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 Mark Isherwood.

I expect the new plan for tackling fuel poverty in Wales to be published for consultation in February. It will be informed by the landscape review on fuel poverty published by the Wales Audit Office on 3 October.

Thank you. As you know, we were looking forward to the fuel poverty strategy consultation hopefully being published this month, and the final plan next month. Last week, the Residential Landlords Association gave evidence to the Assembly's Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee inquiry into fuel poverty, and called, quote, 'for a more holistic approach', saying that properties tackled by the current strategy have so far only been in some of the most deprived areas, and there will be many fuel-poor occupiers in homes in more affluent areas as well. And, amongst other calls, they called for the least fuel efficient homes to be targeted first, such as those properties with a low energy efficiency rating, including those in the private rented sector, and support for tenants. 

Last October, the Bevan Foundation report in this area found that the richest households benefited most from current fuel poverty or previous fuel poverty strategies, where the number of wealthier households in fuel poverty had fallen by 75 per cent, but, in the poorest households, only 25 per cent, and they said that provided an indication as to why the Welsh Government had failed in its target to eradicate fuel poverty. 

Notwithstanding the overall reduction in the number of properties in fuel poverty, this identifies perhaps a need for a particular new focus. How will your new strategy address these concerns, and when do you expect the plan now to be published?

So, I think you're right: we do need to make sure that we are tackling the most deprived households first, in my view, and, certainly, if we had more funding, then we would be able to spread it much more widely. We have made some real progress over the past 10, 11 years, and we've improved the energy efficiency of more than 55,000 homes, and we've also been able to support over 129,000 people, but there are still far too many people living in fuel poverty in Wales.

Obviously, as part of the new strategy, we can look at having that new focus, and I'd be very happy to get any evidence that's been given, and I'm very aware of the climate change committee's report into fuel poverty, and they're currently taking oral evidence. And, whilst their report will probably be published too late to have an impact on the strategy that we'll be publishing next month, I'm sure it will help us as we take the policy forward. 

I'm sure, Minister, that you'd agree with me that one key component to tackling fuel poverty is ensuring that people are able to get the right advice to, potentially, switch users—something that, particularly, a lot of older people find difficult—and also to see what grant schemes, what support, might be available. You'll be aware that the Welsh Government, from the new financial year, is making some quite big changes to the advice services, the structures of the advice services, that they fund, and I wonder if you'd be good enough to talk with the relevant Ministers about those proposed changes to ensure that people, especially those in our poorest communities, and, particularly, elderly citizens, can get access to timely advice, and advice in their own communities, and, of course, where appropriate, through the medium of Welsh.

Absolutely, and I'm very happy to have those discussions with my relevant colleagues. I think it's also something that we need to look at within our energy service, because I think people don't tend to switch users. If I look at myself, I probably should do it; we should do it regularly, I think, and certainly look at the savings that could be made. But many of us don't have time to do that; some people don't know how to access that. You've referred to elderly people; I think they wouldn't know where to go for that advice. So, I think it's really important that we look at what advice services are doing in this area. So, yes, very happy to have those discussions. 

Minister, those figures you quoted earlier—129,000 people being helped, 50,000 homes—is good news across Wales. But, of course, those programmes were underpinned very often by a guarantee offered from the Cavity Insulation Guarantee Agency. Now, when those developers have gone wrong—either we've had a rogue developer, or we've had faulty materials, and, as a consequence, the homes have become damp and problematic—it is important, therefore, they're able to rely upon that guarantee to ensure those errors are rectified. I still have constituents who are raising concerns that they are having difficulty in getting those guarantees assured and delivered. Will you once again look at this programme to ensure that the guarantees are there for people, so that, when things do go wrong, they're able to have that and not have to spend thousands of pounds in rectifying errors, which they shouldn't have had to do?

Yes, the Member raises a very important point, and there are clearly some examples where people who've benefited from both UK and Welsh Government schemes designed to improve energy efficiency in their home—they've experienced problems, particularly with damp, and other associated problems. I know it is a matter of concern for a lot of Members, right across the Chamber—just yesterday, I met with our colleague Dawn Bowden, who's got concerns in her constituency. We know that, when it's installed and maintained correctly, it can significantly improve people's qualities of life and alleviate poverty in the way we've discussed. So, I am continuing to work with contractors; my officials are continuing to work with relevant bodies too, and I'd be very happy to update Members when I have more information.

Thank you. The Welsh Government's 'Implementing the Natural Resources Policy: a snapshot report' is due to be published next month. Natural Resources Wales's area statements will play a key role in taking forward place-based approaches to help implement the priorities and opportunities in the natural resources policy.

Thank you for that, Minister. Most people in Wales live in urban areas, and, in our inner urban areas, there are many issues around air quality and general lack of green space. So, I think improving those inner urban environments would connect people to the natural world more strongly, and I would hope would lead to better environmental behaviours—whether it's taking part in recycling schemes more effectively, or just generally supporting the great outdoors that we have in Wales. So, I'm interested, Minister, in schemes like Cynefin, which Welsh Government ran, I think, which was quite effective in my area of Newport East, for example. And in the Maindee area now, we have a group at the Maindee library—a group of volunteers, community groups—who have ideas to green the natural environment around the area, and are very interested in Welsh Government support and assistance for that sort of work. So, I'd be interested in what further steps Welsh Government might take to support such groups and to make sure that we do get that quality environment in our inner urban areas.

I very much agree with you in your appraisal of Cynefin. I think it was a scheme that operated—. The principles have been place-centred policies and priorities, and I think it facilitated very much in that partnership working to which you just referred. Since we had Cynefin, we've also introduced the enabling natural resources and well-being grant, the landfill disposals tax community scheme, and, just yesterday, you will have heard my colleague Hannah Blythyn launch the town-centre green infrastructure and biodiversity programme. That programme will very much support the implementation of environment schemes, and reflects the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 through the sustainable introduction of green infrastructure into town centres, so that it's not just environmental benefits, there are also social and economic benefits for local communities. Local authorities will have the funding for that, so, if anybody's interested listening today, they're able to find out how they can get involved by contacting their local authority.

Minister, in our urban renewal strategy, 'Liveable Cities', we in the Welsh Conservatives pledged to ensure that there was a minimum of 20 per cent urban tree canopy covering Wales by 2030. You will see the green town and city movement is now taking off all around the world, and we could really also be part of that, and leading it. I want to see the day when some of the current major arterial ways through our cities are greened for cyclists and pedestrians. And at the minute we desperately need to get to that place where we think differently.

I've been having discussions with both Hannah Blythyn and Ken Skates around this issue. I think you're right; we can really lead the way here. I'm about to launch—probably in April—the environmental growth plan, which was one of the First Minister's manifesto commitments. And we'll certainly be identifying funding for just those sorts of policies, where people can get involved looking at it from your doorstep. So, this will certainly, I think, help us move in the right direction.

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Andrew R.T. Davies.  

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, there has been much conversation between you and me in this Chamber around nitrate vulnerable zones and, obviously, the environmental regulations you're looking to bring forward to control agricultural pollution, as you see it. Are you able to update us on what you told us in December, where you were having a pause in the process and you were rethinking and re-engaging with the sector to see what the regulations might finally look like? 

So, I think the last time we discussed this in the Chamber—. Well, there are two things to say: it's not perceived agricultural pollution—I think we know the number of incidents that we have of that—and I said to you that I would be receiving advice before the end of January. I received that advice on Monday. As you can imagine, it's a very large ministerial advice folder, which I am now reading, and I will be making an announcement, I would certainly hope, at the beginning of next month into the middle of next month. 

So, we can look forward to an announcement some time in February, I think, from that answer—

Yes.

—that you just gave me. Will you be making available, prior to that announcement, the regulatory impact assessment, because it is vital that we understand exactly the costings of this, the implications to the industry, especially for some of the livestock sectors, the beef and sheep sector in particular? And why, as I understand it, when pollution incidents actually declined in 2019, and between 2001 and 2018, there's no discernible difference between the years on agricultural pollution, you believe it necessary to bring such draconian measures forward, when obviously the working group—[Interruption.]—the working group that the Welsh Government set up itself talked and looked at bringing forward a voluntary proposal that the regulator and the sector agreed would be of benefit to reducing pollution in the agricultural sector? 

Well, I certainly don't think they're draconian. If you look at measures in other parts of the UK, I would say we're certainly not bringing forward draconian measures, if you compare them to other parts of the UK. But that's not an issue for me. And I'll just give you some figures so that you can understand that what you've said—I think I heard you rightly—is not correct.

So, the number of agricultural pollution incidents in 2019, at the current time, stands at 157. That's unsubstantiated, because we haven't got all the figures finalised for 2019. That figure of 157 already exceeds the average of the last 10 years, which is 151. It's higher than in 2015, it's higher than in 2016, and it's higher than in 2017. The figure for 2018 is the highest that we've had for the period since 2001. So, for 17 years, the figure for 2018 was the highest, and that stood at 195 incidents. I'm sure you will agree with me this is a cause for great concern. It's unacceptable—the agricultural sector recognises it's unacceptable—and we have to do something about it. And you've got to think about also the cumulative impact of these incidents. 

I agree with you. One incident is one too many, and ultimately the agricultural industry wants to do all it can to make sure that these pollution incidents are reduced. But you yourself said in 2018 there were 190 incidents reported. I think the figure you gave for 2019 was 157, which showed a downward trajectory. And can it be right to respond to these numbers with what is, in effect, a cut and paste of NVZ zones that have been put in other parts of the United Kingdom? There surely is a better way of doing this, working collaboratively with the sector to make sure that we get on top of these incidents—because, as I said, one incident is one too many; I accept that—and, above all, that there is capital funding put in place, so, whatever measures you bring forward via the regulations, the sector can apply for capital funding to make some of the improvements that the regulations will demand of them. So, can you confirm today, that, in tandem with what you're looking at with the regulations, you are also looking at the availability of capital funding and any money that might be left over in the rural development plan, or any money that you might be able to secure from the finance Minister, who is in her place this afternoon?

We'll start with the capital funding. So, I've said all along that we will be able to provide additional capital funding in relation to this, but not to bring farms up to the legal standard now, because, at the moment, we've got data that's being collected through our Natural Resources Wales dairy officer visits to the farms, and that indicates approximately 60 per cent of dairy farms lack sufficient slurry storage now. So, I'm not giving additional funding to bring those farms up to the legal capacity. However, I said all along, both in this Chamber and outside, that we will look to provide some additional capital funding. 

I go back to what I was saying about 2019: it's 157, but that figure has not yet been finalised, as some cases are still under review. So, that is not the final figure, I believe, for 2019. Again, I've spoken about this many, many times with stakeholders, with the farming unions. I want to work in collaboration with them. We've had the voluntary approach, it hasn't worked in the way that we wanted. One of the reasons—. We did say we would announce this at the beginning of January, but because we were getting more and more evidence—. You referred to the fact that there was a pause, it wasn't a pause, I just wanted to make sure that the advice that came to me was as thorough as we could possibly have.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

You've just told us there were 157 incidents in 2019. Yes, 157 pollution incidents are 157 too many. Of course, there's no mention of the 30,000 sewage pollution incidents in 2018. So, I think we do need a little bit of perspective when we discuss these issues.

Now, you mentioned that you wanted to work in collaboration. I'd commend that. You might wish to collaborate with Natural Resources Wales, who told us that 92 per cent of Wales's agricultural land is not at risk of causing nitrate pollution, and their advice is that we move from the current 2.3 per cent of Wales as designated NVZ to 8 per cent.

Now, your regulatory impact assessment, or the draft RIA, considered only two options: one was the 'do nothing' option, which nobody, not even the farming unions, is advocating; and the other was to apply measures to address agricultural pollution to the whole of Wales. So, why did your RIA only focus on the two extremes, one of which was never a realistic option in the first place?

The reason I have had a pause, or a delay, in bringing these regulations forward is because, as I said, I wanted to look at the most evidence that was available to us. I certainly saw the first draft of the RIA. I am now approaching—. In my very large folder, I think the RIA is about document 18. I'm coming to that. I will see what difference there is from the draft, if any, but I'm not in a position to answer that specific question at the current time, because I am reviewing all the evidence that we've got. 

You're quite right: we see pollution right across Wales in different forms. Diffuse pollution is equally important. And, again, NRW had their 'Challenges and Choices' consultation in 2019. Again, that identified diffuse pollution from the agricultural sector as the reason for 113 water bodies across Wales failing to meet good status. So, there are lots of issues around pollution that we need to be looking at, because it's imperative that we sort this problem out now.

But the fact remains that NRW is not supporting the proposal to make the whole of Wales an NVZ, and whilst there are incidents and those need to be tackled, clearly they feel that doing so across 8 per cent of Wales would be sufficient to address the issue. We all look forward to seeing the regulatory impact assessment, because the draft one was only a 20-page document, and for a change this substantial, then we really need something a bit more robust than that. I'll leave it at that.

But of course, if you want to pursue a whole-territory approach, then we need to be convinced that that is the best way forward. I'm not convinced, and I haven't seen the evidence out there that tells us that a whole-territory NVZ will actually be effective in reducing agricultural pollution. Because information obtained, again from Natural Resources Wales, provides no substantive evidence of the effectiveness of the NVZ action programme in reducing agricultural pollution, despite designations dating back to 2002. We've seen numerous scientific research papers that consider the effectiveness or otherwise of NVZs, and they tell us that the approach has little or no effect, with some highlighting actually detrimental effects as well. One study found, and I quote:

'that 69% of NVZs showed no significant improvement in surface water concentrations even after 15 years. In comparison to a control catchment, 29% of NVZs showed a significant improvement'—

that's positive—

'but 31% showed a significant worsening.'

So, where's your evidence that a whole-territory NVZ approach will actually have the effect that so many of us want to see?
 

As I said, I'm currently—. There haven't been that many hours that I've been awake and not been in work to give me that time to read, as I say, this very, very large body of evidence, which I want to give my full consideration to.

We had a consultation on this back in 2016. This is not something that we're rushing towards. This has been a very long process. Some would say too long. But it's really important that we get it right, and I will publish as much as I can to show how that policy has been derived.

It just begs the question: how much consideration had you given to previous iterations of these proposals, or whether you had been involved at all? Because you sound as if you're disowning what we've had so far, because you haven't had a chance to look at the file that you've now been provided with. So, I think that there are big questions there about who's making decisions or bringing forward suggestions around this.

Now, I've hinted earlier that there could well be unforeseen—or maybe foreseen—negative consequences from what seemed to be your previous approach. Now, we not only know that there are huge spikes in nitrate levels in those areas where we've seen, in the past, closed periods—you know, nitrates spiking immediately before the closed period and immediately after, for obvious reasons—but also, there is concern that there could well be a loss of cattle from Welsh farms and a subsequent reduction in mixed grazing on Welsh uplands.

Now, farms with 20 or 30 suckler cows are not going to invest tens of thousands of pounds in new infrastructure to meet the requirements of these new regulations, because that is wholly disproportionate to the low levels of stock that they keep. They're telling me that the choice for them, therefore, is to go out of cattle farming, and that will bring with it, of course, the subsequent consequences to upland habitats and biodiversity, but also to the wider beef sector here in Wales.

Environmental organisations are concerned about that potential outcome. Hybu Cig Cymru is also concerned at the potential outcome to the wider beef sector. Nobody here is saying, 'Don't do anything'—that needs to be understood and heard by everyone—but as far as I'm concerned, so far, the Government has clearly failed to make the case for your proposals, or to provide evidence that justifies the approach that you seem to wish to pursue.

So, I would ask you to revisit again these proposals and, please, to look at the 45 recommendations that came from the agricultural pollution sub-group, which should have been properly considered as part of the regulatory impact assessment that has been available in draft form.

To start with your first point, I'm certainly not disowning. I've been very involved since I've been in this portfolio. I mentioned there'd been a consultation before I came into portfolio; it was one of the very first things on my desk. What came from that was a voluntary approach: working with the farming unions particularly, and other stakeholders. You may be aware of a scheme that came forward from two Pembrokeshire farmers; I worked with the farming unions to make sure that voluntary scheme had time to work. You can see by the number of incidents it's clearly not working. That's why we have to do something now. That's why we have to move to regulation. So, that's in answer to your first point. The advice that I've been given this week is the advice that I've been waiting for around regulation, and I've certainly given it my very thorough time and consideration, because as I say, we need to get this absolutely right.

Regarding your second point, every farm is different, so it's really not possible to specify exactly which measures would apply to an upland farm, for example. You're talking about thousands and thousands of pounds when we don't know what each farm will need. I've made it very clear that we will provide some additional capital funding, but not to bring farms up to legal requirement. So, I will be making an announcement, certainly by the middle of February, and obviously Members will be the first to hear.

Thank you. Presiding Officer, I understand you've given permission for questions 3 and 5 to be grouped. I will make a statement and publish the animal health and welfare framework group's report following February recess. The recommendations are comprehensive and include enforcement, training of local authority officials and vets, amendments to licence conditions, as well as consideration of other legislation linked to the breeding and selling of dogs.

Thank you, Minister, and thank you also for your previous response to my written questions from earlier in the month. This is really important as a stepping stone towards the introduction of Lucy's law to ban the third-party sale of cats and dogs. The perception out there of a lack of progress is causing concern amongst campaigners, with fears that, after England brings in its own Lucy's law in April, Wales will become, and I quote, 'The pet shop for sick and damaged animals.' Minister, can you give me a cast-iron guarantee that you will not let this happen, and that a Welsh Lucy's law will be introduced before the end of this Assembly term? When can we, and the many people around Wales who are following this so closely, expect the detailed timetable of the next steps to achieving this goal?

I thank Vikki Howells for that question, and I absolutely give that assurance. This is a major piece of work, and I know how many campaigners are certainly very concerned about that, because my inbox shows me that—both as an Assembly Member and as the Minister. The two sort of go hand in hand; they're very closely linked. What I want to make sure is—. I've said we will bring in a Lucy's law, I'm not in a position at the moment to give you the timetable, but I certainly hope to do so within the next couple of months.

The report, which I commissioned before the end of December, I received about 10 days ago, maybe a little bit less, and I gave you a bit of a flavour in my opening answer as to what's in there. So, I think the big thing for me is—. There's always a rush to legislation; it's about getting that legislation right, but it's about learning what isn't working in the current legislation. Because clearly there are some barriers at the moment that we need to get around. So, if it's barriers to enforcement, for instance, I'm sure that will be flushed out by the local authorities and the meeting that the chief veterinary officer had on that.

So, the two are very closely linked, and I'll certainly be very happy to update. But I absolutely give you my cast-iron assurance that we will look at the breeding legislation that's currently there, and also what we need to bring forward in relation to a Lucy's law.

The issue is, Minister, that you certainly won't be accused of rushing to legislation in this matter. Giving a cast-iron guarantee that you're going to read a report doesn't fill Members here with a great deal of confidence. We've heard these assurances before, and we've been disappointed. I think we've come to a point now, with something over a year left in this Senedd, where we want to see action, and we want to see the promises made a reality. I think what people on all sides of the Chamber want to see is not a reading list, but a commitment to actually doing this and getting this done. I think we are letting down people, up and down the country, and people are saying that they want to see this action completed. I think Members on all sides of the Chamber want to see action and not words.

Sorry, I think Member must have misheard me. I did give that cast-iron assurance to Vikki Howells that I will be making a statement after February recess, on the back of the report that the animal health and welfare framework group gave to me, and also on the discussions that the chief veterinary officer had with all—well, 21—local authorities, one didn't attend, to see what the barriers are to that enforcement, and also with the British Veterinary Association about what further training we can give to vets. Because, on the back of the programme by the BBC, where a lot of this correspondence has come from, it was clear there were several issues that needed addressing. Legislation can't be rushed—the Member knows that—but certainly I give the cast-iron guarantee that we will have that legislation in place in this term.

England, of course, is bringing in Lucy's law in April. Southern Ireland is introducing similar regulations next month. Wales, the home of the breeding farm where Lucy was rescued from, has no date for the introduction of the law.

There is significant national interest in this, and the Petitions Committee has a petition signed by 11,195 people calling for the ban of the sale of puppies by pet shops and all commercial third-party dealers in Wales. Last month, the Welsh Government stated that it needed to gain a thorough understanding of the barriers to enforcement within the existing legislation so that you could tackle the problem effectively. What barriers, really, have you identified, and by when are you aiming to overcome them?

I am aware of the petition at committee and it doesn't surprise me that it's had so many signatures—we're absolutely a county of animal lovers. I referred to the meeting that the chief veterinary officer and her officials had with local authorities, so I suppose that was the first area where we saw barriers in relation to the local authorities being able to, perhaps, visit the breeders as much as they would like to. Obviously, local authorities, after a decade of austerity, have had cuts to their budget. Unfortunately, it does appear that officers in animal welfare areas have perhaps been cut back to the very minimal numbers.

So, we're looking at—and I have to say, local authorities are very keen to do this—sharing expertise. So, you have somewhere like Torfaen, for instance, which I think has one licensed breeder, and then you've got areas like Carmarthenshire and Ceredigion that have got multiple numbers—hundreds, I think, in a couple of them.

So, it's about making sure that we have the capacity to cover the whole of Wales, and perhaps working together in a way. I think that's one very important barrier that we saw as to why the current legislation that we have isn't being enforced. So, just changing the legislation I don't think would bring an end to what we all want to see. 

Certainly from these benches, I can give you an assurance, Minister, that we would support any legislation that was brought forward to enact Lucy's law, and I hear the comments from the Labour backbench in particular. I think there is consensus around this Chamber that legislation can proceed at pace when that consensus is put to good effect. And I would implore you to make sure that, if it is the regulatory route that you go down with your statement coming in February, that you do have the enforcement measures in place, because there is little or no point in actually putting regulation, or indeed legislation, in place unless the enforcement is there. It is pleasing to hear that the chief veterinary officer has engaged with local authorities to gauge the level of support that they will require. Will you commit today to making sure that that support is made available to local authorities so that if it is regulation or legislation you bring forward, the aspects around Lucy's law to end this abhorrent practice can be brought to bear here in Wales? 

Certainly that's something that we're having to look at because it's very clear, just after that one meeting that the CVO had with local authorities—. I was very pleased that 21 out of 22 local authorities sent a representative to that meeting. So, I think it does show that there is that consensus right across all levels of Government in this area. Obviously, and I referred to this in my answer to Janet Finch-Saunders, funding is going to be a matter of concern for many of them. I don't have an unlimited pot of money, but I absolutely accept, depending on what we do when we look at those regulations and the barriers, and whether we reopen those regulations and the legislation that we're going to have to bring in, that further funding will undoubtedly be required. So, I can't give you a commitment that I will give it, or how much I will give but, certainly, I recognise that that is an issue.  

I am currently considering advice on measures to tackle agricultural pollution across all of Wales. Agricultural pollution is causing considerable environmental damage and is detrimental to public health. It is not restricted to nitrate vulnerable zones. The number of agricultural pollution incidents across Wales in 2019 is unacceptably high. 

Thank you, Minister.

The proposed new regulations regarding nitrate vulnerable zones will impact on every farm, every sector and every area of Wales. You will be aware, Minister, that concern has been raised by National Farmers Union Cymru about the effect this is having on the farming community, which claims that our farmers are experiencing even higher levels of stress and anxiety. Information supplied by Natural Resources Wales as part of the nitrate review in 2016 provided no justification for the introduction of NVZs across Wales. However, the Welsh Government has refused to disclose the advice and evidence related to the proposed regulations that it has received from NRW under a freedom of information request. In view of the importance, cost and potential implications of these regulations, Minister, will you publish the advice and evidence received from NRW in the interest of security and transparency in this case? 

I'm not sure if the Member was in the Chamber, Presiding Officer, when I answered a very similar question from both Llyr Huws Gruffydd and Andrew R.T. Davies but, as I say, no evidence has been refused to be disclosed; I only received it on Monday. And when I make my announcement, probably by the middle of February, what can be published will be.  

I think it's a very important point that the Minister has made. If Members are present for questions that have been asked and answered previously, I ask all Members to listen to what's happening during a question session so that they can ask their questions and respond to the ministerial answers as they have been given. That has happened several times this afternoon. Joyce Watson. That's a challenge for you, Joyce. 

I'm not going to repeat anything. What I'm going to ask is a very pointed question on NVZs. It's been brought to my attention that concentrate of nitrates from chicken farms is more difficult to deal with because it simply stays at the bottom of the watercourse. So, in your deliberations on NVZs, can I please ask that you look at that specific issue that I have just mentioned?

Yes. I'd be very happy to do that. Joyce Watson has just reminded me of one thing I didn't say to Mohammed Asghar. He said it will affect every farm across Wales. That might not be the case, and, certainly, the number of agricultural pollution incidents—and I do really want to say this—the majority of farmers do not pollute, and I think we should absolutely recognise that, and, equally, every farm is different. But that is not the case. But certainly, yes, in answer to Joyce Watson, I'd be very happy to look at that particular point.

Minister, I welcome that comment that not every farm does pollute. I've had representations from farmers in my own constituency, which, as you know, is predominantly characterised by smaller family farms with a mixture of sheep and livestock and some arable, and they're also characterised by that greater biodiversity, which typically does come with smaller, mixed farms. Now, they share the aspiration of Welsh Government to tackle overuse and the leaching of nitrates—and other contaminates, by the way—in farming, which can degrade soil, and along with poor farming practices, can poison watercourses and marine environments. They know they've got a part to play, but these are not big dairy farms. They've heard the reassurance of the Minister today and elsewhere that the proposals will not affect the majority of smaller family farms, either in terms of cost or bureaucracy, but, I have to say, they are not convinced on the ground when I speak to them.

So, what can the Minister say in reassurance to those smaller family farms and those families? And would she at some time in the near future be willing to come with me and meet on one of the farms in my constituency to discuss the proposals? We absolutely need to tackle this problem, but we need to bring the farming community with us, including those smaller family farms, which are integral to our living communities and integral to our wider biodiversity and climate change challenges. They all need to be on side with us.

