending on, social care has one of the strongest impacts on the demand for health care.'

That might be stating the obvious, perhaps, but it's a statement that should impact more strongly on our thoughts on the recruitment and well-being of the social care workforce in the short to medium term, because it's not just about the NHS workforce. If the social care workforce collapses, it takes down the ability of the NHS workforce to cope with the extra demands on them. And while I accept, of course, that big cultural and structural changes don't happen overnight, and acknowledge that work has now begun on raising the status of the social and personal care workforce through further regulation and training, we are still losing care workers into the health system because of better terms and conditions there, as well as losing them to other jobs as care is too often seen as a stop-gap, temporary, entry-level sort of job.

What we don't know is how many we are losing through ill health, because we don't know how many people are employed in this sector. Six thousand or so are registered, as we know, but Welsh Government estimates that there are about 19,000 domiciliary workers out there who are now eligible to register. But an independent report on the economic value of adult social care suggests that the estimate is nearer 83,000 care workers and more likely that there are 127,000 jobs indirectly linked to adult social care. And if you don't know who these workers are and can't reach them, how do we ensure the well-being of this hidden army? We know about the GPs, and now we know about the ambulance staff as well, but how many care workers experience mental ill health due to unrealistic time demands, variable terms and conditions, low levels of pay—maybe that residual feeling that you're second-best compared to the NHS? How many are leaving for those reasons, when we might be able to retain them?

And if we're asking for cultural change, if we're asking people to come forward and invest in a career in social care, then Welsh Government needs to constantly make the case with the public that social care is not something less than the medical or nursing care that we know of and to show that. So, while Ministers may expect Health Education and Improvement Wales and Social Care Wales to work 'as one', to quote them, there is a real question for me about the value of the education streams of these organisations being separate from each other, retaining the risk of one overshadowing the other. New entrants should be coming into the beginnings of this integrated service with none of the old trappings of healthcare being more highly valued than social care, and certainly in the generalist areas of primary care, new entrants shouldn't be even aware of any difference, even if they do go on to be more specialised as their careers progress.

For all the good work that's taking place in clusters and other multidisciplinary hubs, it still tends to be medical or nursing members who lead teams rather than those with social services backgrounds, although obviously there are some of those. Without role models, new entrants will inherit this existing sense of inequality between the two necessary parts of care, and as we've lost 5,000 jobs in social services departments in the last seven years, who is it that's encouraging those who have taken the social services route to push for leadership in those integrated services?

Now, 'care' is the word we're using here, and primary care cannot continue to be seen as purely medical, nursing or even about allied healthcare professionals. Social and personal care must be valued equally within that definition. Yesterday, we were lucky enough to be visited by Griffithstown Primary School, who came to the cross-party group on dementia to talk about the brilliant intergenerational work that they're doing. Some of the girls—none of the boys, interestingly—said that they'd like to become dementia nurses. No-one mentioned becoming a consultant or a researcher or a care worker or someone running a care home or domiciliary service or someone who helped to keep people well at home when they have dementia. And I am not blaming those children at all, but they've heard of nurses; they haven't heard of social care. And without clarity on what the future looks like, I think it's pretty difficult to prepare new entrants and persuade existing workers to change what they're doing, which is a pretty stressful experience in itself, and how can HEIW and SCW be sure that what they are training for will be appropriate for future models of care? And, of course, it will be models—plural—because this will be different in different parts of Wales.

Just finally, I want to finish on the subject of third sector providers. I came across a situation yesterday where there was a scheme that pays a small number of third sector personnel with acknowledged expertise to support individuals to have the confidence to make appropriate decisions about their care needs instead of dialling 999. To cut a long story short, they're losing their funding, we're losing the expertise of those members of the care workforce as well as all the benefits, and I want some assurance, if you can respond to this today, about how our care workers from the third sector, and other sectors if you like, will be retained and how we will look after them if we don't even know they exist.

I’m very pleased to take part in this very important debate. Following on from what Suzy Davies has said, I’ll start with the first point, which is the key importance of social care. Now, as a doctor, you’d expect me to talk on and on about the health service, but as has been mentioned several times in the Chamber, without social care, the NHS will fall into ruin as well, and we have to address that. Increasingly, my party favours creating a national care service.

