Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, and the first question is from Nick Ramsay.

In March, we launched our first Government-wide statutory decarbonisation plan, 'Prosperity for All: A Low Carbon Wales'. It sets out 100 policies and proposals, across all sectors of our economy, to meet our current carbon budget and set a longer term decarbonisation trajectory for Wales.

Thank you, Minister. I was pleased to hear recently that the UK Government had set some very strict targets in terms of decarbonising by the middle of this century. And I think we all agree that drastic action is needed. So, it would be interesting to hear how your Government plans to dovetail with that. Secondly, I recently asked the First Minister, in questions, about some interesting work on climate repair that was going on in Cambridge University. And that work involves repairing the climate through not just cutting emissions, but using carbon sinks—trees to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. He responded that there's work ongoing into a new Welsh forest project in, I think, central Wales, but you would have more details on that. Could you update us on what form that work is taking? I think it's an excellent idea. I think that Wales is perfectly suited as a landscape, and as a destination for tourists, to have a lot more tree planting and new forestry, and I think that the people of Wales would be very interested to hear more about your plans for decarbonising the climate in this way.

In response to the first part of your question, the UK Government, I and my Scottish counterpart asked the UK Committee on Climate Change for some advice around the targets. And you'll be aware that, just last week, I accepted the UK CCC's advice that we should look to reduce our carbon emissions by 95 per cent by 2050. I have accepted that advice. However, I've said our ambition is to be net zero, so I'm certainly going to work very closely with stakeholders to ensure that we are able to do that.

The second part of your question, around the answer given to you by the First Minister, one of the First Minister's manifesto commitments, when he became First Minister in December, was to have a national forest. So, officials are working up options now, but we've had a lot of discussions over the past four or five months in relation to this. So, I don't think the plan is to have a forest in the middle of Wales; it's to look at having different sites so that the national forest is truly pan-Wales. And we'll look at how we form that policy, going forward. I think I'm due some options by the end of this month, so hopefully I'll be in a position to make some decisions and, obviously, working closely with the First Minister, to be able to update the Assembly, probably in the autumn.

I think that it's very important to get to net zero, but I think that we need to be more ambitious than that—I think actually start taking more carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere than we are putting in. So, net zero is a good way, but we need to go past that, and we can go past that by planting more trees and more plants. Through photosynthesis, they turn carbon dioxide into oxygen—it takes it out of the atmosphere. I think that's really important. I very much welcome this idea of planting trees. but can we have some targets? Can we say how many trees we're going to plant in each area each year? And that's not a stick to beat the Government—you say you're going to plant 1,000 but you only planted 900—but it's to actually let everybody know what is being attempted to be achieved. And I certainly wouldn't criticise you for planting 900 when it was meant to be 1,000, but it really is important we get these trees planted, to get the carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

I absolutely agree with you that we need to plant more trees. We are not planting enough trees—nowhere near the number of trees that I want to see. And I've made it very clear that we need to certainly be looking at increasing the number. We had a target. We did not reach that target. I've been advised that we should be planting at least 2,000 hectares a year. Again, I don't think that's enough. And, certainly, if we're going to mitigate climate change, we need to look at carbon sequestration, which obviously is a critical element of the low-carbon delivery plan that I referred to in my opening answer to Nick Ramsay. So, we need to increase that forest cover right across Wales. I mentioned the national forest. Again, I think the plans that we're bringing forward for that will accelerate reforestation and will also unlock some major economic and environmental benefits. We've also got the Glastir woodland creation scheme, which the Member will be aware of. The last window closed in May, and there was a huge amount of interest, so I'm certainly looking to have a further round in the autumn, which will have a budget of about £1 million.

Thank you. The nature recovery action plan and our natural resources policy set out our priorities for biodiversity. I have recently announced funding to support several enabling natural resources and well-being projects in Merthyr and the surrounding area to deliver these priorities and to help tackle the biodiversity crisis facing us all.

Thank you, Minister. Clearly, all the expert advice received points to the decline of much of our biodiversity, so I believe it is vital to continue strengthening the connections between people, the local communities and their wider environment, and there's much to applaud in those local communities. In Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, for example, we've seen the local angling association managing both the waterways and the river banks, the Royal Crescent Allotment Society developing bug zones for schoolchildren, and the kids have now become little beekeepers as well, and groups like Actif Woods Wales providing well-being opportunities in the local environment, which is a great opportunity for social prescribing, and there are lots of other similar initiatives. But some of those groups tell me about the big problems that they face with invasive weeds, such as knotweed and Himalayan balsam, which endangers much of the work that they do. So, what more can the Welsh Government do to help tackle the problem of invasive species to improve biodiversity?

Thank you. Invasive non-native species challenge the survival of some our rarest species and damage some of our most sensitive ecosystems, and the impacts of them on our domestic and global biodiversity are increasing, and they're also increasing in their severity, I think. They are estimated to cost the Great Britain economy more than £1.7 billion per year, so you can see just how severe they are. We've been working with our partners, and that includes Natural Resources Wales, the Welsh Local Government Association, third sector, industry, and there's also a GB non-native species secretariat, to have a look at what priority actions we need to take to control and eradicate invasive non-native species in Wales. You may be aware that, in March, I introduced the Invasive Alien Species (Enforcement and Permitting) Order 2019. That Order comes into force on 1 October, and it will provide the offences, defences and penalties for the restrictions that are set out in EU regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of those invasive alien species, and the Order will ensure that EU regulation can be effectively enforced. 

Minister, Welsh farmers play an integral role in protecting and enhancing the countryside. Many of the valued habitats and species found on Welsh farmland are reliant on active management by farmers. RSPB Cymru claim that current levels of support aren't protecting the environment and fail to keep farm businesses viable or farmers on the land. I'm sure, Minister, that you recognise that food production and positive environmental benefits for many species are intrinsically linked. Minister, I'm pretty sure what you are doing to ensure active management by farmers is fairly rewarded in Wales.

I can't disagree with anything that you're saying there, and you'll be aware of the announcement and the statement I brought forward in the Chamber last week around 'Brexit and our land' 2, for want of a better word at the moment, which will be the second part of the consultation around the post-Brexit agricultural policy. I always maintained that food production was very, very important. I think we were the only part of the UK that actually had food in the consultation. I certainly don't think 'Health and Harmony' did, because I absolutely recognise the importance of food production and our agricultural sector. 

Also, environmental outcomes are very important, and we made it very clear that, going forward, post Brexit, our agricultural payment system will reward environmental outcomes, and I would urge everyone to participate in that consultation once I launch it at the beginning of July. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you, Llywydd. Minister, you will be aware that Plaid Cymru has been campaigning diligently against the M4 black route and, of course, we welcomed the decision when it came not to proceed with that specific proposal. We believe that spending at least £1.5 billion of capital on generating more traffic would be unwise. But, as that money is now not going to be spent for that purpose, can I ask you what case you are making within Cabinet for that funding to be used to strengthen green infrastructure in Wales, to reduce emissions and to tackle climate change? Because £1.5 billion, of course, could, for example, transform the renewable energy sector in Wales, which would have potential to generate income for the public purse in years to come. So, can you tell us what case you have made for using that capital funding for an alternative purpose?

So, those discussions will be taking place. I have had discussions around climate change and more funding for climate change across Government. I've had that conversation with the Minister for Finance directly. The specific funding that you refer to—the £1.5 billion in relation to the black route—obviously, you'll be aware that the Minister for Economy and Transport made an announcement around the group that he's setting up to look at alternatives. So, clearly, some of that funding—the majority of that funding; I don't know what will be the outcome of that review—will need to be used for those alternative plans. But I think all my ministerial colleagues, and many of them sit on the decarbonisation ministerial task and finish group, accept that if we are to mitigate climate change—and the whole point of declaring a climate emergency was not just to galvanise others into action—clearly, as a Government, we need to look at our plans and policies. So, those will be ongoing discussions.

Fine, and you're quite right to say that the whole purpose of declaring a climate emergency is to see transformational change, if truth be told. And it is quite some time since you made that declaration as a Government—it's been some weeks now. You've made some written statements and a few oral references to that declaration, but we haven't seen anything transformational as of yet in terms of your work and your responsibilities as a Minister. Now, I'm sure you would agree that that's not just your role; it's a role for every Cabinet member. And I, as others have mentioned before now, would want to see every Minister making a statement here in this Chamber explaining exactly how their work will change and how their priorities within their portfolios will change as a result of the declaration of a climate emergency.

But just to return to your responsibilities, and this is something that I've raised with you previously—and I hope that, since I've raised it with you previously, you've had an opportunity to give it some consideration, but I want to know what new direction you have given, following the declaration of a climate emergency, to the bodies within your remit. I'm thinking of Natural Resources Wales, Hybu Cig Cymru—there's a range of bodies that you fund and are responsible for. So, do you intend to amend their remit letters, because, as you said yourself, the whole purpose of the declaration of a climate emergency is to have that transformational change? If you don't do that, then people will feel that nothing has changed and that it's business as usual for this Government.

Well, it's certainly not business as usual. You will have heard me say that the low-carbon delivery plan, which was launched just in March, which contains a 100 policies and proposals, is the foundation for us reaching our carbon emissions target and our carbon budget, but I have asked officials to review those 100 policies and proposals in light of (1) the advice that we received from the UK Committee on Climate Change, which I think was a couple of weeks after we declared the emergency. A you're quite right—I think that, across Government, everybody is having to look at their policies and proposals and the schemes that they're bringing forward to see if they fit in and what needs to change in relation to the climate emergency.

I think we have seen others galvanised into action. I think it's been very encouraging to see the number of local authorities and town and community councils that have decided themselves to declare a climate emergency, so I think we are seeing that galvanising the action that we hoped we would see.

In relation to your specific questions about whether I'll be changing the remit letters, that is something, again, I'm looking at. I meet with NRW on a monthly basis, so we've certainly discussed the climate emergency and what they're looking at doing. So, I know, for instance, that NRW are looking at what extra land they have for planting trees. I think they've got some land that they've banked that can be reforested, and we need to look at, obviously, money for that. HCC I'm due to meet in the near future and, again, it will be on the agenda.

Okay. Well, we'll await any specific changes. I will suggest one thing to you. I remember when the previous Government was eager to oppose fracking in Wales. The Government at that time had no powers in rejecting it specifically, but the planning system was used, you may recall, as a means of creating some sort of moratorium. Now, some of us disagreed as to whether it was really a moratorium, but we won’t follow that up at the moment. But, certainly, there was a desire in the previous Government, although it didn’t have the powers, to try and use the levers it had to prevent fracking.

Now, you’ll be aware of the recent application for seismic testing in Cardigan bay, which is being used by gas and oil companies to find the best locations for drilling. That is non-devolved; that is still the responsibility of the UK Government, but, of course, licences can only be given if NRW are satisfied. So, shouldn’t the Welsh Government state, exactly as they did with fracking and the planning system, that NRW, for example, wouldn’t be satisfied in licensing any similar plans in the future as a clear message to the sector that they are not welcome, because, of course, that would not be in keeping with the climate emergency that we have in Wales and, of course, we should be keeping fossil fuels in the ground?

Yes, absolutely, and you'll be aware that that particular licence that you referred to has been suspended, but I certainly made my views very clear to the UK Government. I've had a lot of correspondence—and I'm sure there are some Members in the Chamber, including the Presiding Officer, who I've also written to regarding that, setting out that very stance that you've just described. So, we need to do—. We certainly need to look at how we can strengthen that so people are very aware of our view. But you're quite right: it would have to come to us at some point along the chain, even though it's a reserved matter, and I think I've made it very clear in my correspondence that that's the case.

Conservative spokesperson, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, I've raised with you on several occasions, and indeed I raised it with the First Minister yesterday, that, in your statement attached to the announcement around going for net zero by 2050, you said that that journey will be the biggest planned economic transition of modern times, and you've also made, obviously, a climate change emergency declaration. But when I go to the Cabinet minutes of that Cabinet meeting on 29 April, the declaration was informed to the Cabinet under 'any other business', and it says:

'The Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs informed Cabinet that she had declared the climate change emergency...that day.'

That hardly shows much planning or planning into the scheme of things that you're going to need to do to change the economy and to protect jobs and create quality jobs. Do you think that's an appropriate way for Cabinet to work?

Well, you're reading the minutes from the Cabinet; you won't be aware of all the discussions that went on ahead of the declaration of a climate emergency. The decarbonisation ministerial task and finish group, which I chair, meets every six weeks/two months. Discussions are ongoing through that task and finish group. The Minister for Economy and Transport sits on that committee.

The low carbon delivery plan, which I've referred to a couple of times already in this session, was where we set out our 100 policies and proposals. Again, there have been many discussions across Cabinet to bring that forward, and this is all part—. As I said yesterday, all these parts: decarbonisation, climate change mitigation, air quality, all are very integral—they're separate things, but they are integral. So, those discussions—. It wasn't just an announcement I made; people were very aware that that announcement was coming.

Thank you for that. I'm not knocking the decisions that you've taken; actually I've been supportive of them, but what concerns me is the action behind some of these announcements. I have to say that I thought that the minutes of Cabinet were meant to reflect the discussion that went on in Cabinet. And I agree that this is a whole Government response. We've heard since those declarations that Government obviously is having to deal with all these issues around their policy portfolio issues, but that minute doesn't clearly indicate to me that there has been that discussion. So, obviously, you're telling us there has. For example, can you tell me how many jobs will be lost in the Welsh economy because of the transition and how many jobs might be created in the green revolution we hope to see? That's a pretty straightforward question and, if Ken Skates has been on your committee, let's have an understanding of this transition that you've talked about and what we might and might not expect as we go forward.

So, the minute that you referred to wasn't a minute of a discussion. You said yourself it was 'any other business', so it wasn't a minute of a discussion in Cabinet. Those discussions take place in other places across the Government.

In relation to your question about the number of jobs, I can't give you a figure. What I've discussed with Ken Skates is the opportunity for more jobs if we transition to a low-carbon economy and I think, in other parts of the world that are ahead of us, you will see that that's the case.

I appreciate that you might not be able to give me an exact figure today, but, surely, amongst your discussions with Cabinet colleagues, you would have some understanding of the job implications here—the ones that might be lost from what we might call the old carbon economy and what might be created in the green economy. So, I'd hoped that maybe you'd be able to inform Members of that. One of the things that is happening in Westminster, for example, around their declaration, is that the Treasury there have provided hard and fast financials around some of the commitments the Government might have to take if it is to hit its net zero by 2050, and the figure of £1 trillion has been talked of, and about £70 billion a year. What economic modelling has the Welsh Government undertaken and has been made available to you when you've been making your decisions—and other members of the Government—so that you can make informed decisions that obviously put us in the best possible place? And, if that modelling has been made available to you, will you commit to make that available to Assembly Members so that we can have sight of it and understand exactly how the decisions have been taken?

So, I go back to what I said in my second answer to you, that I think there are more opportunities in the low-carbon economy sector—or sectors, really. So, the balance—. I can't give you figures. Certainly, the chief economist who advises all members of the Government will have given us advice that we will have considered. I don't know if it's commercially sensitive or if there's any other reasons why I can't publish it, but I will look into that and let the Member know.

Question 3 [OAQ54055] is withdrawn. Question 4—David Rees. 

Thank you. I regularly meet with the Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language to discuss various issues, including tourism. I've recently written to the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism about the breadth of support my portfolio provides to the tourism industry.

Well, thank you for that answer, Minister. Many Valleys communities, including those in the Afan Valley, have developed tourism as a means of growing the economy following the demise of the mining industry in those valleys. Much of the land surrounding those communities is actually owned by the Welsh Government and managed on their behalf by NRW. This land offers outdoor experiences to those visitors who come to those areas. For example, in my valley, mountain biking is a big issue and it uses the NRW land, very much so, to give an experience to visitors, and some of those trails are renowned worldwide, with many visitors coming from outside of the UK to experience them.

Now, it's important, therefore, that NRW works with the communities to ensure that no unnecessary barriers exist that would damage the opportunities for tourism in these valleys. Minister, therefore, will you ensure that tourism is high on the agenda of NRW and will you seek support from your Cabinet colleagues, because I understand the funding challenges you will face, because this will need funding, because, for mountain biking, for example, you need to maintain the trails and sometimes those trails are vandalised by people using bikes as well? So, will you have those discussions to ensure that that agenda is high on their list?

Thank you. I think you're absolutely right to flag that Natural Resources Wales, amongst others, have a very important part to play in protecting our natural environment and supporting our tourism industry. If my memory serves me right, the letter I did write to my colleague Dafydd Elis-Thomas—the word 'NRW' probably appeared more than any other word. So, I know, for instance, they're a consultee in the planning process around the current developments in the Afan Valley in your constituency. I know there's the proposed Afan adventure resort development. But I think it's really important that we do work together. You're right about communities. We need to work with our future generations within the guidelines of the future generations Act so that everyone can benefit from our natural resources.

Thank you for your answer to David Rees then. I'm just thinking about how you can work with NRW with other portfolios within Government as well as tourism and where these possibilities can intersect with each other. In January, I asked you whether you thought there was an opportunity for Natural Resources Wales to work with schools so that children and young people could play a part in replanting trees in their local areas, and I think it cropped up in the context of the Afan Valley, actually, because not only does that help the well-being of communities and tourists and actually tourism business as well, it goes back to Mike Hedges's question about learning about science and carbon capture as well as the history of that valley.

At the time, you said you thought it was a good idea and that you'd be speaking to your colleague Kirsty Williams about that. I hear that you've spoken to the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism. I'm wondering whether it might be worth an addendum to that letter to raise this as a possibility. Thank you.

Yes, certainly. You raise some very important points, and I've had in-depth conversations with both the chair and chief exec and other members of NRW around planting trees, because—I answered in my earlier answer to Mike Hedges that we're not planting enough trees, and, certainly, if we are going to mitigate climate change in the way we would want to, we need to ensure that happens. So, I know NRW are working with schools, from the last conversation I had with them. I don't know if it's specifically around planting trees, but it's certainly an opportunity, I think, that they can take forward. NRW manage 7 per cent of Wales's land area, and that obviously includes many reserves and picnic areas and woodland, so it's a very good opportunity to get out there in the fresh air and improve well-being.

Minister, I'd like to echo David's comments. My region is home to many natural wonders, including the Crymlyn bog national nature reserve. As the species champion for the fen raft spider, which has its home at Crymlyn bog, can I ask what discussions you've had with the Minister for international relations about how our biodiversity can play a part in our international tourism offer? I am sure that there are entomologists across the globe who will come to our area to see our amazing fen raft spider. Thank you.

I haven't had a discussion about that particular spider with my colleague Eluned Morgan—I think I would remember if I had—but it's certainly something that I'm very happy to look at, and, if there is research and data that will help us, I'd be very interested to see it.

Thank you. I have regular discussions with Hybu Cig Cymru and also Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Ministers to resolve the long-standing issue of repatriation of red meat levy. As a result of this, primary powers are now included within the UK Agriculture Bill and the levy bodies have developed initial proposals for the scheme's introduction.

Thank you, Minister, for that, and I'm very pleased to see a successful outcome of those negotiations and the passage of the Agriculture Bill at Westminster, obviously, with the transfer of these responsibilities coming here to Cardiff.

Will the Minister confirm that she won't use any uplift in levy income to make up any shortfall in Welsh Government funding that might occur in the future, and, actually, any additional money that goes to Meat Promotion Wales will be new money that's available to the promotion body to promote red meat sales either here in Wales, the UK, or across the world?

Well, the UK agri Bill is a little bit stuck at the moment in London. I do understand the reasons why—they're awaiting a date for debate. I too was very pleased with the outcome of my discussions with the Secretary of State. I thought it was very important it had a Government amendment, so I am very pleased at that.

Obviously we need to look at what funding comes; I certainly don't think that HCC and others would allow that to happen, but, clearly, we need to get those powers in the first place. My officials have been having initial discussions with DEFRA officials about how we implement—well, how we draft the scheme first of all. We need to get the scheme right and then implement it. I'll be very happy to keep Members updated on this because this has been dragging on for far too many years.

Carrying on with that scheme, Minister, I can see from the headlines yesterday about the Vice-Premier visiting Wales, and there is scope to open up our beef market to China, as Andrew R.T. has just stated. Can you give an indication as to the nature of any conversations previously that you've had with him, and also how will you assist the Welsh beef sector in preparing to take advantage of these opportunities?

Well, certainly, the Vice-Premier from China made the announcement around the opening up of the beef imports into China. I had a discussion with him about lamb as well, because I think it's very important that we have both of those going into China. I hadn't had any discussions directly with him before yesterday or today; I've met with him again this morning. I think it's very important, certainly, that, the two farms that we took the delegation to visit, the farmers were very keen that these conversations are ongoing and that we build on the relationship that we've already started now.

Thank you. Over 99 per cent of Welsh farmers have received their BPS payments, well in excess of the 95 per cent requirement set in EU rules. One hundred and fifty-three farms are still to complete necessary checks before final payment can be made, and 112 of these have already received loan payments.

Thank you, Minister. That's actually quite a heartening response because, when I last put WAQs in very recently about this, there were 229 claims that had been awaiting completion since December. So, as you'll be aware, National Farmers Union Cymru have been active in promoting the fact that for every £1 spent in promoting the fact—sorry, for every £1 invested in farm support in the UK, farming delivers £7.40 back to the local economy. So, clearly, the—. How many did you say, sorry, again? One hundred and fifty—?

One hundred and fifty-three farms are still to complete.

Yes. So, the wider agricultural sector and rural communities will be losing out also, as well as the farmers themselves. We know that land changes discovered at inspections and alterations to customer details are actually causing delays, and that has been explained to us, but really, all I would ask—. Because I do have farmers in my constituency, who, frankly, struggle. So, there is no excuse, really, for unnecessary payment delays. So, will you set a target for addressing these so that farmers across Wales receive the money that they are, in fact, duly owed?

Well, I don't think it's 'quite heartening'; I think it's very heartening—99 per cent of Welsh farm businesses have received a full 2018 BPS payment. Nothing is late; we have until 30 June. And I really want to pay tribute to my officials who work within Rural Payments Wales that they've achieved that. It's the best in the UK. If you look at other parts of the UK, we've exceeded every other country and, as I say, we've exceeded the EC target. It would be great if everybody could be paid by 30 June and then nobody will be late. I mentioned that there were 153 farms still to complete. Some of the ones that are outstanding are very complex, and that's the reason why they haven't been paid. Some of the issues that do prevent the final claims being paid are, for instance, land changes, and they're often discovered at inspections. Sometimes, there are just changes to customer details that we weren't aware of, and there are ongoing land queries and disputes. My officials are making every effort to process the outstanding claims as soon as possible.

We are working with the Animal Welfare Network for Wales and other key stakeholders on voluntary guidance for sanctuaries, to be published later this year. We will seek to better regulate sanctuaries and work with our counterparts in other administrations to ensure a cohesive approach.

I thank you for your answer. I do welcome that the Welsh Government are intending to run a pilot scheme to explore how a voluntary code of practice for the rescue and rehoming centres and sanctuaries could be introduced. It's certainly a step in the right direction. But currently, as things stand, anyone can set up an animal sanctuary or a rehoming centre. There's no legislation in place to prevent that happening. Whilst I'm sure that most of those will have high standards of animal welfare, it is concerning to know that there is equally, therefore, no obligation on local authorities to inspect premises or to ensure the needs of the animals are being met. And we all know that people can and do get overwhelmed by good intentions. So, that, I find concerning. My question is fairly obvious, then: when can we expect the Welsh Government to consider introducing statutory regulations of rehoming organisations and animal sanctuaries to improve the welfare of the animals and also the working conditions that people might find themselves under?

Thank you, Joyce. You certainly raise a very important point, and I definitely want to better regulate sanctuaries. I mentioned that we've been working with other administrations. You might be aware that the Scottish Government went out to consultation and they've been very helpful to us in sharing the responses to that consultation. And also, you'll be aware of the third-party sales of puppies and kittens. We've just been out to consultation and I'm going to produce the responses to that consultation probably in early August. I think that could also have an effect on what changes we do make to sanctuaries.

In relation to the code of practice, I have been working very closely with the Animal Welfare Network Wales group on the development of that voluntary code of practice that you referred to, and that will be produced later this year. I think we need to look at all the different pieces of legislation. You'll be aware that I'm bringing in a licensing scheme on mobile animal exhibits, for instance. So, I think we need to look at all the different schemes that we're bringing together, improving the codes of practice on specific animals, and decide then on what we further need to do.

In March last year, the Welsh Government announced its intention to develop a voluntary code of conduct for animal welfare sanctuaries and it's quite welcoming that you're going to bring that in towards the end of this year. But I'd like to echo the call from my colleague Joyce Watson AM: I think we need to go stronger than that. RSPCA Cymru has itself called for urgent regulation to stop the commonplace welfare issues presented by agencies operating without appropriate skills and resources. Currently, there are around 90 animal sanctuaries doing invaluable work to improve animal welfare across Wales. However, we do know of some registered sanctuaries operating under the radar where animal care standards fall short of desirable standards. Minister, can you explain what steps you are taking to move beyond guidance to introduce some robust regulation that will ensure animal welfare standards meet a suitable baseline criteria in all instances?

I think I've set out what work we are doing at this current time in my answer to Joyce Watson. I was very interested to see the consultation responses from the Scottish Government in relation to whether we should go further. So, obviously, officials are considering the advice we've had from there, and I will be bringing forward the code of practice later on this year.

Diolch. The farm business grant is one of the Welsh Government’s 'Taking Wales Forward' commitments. To date, 2,970 farmers have had applications to the farm business grant approved, worth £20.6 million of support. This on-farm investment supports the improvement of the technical and financial performance of farm businesses in Wales.

Thank you. The Farmers Union of Wales contacted me on behalf of one of their members a few weeks ago because an application from a constituent for a grant had failed because he'd failed to provide a letter from his accountant to confirm that the turnover of his business was below £1 million. Now, I should say that his turnover is way below £1 million, and I should add that virtually every farmer in Wales has a turnover of less than £1 million. But the decision meant that he had lost out on £5,000, despite having provided a letter once it became known that that was a requirement. I appealed directly to you—thank you for your response—and officials have now changed the letter in the application pack to highlight the need for this evidence. I welcome that, but that does suggest to me, as I know is the case, that it wasn't sufficiently clear that this accountant’s letter needed to be included in the first place. I do understand that there are many similar cases across Wales that have now emerged, with an average loss around £5,500, which is a significant sum for small farms. According to your own figures, only one in 100 farms in Wales has a turnover of over £1 million. Shouldn't you therefore review this issue, as it is clearly a more general problem than just affecting my constituent? I want you to look again at the applications that have been rejected for this reason and I would appreciate it if you could tell us how many applications have lost out because of this reason.

Thank you. Obviously, I am aware of your constituent. As you say, you and I corresponded, and also the FUW and I corresponded. You'll be aware I'm unable to comment on that specific one due to the appeals process. I think the farm business grant was very well received. The idea was that we made it as simple and easy as possible to use for ourselves and also for applicants. There is a small number of people whose applications were unsuccessful, and I will certainly—. I thought I had the figure here, actually, but I can't find it at the current time. But I think it is—. Oh, sorry; 688 businesses were written to retrospectively to request an accountant's letter, and fewer than 1 per cent of beneficiaries had payments recovered as they failed to provide an accountant's letter before the deadline. But I think you're right; it needs to be very much upfront, and we certainly have reviewed that, and, as you say, we have changed that. I'm very happy to look, if we can review the applications—I don't know if it's too late. But you will appreciate we obviously are audited and we have to make sure it is effective use of public money and we have to have some criteria. But we have tried to make it as simple as possible.

I declare an interest, obviously, being a partner in a farming business. Minister, one of the things that is so frustrating, very often, is the complexity around, in particular, the woodland grant schemes that have been made available. Given that there's been much conversation in this Chamber tonight—this afternoon, I should say—about increasing woodland uptake, can you commit the department to look at how that scheme could be simplified to make it far quicker in its turnaround of applications so that it does encourage greater participation rates? I know you opened a new window back in April for this, and I appreciate it's public money and the auditing and the accountability have to be robust, but when businesses have small windows to, obviously, plant up trees, they need to have confidence that the grants they're applying for can be turned around in a timely manner. Certainly, I've had constituents coming to me saying it's very cumbersome, it's very bureaucratic, and it puts them off actually applying.

You make a very good point. Obviously, this question was specifically about the farm business grant, and as I said in my answer to Rhun ap Iorwerth, the whole point of this scheme was that we made it as easy and simple as possible. I thought we really had succeeded with that. Clearly, the issue that Rhun raised shows that it wasn't quite as simple and easy as I would have hoped for. Certainly, other grants, now—we need to look at making them as easy and simple as possible. And if Brexit provides any opportunities, obviously as we have our own agricultural policy and we're revising the payments system, I think it's certainly something that we can look at. Because as you say, if it's a very small window at a particularly busy time of year, we need to ensure that everybody can apply for it as simply as possible. I'm glad that you echoed the point I made around the most effective use of public money.

