Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good afternoon, everybody. 

We start our Plenary session this afternoon with the first item on the agenda—questions to the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs. Question 1, Jack Sargeant. 

Thank you. Welsh Government supports the growth of the food and drink industry across the whole of Wales. We've now achieved a turnover of £7.473 billion for the food and farming industry in Wales. This far exceeds the challenging target of achieving £7 billion we set ourselves and the sector back in 2014.

Thank you for that answer, Minister. As chair of the cross-party group on beer and pubs in Wales, I have recently undertaken a number of visits to independent breweries with Members from across the Chamber, and I look forward to working with many more Assembly Members to promote Welsh beer and cider within their constituencies. Minister, issues that have been raised with me include assistance in taking full advantage of unique opportunities to promote Welsh beers across the world—opportunities like the Rugby World Cup and the six nations, which coincides with Welsh beer week. And I have also had a number of breweries and brewers raise the issue of the future deposit-return scheme, which I know falls under the responsibility of the Deputy Minister. However, your department works directly with producers through the Welsh food and drinks cluster. So, Minister, can you assure me that your department is working closely with that of the Deputy Minister's, and the Minister for international relations, both to support and promote the Welsh brewing industry in the future?

Thank you. I was very pleased to visit Wrexham Lager with you in your capacity as the chair of the cross-party group on beer and pubs. And I think Wrexham Lager probably is a classic example of making the most of the opportunities, and I know when the Rugby World Cup was on in Japan, I think they had to send out extra resources on about three occasions because it was so popular out there. I can reassure you that my department works closely with other governmental departments. We work right across Government. You mentioned the deposit-return scheme. Work is developing on that. That's being taken forward as a joint project with both the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Northern Ireland Government.

Back in July we published the responses to an initial consultation on the proposals for a scheme covering Wales, Northern Ireland and England, and, again, it was overwhelmingly positive, the response that we received to that consultation. I'm also putting funding into the Advanced Manufacturing Research Centre in your own constituency in relation to decarbonisation in relation to the food and drink sector as a whole, and, obviously, reduced packaging is one area that we're particularly looking at. 

We could all have a brilliant banquet with the fine food and drink produce that emanates from Aberconwy. We have award-winning gins, wine, meat, seafood, cheese, chocolate and so much more on offer, so it just goes to show the incredible potential that food tourism has in Aberconwy, and, indeed, across north Wales. Now, according to 'The Food Tourism Action Plan for Wales 2015-2020', food tourism is about helping visitors to uncover our local culinary gems, not just leaving it to chance that they will find them by themselves. Five key things were identified, and interesting ideas were put forward, such as developing a consumer-facing food tourism website. Have you thought, Minister, of building on this by creating some food trails, and possibly on a constituency basis across Wales? Thank you.

We've certainly looked at food trails, and we've also looked at a wine trail, because, again, the wine industry in Wales is really booming, I would say; I think we've got now about 15 vineyards across Wales. So, we've certainly looked at a wine trail. I'm not sure that we've looked at food trails on a constituency by constituency basis. I have to say, though, in relation to food tourism—and you mentioned gin, and I presume you're referring to Aber Falls—I was in Aber Falls about two weeks ago, and they're building a brilliant visitor centre, where they're hoping to bring in other business, not just food and drink businesses, but other businesses also to work from there. So, food tourism I think offers many opportunities, not just in north Wales, but across the whole of Wales. 

Natural Resources Wales is the appropriate authority and regulator, under the the Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007. It is for NRW to determine whether an environmental impact assessment is required. All applications for a marine licence are thoroughly and robustly assessed, to ensure proposed works do not impact the marine environment or human health.

I think what we have here is a failure of governance. And I wonder why—we are sat here—I wonder why we have a Government, in name anyway, if all we're going to do is put the responsibility on Natural Resources Wales. There are 780,000 tonnes of mud from outside a nuclear reactor that they want to dig up and dump—literally—on Wales, just outside of Cardiff, in the sea. We now know that there were accidents in the 1950s and 1960s, where radioactivity went into the estuary. And scientists tell me that there's a possibility that this radioactivity is still there. And yet—[Interruption.] From across the way, there are heckles, people are asking, 'What scientists?' Well, maybe you should speak to these scientists, because we are told that there are three kinds of testing that should have been done to this mud. Anywhere in the world, three types would have been done—mass, alpha, gamma spectrometry. Why is it that you've allowed Natural Resources Wales to not even do an environmental impact assessment last time? You're not going to insist upon one this time. I'm just staggered, standing here saying this. How on earth can you call yourself a Minister, how can you call yourself a Government, when you're going to allow this to happen, and let Wales literally be dumped on, with material that could very well be radioactive? Incredible.

I think it's really important to stress that no application has been submitted. And should a request be received, NRW will consult with those experts—of course they will—to consider if it's necessary, obviously, to inform its determination, and whether an EIA is required. I think it's also really important to stress, Deputy Presiding Officer, that a non-EIA approach does not mean a full assessment is not undertaken—. I think it's really important that people understand that. And before determining any application for a marine licence, NRW carries out a thorough assessment of the proposed activity, and that includes the consideration, as I said, of the need to protect the marine environment and human health, as required by the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. And I reiterate: no marine licence application has been submitted to NRW at this time. The Welsh Ministers are the appeals body for marine licensing, so it's not appropriate to comment on projects that are subject to that application process.

Minister, I do believe we have to be led by the science, and that science accords with the accepted international standards. And we have no way of measuring if we move away from that, and just allow a decision on other factors. I think we need to strip out any sort of national battles here. The Severn estuary is managed as an estuary. There are dumping grounds on each side, in terms of the border that runs down the middle of the estuary, and it is managed as such. However, I would say this: I don't think EDF Energy and NRW did particularly well at phase 1 on communicating with the public, because that is very, very important. And when these bodies expect politicians to be responsible, and listen to their evidence, they should remember that they also need to communicate with the public. Because if we are backing them and their science, they need to be out there, as the people best equipped to have a public discussion. Because you do need a public discussion on something like this—it's bound to be controversial.

I don't disagree with anything that David Melding says. And I know NRW have developed a communications plan. I think you're right, there were lessons, certainly, to be learned from last time, and I do believe NRW have learned those lessons, and they have detailed the steps that they will take to consult and engage widely on projects. So, just to say, obviously, everybody—and that includes everybody in this Chamber—should put their views forward to NRW.

Thank you. We now turn to spokespeople's questions. And I call the party spokesperson for Plaid Cymru, Llyr Gruffydd.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Minister, you told this Assembly, in light of the recent flooding a few weeks ago, that you had organised a meeting with the chair and chief executive of NRW, and that the resources available—be they human or financial resources—would be at the top of the agenda for that meeting. Can you give us an update on the discussion that you had and what was agreed at that meeting?

Yes. So, I met with the chair and chief executive of Natural Resources Wales yesterday and I think it's another opportunity, Deputy Presiding Officer, to pay tribute to the NRW staff who worked tirelessly, and are still working tirelessly, now for, it's probably getting on for a month now, isn't it, since we first had storm Ciara? We did discuss, obviously, the flooding in great detail. I think it took up probably three quarters of the meeting. There are clearly some issues around human resources. So, I think there's just over 300 staff who work in NRW on flooding. There are some vacancies still, and whilst we have seen a drop in the number of vacancies, there are still some vacancies that they are seeking to fill. In relation to funding, further funding was offered should they need it in the initial response to the clean-up. At the present time, they don't need that funding, but clearly that offer is still on the table. 

It is disappointing that there are vacant posts, because, of course, they have been shown up at a moment when all that workforce was required—and I join with you in paying tribute to those who were working—but at that time when they needed to be at their very best, unfortunately they didn't have a full complement of staff. Now, I've consistently raised with you—and you will be aware of this—the need to ensure that core resources are available for NRW, and that they are sufficient. It's a matter of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, very often, if something happens and then the funding is made available. That funding should be in place year on year to ensure that the capacity is in place.

Many of those who have suffered floods are now facing a long journey when it comes to restoring their properties, and the first step, after cleaning up the initial mess, will be the dry-out process, and they will need dehumidifiers and industrial heaters in order to do that. And, of course, there will be energy and heating costs that could be very substantial as a result of that. I am aware, of course, that the Government itself is offering some support, but I want to return to a point that I have raised with you previously, namely this fact that we do see ad hoc levels of support across Wales, where those who suffer in Wales see very different levels of support available in different areas, and it's not just differences between England and Wales, which occur of course, but even within Wales, where we see differences in support in south Wales as opposed to north Wales, for example.

Can I ask you, in principle, are you comfortable with a position where there is a different level of support available for people dependent on where they live? It is a kind of postcode lottery. And if you're not comfortable with that principle, then what are you as a Government doing to work with local authorities to ensure that everyone, wherever they are in Wales, receives the same support that they deserve?

So, just to go back to your initial comments around NRW, as I said to you, I made it very clear yesterday that there was further funding, not just from—actually, very little from my portfolio; the majority of the funding that we are bringing forward comes from my colleague Julie James's portfolio. I've made sure that there's funding from my portfolio in relation to the clean-up operation and what's needed immediately, and NRW stressed that at the current time they did not need any additional funding. And certainly they are trying very hard to fill those vacancies, but you will appreciate that flood engineers, for instance, are not people that you can acquire very easily, but they have been working hard and we have seen a reduction in the number of vacancies that they did have, certainly since back in the autumn, when I first raised that concern with them.

In relation to the level of support, you will be aware that it doesn't matter where you live in Wales, the level of funding and support we are giving to households whether they're insured or not insured is absolutely the same. I assume that you are referring to the fact that Rhondda Cynon Taf council are also giving £500 to each household that's been flooded. It's a matter for each local authority whether they decide to give that additional funding. I know your next question is probably going to be, 'Well, some councils can afford it more easily than others.' I don't think any council can afford it easily. I think they've looked at their reserves, the level of reserves they've kept for a rainy day, if you pardon the pun, and clearly they've chosen to do that.

Well, you haven't answered my question because I asked whether you were comfortable with the principle that people were receiving different levels of support based on where they were in Wales, and what you were doing to work with local authorities to see if you could bring their level of commitment up to where it should be. You didn't address that, but there we are, maybe you'll do so in a moment. 

Yesterday I attended a meeting of the cross-party group on woodlands, forestry and timber, and attention was drawn to the fact that one of the trees that has the biggest role in tackling flooding was the particular strain of tree that is used to capture floodwaters.

Now, we know very well that very many of these trees are dying because of ash tree disease. But I now know that the project board working on that disease in trees hasn't met for very many months. Given the importance of ash in terms of addressing flood, and very importantly in terms of the risk to public safety in seeing these trees dying and falling, why hasn't that group met for so long? How seriously is the Government taking ash dieback disease and what are the next steps that you will take in terms of tackling that particular disease?

I will have to write to the Member with an update on the last meeting of the ash dieback disease group, because I don't have those figures to hand. 

In relation to 'am I comfortable?' I don't really think that's a matter for me. If a local authority wants to give extra support to a household that's been traumatised by flooding, who am I to say that that local authority shouldn't do that? I think, certainly at the flood summit that the First Minister convened in recess—both myself and my colleague Julie James were there—there were quite a few representatives from a variety of local authorities from right across Wales; certainly, the Welsh Local Government Association leader, Andrew Morgan, was there, who obviously is the leader of Rhondda Cynon Taf County Borough Council. They were very grateful for the funding that was given from Welsh Government, but I do think it is a matter for each local authority. If they choose to support their residents in that way, well, that's a matter for them, not for me.

Conservative spokesperson, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Minister, at the moment, all the news seems to be about coronavirus, and rightly so, and the concerns that Government are addressing through their various summits and meetings. Your department has a critical role to play, especially in the farm support system, and this is a critical period of time, with the single farm payment application window now open and closing on 15 May. Many applications for calf passports, for example, are very time-sensitive—have to be in by a certain date, as do grant applications.

What discussions have you had within the department about, if, as is forecast, there could be as much as a 20 per cent absentee rate because of sickness in departments and work places? Have you modelled that into the way you will handle the applications around the single farm payment window, and other important grant applications, as well as inspections, because, otherwise, if force majeure isn't a consideration, many businesses—rural businesses—that depend on these application windows could fall foul of the system?

Well, clearly, this is a piece of work that is being done right across Government. We had an additional Cabinet meeting this morning specifically on coronavirus, and every department obviously is looking at the impact of the disease, and, as you say, my department—you're referring to obviously the internal workings of my department, but we're looking at it right across Government. Clearly, a lot of our staff can work from home, which is helpful if they need to self-isolate, et cetera, but we are going to have to look at those who can't do their job from home, obviously, and inspections is clearly one. 

This will be something that we will continually start to work up now we've seen some of the projected figures and the reasonably worst scenario. So, this is an ongoing piece of work. We'll have to be very flexible. It's the same for this Chamber, isn't it? If 20 per cent or more of us are unable to attend the Senedd sittings, obviously business will be affected. So, this is something that we're looking at right across Government, and I'm sure the Commission are too.

I'm grateful for that answer, and I appreciate we're very much in the foothills at the moment, because the condition is obviously unfolding before us, but, for many rural businesses, there are very stiff penalties and sanctions if you don't hit those dates, especially with your application for single farm payment support. I use a very simple description as well about calf passports—if it's not registered within 28 days and processed, obviously then the animal is just discarded for human consumption, it is. And so, I'd be grateful, when you're in possession of better information—better-quality information, if you like, which could give indications of what measures you're putting in place to deal with maybe missed deadlines and worst-case scenarios so that people can have confidence that they will not be penalised because it is through no fault of their own—. Also, could I understand from you, Minister, how your department is interacting with the food supply chain? Because, again, if you look at the forecast ahead, with a 20 per cent absentee rate because of illness and the condition unfolding—and the peak months are May and June, we're told by the medical professionals—what work is the Welsh Government doing with food producers—and processors, importantly—to make sure that the food supply chain here in Wales is robust, and ultimately can deliver into shops and into the catering establishments that people require on a day-to-day basis?

If I can take your first point first, I think we have to have that flexibility and I think Julie James's portfolio is a classic example of how you have to have that flexibility, and something we've done in flooding and I think—. I probably may get a question on this later, but Rhianon Passmore certainly raised it with the First Minister yesterday and that was about, if a local authority is collecting flood-damaged furniture, for instance, from people's homes, would that be counted against their recycling targets? And the First Minister and the Minister for Housing and Local Government made it very clear that there will be flexibility around that, and I think it will be the same now. As this continues to unfold, we're going to have to have that flexibility, and, again, working with, obviously, food processors, food producers, that is clearly something we're going to have to work on. It's also—. I've been asked a question now about do companion animals, for instance, carry coronavirus and the short answer is: at the moment, we have no evidence of that, but clearly we need to keep a watching eye on that. So, there is so much early work that is now having to be accelerated, I think, in light of the action plan that came out for the four countries yesterday, et cetera.

Given, obviously, we've talked extensively in this Chamber about nitrate vulnerable zones here, and the Government regulations around NVZs, are you in a position to say whether the regulations, as you envisage them, will be tabled before the end of this term—prior to Easter, obviously? Because, again, not wishing to be alarmist, but, with such major change in the rules and regulations, if the coronavirus does spread out as envisaged, with massive implications over the help and support that might be there—we're talking, as I said, about 20 per cent of the workforce being off at any one time—is that really a sensible time to be bringing forward such major changes? I can hear some Labour backbenchers saying 'yes'. Well, obviously that's the view that they might have, but, ultimately, if you're on the receiving end of these regulations and rule changes as envisaged, you're going to need quite a bit of help and support to (a) understand them, (b) implement them, and (c) and not fall foul of the rules and end up in court because of them. So, I ask you: are those regulations anticipated to be with us before Easter, and, if the coronavirus does unfold as projected, would it be sensible now to delay the implementation of such regulations until we're in a more robust position to make sure that help and support can be put in place so people don't fall foul of the rules and regulations?

They will be tabled before the end of this term.

Thank you. I'm committed to increasing our rate of tree planting to 2,000 hectares per year. We're investing £4.5 million to begin establishing a national forest. This will accelerate the rate of tree planting in Wales alongside other policies, such as the Glastir woodland creation scheme.

Of course, we as individuals could do something more as well, and plant trees in our own gardens. I also want to stress the importance of trees in reducing pollution, flooding and acting as carbon stores. What support is the Welsh Government giving to agroforestry, which would help with flood mitigation, reduce flash flooding and reduce overland flows?

Thank you. I recognise the wide-ranging benefits that planting trees, including for agroforestry, can bring. Increasing the woodland cover in Wales is a core part of our low-carbon delivery plan to tackle climate change and, as you say, it can also address poor air quality and flooding issues. One of the key priorities of the draft national strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management in Wales is to deliver more natural interventions and catchment approaches to help improve environmental resilience and I think one thing that we have seen over the past month is you can't just keep building higher walls and using more concrete. We need to look at those natural interventions.

Our sustainable management scheme has also supported collaborative landscape-scale projects, and that takes action to improve the resilience of our natural resources across Wales and those include flood risk management on the River Clwyd, increasing resilience within our iconic Welsh woodlands in sites right across Wales, and nature-based solutions in the Dyfi catchment, and also revitalising our precious peatland and upland habitats throughout Wales. And I think you made a very important point at the beginning, Mike Hedges, that we can all play a part—if we're able to—by planting trees in our gardens.

I think Mike Hedges makes a really good point to bring this question up, because they are so important, and I really respect the 2020 target that the Welsh Government have of 2,000 hectares of trees to be planted per year. However, I am concerned that, in tandem with that, and, as a response to a freedom of information request submitted by the Welsh Conservatives, we established that, across the four NRW managed sites, where onshore windfarms are located, a total of 1,938,400 trees have been felled, which is the equivalent of 1,155 hectares of trees being lost. So, essentially, there's a hole in the bottom of this bucket, isn't there—as you are planting them, they're being felled. So, Minister, can you just give us some idea of the rationale behind that? And will you also then be committed to increasing your rate of replanting, given that NRW are felling almost as fast as Welsh Government are trying to plant?

I'm not aware of the specific reasons around the figure that Angela Burns refers to, but, certainly, replanting is just as important for me as new sites as well. But I'll certainly look into that figure and provide the Member with a response as to why that is the case. But NRW are very aware of the target that we have, our need to reach it. I don't think 2,000 hectares is overly ambitious. I think we really should be able to do that, and, clearly, with the national forest as well, I'm very hopeful that that figure will be reached.

Minister, my question's basically the same as Angela's. Under the freedom of information request, more than 1.5 million trees have been felled on NRW land to make way for windfarms across Wales. My second part would be: what measures does your Government take to mitigate the loss of such vast swathes of the ecosystem, and how can you justify one against the other?

So, just to add to my answer to Angela Burns, it is important that NRW recognise the need for replanting, and clearly there are diseased trees that we have to also make sure that we are able then to replant after a certain time has passed. I think tree planting is a long-term aspiration. I've been the first to hold my hands up and say we are not planting a sufficient number of trees, for a variety of reasons, but we are committed to doing better in future, so that we can tackle biodiversity and climate change emergencies, and deliver those multiple benefits that Mike Hedges referred to in his initial questions.

Minister, you identified disease as one of the reasons we're felling. Obviously, in the Afan valley, we saw the first of the diseased trees being felled, and they're still being felled up there now. Replanting is crucial. Therefore, will you have discussions with NRW to ensure that their plans for replanting are implemented as quickly as possible? Because not only does it affect the trees, but also it affects industry and businesses that benefit from the mountain biking up in the Afan valley, which are losing customers because of the felling.

Yes, certainly I will have that conversation with NRW. I think—the other quarter of the meeting that we had yesterday, when we weren't talking about flooding, we were talking about timber and tree planting, et cetera. So, they are very aware of that. And the need to plant the right tree in the right place—that's also very important.

Thank you. The management of coal tips is the responsibility of the landowner. In many cases, this will be a local authority, Natural Resources Wales or the Coal Authority. Where there are concerns about a coal tip, the relevant authorities have powers to inspect them and, if necessary, to undertake remedial work.

Thank you for that answer. It seems that—. My concern is that, when the First Minister said that all these organisations had responsibilities for inspecting these tips—I just worry whether there's any overlap of responsibility where one organisation may not be clear who’s doing what. In respect of Welsh Government owned land, is it solely a matter for NRW to assure you and us? And where—. You said the landowner was responsible, but then you listed various organisations who might not be the landowner, for instance, if it's private land. What then is the responsibility of the Coal Authority versus the local authority in which that land is?

I think you highlight some very important points, which we are obviously looking at very urgently and very carefully. You'll be aware from the First Minister's answers that he met with the Secretary of State for Wales and, clearly, this is something that, in the immediate aftermath of the landslip that we did see, they discussed: coal tip safety. 

In relation to your question around Welsh Government land: yes, it is NRW. Across all of these coal tips there are, as I say, local authorities, Natural Resources Wales or Welsh Government, the Coal Authority, and there are some private owners. I don't think it's too much to ask to have a register of all these. I think that's something that we need to get up and running very quickly. Clearly, even if it's a private landowner, the local authority, where that would be, would have the powers to go in and inspect it, for instance.

So, I think it's really important that we bring this piece of work to a close as quickly as possible. I know there was a further meeting last Friday at official level. There was a meeting this morning, certainly with my officials and I think the Coal Authority, again. So, I want to reassure people that it's something that's being looked at very urgently. 

Minister, the recent landslide in Tylorstown in the Rhondda valley evoked distressing memories of the terrible tragedy that occurred in Aberfan in 1966. Last year, it was announced that the Coal Authority had been awarded a five-year contract by Natural Resources Wales to undertake tip and quarry inspections in south Wales. Ultimately, the best solution is for these tips to be removed altogether. Minister, what discussions have you had with the Coal Authority and Natural Resources Wales with regard to removing this blight from the Welsh landscape? 

I think you're absolutely right, it was certainly very emotive. When I visited Tylorstown with the First Minister, you couldn't help but think back to that dreadful time. Certainly, talking to residents, it was clearly something that they were thinking of and that's why it was so important that the First Minister met so quickly with the Secretary of State. Those discussions happened at that meeting. I think it was something that we looked at. I think it's really important that, perhaps, we have one body that oversees all of these, rather than the dispersed way it is at the moment, which Mark Reckless referred to in his opening question. As I say, this is a piece of work that we are doing very quickly in order to be able to bring—. Obviously, the First Minister will want to report to Members. 

Minister, last week, when I questioned the First Minister on what was being done to assess the safety of coal tips following recent heavy rain, he told me that all the tips that posed the greatest risk will have been investigated by the end of last week. So, can you confirm if this has happened and can you inform us whether these assessments have discovered anything that would cause us concern? The safety of people is clearly paramount, and has to be, so can you also inform us if standards of safety are being recalibrated to take into account a future climate where heavy rainfalls and floods are going to be more common?

Finally, there was no word from the First Minister on my question about the return of land reclamation schemes for brownfield sites. Those land reclamation schemes have been demanded, as I understand it, by local authorities after being cut by your Government just a few years ago. Has your Labour Government considered a u-turn on land reclamation schemes funding to ensure that former coal tips are not just available for economic use but that we can all be confident that they are made safe?

In response to your last question about the discontinued land reclamation scheme, I'm not aware of any discussions, but that wouldn't fall within my portfolio, I don't think, so it could be that another Minister would be looking at that. 

I think your point about standards is really important. I think we do need to look at standards, because clearly when those tips were there originally, the words 'climate change' hadn't even been discussed. So, I think, certainly as part of this ongoing piece of work, standards will need to be looked at. 

I haven't been given a report around the inspections. As far as I know, all the inspections have been completed and I'm awaiting a piece of information about that, which I'd be very happy to share with Members if possible. 

Could I ask how much of the inspections, which I very much welcome, will deal not only with the large and obvious coal tips and coal deposits that still remain in some valleys, but also those which actually have been subject of reclamation previously, where you have, for example, housing, roads or other infrastructure built on top of it? Because it would seem to me that the same issues of saturated land and increasingly traumatic and increasingly frequent heavy flooding and rain may have issues for those.

Now, I'm not sure that those are within the investigations, but I'd like to reassure my constituents that things such as former opencast sites, roads and rails that are built, in effect, on coal sidings, that those will also be investigated as well. And if she doesn't have the answer now, I wonder if she could write to me, particularly in respect of my own constituency. 

My understanding is that it was the high-risk tips that were being looked at as a matter of urgency by the end of last week. So, I think what you're referring to is obviously a significant piece of work, which I don't have the timescale on, but I'll certainly look at your own constituency and write to you. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, I understand you've given your permission for questions 5 and 8 to be grouped. The Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides local authorities with the necessary powers to investigate dust complaints as a statutory nuisance. If proven, the local authority can require any responsible party to mitigate any dust nuisance identified. 'Planning Policy Wales' also provides guidance to help minimise dust impacts on communities.

The Minister will recall that, on a number of occasions, I've raised issues relating to operations at Gelliargwellt Uchaf Farm in Gelligaer in my constituency, and the operations run under the banner of Bryn Group, which is the business there. The site run by Bryn Group includes a quarry for the supply of aggregates and, as such, blasting takes place on a regular basis. I get a lot of complaints from residents about dust nuisance and vibrations across the community of Gelligaer. Dust is a nuisance by-product, and residents feel strongly that it's having a detrimental impact on the local environment and on their lives. It can also be seen at nearby Llancaiach Fawr Manor, so there is a question of whether that has an impact on tourism as well.

I understand the Environmental Protection Act 1990 is the Act that Caerphilly County Borough Council defers to when considering action against statutory nuisance complaints, and that Act doesn't provide enough power to deal with these issues in the community of Gelligaer. Therefore, does the Minister feel that legislative change is required so that the impact of dust nuisance can be dealt with more effectively by local authorities, and particularly by Caerphilly County Borough Council in this instance, in order to deal with what is becoming an increasing problem?    