We do have a national health service. Back in the 1930s, we looked at health, and it was dispersed and separate, and there were local authority elements that provided healthcare, there were charities and private bodies, and you had to pay to go to see your GP. Fast-forward to now, when you look at the care sector, there are local authority elements, there are private sector elements and there are charitable elements. How about bringing them all together? Because if it was good enough for the NHS, then, certainly, it’s good enough to have a care service on the same lines. That would bring those who work in the care sector to the same level of respect as those who work in the NHS. As you’ve already mentioned, people always look at nurses and doctors with more respect than those who provide social care. Over the years we’ve managed to downgrade the value of care in our societies, but yet, that is the most important point—the ability to deal with people and to be compassionate with people, to be kind to other people, and that’s the care service. We’ve lost that in the way that we deal with our patients, not just in the health service, but also in our care service.

And, yes, that means, certainly, in the care service, with an increasing number of people suffering from dementia and so forth, that we need to provide that service increasingly through the medium of Welsh because, with dementia, it's your second language that disappears first. That is, for those who speak Welsh as a first language when they develop dementia, it’s only Welsh that they can speak when they’ve developed dementia. And there are several kinds of stroke that have the same impact. You lose the ability to speak in your second language. There are a number of countries across the world with the same kind of experience. When you have a country with more than one language spoken, you lose that ability to speak your second language—with dementia, increasingly, and with strokes.

So, we have to ensure that we plan our workforce to reflect our society. There are more than 0.5 million Welsh speakers here in Wales, and we want to create 1 million of them, and therefore our care workforce, as well as our NHS workforce, should reflect that basic point. As well as what Rhun ap Iorwerth said, you improve the quality of the diagnosis when you can engage with someone in their first language. You can understand the diagnosis, and we come to a diagnosis, as doctors and nurses, 90 per cent of the time on the basis of what the patient tells us on their patient history. So, if you have a better quality of history, you arrive at a quicker diagnosis without having to have blood tests, x-rays, ultrasound and so forth. That provision, therefore, saves money ultimately.

I’ll just finish now. Junior doctors in our hospitals are under a great deal of pressure. There is a call for the NHS corporately to look after its staff. Well, I would make it a special plea that we should now look after our junior doctors in hospitals. I’ve mentioned this before. Back in the day, when I was a young doctor in a hospital, there was a familial element. The administrators and other doctors looked after us, everyone looked after us, and we’ve lost that element. Our junior doctors complain that they’re overworked and that they have to fill gaps in the rota when they’re already on their knees. They have to fight for days off to study, fight for days off to sit exams and fight for days off even to get married. This is not fair, and people think, ‘Well, this is the future of our GP workforce.’ We all start off as junior doctors in hospitals, but if we lose those, if they move abroad to be doctors in Australia and so forth, where they can work fewer hours for more money, and Bondi Beach isn’t far away, it's no wonder that the workforce is leaving. We need to prepare for the future by dealing with our junior doctors in a far better way. Thank you very much.     

This year marks the seventieth anniversary of the creation of the NHS. It is likely that everyone in Wales will, at some time, need the services of the NHS. I know from my own personal experience how important the NHS is. In April this year, my wife suffered a series of strokes and it is a great comfort to know that the excellent care that she received is available to everyone, irrespective of their background or financial circumstances.

The NHS faces many challenges. We have an ageing population, the number of people with long-term health conditions is rising and the cost of treatments and medical technology is growing. The NHS needs to adapt and to modernise to meet these challenges if it is to flourish and provide the world-class services that we all want to see. But its core principle must remain; a free health service available to everyone is still the envy of the world. We all want to see the NHS in Wales delivering high-quality healthcare to everyone. To achieve this, we need a well-resourced and high-performing workforce, a workforce that feels valued and supported. However, it is clear that the recruitment and retention of staff has become a major challenge facing the NHS in Wales.

The Welsh Government has constantly failed to train enough staff for the future. Training places offered by NHS health boards remain unfilled. The number of Welsh domiciled students applying to medical school is declining, and in spite of the Welsh Government offering an NHS bursary for the last four academic years, Wales has failed to fill all commissioned places. Recruiting staff has proved a problem. The impact of the Welsh Government flagship ‘Train. Work. Live.’ scheme has been difficult to measure, with vague measures of success.