Thank you. Tackling air pollution across Wales remains a top priority for Welsh Government. In my statement on clear air yesterday, I highlighted actions across Government and a range of sectors to improve air quality. These will be set out in our clean air plan, which I intend to consult on this autumn.

Thank you, Minister. I welcome your statement on clean air yesterday and Welsh Government's commitment to bring forward a clean air Act. Caerleon is one of 11 designated air quality management areas within Newport. The high volume of traffic that pours out onto the narrow streets is regularly forced to a halt due to constrictions and congestion in the road system. Sites of archaeological importance mean that there is very little scope to alter the layout of the local road network, and many HGVs use the road in Caerleon as a throughway. Caerleon Civic Society is looking to work with the local authority to take action on improving air quality in the area. Can the Minister outline whether the clean air Act will make provision for engagement with communities looking to improve air quality?

Well, I certainly think it would have to. As I mentioned in the statement yesterday, we'll use the clean air plan to then see what proposals we think we need to bring forward for the clean air Act. But certainly, I think working with communities is absolutely vital in any areas that we're trying to improve, and I do hope Newport City Council certainly work with them when they're looking at their local air quality management and where they've got their site monitors, for instance. So, I do hope they'll work together.

Minister, it's Love Your Lungs Week, and I know you will wish to—[Interruption.] Here it is. I know we all wish to commend the British Lung Foundation's work. Indeed, we had our photograph taken outside the Senedd earlier when we were chatting about the need for a clean air Act. But can I tell you that it's also official that the quickest way to travel in Cardiff during the rush hour is by bike? A group of Cardiff councillors, volunteers and other campaigners raced by the various modes of transport to Cardiff castle. Actually, 'race' is perhaps an exaggeration for some of those modes. The bikes averaged nearly 12 mph, buses just over 6 mph, and bottom of all, cars—barely 5 mph. It's quite clear that active travel is one of the greatest ways to promote not only efficiency in terms of commuter travel but also clean air, and I commend all those activities that promote these modes of transport.

Thank you. Certainly, I'm very happy that the British Lung Foundation have brought forward their week. It's also—I'm going to give a plug—Clean Air Day tomorrow; I think we should all think about something that we can do to promote that. The Welsh Government has given £30 million to local authorities in relation to active travel, and I certainly commend Cardiff council. I think they're bringing forward really good schemes around cycling, and I've certainly seen said councillors whizzing around on bikes many times.

Minister, one of the most congested and polluted areas is of course the A470, and of course there are measures in place there to try, as an interim measure, to control the degree of pollution there by restricting traffic speeds and so on. But of course there are a number of variable speeds along that area. There seems to be a considerable degree of breaching of those speeds. So, any monitoring that is taking place is going to be very adversely affected by, effectively, the breach of the measures that has taken place. I wonder what discussions you've had, or could have, with perhaps the Minister for Economy and Transport over ensuring that there was proper evaluation and monitoring of that process, and perhaps even a simplification of the rather complex changes of speed that take place along that particular area. I have written to the Minister for Economy and Transport. You will not have seen that, but it does seem to me that it's a matter that directly impacts on your responsibilities in terms of air pollution. 

Thank you. As I made clear yesterday in the oral statement, road transport certainly contributes to the quality of our air, more than probably any other sector. I have had many discussions and meetings with my colleague the Minister for Economy and Transport, and I think that my officials and transport officials probably meet at least weekly, if not more often, to discuss this.

Again, yesterday, I talked about the need for better signage at the pilot sites—the five sites that we've had with the 50 mph—across Wales, because people clearly don't understand why those variable speeds have been brought in. They don't realise that it's for carbon emission reduction. They think that it is perhaps for speed calming.

Clearly, we are having mixed responses to those sites, and officials are going to report on the effectiveness of them, probably late summer or early autumn, to me. But, I mentioned yesterday that I have made the sites—or the Minister for Economy and Transport will be making the sites—permanent from the middle of July. We are having a look also—. We will have a full 12 months' worth of data by the end of this month to look at, and I think that that will then better advise us going forward.

Thank you, Minister.

The next item is questions to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. The first question is from Helen Mary Jones.

Welsh Government provides £108 million each year to social landlords in the form of the major repairs allowance to councils and dowry gap funding to large-scale voluntary transfer housing associations. This is to ensure that everyone living in our 225,000 social homes in Wales will live in good-quality homes by December 2020.

I'm very grateful to the Minister for her answer. I'm sure that she would agree with me that it would be extremely unfortunate if Welsh Government funding from other sources inadvertently had a negative effect on housing quality in Wales. I have a number of constituents who have been having real difficulties with inappropriately sold or inappropriately installed cavity wall insulation. I know that this is a matter that has been raised on a number of occasions, recently by David Rees.

Obviously, this matter isn't directly in your portfolio, Minister, but it is having a real impact on the quality of the housing of some of my constituents, and I know of many others. What is unfortunate is that the evidence that is being sent to me is that the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency, which is supposed to put this right, is in fact being profoundly unhelpful. There is one particular case that I am going to write to the Minister for environment about because they are really just not responding and, when they are responding, they are offering to partly put the work right.

The particular family that prompted this question are not well-off people. They have worked very hard to be able to afford their own home. So, can I ask the Minister if you will, with your housing quality hat on, have a further conversation with the Minister for environment to see if there's any more that the Government can do to ensure that the guarantee agency is fit for purpose and that it responds in an appropriate, but also in a compassionate way to people who are dealing with really difficult damp problems in homes that they really had to struggle to purchase?

Yes, I'm happy to do that. If you send the details to the Minister for environment, we can, between us, look at the specific matter that you are dealing with. Actually, much more generally, we are about to receive the report of the decarbonisation of housing working group. They are looking at housing across the piece, not just social housing. So, we are expecting recommendations from them about a number of the things that you raised more generally in terms of the specific things there: so, the skills available to private home holders—sorry, private home owners; I got my tongue in a twist there—in Wales; the advice that they can receive about the best way to insulate their homes without causing some of the difficulties that you are talking about there; and whole issues around energy efficiency and condensation and such things. So, we're expecting that report imminently, and I am expecting to have a really good conversation across the Government and with the Assembly about how we can best implement some of the recommendations.

Minister, earlier this year, my colleague here, David Melding, led a debate that recognised that the number of homes being built in Wales is inadequate to meet demand, and during the debate we all recognised that there was a shortage of social housing across Wales. But there is also a shortage of other types of homes that will attract younger, aspirational home owners to move to Wales. I understand that Shropshire, for example, the next county to my own constituency, has a more flexible planning policy that allows landowners to develop their land for executive level homes, therefore attracting younger professionals, including teachers, business people and doctors, which we desperately need, of course, in mid Wales, to move to Wales and set up home in Wales, to make a career and invest in the local economy. Can I ask what intentions you have to review planning guidance to give local authorities the flexibility to implement their planning policies in such a way that will ensure that the demand for these types of homes is met to encourage younger families and professionals into Powys and counties such as mine? Or, indeed, do you believe that local authorities don't need that flexibility because they've already got that flexibility, and no change to planning guidance is required?

This is actually a question on the quality of the housing supply, and that's a question about the actual housing supply. But we've only just reissued 'Planning Policy Wales' just before Christmas. That emphasises a place-building approach, with an emphasis on sustainable place models. So what we're asking local authorities to do, within their LDPs, is to look at sustainable place making with mixed tenure developments there. Actually, all the market statistics show us that we build enough market homes; the things that we're desperately short of are homes for social rent. So, at the moment the market is providing more than adequate market homes, and our Help to Buy scheme has driven some of that, but what we actually need to build far more of—thousands more of—are homes for social rent, so, rather different to the picture you've just painted.

We have too many poor-quality houses in Wales, many with very poor energy efficiency, meaning those who are poorest end up either cold or paying more for heating their homes than you and I do. What is the Welsh Government doing to improve energy efficiency, especially in the private rented sector and the very low-cost part of the private rented sector?

So, at the moment, we've concentrated on the Welsh housing quality standard for publicly provided housing. Mike Hedges knows very well that the Welsh housing quality standard asks social landlords to get to a standard assessment procedure rating of 65 or higher, or an energy performance certificate D rating equivalent. About 97 per cent of our stock so far is up at that standard and we've got a small amount more to do before we meet the entire Welsh housing quality standard. What we've been trying to do in the private rented sector is change the relationship between landlords and tenants and ensure that tenants have a better deal all round in terms of the way that properties are let, the sorts of property that are available and the regulation through Rent Smart Wales. We haven't at this point in time got any particular energy efficiency indications there, but as I just said in answer to Helen Mary Jones, we are expecting the decarbonisation working group report imminently, and they were asked to look across the piece in Wales, and I am expecting a set of recommendations around what we should do across every tenure in Wales to improve energy efficiency and indeed insulation and standards to go with it.

I have read their report with interest. However, it is a devolved matter and our own independent task and finish group for leasehold reform is on schedule to deliver its report to me in July. I will be reviewing its recommendations and then deciding which actions to take forward for Wales.

I do commend you for reading the report. England and Wales law is often common in this area, and I think there are lessons to be learnt, and I think the House of Commons committee's done a great service here.

Estate management fees as well as service charges have been criticised for their size, lack of transparency and the difficulty with which they can be challenged. Those are certainly problems that we have in Wales. And Which?, the consumer organisation, has pointed out that no new-build housing estate should have their roads as the responsibility of the leaseholder, yet this is happening more and more at the moment. Often, as the report indicates, developers blame the local council, the council blames the developers and it's an unholy mess.

I have met with residents on a new-build estate within my own region and they've informed me that they're in a conflict between the estate and the local council and the developer over the adoption of a main road through the estate, which is a bus route. And despite that road being a key bus route, it's not at the moment going to be adopted. This is just a crazy situation. The planners should never allow it and the developers should not be allowed to produce roads of inadequate quality when they're clearly marked as being required to be bus routes.

I entirely agree with the Member's analysis of that. We do have a significant problem in some of the 106 agreements that have been negotiated between developers and councils throughout Wales. And one of the difficulties that has arisen as a result of that is the issue around the adoption of roads, the standard they have to be brought up to, the beneficial use of the estate in question prior to the adoption of the road and so on. So, we're attacking that on a number of fronts.

The most straightforward of that is that, alongside the leasehold reform group, we also have a task and finish group who are tasked with a review of unadopted roads. It's actually a joint task force between myself and the Minister for Economy and Transport, and they're due to give us their recommendations very shortly. We've specifically asked them to look at the introduction of a code of practice for estate and property management agents to enhance the professional and ethical standards that they operate to.

Simultaneously, Members will be aware that, yesterday, I did an oral statement on some of the suggestions that we're having for more regional working with local authorities. One of the areas that that was addressing was in economic development and land use. One of the specific drivers for that is to get the very valuable and unfortunately increasingly rare skill of being able to negotiate those agreements properly, so that the people who have those skills are available to all of Wales, rather than to those lucky local authorities who have managed to retain them. It's quite clearly an issue that we need to bottom.

So, we're looking at coming at it from both ends, if you like, but I think we're also looking at renewed guidance to local authorities, in terms of what they should be looking for when they're looking at a situation where a new development has largely been completed, but the roads are not at adoptable standards.

So, just to recap, we've got the leasehold reform group coming back, we've got the task and finish group coming back on unadopted roads, the UK Government's announcements are very interesting in terms of legislating to ensure that freeholders who pay charges for the maintenance of communal areas have access to the same rights as leaseholders in terms of the way that that's regulated. And we're very interested in looking at that as well.

Can I echo the comments from David Melding, because, clearly, leaseholders are facing some very serious challenges, particularly financially? And, when you come back to your working group, I hope that they recommend that you take action on putting regulation upon estate management companies—and if they don't, I hope you put it in anyway. Because, for example, I've got many constituents in my constituency who own properties on different estates—not just one, many estates—which are leasehold. And I've got one here in front of me that has actually given them the breakdown of the leasehold bill they've received for this year. They are required to pay £187 a month on top of everything—that's on top of council tax, on top of the utilities. And I'll include what they say: included in the list are out-of-hours fees; a management fee, twice; an accountancy fee; and banking charges. They're included in the list they're expected to pay.

Now, these are management companies that are looking after estates on behalf of these, and they are using it as a money machine. I hope you put in place, in those proposals afterwards, regulations to put upon these agencies to ensure that they deal with people fairly and that any funding they require is based upon actual need and not costs that they incur anyway.

Yes, again, I share the Member's disquiet at some of the practices that have arisen as a result of this. The fundamental issue is that when somebody buys a freehold house that they ought to be receiving the proper advice from their lawyers acting on their behalf about the other charges that are associated with that house, including whether there is an adopted road for which they will be required to provide maintenance. In response to David Melding, I rehearsed the things that we're doing to look at this. Certainly, in the short term, we're looking to see if there’s anything we can do about some of the specific charges.

The difficulty, though, is that there are protections in place for leaseholders, but those protections do not extend to freeholders who've entered into that kind of management agreement. So, the UK Government has seen that this a lacunae, so, with any luck, they'll step into that place, because we're on the boundary of the devolution settlement here as well.

So, we have asked the task and finish group to look specifically at some of the charges as well, but, actually, a much better solution would be to get the roads to an adoptable standard and get them adopted. So, it may be that we have to look at schemes in order to be able to facilitate that. And I will certainly be looking at our own Help to Buy scheme, to see if there's anything we can do in that scheme to make sure that we aren't promulgating practices that are unhelpful, to say the least.

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

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Minister, I'm sure you'll join me in welcoming the excellent report that was launched yesterday by Tai Pawb, the Chartered Institute of Housing Cymru and Shelter Cymru on the right to adequate housing in Wales. And I commend the report to all Members who have not had a chance to see it yet. The report makes a compelling case for the right to adequate housing to be enshrined in Welsh law, whilst also clearly setting out a route-map for how we should get there. Do you agree that the right to housing in Wales should be recognised in statute?

Yes, I absolutely do. I spoke at the event yesterday. Unfortunately, I had another event to go to, so I was sandwiched in between two parts of the author of the report's introduction of it. But I was very impressed by the clarity with which he set out some of the legislative issues that he'd researched, and I'm very much looking forward to going through with my officials what the route-map might be to achieving some of the recommendations in the report for Wales. But in my contribution to that event, I did say that it's not only important to make sure that people have housing as a fundamental human right, front and centre, but that, actually, we're in a position to deliver it. So, if, for example, an individual has a right to enforce that, we have to have an adequate housing supply, in order for them to be able to have the houses to get into. We also have to have the right support mechanisms in place to enable people who have a range of difficulties to stay in their accommodation and so on. So, whilst I absolutely fundamentally accept the purpose of the report, and concur with it, we do have a range of practical issues to consider as well.

Thank you, Minister, for that very encouraging answer, if I can say. And you quite rightly say you need a strategy to be able to ensure a right exists in practice. And, indeed, the report sketches out what needs to be done in terms of a rights-based national housing strategy. And it's indeed something I've already called for—and I think other parties share this aspiration. And can I just say, it would be a fantastic year for us to achieve a commitment to this development of a national housing strategy. After all, we are fast approaching the hundredth anniversary of the birth of council housing as we know it. The Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act 1919—more commonly known as the Addison Act—received Royal Assent in July 1919. And I think, indeed, that it was referred to in the meeting, at the launch, yesterday.

Minister, will a national housing strategy emerge from the affordable housing review, with targets on increasing supply of housing at its heart, but also other issues addressed as well?

I'm certainly very interested in looking at housing in the round. It's not just the affordable housing review that we've got to look at. You've heard me mentioning already in Plenary today the decarbonisation review. We have a rent policy review, we have a leasehold reform review, we have an ongoing priority need review—I think there are two more that I'm not currently thinking of. I've already put in train meeting together with the chairs of all of those reviews, and a number of officials, so that we can look in the round, across all of the advice we've got, so that we can come up with a coherent response to the series of reports. That may or may not turn into a strategy, but I am looking to have a coherent response across the piece. And I'm very keen to make sure that the report that was launched yesterday is part of that.

I do think the strategy would be the way to look at all these things comprehensively. You're quite right—it's not just affordable housing, it's the totality of housing. But there are other key areas as well that we could mention here that should be part of a national housing strategy: the eradication of homelessness; increasing security of tenure for generation rent—nearly 20 per cent of those in housing at the moment; leasehold reform; and a strong tenant's voice. These are all major things that we should be pushing for. And, Minister, is it not time for us to forge a consensus on these issues—between all the parties in this Chamber, I think—that we could come together, and have a cross-party national housing strategy? What a wonderful achievement that would be, in the twentieth anniversary year of devolution. And will you invite the representatives of all parties to discuss this objective with the Welsh Government, because I think we could agree it?

Yes, I'm very happy to say that I'd like to do that. In fact, I'm very happy to say now, Llywydd, on the floor of the Assembly, that I'd very much like to look at where the consensus across the parties is. We've had this discussion a number of times in Plenary, and you're absolutely right—a number of parties have put out housing documents, and there is much that we agree upon; there are nuances that we do not. I think David Melding is absolutely right in saying that it would be good to seek where the consensus is and see what can be done, once we've had all the reports in and we can look at them in the round. 

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Dai Lloyd.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, the importance of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 cannot be understated in the deliberations of local authorities. So, Minister, how does the Welsh Government track the implementation of the Act's principles by councils?

We work very closely with councils to ensure that they embed the seven ways of working of the Act, and that the principles of the Act are far-reaching. We're working currently with a working group in local government to make sure that, in everything we do with local authorities, we implement the Act and put it at the front and centre of everything that we do. 

Thank you for that, Minister, but we still see councils failing in some areas to seriously consider the Act. Might I just point to an example in my own region, in Bridgend? Recently, there has been a bus consultation on removing services. A report to cabinet recommending the cuts quite simply failed to do either an equalities assessment or an assessment of the impact on future generations. They said they would do both after the consultation before a final sign-off on the decision. In other words, after a decision had been made. Another example, then, in the same authority, Bridgend—the selling of the only playing field serving a council estate for housing. Are these not examples of local authorities being unable to think differently?

I'm not aware of the detail of those. I was aware of the bus consultation; I'm not aware of the detail of the other one. If the Member has any more detail, I'm very happy to look at it. I very recently met with the leader of Bridgend, but it was unfortunately on the day of the announcement of the Ford closure, and so our meeting changed from the normal meeting that I was due to have with him obviously into a crisis meeting about Bridgend. But I am due to reconvene with him, so if the Member wants to give me the details, I'm more than happy to raise it with him. 

But the fact is that it looks like there's either no teeth to the Act itself, or no will in Government to track implementation, because on the other side of the region, Swansea, Swansea Council is looking to sell off land on the foreshore to make a quick buck, as I'm sure you'll be aware, and not even the iconic Singleton park is safe from this wheeling and dealing attitude. Is this not in direct violation of the future generations Act, and is there enough capacity in Government to track the implementation of the future generations Act?

I understand that the proposals in Swansea are out to consultation. I too have a large postbag on the subject, and I'm sure you do as well, and my colleague Rebecca Evans is the constituency Assembly Member for that area, and I know she has similar concerns. We will be talking to the council about the way that it's taking some of those things forward, but it's at the beginning of a very long process of planning, economic development and so on, so I think it's rather early to say that they're not taking that into account. My understanding is that these are preliminary proposals. Again, if the Member has any more detail than I am aware of, I'd be grateful to have it. 

The Welsh Government is committed to working across Government to tackle child poverty. My colleague Julie James is leading a review of Welsh Government funding programmes to ensure they have maximum impact on the lives of children living in poverty. In addition, Lesley Griffiths will act as an advocate for poverty during budget preparations, to identify opportunities to increase the impact of collective investment. 

Thank you, Deputy Minister. The discretionary assistance fund, which was introduced in April 2013, is a critical fund that supports the very poorest families in Wales. Children and families in the most pressurised circumstances and facing financial crisis have access to this fund. An evaluation was undertaken in 2015 to examine the effectiveness of the fund, which included suggestions on how the fund and its administration could be improved. Could the Minister outline if there has been any further evaluation on the discretionary assistance fund, or whether there has been any progress on addressing the suggestions for improvement in the 2015 evaluation?

I'm going to start by saying that I absolutely agree with the Member with regard to the importance of the discretionary assistance fund, whether that be through individual assistance payments or emergency assistance payments. And I actually visited the Wrexham centre where it's facilitated not too long ago, and I sat and heard first-hand some of the distressing calls that are made by people who are really very vulnerable and struggling to make ends meet.

Like you say, an evaluation was undertaken and published in 2015, which made a number of recommendations for improvement, including making use of the DAF partner network to help support clients to apply successfully. They have all been implemented. A further survey was also carried out in 2016, but, in addition to this, an audit was carried out by Welsh Government in August 2017, which made a number of recommendations for improvement, which included things like simplifying the application process to assist vulnerable clients, making online applications for emergency support funding, without them needing to have that partner support that was needed beforehand, and I'm pleased that these have all been actioned.

Child poverty in Wales has been rising since 2004. It had already reached the highest level in the UK before the credit crunch, when more than one in four children in Wales were living in poverty, with 90,000 in severe poverty. We know that, last month, the End Child Poverty Network stated that Wales was the only UK nation to see a rise in child poverty last year and, although the Children's Commissioner for Wales said in March that the Welsh Government should write a new child poverty delivery plan focusing on concrete and measurable steps, the Welsh Government failed to support calls for any tackling poverty strategy during the individual Member's debate calling for this two weeks ago here. How, therefore, do you respond to the representations made to me after that debate by sector representatives regarding my emphasis on the need to focus on Welsh policy levers that the Welsh Government has within its power, that 'This is exactly the area in which we would like to focus our influencing as we agree there are powers the Welsh Government can and should be using to tackle the root causes of poverty', i.e. within a plan or strategy rather than a generic approach, which has left us at the bottom for more than 10 years?

Llywydd, I do find a hint of irony in the question from the Member without actually talking about the impact of austerity on child poverty in Wales and across the UK and how that has been significantly amplified as a consequence not just of austerity but of the regressive welfare reforms as well.

We are committed to taking action to reduce and ultimately eliminate child poverty by not just using the levers at our disposal across Government, whether that be through housing, education, health, but also the First Minister is committed to and work is under way on the First Minister's commitment to reorganise Welsh Government funding programmes to ensure that we have maximum impact on the lives of children living in poverty in Wales.

We now have some communities where one in two children are living in poverty, and that is utterly disgraceful, but it is something that your Government can do something about. The Welsh Government could have an anti-poverty strategy—that would be a good start—a strategy that includes raising the threshold for free school meals to that of Northern Ireland, for example. Hunger, which is linked to poor attainment in school and is a consequence of poverty—I don't see much action from the Government on the question of hunger. And being a lot more proactive on the devolution of the administration of benefits to Wales would also make a difference, as the austerity consensus that has existed in Westminster has brought so much misery to our communities here in Wales. But do you agree with me, Minister, therefore, that it is neither enough nor acceptable to hide behind the pernicious policies of the Tories in Westminster while there is so much that could be done here in Wales to mitigate this child poverty?

The Member's absolutely right that one child living in poverty is one child too many, particularly in 2019. That should not be the case, and I share the Member's passion for tackling this. On a Welsh Government level, we are committed to using all those levers at our disposal, as I just said to Mark Isherwood, whether that's through what we can do in terms of education, supporting childcare—. And that is a commitment that the Minister is taking forward—my colleague the Minister Julie James—in terms of actually how we maximise that funding and those things to actually bring it together across Government and really have the impact we want in terms of minimising and reducing and ultimately eliminating child poverty.

The Member refers to welfare reform and the potential devolution of the administration of welfare reform. This is something that I'm taking forward on behalf of the First Minister. We've tasked the Wales Centre for Public Policy to do a piece of work on that with us. I will be meeting them in the next couple of weeks to take that forward, and I'm more than happy to keep the Member updated, because I know you're so passionate and interested in this area, and to speak to you about this in the future.

Yes. There is substantial Welsh Government support available to home owners and landlords, including older people, to renovate properties. Across Wales, £148 million has been made available to local authorities to invest in Welsh homes.

Thank you very much. We know, on Anglesey, that, within the next five to 10 years, there's going to be an increase of around 30 per cent in the number of older people—that's people over the age of 60. We already know that there’s a shortage of appropriate housing for older people with mobility needs and other health needs. We need to build new houses, of course, which are appropriate, and we also need to renovate houses within the current stock, and of course we need to invest in adaptations for homes for older people. Whilst you, as the current Government, can’t give a commitment beyond the next election, of course, do you agree that grant levels from the Welsh Government to local authorities such as Ynys Môn for adaptations should increase at the same rate as our population is growing older?

Actually, only this lunchtime I was at the launch of the 'Adaptations without delay' report done by the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, which my colleague Dawn Bowden had sponsored. We had a very good conversation about how we can accelerate the care and repair schemes in order to make sure that—. They have a number of functions, as the Member will be aware. They are preventative, obviously, and they help people stay in their own homes and not have to go into any kind of social care or NHS care, and also they are ameliorative in the sense that they get people back out of those settings into more independent living. My colleague Julie Morgan and I have had a couple of meetings very recently with various agencies delivering care and repair schemes, to see what data we can make the most use of to see what we need to do with it in the future, including actually looking to see whether we've got the demographic spread right, whether we've got the right kind of adaptations, and, frankly, whether we're building in our innovative housing programme the right kind of houses so that we build a 'house for life', as they call it, so that you don't have to have it adapted—they're built with stairs wide enough and all that sort of stuff.

I've been to some very good programmes. As it happens, only last week I was up in Ynys Môn and I went to see the new modular factory being built there for the passive house. The council leader was at the opening of that factory, and I know that they are commissioning bungalows especially with that in mind—with the increase in the older demographic in mind—with a view to having them being as flexible as possible so that people can stay in them for as long as possible. What we're doing is looking to see whether we can use the data coming back from our care and repair agencies to help us to decide which homes are worth adapting, which houses it's impossible to do it to economically, what the best options for people are, so that we can get them the right kind of accommodation in the right place, and what ameliorative programmes we can put in place to ensure that people stay as independent as possible for as long as possible. So, I think that's kind of a 'maybe' answer to your question, but I would be very interested in discussing it further.

Many of the older people who come to me have been very grateful for the grants that they've had to adapt their homes or to renovate them, because as you and I and most of the Members here know, stability in your home is incredibly important as you get older because you are able then to stay connected to your community, things are more familiar, and it helps with mental health issues, loneliness, isolation and the raft of it—it's very important. However, the issue with the money is that, very often, the councils will give out that money, they've awarded the contract and then the contract itself, or the builders who provide it, are sub-service: the renovations have not been to the right standard, the adaptations do not meet the needs of the person, and they have not done what they said they would do. You go back to the councils and they say, 'But we've given out the money; our job has finished'. What can you do, as a Minister for this area, to encourage councils to actually just be a little bit more savvy in their business dealings with these organisations, and to do simple things like have a 5 per cent or 10 per cent retention fee, so that once the householder, and only when the householder, has actually signed off on it and said, 'Yes, that disabled bathroom is now fit for purpose', or 'Yes, that renovation is allowing me to stay in this home safely and securely', does the council then pay the balance? Because it's a loss-loss situation—the council have got money that's not being utilised properly, the poor person involved in this has got the stress, at an older age, of trying to deal with a recalcitrant company and they're not getting what they need.

I said in response to Rhun that what we want to do is look to see what the evidence coming back to us is telling us about the way that some of the care and repair schemes across Wales are managed. Actually, it's my colleague Julie Morgan who has overarching portfolio responsibility for that, but I have the housing bit of it, so it overlaps almost entirely. So, we've been working together to try and get the best out of it.

If you've got very specific examples, I'd be very happy to hear about them and see what we can do. It is helpful to us to know where the problems are. As I say, we are looking at data collection so that we can redesign the schemes appropriately. We're also looking to see whether the way we currently deliver it is the best way to deliver it or whether there are other methodologies available.  It's not done in the same way in every part of Wales, so it'll be interesting to see some of the detail of the things that you're telling me.

Minister, we all agree that we must do everything we can to ensure older people remain in their homes for as long a possible. Home adaptations are essential in ensuring this. What is your Government doing to reduce the inordinately long waits for such adaptations?

I don't accept there are inordinately long waits. Actually, over the last two Assembly terms, it's improved out of all measure. I don't know if I speak only for my surrounding AMs, but we've had this discussion. Certainly, when I started as an Assembly Member, I had a fairly large postbag full of people waiting for adaptations. I certainly don't have that now because the service has improved out of all measure. So, I don't think waiting is the issue.

There are some quality issues that Angela Burns highlighted, and there are some issues around at what level you get the support. I think there are some issues about, if you're an older person living in your home and you have a couple of steps going down to your garden, how you would know how to get hold of that assistance. We're very keen to make sure that we have the right information out there, that people know how to access the assistance, and they have a relatively simple and user-friendly way of getting hold of it. But I don't accept that there are long delays. That's not what the evidence is showing us.

We have invested just short of £3.5 million into core funding for care and repair agencies to support this work, with a view to making sure that we are not having long waits. Long waits are in no-one's interests, as I said in response to Rhun ap Iorwerth. These are both preventative in the sense that they keep people out of expensive secondary and tertiary services, and ameliorative in that they get people back out of those services as fast as possible. So, in terms of value for money, it's an absolute no-brainer to spend the money on this rather than on the more expensive acute services. But if the Member has any specific examples of long delays, again, I'd be very grateful to hear specifics from her, because that's not our general experience.