So, I haven't been given any advice that that legislation needs to be looked at or refreshed. What I have been reassured of is that officers from Caerphilly council's environmental health team do respond to all complaints. I know there's a dust mitigation scheme for the site. I also know that Caerphilly council and NRW had a lot of complaints about this site. The council have also undertaken periodic dust monitoring within both Penybryn and Gelligaer communities. They have recorded dust levels typical of ambient levels, and also as a precaution they have installed a permanent PM10 monitor within the Penybryn community, which has been shared with Public Health Wales, who've not identified any concerns. But I'd be very happy to meet with the Member to discuss those particular points, if you think it would be helpful. 

Dust from the Kronospan works has been visible on people's cars and windows in Chirk for many, many years, and local residents are hugely concerned about the impact that breathing in that dust over the longer term has on their health. Monitoring by Wrexham County Borough Council only measures the larger particulates, the PM10s, while there's nothing in place to measure the smaller PM2.5s, which can get into the lungs, and the chemicals associated with the plants, such as formaldehyde. Because of this, local residents are worried that their long-term health is going to suffer, but particularly their children in nearby schools as well. So, when will this Government make sure that the health and safety of the residents of places such as Chirk are protected by improving monitoring for both chemicals and the smaller particulates, and that that monitoring happens in an open and transparent way?

We obviously take the concerns—. You've referred to Kronospan and Chirk in particular. We obviously take their concerns very seriously. You'll be aware there's ongoing work in relation to that. You'll be aware of what we're doing across Wales in relation to the clean air Wales programme, the clean air plan for Wales, and we will be bringing forward a clean air Act for Wales.

In relation to PM10 and PM2.5, typically, the sizes of visible dust particles are too large to be breathed in, so the health risks and impacts are not the same as they are for exposure to smaller fractions such as PM10 and PM2.5. You'll also be aware that NRW will be the whole regulator for that site from the summer. Another thing that I have discussed with NRW is I think there needs to be much better engagement with the residents of Chirk around a lot of their concerns. I think that hasn't been the case with the local authority, and when NRW do take over as whole regulators for the site, I really stress the importance of community engagement in their regulatory role.

In fact, only yesterday, a study reported in The Times found that air pollution causes more deaths than the total from wars, malaria, AIDS and smoking put together. Referring to the fire at Kronospan, in the days that followed, as you might know, the new MP, Simon Baynes, for Clwyd South had an eight-hour surgery with residents there discussing their concerns about the air quality problems they'd experienced following the fire—not just people in Chirk, but also the surrounding area. He also met the council, the chief executive, Kronospan, the town council and so on.

A typical e-mail I got from a constituent about this: 'I live three miles away and have been affected by the smoke even with windows closed.' That was three days after the fire started. The people of Chirk need answers and assurance that all the issues at Kronospan will be taken seriously. We need independent, regular, unannounced visits to monitor air pollution.

I contacted Natural Resources Wales and I did get a helpful response. They reconfirmed that the complication is caused by the regulation being split between themselves and Wrexham council, and that although they put in a request at the multi-agency meeting for temporary air-monitoring equipment, it's down to the council to continue with longer term air monitoring in Chirk.

So, can you confirm when the split regulation is due to end, which in previous correspondence on behalf of Chirk residents I understand is planned for, and also how you respond to the call for independent, regular, unannounced visits to monitor air pollution in and around Chirk?

Well, I'm not sure if the Member heard me, but I said in my answer to Llyr Huws Gruffydd it will be in the summer. I am aware of the concerns of having that split and, obviously, Wrexham County Borough Council are the regulators of the affected part of that site, and they've commenced their investigation, which I expect to be completed by the end of April. Certainly, as a Minister across many portfolios, I've been a fan of unannounced inspections. So, it's something I'd be very happy to discuss further with NRW.

In the last few weeks, I've organised a public meeting in Taibach in Port Talbot with the British Lung Foundation. There, I talked to many residents about the concerns that they have with dust in Port Talbot, and I understand that Tata has plans for a new chimney stack and other elements to replace the current 40-year-old extraction system from the sinter plant.

So, I'm wanting to understand what conversations you as Minister have had with Tata in relation to them changing their initiatives in this regard to make it more environmentally friendly for the people living in and around the steel plant. What was widely told to me in that public meeting was they would welcome—as you said to Hefin David—more public engagement opportunities so that they can understand exactly what these types of issues are, and how they can relay this in a way that they understand.

We all talk here of PM10s, PM2.5s, but we have to normalise what these issues are about so people understand how severe they are when they do actually go into people's lungs and they do affect their everyday lives. So, would you commit to also a public information campaign so that people across Wales are aware of the dangers in relation to air pollution, and how then the Act that you're going to put forward in relation to this matter can then mean something to them in their everyday lives?

I visited Tata back in the summer recess with David Rees, the local Member, where this was discussed, and my officials continue to have ongoing conversations with Tata around that.

I don't disagree with what you say about public engagement. For me, knowledge is power, and it's really important that we empower residents to know exactly what the dust is, for instance, what they can't see. I think it's really important that they have that knowledge. And, clearly, as we've had that consultation around the plan and then forward to the Act, I think that's something that we need to look at very, very carefully.

Thank you. Welsh Government has a number of schemes in place to support people affected by the recent flooding across Wales, including the discretionary assistance fund for individuals, and a business support package. We're also supporting local authorities through the emergency financial assistance scheme.

Thank you, Minister. I welcome the Welsh Government's statement that was published today announcing £2.5 million support for businesses affected by flooding. That will certainly be of some comfort to the estimated 450 businesses that have been affected throughout Rhondda Cynon Taf.

Now, I know that you are aware, Minister, of the statistics that have been published by the Royal Meteorological Society this week, suggesting that the south Wales Valleys will see an estimated 50 per cent increase in rainfall over the next 10 years due to climate change. So, I'm very interested in the work that NRW might possibly be able to do to militate against the worst effects of this. Three key issues have been raised with me repeatedly by constituents who were among the estimated 750 homes affected in RCT. The first is replanting of trees, and I note your answers to other Members in this Chamber today on that.

The second one is dredging, and many constituents feel really passionately, knowing their communities, that rivers have been dredged very thoroughly in past years, but that, over the recent 10 or 20 years this approach has fallen out of favour. So, I'd be interested in your views on this and the message that I can convey to my constituents on that.

And the last one is about staffing. Again, I note your comments to other Members on this, but I'm talking about boots on the ground, really—people who can clear debris, keep rivers free-flowing. And even in this time of austerity, would it be possible for the Welsh Government to consider increasing the numbers of those types of staff working for NRW so that replanting of trees and keeping our channels free of debris could be prioritised?

Thank you. On the specific three points you raised, just to add, really, to previous answers around tree planting, I know that NRW's board have approved an umbrella woodland creation programme, and what I've asked them to do is really move ahead with that implementation and look at the areas where that can be expedited.

In relation to staff recruitment, and clearly you're talking about, as you say, boots on the ground, I mean, it's something I'm very happy to raise with NRW. We do talk about staffing, but we tend to talk about—. I mentioned flood engineers and making sure that they have their full quota of that. But that's certainly something I will raise with them.

And in relation to dredging, obviously NRW and local authorities are undertaking watercourse maintenance—clearing those obstructions, managing the vegetation, removing sedimentation, for instance. Large-scale dredging of river channels, I'm informed, is not an effective solution to reduce flooding, and what really concerned me was that it can actually make matters worse. So, I think, in the extreme weather that we've seen, for example, the volume of water far exceeds what the river channel can hold, irrespective of dredging works. But I think it's certainly something that we need to look at very carefully because, clearly, we wouldn't want to make matters worse.

Minister, I wonder if you could provide an update on the flood disaster relief funding for Wales that was promised by the UK Prime Minister when he said in Parliament a week ago that the UK Government are

'committed to working flat out with the Welsh devolved administration to ensure everybody gets the flood relief that they need. And that cash, yes of course will certainly be passported through'.

Have you had any cash passported through to you?

Not that I'm aware of.

You do have to have the demand first, before you pass the cash on, and I don't think a demand's gone forward.

But if I could ask my question, the point I would like to ask is: we had the all-party group on woodland and forestry yesterday, and various Members challenged some of the experts around the table as to why there isn't greater woodland planting in some of the upland areas. The response that came back was that some of the rules and regulations around the management of those upland areas make it prohibitive, if not impossible, to plant woodland on those areas. Would you concur with that evidence that was put before us yesterday, and if you don't, will you actively encourage greater woodland plantations in the uplands, which could help alleviate some of the flooding further down by greater absorption further upstream?

It's something I have been actively encouraging, and, certainly, as we've been scoping the national forest, which you will be aware was the First Minister's manifesto commitment, over the last year, it's something that we've certainly been, as I say, actively encouraging and looking at.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 2 on the agenda is questions to the Minister for Housing and Local Government. Question 1—David Rowlands.

The Welsh Government has no plans to reorganise our 22 principal councils. Where voluntary merger proposals come forward, we will act to support them. 

I thank you for that answer, Minister. In the Welsh Labour manifesto for the 2016 Welsh Assembly elections, there was a commitment to create stronger, larger local authorities that would lead to devolution of powers from Cardiff bay. We know that your predecessor told us that councils had to change, or he would make them change. Can you please explain why your manifesto pledge was not adhered to?

I set out my plans for local government in my Plenary statement on 19 November, which introduced the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill. That statement very clearly set out that the reforms in the Bill will improve transparency, governance and performance, and also provide a framework for more consistent, effective, collaborative working that will enable local government to be more efficient and better able to deal with the pressure it faces.

In 2020-21, local authorities will receive £4.474 billion from the Welsh Government in core revenue funding to spend on delivering key services. That equates to an increase of 4.3 per cent on a like-for-like basis compared to the current year. That's the best settlement we have been able to provide for local government for many years. The Member will, therefore, be aware that we have very much kept our manifesto commitment.

Minister, funding cuts to local authorities have resulted in councils having to reconsider the way they provide services to deliver savings. In some cases, they're sharing services with neighbouring local authorities. However, councils in Wales inevitably focused on short-term measures to balance their budgets, rather than investing in longer term measures to transform services. Since they do not know what future settlements will be, what action is the Minister taking to provide local authorities with more certainty about future settlements to allow them to develop more robust medium-term financial planning and thereby help avoid the risk of local government reorganisation, resulting in higher costs for taxpayers in Wales?

I applaud Mohammad Asghar's wish and desire to give local government certainty over their funding. I really wish that the Government that he supports at the UK level also shared that desire. You'll know that we only have a single-year budget. If we'd had the comprehensive spending review that his Government had promised us, we would not be in that position. We've given local authorities the best settlement that we could in the circumstances. He will be aware, as the rest of us are, that his Government has not even brought the budget forward in the normal time constraints this year.

Thank you for the question. Statistics regarding households on social housing waiting lists are not collected by the Welsh Government. However, recognising the very real need, we continue to prioritise investment in increasing the supply of affordable housing. This will contribute towards easing pressure on waiting lists.

It's astonishing that you don't have, as a Government, detailed national data on the number of people who are waiting for social housing in Wales. Given that this is one of your priorities, namely, providing more social housing, how are you monitoring that your policies are effective if you don't know exactly what is the position? In Arfon, I know that there are too many people waiting for social housing. They are in inappropriate homes. They're too small for the requirements of their families. They're damp and costly in terms of bills, or people are relying on the goodwill of their families and friends. Or, of course, they have to live on the street because there isn't enough social housing.

Gwynedd Council, I know, has innovative plans to build more social housing to meet the need locally, but I ask you again: how can you provide enough homes if you don't know what 'enough' means because the data isn't available?

Yes, well, I understand the connection that Siân Gwenllian is trying to make, and I share the desire behind it. But, in fact, the housing waiting list is not an indication of housing need, as such, because people go on waiting lists for all kinds of reasons. For example, they might want to move for a particular reason, but not actually be in housing need. We don't encourage only people in dire housing need to go on to a council house waiting list; there will be people who want to move within the area who are not 'in need', as such, they have reasons other than not currently being in an insecure home.

So, I applaud the point of the question, which is how we assess need, really, across Wales. We do that in a number of ways. We monitor, for example, the units actually let as social housing units. So, at 31 March 2019, Wales had a total of 231,408 units of social housing let. The new lettings increased by 4 per cent during 2018-19 to 21,135  lettings, 61 per cent of those were on the housing waiting list, up 2 per cent on the previous year to 12,863 of those. The proportion of lettings for households rehoused on a priority basis due to being homeless increased again, and the overall number of types of lettings was up by 15 per cent on the previous year.

So, we are doing it the other way around; we are doing it by actual lettings rather than the list, if you see what I mean. Having said that, though, we do encourage combined housing lists in areas, because there are other benefits, other than understanding the need—not least that in areas with a combined housing list, you can make one application and be considered by all of the social landlords. In 19 of the 22 local authorities, we have a combined list. We have three that don't, and they have different partnership arrangements. What we don't want is somebody to apply to lots of different landlords to acquire their social home.

I have got a piece of research out at the moment to look at how we might be able to list housing need, as opposed to people who want to be on the housing waiting list. I don't wish to discourage people who aren't 'in need' from going on those waiting lists. There are large numbers of people who know, perhaps, that they aren't going to get to the top of a points-based system, but nevertheless want to register for a council house because some of them become available in other circumstances. So, I do have that piece of research out, and I am hoping to be able to announce it in the forthcoming weeks.

After social housing waiting list figures for 2018 were published, showing more than 16,500 households on social housing waiting lists in Wales, Shelter Cymru referred to the situation as a housing crisis. But, of course, it was during the second Assembly, when the Homes for All Cymru campaign, including Shelter, warned that there would be a housing crisis if the Welsh Government didn't reverse its new social housing cuts—in fact, cut by over 70 per cent in the first three terms of the Assembly.

Reducing pressure on social housing waiting lists includes—and I agree with you on this—greater supply of broader affordable housing, whether that's intermediate rent or low-cost home ownership. Why, therefore, do you think it is that the NHBC's new homes registered figures published a month ago, for 2019, show that, although new homes registered in England and Scotland went up, they fell in Wales from 5,448 to 4,769?   

That's a wholly different topic—the subject of new build, not social housing. I do find it extraordinary that, on the Conservative benches, you stand up and berate us for not building social housing when you wouldn't take the housing revenue account caps off us until the end of last year, and you stopped us using houses sold from the social sector into the private sector—. You stopped us using that money to build new social housing. I just think that you have got the brass neck of—. Well, I am speechless with your brass neck, to be honest—[Laughter.]—that you've actually put that to me. The reason that we have dire social housing need is because you sold the social housing stock.

Minister, the—[Interruption.]

You stopped us, having the HRA cap—[Interruption.]

No. Thank you. We're not having this across the Chamber. You'll go through the Chair, and I have just called another Member to speak—Huw Irranca-Davies.

I'm pleased to say that the Minister has never been speechless. But, could I say, we're not alone in Ogmore in having people on the social housing list waiting for accommodation, for different types of units, and at the same time we have many empty properties, often above shops, in the Valleys, that with the grants that are now available from Welsh Government for regeneration, with a bit of joined-up thinking, could be turned into social housing units? So, how does a council like Bridgend, a council leader like Huw David, and his officials, engage with Welsh Government to join this up and say, 'Well, we can develop as a local authority, with other housing associations, those derelict properties to turn them into lovely homes for people'?

Yes, you're absolutely right, and we have a number of examples of that. My colleague Hannah Blythyn has been touring Wales, looking at various examples of bringing exactly that kind of property back into use. And we have a number of schemes that allow—. In circumstances where those properties are owned in the private sector, we have a number of schemes that allow those private landlords to come forward and give the property up for social rent for five years, in return for returning the property to a liveable standard and so on. And, in a recent meeting with Newport council, for example, we were shown a set of schemes in the centre of Newport in which the properties above the shops had been brought back into beneficial use. That provides homes for people, but it also provides vibrancy and much needed footfall in the town centre, and my colleague Hannah Blythyn has been pushing our regeneration initiative in town centres for exactly that reason. 

Minister, over the next five to 10 years, the number of one-person households is expected to increase by 15 to 20 per cent. We know we already have a shortage of good quality single-bedroomed accommodation available for social rent. There are around 60,000 single-bed social housing properties in Wales, but half of these are supported or sheltered housing. Minister, given that the majority of one-person households are in the under-65 age category, and expected to rise, what plans does your Government have to increase the number of single-bed properties available for social rent?

So, the system in Wales is that we expect the local authorities to make an assessment of housing need, and then we tailor our social housing grant to match that. We're in the process, as a result of the affordable housing review, of looking again at the way that we do social housing grants, and, Deputy Presiding Officer, I do hope to be able to bring forward an oral statement, certainly before the summer recess, detailing that. So, we've accepted the affordable housing review's recommendations in principle, but I want to bring forward an implementation plan that tells you how we're taking that forward. And part of the recommendations, if you remember from that review, were that we looked again at the way we did social housing grants, and we allowed it to be better targeted at the kinds of households that are coming forward. 

Actually, a very large number of the single households in Wales are women over 70. So, you need very different accommodation for young, single households than you do for older households, and different arrangements, so we do need to have a very good assessment of housing need. But, in principle, I agree with you; we need to look again and see that our systems produce the kind of housing that we most need. 

We now turn to spokespeople's questions. Conservative spokesperson, David Melding. 

Deputy Presiding Officer, I rise with some trepidation, given the slightly dramatic exchanges earlier, but if I can pursue my duties here of scrutiny. Does the Minister still believe that the target of building 20,000 affordable homes over the Assembly term will be met? By my calculation, you've got 6,500 to go in 13 months or so. And where is the current shortfall? Is it more with social homes, or those under the Help to Buy and similar schemes?

So, yes, we do expect the 20,000 target to be met. In fact, we've already exceeded the bit of it that was Help to Buy and so on. However, I've answered on a number of occasions across this Chamber issues around what we mean by 'affordable.' And the 20,000 homes was very much set in the definition of affordable that we had at that time, and in the light of the exchange we just had across the floor, in the light of the cap still being very firmly in place on the housing revenue accounts in local authorities, preventing them from borrowing and reinvesting in social housing. Since then, since that target was set, that's changed, and so we've moved our focus very firmly on to building at pace and scale for social housing because that's the biggest gap. We still need private sector housing to come forward, but we have a bigger catch-up on social housing than we do on private sector housing, and, just this morning, my colleague Lee Waters and I had a feisty, but very constructive meeting with the Home Builders Federation to discuss how the two sectors could come together and make the best of the land supply here in Wales. 

Of course, Minister, if we increase supply in the market sector, particularly by bringing more competition and small and medium-sized enterprises in, then we would hope to see the price of houses steady, and make them, in that way, according to classic economics, more affordable. But, I think you're right in terms of, there's a lot of confusion about affordable housing—the category—because it mixes private and public. And I just wonder whether we would be better off moving to a definition now that focuses on social housing, housing for rent. And I think it's time, as all parties in this Chamber prepare their manifestos for next year's election, to be looking at realistic but ambitious targets for social housing in the 2020s. And it's my view that we need to be building in the region of 4,000 social homes a year, or 20,000 over the term of an Assembly, in the 2020s. Do you agree?

I do very much agree. We need to look again at the definition of 'affordable', in the light of all of the powers now available to us, and in the light of the need. You're absolutely spot on on the figures, in terms of the social housing that we need, and that's just a catch-up to where we should be. And the conversation I had with Siân Gwenllian around how we define housing need, actually what we're talking about in the figures you've just quoted is just getting people out of temporary accommodation into permanent, secure accommodation. There may well be other categories of need that we currently don't meet at all, but that we would like to meet once we've got the people who really aren't in adequate housing into that kind of housing. So that's why it's a difficult balance to make.

The definition of 'affordable' though is worth exploring, because I don't want to—. Whilst I absolutely agree about houses for social rent, there are other models. There are co-operative and community models of home ownership, which are worth exploring, and which can also be made to be affordable. My own view is that the definition of 'affordable' needs to go beyond the point of sale. So, we have a definition of 'affordable' that includes Help to Buy, for example, and those homes are made more affordable by Government subsidy, so that's fine, but they aren't affordable on into their lifetime, because once they're sold the second time they go into the private sector. So I think there are some nuances that we need to look at, but, definitely, the thing needs a review.

If I may change to another subject—a very important concern—and that's whether you intend to meet with the residents at Celestia, the housing development on our own doorstep. I met with a group on Friday, and I know they'd be pleased to welcome you. The complexities of this case I do think make it something of a test case. The whole credibility of this style of development will be questioned if there is not some resolution to these complicated problems—many of them way beyond anything that could be anticipated by the residents. But I would like to know whether you are prepared, and whether you have any plans, to meet with them.

I would very much like to meet with them. I'm being advised not to do so until the outcome of their appeal, which I now understand isn't going to be until September of this year. I'm exploring with my officials whether we could set out parameters for the meeting, which would enable me to meet with them earlier. There are some things, because I'm the planning Minister, I'm just not allowed to comment on, but I feel sure we could get those parameters. My colleague Vaughan Gething has also asked if I could look at that. So I'm very happy to ask for more official advice on that.

And we're also monitoring very carefully the developments at the UK level. There have been some announcements—or semi-announcements—around things like the Leasehold Advisory Service, Lease, and so on, which we're monitoring very carefully, because we want to make sure that, whatever is announced at UK level, is fit for purpose here in Wales. And David Melding, I know, knows better than anybody in the Chamber the nuances, or the ragged edges, of devolution around land law and property law and housing, and so we are walking a little bit on egg shells—to mix my metaphors terribly—in trying to decide quite what it is we can do. But we are looking at voluntary schemes, for example, for managing agents, and voluntary schemes for estate agents, that we can do some sort of accreditation for, to make sure that people do understand as much as possible at the point of sale, and then afterwards have some kind of ongoing guarantee from the people with whom they're in privity of contract—so the builders, and so on. So I will absolutely ask again for that advice. At the moment, as I said, I'm being advised not to meet them until after the date of the appeal, which I understand is now September 2020.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Delyth Jewell.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Minister, I'd like to ask you a few questions about what action your Government is taking to help local authorities prepare to deal with the coronavirus outbreak. Firstly, I'd like to ask about home carers and the people that they care for. Does the Government have confidence that local authorities will have the capacity to ensure continued care for people who need it, if the carers themselves become ill—be they unpaid relatives or care workers in residential homes? Now, I'm aware that plans have been mooted to bring retired health workers back into the workforce within the NHS. Is this being considered for the care sector as well? And finally, can you confirm that additional resources will be made available to councils to cover any additional costs that will be accrued?

We had a special Cabinet meeting just this morning to discuss preparedness for the coronavirus outbreak, attended by all Cabinet colleagues. We've been working for some time with the local resilience fora and local authorities to make sure that we have the best possible plan. Obviously we're planning for the reasonable worst outcome, whilst hoping for the best possible outcome, but you have got to do both of those. So, we have of course discussed things like the ramifications of sickness in the various workforces, sickness in the local authorities, mutual assistance, all of the things that—. I've very pleased to say that the local resilience fora are well advanced on plans for a pandemic, not for this specific virus, but for pandemic planning. That's been going on for many, many years. And so we have got well-advanced plans for that. We don't want people to panic unnecessarily, so they should be reassured that those plans exist. They also include incorporation of large numbers of third sector bodies with whom we routinely work on public service issues—the Red Cross, voluntary councils and so on. So, we're very much planning for that reasonable worst case scenario, whilst very much hoping for the best possible outcome.

Thank you for those answers, Minister. That is reassuring, to hear that you've been discussing this literally this morning, and that the plans are in place. Obviously, where it's appropriate, it would be good to have sight of those, but I appreciate that there'll be some things that can't be shared at the same time.

You mentioned sickness in the workforce. Current advice issued by Public Health Wales is that those suspecting they have coronavirus should self-quarantine until a negative test is received. An issue that was raised in the Chamber yesterday was that of zero-hours contracts, but I think that the issue also applies to those who are self-employed or on low wages, where if those people lose shifts, they will also lose wages. We know that many people in the social care sector are on low wages, and are not benefiting from lots of employment protections as we would like to see them benefiting from.

It's particularly important that we prevent the virus spreading into residential care homes, I'm sure that you'll agree with that point, and so people working in these homes would need to have reassurance that if they don't come into work, they would be protected in that way. So, are you in a position to be able to guarantee that those workers who are often employed by local councils would not be facing any economic loss if they follow official health advice and don't go into work if they are suspected and have to self-quarantine? I don't mean just in the short term—sorry, I mean in the short term, not just hypothetical, longer term paying back if they were to develop the symptoms later.

I totally understand the point you're making. There are various categories of workers. So, certainly people employed by the local authority will be covered straight away. The Prime Minister, you will know, made some announcements about the first three days sick—some workers don't get paid for the first three days sick. That's not the case in most public services in Wales, I'm pleased to say.

But we did have a long conversation in the Cabinet this morning about some of the economic issues that arose, which my colleagues Ken Skates and Lee Waters will be looking at. But if I could just make the analogy—a poor one, I know—to the flooding that's just gone on. We have, of course, been anxious to put in place schemes for self-employed and businesspeople affected by the flooding. So, we will be ensuring that those types of schemes also exist for people who are in those circumstances, and, probably by way of assisting the businesses, hoping to help the people in the gig economy, as it's very difficult to get individual help in that way, so helping with cashflow and so on to keep that going. But we will be very much reliant, if the thing goes on a very long time, on the UK Government stepping up to the plate and making sure that it pays for issues in England in such a way that we get the consequential moneys that we so very much need in Wales to be able to protect our workforce. 

Thank you for that. I again appreciate that in some of this there's uncertainty because of what role the UK Government will be playing. Obviously, I'm sure you'll agree that the sooner we have clarity on this the better for everyone.

So, finally, I'd like to turn to the issue of enforcement. By my understanding, in Wales it's the local authorities' health officers who are responsible for issuing directives for individual to self-isolate if they believe it's necessary. And the question is: who is responsible for enforcing such a directive? There's clarity in England that the police have that authority, following the Health Protection (Coronavirus) Regulations 2020 that were passed on 10 February. Again, it's my understanding that those regulations don't extend to Wales, but the Welsh Government does have the powers to bring forth its own equivalent regulations. Could you tell me whether it's the Government's intention to do so, and if so, when?

