Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call the National Assembly to order. May I begin by wishing you all a very happy new year?

And we will move on to our first item, which is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from David Rees.

Our economic priorities for South Wales West include supporting businesses to grow, investing in high-quality infrastructure and improving conditions for business.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. As you’re aware, steel making is a critical element of the economy in South Wales West and is the heart of the economy in Aberavon. The challenges that the industry faced in the last year have eased, but they’ve not gone away. Now, I applaud the Welsh Government in honouring its commitment to supporting the industry, with financial support of up to £12 million announced in December. I’m dismayed that the UK Government has done nothing and actually seems to be putting its back to the industrial sector. First Minister, before Christmas, Lee Waters, John Griffiths and I met with the chief executive officer of Tata Steel UK, and he made it quite clear that the joint venture with Thyssenkrupp was still on the agenda even if the deal is accepted by the trade unions at the end of this month. With that known view on the consolidation of the industry, and the pension deficit problems as well, what discussions and engagement will you be having with Thyssenkrupp and Tata to ensure that Welsh steelworkers have a more secure future?

I can say that any support we provide will be conditional on economic activity being protected in Wales. Our support will be subject—our financial support, that is—to Tata agreeing to legally binding conditions, and no funding will be drawn down by Tata unless those conditions are agreed. And it’s important that workers understand that the money that will be made available to Tata is conditional. We want to ensure that the money ensures that we keep those jobs in Wales and, importantly, we continue to have two blast furnaces at Port Talbot.

Assembly Members finally managed to get a formal meeting with the chief executives and council leaders to discuss the Swansea bay city region before recess, and it’s clear that they see investment in transport—you mentioned infrastructure in your reply to David Rees—as a key driver for the economic prospects of the region. Do you think that Wales’s second city, at the heart of this regional expansion, is big enough and ambitious enough to look simply beyond buses, which is what was recently suggested by Stuart Cole?

No, I think transport solutions can look at any number of different forms of transport. What is important is that the city deal is approved and receives funding from the UK Government, and we hope that will be the case in the future.

First Minister, in the past, you’ve recognised the importance of pensions in the economy when I’ve raised issues with you with regard to Visteon UK and the campaign that many of us were involved in at the time, in relation to the South Wales West economy, and, if those pensions were threatened in some way, how that would affect the economy. So, I’m wondering if we could have, therefore, a discussion on the Tata pension situation, because far be it for us to be criticised for butting out of this debate. I think it’s integral that politicians are part of this debate so that we can lead on this agenda. And I think it’s important, therefore, for us to have a debate on this, so that we can understand what contingency plans your Government will put in place with regard to the number of outcomes that are possible. For example, if the deal is accepted, or if it is rejected, the Welsh Government will have to have a view on that, will it not?

I think it’s unfortunate that Visteon is used as an example, because Visteon closed. I think it’s also unfortunate to suggest that trade unions are doing a disservice to their members. They are looking to represent their members’ best interests, and they’ve expressed a view on comments that have been made. That’s a matter for them. I think what’s hugely important is that there is an understanding that, at this moment in time, there is nothing else on the table. If there were genuine alternatives, then that is something that could be considered further, but that is not the case at the moment. And, so, we have to consider that fact—that the UK Government are not prepared to nationalise the industry. They’ve never given that indication, although I have urged them to do that in the past when David Cameron was Prime Minister. Therefore, the only package that is on the table at this moment in time is the package that Tata have placed there, but it’s for the workers and the trade unions to come to their own conclusions as to the future, particularly of Port Talbot.

First Minister, one of the biggest challenges facing the economy in my region during 2017 continues to be poor infrastructure. A thriving economy is dependent upon good transport links. With the rail network undergoing electrification works, businesses in South Wales West are at the mercy of the traffic flows on the M4. What plans does your Government have to reduce congestion on the M4 over the coming months?

Well, the first thing we want to see is the UK Government making good on its commitment to electrify the line between Cardiff Central and west Wales. Now, they have not given a date on that. The original plan, of course, was to electrify to Cardiff, and then from Bridgend to Swansea, making me wonder what I’d done to upset them in such a way that there should be a gap between Bridgend and Cardiff. But, at the moment, there is no date for the electrification of that line. We need to have that date so we can proceed with the modernisation of the rail network, which we know will take more cars off the road.

Well, I’ve set out my priorities for children and young people in the new programme for government, ‘Taking Wales Forward’, which was launched last September. I want every child to have the best start in life and have recognised the importance of a focus on the early years.

Thank you, First Minister. I’m sure that you’ll be aware of my concern that the decision was taken to end Schools Challenge Cymru in the draft budget, and that this decision was taken before the Welsh Government received the evaluation of the scheme. And it’s clear that lots of areas have seen very significant benefits through the programme, but it is also clear that there’s more work to be done in areas like my own, where we have a number of challenge schools. Can I ask whether you have any plans to make continued additional funding available to schools that were benefiting under the programme, but who have yet to make further progress? And how will we ensure that the good practice that has happened in other parts of Wales can be rolled out everywhere?

Well, it’s certainly the case that most schools have benefited under Schools Challenge Cymru. They no longer need that support; they are now able to stand on their own two feet. There are some schools that are not in that position. I can give my friend and colleague the assurance that we are looking at how we can help those schools that have not done as well, to make sure they’re not left behind, and to make sure the good practice that’s being learned in other Schools Challenge Cymru schools is passported to those schools that haven’t done as well as we would want, in order for them to be able to succeed in the future.

Happy new year to the Minister and to everybody here. The Welsh Government is committed to creating conditions to give every child the best chance in life in Wales. Will the First Minister advise how cancelling the scheme offering 16 to 18-year-olds a third off the bus pass travel will help young people in Torfaen, and elsewhere in Wales, to access jobs or training, where they are going to go, and definitely is going to cost them heavily?

Well, the current scheme is coming to a natural end. It’s right to say the uptake of the scheme has not been as substantial as was originally intended. But, nevertheless, the Minister has been in discussions with the bus and coach companies in order for them to come forward with a suitable alternative scheme—I think by April of this year. So, it’s not the case that the scheme is coming to an end and nothing will replace it; we are looking at ways of replacing the scheme and making it more effective in terms of its uptake.

Questions from the party leaders. The leader of Plaid Cymru, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. First Minister, as we start the new year, the familiar waiting time problems in accident and emergency, and with ambulances, show no sign of dissipating. But, there’s an urgent question on that, so I want to ask you about a crisis in waiting times that doesn’t often get the attention that it deserves. At the start of last term, I asked you about waiting times for children and adolescent mental health services. You said at that time,

‘The resources have been put in and I fully expect the waiting times and the numbers to go down as those resources work through the system.’

First Minister, how is that going? Have the waiting times gone down?

Well, if we look at waiting times in terms of mental health admissions, we know there were 9,570 admissions in the year ending 31 March 2016, some 1,400 resident patients in hospitals and units across Wales. So, we know that the number of admissions has stayed steady, and, of course, we now expect to see the extra money—the £8 million extra—that’s being put into children’s mental health services, particularly, help to cut waiting lists, and we’re seeing that across Wales—waiting times, I beg your pardon.

First Minister, the answer to the question that I asked you is that waiting times for CAMHS have not improved. The numbers of people waiting for over 16 weeks got slightly worse over the course of the year, and, as well as stagnating over the past year, the waiting times remain substantially worse than they were three years ago. Now, one explanation that you’ve given for this is that there are too many children being referred. For example, in November 2015, you said,

‘evidence suggests that around a third of young people referred to specialist CAMHS have no mental illness’.

And you said,

‘A further third have low-level difficulties that wouldn’t reach the threshold for treatment by a specialist service.’

And these sentiments were echoed by your previous health Minister. Do you stand by that view, First Minister?

Yes.

Well, in fact, there’s no evidence—no evidence whatsoever—that children are being added to waiting lists without reason. Now, the Children, Young People and Education Committee’s report of 2014 highlighted that many children have to wait until their condition worsens to access support. The charity YoungMinds have said that many children and young people tell it how they’ve been frequently turned away from accessing services because the threshold for treatment is too high for them. First Minister, the evidence is growing that there aren’t enough services for young people with mental health problems. I’ll ask you the same question as I asked you in September last year: when can people expect to see improvements in the waiting lists, which you have promised to this Assembly time and time again?

First of all, CAMHS is an acute service; I wouldn’t expect people to be referred to CAMHS automatically. I expect young people to see their GPs and the GP to refer if that’s necessary. Secondly, every secondary school has a counsellor, and that counselling service is available for those who require it. I wouldn’t expect everyone, in the same way as I wouldn’t expect every single person who goes to a GP to be referred automatically to a secondary care service, to do that.

In terms of CAMHS, we’ve made significant investments in CAMHS; there’s no dispute about that. The money has gone in and we expect to see further significant progress over the course of this year. I will, however, write to the leader of the opposition in terms of the evidence base that we have of the nature of referrals to CAMHS, and I’ll provide that information to her.

The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, over the Christmas period and recently over the last couple of days, there’s been considerable speculation over the merits or not, as the case may be, over the deal that is before the steelworkers at Port Talbot and other plants across Wales—Trostre, Llanwern and Shotton. Before we broke for the Christmas recess, you clearly said to me in a line of questioning that this is a very good deal and that it was a deal that you can endorse and that provides a future for the plant. Is that still the thinking that the First Minister has around this deal, because I’m unaware of any plan B if this deal is rejected?

I’m aware of the concerns, of course, around the process of the pension scheme and Members in this Chamber have echoed those concerns, but I have to say that I do not see that there is any other alternative on the table and so, although it’s a matter for workers to make their own decisions, the proposal that is on the table is, I believe, one that will preserve the steel industry in south Wales. There is nothing else. There is no plan B.

Thank you for that clarity, because I think it is important to understand the gravity of the decision that the steelworkers do face, and it is their decision, in fairness, because they are being asked to give up something in return for assurances around the long-term future of the steel industry here in Wales. We understand now from Plaid Cymru that it is their opinion that this deal should be rejected. What do you believe will be the consequences if this deal is rejected for the long-term and medium-term future of those plants that occupied so much of the political agenda as well as the community agenda in those communities through the whole of 2016?

I understand the concerns that Members have expressed, but, as I’ve said before, there is no other alternative on the table. The other consortia that were interested in taking over were all concerned about the pension scheme as well. So, the issue of the pension scheme is never going to go away. The alternative, I suppose, is that the UK Government could nationalise the industry. Your party made it very clear that you will not do that, and so, it seems to me that it is this plan, at the moment, or no plan. That is what the workers have to consider.

It is a matter of regret to me that the UK Government—things were different under the previous Prime Minister, if I’m perfectly honest—have not taken an interest in the steel industry in Wales; they’ve not addressed the issue of energy prices properly; they’ve had no discussions with us, as Ministers, on the issue of the future of the steel industry, or very few, since the new Prime Minister came into place, and I regret that. I noted carefully what Theresa May said yesterday about intervening in the market, but we’ve seen no evidence of that in terms of help for the Welsh steel industry.

I believe we have a very supportive UK Government, First Minister, when it comes to this issue, and I’d be interested to know how many requests have gone to Downing Street to seek that meeting on the specific steel issue. Do you agree with Stephen Kinnock, and very often—[Interruption.] I can hear the Deputy Minister chundering from a sedentary position, but he might well like to listen to the question first and then we might get an answer that would inform his constituents as well as other people in Wales. Do you agree—?

Can we allow the leader of the Conservative Party to be heard please?

Do you agree, First Minister, with Stephen Kinnock, that the proposals put forward on the table by Tata Steel are impressive proposals, and actually these do unlock significant investment for the steel plants across Wales, and offer a secure future, certainly in the short and medium term, for the many thousands of jobs that depend on this investment being unlocked? Seven thousand jobs—

I did ask for the leader of the Conservative Party to be heard, and I intend to be listened to when I ask.

Seven thousand jobs depend on this deal. Do you agree with that?

In the absence of anything from the UK Government, and the lack of interest from the UK Government since the last Prime Minister left his office, I believe this is the only deal that is on the table. We have provided a substantial amount of money, the UK Government have provided nothing, and we believe that that package—well, we will demand that that package—helps to secure the thousands of jobs in the steel industry in Wales.

The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Can I welcome the First Minister back from his trip to Norway? Perhaps he could tell us what conclusions he arrived at as a result of that. Is he aware that 70 per cent of the Norwegian people are still adamantly opposed to membership of the EU? And as regards membership of the European Economic Area, will he confirm that Norway is a member of the Schengen agreement, and so unfettered access to the single market, which the First Minister is always advocating, is going to require also unfettered access to the UK for unlimited numbers of EU immigrants?

‘No’ is the answer to that, because people in Norway—. He’s right to point out that they do not support EU membership, but they very strongly support EEA membership and freedom of movement. But, there is a difference, and I believe this is an issue that is a profitable route for us to pursue in the UK: freedom of movement in Norway involves freedom of movement to work. It’s not an unlimited system of freedom of movement. There are some rules surrounding how people can look for work if they lose a job, but it’s not an unfettered right of freedom of movement. All they do, actually, is follow the European rules to the letter, which the UK didn’t. The UK was more liberal in its approach and went beyond what the rules required. If that is what’s required in order to access the single market, I think that is something people would find perfectly reasonable.

Well, we discovered the answer to that question in the result of the referendum itself, because the referendum, the result, was overwhelmingly motivated—and everybody seems to agree this—by fears about unfettered migration, and as regard—. [Interruption.]

Oh yes. All the evidence shows that that was the clinching factor in the result. Plaid Cymru, of course, are not only in favour of full membership of the single market, but they’re also in favour of full membership of the customs union, which would prevent us from entering into deals with third-party countries as well. So, at least the Labour Party hasn’t gone that far in its adherence to EU membership. But, the reality is, isn’t it First Minister, that 508 million people currently have a right of entry, being EU citizens, to this country, to come here to live and to work, and if we were members of the EEA, then that would be, to all intents and purposes, the same as it is now?