Yes. The need for housing continues to outstrip the number of homes available. With borrowing constraints now removed by Westminster—at long last and after much lobbying by us—and record low interest rates, we are working with local authorities to build at scale and pace, for the first time in a generation, to make more homes available across Wales.

Thank you, Minister. As was mentioned here in the Senedd yesterday, we've seen housing developments approved despite them falling outside the settlement boundary of local development plans. A key consideration allowing these is the obvious need for new homes. However, whilst controversial applications are receiving consent, it is true that Wales has an empty property problem. All local authorities in Wales have an empty home strategy and an action plan. Yet, despite this—and I would add that I've been here eight years now, and right from my very first week as an Assembly Member, I was raising concerns about the number of empty properties in Wales that would turn into very good homes for people who are waiting desperately—currently there are around 27,000 private sector and 1,400 social sector empty properties in Wales. Therefore, will you explain what further support you will give to local authorities and other agencies—registered social landlords—to go about helping them to bring these empty properties back into purposeful homes for those who desperately need them?

There's absolutely no excuse whatsoever for anybody in the social housing sector to have a void issue. We provide them with more than sufficient grants to bring those voids back into beneficial use. So, again, if you have specific examples of social housing in that position, I'd be really glad to see it, because there's something going very wrong there. I can assure you that no RSL or LSVT should be in a position where they can't bring their voids back into beneficial use. 

In terms of the private sector, my colleague Lee Waters has been working very hard on a scheme to bring empty properties back into beneficial use by looking at loan schemes and a series of grant schemes so that we can find out why it's empty, find out who the owners are, and then find out what it would need to either buy it off them or bring it back into beneficial use. He's been working very hard on getting a number of pilot schemes running in that area. 

We also encourage local authorities to act properly in terms of their council tax to make sure that they are levying the right amounts of tax on empty homes. It depends why the home is empty and my colleague Rebecca Evans is working very hard on the vacant land tax implications of some of this work. We're very keen that local authorities use all the levers that they have in order to bring homes back into beneficial use. We also have a number of grant schemes. We have schemes designed to bring homes back into beneficial use that private owners can access, and we have schemes for landlords that they can access as well. And if the Member wants to write to me, I'd be more than happy to provide her with details of those schemes. 

I wonder what role the Minister sees modular housing playing in meeting the needs within local authority areas. I was delighted to be able to join her only recently in Maes Glas in Ynysawdre to look at the Valleys to Coast initiative with modular housing, very much on that theme of houses for life that can be adapted and changed as the years go by. Now, that's being developed by a Port Talbot company, Wernick, who are new to this residential market but have a long pedigree within modular construction. And I just wonder how much more we can do to deal with those issues of quality, homes for life and meeting those massive supply needs that we have with different local authority areas, and building local jobs, I have to say, in Port Talbot and locally with me.   

Yes, that was an excellent scheme and a very good visit, and I was very impressed, as I know Huw Irranca-Davies was, at the speed of construction, the niceness of the house—I can't think of another word, but it's just a really lovely home. But I was also very impressed by the ability to add on another unit if you had a growing family, and to actually pick the whole house up and put it down somewhere else if you needed to. It was a very interesting and, I thought, instructive visit, and he's absolutely right—what we are looking to do in Wales is, using Welsh materials with as low a carbon footprint as is humanly possible, build house to passive standard if at all possible, so the bills are £100 or less a year, using local labour in local factories.

And one of the lovely things about modular factories—I haven't visited that one, but I did visit one in Ynys Môn last week—is that no matter what the weather—and although Ynys Môn is very beautiful, the weather was a little inclement, I think it's fair to say; a bit horizontal rain last week—of course, in the factory it was warm and dry and the people could carry on their jobs, they were not having to work at height, and so on. They were constructing the house that would then have its final stage of construction actually on the site, exactly like the programme we saw. 

So, I actually believe that is the future for housing in Wales and, at the moment, we're about to go out to what's called the third iteration of the innovative housing programme, so that was the fruit of the first part of the programme. That will deliver 1,000 new homes across Wales in the next few years. It's got 45 schemes running, and we expect to learn a lot of lessons about the way that we can build at pace and scale using that kind of modular construction. 

Sustainable development is at the heart of the planning system. 'Planning Policy Wales' is clear that environmental issues have parity with social, economic and cultural considerations and, together with technical advice and supporting guidance, provides comprehensive coverage on environmental considerations in the planning system. 

Thank you for that response, because that’s the theory, but I think the practice is slightly different, because as the First Minister made clear in relation to his decision on the M4 that the weighting that he has given to environmental considerations is different to the weighting given to those considerations by the Planning Inspectorate, I think that does highlight an inconsistency, and an important inconsistency, within the system. One does question how many other decisions would have been different if the Planning Inspectorate had given the same weighting to environmental considerations as the First Minister and the Government clearly do now. So, how do you intend to amend or correct the incorrect perception of the Planning Inspectorate of the weighting that should be given to environmental considerations, particularly given the declaration of a climate emergency?

I take the point the Member's trying to make, but I think it's not entirely a fair one. Obviously, when any individual human being brings a judgment to bear on a set of facts, there's an element of subjectivity in that, no matter how objective the rules are that are set out. And one individual gives slightly different weight to something than another for a variety of reasons. But what we try to do in Wales—and we're about to go out to consultation on the national development framework and, as I said yesterday in my submission about regional working for local authorities, we're putting a strategic planning tier in as well—here in Wales we want to have a plan-led system where local people have a big say in what their local plan says, that we assist them to have that very loud say in what their local plan says—every area should look the way its local people want it to look; that's the point of the planning system—but that there are a set of rules that we agree here in the Assembly and in our various tiers of government that are applied to make sure that people have the right considerations in place. So, this is a set of rules that says that environmental considerations have the same weight as the economic, social and other considerations. That is the weight we expect the inspectorate to put on it, and I just recently spoke to the royal institute of town planners and I made very clear what our expectations were for the places of the future and I made it extremely clear that what we want to see are local, sustainable communities with a sense of place, which value their local environment and their local culture and their local economic arrangements, which have sustainable jobs closer to where they live, in a system that allows us to make the best use of Wales's natural resources—so, very much what you said. But what we're doing is putting the plan-led system in place that would allow that to happen.

Now, ideally, you would have put the national development framework in first, but we are where we are. So, we've got a set of LDPs that are going through review at the moment. We will put the national development framework in place in consultation with the people of Wales over the summer and then we will put the strategic bits in place, and, at each one of those, there will be a loud conversation with the people of Wales to make sure that we have that balance right for them, because people in different places put different emphasis on different types of things, depending on local need.

So, I'm sort of agreeing with you, I think, but the element of subjectivity is necessarily there. So, in the end, the decision maker brings that to bear, but they do it in a way that is compliant with the system that's in place and unchallengeable in the sense that they show that they've put that balance right. But there'll always be nuance in that. So, the individual decision maker will always bring that nuance to it. And that's the case for planning committees and for planning inspectors. We would like to see as many decisions as possible made in the planning committees themselves, in the democratically controlled councils that are elected to do these things, and, if we can get that system right, we will see a diminution of the appeals to the Planning Inspectorate and—Llywydd, if you'll forgive me for going on at length about this, but I think it's an important point—we are also, of course, consulting about separating the planning inspectorate for Wales into a separate body for that exact reason, because we want a planning system in Wales that's fit for Wales's future.

I'm struggling to think of anything that the Minister could possibly add to that in a supplementary question. [Laughter.] If I could just ask—. You mentioned in the middle of your speech there, Minister, the need to build houses for the future. I've had correspondence with one of my constituents—. I don't want to go into the individual planning applications, but the local authority has turned down a modern eco house—or is in the process of doing that—on the basis that the land within which it's being built also contains a derelict building that they say should be done up first. My constituents have raised a valid point, which is, surely, now that we've got the climate change emergency and we're talking about environmental concerns—is there a need to overhaul planning guidance to local authorities so that the climate emergency and the need for environmental concerns are factored into it at a far greater level, so that, if someone does want to build an eco-friendly house, then surely that should be pushed a little bit higher up the agenda so that we are getting homes that are more helping with the decarbonising agenda?

Well, I'm not going to comment on the individual planning application, about which I know nothing, and so I'm going to make my remarks much more general. But we changed—. Actually, my colleague Lesley Griffiths, one of the last thing she did as the planning Minister was to issue the new 'Planning Policy Wales' document, which fundamentally changes the planning system in Wales, which, I think—. People are talking about a review; we've just fundamentally changed the system, and, if you haven't read it, I recommend it to you. It is not a dry planning document. It's a very living document, which fundamentally shifts the landscape in Wales that we're talking about, and it does it in the way that you've just outlined. So, it talks about the sustainability of placemaking, it talks about using local resources in the best way, it talks about the development of proper planning processes with local people at the heart of it.

And, as I've just said, we're also putting the rest of that framework into place now. We will shortly be consulting over the summer on the national development framework. I encourage all Assembly Members to engage with that and come back to us with both their own and their constituents' comments on that plan. And, as I said yesterday, I've started to outline a process by which we want local authorities to put the strategic layer of plans in place. People have to be at the heart of that process, because it's their place that they're making and what we want to ensure is that the citizens of Wales feel that their planning system properly represents them. The individual decisions are then made in the light of the weight of the documents that their locality has put in place. So, if you don't engage with your local development plan process, you will not have a say in what those rules are when they come to each individual planning application. So, we need to strengthen that voice because I think often it's the case that a local community only realises when an individual planning application comes forward that there's an issue and they don't engage with the plan part of that process in quite the way we'd like. So, I very much welcome views on how we might get a better engagement so that people own their plan in a much more realistic way.

Not only for humans but for animals as well, please. Apart from acting as boundaries and keeping animals inside fields, the hedgerow is an important habitat for a wide variety of animals and plants. As woodlands have been destroyed over the years, a lot of wildlife in them has adapted to living underneath hedgerows and in hedgerows. Will the Minister ensure that, for planning rules, they give due regard to the protection of both the urban and the rural wildlife by conserving and creating the habitats that sustain these creatures?

Yes. I think that's a very valid point, and, as each local development plan goes through, those are the sorts of considerations that the planners and the councillors in each local area should be giving to the preservation of their local landscape. My colleague the Minister for environment has recently been consulting widely on the protection of countryside—things such as hedgerows—and we will certainly be taking that into account.

Certainly. Developments of national significance is a specific process where defined categories of infrastructure planning applications are made to the Welsh Ministers rather than local planning authorities. Since the process was introduced in 2016, four such applications have been made and were determined within the statutory time frame.

Thank you for your answer, Minister. There is an impending large-scale incinerator application proposal at Buttington Quarry in Powys, which has prompted me to look at the relevant planning guidance. Now, I was quite surprised to see this proposal because it is in a particular site where there's no other large industry at that rural location. When the application is submitted, the scale of it means that it will be decided under the developments of national significance process. Can I ask you to look at national waste strategy as a whole to ensure that waste is dealt with strategically for Wales's needs, and also in the most environmentally conscious way possible? I think the Welsh Government needs to take some time to consider whether the current processes and rules surrounding large-scale incinerator applications are fit for purpose, and, in doing so, develop a national plan. Having noted the lack of a national plan myself, I certainly feel that a moratorium on all applications for incinerators should be put in place when a full and detailed review is carried out ahead of a plan being developed.

I'm not going to comment on the individual application; I don't know anything about it, anyway. As far as I'm aware, it's not being done under the developments of national significance route, but if it is, it is. I'm not aware of it, so I'm not going to comment on that.

My colleague Hannah Blythyn is actually undertaking a review of our 'Towards Zero Waste' strategy with a view to looking again at the circular economy in Wales. And, in her debate response only last week, she talked about the work that we're going to be doing towards that. Certainly, the end disposal of any waste that's remaining will be part of that relook. Obviously, a circular economy wouldn't have any waste in it and so there'd be a falling need for end-of-life disposal of that sort. So, we will be looking again at our 'Towards Zero Waste' policy, with a view to implementing as much of a circular economy in Wales as possible.

The rapid delivery of housing adaptations is key to helping people stay independent in their own home. We are working with colleagues in the health services, local authorities and the voluntary sector to tackle the complexity that can sometimes hamper speedy adaptations.

Thank you, Minister, and, in some ways, this question follows on from the earlier question from Rhun, and you mentioned earlier that we both have just come from an event organised by the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, and they were talking about this very issue. I won't repeat what you and others have already said about the benefits of adaptations, but we all face the challenge of delivering those adaptations in good time, and the royal college are recommending a categorised approach to adaptation work focused on person-centred outcomes, driven by the level of complexity of each person's needs. So, can I therefore ask you: do you broadly endorse the guide to planning and delivering home adaptations differently in Wales from the royal college? And can you tell me whether you'll be working with them to see how the recommendations in their report can be effectively delivered?

Yes, it's very good. I haven't read it all since lunchtime, but I've had a flick through and it certainly does look very good. I very much welcome the guide, which certainly will help housing providers consider how to provide a wider range of adaptations to their tenants, using an assessment that reflects the complexity of a person's needs and the adaptation they require. Obviously, the guide is aimed at reducing delays in the delivery of adaptations by providing tools that support proportionate responses and making more effective use of occupational therapists in particular, since it's done by the Royal College of Occupational Therapists. And it echoes our preventative approach to adaptations that I outlined in my answer to Rhun. I do think that the royal college makes a very pertinent point about the best use of scarce resource.

So, the example that the speaker before me was making was that, if you need a grab rail in your house, then you need somebody who can fit a grab rail and yourself to say where you need it; you do not need an occupational therapist to come and tell you where to put it. What you need is some common sense. On the other hand, if you need adaptations for the way that you get in and out of a complex seat or bed, for example, you may well need an occupational therapist to be able to work out the best way for you to stay as independent as possible. And she was making the valid point that they are best placed to say which of those pieces of advice they would be best placed to give, and there are a range of other experts who need to be involved in that. And, as I said in response to a number of other Members who've raised this issue today, I very much welcome details from around the country, if you have any, of any things that are particularly good, as well as any issues that are coming back. And Julie Morgan and I have had a number of meetings with care and repair agencies in Wales looking at what data is coming back so that we can make the best use of scarce resources.

Thank you, Minister.

The next item, therefore, is topical questions. The first question is for the education Minister and the question is to be asked by Bethan Sayed.

I met with the chair of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales yesterday for confirmation that the council is engaging with the university and monitoring its financial position in accordance with the council's regulatory and financial responsibilities. The university, as an independent, autonomous institution, made a public statement about the delayed publication and confirmed it has no bearing on its financial well-being or performance.

Thank you for the answer. I thought it was important to raise this issue again, given some of the reports that emerged last week, and I appreciate that you've met with HEFCW. But I wanted to put on record that we all value the work that the university does, but that's one of the main reasons why I wanted to raise this again, as has my colleague Helen Mary Jones. And we can't be satisfied with the public statements that have come so far regarding the administrative and management issues at the university. I think that it's our role to scrutinise that particular aspect, and I think it's entirely appropriate for that to happen. Because, as much as any education Minister across the world may say that universities are autonomous bodies, they're also in receipt of public funds, and therefore cannot be above scrutiny or oversight, and, in my view, have a public duty to be more forthright.

So, the suspensions of senior management at the university began late last year, and it's around six months later and we're still not at all clear on the specifics of what happened and why any investigation is still ongoing. If you could provide more clarity on that, it would be much appreciated. Myself and colleagues have been approached by staff at the university who have told us that the investigation is being purposely delayed. Now, I'm not going to comment on the accuracy of that, but that is what they have told me in e-mails. So, an estimate of when we should expect the findings of an investigation and a publication of any report would be welcome, if you could provide it. You've mentioned that you've talked to HEFCW and they're satisfied with the way in which it's carrying out its work, but do you understand that all appropriate stages that are outlined within HEFCW's control have been exhausted, and do you believe that it's not the right time to think about the nature of any intervention that's taken place so far?

I'm also concerned that, to my knowledge, the university court has not been convened this year. Its meeting in February was cancelled, and I was told that a new meeting was being planned for May, but, as far as I know, I haven't had an e-mail telling me when any new meeting takes place, which is where it's an opportunity for AMs to scrutinise them. So, I would like reassurances from you—are you personally satisfied with progress in any investigation, that HEFCW are taking the necessary steps of oversight, and that Swansea University is not having any systematic problems? What time frame would you tolerate as the education Minister in drawing conclusions to any of these investigations?

Just to finish, I think, on a broader level, these incidents, where the public, students and many of the staff of the university are largely unaware of what's happening—I'd like you to comment as to whether you think that's appropriate. I've said before we should have a wider governance review of Welsh universities in terms of the oversight arrangements so that we can understand fully what's happening and that we understand that, given the significant amount of public money involved—that the public and those working at university, more fundamentally, understand what's happening as part of these processes. Because while we understand that you don't have direct control, we also need to understand that we have all of these overarching policies in place where we can scrutinise exactly what's happened here. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Of course I'm aware of the situation at Swansea University and am monitoring the situation and have had regular updates from HEFCW. In my meeting with the chair of the higher education funding council yesterday, I asked a direct question as to whether he and the council had any concerns around the processes that had been employed by Swansea University in dealing with the disciplinary cases that we are all aware of, and the chair confirmed to me that they had no concerns regarding the processes undertaken by Swansea University. I take the chair's word for it when he tells me that.

With regard to a wider governance review of the entirety of the higher education sector, I'm sure the Member is aware of the contents of my remit letter to HEFCW this year, which calls upon them to undertake such a review. That work has already begun, and we will look to work with HEFCW and our institutions in Wales to see that that review strengthens corporate governance in the sector, ahead of, of course, our wider set of post-compulsory education and training reforms where we will look to abolish HEFCW and establish a new commission that will have a regulatory and a governance role, not only for higher education, but also for further education and, indeed, all providers of post-compulsory education in our nation.

I agree with Bethan Sayed that once an institution, whether it's an autonomous body or not, is in receipt of public funds, it has an accountability to this place, either through yourself or through us directly. I just want to follow up on the comments you made about the conversations that you've had with HEFCW, because, actually, I think this is where, as an Assembly, we can be asking some questions. You just said that they have no concerns about the processes that Swansea University has been following during this rather sorry period, and you were happy to take their word for it. Well, the fact that we're standing here asking this question shows that there should be some concerns about those processes. What exactly did they tell you that they had done in order to satisfy themselves of the processes that Swansea had followed? Because it may well be that this seven-month delay in putting the accounts forward is the only thing that they've done wrong, but I would be pretty astounded if anyone just took their word for that. So, perhaps you can give us a bit more detail on that.

The university, of course, in recent years, has done phenomenally well in improving its status and its reputation throughout the world, and the work that it's done has done nothing but impress me in recent years. However, in 2016-17, its income from student sources had already started to fall, which made me wonder whether, perhaps, some of the more recent bad news, if you like, had started to affect confidence in the institution. So, I'm wondering if you've got any views on this issue of confidence in the good name of the university, not least because it is one of the major players in the Swansea bay city deal. So, this is not just about the learners and their individual futures, because it's not just student money that's going into this place at the moment. There's UK Government, Welsh Government and private sector money all being put into the city deal on the basis that this is a fantastic institution with whom they can do business. Obviously, we don't want to undermine that, so perhaps you can give us a little bit of reassurance on that front.

And then finally from me, it's been a stated ambition of the university to make major investment in its estate that will dominate its financial position for the next 10 years. Now, we're talking about long-term investment, particularly in capital estate here. The fact that we haven't got a one-year financial report submitted in time is a cause for concern longer term as well, in that case. And then I just go back to that initial question about what it was that you did ask HEFCW, because if they're not worried about that specific financial question, then I would be worried. Thank you.

HEFCW have no concerns over the financial status and stability of the institution. Their risk board, I understand, meets next month, and I was given no indication that they will change their attitude and their rating of Swansea University as a result. Clearly, they are engaged with Swansea around the late publication of financial statements. As you will be aware, the university has made a public statement saying that the reasons behind the delay have no bearing on its financial well-being or performance. Rather, the delay is due to the further work being required related to an internal audit, and the ongoing internal inquiry at the university. HEFCW is engaged with the university to monitor the cause of the delay, and it is important that they are then able to address the issues as soon as possible, relating to the internal investigation, after which they will then be in a position to publish their financial statements.

With regard to that process, I have not been presented with any evidence to suggest to me that the processes undertaken by the registrar at Swansea University are the incorrect processes, and HEFCW are satisfied themselves and have reported to me that they believe that the processes undertaken by the registrar and the university are the correct processes. Clearly, when dealing with such sensitive personnel issues related to individuals' livelihoods and reputations, those processes need to be robust and they need to be fair, and sometimes they take longer to work their way through the various stages than perhaps any of us would like. But I am clear and I have not been presented with any evidence that suggests that the processes that have been undertaken have been unfair or have not followed correct procedures.

Can I associate myself with the comments the Member made about the success of Swansea University? The university has performed extremely strongly in a whole variety of ways—academically, and the impact that it's had on the city has been significant. I am confident that the university will continue to play a really, really important role, not just in educating its students but helping us to develop our research capacity to be able to help provide meaningful employment opportunities and business opportunities within the city and the region. I understand from colleagues that issues around the city deal are moving forward.

Thank you, Minister. The next question is to be answered by the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport, and the question is from Andrew R.T. Davies.

Well, Llywydd, this is clearly very disappointing news for the company and its workforce, and our thoughts are with the families and the employees at this difficult time. Welsh Government officials spoke to the business yesterday and are ready to support all affected staff through our Working Wales programmes, Jobcentre Plus, and the citizens advice bureau.

Thank you for that answer, Deputy Minister. As you said, this is very disappointing news to say the least in an area that has lost substantial jobs over recent years: Barclays and Tesco, for example, and now this particular site, which has been a bakery for many decades—not just years, but many decades. It is an announcement that obviously they're looking to reconfigure the site and turn it into a distribution hub, so there will be a retention of jobs if the proposals go through the consultation process and are agreed. But can you confirm, Deputy Minister, whether there were any approaches to Welsh Government to see whether there might be support available to retain manufacturing capacity here? As I understand it, the manufacturing capacity is moving to other sites that the company owns in the UK.

Secondly, from those conversations that you have had with the company—or your officials have had with the company—has the company taken up the Welsh Government's offer to support workers in this transition, which I appreciate is subject to consultation, and obviously that process has to be undertaken? But, by the announcement, there do seem to be—regrettably, if it's carried out—significant job losses, so it's important that workers at the plant fully understand that that support will be made available at the earliest opportunity, and that the company is allowing access to Welsh Government support, should it be required.

Thank you for that question. As I said, we share the disappointment of the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union, who are deeply disappointed with the news too. As far as we understand it, this is a straightforward commercial decision. The nature of the market for bread has changed. Demand has reduced as people's diets are changing and people are eating less bread. The company, therefore, is looking to consolidate its production on other sites to make sure that all of its units are profitable.

We are pleased that they are, at least, going to be retaining a significant number of jobs on the site to make it into a logistics hub. We will be working with the company, as I mentioned, through our Working Wales and Jobcentre Plus projects to see if we can find employment for those who face redundancy if, as you say, the consultation continues as we anticipate it will. As we do have a developed sector in the Welsh Government on food and drink, we are going to see what we can do to match those people who may be laid off into other jobs in the existing sector, to make sure that those skills aren’t lost to the Welsh economy or to the industry.

I'm also very concerned about the workers at Allied Bakeries, where there has been, as we've heard, a very long tradition of baking on and near that site in that part of Cardiff, and I'm pleased to hear the Deputy Minister talking about the need to focus on the skills that the workers have there. While it would be positive if jobs are kept there in a distribution centre, that's not the same as the skills that have been developed over many years in baking. These are very skilled workers.

This is the latest piece of bad news after many instances of job losses and threats to jobs in the south-east of Wales. Even in the capital city, this is a significant number of jobs. One must consider the pressure that this puts on the Government's ability to deal with these announcements by various companies in terms of putting various schemes into place, working with Jobcentre Plus, working with implementing ReAct schemes, and so on. Will the Minister give an assurance that thought will be given—and consideration will be given—to providing additional resources and increasing the capacity within Welsh Government in order to deal with blow after blow, and to make sure that workers, wherever they are affected in the Welsh economy, are given the support that they need to look for new employment?

Certainly, we announced yesterday in the supplementary budget that we are increasing resources to be able to be nimble enough to respond to the changing needs of the economy as we hit increasingly turbulent times. But certainly in this case, this is simply a matter of the market changing. This was a factory, as I understand it, that produced bread. It didn't produce other pastries or higher premium products. As the company made clear in the press quotes, they lost a contract for an own-label bread supply to a supermarket and, simply, demand is shifting, and there is simply not the work for the company as a whole to justify keeping as many bread-producing factories running. So, I don't think that there's a great deal that the Government can do in situations like that. This is the nature of the market. However, there are things that we can do to make sure, as I said, that the skills of the Welsh workers are redeployed to make sure that our food and drink sector remains vibrant and viable.  

I'm going to move on now to the 90-second statements. The first 90-second statement is by Elin Jones, celebrating 50 years of Sali Mali.

Sali Mali is 50 today. On this day in 1969, the first Sali Mali book was published by Cymdeithas Lyfrau Ceredigion, as part of the Darllen Stori series. In those days, books in the Welsh language for young children were very rare indeed and I, like others, was very lucky to be able to learn to read with the help of Sali Mali.

Sali Mali was the creation of Mary Vaughan Jones, and Rowena Wyn Jones was the illustrator. What a contribution by these two to the Welsh language and to reading by creating a character with such longevity, who captured the imagination of generations of young children and their teachers, and do so to this day. Mary Vaughan Jones was also responsible for the characters Jac y Jwc, y Pry Bach Tew and Jaci Soch. These were my childhood friends, and thinking about them today warms my heart.

Sali Mali also became a tv superstar, through animated series and the Caffi Sali Mali series on S4C. Ifana Savill wrote the television series, and it was she and her husband who established Pentref Bach in Blaenpennal in Ceredigion, which became a television set and a holiday destination for families, so that children could live Sali Mali’s life.

Sali Mali visited the Senedd and sat in the Llywydd’s chair during the Urdd Eisteddfod recently, and tonight the Senedd will be bathed in orange to celebrate her birthday. Thank you to those who had the vision to create her, and happy birthday, Sali Mali.

And the next 90-second statement to follow that is Mick Antoniw on World Humanist Day, 21 June 2019. 

Thank you for that. In a world of increasing intolerance and division, and in a world undergoing dramatic technological and social change, it is sometimes easy to become entrenched in narrow beliefs and to ignore the expanse of thought and 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 greatest thinkers and creative artists and science itself.

Humanism is ethical. It affirms the worth, dignity and autonomy of the individual and the right of every human being to the greatest possible freedom compatible with the rights of others. In many respects, humanism has similarities to religion.  However, the key difference is that humanists recognise that the power to resolve problems lies exclusively in our hands, through rational analysis and the use of science.

Those who are not religious have much to contribute to the values on which our society is based and to its future direction. By fully recognising humanism as a civic ethic in all our social and public institutions, we can harness the potential of unencumbered thought for the benefit of all.

So, on Friday, we celebrate World Humanist Day, when we recognise our common humanity and obligations to one another. It is a day for promoting and celebrating the progressive values of humanism as a philosophical life stance and means to effect peaceful, collective and consensual change in the world. 

And the next 90-second statement will be from Vikki Howells on LGBT Pride Month 2019 and the twentieth anniversary of the very first Cardiff Pride. 

June is LGBT Pride Month, and an occasion for LGBT+ people to celebrate advances in their rights around the world. It's also a chance to raise awareness of current issues facing the community. 2019’s event is particularly poignant, coming as it does in the month marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Stonewall riots.

Closer to home, there is also a significance to Pride this year, as Pride Cymru celebrates its twentieth anniversary. The first such event, then Cardiff Mardi Gras, took place in September 1999 and it drew 5,000 people to Cooper's Field in the heart of the city. In the period since, there have been ups and downs. But thanks to the persistence of volunteers, Pride Cymru as it was re-branded in a potent symbol of its national importance, has grown in strength. It now hosts 50,000 participants over three days, bringing visitors from all around Wales, the UK, and indeed the world, into the city, generating over £2.5 million for the local economy, and seeing 16,000 people marching through Cardiff in the cause of equality—the march itself being a much-loved addition since 2012.

2019 will see Pride Cymru gain its place as the fifth largest Pride in the UK. It will also look ahead to EuroPride 2025, which Cardiff will host, and which has just attracted 0.5 million people to Vienna, this year’s venue. But, as both Cardiff Pride and the National Assembly for Wales celebrate their twentieth birthdays, there is a chance for us to reflect on the association between devolution and equality.