I welcome the decision by UK Government to relax immigration rules to allow more non-EU skilled doctors and nurses to work in our NHS. Increased pressure and workload on our current NHS workforce has led to difficulties in retaining staff. We have the lowest number of GPs working in the NHS in Wales since 2013. More than 60,000 nurses have left the NHS since 2015, either through retirement or resignation. This failure to retain, recruit and train the staff has had serious financial consequences. Spending on agency and locum staff reached £164 million; this represents an increase of over 20 per cent compared with the previous years of expenditure. This is not sustainable in the long term, Deputy Presiding Officer. We need a clear strategy from the Welsh Government for future workforce planning. Closer cross-border working and effective incentives must be used to fill geographical and specialist gaps in our health service. The delivery of healthcare is a fast-changing world. We cannot rely on systems to deliver healthcare that were formulated in the 1940s to meet the challenges of this twenty-first century.

Deputy Presiding Officer, the Welsh Government must bring forward a clear strategy to address the problems of the recruitment and retention of NHS staff. This is vital if we are to create the well-resourced and high-performing NHS that the people of Wales need and deserve. If we don't care for our NHS, who else is going to? I'm pretty sure that the NHS will not care for us either.

There are certain areas: the NHS and carers. Mental health is a big issue that we have to look at, especially our veterans. We have to look after them. Also, a couple of months ago, there was a problem with computers and doctors could not get in touch with their patients. That's not good enough. A lot of patients suffered and a lot of hospitals were without work. That is not development. We have to have a plan B. From hospital to hospital, standards are a bit different, so from doctors to doctors, there are different pressures. The quality of our service is great, but delivery is a little bit lacking in certain areas. To modernise our system, the pay system must be equal, the pay must be given to our own doctors and nurses, and they should work in a comfortable and suitable environment in the best hospitals in the world.

Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, as I said, I will always be proud of the NHS: it is the envy of the world. We must care for our NHS, at any cost, and then the NHS will look after us. Thank you.

Thank you. Mark Reckless.

Diolch. I was listening to Dai Lloyd, who I think speaks with greater practical authority than, perhaps, any of us can, as a doctor. All I really know about the NHS is from my family who work in it. My father was a doctor and my brother is a doctor, and my sister-in-law, my father-in-law, and my mother was a nurse—it goes on and on. I haven't taken that path myself, but I'm proud of what was announced over the weekend and clarified earlier this week: that the NHS, at least in England, is going to get a £20 billion real-terms increase in its funding, 3.5 per cent per year. I think that what that says to people who are working in the NHS is that they are valued, and, of course, it's not all about money, but it is about sending a message about what value we place on the staff. [Interruption.] Yes.

Please forgive me for making the obvious intervention. Perhaps you'd like to explain to us and make it clear that that is not as a result of anything like a Brexit dividend, which doesn't exist.

I was, indeed, coming on to deal with that. The Government identified, I think, two sources of funding: firstly, the, I think, £20 billion gross, £10 billion net we give currently to the EU—a significant proportion of that would be redirected in future to the NHS. But in addition to that, and I think this is a really significant thing politically for a Conservative Government at Westminster, they said that the rest would have to be funded through tax rises. But because of the value we put on the NHS, not only are we redirecting funds that we currently pay to the EU, but in addition, at least for England, taxes will be increased.

What I think NHS staff in Wales would like to have seen, and what they would have been listening for when they tuned in to the news that night and the days ahead is what the Welsh Government is going to be doing. Did they value them in the way that the UK Government was? All they heard, instead of anything from the Labour Government about what they wanted to spend on the NHS or how they valued NHS staff—all they heard was whingeing about Brexit. They don't like Brexit very much. Wales voted for Brexit, but these Ministers don't like it. So, all they got were carping comments about, 'Oh, we're not sure the money's going to be there, so we're not going to give any commitment at all.' What our staff need to hear is that they are going to be valued at least as much in Wales as they are in England. I look to Ministers in the Welsh Government to do that—

Will you take an intervention?

—rather than carp and complain about Brexit. Yes.

I very much appreciate you taking an intervention, and I declare on record that my wife is a member of NHS staff. Can you therefore tell the Welsh NHS staff when they will have that increase and what it will be paid for by? Because, at the moment, your own Government in London is saying, 'Tax rises'. That's it—full stop. We have no indication as to when it's going to come or the details of this. It's all pie in the sky at the moment.