No, because if you interpret the rules strictly, that’s what you get: you get a freedom of movement to work. I believe that people would accept that. I think if people believe that somebody is coming to a job that they have, that will be a reasonable position to adopt. The other thing we have to remember is that the UK will have an open border with the EU. It will have an open border in Ireland, which will not be in any way policed and not be in any way monitored. Now, whenever this in mentioned in the discussions we have with UK Ministers, we see the equivalent of an ostrich plunging its head into the sand. They keep on saying, ‘It’ll be fine,’ but the reality is, given the fact that there will be an open border with the EU, given the fact that the UK Government will then want to monitor whether somebody has the right to work in the UK, how does an individual prove that right? Passports are optional, driving licences are optional; you end up with a compulsory ID card system. There’s no other way of doing it. Again, this is something that hasn’t been thought through properly, amongst many, many questions that are yet to be answered by the UK Government.

In the nicest possible way, I’d like to encourage the First Minister to spend more time abroad, and going to other countries where he can learn something about how the world operates outside the EU. In particular, I’d like to encourage him to go to South Korea, because South Korea has—. Not just because it’s about as far away—[Laughter.] Via Los Angeles possibly. Because South Korea has actually managed to negotiate a free trade agreement with the EU. So, it’s not part of the single market, but it has all the trade benefits of membership of the single market without any of the encumbrances of the freedom of movement of people. As this has been lauded by the trade commissioner of the EU, Cecilia Malmström, in these terms she says,

‘The evidence of our agreement with Korea should help convince the unconvinced that Europe benefits greatly from more free trade… it spurs European growth. It safeguards and creates jobs.’

I’m sure that the First Minister and I are absolutely in agreement on that point. Therefore, it would be very helpful, I think, for the UK generally if he were to add his considerable weight to the argument for more free trade agreements with the rest of the world, which is something that we can negotiate only outside the customs union and outside the EU.

Well, I don’t know whether he means political or physical weight. I’ll try and be optimistic in terms of what he means. [Laughter.] The reality is this: free trade agreements take many, many years to negotiate. The UK will not have a free trade agreement within two years. Whenever I’ve spoken to officials who’ve been involved in such discussions, they find it laughable that people can even say that. It takes nearly two years almost to set the framework for the discussions. The concern that I have is that, in two years, the UK will fall off the edge of the cliff and have a free trade agreement with nobody, because there’ll be no transitional arrangements. So, transitional arrangements will be absolutely crucial beyond March 2019. Otherwise, there’ll be nothing.

He mentions Korea. What I don’t want is for the UK to become a kind of European North Korea that’s actually cut off from the rest of the world, without any kind of trading arrangements with anybody. That surely is in nobody’s interest. But there has to be a dose of realism here. It’s been said, ‘The world will fall at the UK’s feet.’ I don’t believe that at all. The UK is small compared to the other trading blocs. We have to be realistic and have to enter into negotiations with an open mind. We also have to understand that, as far as market access is concerned, there is a quid pro quo. We cannot demand from the European Union everything we want and expect to get it. That’s not going to happen. It’s not going to happen that way. For me, there is a choice: either you say, ‘We’re going to limit immigration’, which is impossible because of the open border, or you say, ‘We’re going to have access to the single market.’ To me, access to the single market is absolutely the most important issue for us in Wales and therefore anything else can be compromised on. I believe that if we say to the people of Wales, ‘There is a freedom of movement to work’, then that is something that most people will accept as perfectly sensible.

We have consulted on our draft vision for achieving 1 million Welsh speakers by 2050. The finalised document will discuss the relationship between the Welsh language and economic development, and we’ll publish the final strategy later this year.

Thank you. Plaid Cymru strongly believes that we must have social activity and economic prosperity in Welsh-speaking areas if the Welsh language is to be strengthened, and we believe in developing specific urban areas, such as the Menai area. Do you agree that we need to take all possible opportunities to create new national institutions in areas where the Welsh language is strong, as part of the 1 million Welsh speakers strategy? And do you agree that the creation of the new finance body that will be required to administer the new taxation powers that are coming to Wales will be an excellent opportunity to create high-quality bilingual jobs in an area such as the Menai area of north-west Wales? May I suggest Caernarfon as an ideal location because the Government has a half-empty building there already, which is ready for use? The establishment of the revenue authority there would be a great boost to the Welsh language, both locally and nationally.

Well, that’s a very important question. Some have talked about Porthmadog as well, of course. I understand why the Member supports the Caernarfon bid. That’s something that I’ve asked officials to consider. The point that is raised is whether it would be possible to ensure that there is prosperity in terms of skills in those less urban areas. That’s an open question at the moment. But, I do understand that where a new body is created—a new public body in that regard—we should look beyond Cardiff, and perhaps look beyond the south, to see whether there is a way to ensure that that body can be located somewhere else in Wales. This is something that we are currently considering.

The Welsh language and economic development task and finish group published recommendations on how bilingualism and economic development could be improved. Evidence from the review suggested that there were differences between how SMEs and larger businesses use the Welsh language, with many SMEs saying that the Welsh language was a cost rather than a benefit. Since the review was published three years ago, can I ask what practical support the Welsh Government has provided specifically to SMEs to increase the commercial advantages of operating bilingually?

Well, two points: first of all, rather than being a cost, it’s an opportunity for a business. If a business is seen as providing a service in Welsh, it will be received more favourably by the whole community. There is no question about that in my mind. Secondly, on a more practical point, there is a pilot project that has been operating in the Teifi valley, working with businesses, helping them to provide a service in the Welsh language, and helping them to understand the economic benefits to them as a business of operating bilingually. That project is important in terms of us being able to gather the evidence as to what will work in the future in terms of helping SMEs to develop their language offer as part of their business.

I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs has given great consideration to this. She has led on this, given her responsibility for energy matters. Our comprehensive response to the committee’s report has involved work across Government and is now available to view on the committee’s web page.

I thank the First Minister for that answer. He will know that a new year is often a time for new year’s resolutions as well. So, could I ask the First Minister whether he and the very able Cabinet Secretary will undertake—will resolve—to work with the Assembly and work across Government to take forward as many as possible of those 19 recommendations, which included a commitment to near-zero carbon homes; which included a commitment to driving forward in a revolution towards community and localised energy that would tackle the oligopoly of the big energy providers, using planning and other policy tools to turbo boost community energy; and also to drive that revolution as well within clean green energy jobs, right across Wales, urban and rural likewise? A hallmark of this Government and this Assembly in successive administrations has been the commitment to championing the environment and real sustainability. Will this be the Parliament, and will this be the Assembly, and will this be the Government that makes this a reality—a real green energy revolution, and the jobs boost that will come from a smarter energy future for Wales?

I believe so. The recommendations are closely aligned to our strategic direction. Of the 19 recommendations, we were able to accept 12 of them in full and seven in principle. In terms of how this is being taken forward, we have seen the success, for example, of Awel Aman Tawe’s locally owned wind farm, and the local energy trial in Bethesda, which was featured on the ‘Money Box’ programme this weekend. Those are just some examples. We hosted an event on Friday last with the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, or BEIS as they call themselves now, and Ofgem, making sure that Welsh voices are heard on a major consultation on a smart, flexible energy system.

First Minister, I also commend this excellent report. I think it’s very important that committees work hard and reflect on the work of previous committees. I know that the successor committee will be returning to this. But this is ambition, and it’s that ambition that we want reflected, I think, in the Government’s programme. There’s a real chance here, you know. The Welsh economy was built more or less on a single source of energy, and we suffered for that after the 1920s and the replacement of coal with oil. New opportunities are before us, and those opportunities could help us transform the Welsh economy and make it much greener and more resilient and locally controlled.

Well, wind is there. The tide will always be there as long as the moon is in the sky. These are truly renewable resources that, when properly harnessed, can drive our energy consumption and, indeed, energy exports, ad infinitum, potentially. These are issues that we need to move forward with. We will have of course, in the Wales Bill, greater powers over energy consenting. But, of course, the financial aspect of energy development still lies with the UK Government. We look forward, of course, to what the Henry review will say in terms of the tidal lagoons, and we will look to work with the UK Government in order to make sure that we do have renewable energy that has a very low revenue cost in terms of generation and is there for the foreseeable future.

May I recommend to Assembly Members that, if they want a vision of the future that is anticipated in the committee report, they visit Pentre Solar, in Glanrhyd in Pembrokeshire, where new social housing has been opened by the Cabinet Secretary, and I was also in attendance, last Thursday? Those are the kinds of developments that are possible now in Wales and we should see far more of that developed here.

But, specifically, the committee recommendation made on energy suggests the creation of a not-for-profit energy company for the whole of Wales, to be an umbrella body for developments such as those that you have just listed—Ynni Ogwen, developments in places like Talgarth, Glanryd—in order to bring people together and to get the best possible deal for the customer as well as the environment and the Government. So, what steps are you taking to undertake that sort of development?

Discussions have taken place between officials and several bodies with regard to developing schemes to establish an energy company for Wales. Initially, of course, we have to clear about what the purpose of such a company would be before we move forward. But those discussions have taken place and continue.

Yes. Health boards are collaborating with partners to invest in primary care as the mainstay of our health and care system, working in communities to tackle poor health, to support people to stay healthy and to do what matters to them, and to diagnose and treat problems where they occur.

Can I thank you for that response, First Minister? I've received a number of complaints since Christmas regarding primary care provision, basically in two practices within Swansea East, about not being able to make an appointment, being told to phone back the next morning, doctors unwilling to make an appointment, difficulty in getting vaccinations, unwillingness to make home visits. I also know of the excellent patient provision that the other surgeries cover in my constituency. What can the Government do to standardise the quality of provision and bring all doctors’ surgeries up to the level of the best?

It's a point that the Member makes, and it is a point that, like him, I hear from people on occasion. They ask why the services aren’t consistent. Well, those services that are provided directly by health boards are able to be consistent, but we know that most GPs are independent contractors, and that's the way the situation will be for some years to come. It is important, of course, for the public to be able to access services when they need them. I do expect local GP practices and health boards to be focusing on this, working together locally across practices and in their 64 local primary care clusters with other key professionals. There is money on the table; there's the primary care fund of £43 million. That is there in order to improve ways of delivering services: for example, developing the role of nurses, so that people don't feel that they have to visit the GP every time, and placing pharmacists, physiotherapists and social workers alongside GP teams, as we're seeing more and more across Wales, so people can get the right professional that they need rather than having to see a GP who isn't able to help them and has to refer them, and then having to wait for longer.

You make the absolutely fundamentally correct point that we need more of the allied healthcare professionals in place in general practices in order to help to maintain a good quality of service for staff. So, my question to you, First Minister, is that, last year, there was an absolutely right focus on getting more doctors into Wales, whether it was secondary or primary care. This year, will you be able to look towards how we may recruit more people into the allied healthcare professions, how we might have adequate training places for them, how we might encourage young people that this would be a very useful career path for them and show them that there’s a real career development? Because we’re not going to solve our primary care issues without having that broad structure of competent individuals offering holistic services to people.

Yes, absolutely. We launched the first phase of the national and international recruitment campaign last October, aimed at attracting doctors, particularly GPs, to train, work and live in Wales, and the indications are that the number of applications for GP training has increased, including in those areas where we have introduced an incentive-based approach. I can say that the Cabinet Secretary agreed plans for phase 2 of the recruitment campaign earlier this week, aimed at other healthcare professionals in primary care.

With emergency departments in our hospitals in crisis—the Royal College of Emergency Medicine’s words, rather than my words—would the First Minister agree that the erosion that there has been in the percentage of NHS funding provided to primary care and the stress that that places on our GP surgeries causes problems for our A&E departments? And does the First Minister agree, therefore, that it is now time to look again at how health funding is allocated in Wales in order to ensure fair funding for primary care in order to maintain a sustainable NHS for the future?

Well, two things: first of all, I don’t think it’s just about having more and more doctors. We need to ensure that people do go to the relevant professional for them. That could be a pharmacist or it could be a nurse or a physiotherapist. It’s right to say that we do need to ensure that we do maintain the right number of doctors, but it’s not just about having doctors.

The other side, of course, is that it’s important that people don’t remain in hospital for too long. We’ve seen the problems that have arisen in England because they have cut back on expenditure on social services, and social care in particular. In Wales, of course, we maintained the level of funding to ensure that that didn’t happen here. It’s true to say that there are pressures in our health service. That happens every year, especially in our emergency departments. There have been plans put in place and those have worked despite the pressure that has been placed on doctors, and may I pay tribute, once again, to all those who work in our health service, especially those who work in the emergency services, for the excellent work that they do, especially at this time of year?

A number of actions to support growth across the whole of the Welsh economy—direct support through Business Wales, and we’re also working alongside the National Procurement Service to increase the amount of Welsh produce coming into the public sector. Of course, in the food and drink industry, Welsh produce is far better labelled now than it certainly was 15 years ago. He may have the experience that I have of going into local shops and seeing, fortunately, that Welsh produce is first off the shelves.

Norway, which, as we heard, he visited recently, the Republic of Ireland, the German region of Hesse, and others, all have an official, widely recognised country-of-origin brand that, in large part, is aimed at domestic consumers. Now, if, as it seems, we are going to be ejected out of the single market by that regressive alliance of Corbyn and May, import substitution will be even more important to us in the future. So, can we have a made-in-Wales brand as the first line of defence from the economic lunacy emanating from Westminster?