I'm going to move on to item 5, a motion to annul the National Health Service (Welsh Language in Primary Care Services) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2019. And I call on Dai Lloyd to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. And I move the motion on the annulment of the regulations on primary care and the Welsh language. The primary care sector—dentists, opticians, pharmacists, and GPs—are responsible for 90 per cent of patient experiences in the health service, and, indeed, it’s the starting point for most on their journey on the care pathway. These are the most vulnerable people, with the greatest need, where receiving treatment through the medium of Welsh can be crucial, such as in the case of those with dementia, or young children who speak no other language other than the Welsh language.

The Government pledged in the spring of last year, in exempting primary care providers from the standards for the rest of the health service, that specific regulations would be introduced in order to secure rights for the Welsh language in primary care through the service contracts. But, we are here today looking at regulations that don't provide any statutory rights, or even half a statutory expectation, of receiving face-to-face services through the medium of Welsh for patients. At best, over time, we will see a few new Welsh signs as a result of these new regulations. There is nothing here: no rights, no expectations, and no change.

A quarter of a century since the passing of the Welsh Language Act 1993, and eight years since the passing of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 that established official status for the language, and seven years since the Government adopted 'More than Just Words', which committed them to providing health services through the medium of Welsh proactively, these limp regulations don't even provide the most basic things such as noting the language of choice of the patient—something that is crucial to plan Welsh language services. What’s the purpose of encouragement? Even if the will, the time and the resources were available to the health boards to ensure that encouragement was there, these regulations don't even require a record. They don't ensure any actionable legal right of any value. And neither do they provide assurances of having a Welsh language service, even when that is a matter of clinical need. That, in and of itself, just shows how deficient these regulations are, and why they need to be annulled and redrafted.

But on top of that, the Minister has shown the same disregard for this Senedd, and democracy, in introducing these regulations, as he shows to the linguistic needs of the most vulnerable people in our society in terms of the content of the regulations. He didn't attend committee to respond to questions. He’s even refused the request of my colleague Delyth Jewell, who is a member of the committee, to discuss the way forward before today's debate. Such is his disregard for the Welsh language, he hadn't even bothered to translate the explanatory memorandum for these regulations into Welsh at the time of their introduction, although it was only five pages long. So, in introducing language duties, the department has gone against its own language responsibilities. You couldn't make it up.

But what is clear is that the Government is concerned about the views of the profession. Indeed, the only bodies listed in the explanatory memorandum as bodies that were consulted by Government are the five professional bodies. It’s clear that their views are more important than those of the elected representatives of this place. They had far longer than 21 days to have their say; indeed, they had over a year. The Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee had to insist on holding a very brief inquiry within the 21 days they had, and seven of those days were during recess. If a committee Chair doesn't deserve the respect of this Government, then who does? To whom are they accountable? This is no way to treat our national Parliament.

So, rather than having an open, transparent debate on these issues, in order to ensure the best for our patients and users of the Welsh language, we have a Government that has done everything within its power to avoid accountability to this Senedd on the content of these regulations. I, as Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, the Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, and the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee have complained, but you haven't listened. It is damning. The strategies and the warm words have failed. Now is not the time for first steps and encouragement; it is time to have far firmer regulations in order to safeguard and expand the rights of Welsh speakers. Members of the Assembly have the opportunity to ensure that today by supporting the annulment of these regulations.

We will be supporting this motion to annul these regulations, not on the basis of their content, but because of the fact that the scrutiny role of the Assembly has been ignored. Personally, I feel that it’s easy for practitioners to adhere to the regulations—someone else is paying for them and they're not challenging. I don't want to impose standards on small businesses, even directly, but these are simple steps to take, which cost next to nothing, and it’s embarrassing, in a way, that we need legislation at all for these steps. But, other people may think that they should be more challenging or less challenging or completely different. We don't know, because there has been insufficient time to scrutinise these regulations. If the Chairs of two committees say to the Welsh Government that they need more time, well, we should have more time for scrutiny. We're the ones who are legislating; we're the ones who decide on the legislation.

And also, we've already been holding our noses from having received assurances from the Government about the acceptability of some secondary legislation from the United Kingdom in devolved areas, without looking at them ourselves. We shouldn't have to do that with secondary legislation put forward by our own Government. We've opposed time after time attempts by the Welsh Government to justify the use of the negative procedure for secondary legislation on the basis that this Senedd doesn't have the time to scrutinise or because any changes are technical in nature, and we've had enough of that. The way that these regulations were put forward proves our point. Will you respect the Senedd and support today’s motion? Thank you.

I call on Bethan Sayed, Chair of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee.

I thank Dai Lloyd for tabling this motion. I want to start by emphasising the importance of these regulations. They are supposed to take us closer to delivering primary healthcare services in Welsh—something that was acknowledged by everyone who came and spoke to the committee as a necessity, not merely a preference, for some people. For vulnerable patients, it can be vital to talk to their doctor in their first language. Although I personally believe that the regulations should be annulled, committee members were divided on this, and I should make it clear that I am speaking on behalf of the committee.

But before talking about the content of the regulations, I want to discuss the way in which they were laid before the Assembly. In March of last year, the committee scrutinised the standards regulations relating to the Welsh language and the health sector, and was told by the Minister for the Welsh language at the time that we would be given more than the minimum 21 days to consider these regulations.

The committee clerk wrote to the Welsh Government three times to ask about the timing of the regulations and to confirm that we would have more than 21 days to scrutinise them. After having no reply, the committee clerk was told on the phone that they would be coming forward 'before Easter' and then 'before the end of May'. Without any prior warning, they were then laid on 9 May and came into force on 30 May.

The Government has failed badly in its handling of these regulations. When I wrote to the Minister for Health and Social Services to point out that the timing meant that the committee had only 10 working days to consult stakeholders, to discuss and report on the regulations before they came into force, I received a most unsatisfactory reply. The Minister replied that 

'under Standing Orders 21 and 27, there is no provision for a Committee other than the responsible Committee...to report on an instrument subject to the negative procedure.'

This completely disregards the fact that we, as a committee, have been signalling our intention to scrutinise these regulations for over 12 months.

The health Minister gave a more gracious response to the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on the same issue.  Mick Antoniw was told:

‘Previous amendments to these Regulations have not gathered the same level of interest and I have asked my officials to ensure in future, if they involve the Welsh language, we alert and engage with CWLC earlier in the process.’

Dai Lloyd has already raised the issue of an explanatory memorandum to regulations on Welsh language service provision being laid in English only. It would be amusing if it was not so disrespectful. I note that the health Minister also writes that his officials have, and I quote,

'reached agreement in principle that we will progressively increase the number of explanatory memoranda for statutory instruments that are laid in Welsh before the Assembly.'

Is such a weak commitment the most we can expect from a Government with ambitions to reach a million Welsh speakers by 2050?

As a committee we want the Welsh Government to commit to giving us the opportunity to scrutinise all legislation relating to Welsh language duties on primary care providers before it is made or laid in the Assembly. I would assume it goes without saying that all supporting documents should be presented bilingually, but in this case I’ll say it for the record.

With regard to consultation, before moving onto the content of the regulations, I want to record our concerns about the consultation process. The Welsh Government formally consulted the representative bodies of doctors, dentists, opticians and pharmacists, and so on. We were told that discussions were held with the Welsh Language Commissioner, none of which are in the public domain. I'm shocked that the Government has failed to consult the most important group, namely the patients. The fact that patients were not consulted about services in Welsh speaks volumes about which stakeholders the Government value. The committee calls for the regulations to be amended following further consultation that must include patient bodies and the Welsh Language Commissioner.

In terms of the requirements, I'd like to talk about what duties will be imposed on primary care providers and the opinions of those providers on the relevant duties. The regulations only go so far as ensuring that providers make forms available in Welsh and that new signs are available through the medium of Welsh, and that they encourage Welsh speakers and learners to wear a badge, encourage staff to attend awareness training courses and record the language preference of a patient.

In our previous report, we wrote of our concerns that there is still no right to receive face-to-face services in Welsh, and that the right to receive a service in the language of the individual’s choice should be an established principle in the public sector in Wales. I still feel this way, and I'm pleased to say that the committee members agreed that the Welsh Government should work towards developing this capacity. 

I have a great deal of things to add, but I'm aware that time is against me. We are disappointed at the weakness of these regulations, and the lack of oversight, the concerns raised by the professional bodies, and the lack of consultation with patients and the commissioner. All these elements add up to regulations that manage to be both late and rushed.

This has been described as a ‘first step’ on a journey towards greater provision of primary care services in Welsh, but this is worrying. If the direction of travel is not agreed, if the costs are not transparent and if the providers are not on board, then the journey can’t even begin. I urge the Welsh Government to consult again and to revise these regulations.

I call on Mick Antoniw, Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. 

Thank you. We considered these regulations at our meeting on 20 May 2019 and we reported on both the technical and merits points to the Assembly. We welcome that the Welsh Government has accepted the technical reporting point relating to the drafting of the regulations, and that it proposes to rectify the issue by means of a correction slip.

With regard to the merits points, we noted that these regulations impose six contractual duties relating to the Welsh language on contractors who provide primary care services to the NHS. This  contrasted with the 121 Welsh language standards applicable to other health service providers. The Welsh Government’s response to our report stated that the duties imposed by these regulations are the first duties relating to the Welsh language to apply to independent primary care providers, and that they are distinct from the Welsh language standards applicable to local health boards and NHS trusts.

We further noted that the regulations into which these additional duties are inserted make it clear that they are part of the contractual duties of contractors from 30 May 2019. However, there is nothing in the explanatory memorandum or accompanying the explanatory memorandum to explain that the amendments apply to all contracts from that date and are not limited to new contracts entered into after that date. The Welsh Government responded to this point by saying it had consulted and corresponded with the applicable representative bodies of the independent primary care providers, and that it was satisfied that the relevant bodies are aware that the duties are not limited to new arrangements entered into after the date on which the regulations came into force. 

In addition to our usual report, we also wrote to the Minister to support the concerns raised by the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, of which I am also a member. And I note that the Minister has said, in his reply to us last week, that he had asked his officials to ensure engagement with committees much earlier in the process for future regulations. And I take this opportunity to emphasise again, to all of Welsh Government, the importance of engaging with the relevant subject committees on significant regulations, particularly where a committee has sought that engagement.

And I have further points. I have great sympathy with the points that have been made by Dai Lloyd and to the procedural inadequacies that have occurred, particularly when it comes to the ability to properly scrutinise regulations that come before this Assembly. That is a fundamental part of the parliamentary process, and the concern that has been raised is one that I think was shared across the board, both in the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and also on the Welsh language and culture committee on which I sit. There are those of us who I think fell short of supporting the idea of annulment, but primarily because of the damage that we felt it might do, or the implications of not proceeding with regulations that seek to advance the interest of the Welsh language. But that should not mean that there isn't a warning shot across the bows of Government, that if procedures are not properly followed, if there is not proper opportunity for scrutiny, then the issue of annulment is one that is taken seriously, I think, by our committee structure. And I think on future occasions it may be something that we consider. So, I would certainly seek an assurance from today that those lessons have been learnt, that that constitutional importance is recognised, and this is something that will not happen again during the course of parliamentary processes in this Assembly.

The provision of health services through the medium of Welsh is essential. For some patients it is not a matter of language choice—it is their only option. This is why my group and I support the intention behind these regulations. As the Welsh Language Commissioner rightly points out, these regulations are an important first step towards greater provision of health and social care services in Welsh.

It is important, however, that we get the right balance of meeting the needs of patients without reinforcing perceptions that in order to work in NHS Wales you have to speak fluent Welsh. This was one of the concerns raised by health professionals in the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee last week. And while I am of the opinion that these regulations do strike the right balance, I accept that it is not just me who needs to be convinced—it’s those working in primary care, those on the front line delivering services, who need to buy into the regulations.

It was therefore disappointing that the Welsh Government chose to use the negative procedure, and allow just the bare minimum of 21 days for scrutiny. This didn’t allow time to consult with patient groups, the professional bodies representing the health and care workforce or the service providers. And it is for this reason that my group will be abstaining on the motion to annul. I don’t think the Government should revoke these regulations, however, I would urge the Minister to work with providers to ensure that we have them on board.

If we are to improve Welsh language service provision, we must ensure that the regulations have support across the board, and I look forward to the Minister’s response. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Minister for Health and Social Services to speak—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, chair. I'd like to start by thanking Dai Lloyd, the Chair of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, for tabling this motion and providing the opportunity to set out the rationale and importance of putting in place these Welsh language duties for independent primary care contractors as well as, of course, for those primary care services provided directly by the health service.

There's been a high-level of interest by Assembly Members in this piece of legislation, as we've heard this afternoon. Having recognised the specific interest of the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, I did offer the committee a technical briefing, with my officials, which took place on 6 June. I welcome the report that I have now received from the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee, from the meeting on 6 June, into the regulations, and I will of course consider fully and respond to their report from the meeting.

I recognise the comments made today. I have asked by officials to ensure that, in future, when we make regulations about the use of the Welsh language through health and social care, we alert and engage with the specific subject committee but also with the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee earlier in the process. I do recognise the points that have been made, not just about health and social care policy and further policy and regulations, but the comments made about the broader Government approach, because I actually welcome scrutiny from Members in this Chamber. I still remember myself being a backbencher and wanting to take a proper role in the scrutiny process, to challenge and also to improve legislation too. 

But I do wish to place on record my genuine and sincere regret that the Welsh language version of the explanatory memorandum was not laid at the same time as the English version, as it should have been. But I would not want that genuine oversight—and I recognise that I'm not trying to soft-soap or say it didn't happen—I wouldn't want that to detract from the benefits that I believe these duties will have to patients to take part in healthcare in a primary care setting. And here, I think, there is a departure from the argument made by Dai Lloyd in moving the motion.

On a general point, though, regarding the translation of the explanatory memorandum, officials are discussing this with the Assembly Commission officials and reached an agreement in principle that we will progressively increase the number of explanatory memoranda for statutory instruments that are laid in Welsh before the Assembly. Further work is under way to look at the significance of that in terms of the time required in the delivery of legislation and supporting documents to be laid before the Assembly in both official languages.

As has been noted, the duties actually came into force on 30 May, so with the regulations having already been made, passing the motion would mean revoking and having to remake the regulations, which would delay the introduction of the duties. Some Members may not support the scheme or the regulations, but we have worked with not just providers, not just stakeholders in delivering services, including their representative bodies, but the scheme that we have has the support of the previous Welsh Language Commissioner and the current one. 

So, moving on to the duties themselves, the approach to Welsh language duties in the contracts, in terms of service for independent contractors, results from consideration and consultation on the draft Welsh language standards regulations for the health sector in 2016. The consultation responses reported that there was a widespread belief that it was not reasonable to place standards on local health boards that would make them responsible for any failure to comply by one of the independent primary care contractors. That is of course due to how services are delivered under nationally agreed contracts and terms of services. But primary care services delivered directly by local health boards will be subject to the Welsh language standards set out in the compliance notices for individual health boards.

There are practical reasons that need to be explored further—[Interruption.] Yes.

Strangely enough, this is the precise point I made to your officials. If we can set standards that are higher for those primary care services that we directly provide via the various local health boards, why shouldn't those higher standards have been comprehensively looked at in a full consultation with patients and groups like the Welsh Language Society, and before the relevant committee or committees—because, in this case, we're talking about Welsh language rights as well as effective healthcare provision? You ducked that. It's interesting that you're saying—and you're quite right, it was dilatory at the very least not to have published the explanatory memorandum in Welsh at the same time when you laid these regulations. But the real problem is that you're setting a level of standard without scrutiny here. We should have that full debate here. Primary healthcare services are the most direct ones that we receive, and where we would really want to see effective Welsh language rights being championed. 

There's an honest choice to be made about how to introduce these first-step duties, as they have been described. There were practical questions that needed to be explored further about how to set and regulate Welsh language obligations on the thousands of GPs, opticians, pharmacists and dentists who work and deliver care here in Wales—[Interruption.] I remember when the Member was in the Chair, he regularly spoke about noises off from the side and a sedentary position. 

Well, answer the central question. 

I'm trying to explain the approach that we've taken, and I am being genuine and honest in that. Members may not agree with the approach that we have taken, but this is the approach we've taken to introduce for the first time these duties across primary care. And there was consensus in the consultation that the most appropriate way of placing Welsh language duties on primary care providers was to agree these nationally and to include them in the contractual terms of service between contractors and health boards. And that approach used existing contract reporting systems that are familiar to the sector. It was noted that—[Interruption.] I can't; I'm over time already. 

It was noted that, unlike the majority of health sector bodies that are required to comply with the Welsh language standards, independent primary care providers have not previously been subject to Welsh language schemes. So, we've taken this into account with Welsh language skills capacity, capability, recruitment and retention issues in primary care. It's important to introduce the first-step duties in a way that is proportionate and with a supportive environment. The duties being placed on independent primary care providers, like standards for the healthcare sector, are a part of a jigsaw of interventions that support and build upon the firm foundations laid by 'More than just words'.

There was more that I wanted to say, but I recognise that we're now significantly over time, Llywydd. But I would say that I do believe that these duties are a significant step forward in promoting and supporting Welsh language awareness and services in primary care. And I am pleased that representative bodies of independent primary care providers, despite raising some challenges, have agreed on the approach that we're taking. I'd ask Members to vote against the motion today, and not set back the important practical progress that these regulations introduce.  

Dai Lloyd to reply to the debate. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I don't have much time. I will thank everyone who has contributed: Suzy Davies, Bethan Sayed, Mick Antoniw, Caroline Jones, David Melding—I enjoyed that—and, of course, the Minister, although I didn't agree with him.

To conclude, I was going to use this time just to explain in broader terms why this is so important and why the regulations are so insufficient. There is a broader issue here, and that is the clinical value of providing a service in the patient's mother tongue—the people who were absent from your contribution—and that's improving the quality of care. That's the point here, at the end of the day.

The diagnosis that we come to comes on the basis of the history that the patient provides to the doctor or the nurse in 90 per cent of cases. So, the crucial point here is that we find solutions by listening to the words of the patient, and that depends on the fluency of that patient, usually in English, because that's the situation with first-language Welsh speakers. Everyone thinks,

'Oh, you can all speak English'. Yes, but not everyone is confident and fluent, and even confidently fluent, or even have a Melding-esque grasp of nuance and syntax in their second language. 

Because, particularly in the case of children, older people, people with dementia or who've had a stroke, they can lose their second language. Provision in the Welsh language is crucial to improve the quality of healthcare, so that they can tell you exactly what's wrong with them. And, of course, in providing that care, you reduce the use of expensive tests such as blood tests, x-rays, ultrasound, because you've already come to the diagnosis on the basis of the patient's history in their mother tongue. 

Now, the health service is late in the day in recognising the importance of the Welsh language. People have always told me that it's difficult to get a doctor at all, never mind them having to speak Welsh, and we've heard that this afternoon. That's the usual cry that we hear. But even in the city of Swansea there are four doctors in my small practice who are Welsh speakers, never mind the nurses and others, and that's in Swansea. 'It's hard to believe'—that's what most people would say, but it's no surprise, remembering that 31,000 of the patients in Swansea are also Welsh speakers, and they deserve quality provision from the primary care team, without expressing doubts about the dangers of such provision. So, vote in favour of the motion.  

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

Which brings us to the next item, which is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21 on teaching the history of Wales, and I call on Siân Gwenllian to move the motion. 

Thank you, and I'd like to move the motion formally.

Before starting, I’d like to thank, at the beginning of this debate, a few people. Thank you to Suzy Davies for promoting and co-sponsoring this debate, and I look forward to hearing your closing comments. And thank you to those who came to and contributed to a recent seminar that I held here in the Senedd on the history of Wales in the new curriculum. We had an interesting and productive discussion from experts in the field, and we heard presentations from Eryl Owain, from the Welsh history campaign, Euryn Roberts, a historian from Bangor University, Martin Johnes, a historian from Swansea University, as well as other teachers and professors. I’d like to also thank those who’ve shown an interest—a great deal of interest—in this debate today. It’s clear that we have fire in our stomachs to discuss this subject, and I know that the Culture, Welsh Language and Communications Committee has held a ballot to see what issues should be focused upon by them, and Welsh history was a clear winner in that ballot, and I look forward to seeing that committee pursuing its inquiry.

Now, it’s timely to hold this debate today, because the Welsh curriculum is being redrawn. The curriculum circulates around skills, rather than content. There is strength in doing that, but it can lead to problems and we have to be aware of that. Now, history, rather than the history of Wales, is named in a list of subjects that are to be taught under the title ‘humanities’, which is one of the areas of learning and experience. Now, humanities includes geography, history, religious education, sociology, and so on. They are intertwined, and so the Donaldson curriculum doesn’t set out any basis for teaching the history of Wales. And so what concerns me about this—not including the history of Wales specifically within the framework—is there is no certainty that the history of Wales and historical events within the history of Wales will be included in lessons in studying the new curriculum. We need to overturn that, and the new curriculum can be a particular opportunity to ensure that not one pupil loses the opportunity to learn about Welsh history.

I suggest a simple amendment: I suggest that 'history', in that list of subjects, should be changed to 'the history of Wales and the world', so that our assessment and our studies of global history come from the lens of our Welsh perspective. Learning about the history of Wales is vital for our next generations to make them informed and engaged citizens, which is one of the purposes of the new curriculum. At present, there is a requirement in the draft curriculum for a Welsh dimension, and that runs through the whole thing, but that isn’t at the heart of the curriculum and it’s one thread amongst many.

The principle behind the new curriculum is to give freedom to teachers to be creative in teaching their subjects, and that is laudable and shows an acknowledgement and recognition of the ability of our teachers, but there is a danger that the Government’s recommendations will lead to inconsistency and that good practice that is implemented in parts at the moment won’t be shared. So, we need detail with regard to how the new curriculum will be implemented, particularly remembering the cuts that are happening to school budgets.

The important point to bear in mind is that teaching the history of Wales is part of the current curriculum—or it’s meant to be. But we know that thousands upon thousands of pupils have been leaving school with a detailed knowledge of the history of Nazi Germany and the names of the six wives of Henry VIII, but not of the history of their own nation. So, it’s not necessarily legislation, the content or wording of the curriculum that will make the difference in that regard, but it is important that the history of Wales is rooted in the new legislation. But, as I said, legislation alone isn’t going to create the change that we want to see. It’s just as important to develop expertise within the workforce, to provide appropriate training and, importantly, to develop new, exciting resources, building on what is already available. And part of the problem is a lack of knowledge, confidence and awareness within our workforce. Perhaps the teachers themselves haven’t had an opportunity to study the history of Wales at school, and we need to break that cycle.

Talking about the resources, a number of the resources are ones that are England-centric, and there are many resources that aren’t relevant, truth be told. And what is difficult is for teachers to have the time to create appropriate materials and to develop ideas with other teachers. The cuts to school budgets and the lack of staff are making that increasingly difficult, and there is room for universities as well to assist in the work of creating the resources jointly with teachers, but that needs to be supported with funding and we need to provide enough time for that to happen, and we need a training programme on a wide range of issues in developing the new curriculum.

The First Minister said on Tuesday to my colleague, Llyr Gruffydd, that the history of Wales will be a central part of the new curriculum, with sufficient resources to support that work. Excellent. But how can we ensure that? We need a plan, we need work streams and criteria that are going to turn that statement into a reality.

The Welsh identity is alive and well. Increasing numbers of people are proud of their Welshness. People are proud of their roots and want to find out more about who we are as a nation. There is a duty to respond to that; the ambition is clear. We’ve seen the interest amongst our young people, as the murals to remember the drowning of Tryweryn have been raised the length and breadth of the nation, and there’s a great deal of interest in the Twitter feed @1919raceriots, which tweets as if the events of the race riots of Barry and Newport in June 1919 were happening today. And there was excitement around the Tiger Bay musical, which was developed by the Wales Millennium Centre, about the history of the multicultural docks here in Cardiff. Just three examples of bringing our history alive in a creative way and in a real way that fires the imagination and fires young people’s interest in learning more. Every nation needs to learn its own story—what has formed it and what its past is.

Every pupil should receive the same opportunities to learn about the history of Wales in its many forms and many interpretations in a way that challenges them and inspires them. There is a genuine opportunity here with the new curriculum and with the work that is happening around that to redress that, and it’s time for the next generation to learn about our story and our place in the world.

Well, the past informs the future. Many of the myths and legends that have shaped the heritage and culture of Wales refer back to the common past of the Ancient Britons who lived across Britain, named 'Wælisc', or 'Welsh' or 'foreigner' by the invader, but who instead referred to each other as fellow countrymen and women, as 'Cymry'. We sometimes hear about the Roman era, the conquest of Isle of Druids, Caernarfon's Segontium Roman fort, and, more recently, the Roman villas discovered in a settlement on the western shores of modern-day Wales. We hear about the Norman conquest of Wales and the castles they refurbished or built. We need to hear more about that dark bit of history in between, to which so much wonderful heritage relates and where the true origins of the Arthurian legends lie.

It is said that, for a brief moment in time, the Romano-Britons of the west, from Strathclyde to Cornwall and Brittany, stood united against the invader who dared to refer to them as 'foreigners' in their own lands. To reclaim the lost lands and reunite the tribes of Britain was their legacy. The Norman Conquest of Ireland and Britain was driven by the legends of Brutus and Arthur, as rewritten by Geoffrey of Monmouth for his Norman masters. In the winter of 1069-70, 100,000 Britons died in the attempted genocide in northern England by the Normans—the harrying of the north—either from the immediate slaughter and carnage or from the starvation that followed. And yet no memorial stands to mark this terrible loss of life. The rebellions in 1070 by Hereward the Wake in England, in 1294 by Madog ap Llywelyn in Wales, and in 1297 by William Wallace in Scotland were all rebellions by Britons against Norman rule.

Robert the Bruce's father and uncle fought for Norman King Edward I, the 'hammer of the Scots' in the 1282-84 conquest of Wales, owing military service for their English lands. Robert himself is thought to have spent some time at Edward's court during this period and may himself have been involved. In the service of a knight from Flintshire, Sir Gregory Sais, Owain Glyndŵr and his brother Tudur spent a period guarding Berwick-upon-Tweed on the Anglo-Scottish border, and in 1385, Owain and three other family members joined the army that the last Norman king, Richard II, led against Scotland. Having dutifully served this last Plantagenet king, he then plotted with the Percys and the Mortimers to divide the kingdom into three.

Henry VII came from an old established Anglesey family, which claimed descent from Cadwaladr, who was, in legend, the last ancient British king. He was descended through the paternal line from Ednyfed Fychan, the seneschal or steward of Gwynedd, and through the seneschal's wife from Rhys ap Tewdwr, the king of Deheubarth in south Wales. To the bards of Wales, Henry was a candidate for y mab darogan—the son of prophecy—who would free the Welsh from oppression. As such, when he ascended to the throne, he reunited the Romano-Britons in the west with their fellow countrymen and countrywomen—y Cymry in the lost lands to the east.

Henry VII's daughter Margaret married into the Scottish royal family. Her direct descendant was James VI of Scotland, who succeeded Elizabeth I on the throne of England in 1603 and therefore became King James I of a United Kingdom, uniting Scotland with the rest of the UK through inheritance not conquest, the political and economic union passed by the Parliaments of England and Scotland 104 years later. Elizabeth II is a direct descendant of Henry VII via his daughter Margaret, the older sister of Henry VIII.

Flooding of the north Wales village of Capel Celyn in 1965 to create a reservoir to provide water to Liverpool echoed events in Lancashire a century earlier when the chain of Rivington reservoirs were constructed to supply water to Liverpool, with the flooding of many dwellings in local communities and mill and farm land, and, yes, protests in Liverpool.

The economic causes and social impact of modern industrial history are also border blind. After 1970, coal mining practically disappeared in north and south Wales, as well as Northumberland and Durham, Yorkshire, the Scottish central belt, Lancashire, Cumbria, the east and west midlands and Kent. Steelwork closures in 1980 involved Shotton, Consett and Corby. Past myths and present truths such as these combine to provide the foundational legends of our land. The history of Wales and the history of the Britons are therefore intertwined and inseparable, and should be taught to every school pupil in Wales on this basis.

I'm grateful to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, because I hope that history is more to us than simply a list of dates and understanding of the gentry and aristocracy. For me, history is far more than that. It's a history of our people, it's a history of our language, our culture, our geography, our economy. We can't have an economic history without Robert Owen and the impact that he is still having today, and I speak as a Co-operative Member of this Parliament. The culture that was created as a consequence of industrialisation is the culture that I grew up in, and we have to understand certainly the structural, if you like, history of our country.

The Minister will know the history of Cilmeri and its importance to us, and it's important that my son knows that history as well. But the Minister, of course, also, last week, visited the Brinore tramroad in her constituency in Talybont. Now, had the Minister walked along it, then she would've ended up in my constituency in Tredegar, and having walked across the hills and walked through Trefil, she would have passed Chartist cave. Now, I spent 30 years looking for it, I hope she would have more luck. She would have known there the history of Chartist cave where weapons were held before Zephaniah Williams spoke to the people in Tredegar in Twyn Star—he probably spoke in Welsh—and led them on that wet November weekend to the Westgate Hotel in Newport. Those are the things that connect us. They connect Breconshire and Blaenau Gwent and the Heads of the Valleys.