It's been announced that it'll be a £20 billion real-term increase, a 3.4 per cent real-terms increase per year averaged over six years, and that it will come partly from the money we currently pay to the EU, but the rest, and, potentially, even a larger part of it, to come from tax rises. Given how the Barnett formula functions, that spending then comes through to Wales where we would look to the Welsh Government and this Welsh Assembly to tell our NHS staff, 'You are valued at least as much in Wales as you are in England, and we will be spending that money on you here as well.' Unfortunately, that has not happened.

I would like to address the rest of my remarks to other things aside from money, because, actually, it is quality of life and quality of their working life that our NHS staff value. Many of my constituents who will go to the Royal Gwent Hospital find the transport of getting there very difficult. Many of the consultants at the Royal Gwent actually commute from Cardiff to Newport to work at that hospital. Many of my constituents in the south-east Wales region will come in and work at the Heath hospital in Cardiff and find they're being fined hundreds of pounds for trying to park their car. There are huge challenges on transport, and we need not just the metro, which is a wonderful concept—I congratulate the Government on the new franchise—but we also need an M4 relief road and we need it quickly.

But not only that, we want to see hospitals designed, working with local government and other partners, to make sure those hospitals work for staff as well as the patient. It's fantastic we have the Grange university hospital, and it's at least as important that it's made an attractive place for staff to work—and hopefully live nearby, to reduce the difficulties of commuting. Yet, at the same time, we have this new hospital proposed. We have the Torfaen LDP, which has only now 300 houses there; it used to be about three times that many. They're building fewer than 200 houses a year over the plan period, compared to the 300 plus that they should be. The latest review only looks at house prices up to July last year, even though it was published in April, and, in the year to April, we've seen house prices in Torfaen go up by 12.7 per cent. They should get on with providing more infrastructure, more facilities and more accommodation, as well as the hospital. Yet, the LDP for Torfaen says the delivery of the strategic site should come forward in a phased way, with enabling works for the hospital, including any necessary highway improvements, delivered first, followed by the hospital itself. Only then does it say,

'The nature, timing and order of remaining uses will be determined by market conditions and further studies'.

Surely they need to get on with delivering the housing and delivering the infrastructure, to help all those workers who are going to be coming in be able to live so they can easily commute to work and enjoy a good quality of life. Welsh Government needs to back our NHS, but also work with partners to ensure that when it is backing the NHS, as with the Grange University Hospital, we get the support from Torfaen borough council and other partners we need too.

Can I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm grateful for the opportunity to respond to today's debate, and, of course, this Welsh Labour-led Government supports and values the national health service that my party helped to create 70 years ago. And I'm grateful to hear Tories coming on board and saying that they value the national health service too. There's much in the motion that we can agree upon. There are, of course, points that we disagree on, hence a Government amendment.

I do want to refer back to Angela Burns's opening and the figures that she quoted, underlining the significant scale of NHS Wales activity. That isn't delivered by me, and that's a good thing for the people of Wales. That is delivered directly by our staff, and it's the staff that people refer to when they talk about what they value within the national health service and, indeed, within our social care system. It is a fact, of course, that we have more NHS staff than ever before, and it's their skills, experience and values that are fundamental to a successful NHS and social care system.

Now, the differences that we have are one thing, but we do all agree that we want to support our staff, and this Government fully recognises that fact. That's why, in 'A Healthier Wales', our long-term vision for health and social care, we've ensured that the health and care workforce are at the heart of the way that we expect to shape future services. That's why we'll implement the quadruple aim recommended by the parliamentary review. We're committed to ensuring that, with the workforce, we improve well-being, capability, engagement and leadership. Those are part of the four interlocking aims that will drive the changes that we would all want to see, to ensure that we're achieving our future vision of a whole-system approach to health and social care here in Wales.

The third part of the motion calls for the Government to publish an integrated strategy for the health and care workforce. I previously committed to a long-term plan for the workforce in this Chamber, and that is now embedded in 'A Healthier Wales'. We have a clear commitment to deliver an integrated strategy for the health and social care workforce by the end of 2019.

Will you take an intervention? I just wondered why you were not able to commit to delivering it by January 2019, because I fear that, unless there's a real target on it, it could drift?