I absolutely agree, and I hope that Members do recognise that for the past three and a half years, if not a little bit longer, I've absolutely tried to do that by going for the voluntary approach, by going to several presentations from a scheme that I referred to in an earlier answer that two Pembrokeshire farmers came forward with. I've had lots of recommendations. I mean, one of the last reports I received from the sector, off the top of my head, I think it was about 35 recommendations; not one was for the agricultural sector, they were all for Government. Well, equally, it's got to work both ways. We have to do it in partnership. But I'd be very happy—. I mean, I've visited many farms and discussed this over the last few years, and it's not something that I want to stop doing.

The Environment Act 1995 requires local authorities throughout Wales to monitor, assess and develop actions to improve air quality in their area. There are 178 air quality monitors sited across north Wales. Our consultation on the clean air plan for Wales includes proposals for enhancing air quality monitoring and assessment.

In light of the recent fire at the Kronospan plant at Chirk and the subsequent pollution effect that that had on the locality—I'm told it's the seventeenth fire in 18 years, although a number of residents there assert that they're much more regular occurrences, actually, than that—can you tell me whether you're satisfied with the level of monitoring carried out by Natural Resources Wales and Wrexham council at Chirk particularly? Because residents are now mounting weekly protests as a result of this latest fire, and I share their concerns that the bodies responsible for ensuring their safety are not providing the reassurance that they require, given the plant's record. Would you agree to hold an independent inquiry into recent events there, with community representation as part of that inquiry, and also to ensure that there is permanent, independent air quality monitoring at least around the site so that the community there can have the reassurance that they deserve?

Thank you. You'll be aware that the fire that did take place at Kronospan earlier this month was in the log yard. That permit for that area came under Wrexham County Borough Council, so they're the relevant regulator for this matter and I'm awaiting further information from them around that.

In relation to NRW, they're currently reviewing the existing permit held by Kronospan in relation to the transfer of powers that we did from Wrexham County Borough Council to NRW, and I know those discussions are ongoing. So, I'll certainly be very interested to see the outcome of that because I want assurance that it is absolutely correct. My understanding at the moment is that it is, but I'm sure that further information will come over the next couple of weeks in particular.

I don't think there's a need for an independent inquiry at the present time, but I do recognise that the people of Chirk absolutely need some assurance, and I will be working very closely—. I'm having a meeting with NRW within the next couple of weeks, and I will be raising it again, and I'd be very happy to write to the Member to update him on the back of that.

Thank you. Officials are working with local authorities to explore opportunities to ensure consistent treatment of all licensed breeding establishments across Wales. This work, to look at ways of combining resources and expertise and improving training for local authority officers, will help target enforcement more consistently and effectively.

Thank you for that answer. But there was a recent report from Carmarthenshire County Council into dog breeding in the county, and there are 85 licensed dog breeders in Carmarthenshire. That is one of the highest numbers in Wales and England, and about 10 of those breeders have over 100 dogs. And what struck me particularly in the report is that, in some cases, officers were only carrying out checks every two years instead of annual establishment inspections, and I don't think that that is in any way at all acceptable. It does raise some serious questions as to why the council is continuing to give out licences when they don't have an adequate number of staff to carry out annual inspections, and the workload is clearly too high for two officers who are employed.

The other issue that is fairly obvious when we look at the standards of breeding establishments is at the moment, it is perfectly acceptable to put down anything, it seems to me—a shed that isn't necessarily heated and there isn't water available—just to breed animals. And part of this report mentioned that farmers need to diversify. I don't think that they are giving adequate information to farmers who do want to diversify if they're not widening the opportunities and information available and are going down this single trajectory. 

I need a question from you now, Joyce Watson.

So my question is: will you consider reviewing the number of licences a local authority can issue according to the ratio of inspectors that they currently have?

I know that Joyce Watson was in the Chamber to hear my earlier answers around dog breeding, and this is clearly one of the areas that the chief veterinary officer, in her discussions with local authorities, has encountered. So, we need to look at those barriers again, making sure that the legislation we currently have is being enforced, and explore opportunities to maximise the use of existing resources. So, as I said in an earlier answer, it's about making sure that we've got that spread across Wales where we have local authorities who only have a single figure. As I say, Torfaen, I think, has one, and you've got areas such as those you referred to in Carmarthenshire that has got multiple licences.

I think the ratio of breeding premises across local authorities is absolutely disproportionate, and it means that some local authorities are really struggling to cope with demands. So, this work is to look at a way of sharing that resource and expertise, and I think that really will target enforcement much more effectively.

Minister, I recently met with my constituents David and Elaine Williams and their dog Cindy, who herself was saved from a puppy farm, to learn more about how to stop the cruel practice through Lucy's law. I know that this is something that has gathered cross-party support, and it's crucial now that as Lucy's law comes into force in England in April, Wales isn't, of course, left behind.

However, in the meantime, and following on from Joyce Watson's question, what discussions have you and your officials had with local authorities about ways in which they can better enforce the licensing of puppy farms in Wales, and how is the Welsh Government proactively encouraging dog lovers to actually buy from reputable breeders?

I'm sorry, Presiding Officer, I don't think Paul Davies was in the Chamber before to hear my earlier answers about the work we're doing around Lucy's law. I mentioned that the chief veterinary officer has met with all—well, apart from one local authority, 21 local authorities around this particular issue, to ensure that we understand what the barriers are to the enforcement of the current legislation. Just bringing in Lucy's law would not, I don't think, rid us of the illegal puppy farming that we all want to see gone.

You make a really important point at the end, though, about individuals. It really is up to the person who is purchasing a dog that they buy it from a reputable breeder—we had a campaign in the run-up to Christmas to encourage that—and for individuals to ask questions and perhaps to ask, if they're shown into a kitchen, maybe, to see the puppies, to see other parts of the breeder's property. So, it is about bringing it all together. We've already had those conversations that have started with local authorities. I will be making a statement after the February recess.

Thank you. We refreshed the TB eradication programme in Wales in October 2017, and we are now seeing some long-term downward trends in key TB indicators, such as incidence and prevalence. I committed to providing a statement on the programme on an annual basis, and I will next do so in April.

I thank the Minister for that reply. In the 12 months to October 2019, 12,742 cattle were slaughtered. That's the highest figure on record; it compares with only 917 back in 1996. I heard the First Minister, a few days ago, claiming that this increase in slaughter was actually a sign that the Government's policy was being successful. I don't, myself, see the highlighting of past failures as an indication of success, although that's an important development. I do acknowledge that some progress has been made, but I hope the Minister will agree that not enough has been done and a lot remains to be done.

The Government's policy's been focused almost entirely upon farm practices and restrictions placed on farmers and cattle movements, and it has ignored one other important element in the jigsaw, which is the prevalence of TB in wildlife as a vector of infection. Until the Government does recognise that this is one part of the solution to the problem, we will never achieve what we all want to achieve, which is the total eradication of TB in Wales. The Minister often says that she is going to base her policy on evidence, and that's a very good thing, but given that she and her colleagues in previous decisions have done the opposite—the shooting ban introduced by Natural Resources Wales was done in the face of their own evidence; the imposition of windfarms like Hendy has been done against the recommendation of the Minister's own appointed inspector; the smoking ban that we were debating this week—

Like Joyce Watson, you need to get to your question also, Neil Hamilton.

—was introduced in spite of the results of the Government's own consultation. So, my question to the Minister is: how can rural Wales have any faith in this Government that it will actually base its policy on evidence when all the evidence that we have is that it does the opposite?

Well, I absolutely do base any policy I bring forward on science and evidence, and I think Neil Hamilton's cherry-picking a bit, because if you look at the TB dashboard, if you look at the short term, for instance in the 12 months to October 2019, there were 666 new herd incidents reported in Wales—too many, I agree, and I absolutely want to stress that—but it was a 12 per cent decrease on the previous 12 months, so we are seeing improvement. In the longer term, we've seen a 37 per cent decrease in new incidents from 2019 to 2018. We have seen a decrease in animals slaughtered by 4 per cent in 2009 to 2018.

I think the point the First Minister was making was around more sophisticated testing enabling us to find the TB earlier than it was before. We don't ignore any element of the TB picture, and I can assure the Member that, in our bespoke action plans, for instance, absolutely every element is looked at.

Finally, Russell George.

Diolch, Llywydd. Minister, the number of approved finishing units in Wales is significantly lower pro rata than in England, I'm told. And this is, of course, limiting the opportunities for farmers down with TB to sell their calves to prevent overstocking on their holdings. I wonder, Minister, what you intend to do to encourage the setting up of more approved finishing units in Wales, and also would you commit your officials to look at simplifying the regulations around them?

I'm certainly happy to look at simplifying anything. I hate bureaucracy and if it can be simplified in any way—. I know officials are working with individual farmers where they do have a breakdown, particularly if they've got different pockets of land that could be declared TB-free or are TB-free, to do that. But, yes, I'm certainly happy to commit officials to doing that.

Thank you, Minister.

The next item is questions to the Minister for Housing and Local Government, and the first question is from Mark Isherwood.

I recognise the valuable services that local post offices provide to the communities they serve across Wales. Welsh Government has regular contact with Post Office Ltd to ensure we are kept aware of and raise any issues that affect Welsh communities.

Post offices remain at the heart of our communities, especially where the last bank branch has closed. During the years of the UK Government's post office closure programme between 2007 and 2009, we were repeatedly told here—and quite rightly so—that post offices had to become sustainable and that included the development of financial services.

Last October we all received an announcement that the Post Office had agreed a new banking framework with 28 UK banks, ensuring that bank customers continued to have free access to everyday banking services in every corner of Wales. It also ensured a fair and sustainable remuneration package for sub-postmasters and mistresses. So, how is the Welsh Government, therefore, engaging with the Post Office in the context of this banking framework agreement, to ensure that its proposals for a community bank do not compete with those services that simply fill in the gap, so that we can ensure that our post office network is here tomorrow and for next week, next year and future generations?

Diolch. As we both—. I think everybody here will be in agreement on the role that post offices play in our communities and in the heart of our towns across the country as well, performing not just a function and a practical role, but also a social function as well. Although post office matters are not devolved to Welsh Ministers, clearly we have a role to play in how those issues impact or affect the citizens of Wales.

Officials last met with Post Office Ltd earlier this month and actually raising awareness of the banking framework and commitment was one of the things high on the agenda, about how we can work with them, with the roles that we're doing across Government to ensure that Welsh citizens have access to the services they need.

Yes. The household projections, local housing market assessments and well-being plans are essential parts of the evidence base for local development plans. The scale of housing growth is a matter for local planning authorities to determine, reflecting the issues they have identified.

The Wrexham local development plan in my own region was rejected back in 2013 by the planning inspectors because there wasn't sufficient land allocated for housing, in their opinion. That was because the population forecasts for the county had stated that there would be a 20 per cent increase in population—the second-highest increase throughout the whole of Wales, second only to Cardiff. But, of course, the reality is very different.

Over the past five years, the increase in population has been significantly lower than the forecasts. Despite that, it appears that the Planning Inspectorate still isn't listening because they continue to challenge Wrexham council. The council is looking at a target of some 8,500 homes in their LDP, whilst the Planning Inspectorate insists that they need around 12,000 in that plan. That will mean building more homes on greenfield sites and it will create some sort of urban sprawl that will destroy the unique communities in the area.

So, my question to you, Minister, is: where does the Government stand on this issue? Are you in favour of a regime that enforces the building of unnecessary homes, or are you in favour of protecting our communities and our environment?

Well, thank you for that. As Llyr Gruffydd knows, it's much more complicated than that. He's absolutely right in saying that Wrexham had its original LDP rejected as a result of the way that it had done its housing land allocations policy. While the council does have an extant unitary development plan in place, it has expired for the purposes of calculating the five-year housing land supply. As he knows, the authority has been, and will continue to be, vulnerable to speculative development until the LDP is actually adopted. The LDP is currently at the examination stage.

The inspectors have raised concerns regarding the level of housing proposed in the plan, specifically questioning whether it is aspirational enough. The level of housing proposed by the council aligns with the 2014-based 10-year migration variant published by the Welsh Government, which is a requirement of 7,750 homes. Officials have made public representations supporting the level of housing in Wrexham's LDP, and do not consider that it should be increased further.

The level of housing is broadly in line with the past 10-year delivery rates. The inspectors have asked the council to provide additional clarification on this matter, and the deadline for that is 31 January. There will be an additional hearing session on 11 March to consider housing matters further. So, you can see that our officials agree, I think, broadly with what you're saying, which is that, given the current projections and what Wrexham is projecting in the LDP, our officials have made representations saying that we think that Wrexham is about right.

It's always a difficult balance for councils because the projections are just that: projections. They are not plan-based policies. They are based on projected population trends, but they don't take into account any economic development or tourism or other aspirations that the council may have, and they are not intended in any way to be a target. They are simply one part of a set of evidence that the authority must take into account when it sets its local housing target.

For example, in a local authority area, if the number of households being created is outstripping the level of population increase because there are growing numbers of people who want to live on their own, for example, then the housing target might be higher than the population increase and the forecast. So, it's a much more complex matter than that. But I think the simple answer to your question is that our officials agree that the plan is about where it should be and have made representations to that effect into the system.

Minister, I agree entirely with you that it is a complex picture that is painted every time an LDP goes for consideration, and the mix of housing that's required as well, from single-occupancy households to multiple-occupancy households. But it is a fact that, obviously, when councils are putting their LDPs forward, they have to have due regard to population forecasts.

One thing that comes up time and time again is that the population forecasts inform the number of units to be built but, very often, those population forecasts don't feed into the provision of doctors' surgeries, education facilities et cetera. Can you give me confidence that there will be greater weight placed on the services that are required to support these developments, which we all accept we require? We know that there is a housing crisis, and most people can be won over if they can be assured that the transport considerations are taken into account, the service provision is taken into account, and not just the number of houses that need to be built.

Yes, and the answer to your question is to look at the complex set of instructions that local authorities must follow in setting the various things. So, we can look at the housing numbers projections, for example, and the LDP has got to take into account a number of things in coming to its housing land supply and doing that, as I've just said to Llyr. But we also have, for example—. We're currently consulting on the national development framework, which has some major infrastructure things. As you know, we're in the process of putting, via the Local Government Elections (Wales) Bill, a framework in place to facilitate the regional strategic planning arrangements for local authorities, which should put the regional planning arrangements in place for those kinds of infrastructure. So, in the round, the set of plans that we will eventually have in place will do exactly that.

The way that I have been explaining it as we've been conducting a number of stakeholder meetings is that, if you set out a flat plan of Wales, you ought to be able to say, 'Well, here are the trunk roads, here are the hospitals, here are the existing schools, here is where the housing is, here's where the new school should be', and so on, and then when the council is negotiating with the house builder about their contribution to local infrastructure, there would be much better certainty about what that infrastructure should look like in advance, so that when somebody's planning to come forward with a piece of land, they know that they're likely to have to contribute to the school or the hospital or whatever it is that's nearby.

We haven't started this in the optimum place. We've started it at the bottom, and I would have preferred to start it at the top. But my colleague Lesley Griffiths started the process just before I took over this portfolio, and, very shortly, we will in a position where we have all of those plans in place, and we will be able to do exactly as you suggest. 

Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Mark Isherwood. 

Diolch, Llywydd. On 10 January, a letter was sent to you by, or signed by, the leaders of all six north Wales county councils regarding the local government settlement for 2020-21. And, it said, 'Even with a positive settlement this year, we'll all be looking at some service reductions and above-inflation council tax increases. In light of the continued challenges, we wish to ask you for a funding floor of 4 per cent in the local government finance settlement, to be met from Welsh Government reserves.' And they said this was primarily because, in the provisional settlement for 2020-21, four of the five bottom councils are from north Wales, and, without a floor, most north Wales councils will be faced with the biggest challenge in terms of seeking cuts to service, whereas a floor will help to protect services and work against above-inflation council tax rises in the bottom six councils. How will you be responding to this request, which I believe has also been shared with the Welsh Local Government Association and the Secretary of State for Wales?

We've asked for more evidence as to the hardship that having the biggest uplift in any local government settlement that they've ever had would bring. And you can hear from the way I've answered your question that I'm a little sceptical about that. The purpose of a floor is obviously to prevent people from having to make enormous cuts in services that they would otherwise have had to make because of population projection changes, or some other issue in the distribution formula that disproportionately affects a particular council, and where an unexpected drop of million of pounds in terms of support would mean swift changes to services. 

In this case, what we're looking at is that no council in Wales will have less than a 3 per cent uplift. Most of the councils that you're talking about are somewhere in between 3 and 4 per cent. And what we're talking about is asking for a floor to bring them up to 4.7, I think they said—it might be 6 or 8; I can't remember—per cent. I don't think that's the same point, and, whilst I understand their argument that there's an average, and that some should come down in order for others to go up, they're not facing the kinds of service cuts that they were facing during the previous nine years of imposed austerity. So, it's very difficult to understand quite what the reasoning for that is. This is above the settlement that any of them could have been expected to be predicting, and it's very hard to see how they would have unplanned service cuts as a result. 

But, having said all of that, if they want to present some evidence of what that might look like, I'm very happy to look at it. But, again, I will emphasise that, when we are looking at putting more money into that sort of settlement, we are looking at where to take it from. So, we would also have to consider how much such a floor would cost, and where that money would come from. 

Well, as I said—I won't go down the austerity line—they said that 'even with the positive settlement this year'—so they're acknowledging that, and it's cross-party signatures on this letter—they're saying that in order to meet pressures in demand-led priority services like social care and children's services, they will be facing cuts without a 4 per cent floor; it is 4 per cent this letter asked for. 

However, moving on to the integrated care fund, you produced your annual report on 16 January, which said that:

'There are now numerous multi-disciplinary teams of health, social care, housing and third sector professionals working together to develop tailored interventions'.

And, you said,

'making better use of resources through collaborative working and moving away from traditional ways of delivering services'

have been identified, but you recognised that the fund

'must demonstrate best use of public money and its impact should be clearly evidenced'

and that you would be addressing the recommendations from the Wales Audit Office review of the fund. That Wales Audit Office review said:

'A key aim of the fund is to promote joint working between statutory and third-sector organisations'

but the

'third-sector representatives that we spoke to identified a range of challenges which have affected their ability to access the fund'

and had

'left the third sector disconnected from the wider programme where they could equally have valid contributions to make to some of the larger-scale projects.'

Their particular report on north Wales was even more concerning in this context, where it says that

'the way the fund has been managed at national, regional and project levels have limited its potential to date...little evidence of successful projects yet being mainstreamed and funded',

and it specifically said that:

'Third sector representatives told us they felt they have insufficient access to the fund and that they benefit predominantly when spending on other projects slip'

and it called for

'ways to ensure fair access to the Integrated Care Fund for the third sector'.

This replicates concerns raised with me just in the last week—a debate last week here on bereavement support charities' funding. I've had a letter this week from charities supporting people with vision and hearing impairments. We're all receiving correspondence from the network of third sector bodies providing housing-related support, all of which should, and can, reduce significant pressure on statutory services for relatively small proportions of overall budgets. So, how do you respond specifically to the concerns raised by the auditor general regarding the need to better integrate the third sector, not just in the share of funding, which is critical, but also in the decision making and design of services as they go forward?

I think it's a fair point, to be honest. It's early days in some ways for the integrated care fund, and we want to make sure that we are getting the kinds of ambitious projects coming forward. And to do that we do need a good set of cross-working across sectors to make sure that we hit all the right things that we want the integrated care fund to do. And that's quite complex, because, as Mark Isherwood is rightly pointing out, it interacts with a whole series of other things that we also fund. So, I think it's a fair point. Very happy to look again at the report's recommendations, and see how we can better integrate third sector partners in the planning for that. You'll know that we've recently put housing as statutory partners onto the regional planning boards—regional partnership boards, sorry; we should stop calling things almost the same three-letter acronym, for the benefit of struggling Ministers—the regional partnership boards, I should say. And the reason for that was because we wanted a wider input into the way that those funds are looked at. So, I'm very happy to look at that. If you want to write to me with better detail of some of the issues that have been raised with you, I'd be more than happy to look at that.

Okay. Then, if I move to a specific council, if I may, it's nearly two decades now since Flintshire's internal audit manager successfully took action against the council, and at the core of his complaints were denial of access to documents and failure to respond to correspondence. A few years later, we had the housing maintenance scandal, where similar problems were identified by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the independent Roots report. A whole tranche of people left the council, allegedly with non-disclosure agreements. A few years later, we had the AD Waste scandal, a similar pattern—again, two members of staff leaving the authority, but, again, the police saying they couldn't prosecute, because of the lack of documentation.

In 2018, Flintshire council had a debate and called for action after a councillor named and shamed officers who didn't reply to calls and e-mails, and called for further action to be taken. And now we have, this month, an ombudsman's report by the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales into Flintshire County Council, which found that, despite identifying in 2014 a statutory nuisance, the council didn't open an appropriate case file until 18 months later. The council was aware from at least 2012 that they didn't have appropriate planning consent, but almost no planning records from before August 2018, failures in interdepartmental communication and co-operation, lack of records, the council failed to respond to the complaints appropriately, there was an absence of clearly established ownership at senior levels in the council, compounded by the length of the time the failures continued, and a lack of regard for the difficulties faced. These reports, going back 10 years, and 20 years, are all identifying the same problems, irrespective of the political leadership as it comes and goes. What are you going to do about it? Because last time I raised this with you, you said it's matter for the council, and your predecessors over the years have always said it's just a matter for the council. But surely this can't go on unchallenged and uninvestigated, when the same problems keep arising.

It is a matter for the council, but I understand your concern. I don't know this—because you'll know that I haven't been in work for the last week or so, but I don't know whether the public services ombudsman has raised anything as a result of the reports with the Government. So, I will look at that. We would expect, if there's a pattern emerging that the ombudsman was concerned about, for the ombudsman to flag that up with us. So, I will check that. And I'm more than happy to have a meeting with you about your wider concerns about it, if you like. So, apologies—I haven't seen that report, since I've been off work, but I will look into it.

However, it is always tempting to find a pattern in incidents over 10 years, when, actually, they're incidents. So, I'm happy to look at it with an open mind, but I'm not convinced that a set of incidents of one-offs, over 10 years, necessarily represents a pattern of culture in an authority. But I'm more than happy, Mark, to look at it, alongside you, and see whether there is something concerning emerging.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Delyth Jewell.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can the Minister explain why the Welsh Government is still counting the 7,129 homes sold through Help to Buy since 2016 as counting towards its target of 20,000 affordable homes, of which you've claimed 13,143 have been delivered already? 

Yes. Because Help to Buy has helped people buy a house that they wouldn't have otherwise been able to buy by assisting them with a deposit scheme that they wouldn't have otherwise had access to. And we count affordable homes in that wider sense as homes that are available to people that they wouldn't have had access to them unless they'd had Government support. So, that's the short explanation. 

Thank you for that, Minister. It seems to me the crux of the problem with the term 'affordable' is that the definition of it is so relative. So, a staggering 78 per cent of homes, so that's 5,564 that were sold through Help to Buy, were sold at a price of over £150,000. Over 1,000 homes that you count in the statistics as affordable were sold for over £250,000. I just can't see how any reasonable person can count these homes as affordable. Is that not statistical manipulation on an industrial scale? 

I don't disagree at all that the definition of 'affordable' is unhelpful and rather more flexible than we'd like in terms of what we're trying to do. And we've been very upfront about the numbers in terms of that, because I'm not disagreeing with the fundamental premise of what you're saying, which is, actually, we should build social housing or homes that actually are within people's range without having to have Government help to get them there. But the current definition is that, if you've had Government help to get you into your house, then it's an affordable home. So, I'm not going to argue with you; I don't disagree with the basic premise that you're saying. But the target we set included that definition and so it's being counted against that definition. 

Rather more importantly, we're very engaged now on trying to release land and resources so that we can build social housing. So, that is houses for social rent, and that's either via our councils who are stockholding authorities—the 11 councils who still are stockholding authorities—or via our local housing associations, or both in some areas. So, some stockholding authorities are working hand in hand with the local housing association to bring forward houses for social rent in joint or partial ownership, and in other non-stockholding authorities they're working with their local housing associations to bring them forward. And it is really accelerating fast.

So, from a slow start—if you will remember, councils weren't allowed to use the money that they got from right to buy sales in order to do this, and there were caps on the housing revenue accounts and so on. So, from having that to the Conservative Government finally seeing sense and removing those caps, we've managed to accelerate quite considerably, and I hope very much that this year will see another acceleration of growth in houses for social rent, which is the tenure that's most needed in the Welsh economy. 

Thank you, Minister. I welcome the tone that you're engaging with us on. I'm glad that you do agree with the general thrust of what we're saying here. So, just to put on the record, then, that, if we were to take a more reasonable look at the track record of the Government in delivering affordable housing in the definition in its wider sense of what it should mean, which I think that you agree with us on, we'd need to remove those homes that were beyond the price range of so many people and take out those 5,500 unaffordable homes, and that would actually mean that the Government has delivered 7,579 and you're thus on course to fail in reaching that target. So, I'd welcome your—

Okay, so my answer to that is, however, the target was set in light of the definition that was available—

I don't think the Member had quite finished her question, if you don't mind. I know you're keen, Minister, but if you allow her to finish her question. 

Huge apologies. 

No, thank you for agreeing with me on that. I wait to hear your answer more fully. But, as you were just saying about social housing, I also think that that is where we really need to be focusing delivery on. I welcome again what you've been saying on that. The figures show that, since 2016, there have been just 4,397 completed homes for the social housing sector, and that's around half of the rate that we need to reach, according to most estimates, the target. So, given this, and the findings that around half of the affordable homes that were promised through planning obligations over the past decade haven't been delivered, because developers, they exploit our failing planning system, when do you think that we will see the radical changes to planning that you've hinted at? 

Okay. So, as I was saying, I don't think it's fair to say that we don't meet the target, because the target's set in the light of the definition of affordable homes that existed at the time, and the target was set in that light. So, if you're going to take the Help to Buy houses out of that you'd lower the target necessarily, because we wouldn't never have set it in that way if we weren't including those houses. So, although I take the point you're trying to make, I think that's beating us with a stick unnecessarily, shall we say? There are other sticks that you can beat us with that are perhaps more justifiable.