When I was in school, I learnt not only about the industrial revolution—the coincidence of coal, iron ore, timber and water at the Heads of the Valleys that drove an industrial revolution—but I also learned about the history of a people who were created as a consequence of that industrial revolution and a culture that was created by that people. I learnt about the red flag being held aloft by the workers of Merthyr, and I learnt about why they were doing that. I also learnt about the 'black domain' of the Scotch Cattle that enforced the strikes in Tredegar.

I also learnt where the ironworks were in Tredegar. There's no sign there today, but there is a gate to the old NCB works, which tells us another story about our history. That is a history that wasn't necessarily on the curriculum, but it was given to me by inspiring teachers. I still call Mr Darkins 'Mr Darkins' and not 'Jeff'. He inspired me to learn about the Chartists and he inspired me to learn about who we were and where we come from. And PJ—Peter Morgan Jones—who taught us all about the history of what Wales happens to be; he spent time talking to us about Father Ignatius, of course, in Capel-y-ffin, as well. So, we have a cultural, historical and religious history, far more than simply something that happens in a classroom and revolves around dates.

I hope that the Minister, in replying to this debate, would talk to us about what she has called in her work 'cynefin', which I think is a wonderful, untranslatable word that talks to us about where we come from, where we live, where our family lives and where our people live. I hope that the cynefin concept, the idea that we are what we have been made, is something that won't be limited to a history lesson. I hope it'll be a part of our economic lessons, I hope it'll be a part of our geography lessons, I hope it'll be a part of our language lessons, I hope it'll be a part of creating a citizen who understands not only what happened and when, but how that has impacted us today.

Let me say this in closing. I think we need to find a way of doing this outside school as well. Because Mr Darkins and PJ taught me as much outside the classroom as they did within the classroom, by inspiring us to find out more. Everybody of my generation understands and remembers Gwyn Alf and Wynford Vaughan-Thomas arguing across the country and through the generations in The Dragon Has Two Tongues. One of the first protests I went on was to remember the Merthyr rising and to remember what happened there. He spoke then about his personal history as a son of Dowlais, but he also spoke about his experiences on the beaches of Normandy, fighting what he described as the people's war against fascism—again, that resounds down the ages.

History is not always comfortable and not always convenient and not always easy. We are remembering at the moment the race riots in Cardiff. I spoke to people at home in Tredegar about remembering a century after the anti-Jewish riots in 1911. They didn't want to remember that. They were ashamed of what happened in our town in our name and ashamed of what that had done to us, especially now that we are still fighting anti-Semitism in this country. So, our history is not simply what has happened in the past, it's who we are today, and it is our responsibility as parliamentarians and as leaders of this country to ensure that our history remains in the hearts and minds of our people when we seek to create the future for our people.

On 13 April this year, we awoke to the news that vandals had destroyed part of the 'Cofiwch Dryweryn' mural near Aberystwyth. It was, no doubt, a political act, and it's given rise to the creation of replica murals across Wales. But the most barbaric element for me was that they had smashed through the word 'cofiwch', meaning 'remember'—an attempt to erase and shatter our memory of our past.

Now, erecting monuments has its place. We are good at that in Wales. But in order for us to feel a sense of ownership of those central moments in our history, good and bad, we have to be taught about them. This is as true of recent history as it is for learning about the early Britons. In order to understand where we are, what we are, we have to know what shaped us. What is undeniable is that we are a nation of storytellers, right back to the sixth-century verses of Aneirin and Taliesin and through to the cyfarwyddion and Gogynfeirdd who relayed our myths, hearth histories and folk tales to crowds of people and their princes. Imaginative stories were, as Gwyn Alf Williams had it, the quickest way over the mountains. Stories have nourished us. They have bound us together. And that is no more true of our own stories, our own histories.

I use the word 'histories' in the plural, and I think it's vitally important that opportunities are found in the new curriculum to relay the histories we don't know as much about: the parts played by Welsh people in great historical events in other parts of the world, like the American revolution, and also to try to uncover new sources, new ways of telling the stories of people who didn't write the history books. I would associate myself too with calls for schools in Cardiff to teach pupils about the race riots that happened 100 years ago. Wales continues to be enriched by the many cultures that have contributed to our stories, and we shouldn't shy away from uglier episodes in our past in order to learn from them.

I've already referred to that poet from the sixth century, Aneirin. His masterpiece, 'Y Gododdin', is a literary record of the forces of the Gododdin who died in a battle in the Old North, an area near Catterick, or Catraeth, to give its Brythonic name. It's impossible to overemphasise the literary and historic significance of this extraordinary poem, because it’s among the oldest of its type in Europe—and, in many ways, it was only by accident that it survived. In one exceptional line, Aneirin says that there was silence after the battle—'tawelwch fu'. There is very little historical information about the people of Gododdin or the battle that destroyed them. History is silent about them. This only goes to prove how important it is that we tell those tales that have survived.

We cannot be too prescriptive and we must provide space for teachers and schools to decide on the best way to dovetail local history into their lessons. There are many ways of teaching history. It doesn't necessarily have to be chronological. One could argue that far too much history puts too much emphasis on the acts of kings and queens whilst neglecting the experiences of ordinary people, of local riots and uprisings and the change in the way that ordinary people saw themselves and their importance within society—such as the Chartists, the Rebecca rioters and Dic Penderyn. If the curriculum is too ambiguous about the importance of Welsh history, there's a danger that it will be peripheral or will be a footnote to global history.

In closing, Llywydd, I'd like to quote some more words from Gwyn Alf Williams, who pointed out that that the Welsh have made themselves by telling and retelling their story in generation after generation. He said that Wales is an artefact, which the Welsh produce if they want to. It requires an act of choice. Now, I've spoken about murals and artefacts in my contribution today, but I hope I've also made clear that Welsh history isn't just about stone and masonry; it's about uprisings, unexpected moments, lighting-flash changes. Welsh children all over Wales should learn about it in all its glory.

I must say I'm enjoying the speeches in this really quite enchanting and important debate. When Alun was talking about Gwyn Alf's experiences at Normandy—it's the seventy-fifth anniversary; very appropriate that we heard that—I did think perhaps you'd go on to Wynford Vaughan-Thomas and his wonderful autobiography where he, of course, describes that he landed with the allies in the south of France and then fought his way through Burgundy, under occasional threat from the Wehrmacht but constant threat from French hospitality. It's a most incredible account of his experiences, but what wonderful characters they were.

I also appreciate the fact that Alun referred to a teacher, and I want to pay tribute to Roy Adams, who was head of history at Dwr-y-Felin Comprehensive School when I was there in the late 1970s. Now, I realise what an excellent history department that was. At the time, you think it's just normal and everywhere. The teaching of Welsh history was just integrated throughout the curriculum, both in terms of the importance that it was given, but also the feeling and how it connected to British and European history—and that, of course, is what should happen. I must say that I'm sure that I tested his vocation, but he would be pleased to know, I think, that I did the BBC quiz—I hope you've all done that—and I did get them all right, amazingly. [Laughter.] I'm sorry; I've always been an exhibitionist to some extent and I shouldn't boast, but I did get them all right.

I think it's really important that we cherish what makes us. History is always in the making. Beyond bare facts and natural disasters and the brutal events, it is about the importance of what happened, how we understand more. Our view of the battle of Bosworth is very different from the Edwardians'. Our view of the reformation in Wales is very different from what was thought at the height of non-conformity in the nineteenth century. These things constantly have to be examined.

But, I go back to the Cwricwlwm Cymreig, published in 2012, which I think was quite seminal in saying that the importance of Welsh history needed to be examined. It was very balanced, that report, because it said that generally in the UK the teaching of the history of the home nations was poor. I think that this accounts also, perhaps, for the lack of teaching of English history, Scottish history and perhaps Irish history as well, though this goes beyond my own understanding in depth. But, I do think that, in Britain, we have underplayed the importance of the home nations in constituting a greater British experience. Now, some people will not agree with the political dimension of that, but the social, cultural and geographic dimension has always been there, and I think that that needs to come through in the teaching of Welsh history.

But, I do commend what that report said in 2012, because I think it is really quite challenging that Welsh history should be central to the experience of Welsh students, so that everyone has the experience that I had at Dwr-y-Felin Comprehensive School. It is certainly, I think, something that may require us to look at guidance. The materials—I think, again, that report said that heritage-funded organisations in Wales should really be part of developing not only curriculum materials, but also—. Where I was brought up, you could go to Neath Abbey and see the physical consequence of the reformation, and it's really important that young people get that experience.

I do want to finish, however, on the importance of the public understanding of Welsh history, which goes well beyond what happens in school and goes well beyond Wales. I think the public understanding of Welsh history in the rest of the UK is probably the most meagre experience in terms of those who are not Welsh and what they get. I think that they are missing out. How many English people don't realise the significance of their place names? How many people in and around central Scotland—Glasgow and the like—don't have any real understanding of the kingdom of Strathclyde? I went to the National Museum of Scotland once and asked, 'Do you have any collection or material on the kingdom of Strathclyde?' and I was told, 'No, this is the museum of Scotland.' Their concept of Scotland is post the kingdom of Strathclyde. I think that that is something that we should question because I don't think you can understand British history and Welsh history without understanding that the great works that were earlier referred to, the originals tended to be found in that part of what we now call Scotland.

Finally, the British Museum had quite a good exhibition on the Celtic civilization a few years ago. But, where it petered out into alarming nothingness was its treatment of Wales. There was a little bit, but it was almost as if the Celtic civilization had evaporated. You had no sense of, 'Oh, it did continue, actually, through the language, culture and literature of Wales—and, indeed, other parts of the UK, and Spain and France.' This is something that we do need to challenge. It's a really good subject for this backbench debate, and I do commend Siân for bringing it forward.

I don't think you'll find a Member in this Chamber today who is more passionate about Welsh history and the teaching of Welsh history than me, as someone with a degree in history and Welsh history from Cardiff University and a Master's in modern Welsh history from the same institution, and more importantly, someone who taught history in a secondary school at key stage 3, GCSE and A-level for 16 years to pupils of all abilities, including those in discrete ALN classes. Welsh history has always been a key part of my professional working life before I arrived at this place, and I'm very proud of the role that I've been able to personally play in helping to educate thousands of young people over those years in the passion, drama and identity of our nation's history.

And yet today I'm unsure whether or not I will actually be able to support this motion, because I do believe that it may ill-thought-through. I will listen intently to the comments of the Minister on this matter before making my decision, but I want to pick up on the most obvious point. It's a very delicate point, but a point that really does need to be made.

The motion states that the history of Wales should be taught to every school pupil in Wales without exception. This is clearly a blanket proposal that views young people as a homogenous mass, and I believe that that is actually unrealistic. It overlooks the fact that we have some pupils within our special school system, not all of them, but a number, with very complex learning disabilities. Take, for example, a pupil who may be both blind and deaf, learning disabilities that are so complex that the delivery of basic literacy and numeracy skills may be a significant challenge for them. For some, their education is quite rightly focused on basic life skills. Are we really, as a group of politicians, nearly all of us lacking in expertise in the delivery of education, going to say that we know how best to educate those pupils with the most complex learning needs? Have we consulted with experts as to whether this approach would be possible or indeed beneficial? I think the answer is that we have not, but I will listen intently to what the Minister says, and I hope that she'll be able to make a comment about that specific point.

That is, of course, not to say that the teaching of Welsh history should only be the preserve of a certain cohort, and I would strongly argue that this has never been the case. Welsh history has always been firmly embedded in the national curriculum throughout the key stages, and in all my years of teaching I have never met a teacher who failed to make full use of Welsh history topics and case studies in all of their lessons. These were very often the ones that were most popular amongst students, too. So I do object to the comments made by Siân Gwenllian when she said that thousands of pupils leave school every year without a full understanding of Welsh history, and I wonder what evidence she's used for those comments when we know that Estyn has never raised any systematic criticisms of the teaching of Welsh history in our schools.

I do think it's important also to note the role of our teacher training institutions in this area. I spent many years working with Swansea University, with Cardiff Met and with Trinity St David's as a mentor for history PGCE students. What I saw was consistent good practice, with very many hours of university classroom time being devoted to ensuring that PGCE students, especially those from outside Wales, completed their course with a very thorough grounding in Welsh history, having been assessed rigorously in the classroom for their delivery of that too. There's absolutely no reason to suggest that any of that will change with the roll-out of the new curriculum, 'Successful Futures', even for the most cynical observer, and unfortunately we appear to have some of those in the Chamber today.

It is a long-held truth that teachers will teach the topics that their students will be assessed on. Welsh history has always been firmly embedded in history GCSE, and it is a relatively strong feature in A-level syllabuses too, although I do agree that more could be done to make it a more prominent feature here. The revised course content for GCSE, AS and A-level all still require the development of a Welsh perspective, at times through individual Welsh history modules and at other times by linking Welsh history to a national or international perspective. As long as Welsh history remains on the syllabus for exam-level classes you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be taught, and taught well—not just at key stage 4 and key stage 5, but also at earlier key stages as teachers prepare their pupils for the future.

However, I would also argue very strongly that the natural love and enthusiasm for Welsh history amongst those in the teaching profession is its greatest asset, and we do teachers a terrible disservice in implying that that enthusiasm or the skills to research and deliver lessons on perhaps unfamiliar topics are not there. Local history examples are the very best way to get students engaged in a topic. Teachers know this, they're inspired by this, and they work very hard to deliver lessons based around this too. So, let's trust our professionals, let's trust our exam system, and let's trust in our young people too.

There are some comforting non-threatening stereotypes available when people nowadays, in the UK generally, feel the need to give a nod towards the existence of Wales. It doesn't happen often—Wales is usually ignored. This has been pointed out. Its own unique, ancient history is merely the stuff of myths and legends, people say. Not any truth at all, is there? This week, we had Tom Watson MP announcing to fanfares a proposal to change Labour's policy to campaign for a second referendum and a remain vote. Mark Drakeford already said that two weeks ago. But that was in Wales; it doesn't count. It doesn't even register.

Anyway, those comforting stereotypes that people have when trying to talk about their Welsh friends: we all sing in choirs; we all play rugby, now football; we all eat Caerphilly cheese, cawl, leek. Non-threatening, even passionate, those stereotypes, in their place. But don't mistake that for expressions of political national freedom, though, will you?

I nearly choked on my laverbread, leek and Welsh cake combo this week, when I read in the South Wales Evening Post about the old dialect in Swansea—meaning Welsh, the Welsh language. No old dialect, but living Welsh, and one of Europe's oldest living languages, spoken on the banks of the Tawe for the last 2,000 years and still being spoken by 31,000 people in Swansea today.

There are over 1,000 Latin words in the Welsh language because these languages co-existed when the Romans were in power almost 2,000 years ago. Welsh written 1,500 years ago is to be seen in Aberystwyth today, Welsh written in Edinburgh, and old Welsh spoken across the British isles from Glasgow—as David Melding said, 'Glasgow' is an old Welsh word—down throughout the British isles.

But as with several other nations, we have a history of bloody oppression at the hands of the Saxons and others who arrived at the British isles from the sixth century onwards. And we battled for our independence across the centuries. Hywel Dda, Gwenllian, Owain Glyndŵr, Llywelyn—that’s our history. It’s not a myth or a legend. And our folk history as the base for non-conformity and Christianity, and people stopping drinking alcohol and playing rugby during the revival of 1904-05 and for years afterwards. That’s our history. It’s not a legend or a myth.

And the Welsh language mediated Merthyr riots, Chartist riots and Rebecca riots— riots in the received history of Britain; uprisings in folk, working people's memory. The Merthyr uprising and Dic Penderyn saying, 'Duw, dyma gamwedd', as he is led to the scaffold an innocent man. And these uprisings, as Alun Davies said, co-ordinated in Welsh, brought about, subsequently, the treachery of the blue books and the Welsh not, to beat the Welsh language out of us as children.

I was in Dubrovnik some years ago, and a Croatian boatman in the harbour said, 'Yes, the Welsh, the original indigenous inhabitants of the British isles. We are taught that in the schools of Croatia.' It would be good if it was taught in the schools of Wales.

And 'Cofiwch Dryweryn', the recent outbreak—. David.

I'm loath to point this out, but I think it's highly disputed that we were the indigenous people of the British isles. The British isles was settled just after the last ice age. Magnificent as our Celtic inheritance is, there were people here before that.

I was quoting the Croatian national linguistic experience.

Cofiwch Dryweryn—let me bring you forward a few millennia, David. The recent outbreak of murals to remember the forced removal of a Welsh-speaking village in 1965 to provide water for Liverpool—water that that city then subsequently did not use in the teeth of fierce opposition. That long-standing wall in Ceredigion, in the Llywydd's constituency, was recently vandalised, as we all know. And people say, 'But, people know about Tryweryn, surely—don't they?' Well, Bridgend council don't. They claim 'Cofiwch Dryweryn' is an advert and needs planning permission. People need to know the history of Wales. It shouldn't depend on individual teacher experiences. And let's not be afraid. People say the history of the majority of British culture is education—1066 and all that—whereas the history of Wales is ideology. Surely not. An inconvenient truth, perhaps. Welsh history is an inconvenient truth, but education nonetheless. Diolch yn fawr. 

Well, it's difficult to follow that, really, but I'll do my best. [Laughter.] I'll try and avoid repeating some of things that have been said, many of which I agree with. I very much welcome, Siân, that you brought this debate here. It's something I wrote about a while back after doing a number of talks in schools on historical issues and was surprised, actually, at the scale to which local historical events of incredible magnitude were not known, not only by the pupils but also by the teachers.

I do present, I think, a certain concern, carefulness, cautiousness about the teaching of history. Because when we talk about the history, we're talking about the history of people. We're talking about social history. We're talking also, very importantly in the Welsh context, about class. These are issues that don't just apply to Wales. They apply to England. You can very much criticize the teaching of history in England and in many other parts of the world, and the presentation of the teaching of the history of the British empire. And it's partly because history has tended to be selective, by those who were in control, and presenting a particular issue. So, the teaching of events during the British empire, the Amritsar massacre, the famine in Ireland, in England the Peterloo massacre—they're all matters that have only really now come to the fore as we begin to have a more accurate, I think, discussion around history. So, history is not about a particular version of history or even about a particular interpretation of history; it's about providing the information, the analysis, the local knowledge, the local facts, to allow people to develop the capacity to interpret history.

One of the issues that concerned me was, for example, the teaching in the Taff Ely area when I was in school. We talked about Dr William Price, and, of course, everybody knows that that's the bloke who cremated his son, wasn't it? But the importance was that it represented a challenge and a break between law based on church law as opposed to common law, because cremation was a direct attack on the belief in the reincarnation, the resurrection of the body—it was a fundamental change. And I've never heard that ever discussed or talked about or interpreted in any particular way. I've not heard any discussion within our schools about the importance of local people or the importance of people like Arthur Horner, people like Will Paynter who led the National Unemployed Workers' Movement—a very, very significant factor within Wales. 

I live in Tonyrefail in the Ely valley. In the Taff vale, of course, was one of the major legal cases arising out of an industrial dispute that led to one of the major issues around the freedom of people to organise, which led to the Trade Disputes Act of 1906. I've never heard it discussed. Yet, it is actually a very fundamental part of our understanding of the development of democratic processes. So, those are my comments on that, because, I agree, there is a lot of good teaching of Welsh history, I'm sure, but there are also enormous gaps in it and there is enormous weakness in terms of the localisation of the teaching, and particularly the teaching of class history, the history around the movements, around people and around class. That is what I would like to see resurrected.

The point I made during one of the committee sessions on this, which to me I think is very important, is actually the issue of the training of teachers and how that is adapted and how we actually take all these particular views in terms of a more effective teaching of local and Welsh history. That seems to me to be an issue. And also, the lack of availability of resources—the lack of specific materials that actually promote, that analyse, that talk about these social movements, that talk about mutualism and co-operativism. Co-operativism had one of its major developments in the Ynysybwl area, and led to the establishment of a major co-operative movement. So, all these things are there that are fundamentally important to us.

So, what I would hope is that, in the development of the new curriculum in terms of the teaching, we have a teaching of Wales. I've no problems with the wording of the motion, just that we do need to be cautious about our interpretation of precisely what we're talking about, what it means. But what it is, very importantly, is a recognition that there is a long way to go in Wales and in the rest of the UK, and in parts of Europe and the rest of the world, about, I think, a new, a modern and an honest and open approach to the teaching of history.      

I'd like to thank Siân for bringing this forward today. Understanding and learning the lessons from our history as a nation, as a community and as individuals is hugely valuable, and, as has been said, if we don't know where we've come from, how do we know where we're going? 

Wales is a country with a rich and diverse history, but that doesn't mean that we should just look inward on ourselves. World history is incredibly important and Wales has been a key influencer, whether that's our role in the industrial revolution or Welsh miners fighting in the Spanish civil war. We should utilise this as much as possible to study world events through local Welsh examples. A focus on local history, in particular, can really bring it to life.

Always a favourite with all ages is the exploits of the Roman Empire, and it's a topic that rightly receives a lot of attention in schools. Personally, having a great primary school teacher really brought it to life for me and started my love of history. However, we must take advantage of the historical events and influences that have happened here on our doorstep. A visit to the amphitheatre in Caerleon is an opportunity to walk around the only remaining Roman legion barracks on view anywhere in Europe. Dating back to the first century AD, Caerleon was one of only three permanent fortresses in Roman Britain. We have other roman sites, including Caerwent, Carmarthen and Caernarfon.

Tailoring history education to local areas provides huge scope for pupils to really engage with the curriculum. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, privateers were a key part of the UK, developing its status in the world. The infamous Henry Morgan, who was Captain Morgan, was a member of the Morgan family of Tredegar House. Many street names in the area surrounding the estate have connections to Jamaica and his exploits in the Caribbean, but I wonder how many people locally know the significance of these names?  

Newport also holds an important place in our democratic and parliamentary heritage, something we should capitalise on when pupils are studying these topics. Following in the footsteps of the Chartists to the Westgate Hotel enables children to imagine the exact journey taken by John Frost, Zephaniah Williams and the other petitioners in 1839. A trip to the post box on Risca Road, which the suffragette Lady Rhondda tried to blow up in protest, is another example of a tangible place to visit. While there are many people lost to history, these landmarks and routes can tie people to a place and make history far more than a subject in a textbook.

As an old dock town, Newport, after Cardiff, is the second most multicultural community in Wales. It has a proud history, but there are also difficult aspects that should equally be taught in our schools and 2019 marks the centenary of the Newport race riots. The George Street riots, it's said, involved 5,000 people, something that most Newportonians would be unaware of—riots that started in Newport and then spread to Cardiff and throughout other parts of the UK. This year, the historic dock project and the Bigger Picture, linked with Pillgwenlly Primary School, talked about what happened and the strong community bonds that we have today. 

These are just some examples from my part of Wales, and there are plenty more the length and breadth of Wales, and we must learn and share our heritage. History gives us a sense of connection to place, time and community, and teachers need the support and freedom to explore ways of engaging every child with Welsh history. If we don't teach our history, how can we expect them to learn from it? 

The Minister for Education, Kirsty Williams.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by thanking Siân and Suzy for bringing forward this debate today, and allowing us to engage in impressions—pale, I must admit—of those Wynford Vaughan-Thomas and Gwyn Alf Williams Welsh history discussions that many of us will remember from the 1980s and have been referenced so often this afternoon, and the fact that they have clearly demonstrates the impact that that programme especially and those two individuals have had on our own understanding of our history.

At the outset, I can confirm that the Government will support the motion today. However, I will use this opportunity to provide clarification on plans for the new curriculum and to examine the challenges of defining a singular history of Wales that is outlined in the motion. Firstly, Members will be aware that both a Welsh dimension and an international perspective are essential to each of the six areas of learning and experience in the new curriculum. The new curriculum—Vikki, I can give you an absolute assurance—has been designed by the teaching profession for the teaching profession and the children of Wales, and has included those working in our special schools with some of the children with the most profound needs—a curriculum that will be inclusive and accessible—and I'm pleased to say has received a great deal of support from those practitioners in special schools. They believe that this new curriculum gives them even greater opportunities for the children and young people that they work with.

Now, analysing, understanding and questioning one's identity and history as a citizen of Wales, and that relationship to the rest of these islands and, indeed, the world, should not be limited to a history lesson. The innovative theme and principle of 'cynefin' is one that runs throughout each of the draft areas of learning and experience. The 'cynefin' is the place where we feel we belong, where the people and the landscape around us are familiar, and the sights and sounds are reassuringly recognisable. 'Cynefin' is not just a place in a physical or a geographical sense. It is the historic, cultural and social place that has shaped and continues to shape the community in which it inhabits, and from those places, we will expect learners to know and to understand their communities, their nation and the world. So, for example, learners will learn about Robert Recorde in the maths AoLE, the linguistic and the literary history of Wales in both languages will be covered in the languages, literature and communication AoLE, and in science technology, learners will explore how Wales's geography, its resources, its workforce—those that were born here in Wales and those that chose to make their home here in Wales—shape the scientific activity and the technological industry of the country. But, of course, the principle of 'cynefin' means learners will have different starting points of appreciating the histories and the stories of Wales. And I want to—and she's left her seat—I want to emphasise to Delyth that it is indeed histories and stories. There is not one single narrative or national story.

Now, as we have heard, this year is the centenary of the race riots in Cardiff, Barry and Newport. It's a part of our history that has often been overlooked, and I congratulate the Cardiff University students who have recently been tweeting as live updates of those riots. It's an episode that challenges the self-identity that we sometimes have as a community, as a nation, and therefore it is important to any study of Welsh history.

Now, some in this Chamber may know that I have a personal interest in Welsh-American history. It reflects my own family's story, when my grandfather, named after Giraldus Cambrensis, decided to swap the mines of Carmarthenshire for the mines of West Virginia. So, I've noted with interest that S4C is currently reshowing Dr Jerry Hunter's programme on the links between Wales and the American slave trade. Too often, we can be guilty of only recognising the positive contribution of Wales and the Welsh people to North America, through those that signed the declaration of independence to those that founded the institutions of Yale and Brown, and we are rightly proud—we should be rightly proud of those achievements and they are worthy of study—however—

Will the Minister give way?

Of course.

You make a really important point, and it's really struck me, travelling around America, and particularly the south, how many Americans of African heritage have Welsh surnames—Williams, Evans, Jones, Davies. It really is quite chilling to think of the implications of that. 

Well, the Member has anticipated perfectly—

Oh, I'm sorry. [Laughter.]

—the next part of my contribution. We cannot—we cannot, David, ignore that many Welsh people were involved in owning and bringing slaves to America, and, as David has rightly said, we only have to look at the huge African-American populations with names such as Davies, Jones and Williams that reflect that history, whilst also recognising that the Welsh-American population also played a big part in the abolitionist movement and in the change of attitude and shift before the Civil War. Now, these examples, both on our doorstep here in the old docks area, and across the Atlantic, are as essential to a history of Wales as the Acts of Union, the Merthyr Rising, the drowning of Tryweryn, or the clearance of Epynt. And, of course, we mustn't forget that major UK or global events, such as those two world wars or the development of the welfare state and the national health service, are also part of the history of Wales.

Studying the history and histories of Wales is important to the fulfilment of the purposes of the new curriculum. To be an engaged, informed and ethical citizen, learners will make sense of their identity and how our history, cultures and geography shape it. However, I will make it clear that the addition of statutory requirements to the curriculum would be a direct contradiction to the structure and the framework that is being produced at a national level. However, each area of learning and experience is explicit in identifying a Welsh dimension as well as that important principle of cynefin. Therefore, in supporting this motion, I am recommitting to the fact that the histories and stories of Wales will be a core aspect of each and every area of learning and experience across our new curriculum. Diolch yn fawr.

Suzy Davies to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to everyone.

I'm really—. In six minutes, there's no way I'm going to be able to give everybody good justice in this one. But I'm really pleased that this was accepted for debate today. I can't think of the last time I enjoyed a debate as much, as well as actually learning from it. I suppose the question should be why we're having it at all, and, actually, it struck me, having followed some of the Twitter coverage of what we've been doing today, that one commentator said, 'It's unbelievable that we're debating whether Welsh history—or how it—should be taught in our schools. Without self-awareness, we are stateless and rootless and ignorant of our own country, how it has been shaped, the significance and the contributions the people from Wales have made, and we will be left with the impression of irrelevance and nothingness.'

Now, I think that might possibly be overstating it—yma o hyd and all the rest of it; we are still here—but there are some serious questions about why we are where we are, and I suppose it is worth just reminding the Chamber here that this actually goes back to—1952 we were talking about this, and the Ministry of Education then, way back in pre-devolved times, had already noted that the history of Wales is relegated to the background in what was being taught then. By the time it got to the Education Reform Act 1988—this is some time on—there was still an understanding that, in Wales, we needed a distinctly Welsh curriculum for schools. So, you can imagine, by the time we got to 1995, and we're just before devolution now—both the English and Welsh language cultures in the country need to be exhibited in the curriculum as it was taught then, and the feeling was that it wasn't being. And then, by 2013, which is well after devolution and well into the new curriculum then, we found ourselves in a position where—unfortunately, Vikki, you may be the paragon in this, because only 10 per cent to 15 per cent of history GCSEs had content in them about Wales, and I really wish that the rest of Wales, and the children in the rest of Wales, had the experience that your children have had. [Interruption.] If you give me extra time. Thank you.