There is a real target; 2019 is a real target. I want to make sure that we have a workforce strategy that is within the time that it really is achievable and, indeed, by making proper use of Health Education and Improvement Wales. That has been established to lead on workforce planning, and they will be responsible for developing the strategy as one of their first priorities. HEIW will become operational in October of this year, and, whilst it will be one of their first objectives, it is not possible to deliver such a detailed and important piece of work within the first three months of their lifetime. 

I've already given a commitment to expand medical education and the training landscape in north Wales and, indeed, in west Wales. Work is progressing between myself and the Cabinet Secretary for Education to consider proposals submitted by universities to take this work forward, and I hope to have more to say in the near future on that.

The parliamentary review, of course, recognised that a key factor in delivering high-quality health and social care is the well-being and engagement of our staff, and there is already significant work under way. North Wales has been highlighted recently, and I managed to highlight 20 specific programmes of work currently undertaken by Betsi Cadwaladr on well-being and engagement. And this level of activity is replicated across health boards and trusts here in Wales. But we recognise that we need to do more. That's why, in our long-term plan, we committed to making NHS Wales an exemplar employer in its support for well-being at work and a healthy workforce.

We want to see the NHS leading change in this area across health and social care, and in other sectors too, by sharing good practice, guidance, online promotion, and evaluation—and indeed, further steps forward this week, with the agreement between ourselves, the Welsh NHS Confederation and BMA Cymru, to create a fatigue and facilities charter for doctors and clinical staff, building on the good relationships we have here in Wales, and the first within the UK, warmly welcomed by staff within the service.

In terms of the call for implementing priority access to treatment for NHS workers, I've already made my position clear in this Chamber before: we need to think carefully about the issues if we decide to advantage groups of staff wherever they're from—the NHS, the administrative services or carers—and on the basis of their work rather than their clinical need. But, as I have made clear, work is under way to consider this and the approach being taken in some parts of England, and I will consider the issue further once it is complete.

But I really can't leave the nature of this debate without reminding people in this Chamber, particularly Conservative politicians, that the issue of stress, strain and funding facing our staff across health and social care comes from the real impact of austerity. [Interruption.] The eight years of austerity that public services have been subjected to, has caused real harm. [Interruption.] Don't take my word for it. Ask front-line staff within our health and social care services—[Interruption.]—and they will tell you. They understand very well where austerity comes from. They understand the political party that's responsible for that choice.

Will you take an intervention?

No, I won't take an intervention from the grinning Member opposite, who has been laughing through this debate about choices that he helped champion. In three successive general elections, you championed austerity. [Interruption.] Here in Wales, we have made choices to put more money into our national health service, more money per head, a higher rate of growth than in England, and you dare to say that you are the party of the national health service. Nobody buys it, not even people in your own group.

I am a happy to support both of the Plaid Cymru amendments. Firstly, the amendment on medical education in north Wales, as I've given that commitment on a number of occasions. Secondly, of course, the 10-year workforce plan will contain actions to increase the number of Welsh-language healthcare professionals. Now, we, of course, want to train and retain more of our staff. We invest record amounts in both medical and non-medical staff training. In the eight years of austerity we have been subjected to, the NHS is the only public service to increase its staff, with a continuing appetite and demand for more. We still face real risk to recruitment from EU nationals in particular to our NHS, and the reduction of EU nurses entering the Nursing and Midwifery Council register is a matter of real concern to all of us. It highlights how the terms of a Brexit deal will be crucial to the future of our health service workforce.

I do, though, want to welcome the change of heart and change of approach from the UK Government on tier 2 visas for doctors and nurses. The Welsh Government has consistently called for change, together with virtually every organisation representing health and care workers. I hope for similar common sense in our approach to Brexit and NHS staff.

I also want to mention the fact that, before we celebrate NHS70, we will, of course, as Julie James highlighted this week, be celebrating Windrush 70—a generation that helped to rebuild Britain, a generation that helped to create our national health service and staff our social care system, and a generation that has been poorly rewarded. We look for action and justice to be delivered for the Windrush generation, and for promises to be delivered upon. At this point in time, we cannot have confidence they have been.

As the NHS marks its seventieth year, we know that it is an NHS that needs to transform to meet the needs and demands of today, but one thing will remain, as it always has over the past 70 years: the NHS will continue to be delivered by passionate, committed and talented people. We owe it to each and every one of them, and the wider population of Wales, to support and value them and their colleagues in social care in the best way possible. I urge Members to vote for the Government amendment and support us in delivering our unified vision for health and social care here in Wales.