This has been looked at in the past as to whether there’s a need for a brand for Welsh produce, or whether it’s better approached through having a strong brand recognition for individual products, Welsh lamb being one of those products. These days, most food producers, for example, do label their products as Welsh. That is seen as a great advantage to them; for some less so, but certainly it’s much more prevalent than it was 15, 16 years ago, and people are far more likely now to buy Welsh products. I remember, at the time of the foot and mouth crisis, that at that time one of the big supermarkets didn’t label anything as Welsh. Everything was generic in every single store. That has long changed, and things are the better for it.

The domestic market in Wales is important, but it’s a small market, and that’s why, of course, we continue to make sure that we have an emphasis on exports, and having Welsh-branded products going to export. When we look at Welsh food, the one thing we must avoid is the Norwegian situation, where there is a tariff on food. They were saying to me that the tariffs are so detailed that there is one tariff for smoked salmon and another tariff for fresh salmon, which gives you an idea—he will know this anyway—of how complicated trading negotiations actually are. But, for Norway, they do have tariffs imposed on their agricultural produce going into the European market. The very last thing we need is to see the same thing happen to Wales.

I was pleased to hear the First Minister, in his response, refer to the role of Welsh public bodies in supporting not just Welsh producers and suppliers, but also they have a role in proactively supporting their local economies. What a difference it would make if all Welsh public bodies, or, indeed, all bodies in Wales in receipt of Welsh public funds, acted deliberately, proactively and collaboratively with one another to support their local economies, and including fostering the development of local suppliers and local supply chains. What steps can the Welsh Government take to bring that about?

Well, we do continue work on marrying the risk-based and proportionate SQuID approach, as it’s called, simplifying the process for suppliers in bidding for public sector work and helping to ensure that all suppliers have a fair chance of winning that work. One of the issues, particularly in the food and drink sector, that was a problem at one time is that they were too small. Companies were too small to supply big organisations like the NHS day in, day out, week in, week out, with what they produced. That was overcome through the procurement initiatives that were put in place and we’ve seen far more procurement now taking place locally than was the case certainly 15 or 16 years ago. Moving local authorities away from compulsory competitive tendering took some time, even as the concept disappeared. When we talk of best value to local authorities, we say to them that it’s not just about getting the cheapest possible quote, it’s about making sure that as much money as possible is retained in the local economy.

I’m pleased that Adam Price has raised this question. Only you could make Corbyn and May sound like a 1960s folk group, Adam. I’d rather focus on the food and drink issue that the First Minister mentioned in answering you. I agree with you, First Minister, that Wales does have a great story to tell in terms of our home-grown food and drink, and you’re right to point out labelling as an important tool. Would you agree with me that food festivals and models such as that are also a very important way for us to sell Welsh produce, not just to Welsh consumers, as Adam Price’s question originally said, but also to English consumers coming across the border?

Abergavenny, I’m sure, is well respected as a food festival, as he will know. But he’s right, because the events showcase Welsh produce. The food hall at the Royal Welsh Show, at one time, was too small. It was rebuilt and is now probably too small again. That’s an indication of the success of the Welsh food and drink industry in its diversification, in its variation, and the fact that so many of the businesses that were set up over the past decade are still there and are still able to go into the supermarkets. There’s been a change of heart amongst a number of the supermarkets as well. Whereas in the past they preferred to purchase from large suppliers, they have become more interested in smaller suppliers and in local produce, which is something that I very much welcome. But what we have to avoid more than anything else is our biggest market, which is Europe, being either closed to us or the terms of trade with that market being less advantageous to us. The US will never replace the European market. The US is very protectionist when it comes to agriculture. So, keeping Welsh farmers being able to sell on the current terms of the European market is absolutely vital to the future of Welsh farming.

It’s a matter of serious concern, of course. We have a strong track record of controlling animal-disease outbreaks. The Cabinet Secretary will be providing an update in her oral statement on avian influenza this afternoon.

I look forward to that statement later today. It was the case that, during the Christmas break, there was a wigeon—that’s a type of duck for those who don’t know it—that landed in Llanelli wildfowl wetland centre. I want to praise here the actions that were immediately taken by that wetland fowl centre in closing their doors to the public for nine days because, as a consequence of that, I’m sure that they helped reduce the spread of that avian flu within that area. We do know, however, that it did spread, and that there has been an infection in that area. What we also know is that birds don’t understand boundaries, and I think we would perhaps be well advised to take note of the very cold and sharp spell of weather that is now happening in eastern Europe, which might, and in my opinion probably will, create further migration of birds looking for food further south, to us—that is west, of course. My question will be, and I’ll probably address it to the Cabinet Secretary later, how we’re going to deal with that and how we’re going to inform the public to be aware of those newly migrating birds that could possibly be a source of further infection here.

We do work, of course, with the other GB Governments in order to take the appropriate action. I would encourage any members of the public to report dead wild waterfowl—swans, geese, ducks and so forth, or gulls, in fact—to the GB helpline. The Welsh Government website is updated continually with advice and I’d urge all poultry keepers and all those involved in working at the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust to check the website frequently. I know that the Cabinet Secretary will provide more information in due course this afternoon.

First Minister, in light of these cases of avian flu, what additional work are you as a Government doing to assess the impact that this disease could have on the poultry sector?

There is an effect, because there is a period of time after which it’s not possible to say that poultry are free range, because of the fact that they have had to be kept in. We do know that, and we know what the effect on those who keep poultry will be. So, at present, what’s vitally important is to ensure that the situation remains the same so that we can manage the disease itself. But, of course, we understand what the situation is in terms of poultry farmers if this situation should continue.

I thank the First Minister.

I have accepted an urgent question under Standing Order 12.66. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to ask the urgent question.

I thank the Member for the question, and I’d like to start by recognising the hard work of NHS and social care staff, who work under significant pressure at this particular time of year. That is, of course, a consistent feature of winter. I don’t accept that emergency care in Wales is in a state of crisis, and in fact we continue to work with Dr Roop and other leading clinicians, as members of the national unscheduled care board, in trying to find meaningful solutions to support improved outcomes for patients who need emergency and unscheduled care here in Wales.

Cabinet Secretary, nobody wants to speak of a crisis in the NHS. It’s worrying for patients and it’s demoralising for our excellent staff. But you’ll be aware that the Red Cross described the situation in England’s A&E as a humanitarian crisis. You’ll also be aware that your party leader, Jeremy Corbyn, has described that as a national scandal, and demanded the Prime Minister explain herself to Parliament. Yet the vice-president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in Wales yesterday described current performance here as being as bad as, if not worse than, England. It would be shocking, except that performance of this level is long-standing, and this happens every year. We’re used to it, and it somehow doesn’t generate the same headlines as in England.

The data for December aren’t available yet, but November’s data showed that just 77 per cent of patients were seen within four hours, and that almost 3,000 people waited longer than 12 hours to be seen in major A&E departments. If performance follows the usual trajectory, it’s likely things will get worse as the winter develops. So, if you were in my position here, I’m sure you’d understand the temptation to use the term ‘crisis’. Well, it’s not me saying that; it’s the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, and there’s no ducking the severity of the warning that, due to this crisis, as they put it, patient safety is being compromised.

Cabinet Secretary, both winter and an ageing population are predictable, and we debate this every year. On our side here we call for better social care, for strengthened primary care, better out-of-hours GP services, to take the pressure off A&E, and you agree with us that this needs to happen. So, why hasn’t it happened? Why is there such a gap between the promises that get made here, and what happens on the ground? And are you embarrassed, frankly, that your own Labour Government’s performance undermines your colleagues in Westminster, who are desperate to highlight the failings of Jeremy Hunt?

No. I think, when looking at this, we need to think sensibly about where we are in Wales, and the comparison with England, which has been made. It is, of course, for the Red Cross to stand up for their own commentary on the system in England—they haven’t made the same commentary on the system here in Wales, and there are differences. There are seven different hospital trusts in England that have reached the highest level of alert—and they run a different system, so the pressures are different. Part of the challenge is the use of language and what we’re really and honestly describing. At the start of yesterday, the statement made by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in Wales was then amended, because they referred to some of the English terminology, so there’s a real danger of not being accurate with our language, and not accurately reflecting the position that we’re in. And objectively speaking, we’re in a better position with less pressure in the system this week than last week. There are real highs, as everyone knows, in winter—real peaks on individual days and, at certain points in the year, peaks that sustain over periods of weeks or months. Our challenge always is: how do we sustainably and resiliently deal with that, to make sure that patient outcomes are not compromised and to make sure that patient care and the experience of care is as good as possible, and that the system does not fall over? You will recall that, when I attended the health and social care committee, in the winter pressures inquiry, I indicated that we’re in a better position than the last two winters: our plans were in a better place, we had learned from the previous two winters, but that did not mean there would be complacency because there will be difficult days. And you and I should be extremely thankful that we’re not members of front-line staff dealing with those pressures on the ground level.

But, that does not mean that where we are now is a crisis, because if you look at the objective levels of escalation in each of our hospitals, it simply does not amount to a crisis. We have a number of hospitals at level 4, but actually the majority are at level 3 or below, and that simply doesn’t reflect the emergency care system being in crisis. There is a need for all of us to have real care in the language that we use, because you were right, in the opening, where you talked about demoralising staff by describing the system in a way that is simply not accurate. I want to see staff supported in doing what is incredibly difficult throughout the whole year, but especially during winter.

There will be no complacency here. And one of the reasons we are in a different position to England is we haven’t seen the cuts made to social care that they have in England. That artificial measure has meant that the system as a whole isn’t working. We try to see the health and social care system as a coherent whole. We will undoubtedly have more learning to take from this winter, and if there is a real crisis, I will happily acknowledge it. I do not accept that where we are now is a crisis, but I do accept that there’s very real pressure and there will always be more for us to learn to do more to support our staff and to be better, not just for the health service, but the patients and the people who it serves.

You’re absolutely right, Cabinet Secretary, I think we must be very careful in the language that we all use. I think one of the first areas we have to be very clear about is that we are all entitled to challenge—challenge you, challenge the Welsh Government—about the performance of the health service. And by doing so, that does not impugn in any way the hard work of the people in that health service. Whether they are a top-flight consultant or the porter who takes the person from the ambulance in through the system, they all play a valuable part, and we need to get over this issue of ‘We can’t talk about it because we’re doing people down’, because none of us are doing them down. And language is very important, because the chairman of the Red Cross was utterly, utterly incorrect in the comments that he made about humanitarian crises. That was an appalling use of wording. And when you look at the evidence behind it, it’s mainly two NHS trusts. We have seven, and our seven all respond in different ways to the winter pressures.

Now, of course, the Royal College of Emergency Medicine made some very clear recommendations when they came before the health committee, and I know that you and your officials were looking at the transcript, looking at what people were saying, and have had a number of conversations with all these royal colleges. So, I would just like to ask you a couple of questions in terms of: were you able to ring-fence or ensure that health boards had ring-fenced any unscheduled care beds to ensure the provision was there, therefore elective surgery didn’t take a hit? Were you able to implement any frail and elderly assessment centres in any of the major hospitals in order to triage our more vulnerable people in the same way that we triage our paediatrics? Are you confident that redirection services have managed to work well? And, of course, what causes the collapse in A&E and what has caused this commentary, I believe, from the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, who were absolutely right to have pinpointed what they did and how they see it, is the closure of beds, and I wonder, Cabinet Secretary, if you’re able to say whether or not there’s been an increase at all in community beds and in secondary care, because taking those three or four actions would, in fact, help to alleviate the pressures that the A&E departments are under. They are, of course, the front door to all of our acute services.

Thank you for your series of points, comments and questions. When we talk about the system being under pressure, it does mean that the job of staff is made more difficult and more demanding, and that also has an impact on the patient experience, too, and we should all reflect and recognise that we’re talking about this general area. I don’t, for one minute, say that Members shouldn’t ask awkward questions; I think it’s entirely appropriate, on occasion, to challenge the use of language as to whether it’s appropriate. In terms of the questions that you asked and the points that you made, I think, again, it’s about seeing health and social care as a whole system. It isn’t just the secondary care part, it isn’t just the ambulance service and the paramedics, it isn’t just the emergency department; it’s the whole hospital system and it’s the flow through that system and actually what needs to be done, not just in triage at the point when someone arrives at a hospital, but actually what is done before that, whether that’s with the ambulance service or whether that’s actually in primary care as well. And we are objectively getting better at doing that as a system.

I look forward to publishing more statistics and more information over the course of this winter on what is being done—for example, in the next quarter’s statistics on the ambulance service, the work they’re doing to see, hear and treat people and discharge them either on the phone or at the scene to prevent journeys being undertaken unnecessarily into the hospital system; the work that is being done across primary care with pilots similar to the one, for example, that I’ve mentioned previously on Ynys Môn, but also in other parts of Wales, with similar systems and advanced care to keep people out of hospital and get them out quickly if they do go in. So, people understand who their most vulnerable individuals are and often those are elderly people, as you rightly point out.

We’ve already seen, as I indicated at the committee, that there are, I think, approximately 300 extra beds in the system that are being delivered as part of the response to winter in terms of the plans that health boards have. That’s a normal part of planning. That means they scale down elective activity: that’s entirely normal too. But, even last winter, we saw more elective activity than had taken place than in the previous winter. I won’t forecast and give you any sort of guarantee it will happen now, because it would be wrong of me to say what will happen with unscheduled care not knowing what may happen in terms of the flu or in the weather and the pressures that will come here. But I expect to see progress made on elective care in the remaining quarter of this financial year. I expect to see the system being resilient in terms of unscheduled care too, and that will mean some of our resources and people are redirected to an appropriate point in time at any point in the health and care system. In many ways, what keeps the health part of the system going is the fact they are able to work effectively with social care and the third sector in getting people into and out of health facilities for care and back into their own home with packages of care where it is appropriate. And in that place, we are in a much better place in Wales than other parts of the UK, because we plan jointly between health, social care and the third sector. Undoubtedly, I will answer more questions in this Chamber and in committee on the reality of winter on the ground for patients and for staff.