[Inaudible.]—when every single history GCSE that's put out by the WJEC does have a Welsh history dimension to it. 

Okay. Well, the research for that has come from the work of Dr Elin Jones, who did the preliminary work for the Cwricwlwm Cymreig back in 2013 and 2015, and there's much more recent evidence that has come from Martin Johnes, I think, from Swansea University, which shows that, while that is available to teachers to teach, the huge majority of them don't pick up on those modules. And the huge majority—and it is a huge majority; I'm sorry, I don't have the details with me, but I'm sure we can get it to you—is that—. It's the Nazis and America that are taking up the majority of the curriculum time. And, as the Minister said, there are elements in that where, actually, the connection with Wales and how that helps us look at ourselves is really important, but I'm not convinced, based on the little survey I've done today, that that is coming through at all. Because despite all this—and this is in no way scientific, but I've been speaking to people younger than me today on the floor here in Tŷ Hywel, and of one, two, three, four, 10 people I spoke to who were younger than me, two of them didn't recall anything at all apart from learning about the Welsh not in primary school—a lot of them remembered that—some remembered being taught about the Rebecca Riots, some about Chartists—it depended where they were from in Wales—but, actually, the majority of them couldn't remember anything they'd learnt in school about Welsh history. And that's why we're having this debate, because while, as you know, I have some sympathy for—well, more than sympathy, some hope for—the new curriculum, and everything you've said today, Minister, is true, it's going to be open to teachers across Wales to incorporate Welsh history to a greater or lesser degree, as much as they want, the wording that's in there at the moment—and I've read the AOLE guidance, such as it is at the moment; I appreciate it could develop—there's nothing in there that this needs to happen for those reasons, so that we're not left with the impressions of irrelevance and nothingness.

I haven't got much—. I just want to finish with a point later on, but I want to deal with some contributions first. Siân, you kicked off saying that hanes, there's tân yn y bol over this—yes, there is at the moment, but, if we don't do something about this now, it's just going to go out, because, as Delyth was saying, you know, 'cofiwch', well, if we're not taught anything, what on earth are we going to cofio? And it does relate to the question of hunaniaeth—what's missing from people's knowledge we can't remember. I think it struck me that more people said they'd learnt more from the Huw Edwards programme about the history of Wales fairly recently than they had from their own school curricula.

But where I'm going to agree with the Minister, and actually other speakers here, is that we shouldn't overprescribe the content. When Mark Isherwood made his contribution, I thought that was just as important as having 'Cofiwch Dryweryn' as something we should consider doing. The response to this debate should be that we should have as much about Welsh history on the curriculum as possible. There is no one history in Wales—I think you might have been the person who said that, Minister. Who is to say whether the dissolution of the monasteries has had more of an impact or less of an impact than the drowning of Capel Celyn? I don't know. That's the point of, in this curriculum, having the opportunity to discuss it, but the content has to be there to discuss, and I think that's what is behind this debate—well, it certainly is for me.

The one question I did have about it is, when we're talking about Welsh history, for me, that must include British history—Welsh, British and international—because Wales and Britain is, again, another piece of fertile territory in this curriculum, that we can talk about what Welsh identity means. And, just to respond to something that Mick Antoniw said—yes, you're quite right about local heroes, but I actually don't have a problem with talking about Nelson and Wellington, even though they don't sound particularly Welsh. They lead to a discussion about why we still have a monarchy and why we still have a monarchy when we're surrounded by Republics. And the question then would be: why do so many people in Wales support the monarchy? You can see where I'm coming from.

There's no way I can cover all this, I'm really sorry. That whole idea of experiencing, touching history, which Alun Davies made, and was followed up by Jayne Bryant—absolutely. When I saw the Acts of Union—which must be poison to the people at the other end of this Chamber—they really made me excited, because they, for the first time, showed me that was the piece of paper that allowed the Welsh into Parliament, and that was something that was really important for me, from a historical point of view. So, again—[Interruption.] We didn't have Welsh people there—[Interruption.] There we are; see, we are doing precisely what the national curriculum should do, provided that the Minister accepts this motion, which you have done.

And, if you'll allow me this very final point, this is fantastic, this debate, but, unless teachers have the resources to teach this, all these ambitions for the cynefin to be transported throughout the curriculum will come to naught, and there is still a concern for me that the teachers we have in the system at the moment, if they don't have resources, if they don't know how to do what you want them to do, they will still be teaching the same stuff and crowbarring some of this ambition into it. And that'll be a failure, both of aspiration and the curriculum itself. If we're still talking about Nazis and America in 10 years' time, without proper context, then I think it'll be a disappointment for us all.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Which brings us to the debate on the petition on declaring a climate emergency and fitting all policies with zero-carbon targets. I call on the Chair of the Petitions Committee to move the motion—Janet Finch-Saunders.

Diolch, Llywydd. May I begin by expressing thanks, on behalf of the Petitions Committee, for the opportunity to open this debate today? The petition 'Declare a Climate Emergency and fit all policies with zero-carbon targets' was submitted by Matthew Misiak on behalf of the Extinction Rebellion campaign. This petition attracted no less than 6,148 signatures, and the Petitions Committee is bringing it forward today under the process whereby we consider requesting debates on petitions with more than 5,000 signatures, and it would be remiss of us not to thank the Business Committee members for their move to see this tabled for debate.

It is clear that no Parliament or Government can ignore the urgency of the challenge posed by climate change. Neither can we, as politicians and policy makers, fail to recognise the level of public concern in relation to this and other environmental issues such as biodiversity, plastic pollution and air quality. All of these issues are frequently raised, both in this Chamber and through the petitions process, and all are captured by this particular petition. Members will also be well aware of the wider protest and campaigning that has been orchestrated by the Extinction Rebellion movement, and which forms the backdrop to this petition.

The Petitions Committee has noted, of course, that the Welsh Government has indeed declared a climate emergency during the time since this petition was drafted. In a statement issued on 30 April 2019, the Minister for environment expressed her hope that the declaration

'can help to trigger a wave of action at home and internationally.'

The statement also recognised that tackling climate change

'requires collective action and the government has a central role to making that collective action possible.'

Now, the petitioners describe this as 'an important step' and have congratulated the Welsh Government on being among the first Governments in the world to take this action. A number of local authorities, towns and cities across Wales have also made similar declarations, and I'm thrilled that my own local authority has done so also. So, it is apparent there is increasing recognition of the role that all parts of society must play in responding to a challenge on the scale of climate change.

However, there is no universally agreed definition of what declaring a climate emergency should mean in practice, and what action should be taken as a result. Therefore, I hope that this debate will assist in shining a light on the scale of that challenge, and provide additional clarity on the practical changes that will arise as a result of the Welsh Government’s own climate emergency declaration.

Indeed, whilst the Petitions Committee wholeheartedly supports the Welsh Government in taking this step, we also believe that the actions or changes that follow are more important than the declaration itself. Practical change is what is required to ensure that this amounts to much more than a symbolic measure. Beyond the headline declaration of a climate emergency, the petition also proposes a number of actions that the petitioners believe should be taken by the Welsh Government. I will now move on to briefly outline these in turn.

The petition calls on the Welsh Government to ensure that all its policies are consistent with the intention of averting further climate change and ecological collapse. The petitioners want to see detailed action plans produced, with time frames for progress towards making Wales a carbon-neutral country. They highlight the well-being of future generations Act as a good example of Wales leading the way in developing progressive policy, but argue too that, on its own, this Act does not motivate Government, as well as the public and private sectors, to act in accordance with the urgency of the situation. The petitioners press the Welsh Government to make further investments in the development of the green economy, and to stress the opportunity for Wales to be a leader in green technologies.

Moving on, the petition specifically calls on the Welsh Government to enact legally binding policy measures to reduce carbon emissions to net zero, not by 2050 but by 2025. It goes without saying that this is an extremely demanding call. Welsh legislation currently contains a target to reduce emissions by 80 per cent by 2050, with interim targets for the decades leading up to this. In May, a report by the Committee on Climate Change recommended targeting a 95 per cent reduction by 2050. This would form part of an intention to reduce UK greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2050. As Members know, the Welsh Government formally accepted this recommendation last week, and will be bringing forward regulations to update the target in legislation. I should note, however, that the 2050 deadline has been described as 'woefully inadequate' by the petitioners. The petition states—and the Extinction Rebellion campaign has been vocal about—the need to take this action by 2025. I am sure that the pace of the response to the challenges of climate change will be a topic for further debate this afternoon.

Finally, the petition calls for a citizens assembly to be established to oversee the changes required. The petitioners argue that Welsh citizens should be able to help develop and to scrutinise the policies that will actually underpin the degree of change that is required. They believe that such an approach will minimise conflicts of interest, and support politicians to make decisions for the long-term good of all. Again, this proposal is something that Members may wish to consider during their contributions this afternoon.

In conclusion, the Petitions Committee recognises the important steps already taken by the Welsh Government, not least through its climate emergency declaration and the commitments that the Minister has made. Nevertheless, we all need to continue to apply strong scrutiny to the concrete actions that must be taken, and we must all work together to develop effective solutions that will make these challenging commitments into a reality. I therefore look forward to listening to the rest of this afternoon’s debate. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much. I will start just by reminding Members of some statistics and facts. Temperature on average on a global level has increased every decade over the past 50 years, and the 10 warmest years on record have been in the last 22 years, so that tells us something. It is estimated that the climate crisis is already killing 300,000 per annum, and we know that scientists are of the view that any increase over two degrees in global temperatures would lead to catastrophic effects. And what does that mean? Well, further flooding, more ill health, more war, of course, more drought, and the creation of hundreds of millions of refugees, and destroying ecosystems and whole species.

So, it’s entirely appropriate that the Government, this Parliament and others have declared a climate emergency. I’m pleased that the committee Chair referred to the work that’s happened at Conwy council. I’m sure that she would join with me in congratulating Aaron Wynne, the Plaid Cymru councillor, of course, who moved that motion, and would want to thank him for his work in persuading his fellow councillors to support that motion, as Plaid Cymru councillors have done in Carmarthenshire, Powys and a number of other counties across Wales. But, of course, the declaration of a climate emergency is but one step. What that has to mean, of course, is that that leads to real change. Campaigners, such as those who have been on the steps of the Senedd, and us as a party and others, I know, in this Chamber and beyond will now be scrutinising the Government’s response in detail, particularly, in light of that declaration.

Many of us were slightly concerned when the First Minister said the day after the declaration of a climate emergency that that didn't necessarily mean a change of policy on behalf of the Welsh Government. That was a cause for concern for me, certainly. But, the important thing now is that we accept that the status quo is not an option. [Interruption.] Yes, Joyce, of course.

I'm glad that you have taken an intervention and I thank you for that. Could you explain why, according to a Cambrian News report, when I suggested that we do some rewilding and a £3.4 million project to rewild a large area of north Ceredigion and the Dyfi valley—Summit to Sea—Plaid Cymru opposed that?

I haven't read the article, but if you ask the people that I think would have been commenting on that, the point is that the rewilding agenda is being driven by outside forces and isn't a process that's rooted in the local community and is growing from the bottom up. Surely, you'd be the last person who would want to see multimillionaires telling local people in west Wales what to do. It's surely about those people having ownership of that process and making it happen themselves. Otherwise it's not sustainable, and we could call it all kinds of things, but it wouldn't be democracy. But, I digress. [Interruption.] Yes, and I think you achieved your purpose in intervening. Right. Where was I?

The point I was making, of course, is we’re not talking about the risks, we’re not talking about a climate problem here; we’re talking about a climate crisis or emergency, and that means a response, yes, but a swift response and urgent action. The intergovernmental panel of the United Nations on climate change has said that we have but 12 years to reach our aims, and therefore we do have to take action as a matter of urgency.

The Government, before the declaration of a climate emergency, had published their ‘A Low Carbon Wales’ paper. Now, that was a collection of many statements and initiatives that had previously been announced. I accept that the Minister had asked officials to look again at that. I’m not sure what the timetable for doing that is, but reform will be needed and that will need to be strengthened. And I hope we don’t see just tinkering at the edges. I’ve referred regularly to work of the Institute for Welsh Affairs on re-energising Wales and, for me, that gives us a route to reach a Wales that is self-sufficient in renewable energy by 2035. I think that is a target that the Government should consider adopting.

Now, what we see in that Government document—‘A Low Carbon Wales’—at the moment are commitments to consult, to consider, to start to look at, and those days are long gone. The time has come now to take action. I also want to say that I’m extremely pleased that this Assembly is going to gather a citizens' assembly together. That’s a positive step, and I would like to see that as a more permanent feature of our democracy. But, for that to succeed, then we as politicians, this Assembly and certainly the Government, must listen and must take full account and take action on the basis of what is said by that citizens’ assembly, because the danger is that it will be nothing more than a talking shop.

I congratulate the 6,000-odd petitioners for raising this with us today. I think a similar number signed a petition when I was initially elected to chair the climate change committee. There were similar misplaced security concerns at the time, and I was called in for a special discussion about how we were going to deal with a concern that the committee was going to be overrun by protesters, which I'm pleased to say didn't happen, any more than it did on the more recent occasion—albeit, in the case of the first committee that I chaired, we scheduled it for a 9 a.m. start on the Thursday immediately after Wales had been playing the Euro 2016 semi-final the night before. We didn't have any protesters at all.

We see, though, in the petition the demand that we have—the emphasis on net zero. There is one thing that I'd like to understand about this, and I don't know whether any other Members will be able to assist me in their speeches, or otherwise, or whether this is clear from the petition. By 'net zero', do they mean net zero within the United Kingdom? So, that's taking into account extra tree growth—which is certainly something that I would like to see and the offsetting from that—but not taking into account international offsetting. I'm not clear quite what's required. The UK position appears to have been that they are including that international offsetting, which makes it an awful lot cheaper to obtain this goal. When you get very close to eliminating carbon emissions, even if some are offset on a domestic basis, it gets an awful lot more expensive at the margin to do so because you've already taken the low-hanging fruit. 

One thing I think is very important in this debate—and I think some of the petitioners recognise this—is to understand how far the United Kingdom has come on this since the Kyoto commitment. We are now, I think, just over 40 per cent below 1990 levels of emissions, and that is virtually the largest reduction seen anywhere in the world, and I think that's something we should recognise and take pride in. The current legislation is until 2050, the 80 per cent reduction—basically, that would mean the same reduction again, but actually as a proportion or a percentage, that is a higher reduction. It's also more difficult because the easy gains from closing most of the coal-fired power stations and a lot of the heavy industry that we had in the 1980s, at least to an extent, but no longer do—that has already happened. So I'd like to ask to what extent we want to achieve this by paying other countries to do this for us on the basis they can make carbon reductions for less cost than we can in this country once we have got so close to the target that is projected.

I'd also like to just have people consider what is actually involved if we're going to get to this. It's one thing to declare a climate emergency—. And initially I thought the First Minister was saying it was just declaratory, and he wasn't planning any changes of policy, but then when he made a statement in the Chamber about the M4 decision he did emphasise climate change issues, albeit he hadn't mentioned those in the decision notice. So I'm still a little unclear on the extent to which this is changing Welsh Government policy or remains merely declaratory.

But for some of the big issues, if you want to move to anything like this target, you are going to have to rip out gas boilers from millions of homes and replace them with an alternative. Now, ground source heat pumps is one option that has seen some take-up, but broadly, if you want to do this at speed, if you're going to have electric central heating instead of gas central heating, at the moment that costs at least three times as much, and I just ask Members to consider how plausible it is, going to persuade or potentially even coerce constituents to make that change. I think we need to consider this as well as looking at what other people are doing internationally, and I think to the extent that people look to us for a lead—and I don't know the degree to which they do or do not—there may be some value in that.

I think we're at 1.8 per cent of global emissions now, and if the impact of this is going to be such economic self-harm that we are no longer to export many of the goods we are, or are going to struggle to compete with other countries that don’t take the same steps, then it will be less attractive than otherwise. Similarly, if we do see technology develop to such an extent that we can cost-effectively remove carbon from the atmosphere, then that makes it much more attractive to go down this route. On the other hand, if that isn't a technology that becomes cost-effective or doable, then the cost-benefit trade off for pushing this direction will be less attractive. Thank you.

I very much welcome this petition and the opportunity to speak on it. When historians look back on the National Assembly for Wales, they'll be astonished at how much time has been spent on how we trade with other countries and how little time we have given to the threat to our world and all species, including ourselves. It's beyond serious argument now that we're seeing climate change, and that unless action is taken now, we will see it getting worse and worse.

I'm pleased the Welsh Government has announced a climate change emergency. This declaration sends a clear signal that the Welsh Government understands that climate change threatens our health, economy, infrastructure, natural environment and, basically, ourselves. Tackling climate change is not an issue that can be left to individuals or to the free market. It requires collective action and for the government to have a central role in making that collective action possible.

I support the Welsh Government in its commitment to achieve a carbon-neutral public sector by 2030 and to co-ordinate action to help other areas of the economy to make a decisive shift away from fossil fuels, involving academia, industry and the third sector. If you look at the science, firstly, carbon oxidises into carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. How do we know that? Compare Venus with Mercury. Mercury is about 58 million km from the sun, Venus is approximately twice as far at 108 million km. So you'd expect Mercury to have a hotter surface than Venus. The opposite is true. Why? It can only be about the atmosphere. Mercury's atmosphere contains small amounts of hydrogen, helium and oxygen. The atmosphere of Venus is layers of gases surrounding Venus. It is composed primarily of carbon dioxide. That means that it holds the temperature. We know that. It's not a matter of argument or, 'I don't believe in climate change', or 'I don't believe in carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas'—the facts are there. This is conclusive proof that carbon dioxide traps heat and makes the surface hotter.

'But we have carbon dioxide in our atmosphere now', people say. Yes, if we didn't have carbon dioxide, we would not have the temperate climate that exists on most of the earth. It traps heat. What we know is that if we get more carbon dioxide, the planet will get hotter and hotter.

As climate change takes place, our daily weather and normal temperatures will change, and the homes of plants and animals will be affected all over the world. Polar bears and seals are a good example of animals that will be affected by climate change. They'll have to find new land for hunting and living if the ice in the Arctic melts, but the fact is—more realistically—that these species will almost certainly become extinct.

Anyone over 50 will have noticed how our weather has changed in Wales. Simple things such as the end of persistent drizzle—which we used to have for days and days on end—have now been replaced by short periods of very, very heavy rain, which has led to flooding in many areas.

Looking at the rest of the world, starting with the United States of America—which is the best place to start, because it's the home many of the deniers—heat waves and droughts in Texas and the midwest set records for highest monthly average temperatures. Multimonth extreme heat has been unprecedented since the start of reliable instrumental records in 1895. Higher temperatures lead to increased rates of evaporation. Recently Texas and Oklahoma experienced more than 100 days over 100 degrees Fahrenheit. Both states set new records for the hottest summer since record keeping began in 1895. Heavy downpours are increasing nationally, especially over the last three to five decades. The heaviest rainfall events have become heavier and more frequent, and the amount of rain falling on the heaviest rain days has also increased. Since 1991, the amount of rain falling in very heavy precipitation events has been significantly above average. America is suffering; the rest of the world is going to follow.

Turning to Africa. New research says the continent will experience many extreme outbreaks of intense rainfall over the next 80 years leading to floods, storms and farming failure, moving from intense rain every 30 to 40 years to intense rain every three or four years. This will be interspersed with crippling droughts that will also affect food production.

A four degree warmer world will lead to drowned cities, drowned island nations, stagnant seas, intolerable heatwaves, huge areas uninhabitable and over 11 billion people trying to live on it. A four degree warmer world is the stuff of horror movies—a sort of apocalypse coming to you shortly. This is, unfortunately, the direction we are heading in if we fail to reduce carbon dioxide increasing in the atmosphere to stop global warming. Nice words and limited action are not an option. We only have one world. For the last 200 years we have abused it. Unless we take action now, then we are in danger of destroying it and most life forms, and that includes our own.

Climate change is one of the biggest issues right now, and the activity throughout the world is something to admire and to encourage. But what really frustrates me about Wales is that we have a Government declaring a climate change emergency, and yet the actual concrete policies on the ground totally fly in the face of that declaration.

As ever, I'll talk about local development plans, because those are the blueprints for the future of Wales, of our communities. And if we look at Cardiff's local development plan, there's just field upon field being concreted right now, habitats being destroyed, which will never, ever be replaced, flood plains being built on, and an absolute calamity for the environment. So, please forgive me, but we're here talking about the climate change emergency and we all agree on it it seems, almost, and yet what is being done flies in the face of it, as I said.

I'll declare an interest, because very near to where I live, there are going to be 10,000 extra cars on the road every single day. And the number is increasing already. We see gridlock. We have cars throwing out poisonous fumes. It just seems that nowadays everyone I speak to has asthma. People in their late 40s and 50s are developing asthma nowadays.

What I really would love to see from the Government in this Assembly is some proactive policies. Trams—let's have electric trams in this city. Let's make sure that every bus that runs is an electric bus. Why aren't we greening public infrastructure? We have bridges everywhere ferrying tens of thousands of cars every single day. The flyover in Gabalfa—green it. Look what they do around the world. [Interruption.] Yes. 

One reason in terms of electric buses is that they cost approximately twice as much as conventional buses. Perhaps that cost will come down, but in the meantime how would the Member like to pay for that additional cost?

That's a really good question. What we need to do is make it a political priority, because if it is a climate change emergency with this Government, then make it a priority. How much money was spent on the M4, for example? £115 million. I could stand here and list waste after waste after waste. Opportunity lost after opportunity lost. When you don't want to do something, saying there's not the money is always an excuse. What we should be doing is investing in clean transport. If we accept that it is an emergency then we really have to do something now and not just talk about it. Diolch yn fawr. 

I agree with Neil McEvoy that we have got to change the way we do things. Clearly, we do need to introduce electric trams and buses. I absolutely agree that we need to highlight the need to change planning policy, so that we're not building housing developments in areas where there is insufficient public transport to enable people to get around, but I would invite Councillor McEvoy to focus on ensuring that the local authority where he represents his local community has got that in mind too. Because it isn't just in the area that he represents that there's been houses being put up in areas where the transport system is simply inadequate to cope with it.

What we do need is a transformative policy to ensure that we have a metro system that ensures that development takes place around the metro hubs and spokes. Because we absolutely cannot afford to have more carbon emissions from vehicles and we have to plan differently to step up to the plate on climate change. Because we have to remember that the UN inter-governmental panel on climate change warns us that we've only got 12 years to save the world. That's a pretty scary concept. So, I very much welcome the Welsh Government's declaration of a climate emergency, but we need to follow that up with actions to deliver on that.

We were reminded yesterday by Darren Millar about 30 years since the Towyn flood, and I'm afraid to say that that sort of event is going to become more common unless we change our ways. We have to bear in mind that we are only in control over what goes on in the United Kingdom. We cannot do anything about what goes on in other countries, other than joining in with international organisations and urging them to meet their obligations under the Paris agreement. 

But, going back to what we can affect, I think that Mark Reckless is absolutely right to ask the question, 'Can we really afford to rip out gas boilers and have ground-source and air-source heat pumps instead?' And the answer is, 'Absolutely.' We must be able to, because the more people who use ground-source and air-source heat pumps, the reduction in the price will go with it. We have to have a green new deal to address this problem, and that involves really transforming the way we do things.

We've got to have the electric trams and buses that Neil McEvoy talked about. How will we pay for them? Well, at the moment, we need to pay for them from taxing people who do the wrong thing. At the moment, we have a UK Government that is resistant to maintaining the escalator on the energy price that we're charged at the petrol pumps. We should be making car transport more expensive relative to public transport. I'd personally like to see public transport provided for free because I think that is a necessary measure, in line with what David Attenborough and the UN experts are warning us. We have to have active travel routes to all our schools so that all our children will be able to either walk or cycle, because that has to be the main mode of transport for children who live within a reasonable distance of where they're going to school.

So, I think that it does require a transformation in the way we plan services, in the way we retrofit all our housing. Wales has more antiquated housing than other parts of the United Kingdom and, in addition to that, we are continuing to allow the mass house builders to build houses that are not energy efficient, and are going to need to be retrofitted. So, we need to put a stop to that and change Part L of the planning policy. It absolutely fits in with the green new deal that we absolutely have to have.

I don't think any of us have a glass bowl to see what are the changes that are going to be necessary, but we all need to put our heads together to work out what we have to do, and we have to have radical change. I'm proud to be sponsoring— 

Will you give way? 

Okay. 

Thanks. I'm saying this in the spirit of co-operation, because it's your party that put through the local development plan in Cardiff. So, I wonder whether you would maybe join me and other people to ask them to alter the plan, and to stop stages 3, 4 and 5, where a massive amount of environmental damage is going to be done. So, would you join us, cross-party, in doing that? 

Thank you for that intervention. I think when the facts change, we have to change our mind, and I think that is why the First Minister made the right decision on the M4. I think that we will need to revisit the local development plan, because the climate emergency is now much worse than we had estimated when the local development plan was implemented. So, it does require us to look at absolutely everything.

I was about to go on to say that I'm proud to be hosting, along with Llyr Gruffydd, the Extinction Rebellion seminar that's going to be taking place on 4 July, because I think they will come up with some really energetic ideas about some of the things that we really do need to do. The future of our planet is in our hands. We can simply do nothing as legislators and allow disaster to strike for our grandchildren, or we legislate to change. 

Minister, the strength of feeling on this matter is evident from the amount of correspondence I'm sure that we've all received, and the fact that our young people are motivated to go on strike and that Extinction Rebellion have recently taken over parts of London and are threatening to close down major airports by fair means or foul. It seems to me that the Welsh Government caught the mood of the nation when it declared its own climate change emergency. Minister, I was as concerned as Andrew R.T. Davies earlier, but you've now explained that apart from this emergency being notified to Cabinet on 29 April as an item in 'any other business', it was actually discussed in various other meetings previous to your announcement, as this declaration affects all of us and every single area of Government.

I listened to an interview on Talk Radio, where a representative of Extinction Rebellion was suggesting that everyone in the UK is entitled to one return flight per year, and while I appreciate that they are not yet elected, they do appear to be driving the agenda. I'm no expert in this area, but I do know that air travel is one of the biggest pulls on resources, so I wonder how this climate change emergency declaration sits alongside the Welsh Government’s continued ownership of the airport and the active promotion of air travel, including the subsidy of the Anglesey air link?

This petition has been partly addressed by the declaration. However, I do question the practicality of the other requirements, certainly in terms of speed, and I think there is something about expectation management across all of the Governments of the UK. Be honest about what is achievable, and point out that cheap clothes and cheap food all cost something, somewhere.

I'm a keen seamstress, and I like nothing better than finding something beautiful and unique in a charity shop and making it my own. The same with furniture. More emphasis should be put on people reusing things, but, yes, let’s all raise our game. Action has already been taken: the carrier bag levy from Wales—fantastic—recycling and so on. We're the highest in recycling rates throughout the UK. However, I think that there are some quick wins that need to happen. I note that a recent report suggests that Wales is one of the least well-equipped areas in terms of electric charging points for cars, and we’ve been talking about this for ages.

There's also something about our circle of influence, and it seems sensible to me to start with public sector buildings and practices: bring these to carbon neutral, embed good practice, and encourage our constituents to do the same. If we don't do it, they're not going to do it. After all, this is everybody’s problem and we're all part of the solution.

I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths. 

Thank you very much, chair. I'm very pleased to be responding on behalf of the Welsh Government. We accept the motion and we note the petition, and I, too, am grateful to the thousands of people who signed the petition and the many more who brought such a focus to this crucial issue in recent weeks.

At the end of April, as has been pointed out, I declared a climate change emergency on behalf of the Welsh Government. Later the same week, this National Assembly voted in favour of such a declaration and they were the first Parliament in the world to do so. I've explained the reasons why we did that several times in this place, but I will reiterate them because I think it's really important, and I also want to report on what's happened since then. 

So, the declaration was to galvanise people, organisations, businesses into action too, and I just want to give a couple of examples. I mentioned in questions earlier this afternoon that several local authorities have now declared a climate emergency, along with several town councils, and I think the majority of them have said they did it following our lead. Also businesses, and I was very pleased that the businesses that sit on my colleague the Minister for Economy and Transport's economic council asked me to go along to the latest meeting to listen to what they want to do to help mitigate climate change. So, I think it has had the effect we wanted in galvanising people, but, of course, there's much more to do. 

I think the level of public support for the climate emergency campaign really reflects the desire for politicians to tell the truth about the situation, and the Welsh Government is under no illusion as to the dangers we face as well as the solutions that are within our grasp. Every Minister will need to look at their policies. I've said that the low-carbon delivery plan—and I would urge every Member to read that plan—there are 100 policies and proposals, and, sometimes, I think that, perhaps, it hasn't been read in the depth it should be done. We set that out in March, but even though that was set out in March, I have asked officials to review it in light of the advice I received from the UK climate change committee. 