One of which is that one of the biggest problems we've had in the delivery of the element of affordable homes in private sector planning applications is that councils have really had their score base decimated. And so, actually, in negotiating the 106 agreements, councils have not necessarily been able to hold the line that they would have liked to have held against the house builders and developers in that negotiation. So, very much a part of the local government Bill, that we were discussing in committee together this morning, is making those regional arrangements so that we can pool the skills necessary to get councils to be able to withstand those kinds of conversations. 

But at the same time, there's a whole series of other things we need to do. Actually, I think we've done rather well considering the level of constraint there was in building social housing over the last two years. But you'll see a huge change in scale and pace now that the caps have been taken off and we've changed the way that we hold public sector land. 

So, just to remind the Chamber, Llywydd, we've changed the way that the Welsh Government holds its land. It's been centralised into the public land division with my colleague Rebecca Evans and their instruction is that all land going for housing that's in Welsh Government ownership will have 50 per cent social-rented housing on it and then an element of affordable on top of it. And that land supply makes a huge difference to the acceleration of the way that we build social housing.

We're in conversation now with the Welsh Local Government Association and health boards and other things to really sell the public sector land under a similar scheme, because the biggest problem for the building of social homes is the acquisition of the land, not just the building of the houses. So, we're very much stepping up to that plate, and I think you'll see a step change in the numbers coming forward as the starts accelerate. What you're seeing at the moment is the completion of starts done under the old system, which was obviously much more restrictive.

If a property is a second home, it is classified as a domestic dwelling. The registration of businesses is not in itself devolved.

I was in Rhosneigr at a coffee morning recently, and a group of ladies who were busy making me a cuppa at the time said, 'Can we have a public meeting to discuss the red bins issue?' I wasn't sure what they meant, so they explained: 'Oh, you know, when people register their holiday homes as businesses, they have their domestic bins changed for business ones, red ones. There are more and more of them in the village, and it's wrong, they're not paying their taxes.'

Now, in November 2018, the former First Minister told me that he didn't believe there was a loophole here. The finance Minister, Rebecca Evans, also said, 'I'm not sure that I would agree that there's a loophole in the law'. Let's have a look at definitions of 'loophole'. The Cambridge dictionary says:

'loophole: a small mistake in an agreement or law that gives someone the chance to avoid having to do something'.

The Collins dictionary says:

'A loophole in the law is a small mistake which allows people to do something that would otherwise be illegal.'

And that's the point here. Certainly, it should be illegal to buy a second home and then be able to avoid paying the taxes that other full-time citizens of that same community do have to pay, and still expect to receive the same services. What the red bins story tells us is that this is becoming more and more visible and that people are getting angrier and angrier about it. 

Now, if Government won't agree that there is a loophole here, will you agree that there is a small mistake in legislation currently that has consequences that may well be unintended, but that has to be addressed in the name of fairness and in the name of providing local authorities much-needed revenue that is otherwise lost?

So, I take the point the Member is trying to make, but I don't think it is a loophole within any of the definitions you've just said, and that's because it's intended. A loophole is an unintended consequence, and actually this is an intended consequence.

Just to be clear how it works, because I think there's a great deal of misunderstanding amongst people about how exactly this works: so, when somebody acquires a property, they have to class it as a dwelling or as a business. If they class it as a dwelling, then it's a second home if it's not occupied all the time, and then it's subject to the council tax system prevalent in that authority.

Some authorities have doubled the council tax on second homes, others have actually halved it, depending on their local circumstances and what they're trying to achieve. That's a matter for local discretion and they can do what they like.

What you're describing is when someone acquires a property and then says it's not a domestic property, it's actually part of a business and they're letting it out as self-catering or whatever. There are strict rules about what they have to do to do that, and they have to apply through the valuation office, they must complete the forms and provide documentary evidence the property met the letting criteria, and the Valuation Office Agency reviews the evidence before making a change to the lists, and then it's a registered business. Only two properties are allowed per registered business to count as a small business. So, if you're a small business, you can't have more than two properties. And if you're a small business with two properties, you can apply for small business rate relief.

A holiday home.

Well, a holiday home is the same thing—it's still a business, whatever you call it.

No, it's not—[Inaudible.]

The Minister is seeking to provide you with an answer, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

So, if it's not being let out and it is classed as a small business, and what you're saying is, 'This is not being let out, it's being used as a second home', and the person has done that—that's a fraud. So, that's a criminal offence and would be prosecuted. We have asked—as a result of something Siân Gwenllian asked me to do—all authorities in Wales for any evidence of that, and we have not been provided with any. And we've asked the valuation office to conduct an audit of the ones that they're aware of, and they have not come up with a single one that hasn't legitimately changed across and hasn't been able to provide the evidence necessary to sustain that.

Now, I'll say it again: if you've got evidence that that's happening, let's have it, and I'll do something about it. But so far, at this point in time, we have no—. We have anecdotes of all sorts, including in my own authority and everywhere else, but we have no actual evidence at all that that's actually happening.

I do recognise the concerns behind this question, but the boundaries between main home, second homes, multiple occupation properties and any business identity have become long blurred since the arrival of Airbnb and other similar daily-rate accommodation companies. If you support the principle of what Plaid thinks of as a second home—which is occupied only periodically by visitors who don't live there full time—being excluded from business registration, then how could you ever expect to collect any tourism tax from them? I think, actually, that's a really good reason for not even considering that tax any further.

So, I make the same point: if we have any evidence at all that properties have been incorrectly listed as businesses and not domestic properties, then let's have it, and we'll look at it and do something about it. If a residence is a domestic residence, listed as a domestic residence for occasional occupation, or never occupation—and there's nothing to stop you buying a second home and literally never going to it—as long as it's registered as a domestic premises, then it will pay whatever the relevant council tax for a non-main-home residence is in that area.

You have to positively approach the valuation office and say that you want to register this property as a non-residential property for business use in order to get into this scheme. You have to have two or less of those properties to qualify as a small business and get the rate relief. If you have more than that, you'll be paying non-domestic rates on it instead of council tax, which is not necessarily better, it might be more.

And then the other thing to say is, although the doubling of the charge for second homes in many areas of Wales was not intended in any way as a revenue-raising arrangement—but rather a behaviour modification arrangement—in fact, it's raised very considerable amounts of money across Wales. Far more than ever would have been lost if such a loophole had existed, which I emphasise it does not.

Does the Minister share my frustration that it's not clear whether Plaid are complaining about fraud or are complaining about the law? Is the issue that second-home owners are reclassifying them as holiday homes but still living in them themselves part time and not renting them out? In which case that's fraud. Is it that they're not renting them out very much and they're not actually reaching the 10 weeks a year? In which case shall we have some more enforcement? Or is there an argument that, if they're to benefit from having this zero council tax in this way, they should actually be renting them out for longer than 10 weeks a year? In which case why don't we go to the HMRC definition of requiring furnished holiday lettings to be rented out for 15 weeks a year minimum, and available for 30 weeks a year minimum?

That's a reasonable analysis. Our analysis from all of the work that we've done on this is that the amount of letting is the right level, because tourism economies are very important across Wales in very small places. So, this is a balance, isn't it, between allowing properties to be used in our very vital tourism industry, and making sure that people are not taking advantage of some loophole. But it's not a loophole if you have to evidence it in the right way. So, if you have evidence that people are not letting their accommodation out in the right way, then let us have it. I've said repeatedly in the Chamber, and I'll say it one more time: I am more than happy to look at any evidence at all that that is happening, but currently I don't have any.

I recognise that price and availability of homes for local people in parts of Wales are being impacted by second-home ownership. To understand this impact in their areas, local authorities are required to conduct local housing market assessments and apply strategies to meet the requirements of their communities.

There are broader issues than just the impact within the taxation system. But we do need a resolution to that, and the WLGA agrees with us that changing section 66 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 is the way forward. So, it's not just on these benches that are talking about this; the WLGA, representing all Welsh councils, has also said that we need to amend that legislation as a matter of urgency. But you're not going to go down that route; I don't quite understand why.

But there are broader issues, of course, aren't there? Of the homes sold in Gwynedd recently, 40 per cent of them were sold as second homes. Now, that is a huge figure, and that kind of social and economic change leaves our communities much, much worse off for most of the year.

So, what general work has your Government done in order to take all of these issues into account? For example, is it now time for us to make it a requirement for anyone who wishes to convert a home into a second home—particularly in these areas where there are very high numbers of second homes—that they would need planning consent before they could make that change?

There are other changes to the planning system that could be considered. Other areas—Cornwall and the Lake District have tackled this.

We do need a question now, so that we can conclude this question.

I feel passionately about this, as you know, but the question is: what other changes, apart from the taxation changes, could your Government consider implementing in order to resolve this problem?

Siân Gwenllian, I hope, knows that I'm also very sympathetic to the problem, and I do absolutely recognise that that exists. We have had a look at things like trying to control it through the planning system, but when somebody is conducting the sale of a private house to a private individual or to a company, it would be very difficult at that point to say that that sale couldn't continue once the identity of the owner was known and they had declared it was a second home.

There are also all kinds of other issues that might seem trivial but are really problematic in a legal system. So, I buy the house as my main house, and then I get married to somebody who lives in London and I only come back at weekends, so have I suddenly converted it into a second home and breached the planning rule? There are lots of difficult problems. That doesn't make me not sympathetic to the problem; I think there are a number of things we can do. 

We know that rural areas have particularly high challenges with this, and very beautiful parts of the country have specific problems. Gwynedd, you're absolutely right in identifying. Gwynedd is 9.9 per cent, fourth in the list of authorities with second homes in Britain. So, you're absolutely right that it's a huge problem for us. But I think we need to attack it in a number of ways.

We have a rural strategic group that consists of rural housing enablers—housing associations, local authorities, Community Housing Cymru and the WLGA—that meets quarterly. We've got a good forum to encourage and test ideas for what can be done. We're encouraging things like the use of the council tax premiums. I'm happy to look at whether we should increase that yet again if house prices—. A house in my village has just sold for £2.8 million to a couple from London who I don't think plan to live there permanently. My children will never live in a village that has houses selling for that; I have a lot of sympathy with where you're coming from. 

So, I think what we need to do is identify land, particularly in rural, Welsh-speaking communities, where the children of the villages want to live, and identify houses that we can build that are either for social rent with a local element attached to that, or for mixed equity—so shared equity arrangements with local housing associations or with the local council—or other arrangements such as self-build with residents' requirements as a result of the grant, and various other things that we can do to encourage the building of the right kind of houses, so that local people, young people in particular, can be encouraged to stay in our communities. 

So, I have a lot of sympathy with that, but I don't think the planning system is the right way to do it. What we have to do is find a tool that works. So, I'm very happy to invite you along to one of the sessions with the rural housing enabler arrangements, and we're very happy to look at any other good ideas from across the Chamber, Llywydd, as I know a large number of people have these problems in their constituencies and regions, to look to see what we can do that would work and not involve us in endless legal disputes around the point of sale for various houses across Wales.

Minister, I remember Dafydd Wigley raising this issue in the first Assembly and talking about where they do have controlled housing markets, like the Channel Islands—that bastion of socialism in the English channel. The thing is, we do have a culture more widely in Britain of free market and second-home ownership, which I respect, but a lot of those people are also tempted sometimes to buy in Spain, in Italy, in France, where there's profound rural depopulation and villages lie empty, often. And it's a slightly different situation, to put it mildly, that we are facing, and we need a range of strategies: higher council tax where there is high housing need but second homes are being purchased; empty home strategies; and modest but necessary building up of villages. Now, it's one thing to have a pretty, pretty village, but it's not very pretty for the local young people if they cannot afford to live there and raise families. So, appropriate development, just like our ancestors have done for generations, should be required.

I completely agree with you. We're not opposing that in any way. It is just about making sure that we get the right houses in the right places for the right people. But we must also guard against unintended consequences. I don't know if you are aware, but St Ives recently had the experience where they restricted the building of homes for out-of-town buyers and that resulted in no houses being built at all because it simply wasn't feasible. So, you have unintended consequences of that. That's not what they wanted, but that's what they got. So, what we're very keen to do is to find the right levers to do that, to allow the village envelope to increase slightly with the right kind of houses and all the rest of it.

I just emphasise as well that, of course, because of our set of planning rules, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Welsh language planning Act all interacting, the Welsh language is a very big part of this as well. So, we do want to preserve our Welsh-speaking communities and make sure that they aren't currently inundated with large numbers of people who wouldn't be able to learn the language in an appropriate timescale for the local school and so on. So, large numbers of considerations are expected to be applied by local planning authorities in Wales when they are looking at this. I'm very happy to work with groups of AMs and with our rural enabler people and so on to look at any ideas at all that can encourage the building of the right kind of houses in the right kind of places.

As David Melding rightly says, we don't have the kinds of problems they have in Spain and Portugal in some areas, but in little bits of Wales, like Gwynedd and some of the Pembrokeshire coast, we really do have a problem that is accelerating.

I recently launched our circular economy strategy, 'Beyond Recycling', which includes the headline action to phase out single-use plastic. Alongside this, we are working on game-changing reforms such as extended producer responsibility for packaging, a deposit-return scheme and a ban on certain single-use plastics.  

That's really good news to hear. The Minister must be as frustrated as I am when we go to the supermarkets that proclaim all the good work that they're doing on reducing plastics and we still see fruit and veg aisles lined with plastic-wrapped fruit and veg. It's quite interesting today that I've just spotted an organisation called Plastic Expiry, which is taking peaceful direct action by putting stickers on those plastic products labelling them, 'plastic expiry by 24 January 2499'. Consumers are leading the way in peaceful protest.

But we had a great debate here last October, cross-party support, a motion that was passed by the House—pushing, encouraging and working with the Minister to say, 'Let's become that nation that becomes a global leader in sustainable consumption and in reducing plastic waste and single-use plastics in particular'. Could I ask her: are all tools on the table, including things such as appropriate tax and levies, bans on appropriate and specific single-use plastics? And will she continue to work with all those campaigning organisations, including the Marine Conservation Society, Keep Wales Tidy and Friends of the Earth—thank you for meeting with us the other day—but also those others out there who want to make this change because we know that the tide of plastic pollution is rising and we've got to stop it?

I think the short answer is 'absolutely yes'. I'm incredibly proud of our role and our record as a global leader and the recognition we've received of that previously from places as far afield as Australia. But we've outlined our ambition that we actually want to step up that and take that further, and to actually drive the change in the future.

And you mentioned some of the individuals and organisations that are taking matters into their own hands, and just about the labelling, I think that is very creative. And in my own constituency, there have been Maximum Wraps, where people have done their shopping, and there's a team of volunteers there getting rid of all the excess plastic that isn't necessary there. You're absolutely right about this consumer willpower and this energy in our communities to do something, and we really need to harness that as a Government and across our communities as well.

So, that's why one of the key elements for me in this consultation, which I much prefer to call a conversation, because I think that's what it should be, is actually about how we both enable businesses to be part of that but importantly, that we empower communities too. So, as part of that, I'm actually going around every region of Wales, talking to businesses, talking to community groups, as well as officials doing it, to actually make sure they're part of that as well and actually influence the change. Because we know they want it, and there are things that we can do as a Government in terms of legislation and policy, but we need that cultural change as well, and I think people need to be part of that. So, absolutely, I'm very keen to continue that and continue the conversation with everybody who wants to be part of it.

Deputy Minister, earlier this week, I met with pupils from St Aidan's Church in Wales School in Wiston just outside Haverfordwest in my constituency, which has set up a petition to ban single-use plastic milk bottles in schools across Wales. I'm sure you'll agree with me that it's great to see children and young people engaging with our petitions process and taking action on some of our biggest issues. In the circumstances, what support can the Welsh Government offer to the pupils of St Aidan's Church in Wales School, and what discussions have you had specifically with local authorities about banning single-use plastic milk bottles in schools across Wales?

Thank you. You're obviously referring to that role that young people are playing, particularly in schools, in driving this change, and the power of pester power as well because I think there's no loyalty to the grown-ups or to the parents when we're not doing it probably. I remember in one school, we were talking about what you recycled and why, and where it went, and one little girl put her hand up and said, 'My mummy doesn't do that.' So, I think we need to make sure that we support them in that.

You won't be surprised to hear that other schools have been in touch with the same concerns around the plastic milk bottles and around plastic straws. I know there have been some pilots across some schools in local authority areas to see what they can do to drive that forward. And I'm keen, if you want to ask the school to write to me about what they're doing, I'd be very happy to engage with them.

And also, as part of when we announced the 'Beyond Recycling' consultation, we also announced a new £6.5 million circular economy fund. It's not the same one as before, even though it sounds the same, it's actually for local authorities and other public bodies, so schools and other organisations can be part of that, if they want to. Because what we've done before, we've seen young people, actually, who are driving campaigns for change, but, actually, there's not the infrastructure there within where they are to actually drive that practical change and resolutions. So, to actually look at ways we can best enable and empower that. But if you want to write to me on behalf of the school, or invite the children to write to me, then I'll be more than happy to engage with them.

Thank you, Deputy Minister and Minister for replying to those questions. So—[Interruption.]

Yes. Point of order, Mandy Jones.

Thank you. I did try to raise this with your office earlier, so thank you for taking this for me.

Your office informed my office of an intention to raise a point of order a few minutes before I left to come down to the Chamber. I haven't had the opportunity to review that as yet, and I intend to tell you, once you have raised your point of order here very quickly, then, that I will review it subsequently to this. I'm sitting here with my mobile phone, I'm unable to actually look at any proceedings of last week's events.

Okay, but thank you for taking this, Llywydd.

Could you please make a ruling on Standing Orders 13.94 and 13.95 on whether Alun Davies's behaviour last week in the Chamber was discourteous and distracted from the dignity of this place? Alun shouted across the Chamber, 'You are a racist'. Now, on the Record of Proceedings, this comment actually follows my name being called by you, and I wasn't even in that conversation at that time. This is unacceptable to me. Members here should be able to make their point without being subjected to bullying and name calling, and I would like this comment, please, of Alun's to be removed from the Record and I would like to know where we all stand in terms of this kind of name calling.

Thank you for the point of order, and yes, I'll make a ruling on it once I've reviewed the Record of Proceedings in last week's proceedings. So, if you allow me to do that—. As I said earlier, I'm not able to review it on my mobile phone in the Chamber, even though I do make quite a bit of use, sometimes, as some of you who send me texts know, of my mobile phone, but not to review last week's proceedings. So, I will consider that at a later stage.

Thank you.

Topical questions.

The first topical question is to be asked to the Minister for Health and Social Services, and the question is from Caroline Jones.

Yes. NHS Wales has plans in place to protect the health of the public. Specific guidance on the identification, isolation and testing for this virus has been communicated to all of our front-line staff. UK health Ministers, chief medical officers and public health agencies across the four nations are co-ordinating action together.

Thank you, Minister. The threat we face from this new strain of coronavirus is of grave concern, and I am grateful that you have outlined the action your Government are taking to keep us safe. It is concerning that upwards of 5 million people are believed to have left Wuhan before the quarantine was put in place. Sadly, in the following weeks, we have seen this coronavirus outbreak spread, and the director of Public Health England has said that it is likely this deadly virus is already in the UK. We have to do all that we can to limit its impact on our already overstretched NHS. Minister, although we have no direct flights from China to Cardiff, both KLM and Qatar airlines offer flights. What assurances have you from the Dutch and Qatari Governments that they will screen all transit passengers?

Unfortunately, this coronavirus has a long incubation period, so the real scale of the threat will become more apparent in the coming weeks. Minister, will you commit to giving this Chamber and, by extension, the wider public, regular oral updates as the situation develops? Thank you.

On the last point, I'm happy to confirm that, of course, regular updates will be provided, where necessary by me, but there'll be regular updates through the chief medical officer's department about steps that are being taken.

I think, in terms of people entering the United Kingdom, those are matters that are outside the control of this Government. You will have seen that there are direct flights that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are arranging for British nationals to come back into London and that those people will be—a dreadful, old-fashioned word—quarantined; there'll be a period of them being held to see if they are symptomatic. And we're looking to identify with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office how many Welsh nationals are going to be on that flight.

On the broader points about ports of entry, again, the actions have been agreed, through previous Cabinet Office Briefing Room engagement that has been taken by the UK Government, on ports of entry.

But I just want to deal with your first point, and that is about the coronavirus in the first place. There's obviously understandable concern. However, I think we should all take care in how we describe this particular virus; it is less severe than the previous outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome, and there were lots of concerns about the potential mortality for that. That's our current understanding. The risk to the UK is currently assessed as low. But the steps that are being taken are anticipatory to try to provide reassurance for our staff, but also for the wider public. I certainly don't want to add to the impression that a more significant health risk is on its way than is likely.

It's worth reflecting, for example, that we know that the flu makes people severely unwell and kills people every year, and yet, we still can't persuade people who are in a category where they can receive a free NHS vaccine, to take that up in the numbers we'd want them to. So, let's have some perspective on it. We'll be measured, we certainly won't be complacent, and the engagement between health Ministers across the four UK Governments will continue in the way that you would all expect it to, just as the regular contact between our four chief medical officers will continue as well.

Thank you very much indeed, Minister. To be honest, you've answered most of the questions I was going to ask. I met the Secretary of State last week and he was very clear that there was big joint working going on and that it was going very well. My only question would be: does Wales have any emergency treatment centre planning in place, in case we get to a situation where this does develop further? And I would join you in urging people not to overly panic about this because we do not want to start a scare.

Yes, in terms of most of the treatment, that's part of a network of work across the UK, both within Wales and outside, where people would be treated should they test positive. It's also worth pointing out that every single person tested in the United Kingdom to date has tested negative. So, we don't have a confirmed case anywhere within the United Kingdom, but I think in terms of the assurance, yes, we have got arrangements in place for treatment should there be a positive test regardless of where that person is within the UK, and Wales is absolutely part of those arrangements. In fact, that's part of the conversation that our chief medical officer has had and part of the conversation that UK Ministers wanted to be assured about in the last COBRA call that I took part in last week.

I do welcome your appeal for everyone to have some perspective on this issue. Of course we need to take it seriously, but we also need to be realistic as to the level of the risk. I will ask this: is it a good time now to remind people and perhaps provide some resource into general aspects of personal hygiene and infection control? And not only in hospitals, but also in other institutions, and not just as preparation in case coronavirus affects us, but in general it's good practice. After all, the common cold is transferred in a similar manner and can lead to grave complications on occasion.

There is a link between Wuhan and Wales as well, of course. It's around 150 years since the missionary Griffith John went to Wuhan and established the Wuhan Union Hospital there, which is one of the largest in China, with 5,000 beds treating over 3 million people annually. And that does mean, of course, that there is traffic to Swansea, the city where Griffith John originated from. So, there is traffic from China to Swansea because of that direct link to Wuhan. Therefore, I do welcome what you've said about the need to work across Britain in order to put the appropriate steps in place in our airports.

In terms of our ports, the question that's been raised with me by the BMA—and I will pass it on to you—they are asking whether there may be some implications that need to be taken into account because of our exit from the EU, that there could be changes to expectations in terms of border control, and possible changes to what's expected of the Welsh Government under the new regime as we leave the European Union, in terms of ensuring that public health is safeguarded in Wales. Is that something that the Government has given any consideration to?

I think that completes my questions for the time being, but, as I say, it's important to keep this in perspective while also preparing in the background, of course, in case things do become more serious than we think they will currently.

Thank you for the comments and questions. The ability to communicate between European countries on public health matters is something that was talked about during the last three years or so and we'll still need to work through how we'll maintain the best possible public protection system. There are challenges in place around that.

I think that today, though, and for the current position, it is a matter of fact that we're still able to have that co-operation and information sharing in a way that benefits us. I think the point about the fact that there is some traffic between Wales and Wuhan, that’s acknowledged. In fact, we've seen some media reports of Welsh citizens who actually are there and are looking to be taken out on the flight that I previously mentioned.

But the advice that goes across not just Wales, but the UK, is that anyone who has returned from Wuhan in the last 14 days should stay indoors and avoid contact with other people, as you would with other flu viruses; to contact NHS Direct or 111 Wales, if available in your area—111 Wales is available in Hywel Dda, Powys, Aneurin Bevan and Swansea Bay—to inform them of your recent travel; and to please follow that advice even if you don’t currently have symptoms, and, again, if anyone does develop a fever, difficulty breathing or a cough, to continue to follow that advice and not to leave their home until they have had advice to do so by a clinician.

So, we're taking a properly precautionary approach. That shows we are taking it seriously, but not to want to move into a panic that isn't warranted by the position as it is, and to give that assurance that there will be information provided. In fact, the chief medical officer for England is regularly publishing each day information on behalf of all four chief medical officers on the current position. I think that it's important that the Governments of the UK are being as open as possible about the current position, so that people don't worry in a vacuum, which often leads to an unfortunate reaction from the public.

I am very concerned, as are some of my constituents, about the coronavirus. The death toll has climbed to 106, and the number of infections is now more than 4,500, and the virus has spread across China and to at least 16 countries. Now, I understand the feeling about no panic, but the one thing that I need to be sure of is that we have got contingency plans in place. I know that during the last swine flu concerns and that epidemic, there were some concerns where the Welsh Government had to very much rely on heavy support from the UK Government. In fact, I wouldn't downplay, really, the risk of the SARS virus, where I personally know of people who died with that virus and who nearly died with that virus. So, it's pretty serious stuff that we are actually discussing here today.

This is almost a global emergency. There are 47 confirmed cases outside China, three of these being in France. Last week, when I became very concerned midweek, I submitted a written Assembly question to you—and I would like to thank Caroline Jones for bringing this up today because, as an institution, we should be discussing and debating this—asking what steps the Welsh Government is taking in response to the spread of coronavirus. I haven't received a response yet. I know that Rhun has mentioned about airports. I know that the primary and secondary care settings have been mentioned—

You don't need to provide a précis of what's been asked already, Janet Finch-Saunders. Please just ask your questions.

My concerns, Minister, are that the virus seems to be spreading like a normal flu during its incubation period and before any symptoms appear. So, how do you think that we can help medical professionals and the public to become aware of this at the earliest symptoms? If and when a first case in the UK is confirmed, it will be announced as soon as possible by the chief medical officer of the affected country, and that will be followed by a statement from England's chief medical officer. So, I would like to hear again that you personally are actually in very frequent dialogue with the UK Government on this. 