Cabinet Secretary, the fact that the vice-president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine in Wales says patient safety is compromised and staff are struggling to cope with the intense demands should deeply concern us all. Rightly or wrongly, the Red Cross described the situation across the border as a humanitarian crisis and Dr Roop says that in some areas performance is as bad as, if not worse than, England. The Welsh Government has allocated additional funds to alleviate winter pressures, but these pressures exist all year round and if we have a major flu outbreak this winter we are in real trouble. Cabinet Secretary, in addition to funding announced to tackle winter pressures, how do you plan to address the capacity issues in the rest of the NHS, which are impacting upon emergency care? We know that there are people in hospital that can’t go home because of the fact that they are home alone and they are taking up bed space, which is quite needless, really, had we had an alternative to accommodate people. I have met over the Christmas period with a voluntary organisation that is seeking to help us, but I will discuss this in further detail at another time. Thank you.

Thank you for the comments that you raise. Again, I go back to saying that, of course, I’m concerned about the language used and the comments made by Dr Roop. But, as I say, objectively, the pressure in the system is not as great as it has been in the past. It is not as great as even last week. There’s a real issue here, and I have no issue with people saying that the health and care system is under real pressure through winter and that makes the job of staff more difficult and more demanding. That’s very different to saying that it is in a state of genuine crisis. I do take issue with some of the points that are made about the fact there is year-round pressure. There is year-round pressure, but in winter that pressure is different. You are more likely to see people that are older and sicker come in to our health and care system. They’re more likely to occupy beds within the healthcare part of the system and that puts more pressure on the transfers of care and packages of care within healthcare, but also between health and social care as well. So, winter is a different sort of pressure. That’s what we’re seeing now and we’ll see more of it in the next few months. There’s no point in pretending winter does not provide this pressure that is extraordinary. That is why there is an extraordinary response in planning for winter and in delivering in winter as well. But I am really encouraged about the fact that we’ve not seen a collapse in delayed transfers of care here in Wales. We’ve actually sustained and been able to manage some of that pressure at the start of winter. I look forward to saying more about what’s been done when the next figures are published later on this month, because that tells us something about the health of the whole system and the ability to move people effectively from the point when they need some sort of support and care back into their own homes with that package of care and through healthcare if that’s what they need. So that, of course, is the focus of our activity, on what we expect health and social care to do together, but I think, really, every one of us should recognise not just the work that staff do, but think about how we talk about the jobs that they do and the care they provide for each and every one of our constituents at various points in time.

Cabinet Secretary, I listened very closely to the answers that you have given, and you said that the pressures are not as great as they were this time last year. In your most immediate response, you said that. Yet, the last figures for A&E, for people waiting over 12 hours or more, went up by 22 per cent to 2,955. Are you in a position to confirm that those figures are on a downward trajectory, given your comments this afternoon, and that those wait times are becoming more responsive in our A&E departments across Wales, and that, when the latest figures come out, because you will be in possession of the figures, we will see a decline in those figures, given that they’ve shown a year-on-year increase, on the most recent figures up to November, of 22 per cent in people who are waiting 12 hours or more in A&E departments across Wales?

There are two points to make here. The first is that I recognise that some people do wait too long, whether it’s in November or whether it’s in June, and that’s part of our challenge in improving the system. That doesn’t necessarily mean they have bad outcomes in terms of the clinical outcomes, but that isn’t always a great patient experience. And there’s something here about our measures on four and 12 hours as well. They tell us something about the care that’s provided, but not everything that we would think that we are being told. You, for example, could go into a hospital and, actually, you’d be seen, treated and discharged in four and a half hours. Now, the way our figures look, we’d probably say, ‘That’s someone who’s waited too long.’ But you could actually have a very good experience of care in that time, and you could actually be really happy with the treatment that you’ve received. Equally, you could be in an A&E department for three hours and our figures would then say, ‘You’re a success’, but that might not be a great experience as well. So, it doesn’t tell us everything that we think the figures actually might do. So, I expect to see that there will be more pressures through winter on both four and 12 hours, and, you know, it would be fantasy to try and claim otherwise.

The challenge must be: how resilient our system is, what the quality of care being delivered is, and what the patient experience tells us about that as well. And the point that I was trying to make was that, actually, objectively, we’re in a better position this week than last week, and if there is a system in crisis, you wouldn’t have thought the system would have coped and de-escalated with the pressure coming through the doors, and maybe see what happens on different days through the rest of winter as well. For example, on 27 December, there was a five-year peak in admissions. On 1 January there was a much higher admissions rate than the previous January as well. So, we’ll see those different peaks and troughs, but we will all know there is more pressure in the system in winter. We need to understand what we’ve done in advance in the plans we’ve had, how successful they’ve been, what we learn for the next year, and then that broader trajectory of improvement through the whole health and care system to try and make sure that people do get seen, treated and discharged in an appropriate period of time, but also in the appropriate place, because every single part of the NHS in the UK recognises that still too many people, even at the points of highest pressure, are going to a place that isn’t the appropriate place for their care and treatment.

So, there’s something about educating and empowering the public and informing them where to go for the appropriate treatment that they need. And that’s why I’m really encouraged by the early results from the 111 pilot in the Abertawe Bro Morgannwg area, which I think has been really helpful in getting people to the right place to get the right treatments and care. I look forward to providing Members with more information on that pilot and then seeing if that will then be rolled out in other parts of the country.

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary. The next item on the agenda is the business statement and announcement, and I call on Jane Hutt.

I’ve several changes to report to this week’s business, Llywydd. I’ve extended to 45 minutes the time allocated to the oral statement on the consultation on the draft dementia strategic action plan for Wales. I’ve added an oral statement on avian influenza, and an oral statement on the new treatment fund. And, finally, as no questions have been tabled for answer by the Assembly Commission this week, the Business Committee has adjusted tomorrow’s timetable accordingly. And business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement, which can be found among meeting papers available to Members electronically.

Can I call for two Cabinet Secretary statements—the first from the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs in relation to the future of the timber industry in Wales? Members will have noticed that there were some concerns raised by Clifford Jones Timber, an organisation that is based in Ruthin in my constituency, about the failure of the Welsh Government forestry land to secure a greater planting regime, an increase in the planting regime, in order to have a sufficient crop for the future. You’ll be aware that that particular business employs 80 people, and indeed, there are many thousands of jobs in the wood manufacturing industry in Wales that rely on timber production. I wonder, Minister, whether we can have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary, just in terms of what the Welsh Government intends to do in order to maximise the output of that industry, and its economic contribution to Wales in the future.

Can I also ask for a statement from the Minister for Skills and Science, in relation to the Superfast Cymru scheme and the way that it is marketed here in Wales? I’ve received a number of communications from constituents who are very concerned about the inaccurate information that is appearing on the Superfast Cymru website in terms of the availability of superfast, high-speed broadband in their immediate localities. And even more concerning is feedback directly from BT Openreach to constituents, which seems to suggest that, because now that the Welsh Government has taken on the responsibility for marketing Superfast Cymru, they now need to re-register an interest in having access to it. This is the feedback that has been given. I can see the Minister shaking her head, but that is the feedback that they’ve got—I’ve got a copy of the e-mail here. So, clearly, there is some disjointed communication there, which needs to be addressed, and I do think it would be useful to have a further statement from the Minister for Skills and Science in order to address that.

I thank Darren Millar for his questions. I will draw the attention of the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to your questions and concerns about the future of the timber industry in Wales. This is something that I’m sure, if there is a specific issue in your area, in your constituency, you would want to raise with her anyway. And, of course, the Minister for skills is so often on her feet in this Chamber making statements about our role, such as it is, in terms of our powers and responsibilities, in terms of broadband, and not only the marketing, but of course the delivery, which all of us are involved in, in terms of not only the prospects but the success in terms of broadband in Wales and superfast broadband.

I was wondering if we could have a statement on your Government’s investigation into New Sandfields Aberafan, NSA Afan. I only understood from the chief executive of Neath Port Talbot council—I saw an e-mail sent to our group leader—that there was an ongoing investigation into financial irregularities and that funds are suspended at present. The Government—your audit office within the Government—is looking into the situation.

I wondered if you could provide a statement in Government time on what you’re actually doing, what that entails, and how people in the community can be, perhaps, communicated with to try and alleviate some of the concerns that they may have, because, potentially, some of those services may not be able to be delivered by this particular Communities First organisation, if the investigation is long-standing. And I think it’s something that all Assembly Members should have been told about, and not just the councillors. So, I would like to understand how we weren’t communicated with also from the Government, considering this is quite an important issue. We’ve had previous issues, and I’m not saying that—. At the moment, there’s an investigation, but we do know in this Chamber that there have been previous problems with various Communities First organisations across Wales. I hope that this isn’t the case in this instance, but if it is, we need to know, and Assembly Members need to be kept informed.

Well, thank you for that question. Following initial investigations into allegations concerning possible misuse of public funds at NSA Afan, we’ve suspended funding whilst further investigations are undertaken. We’re exploring ways to safeguard the provision of services, which you raise. But it is important that we exercise our duty to protect taxpayers’ money from potentially inappropriate use. And this is subject to investigation, so it would be inappropriate to comment further on this matter.

The leader of the house will have seen concerns in the press on the weekend that, when it comes to calculating the apprenticeship levy, local authority schools are being treated less favourably than English academies. The payroll of a local authority school may attract the levy, when the payroll of a similar-sized academy in England might not. Will the Government bring forward a statement, indicating what representations it may be making to the UK Government, to make sure that Welsh local authority schools aren’t being unfairly treated, because the English system has become a fragmented free-for-all?

Thank you to Jeremy Miles for drawing this to our attention. Of course, Members will be aware that the apprenticeship levy will be paid by any organisation that has a payroll in excess of £3 million per year. The levy is an employment tax. It’s been introduced by the Westminster Parliament; it applies to the whole of the UK. In Wales, schools, of course, are maintained by local authorities, therefore their budgets will be impacted by the introduction of the levy, irrespective of their size. Of course, we don’t have the English academy system here in Wales, but, clearly, there will be an impact. I’m grateful to the Member for bringing this to our attention.

First of all, can I just take the opportunity to thank the Government for listening, to some degree, anyway, to my constituents and those of other Assembly Members regarding the issue of business rates relief? It’s obviously not as far as we would’ve gone, but it is welcome, as far as it goes. However, we do need, I think, an urgent statement on how this additional £10 million is to be spent. We talk about existing eligible businesses having more money or the same amount of money for longer. Are new businesses going to be eligible? Will there be new criteria? If it’s going to be operated through local authorities, how will those applications need to be made? Will you be placing time constraints on local authorities, for example, and making sure that they deal with applications in a timely way? Will any of that £10 million be top-sliced to pay for the extra administrative work involved? I think this detail is now urgent, if you wish to reassure small businesses in the way that I’m sure you intend to do.

In the autumn—this is a second statement that I’m looking for here—the Government confirmed its commitment to the Lift programme and Communities for Work. In December, Mark Isherwood invited the Cabinet Secretary to explain why these particular programmes had been protected when the predicted results compared unfavourably in terms of value for money and job entry, actually, as defined, with the Department for Work and Pensions’s Work Programme. Attempts to get up-to-date data had failed at that point and the Cabinet Secretary undertook to look at them in the new year. That suggests to me that he hadn’t looked at them properly before actually agreeing to continue with the programmes, which, of course, cost tens of millions of pounds. As the Assembly, like Welsh Government, is committed to tackling poverty, we have to be certain that these intervention programmes are the best programmes, and I think we need to see those figures and evidence of due diligence as soon as possible now. We need to reassure our constituents that we’re all doing the right thing here, and it’s not just some activity covering up a lack of effectiveness. So, I’d be grateful if you could get a statement from the communities Secretary with annexes of up-to-date data on the relevant figures there.

Finally, I appreciate that this one is early days, but I don’t want it disappearing from our line of sight: could we have a statement reasonably soon on progress on changes being considered to the regulatory framework, and planning framework, actually, which AMs from my region raised as a result of the woodchip fires that we saw during the summer and later on? The Cabinet Secretary did say that she’d be looking at changes, and I think it would just be encouraging for us all to see what progress has been made on that. Thank you.

Thank you, Suzy Davies, for those three questions, and thank you for welcoming the fact that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government did announce that extra, new non-domestic rates relief scheme for the high street—part of the Welsh Government’s final budget laid on 20 December. I know it has been widely welcomed. Clearly, this is going to be delivered. It’s a targeted relief scheme; it’ll be in place by 1 April of this year, when the revised rates come into force. It’s important also to say that this is in addition to the £10 million transitional relief scheme, also from 1 April, and the £100 million tax cut for small businesses in Wales provided by the small business rates relief scheme. So, it is now a question of delivering on that commitment and, obviously, the Cabinet Secretary is now taking that forward. There is an opportunity this afternoon in the final budget again to welcome this, and I’m sure that Suzy Davies will do so.

On your second point on Communities First-related issues, relating to Lift and the way forward, you will be aware, of course, that there is still an engagement process on the way forward in terms of resilient communities, and there’s been a great deal of response to that through an online survey, focus groups and engagement events. These issues, of course, are being considered in terms of what the response is, and particularly those aspects of Communities First and Lift, as you have described. Of course, your third point, that is something we will take note of in terms of updates on those regulatory frameworks.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for business for her statement? Further to that, Ken Skates, the Cabinet Secretary for the economy, published a written statement yesterday, ‘Expert Review of Local Museum Provision in Wales 2015 report—Update on progress’. Following that statement, a number of questions arise, particularly in terms of the possibility of creating three regional bodies to provide services for museums in future and the financial questions that arise from that. It’s also important that we should understand the work that’s in the pipeline to develop a museums charter and the discussions that the Cabinet Secretary is having with local councils on this issue. He mentions those issues in his written statement, but because of the questions that arise from that written statement published yesterday, could I ask for an oral statement in the Chamber on this issue, please?