So, alongside that, I'm also looking at the sustainable land management. Unlike Plaid Cymru, I think we should get away from basic payment schemes because I think the proposals that we've got, rewarding environmental outcomes, rewarding sustainable food production, will help with the agricultural carbon emissions, and I'm really pleased to see the way that the NFU held a conference recently about sustainable food production and land management, and they've come forward with proposals to be carbon neutral by 2040, 10 years ahead of us. So, I think it's really important that we look at that proposal too. 

Cardiff Airport has been thrown at me many times. It was thrown at me again today. I should say, again: read the advice from the UK Committee on Climate Change. Unlike any other country, I think, in the UK, our carbon budgets include all emissions from aviation in Wales, both domestic and international flights. I think we're the only country to do that. So, the UK CCC has not assumed any reduction in international aviation emissions arising from Welsh or UK unilateral policy action. 

We agree with the petitioners that we must ensure that all current and future policies are consistent with averting further climate change and ecological collapse, and I think the two Labour Members who spoke both alluded to that. Our Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and our Environment (Wales) Act 2016 were put in place with exactly that purpose in mind. Our environment Act, for example, places legal duties on Welsh Ministers and public bodies to maintain and enhance biodiversity. There is a requirement to produce their first report on how they are fulfilling their duty by the end of this year, and our environment Act also includes legally binding targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions across the Welsh economy.

But, of course, for targets to be meaningful, they must be set on the basis of the best available scientific evidence and must be accompanied by actions to meet them. That's why I receive advice from the UK CCC, the independent statutory advisory body made up of experts in the field of climate science, economics, behavioural science and business. I mentioned I'd received the advice from the committee that was asked for by me, the UK Government and the Scottish Government, and that was in relation to setting a net-zero emissions target for the UK and our contribution to that goal. I've accepted their advice, I've committed to legislate next year to increase Wales's emissions reduction target from 80 per cent to 95 per cent by 2050, in line with the achievement of a net-zero target for the UK.

Of course, the petitioners ask us to go further and set a net-zero target for Wales in advance of that date. So, the response of Welsh Government to that call is to say: we, too, recognise the need to go further. That's why we accepted the advice, and when we did that, we signalled our ambition to develop a net-zero target for Wales. So, we now need to work with the UK CCC, and with other stakeholders across Wales, to identify the ways in which a more ambitious target can be met. [Interruption.] Yes.

I wonder if I might just ask for a point of clarification. With that net-zero ambition, is that net zero for Wales or is that allowing for international offsetting and paying other countries who could reduce carbon dioxide emissions more cheaply than us?

That was for Wales, but we are taking advice on the latter point that you made also.

We share the view expressed by the petitioners that Welsh citizens must have a central role in bringing forward new ideas and initiatives. Where groups of citizens come together to drive action on climate change, this Government will listen and work with them to make it happen. Stepping up our efforts to tackle climate change means we must foster a new collaboration across our society and our economy. Everyone, and that includes every Assembly Member, has a role to play.

There are many ways for citizens to contribute to this agenda through engaging with us as their Assembly Members, of course with their local councils, or driving change amongst businesses through the consumer choices they make. There are Welsh Government initiatives focused on supporting citizens to access the opportunities and resources to take action locally, such as our eco-schools initiative and our enabling natural resources and well-being grant schemes. So, our message to Welsh citizens is this: if you share our determination to tackle the climate and ecological crises, and if you want to put forward your ideas, there has never been a better time than now.

Thank you, Minister. And I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Thank you, chair. Thank you, first of all, to the Members and, of course, obviously, to the Minister for responding to this, and I'll just touch on some of the points that have actually further added to this debate.

Llyr Gruffydd was quite right to point out increased temperatures and a real emphasis on the fact that a 2 per cent increase would actually be catastrophic—drought and even war that destroy, and the destruction of our ecosystems. Mark Reckless was actually quite right, also, to raise questions about how that net-zero figure equates, and what I can tell you is that the UK Government, in their advice, published in May 2009, state that while they recommend that the UK and Scotland should set a net-zero target by 2050 for the UK, 2045 for Scotland, it recommended that the Welsh Government should legislate for at least a 95 per cent reduction in all greenhouse gas emissions against the 1990 baseline by 2050. The new target could enter legislation in 2020, alongside Wales's third carbon budget. And it says:

'This target represents Wales's fair contribution to the UK target and hence to the Paris Agreement. It does not imply lower policy ambition or effort in Wales, but reflects the large share of agriculture emissions in Wales and lower access to suitable sites to store captured CO₂.'

The Minister has actually gone further and put:

'In view of this and the declaration of a climate emergency following publication of the plan, we believe whilst accepting the CCC advice—',

the UK Government,

'we must go further. Therefore, on behalf of the Welsh Government I am declaring our ambition today to bring forward a target for Wales to achieve net zero emissions no later than 2050.'

So, there is clarification needed, you're quite right to point that out, as to how that net-zero figure—what it means.

Neil McEvoy highlighted air pollution. We're now seeing more children with asthma, and I really liked you calling for a greening of public infrastructure—a really good point.

Jenny Rathbone AM on the need for metro systems—we simply cannot afford any more carbon emissions, and you are quite right to point out that as we move forward with our house building—that too must encompass and realise the responsibility that that has to play and its part in reducing our carbon emissions. I've got to be honest, I really liked your point of 12 years to save the world. We're not talking 2050 here, we are talking not that far away.

So, I really appreciate all the comments, and, of course, Mandy, you also made some extremely good points about the public strength of feeling, not just Extinction Rebellion, but also, too, the fact that children are now so aware in our schools—we cannot let them down as politicians.

Mike Hedges, of course—I liked the point that you actually said about how we are actually facing—and it's not a word I can say really easily—apocalypse. But that actually does, in one word, for me, size up, really, what today's debate is about and how we really do need to move forward with this.

Someone said to me—it was a child at an event I went to. A child said to me, 'Why do we call it climate change? Change is something you do over a period of time. We really are now facing a climate emergency.' And I thought from a little girl came such wise words.

So, it only remains now for me, chairman, to thank Matthew Misiak, Extension Rebellion, and every single person who signed the petition and for actually having confidence in the petition system that their concerns, their views, would be aired, debated and discussed, with comments forthcoming from the Minister here in the National Assembly for Wales. So, thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item is the Brexit Party debate on leaving the European Union, and I call on—who's starting the debate? Mark Reckless. I'm sorry. I call on Mark Reckless to move the motion.

Thank you, chair, for identifying me, and I'm grateful to have this time to raise the Brexit Party's first debate in the Welsh Assembly, in which we note that Wales voted to leave the European Union. Now, ideally, that shouldn't be necessary, but we voted to leave the European Union, not if the EU agrees or subject to getting a great deal. These are attempted conditions put in in arrears by remainers who don't want to accept the result of the referendum. Now, we regret that the UK did not leave the EU on 29 March this year, despite repeated promises to do so by the UK Government and 498 MPs who voted to trigger the article 50 process to leave on that date with or without a deal.

I also regret the Conservative amendment to our motion, not least that it begins with 'Delete all', and to the extent we're able to communicate these things, I trust that many of their erstwhile supporters will note that that is their intent. The substantive part of what they want to add is, at point 1, it's terribly important we put in the date of June 2016, apparently, and then, in point 2, it's terribly important that we take out the date of 29 March. Whether this is just to give an excuse to amend the motion having deleted all, or whether there's some terrible importance about why we need a date on one and not the other, perhaps we will hear in due course. But what I think is so important about this is that we should leave the EU now on 31 October this year. Of course, that's the third deadline; we were given 12 April as an intervening one as well. It's concerning to see the progress of this Conservative leadership election campaign, because we had one candidate who was very clear—Dominic Raab—that we would leave the EU on 31 October, with or without a deal, come what may. He could not have been clearer on that. But unfortunately, the fact that he got only 30 votes, compared to 37 for Rory Stewart, tells us, I think, much about the state of the Conservative parliamentary party and the relative weights of different factions within it. Now, of course we have as the strong leader of this field Boris Johnson. There has been some suggestion that he also says we must leave on 31 October, or that he would like to, but it's not quite clear that he will. He's done very few interviews. I heard the one he did on The World at One, and when asked about what he was saying about that, he said that he thought it was very important we shouldn't signal at this time that we might not leave on that date. And then last night, in another debate, he was asked would he rule out anything except leaving on that day. He refused to do so, and then he said it was 'eminently feasible' to leave on 31 October.

So, I mean, in our party, but, I think more importantly, amongst his European negotiators, it looks as if Boris Johnson isn't that serious about leaving on 31 October, and may well—. [Interruption.] That may or may not be the case. But may well look to change that date—look for yet another extension. I think the fundamental problem, at least, that the Conservative Party has—and I'll turn to the Labour Party in due course—is that, for 29 March, they were faced with a choice between no deal and no Brexit, and they chose no Brexit. I think they begin to understand the potential electoral consequences of that, but I think, probably, at the end of March, they could have left with no deal if they had a Prime Minister and a Cabinet and, potentially, a parliamentary party, that was sufficiently steeled to do so. Unfortunately, that was not the case, and each time it gets postponed, each time that date gets moved back, it becomes less likely that we will leave, and, of course, that is the intention of so many on the Labour side who don't want us to leave the European Union, campaigned for 'remain', purported after the result to accept and respect the result, but have ever since, and increasingly obviously, agitated to reverse the result of that referendum, to block Brexit and to deny democracy.

We also note some of the consequences of leaving without a deal, which isn't our preferred option. However, we have come to a pass where it is increasingly likely because of the failure of the Conservative Government to leave and the success of the Labour Party in blocking our leaving. Were we to leave with no deal, it's important to realise that we would not owe the European Union £39 billion. I get incredibly frustrated about reading so much from the 'remain' tendency about how no-one would ever lend anything to us again and we'd destroy our international credit rating. This is not a sovereign debt. We have no obligation to pay anything beyond what is specified by the article 50 process, the treaty that specifies how a member state may withdraw from the European Union. You remain liable for all your obligations—all the purported benefits of remaining, partially, arguably, offsetting those—for the notice period of two years, but after those two years, absent an agreement, the treaties cease to apply. We will not owe them money. We will save that £39 billion quid. Indeed, we should be saving some of that £39 billion already.

I give way to the Chair of the committee.

I thank the Member for giving way. I listened to what he was saying, and obviously the legal case has been shown in the House of Lords—the £39 billion is not legally obliged. There is a question of a moral requirement. But you just mentioned there are some obligations. Have you yet got a figure as to what those obligations are, regarding the amount we actually are required to pay because of the programmes we have submitted to? That's going to come out of the £39 billion that you're talking about.

Yes, I can give the number precisely to the gentleman. It is nil. After the two-year notice period expires, our obligations under the treaty expire. Just as when we joined the European Union, they didn't compensate us for a notional amount for the pension contributions for people who had been working for them but not for us before we joined. When someone leaves a company, you have a contractual arrangement. In international law, you have an international treaty, based on the treaty of Rome and its successor treaties. They have provided, since the Lisbon treaty, a specified treaty pre-agreed mechanism for leaving, which is that you give two years' notice under article 50. The treaties then cease to apply. You have no further financial obligation, as was correctly observed by the House of Lords.

Of course, if you want to stay in some programmes and participate in them, you will negotiate a price for doing so. But the idea that we owe this sum and that we are breaching a sovereign debt obligation is absolutely ludicrous. It comes from remainers who just seem to like the idea of giving their constituents' money to overseas organisations. We don't owe this money. Whether we want to pay something in return for something else is an entirely different matter.

I also note that, in terms of trade, should we leave the European Union without a deal—in a 'no deal' or a WTO rules scenario—we are not obligated to impose these large tariffs on particular sectors. The idea that food prices will suddenly rise massively presumes that we would choose to apply the same tariff that the EU does to non-EU goods. Now, it is correct that if we are on WTO rules, we need to be non-discriminatory. So, whatever the tariff is, it would be applied on an equal basis to the EU, as outside the EU, if there isn't a trade agreement or if there isn't an article 24 GATT arrangement. But that tariff does not have to be the maximum amount that the EU is allowed to apply, according to its WTO schedules.

I give way once more.

Again, I appreciate the question that you put to me on article 24 from the GATT, which is obviously only applicable if you are in discussions on a trade agreement because it doesn't apply if you are not having those discussions. You also identified the fact that, if you are going to reduce tariffs to allow the cheaper import of trade—which, as you quite rightly point out, the UK may do—it has to be applied across all WTO members, which does mean, therefore, that you will probably have imports at a lower level and cost UK jobs. There will be imports from countries that we would have had agreements with and would have had higher tariffs, now coming in at lower tariffs and putting UK jobs at risk. Do you accept that that is a possibility as a consequence of tariffs unilaterally being reduced?

Well, it depends on what the tariff is, but the Member's position seems to be that any trade agreement is great as long as the European Union negotiates it and that we are part of it as the EU, but that any other arrangement is automatically bad, without looking at the merits of the size and the balance of the tariffs. [Interruption.] The Member says from a sedentary position that he didn't say that, and I'll accept that. But, what we do is up to us.

Essentially, the UK Government has set out a tariff schedule to apply. In some of the most sensitive sectors, what it looks to do is have a tariff to give a degree of protection to domestic producers, but one that is below the tariff that is currently set by the European Union. So, that will lead to a balance of the two effects that are identified. Some of the areas where there are high tariffs, such as on clothes, such as on footwear, except at the very high end, we don't produce any in this country, yet we have these huge tariffs to protect a limited amount of production within southern Europe, and we prevent China importing on those tariffs, where we give exemptions to some other countries. If we got rid of those tariffs on clothing and footwear, there would be a very significant reduction in cost, which would be most important for the poorest members of our communities, who spend the highest proportion of income on those goods.

If I may just move towards a conclusion, we had £172 billion of exports last year to the EU against £266 billion of imports. Were there to be tariffs on those both ways, and the weighted tariff would actually be higher on what we import than what we export, that would be a very significant amount of import substitution available to the domestic economy. As well as any short-term disruption and the long-term economic analysis that benefits free trade, in the short term, if you have moved to a situation of tariffs where you had none before with an economy where you have a massive trade deficit of £94 billion, the impact on your domestic economy in the near term in terms of demand is likely to have the positive element of the import substitution, which is very rarely discussed in this debate and needs to be set against the costs that others identify.

So, to conclude, I would encourage Members to support this motion, and we would like to get a deal if we can. Time is now short, but we should leave on 31 October with or without a deal, and if the EU wants a deal, it should offer at least what it has been prepared to offer Canada in terms of a free trade deal, not one where we have to give up Northern Ireland, or one we're locked into a customs union we can't leave without their permission.

I have selected one amendment to the motion, and I call on Darren Millar to move the amendment, tabled in his own name. Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the amendment. I have to say, it feels a lot like groundhog day in this Chamber. Yet another debate on Brexit when the situation outside of this Chamber remains largely unchanged since our last debate. We find ourselves yet again, as a Welsh Conservative group, between two extremes, if I can present you as this. We have the extreme of the Brexit Party, which wants to take us out on 31 October with no deal as your preference, because that's what Nigel Farage has said. He wants a clean Brexit by 31 October. He's not said that it's his aim to secure a deal. [Interruption.] Yes, happily.

I thank Darren Millar. Which extreme are you supporting—the Rory Stewart extreme or the Boris Johnson extreme?

I'll reflect on that, perhaps, later. So, we have that extreme, which has been expressed by Nigel Farage, your party leader. He's made it quite clear that his aim is a clean Brexit.

Will the Member give way? I'd like to say that Rory Stewart's been knocked out, so he can safely support Boris.

As a Boris Johnson supporter who declared before today, obviously that would please me.

And on the other side we have the other extreme, who are the Brexit deniers, who only believe in democracy in a referendum when it goes their way. A group of politicians who want to go back to square one and have another referendum because they don't like what the people of Wales told them in the first one. And of course that's the very reason why we haven't left the EU as was promised on 29 March, because neither side, on those two extremes—[Interruption.] I've not made much progress. I'll take one in a few moments, if I may.

Neither of the two sides on those extremes have been able to compromise or give ground, and we hear in this Chamber time and time again that people are fed up with the uncertainty, that we've got to put an end to it all, and yet we've had the opportunity to put an end to it all. We had the opportunity with the withdrawal agreement that was negotiated, and it's the only agreement that's been negotiated between the EU and the UK, and yet your MPs, particularly Plaid and Labour MPs, voted against this thing. So, I find it extraordinary, really, that we are in this position, and the reason, if I can just put you right, we put June 2016 in the motion is that we wanted to remind people that it's been three years since that vote and it's about time we got on and delivered on the result, which was clear—people voted to leave the EU. I'll take the intervention from Helen Mary.

I'm grateful to the Member. I would put it to him that the reason why we haven't left the EU is because his Government singularly failed to have conversations with other Governments in the UK, to have conversations with other parties that might have led to some sort of compromise that those of us who did not want the result of that referendum but were prepared to accept it in the first place, but we were never offered that opportunity, as other parties, to participate. Those conversations only happened at the last minute. His party's got to take responsibility for that, and I would put to him that the young people who came of age in the last three years now have got a right to have a say in their own future because his party couldn't get their act together.

The reality is that the UK Government quite rightly has spent its time negotiating with the EU, representing 27 states. But let's get back to this debate, because it's very important. We, unlike your party, Helen Mary, and unlike the Labour Party here, respect the result of the referendum and we believe that the will of the people should be implemented. That's why we've tabled this amendment today. We've always, as a nation, implemented the outcomes of referendums. We don't believe that we should patronise the people of Wales and tell them, 'We know better than you, and we're going to force you to go back to the polls, and you must vote in the way that we want you to vote next time around'.

Now, we've made it clear that we do support the aim of leaving the EU by 31 October, sooner if possible. I would like to see it as soon as possible, and we've made it absolutely clear in this Chamber on many occasions that we would prefer to leave with a deal, and that's why we backed the withdrawal agreement, which was a compromise between both of the extremes that we see here in the Chamber from the Brexit Party and from the Labour and Plaid axis, if I can call it that. But as I've made clear in this Chamber in the past also, whilst it's our preference to leave with a deal—and we want to see absolutely every effort made to secure one—should the EU not be prepared to shift or move their position, then there may be no option other than to leave without a deal in order to honour the outcome of the referendum. For me, it's more important to honour the outcome of the referendum than to extend that period and not fulfil the will of the people.

Will the Member give way?

I'll happily take—.

Could he clarify: is the Conservative Party position still to back the withdrawal agreement, or is it that of its putative leader, Boris Johnson, that it constitutes vassalage and a suicide vest around the country?

It's quite clear that the withdrawal agreement has no hope, in its current form, of passing through the UK Parliament, so there's going to have to be a discussion with the EU to see whether there's an ability to negotiate something different that would be acceptable. So, we've—. And it's because of this pragmatism on our side that we've supported the efforts of both the UK and the Welsh Governments to prepare and make extra effort to prepare for a 'no deal' Brexit, because that may well be the outcome that we want, as much as we don't actually want to see that. So, I say to everybody in this Chamber, instead of your extremes—and that that's what you are; you're all extremists as far as we're concerned—[Interruption.]—you need to get back—[Interruption.]—you need to get back to a position where you compromise in the same way that we have on these benches, in order to move the situation forward and to deliver the Brexit that the people of Wales voted for.

There won’t be many occasions on this or any other afternoon where I find reason to thank the Brexit Party, but I will make an exception today for thanking them for the clarity of their motion, which specifically calls for a ‘no deal’ Brexit and to hell with the consequences for communities like Torfaen. [Interruption.] Yes, it does. To combine this new-found zeal for no deal with a refusal to acknowledge the need for a confirmatory vote is to rewrite the history of the 2016 referendum and is utterly undemocratic. Voters in Torfaen were told that a deal would be the easiest thing in the world, that countries would be battering down our doors to do exciting trade deals with us. Hundreds of millions flooding into the NHS—that is the illusion that was sold on the doorstep. We have not yet voted on reality.

The people who rely on the manufacturing sector in my constituency were not told that the price for a 'leave' vote could be their livelihoods—the work and the glue that holds communities together. Just last week, Make UK told the Brexit select committee that there was a direct link between politicians talking up the prospect of a 'no deal' and British firms losing customers overseas and British people losing their jobs. This cannot be dismissed as project fear—this is project fact. This is happening now. Plants are closing, jobs are going, communities are facing bleak futures. And this is just what the prospect of a 'no deal' is doing to us. Imagine what happens when that prospect becomes a reality, and that is what this motion before us today calls for.

At the very moment that our manufacturers are saying to us that calling for a ‘no deal’ Brexit is an act of economic vandalism, this is the moment when the Brexit Party table a motion calling for it. This is also the time when Boris Johnson launches his leadership campaign, which firmly puts 'no deal' on the table as a potential outcome of him becoming Prime Minister. And with another leadership hopeful supporting 150 per cent Katie Hopkins’s racist smear against the mayor of London, the toxicity of the Brexit debate shows no sign of abating. Now, I don’t expect I’ll convince the Brexit Party of the economic arguments against their chosen course today, but I do hope to convince them of something. This is, after all, the week in which we remember the death of our colleague, Jo Cox—a young female MP who spoke up for diversity as a strength and who was assassinated on the streets by a far-right terrorist. The language we choose to use in this Chamber matters. It really matters. The language our Members and supporters use on the street and online matters. It really matters. The labels we give other politicians and other people in our leaflets, our newspaper columns and Twitter feeds really matter. You will not find a more vocal critic of wrongdoers inside their own party than me. I will never excuse threatening, bullying or prejudicial behaviour by anyone. So, I want to give the leader of the Brexit Party that same opportunity today to clarify where he and his party stand on this. Since Mark Reckless accused me in this Chamber of disrespecting my constituents, I have been met with a sustained volley of abuse from a small but very vocal element locally.

Will you take an intervention? One of the Members of the Brexit Party just sighed and said, 'Oh God', when you mentioned the tragic death of Jo Cox. Do you join me in condemning that?

Absolutely, I do, and I think that is an absolute disgrace.

You think that the things you say in here—[Interruption.] You think that the things you say in here don't have a real-life impact. Well, they do. We can disagree—disagree passionately—about what we think is best for the economy of Torfaen, but to accuse me of not caring about Torfaen people's views is just plain wrong. I could have had a much easier career in politics if I didn't always put Torfaen first, but that has never been my way. Already, the security arrangements at my office have had to be revamped. During the Brexit Party's Merthyr rally, along with other Labour Members in this Chamber, I was denounced from the platform. Dawn Bowden's office was vandalised the next day. People are taking the lead from what they see and hear their leaders saying. When Nigel Farage said he was ready to don khaki to deliver Brexit, he might have thought it was a great joke. For people who are being targeted with violent abuse, it is anything but. This is politics by another means, it is dangerous, and I call on the leader of the Brexit Party to denounce, without equivocation, this threatening and intimidating rhetoric and behaviour. 

I assume the Member—[Interruption.] I assume the Member is wanting me to intervene. I denounce political violence and intimidation in all its forms. I've fought a by-election where I had a significant degree of intimidation and I think we need to call it out whenever we see it. I totally agree with this. I believe in democracy. I think we need to implement democratic results. That is the way that we should do politics in our country. 

Well, I hope that you will also then consider in the future the language that you use here, not just accusing some of us of disrespecting people, but I have heard the term too often 'betrayal', and the term 'betrayal' leads to accusations of people being traitors. I'll give way again.

I do not believe I myself have used that word. If I'm incorrect and you'd like to draw to me to anywhere when I've ever used that word in a political context to condemn anyone, then please do. But I don't believe I've said it. 

Well, I will certainly check that, but certainly some Members have. Needless—

Sorry, I don't want to take—

You've made your speech, Mark. I am speaking—

I need to—. I would like to correct what I just said. I don't believe I've used the word 'traitor'. That is not a word I use.

No, I—

The word 'betray' I may use in some contexts. But we should think very carefully how we use words, I agree.

I did not accuse you of using the word 'traitor', I was talking about the word 'betrayal', which does—

My denial—. I don't deny using that. 

Okay. Okay.

I should declare for the context, I do—. I haven't used the word 'traitor'.

Fine. I think you've clarified that. 

Thank you very much, but I'd like to finish my speech now, and I hope that you will reflect on the comments that I've made.

Needless to say, I won't be voting for this motion today. I remain on the side of the manufacturers who see any form of Brexit as harmful and a 'no deal' as straightforward economic vandalism. Far from disrespecting the people of Torfaen, it is the high regard I have for the fabric of every community in the constituency that energises me to fight for a final say, where people can have a real say on the real choices facing this country and not on the nebulous and dishonest terms we had in 2016. 

Before I start my contribution, I would like to ask to be accorded the respect due to me as one of your peers also. I find heckling and criticism—that comes largely from the Labour benches—childish and unsettling. It is in that spirit of mutual respect that I make these comments. 

I don't think there is anyone in the UK or watching the Brexit debacle from outside that would disagree that it's a mess—a big mess. I won't repeat here the arguments, counter arguments, statistics, polling and counter polling that has been the foundation of many of the debates here in this Chamber or anywhere else. We have all heard them before, and so have our constituents, and we can all twist them to suit any of our narratives. 

Obviously, I support this motion today, and I can’t help but think that this is the natural conclusion of the last three years of arguing, backpedalling, poor leadership, hidden agenda, lack of preparation and taking the electorate for granted. We have a deeply divided country that now appears to me to have split along leave/remain lines. We all know that, and these lines are appearing to transcend usual party allegiances.

An example from yesterday: I met a couple outside talking, and we got on great for 20 minutes talking about the sheep and the pigs outside, and what I did in farming previously and things like that. And then just as I shook their hand—we'd also agreed on things like EU rules, about ticks and farming and things like that—and, then just as I went to go in, she shook my hand and she said, 'Oh, lovely to meet you, what party do you represent?' and I said, 'The Brexit Party', and it was like I grew horns. She took a step back and she said, 'Well, I'm sorry, we voted "remain" and we will have to agree to disagree', and yet we'd agreed for the last 20 minutes when I put things forward to her. She'd agreed with everything, you know—so, it's just really weird. 

You won’t be surprised to hear that I believe that the continued relative success of our democracy means that I believe the vote that took place in 2016 needs to be implemented. The whole premise of our democracy is built on the consent of the loser. That is the underpinning principle. If that no longer applies, what then? I've heard too many people tell me that they will never vote again because their vote in 2016 has been disregarded, and a lot of those are on the Labour side. They tell me it’s pointless and meaningless. And we all lose if our democracy is built on apathy and a lack of trust in it. This is not a sustainable foundation.

I attended my first meeting of the Brexit committee on Monday, and I’d like to thank the clerks and the Members for their very warm welcome. Thank you. It was an interesting evidence session, where we discussed the ongoing development of common frameworks. The standout moment for me was the admission that there is apparently no agreement across the various UK Governments as to what an actual common framework actually is and what it does. Luckily, the committee is now seeking to clarify this by writing to Westminster, the Welsh Government and Scotland as well, hopefully. There appears to be a big communication problem all the way through, and this is doing a disservice to our country. Indeed, my former committee’s report, 'UK governance post-Brexit', pointed this out and made recommendations around this in 2018.

In my opinion, we are currently at a tipping point in terms of our exit from the EU—which must happen—in terms of our rather dysfunctional relationships with the other Governments of this land, which need to be sorted, and in terms of our democracy, in which we need to restore confidence. For these reasons, I will be supporting this motion of ours today. Thank you. 

Llywydd, Plaid Cymru has not sought to amend this Brexit Party motion; it is so far removed from reality that the kindest course of action is to put it out of its misery before it implodes under the weight of its own contradictions. To consider that the Brexit Party only cares about one thing—Brexit—it is really quite astonishing to be confronted with the depth of their ignorance about how it would work. It is a little like seeing a contestant on Mastermind scoring zero points on their self-professed specialist subject. The motion notes that 498 MPs voted to trigger article 50 back in March 2017. That, at least, is correct. That's 498 mainly Tory and Labour MPs who voted in favour of embarking on a voyage of discovery without a map, a compass or any idea of where it was they hoped to reach. [Interruption.] No, I will not give way, Mark.

Plaid Cymru warned at that time that it was a monumental mistake to set in motion a countdown to departure, when the UK Government had no clear set of objectives. The Government knew that there were serious issues with all types of Brexit, so, in the light of that difficulty, they decided not to decide which one to pursue in the hope that nobody would notice. They didn't want to choose a soft Brexit, because it would simply mean that they would have to carry on with EU membership without some of the benefits. They didn't want to choose a hard Brexit, because their own impact assessments clearly showed this would cause severe and long-lasting damage to the economy. And, since there was no goldilocks Brexit to be had, they chose neither, and negotiated a deal that pleased no-one.

Now, according to this Brexit Party motion, leaving the EU without a deal on Halloween could reduce the cost of food, clothing and—get this—footwear. Let's let that sink in. We've gone from £350 million extra a week for the NHS to a vague hope that we may get £3.50 off our next pair of shoes. And even this less-than-bold claim doesn't stand up to scrutiny—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, I'll take an intervention.