Finally, you might be aware that the Chinese new year event in Swansea was cancelled over coronavirus fears. So, will you join with me in extending a message of support to the people of China and the Chinese people in Wales, and China, globally, on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales, if not the Welsh Government?

Well, I think that it's important to maintain a sense of perspective. We are taking this seriously, we're not being complacent, but we don't want to have a reaction that sends people into a wave of panic. We've taken specific measures together across the four Governments of the United Kingdom. As I said, there's no party political side to this. These are the four Governments acting as responsibly as we should do for the public that we serve.

So, we've proactively provided information in international airports and major ports. There's a suite of information on posters, for example, that are going up at higher education institutions. Lots of the traffic that we have comes from students and staff in the higher education sector. So, we're specifically looking at areas to have the maximum impact without worrying the public in a way that is out of proportion with the risk. There is real risk, and I'm not suggesting there isn't. There is real risk, but let's not react in a way that will add more fuel to the fire and unnecessary concern.

As I said in response to Rhun ap Iorwerth, the advice has been given about how people should behave: avoiding contact if they have returned form Wuhan in the last 14 days, and to make contact with NHS Direct Wales or 111. To follow that advice, even if they don't have symptoms, is really important. It's not just a matter for Chinese nationals who are resident in Wales. It is a matter for all of us, in terms of the contact that we have. The NHS in Wales will continue to do what it should do, and the Government will continue to act in concert with the other three Governments across the UK to do all that we could and should do for people here in Wales and beyond.

Thank you to the Minister for replying to that topical question.

And the second topical question, again to the same Minister, will be asked by Leanne Wood.

Thank you for the question. As you know, the health board is responsible for the provision of safe and sustainable healthcare for its local population, including timely access to emergency care services for those who need it.

Last week we received the news that the dreaded south Wales programme is being resurrected after six years, in terms of accident and emergency configuration. This means consultant-led services are recommended for removal from the Royal Glamorgan Hospital in Llantrisant. During the same briefing, we were told that the Royal Glamorgan has the busiest A&E of the three district general hospitals under Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board.

The A&E department will lose its last consultant at the end of March; then it will be entirely reliant on locum consultants. In contrast, the Princess of Wales Hospital in Bridgend has eight consultants in A&E, and the Prince Charles Hospital in Merthyr has the equivalent of four and a half consultants in A&E. Many people are questioning how and why this disparity has been allowed to develop. People are also questioning whether they will be able to get to hospital in time in an emergency. I've heard from people this week who say they would have died, or even worse—that their child would have died—had they been forced to travel further afield than the Royal Glamorgan Hospital.

A survey from a few years ago found that fewer than half of people questioned in Wales knew that health is devolved. Therefore, many people do not know that Labour runs the NHS in Wales, and has done so since the beginning of devolution in 1999. As you have responsibility for health in Wales, and you are a member of the political party that has run health in Wales for decades, what can you say to the people in the Rhondda who believe that this decision will cost lives? Will you take responsibility for it, and how do you justify making people travel further in a life-threatening situation?

Well, I think it's important to set out that the safety of the service is the first priority for the people who work in, run and deliver, and have responsibility for the service—from myself to the chief executive, to the medical director, to front-line staff. And the paper that the board will be considering tomorrow, in the name of the medical director, sets out the risks that exist, and that, actually, the risk is that there is much greater risk in terms of safety and the quality of the service in continuing to try to run a service without any substantive consultants in place.

And in terms of the numbers of consultants and where they currently are—people make choices about where they work, and we can't actually force people to move between one department or the other. It's not a question of the health board refusing to try to recruit to the Royal Glamorgan. It's not a question of there being plenty of doctors who are prepared to work. Actually, the challenge is about the number of staff we have, and the emergency department consultants themselves have the ability to move jobs in different parts of Wales and beyond, and, as we've seen in other parts of the UK, people do make those active choices. The challenge is: are we prepared to run our health service on the basis that safety and quality are the primary considerations, or do we place a different premium on the locality of services?

And in terms of the examples you gave where people would say that their lives could be lost—that's the sort of language that people understandably use when people are concerned, but I don't think it necessarily leads to a rational debate, because if someone is really at risk of losing their life, then they should be under blue-light conditions to go into the most appropriate point for their care, however near or far that is, and whether that's in a helicopter or on the ground.

Our challenge is how we have a regular pattern of services that is sustainable, genuinely safe and will last into the future and will recruit staff into it. And in the four options that are in the public domain in the executive medical director's report, it sets out two options that the medical director says are not viable and not sustainable. It sets out the challenges that existed at the time the south Wales programme was agreed—[Inaudible.]—got worse, and it sets out two options that they recommend that the board considers to properly engage with the public and wider stakeholders, including elected representatives. That's my expectation for the health board: to take seriously their responsibilities, not to duck the challenges that have a real impact on patient safety, to engage properly with the public and wider stakeholders about what each of those things mean, and what you will actually get in terms of where services are, and the quality that each one of us would expect for ourselves and our own families.

I appreciate there are challenges across the health board but, in particular, around staffing. But what is really important here is, obviously, that the decisions that have been taken on A&E at the Royal Glamorgan are predicated on the south Wales programme. The Royal Glamorgan is located in an area of high density population, with a growing population and growing demand. Now, I take it that the health board have the day-to-day function to run health services within its area, but you, as Minister, and your officials in Cathays Park, obviously set the strategy and direction of the health service here in Wales. Predicated on the south Wales programme, no consultant would have gone to the Royal Glamorgan on the basis that the service was going to be downgraded. 

Can I ask you, Minister, to intervene personally, as Minister who has responsibility for the strategic direction of the health service here in Wales, and insist that the health board re-evaluate their proposals and retain accident and emergency 24-hour provision at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, because every indicator shows that that is a growing demand area for that service, and a withdrawal of such a service will be devastating to the area it serves? You have the ability to do it, Minister. If you choose not to, I respect that, but you will be turning your back on the communities which live in that area and depend on the Royal Glamorgan Hospital. And it is now time that the health board in that particular area re-evaluated the options available to it, and, in particular, the decisions it took around the south Wales programme, which I would suggest, taken some six years ago, are out of date today. 

Well, thank you for the questions, but the truth is, if you've read through the paper from the executive medical director about the challenges they face, he sets out that, if anything, the reasons and the rationale behind the programme have grown in number as opposed to receded. And I just don't accept that every indicator suggests that changing the footprint of services at this hospital will have the dire consequences that you've set out—far from it. The executive medical director sets out the need and the rationale to address the issue. 

Now, we're not talking about your view or my view as a politician. We're talking about the executive medical director with direct responsibility on the ground, and the ability for him and the whole team within that health board to do the right thing and to make choices based on the right service, and to provide the right quality and the safety of that service. And I think that, for politicians here, whether in my seat or any other, to try to demand that the health board continues running a service, where they are very clear that the safety of that service will be compromised if they don't make changes, is exactly the wrong thing to do. 

Minister, during the south Wales programme, I and other Assembly Members and Members of Parliament campaigned together to successfully retain accident and emergency in the Royal Glamorgan Hospital. So, six years on, I again share the widespread concern at these new proposals to consider a number of options, including the possibility of downgrading or removal of A&E services. 

Now, short-term modifications to health service delivery to keep patients safe can, of course, be necessary and right, but I believe, in this case, it is vital that the Royal Glamorgan continues to offer a robust accident and emergency service well into the future. Now, whilst it's important to note that this review is driven by clinicians, and it's not about money, it is now six years since the south Wales programme, which was the starting point for the health board's review, and much has changed since then. There are now a complex number of factors in play, which need to be fully understood, including the challenge of recruiting consultants, the increased demand on blue-light services and the substantially increased demand on A&E, and the massive housing and growth of population in the immediate area around.

So, I'm going to again ask the Minister to urgently intervene in this issue to commit to support a full review of the south Wales programme before any changes to A&E provision are considered. 

I recognise the point that Members across parties are making, and I reiterate that the challenge here is to understand how we have a genuinely safe service that is available for constituents across the country, and what that means in terms of either trying to change a service model, where people regularly say that they're concerned about the safety of changing that model, but, equally, the challenge of trying to maintain a service model if you can't staff it and run it safely. And, in the changes since then, the executive medical director's report that the board will consider it tomorrow sets out a range of the factors that you referred to about the changing context in which healthcare has been delivered, about the changes in the way that the health board delivered certain services, and in the four options that are set out in that paper for the board to consider.

Now, again, it's not for me as a politician in this position to set out to change the operational evidence and understanding of what's happening, and it must be a proper engagement with the wider public and stakeholders, including yourselves and other elected representatives, about the differing factors that you will want to see the health board address. That includes the ability to recruit and retain staff on any of the proposed models, including the ability to try and retain that on the current model—the health board themselves say they don't think they can do—what that means to people, how people access care, and what care will be in place and still available on the Royal Glamorgan site. Those are all matters I expect the health board to set out in its consultation, and to set out transparently how it proposes to make those choices when it has to come back, given that the last substantive consultant will be leaving their post at the end of March. There is a real urgency to this, and this is not something that could or should be put off; I expect the health board to do its job properly, with the public and its staff, in providing an answer for the future.

Minister, this is an issue that is of great concern to my constituents. Those who live in Cilfynydd, Glyncoch and Ynysybwl depend directly upon the A&E facilities at the Royal Glamorgan, whilst the rest of my constituents, who depend upon A&E provision at Prince Charles Hospital, are rightly concerned about the additional pressures that could be placed upon facilities there if A&E at the Royal Glamorgan is removed or downgraded. At a meeting of Assembly Members, MPs and council leaders last Friday, the health board talked us through very candidly the problems that they are facing with the sustainability of services at the Royal Glamorgan, with A&E there being run, as you've said, by one permanent consultant and three locums, and that one consultant now bringing forward his retirement, thus leaving the service in a potentially unsustainable condition.

The health board assured us that they'd been engaged in a continuous open recruitment process for several years, but, despite that, had been unable to recruit any other consultant. What assistance could you as health Minister provide to Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board to help bolster their recruitment drive and encourage consultants to take up these vacant positions at the hospital? What resources could be provided to both Prince Charles Hospital in Merthyr, and the Princess of Wales Hospital in Bridgend, to help ensure that their A&E departments are able to support the additional demand that would be placed upon them if A&E at Royal Glamorgan is removed or downgraded?

And, finally, we all know that some people who arrive at A&E could be better dealt with at a minor injuries unit, which can do so much more than treating minor injuries—such as dealing with broken bones, for example. But the closure of minor injuries units, or the reduction of hours that we have seen at some, such as Ysbyty Cwm Cynon, in my constituency, leaves patients with little choice but to go to A&E. So, as part of these proposals for the Royal Glamorgan, will you, Minister, commit to working with Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board to explore the possibility of strengthening minor injuries units in community hospitals such as Ysbyty Cwm Cynon and Ysbyty Cwm Rhondda, thus bringing health services closer to the people and relieving pressure on A&E?

Thank you for those questions. I think there is a challenge about the service model the health board propose and that they will actively consider with stakeholders. Because one of the possible options that they set out is about reduced consultant cover, but having minor injuries provision instead. And there's a challenge about the public understanding the range of minor injuries services that are available—in my recent visit to Neath Port Talbot Hospital with David Rees, seeing an excellent nurse-led service, led by a consultant nurse, and a wide range of activity that, not that long ago, you would have expected to have been provided in a doctor-led emergency department.

So, there's a challenge about public understanding, but equally about how the health service helps people to get to the right place. And if you're in the back of an ambulance, you don't need to worry about where you're being taken, because it's the job of the service to take you to the right place for the care that you require. And it's then about how we help the public to make their own choices, if they're going to get to a hospital site themselves. But the driver for this is the change in staff and what that means for the service. And I come back again—in the medical director's paper, he points out that it is becoming increasingly unsustainable, and safe services cannot be sustained beyond the immediate short term without unacceptable risks to patient safety. And I just don't think that any politician, in any party—in or outside the Government—can ignore the direct warning that's being provided by the medical director who's got oversight of the medical provision through the health board. So, the challenge is how they take into account the points that you make now about the different questions, about the services that are provided, where they're provided and how they're provided, and, if there is to be a change on the Royal Glamorgan site, then what that means not just for the two hospitals within the same health board in Bridgend and Merthyr, but also what that means potentially in the flow down to Cardiff as well.

So, there's a challenge that is a reasonable one that is not just about the health board, and I expect them to set that out openly and transparently. And I think the engagement with staff, as well as the public, will be really important within that, because staff will have very clear views about the safety and sustainability of their service, and that often drives helpfully the way that service change should and shouldn't take place. It's not about money, it's not about political will to maintain the current services—it's actually what is the right service to be provided and how do you provide the sort of care that I want for my family and all of us want for ours and our constituents. 

Finally, Huw Irranca-Davies. 

Diolch, Llywydd. The Royal Glamorgan Hospital serves my constituents from Llanharan and Gilfach Goch and Evanstown areas, though the Princess of Wales Hospital in Bridgend, which also now falls within the Cwm Taf Morgannwg University Health Board footprint, is also of vital importance to those and other constituents. So, whilst none of us, as responsible Members of the Senedd, can ignore the implications of the imminent retirement, earlier than expected, of the sole permanent consultant at the Royal Glam, and the subsequent reliance on locums, my constituents do have questions, which require some frank answers. 

How did we arrive at a situation where there is only one permanent consultant at the Royal Glam? And why has the health board been unable to recruit additional consultants over a lengthy period? This has not come out of the blue. The implications for the Royal Glam are significant and immediate, as it seems untenable to run a fully functioning A&E with the appropriate degree and depth of expertise on locum-only provision. Locums are a vital part of A&E, but the depth and breadth of expertise required in modern A&E requires numbers of full-time specialist consultants. So, can I ask, for my constituents, whether attempts have been made to source additional A&E consultants across the wider health board footprint, or even in neighbouring health boards, to sustain the service there temporarily, while further efforts at recruitment continue?

And, of course, lurking in the background is the original south Wales programme for A&E, which goes back some years now, and it was never put into place. So, can I ask whether this is, through accident or design, an attempt to belatedly put into place the south Wales programme, and, if that is so, whether the proposals in that plan are up to date to take account of the current pressures in the system and future pressures, including the development of thousands—thousands—of new homes in the east of my constituency, as well as thousands more in the Pontypridd area, west of Cardiff? Is that programme in any way part of this, and, if so, isn't it the case that some of those calculations will, indeed, be out of date? And, on that basis, what assessment has been made of the impact of the fresh proposals not just on Royal Glam, but on the Princess of Wales in Bridgend and the Prince Charles in Merthyr Tydfil, which have their own A&Es, which are under, of course, intense pressure at the moment?

And, finally, Minister, can you urge to the health board that they have to continue their engagement—frank, honest engagement, open engagement—with the public, not only with elected leaders, to get through this? It may be that they've now found themselves in an invidious position, but the only way through this is to be honest and open and constantly engaged with constituents, who genuinely have fears over what may come. 

I certainly recognise the last point you made. There are people who are genuinely fearful about change being proposed of this kind, and it is important that the health board are entirely open and honest about what they're proposing and why, and that people involved in the delivery of the service are actively part of that conversation with each other, with their health board leaders and managers, and the public as well.

And I think we come back to points that are set out in the paper, and, again, the medical director, who wasn't around at the time of the south Wales programme, but has looked at what the south Wales programme said, in his paper, he sets out that the situation described by the south Wales programme had since become more urgent, taking into account the challenges in service pressure. But also, in that paper, he also takes account of the fact that there is already residential development that has taken place and is taking place now—so, about the population and the nature of the demographics.

And I think it's fair to say that, if there had been an attempt to address this matter proactively earlier and make changes, there would always have been very real concerns and ones that we hear today. And yet I think it's likely that, if this issue had been grasped sooner rather than later, we would be in a different position. Because, actually, part of the challenge in having staff coming into a service is the point of having a longer-term model that people agree with, are prepared to sign up to, and want to see their careers being part of.

But in terms of sustaining the model, the health board, not only within its current staff—I understand they're already talking to partners about sustaining a service whilst they come to a new model of operation. But to try to prevail upon the consultants, who currently work in Merthyr and the Princess of Wales in Bridgend, to sustain consultant cover on the current model in the Royal Glamorgan Hospital, I think, would not be sensible.

And I think that, if you look at patterns in recruitment and consultant behaviour and where consultants have gone to, that is exactly the sort of challenge that, if presented or required, would lead to those people seeking employment elsewhere. Emergency department consultants can get employment pretty much anywhere around the country. They are a band of people who are much sought after.

It's about protecting the group that we currently have, making sure that they stay within our system, and having a model of care that will work for the local population and will work for the health service in a sustained way. And to do that, to come back to your final point, the health board must be open and transparent about what they're doing and why, and how they are taking account of the messages they are getting from members of the public, electoral representatives and their own staff, including addressing the very real concerns that I recognise members of the public do have.

I thank the Minister.

The next item is the 90-second statements, and the first statement today comes from Lynne Neagle.

Thank you, Llywydd. The Inspire! tutor awards are organised by Learning and Work Cymru and celebrate the work of dedicated tutors and mentors, who have encouraged people from all backgrounds and ages to achieve their potential. Behind every successful adult learner, there is an inspirational tutor or mentor.

Daniel Dyboski-Bryant of Grŵp Llandrillo Menai has been teaching refugees and migrants, pioneering the use of virtual reality. Mary Murray has been on a mission to inspire adults in Torfaen to learn maths, her classes are always full and many have passed GCSE. Laura Wheeler in Cardiff delivers learning and support for young people in Llamau's Learning 4 Life programme, she has created a space where they feel safe and can tackle the issues affecting their lives. Philippa Gibson learnt Welsh as an adult, and has developed her skills to become a talented Welsh tutor in Cardigan and south Ceredigion. Rameh O'Sullivan at Cardiff Met is described as having the gift of awesomeness, many of her students are refugees and asylum seekers suffering from trauma, Rameh gives them hope to progress. And Suzanne McCabe delivers training and support for adults with autism in south Wales, and to businesses to support employees and customers with autism.

This is our chance to say congratulations to all award winners and tutors throughout Wales, who continue to change lives. Thank you.

Llongyfarchiadau mawr to Treorchy on winning the title of the UK's best high street. It's great that the hard work in this Rhondda town has been recognised, and I'm glad to be able to recognise it here in the Senedd too.

Local traders have banded together with local councillors and other community figures to make things happen for themselves. The local chamber of commerce is thriving in a town where 80 per cent of the businesses are independent. Treorchy people have put their faith in the old Welsh maxim, 'Mewn undod mae nerth/In unity there is strength', the town centre is very well supported. People from all over the Rhondda and beyond use the town centre for shopping and for leisure, enabling Treorchy to become the thriving hub of commerce that it is.

The absence of the dominance of big chains has been a major contributor to the success of the town. It's hard to deny the adverse impact that large chain stores can have on small businesses and town centres. Treorchy has shown what is possible for struggling town centres across Wales. I very much hope that other towns in the Rhondda and further afield can learn those lessons and thrive just as Treorchy is. Diolch yn fawr.

My great-grandfather was a quarryman in Cilgwyn in Dyffryn Nantlle, so I'm very proud to support the bid to secure UNESCO world heritage site status for the slate-quarrying areas of north-west Wales. Growing up in Felinheli in the 1960s, I was highly aware of the decline of an industry that, at one time, sent slate to all parts of the world. The old dock had dilapidated, and now only the chimney stands in the middle of a housing estate.

But it is very different in the quarrying areas of Arfon, just a few miles inland from the Menai strait. Here is one of the most dramatic post-industrial landscapes of the world, and last week the final nomination was presented to UNESCO. The aim is to recognise the quarrying landscape of the north west of Wales as a world heritage site. And if this bid is accepted, then the notable landscape of Llanberis, Bethesda, Dyffryn Nantlle and Blaenau Ffestiniog would share the same designation as the Taj Mahal and the Egyptian pyramids.

Much work has already been done by the partners involved. As well as recognising our unique culture, heritage and language, having the status would open the door for sustainable tourism and high-quality opportunities for jobs across Gwynedd, bringing millions of pounds to the local economy. Best of luck to everyone as we move to the next stage of this project.

The next item is the motion under Standing Order 16.3 to establish a committee, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion, Siân Gwenllian.

Formally. 

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No, therefore the motion is agreed— [Interruption.] 

Are you objecting to the proposal to establish a committee? 

To rename the committee, and I want to speak on that as well. 

It's the same one. You're objecting. 

Yes, that was an objection, and I thought I'd asked to speak. 

If you want to speak, you can speak. I'm sorry, you're not down in front of me, but that's—. I will go with the flow of it and call you to speak. 

Diolch, Llywydd, much appreciated. I'm not sure what happened there. 

I object to the motion for two reasons. One is simply in terms of timing. Welsh Government has for some time trailed a debate on the justice commission report, and I think the first thing this morning we had an e-mail announcing the motion under that would be Tuesday of next week. I think it would be better for consideration of renaming this committee to include 'justice' to follow that debate, rather than precede it.

Also, although there are areas of Welsh Government responsibility that are tangential and touch on the justice area, overall this would be fulfilling a recommendation of the justice commission, and that is based on devolving justice to Wales. Justice is not currently devolved to Wales. We complain about how many committees we have to serve on and the amount of work involved. I would question whether it is sensible to add to the workload of a committee an area—justice—that is not currently devolved. I recognise that some Members—perhaps a majority of Members—wish that to be the case, but I believe we should structure our committees around our responsibilities as they are, rather than as some Members might like them to be. 

Thank you. Mick Antoniw. 

Thank you, Llywydd. I hadn't intended to speak, but in response to those particular comments, which I consider actually are very misleading—. Because although justice per se is not devolved, we have considerable justice functions and we have no mechanism for the scrutiny of those justice functions and to evaluate them, nor indeed to evaluate the recommendations of a particularly important report. So, it seems to me that this is a very sensible move forward. It's one that I am supportive of, it's one that I've kept the members of my committee involved in, and I do not support the objection being made. 

Will the Member give way? 

I think the Member has finished his contribution, sorry. There are no further speakers wishing to contribute, so I re-ask the question, whether—. No, I'm going to have to ask it in Welsh as it's in Welsh in front of me.

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

My instantaneous translation wasn't as good as I thought it was. 

We now move to a motion to elect a Member to the Assembly Commission. I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion, Siân Gwenllian.

Formally. 

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

The next item, therefore, is the Welsh Conservatives debate on the departure from the European Union. I call on Darren Millar to move the motion—Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. On 23 June 2016, to the surprise of the Welsh establishment and many in this Chamber, the majority of Welsh voters cast their votes in favour of leaving the European Union. It was a mandate to deliver Brexit. The 2016 referendum saw the highest turnout in any ballot in Wales since the 1997 general election, with 854,572 people across the country voting to leave the EU. That's nearly three times as many as those who voted for the Labour Party in the Assembly elections that were held just a few weeks earlier.

Now, politicians cannot choose which public votes they decide to respect. Parliament gave the public the power to decide whether our future was in or out of the EU, and it is vital for our democracy that election and referendum results are always implemented. So, that's why I'm delighted that this week, at 11 o'clock on Friday—in spite of the best efforts of the Labour Party, Plaid Cymru and the so-called Liberal Democrats—Wales, along with the rest of the United Kingdom, will finally leave the European Union, and Boris Johnson will have delivered on his pledge to get Brexit done, fulfilling the promise to voters in Wrexham, Bridgend, Clwyd South, Ynys Môn, the Vale of Clwyd, Delyn, Brecon and Radnorshire, and many other seats across Wales.

And we will do so with a good deal, a good deal that protects the rights of EU citizens in the UK and UK citizens in the EU, and ensures that there is no hard border on the island of Ireland, a deal delivered by a Prime Minister against the odds and defying all of the doomsday predictions of the naysayers. And, of course, once we leave the EU, the UK will finally be able to take back control of its laws, its borders and its money. We will be leaving the single market and the customs union as well as the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice and will have an independent trade policy that is able to take advantage of the 90 per cent of global economic growth that is happening outside of the European Union.

We will continue, of course, to trade with the European Union, without tariffs, without quotas, without charges, while still being able to pursue trade deals around the world, opening up new, exciting markets for Welsh goods and services. And the UK market, of course, is vital to the European Union, just as our trading relationship with the EU is important to us. That's why it's in the interests of both parties—[Interruption.]. I'll take the intervention in a second. That's why it's in the interests of both parties to get a decent deal done, particularly for those large economies like France and Germany that rely on a lot of trade with this great nation of ours. I'll happily take the intervention.

I just wanted to ask Darren Millar whether we can look forward to the advent of chlorinated chicken and hormone-induced beef in this country.

I think I'll make some more progress with my speech.

A trade deal will ensure, of course, that businesses in Wales can have a smooth trading relationship and full access to the EU market, but Boris Johnson has also made clear that, even in negotiating that trade deal, access to public services—and this is in future trade deals with other nations, too—access to public services such as the NHS is not going to be on the table in those trade deal negotiations.

Now, over the last 20 years, the Welsh Government has received some £5 billion in EU structural funds, yet Wales has continued to qualify for support because the gross domestic product has remained below the 75 per cent EU average. And this is in spite of the fact that we've seen the accession of former communist countries into eastern Europe with poorer economies.

Dirprwy Lywydd, never has so much been spent with so little to show for it. Even the projects that have intended to have a lasting legacy in Wales, such as the dualling of the Heads of the Valleys road, have been delayed by years, and they're over budget by tens of millions of pounds. And it was the poor spending decisions over EU aid—[Interruption.] I'll take an intervention in a moment; as I always do, gracefully.

It was the poor spending decisions over EU aid that contributed to the Brexit vote, with Valleys communities voting the most strongly to leave the European Union because, despite the billions wasted, EU membership hasn't been seen to be helping them or their communities. I'll take the intervention.

Darren, Pontypridd is probably one of the most regenerating towns in the whole of south Wales. European money enabled the pedestrianisation; European money enabled the lido; European money is enabling the regeneration of the former Taff precinct; are you saying that that is wasted money? Will you say that to all the people now gaining jobs moving in to the Pontypridd area?