Thank you. I call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate.

Diolch. Well, thanks very much, everybody, for contributing, and to Angela Burns for opening the debate—her tribute to the immense contribution made by the health and social services workforce in the seventieth year of the NHS. As she said, even the NHS is not beyond challenge and improvement. Caroline Jones said that the situation was made worse by a lack of future planning, putting the workforce under considerable strain. Rhun ap Iorwerth rightly called for medical education to be provided in Bangor. I'd just add that we also need action on the calls by the north Wales local medical committee to incorporate connections with Liverpool and Manchester medical schools, and restore the supply of new and young doctors from there, many of whom will be from north Wales originally. We heard from him about Welsh Government contempt in not publishing the number of Welsh language speakers in the NHS, and his highlighting that Wales has the lowest level of GP training places per 100,000 patients amongst all UK nations. 

Suzy Davies said we're losing care workers. We need to know how many are experiencing mental health problems. We need to show that social care has equal value with healthcare careers, and for leadership and integrated services. Dr Dai Lloyd—we need the same level of respect for people working in care services as in the NHS, and he talked about the pressures on junior doctors and the risk of losing them if we don't address that. Mohammad Asghar—the pressures of patient numbers rising and an ageing population, and he talked about the importance of a free health service being available to everyone and the envy of the world that our NHS is, and he celebrated the UK Government's relaxation of immigration rules to recruit and retain doctors and nurses.

Mark Reckless told us about his family connections, coming from a family of doctors and nurses, about the UK Government's announcement of a 3.4 per cent real-terms increase in funding for the NHS annually, which compares to the 2.2 per cent committed to by Labour at the last UK general election. It equates to £1.2 billion more for the Welsh Government, so we need to see a clear commitment from the Welsh Government to investing that in our NHS and social care services.

The Cabinet Secretary provided the normal combination of the same old, same old 'long-term vision' and 'we want to sees'. I won't debate the austerity issue other than to point out that, under Labour, Wales has been the only UK nation to see a real-terms decrease in identifiable expenditure on health. You caused austerity, your policies would make it worse, but even with the money you've had, you're the only Government anywhere in the UK to have ever cut the NHS in real terms.

The Royal College of General Practitioners tell us that almost one in three Welsh GPs are so stressed they feel they can't cope at least once a week. There's been an increase in newly qualified social workers, but 9 per cent of all social worker posts are vacant, a figure increasing every year. The latest Nursing and Midwifery Council figures say that although nursing and midwife register numbers are at the highest level for five years, the number leaving the register outstrips those joining. 

Are you winding up, please?

They say there are 3,000 vacancies including those in the independent care and GP surgery sectors. 

So, I will call on you to endorse the motion as unamended, and I regret, as did Angela, the removal of January prior to 2019 in the Welsh Government amendment calling for an integrated strategy for our health and social care workforce. We need a clear commitment, and I hope we heard it from the Minister or Cabinet Secretary, that that does mean we're guaranteed a plan next year. Thank you.

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

We have reached voting time, so, unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I'm going to proceed directly to the first vote. So, we call for a vote now on the motion tabled in the name of Simon Thomas, Dai Lloyd, David Melding and Jenny Rathbone—the individual Member debate under Standing Order 11.21. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendment tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 48, no abstentions, three against. Therefore, the motion is agreed.

We now move to the vote on the Welsh Conservative debate on the health and social care workforce, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Paul Davies. Again, if this proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 14, no abstentions, 37 against. The motion is not agreed. Therefore, we go to vote on the amendments. 

I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 21, one abstention, 29 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

We now move to vote on amendment 2. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 29, no abstentions, 22 against. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed. Amendment 3 is therefore deselected.

I call for a vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 51, no abstentions, no-one against. 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. For the amendment 51, no abstentions, no-one against. Therefore, amendment 5 is agreed. 

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

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 29, no abstentions, 22 against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed. 

We now move to the short debate. If Members are leaving the Chamber, please do so quickly. We now move to the short debate and I call on Mick Antoniw to speak on the topic he has chosen. Mick. 

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm—

Just a minute, while everybody goes.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to introduce this short debate to recognise World Humanism Day, which is tomorrow, and to talk a little about the philosophy of humanism and its contribution to progressive thought in Wales, the UK and the world.