I’m glad to find that you do welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s written statement, clarifying many points that you have raised with him. I know that there will be opportunities and questions to the Cabinet Secretary and, indeed, I’m sure, in appearances at committee as well on this matter.

I would like to raise two issues. Firstly, before Christmas, the Cabinet Secretary for the environment responded to me here in the Chamber, saying that she would write to me regarding a question I raised on local development plans. I haven’t yet received a note on that, so I would be grateful for a response—very grateful for that.

Secondly, I would request a statement. I have previously highlighted the success of forest stage rallying in Wales, which is worth £15 million a year to the Welsh economy. Now, we did have a very encouraging response form the Welsh Government back in July, which suggested that Natural Resources Wales and the Motor Sports Association had come to an agreement on charges for road repairs and maintenance, and I was very grateful for that. It now appears that the mid Wales stages for the 2017 British rally championship have been cancelled due to uncertainty over the charges in rallies in NRW forests. Now, I believe that this is in regards to having to charge VAT. The immediate consequence to this, of course, is that the cancellation will have a huge knock-on effect on the mid Wales economy and will lose thousands and thousands of pounds to the local area. You will appreciate that rallying and motor sports bring in lots of visitors and a vital income to mid Wales. So, I would be grateful if the appropriate Cabinet Secretary could investigate this and bring forward a statement to the Chamber.

Thank you, Russell George. The Cabinet Secretary has been able to respond positively to your first question. On your second question, I think it is a matter of clarifying what the reasons are for that cancellation, because, clearly, as you said, there’s a very positive response to the use of our forests for these championships, which are welcome. But, there are reasons for cancellations, and I think it’s important that we clarify, and I think the Cabinet Secretary will ensure that that is brought to your attention, and for Members as well.

Will the Minister formally place on the record my thanks to officials, to police and to members of the public for support after the burglary of my constituency office? Members may be interested to know that there’s no actual back entrance; the burglars had to go seven doors down, go through a door, go down the end of a lane, turn left, know to go through the shed-like structure through another door, they arrived at the window, unscrewed a wooden cover, cut through PVC and sawed through steel bars. Maybe we should have had Welsh steel. Maybe that’s what we should do next time. But, to be serious, I would like to thank officials who have taken great care to look after me, my staff and my family. I thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch.

Noted. Thank you, Neil McEvoy. Thank you, Minister.

We now move to the next item: the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport on the consultation on the draft dementia strategic action plan for Wales. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. In October, I presented to the Assembly the second delivery plan of our 10-year cross-Government strategy, ‘Together for Mental Health’. That was launched on World Mental Health Day, 10 October. A key action within the delivery plan is the development of a dementia strategic action plan. This responds to a key commitment within our programme for government, ‘Taking Wales Forward’. It is the clear ambition of this Government to make Wales a dementia-friendly nation. I’m pleased to make further progress within the first year of this Assembly term. I launched the public consultation on the first national dementia strategic action plan for Wales at Oldwell Court in Cardiff yesterday.

People living longer is, of course, something to be celebrated, but, as life expectancy improves, we know more people will develop dementia. Dementia is one of the biggest healthcare challenges that our generation faces. It’s estimated that between 40,000 and 50,000 people in Wales are currently living with dementia, although not all are diagnosed. Clearly, the impact of dementia in society is much wider when we consider carers and family members.

It is crucial that we hear from people living with or affected by dementia, just like the people I met yesterday at Oldwell Court, because we want to understand what matters most to them. We must have a clear way forward to support people with dementia and the people close to them. A number of engagement events across Wales have already taken place to hear from people living with dementia, their family members, carers, health professionals, voluntary organisations and other people with an interest in dementia. That’s been undertaken in partnership with the Alzheimer’s Society and the Dementia Engagement and Empowerment Project, widely known as DEEP, who have already engaged with over 400 people personally affected by dementia. My thanks do go to all of those who have contributed to this work, as their views and experiences have been instrumental in creating the draft plan for wider public consultation.

It’s worth recognising that no two people with dementia, or the people who support them, will have identical needs. From the pre-consultation work already undertaken, people have told us that services need to be values and rights driven, and be tailored to the individual. That support needs to be flexible to the different needs at different stages of the condition. Those sentiments have been echoed in a number of reports, including the older people’s commissioner’s report, ‘Dementia: more than just memory loss’ and the Welsh Language Commissioner’s inquiry into the Welsh language in primary care, ‘My Language, My Health’. The issues identified by these reports include a lack of knowledge and understanding of dementia amongst professionals and the public, and the need for dementia assessments and care to be accessible through the medium of Welsh. The need to ensure access to help, support and services in rural areas has also been highlighted in a report published last year by the Alzheimer’s Society.

We have, in fact, though, come a long way in realising our commitment to create a dementia-friendly nation here in Wales, but we recognise that there is, of course, more to do. Last year, we announced a number of priority areas on dementia and the steps we would take to address them. This included work on dementia risk reduction, increasing public awareness, actions to improve diagnosis rates and ensuring that support is available to people affected by dementia. The draft action plan builds on this work and contains a number of themes that we propose will require further action over the next five years. But, to ensure that the plan remains relevant and targeted, it will be formally reviewed and refreshed after three years, and the final plan will include more details on timescales, examples of notable practice and expectations for delivery.

The themes have been structured using a pathway approach, which came out strongly from the engagement that we’ve undertaken so far. Proposed areas for action include raising awareness of how to help people reduce their risk of developing dementia, or delay its onset; raising awareness and understanding of dementia through the expansion of Dementia Friends and dementia supportive communities and organisations; ensuring that dementia is recognised appropriately and that people have timely access to assessment and diagnosis; early support and treatment for people with dementia, their carers and families, following diagnosis; and the availability of increased support, whether in a person’s home, in hospital, in a care home or even at a day centre. The plan also contains a section that supports implementation. This includes a continued focus on education and training, following the recommendations included in ‘Good Work: A Dementia Learning and Development Framework for Wales’, launched last year in Hefin David’s constituency, and also continued support for research into dementia.

The formal consultation will run for three months, closing on 3 April. I am urging everyone with an interest in dementia to share their views. We would like to hear from the wider community, including businesses, faith groups and other interests. It is only by working together that we think we can build a truly dementia-friendly Wales and combat other problems, such as loneliness and isolation. The public consultation will help us to use people’s experiences and expertise to develop and deliver a robust and evidence-based action plan.

I do trust that Members from all parties will recognise the work undertaken to date. I look forward to hearing the views of as many people as possible, to ensure that our final plan is ambitious and achievable, and that we do work in partnership with individuals, their families and their carers, to continue to make progress towards making Wales a genuinely dementia-friendly nation.

Thank you very much. Angela Burns.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Cabinet Secretary, I welcome this statement immensely. I am very pleased to see that there’s a public consultation to inform the dementia strategic action plan. I do want to pick up on the paragraph where you start by saying:

‘People living longer is something to be celebrated.’

I think that, too often, the rhetoric around dementia, the rhetoric around older people, is not positive: they are bed-blockers, they are a drain on social services, and dementia is something that is going to happen to everybody and it is going to be absolutely terrible. Whereas, of course, we know that older people are to be celebrated, that they are a vital part of our community, and that dementia, if supported, if caught early, and if given the appropriate treatments, can actually be slowed and sometimes put into remission, and that people can go on to live really good live even though they have dementia—obviously not everyone, but, still, some people. So, it is to be celebrated.

I only have three questions because I am quite sure that the Chair of the cross-party group on dementia is going to have quite a significant number of questions for you, and I am very pleased to be a member of that group. When you see the outcome of this consultation, will you ensure that the action plan has clear and measurable outcomes, and a consistent data set? I think this is incredibly important because a key problem in ensuring transparent accountability is that measurements change over time, parameters can be fudged, and transparency can dissolve into opaqueness. I think that if we want to know whether or not this action plan is going to work and continue to work over the next decades, then to have a clear and consistent set of outcomes and measurables is vitally important, going forward.

My second point is, in looking at the consultation, it doesn’t propose much on delivery models. So, I wanted to have a little bit of an understanding from you on whether you will be seeking to rely quite significantly on co-production with third sector organisations; or will you be looking to increase the intervention by Welsh Government by, say, increasing the numbers of support workers; or will you be putting much of this responsibility onto health or on to social services or local councils; or will you be looking to deliver through the partnership boards?

Finally, given the severity of the dementia issue in terms of the fact that it is now one of the biggest killers of people in Wales, and given that it is also one of the main reasons why sufferers and carers suffer so badly from isolation and loneliness, which of course impacts on their mental and physical well-being even more, do you think that the targets that you have in the plan are ambitious enough? They don’t bring us in line with other countries. I do appreciate that it is always hard to go from one level to another, but a 3 per cent increase year after year—is that going to actually get us to where we want to be quickly enough, or can you look to improving those targets? Dementia kills more people than almost any other disease in Wales, and we really need to get a grip of it.

Thank you for the questions and comments, and I agree: as I said in my statement, we should celebrate the fact that more of us live longer. Our challenge always is: how do we live healthily and live well for longer as well? Part of the point you made earlier about reducing our risk or delaying the onset of dementia is that there is lots and lots of evidence about how we can help ourselves to live longer. We talked lots in the last term—but not so much this term—about the fact that the Caerphilly study shows us an awful lot, not just about the theory but about the practical reality of what each of us can do to make different choices about how we live our lives, to live a healthier life, to reduce our risk of having dementia or, indeed, to delay the onset. There are also major public health factors in a whole range of other conditions too, in the way that we can reduce those particular challenges for us, not just for the health of the nation, but for individuals as well. And that’s part of what we want to try and move to in writing this plan, about having different bodies talking about the same messages about what each of us could and should do, as well as what we then expect of each other within our communities, but also of public services and the private sector as well.

And I think that this goes back to the point you made about the actions for different partners, because there will be things for the health service to do. We were talking about diagnosis rates, so, a range of people obviously have to be a big part of that, but also in social care, in the care and provision and the way that we expect the social services and well-being Act to be implemented progressively, there are sections in the action plans being consulted upon about what we expect to see happen. As that Act is implemented, the third sector will be not just champions and advocates, they provide services—they’re commissioned to provide those services in different parts of the sector. But there’s an awful lot in here, as I say, about us as a society and as a nation, and what each of us will do, as individual employers in this room, with our staff and the way we all deal with our constituents, the way that we talk, to the way that businesses and the wider communities are actually genuinely friendly and understanding of, you know, the significant number of people who live with us now and will do in the future as well.

So, it isn’t just one set of partners; that goes back into how we’ll have consistent data and measures for success. Some of these will be easier to measure than others. How people feel that they are supported, for example, is more difficult to measure in the same way that we might want to measure, for example, diagnosis rates and have harder data about what is being done in different parts of it. But I do want to see commentary on what’s in the plan and how we then have meaningful measures, because we do know—and this is being perfectly honest—that, in the past, each of us has signed up to saying the Government should do, the Government should measure different parts of activity, but they don’t always tell us a great deal that is useful, and I really do think, in the end, if you want something that is both, as I say, realistic and ambitious at the same time, that does mean that the measures that we have and the way we want to produce that information has got to be meaningful and useful. Otherwise, we could measure activity in a way that is easy to say we’re measuring something but not really telling us anything of value.

And on your final point about diagnosis and the 3 per cent year-on-year increase, I think that is quite ambitious, actually, and if we achieve it, we’ll see a progressive and increasing number of people coming into services and actually receiving services and, hopefully, receiving more help. But, if people have a different view, then they should say that during the consultation. And it’s then also about having an ambition, as I say, that is achievable. What I don’t want to do is to set a level of ambition that may look great on paper but we don’t then have the services scaled up to deliver and we set our staff up and our services up to fail then, and that can’t be the right thing. It’s got to be about how we further improve what is a real and current significant challenge for health, social care and our nation and will be more so in the future.

I’m very pleased that we now have a strategy that we can give due attention to through the consultation, to strengthen it and to build on what we have before us, by including the experiences of those people who genuinely know what needs to be done, namely the families of those who have dementia. I know that the majority of us here in the Chamber have heard plenty of heartbreaking stories of people who feel that they failed to access the care that they feel should be a fundamental right for someone with dementia: the woman who had to stay on a ward in a hospital for months with a relatively simple infection because there was a failure to put an appropriate package of care in place in her community; the carers who can’t arrange care for even a short period of time to have a break; those who feel that the kind of day care that’s vital for them isn’t available. It’s the voices of those people, the families and those who have dementia themselves, that I want to hear coming through in the final strategy, following this consultation. I’m sure that the Cabinet Secretary would agree with that.

I only had five questions. Two have already been asked by Angela Burns, so I’ll ask them as rhetorical questions, even though we know what the Cabinet Secretary has in mind in that regard. It’s important to have a balance between being ambitious and being realistic, but I will ask whether this 3 per cent increase in diagnosis on an annual basis is something that the Cabinet Secretary genuinely feels couldn’t be improved upon, because that will only take us, in five years, to the situation where Northern Ireland is at present.

The other rhetorical question is how to measure success, ultimately, because it’s the action that’s important here, the effect that this strategy will have on people the length and breadth of Wales. Is the Cabinet Secretary clear in his mind that he will be able to look back and say, ‘Yes, this has worked’ or ‘This hasn’t worked’?

Three questions to which we may receive specific answers: is there an intention to develop further the preventative side, to invest genuinely in opportunities, for example, to exercise to delay or reduce dementia symptoms, and not just to draw attention and raise awareness of the kind that the Cabinet Secretary mentioned a few minutes ago? In terms of diagnosis in the Welsh language, as the Alzheimer’s Society has said, I very much welcome the plan and the intention to improve things somehow, but when will we have, from the Government as well as from others, as part of the consultation, more detail on what is being considered here?