What I'm saying is that it has failed to deliver what it promised to deliver, which was to get that GDP up beyond the seventy-fifth percentile. And I think that you should be acknowledging the failure of successive Labour Governments to actually deliver on what it was supposed to deliver. And, of course, Pontypridd still voted to leave, in spite of the cash spent because it hasn't delivered for the people of Pontypridd.

So, here, Brexit provides with a new opportunity. In the coming weeks, the UK Government will be publishing further details of the new shared prosperity fund that will be designed to reduce inequalities across the four nations. It will replace the overly bureaucratic system of European aid, which has failed to deliver for the people of Wales, and Boris Johnson has been very clear that Wales will receive at least as much funding under the new arrangements as we do from EU structural funds. And that shared prosperity fund will provide us with an opportunity to make different strategic investments that leave a lasting legacy—truly leave a lasting legacy—to communities across Wales in need. And, of course, it will be more flexible than the current arrangements that fail to tackle any of the pockets of deprivation outside of west Wales and the Valleys.

Now, leaving the EU is also an opportunity for a green Brexit. It gives us a chance to reset and enhance our environmental obligations and to continue to lead the way, as we have done in the UK, in tackling climate change. Leaving the EU means that we can leave the failed common agricultural policy that has not recognised the work that so many farmers are already doing, frankly, to protect the environment. And, of course, we'll have a stable transition, because the UK Government has guaranteed continuity of funding until 2022. Of course, the Welsh Government needs to ensure that Wales's new environmental and land management system includes the recognition of the work of so many farmers as the custodians of the land and environment that they manage.

We will also, of course, leave the common fisheries policy—the subject of a debate later this afternoon—enabling us to take back control of our waters and to regain the power to access overfished seas while pursuing the very highest standards of marine conservation.

A genuine, serious point, beyond the political bluster and so on, a genuine point, in advance of the debate this afternoon: would he agree with me that any future policy on fisheries, beyond the slogans of getting back our control of our fisheries, actually needs to comply with the scientific evidence on maximum sustainable yield? The reason for that, I would put to him, is that otherwise, we fish to exhaustion our fisheries stocks. So, would he put within the reality of the political slogan that, actually, it needs to be sustainable fisheries?

You need to play catch-up. The Fisheries Bill, which has been published today in Westminster, takes into account those precise concerns and addresses them. So, I just wish you'd pay a little bit more attention to what the UK Conservative Government is actually doing on Brexit rather than aimlessly criticising, as you often do, from the backbenches.

So, we will have also the opportunity to have our own immigration system. Boris Johnson is committed to introducing an Australian-style points-based immigration system—[Interruption.] It's very discourteous of the Member to leave the Chamber during the debate after making a contribution. [Interruption.] That's very discourteous. I'm sure the Dirprwy Lywydd is making note.

Boris Johnson is committed to introducing an Australian-style points-based immigration system that considers people based on their skills rather than where they come from in the world. It will allow us to attract the brightest and the best to our shores, regardless of where in the world they come from while bringing migration, net migration, down to sustainable levels.

Will you take an intervention on that point?

I'm terribly sorry, I haven't got a lot of time left.

The UK's new global immigration system will address public concerns over immigration while still meeting the needs of our economy and our public services, including our public services here in Wales.

And, of course, once we've delivered on this referendum result, once we get through Friday, it means that we can start to focus our attention, including here in Wales, on the people's priorities of schools, the NHS, and tackling crime. And this includes recruiting Wales's share of the 20,000 new police officers that are going to be coming into our police forces here in the UK. And you've seen a big boost to the Welsh Government's budget—over £600 million in the block grant, which we can use to address the significant failings that we've seen in our national health service, some of which have been discussed this afternoon, and the fact that our education system is the worst in the UK according to the Programme for International Student Assessment.

On top of that money, of course, we've had an extra £700-odd million in terms of growth deals. Wales is the only part of the United Kingdom—the only nation—that is a growth deal nation. Every single part of the country is covered by a growth deal.

So, as we leave the EU on Friday, it's against this backdrop, a backdrop not just of additional investment, but of record high employment, with key industries like Airbus in north-east Wales already confirming that they see the potential to expand after Brexit. So, my message is this: it's time for the Welsh Government to move on from carping about Brexit, to work collaboratively with the UK Government, to take advantage of the opportunities—many of which I've outlined this afternoon—and to stop fighting Brexit, accept it and to get on with delivering the benefits for the people of Wales.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on the Counsel General and Brexit Minister to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Formally.

I'm hoping my contribution will be less political, in one sense, than we've just heard. I welcome the opportunity to reflect upon the impact of reaching the deadline of 11 p.m. Greenwich mean time on Friday 31 January. My colleague Mike Hedges, who sits alongside me, will feel trepidation at that deadline as it's a critical point to deciding whether sufficient people have been brought into the Swans in order to reach the play-offs, as the transfer deadline is reached at 11 p.m. on Friday evening—[Laughter.] Now, that's not an attempt to belittle the other significant events, but to remind us all that not all eyes will be focused on that single event. Now, many people around us will actually be looking at other aspects, even though the news coverage will be focused on nothing else. 

And there will be many others who will see it as a time when we will no longer be citizens of the EU and all that entails for us—positive in the eyes of some; negative in the eyes of others. Now, I fully recognise the outcome of the vote of the majority of the voting electorate in Wales in June 2016 and that the UK is leaving the EU, but, once again, I will stress that the means by which we leave and the path that we take are crucial to our future. I do hope that it is a bright future, and I will always work towards that, but it is our duty to ensure that we test the decisions taken by Governments, we critically analyse the future strategy for a strong and vibrant economy and that we scrutinise the legislation that comes forward to ensure that the law that impacts upon the people we represent is good law, not flawed or rushed to simply deliver a populist solution.

We all know that the potential for leaving the EU will essentially come through the trading relationships that the UK forges with other nations. There is no doubt that there will be concerns as to how UK mandates for such agreements will be created and the role that devolved nations for such agreements will have in setting that mandate. Many across this Chamber have expressed a view that it is important that all devolved nations are part of both the team setting the mandate and also the team that undertake negotiations. So, this is something well established in this Parliament.

Currently, there is no formal mechanism to ensure that the Welsh Government or this Parliament would have any say in negotiation and confirmation of these agreements, even in circumstances where they engage devolved competence. We should be involved in setting the direction of the negotiations and be included in establishing the mandate for those negotiations. We should be in the room when negotiations discuss devolved competencies or matters that impact upon devolved competence. This is often the case across our European neighbours and elsewhere in the world, so why not here?

Now, I understand that there has been a meeting of the ministerial forum on trade, but the outcomes have not yet been published, and clarification on our role in the process remains in the periphery. I welcome the Welsh Government's efforts to move the agenda forward on how we can change the current constitutional settlement and support its position as set out in the recently published 'Reforming our union: shared governance in the UK'. This is clearly the approach that suits the interest of Wales and our citizens, being able to influence any trade deal in order for it to be to the benefit of Wales and its citizens.

We only need to look at the events this week to consider the risks that can occur in such trade negotiations and thus why our voice must be heard and duly considered. Take yesterday, we heard from the UK Government that they were going to accept Huawei as part of the future of the 5G networks, but across the waters, we saw Republican senators tweeting how this would impact upon their consideration of any UK-US trade deal—effectively trying to blackmail the UK into succumbing to the decisions of their Government and their interests, not ours. It is important that our interests must not be sacrificed to suit the political interests of one group only. Difficulties will arise.

Last time we debated trade agreements in this Chamber the Conservatives put an amendment forward denying our valid concerns over the current trading negotiating stance of this UK Government. Instead, they prefer to block them out from people’s minds. The amendments that they had stated that we should have no involvement in trade negotiations as it's reserved matter. I hope they're changing their minds now. But what does that say for the ambitions of the Welsh Conservatives? They're more than happy to leave it to Westminster and not involve us—

Will you take an intervention?

I will take your intervention, Darren.

It's just on that very point. We've made it quite clear that we do think that there needs to be discussion with the Welsh Government in any future trade arrangements and deals. What we have also said though is that the UK Government is there to act in the best interests of the UK as a whole and it will be the body that signs on the dotted line as it were, with those trade deals, and therefore it's inappropriate that there should be a veto for Wales or any other part of the UK.

I thank you for actually indicating that you're moving your support in the direction that we are thinking. I've never said a veto and I've always argued against a veto. Even in the last debate, I argued against a veto. But I do believe that it’s important that the negotiations should be set by a mandate agreed with all the devolved nations because it’s crucial because the interests of the devolved nations are important.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I can see the time so I'll conclude with one other point and that’s the point about our workforce and immigration, and the important role that EU citizens play in delivering services in both public and private businesses across Wales. Just to highlight that the Migration Advisory Committee has published its report, following the request from the Home Office, on the future of the system and they did not fully support a points-based system. They actually indicated that they still believe that there should be a salary-level cap. They had reduced it to £25,600, whereas businesses still wanted a cap lower than that of £20,000, and they felt that a points-based system wouldn't deliver for the needs of the workforce of the UK and particularly, in my view, for Wales. We need to look at what are the workforce needs of Wales and how that system would work for us. It’s important that we have that so that when we do get that immigration Bill we'll be able to scrutinise it carefully. I am yet to be convinced that the proposed points system will actually deliver for Wales. So, I think that we need to look very carefully at the future. I hope that it'll be a bright future; I will work for a bright future, but also, we will scrutinise very carefully to ensure that anything that does come forward meets the needs of the people of Wales.

On 23 June 2016, the UK voted to leave the European Union, Wales voted to leave, and did so again in the European elections last year. In the UK general election last month, the people of north Wales voted to get Brexit done. Yet, this Labour Welsh Government, backed by Plaid Cymru, have repeatedly refused to follow the people’s instructions on this and an increasing number of other matters.

Quoting businesses in north Wales, the Daily Post said last October, 

'Uncertainty fuels uncertainty...We need an end to...Brexit uncertainty.'

Last November the Confederation of British Industry's director general said,

'So many businesses here in Wales are full of optimism and enthusiasm. They want to be talking about—and acting on—Welsh strengths. To signal that Wales is open for business. But desperately want to put an end to uncertainty.'

Yet, the Labour Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru have stoked up uncertainty at every opportunity. They scaremonger about the future of the NHS. However, the 2019 Conservative manifesto was crystal clear that our NHS is not for sale. It says:

'When we are negotiating trade deals, the NHS will not be on the table. The price the NHS pays for drugs will not be on the table. The services the NHS provides will not be on the table.'

They scaremonger about the UK shared prosperity fund—

Will you take an intervention?

I'll take one intervention, yes.

Thank you for taking the intervention, but the fact of the matter is that those are still within the clear objectives of negotiation of the US Government.

In any negotiation, both sides go up with long wish lists, but a deal has to come out at the end and that's a red line for the UK Government.

They scaremonger about the UK shared prosperity fund, when our UK Conservative manifesto clearly stated that Wales will receive at least the same level of financial support as it currently receives from the EU. The UK Conservative Government also guaranteed that it will match funding for agriculture throughout this UK Parliament and, most importantly, will actually deliver on the Brexit that the people of Wales voted for and continue to support.

They scaremonger about the future of the Erasmus+ scheme funding opportunities for young people to train and study across Europe. However, the UK Government stated that as we enter negotiations with the EU on the future relationship, we want to ensure that UK and European students can continue to benefit from each other's world-leading education systems, and that it is wrong to say that the UK will quit the Erasmus scheme.

The Welsh Labour Government and Plaid Cymru scaremonger that the UK will no longer accept unaccompanied refugee children from Europe after EU withdrawal. However, the UK Government has stated that its policy on child refugees has not changed, and that they will continue to all that they can to enable children to claim asylum and be reunited with their families—[Interruption.] If it's short.

It will be short. I appreciate what you just said. Then, why do you believe that the UK Government took those parts out of the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Bill when they had been inserted by the Lords? They just rejected them totally. There was no need to reject them.

It's like receiving advice on poker playing from a bankrupt gambler.

The Labour Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru scaremonger about the forthcoming trade talks with the EU. However, Wales benefits from the clout of belonging to the UK single market and customs union, in which most of the Welsh economy is traded. As a former UK ambassador to both Germany and the US stated last week, missing from so much analysis is awareness that the EU's £94 billion trade surplus with the UK could be put at risk, and gives the UK a massive lever.

The recent Deloitte chief financial officer confidence survey demonstrates the biggest ever jump in business confidence, and Members opposite should stop trying to hammer their confidence. Last week, the International Monetary Fund predicted that the UK economy will grow faster than the eurozone this year, assuming an orderly Brexit and a steady transition to a new relationship, which we all want. PricewaterhouseCoopers's global chief executive officer survey found that European chief executives regard the UK as a key market for growth and investment, rated only behind the US, China and Germany internationally.

The Labour Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru scaremonger about losing EU money when, in reality, this is recycled UK money, and the UK Chancellor has stated that he will use his first budget after the UK leaves the EU to pump £100 billion into infrastructure projects across the UK to help left-behind parts of the UK and unleash the UK's potential.

The First Minister claims that the EU (Withdrawal Agreement) Act enables UK Ministers to amend the Government of Wales Act 2006 without consent from this Senedd. Yet, the UK Conservative Government has made clear that this Act does not enable UK Ministers to amend the devolved settlement and, in fact, will lead to greater powers for the Assembly as policy areas from the EU are passed down to devolved Governments.

As Boris Johnson delivers on his promise to get Brexit done by 31 January, let us build together an outward-looking Wales within a global United Kingdom.

'Let the healing begin', said Boris Johnson after winning the general election, and judging by the contributions since, the healing process is going really well. [Laughter.] Reconciliation and healing require some reaching out by both sides of an argument. Otherwise, we have unseemly triumphalism on the part of the victors, and entrenched bitterness and despair on the part of the vanquished. Rubbing our noses in our defeat repeatedly—'You lost'—hardly constitutes reaching out in a spirit of mutual reconciliation and healing.

However, we are where we are. We are all leaving now, as Adam Price said this week. Healing means that it's time to start thinking positively, in spite of everything, time to turn from power grab to power gain, and to take advantage of some of the flexibilities afforded to Wales outside the European Union—flexibilities including the ability of the Development Bank of Wales to allow lending without the constraints of state aid rules; devolving power over corporation tax, capital gains tax on property, apprenticeship levy, air passenger duty and VAT; flexibilities like developing new procurement rules to support our foundational economy; flexibilities to create Welsh free ports at key ports and airports; flexibilities to develop Welsh work permits as part of a Welsh migration system. The red dragon of Wales taking back control. Letting Wales and its people be unleashed to realise their full, unfettered potential.

But Wales and its very existence faces is a very real threat because of the way Wales voted in the referendum. Wales voted to leave—austerity and people feeling left behind ensured that outcome. Now, I do believe that the outcomes of referendums should be respected, but that means all referendums, including the previous one here in Wales in 2011 for more powers for the Senedd, because recent events suggest that the outcome of the 2016 referendum somehow trumps the result of the 2011 referendum.

We have seen Welsh Government frozen out of the Brexit negotiations since they started in 2016—not even in the room. We have seen common frameworks, shared governance supposedly, with little evidence of the 'shared'. We have seen Welsh Government having no recognition in trade talks, as David Rees said, and with the shared prosperity fund, the details of where European funding goes have always been decided here in the Senedd for the last 20 years. Now Boris wants to decide. We face a power grab.

I'm grateful to you for taking the intervention, Dai. That is incorrect to say those decisions were taken here in the Senedd—they had to be approved in Brussels first under the seven-year envelope of cash attached to those redevelopment funds. So, you must recognise that there's a partnership to develop here, and we want to see that partnership develop with equal standing between the Welsh Government and the UK Government. But you cannot say that those decisions were only being taken here over the last 20 years. 

Not solely here. It didn’t involve UK Government.

And we've seen with the withdrawal agreement Bill all three devolved nations vote against it, and still it goes through. So, what of consent? Our consent here—does it actually mean anything? And clause 36 of the withdrawal agreement Bill—Westminster Parliament is sovereign. Whatever happened to the 'shared' part? Our powers are being rolled back.

Now, benches opposite would justify this on the basis of the general election result, and you can't argue with 365 Tory MPs—345 of them in England. This Conservative landslide is in England, yet our noses are being rubbed in it in Wales too, with your 14 MPs—[Interruption.] We've heard enough of you, Darren.

Are you taking an intervention?

So, constitutionally, what of Wales? Ireland has cause to be become a united Ireland. Scotland may well go for independence. What of Wales? A Wales increasingly welded to England and ignored and sidelined and assimilated, or Wales forging its own path to independence, healing centuries of hurt?

As the great, late Winston Churchill said in 1947,

'there is the broad feeling in our country that the people should rule, continuously rule, and that public opinion, expressed by all constitutional means, should shape, guide, and control the actions of Ministers who are their servants and not their masters.'

These are very wise words that have eluded the Welsh Government. Despite the people of Wales voting to leave the European Union in a referendum held on 23 June 2016—

Will you take an intervention?

Just let me get going. You have campaigned to remain in the EU. You have proposed that Parliament should legislate for a referendum with 'remain' on the ballot paper. You have seen the First Minister here—and I don't refer to him as Mark Drakeford, despite everybody in this Chamber, on those benches, referring to our Prime Minister as 'Boris Johnson' or 'Johnson', even—with the First Minister of Scotland, call for a further referendum. And only last week, you voted against the withdrawal agreement Bill.

Plaid Cymru are no better when it comes to respecting voter democracy either. Plaid Cymru tabled a motion calling on the Assembly to declare its unequivocal support for a confirmatory referendum on any proposal by the Prime Minister to take the United Kingdom out of the European Union with 'remain' on the ballot paper. It has taken until now, only this week, for the leader of Plaid Cymru, Adam Price, to acknowledge that it is time to focus on the new opportunities that Brexit will bring. 

Interestingly, I think that the penny may just have dropped with Plaid Cymru, and that they realise now that there could not be such a thing as an independent Wales within the EU. Mind you, it could be more down to the fact that they've realised that the forthcoming elections are around the corner, and they've seen the recent polls.

I am grateful to the Member for giving way, despite the urgings of others in her party.

She quoted Winston Churchill. Does she also agree with what he said on 19 September 1946 in Zurich when he called for a united states of Europe? 

Well, I didn't hear that, so—. I wasn't around at that time.

But to put it simply, the EU sucks sovereignty from our national Government and places it in the hands of unelected commissioners, denying democracy, and rubbishing referendums has its own consequences. Winston Churchill quite rightly stated that people should rule and that Ministers are their servants, and not their masters. The people have held Welsh Labour and Plaid politicians to account, returning the highest number of Welsh Conservative MPs since 1983 and my own MP, with a much-improved majority, Robin Millar. My colleagues are keeping to our manifesto commitments and I am delighted that Wales, along with the rest of the UK, will leave the EU at 11 o'clock on 31 January.

It is now time for you to commit to engaging positively with the UK Government as the United Kingdom leaves the EU. It is now time to make the most of the benefits Brexit will bring. Do you know what is sad for me as an Assembly Member? When I've heard people on those benches say, 'Oh, I can't wait till it all goes wrong and then see what you say.' [Interruption.] I have heard that being shouted across the Chamber.

The UK will be able to forge new trade deals for the first time in nearly half a century. It is about creating a global Britain and we are on track to doing just that. Already, around 20 continuity deals have been agreed, covering 50 countries or territories. However, we are also determined to ensure a close relationship with the EU too. [Interruption.] No, sorry. I don't see why it has to be either/or. Given that we are already aligned and that our trade deficit with the EU was £64 billion in 2017, I am confident that a new free trade agreement will be secured by the end of this year. The UK Government is looking out for businesses and creating a platform from which they can flourish. For example, our Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Boris Johnson MP, has increased export financing support, built a new platform to help small and medium-sized enterprises with contracts abroad, and developed a strategy to help increase British exports to 35 per cent of gross domestic product.

We are looking out for our farmers, too, as there is a clear commitment that we will not give up on our excellent food standards. Any new products wishing to enter the UK market must comply with our high standards on animal welfare and food safety.

Wales voted to leave, the people voted to leave, so I am proud that we as Welsh Conservatives are doing everything possible to support the best interests of every corner of our nation. The Prime Minister, the Right Honourable Boris Johnson MP, has confirmed that the EU cash Wales currently receives will be matched, and the new shared prosperity fund will provide an opportunity to tackle deprivation and raise living standards in some of the poorest parts of Wales. Brexit can be and is, in fact, a bright light for Wales, so I for one will be celebrating its deliverance on Friday night and the start of a global Britain, global Wales. And I'll be doing the Westminster bongs at exactly 11 o'clock.

I trust the Member enjoys her party and her bongs. I was speaking yesterday to the First Minister about the different ways in which we were marking Brexit day, and I'm glad to see the Conservatives bring forward this motion today. I hear voices from various sides saying that we should come together, and I think that is a worthy sentiment. I'm disappointed that the Welsh Government do not appear to be prepared to back this Conservative motion, because it strikes me that it should be unobjectionable to them, and I think that would have helped to forge common ground across the Chamber.

David Rees spoke—and I've heard other Labour Members say similar things—and he said that he fully recognised and accepted the result of the referendum. I do recall him also saying that in 2016, and, when I served on his committee, he initially referred to, 'When we left the European Union', and then it became 'if', and then, with his party, he campaigned for a second referendum to set that result aside and have another one. [Interruption.] I will take an intervention.

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Clearly, one of the problems we saw in 2016 to 2019 was the total chaos that was being put upon the whole process by the Conservative Government. We saw failure after failure after failure to actually deliver on that and to get a deal done that would be to the benefit of Wales. Don't you agree, in that situation, you cannot support something that does not deliver for the people of Wales?

No, I don't agree. I accept the first part of the Member's statement, particularly with reference to Theresa May's Government and the way it acted. It's not for me to defend Theresa May's Government, but I would note that it was also the behaviour of the Labour Party in the Commons that led to the situation we had. And I'm afraid I doubt the sincerity of many of those MPs who were effectively seeking to block Brexit by voting against any deal, intending to vote against any deal—even when they were given everything they'd been asking for, including a customs union, they demanded more. And they gambled on trying to block Brexit, elect a Corbyn Government, and then have a second referendum and win, and it be remain, so we stay in the EU. Now, we can judge how sensible or otherwise that gamble was, and I think that was the reference to the bankrupt gamblers that you heard—[Interruption.]—that you heard earlier.

But—but—in the spirit of magnanimity, I would like to accept the sincerity of what you said today, David, because I think it's in the interests of all of us that we seek to move on and to make the best of Brexit wherever we individually came. And I accept that those who—. I think five sixths of the Chamber voted remain compared to the one sixth of us who voted to leave. I do not denigrate the patriotism of those who made a different assessment as to the advantages than I did, and we shall now seek to move forward together and get the best we can for Wales and for the United Kingdom.

On which note, I move to Dai Lloyd's speech. I thought it was very revealing, the exchange that he had with Andrew R.T. Davies. He didn't actually object and say the UK was taking more powers than the EU; it was the fact that it was the UK Government rather than the EU that he objected to. And I take a pragmatic approach on this and support 4c of this motion,

'establishing a new approach to regional investment',

because it's important to recognise that that money, whether it's specifically for regional development funds or whether it's to fill that £15 billion fiscal gap that we have in Wales, comes from the rest of the United Kingdom and primarily from England. And the aim of regional development is to try and lever up areas that are at the time they're receiving that money less well off. And I think there is a role for the UK Government, and also a very full role for the Welsh Government. And those roles will be different than they were within the EU structures. And, overall, I would be happy to see something where the relative powers and influence of the UK Government on the spending of regional development money coming from the UK in Wales is no greater than that that was taken by the EU, but I think we should have a pragmatic approach to try and make that work.

Dai refers to the 2011 referendum and to the 2016 referendum, and I think one issue that we have is, because of the last three and a half years and how this Assembly has acted, and the motion after motion after motion to expressly, or, in effect, block Brexit, when Wales voted to leave, for many voters, that has reduced their assessment of this place and their attachment to our National Assembly. And I think we need to recognise that. And that's happened again. Whatever the rationale that was given at the vote, voting against that LCM and then saying how terrible is the UK Government's pressing ahead despite all three devolved legislatures voting, or administrations voting—being—against it, ignores the fact that Wales voted to leave the European Union. That is the deal. It's not particularly a deal that my party thinks is a great deal, but it's the deal that's there. It's a lot better than Theresa May's deal. We're coming out, we're going to have Brexit—

He's out of time; he's out of time.

—let's make a success of it. Let's work together.

Well, I rise to support the motion so rumbustiously moved by Darren Millar this afternoon. And, for me, Friday will be the culmination of a lifetime's work, as I joined the Anti Common Market League in July 1967 as a schoolboy in Ammanford, and it has been the skein that has run through my whole political life, which has, as Members know, taken often some surprising turns, perhaps not least to have brought me here.

But the most surprising of all was when I was appointed to the EU Council of Ministers by John Major to represent the UK on internal market matters. I've never wavered throughout my entire life, and, indeed, in doing that job, from my belief that Britain—and that includes Wales, obviously—would be much better governed if those who are taking the ultimate decisions about our laws were elected by, and accountable to, the people. And this opaque unelected technocracy in Brussels, which is so worshipped by so many remainers, has always been a rather incredible fetish to me. I've never really understood why anybody would approve that as being the best form of government.

Carwyn Jones mentioned Winston Churchill earlier on. Churchill famously said that democracy is the worst of all political systems until you consider the alternatives. And it is, of course, a calumny to say that Churchill's Zurich speech in 1946 was actually an endorsement of the European Union, because Churchill famously said—[Interruption.] No, but this was the precursor of it, the precursor of the European movement, which was founded, I think, in the following year.

As Churchill famously said:

'We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked, but not comprised.'

And he saw Europe as a unity in conjunction with the British empire, which we then still had—as being, together, two great forces for good in the world. But he never actually saw Britain as part of that European entity.

And, over the course of the last 50 years, I have fought to achieve what we are going to achieve on Friday. So, it's actually a very moving moment for me, and what we make of it, of course, is entirely up to us. A nation ultimately succeeds or fails according to the strength and determination of its own people.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I just wonder, given the historical sweep and span that he has today, whether, looking back, he would have any regrets for his own role in voting for the Maastricht treaty?