We're currently considering the legislation that's been mooted by the UK Government, which is specific to the coronavirus, which I slightly regret because I think it should be a pandemic piece of legislation rather than specific. And once we've got clarity on exactly what that will contain, we'll be able to come forward with what we need to fill in the gaps for Wales, if I can put it that way, and until we have some clarity, we haven't taken that decision.

At the moment, though, we have good partnership working with all of our local authorities through the partnership council for Wales and through our police board. My colleague Jane Hutt is about to chair one of the meetings with police colleagues, so we're pretty sure we'll be able to sort it out locally anyway, but we will want to look at what the regulations will need to look like once we see what the UK Government is proposing in its overarching Bill.

Question 3 [OAQ55169] has been withdrawn. Question 4, Helen Mary Jones.

Certainly. Social housing remains this Government's top housing priority and we are continuing to increase the provision of social homes in Carmarthenshire and across Wales. During 2018-19, in Carmarthenshire, we provided over £6.9 million-worth of funding through our social housing grant programme. In addition, £5.7 million has been invested through the innovative housing programme.  

I'm grateful to the Minister for her answer. She'll know, and will be very pleased to know, that the Plaid Cymru-led administration there is a year ahead of target in delivering its initial 900 new council homes. And I know that the Minister will be glad that just yesterday, the local authority committed to a further 370 new homes over the next three years. And it does show what a local authority—with, indeed, I completely acknowledge, support from Welsh Government—is able to achieve when they're ready to give real leadership.

The Minister will probably be aware that the new plans in particular are looking at ways in which they can develop new housing stock that will be carbon neutral, and I know that that fits very much with the issues that the Minister has raised very much as part of her agenda. Can the Minister tell us today what further support the Welsh Government will be able to provide to local authorities to ensure that this success in Carmarthenshire can be replicated, I'm sure, elsewhere, particularly with regard to the de-carbonising of existing housing stock, which, of course, is, we all know, much more difficult to do than to build new carbon-neutral homes?

Yes, indeed, I'm very pleased that Carmarthenshie have embraced the innovative housing programme in the way that they have. We've put £5.7 million in, as I think I've already said, in the first few years to deliver 39 very innovative homes in Carmarthenshire, to monitor them to see whether they do what they say and to bring forward plans to build very many more.

In 2018-19, Carmarthenshire, as a stock-retaining authority, were allocated funding of £2.8 million to support the build of new council housing through the affordable housing grant, and then another £1.8 million in 2019-20. As I was just saying in response to an earlier question, we are looking, as a result of the affordable housing review, at the way that we do grants. The affordable housing review wanted us to look at the way we do grants for building new housing, but it also wanted us to look at the way that we do what's called 'dowry' for the large stock transfers and for the stock-retaining councils. And when I bring forward the oral statement, Deputy Presiding Officer, which I mentioned earlier, we will be covering off what we are expecting in return for what is a very substantial investment in terms of bringing existing stock—once we've done the Welsh housing quality standard, which we have—up another level. And so, that work is ongoing and I hope to be able to report it to the Assembly shortly.

Minister, you have referenced the earlier question to Caroline Jones, when she was talking about single-person homes being built, and, of course, you've just talked about the affordable housing grant, but can you please tell me how this will reflect with people who live with disabilities and who are carers? I have a case in Carmarthenshire where the person is in a wheelchair—she's been in a wheelchair for many, many years—and she's now getting older. Her husband has quite severe dementia, but they can still live together, but it's proving extremely difficult. And, of course, these grants don't recognise that, simply because you live with a disability, it does not mean that you do not have caring responsibilities—either older people or younger people. But housing stock that can be provided by the social services and by the local councils doesn't always reflect that mix in a family—it is for a disabled person or a couple, but not with the extended family. So, are you able to give direction or do you have any news for them, because we talk about houses, as you just have with Helen Mary, that are fit for the future, that are nice and sustainable, but we actually need them also to be fit and sustainable for real-life families, and they come in all types of shapes, sizes and different nucleus.

Yes, I absolutely agree, and I recognise the problem from my own case load as well. Of course, we have a whole series of adaptations and care and repair schemes that do attempt to bring current stock up to the standard necessary for people to able to maintain complex lifestyles of various sorts.

In terms of the new build that we're putting together, you will have heard me speak in the Chamber many times of housing for life, and so what we're looking to do, especially with the modular housing programme, is have a house that is built in the first place, so that it has accessible doorways, has plugs at the right height—it has all of those things, but also it can have bedrooms added, and subtracted even, as the family grows and contracts, and has all the things like wide stairs, wide doorways, level—all that sort of stuff. So, in the future, we will certainly be expecting our houses to conform to that, and we are building them. I visited one in my colleague Huw Irancca-Davies's constituency very recently that was conforming to just that pattern.

But in terms of the existing housing stock, obviously that can be very much more difficult, and in some cases impossible to do. But where it is possible, then the local authority should be able to assist through the adaptation scheme and through care and repair. If she is having particular problem with a particular constituent—if she wants to write in and I'll see what I can do.

Transforming towns across Wales and making them fit for the twenty-first century is a priority for the Welsh Government. We've continued to support the regeneration of town centres across north-east Wales, not least with projects worth £60 million focused on Rhyl, Wrexham and Holywell.

Thank you for your answer, Deputy Minister. As a fellow north-Walian, you'll know Buckley high street in my constituency very well. Unfortunately, over the years, it has seen businesses close, and it has lost all of its banks. Now, it does need real investment in the town centre to go alongside the hard work of the community in Buckley, and their hard work to support the high street. Personally, I'm determined to bring a community bank to the town, which I believe will be the starting point of regeneration. Minister, it's also key that we bring empty units back to use. So, will you commit today to join me on a visit to Buckley high street to discuss with various stakeholders how the Welsh Government can make this happen and start to regenerate towns like Buckley?

The Member for Alyn and Deeside is right, I do know Buckley high street well, not least because Buckley borders my own constituency, although, I have to say, it's a fair few years since my regular visits to the Tiv in Buckley.

You're doing great there about the way that Buckley has lost banks—the high street has changed, as many of our high streets across the country have changed, and the way we work, live and shop has changed. I know that you're continuing to do that engagement, both with Banc Cambria and the community bank, and also with my colleague the Minister for Economy, Transport and North Wales.

You talked about the blight of empty properties, and we're all familiar with these in terms of all of our town centres and high streets—properties that have been there for a number of years and we all talk about. You can't get in touch—it's difficult to get hold of the landlord or they're not in a position to do anything with it. That is why I'm really pleased we've bought in this £13.6 million enforcement fighting fund as part of the transforming towns agenda, and I'm really pleased that local authorities such as Flintshire are coming forward with identifying properties to not just use the fund, but use the expertise that will be on hand to help them tackle that moving forward.

When I announced the transforming towns agenda, I was very keen to get out and talk to communities and stakeholders about actually how we can best work together to regenerate and make them fit for the future. So, if you'd like to get in touch with my private office, I'd be more than happy to arrange an opportunity to come along.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I understand you've given permission for questions 6 and 9 to be grouped.

I'm pleased to say that all councils in Wales that have retained their social housing stock plan to build new council homes. Their ambition is to deliver around 1,790 new homes by the end of this term of Government, and we are working with them to deliver even more.

A question has arisen as to how many councils in Wales are going to be able to take advantage of opportunities in this area, because they've lost their council house stock since they transferred those to social landlords over a decade ago. Other things have changed, and there is an emphasis on councils building their own homes once again. The question is: how do councils that don't hold stock be part of that effort? So, can I ask what alternative methods the Welsh Government is going to provide to councils that don't have housing stock directly within their own ownership to be involved in creating more social housing that is truly affordable?

Yes, it's a very good point. We are, of course, supporting the 11 councils in Wales who have retained their stock of council homes, but we're also working very hard with the non-stockholding councils who did stock transfers. We do provide what's called 'dowry' to the large stock voluntary transfers—basically, they're registered social landlords, but they used to be the council housing. So, we are working very hard with them and the local council to make sure that, together, we can get an investment programme going. Of course, we put social housing plant into those and, as I said, we provide what's called 'dowry' to them as well. So, we are working very hard to make sure that people who live—. You ought not to be able to notice whether you live in a stockholding council or a non-stockholding council. What we build are social homes, and some of those will be run by our registered social landlords and some will be run by the council, and it ought not to matter to the tenant what difference that makes. 

Again, in response to the affordable housing review, we will be looking at the way that we use that grant to lever some changes in for the tenant. We want to make sure that tenant satisfaction ratings are up high, that we have the right kind of tenant participation in decision making and so on. That will affect council housing as well as the registered social landlord sector. I've also said many times in this Chamber that I'm looking at a governance review for the tenant satisfaction part of being a council house runner, not the governance and finance part, because obviously that's controlled through the local government settlement. 

I believe the only way that you're going to be able to deal with the housing shortage is to build council houses in the numbers built between 1945 and 1979, and that went across both Conservative and Labour Governments during that time, who were committed to building more and more council houses, which did deal with the problem caused after the second world war of huge numbers of people needing housing, and adequate housing. Slums were cleared. 

Authorities like Swansea, which is doing a phenomenally good job, have kept their own stock and are building houses. Those who went through stock transfer—I think perhaps some of them must be regretting it now, but you get an opportunity to regret with time—are they able to start building again, council houses? If the money's available to build council houses, are they available? I would say that I would like to give the people who made the decision to transfer to a registered social landlord the opportunity to transfer back to the local authority. I think that that would solve a lot of problems. I think it was a huge mistake people transferring out. I campaigned against it in Swansea and I'm very pleased Swansea kept their council housing. 

Well, I have to say I agree with the second bit. I also was at Swansea at the time, and Mike Hedges will certainly remember that I was on that side of the argument as well. However, the stock transfers were done in order to be able to secure the finance necessary to bring the houses up to the Welsh housing quality standard. That was then and life has very much changed now. So, I think the short answer to your question is that councils that have closed their housing revenue accounts could, if they wanted to, open the HRA account again and start up, but for small numbers of houses, that's quite an expensive route to it, and so most of them—in fact all of them, I'm pretty sure—are choosing not to do that. Gwynedd Council is building four new low-carbon homes to improve the quality of homelessness provision in the borough, but there are some complications, basically, with the way that the housing revenue account has to work as soon as you have council tenants once more, which we are exploring with them. 

What we are expecting, though, as I just said in answer to Llyr, is that in the 11 areas of Wales where councils have transferred their housing stock to a large-scale voluntary transfer housing association, we expect them to work with that LSVT housing association and other registered social landlords in their area to build social housing. I keep making the point that it's not about council housing, it's about social housing. Most people don't care much who their landlord is as long as they get good service charges, good tenant relations, good repairs, good whatever. So, what we want to do is make sure that the sector, wherever you are in Wales, steps up to that plate and we have good tenant satisfaction and good services across the social house sector. 

I'm very pleased, Minister, that in my constituency I have a number of well-established small and medium-sized construction companies very eager to undertake the building of council homes for the local authority, and the local authority is also keen that those companies also undertake the work. At the moment, the process does seem very over-complicated, and I wonder how the Welsh Government can work with local authorities to make the tendering process easier and simpler. Because I think, actually, we all want to see more indigenous local Welsh businesses actually undertake this kind of work in Wales. How can we achieve that and make the process much easier than it is at the moment?  

We are very happy as a Government to work with any authority that's struggling to resource tendering out work for itself on its own land, for example. So, if you have specific instances you want to tell me about, I'd be very happy to take them up. But, as I say, this morning I met with the Home Builders Federation, alongside my colleague Lee Waters, to discuss exactly that: how could we ease the process of builders both bringing forward their own schemes in Wales, but also acting as 'contractors' to the local authority or, indeed, the local registered social landlord that are bringing forward housing developments. We're very keen to work with the sector to ensure that a large number of SMEs are able to get their foot in that door, because that gives them some cashflow certainty when they're doing developments of their own elsewhere, because we have a number of things in place—for example, project bank accounts and so on—that are capable of easing the cashflow crisis that many small and medium firms have when they're applying for planning, for example.

And the other thing I'd just like to mention is schemes like our new self-build programme, where the local authority is expected to bring the land forward with planning on it, as long as you build one of the patterns that's available. And we are expecting that—. Although the title is 'self-build', we are expecting the people who come forward to buy these plots to employ local builders to actually build the houses; we think it's going to be a very rare instance in which a person actually physically builds it. So, the local authority is assisting with the tendering process for those as well, with a view to bringing in those little SMEs to make sure that they get a foot in that door as well. But, if you have specific issues, I'd be more than happy to discuss them with you.   

I just wanted to ask you, Minister, about, when we're talking about affordable housing in particular, whether council houses and social houses provided by social landlords are going to be affected by your plans for non-traditional construction methods, can I say? Obviously, their borrowing facility is going to be dependent on the valuation of the body of assets and, obviously, we had problems with properties that were built between the wars and in the early 1960s through concrete block construction. Can you tell us what conversations you've had with lenders about whether they're going to be concerned about this, as these are really good ideas and we don't want it to be stymied by, actually, an inability to borrow? Thank you.  

Suzy Davies raises a very good point, and we have been having those exact discussions. We're also having discussions with the various warranty and accreditation arrangements—so, the International Organization for Standardization and so on—because some of them are very old indeed and were thought up in the 1970s when lots of the new materials didn't exist. So, for example, it's often the case that they ask for reinforced concrete in various bits, which—there's no need to have that anymore. So, we have been working very hard to make sure that what we bring forward can get the right warranties, and, once it's got the right warranties, then the lenders are very happy to go ahead, but they do like to have the warranties and the ISOs in place. So, we have—. I assure you that very much part of the innovative housing programme has been testing the claims that the manufacturers make about the various types of house building, with a view to us assisting them to get the warranties in place necessary to get the houses properly financed.  

The Welsh Government is currently undertaking an access reform programme. This includes dealing with unwanted provisions of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, such as those relating to the 2026 cut-off date for historical routes highlighted by the Ramblers' 'Don't Lose Your Way' campaign.

That's good to hear and, Deputy Presiding Officer, I should declare my interest as the vice-president of Ramblers Cymru—proudly as the vice-president of Ramblers Cymru. Has she had the opportunity as Minister to go out with the Ramblers to see the new app that underpins this campaign? I've used it myself on my local paths. You can swipe from left to right. Apparently, you can do that with other apps as well, which I'm not familiar with. [Laughter.] And it overlays historic maps it overlays historic maps with current maps so you can see which maps have gone missing, and then you can, literally, as you're standing there, detail the path that has gone missing, which is in front of you but isn't down on the registered rights of way, and you submit it there online. I've done it myself. It's so easy to use. And what we're looking for, as the Ramblers, is to get tens of thousands of people across the country to make sure that they register these rights of way before the cut-off date in 2026. Has she had the opportunity to get out with her Ramblers? Has she used the app and switched left to right?  

The Ramblers app, yes? [Laughter.] So, I was really pleased I met Ramblers Cymru nationally, as a Minister, recently in the last few weeks, and I also actually met my local Ramblers group just Friday just gone. Unfortunately, the inclement weather meant that we weren't out for a walk, but we did get to sit in a lovely corner café in Caerwys. So, actually, whilst we didn't have the app or the online version of the maps, we did actually have the traditional paper maps, and I've talked through some of the lost routes at a local level. I think the Member just did an incredibly good job of promoting their campaign, and perhaps encouraging other Members to take a look and see in their own areas how they can get involved as well. As I said, I really do value the work of all the volunteers and Ramblers Cymru and the work that they do do in this way, and, as I said, the Welsh Government is working to see how we can review the 2026 cut-off date.

Thank you very much, Minister.

Item 3 on the agenda is topical questions. The first topical question this afternoon is to be answered by the Deputy Minister for Culture, Sport and Tourism. Delyth Jewell.

Thank you very much for the question. Broadcasting is non-devolved. This issue, therefore, is specifically for the consideration of the six nations committee and the broadcasters. I think it's important for me to say that the tendering process for broadcasting rights continues to be open at the moment, and, in responding today on behalf of the Welsh Government, I do so in the knowledge that there are issues that are the responsibility of the national governing bodies that are funded by us, and that there are issues here that are commercial in confidence.

Okay. Thank you for your response, Deputy Minister. What I would say is that—. Rugby is so very important to the people of Wales, and I'm sure we would agree on that.

In fact, the Six Nations Rugby games are watched by 82 per cent of the population of Wales. That's an absolutely incredible figure, and I think that, in some ways, a case can certainly be made for it being a unique case because of that.

But the debate about whether the games should move to a pay-to-view platform isn't just about rugby. It's about the fact that some things shouldn't be decided by who can pay the most. Now, I take the points that the Deputy Minister has made about the fact that this tendering process is very much still going on, that there will be matters here that will be confidential, but I do think that, because of the unique place that rugby plays in the hearts of lots of people in Wales, it is still important that we have a discussion about this in the Senedd.

Since the RFU or England Rugby sold the rights to their games to Sky a few years ago, millions of English rugby fans have been unable to watch their own team play. I don't think it's in anyone's interest for the same thing to happen to Welsh rugby.

You have mentioned some of the problems that explain why you can't answer on some of these issues, but, in terms of the Welsh language, my concern, and the concern of a number of other people as well, is that there is no certainty that commentary in Welsh will continue. So, may I ask you what discussions will you be looking to have with the Government in Westminster regarding the future of Welsh-language commentary—if S4C and Radio Cymru will still have the rights to carry on with it? And, if not, the concern is that a very large number of people in Wales will really lose out, and be disenfranchised.

If English-language coverage moves to Sky, then, put simply, the people will be priced out of their own traditions, and, I think it's fair to say, a part of their own culture. Of course, rugby is by far not the only national sport of Wales, but it does provide enjoyment to thousands of fans and inspires countless young people to pursue their own ambitions in the game, which is essential for the health of the game at a grass-roots level. So, Deputy Minister, you'll be aware that Plaid Cymru has written to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, arguing the six nations should be given the same special status in the Broadcasting Act 1976 as the FA Cup final and the Olympic Games—that is, they should be guaranteed to be free to watch for everyone. And I note that a number of the Labour backbenchers have sent a letter in a similar vein to the chairman of the Welsh Rugby Union. Is this an argument that you agree with, and will you be writing to the UK Government to make that case?

And finally, Deputy Minister, do you agree with me—although I think from your previous answer that I can probably anticipate what you will say—that, in the longer term, the way to ensure that decisions affecting Welsh sport and culture benefit Wales and the people of Wales, the only way to ensure that, is to pursue devolving broadcasting to Wales so that Westminster can't sell off parts of our own culture?

Well, there were around 10 questions there, I think, but I will seek to answer some of them. I haven't responded correctly to the first question, I realise. I haven't had direct discussions with the broadcasters or with the rugby union on this issue. That was the response that I should have given initially.

I accept that the situation that we are in is that we have a system here of listing events. And, if we go back over the development of this system, back to the period prior to 2009, the consultative committee chaired by my colleague David Davies recommended, amongst other things, that the list should be reviewed more regularly than has been the case to date. The response that's been given, including a recent response given in Westminster, is that there is no intention by the current UK Government to review that list of events. But, having studied this issue, my view is that the way that these events are listed in this way is not appropriate in the days of digital communications, and that includes all aspects—not just broadcasting, but all platforms where people can follow sport.

But may I say one thing? I don't see it as my role as a Minister within the Welsh Government responsible for this area to go and ask Westminster would they be so kind as to listen to us. I believe—[Interruption.] I believe that it is about time for us to make it clear that the views of the Welsh Government should be considered centrally in decisions that have an impact upon us, and one of the weaknesses with this debate is that the description given in the original legislation talks about issues of national importance, and here we are back to this issue. There are four nations within the United Kingdom, and what is appropriate as the basis for the culture of this nation is certainly as important as any of the four nations of the union.

As someone who believes that rugby, international rugby, should be on a free-to-view basis and who doesn't own a satellite tv, and never has owned a satellite dish, I do regret the position that the home unions find themselves in. But I accept that it is a professional game now, and, for those proponents who want to keep it on free to view, there does have to be an argument put where the revenues will be found to make sure that the Welsh grass-roots game can remain competitive and keep players here in Wales. And that's the invidious situation that the WRU and other unions find themselves in.

I asked you a question about the support of the union some months ago on a topical basis, Minister, and you indicated that work was under way between yourself and the unions to try and identify funding streams that might come in and alleviate some of the funding pressures at a regional level. Are you in a position today to give some of that information of the meetings that you've had to try and identify streams where Welsh Government might be helpful in making revenues available to the union that will take the pressure off pay-per-view tv? Because, ultimately, the union has to make its books balance and make sure that players' wages and stadium infrastructure is improved.

I'm very grateful to you for setting out the dilemma that this poses for the rugby governing bodies and, of course, to us as a Government. In responding to you earlier on this matter, I think I must have pointed out that our funding finds its way to governing bodies through the offices of the sports council, and on the advice of the sports council I would be reluctant to look for a way of supporting any of the 45, maybe, governing bodies of different sports that we have in a way that did not relate to the advice that we get from the sports council.

But, in response to your question, I can say that I'm waiting to see the results of the present process. I think it is essential for us, if we can find agreement in this Assembly on a way forward, to make our views clearly known. The suggestion was made earlier that this might be a very useful thing for us to have a debate on, and if that were to happen—I can't speak for the Trefnydd or for Government business managers—I as a Minister would welcome a debate on this matter and for this Assembly to come to a resolution on this issue, which would then be the considered judgment of this Assembly.

My days as a schoolboy hooker for Gowerton School first 15 are long behind me. In fact, my last outing was on the wing for the redoubtable Assembly rugby team, which does so much for charity and for raising awareness of important issues within Wales and elsewhere. But, could I say to the Deputy Minister, if the six nations disappears behind a pay wall, whether it's Amazon, Sky or anybody else, it may, as Andrew R.T. Davies has rightly said, fill a gap in the coffers commercially for some of the six-nation unions, but it will be an unmitigated disaster in terms of participation, including grass-roots participation? Because we've seen what's happened to other sports, like cricket, that have disappeared behind pay walls.

So, I will propose to the Deputy Minister a suggested way forward that he could help with, because it is different here in Wales. The point that he made about Wales as a nation being central to decisions on which sports should be protected must now be raised with the UK Government, because this will come back for future bidding rounds. In that case, we need to make the case that rugby has a different pedigree and tradition in Wales. It was not born out of public schools, it was born out of mining communities, all the way back to its inception in Wales. In the 1970s, the teams that played had lawyers and doctors alongside colliers who were working down the pits as well, or in the steelworks. It is a working-class tradition in Wales, and that's why we are desperate to see this decision not take place and that it disappears behind a pay wall.

So, could I ask him: could he make those representations, picking up the lead that he made to the UK Government, that they should now change the way that these decisions are made and that they are not made by UK Ministers alone? When they describe a nation, they should look to the nations of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and Wales as well, about what is important to us.

Could you also make representations here and now to ensure that ITV and BBC can indeed make a joint bid? Because in this current round, unless the UK Government are going to change their mind and make this a gold standard sport that is protected, then the only hope we have, in fact, of filling the coffers and actually keeping it away from behind a pay wall is to have a good joint bid from ITV and BBC.

I was pleased to submit a letter to the Welsh Rugby Union—a difficult position that they're in—from all Labour backbenchers adding to what has been mentioned today, stressing the importance of this. But I think the Deputy Minister might be able to help if he can take those two issues up and put them very strongly. We need a joint bid to go forward to keep it free to view for all the people of Wales. I would say, in closing: this will be a disaster for international rugby, as well as for Wales, if it disappears.

Well, in response to that very forthright statement, I can give undertakings that I will carry out what has been requested, because I am, after all, not only a member of the Government, but I'm a servant of this National Assembly, and it's very clear, in this exchange, what the views of Members are. I will be delighted to draw them to the attention—. Obviously, it's been made in this particular public space, and it will be known to everyone, what's been said. But, I give you the undertaking that this matter will be conveyed. In fact, I'm able to say that I might be able to convey it personally, because I shall be in London on other business in the next few days.

Thank you very much, Deputy Minister. The next topical question this afternoon is to be answered the Counsel General and Brexit Minister. Huw Irranca-Davies.

Over the last three and a half years, the Welsh Government has taken every opportunity to set out Welsh priorities for the UK's future relationship with the EU to the UK Government. We had sight of a draft text a few days before publication, and took part in a telephone conference a few hours before the UK Cabinet was expected to discuss it. The final text did not reflect any of the substantive points we made. This was despite the terms of reference of the Joint Ministerial Committee (European Negotiations), which commits the UK Government to seek to agree negotiating positions with the devolved Governments. The approach that the mandate sets out is one that puts the ideological pursuit of an absolute sovereignty—surely a fantasy in the world of today—above people's jobs and livelihoods. We've been clear that we cannot support such an approach, and that the UK Government has passed up an opportunity to speak on behalf of all the four Governments of the UK in the negotiations, which have started this week.

Minister, as we leave the European Union, the constructive engagement of the UK Government with the devolved Governments becomes even more critical. It is incumbent upon the UK Government to demonstrate at every opportunity that there is real depth and substance behind the rhetoric about respect for the devolved Governments. Equally, it is incumbent upon devolved Governments to demonstrate that they are willing to engage seriously and constructively with the UK Government. So, Minister, at the end of January, the First Minister said, after a meeting of the devolved Governments with UK Minister Michael Gove, that there had been recognition shown that crafting a future relationship with the EU 'needs to be done by agreement across the governments of the UK as opposed to them going solo'.

Now, that sounded like a serious and constructive engagement by the Welsh Government in response to encouraging words in a meeting with the UK Government. Yet, only a month later, the First Minister publicly warned, after publication of the UK-EU negotiation mandate, that Wales's economy and jobs would be damaged by a 'basic, bare bones relationship' with the EU that 'lacks ambition and lets down Wales', that the 'UK's trade stance will cost Welsh jobs', and that if the negotiations fail we also risk facing tariffs that would be 'crippling for our farmers and food sector'. He further warned that the UK Government's political ambition to get any deal done, or none at all, is 'clearly more important to them than getting a deal that is in the interests of all the nations of the UK.'