In a world of increasing intolerance and division, a world undergoing dramatic change due to technological advance and globalisation, it is sometimes easier to become entrenched in narrow beliefs and to ignore the expanse of thought, imagination and the commonality of libertarian belief that there is in the world, whether that be related to a belief in God or a rational belief in none.

Humanism is the outcome of a long tradition of free thought that has inspired many of the world’s great thinkers, from scientists to social reformers. Humanists believe that we have one life and aim to live ethical and fulfilling lives on the basis of reason and humanity, placing human welfare and happiness at the centre of their ethical decision making. 

Humanism is a philosophy that supports democracy and human rights. It seeks to use science creatively not destructively to seek solutions to the world's problems through human thought and action rather than divine intervention. Bertrand Russell, a great British philosopher and humanist, who made his home in Penrhyndeudraeth, said:

'if we are to live together, and not die together, we must learn a kind of charity and a kind of tolerance, which is absolutely vital to the continuation of human life on this planet.'

To this extent, humanism has many philosophical and ethical similarities with basic Christian, Buddhist, Jewish and Islamic religious beliefs. Humanists often share values with religions, with many similarities with the philosophy and ethics of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Buddhism. But, humanism is not based on the existence of God or bound to any set of religious teachings or beliefs. It is a belief in reason and autonomy as foundational aspects of human existence. Humanists make their ethical decisions based on reason, empathy and a concern for human beings and other sentient animals. 

Humanism has been around for millennia, but the connections between humanist thought and social reform developed substantially in the nineteenth century, when a new generation of social reformers and activists were influenced by philosophers and intellectuals who wrote about people making a difference to the world and looking out for each other without regard for religion. Aneurin Bevan rejected the beliefs of his non-conformist parents to become a secularist socialist. A Newtown-born humanist, Robert Owen, was one of the founders of the co-operative movement.

Today, we live in a world where it is predicted that by 2030 50 per cent of the world's wealth will be in the hands of 1 per cent of the population. Half of the world flourishes while half of the world starves. As inequality increases, societies become increasingly unstable, growing nationalisms set people against people, barriers are erected and the seeds of conflict are sown.

Humanism, as with ethical socialism, is about the belief that the power to resolve all of these problems lies in our hands, through rational analysis, the use of science for the benefit of all and through a recognition of our common humanity and obligations to one another.

Humanism is, perhaps, the default philosophical position for millions of people in the UK today, and many humanists improve society by strengthening our democratic freedoms, involving themselves assiduously in charity work, increasing our body of scientific knowledge and enhancing our cultural, creative and civic life. In Wales, 53 per cent of our population say they don’t belong to any religion, and this includes 73 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds and 69 per cent of 25 to 34-year-olds.

To ensure a fully inclusive civic ethic in our society, we must recognise the rights of non-religious people. In 2015, Lord Williams of Oystermouth, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, called for humanism to be included in the English religious studies curriculum, alongside Christianity and Islam. He was amongst signatories including prominent Jewish, Muslim and Sikh representatives arguing that the inclusion of non-religious ideas would be a more accurate representation of modern Britain and would allow young people to study a more representative sample of major world views that are common in Britain today.

So, we can take pride in the moves in this direction in Wales. Humanism is now on the religious education curriculum in Wales. Following a legal challenge, the Cabinet Secretary for Education has recently written to all of Wales’s 22 local authorities to advise that representatives of non-religious belief systems must be given the same right as religious representatives to sit on the standing advisory councils on religious education, which are the local authority bodies responsible for overseeing religious education in schools.

So, in Wales, we are making progress, but there is still a long way to go. Humanist marriages are legal in Scotland and Jersey, but not in Wales, where the law remains non-devolved, and only four hospitals in Wales have agreed to accept volunteer non-religious pastoral carers as part of their chaplaincy teams.

Recognising the role of humanism in Wales as part of our beliefs system is also about ensuring a fully inclusive civic ethic in all of our social and public institutions. Those who are not religious, and I would say that this is probably the majority of people in our present-day society, have much to contribute to the values on which our society is based and to the direction it takes in the future.

In Much Ado About Nothing, William Shakespeare says:

'Love all, trust a few, / Do wrong to none'.

I prefer the more prescient statement from the British philosopher and American founding father, Thomas Paine:

'The World is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.'

Thank you.