Well, I'm afraid the Member is—[Interruption.] I'm afraid the Member is very sadly mistaken, because although I was at the time a Government whip, I spent so much time trying to persuade Teresa Gorman to vote for the Government that I actually missed the division itself. [Laughter.] And so I was the only member of the Government who did not vote for the Maastricht treaty. So, I'm grateful to the Member for allowing me to establish still more impressive credentials, but—. And I survived.

So, what we make of Brexit is entirely up to us. And I'm rather disturbed, therefore, that Sajid Javid said last week that the:

'first priority is...getting the agreement with the EU',

which I think is a foolish negotiating tactic, because Steve Mnuchin, the American Treasury Secretary, said the other day that the US was

'prepared to dedicate a lot of resources'

to securing a trade deal with the UK this year, and he said

'the UK and US have very similar economies with a big focus on services, and I think this will be a very important relationship.'

[Interruption.] Yes, I give way again.

I thank the Member. Is it also acceptable, in your consideration, that the reason the US want to do a quick deal with the UK is to weaken an agreement and therefore strengthen their argument against the EU by getting us in a weaker position so they can argue with the EU that the UK has already accepted the lower standards and, therefore, the EU wants to ask to do the same? So, it's in their interests, not in ours.

Well, the United States Government obviously has to look out for itself, and it will, but our interests do happen to coincide in this particular instance. Our hand will be stronger with the EU if we've done a deal with the United States, and there are plenty of other countries that are lining up to do those deals as well. I'm therefore rather disappointed that Boris Johnson's Government doesn't seem to see that the Theresa May tactic of sucking up to the EU is bound to fail, because they will take whatever they're offered and ask for more. The United States is offering us something and now they might be regarded as being snubbed.

Taking back control of our borders, similarly, is vitally important. We've added 6.7 million people to our population in the last 20 years, and this rate of increase cannot be sustained. Now, we have the opportunity, as the motion says, to have a non-discriminatory immigration policy, which, if used according to the opportunities, will perhaps deal with some of the causes of why people voted to leave the European Union in the first place. Immigration was a massive part of that campaign.

Regrettably, my time is running out. So, I think we should all congratulate Boris Johnson, whatever the flaws in his agreement, and there are many—not least the line down the Irish sea. He has actually achieved what we set out to do, which is to leave the EU legally, on Friday.

Last Thursday, 23 January 2020, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons announced that the withdrawal agreement Bill had received Royal Assent. The British membership of the European Union will end at 11 o'clock on Friday evening. The Conservative Government has delivered on the promise made to the people of Great Britain to get Brexit done.

It is more than three and a half years ago that the British people voted for Brexit by a clear and decisive margin. In Wales, the margin of victory for leave was even greater than the United Kingdom percentage—far more, for example, than the margin of victory in the Welsh devolution referendum in 1997.

The passing of the withdrawal agreement Bill has been achieved in spite of the opposition of the Labour Party. Labour and its allies have tried to delay, frustrate and stop Brexit at every opportunity. Not a single Labour MP—not a single Labour MP—voted for the withdrawal agreement Bill. This shows that they have learned nothing from their crushing defeat at the last general election. To the very last moment—[Interruption.] Sorry, I haven't got time. My apologies.

To the very last moment, they have tried to overturn the referendum result and ignore the will of the people of Great Britain. After pledging to respect the result of the 2016 referendum, Labour's stance on Brexit has been ambiguous and lacking in credibility: yet another renegotiation of the deal followed by another referendum, a referendum where senior Labour figures said that they would campaign against their own withdrawal deal to remain in the EU. Indeed, Mr Jeremy Corbyn proved unable or unwilling to say—[Interruption.]—unable or unwilling to say what his position would be in a fresh referendum. And now the architect of the policy shambles is the frontrunner to replace Mr Corbyn as the Labour Party leader.

We all saw the result of this disconnect between the Labour leadership and its traditional voters in the result of the last general election. Labour suffered its worst defeat since 1935, winning fewer seats than in 1983. The result was equally dramatic in Wales—a string of Conservative gains means that it is now possible to travel from Abergavenny to Aberconwy without leaving a Conservative-held constituency.

In Wales, people voted to get Brexit done. This is not the end of Brexit, but it is perhaps the end of the beginning. We now enter a transition period phase to prepare for our new relationship with the EU. Although we will have left, our trading relationship will remain the same until new negotiations take place. The UK Government has made it clear that we want a deal to continue to trade with the EU with no tariffs, quotas or other barriers in place. With goodwill on both sides, I am confident that this can be achieved by the end of this year. Indeed, in December, a senior official of the German Government was quoted saying:

'As far as the trade agreement is concerned, I believe it is evident that what is known in Brussels as an off-the-shelf agreement—in other words a standard agreement that has already been negotiated in another context—can be negotiated relatively quickly with the United Kingdom'.

We can then deliver the benefits of Brexit, taking Britain out of EU laws, striking our own free trade deals around the globe, ending the jurisdiction of the European courts, controlling our own taxes and borders, and so on. Deputy Presiding Officer, now is the time to put the rancour of division of the past behind us. Now is the time to focus on delivering a bright and exciting future for Britain, strong and free. I support the motion. I think that two consecutive Prime Ministers of our party, Mr David Cameron and Theresa May, have sacrificed their honourable office to achieve this for the will of this great country, and this great country will survive and thrive, and it will certainly become Great Britain once again. 

Can I call on the Counsel General and the Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles?

Dirprwy Lywydd, I am delighted to see that a healthy sense of irony is alive and well on the Conservative benches. Week in, week out, month in, month out, as I and colleagues here on the Government benches have presented statements on Brexit or debates on Brexit, Darren Millar has berated me across the Chamber, saying, 'What's new? What's new?' And yet, today, I look at the order paper and I see a motion in the name of the very same Darren Millar on the topic of Brexit. And I'm sure there'll be plenty of Members in the Chamber, listening with respect to his speech, saying, 'What's new?'

But today—I hope Members will forgive me—I want to look forward not back. We don't want to replay the arguments of the last three years. So, as a guide to our future approach to the negotiations with the European Union, we have just published a document that sets out our approach. In that document we are absolutely clear that we accept that, given the UK Government has the principal responsibility for international relations, the Prime Minister has a mandate from that election to pursue the path he advocated. So, we are leaving the European Union this week and heading towards an economic relationship based on a free trade agreement. 

We, as a Government, accept that our vision of a Norway plus model, more or less, of the UK participating in the single market and the customs union, is no longer tenable. So, you will not hear us arguing for that proposition in the future, but we will continue to argue on the basis of the evidence and in the interests of the most prosperous future for Wales after Brexit for an economic relationship with the EU to be given top priority, and for this relationship to be based on minimising the non-tariff barriers as well as eliminating tariffs and quotas. And that, unless negotiations prove otherwise, is likely to require close regulatory alignment with the European Union, at least so far as goods and agri-foods are concerned. 

The other matter that will now need to be grappled with is the future of the Sewel convention. This Senedd's rejection of the legislative consent motion was very significant, and the decision by the UK Parliament equally significant in pressing ahead with the withdrawal agreement Bill unamended, despite the fact that both the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly also had voted in the same way. So, where does that leave the Sewel convention? 

Sewel is a creation of devolution; an attempt to reconcile an outdated theory of untrammelled parliamentary sovereignty with a recognition of the democratic legitimacy of the devolved legislatures. This sort of constitutional halfway house is the product of an unwritten constitution and an unresolved political tension, where pragmatism eclipses principle when it comes to constitutional affairs. 

We want to see a much clearer, tighter definition of Sewel. But without a thorough overhaul of our constitutional arrangements, we have to recognise the possibility of the UK Parliament consciously acting in a way that defies the will of the devolved legislatures. Until that reform comes, that power must only be used in extremis. So, while we regret that the UK Government did not do more to meet our legitimate concerns about the potential impact of the Bill on this Senedd's competence, we welcome its recognition that proceeding without consent in this case is wholly exceptional, and we will hold them to that and work with them, we hope, to try to strengthen Sewel to make sure that this time is the last.

Therefore, Deputy Presiding Officer, what do we want? I'd like to emphasise two things. Firstly, we want a meaningful role in the negotiations on the future relationship with the EU, and indeed in the negotiations on other free trade agreements that could have an impact on devolved competence. This should reflect the 'not normally' principle of Sewel. That is, when a devolved competence is at stake, the UK Government should not put forward views on negotiating positions without first agreeing those with the devolved institutions.

In the meeting of the joint ministerial committee on European negotiations yesterday, although there was some progress on the process to include the devolved institutions, the central principle that I've just mentioned hasn't been accepted. I can't tell you that I'm confident that it will be accepted, but we do hope that the UK Government will now move on this, and will do so before the next meeting of the joint ministerial committee.

Secondly, we would like to see meaningful consideration given to constitutional change to ensure that the UK is not destroyed as a result of leaving the European Union. The result of the 2016 referendum, to a great extent, was an expression of rage from communities about the lack of control they felt over their own destiny. It would be a disaster if it led to the centralisation of power more and more in the square mile around Big Ben.

The UK Government and the Welsh Government both want the UK to succeed, and the Welsh Government believes that it needs to be reformed if it is to survive. We have introduced a sensible plan to root devolution in amending the constitution more broadly in our document 'Reforming our Union'. Also, the UK Government has a manifesto commitment to establish a commission on the constitution, and we hope and expect that the devolved institutions will be fully included in that process.

That's why, Deputy Llywydd, in our amendment, in recognising the opportunities that leaving the European Union will provide, including the potential to secure a closer relationship with other nations who trade, and to recognise clearly that we are leaving the European Union, we have focused in this amendment on the constitutional challenges that will arise. We must all now turn our attention to those. Therefore, I ask this Senedd to support the amendment and to reject the motion.

Thank you. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I congratulate everyone who has contributed to the debate this afternoon and created quite a robust debate, to say the least. I will just say something, if I may, about procedure. I do think it's unfortunate that, when someone intervenes on a speech, they walk straight out of the Chamber. The point of the debate is obviously to engage—

That's already been covered in Darren Millar's comments, and I will take further action. It doesn't need to be rehearsed again.

Well, I appreciate that, Deputy Presiding Officer, but I am entitled to say what I think, I think. And I do want to—

Well, you're going over old ground, actually.

—draw people's attention to it. [Interruption.] I do want to draw people's attention to that fact.

I do also want to reflect on the comments of David Rees and Dai Lloyd. I do think they made very pertinent comments, in that Friday, for many people, as Neil Hamilton highlighted, will be the culmination of a lifetime's work in politics and public life. But for many people as well, who have different views, they will have a very different feeling on Friday night. If we are to bring this country together, it is not about triumphalism. It is about accepting what the referendum gave us in 2016—a clear instruction—delivering on that instruction and opening up the opportunities.

And I do think those points were well made here today, because it is about making sure that we take the country with us. And one thing I would say about the new Government in Westminster—and I appreciate there might be some jeering from the other political parties—in every single Member that I have met of that Government since the election, every single one is committed to making sure this country moves forward as one, rather than disadvantaging one group over another. And that might sound lofty political speech, but it is a fact that what we want to make sure is that the country does move forward as one, and the wrongs of the past are corrected, so that people who do feel left behind can feel part of the process. [Interruption.] I'll happily take the intervention off you, Joyce, if you want to make an intervention. I'll gladly take the intervention, because I can hear you chundering away.

The Brexit Minister highlighted at the start of his speech 'What's new?' What's different in this motion that's before the house this afternoon? And what is new is that we are on the cusp of leaving the European Union. For three years nearly, there was constant debate, argument, discussion, there were roadblocks put in place to try and stop that. As the opener of the debate, Darren Millar, highlighted in his speech: time and time again, process was used to try and block what was a completely democratic exercise, an exercise that was brought forward before the people, and said that this would be a binding referendum—it wasn't an advisory referendum, it was a binding referendum—and that Governments, whoever they might be, should act on that decision. And Wales, obviously, as we've heard from many people—Mark Reckless touched on the point—Wales and other parts of the United Kingdom, cumulatively, gave us that majority vote to leave the European Union.

And this is about doing things differently. This is about, as Mark highlighted in his contribution, saying that where the European Union used to sit in arbitration on plans that might come forward—the rural development plan, for example, structural funds—that the United Kingdom and the devolved administrations do have a role to play in that decision-making process and shaping the future.

And I think it is a fair observation from the Government bench and other backbenchers here today that there is considerable work to do on improving the constitutional settlement within the United Kingdom. That is a very fair point to make, because we are moving into territory that is unchartered, shall we say, because, obviously, we have been in territory with the European Union being the final arbitrator on much of the work that this institution does for the last 45 years. That should be a sense of excitement, a sense of challenge for us here in public life to reach out and grab those opportunities.

As Janet Finch-Saunders, as Mohammad Asghar, as Mark Isherwood highlighted in their contribution today—the opportunities are limitless if we grab them and we actually start enacting them, rather than just thinking, 'This is what we used to have. This is what we've got to protect.' Well, the past we can learn from—correct—but we can shape the future, and that's what certainly we all go into public life for. And that's what's exciting about going forward now after Friday. The legal documents are in place, the date is set in stone, and we will leave the European Union.

It is perfectly fair and reasonable to point out that there is still a lot of water to go under these bridges, especially on trade negotiations and trade discussions—everyone accepts that—but ultimately, the Brexit referendum was not about putting one down over another. I personally want to see as strong a relationship as we can with our friends on the European continent, but I want to see the decisions in this country made in this country, whether that be here in Cardiff or whether that be in the Parliament in Westminster. And that to me is what binds this country of the United Kingdom together.

And I do hope that, with the sentiment that now is expressed, with the new mandate that's in place, we will take those opportunities that have been outlined this afternoon and we will move forward in a positive discourse to make sure that we ultimately do achieve what many people in that referendum felt—that their voice, after 45 years, hadn't been listened to, and they wanted to reset the clock and change the direction.

This isn't about triumphalism, this isn't about putting one sector of society down against another sector of society—this is about democracy. Democracy spoke, it will be enacted. Let's make sure that we take the opportunities that are presented to us now. And that's why I would hope that the Government would withdraw their amendment and accept the motion that's before the house tonight, as the leader of the Brexit Party pointed out, because I fail to see, and I didn't hear the Brexit Minister actually contradict anything within the motion, or point out anything that he found at fault with the motion. And I would hope that the Government would reconsider and support this motion, as they have time and time again called for support on motions that strengthen the voice of this institution when it speaks with one.

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

The next item is the Plaid Cymru debate on NHS performance. And I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion.

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to formally move the motion in the name of Siân Gwenllian. It was a great temptation here today to rehash an old speech for this debate, because even though I have been away from this health portfolio for a year and a half now, far too many things, I'm afraid, haven't changed in my absence.

Too many things, on return to the health portfolio after a brief absence, remain the same. The poor performance of the NHS I think has been the equivalent of a chronic condition for the current Government. It's debilitating, causing Government problems in planning for the long term, but still, we're not seeing the kind of drastic changes that we'd like to see. In many other countries facing a similar context, I think we'd have seen the removal, surely, or the change of a Minister. It is a concern that any accountability that does exist within the NHS in Wales doesn't seem to include accountability by the health Minister himself. And, if I may say, it is a matter of some regret that the Minister isn't able to be here today to be held to account in this debate of ours; it is a Deputy Minister that will be responding to that debate. It's not good enough. 

I see from Government amendments that the central premise of our motion, the regrets about poor performance and 

'the cancellation of planned operations to deal with winter pressures'

has not been amended this time. Maybe we are finally moving away from stage one denial at last now, and that's good. But instead, we're seeing blame being placed on the UK Government for austerity, which at least suggests an acknowledgement that things should be better and, of course, I agree that ideologically driven austerity has been hugely damaging to the provision of public services in Wales, but the problem is that this from Welsh Government today is rather misleading on many performance measures.

Wales has been staggeringly falling behind Scotland and, to a lesser extent, England for most of the past decade, despite austerity affecting all services across the UK. Indeed, Labour themselves were trumpeting the fact that they've been spending more on health and social care, to which we simply ask the question: why haven't things been getting better in that context? Because the truth is we've had a decade where Welsh Government has repeatedly bailed out poor performance in the NHS, often at the expense of local government services, and we know how damaging that can be. There's been little or no strategic vision or control over where additional money, where it was able to be found, actually went. And I think that's more true, looking forward to the coming financial year, than it has been even over the past decade.

Despite claiming to want more services in the community, for example, claiming to want to shift the focus towards prevention of ill health, the vast majority of money has still been going into firefighting in secondary care, being haemorrhaged to external management consultants, to agencies supplying NHS staff who would have stayed directly employed had conditions been better. Indeed, the health board that Welsh Government has had the most control over, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board, is the one where relations between management and staff are at all-time lows due to the now-dropped proposals on nurses' break times. This is also the health board with the worst waiting times for both planned treatment and accident and emergency, and the health board, of course, as is well publicised, that instead of investing in front-line services, has squandered hundreds of thousands of pounds on external management consultants working from home in Marbella. Clearly, austerity hasn't hit them. 

It's not all about money, although, of course, as I say, austerity has hit hard across the board, not just in health. Looking at those areas where we know performance is poor, we can only judge on performance measures that are publicly available. There are far too many measures that we would like to have and we simply don't have performance measures for them, where we can, for example, quantify the anecdotal evidence of long waiting times for GP appointments; the non-existent out-of-hours care; the failures of social care to keep people in their homes. There's so much data missing, and I don't think that data, were it available, would be telling a story any better to the data that we actually have. 

All the performance measures that are regularly published refer, it seems, to secondary care, even though their failings there in secondary care very, very often reflect failures in primary care, failure to invest in social care. And let's imagine how the conversation would change if as well as monthly reporting on the failure to hit waiting time targets, we also had monthly reporting on the impact that cuts to local services and local authority funding is having on the ability to adapt people's homes on time, or to put care packages in place on time. So, when we reflect on the long waiting times published every month, unacceptable as they are, of course, let's be clear, what we are seeing is just one visible sign of a system failure that is deep-rooted and is failing to be transformed. And it's that transformation that we are still waiting for and that we are seeing little signs of.

Turning to the Conservative amendments, we've got a minor quibble with the first one. Our view is that poor long-term workforce planning is to blame for the problems we saw reported recently. We would rather the focus was on that. But it's amendment 3, I think, that demonstrates how unfit the Conservatives are to run health services in Wales. I thought, from previous exchanges in here, that—

Will you take an intervention? 

Of course.

Just before you decide to try to elucidate us on what you think I might say, I'd be delighted—. When we speak about amendment 3, I will be telling you exactly why we have removed that and substituted it with two others, and I hope that that will answer your concerns. 

Okay. But it's clear, is it not, that where we have the Conservatives suggesting somehow that we can't be focusing on the damage caused by lack of investment in social care, we've only got to look to England to see what Conservative Governments there did in starving local authorities of funding and the devastating impact that that had on hospitals, especially accident and emergency, in England? It raises very, very clear doubts in my mind and I'm sure in the minds of many others about how seriously the Conservatives take this need to build an integrated system where you have to have sustainability across social care as well as our hospitals. And the Conservatives, the only place we can judge them, from governing in England, have made a complete hash of that ability to bring together sustained social care in order to support our hospitals. 

We will support amendment 4, but we will be rejecting amendment 5. The block grant may well be rising in the coming financial year in real terms, but it is far from being the real funding level that Wales should be seeing. For example, it doesn't reflect the money Wales should be getting from schemes like HS2, which is sucking in so much UK Government funding, and Wales is not getting its fair share of it, so we can't be supporting that. 

But we need to focus now on improving performance and getting better value for money for what we are spending. And, still, today, we give the Deputy Minister—not the Minister—an opportunity to give us just a whiff of where this Government is refocusing on transforming the health service that we have today into the health service that we will need in future. We need to build in the kinds of changes, the kinds of transformation funds that can take us to that destination, because, currently, managing, or, sadly, mismanaging the NHS means that we remain in this rut, that, whoever will be health spokespeople for opposition parties, as long as Labour remain in Government, it seems, it'll be the same speech time and time again, because there is no sign at all of the transformation our NHS needs. 

I have selected the five amendments to the motion. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendments 3 and 4 will be deselected. I call on Angela Burns to move amendments 1, 3, 4 and 5, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. Angela Burns.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd like to formally move the amendments tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar. I'd like to thank Helen Mary Jones for being able to agree and disagree with her so well in the health portfolio over the last few years—I shall miss you. And welcome back, Rhun. It is groundhog day, but good to see you. And, of course, it is groundhog day in many other ways, and I do understand your sense of déjà vu, because in your brief absence from the health portfolio, very little has improved, very little has changed, and that is a great, great concern.

That's why the motion tabled by Plaid is not one that we fundamentally disagree with; it states fact and expresses concerns about the performance of the Welsh NHS. However, we do feel that the motion could be much stronger, and this is why we will be opposing the motion in order to seek support for our amendments, which I'm going to touch on in my contribution.

What we certainly do not agree with, Deputy Minister, is the Welsh Government's amendment 2, which, as usual, devolves all responsibility for everything that happens here in Wales to absolutely anybody and everybody else you can possibly think of when, in fact, your party, your Government, with the aid of Plaid Cymru, have been running the Welsh NHS for the past 20 years. And we see from your amendment exactly why we are in the position we are today. The NHS in Wales is failing in part because of the decisions taken by its leadership and the lack of leadership that it does receive from the highest level. Your amendment seeks to not only blame others, but it does not address why you've taken the decisions that you have since the devolution settlement was agreed.

Now, one thing I want to make very clear—and I think probably all of us would want to chime in with this—is that, in any debate that we have on this matter, I'm always conscious of the damage that can be inflicted on the morale of the front-line workforce who are treating patients day in, day out, having to deal with the consequence of decisions that politicians and senior managers have taken. I want to again place on record my gratitude to those staff, to the dedication, their willingness to go above and beyond to work those extra hours, often without pay. And my message to those who work in the Welsh NHS and in social care is, to be frank: you deserve better. And by highlighting the issues that we do in our debates that we bring forward here, or amendments that we make to debates, it is our intention, the intention of my party, to try and put pressure on the Welsh Government and the health board management to facilitate the change we need to see.

Turning to our amendments—and I apologise for this—I'd like to just do them in slightly reverse order. Amendment 5: we do welcome the boost to the block grant that the Chancellor announced in his autumn spending review back in September, and I would like to remind the Assembly that the Minister for Finance described this addition to the block grant as a 'pre-election distraction'. And I would respectfully point out that if it was not for her party's mismanagement of the economy throughout the UK, the reduction in spending that was required to get the economy back on track would not have had to have taken place. So, it's not ideologically driven—

Will you take an intervention?

I will in a moment, Mick. I will just finish my point.

It's not ideologically driven, Rhun ap Iorwerth; it was absolutely necessary. And I would urge the Deputy Minister to talk to the Minister for health and ask him to use his department's proportion of the extra funding in a strategic way to look at where the extra money will make a real difference. Because all too often, this Government thinks they can affect real change by just chucking money at the same old thing, the same old thing. If it ain't working, you've got to do something about it. Sorry—I will take the intervention.

Thank you for taking it. Obviously, we will have expressions of our views during this motion, but repeating the fallacy that the austerity post 2010, post the financial collapse, was the result of spending by the Labour Government is economically disproven; it is factually incorrect. At the time, just before the financial crash, borrowing was 35.7 per cent of GDP, which was 0.1 per cent above that when Labour took office in 1997. Now, you can put your arguments, but it is factually incorrect. The financial crash was not the result of the Labour Government, and I think it's a misrepresentation, and it's unfair for you to continue to repeat that.

I think you want to speak later on in the debate, Mick Antoniw. That was a pretty long intervention, and you may need to take a bit of time off your intervention later on.

And I won't bother to address your intervention because I'm sure you can talk about it in your bit. I do want to address, though, amendments 3 and 4 because, actually, let me be really clear: the reason why we've changed those amendments is because we think that too often there is an artificial barrier between health and social care, and in the same way that there's an artificial barrier between health of the physical variety and mental health. Now, Rhun ap Iorwerth, you've sat with me on many a committee when we talked about the totality of well-being and the integration of the human. We believe that the whole of our health service needs to just shift focus and look at people when they go into hospital, when they go into primary care, when they access social services in a holistic way, because one of the big areas where we lose money and we do not deliver is we just fix a thing without looking at the whole person, their social care needs, their housing needs, their physical needs, their mental health needs, and putting them back together so they can go back out into society and live whatever is left of their lives as well as they possibly can. And that's our intention there, to put more money—we already take in health and social care £8 billion, and Wales needs money in other areas. So, that £8 billion needs to be redeployed in a much more clever and authentic way where we look at that whole person, and that's the change we're trying to drive through with amendments 3 and 4.

I'm really sorry, I know that I've run out of time, but I did want to just quickly add in that we're talking about recruitment due to financial pressures because we do think that there's a massive recruitment pressure, not just with doctors and nurses, but we forget about the backroom staff. We always talk about the front line, but if you're a consultant and you've got to send a load of results out to somebody and you haven't got a secretary who can type up that letter to get it out to that person and call them back in for further treatment, it's a massive problem. I'll leave it there, I do appreciate I've run out of time. Thank you very much for your additional moments, but I do commend our amendments to the Chamber.

I call on the Deputy Minister for health to move formally amendment 2 tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Formally.

Many of us are, of course, painfully aware that in June Betsi Cadwaladr health board will reach a very sorry milestone in terms of the fact that it will have been in special measures for five years. Now, that is the length of an Assembly term—a full Assembly term in special measures, which I think highlights how grave the situation is. And one does find oneself asking, 'Well, what have special measures delivered in terms of Betsi Cadwaladr?' What is the point of these special measures unless, after five years, we see the progress that one would hope to see and that one would feel is fair for us to expect to see? Indeed, special measures has become a kind of norm for Betsi Cadwaladr health board now, and some, with tongue in cheek, ask, 'Are there any extra-special measures that we could place the board in?' The Government, of course, although during that period have had direct control over the health board, have been far too willing to deny any sort of responsibility for the situation, and that is not acceptable either.