Minister, Michael Gove last week told the House of Commons that the devolved Governments helped shape the UK Government's approach to the UK mandate. Minister, was Michael Gove telling the unvarnished simple truth to the UK Parliament, or did he misspeak?

I thank the Member for that further supplementary. To claim that the voice of the devolved Governments has had a substantive impact in shaping the negotiating mandate is, frankly, a ludicrous claim. As I mentioned in my earlier answer, we have taken every opportunity to make the case on behalf of Wales. In addition to the negotiating priorities, which we published in January, based on the political declaration following the announcement of the negotiating objectives, the First Minister wrote to the Prime Minister outlining in more detail some of our priorities.

Following receipt of the draft mandate, I wrote to the UK Government setting out a number of detailed points that needed to be addressed. For example, in the context of the section dealing with technical barriers to trade, I pressed for recognition specifically of the needs of the aerospace sector. In the section dealing with sanitary and phytosanitary measures, I asked for specific priority to be given to sectors in Wales impacted by those measures, including shellfish, beef, lamb, and the dairy sector. He will not find those references that I pressed for in the final mandate.

On the morning that the UK Cabinet was meeting to discuss and finalise the mandate, I had a telephone call with Michael Gove where I discussed the concerns that I had raised in my letter, and in that call I received no assurances that the UK Government was willing to change their negotiating approach in response to comments from any of the devolved Governments, and they failed to point to any changes in the mandate that reflected things that we had pressed for. So, it's clear in that final text that the UK Government has chosen not to take account of the legitimate interests of this Senedd and the Welsh Government's case.

Following on very much in the same vein, can I say, some of us in this Chamber are not unionists? That might come as a surprise to some. Sometimes, you have to question the value of being a unionist in this situation, because in your statement last week about Brexit-related legislation, you'll recall quite an expansive, philosophical exposition of the Sewel convention that you purported to put out, and we were very much in agreement of your analysis; the fact that, basically, when it came to the LCMs about the withdrawal Act, there were three refusals in the devolved Parliaments—not just here, but Scotland and Northern Ireland—but Westminster over-ruled those three LCM refusals, citing that the whole Brexit thing was 'not normal', unique. Westminster ploughed on regardless of our viewpoints here.

Now, you said in your statement last week that you were subsequently reassured—not just Westminster ploughing on despite three devolved Parliaments disagreeing with them and ploughing on—you had moved on and had received reassurance and a definition of what 'not normal' constituted, in that it was unique, if not highly unique, unusual. So, you appeared to be reassured then that this sort of situation wouldn't keep on happening, despite the fact that we did ask what safeguards are there in place so that this situation wouldn't keep on happening.

So, it seems here, now, that as regards this UK mandate Welsh Government's being ignored or sidelined, its voice is not heard. Are we to take it that this is another situation where this is just another unique set of situations? Is this again just 'not normal', and are we expected just to accept that and move on regardless and just again say, 'Actually, this was not normal. This is unique. It's difficult times. We just have to accept this sort of stuff as the place that this Senedd occupies in the Westminster mindset'? Or do we actually stand up and say, 'Actually, this cannot continue. There are four Parliaments to be involved here. Let's do something about it.'

I thank Dai Lloyd for that further question. He and I, of course, differ about the value of the union and the benefits to Wales of being part of a union, which, frankly, should function better than the United Kingdom does function. But nevertheless, we have a difference of opinion on that.

He refers to the debate in relation to the Sewel convention, and he will recall, I think, in doing so, that I was making the case for reform of the Sewel convention, not one that claimed that the current set of arrangements were adequate. So, in seeking reform, in that broad sense, he and I share that principle. But it's also important to note that there have been examples, which is why this is so immensely frustrating—whether it be in relation to the preparation of legislation or the inter-governmental agreement; or in working together for planning towards a 'no deal' exit from the European Union; or indeed in relation to the substantial body of secondary legislation that was passed in order to facilitate departure; and indeed in relation some of the work that my ministerial colleague the Minister for international relations is doing with the Department for International Trade around rest-of-the-world trade negotiations—there are examples where engagement has secured advantage and given Wales the appropriate voice in those considerations.

So, it's actually with great sadness that I come to the Chamber and say what I have said in response to the question from Huw Irranca-Davies. This is not a situation where the Welsh Government is closing the door. If the UK Government were to open the door in the weeks and months ahead, and give a substantive opportunity for the Welsh Government and other devolved Governments to have an appropriate involvement in those negotiations, we would be, as we always have been, ready to play a constructive role in that. But that responsibility now lies at the door of the UK Government, which has singularly failed to reflect the voice of the devolved Governments in this negotiating mandate.

Can the Counsel General really be surprised that the UK Government hasn't taken him seriously in asking for a role in this negotiating mandate? He mentions constructive engagement, and he doesn't want that at all; he wants destructive engagement. He has remained consistently and belligerently hostile to all the negotiating aims of the UK Government. The people of Wales voted by a majority to leave the EU, and in the last four years, the Counsel General and the Welsh Government have done everything they possibly can to frustrate the outcome of that referendum. We have now left the EU. There are opportunities as well as challenges ahead, but the Counsel General never sees opportunities; he only sees difficulties. The UK Government will plough ahead and deliver on the result of the referendum in 2016, to which the Welsh Government remains as hostile today as it has been in the whole time that I've been in this Assembly. 

At a micro level, I think the Welsh Government could have played an important part in developing this negotiating mandate, but because of the public belligerence against the entire project of the UK Government, he will never be taken seriously. He is not so much wanting to play a part in the negotiations of the UK, but wanting to play a part in the negotiations of the EU; he is a Trojan horse for Monsieur Barnier. 

Well, I regret to say that I think that contribution failed to live up to the level of discussion, and, sadly, doesn't vaguely reflect the reality of the situation. The Welsh Government clearly would have preferred a different outcome to the referendum; that is a matter of extremely well established record, but what we have done, at each turn, is to recognise new realities and seek to influence within that framework. So, when it became apparent that the Prime Minister had a mandate to leave the European Union on the basis of a political declaration, we engaged with that political declaration, recognising that it wouldn't have been the starting point we would have set for ourselves, and described, in some detail, which has not been refuted, the best version of that arrangement for Wales's future, consistent with that mandate. 

We have taken every opportunity of seeking to influence the debate in a constructive way. As I say—[Interruption.]

Can you let the Minister answer the question without any sedentary comments? Thank you. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We have sought to influence the discussion in a very constructive way, despite, as I say, the fact that we wouldn't have wished to start from this position. We have sought to take advantage of the opportunities, as the Member describes them, whether it's in relation to regional investment, or to agricultural support, or to a change in constitution. Each of these areas are ones that offer opportunity to do things differently in the future, and that is the tone with which we have engaged with the UK Government in relation to this mandate, and would wish to continue doing that if the opportunity were to become available. 

Thank you very much, Counsel General. Item 4 on the agenda this afternoon is the 90-second statements. Mick Antoniw. 

Thank you, Deputy Llywydd. Ten years ago, Billy Liddon, a friend of mine, and an activist from Cwm Colliery National Union of Mineworkers, who has since sadly passed away, told me that he would do no more interviews about the miners' strike because it was being over-romanticised in the media, whereas the reality is that it was a year-long struggle of intense poverty and hardship. So, today, the thirty-fifth anniversary of the day the south Wales miners returned to work, is an opportunity to reflect on the reality of the strike and how it continues to shape our communities today. 

In defence of their jobs and communities, some 12,000 miners were arrested; 9,000 charged and five died. The miners lost the strike, and the Tory Government proceeded to shut all the pits, including those that were profitable. In the words of Michael Heseltine, 'That was the price they paid for taking us on.'

A poignant legacy of the strike could be witnessed over the last few weeks. The sense of community and solidarity that was at the heart of the strike, was again to the fore as the terrible floods hit those same communities—from Nantgarw in my constituency, to Pentre in the Rhondda. People standing shoulder to shoulder, giving what they have to help neighbours, united in a shared resolve that this disaster would not beat them. A decade ago, Billy Liddon also told me that he thought people were forgetting the suffering the miners endured during that year. But on occasions such as this anniversary, we have an opportunity to reflect that, in the strength of our communities in adversity, the rediscovery of lost heritage, and the continuing fight for justice, the legacy of the miners' struggle 35 years ago lives on.

Thank you.

The next item is a debate on the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee report: the Welsh Government's Draft International Strategy. And I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—David Rees.

Diolch, acting Presiding Officer. I'm very proud to move this motion today. The need for Wales to project itself internationally, and to develop and grow its international links, has never been greater. That's why I'm delighted to open today’s debate on the Welsh Government’s new international strategy. I'm pleased that we have received statements from the Minister, following the publication of the international strategy, but I believe that this is actually the first opportunity we've had to debate that in the Senedd and for Members, perhaps, to provide their vision for Wales in the world.

Firstly, it's important to welcome the strategy from the Welsh Government, which outlines its vision for a more global Wales, and how Wales moves forward in an ever-growing global marketplace—it's critical to achieving an ambition of driving the Welsh economy forward. Our report is the culmination of almost a year’s worth of work, looking at Wales's approach to international relations after Brexit. And our thanks go to all those who contributed to our work. And I wish to put on record again my thanks to the team, and the clerking staff, and the research staff, within the committee, who undertook tremendous work to actually help us produce that report.

Now, in our report, we make a total of 10 recommendations, all of which address specific areas relating to what was, at the time of publication of the report, the draft international strategy. I will focus my comments in three broad areas: the priorities and delivery of the strategy; co-ordination of international activities across Government; and how the priority relationships and the overseas offices relate to each other after Brexit.

For the first of these areas, I am pleased that the Minister agreed with us regarding the need to include a stronger vision statement in the final strategy. Furthermore, the priorities identified in the strategy should provide Government and stakeholders with a basis for greater collaboration and engagement on the international stage. In our view, where the strategy falls down is in terms of delivery. Frustratingly, the strategy contains only three measurable targets. To remind Members what these targets are: (1) to raise Wales's profile internationally by ensuring 500,000 connections internationally over the next five years—interesting how we'll measure that and how you identify some of these connections; (2) to grow the contribution made by exports to the economy by 5 per cent, though we're not sure over what period of time that covers; and (3) to plant 15 million trees in Uganda by 2025.

Now, these targets, in and of themselves, are reasonable and are within the context of the strategy. However, we have broader concerns about the limited number of targets, and the implications that this may have on delivery of the strategy. Whilst we understand the argument that the strategy document may not be the most appropriate place for the inclusion of a suite of targets, we are clear that the strategy should be supported by a delivery plan that we, as a committee, are able to scrutinise. It is very disappointing, therefore, that our calls appear to be falling by the wayside for this.

And furthermore, the Minister's written response to our report claims to accept recommendations 5 and 6, which call for the publication of a detailed suite of measurable targets and delivery plans, and then states in the narrative of the strategy that it is not the intention to publish further detailed plans over and above those in the strategy. The Government are, of course, entitled to take this view however disappointing it may be, but to attempt to claim that, in so doing, it is accepting our recommendations, does question the credibility of some of the statements.

The second area of interest relates to the co-ordination of the Welsh Government’s activities and how they relate to the new strategy. Previously in this Chamber, I have welcomed the creation of a Cabinet post with responsibility for international relations. And such a post should help to increase the visibility of international relations issues across Government—a task made all the more important as we forge a new future outside the European Union.

In this report and in our previous report on Wales's future relationship with Europe and the world, we highlighted the importance of effective co-ordination with other key portfolios, particularly the economy, environment and education portfolios. To that end, we reiterated our view that the Minister for international relations should establish a formal mechanism for the co-ordination of the Welsh Government’s international relations work through the creation of a Cabinet sub-committee. The Government's response to these recommendations are a cause of disappointment. Despite the importance attached to the need for a formal mechanism for co-ordination, as identified in two committee reports, the Minister has decided not to implement any of them in any meaningful sense, and I would urge her to reconsider this position.

The final area relates to the priority relationships identified in the strategy and the future of the Welsh Government’s overseas offices. Now, we warmly welcome the commitment made in the final strategy to build our international links with a number of countries and sub-state nations and regions across the world. This work should be given renewed importance in light of the UK’s exit from the EU and the new relationship that will come into effect at the end of this year, whatever that may be, because we are unclear at this point. How the priority relationships dovetail with the work of the overseas offices will be key to future success. I welcome the review that the Minister outlines in her response. It would be helpful if the Minister could give more detail on the content of this review and the timescales for its completion.

In terms of the two priority country relationships, which are Ireland and Germany, the strategy rightly notes the close economic and social links that currently exist. Furthermore, the strategy highlights that German and Irish nationals make up two of our largest international communities. It is vital, therefore, that we take this opportunity, and every opportunity, to reiterate our message of support for these and other communities living in Wales from across the EU. I am sure that the Minister and other Members will join me in their support. 

Looking ahead, it would be useful to us if the Minister could keep us updated of progress as regards both the discussions on any future specific Ireland-UK relationship and the negotiations on continued involvement in EU programmes at the end of the transition period. There is still concern that these may be lost if an agreement cannot be reached on the future relationship and a free trade agreement, and they boost Wales's international standing. Personally, I believe that they should never have been associated with a trade agreement. They are separate, they are programmes that help us develop our nation and should not have been involved in the negotiating position. 

As a committee, we have noted the value added to areas of devolved responsibility, such as education, research and economic development, that have been gained by Wales’s involvement in a whole host of EU programmes. I am pleased that the political declaration and the negotiating mandates still leave it open for a negotiated settlement in these areas. However, I think it will require continued lobbying on behalf of the Welsh Government to ensure that Welsh needs are reflected in the negotiations between the UK and the EU. We've only just heard this afternoon in the question to the now Minister for European transition the concerns expressed about the fact that we haven't yet seen that voice reflected in the mandates.

Now, as we move ahead with future trading agreements and discussions on how future relationships with the EU and other nations will develop, we must do all we can to strengthen the Welsh voice, both during the negotiations and afterwards, once those relationships are established, and I know that Government shares those views. 

Acting Presiding Officer, I commend this report to the Assembly. I hope they will support it, and I look forward to hearing Members' contributions and the Minister's response this afternoon.

It's a pleasure to take part in this debate. I think it's an important subject and I do commend the Government for at least developing an international strategy. It's taken a while, but I do think it should be a very core part of the Welsh Government's activities and we should spend time reflecting on it and suggesting areas where it can be improved.

I just want to talk about a couple of things that I think need to be worked on and emphasised, and the Welsh diaspora out there is something I'm pleased to see recognised in the international strategy. It's been a long time a coming I think. I remember about 10 years ago, when I was a member of the British-Irish Parliamentary Assembly, we met in Glasgow and the Scots were really making some progress on their 'Scotland abroad' and using their network of friends and all the people really who had some form of Scottish heritage around the world. And of course, they were taking what Ireland has done naturally really, I suppose, the last century and a half, as a great inspiration—not something that could be matched necessarily. But nor should it stop us developing that type of approach, and I think they've had some successes in Scotland with that. And we should do the same. There's an awful lot of goodwill out there; there are many people who have connections to Wales, as well as people who were born in Wales and have made hugely successful careers around the world. And I believe they're just waiting really to offer something back, and I think that's very, very important.

I think key also to what we want to do, and it's linked to this first point, is promoting the public and international understanding of Welsh history and culture. We have a great history and culture. It's really one of the foundation stones, I think, of European culture, particularly the language, and it flourishes to this day. I remember when I visited the British Museum's exhibition on the Celtic civilisation, and it ended 200 or 300 years too early it seemed to me, because the Celtic civilisation still flourishes: we see it in the eisteddfod; we see it in our school policy to encourage Welsh-medium education; we see it in the aim to have 1 million Welsh speakers and we see it in the Mabinogion—there has been yet another magnificent translation in the last few years into English. So, we have many, many things. So, if we're looking at Scotland and Ireland, we are not poverty stricken with the sort of offer we can make.

And here I would also say: I think we've got to remind the people of the world that our built environment, particularly stretching back to the castles of the Edwardian era are, for good or ill, the finest examples of military technology in the thirteenth century. And it was as significant at the time, I think, as the invention of the aircraft carrier or the stealth bomber or something. It was really an astonishing breakthrough to have these fortress castles, manned only by about 40 people or so, being able to dominate the area around them. Now we know what impact that had on our political development and options, but it is in the inheritance that we've received, and it's an important example of what has happened and the experience of mankind and its development, which occurred in that area of military castles here. And it's no better seen anywhere else—nowhere in the world matches us.

The final bit I want to say is: there are some great figures in Welsh history that are often more appreciated abroad than they are here. And I am delighted in this regard to mention Evan Roberts, the evangelist of the great 1904 revival. And can I commend my colleague Darren Millar, who has done so much with the Evan Roberts Institute to remind the people of Wales of this great contribution to Christian thought? And he's often more known in North America or in many parts of Asia: Korea, Singapore—these places. And I'm particularly delighted that there's a new edition of the sayings of Evan Roberts, updated and gathered, I understand, by our colleague Darren here, and they are full of amazing proverbs of great insight and Christian piety, and I'll just read one: 

'The Christian's life is not a grave, it's a fair garden, even if there are weeds aplenty.'

And I think Evan Roberts, and many others, are great figures in Welsh history that still have a mission around the world and we should use it to promote our international strategy.

I'm very pleased to take part in this debate. May I congratulate the Chair in the first instance on his opening remarks, conveying what needs to be said with regard to this report and the Government's response? Naturally, we do recognise that good work is being done, and we also understand that there isn't a shed load of money available to the Minister. But in the short time available to me, I just wanted to express some ideas—some I've mentioned to the Minister already—with regard to how we can take a step forward on this. I think we need to work to create more natural connections with nations that could have that natural connection with Wales, such as—as has been referred to already—nations with minority languages, languages that aren't the major language—the Basque Country, Catalunya, Brittany, Occitan, Alsace. When you go to Finland, you have Sámi and Karelia; in Germany there's Sorbian and Frisian. There are many minority languages that aren't in the mainstream, and I think those people would just build on those connections.

There's a natural connection with other nations that are smaller nations worldwide: Slovenia, Cyprus, Malta, and the 62 independent nations worldwide that are smaller than Wales. I think there would be a natural attraction there in building bridges with those nations, and also connections with other Celtic nations, naturally: Ireland, Scotland, Cornwall and so on. But also Britanny, Galicia and Asturias; other Celtic nations too.

Also linkages that we could build upon, because there is a natural way of linking with those nations, such as the rugby-playing countries. We've already heard that debate earlier on. In New Zealand they know about Wales because of the game of rugby; likewise Australia, France, South Africa and so on. We can build those natural links because of what we have in common. There are also countries where the Welsh diaspora has moved over the last two centuries, such as Australia, naturally, and Patagonia in Argentina. There are thousands upon thousands of people from Wales living in Patagonia today, and they speak Welsh as well in Patagonia. In the United States of America there are 1.8 million citizens of the United States who have roots in Wales. In the state of Wisconsin there are almost 30,000 people who have roots in Wales. In New York state, there are 74,000 people with roots in Wales. In Ohio there are 117,000 people who have roots in Wales, and in Pennsylvania there are 155,000 people who also have their roots in Wales. So there are natural links there, as well as the final category, which is those nations that have religious links with Wales, as David Melding has just mentioned—Madagascar, for example, there were missionaries from Wales there; and Mizoram in the south-east of India, where we have a natural link with the Christian faith, based on our religious history. So there are natural linkages.

The second thing is to build on the tendency that there's been for decades now, for our cities, towns and villages to twin with cities, towns and villages worldwide, as I mentioned previously to the Minister. You know that Swansea is twinned with Mannheim and Cork, and so on; Cardiff is twinned with Stuttgart. Even the Mumbles is twinned with Hennebont in Brittany and Havre de Grace in the United States of America, as well as Kinsale, Ireland. I'm sure that we could build on those informal links with regard to twinning that have developed over the decades, and as I've mentioned previously, we could twin anew, for example, with places like Oklahoma state, as I've said previously. Oklahoma City wants to twin with Cardiff. Tulsa, the second city, wants to become twinned with Swansea. We could have those sub-state connections with different places, particularly those states of America that I listed—Wisconsin, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio—that have that strong Welsh background. There could be that natural twinning with those states.

And we shouldn't just stop there: as we are a sub-state, there are other sub-states worldwide with which we have a natural connection, such as Bavaria, Baden-Württemberg, Hessen, Saxony, Friesland, and so on. There are plenty of opportunities here in remembering your geography. Thank you very much.

I had intended to speak and it was going to be quite a dry speech, but I'm inspired now by some of the other Members. I will turn to the dry bit in a moment, but actually, if we're going to share experiences of how we can actually reach out to our wide global community, then can I suggest that we dwell on people such as Richard Price of Tyn Ton Farm in Llangeinor, whose ideas and philosophy ran egalitarian and that it should be one-vote for one person, and everybody should have that vote and that every man and woman was equal, actually underpinned not only his support for the founding fathers and for the American revolution itself, and that the 13 colonies were unjustly presided over. So he was honoured and he was paid tribute to for underpinning the very fundamentals of the American constitution and the philosophies of the founding fathers of America, but he also extended those.

He was regarded as a troublemaker back home. I think that's an admirable tradition: be regarded as a troublemaker on your own patch and then be lauded overseas. He was lauded as well for extending those same principles actually into support of the French revolution as well. So you can imagine why he was regarded by the establishment as an out and out troublemaker. But actually his academic approach to economic thinking as well would, I think, garner support on the benches opposite, because the idea that we now talk about quite regularly, about actually balancing the public books and maintaining the right balance between public debt and the wider economy, he was the first person who actually put those ideas forward and put them into writing. So he was actually lauded for that.

So his reach in America, Minister, is extensive. They all know Richard Price in America, but when I wander up the valley that I'm in and I say, 'Oh, there's Tyn Ton Farm. That's where Richard Price, son of many in the farming family, who walked to London to make his way as a Unitarian preacher, a radical dissenter, that's where he came from.' 'Who's Richard Price?' Well, that's the sort of thing we need to really use to our advantage. [Interruption.] Yes, indeed. 

I'm grateful to the Member for giving way to this Burkean—of course, the great enemy of Dr Price. [Laughter.] I remember Brian Groom writing a piece on the top-10 Welshmen in the Financial Times, and I wrote to the FT, saying, 'Where's Dr Richard Price, the inventor of the actuarial scheme, the adviser to Alexander Hamilton on how to run a national debt? Not in the list.' And, in fairness to the FT, they did publish the letter. [Laughter.]

Well done that man. But I think the audience we'd have, curiously, on the other side of the Atlantic would absolutely recognise his contribution. So there are real assets here that we can use and, Minister, if you haven't, I'm more than happy to show you around, down in my constituency, show you where he was born and see how we can use that sort of legacy. 

But, backing away from that, in the minute and a half that I've got remaining what I did want to say was that it was wonderful when I saw that the Government had actually responded to the very well-chaired committee's report and the evidence we had by accepting all of it. I have to say that some of the feedback that I've had from the business community as well has been very encouraging, both in terms of the focus that this international strategy is now placing on Wales as a brand, as an entity, and what we can do and some of the strands of it, and the feeling of optimism around it. But—there has to be a 'but'—one of the things in accepting all the recommendations here, and it was a theme in the committee that looked at it, is that we actually do want to see more detail. We want to see granulation. There's high-level stuff in here that we would approve of, but there are some sectors that aren't touched on, but are, as the report shows, touched on in the economic prosperity strategy and this, that and the other, but we need to see some of that evidence of the underpinning. Because if it's not all going to be in this strategy, we need to see how we measure success.

Beyond the three areas that the Chair has referred to, in the wider area of developing Wales's impact internationally, how do we measure success? Otherwise, the Minister will stand in front of us in the next Labour-led Government in four years' time or five years' time and say to us, 'Well, I've done all those things', and we'll say, 'Hold on, you didn't tell us what we were measuring.' So that's what we need. That would be the real prime criticism: whilst welcoming your acceptance of everything that we said in this report, our big cry was that we need more detail. Now, it may be that this is a live document, it may be that there are rafts of plans underpinning this from different departments, in which case those linkages need to be made clear so that we can then measure the success of this Government. But there's a feeling of optimism, I have to say, around it. That's what I'm picking up from people I speak to outside, so keep on driving that forward, Minister, but just give us the detail as well. 

I was expecting a little bit more trouble than that, actually. Darren Millar. 

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. Can I thank the committee for what I think is an excellent piece of work? Of course, we've seen the international strategy now and many of the recommendations have been dealt with in that new document. And can I commend the Welsh Government for the work that it's done to date on improving its engagement with the international community, both here in Wales and overseas? I think there's been a significant step up to the plate in terms of that engagement, and I think it's only right that we have a presence on an international stage. I should also mention, of course, the work of the cross-party group in this respect, which Rhun ap Iorwerth chairs. I think that that also has been an excellent vehicle for making sure that we're discussing these matters in relation to the international agenda and outlook that we all want, I think, on all sides of this Chamber in the future.

There are some, of course, areas where I do think there needs to be some additional work, and it's a shame that these were not always referenced in the international strategy to date. One of those is, of course, the tremendous contribution that our faith communities can make in terms of helping us with that international engagement. We've already heard from two speakers today about the reputation of many of Wales's Christian leaders in the past, particularly our nonconformist leaders, and the fact that their names are very often recited overseas but are less well known over here. And, of course, we know that the history of Wales has led to some tremendous links that we continue to have in many of these different parts of the world, through individual church relationships, with projects overseas in places like Africa, Asia and Latin America.

In addition to that, of course, the Muslim community has got strong links in the middle east and in the far east, in particular. And I think we need to exercise those opportunities a little bit more, and it was a disappointment to me personally—and I think to faith communities more generally—that these weren't referenced more heavily in the international strategy when it was published. I know that you engaged with those faith communities during the development of that strategy, and I think it is a little bit disappointing that they're not emphasised more.