Thank you. Have you indicated that—?

I've indicated that I've given a minute to Julie Morgan, and I'm happy to give a minute if anyone else wishes to take one.

No—Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much for giving me a minute. I'm very pleased to speak in this debate, which is very timely, with World Humanist Day being on 21 June. I've been a humanist for many years, and I'm a member of Wales Humanists, which is part of Humanists UK. I just wanted to make three quick points. 

I support the call by Wales Humanists for the marriage law to be devolved—Mick Antoniw has already referred to this—as it was in Scotland in 1998, so that we can have humanist marriages, but also to address the issue of marriage certificates calling for the father's name rather than the parent's name, which is clearly out of step with modern life. So, I'd like to see devolved control of the registrar's office so that we can try to bring about those changes.

The second point I wanted to make was on collective worship in schools. This was introduced in 1944 and then narrowed to a requirement of being broadly Christian, and was enshrined in education law in 1988 under the Thatcher Government. When devolution came and responsibility for education was devolved to the Assembly, this broadly Christian element was passed over to the Assembly, and I don't think it fits in with our diverse society, which values freedom of belief, so I think it would be a step forward if we were to remove the idea of being broadly Christian, but to embrace all religions and humanism and no religions.

The final point I'd like to make is about hospital chaplains, who Mick Antoniw has already referred to. I understand that £1.2 million a year is spent on chaplaincy services, and the Welsh Government leaves it up to hospital trusts to decide how to provide a chaplaincy service. I think it is really important that people who don't have religious beliefs are able to have access to someone to help them spiritually to give non-religious support. I know that in response to my requests to the Welsh Government, the response has been that a religious person could still give you that support, but that doesn't really fit well if you don't have any religious beliefs. The other point about hospitals is the availability of quiet rooms so that, as well as prayer rooms, you do have a quiet room where people with no beliefs can go. So—

Well done—in a minute.

A minute? [Laughter.]

No, no, it's not a minute, but well done for your minute. Thank you. Can I now call on the leader of the house to reply to the debate? Julie James.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm delighted that Mick Antoniw has given us this opportunity during Refugee Week to discuss the importance of working with all our communities in Wales, whether they belong to faith groups or non-faith groups—all faiths and none, as we say. The quote that he read out at the end pretty much sums up our attitude to where we should be, and as I said earlier in a debate, Deputy Presiding Officer, what we most want to remember during Refugee Week is our common humanity and not anything that divides us. On this day of Jo Cox's Great Get Together, her words that we 

'have far more in common with each other than things that divide us.'

are well worth remembering in this context.

Engagement with all of our communities is a really important factor in providing community cohesion across Wales, including faith communities and those committed to other philosophical life stances, such as humanism. We are extremely committed to continuing our work to foster and promote shared values and understanding across all our communities in Wales.

Can I just say that, on a personal level, I support Julie Morgan's call to devolve marriage? And, Deputy Presiding Officer, you'll have to indulge me as I tell yet another small anecdote from my own life, but my son is getting married in July. Those of you who know me will have heard me talking about this. When he and his bride-to-be went to register their proposals to get married, they were asked for the professions of their fathers. I'm delighted to say that they're both well brought up young people. They were able to say the profession of their mothers, but neither of them knew the profession of their father, which I was very comforted by, but of course they were not allowed to list the profession of their mother on the banns, which I think is outrageous. So, for that reason alone, I would like to see it, but there are a number of modernising things that could happily be brought to bear in this regard, including the ability to have ceremonies that are not currently recognised in a humanist way. It's very important that we're all able to express our views, to listen with respect to the views of others, and to improve how we can work together to help keep Wales a very tolerant society.

This year's Interfaith Week, from 12 to 16 November, is an opportunity for us to celebrate and strengthen tolerance and understanding of shared values across all faiths and none. I think that's a very important point. At the meeting of the Faith Communities Forum on 3 April this year, the Interfaith Council for Wales said that it's considering a way in which the views of unrepresented faiths could be heard and served at forum meetings through the interfaith council. We are looking forward to them reporting their decision, with a name to be put forward as a recommendation for the First Minister to consider, and we've welcomed that approach with a view to being an inclusive, cohesive society, with, as the quote that Mick Antoniw read out said, an appreciation of the humanity and common endeavour of everyone on the planet.

Thank you very much, and that brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.