So, what difference have those five years made? Well, I'll tell you. During the period when the Government, to all intents and purposes, has had oversight of the board, we have seen attempts to privatise dialysis services in Wrexham and in Oswestry; we have seen attempts to privatise pharmacies in hospitals; we have certainly seen efforts to change the shifts of 4,000 nurses across north Wales, forcing them, to all intents and purposes, to work an additional extra shift without pay, which destroyed the morale of the nurses entirely. And I'm so pleased that the proposal as tabled by Plaid Cymru does recognise the excellent work and congratulates the workforce in health and social care on what they delivered despite the failings of management and the Welsh Government, in this particular case—and managers who, by the way, are clearly not doing their work in north Wales, because, as we've heard, they have to bring in dozens of management consultants on huge fees when the board is carrying debts of around £40 million. It's spending tens of millions of pounds on private agency staff, whilst many of us in this Assembly have been calling for many years for more effective and substantial steps to be taken in training and recruiting additional staff.

We see dozens of mental health patients sent to inappropriate locations, hundreds of miles from their families, in England. We've seen arguments about payments for contracts with hospitals in England, which mean that hospitals such as the Countess of Chester have refused to take Welsh patients. We've seen the loss of almost an additional 100 beds from north Wales hospitals during the period of special measures, never mind the loss of beds and community hospitals at the same time—29 beds gone in Glan Clwyd; another 29 in Maelor in Wrexham—and that leading, of course, to the delayed transfers of care that we hear so much about so regularly. The worst waiting lists in Wales; the worst A&E waiting lists in Wales at Wrexham Maelor, where barely half the patients are seen within four hours. And I have a personal story that I could tell you of waiting 12 hours to be seen in an A&E department. Now, of course, that means—[Interruption.] No, I won't take an intervention, I'm sorry; I have a lot to cover.

We see ambulances queuing outside hospitals because of the flow of patients, and we've heard about what's happened in places such as Gwersyllt, Rhosllanerchrugog and Fairbourne, when patients have had to wait many hours for an ambulance, and the results can be very grave and serious indeed.

Just yesterday, Adam Price highlighted the fact that almost half of all the incidents that led to deaths in Welsh hospitals were in the Betsi Cadwaladr health board area, and there's a question remaining as to the safety of mental health patients in north Wales. Another report was saying today that the north Wales mental health counselling service is not appropriate. Things are not improving as we would hope to see. Indeed, in some aspects, I have to say, the situation is worse now than it was five years ago.

So, what have special measures delivered? It's the current First Minister who was the health Minister who was forced to take Betsi Cadwaladr into special measures, and it was the current health Minister, when he was a Deputy Minister at that time, who was given specific responsibility for the situation at Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board. It's about time, in my view, that the chief executive of the board stepped down. He's had more than enough time for us to see more substantial progress than we have seen. I can't believe, if truth be told, that he is still in post. I want to hear from the Deputy Minister what discussions there have been between the Welsh Government and the board on the future of the current First Minister—the current chief executive. The debate on the future of the First Minister is for another time, perhaps. But, more seriously too, we do have a situation where, given the record of the current health Minister, as I've outlined, during this whole period of special measures and direct control from the Welsh Government, in my view there is no doubt that the Minister should go too.

I think we should take seriously what Angela Burns says about the impact that our debates on this subject have on the workforce. So, although earlier we heard about the problems being faced by the Royal Glamorgan Hospital with the impending retirement of its only substantive emergency consultant, and Llyr has just been speaking about the ongoing problems at Betsi Cadwaladr, and I don't wish to in any way decry them, but you do have to think about what impact continually reminding people of the challenges ahead without providing solutions has. I think that we have to look at what we can do and what we are doing about this.

So, I wanted to address what’s in amendment 2 because I think it’s very important to recognise that improvements in the NHS can only be sustained in the long run if the NHS staff and the social care workforce are working together as equal partners. Because the First Minister highlighted recently that the 2019 figures are the best recorded figures for delayed transfers of care compared to the two previous years, but it’s had quite a considerable impact on the social care workforce who've been picking up the pieces as a result of us being very keen, naturally, to get people out of hospital when they no longer need hospital care.

I've just been reading the draft plan that has arisen out of 'A Healthier Wales', which has been written by the social care workforce as well as HEIW, which encompasses the deanery, the education and development services, and the pharmacists. So, I think it's very important that we have a workforce programme that really is going to join up the dots between these two services, and I think—. They outline very clearly there that we need to transform traditional roles and ways of working to support new models of care, and that they are already being developed through the regional partnership boards, as well as in primary care and through support at home plans.

It emphasises the importance of building a culture of compassionate and inclusive leadership, and it's really, really important that anybody who works in the health and social care services has to be looking at the individual in front of them and listening to them, rather than just saying, 'Well, you're going to get this' and 'You're going to get that'. We have to reiterate the principles set out in 'Prudent Healthcare' and 'Sustainable Social Services', which are about the partnership between the citizen and the service provider.

The second point that's made in amendment 2 is the investment to support people to stay well and out of hospital. Now, of course, in the long term, we need to get people eating clean, fresh food and walking or cycling rather than relying on the bus or car for short journeys, but I appreciate that that is not going to happen overnight. So, in the short term, I think it's important to address the Welsh NHS Confederation saying that as many as one in five of those coming to A&E could in fact be treated somewhere else. And if we still have that problem, we really do need to continue to work on that. And Choose Well is obviously a way of encouraging the citizen not to go to the emergency department unless they really do need emergency services. The NHS Confederation offers a checklist of what people can do to stay well over the winter, and all of us will be familiar with the sorts of things that are involved there—making sure that people are putting on the sorts of clothes and having the sort of furniture arrangement that encourages them not to fall over.

But I think a more holistic approach is needed for many people who don't read checklists and just simply don't operate like that—they're probably living in considerable isolation, a lot of them—and so I want to just commend a couple of things that Cardiff and the Vale health board is doing: (1) it's got something called a citizen-driven health programme, where they're working with Cadwyn Housing Association, with both staff and volunteers, who go into people's homes, getting to know older people, capturing their needs and aspirations and finding out what they'd like to contribute in the way of skills and interests. And I think that is really capturing what we mean by holistic care—with the older person, and empowering them to do things, what they can do for themselves, and putting them in touch with services that will combat loneliness and help them to feel better about their lives.

Equally, there's another initiative called Wellbeing 4U, which they've commissioned from United Welsh Housing Association, who are operating with primary care funding to deliver in GP practices in areas of deprivation to tackle isolation, anxiety, depression and high levels of alcohol consumption, which we know (a) leads to people falling over, and (b) leads to cirrhosis of the liver. 

You now need to bring your contribution—I've been very generous already—to an end.

Thank you. I'm sorry. Just to say that it's been very effective, and it's decreased the—. People are feeling physically and mentally better and are making a lot fewer GP appointments.

The mismanagement and poor performance highlighted by my colleagues in the north of Wales is indeed shocking, but I can't help but feel that this is also something that my own constituents may be facing, so I want to talk about the issues facing people in the Cwm Taf health board, as the range of special measures continues to become the new normal. Whilst waiting times may not be as bad as in the north, the performance remains poor, with a litany of missed targets. 

There has been an acceptance that it's okay for people to wait for a long time for treatment, but it really isn't okay, it isn't acceptable. Debates around waiting times can sometimes be a little dry, but there are people behind the numbers. I have a case example, which, unfortunately, I don't think is unique. This person has been waiting for over 16 months for treatment, and he writes about the wait, I quote, 'This has had a very restricting effect on my quality of life. Up until my diagnosis, I considered myself to be a very active man. I played golf three times a week and also enjoyed gardening on my allotment. I feel that at my age it's vitally important to stay active, and this interminable wait for this operation is making me feel very depressed as I'm conscious of the fact that I'm not getting any younger and would like to be in a position to enjoy the remaining years of my life, instead of waiting in limbo. I was told I would have the operation before Christmas, and then it was sometime in January. These deadlines seem to just come and go, and as they do my depression deepens.'

If we are serious about preventing ill health, managing chronic conditions in the community and supporting people to maintain a healthy lifestyle, then ensuring prompt treatment when it's required just has to be part of that. And, if it is, why are we being told that continuation with our emergency services is not possible?

Well, it is possible to have good services in primary care that prevent ill health and help people stay well—as well as possible—and also have hospital services for when they are needed. There will always be occasions when people need emergency treatment promptly. We may be able to reduce the numbers of people having heart attacks, strokes and so on through better public health, but nobody believes that all of the risks would be eliminated. Hospitals and emergency medicine will always be needed and, as such, services need to be provided within reasonable distances for all people in all parts of Wales. 

And reasonable distance must reflect the reality of travel times in adverse weather, it must reflect the lack of car ownership in deprived communities, and it should be planned in a way that tackles the inverse care law, which means hospitals to serve the local populations throughout the Valleys. But, as we've seen, the current Government has been content to allow the Royal Glamorgan Hospital to decline and deteriorate in what seems to be an ideological obsession with having fewer specialist units for the Valleys. 

The health Minister is responsible for the strategic direction of the health service in Wales. It has been run down since the south Wales programme was agreed back in 2014. Why would anyone want to go and work in a department that is being run down? The ratio of consultants is shocking. While the UK average is 7,000 people to every one consultant, when it should stand closer to 4,000, it is 15,000:1 in our local health board. That is a scandal. 

And it has happened because numerous health Ministers have put their fingers in their ears and refused to be more innovative when it comes to recruitment. It is possible to recruit. I understand that Cardiff are recruiting by offering retention bonuses. A recent conversation with an ex-consultant at the Royal Glamorgan Hospital revealed to me that the Royal Glamorgan is an attractive place for consultants to work. The Minister has the power to intervene here.

Deputy Minister, you have listened to the views of Members representing the surrounding constituencies—this is not just a Rhondda and a Pontypridd issue. It'll have a knock-on effect to people in Cynon, Merthyr, Bridgend, Cardiff and further afield. Will you urge the Minister to intervene? Give us one last chance to save this service that so many people are seriously worried about losing. 

I thank Plaid Cymru for tabling this important debate today. At the start of a new decade, when our thoughts turn to the future, our NHS is once again beset by the problems of the past. Welsh A&E departments have just experienced their worst ever waiting times. The waiting times figures for last month show only 72 per cent spent less than four hours in A&E waiting to be treated, transferred or discharged, compared to the target of 95 per cent. These figures are significantly worse than last year and we have to reflect and ask ourselves why that is.

More patients than ever waited over 12 hours—well over 6,500—when the target is that nobody should wait that long. The ambulance service failed to meet its target for responding to immediately life-threatening calls for the second time since the target was introduced five years ago. And, despite a mild winter, our NHS has once again been stretched to breaking point. We have a situation where our NHS cannot cope with normal pressures, and, if we have to deal with an influx of patients suffering from seasonal flu, or from this emerging threat from China, I'm afraid our healthcare system will melt down. This is despite the Welsh Government allocating an extra £30 million plus an extra £10 million last week.

The solutions to our problems do not require simply putting more cash in, which is why I urge Members to reject the Government's amendment. We have to ask ourselves why, despite spending significantly more per head on health than they do in England or Scotland, our outcomes are poorer, our waiting times are longer and our access is worse. We therefore have to question how the £7.5 billion we allocate to health each year is being spent. This isn't some abstract accountancy question on budgets; this is a fundamental question about people's health. And we are seeing Welsh citizens go blind waiting for treatment, Welsh citizens unable to function because they spend their days in agony, and we see Welsh citizens die from cancer because we fail to diagnose it sooner.

Our NHS is held together by the stellar efforts of its doctors, nurses and healthcare professionals, but that can't last, and things are already at breaking point. We must ensure that the significant amount of money we are spending on health is spent effectively. We need to focus our efforts and not simply throw cash at the problems hoping they will go away—that just won't happen. We need also to invest in social care. And bedblocking remains a significant problem. One consultant at Morriston Hospital stated that he knew of 106 medically fit patients who were still in hospital because there was simply no care package available. And yet, at the same time, here we are cancelling operations, leaving people in pain, potentially hampering their recovery and increasing the cost of treatment.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

Did he also say how many were not being let out of hospital or weren't able to go home because the pharmacy wasn't ready to give them their medication? And how many were fit enough to go home, but a consultant hadn't come around to let them go?

I do understand, Mike, that the pharmacy is an issue in a lot of hospitals, because they can't dispense the medication at a suitable time for people to go home, and a lot eventually comes at evening time and people are kept in longer than they need. So, that definitely needs to be looked into, and, thank you, Mike, for bringing that up.

Successive Governments have failed to plan for the future, hence a large portion of our budget goes on agency staff. And there has been woefully little workforce planning, which has left our NHS unable to cope with a growing and ageing population, and a lack of planning, which has resulted in us having the worst cancer survival rates in western Europe. So, we need a new approach to healthcare in Wales and this means ensuring that our primary care sector is properly funded. We have a national workforce plan and we prioritise health prevention. We also have to ensure that our social care sector is properly funded. Our NHS can't afford another five years of this mismanagement and I urge colleagues to support this motion.

There are many, many challenges with our health service. We see these in Wales, the UK, Europe and around the world, and I'm not going to go through those analyses. What I do want to do, though, is to talk about the importance of the hospital that is only really a few minutes from where I live and that's the Royal Glamorgan, and performance there and the importance of that particular hospital to the local community, and why there is a need to look at the figures and to review what is a six-year out-of-date programme.

The Royal Glamorgan, in December 2019, in accident and emergency had 5,152 attendees; the Princess of Wales, 4,800; and Prince Charles, 4,947. In the 12-hour performance figures, the Royal Glamorgan was at 95 per cent and the other two hospitals were at 90 per cent respectively. The four-hour wait performance in Royal Glamorgan was again ahead of both of the two other hospitals. I think that underlines that, when we start trying to draw comparisons, it is not just about the figures, but the Royal Glamorgan is in a position of importance and is delivering to a higher degree, in one way or another, and is really important, and important in an area where there is a massive expansion of housing: 20,000 homes in the Taff Ely area over the next decade. So, the growth there and the issues of access are fundamentally important.

But what I do want to say is this: finance and money is, of course, important and it is actually fundamental in many ways. For example, over the past decade, the impact of austerity in terms of the freeze on public sector workers' wages has been really significant in terms of morale and in terms of retention, and that has been a massive factor. The other factor has been the underfunding or the lack of funds available to fund the NHS as should have happened. When Labour won the election in 1997 and said, 'You've got 24 hours to save the NHS', they were actually right. And, in actual fact, that Labour Government did save the NHS. In actual fact, from 1997 to 2010—sorry, 2009—the Labour Government increased in real terms the NHS funds available by 6 per cent in real terms every single year of that particular Government. That made an absolutely massive difference and it did save the NHS. When the Conservative-Lib Dem Government came in, the funding was 1.1 per cent. With Cameron and May, in their Conservative Governments from 2014-19, it was only 1.6 per cent. When people complain about the Labour manifesto—[Interruption.]—the Labour manifesto being profligate, the Labour proposal—.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, I will take an intervention, but let me just finish this. The Labour proposal was 4.3 per cent in real terms. Yes, I'll take an intervention.

I'm grateful for the Member taking the intervention and we can argue about the figures and we have many times. The key thing, as I said in the urgent question to the health Minister this afternoon, is that he is responsible for the strategic direction of the NHS in Wales. He could instruct the health board to keep that A&E department open and devise a business case to make sure that happens. Do you support that and do you support the action that the health Minister should take to keep that department open?

I think you heard my speech earlier when I said that I think the programme is now out of date and there should be a review of that programme before any further proposals are actually considered. I was absolutely clear in the things that I said earlier, which were things that I said very many years earlier when we effectively saved the accident and emergency in the Royal Glamorgan.

But what you cannot get away from is that 10 years of Tory austerity have deprived us of enormous sums of funding: £4 billion. And then when we talk also—[Interruption.] When we also talk about the impact on local government services—I know they don't like to hear these figures—in England, social services have been cut in real terms by 25 per cent; in Wales, they've been cut by 8 per cent. This is the consequence of Tory austerity. In any assessment of performance, you have to look at the environment that we're in and there is absolutely no doubt that Tory austerity has been one of the major contributions to the ability to deal with the pressures the NHS has in England and in Wales as well.

Well, we've just heard the usual fantasy economics tirade from the Labour Party as though the financial—[Interruption.] Well, I think I should get to at least five sentences before we have an intervention. [Interruption.] I now need to make some progress.

It is for the Member to decide whether he's taking an intervention.

It's as though the financial crisis of 2010-11 had never happened. In one sense, Members are right, of course, that the NHS is underfunded everywhere. It does have to compete, given that it is a nationalised monolith, every year, when there's the budget and Government spending round. It has to compete with all the other spending priorities that Governments have. Therefore, it is bound to be underfunded to all eternity, compared with the needs that it has to deal with. What really matters is how well you use the money that you have got. And I'm afraid that, if we are to judge devolution by its results, we have to conclude that devolution has failed.

Will you take an intervention?

No, I want to make this point first before I give way. I will give way, but I want to make this point first.

Yes, Wales does badly out of the Barnett formula. I fully accept that. And if it were based on needs, Wales would have a lot more money and we'd have more money to put into the health service. But the idea that a Tory Government at Westminster is ever going to give more money to a Labour Government in Wales is, of course, moonshine. And given that, overwhelmingly over my lifetime, Wales has elected a preponderance of left-wing Members of Parliament, there is a systemic difficulty here that can't be removed, so long as we have the devolution settlement that we've got.

I'll give way to Mick Antoniw.

It's really just to get clarity on this one point. Do you consider that the £4 billion that we've effectively lost since there's been a Tory Government has actually had an impact on the quality of services that we are able to provide within Wales, and indeed within England?

Well, obviously, if we had more money then we'd be able to do more things. Of course, I fully accept that. But the idea that the UK Government could just ignore the financial inheritance that it had from the Labour Government in 2010 is absurd. Just look at the figures. Since Gordon Brown took the brakes off public spending in 2001, everything went haywire. The Labour Government failed to mend the roof whilst the sun was shining. In 2001—[Interruption.] Because in the first Labour Government—[Interruption.] No, I won't because I'm answering—I've got to finish answering this intervention before I accept another one.

The first Labour Government of Tony Blair of course followed Kenneth Clarke's spending plans, and actually public spending fell during that Labour Government as a percentage of gross domestic product. And then from 2001 it rose relentlessly, from 27 per cent in 2001 to 50 per cent of GDP by the time the financial crisis hit. So, the room for manoeuvre for dealing with the financial crisis was therefore substantially reduced. And Government spending, as a proportion of GDP, rose from 35 per cent in 2000 to 40 per cent in 2009, to 45 per cent to 2012. The idea that this could simply be ignored and there wouldn't have to be some kind of tightening of the belt because of the overspending earlier on is just wholly unrealistic.

So, the big problem that we've got here is, yes, there isn't enough money, but how are we going to get more money? The only way we'll get more money is by harbouring the resources that we've got and diverting from some spending priorities to others. If the Government spends £150 million, nearly, on a planning inquiry on the M4, which then doesn't take place, that is a waste of money, and there are all sorts of other wastes of money that we could name as well. [Interruption.] I haven't got much time, but I will give way.

I just wondered if you also think it's a complete waste of money that the UK Government changed the pension tax allowances without considering the perverse consequences that has led to 27,000 patients not getting the service they need?

I'm not here to defend the Conservative Government. I'm not a Conservative Member of this Assembly.

I want to stick to the health service. Health absorbs half the Welsh Government budget, and it's growing, and it's bound to grow because the needs are growing faster than the means of dealing with them, and that's true of the population as a whole throughout the United Kingdom. So, we have to grow up when we're talking about funding the health service. This idea that because parts of the health service have been so-called privatised—Llyr Gruffydd mentioned some in north Wales in the course of his speech. This, I think, is an inevitability to a great extent. What is wrong with contracting out certain services if you can perform those functions more cost-effectively, and therefore it leaves you with more money to use on the other parts of the service that remain in the public sector?

Other countries in Europe have mixed health systems and they don't have this primitive debate that we have in this country between private and public. They recognise that, in order to solve the complex health needs and the even more complex, perhaps, financial complications behind the funding of it, we do need to have a more flexible system that is capable of getting more money in. People have to be persuaded to spend more of their own money, if the Government can't tax it from them; that, ultimately, is the way to have better health services.

The Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, Julie Morgan.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First of all, I'd like to tell the Chamber that the health Minister is at a COBRA meeting about the coronavirus, so that's why I'm taking his place.

At the outset, I'd like to reiterate my thanks to staff across NHS Wales, social care and all the other partners, who continue to work every day to provide care to the people of Wales. Their dedication to continuing to deliver high-quality services in the busiest, most difficult and pressured environments on record is extraordinary, and I know we all want to acknowledge that.

In the Minister's written statement on unscheduled care pressures he said that over winter this year, more than any other, we've seen relentless demand across the whole system, and I think that relentless demand has been echoed across the whole of the UK. I'll start off with the ambulance service. Of course, we are disappointed that the Welsh ambulance service has been unable to achieve the national target for a second month, but it is important to remember that this is from a background of achievement over the previous 48 months, While the target was not achieved in percentage terms, more people received a response within the eight-minute target when compared to December 2018, and this is because of the increased numbers. The Minister has recently announced a number of actions to improve ambulance availability, and this will include the establishment of a ministerial ambulance availability taskforce. This approach will focus not only on ambulance responsiveness, but also on the need for wider, whole-system improvements to reflect and respond to the changing environment. This taskforce is expected to provide early views by the end of March 2020, and the Minister will keep Members updated on those developments.

There have been additional factors outside of unscheduled care that have had a real impact upon performance. One such area is the UK Government tax and pension changes, and these continue to significantly affect the availability of medical staff to deliver on previously agreed scheduled care plans. Over the last three years, on planned care, we have seen significant improvements in the reduction of long waits, with a 20 per cent reduction from our high point, which was in 2015. However, because of the tax and pension changes, our latest information is that between April and December 2019 around 3,200 sessions have been lost, affecting nearly 27,000 patients in planned care. And we've also lost sessions in unscheduled care and GP out of hours for the same reasons. The Minister has called repeatedly on the UK Government to resolve this matter urgently. The problem is the direct result of UK Government tax rules, and the harm to our NHS is actually felt across the whole of the UK. We are very worried about losing the goodwill of a generation of staff.

Long waiting times are not what we want, and we continue to invest money to support improvements. However, this is not unique to Wales, with other parts of the United Kingdom also being affected. The latest figures from NHS England show their worst performance in terms of A&E four-hour performance, the highest number of 12-hour waits, the lowest 18-week referral-to-treatment performance, and they haven't met their urgent cancer targets since December 2015. Performance in Scotland has also struggled, with A&E four-hour performance being 6 percentage points lower than it was compared to the same period last year, and the lowest it's been since December 2017. So, I'm making the point to say that this is something that is affecting the whole of the UK, and it is affected by a huge increase in demand.

In the case of cancer performance, we continue to treat more patients within the target each year. In the 12 months ending in November 2019, nearly 8,200 people started definitive treatment on the urgent suspected cancer route, 3 per cent higher than the previous year, and 18 per cent more people started definitive treatment within target time than five years ago. The single cancer pathway will supersede the old measures in due course with a more useful, accurate and honest measure.

Unscheduled care pressures have also impacted on elective surgery. However, health boards mitigated the impact on elective care by deliberately reducing planned activity in the first two weeks of January to support the demand for urgent emergency admissions. Each patient is assessed based on their clinical need. If necessary, planned admissions may have to be postponed—and we know that they have been postponed—but care is provided at a later date. Any postponements are a last resort to ensure that patient safety is maintained and prioritised. And despite unscheduled care pressures, planned care activity continued across Wales in the early days of January 2020, with around 70 per cent of the planned activity undertaken while still meeting the emergency demand.

Planning for winter 2019-20 began early in 2019, informed by the review of health and social care resilience over winter 2018-19. As Members have mentioned in the Chamber today, the Minister made £30 million available to health boards and local authorities—earlier in the year than ever before, at their request—to support plans for the winter. And for the first time, we chose to allocate a significant part of the funding to regional partnership boards. This was intended to ensure health boards and local authority partners work together with other partners to collaboratively plan services across the health and social care community. That does echo some of the comments made in the Chamber here today with Angela Burns talking about the artificial barrier between health and social care, and Jenny Rathbone also referring to many of the projects that are used to tackle that issue. I think this is a very important point: we do have to tackle this issue. Our transformation funds are intended to bring health and social care together and to try to treat the whole system in a more holistic way.

The Minister also allocated an additional £10 million last week to add capacity across the system and to help relieve pressures on services to improve flow through hospitals and into social care. And as with the £30 million, this has been funded through RPBs to encourage joint working across health and social care. I have spoken to many of those people who are participating in the RPBs, and they tell me that the partnership working is developing and is becoming much stronger, and I think this is where we're going to see the transformation that we do need in our services. The winter plans agreed between health and social care partners acknowledge the importance of prevention and the need for effective partnership working. I think the investment through regional partnerships makes clear that we do see health and social care as genuine partners.

Health Education and Improvement Wales and Social Care Wales were commissioned to produce a workforce strategy for health and social care in Wales. That strategy was signed off by both boards in December last year and submitted to Welsh Government, and we are now considering the strategy and its subsequent implementation. Health boards' recruitment remains an operational matter, and they've been clear on ensuring actions taken do not affect patient care or quality of service. Recruitment for nursing and medical staff continues as required to deliver safe services.

The Welsh Government has invested over £0.5 billion extra in the NHS this year. We've seen the underlying NHS deficit reduced by 35 per cent between 2016-17 and 2018-19, and we expect there to be further improvements in this year, demonstrating better financial management. I have listened to all the comments that individual Members have made in this debate and have taken careful note of them. I can assure you that we want to be very clear that our force—the people who work in our health and social care force—are aware of our commitment and gratitude to them. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to reply to the debate?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Thank you to everyone who's taken part in the debate. Thank you for the response of the Deputy Minister. I feel for you, in many ways, having to defend the indefensible in this place. A series of excuses and spin, that's what I heard, I'm afraid, from the Government, going through the targets that she claims are being met, and the challenges that arise over the winter. Of course there are winter pressures but build those into the system, include the capacity to respond to those pressures during the winter. As a health committee over the years we’ve been recommending to the Government to build in that capacity and that time of the year. Perhaps things have been worse than usual this Christmas. I hear evidence, perhaps, that it ha been. Well, we need that flexibility in our system or we don’t have a system that is sustainable. We know that it isn’t sustainable.