Finally, the rural aspect of dementia care. Does the Cabinet Secretary expect that this final strategy on dementia will give us a fuller picture and clearer picture of the specific issues that stem from the needs of dementia care in rural Wales? As I say, I welcome the fact that we do now have this draft strategy to work from; the challenge now is that we would have a final strategy that is going to be able to achieve these very warm words on which we can all agree to make Wales a genuinely dementia-friendly nation.

Thank you for your comments and questions. I’ll start with where you ended, on the points about rural Wales, of course. I expect there will be comments from people from right across Wales, in both urban and rural Wales, on the reality of provision and support now, and what they want to see both in the strategy and in the delivery afterwards. There are points that both you and Angela Burns have made, not just about the vision that we have, and what is in here and what may or may not be in here. Those are points to be debated, discussed and argued and then, ultimately, we’ll have to make a choice. But it is about how they’re delivered in reality. So, that’s some of the points about measures of success and how we share information, again, which were constantly made during your contribution as well.

You will see more of this because the consultation ends on 3 April, as I said. You will then see a response with a finalised version of the action plan being produced over this calendar year and then progressively implemented. I hope that people will be able to reflect on comments that have been made through the consultation process actually having an influence on what ultimately is then going to be implemented and delivered. I reiterate again that what we have now comes from that conversation and listening to people who are living with dementia now. Not just advocates in the third sector, but individuals themselves, their families and their carers have actually had a real part to play in drawing together the current consultation proposal and we will of course be listening to them. I’m really pleased, actually, that the Alzheimer’s Society made clear that their main message yesterday following the launch was that people living with dementia have to be involved and their voices have to be heard, in telling people what their real experience is, and whether the consultation is going to reflect upon that in what we then ultimately do.

Just to your point about prevention, of course we produced the ‘Dementia: reduce your risk in 6 steps’ guidance in May 2015, and I was not the health Minister at the time—someone else was. But there are really simple points there: the points about acting now, and what we can do to reduce our risk by being active, checking our health regularly, trying new things, not smoking, only occasionally drinking alcohol—that’s a challenge for a number of Members—and by watching our weight. These are all things we laugh and joke about from time to time, but they actually have a real influence on our ultimate health outcomes now and later in life as well. So the consistent message we want to give—and I think it’s actually helpful in some ways—is that these are the same sorts of messages we give on a whole range of other public health challenges. The real issue will be: can we persuade ourselves and people in the country not just to understand what those messages are, but then how we make it easier for people to do something about those? It’s not about trying to take the fun out of life. It is about saying, ‘These things can make a difference’, and how do we help to make those healthier choices easier choices.

So, there are big challenges for all of us, but I’m cautiously optimistic about where we are now, and our ability to have in place a plan that is appropriately ambitious, realistic, and achievable. We will of course be reporting back at the three-year point as to where we are, that sense check on what we’ve done, and then to check again that we’re still in the right place in what we expect people to do, and the sort of progress that we are making.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement? I’m really, really pleased that we have reached this point today and, like others, I really welcome the commitment that you’ve made to ensuring that the voices, not just of families affected by dementia, but of people who are living with the condition are fully heard through this consultation. I think those are the most important voices of all: far more important than our voices, as important as it is that we speak out. I think there is a great deal to welcome in this draft strategy. I think it covers all the main areas that I would think should be covered.

I do just want to pick up on a couple of specific points. The first is diagnosis rates. I don’t think that 3 per cent a year is ambitious enough. As I’ve said before, we wouldn’t accept a 50 per cent diagnosis rate for a condition like cancer and we shouldn’t accept it for something like dementia. I hope that, as we go through the consultation, it will be possible to introduce a more ambitious diagnosis-rate target.

Of course, diagnosis targets are only valuable if you’ve actually got the support services in place for people once they’ve received the diagnosis, and I’m pleased that the strategy recognises that. Indeed, you recognise the fact that pharmacological treatments, et cetera, which can slow the progress of dementia, can only be made available to people once you’ve had that diagnosis. I think that’s very important. But there is still a lack of detail on this issue of support workers: currently 32, it’s clearly not going to be enough for the whole of Wales, especially if we do increase diagnosis rates. So, I hope that, through the consultation, we can look to improve on that.

And then just finally, on the issue of implementation, I’m really pleased that you’ve been specific about the mechanisms for monitoring the strategy in terms of the group that’s going to be set up. I hope that we will be able to know more about exactly how that will work and, in particular, the reporting mechanisms to Government with that group.

I also wanted to flag up that I’m pleased to see the high-level performance targets in the back of the document, but I think that there needs to be more detail there as well. I would like to ask you whether it is your intention, through this consultation, to actually put some milestones, in terms of actual numbers, into that section so that we can actually clearly monitor, as we go through this, how we are actually achieving against our aims.

Just finally, I wanted to say, there’s been this discussion about whether you should be too ambitious or whether you should be realistic: I think we should be aiming really high with this document. Anyone who’s had any contact directly with dementia will tell you that it is a game-changing experience. We know that the numbers of people who are going to have dementia make it a game-changing experience for our public services and I think we should aim for our strategy to be a game-changing strategy.

Thank you for the comments and questions. I’ll start by answering some of particularly detailed ones. I welcome the fact that you welcome the broad strategy. Of course, the point of the consultation is to hear what people have to say about it and see what can be improved and actually delivered on the back of that as well.

In particular, your points about the monitoring group on delivery, and to consider how we could potentially add milestones for progress, we think it is important that people can see what progress is being made through that, whether that’s going to be about milestones within the delivery itself, within the action plan itself, or whether it is about the monitoring group and how they report back on that and how it can be shared so that people can see the progress that is and isn’t being made. Because it is important there’s honesty about the progress that is being made. Because if I stood up and tried to claim that everything was fine and wonderful and people were seeing constituents and being told something different, well that would be very difficult, and I think the consultation would not build the trust in what we’re trying to do, because we do want to be able to talk about what progress we are making on dealing with a growing and significant challenge for all of us in every part of our public services.

We have already made investments, before the consultation has taken place, so your point about support workers is well made and it’s one that’s regularly made by a range of people. We’ve put in some more money, for example, £0.5 million into occupational therapy support and we’ve also put £800,000 into support workers in the primary care setting as well. We need to understand what impact that is having and then how we’ll actually have more staff able to provide that direct support as well.

I don’t know if you’ve seen the report yesterday, but—[Inaudible.]—were talking about what happened when their diagnosis took place for a family member several years previously, and they didn’t have that support at the point of diagnosis. Now, that is a real challenge—for the individual who has dementia being told this is a challenge that you now face, but also for the family as well. So, that’s one of the obvious points for improvement. I can say that it is better now than it was five or six years ago and more, but our challenge is how do we further improve, and how does this strategy make a real difference. That’s the point about what we want to really see happen.

So, we’ll look at the diagnosis, we’ll look at whether the rates we’ve got are ambitious enough and achievable enough and that support can go around them, but people in this room have a really important role to play as advocates and champions, and raising different issues for us in the Government as well. But also not to play down the experience of people in this room, because many people in every party have got individual experience of caring for family and friends, and so this isn’t something where there is a lack of experience and empathy in this room—not just seeing constituents, but individually too, and I’d want to see that captured in the way the consultation works, and then how we take this work forward. And, of course, I’d be very happy to come to the cross-party group at some point in the near future to understand more from members of the cross-party group and external visitors as we move through the consultation.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. The goal of making Wales a dementia-friendly nation is one we all share. Dementia is now the leading cause of death in Wales, and the number of people affected by dementia is expected to rise by around 40 per cent over the next decade. The fact that Welsh dementia sufferers, their families and carers can directly feed in and shape Wales’s first dementia strategy is most welcome, and I look forward to seeing the results of the consultation in due course.

Regarding the draft dementia strategy itself, I have a few questions relating to the high-level performance measures. You have set a target of ensuring that two thirds of dementia sufferers have a formal diagnosis by December 2021. How did you settle on this target, and why is it not more ambitious, given the obvious benefits a formal diagnosis brings? The strategy sets a target for the percentage of NHS staff who come in contact with the public who are trained in dementia care: the target is for three quarters of the workforce by 2019. When can we expect to see 100 per cent of NHS staff trained in the appropriate level of dementia care?

The Welsh Government rightly wants to see a reduction in the percentage of people with dementia prescribed antipsychotic medication. However, you haven’t indicated a target for that reduction. Granted, there may be a few cases where this is necessary, but all the experts agree that we should not be using these medicines to treat dementia. Cabinet Secretary, will you be using guidance to ensure that antipsychotics are only used when strictly necessary?

I welcome the fact that the strategy highlights that dementia can strike at any age and the role that alcohol can play. We need to better educate the public about the risks of alcohol-related dementia and brain damage. Cabinet Secretary, what plans do you have to increase public awareness about the fact that alcohol misuse can lead to dementia?

Finally, Cabinet Secretary, what plans do you have to improve access to substance misuse clinics, so that we can, hopefully, prevent more people from developing alcohol-related dementia in future? Dementia is one of the biggest health challenges facing our nation, and it is therefore vital that we get this strategy right. I look forward to seeing the responses to the consultation and working with you, Cabinet Secretary, to deliver our shared aim of a dementia-friendly nation. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you for the comments and questions. I think, in terms of trying to deal with those, I’ve answered points about diagnosis, and I’ll look forward to hearing what the consultation says about what we’ve got in the plan, and what is realistic and achievable for us to actually deliver. Part of the point we’re trying to get across is that there’s a need to have a continuing increase and improvement in the diagnosis rate, at a rate that is real and material, and to see that carry on. Now I recognise that many people will urge us to be more ambitious. We need to understand what is really coming through the door, and what is our ability then to actually improve diagnosis rates with different partners acting at different points in time. So, I’m happy to hear what the consultation has to say before we make a final choice—that is, after all, the point of having a genuine consultation.

On your point about staff and staff training, I’d like to deliver what’s in the plan, and learn from that afterwards about how we then have more NHS staff being trained and appropriately equipped. It’s also about staff in health and social care, but in a wider field as well, and that’s why the advice, the guidance, that we launched before Christmas really does make a difference. It was actually a very useful event in actually meeting people in Ysbyty Ystrad Fawr and understanding what they’d already done, the training that had taken place and the improvements in the patient experience that had taken place as a result of that training and provisions being in place.

I recognise the points you make about the use of antipsychotics and where they’re appropriate, and that’s part of the point, and we talk about it in the plan, but I particularly want to deal with your comments about substance misuse. There’s something here about the join-up between the different plans and strategies that we have, recognising we do talk about substance misuse and the plans that we have to improve substance misuse provision to help people to get through that as well, and, in particular, the way that alcohol-related brain damage crosses a number of different areas of activity. We know that there is some work that we’ve been supporting in and around Ogmore in looking at this particular issue in terms of the treatment, the provision and the research, but also Members who were here in the previous Assembly will have heard me discuss some of the work that’s been taking place, for example, in the Liverpool and the Glasgow areas as well. It’s important we continue to learn from other parts of the UK about what is likely to be a continuing challenge. More and more people are going to be coming through doors with alcohol-related challenges, and in this area in particular as well, and lots of those people will actually be more affluent groups of people coming in with alcohol-related challenges in dementia. So, we’ve got to think about how we deal with a range of our different challenges, understand what the current evidence is about what is effective, and then how that impacts obviously on diagnosis, but actually on treatment and provision that we need to have, which will be different in the future to what we have now, as well.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, and thanks also to the Dementia Engagement and Empowerment Project and the Alzheimer’s Society, who have assisted you with this. I know their work in my own region is very valuable indeed. Three things: I was very pleased with the recognition of the need for Welsh language speakers, whose rights are, of course, already recognised in the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, but can you confirm that provision of services, or assistance, really, in other languages will also be considered closely? I think, in this situation, the question of language is less one of abstract right and one of meeting needs. And I don’t think it needs to be about a great chunk of Government machinery, but I think it is down to Government and us as Assembly Members to ensure that those needs are met.

I’d also be interested to know what you actually mean by ‘raising awareness’, because I’m curious to know what that’s likely to look like within public services. Are you considering, for example, identifying dementia friends at all levels of public service, whether that’s the chief executive of a council or even a private bus company, because, of course, public services extend beyond the public sector, and this strategy needs to reach that far as well?

And then, just finally, the impact on social services, and I fully appreciate that this strategy’s entirely about the needs of people with dementia and those who support them, but we also have to consider those who are available to help provide what meets those needs, and how this strategy will help local authorities in particular relieve pressure on social services in certain places in order to be able to provide more support in other places within social services. And while the focus should absolutely be on the needs of people with dementia, actually those who are providing the services also need to have due weight given to their views, too. Thank you.

Yes, I’m particularly interested in hearing from social care providers as part of the consultation on what’s in here, about the experience of their staff and about the realities of delivering and providing the service, because the mix of that provision will differ in different parts of the country as well. Sometimes, that will be appropriate to what exists there, and sometimes there may be other learning they can take from the way in which different models of care are delivered in other parts of the country. So, I really do hope that we hear directly from people providing services in the here and now, as well as those people living with it. There are a range of different stakeholders who could and should take part, and I’m interested in the widest possible range of views being provided.

On your point about not just the Welsh language but other languages, I agree with you: it is about addressing a real need. There’s plenty of evidence that people with dementia will often revert to their primary language, and their ability to speak other languages can be compromised. And so actually there is a real need here to be addressed, as opposed to a preference, and it’s important to recognise the difference there. So, that will provide differing challenges in different parts of the country, but it is something that each of our providers needs to take on board in designing and then delivering their services.