There were, of course, references to sports as a means of engagement with communities overseas, and it's been great that we had the wonderful opportunity to engage in Japan through the Rugby World Cup of late, and that those relationships are continuing to be fostered with a visit from the Japanese ambassador to Cardiff in the very near future. I think that's it quite right that we look at Wales's sporting teams as they go overseas in terms of reaching out to engage with the international community. But we also need to invite the eyes of the world to be upon Wales through our sports, and that's why I think it's really important that we attract some major and significant international sporting events to our shores in the future. I know that, historically, we worked very hard with other Celtic nations to present a joint bid for a European cup. So, let's reach for the stars again and begin to pull those sorts of bids together in the future, in order that we can make sure that Wales is in the spotlight, and have the opportunity to bring international visitors who, frankly, may not otherwise actually take the opportunity to come and visit us.

The final point I'd make is that we do need this team Wales approach to building our reputation overseas. I was pleased to see that this was something that was recognised in the international strategy and, indeed, it's great that we've seen visits from Assembly Members to Parliaments in Canada and elsewhere in recent months, and I know that the Llywydd, for example, is representing the National Assembly in Brussels this week, as is the First Minister. And I think it's incumbent upon all of us, regardless of our political party, to do what we can to act as ambassadors for our nation, no matter where we go in the world whenever we travel and have some engagement, particularly on the political scene. It would be great to hear from the Minister in response to this particular debate whether that is something that the Government has given greater thought to in terms of how she might help to make that happen.

But can I commend the report, commend the positive response of the Minister, and say we look forward to working with you on these benches, as the opposition, to promote Wales at home and overseas?

I would like to make a few comments wearing a number of different hats. First of all, I'm an internationalist. That is, I see Wales having a place in the world, and I believe strongly in extending our network and reach as a nation to all corners of the world, for the benefit that brings us as a nation, but also for the benefits that come from nations working closely together.

I'm also speaking as the chair of the cross-party group on international Wales. I think it's important that we have such a group, and it's good to have support from across parties for that. We discuss all sorts of different areas in terms of the kind of international engagement that Wales is involved with. And as it happens, the next meeting that we'll holding, on 25 March, relates to this international strategy, where the Minister will join us and we'll have an opportunity to look in depth at the strategy.

I speak as chair of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Wales, which is a very useful network for us as a Parliament to reach out to other Parliaments in other parts of the world, not only in order to learn from each other in terms of democratic practice, which is very important, but also in making those connections that come as a result of that, and which can bring cultural and economic benefits to us as a nation.

I'm also speaking as a member of the National Assembly rugby team, which of course is another element of the engagement work that we are involved with as a Parliament. And, yes, it brings a smile to one's face, but there is a serious aspect to it, too, because in playing as a Parliament against the Assemblée Nationale from France—and beating them, by the way, just a fortnight ago—again, we are reaching out to our partners in other countries. I do look forward to playing against and beating the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament in the next few weeks.

But in all seriousness, what's important to me in this period of the development of an international strategy by the Welsh Government is that it's actually happening. We can talk about the weaknesses, and some of them have been mentioned by other Members already. I think that the recommendations within it are a little narrow in scope. We have heard concerns that there are targets here that are difficult to measure, but this is only the beginning of the journey, and I recognise that. What I hope to see is that the strategy will become a dynamic document and something that touches upon all of the Government's work in years to come.

As we've heard already from so many different contributors—and they have been very interesting contributions on Welsh connections in all parts of the world—Wales is a nation that is international, and has reached out and made its mark in so many different places across the world, in difficult circumstances. I think the latest that we have been discussing is the hospital in Wuhan in China—one of the largest hospitals in China, which was at the heart of the concerns surrounding coronavirus earlier this year, and continues to be so, and that hospital was established by a Welshman, Griffith John from Swansea.

But what we have in this network that extends to all parts of the world is the potential to develop those connections, and to take advantage of those links. When one looks at the excellent work that GlobalWelsh has done in a very short period of time, and the work that's being done by Undeb Cymru a'r Byd over a longer period, then we have those networks in place. And what we can do by having an international strategy, and hopefully seeing the Government continuing to develop that strategy in earnest, is the hope of seeing that the work that's been done can be built on in order to develop it.

I think we ought to recognise the connections we have with Italy through the Italian people who came to Wales, obviously, in the last century, and populated our Valleys, and the fact that, in Bardi, it's said that the Welsh language was spoken more than Italian at one period in time there.

It is an ambition of mine to visit Bardi in the summer months at one point in the future. I lived for a short time in Parma, just down the road, and I never made it to Bardi to hear this fabled Welsh congregation in Bardi, in northern Italy, in the summer. 

What I want to see is Wales developing in confidence, and developing in confidence internationally means that, yes, we need a Government strategy and a determination to seek opportunities. And although there is room for improvement in this strategy, it is a starting point and we can return to the strategy time and again, including, as I say, in that meeting of the cross-party group in a week or two.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for International Relations and the Welsh Language, Eluned Morgan?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I want to start by thanking members of the committee for their work in helping us to shape our international strategy. Along with other stakeholders across Wales and worldwide, the committee has helped us to develop the strategy. Now, I am aware that the committee won't be content to wait for five years to see what will be achieved, and I am also aware that members of the committee wish to take part continually in monitoring the portfolio. So, over the coming months, I will be releasing statements and showing plans that will give a clearer picture of how we will go about achieving the strategy, and I do hope that this will calm the minds of committee members. I want to thank the Chair and members of the committee for the report and their continuing work programme.

Now, this document is published at an important time. It's never been more important for Wales to have a strong presence internationally, and I do hope that the priorities in our strategy will be clear. And I take the point that Dai Lloyd made—that there are so many things that we could do, but resources are scarce, so that's why we have to have this focus, and that's what we've tried to do. And that's vital, certainly when we undertake our new relationship with the European Union and other nations worldwide. And although we are now outwith the European Union, there is a great deal of uncertainty still about the trade agreement and the relationship with the European Union in future. The strategy sets out what path we want to follow. We want to promote this nation as one that is welcoming, and we want to transmit the message that we want to continue to work and trade with other nations globally. That's what's important. That's why this post was created. 

On that very point, one of the interesting things the committee heard in evidence—and it's been a theme, actually, both in and outside the committee—is the need to strengthen our presence now in Brussels, curiously, after EU withdrawal, because of the necessity, the pragmatic necessity, of making sure that our voice is heard. And as we've severed some of the official links and the presence within the European Parliament, the Council of Ministers and so on, we actually need to redouble the effort now in order to get our voice heard in that not only very important market but also some of the social changes that they might be bringing forward as well.

That's right, which is why one of the priorities we've said is to strengthen our relationship with the European Union. So, that is absolutely clearly in the strategy, along with the fact that we want to raise our profile internationally. We want to grow the economy by exporting and by getting inward investment, and we want to establish Wales as a globally responsible nation.

Now, a clear challenge to meet our goals is certainly the uncertainty around our future relationship with that primary market and the EU, and with major economic powers across the world. I agree with the Chair of the committee that, actually, I would have liked to have seen firmer targets; I just think it's an unrealistic time to be putting those targets in place when we genuinely have no idea what our relationship is with our nearest target market.

Now, I know that the committee has offered many helpful recommendations, and a number of those were taken forward in our final strategy. When we look at the priorities in the strategy, I think we've made some excellent progress already. So, if we're looking at, for example, establishing Wales as a globally responsible nation, it's worth noting that the Mbale tree programme is on track to achieve its best ever year in 2019-20, bringing the cumulative programme total to 12 million seedlings—well on the way to achieving our 25 million tree commitment by 2025. And we've just today, for Fairtrade Fortnight, announced a partnership with Uganda that will see the Welsh Government help 3,000 farmers get a fair price for their coffee. These are people who've faced devastation because of climate change and who we're now able to support.

I recognise, on diaspora, there's a huge amount of work to do. There are a lot of actors in this space already, as many people have said, and part of what we need to do is how do we get these people to work together. This is Wales, after all—we like to fall out with each other—but actually trying to get people together—. So, today, I've been meeting with a group of people we've commissioned to provide a platform where all of these organisations can be working and co-operating. So, I can perhaps give more detail on how we're doing that and—

Will the Minister give way? 

Yes.

It wouldn't be an international strategy debate without me giving a plug for Love Zimbabwe, of course, which I'm sure you're expecting. You know the hard work that that charity does in Monmouthshire, and you've had meetings with them yourself. So, can you give an assurance that Zimbabwe and Africa as a whole, as a developing part of the world, will feature highly in the Welsh Government's ultimate international strategy so we can do our bit to grow links between towns such as Abergavenny and other towns in Wales and towns in African countries?

Well, Wales and Africa is certainly a key part of our programme, and so there will be opportunities for Love Zimbabwe to get involved in that programme through that mechanism. Certainly, we're hoping that that platform, that diaspora platform that we'll be creating, will be a place where we can talk about some of those great characters in the past that so many of you talked about—about Evan Roberts, about Richard Price. And I think it's really important that people recognise that there's an opportunity there for us to tell the world about our story, really, and, hopefully, there'll be an opportunity there to talk about some of the religious leaders as well.

On exports, we will be having a renewed export plan, and I'll give more details of this in the next few months as well. I think it's worth flagging at this stage that the potential impact of delivery of our plans could be affected by the spread of coronavirus. We've already had to cancel a mission to China and a trade mission to a games fair in San Francisco. So, this is the problem with setting targets, and we've got a target there, and we'll try and make up for it and we'll try and make up the difference during the five years. But there are things that can throw things out of kilter.

Now, although the strategy focuses on three sectors where we can demonstrate excellence—cyber security, compound semiconductors and the creative industries—I would like to reassure the committee that our focus is absolutely not solely on these three sectors. Of course, we'll be promoting other sectors, but our aim here is to grab global attention through our capability to deliver global excellence. That opens the door for us to talk about so many other areas. So, for example, I've just returned from a visit to north America, and, during my visit, I signed a declaration of intent with Quebec Government. By the way, they were developing their international strategy at exactly the same time as us, and it took them a year to develop their international strategy, and they didn't have Brexit, so I think we're not doing too badly. But part of our plan there is to focus on aerospace and co-operation on aerospace. So, it's absolutely not limited to the three sectors. 

Now, picking up on the committee's point on UK Government relations and co-operations, I was keen, during my visit, to ensure that UK missions overseas are, first of all, aware of our offer and our priorities, and to make sure that they realise that they have a responsibility to promote Wales, our capability and our offer. So, better co-operation with the UK Government, as far as I'm concerned, is absolutely key to success in the international sphere, and I'll be meeting with Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials this week to work out how much more we can do in that space. That's on top of the meetings I've had in the past. Copies of the strategy have been sent to FCO officers throughout the world so that they're aware of our focus.

But whatever we do has got to be seen as additional to what the UK Government offers. We know that we can't deliver the international agenda alone. This is where team Wales comes in. So, as well as cross-Government working—and I already have monthly meetings with the education Minister, very regular meetings with the economy Minister and, over the year, I'll be making sure I have bilateral meetings with other Ministers, so that we can explore some of those areas where they can prioritise—we also have a date set for our first meeting with civil society before the summer. We've already engaged with arts and sports, and museums, for example, are also anxious to make sure that they co-ordinate their activities with us. I'll give more detail to the committee on how we're co-ordinating this activity before the summer. Soft power is crucial. It's really important. But it's also really difficult to measure, so we're back to this difficulty of how we measure our success. We will be using our major events to leverage that Welsh profile as was suggested.

In the strategy, I have identified a number of specific regions where we will focus, where we'll formalise or build on the formal relationships that we already have. You'll know that the Basque country is already one of those areas where we've signed a memorandum of understanding. We have regular contact with the Basque Government, and we've focused on innovation, health and language in that area. Of course, this week, we welcomed the President of the Regional Council of Brittany to Wales, and a delegation from the cultural sector, to reaffirm our commitment to a memorandum of understanding and an action plan post-Brexit.

Certainly, in terms of minority languages, we've been in touch with UNESCO to see how we can co-ordinate our activities, and we lead currently the network of minority languages groups in Europe. So, we'll be looking forward to welcoming those to Wales during the next few months. Now, I'm committed to regularly reviewing the effectiveness and performance of all the activity of the international relations department, including the work undertaken by our overseas offices. That remit of those offices is under review, and that should be published by the end of April.

These two weeks are the most intensive time of the calendar, of course, around St David's Day, as we've got that focus. It was great to have early celebrations in Ottawa, San Francisco and Los Angeles last week, and I'll be celebrating with the international community in London on Thursday and Ireland next week. This week in London there'll be numerous activities co-ordinated by Wales in London.

So, just to finish up, just to say thank you very much again for the work that you've done as a committee. I am very grateful. I think that it's really important to listen to what other people have to offer in terms of how we can leverage our international relations, and I do look forward to working with you in the next few months. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I call on David Rees to reply to the debate?

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank all Members for their contributions this afternoon to the debate, and obviously the Minister for her response as well? I'm very pleased with that. I just want to highlight a few things, because it's very interesting—quite a few people aired their visions as to how we can use things to actually push the Welsh agenda forward, whether it be, as David highlighted, the diaspora and pushing that a bit further. But then he reminded us of our great cultural heritage as well, including the religious element of that cultural heritage. And as came out—Huw Irranca joined in the recognition of the religious heritage as well.

But I think that that highlights the fact that there is so much going on in Wales that we can use to promote Wales and its history and how we have been able to influence other aspects of the world, and let's build upon that. Dai Lloyd reminded us about the minority languages. I was in discussion with Dafydd Trystan this week, who said that he had been to, or discussed with, the University of Hawaii, and how they thought that Wales was doing a fantastic job on minority languages and developing it, and that we should be using that as an example of good practice across the world on minority languages, and we should be a beacon for that.

Again, yes, he highlighted another point. We raised in this in committee—the twinning relationships that exist between cities and towns across this country with nations and countries and nations and cities elsewhere. Let's not waste that. Let's build upon that relationship. These are means by which we can create and build those relationships and develop them even more. I think that Huw did highlight, though, that there is a need for granulation at some point. We will need to look at how can we scrutinise the progress of the Welsh Government. Minister, in your response, you talked about we wouldn't wait five years. Well, sorry, we might not even be here in five years' time. The Assembly has 14 months left, and we want to be able, before we finish this Assembly, to see how progress is being made on that. So, I'm very pleased that you will be looking at some of the points coming to us, and we will be scrutinising that.

Darren, yes, the faith community is, again, a very important aspect. There are so many within Wales now that we should be looking at how we can use their links internationally as well—not just the Christian faith, but all faiths, in that sense. Rhun, yes—. By the way, good luck on the weekend against the UK Parliament; we wish you well. But he highlighted the point that, actually, there are things with this institution, the CPA, where the Welsh voice can be very clearly heard, and we should use that voice as best we can. I know Members who do go, whether it's the CPA, whether it's BIPA or other means; they use that opportunity to make sure that the Welsh voice is listened to and that it's recognised. But I think he also agreed with Rhun that the document should be a dynamic document—it shouldn't be something where we can say, 'There it is; let's look back at it in five years' time.' It should be dynamic, it should be evolving as we go through this, and we shouldn't be afraid to make that evolution of the document.

Minister, I do agree with you—there are many challenges facing us. We are in uncertain times. We don't know what the relationship will be, and you highlight that's perhaps the reason why you haven't given us detailed targets. But I think we should be still be preparing those targets, because there are probably two outcomes as to what will happen at the end of this year—one outcome is we will not have a relationship with the EU; the other one we will—and I think on both of those of those outcomes we could start preparing for that avenue.

And, by the way, Quebec—I'm very pleased you actually have a relationship with Quebec, because let's not forget that Quebec was actually one of the drivers of CETA, the comprehensive economic and trade agreement. Because they're the ones that wanted to drive the Canadian relationship with the EU. And, as a state in Canada, they were technically in the background, legally, because of the process, but they were the ones at the front, driving it. So, they have that history, and they have that experience of international relations there. So, I'm sure that comparisons of our relationship strategy and their relationship strategy would be quite interesting, to see how that works.

Minister, you actually mentioned that one other important thing—everybody else talked about it—is soft power. That's the crucial element, and that's why Huw raised the question of the Brussels office, because it is well recognised that the soft power of the Brussels office is excellent, and we should be building upon that expertise. Wales has a great opportunity to use soft power very much more, whether it be in cultural, sporting or other forms of activities, and let's not miss the opportunities.

Now, we've left the European Union—we all know that—but we are ploughing ahead with the international arena. Whether that future's uncertain, we don't know, but we know there is a future for us, and that's important, and we drive towards that. And it's a concerted effort for businesses, civil society and Government to shout louder and shout proudly of who we are, what we do here in Wales, and what Wales can offer others. That should provide us with a strong basis to navigate the waters. And I think there might be choppy waters ahead of us. But I look forward to holding you to account in the years ahead—or the 14 months ahead, anyway. So, thank you, everyone, for contributions. I hope you support the motion this afternoon.

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

We now move to item 6 on the agenda, which is the Welsh Conservative debate on looked-after children, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the motion.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Care-experienced children and young people in care are some of the most vulnerable in our society. Nearly two thirds of those individuals are in care, sadly, because of abuse or neglect. Now, there is a declared interest already across the floor here in supporting looked-after children, whilst also, too, looking at safely reducing those numbers.

Even the First Minister of Wales did make a pledge in his leadership manifesto to ensure that the problem is gripped and resolved. Unfortunately, however, the situation in Wales currently is slipping out of control. There are currently 6,845 children aged between 0 and 18 looked after by local authorities. This is a 2.1 per cent—21 per cent, sorry—increase since the end of the last Assembly term, in March 2016, and there has been a 34 per cent rise in the last 15 years. Wales had 109 looked-after children per 10,000 by the end of March last year, compared with 65 per 10,000 in England. Similarly, Northern Ireland and Scotland have recorded less serious rates, and the Commission on Justice in Wales has noted that what is striking is the marked and continual increase in the rate in Wales, and the widening gap with England.

I fear that Siân Gwenllian, our colleague Assembly Member, is right—the policy of local authority reduction targets is a superficial solution. In fact, evidence points to that Wales is not getting to grips with the root causes of children ending up in care. The strategy does not seem to be working, so we need to urgently review the plans and programmes of assistance for children and their families. 

Now, I'm all for prevention and early intervention, and appreciate that many of you are too, such as the ministerial advisory group, which has reinforced moves towards prevention. Importantly, the Public Accounts Committee's report highlighted that there is an opportunity to better use preventative spending to secure better long-term outcomes for our children. However, there is still room for improvement. For example, whilst £5 million was given to 22 local authorities to provide edge-of-care services in 2017-18, the justice commission in Wales has been sceptical about the success of the expenditure to date. Concern has also been raised by the Association of Directors of Social Services, they say the limited moneys councils have available is increasingly being taken up with the provision of the urgent help for children and families already at crisis point, leaving very little to invest in early intervention. Personally, I commend the success of the Troubled Families programme launched by the UK Govenrment in 2012. It has seen a 32 per cent difference in the proportion of looked-after children. As Professor Jonathan Portes of King's College London stated, the

'most...significant impact of the programme is to reduce the number of children going into care'.

For those children who do enter the care system, the Welsh Government has a long way to go on improving life chances for these children. In terms of education, at key stage 2, just 58.3 per cent of looked-after children achieve the core subject indicator, compared with an 87.8 per cent average across Wales. At key stage 4, just 10.9 per cent achieve the core subject indicator, compared with roughly 60 per cent overall. Those facts come despite our current First Minister having co-published the 'Raising the ambitions and educational attainment of children who are looked after in Wales: Strategy' in 2016. Progress may be achieved by considering the Skolfam initiative in Sweden and introducing a looked-after children premium. 

Now, in terms of mental health, NSPCC found that looked-after children are five times more likely to suffer from any mental health disorder, and nine times more likely to have a behavioural disorder. And, a recent study by Cardiff University showed some truly shocking facts about young people in residential care, such as: they have the lowest mental well-being score; 56 per cent have been exposed to bullying; and a greater percentage of them have been found to be drunk and used cannabis in the last month than children not in care. Now, whilst the Welsh Government has committed further investment into the emotional and mental health of all children and young people, I cannot overlook the fact that we in the CYPE Committee felt it was unclear. We need to know how much exactly is being targeted at looked-after children specifically. How is this being monitored in terms of its impact on delivering the 'Mind over matter' recommendations? In terms of a brighter future, findings by the National Audit Office and the Children's Society highlight that care leavers are at increased risk of homelessness and poverty. 

Wales can and should facilitate better futures for our children than this, and there are steps that we can take. For example, again, the Public Accounts Committee's report recommended that all care-experienced children are routinely made aware of their right to an advocate and provided with clear information about how to access the range of available advocacy services. These are not big asks, but they need to be in place. However, TGP Cymru recently found that only 5 per cent to 10 per cent of children's homes run by the private sector have residential visiting advocacy arrangements in place. So, we should also act on the calls made by the Children's Society to help ensure that Welsh local authorities are identifying European national young children in and who have left their care, so that they can be supported with securing their status or citizenship if required. Similarly, we need to support placements. The Fostering Network has reported that Wales needs another 550 foster families to ensure that children get to the right home first. If we do not achieve this, some children face being split up from their own siblings. Local authorities have started joining the recruiting challenge, but your Government needs to be doing more to assist them.

The same is true in relation to adoptive parents, which does bring me to my final point. I have a constituent who has one foster child and one adopted child. She desperately, passionately wants to incorporate the foster child into the family and become an adopted parent. Upon asking her whether this was going to happen she said 'no', and this was simply due to the significant decrease in support that would follow. Quite often, when people move from the fostering model to the adoptive model, you're very much on your own to get on with it, and it doesn't work like that. The support should still be there for adoptive parents to keep those families together, and I've actually dealt with two other cases where siblings have potentially faced being separated because adopting siblings can be quite intensive in terms of support requirements. There is no duty on anybody to support adoptive parents. So, I ask you, Deputy Minister, to really look at this and let's try and get more of our children, where needed, into adoptive parent situations.    

The situation for looked-after children in Wales can be quite depressing, but I have hope for the future, and I have hope for these children. Working together cross-party here and elsewhere, I actually believe that our motion today speaks common sense, it is what is required, and it would be really refreshing if the Welsh Government could support our motion today. Thank you. Diolch. 

I have selected the six amendments to the motion. I call on Siân Gwenllian to move amendment 1, tabled in her name.  

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. There is huge concern, of course, about the increasing levels of children in care in Wales, to such an extent that it formed a large part of the Thomas report, looking at the justice system. In that report, they highlight the fact that the percentage of children receiving care in Wales is quite a bit higher than in England and Northern Ireland, and we heard some of the frightening figures quoted by the individual who moved the motion. What is remarkable about the figures is the substantial and ongoing increase in that percentage in Wales, and that the gap between Wales and England is growing. It is worth drawing the Senedd's attention to the assessment and recommendations made in the Thomas report on looked-after children, and therefore I urge the Government to respond formally to those recommendations, and particularly to give consideration to the urgent steps and the short-term recommendations that are made.

According to professionals working in this area, there are a number of reasons for the substantial change in the needs that are emerging in this area.. There's no denying that, as a background to all of this, there are years of poverty. The austerity policies—the policies by those who proposed this debate—are the background to all of this. There is no denying the impact of austerity. There are other changes, of course. Changes in society certainly form part of the picture, as well as emerging issues. For example: county lines, problematic and inappropriate sexual behaviour, use of social media, online abuse, and so on and so forth. Historically, these weren't prominent factors, but of course they are now.

The Welsh Government has asked local governments across Wales to formulate plans to reduce the number of children in care, and those are to be welcomed. They could give a focus to services, recognising the changes that have emerged too. But, as I have said previously, numerical targets aren't an effective means of reducing the number of children in care. As we say in our amendment, numerical targets in and of themselves are a superficial solution in tackling this particular problem. I do think that that is now accepted, and that there is now a better understanding of that within Government than there was just a few months ago, and I do welcome that.

We need holistic solutions: preventative work; more funding for mental health services; and a multi-agency focus within our schools. Reducing numbers does require comprehensive solutions. We may need legislative changes. We certainly need to look at the courts processes, and we need to look at how kinship care is different in Scotland to the situation in Wales. We need to look at placements with parents, where the child would live at home with a parent with a care order and with support, but unfortunately, in some areas, the courts are very reticent in agreeing to that. Certainly, we need substantial investment in preventative services, and short-term grants aren't sufficient in maintaining those services. So, I do welcome what the PAC and Thomas commission reports state, namely, that we need to make whole-system improvements in order to provide timely services to families so that they are supported in staying together, with the ultimate aim of reducing the number of children in the care system.

Before I conclude, I would like to mention one other issue this afternoon. I would like to thank the Children's Society for contacting some of us to talk about the thousands of European children who are in care in the UK. Now, legislative changes in light of leaving the European Union could create problems for children in care, particularly as they become adults, as some of them will need new documentation to secure their status. So, I would like to take this opportunity to ask the Welsh Government. One, do you have any idea how many children in Wales fall into this category? And secondly, what can you do to assist local authorities, who are the corporate parents, to identify those children and to ensure that these applications are made? It's extremely important that this cohort of children receiving care don't fall through the net. Thank you.

Thank you. Can I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, tabled in his name? Neil.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. This is probably—well, not probably—the most significant area of concern for me over the last, probably, two to three years. The Chamber may not know that I employed a very experienced social worker because of the amount of cases that I was getting in terms of looked-after children especially.

Amendment 2 is very straightforward. It says that a well-recognised route out of care is via good quality contact between looked-after children and their parents. It's very straightforward. It says that contact ought not to be reduced or restricted for the convenience of paid care providers and that restricted contact can retain children in care for longer than necessary. Now, I understand that not everybody in the Chamber is going to support this amendment—I find that very surprising. Because what is happening is that contact is being restricted between children who want to see their parents and parents, because of the private—very often—care providers. So, it's not in the best interests of the child; it's in the best interests of a private company. So, I would ask everybody to support amendment 2 there.

Amendment 3: it recognises that care leavers who become parents are also at risk of discrimination and that all looked-after children's cases might usefully be revisited—it's a key point—to check if there's any history of discrimination against parents that contributed to the children remaining looked after. I've got a number of people in my mind here—a number of mothers in particular—who I think have been treated disgracefully, to be perfectly frank. What you see here, as well, is basic class discrimination. What this amendment asks is that these cases are looked at in light of recognition of discrimination that could actually be happening. And my view is that it certainly is happening, because I think when you've—[Interruption.] Yes.