Thank you for the individual contributions. The spokesperson for the Conservatives, yes, it is groundhog day here. I’m surprised to see you denying the impact of austerity. We’ve had cuts over the past years under the leadership of the Conservative Party, and that has to have an impact.

But on amendment 3—if I can return to amendment 3—you’re deleting from our motion the part that says that it

'regrets that social care has been under-funded'

But don't we agree that social care has been underfunded? Perhaps you're embarrassed as a party about the impact the decisions made by Conservative Governments in Westminster have had on the health service because of cuts to social care services in England.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Let me be very clear, you say

'regrets that social care services have been under-funded at the expense of the NHS'

and I tried to make it quite clear that, in our view, it is about ensuring that NHS, social care, mental health, all of it is seen in the round, and that's what we went on to make in amendment 4; we're trying to strengthen it. It's very difficult. There's £8 billion already going into the NHS/social care services in Wales. It's about redeploying that money in a far more effective manner so that we stop the revolving door syndrome.

But the point I make is that we have to aim towards redeploying that money from health to social care; that's the rebalancing that we need to work towards.

Thank you to Llyr for the comments with regard to the state of the service in north Wales, and for focusing on that. What’s striking, of course, is that this is the board where the Welsh Government has the responsibility and the greatest influence, indeed.

I agree entirely with the Member for Cardiff Central about the need to look at what we can do, and that’s why we’re focusing on different aspects, such as the need to raise standards of management within the health service and to consider seriously how we can fund the transformation agenda.

Thank you to those who’ve made comments about the situation in the Royal Glamorgan Hospital at the moment—a situation that has had a great deal of attention because decisions are being made now that were taken once back in 2014—correct, they weren’t implemented. You say, Mick Antoniw, that Labour had safeguarded and had prevented the closure of A&E there. Well, the decision was made to downgrade A&E, but it wasn’t implemented. The threat has continued there, and I think that this is another example of the failure to think strategically and to either look at that hospital or any part of that hospital, or any part of the health service, and to think seriously about what role this particular element plays within the wider health service in Wales.

To conclude, the debate that we’ve heard between the Labour and Conservative parties here about decisions made in Whitehall back in 2008 and 2010 speaks volumes, I think. Yes, there is a wider context of where funding comes from, and, yes, I do condemn the depths of the cuts in public expenditure over the past decade, but because it’s not just money—that’s not what the root cause of this problem is alone. I also condemn the lack of management of the Labour Party of the health service here in Wales and I don’t see signs of where this Government is going to realise, 'Do you know what? We are failing. We do need to admit that we are failing on the NHS in Wales.' We can’t put a Government into special measures, but we can change Government. Labour can’t run the health service in Wales. We know from experience in England that the Conservatives have destroyed the NHS in that place. Do let Plaid Cymru have the opportunity to run the NHS and let us put the NHS in Wales on a firmer foundation and a more sustainable foundation, so that the staff in the NHS and patients in the NHS in Wales receive the support they deserve. 

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

The next item on the agenda this afternoon is the Brexit Party debate on fisheries, and I call on David Rowlands to move the motion—David. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. At 11 p.m. on 31 January—this coming Friday—the United Kingdom will leave the European Union. We will then move into a transition period, when, it could be said, the real work will begin.

One of the grey areas of discussion will be the situation surrounding fishing in British waters, which, under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, should return to the position of extending to 200 miles from the British coastline. Even the Brexit leader, Nigel Farage, has said that there will be a need for concessions. But that does not mean the type of arrangement outlined by President Macron, which extends the right for European vessels to plunder British waters for another 25 years—[Interruption.] Yes.

I do apologise, I know that the Member is early in his contribution. The 200-mile limit doesn't exist. It only exists tangentially in two places—in a north-westerly direction towards Rockall and south-westerly from the Isles of Scilly. The reason why the 200-mile limit doesn't exist for the UK is because there are other countries in the way. 

Well, I'll accept that, Carwyn. 

Whilst in the EU, the UK could not exercise control over who, and to what extent other nations could fish in UK waters. This led to what could only be called a plundering of the seas around our coasts. The rape of the fish stocks has led to many, once abundant, species being depleted to such an extent that they're close to being unable to replenish their numbers. There's no doubt that a continuation of the common fisheries policy of the European Union would have a disastrous effect on all fishing stocks. An example of this is the granting of licences to mainly Dutch vessels by the EU to use electric stun fishing methods, which are said to be denuding sea beds of their once plentiful crustacean species. 

Leaving the EU and regaining control of British coastal waters offers the UK the chance to re-establish its once thriving fishing industry, which, at one time, employed more than 100,000 people. This transition will not be established overnight and, therefore, it would be pragmatic for the UK to establish a national fisheries council, which could oversee the licensing of foreign vessels to fish British waters in the transition period, whilst we build the infrastructure and fishing capabilities that once existed around the whole of the UK. This could include modern warehousing facilities and fish processing plants. 

The Welsh fishing industry, as it stands, is relatively small economically. Whilst it is true to say that over 90 per cent of the seafood landed by Welsh fishermen is sold to the EU, there's absolutely no evidence to suggest that this trade, worth somewhere around £38 million, should be affected by our leaving the EU. However, should it prove to be so, the very substantial revenue realised by the sale of licences to foreign vessels in the transitional period could be used to subsidise the Welsh fishing industry until adjustments to its fishing practices are made.

Unlike the EU, where most economies are moribund, the far east economies are expanding rapidly. The Welsh fishing industry could exploit these markets where there is huge potential for their premium products. We should note here that the UK Government has categorically stated that it will increase funding for fisheries across the UK nations. Subsidising the Welsh fishing industry will, if you excuse the pun, be small fry compared to the potential for expanding the Welsh fishing industry in the future. 

As we know, fisheries management is a devolved issue, and I acknowledge at this time, it is unclear the extent to which power over fishing responsibilities will remain, or indeed, be devolved to the Welsh Assembly after Brexit. But there is no reason to suggest that the UK Government will not devolve those powers that will be repatriated to the UK Government to Wales as well. We in the Brexit Party will do all that is necessary to support the Welsh Government in retrieving such powers.

In Wales, there exists the potential for significant gains for the fishing industry by leaving the EU and the CFP. This should be seen as a very real opportunity to completely rethink the structure of the UK fishing industry as a whole by transforming where, how and by whom UK fish stocks are exploited. The problem has been that the increasing global populations have intensified the search for food, with fish presenting a seemingly abundant supply and modern technology making it easier to catch huge numbers of them. This has made overfishing and depletion of fish stocks a serious problem. Since its accession to the European Union and its common fisheries policy, this has been particularly true for the UK, which, until now, has been powerless to redress. 

Some 80 per cent of fish caught in UK waters has been caught by non-UK ships according to British Sea Fishing. They have done so in such damaging ways that they have hugely degraded fish stocks and, more worryingly, the ability of several species to regenerate. Vested interests, lobbying and political protection of national interests have taken more from the sea than it can naturally regenerate. Preservationists have lobbied for the reform of EU fishing practices for many years, but largely to no avail. It is time for alternative policies to be explored and pursued. The vote in the referendum of 23 June 2016 was for the UK to leave the European Union. That vote means that the UK will now take back control of many areas that were previously subject to EU regulation and decision making. In particular, it means that the UK will withdraw from the common fisheries policy of the EU, and be free to take independent action to protect fish stocks within its waters, and revitalise a fishing industry that was savagely cut back by the UK's accession to the EU and adoption of its common fisheries policy. 

The UK now has the chance to marry commercial interests with environmental ones, and to implement a fishing policy that will make UK fishing into a profitable and sustainable industry. It can harness the interests of its fishermen to preserve and protect their future livelihood, by giving them an ownership stake in the fish that swim our waters. It can learn from the successful policies that have been put into effect in other countries—policies that have seen fish stocks return to their normal levels; the creation of a maritime research institute tasked with monitoring fish stocks, examining the levels of different species, mapping breeding grounds and recording all catches made within UK waters; the creation of a national fisheries council to determine a total allowable catch for each species and to assign a quota to each registered fishing vessel that is divisible and tradeable, where all catches must be landed and if any exceed the quota, the vessel must trade or buy quotas from others; where all boats are fitted with satellite tracking devices, and their position is constantly indexed; where all catches' size and species are recorded on landing, with information uploaded to a public database—only really possible if fish stocks caught in British waters are landed at British ports; where UK fishing waters are divided into administrative zones, with the national fisheries council able to impose an immediate suspension of fishing in any areas where the sustainability of any fish stocks appears to be at risk; where there are inspections from the national fisheries council on any fishing vessel over a certain tonnage, twice each year; and where the national fisheries council and the maritime research council publish all their information online, accessible to members of the public, as well as to industry. 

If these policies and structures are put in place, they have the potential to totally revitalise the Welsh fishing industry and reverse the decline we have witnessed over many decades. Thank you. 

Thank you.

I have selected the six amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. And if amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. Can I ask the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans?

Formally. 

Thank you. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendments 2, 4, 5 and 6, tabled in the name of Darren Millar. 

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate this afternoon and also to move the amendments in the name of Darren Millar on behalf of the Conservative group. 

Actually, looking at the main motion, it's almost difficult to disagree with the sentiments in it and, obviously, hopefully our later amendments do add to the motion and point to the actions today in Westminster, for example, of the introduction of the UK Fisheries Bill, the first piece of UK-specific legislation on fisheries in 45 years.

Amendment 2 seeks to, obviously, delete point 2 of the motion on the basis that it talks of the inaction. I think in fairness to the UK Government, it tried darned hard for three years to try and get us out of the European Union and respect the referendum result. In the absence of that word 'inaction' we could have supported the motion unamended, but that's why amendment 2 is down, and I hope that the Brexit Party understand why that amendment has been put down, being that we're the governing party in Westminster.

Amendment 4 talks about us leaving the European Union on Friday. As the opener of the motion highlighted and, as we had in an earlier debate highlighting what will happen on Friday at 11 o'clock, obviously, leaving the common fisheries policy and becoming an independent coastal state. This is self-evident of the referendum result of 2016. And I do draw Members' attention to the introduction today of the UK Fisheries Bill and the measures contained within that Fisheries Bill that talk of, obviously, creating a sustainable fishing industry that will have strict rules on catches and the way that it will be governed, the way ships will be registered, and the way those catches will be landed here in England, obviously, because I appreciate this particular Bill is England-only with some devolved concepts attached to it of general content.

I'd welcome the Minister's view on her take on the UK Fisheries Bill as introduced and what discussion her officials might have had, because within the Bill's provisions it does talk about sustainable fishing underpinning the requirement of the UK Government and the devolved Governments to publish a joint fisheries statement to co-ordinate fisheries management where appropriate, and the fisheries management plans to achieve sustainable fishing stocks. So, I'd be most appreciative to try and understand from the Minister what input she has had, or her officials have had, in devising that protocol that the Bill talks about.

Amendment 5 also talks about the increased opportunities from fisheries across the UK and, in particular, the way that the Conservative manifesto, endorsed at the general election of 2019, highlighted clear commitments on behalf of coastal and fishing communities, and in particular when it came to financial support and, indeed, more structural support going into those communities. Again, I emphasise that there is a cross-over between devolved responsibilities when it comes to Wales and the UK responsibilities, but instead of looking at this as an obstacle, we should be looking at this as an opportunity, because I genuinely can't think of anyone who can point to the common fisheries policy as being a positive regime that has enhanced the fishing capabilities of the United Kingdom and the coastal communities of the United Kingdom.  

It is really important that we do hopefully hear from the Minister today, as amendment 6 talks about, about the new fishing strategies that could potentially come forward that are based on the sustainable management of our fisheries and, indeed, our marine wildlife and our marine areas. I do hope that when the Minister puts the Government proposition to us, she will highlight to us what progress the Government is making in preparing its own fishing Bill, which I appreciate, given the legislative constraints at the moment on time, is highly unlikely to come before us before the Assembly elections of 2021. But I would like to think that officials are working up the proposals on how, as the UK Fisheries Bill highlights, fish don't respect borders; they obviously live in the oceans and they transfer around the coastal communities. It is vital that there is joined-up thinking between Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland and, indeed, with our friends and colleagues on the continent of Europe, that we do make sure that we have a managed and sustainable policy going forward.

But instead of looking at this as a backward retrograde step, as some Members in the Chamber would look at it, I think on reading the UK Fisheries Bill today we can see the positives that will come after Friday's leaving of the European Union, and a reversal in the decline of the fishing industry here, not just in Wales but across the rest of the UK, with the opportunities that we as policy makers can engage with and put those things in place that, sadly, many coastal communities have been lacking for the 45 years and the duration of the common fisheries policy.

So, I hope our amendments will find favour tonight and add to the motion that the Brexit Party have put down today. Ultimately I call, similar to the call of the leader of the Brexit Party, on the Government to withdraw their wrecking amendment, which is a delete-all amendment again. I fail to see how you can delete all of a motion that is pretty understanding in what it's saying about a self-evident act that's going to happen on Friday, and what that will entail for us here as policy makers and, indeed, coastal communities and fishing communities the length and breadth of the UK. Instead of looking at this as a hindrance, we should look at it as an opportunity, and that's why I very much hope people will support our amendments, and indeed support the motion as it goes forward.  

Can I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, for the opportunity to speak to the Plaid Cymru amendment and on the motion more broadly. There are three clauses to the original motion, and there are two of them that I would have no problem with, along the lines suggested earlier. There are some quite obvious statements: recognising the historic importance of fisheries in Wales in the first section, and then calling on the Governments to ensure the best for Wales as the Brexit process is completed. The one section that I'm not comfortable with is the second, which welcomes the fact that we will leave the European Union. It will be no surprise to anyone that I don't welcome the fact that we're leaving. I do accept that we're leaving, of course, but I don't think that it's a cause for celebration, certainly not from my perspective. So, Plaid Cymru wishes to delete that second point, but we also want to add a few more.

First of all, that me recognise the significant importance of the European Union as a destination for Welsh seafood produce, and that we want to ensure that that market continues to be open and is easily accessible in the future. Now, we know, of course, and we have heard in hearing the opening of this debate, the value of the fish sector and the shellfish sector particularly. We export over 90 per cent of that produce, and much of it to the European Union, and Welsh fisheries, aquaculture producers, and seafood producer supply chains are particularly open and vulnerable to damage as the result of any barriers to the export of their produce, be they tariffs or other barriers. I will quote what James Wilson from Bangor Mussel Producers said—I'm sure many of you will know him—he said a few months ago, and I quote from an article:

'There's a wagon waiting on the quayside when we land. We take the mussels off the boat and they're put in the wagon, the wagon drives away. And then it's a 16 to 18-hour transit time from north Wales to northern France or the south of Holland. If they order from me on a Monday, then they expect the wagon to arrive on a Tuesday because they want to...sell them on a Wednesday. It’s that seamless. Anything that introduces delay or uncertainty or whatever you call it in that process becomes an issue in terms of the supply chain. That’s not just a small problem.'

Therefore, the importance of the first section of the Plaid Cymru amendment is clear: that we want to keep those channels as open and as seamless as possible.

The second section then calls for the UK Fisheries Bill to ensure that any devolved legislation delivers truly sustainable and accountable fisheries management, and minimises the impact on the marine environment, while also supporting dependent coastal communities. I think that striking that balance is extremely important, because the best way of ensuring the sustainability of these communities who are reliant on fisheries is to ensure the sustainability of the fisheries themselves, and the sustainability of the marine environment. As we've heard, the UK Government's Fisheries Bill has been laid today. I haven't had an opportunity to read it as yet, and therefore I don't express a view at this point, except to say that it is important that we do ensure the sustainability of those fisheries, and that we need to go further than simply doing that. We need to be clear that there should be guarantees of funding previously received from the European Union for research and innovation as we move forward on this journey, because that is at the heart of ensuring the resilience and flexibility of the sector for these uncertain years that we may be facing.

But the other important element, of course, that has to be a central part of this discussion is: where is the Welsh voice in those negotiations? Where is the Welsh voice and how will the Welsh voice be heard? Michael Gove yesterday, on his visit, failed to commit to a formal role for Wales in negotiations and that is a cause of concern. It’s important that we bear in mind the very different nature of the fisheries sector here in Wales. So, our expectations and requirements may be very different to those of other parts of the UK, and it’s only fair that those are expressed and heard in the same way. So, there is an important role, not only for the UK Government, but also for the Welsh Government, in ensuring that the voice and interests of Welsh fishing communities are prominent in the important negotiations before us.

This debate today is very important. As Members, we will know that the UK Government has today released the Fisheries Bill, stating that it ensures sustainable and climate-smart fishing post-Brexit. I welcome the UK Bill making it clear that EU vessels will no longer have automatic access to UK fishing waters as the opportunities that will be available for Welsh fishermen and women will be very significant.

The last 40 plus years have seen a plundering of our seas through the common fisheries policy and the devastation of fish stocks, which will take many, many years for us to begin to correct in this country. By taking back control of our coastal waters and further regions of the sea, we will have the opportunity not only to develop a massive economic resource for Wales, but also to improve conservation in Welsh waters.

This morning, I read an interesting article on BBC Wales's news website covering the news story of a Welsh fisherman from Pembrokeshire who voted to leave. He said,

'Foreign trawlers take tonnes of fish without landing their catch locally'—[Interruption.].

Was that indigenous trawlers? Right.

He said—[Interruption.]. How can I concentrate when you're talking? I'm sorry. He said,

'Foreign trawlers take tonnes of fish without landing their catch locally meaning they don't bring any business to Welsh ports'.

He also said, and I quote,

'We don't make no money out of it'.

Learning from the concerns of those who are affected the most should be at the heart of this debate moving forward. Before this debate, I did read over the Assembly Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee report on the UK Fisheries Bill 2019, and I commend the committee's recommendations in the report on Welsh fisheries and look forward to an update on that.

I've kept my contribution short today, as I believe my other group members and other people will have covered a lot of the opportunities available post Brexit. It is important that we here at the Senedd do not allow the UK Government to negotiate away our fisheries in any trade deal. Thank you.

Well, we'll soon see what the reality of, 'Taking back control of our waters' looks like. Will Britain rule the waves or will Boris Johnson sell UK fisheries down the river, using them as a bargaining chip in the upcoming trade negotiations? Several EU politicians have made clear their intentions: they want British access to EU financial service markets predicated on access to UK waters. Given that fishing and aquaculture's gross value added contribution to the UK economy is 0.04 per cent, whereas financial services and insurance's contribution is 7.1 per cent, I'll let you do the maths for yourself.

I fear that, as one Brexit Party MEP put it last week, 'Britain's fish may indeed be punished for their Brexit stance'. But, we'll see. But what we do know is that, overall, the UK currently imports 70 per cent of the fish that we eat and we export 80 per cent of what we catch. I think that we can all agree that, in terms of sustainability, it would be better to consume more of what we catch here and redress the imbalance in the long term, but the fact is maintaining access to EU markets is critical.

Take shellfish for example: more than 80 per cent of the shellfish, lobsters, crabs and langoustines we catch are sold to the EU—mostly France and Spain. It accounts for more than a quarter of all UK fish exports by value. Two things, then, will happen: you will have to, if you're exporting, do that according to the EU rules. If you want to export to a country, you can only do it according to their rules of acceptance. The other thing that will also apply is that if there are any border hold-ups, and Llyr already mentioned that, that doesn't see delivery of fresh goods in a timely fashion, they won't be going anywhere. So, I'm sure that the Brexit Party know all this, and it was probably covered in the one fisheries committee meeting that Nigel Farage, the fisherman's friend, attended in the three years that he was a member. One meeting in three years. Absolutely disgraceful.

When our own environment committee looked at this two years ago, we emphasised the need for a new relationship between the constituent nations of the UK after Brexit, and that is particularly true for fisheries management. Otherwise, there is a risk, and I'm quoting from that report,

'that one of the most pervasive negative perceptions of EU membership and fisheries—that some countries benefit from an unfairly inflated allocation of quota—will be transposed to the UK.'

We're already hearing it today. Isn't that amazing? But, then, maybe you'll take notice more often than Nigel Farage, who only managed one meeting. But at least you did read the papers, I suppose.

The other question is whether, post Brexit, we move towards extending the principle of payment for public goods to our seas, and, again, that's been mentioned. And I think that that is probably the most important thing that we need to do here, because most people who fish in Wales at the moment to do so from very small craft. It is essential for those, if they are going to grow in any way, that the sea that they are hoping to find their produce in is actually up to a really, really good standard. So, the environmental principles would be absolutely critical for those to survive, as will the marine conservation zones that protect some of those areas.

So, I think those are the things that we can do. I look forward to your response, Minister.

Joyce Watson there chastises Nigel Farage for only attending one European Union fisheries committee. He's done something rather more valuable for fishermen by getting us out of the EU and them out of the CFP.

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies and Llyr Gruffydd for their generous comments about our motion. I only express my disappointment they won't be supporting it, in light of them. I think Andrew R.T. was right, perhaps, to draw attention to that 'years of inaction' reference. Perhaps we did have Theresa May in mind while saying it, and he's now reinventing Theresa May's period in charge as one of dynamic action.

I'm more surprised the Welsh Government seems to take exception to this point too, since I thought the years of inaction on Brexit were their policy until their hand was forced by the Lib Dems and the SNP into the election.

More broadly, I'm disappointed again that Welsh Government are taking their 'delete and replace all' approach, but particularly when having deleted all, they then actually put back quite a lot of various people's motion, often in the same words, for lines on end, which I think is taking the Table Office's good officers rather for granted on that front.

However, on the changes they have made, we think their point 1 is just a little churlish. We recognise the 'importance of fisheries to Wales', but they won't have that, and they're only important to these particular parts of Wales.

And then on our final point, I just don't understand why they take exception to it all. We call upon 'the Welsh and UK Governments', and, apparently, we haven't quite got the syntax right or treated Welsh Government with sufficient respect and formality. They say we should instead call upon 'the Welsh Government and UK Government'.

But nonetheless, we will proceed with our motion and thank again Plaid for their amendments, which, as with everything they seem to be saying on Brexit this week, have been very constructive, and I really do commend them on the approach they are taking.

I agree with the first paragraph of their amendment about the importance of the European Union as a destination for fish, and particularly the molluscs and seafood that they talked about this evening, and I think it's a fair point, but I wouldn't over-emphasise it, because the point cuts both ways. The European Union is very dependent on our fish, and were it not for buying the fish from us, it would be an enormous challenge for them, and one I'm sceptical that they would take on, of seeking to buy those same products from elsewhere. And I think, were they to seek to do that, they would pay significantly more with the tariffs in addition, but also I think to get the food as fresh, and the example Llyr gave of molluscs in France and Spain, given where those molluscs come to life and grow, I just don't see where they would, cost-effectively, with that level of freshness, be able to obtain the produce satisfactorily elsewhere.

The Plaid amendment also mentions the Fisheries Bill, which rather than being forthcoming, has now been published. And I apologise to the Chamber, on the account of commitments here and elsewhere, I have not yet been able to read and digest that Bill. But I look forward to doing so, and hope it bears out Plaid's very sensible objectives and hopes for it.

Perhaps the most important amendment I think is point 4 from the Conservatives, and I think this is really important, because under Theresa May I felt, and I think actually many Conservatives also felt, there was a great deal of shilly-shallying on this point that should have been absolutely clear—that when we leave the EU we become an independent coastal state with all that implies. And any suggestion that that would have been traded off in a withdrawal agreement or political declaration, or even now that it might not be the case because of a future trade agreement, is wrong. We will be an independent coastal state—. I give way to Andrew R.T.

The point that the leader of the Brexit Party is making is emphasised in law now. If the Bill goes through the House of Commons, the Fisheries Bill makes that point and makes it a legal point. So, it's not something that can be easily traded away.

The Member is absolutely correct and I commend him and his party in Government on what they have now done in this area. 

Amendment 5 we also support, and amendment 6—the maximum sustainable yield. I think that approach seems to have quite a broad consensus of—. So, that's why I was a little surprised with Huw Irranca's intervention earlier. I wasn't quite sure why he left, because I thought Darren was agreeing with him, in terms of that being a sensible approach, and I don't necessarily have his level of understanding, but I hope that we will be able to come together behind that.

So, I'll make two very short final points. It's really important, on fishing in this withdrawal, that we get rid of all this Factortame litigation. And the idea that the ECJ used that case for the first time to have the direct effect of EU law specifically overturning a UK statute, in that case the Merchant Shipping Act 1988, was so wrong and I'm so glad we're going to be out of that.

And finally, all the best to the Minister, in terms of our fishery protection vessels. I was honoured, when I was chairing the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs committee to go to Cardigan bay and to see those new vessels in operation. I wish her well in her duties in overseeing them.

I rise as somebody who had six years as a fisheries Minister, and who agrees wholeheartedly that the common fisheries policy is a disaster. It's encouraged over-fishing, encouraged mechanised forms of fishing that have literally dredged sea beds of their life and is still a problem now. So, I shed no tears for the common fisheries policy, but I think it is important that we are realistic about what can be delivered here.

Britain's fisheries began their decline many, many, many decades ago, and by the 1960s most of the fisheries were dead, long before we entered the European Union. And I do caution Members who suggest that somehow those stocks can suddenly bounce back overnight; they clearly won't be able to do that. We were as guilty of over-fishing as the EU has been with the common fisheries policy. 

Secondly, I think it's again worth emphasising that the 200-mile zone, which I asked David Rowlands about, doesn't actually exist, in the main, for the UK around these islands. Ireland is 80 miles away from Wales. So, clearly, there's not a 200-mile zone around the UK in the western part, otherwise the whole of Ireland would be included in it, and it's the same in most of the North sea. And it does mean, of course, that not only does there have to be fisheries management between the four nations of the UK, but if we take the Irish sea, as an example, there has to be joint management with the EU. Otherwise, the management of the fisheries doesn't work, because fish, as Andrew R.T. Davies has rightly said, will swim back and forth over the boundaries. So, we still will need co-operation with the EU in the future.