It's on that very point. You mentioned contradictions earlier on and, of course, we've heard about the impact, potentially, on the price of clothing. We just had a debate on climate change and the lack of sustainability, and yet the proposal seems to be inviting cheap imported throwaway fashion, basically, as a way to entice people to support a 'no deal' Brexit. Would you share with me that that's another contradiction that the Brexit Party don't seem to get?

On that, at least, we might be able to agree, on Brexit.

A 'no deal' exit would likely result in a sudden decline in the value of sterling, which would mean that nothing would be cheaper, so what is the Brexit Party's answer to this? How would they keep prices down? Their policy, insofar as can be deduced, would be to unilaterally reduce tariffs to zero. Of course, under the WTO's most-favoured-nation rule, it would be illegal to discriminate on tariffs outside of a trade agreement. So, the UK would have to drop tariffs on chosen goods for the entire world. The consequence of this, obviously, would be catastrophe for agriculture and manufacturing on these islands, flooding the market with cheap goods and making Welsh produce uncompetitive overnight.

Will the Member give way? We haven't proposed cutting all tariffs to zero. Broadly, we thought the Government tariff schedule was a sensible one. On clothing and footwear there's a strong case. On food, we would see the case for a degree of protection for domestic producers.

Thank you for that enlightening contribution, Mark.

A WTO Brexit would also lead, however, to a trade embargo, resulting in the halting of exports of UK animal-based products such as meat, eggs and dairy to the EU—I wonder if you would disagree with that as well—a double whammy as this would be for Welsh farmers, courtesy of the Brexit Party. We also have, of course, this lamentable claim that the UK could save £39 billion by withholding the so-called divorce bill. This would preclude a trade agreement with the EU, which the Brexit Party apparently wants, it would damage the UK's credit rating, and as the French Government has made clear, it would be considered a sovereign debt default by EU countries. Let us be absolutely clear what is being proposed here. The Brexit Party is advocating making the UK an economic basket case.

Now, let me turn to my favourite part of this astonishing motion, point 5, which calls for a 'no deal' exit from the EU unless they offer the UK a comprehensive free trade agreement and accept alternative arrangements in place of the Northern Ireland protocol. Well, these are demands for things that the EU has already offered and that the Brexit Party opposes. The EU offered comprehensive trade agreements with zero tariffs and they have accepted alternative arrangements for the border—it's in the Irish protocol, which the Brexit Party are rejecting. The backstop only comes into force if those alternative arrangements do not do what the Brexiteers say they will do, which is create a frictionless border. So, there we have it. The mess of a motion before us makes quite laughable promises. Cheaper shoes—give me strength—that aren't even deliverable. It demands that the EU offers a deal that it has already offered, and it will stand as proof down the ages that the Brexit Party was no more than a single-issue party that had zero understanding of the single issue it existed to advocate. In case it wasn't obvious, I urge Members to vote against this motion as we will certainly be doing.

Once again, I agree with Darren; it's groundhog day. We hear again that the first motion by the Brexit Party is to support their belief that leaving the EU without an agreement is a virtuous act and will enhance the lives of the people of Wales. Although this time, they've actually added little bits trying to encourage us by saying that there'll be a reduction on food, clothing and, as pointed out, footwear. I've got my shoes on; I'm okay.

But, in that discussion, they say that we won't pay the £39 billion. Well, we had the discussion and the exchange we had earlier, and it has been shown that there's no legal requirement for the whole £39 billion, but I think as Delyth Jewell has pointed out, the failure to meet your moral obligations—and there are moral obligations here—actually could and would probably be seen by the world as a failure to honour treaties that they enter into. And then, you're trying to say, 'Well, we want to trade with you and negotiate a deal with you, but at the same time, we won't give you what we think you should be having'.

It's full of fantasies, this motion, and it reflects the total inability of the party opposite to actually put together a cohesive argument for leaving the EU. They want to ignore obligations. And I think that last point, actually, is to blackmail the EU: 'You won't get your money unless you do a deal with us'. That's a form of blackmail. Do you think that other countries are going to meet into that? [Interruption.] It's not negotiation, and the Member from a sedentary position trying to say it is knows that full well. If he'd ever been in negotiations, he'd know better than that. I have, in a sense, been in negotiations that are slightly different—not with nations, but, more importantly, with my members.

Llywydd, I actually accept that the majority of people in Wales voted to leave in the 2016 referendum. In fact, in my constituency, the majority voted to leave in that referendum. So, I'm not standing here to challenge what they wanted to do. They wanted to leave. We may have differences as to what 'leave' meant, but they wanted to leave. And we must think of a way in which we can deliver that as much as possible, but we must do so whilst protecting people in Wales from the worst possible outcomes, because it's their living standards we want to protect as well.

The former First Minister, who was sitting here this afternoon, made it quite clear just after the referendum that this Welsh Government would work towards delivering the outcome of the referendum, but after almost three years of shambolic attempts in Westminster to devise a plan for Brexit, we're now left with a governing party in Westminster in turmoil, and a Government leadership contest with four candidates left—all of whom, by the way, were in Cabinet at the time of those two years—trying to actually renegotiate a deal that they've been told they can't renegotiate, or leaving without a deal, and we all know a 'no deal' departure will be the most damaging to this nation.

Now, it's incumbent upon this Assembly to take every possible action to protect the Welsh economy, and we're now in a situation that leaves us hardly any options in that, but one option we must accept is to fight against a departure from the EU without a deal. That is the worst possible scenario. The evidence I have heard clearly reflects that. Now, we heard today some stories from Members opposite that great things will come from such an exit and we'll have great trade deals with other countries, possibly the EU making a deal with us, our tariffs will be used across the globe, unilaterally across everybody, to give us a lower cost on shoes and lower costs on high-end clothes. Well, most of my constituents won't be buying high-end clothes.

We've heard also the argument from the leader, nationally, of the opposite party that the GAAT article 24 can be invoked and we will continue to trade with no tariffs across the EU. Well, he hasn't actually read article 24, I think, because if you read article 24—and the whole evidence is there; go to the House of Commons research people if you want to read it—that article 24 is invoked when you're in negotiations, not at this stage. We're not in negotiations. And when we leave, we won't be in negotiations, so we won't invoke 24. So, we will not be in a position where we can actually say, 'Let's keep the status quo', because it won't apply. 

We also remember that article 24 only applies to goods. It does not apply to services. So, one of the largest elements of our economy is not included in article 24. So, again, we will not have status quo in our economy. We will have to pay tariffs, and it's been pointed out by Delyth that WTO rules apply across all nations that are members of the WTO rules, and if you drop any tariff to try and encourage imports, you drop it for every nation, and that could put our jobs in this country at risk, as you have not got protections against some of the goods coming in, which may not be to the standards or quality we want because there's no question of regulation either on those aspects.

Another inaccurate statement being distributed by the Brexit Party—I've read their articles—is that you can drive across Europe with no problem: 'Don't worry; HGVs can go across, they're all okay'. We've been given 102 ECMT permits—look it up if you don't know what ECMT stands for. That means 5 per cent of the UK's haulage system is able to travel across Europe. Ninety-five per cent can't. How many Welsh hauliers is that going to put at risk? This fantasy of leaving with no deal being good for our economy has to be put out clearly to the public—that it is a fantasy. The reality is that leaving without a deal puts this economy at serious harm. And we represent people, every single one of us, even the four Members over there, who have to ensure that their living standards do not drop. A 'no deal' exit makes that happen. This motion is full of fantasy, full of fabrication and full of loss of hope for the people and economy of this country, and I would suggest everyone opposes it.

The Brexit Minister to respond to the debate—Jeremy Miles.

Thank you, Llywydd. In a statement a fortnight ago, I said that despite the further extension to the article 50 process, we are no nearer finding a way forward on the UK's exit from the European Union. The UK Government has failed to deliver on the most important issue in our peacetime history and has failed to heal the divisions in our society. In 2016, following years of infighting within the Conservative Government in Westminster, many in our society felt that they had been left behind and forgotten by those with a responsibility to protect the most vulnerable.

According to some, the referendum campaign was the greatest democratic event in our history, but this was the event that caused the greatest divisions, too, and the divisions that already existed were fed by the 'leave' campaign, which tried to persuade voters in any way possible that leaving the European Union would resolve the problems in our society. That was a campaign that was built on effective images, but didn't have any substance, like 'taking back control'. We won't see the UK receiving £350 million per week, as was claimed. Quite the contrary. The unsuccessful efforts to deliver Brexit have already cost billions of pounds, money that could have been spent on hospitals, schools and public services, which are so crucial. This has already led to an economy that is significantly smaller than we would have seen otherwise.

It was claimed that a free trade agreement with the EU would among the easiest in human history to agree, but that wasn't the case. We have been involved in endless negotiations that have proved just how wrong was the perception that the EU needed us more than we needed them. We haven't even started on real negotiations with other parts of the world, and Liam Fox hasn't even managed to ensure that we will have anything like the same access to markets like Canada and Japan, where we currently benefit from a free trade deal through the European Union. In the meantime, there is more and more evidence arising that demonstrates that any kind of Brexit will be damaging, and that a 'no deal' Brexit will be disastrous.

As we were approaching the first cliff edge in March we discussed the implications of a 'no deal' exit based on our understanding of the evidence and the extent that governments, the private sector and wider civic society could try to mitigate those impacts. The UK Government's own analysis estimates the UK economy would be between 6.3 per cent and 9 per cent smaller in the long term in a 'no deal' scenario. The starting figure for Wales is, alarmingly, as much as 8.1 per cent smaller, and those figures don't even account for any short-term disruptions, which would be likely to seriously exacerbate the impacts of a 'no deal' scenario.

Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, has warned that food prices could increase permanently, and the British Retail Consortium estimates families could end up paying an additional £1,000 a year for their shopping. The Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders says that a 'no deal' Brexit was gambling with other people's businesses, livelihoods and jobs. We will be disadvantaged, and that will have an impact on business decisions and investment decisions going forward. I am sure that view will have a resonance with automotive workers across Wales. I could go on.

I know the leaders of the 'leave' campaign don't like experts and evidence, but we have a choice. We can listen to reasonable assessments based on the fact that a 'no deal' exit would see an end to frictionless trade, or we could, like the Brexit Party, stick our fingers in our ears and tell ourselves that good times are just around the corner. Llywydd, it's frankly astonishing that, despite the evidence we have on the stark implications of a 'no deal' Brexit, we have this motion before us today, making the same unsubstantiated claims that were mis-sold to the public during the referendum in 2016. It's frankly astonishing that it has only just occurred to Mandy Jones that there are immense problems in trying to negotiate the difficulties we face as we look at Brexit.

This is a motion the Government rejects and I call on the Assembly to do so also. No-one is disputing the fact that a majority in Wales voted to leave the European Union. Many of us tried to find a way of leaving the EU that respected the result of the referendum without decimating our economy. The Welsh Government set out our approach in 'Securing Wales' Future' and took every opportunity to present our evidence-based case to the UK Government and the EU. But, just as no-one disputes the referendum results, no-one surely believes that those voting to leave the EU did so wanting to trash the economy in the way that a 'no deal' outcome would. No-one made the case for 'no deal', no-one voted for 'no deal', 'no deal' has no mandate.

The National Assembly, together with the Scottish Parliament, has rejected a 'no deal' outcome. A majority of Members of Parliament also continue repeatedly to vote against 'no deal'. Those that continue to ignore the reality of the catastrophic consequences of a 'no deal' Brexit are simply acting recklessly with the livelihoods of our citizens and their future security. The Welsh Government will not amend this motion. The position of the Government was clearly expressed in the motion that was passed two weeks ago.

Recent developments in the contest to be the next Tory leader have only further endorsed our position, that by design or default the future Conservative Prime Minister will be taking the UK towards a 'no deal' outcome. Faced with that straight choice between a catastrophic 'no deal' or remaining in the EU, we are unequivocal in backing 'remain' and we continue to call on Parliament to take control of this process and legislate for a referendum as a means of remaining in the European Union.

I call on Caroline Jones to reply to the debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to thank everybody who took part in this debate. Regardless of the difference of opinions, every contribution in this debate has been valuable and respected. 

In opening, Mark Reckless highlighted the Conservatives' 'delete all' motion. I would just like to say that the confusion and disarray of the Conservative UK Government has now been transferred to Wales. Helen Mary Jones made a valid point in her intervention and she said that had there been successful negotiations from the Conservative Government then perhaps people, whatever they voted, could have all come together, negotiated, spoken, and we would have had some sort of outcome that would have been acceptable to the people of Wales. Mark stated in his contribution that he would prefer a deal, but we don't know if that's possible because of the UK's negotiating power.

Will you take an intervention?

I have three minutes, Darren; I'm sorry. 

So, whilst many of you may disagree with our position, which you do, you must accept that the people of Wales voted in one of the biggest democratic processes in our nation's history. They voted decisively to leave behind them the bureaucracy and protectionism in favour of a future free from being in the EU. [Interruption.] I will be.

So, to those who are doing all they can to thwart Brexit, please remember that our constituents wanted us to leave the EU and trusted the UK Government to carry out this process, which they have not been able to do. People are telling me quite a lot of the time that they are fed up of politicians telling them that they didn't know what they voted for and that politicians know better. The recent result of the EU elections indeed showed that people did know what they voted for. My party, Plaid Brexit, which didn't exist until a few months ago, came first in 86 per cent of council areas in Wales, and that should now tell people the depth of feeling here in Wales. 

So, I think there is for all here an opportunity for everyone to put aside differences to honour what the people of Wales voted for, and let's try and deliver the best that we can for the people.

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

That brings us to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move immediately to the vote.

The first vote is on the motion to annul the National Health Service (Welsh Language in Primary Care Services) (Miscellaneous Amendments) (Wales) Regulations 2019. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Dai Lloyd. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 19, three abstentions, 27 against. Therefore the motion is not agreed.

The next vote is the vote on the Brexit Party debate on leaving the European Union. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Caroline Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour four, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed.

Which brings us to the amendments. Amendment 1 first. I call for a vote on amendment 1 tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, two abstentions, 38 against. Therefore the amendment is not agreed.

Therefore, as the Assembly has not agreed the motion or the amendment, there is no further voting on this item.

Which brings us to the final item today. If I could ask Members to leave the Chamber quietly and quickly.

I call on Mike Hedges to present the short debate. Mike Hedges.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I've given a minute to Dawn Bowden in this debate. This is about in-work poverty. The state of the Welsh economy, poverty and low pay are all interrelated.

A successful Welsh economy should drive up wages and reduce poverty. Too many of the people living in Wales are employed on 'flexible'—which I call 'exploitative'—contracts, with no guarantee of weekly income based on variable hours and the Government-set minimum wage. Whilst much of the recent debate has been on zero-hours contracts, unfortunately this is not the only 'flexible' employment practice used by employers. Other flexible employment practices include short guaranteed hours, split shifts, annualised hours and using agency staff. As well as the traditional short-term and temporary contracts, there has been a growth in the number of these new employment practices.

Increasing numbers of companies are taking on staff on zero-hours contracts, where people agree to be available for work as and when required, but have no guaranteed hours or times of work. Zero-hours contracts provide employers with a pool of people who are on call, and that puts all the financial risk on the employee whose income is not guaranteed. This is an example of the old 'waiting outside the docks to be called', except now you wait at home for a text message.

A variation on zero-hours contracts is where there is a guarantee of as little as one hour a day, and when people arrive at work they then discover how long the shift is going to be. Starting at 8 a.m., you may finish at 9.00 a.m. or have to work until late in the evening, possible 9.00 p.m., depending on the workload and the number of people who are available that day. This is a highly disruptive work pattern because you are unable to make plans for any part of the day until the day itself, and also wages vary from week to week. One concern is that if zero-hours contracts get banned, this will be their replacement, and far too many people—they go in, they start work, and then they discover when they're going to be going home. But if you're looking after children or you've got caring responsibilities for parents or other people, it makes life incredibly difficult when you've got no guarantee of hours. When I came in this morning, I knew I was going to leave here about 7.30 p.m., and when I come in tomorrow I know I'm going to leave here at about 1.30 p.m. Too many people, they come into work and they've got no idea when they're going to be going home. It just completely disrupts their lives. 

Both zero hours and short weekly or daily guaranteed hours mean that there is no certainty of income on a weekly or monthly basis. This leads to severe financial problems when few or no hours are worked in any weeks. And the one thing is: never be ill, because when you're ill you go back to either your minimum one hour or zero hours, and the food bank is the only hope of food.

Using staff employed via an agency means that most employment responsibilities are then with the agency. After 12 weeks in the same role working for the same employer, agency workers are entitled to the same employment and working conditions as permanent staff. Crucially, however, agency workers are not entitled to benefits such as occupational sick pay, redundancy pay and health insurance, the right to claim for unfair dismissal, and minimum notice of redundancy where they are working. This means that agency staff are much easier to dismiss than directly employed staff because they are employed by the agency, not the company they are working at. And also, the 12 weeks are very important, because after 11 weeks if you move them on and then they come back a fortnight later, the 12 weeks that you have to work for those rights start again at day one. 

The renaming of the minimum wage as the living wage has obviously caused some confusion, as there was already a national living wage calculated by the Living Wage Foundation. Almost 6 million workers in the UK are currently paid less than the living wage as defined by the Living Wage Foundation. I believe that the case for everyone to be paid at least the real living wage, as defined by the Living Wage Foundation, is really an overwhelming argument. I don't believe that it makes sense that the Government enforces a minimum wage that is not considered enough to live on, and renaming it the living wage can only lead to confusion with the real living wage, which is why I believe the living wage, as defined by the Living Wage Foundation, is desperately needed for everybody. This is not about having exotic lifestyles; it just means you can live.

One of the biggest problems facing us in Wales today is in-work poverty, which is something the living wage would help address, and one of the Westminster Government’s biggest problems is paying in-work benefits, which, again, paying a living wage would help address. I believe that the Government has a moral duty to ensure a decent standard of living for all.

We also know that we're doing very well on the number of people unemployed, but if you have somebody working 40 hours who's then replaced by two people on 15 hours and one person on 10 hours, you've actually increased the number of people employed by two, which is good on unemployment, but instead of having one relatively well-paid worker, you've got three very low-paid workers, and that affects not just the people, it affects the benefits they're getting, and it also affects the tax take for the Government in Westminster.

There are also benefits for employers, the Living Wage Foundation report says. A living wage employer ensures that all employees are paid at least the living wage; this includes individuals who work on a regular basis at your premises for a contractor or subcontractor, such as cleaners or security staff. Living wage employers report improved morale, lower turnover of staff, reduced absenteeism, increased productivity and improved customer service.

Our ambition for Wales must be to create a high-wage and high-skilled economy, and becoming a living wage country would be one further step along that road. 'We cannot afford it and it will cost jobs' has been the argument used against all progressive change, from the abolition of slavery to the minimum wage. 'No, we can't afford it, it'll bring bankruptcy.' I remember when we were fighting for the minimum wage, one of the great successes of Tony Blair and the Labour Government in 1997, people said, 'Oh, we'll have to make people redundant; we'll have to cut staff', as if employing people was a philanthropic gesture that employers did, and that they would stop doing it because they'd have to pay more. What you actually found was that more people got into employment because you had more money in the local economy, and it pushed up demand.

We won the battle over the minimum wage; the loss of jobs didn't occur. It may have reduced sales of top-of-the-range cars, but it put money in people’s pockets and really helped local economies. If we pay people who are relatively poor more money, they spend it locally. If you pay people who are very rich more money, they tend to spend it in other places. Really, we do need to become a living wage country, but we need more than that. I believe that being a living wage country would make Wales a fairer country, and this is a policy that all of us living in Wales could be proud and one that we as socialists, on our side, should be campaigning for.

Actions that the Welsh Government can take, and I've asked for this before and I'll ask for it again, and I'll keep asking for it: ensure all public sector workers employed by bodies directly funded by the Welsh Government are paid the real living wage; make paying the real living wage a pre-condition for contracting with public sector bodies funded via the Welsh Government, either directly or indirectly; make paying the real living wage a pre-condition of grants and loans to private companies; banning exploitative contracts by Welsh Government-funded bodies and their contractors and subcontractors; making financial support for companies, both grants and loans, dependent on non-exploitative contracts.

This only gets us so far, but it gets us a long way—. We should not be helping and supporting poverty pay. We should not be helping and supporting exploitation. 

What we need, however, is more higher paid employment. The Welsh economy is significantly weak. I've told the Welsh Government many times that we are very low on high-paid sectors and when we have the reports coming in on where we are weak, it says things like 'ICT', and it says things like 'banking and insurance', and it says things about professional services—the real, top-of-the-range, high-paid areas.

So, what do we need to do in Wales? I believe that we need to work more closely with the universities: Aarhus, for example, and the business park model, and Manheim has a centre for innovation and entrepreneurship. We know they work in those cities. There's no reason they can't work here. It's easy to say, 'Oh, Cambridge is very successful; it's got a science park.' Swansea, Cardiff and Cambridge? No. But could we be the same as Manheim and Aarhus? There's no reason why we couldn't. Manheim is the second city within its Länder and Aarhus is the second city in Denmark—not dissimilar to Swansea.

Whilst the term 'technium' has become synonymous with failure, the initial idea of using it in Swansea to provide facilities for start-up companies spinning out of the university was a good one, but labelling all advanced factories as techniums was doomed to failure.

There are some simple and quick actions that could be carried out to improve the Welsh economy: provide larger loans through the commercial bank to medium-sized companies. We don't grow companies from medium to large. In fact, the only company I can think of that has done it in recent years is Admiral. We really need to push companies up from medium to large, because far too many medium-sized companies, unfortunately, sell out.

We could provide loans against overseas assets and let Government contracts of such size that medium-sized Welsh companies can bid. We need to make it easier for microcompanies to expand. What we need to do is grow in key economic sectors. Why is Dundee a major producer of computer games? That's another city—I've tried to pick cities that are not the great cities of the world, but cities that we in Wales have cities very similar to.

Computer games can be produced anywhere in the world. Abertay found political and financial backing to establish a new department, offering the world's first computer games degree in 1997. There are now a clutch of related degrees, including games design and production management, and an intriguing BSc course called 'ethical hacking'. Hundreds of games graduates are turned out by Abertay every year, including David Jones, founder of DMA Design. After Lemmings in 1991, it released the first edition of the controversial game Grand Theft Auto in 1997. It sold in the millions, and new versions continue to top the games ratings. Trained games makers are in demand in the games industry worldwide. A significant number of them stay on in the area, creating games and building new companies with teams they met while studying.

The creation of an Aarhus-type business park or Manheim’s centre for innovation and entrepreneurship, or Dundee developing industries in conjunction with the university—these are not difficult things; these are what we have to do if we are going to grow our economy. What we need are policies that work to support the growth of Welsh companies and establish new ones. We in Wales are no less skilled, entrepreneurial and capable than anywhere else in the world. What we have to do is ensure that we can turn these companies out in Wales, and let's get people paid good wages and that would really drive our economy up. Thank you.

Could I thank Mike Hedges for giving me one minute in this debate, and in that minute, I cannot cover all the reasons for poverty or to talk in detail about how we can alleviate it? But I wanted to mention two things that I think we need to recognise. Firstly, the invaluable role of the trade union movement in the fight against poverty. It was the very experience of poverty amongst working people that led to the formation of trade unions, and trade unions are still at the forefront of this work today and retain a critical role in helping fight the current scourge of in-work poverty. Secondly, we know the statistics regarding the work of food banks or the number of people hit by universal credit or the number of people on insecure zero-hours contracts, which Mike has already mentioned, but we need to recognise the importance of continuing to support the call for the Government to prioritise its anti-poverty agenda, because the people I meet in my constituency surgeries, nearly every week, demand that of us—people struggling with debt, people struggling with their energy bills, people unable to pay their private sector rent and not able to find a more suitable alternative, and the children I see in holiday activity schemes also being helped to get a meal that day to deal with holiday hunger. Unless we tackle poverty, we cannot address the lack of money in the local economy in areas of highest deprivation, and such areas will continue in a downward spiral and we must reverse that. Reversing that starts with Government prioritising, by poverty-proofing every aspect of its policy. It makes good economic sense to do so. 

I call on the Minister for Economy and Transport to reply to the debate—Ken Skates. 

Acting Deputy Presiding Officer, I'd like to thank Members for their contributions to this very important debate today, and I am pleased to have the chance to respond on behalf of the Welsh Government. I'm going to begin by setting out some of the very clear pressures on individuals and communities across the length and breadth of Wales, and the first pressure is very clear: nine years of austerity. I'm sorry to say that the financial policy of the UK Government over almost a decade has been to strip away many of the vital structures that have supported communities over several decades. Cuts to local authority budgets have meant the loss of local facilities, such as libraries, community buildings and public spaces, and it's resulted in the depletion of essential public services such as policing. This is simply not political rhetoric. The special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights reported recently on this following his visit to the UK. And his view is that

'Much of the glue that has held British society together since the Second World War has been deliberately removed and replaced with a harsh and uncaring ethos'.

He reported that

'A booming economy, high employment and a budget surplus have not reversed austerity, a policy pursued more as an ideological than an economic agenda.'

Let me put into context how different things might have been had this deeply damaging policy not been pursued. Our budgets would have grown by more than £4 billion between 2009 and 2019 had the economy and our budgets grown in line. Had our budgets followed the trend of growth in public expenditure since 1945, we would have had £6 billion of additional investment leveraged at our disposal in Wales. And I think it's inconceivable for any Member of this Chamber to suggest that, in this context, and with that level of cut to our budgets, austerity has not significantly contributed to poverty in Wales. 

Now, the second factor that has had a major impact on levels of poverty in Wales is the UK Government's programme of tax and welfare reforms. As a result of the reforms, it's predicted that there will be 50,000 more children living in poverty in Wales by the time they're fully rolled out. And I think it's outrageous that those who are most vulnerable in our communities are targeted in such a way by these damaging policies. What, then, can we do against this backdrop? Well, we know that we don't have the major levers needed to make a difference to the headline poverty figure. Of course, it's tax and the welfare system that influence this. However, in the absence of a change of direction by the UK Government, we continue to do all that we can to support the most vulnerable in our communities as they try to deal with the disproportionate impact of these destructive policies. The First Minister has, of course, included poverty as an additional priority area in the Welsh Government's budget planning process for 2021, and work is being taken forward by the Minister for Housing and Local Government to review Welsh Government funding programmes to ensure that they have maximum impact on the lives of children living in poverty. 

We have been crystal clear. A child's life chances should not be determined by the economic circumstances of their parents. We do not accept the inevitability of a life in poverty. Our objectives of the child poverty strategy focus as much on supporting parents to increase household income as they do on tackling the inequalities that poverty brings with it. We are taking action to reduce the number of children living in workless households, and to increase the skills of parents and young people. I think, also, it's vitally important to recognise that there are now 300,000 more people in work in Wales since 1999. And the proportion of working-age people with no qualifications has more than halved. Economic inactivity rates in Wales are now broadly comparable with the UK average for the first time ever. 

Mike Hedges made the point that he believes that too few high-value jobs are being created in the economy. I disagree with this assertion. I would say that, in the past, it was the case that, in many circumstances, low-value, poorly paid jobs were often created, but that was in direct and immediate response to the incredibly high levels of unemployment. Today, we are clearly—and we have articulated this through the economic action plan—focusing on raising the quality and value of employment in Wales, particularly through the skills system, with our focus on supporting skills training at level 3 and above. And we only need to look at some of those sectors that provide the highest levels of productivity and wages—financial and professional services, for example, with growth here in Cardiff and across Wales at an astonishing level compared to the rest of the UK. Aerospace is the most productive sector in the British economy, and here in Wales we have a disproportionately high number of people now in employment in that sector—more than 20,000 people in incredibly valued jobs.

Since devolution, the number of workless households in Wales has fallen from almost 0.25 million to 173,000. This represents a decline of 22.4 per cent, again outperforming UK performance. Alongside this, we are taking steps to create a strong economy and labour market that generate sustainable employment opportunities that are truly accessible to all, and this is fundamental to our approach to tackling poverty. Our economic action plan has been designed to support the delivery of a strong, resilient and dynamic economy, and it's a plan to grow the economy inclusively and to reduce inequality. It's driving inclusive growth by maximising our impact on the foundational economy and through a new model of regional place-based economic development that is better attuned to tackling economic disparities in different parts of Wales. And the plan seeks to increase the availability of good-quality jobs and to empower communities with the skills and economic infrastructure that can support better jobs closer to home. A cornerstone of the plan is the economic contract, which is driving fairer, more responsible business practices that have the potential to support inclusive opportunities for work and progression and, of course, to address the rise in insecure, unreliable work, and we will go on working in partnership with those incredibly important social partners, including the trade union movement that Dawn Bowden has spoken about.

We will continue to use all the levers available to us across Government to ensure that individuals, households and communities have the strength and the resilience needed to overcome these challenges. I'd like to thank both Members today for their contributions and reaffirm my commitment to working with them as we take forward this incredibly important work.

Thank you. And that ends proceedings for today and brings them to a close.