I note your amendment with alarm, I have to say, and I won't be supporting it, because first of all, I can't see that you've presented any proof whatsoever to say that (b) is a valid amendment. And also, my experience of what people—having spoken to children in care and taken cases, very often, that contact is removed because it's best for the welfare of that child; it's never removed otherwise.

I'd say, with respect, that you're wrong, and I can see nothing wrong with saying that contact should not be restricted by an agency, especially when children want contact with their parents.

The amendment you didn't speak of there is the justice angle. What is wrong with reviewing cases where there could have been discrimination? The case I'm thinking of where contact has been restricted is because the parents are complaining, and the child is complaining of abuse in care. That's another amendment—we'll come to that now.

This may be controversial for some; it's not for me. The profit motive should be taken out of children's care, and I agree 100 per cent with the Children's Commissioner for Wales, and I hope everybody supports that amendment. Because people are literally becoming millionaires on the basis of—. The huge amount of money that is charged to local government—£300,000, £0.5 million, depending on a child's needs.

Amendment 5, and I hope that nobody opposes this amendment. This demands—and that's the right word to use—that children who allege abuse in care are taken seriously; that they are provided with an advocate; and they are spoken to by a child protection specialist, in a place of safety in order to go through the issues that are raised. Now, if there's anyone out there not supporting this, then they need a damn good reason, because I'm telling you that this is happening. And if anybody thinks it's not happening, come into my office and you can speak to parents and you can see the records.

Amendment 6 deals with the complaints process, and the Welsh National Party believes in individual sovereignty, enabling people to have control over their own lives. If you have complaints in about children's services—intake and assessment, in this case—the person who does the investigating is paid for by the council. They're called independent, but they're not because they're paid for by the council that they're supposed to be investigating. What generally happens is that the complaints do not receive the amount of attention that they should do.

I just want to turn very briefly to point 2. If we're serious about getting children out of care—and a colleague over there just spoke against this—good-quality contact is necessary between the parents and the children. And what this says here—. It's not a question of you saying you don't believe this is happening, but where contact is being restricted, for the convenience of a private company, what this amendment says is that that should not be happening. What we have here in Wales—I'll finish now, Dirprwy Llywydd—is a system where children's rights are routinely ignored. What I'm coming across in my casework, one particular case, is an abuse of human rights. We all come in here week in, week out, we say the same old things—most I agree with, to be frank—but there are really concrete cases that need addressing. And I won't be supporting Plaid's amendment because I think action should be taken, and I can see no other alternative, at the moment, other than what the Minister is trying to do via targets. Diolch yn fawr.

Wales has some of the highest rates of looked-after children in the United Kingdom. More than 6,800 children aged up to 18 years old are currently looked after by local authorities in Wales. It is a stark fact that over the last 15 years, the number of looked-after children has risen by 34 per cent. The figure is far higher than in England or Northern Ireland. By the end of March 2019, Wales had 109 looked-after children per 10,000 people. This compares, on the latest figures available, to 65 per 10,000 in England and 71 per 10,000 in Northern Ireland. The Commission on Justice in Wales commented on this last year and said, 

'What is striking is the marked and continual increase in the rate in Wales and the widening gap with England.'

Another aspect of this issue is that the rate varies wildly between local authorities. In Carmarthenshire, figures show that there are 49 looked-after children per 10,000 people. In Torfaen, the figure is 216. Studies show that there is a clear social gradient where children in the 10 per cent most deprived areas were found to be 16 times more likely to be subject to child welfare interventions than those in the 10 per cent least deprived areas.

The Wales Centre for Public Policy concluded that there were four main contributing factors to the number of children in care. One of the factors identified is deprivation. This is important because outcomes for young people in care are generally poor—poorer than those for children outside the care system.

Educational outcomes are also of particular concern. Just 59 per cent of looked-after children achieve the core subject indicator of key stage 2, compared to a Wales average of nearly 88 per cent. At key stage 4, fewer than 11 per cent achieve the core subject indicator, compared to an overall figure of roughly 60 per cent. Those Welsh young people who have left care—23 per cent have no qualification whatsoever.

Estyn's chief inspector has also noted that the poverty gap has not narrowed. Differences in attainment and attendance between pupils from advantaged and disadvantaged backgrounds have not closed over the last decade. We need to break this cycle of deprivation as a matter of urgency, Presiding Officer. Over the last 10 years, the Welsh Government has implemented numerous programmes to prevent children entering the care system. The Flying Start scheme targeted children up to the age of four at a cost of more than £690 million since 2006 and £290 million was spent on Families First since 2012. Neither of these programmes have managed to stem the increase in looked-after children. The budget for 2020-21 has proposed extra resources to address this problem. It allocates £2.3 million from extra health funding into the adoption service, as well as £900,000 on exploratory work on an integrated approach to supporting looked-after children in education.

While this is a good start, we believe that the Welsh Government needs to go further to support those children in care. We would introduce a looked-after children pupil premium to support—[Interruption.]—to support the children who are already facing huge gaps in educational attainment. Presiding Officer—[Interruption.] If you want to ask something, Kirsty, you're very welcome.

Deputy Presiding Officer, looked-after children and care leavers are amongst the most vulnerable in our society. I call on the Welsh Government to ensure that looked-after children have the same life chances as those who have not suffered adverse childhood experiences. We all have children. Children need safe, healthy—to have an opportunity in their future lives, so that they become law-abiding citizens of the country. That not only creates the best society, but it also creates the best economy. We all are working towards it. I hope that this Government listens and makes sure that our children are looked after properly by everybody who cares for them. Thank you.

I want to start my contribution by acknowledging that there is a strong cross-party consensus in Wales that we all have a collective responsibility to ensure that care-experienced children are provided with the best care and support available. Last week, Deputy Presiding Officer, I asked the Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles AM, a question about the European Union settlement scheme. It is an area of interest that I would like to follow up today.

The Welsh Government has allocated £224,000 to the Welsh local authorities to support European Union citizens applying to the EU settlement scheme. The proportion of that funding to Caerphilly County Borough Council is £9,500, based on an estimate of 3,000 EU citizens in that local authority. So, today, I have written to the council to ascertain how many of the 435 care-experienced children are European Union citizens, and what the authority is doing to ensure that their status within the United Kingdom is safeguarded. So, I would be keen to further my understanding—if the Minister can—as to what actions the Welsh Government is undertaking to support and ensure that local authorities such as Caerphilly identify children who are eligible for the European Union settlement scheme.  

Statistics show, as has been stated, that the number of children in care in Wales is continuing to increase, as is the case across the United Kingdom. Over the past 15 years, the number of care-experienced children in Wales has risen by 34 per cent, and this is a fact that should cause us all a moment to pause. There are a number of factors, though, that are driving this trend, including poverty, deprivation, and the very real impacts of austerity and welfare changes. We cannot ignore that. The introduction of the bedroom tax, benefit cuts and freezes, and the reduction on universal credit rates in particular, have hit the poorest families in Wales the hardest. We know that money issues are the biggest driver of family break-up, mental health deterioration and a drive to substance abuse. So, I'm heartened that the Government here has made this issue a priority.

I welcome the fact that the Welsh Government has invested an additional £9 million a year to expand the support for care-experienced children since 2017. This funding has meant that edge-of-care services are now in place in every local authority in Wales. It has led to the establishment of the groundbreaking St David's Day fund, which has supported almost 2,000 care leavers in their transition to adulthood. And it has provided for the roll-out of the Reflect programme throughout Wales, which supports young parents whose children have been placed in the care system. We know that this is important. A further £15 million is being invested over the next two years via the integrated care fund to expand preventative and early intervention services. This will help ensure that families receive seamless family-centred services that help support them to stay together.

These are practical support-based initiatives that work. We all need to ensure that care-experienced children are provided with the best care and support available to allow them to flourish in a safe environment and enjoy the same opportunities as any other child would expect. We are all corporate parents in this Chamber with this lens. To that end, we must acknowledge, surely, that this era of UK Government policy of austerity is damaging to the opportunities and life chances of the very poorest and most vulnerable children throughout Wales and the UK.  

I thank the Welsh Conservatives for tabling this important debate. Sadly, the number of children taken into care has doubled in the past 20 years. And, while the needs and safety of the child must always be the only priority, we must do all that we can to reduce the number of children taken into care. Because, as the Welsh Conservatives' motion rightly points out, the life chances of looked-after children and care leavers are significantly poorer than those of children who are not in care.

I also agree with Plaid Cymru that setting superficial targets is not the answer. We have to take strong positive steps to prevent children being taken into care in the first place; take steps to ensure that we have a well-resourced and supported foster care network for short-term care needs; and make adoption much easier for adoptive parents. 

And I'd like to comment on the opening speech of Janet Finch-Saunders, where she said about the transition from a foster parent into adopting. I can relate to that through a constituent who told me of his experience. They had one biological child and wanted another. It wasn't possible, so they adopted another little child, for company as well as being much loved. The little child showed signs of mental health issues early on, but the support network wasn't there, and to this day, the family of this little girl have struggled, really, to cope. So, because help was not forthcoming in the very early stages, the whole family now has been traumatised because the deterioration of the mental health has impacted on the life of the family, and it is an ongoing—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

I appreciate your intervention, Caroline Jones, and I take your point, and I just want to add that, actually, the other thing that happens is that a looked-after child is finally adopted, that support disappears, and then it leads to complete adoption breakdown. I know in my own constituency I have dealt with complete adoption breakdowns at least half a dozen times, and they are truly heartbreaking for all of the people involved.

Thank you, Angela. It's totally disrupted the whole family's life, you know?

So, as we take steps to improve the life chances of those in long-term care, whether that is in a care home or with a foster family, the Commission on Justice in Wales stated that children’s interests are being neglected in the family courts and were concerned at the very high numbers of children being taken into care. So, whilst I don't always agree that devolution of justice is the answer, the Welsh and UK Governments, I believe, must work together to understand why we have such a high number of children being placed in care, and take action to ensure that Wales doesn't become the UK nation with the highest proportion of children in care. Aside from tackling—

Will you take an intervention? Very briefly. Would you acknowledge that children who are placed into a care-experienced child's situation, they are not in that position lightly, and that there is a whole process that is undergone, and it is the last possible part of that process before a child is taken into care?

Well, sometimes it's a last resort, but what I was saying is, I think that more prevention is needed to ensure that children are not taken into care in the first place. And I don't think that support network is there. So, I agree with you—sometimes, but not totally, Rhianon. Thank you.

So, where was I? I'd said that the Welsh Government and the UK Government must work together to understand why we have such high numbers of children being placed into care, and take action to ensure that Wales doesn't become the UK nation with the highest proportion of children in care.

So, aside from tackling the rise of children being taken into care, the Welsh Government must do so much more to improve the outcomes for looked-after children. We have to break the cycle of a poor start in life leading to poor life chances. There is some fantastic work being done across Wales, but due to pressures in manpower and finances, these are the exception rather than the norm. We all know that prevention is better than a cure, we have to do everything we can to ensure that these adverse childhood experiences do not stop children in care becoming healthy, active and productive adults. We know only too well that children in care are less likely to achieve good educational qualifications, have greater health issues, well-being and housing needs as adults, and have a greater risk of becoming substance misusers. By investing in mitigating these risks, not only do we improve the outcomes for the individual, we improve our society as a whole.

As I said earlier, there are excellent examples of great work being done, and I would like to highlight, once again, the work of Roots Foundation Wales in my region. They are a volunteer-led charity based in Swansea, which aims to support young people in care, care leavers, children in need and adults who have left care with a transition period of independent living. They very successfully help young people transition to life outside the care system and they teach the skills needed for independent living—skills that most of us learn from parents, but that, sadly, due to a whole range of pressures, children in care do not sometimes gain. What Roots Foundation Wales do should be par for the course and charities such as these shouldn’t need to exist, but I and the hundreds of children they have supported are glad they do. However, we owe it to the nearly 7,000 children in care to do so much more. I urge Members to support this motion.

Thank you to everyone taking part in this debate. I think it's been very interesting so far, and I appreciate that perhaps the main thrust of it is about reducing the numbers of children in care in a safe way, but in discussing life chances, which I think is point 2 of our motion, I think we do need to look at the relationship between looked-after children and the education system in which they find themselves and about how the needs of those children are met. It's not a stand-alone issue, of course. The ability of any child to get anything from the formal education system to improve their life chances of course, as Caroline Jones said, can be compromised by a host of childhood experiences, but it is for the system to respond to the needs of the children and, actually, the role played by other important people in that child's life, rather than the other way around. 

So, the first question I want to ask is: how confident are we of how well foster carers are supported and how well they are trained and encouraged to find out the best ways to help the child that's in their care get the most out of their education? This has already been mentioned, but our children's committee did some very hard-hitting work a few years ago on the lack of effective post-adoption support for new parents, but I think the same is going to be true for those long-term foster placements—not the shorter ones, but the longer term foster carers, including kinship carers who, of course, are going through their own mixture of very complicated emotions relating to their own family. So I just want to make the point that point 4(d) of our motion is not just about a child's safety and, perhaps, their behaviour, it's about recognising that school can be one more place for a looked-after child to feel lost or misunderstood, unsupported, miserable and out of place, even in those schools that are the most switched on to the extra needs of looked-after children. So, can we just be sure and ask ourselves that question as to whether foster carers have all the tools they need to fight a child's corner with that child's school? As we've heard already, educational outcomes for looked-after children are poorer than for their peers. I'm not going to rehearse that again. 

We should of course be pleased that 23 per cent of looked-after children are now achieving their five good GCSEs. That's considerably up in the last eight years, but we still have 23 per cent of those children who leave with no qualifications at all. How has that happened? What has gone so right and simultaneously so wrong, because behind those figures are some others that should worry us. We've already heard that 10.9 per cent of looked-after children—that's a very small proportion—are reaching that point to be reasonably expected of a 16-year-old. So I'm wondering will we now see a drop in that range of—[Interruption.] Yes, by all means. 

Thank you. I totally understand the aspiration behind that and totally share that aspiration in terms of that threshold figure around GCSEs. Would you also acknowledge that there is a wide range of ability and, for some children, being able to attend school and come out of school intact is a major achievement, and that it's not all about qualifications?

I completely accept that point, but if you're in a world where qualifications mean so much, we need to be acting in a way that doesn't artificially prevent children who have care experience from being able to access that and getting the most out of qualifications if they can. So it's certainly not a position that everyone's got to have 6,000 GCSEs, regardless of their background. 

Nevertheless, I think this is an important point, Rhianon. The children's commissioner herself has pointed out that 43 per cent of children who are looked after or have been looked after aren't engaged in education, training or employment at the age of 19, and that's despite some of them now having pretty good GCSEs. And it does compare with 5 per cent of their peers. So, while qualifications absolutely aren't the only thing we should be thinking about, it does matter that the children who can get them do get them. What contribution does it make to your well-being if, after a lifetime of school, you emerge without a single qualification? How easy it must be to write yourself off when you've barely started on your adult life.

The Minister for Education, of course, is putting well over £100 million into the pupil development grant. I imagine you're frustrated with progress a little bit on the outcomes for our most deprived children, including our looked-after children. Estyn point out, of course, that provision is very variable, so that maybe is something where we can have some ministerial oversight. But your version of our looked-after children premium is going to consortia; you mentioned that yourself just a few weeks ago. I'm quite keen to find out how much money is going directly to schools to help them help looked-after children negotiate the new curriculum, and contribute to a whole-school system that really nurtures looked-after children, because online resources are one thing but teachers need time to assess and use them.

Deputy Minister, I think this is where some cross-Government work would be useful. Ministers and Members have talked about ACEs for a long time, and I was a bit disappointed to know that it's only now that a holistic approach, which Siân Gwenllian mentioned, to children and education specifically is being explored, when well-being and the capacity to achieve potential are well interwoven.

I just want to finish, Dirprwy Lywydd, on the point that Janet Finch-Saunders raised about the Skolfam programme developed in Sweden—and the Welsh Government love Sweden—which is a system for children in foster care, based entirely on multi-agency commitment and mapping. It saw the attainment of participants improve considerably and results in standardised tests improve significantly. But what mattered to me was looking at the number of young children who achieved the required results to attend post-16 education: we go back to life chances. A hundred per cent on this scheme achieved those grades compared with 67 per cent of children in care who did not. Now, that 100 per cent of children, that's 100 per cent of them reassured that they had a future that defied their past, and I think that's the kind of ambition we need to be looking for here in the Welsh Government.  Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

When we refer to looked-after children, we mean those children and young people looked after by the state in a manner described under UK and Wales legislation, whether that be in state institutions or under some form of fostering arrangement. Looked-after children and children living in state care remain, unfortunately, one of the most vulnerable groups in our society. The number of children subject to care proceedings has increased substantially over recent years, and the majority entering care due to alleged parental or family abuse and neglect.

It is an unfortunate fact that, compared to their peers, looked-after children generally have poorer outcomes in relation to education and mental health, as has been mentioned several times earlier, with many experiencing isolation and continued vulnerability whilst in care. Despite some improvement in the care system, many young people still go on to have poor life experiences when leaving state care, which include problems in relation to poverty, lack of suitable accommodation and employment. 

It is therefore vital that the removal of children from a family home should always be the last resort. It is understandable that social workers err on the side of caution, given the condemnation of some decisions made by their colleagues in recent high-profile cases. However, it is also a fact that an over-zealous approach can sometimes act against the best interests of the child, and therefore the family. 

The First Minister in his election address to the post he now occupies realised that too many children are taken from families in Wales. He also alluded to setting targets, a target for each local authority to reduce the number of children from that locality— 

Will you take an intervention? 

—removed from the care of the family, including—. Of course I will.  

Thank you for that. Would you acknowledge that in regard to having too many children in a local authority being taken into care, as you have just stated, is based on an individual assessment of each individual case? And that has to go through a very long and drawn-out process, which I haven't really got time to go through at this moment in time. That has to be done because of that child's particular situation, and that's the only factor involved. 

I certainly acknowledge that, Rhianon, but it does appear from the statistics that we have in Wales, compared to those they have in England and the other parts of the UK, that there seems to be an over-zealous approach being used in Wales by those social workers who are looking after these children, and I'll come to what happens after.

And I want to just look at what happens once the children are taken into care. Families who have children taken away face great difficulties in overturning social service decisions with regard to removing their child or children. The fact that family courts are closed courts, including the exclusion of journalists, means there is no independent scrutiny of the judicial procedures. There are also many obstacles for families in securing good legal representation as there may be conflicts of interests where large practices are often engaged on local authority business.

The removal of a child from its natural parents is a traumatic event, both for the child and the family, including grandparents and close family. It is therefore essential that such decisions can be robustly scrutinised through the judicial system. There's a great deal of anecdotal evidence to suggest that under the present legal system this is almost impossible to obtain. Whilst we recognise that much of the legal levers lie outside the competencies of the Welsh Government, we would urge you to make interventions where possible to enable a true scrutiny of the whole area of the taking of children into state care or the allocation of where parental control should lie. 

Would you give way?

The fact of the matter is that closed family courts—

Are you giving way?

—are not in the interests of the children. Sorry, I do apologise.

Thanks. I absolutely agree with what you're saying about the family court system. So, do you not think that we could do it better in Wales if we had our own legal jurisdiction here?

Well, I'm not sure that that would happen. We have to have a situation where there's an acknowledgement of the fact that family courts sitting in secret is wrong. When I was a magistrate, I could instruct all journalists in a court—I could give reporting restrictions on those journalists. I see no reason why those restrictions can't be applied to family courts. I appreciate the fact that we shouldn't have the general public in family courts, but why not journalists to make sure that there is some scrutiny of what goes on? I think it's appalling that there isn't.

Thank you. Can I now call the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, Julie Morgan?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to respond to this debate today, and I'd like to thank the Conservatives for bringing this debate to the Chamber. I think there's been a lot of interest and a lot of very important points made. So, thank you for that.

I first want to acknowledge the very helpful work of the Public Accounts Committee and its inquiry into care-experienced children and young people. I also want to acknowledge the work of the ministerial advisory group, very ably chaired by David Melding, who I'm pleased is in the Chamber today. And following on from his announcement on the weekend, I'd really like to pay tribute to David for his huge contribution to children in Wales. I've worked with David—we've worked together on this issue—for many years, and his contribution to children in Wales is immeasurable. So, thank you, David.

While I'm pleased with the progress of the Outcomes for Children programme, I think it's very important that we do not be complacent. Statistics from March 2019 showed that the number of children looked after by local authorities continued to increase by 7 per cent on the previous year, and, obviously, an increase is disappointing, but it is very important to note that for the second year running the number of children starting to become looked after has decreased.

It's very important that children have stable placements. The 2018 and 2019 data show that 9 per cent of children had three or more placement moves. These figures have actually remained stable over a period of time, and I think we've just got to recognise that, sometimes, placement moves are necessary and are in the best interest, but we want children to have as much stability as possible.

This area of work is complex and we are working with partners across the whole system, and many of those areas have been mentioned today, including the local authority, social services, the judiciary, health, education, housing and the third sector and all these organisations have a significant role in helping to keep families safely together and reducing the need for children to come into care.

The motion makes a number of calls on Government, so I will address these in turn—firstly, to review local authorities' reduction expectation plans. We already do this through our peer learning and feedback group. Local authorities' progress in the first six months showed that the looked-after rate has slowed. While there was an increase during this period, it was at a rate of 1.3 per cent, and previous years' annual increases have been around 7 per cent. I want to caution that these are unvalidated numbers, but I do hope that this trend will continue. That is for the first six months.

The reasons for increases in the looked-after population are, indeed, complex, as Siân Gwenllian said in her amendment, but I'm absolutely in no doubt that the First Minister's request for local authorities to set reduction targets has focused minds and encouraged a whole-system approach to prevention. And we are on that journey of improvement and must sustain momentum. As I've said before in the Chamber, the targets are the targets put forward by the local authorities, there no penalties, and they are only part of a whole-system approach.

In terms of foster carers, we continue to help local authorities recruit more foster carers through the national fostering framework, and this year we provided an additional £100,000 to progress its marketing strategy. Similarly, we're striving to make adoption services in Wales the best they can be. In 2019-20 we provided unprecedented funding of £3.2 million for local authorities and voluntary adoption agencies to improve adoption support, to be delivered through the adoption support framework for Wales. I attended an adoption symposium yesterday in the Temple of Peace, and although everybody acknowledged there is a long way to go, certainly there is a feeling that now the Welsh Government has invested in very important areas of post-adoption support—and some of the comments made today about parents having to struggle post adoption—we are definitely trying to address that. I was on that first inquiry that looked into adoption, and I would say that there has been improvement since then, but there's still a long way to go. [Interruption.] Yes.

Thanks for giving way, Julie. You mentioned at the start of your contribution the work of the Public Accounts Committee in this area that looked at all of these areas. As you'll know, we made a point of taking evidence from the young people themselves, and one of the overriding messages that we got from those young people was the importance of stability, particularly when it comes to placements. Some young people may be having 20, 25 placements in one year. So, when you're looking at this whole-system approach, do you value the input of the committee in suggesting that there should be greater stability for young people and that they should be put at the centre of the process, not just told what's going to happen to them?

Absolutely. I think that's a very important point—the children must be at the centre of this—and I value the work that the Public Accounts Committee did on that issue.

Local authorities are under a statutory duty to assess the need for adoption support services for individual adoptive families, including making an assessment for financial support to meet the particular needs of children. We have an all-Wales policy that sets the criteria and circumstances within which an adoption allowance can be paid, the assessment and review process, and what the support can cover.

As a Government, we've placed a firm focus on positive parenting and recognise the value of parenting support. Our parenting expert action group is looking at how parenting support can be delivered most effectively across Wales. And I don't want to pre-empt the outcome of their work, but want to emphasise that while parenting support, as part of a course, has its place, other approaches are available and effective in different circumstances.

In light of what I've just explained, I will support the original motion, but I won't support Siân Gwenllian's amendment because I don't accept the words about the targets. But I thank her for her considered opinions and for drawing attention to the Thomas review.

And in relation to the EU settled status scheme—and Rhianon also mentioned this—there are 115 eligible children in Wales, and we're working with the Home Office, the local authorities, ADSS Cymru and the WLGA to support the application process for these children. And we're in regular contact with the local authorities about this matter.

In terms of Neil McEvoy's amendments, obviously, in all the work we're doing with children, their safety has to be the predominant determinant of what we do. But contact with parents is, indeed, very important, and a key part of reunifying families after a child has had some time in care, along with ongoing support. So, I will support that amendment. I agree about the importance of advocates, and these arrangements are already in law and guidance, so I will also support that.

However, I won't support the other amendments for reasons I will explain. I too am concerned that care leavers who become parents may be at risk of discrimination. We want local authorities to shift their approach to better prevention, and this issue is part of that agenda. The Reflect programme we fund, which has already been mentioned, is providing much-needed support to parents, and we're already expecting a lot from local authorities, so we don't want to add a major case file audit to their workload.

Rebalancing the social care sector to support the growth of local authority fostering, residential care and reduce reliance on the private sector is Government policy. At the current time, however, we do need some good-quality private provision. So, I can't agree with the wording of that amendment, because we do have children in that provision at the moment, so we can't agree the wording of that amendment.

And on the complaints process, the Wales regulations 2014 and guidance make provision for an independent investigator who must be neither a member nor officer of the local authority. So, I can't support that amendment.

I am aware that I need to come to the end of my remarks, and there were a lot more issues I think that we could have gone into. I know that very important points were made about education, but I will stress the point in response to Oscar that we do have a pupil development grant that is specifically geared to children in care, as well as some other children. So, I think that's an important point to make.

But I think, finally, I'd like to end, as Janet Finch-Saunders did, on a positive note, and I know David Rowlands mentioned the Roots Foundation in Swansea. I visited the Roots Foundation, and I think that it's excellent work that they are doing there. I think we have to say that for many children, being in care is in their best interest and provides stability and security, as responses to the Bright Spots survey have shown. I have met care leavers who are doing admirably well, achieving academically and successfully living independent, fulfilled lives. So, I think it's important to finish on that positive note.