And, on the point about what it takes and what it means to be a dementia-friendly community and country, I’m pleased you make the point this is more than just public services. Actually, there is a role for people in the voluntary but also in the business sector too as well to be generally dementia friendly: the level of understanding that can be displayed, what that means for different people as well. That’s why, when you look at dementia-friendly communities, it isn’t just people in the public sector that have got involved and engaged and are making a real success; it is a much wider range of people. That’s what I tried to get over in my statement and that’s why I’m also interested in hearing from business groups as we go through the consultation, and then roll out into delivery as well.

Thank you. Julie Morgan.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer; thank you for calling me to speak on this draft dementia strategy. I welcome it and I welcome the public consultation that’s taking place. I’m very pleased that people who are actually experiencing dementia will be consulted, and their families. I was very pleased to see that the importance of the wider community is recognised in the draft strategy and I think it’s absolutely essential that people suffering from dementia and their families and carers are enabled to still play a vital role in society, and that there needs to be a range of support outside the statutory services to ensure that people can maintain a good quality of life. I think it’s very good that it also recognises that this support doesn’t have to take the form of dementia-specific activities, because I think some of the most innovative ideas come from communities themselves and the best ones encourage non-dementia sufferers to mix with people who’ve got dementia, in the way that we’re talking about dementia-friendly communities, and we’ve obviously talked about what they actually are.

Before Christmas I was very privileged to attend a concert in my constituency by the Forget-me-Not Chorus. I’m sure many other Members have experienced the Forget-me-Not Chorus, and I found it an absolutely inspiring occasion, because the Forget-me-Not Chorus is made up of people who have got dementia and their carers, and they participate in pairs. They gave an absolutely unforgettable performance, where many people suffering from dementia who were unable to speak in everyday conversation, a song came back to them. In the same way as the Cabinet Secretary spoke about language coming back to people, the power of song was so strong that—. It was an unforgettable occasion. It seemed to me that that sort of activity—. It was done in conjunction with the Welsh National Opera, so the standard of singing was very high, but that is the sort of activity that I think we should be encouraging in a widespread sort of way, because it is a way for people and the carers and the relatives to participate, and you could see the joy it gave. It just seemed to me an example of the sort of provision that we could encourage, and I was very pleased that there is a choir practising in Thornhill—and there is one in the Cabinet Secretary’s own constituency and in Newport—and it’s really quite exhilarating that this is happening. I think most of the other points that I wanted to make have been covered by all the points that have been made today. But I just thought and wondered if you could comment on that sort of activity and what we can do to encourage that.

Yes, and thank you for the comments and questions. Again, we go back to the fact that this consultation draft has been drawn up working with people living with dementia now and we’re to hear from a wider range of people through the rest of the consultation’s period of time, because this isn’t about saying that once a diagnosis is made then that is it, because, actually, lots of people live for a long time with dementia. Whether they live for a long time or a short time, there is still something about the quality of life that they have and also the families and their carers around them too. One of the most interesting parts of my visit yesterday was actually sitting down and talking to people with dementia. I played some Scrabble with them, and I didn’t win—I got moved on before the game ended, which was very disappointing, but I was listening to people, having a conversation and understanding the parts of what was still important to them and the conversations they wanted to have, and then also having a conversation with carers as well and understanding the impact for them, not just having that break and the time, but also the engagement in meaningful activities for them and their loved ones, and whether that’s the Forget-me-not organisation—. In fact, I did a Forget-me-not visit with Rebecca Evans in a previous time, when I was a Deputy Minister, meeting people in her now constituency and understanding some of the impact that has for a range of individuals, but not just individuals, but their families, their carers and all those other people who are still volunteering and making those organisations a real success. Because music, song, and a range of other activities that go into making something generally meaningful for people living with dementia, as opposed to something that’s looking to warehouse people, and keep them somewhere where we think they’re safe—and, actually, you’re de-skilling them and you’re taking away the quality of the life that they have. I think that can be quite distressing for individuals who still have a significant awareness of who they are at various different points in their journey with dementia, but also their families and carers as well. So, thinking about how we deliver that whole package of support around individuals is absolutely the way we want to be, and then to understand how we’ll do that, and who will do that, with a range of different partners. And, as you point out, the third sector in particular are a really important part of that now, and will be, again, in the future.

That just reminded me of an event. Twenty years ago, I volunteered to go to a residential home to do some carolling. We were singing all of the well-known carols, and at one point we asked the residents if they had any requests, and a lady put up her hand and said, ‘Yes, stop singing.’ Now, the reason why I mentioned that was because, afterwards, a member of staff informed us that she hadn’t spoken for a couple of years, and my point was, regardless of whether you’re a good singer or a bad singer, you can actually have quite an effect on people. But you don’t necessarily need Government to organise this for you. You can go yourself into your local community and do these things.

One of my staff attended the recent cross-party group on dementia, where those living with dementia were represented and, indeed, present. What was clear is that those living with dementia wish to remain a part of our society. They wish to help others as buddies, and they certainly wish to be heard. I note that this consultation that you’ve started appears to be along the usual Welsh Government format. So, what I wanted to know was: how can you ensure that those who need to be consulted—those who are actually using the services—are reached by this consultation, and are able to respond and are able to have their needs met? Can you highlight how this consultation has been made bespoke for that?

Regarding support services, I just wondered what your thoughts were on the merging of social services departments that are providing some of the treatments and care of dementia patients, usually in their own homes, with the NHS, in order to ensure that the left hand knows exactly what the right hand is doing, and to provide a better delivery of services for dementia patients?

Well, I’m not sure if the first point about someone who hadn’t spoken for years actually standing up and speaking when you were singing was a comment on your singing ability, or whether it’s about the impact of music on memory and triggering a reaction. But those points are well made about different activities that are not just about experience, but how you maintain someone’s ability to do things as well and making sure they don’t deteriorate at a more rapid rate.

I understand the points that are regularly made about the way that we consult, but this is a good example of listening to and working with not just the third sector and advocates and champions in designing and delivering a consultation to go out to a broader group of people, but individuals themselves, as I’ve said, because in the dementia engagement and empowerment project, those people are living with dementia themselves, and so they play a key part in terms of people who we’ve listened to in drawing up these proposals for consultation. And it’s why I’m encouraging, and other people are encouraging, the widest possible range of people to get involved and engaged. The events that we’re running we are running with the third sector, with a range of different people they’ve already worked with, who they know have this challenge now, and other people who will get diagnosed in the future as well. We won’t ever, being honest, reach 100 per cent of people. No consultation can do that. But I do think we’re going to reach a good number of people who will then tell us something of real value about their lives, how they live them, the challenges they’ve faced already, what’s worked for them, and what hasn’t, to understand what we already do now, and what we want to do better in the future to deliver better outcomes for those individuals and their families.

That goes back to your final point about merging departments between social services and/or the NHS. We’ve set out a clear agenda in the social services and well-being Act on the partnership that we expect to see happen between health and social care, and the wider third sector and individuals as well. It is about how you empower people. It is about how you reduce barriers to design services around individuals. The Minister will be doing more work on this in practical terms, working with a range of different partners, to understand how the scheme of that Act is progressively delivered over the next couple of years. And I think we’ll be in a good place later on in this term to see how successful we’ve been. We’ve made a deliberate choice not to have a structural reorganisation, but to think about we actually get outcomes for people, and that sense of partnership and real engagement, and mandating people to work together in health and social care in particular.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on our agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs on avian influenza, and I call on Lesley Griffiths to make that statement.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. In response to highly pathogenic H5N8 avian influenza outbreaks across Europe, north Africa and the middle east, I declared, as a precautionary measure, the whole of Wales as an avian influenza prevention zone on 6 December 2016. The prevention zone requires all keepers of poultry, and other captive birds, to keep their birds indoors, or take all appropriate steps to keep them separate from wild birds, and to enhance biosecurity on their premises. This was a precautionary measure to minimise the risk of poultry and captive birds being infected by wild birds. Similar measures were introduced in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, ensuring a co-ordinated approach across the UK.

On 16 December, highly pathogenic H5N8 avian influenza was confirmed in turkeys at premises in Lincolnshire. The majority of the turkeys at the farm died quickly from the infection, with the remainder being humanely culled. A 3 km protection zone and a 10 km surveillance zone were put in place around the premises, restricting movements from premises identified in the zones. Following confirmation of the disease in Lincolnshire, I took further action to protect poultry and captive birds in Wales by introducing a temporary suspension on poultry gatherings such as sales and shows.

EU trade is dependent on strict certification for movement of live poultry and animal products. Following the Lincolnshire case, no trade was allowed from the infected premises, in line with EU requirements. Similarly, no poultry or poultry products can be moved to the UK from the protection zones and surveillance zones imposed in other EU countries. We are continuing to assess the wider impacts on international trade, but we are aware that some non-EU countries have already imposed restrictions.

The disease was confirmed in a wild duck, a wigeon, in Carmarthenshire on 22 December. This was the first finding in a wild bird in the UK, and was not unexpected, given the disease had been confirmed in wild migratory species throughout Europe. Prior to this finding, wild bird surveillance had been increased, with the reporting threshold for species susceptible to this virus strain reduced from five dead birds to one. Members of the public have been encouraged to report any dead wild waterfowl, such as ducks, geese, swans or gulls, and five or more dead wild birds of other species in the same location, to the GB helpline.

Since the finding in Llanelli, there have been further findings of highly pathogenic avian influenza in dead wild birds in England and Scotland, and in Wales, in another wild duck, a teal, in Conwy. It is likely more cases will be found, which will be reported on a weekly basis.

On 3 January, our chief veterinary officer confirmed disease on a smallholding in Pontyberem, Carmarthenshire. The premises, which had six chickens and 19 ducks, was put under restriction, and the birds were humanely culled. The CVO established a 3 km protection zone and a 10 km surveillance zone around the infected premises to reduce the opportunity for the spread of disease, the requirements of which are on the Welsh Government website. The poultry keepers identified in the zones will be visited by the Animal and Plant Health Agency and subject to targeted veterinary investigation. This case reinforces my earlier action, and I am extremely concerned to ensure all keepers of poultry, particularly backyard flocks, make every effort to protect their birds from contact with potentially infected wild birds.

Last week, I extended the prevention zone in Wales to 28 February, which I considered following the Pontyberem case, the continued findings in wild birds across GB, and expert advice. DEFRA and the Scottish Government have done the same. I understand some poultry keepers are having difficulty adhering to all of the requirements of the prevention zone, particularly keeping their birds indoors or separate from wild birds. Housing birds that are not used to being housed or confined for a sustained period may create welfare and behavioural problems. Guidance on maintaining welfare, and a variety of environmental enrichment options for captive birds, including poultry, is, again, available on the Welsh Government website.

I know poultry keepers care about their birds and will understand the actions I have taken are aimed at protecting their birds from disease. Compliance with the prevention zone requirements, and the other restrictions around the premises in Pontyberem, apply equally to keepers of backyard flocks as they do to large commercial premises.

The media have been informed of the declarations implementing restrictions. Guidance is available on our website alerting the public and poultry keepers—and across our social media feeds. The CVO conducted a round of interviews last week across public and commercial outlets covering Wales and the UK as a whole, and a series of further interviews is planned with smaller regional radio stations this week. The latest information has been widely available in the media, but even so, some keepers may still not be aware of the requirements. Poultry keepers with 50 birds or more must register their flocks on the poultry register, and I would strongly encourage all poultry keepers, including those with fewer than 50 birds, to provide their details to the poultry register. This will ensure that they can be contacted immediately, via e-mail or text update, in an avian disease outbreak, enabling them to protect their flock at the earliest opportunity.

The actions and control measures put in place have been proportionate, targeting the activities of highest risk, to minimise impact on international trade, the economy and the sustainability of the poultry industry within Wales. I can assure everyone about the Welsh Government’s continued efforts in this constantly evolving disease situation. I have received regular updates from the CVO and my officials, who worked throughout the Christmas period and who remain closely engaged with other administrations, monitoring the situation and taking action as necessary. The level of risk of avian influenza to poultry and other captive birds from wild birds will not decrease in the coming weeks and may even increase when the spring wild bird migration period begins. Work is in hand with DEFRA and the Scottish Government to consider what the exit strategy might be for lifting the prevention zone.

I cannot stress enough the need for those who keep poultry flocks and other domestic birds to remain alert for signs of the disease, to contact their private veterinarians if they have any concerns and to practice the highest levels of biosecurity.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement this afternoon? I think it’s important that, from the outset, we reinforce the message that the risk to public health from this virus is very low and that it does not pose a food safety risk for Welsh consumers.

I appreciate the delicacy of this particular issue and that’s why it’s so important that the Welsh Government is quick to act and is working collaboratively with other Governments across the UK. It’s crucial that any contingency planning is co-ordinated with other Governments across the UK, so that Government policies don’t hinder or even escalate the current problem.

In light of today’s statement, given that the Cabinet Secretary has made it clear that her officials are engaging closely with the other administrations, perhaps she could, therefore, update us on the latest discussions that the Welsh Government has had at a ministerial level with the UK Government and the other devolved Governments regarding this particular outbreak, and how the monitoring of disease threats like the H5N8 strain can be strengthened across Governments in the future.

Of course, it’s so crucial that smaller keepers and those who keep chickens and other birds on a more domestic level are kept updated with the latest developments in relation to this particular strain, and not just the commercial poultry sector. I’m pleased that poultry keepers are being encouraged to provide details of their flocks to the poultry register, which is a crucial anchor for the Welsh Government to better understand the situation here in Wales. I sincerely hope that even those keepers with fewer than 50 birds provide their details so that, in the event of an outbreak, they can have access to the appropriate information quickly and thereby better protect their birds. Could the Cabinet Secretary therefore provide us with an update on the frequency of keepers who are providing their details to the register? Perhaps the Cabinet Secretary could provide an initial assessment of the effectiveness of this register at this stage.