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

Diolch. Thanks very much to everybody who's contributed. Janet Finch-Saunders, of course, opened the debate, saying the situation in Wales is currently slipping out of control with the number of looked-after children rising 34 per cent over 15 years, 6,845 children between nought and 18 currently looked after by local authorities, and the number of looked-after children in Wales per 10,000 now far higher than in England and Northern Ireland, and also higher than in Scotland on the latest published figures. She talked about the justice commission being sceptical about the effectiveness of expenditure in Wales to date on this agenda, the need to prioritise early intervention in practice to reduce the number of children going into care, and to improve life chances. She said children going into care are five times more likely to suffer mental health conditions than children not in care, and therefore we need to know not just how much is being targeted at looked-after children, but also how this is being monitored. With care leavers at an increased risk of homelessness and poverty, she said we need care leavers to be provided with an advocate, and for local authorities and the Welsh Government to identify and support looked-after children in Wales that are eligible to make applications to the EU settlement scheme, something many people mentioned, and the need to support adoptive parents to keep siblings together. She finished on a positive note about hope for the future and hope for these children.

Siân Gwenllian again referred to the Thomas report, the percentage of children receiving care in Wales higher than in England and Northern Ireland, and the Welsh Government needing to respond to the widening gap with England. She referred to emerging issues, such as county lines and online abuse, the need for a multi-agency approach in a number of areas, specifically schools and courts, and sustainable investment in preventative services to keep families together.

Neil McEvoy raised a number of concerns, including the need for contact—or concern about contact being restricted—between children who want to see parents and their parents; that parents themselves can be at risk of discrimination; that children alleging abuse should be taken seriously; and that complaint investigations need to be totally independent, and I fully agree with that.

Mohammad Asghar talked again about the Commission for Justice in Wales, stating that there has been a striking increase in the number of children in care in Wales and a wide variation between local authorities in Wales, and then he explored that further, and the need to break the cycle of deprivation, where the Welsh Government has launched a number of programmes and invested hugely in those, but none have stemmed so far the increase in looked-after children.

Rhianon Passmore referred to the strong cross-party consensus to ensure that care-experienced children are provided with the best support available, and the importance of early intervention and prevention services. Caroline Jones talked about children's interests being neglected in the family courts, the need to break the cycle of a poor start in life leading to poor life chances, and, again, like a number of people, subsequently referred to the great work of the Roots Foundation, emphasising the key role played by the voluntary sector, and again the vital importance of investing in the voluntary sector's key early intervention and prevention services in order to improve lives and use money better and prevent pressure on statutory services.

Finally—or almost finally, if I can find my final page, because there are so many bits of paper here—we had, penultimately, Suzy Davies saying that the system must respond to the needs of children, not vice versa; the importance of supporting foster carers, of positive parenting courses, and of access to training and education and gaining qualifications to give every young person a future. David Rowlands—he talked about the number of children subject to care proceedings increasing substantially, and about that the removal of children from the family home should always be a last resort. The removal of a child is devastating not only for the parents, but also grandparents, which we should never forget, and the wider family. And he expressed concern about the family courts sitting in secret.

The Deputy Minister, Julie Morgan, concluded by praising, rightly, the ministerial advisory group ably chaired by David Melding; the importance, however, of not being complacent; the importance of stable placements wherever possible. She said that this area of work is complex, multi-agency, and that, although the looked-after rate has slowed, the numbers are so far unvalidated. She said that we're on a journey of improvement and must sustain momentum, but there's a long way to go. Clearly, these figures and reports are evidence of that. As she agreed, children must be at the centre of this. Of course, we welcome the fact that she said that she will be supporting the motion. So, I'll conclude by calling on everybody to join the Deputy Minister in supporting our motion. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Could be quicker than that. Therefore, we defer voting until voting time.

Item 7 on the agenda is the Plaid Cymru debate on eating disorders, and I call on Bethan Sayed to move the motion—Bethan.

Diolch. Well, it seems timely to have this debate today, because I started my career in 2007 with starting the cross-party group on eating disorders, and I finish this part of my career before going on maternity leave today with a debate on eating disorders and the eating disorders framework. So, it's an emotional day, and bear with me if I get out of breath or get emotional. 

We've had an event today with Beat Cymru to mark Eating Disorders Awareness Week, which is why I wanted to have this debate as well today, because I think that it's an important week that we should be marking every year to ensure that we can try to raise awareness of eating disorder services here in this National Assembly, and also to ensure that we put into place strong Government policies to ensure that we don't continually have to debate it, but that we have strong services in place to ensure that this most pervasive disease is targeted.

It's often driven by a lack of awareness. People say many, many times that it's a diet gone wrong. Enormous pressures that people face in society, from childhood trauma to abuse, to the images that we see on social media every day—we all know it, and we all know that it affects not only women but everybody in society. A general lack of self-esteem or an association with other mental health conditions can obviously intensify that eating disorder.

There are a variety of reasons behind every single case of eating disorder. Not one person I've ever met has had the same instance of an eating disorder. But what I do know is that it has the highest mortality rate of any mental health issue in the UK, and yet we still need to recognise the fact that there is a strong lack of investment, not only here in Wales but in other parts of the UK, and we need to change that. 

There are 1.25 million people in the UK living with an eating disorder, but this could be an undercount, because some people simply don't recognise that they have an eating disorder, because, as with other mental health problems, we don't often recognise it in ourselves. And often, and particularly men, they ignore it entirely and they don't know how to then approach people for support.

Treatment is possible and support is possible. But I've had discussions with people who have eating disorders over the years about the word 'recovery' and some people say to me that they will never fully recover from an eating disorder, but what I would say is that the road to recovery is there for us all if we want to embrace it and that we can deal with that eating disorder even if it does stay with us for the rest of our lives.

I'd like to say that there are—[Interruption.] I'm sorry—Nick.

You just took me back to 2007, and I think your cross-party group on eating disorders was one of the first CPGs that I attended, and you brought a young man along with you to that meeting who had been suffering from an eating disorder. So, I think the point you made there, about, often, men don't want to own up to the fact that they've got an eating disorder or a wider mental health issue, is a particular problem. So, perhaps that's something that can be addressed moving forward, so that that big chunk of people who don't report do actually come forward and say—hold their hand and say, 'Hey, I've actually got a problem.'

Thank you for coming to that first meeting, Nick. I think you were talking about James Downs, actually, who has been an amazing campaigner. He's moved to England now and he's doing exactly the same type of campaigning that he did here there. So, he has a mountain to climb, but he is very much still involved, and I think it's very important that we do encourage those people to come forward.

The issue, I think, for many people is that the wait is often dangerously long and the provision of services is patchy in many areas. In some areas they're very good, but others almost non-existent—if we look at mid Wales, it's very hard to get access to those services. And what we do need is more consistent support—when they have access to those services in the community, many people say that they don't have those support groups to go to afterwards, where they can meet other people and they can share their experiences with other people. 

So, in 2018, Dr Jacinta Tan led the Welsh Government's eating disorders framework review. This was the review that we campaigned for back in 2007 and which Edwina Hart, as the current Minister, put in place at the time. And then we campaigned for the review to happen in November 2018. To be fair to Jacinta Tan, the review was very strong, very robust, and had involvement from carers, patients and their families, and they felt engaged and involved in the process. My only regret at the time was that the Welsh Government took quite a long time to come up with any ideas as to how they were going to put that review into place, and I think we would be urging the Welsh Government here today to tell us how they're going to implement the changes in the review to make this a reality.

Waiting times—many, many other conditions are an issue here. We know from the patient episode database for Wales that NHS wait times are on top of the often extensive time that it takes many people to come forward and seek help for their condition. So, this could be up to at least three years. So, in the service review, a maximum wait is recommended of four weeks for non-urgent referrals and one week for urgent referrals. Yet, this is far, far from the reality of what is happening at the moment. What's concerning is that the Welsh Government seem, as I said, far away from implementing it, so I'd like to know when they are going to do that. 

So, whilst waiting times are a problem, so too is access. And I've lost count of the amount of times people have told me that they are not able to access services at a speedy time, so that they can, then, treat their eating disorder. 

And then many of them—. I don't want to criticise health professionals overtly, but we do know that, if you do go to your general practitioner—they're not specialists, but they don't know, sometimes, who to refer a patient to, they don't know what the processes are. So, I think much more training in that regard is needed. And then the review talks about an all-age approach to service delivery, which would take out some of the challenges that transition between child and adolescent mental health services and adult services often pose. I don't want to take up all my time before I'm able to sum up; I realise I'm going slower than usual.

I did hear from the ambassador for Beat, Zoe John, here today who said that she was deemed to be not thin enough to get treatment, and I think that is absolutely criminal. We need to review the BMI, even if you don't want to scrap it. I think if I was in Government I'd scrap it, because, even if you don't go in with an eating disorder, you may come out with an eating disorder because you're told that you're overweight or that you need to do certain things with your lifestyle even though you may be doing those things already, and I think that's key to look at and wasn't actually addressed in this eating disorders review.

There are so many stories that people have told me, but it's been a privilege to lead on the eating disorders cross-party group and I hope that you'll take the mantle forward while I'm away and make sure that the Welsh Government does implement the changes to the review so that I can come back and I can be—well, I won't have much to do then. [Laughter.] So, I'm not going to have to time to react to you; you'll have to bring in someone else. But diolch yn fawr iawn.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion and I call on Angela Burns to move the amendments, 1 and 2, in the name of Darren Millar.

Thank you very much indeed, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. And Bethan Sayed, I'd like to give you fair warning that, if you think that once your little bundle of joy has disappeared—been delivered—you're going to have less to do, you are sadly mistaken. [Laughter.] But it is going to be a great ride, and I wish you all the well. We on the Welsh Conservatives benches would like to thank you very much for all you have done here in the Assembly in driving forward this very, very important area, because important it is. It affects so many people, not just those who have a condition of eating disorders, but also the families and the friends. You have very neatly taken away an awful lot of the things I wanted to say. 

We support the motion absolutely, but we will oppose it in order to get our amendment heard. The reason we want to get our amendment heard is we actually believe that we're calling on Welsh Government to stop talking the talk—now the Deputy Minister needs to walk the walk and we need to see the movement and get the eating disorder service. It says it all in here; I don't need to repeat it. We just need to do what it says and we need to say it now. 

Time is vital. Early detection and intervention is an underlying principle of this review, and it is recognised by all the professionals that early intervention is so important. And yet I have constituents who wait literally years from the onset of their eating disorder through to beginning to get any kind of treatment. And, if they are lucky enough to access the treatment, then very often it's only for six weeks. Well, what on earth is six weeks going to do when you actually need mental health support and understanding to undertake a very, very long journey?

Waiting times are not just lengthy, but it's also about getting that day and that residential treatment. And I've had constituents—parents—come to me and say that their GP said to them, 'Your best bet is to nip up to the Priory in London, or go to Clouds'—or whatever it's called—'in Wiltshire.' Well, that's no answer, is it? Because your loved one needs to have residential support to get them through this, and we need to really have a look at this.

The one point I want to pick up is the whole area of GPs having more experience during their training of all mental health issues, including eating disorders. I speak from within the experience of my own personal canvas, within my family, when the message has been, 'Pull yourself together', and, 'It's a phase she's going through.' You know—yes, phases are what you go through when you grow from size 5ft 3 to 5ft 4. You can call that a phase, but eating disorders aren't a phase. I think that we really need to ensure that general practitioners, because they are the front line, understand that all mental health issues need to be treated well, and that eating disorders is a proper thing, it's a condition, it's a disease. And if you can help someone manage it and learn to live with it and control it and hopefully conquer it, then they will have such a better outcome in life. 

So, one of the things I really want to drive forward is that additional training of GPs, in rotation, in the community, in rotation, in mental health services and understanding the importance of it. Thank you once again for bringing this debate forward—and good luck, you're going to have a great time.

I now call on Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you very much, Chair. I went to the event over lunch today in the Senedd, arranged to mark Eating Disorder Awareness Week, organised by Beat, and sponsored by Bethan Sayed. May I tell you how pleased I am that I went to that event, to be able to listen to young women explaining so eloquently how their lives were impacted by eating disorders: the pressure to conform in the first instance in terms of their body shape or their appearance; the lack of understanding and awareness that they had of the danger that they could fall into the trap of an eating disorder; how they hadn't realised that a problem was developing for them until that problem had turned into a serious one; and how the response to their cry for help, or for assistance from the health service, had been unacceptably poor? 

That convinces me certainly that we should be taking eating disorders far more seriously than we have been taking them in terms of the need for urgent action. That is the cry from Beat and the young women that I heard from today—namely, to take urgent action. And the guidance on what we have to do is already with us. What we are asking for, very simply, is to take action on what emanated from the eating disorder service review. 

Having high quality services that are required by young men and women who suffer from this mental illness; ensuring that there's consistency in services across Wales; ensuring that we develop ways of monitoring the care that is provided; ensuring that staffing levels are given adequate attention, and that funding is in place on a health board level to implement a system that is appropriate; and ensuring that we teach our young doctors with regard to eating disorders, and that there is more time given than the less than two hours that is provided in training for medics at the moment, and that that period is increased so that there is an awareness amongst the health workforce as a whole about the seriousness of this issue.

That pattern does follow the review. Let us, through this brief debate today, make the point as a Senedd that we expect these recommendations to be implemented, as a matter of urgency, for the sake of our young people.

I now call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, Julie Morgan.

Thank you. I'd like to thank Bethan for bringing this debate today, and also use the opportunity to thank her for all the work that she's done in this field, and how she's made it a really important area of work for the Assembly, and for all her work with the all-party group, and to wish you all the best for the future.

I'm really pleased to have an opportunity today to draw attention to Eating Disorder Awareness Week and to emphasise the work that's being done to improve the eating disorder service in Wales. I absolutely accept that eating disorders are serious conditions that affect not only those with the condition, but can have a huge impact on the lives of families and friends. And friends and families are often instrumental in the holistic care of those with eating disorders, and it's fitting that there is an emphasis this week on empowering and supporting these friends and families. 

I would like to join AMs in commending those who've worked and participated in the eating disorder service review. As Bethan said, in 2018, the Minister for Health and Social Services commissioned Dr Jacinta Tan of Swansea University to review eating disorder services in Wales and to determine what changes need to be made to improve services and outcomes.

I know—and I think Bethan did say this at the beginning—that the experience of those with eating disorders and their families was absolutely central to Dr Tan's conclusions, and I'm personally grateful for the investment that these people have made towards improving eating disorder services in Wales. I know it can be very difficult—Rhun very vividly described the young women who contributed to the event at lunch time. I think it's absolutely vital that the human struggles that are going on for people in Wales are absolutely central to policy decisions. I was also very stuck by what Bethan said about—I think it was Zoe John who said that she was not thin enough. The review is quite clear that patients who require treatment should never be told that they're not ill enough. I absolutely fully agree with that.

Dr Tan's review provides a wide-ranging analysis of current eating disorder services and made a number of significant recommendations that reflect what services could achieve in the longer term. The review talks about the role of friends and families in participating in treatment: being allies of therapists and motivating their loved ones. It also acknowledges the emotional, financial and occupational sacrifices that are made to support friends and family.

The review recommends that the needs and perspectives of families of those with eating disorders should be considered within the development of policy and the design of services, and involved in the treatment of their loved ones. I fully support this principle and expect this, along with other principles underpinning the review, to shape the development of eating disorder services in Wales.

The Minister for Health and Social Services wrote to health boards setting out the actions he expects to be taken in response to the review: reconfiguring services towards earlier intervention; working towards achieving NICE standards for eating disorders within two years; and developing plans to achieve a four-week waiting time within two years. Welsh Government have received submissions from all health boards setting out the suggested approach to achieving these targets while ensuring that longer term planning aligns with the ambition of the review.

It's clear that extra funding will be necessary in order to start to deliver the level of services needed in Wales, and officials are currently developing an approach to funding that will enable progress to be made. I know that many people would like to see this happen at a greater pace and I think that's been the theme of the contributions here today, but this has been a significant review, which does require detailed analysis. It has been necessary to engage with clinicians to test the recommendations and to ensure that we move forward in a way that takes account of the progress that's already been made in many areas. And to support this progress, the Minister for Health and Social Services announced that there will be a national resource to ensure that the progress seen in some parts of the country can be made across Wales, because the issue of the services being piecemeal across Wales was another very important point that was made.

While it is important for health boards to deliver services within their areas, we do need to ensure that people living in Wales can expect excellent treatment for eating disorders, wherever they live. The changes we are working towards are ambitious and do reflect the scale of the challenge we face, and these changes will not happen overnight. The work undertaken by professionals, those with eating disorders, and their families to develop the review has been instrumental in determining the steps being taken forward to improve services in Wales. So, there is a clear plan ahead.

I'd like to end, really, by thanking Bethan for contributing to the situation that we have got. We've got a clear plan that we're working towards, but it is complex and it will take time. But, as you heard in my speech, there are time limits given to reach the situation that we want to be in.

I now call on Bethan Sayed to reply to the debate.

Thank you, and thank you to those who have contributed; I appreciate the response we've had. What I will start with is: you said, Deputy Minister, that it won't happen overnight, and I appreciate that any service change will take time, but I think what I would urge you to do in that sense, therefore, is to ensure that the people who contributed to the review—be they patients, be they carers, be they loved ones—are fully engaged in the timelines that you do have.

Because what they told me was that, once they'd contributed to Jacinta Tan's review, there was a drop-off and they didn't find out from Welsh Government what was happening. They weren't kept in the loop. And they don't have anything more that they want to be able to do than to find out what's happening and to be involved. So, I would urge you, even if you're going to tell them, 'It's going to take a bit of time, please bear with us', do you know what, they're not going to criticise you for that, because they know you're giving them that information? So, please, be abreast of that.

You say that extra funding will be necessary and you are approaching civil servants to look at how that will happen. Obviously, you will have read in Jacinta Tan's review that she would be predicting around £9 million to be able to do that. So, I would like to understand what your civil servants are doing in terms of costing different models and how they are going to approach that in future budgetary requirements, therefore. Because of course, at the moment, it's still the £1 million recurrent that we campaigned for in 2007, and things have changed since then. Yes, pockets of money have gone into different services, like transition and such, and that's something I totally welcome, but fundamentally it's still quite small in relation to the budget of the NHS in its entirety. And as we've said, again, people die from this condition, and we want to stop that happening in the future.

So, I'll finish now, and I would just like to say that it's not something that should be—. Mental health in all of its forms, as we'll discuss in the next debate, is important, but specifically, eating disorders don't just come into health, they come into education as well. Many people have told me that they go into schools and they would like to have more information about what that means to them. Emily Hoskins, who was here earlier, said her father is a teacher and people were telling people in school—just because they knew that Emily had an eating disorder—if they had an eating disorder in that school that they could go and see him. Well, he was dealing with that as a carer, and then coming in and people referring him to help those with eating disorders. That wasn't really appropriate.

So, I think we need to look at all elements of society and how not only the education system can accommodate those who need it, but also how the health system then can be amended to ensure that those who need treatment get it in a timely fashion and get the treatment they need for their own demands, here in society.

Thank you very much to everyone who took part, and I hope that changes will be afoot to ensure that those changes do help those people at the front line, so that they don't become so poorly that they have to enter a treatment unit in England, and that they can remain in the community to receive that specific treatment.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does anyone object? [Objection.] Then I'll defer voting under this item until voting time.

I move on now to item 8, the Plaid Cymru debate on mental health services. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Chair. This brief debate links very neatly with the debate that we've just had—I'll explain more about that in a few moments. But, it's a debate on a very specific issue that is of great concern to us on these benches, and I hope of concern to us as a Senedd, and to far too many of our constituents too. We are talking here about the high number of patients from Wales who are sent to mental health units that are a long distance from their homes, very often over the border in England. And there are grave concerns about the principle of sending people a long way from home. There are specific concerns about the quality of the care that is provided in many of these units.

There is an example here: Wayne Erasmus claims that he has not been able to speak to or see his autistic son for over three years. His son is living in a unit that has been the subject of a shocking report by the Care Quality Commission, a unit that has seen the use of physical restraint increasing. Another patient from Wales with anorexia is in the unit. She is allowed only three phone calls of 10 minutes per week with her relatives at home, and there are restrictions on what they can discuss during those calls. Does that sound acceptable to you? There are a number of similar cases that have arisen.

But even if there weren't a concern about the quality of the care provided, there is a very important point of principle about the impact on the well-being of a patient of being many hours and many hundreds of miles away from home, not being able to communicate with relatives, often not knowing how long they will be there, and certainly feeling very isolated from those care networks that are so important to people. I remember a constituent telling me how he was taken from his home in the middle of the night, whilst he was facing an acute mental health episode, and taken in a vehicle to the outskirts of London, and how that had had such a detrimental impact on the mental angst that he was already suffering at that time. That can't be acceptable under any circumstances. 

It would be one thing if these kinds of cases were rare, but they're not. Hafal, a group doing laudable work in mental health, mention a survey over a period where they couldn't fill the beds that they had in their unit in Pontardawe, where 30 per cent of the 1,000 people who were part of the study were placed in hospitals in England. There is no sense to that. 

In linking it back to our previous debate, it's important to highlight the fact that Wales doesn't have an eating disorder residential unit. It was a pleasure to have a conversation with a young woman who's a constituent of mine in the meeting today. It was wonderful to speak to Sara about her experiences, and it was heartbreaking, hearing about Sara's experiences. She had to travel a very long way from home to England in order to access treatment, and she was only a teenager at the time. That's unacceptable. 

Let's also consider the closure of the mother and baby unit in Cardiff for mothers suffering postpartum psychosis—a decision that did serious damage, as was clearly stated in the committee's inquiry here in the Senedd. Here's a quote from the Royal College of Psychiatrists:

'People with mental health problems being sent out of the area, out of the country, even, are not people with very rare or unusual conditions. They're people we could care for near their families and near their friends.'

You hear the argument being made sometimes that the critical mass of population doesn't exist here in Wales, but for most conditions, we certainly do have a population that desperately needs that care close to home. It's poor historical patterns in terms of the commissioning of care that has placed us in this position. So that's enough of the excuses; let's send a very clear message that this has to end, and that we have to develop a health service that truly suits our needs as a nation. 

I have selected the two amendments to the motion, and if amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. I call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services to move formally amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Formally. 

I call on Angela Burns to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Darren Millar.

Thank you very much, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. I am going to talk at speed, because I have a lot to say on this subject and I've only got three minutes. First of all, I'm not going to let you get away with your cheeky little comment there, Rhun ap Iorwerth. You know that these benches care a lot about this, because I have been very vocal on this subject, and I'm very glad that the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee are going to be looking at this very subject.

The reason why we have tabled our amendment is because, actually, we've done enough work to be able to drill down on some of the detail that we need here, Minister. But before I start on that particular element of the amendment, I just want to recount something to everyone in the Chamber. Literally, two months ago, I went to visit one of my constituents in a medium-secure unit in England. It is one that has got some serious Care Quality Commission black marks against it, and whether or not it is good or bad, I can tell you now that, as another human being walking into a medium-secure unit, my heart almost failed me. It is grim. I've also visited prisons. Where would I rather be—a prison or a medium-secure unit? I'd rather be in a prison. If you're in a prison you get to do things. If you're in a prison, you're allowed access to people. If you're in a prison, it's easy to see your family and your friends in specialised waiting rooms. If you're in a prison, above all, you know when you're going to leave. It may be three months, three years, 30 years, but you have an end goal. You don't have any of that optimism, any of that aspiration, any of that certainty when you're in a medium-secure prison. And when you're in a medium-secure prison that's 200 miles away from your family, then the heartbreak is multiplied, because it is very difficult to maintain communications.

One of the things that gets thrown around a lot is that, as soon as you're in one of those kinds of places—and don't forget, if you have mental health issues and you're in a medium-secure unit, you are very often with people who are there through the Ministry of Justice system, and that's a tough call. I saw some tough activity going on. I would not like to be there. 

So you're already a vulnerable person and you're put into a place that makes you even more vulnerable. A lot is made of the fact that we don't have the capacity here in Wales, and we don't, but when you're away, everybody needs family or friends, or an anchor. That anchor is so important. It is the way you find your way back to good health. If your anchor is 200 miles away or 300 miles away and you can't access that anchor easily, then it is very difficult to find your route home. So I absolutely urge the Welsh Government to have a look at this and to have a look at how we provide medium-secure units in Wales. 

Please, with your indulgence, I just want to address points (d) and (e), because a senior responsible officer is absolutely critical, Deputy Minister. One of the big problems you have is that a health board will say, 'This person needs medium-secure provision.' The Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee will then go and commission it and then, between the two of them, there's no clear line of sight on that person, on their progression or on their treatment plan. And, of course, people get moved around. Every time you get moved around from place A to place B, then you are re-reviewed, re-analysed and a new treatment plan is put into place. It's very hard to make those steps going forward; it's always two steps forward, one step back. 

Finally, a communications plan. That is absolutely key, because a lot of the conflict that we see is because family and friends are not given clear communication as to what is happening, what the next steps are and what part they can play in helping that person get better. And the person in there doesn't have a clear communication plan. They immediately feel that they're at the mercy of the people in charge of them, and that, in my experience and for all the people I've seen, has been one of the biggest sources of conflict. So I'd like to see a senior responsible officer and I would like to see clear communication plans laid out with the nearest and dearest alongside the treatment plan, and of course I want to see medium-secure units here in Wales. It's ridiculous having to travel so far away for treatment that should be normal in our NHS. 

Thank you. I call on Mark Reckless. 

Diolch. I'm very pleased to hear from Angela again. I remember her being very persuasive in the Chamber before on this and I know the particular case she's had and the extraordinary work she's done as an AM to support that family. I was also quite struck by a recent tv documentary in the same area. Just looking at that facility, it was so much more prison-like than I had imagined. She says we should have a medium-secure unit in Wales—yes we should. I hope it will be better than what we've seen, at least of some of those units in England. But I don't think it will necessarily mean that it would treat every patient in Wales where we need this mental health in-patient treatment. I think there is a danger in going from specific concerns about cases we're aware of to general but highly prescriptive requirements that we see in this motion.

I just have some concern about saying, too, that no patient should be a long distance from their family. There may be some mental health conditions that are so specialised that there can only be one or two places in the UK where you can give treatment at sufficient scale with sufficient specialists to do it. It may be, in some cases, the right thing for a particular patient in Wales to attend there. I also think there's a potential contradiction between no patient being a large distance from their family and then repatriating all Welsh patients—not clear how defined—who are currently in units in England. Perhaps some of those may have family or support in England, and we have many people who live near the border, and have mobility to move from England to Wales. And there may be special cases for individual patients, and we have to consider those, too. 

I think 3 (c) is too strong in terms of a ban on Welsh units using ones in England that have had a poor inspection. Perhaps they're dealing with that poor inspection, or perhaps that poor inspection was particular to one aspect of that facility. In 3 (c), the Plaid motion puts a lot of emphasis on the Care Quality Commission in England, yet then in (d) says that we should ignore that entirely and they must abide by Welsh inspection requirements. I think that's unrealistic in another context. We can't really have extra-territorial regulation. [Interruption.] Yes, I will. 

Thank you very much. I just wanted to let the Chamber know that I had a meeting with Healthcare Inspectorate Wales on this issue, with the head, and she was quite clear about the difficulties—the legislative and practical difficulties—of monitoring a placement in England from a Welsh organisation.

There are difficulties in monitoring, and we should take those into account, but I don't think that the way to deal with that is to extend the Welsh regulation to English facilities, or think that that's a realistic way of dealing with that. I think that we need to have mutual recognition or equivalence of that, and trusted relationships with regulators.

I'm not convinced about the proposal for a communication plan, but I think that the treatment plan should consider how to communicate with family and others. I think that when we do have patients in England, those facilities in England need to understand who they are dealing with in Wales. I think that there has been a terrible problem with the health board, and then WHSSC, and not being clear who is doing what. We need to be clear, and we need to make sure that the facility that we're commissioning in England is also clear. I think that the Welsh Government have a good amendment on this with the right balance on their points (a) and (b), and we intend to support their amendment, but oppose the motion and the other amendments. Thank you.

I'd like to talk about the experiences of a specific group of people who are suffering from having to go to England to receive mental health care, and that is new mothers who suffer from mental health problems. According to the Maternal Mental Health Alliance, these women are missing out on potentially life-saving care because of the lack of a specialist support unit in Wales. I believe that the first person to call for a specialist unit to be developed was my predecessor, Steffan Lewis. He was successful in playing a part in achieving a commitment from the Welsh Government to develop a permanent unit by 2021, as part of the 2018-19 budget deal between Labour and Plaid Cymru.

Now, we know that it doesn't look like this is going to happen, with Labour set to break a budget deal promise by opening an interim unit within a psychological hospital instead. That is not what was agreed, and it's not what's needed. Breaking a budget deal commitment is a very serious matter, not only in terms of political trust but, more importantly in this instance, it means that new mothers will continue to be denied the treatment that they need.

I'd like to place on record my thanks to BBC Cymru Wales for the excellent journalism that they've done over the past few years, giving a platform to some of the women who have been affected by this. One new mother who was treated at a psychiatric unit—a setting deemed inappropriate for the condition, according to experts—told the BBC reporter:

'I was not in an appropriate environment…there was absolutely no provision for my partner and son to visit during the day.'

Again, we're talking about women in a very vulnerable condition, when they need their families more than ever.

Postpartum psychosis, on the CYPE committee—. When we looked at this, we spoke with one lady who had come down to Cardiff when the facility was there, who would have preferred to go to Manchester. For many in north Wales, it works to go to the mother and baby unit and a hospital in Manchester, and that will be preferable to being made to come down to Cardiff, further from their families.

I accept that in some instances, that will be the case, but there will be many instances where this is needed. Again, I come back to the fact that this was a budget commitment, and this was something that was agreed between the two parties. I accept what you are saying in some instances. 

Another mother said that she went from being really happy to having a baby to not really knowing where she was, and that she didn't know what she was doing and felt very scared and not knowing where she could go for help. She said about her family:

'They weren't allowed to come to my room, we used to spend the time wandering the hospital corridors.'

A perinatal nurse explained the effect that travelling to a specialist unit had on another:

'It took them 10 hours to get there...it was horrendous because you have to stop with the baby every two hours because it was a new born…they got there at 10 p.m....what a terrible thing to do to that woman who was psychotic.'

Experts are agreed that opening a unit in Wales is essential. Dr Witcombe-Hayes of NSPCC Cymru has said:

'It is vital that Wales has provision for a mother and baby unit for women experiencing the most severe conditions.'

According to the Welsh Health Specialist Services Committee, women now face a choice between receiving in-patient care more locally, but being separated from their infant, or remaining with their infant in a specialist unit, but needing to travel away from their support networks. They add that, in many cases, women choose to access local acute psychiatric services that are not fit for purpose and lack specialist knowledge. This is not a choice anyone should have to face, especially not mothers in a crisis situation.

So, to close, the message to the Welsh Government is this: these women need this specialist support unit. The experts agree. You promised to provide it. Please get on with it before any new mothers have to suffer because of this scandalous inaction.

I call on the Deputy Minister for Health and Social Services, Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, and I think that the examples used in the debate have been very powerful and illustrate the issue that we are addressing here today. And I do recognise how difficult it is for patients and their families when care has to be accessed away from home, and it's obviously much more difficult if families have concerns about the quality of the care being provided. So, I'm pleased to have the opportunity to restate the Government's recognition of the importance of continuing to improve mental health services, including mental health in-patient provision. And I also want to provide assurances regarding the arrangements we have in place to ensure the quality and safety of care for Welsh patients receiving care for their mental health needs outside of Wales. 

Our aim is to provide mental health care closer to home and to reduce the need for in-patient support. Our sustained investment in mental health services, which will rise in 2020-21 to £712 million, is improving outcomes. For instance, the investment in community services has led to a reduction in mental health hospital admissions over time. And we also do continue to see a reduction in the number of patients who are placed in units in England. In 2018, it was 130 and in 2019, it had gone down to 96, and we hope that this will continue, this downward trend. 

But whilst our focus is on providing more support in the community, specialist in-patient provision will always be required to support people with high needs. And whilst we do provide in-patient support here in Wales, we do, in fact, have two NHS medium secure units in Wales, Tŷ Llywelyn in the north and Caswell in the south, we also provide access to support units in England. This allows patients in Wales to access very specialist support provided in units for the whole of the UK. But we do acknowledge that it is difficult for patients and families when they are placed a long way away.  

Minister, will you take an intervention? 

Yes, certainly. 

Sorry, just to illustrate your point because, yes, there is the Caswell Clinic but, actually, they're full already with people. We've got 61 people at my last count, which wasn't very long ago, in England. For example, one of my constituents, because the ward that that person is on is under threat of closure, is now being threatened with a move to Stevenage. To be honest with you, I'm not actually sure I know where Stevenage is, but further and further away from Wales, and they can't get to the few places that we have that are medium secure. We have at least 61 more people who need that kind of support. 

Yes, and I wanted to make the point that we did have the units in Wales; that's the point I was making. 

And when a patient's mental health needs are best met in a specialist unit, health boards are looking at the quality. Firstly, decisions are made on the quality and type of specialist care provided to ensure it meets the needs of the individual. Secondly, the commissioner considers the distance from home and any potential impact this might have on the outcomes for the individual. And the final consideration will be the value or overall cost of the unit. So, quality, distance and value in that order are the key factors considered when placing people outside of Wales for specialist mental health in-patient care.

And when patients are placed outside of Wales, consideration is also given to ensure families and relatives can maintain contact whilst their loved one is cared for away from home. I know comments were made about individual cases, which I obviously can't comment on, but those are the procedures that take place. That issue is looked at when placements are made.

We do have arrangements to ensure the quality and safety of the care provided in the specialist units outside of Wales. The NHS Wales national collaborative framework is a formal agreement and mechanism, developed by the NHS Wales collaborative commissioning unit and NHS Wales. It enables all parts of NHS Wales to procure and performance-manage services under pre-agreed standards, costs, terms and conditions. Placements under the national collaborative framework in healthcare settings outside Wales are overseen by the NHS Wales quality assurance improvement team. This provides assurance to health boards and the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee that services are being provided in a safe and high-quality environment. 

The NHS Wales quality assurance improvement team also continues to work closely with regulators in England, including the Care Quality Commission. This was the case with the recent suspension of some of the units at St Andrew's Hospital in Northampton. Tripartite meetings between the CQC, NHS England and NHS Wales continue on a monthly basis about the provider.

We published the third and final 'Together for Mental Health' delivery plan in January, and that set out the actions we will take with our partners over the next three years to continue to improve mental health and well-being. The new delivery plan makes a commitment to undertake an audit of current secure in-patient provision, and to develop a secure in-patient strategy for mental health. We are aware of the difficulties that there are. We have committed to commission an independent evaluation, to look at our progress since the publication of the 'Together for Mental Health' strategy in 2012, which will inform our future direction.

And to address the point made by Delyth Jewell, so powerfully—and I was on the committee when we looked at this issue, and we're aware of the huge emotive issues affecting mothers and newborn babies—the Welsh Health Specialised Services Committee has been asked to establish mother and baby provision in Wales to enable mothers to access more intensive support when needed. We recently asked them to urgently explore interim provision while longer term arrangements are put in place, which will be located at the Tonna Hospital site, and are expected to be in place by spring 2021. So, again, there is a plan. We will be providing that. And I just want to reiterate how we are—

Will you take an intervention, Deputy Minister, or are you out of time?

Yes, certainly. Well, I'm just about to finish.

Go on, I'll let you—. She is out of time.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I was just going to make the point that whilst welcoming, of course, the interim mother and baby unit in Tonna, Tonna is four and a half hours away from mothers in the north of Wales. Would you agree that we need a bespoke solution for the problem in the north-west in particular? I think the health board is willing to start discussions around that with a view to getting provision in the north as well as in Tonna.

Certainly, the Tonna Hospital site will not be suitable for women coming from the north, so certainly that's got to be looked at.

So, in any case, I hope I've been able to provide some assurance that we do have plans to look at this whole difficult area, but improving mental health services is an absolute priority for us, and we do have arrangements in place to look at the quality and safety of placements in units in England.

Thank you. Can I call on Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to everyone who has contributed to this valuable debate and raised very valid and important issues, and particularly the referrals to some of the appalling examples that I fear we're becoming far too used to.

I'll just add one further element to this debate too, in concluding, because last year I asked Betsi Cadwaladr how many mental health patients were being sent to hospitals in England and, of course, there are dozens who leave north Wales for homes and mental health units across England. In many of these, the care provided is appropriate, although it is further from home than any one of us would want to see. But according to the Care Quality Commission, which assesses care standards in England, many of the units where patients from north Wales were sent were either inadequate or requiring improvement. Betsi Cadwaladr health board spends millions of pounds on mental health services and much of that goes to these institutions in England. I have a very grave concern about the level of care provided in these few institutions. It does pose a question as to what oversight there is of those most vulnerable patients if they are many hundreds of miles away from their families, and indeed hundreds of miles away from the health board that places them at those locations.

Two care homes in particular—Cygnet Health Care's Wyke in Bradford, and Partnerships in Care's Kneesworth site—were listed as inadequate by the CQC after its inspection. A further three were found to require improvement. And these are serious failings. Wyke was deemed to be inadequate when it came to safety, effectiveness, caring and being well-led. And in terms of safety, that meant patients were put at risk in terms of monitoring and managing medicines. Now, I question whether the health board was aware of that, and if it was aware of that, well, clearly, there's a question to be asked as to why those patients were being sent there. Now, as I said earlier, even if the services are or were adequate—

I'm sorry, would you take an intervention?

I will, yes, although I'm already over time.

Well, I was just going to say that I can partly answer that for you, because it's deemed, to be frank, second-class citizenship, because there is no other alternative. There's nothing in England that they can go to, and I've met some great people who are very well aware that the settings are not appropriate, like the ones you've just mentioned, but they have no other alternative, because we have nothing in Wales and there's nothing else in England, apart from places even further and further away. And it's a shame because we wouldn't treat people with cancer or heart conditions in the way that we treat people with mental health issues. 

Thank you for that. And, also, of course, it reminds me of another point, in that why is it always one-way traffic? When we want to access services, we have to go to England. Why don't we have the aspiration to actually develop some of those specialisms here in Wales, so that people in England come to us? It doesn't have to be a one-way street. Now, I appreciate sometimes it may need to be, but not always, not always. And this motion is our opportunity to send a clear message in that respect, and I would urge all Members to support Plaid Cymru's motion. 

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

I am prepared to accept that now is voting time, unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung. No? That's good. So, we move to the Welsh Conservative debate on looked-after children, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Darren Millar. If the proposal is not agreed to, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 41, no abstentions, 10 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed, and all the amendments fall. 

We now move to the debate by Plaid Cymru on eating disorders, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Again, if the proposal is not agreed to, we vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 43, no abstentions, 8 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed. 

We now move to vote on the Plaid Cymru debate on mental health services. And I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Siân Gwenllian. Again, if the proposals is not agreed to, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 11, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, the motion is not agreed to, and we will now proceed to vote on the amendments. 

If amendment 1 is agreed, amendment 2 will be deselected. So, I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 31, 1 abstention, 19 against. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed, and amendment 2 is deselected. 

So, we now call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 40, 11 abstentions, no against. Therefore, the motion as amended is agreed.

We will now move to the short debate.

The next item is item 10—the short debate. And I call on Jenny Rathbone to speak to the topic that she has chosen.

Diolch. Thank you very much, acting Presiding Officer. I've chosen the topic of 'Is obesity a disease?' (a) because today is World Obesity Day, (b) because today the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health reports that obesity continues to rise, and it remains the case that over one in four four and five-year-olds are obese—a pretty damning and sobering fact. And thirdly, when I met Novo Nordisk last week—a pharmaceutical company best known for their work on diabetes—I was asked whether I considered obesity to be a disease, and I said I'd need to think about it and get back to them. The reason for my reticence is that I was reluctant to medicalise what I've always seen as a social, political and economic problem, generated by an obesogencic food industry, and the overbearing dominance of the motor car over the last 60 years.

So, what is obesity? It may be rather hard for you to read but I'm very grateful to Rachel Batterham, who's the professor of obesity at University College London, for allowing me to use some of the slides from her recent presentation to the Royal College of Physicians, who, as you may recall, are the organisation that have led the way on getting the ban on smoking, and are also campaigning very, very hard on getting a ban on ensuring that we deal with the alcohol industry as well. So, the Royal College of Physicians is an important organisation. Anyway, the definition of obesity, which is a worldwide problem, is a disease in which excess body fat has accumulated to such an extent that health may be adversely affected.

It isn't just an inconvenience—obesity actually shortens your life by between three and 10 years. Obesity prevents people from living well, and we spend 10 per cent of the NHS budget alone on supporting people with diabetes. You may not be able to read the slide, but it doesn't just cause diabetes of the type 2 variety, but also cardiovascular disease, stroke, high blood pressure, coronary artery disease, and heart failure, and many other things besides, including infertility, incontinence, depression, anxiety and asthma.

Few people would argue, then, against the need to reduce obesity, given its life-threatening impact. Indeed, it has the capacity, in my view, to overwhelm the national health service. Now, the answer apparently is simple: if we eat less and exercise more, we get a proper energy balance, and we retain the right weight for our size. In the 1940s, the health advice was to sleep at least eight hours a day, ensure you do recreation—i.e. a complete change from the daily work, for the body and mind—the right food in the right quantities, and regular exercise. And that, during the second world war, was when the population was at its healthiest—but that was down to rationing. But we can see that the political, social and economic landscape has deteriorated enormously since the 1940s, and obesity continues to rise and rise. How many of us adhere to the mantra of the 1940s today, in a world that never sleeps?

So, the question we have to ask ourselves is: is the Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales programme bold and radical enough to deal with the size of this problem, and reverse our obesogenic lifestyle? Wales is applauded by obesity experts for being prepared to use legislation to change the food environment, in contrast to the dither and delay at the other end of the M4. We have to stop the food industry from targeting children to eat the wrong things: that is completely unethical. And I also hope that we will be able to use the reregulation of the buses, which is coming up in the next 12 months, as an opportunity to also outlaw junk food advertising on public transport. I think it's very important that we use our public procurement muscle to ban junk food from our NHS health centres and hospitals, and I applaud Cardiff and the Vale health board for showing the way by removing all junk food from 13 of its hospital cafes and canteens, which it will be extending to its two community hospitals later this year. This initiative has actually increased their footfall and their profitability, and that shows that all health boards ought to be following that pathway, and I expect we will get a national hospital retail standard to promote the healthy options in all the retail outlets on NHS estates. Cardiff and the Vale have developed an audit tool to track that what they are delivering is what it says on the tin, which is pretty important given that if you're eating the wrong food, you're going to be costing the health service even more time and money.

So, we absolutely need to apply the same rigorous standards for public procurement in our schools, and I hope that the refreshed healthy eating regulations are going to have some teeth, because with so many of our children living in poverty, and families that are most vulnerable to choosing on price alone, even if nutritionally they are very poor value, it means that the free school breakfasts and nourishing school lunches are a lifeline for such children. In addition, the school-holiday eating programme ensures that these same children are not starving during the school holidays.

So, I want to see governors and local authorities being much more rigorous in ensuring that what is being served up for children in our schools is compliant with the healthy-eating regulations. Estyn has a sort of hands-off role in this, in ensuring that governors and local authorities are doing that job, but don't themselves inspect, and in my experience, there's a great deal of work to be done in that area.

Now, obviously, it isn't just our relationship with food that needs to change, it's also that we need to do more physical activity. I know that the Deputy Minister is leading the charge on ensuring that £30 million in next year's budget allocated to local authorities to increase active travel routes will be used not just on nice-to-have tourist paths, but is starting to shift the obesogenic environment dominated by the car. In Cardiff, Ysgol Gynradd Gymraeg Hamadryad and Howardian Primary School have led the way on having active travel plans, but we really do need to expect all schools to have them in place as well. And I wondered, therefore, what conversation the Welsh Government has had with local authorities about implementing vehicle exclusion zones around all schools, as recommended by Sustrans, so that all pupils have to walk, scoot or cycle to school for the last part of the journey. This, I feel, should be seen as an integral part of the package, to make 20 mph the default speed limit in built-up areas, and change the way we use our road space. That is what I assume the £4 million on the road safety grant will be applied to, and perhaps the Deputy Minister could clarify that, or, equally, the £5 million for Safe Routes in Communities grant in next year's budget as well. We have to recognise that children can be enthusiastic ambassadors for being more active. They can help the adults in their lives to adopt more active lifestyles.

While I fully support all these measures, I now need to address why obesity isn't just a condition caused by lifestyle choices that we want to reverse. We also have to treat it as a disease in the same way we do with diabetes or any other disease. First of all, the stigma attached to obesity. The UK Parliament's all-party group on obesity has released the results of a survey this week on the stigma associated with obesity. The survey confirms that people living with obesity face high levels of stigma, which impacts on their lives, work and leisure, their personal relationships, and their likelihood of seeking medical advice from their GP. Seventy-one per cent of people with obesity felt stigmatised when seeking health advice or support. Many people, including doctors, do not understand that obesity is a chronic disease. They see it as a simple lack of willpower, laziness or refusal to eat less and move more. But I think we have to challenge that attitude because it simply isn't acknowledging the extent of obesity, which has to do with more than simply environmental factors.

If we can't prevent obesity, then we have an ethical duty to treat it. Some of the treatments that we offer to people who are overweight or obese are frankly ineffective, as this summary of a whole host of research papers demonstrates, were you to be able to see it. The conclusion of these academic papers is that two thirds of the people who submit themselves to dieting regain more weight than originally, before they went on a diet in the first place. So, why is that? Well, I think that it has to do with the fact that, originally, we lived in much more difficult circumstances than we do today. We are hard-wired to treat dieting as a famine, for which the only rational response is to recover the weight lost as soon as the opportunity arises. In addition to that, some of the challenges people face are genetic. Whether we are thin or fat is highly influenced by the genetic make-up of our parents. Does that mean that, as more of the population becomes obese, more of the children that we have also become obese? We have to start thinking about what our response needs to be.

The most extreme response, if you like, is bariatric surgery, but it is recommended by the medical experts as the most effective treatment for people with severe obesity. A close friend of mine, no longer with us, did have bariatric surgery, and it certainly did transform his appearance, his weight and his ability to live an active life. So, I think there is an enormous benefit to classifying obesity as a disease, because it would ensure, then, that we have a clinical pathway for treating these very complex cases. Bariatric surgery for treating people with severe obesity is associated with sustained weight loss over 20 years. In 95 per cent of cases, it reversed the patients' type 2 diabetes and changed their relationship with food, as well as, self-evidently, making it easier for them to get around.

The Portuguese Government is the only Government in the world to officially recognise obesity as a disease, although there is a host of medical organisations who commend this as a way of improving the way we treat diabetes. Elsewhere, the Italian Parliament voted to recognise obesity as a disease following a campaign by the obesity and diabetes cross-party group.

To conclude, I think we have to recognise that for some people who have a genetic predisposition to obesity, the services need to be tailored to help those people avoid the most serious consequences. But that does not, and should not, absolve us from our political duty to address the social and economic causes of our obesogenic environment, which will otherwise reduce people's life chances and, in my view, could cause the NHS to collapse.

Thank you, Jenny. I now call on the Deputy Minister for Economy and Transport to reply to the debate—Lee Waters.

Diolch yn fawr. I'd like to thank Jenny Rathbone for keeping the spotlight on this important issue, from the work that she is doing on the cross-party group on food and the cross-party group on active travel as well as the work in her own constituency. She is continually highlighting the causes and consequences of obesity and is an important voice in our Senedd on these matters.

As she outlined in her speech, we already have around 600,000 adults aged 16 or over in Wales who are obese, and, more worryingly, 60,000 of those are severely obese. That number is increasing, with an estimated 10,000 more adults becoming obese each year. Over a quarter of the children in Wales aged four to five are overweight, including 12.4 per cent who are obese. These are disturbing figures. To directly answer the question that Jenny Rathbone has posed in this debate on whether obesity is a disease, that is a conclusion that the Royal College of Physicians have reached, as has the World Health Organization, which has classified obesity as a disease since 2016. So, in a sense, the question has been addressed by leading authorities.

We don't feel that recognising obesity here in Wales as a disease at this moment would lead to a different service response than we are already committed to taking forward. Our role is on the prevention and early intervention, as well as addressing some of the leading causes of obesity that Jenny Rathbone outlined, namely poverty, the environment and diet. For both adults and children, obesity rates rise with deprivation, with the prevalence 6 per cent higher among four to five-year-olds living in the most deprived areas, compared to the least deprived areas in Wales, rising to 13 per cent for adults.

Car-dominated streets contribute to our obesity crisis. Heavy traffic streets create what's become known as 'obesogenic environments'—places that discourage physical activity and contribute to the problem of sedentary lifestyles. One in four Welsh adults are now classed as obese, but that number drops significantly among those who are physically active. So, getting people out of their cars for short journeys produces multiple benefits, from cleaner air and less congested roads, to improved mental health and busier local shops.

And to try and answer the question that Jenny Rathbone posed about exclusion zones around schools, we have just refreshed the guidance for the Safe Routes in Communities project to put a far greater weighting on interventions that encourage behaviour change. And I've said that I met with all the road safety officers in Wales and set out my very clear expectations to them that we didn't simply want engineering-based solutions; we wanted solutions that were going to encourage modal shift and discourage car-based activities. It's now for them to come forward with proposals and we certainly would welcome proposals to have exclusion zones around schools where there's local support for that, and Jenny Rathbone is right: we do need to start thinking more radically about the type of interventions that we see around schools in particular. And it's my expectation, in the next round of maps—the individual network maps that local authorities produce next year for future active travel investment—that all schools in Wales be mapped on those plans, which will then result in infrastructure, linking them up to networks over the time of that planning period.

The food system, as Jenny Rathbone constantly reminds us, contributes to the obesity epidemic too. Easy access to cheap foods, high in salt, sugar, fats and additives, have encouraged a change in eating behaviour. So, to make a substantial impact will require a concerted and effective cross-Government approach, which is why we have set out in our 10-year strategy, 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales', published last October, themes around healthy environments and healthy settings. For example, we'll be consulting on legislation in the food environment over the summer, which will consider a range of future measures, such as price promotions, calorie labelling and drink purchasing. This is alongside investing in changing our physical environment in measures to encourage active travel and creating green spaces.

Obesity is significantly linked to health inequalities and we'll be looking at the role of behaviour change to encourage sustainable change. This is why we're developing targeted and tailored approaches, particularly with children and families. The risk of putting a disease label on obesity is that many people may feel that obesity will then be inevitable at a time when we want people to feel enabled to make healthy change—

Will you take an intervention?

I shall.

I just wondered how then you see us tackling the stigma, which the all-party parliamentary group picked up, because there's no doubt that people are feeling reluctant to approach their health professionals and partly because health professionals are not being sympathetic to the issue. 

Absolutely. Many people have told the Welsh Government about the daily stigma they have faced, which can be a prohibitive factor for them to make positive change, or patients being fearful of discussing their weight with a healthcare professional, as Jenny Rathbone has said. We will ensure that there is increased compassionate care within the NHS and that services are supportive and enabling. We know that having a consistent NHS response through the obesity pathway will help to play a significant contributory factor in this. However, what we cannot do is detract from the societal issues that we face to ensure that this is not an issue that defines the health of our population into the future. At this moment in time, we do not believe that treating obesity as a disease would help to change the momentum or the delivery that we will be taking forward through our ambitious approach through 'Healthy Weight: Healthy Wales'. Diolch yn fawr. 

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