Unfortunately, the signs of avian flu, as I understand it, can vary between species of bird and could range from something very mild, like a change in colour, to something far more drastic. However, because the disease can react differently, it’s very difficult to effectively monitor the disease in kept poultry and even more so in wild birds. There is, of course, still an important role for surveillance to play in relation to this outbreak, and today’s statement confirms that bird surveillance has, of course, increased. However, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary can tell us a bit more about how this enhanced bird surveillance, specifically in wild birds, is taking place across Wales at an operational level.

The avian flu strain will, no doubt, have an effect on Wales’s free-range sector, which, of course, prides itself on the animal’s ability to roam freely. We know that 89 per cent of egg production units in Wales produce free-range eggs. Further to my question to the First Minister earlier today, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary can tell us a little bit more about what assessment has been made of the impact of the strain of avian flu on this particular sector. I appreciate that today’s statement references the Welsh Government’s guidance on maintaining welfare for captive birds, however can she tell us if there are any implications on the welfare of poultry on free-range farms, and if so, how has the Welsh Government mitigated any potential welfare implications as a result of this strain of avian flu?

Now, last year the Cabinet Secretary brought forward a statement on exotic animal disease threats. I asked about how the Welsh Government prepares Wales, in the event of an outbreak of a disease, to ensure that our support processes have access to the appropriate resources and funding. I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary would agree that it’s essential that there is adequate funding in place to ensure that farmers, local authorities and agencies are confident that they have what they need to deliver disease control measures here in Wales. Therefore, I’d be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could now tell us how the Welsh Government allocated resources in this area, and how that funding is monitored so that the people of Wales can be as confident as possible that the Welsh Government is taking action to make Wales as safe as it can be at all times.

In closing, Llywydd, can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement this afternoon? It’s incumbent on all of us in this Chamber to do what we can to promote the importance of good biosecurity, and to encourage our constituents to report dead wild waterfowl or other dead wild birds. I’m pleased that this afternoon’s statement confirms that the Welsh Government is working alongside other Governments to ensure that a streamlined co-ordinated approach is delivered across the UK. I look forward to hearing more about the Welsh Government’s action in this area via the Cabinet Secretary’s response.

I thank Paul Davies for his questions and comments. I think it was very good that you, sort of, reiterated what I said about the risk to public health: it is very low, there have been no incidents at all of this strain of influenza in the public, and the Foods Standards Agency has said it’s very safe to eat both poultry and eggs. I think we were very quick to act—we took the decision around the precautionary measures, as I said, on the 6 December—and gave it a great deal of thought. I think the fact around free range was something that, obviously, was of concern to me, because you didn’t want to start the clock too early, because of obviously the 12 weeks in relation to the free-range status. You know, you didn’t want to start too early because that would have an impact on that. But I think it was right that we acted quickly and, certainly, I think the co-ordinated approach between the UK Government, Scotland and Wales has been able to give that very consistent approach, and Northern Ireland obviously followed closely after.

The chief veterinary officers I think have daily discussions, and certainly officials were having daily telephone conversations, and there have been meetings. So, at an official level, those discussions are going on at a very frequent rate. In relation to ministerial discussions, last week all four agricultural Ministers from across the UK were at the Oxford Farming Conference—sorry, three were there. The Scottish Minister wasn’t there, but there was a representative from Scotland. So, again, there were discussions, both at ministerial and official level.

I think the poultry register—. It’s very important—obviously, if you’ve got over 50 birds then it’s mandatory—but what I’ve asked officials to do it look at whether it should be mandatory for fewer than 50, because I am concerned that everybody does know about this. If you’ve only got two chickens, it’s just as important that you care just as much about your poultry as people with more. So, I’ve asked officials to have a look at whether it’s possible to introduce that also. But, again, I think it needs to be a consistent approach across the UK, so that’s something that we will be looking at going forward.

The poultry register has been, I think, in use for about 12 years, so it is a very well-maintained register. But I do think we need to look at what we can do for people who’ve got fewer than 50 birds. You’re quite right about the symptoms—it could be respiratory, it could be diarrhoea, it could be discolouration of the neck and face, so I think it’s very important, again, that people are aware of what the symptoms are. You discussed about free range, and you’re quite right—89 per cent of our egg production in Wales is free range and there is an impact on that. One of the reasons we’re looking at how we have this exit strategy is around free range also.

The welfare of birds is very important and, again, we know that birds aren’t used to being housed. You get different diseases when you’ve got birds together. Boredom is obviously something that has to be looked at, and that’s why we’ve put advice on the website regarding environment enrichment.

In relation to resources and support, we haven’t put any additional resources in at the minute. I asked officials yesterday if there were any concerns about the capacity of local authorities, because, obviously, they’re the ones that would have to come in if there wasn’t compliance. Again, I have to say officials were particularly pleased with the way Carmarthenshire council had been able to respond in light of the outbreak in Pontyberem.

Finally, I think your final point—it is down to all of us, and it’s a very good opportunity. One of the reasons I wanted to have this statement today was to again say that we can only just keep reiterating the importance, particularly, of biosecurity.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for bringing this statement. As she has just said, maybe we, as politicians, can’t be of assistance directly in dealing with this disease, but it is important that we discuss it so that that disseminates a strong message from the Government on the prevention zone and on food security, which is still the case in Wales. That message should be conveyed strongly.

May I take this opportunity to thank the Cabinet Secretary and, through her, her staff and the chief veterinary officer for working over the Christmas period, and for being available for local councils too, of course, to co-ordinate issues related to this disease and the need for close collaboration with other Governments over the ensuing period? As has just been mentioned, this sector is important to the Welsh economy. We tend to think, perhaps, about meat, lamb and beef, but it is 6 per cent of agricultural GDP emerging from the poultry sector, and that is worth something in the region of £100 million. So, it is important that the message is conveyed strongly that our food is safe and that appropriate steps are being taken to deal with the disease and to prevent the spread of it.

Most of the questions have already been asked and answered, if truth be told, but I do have a few specific questions just so that I can have some clarity on these issues. We’ve already discussed free-range poultry, or whatever you want to use in Welsh for free range, but it is a very important sector for Wales and I think it’s more important for Wales than it is for England, if truth be told. I think after some 12 weeks there is a risk that the category or designation of free-range eggs may be lost because the poultry are kept indoors, and it is possible that free-range egg producers may be ill-prepared for keeping poultry indoors for a long period of time. That could have an impact on animal health in those circumstances. So, what specific steps are being taken in this area to ensure that the sector can be safeguarded, because there will be demand for produce from this sector and we must ensure that the sector is able to survive any impact brought about by this disease?

The second question specifically emerges from the statement that you made on 20 December when, at that point, you mentioned the fact that there was no prevention on gathering some birds together—pigeons and caged birds, for example. Although the only show that I was aware of had been postponed, it is still possible, under the current restrictions, I believe, that those who keep pigeons and doves can continue to meet. Have you reviewed that, given that it seems that the disease has spread in Wales, in both north and south Wales now?

The final question is: although you have been very clear on the messages that you have conveyed as Cabinet Secretary, we’re all aware that the press in Wales doesn’t perhaps fully report Welsh political issues. So, are you confident in your own mind that all poultry keepers in Wales, including those under the threshold for statutory registration, are fully aware of the status of Wales in relation to this disease and are fully aware of the biosecurity measures that need to be taken to prevent the spread of this disease?

If I can start at the end of Simon Thomas’s questions: am I confident that every single person who has got even one bird knows about it? I would say ‘no’. That’s why it’s so important that, as you said, we as politicians get that information out. The CVO has done a significant round of interviews last week. She did the BBC breakfast television network. We thought it was really important to get out there and get that message out. So, I would like to think that everybody has picked it up off our social media, from the television, from the radio and from our website. But, you know, hand on heart, can I say 100 per cent? No, but I hope, also, that discussions will take place between poultry keepers. The fact that we did suspend the gatherings of birds later in December—on 20 December—again, that message will get out. So, I am hopeful that, now it has been a month since we brought in the prevention zone, that information is out there. So, anything that anybody can do to encourage more people to talk about it is, I think, really important.

You asked about free range, and I alluded in my answer to Paul Davies to the decision to introduce the prevention zone back on 6 December. I took it after a great deal of advice and consideration from the CVO. You will remember that DEFRA were the first to introduce it, closely followed by Scotland and then by Wales. Northern Ireland were a little bit further on behind us. One of the reasons why I did think so carefully about it, because it is important that the action we bring forward is proportionate, was specifically around free range, because that 12 weeks—. You know, once that clock starts ticking—. So, we are having discussions about what we will do after 28 February—obviously, now we’ve got the prevention zone to 28 February, which takes us absolutely up to that 12 weeks. So, it will depend on what cases we have over the next seven or eight weeks, but the officials are having discussions with DEFRA and Scottish colleagues, in particular, about having that exit strategy from that prevention zone.

You specifically asked about pigeons. The prevention zone conditions do apply to all captive birds. However, pigeons are not of significance in the transmission of this particular strain of avian influenza, so they can still be flown. But, of course, currently, it’s the close season for racing pigeons, and there are no racing schedules, apparently, before the beginning of April. So, again, I don’t think it would be proportionate to extend any of these measures to sports and recreational pursuits at this time, but we will have to keep all options under continual review.

I hope it won’t disconcert the Cabinet Secretary too much if I offer my full support for the measures that she has taken. I have frequently been a critic of hers in the past on the question of proportionality. I think that, in this particular instance, the action that she has taken is proportionate. It is in the interests of all poultry keepers that we prevent the spread of this disease. Having lived through the horrors of the Edwina Curry salmonella-in-eggs scare 30 years ago, where a lot of unnecessary hysteria was caused, I think it’s important to remind people that avian flu comes in many, many different strains. Most of them are not a real menace, even to poultry keepers, let alone to the public. There is no food safety risk, as far as we know, at all. Therefore, there should not be any knock-on effects on those who sell food products that are related to birds.

I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary can tell me to what extent we can improve the general public’s understanding of these issues. Of course, among poultry keepers, we might expect a higher level of understanding than the public generally. As regards reporting of the dead birds that are seen, there is guidance that says that you should report any waterfowl or gulls—or, indeed, any bird—in quantities of five or more found together. That’s important information that is needed by the authorities to understand exactly how the disease is spreading, if it is. Biosecurity is the key to sorting this out. It sounded, from what the Cabinet Secretary said earlier on, that we are likely to see these restrictions continue for some time because of the time of year. We currently have, as she mentioned, migration in the coming weeks. Therefore, this is likely to produce problems for people who keep poultry for commercial reasons.

As regards the smaller flocks, the latest incident, in Pontyberem, involved a relatively small number of birds, and in these circumstances, I wonder what could be done to encourage people to net enclosures for keeping their birds, in which case there should be very little interference with the lives both of the birds themselves and, indeed, of poultry keepers. Given the animal welfare implications of housing indoors for significant periods of time, if this is likely to continue for several months, it may well be a worthwhile investment for people to have netted areas where birds could be let out, and I wonder to what extent her department could assist in that respect.

Thank you. I certainly don’t want to be compared to Edwina Currie, so I do welcome your comments around proportionate measures.

You’re quite right: there are a variety of strains of avian influenza and this is a high pathway one, this H5N8. I think you raise an interesting point around the general public, because, you know, it’s been hard enough getting that information out to poultry keepers, but, equally, it is a matter of public health interest, and it’s very important that people understand that there is no impact or that the impact on public health is very low—this strain has never been seen in a member of the public—and also that food safety is very important and, as I said in my opening remarks, that poultry and eggs, the Food Standards Agency has said, are safe to eat. So, again, I go back to how we’ve let poultry keepers know. It’s really important that we get that message out. One of the decisions taken this week is that we’ll do a round of interviews with local radio stations, because people, obviously, listen to local radio stations as well, building on the significant work that the chief veterinary officer undertook last week.

Biosecurity is so important, and it’s really important that very high standards of biosecurity are maintained. We’ve now got the protection zone—sorry, the prevention zone—up until 28 February, which, I mentioned, takes us right up to that 12-week period before we have to then take some very significant decisions around free range. So, we’ve got the zone in place until 28 February.

In relation to netting, I think that’s a very good point, because a lot of people—. When we announced that zone—and, as I say, it’s very important that you take proportionate action—I was very aware that there would be animal welfare sort of situations arising, because people wouldn’t have had the houses ready for the poultry. So, if you can just net them, that keeps them away from wild birds in some respects. So, it might be worth, as you say, if people haven’t been able to get those houses straight away, you know, to have that net and that mesh there and to make sure that, when they feed the poultry, the feed is not accessible to wild birds. That’s also very important. So, if people could look on the website, there’s a lot of information on our website. We’ve got that information out on our social media feeds also, and, hopefully, today, you know, even if just a few more people pick up from this statement—. Maybe Members, when they do their weekly—I don’t know; I do a weekly newsletter on e-mail—or if we, you know, when we’re in our advice surgeries, we could get that message out also.

I don’t wish, Cabinet Secretary, to delay the debate or lengthen the debate by asking all the questions that have already been asked, so I’m going to focus in on just two areas. One of them has been mentioned, but it’s about how we let the public know about the mechanisms for reporting, because not all the public who may come across something they think could possibly be suspicious will understand the process of reporting. So, maybe we could look at letting them know that they can go to their local council, for example, or any other authority within their locality who could then pass that on on their behalf—it might be useful in reporting.

I think the other area that perhaps could be explained little bit more is the advantage to those people who don’t have flocks of 50 birds or more in actually registering their birds and what they get from that, because I know from somebody who has only got four birds that they get kept up to date on the latest situation so that they can protect themselves.

Also, I’m going to reiterate what I said earlier: we do have an unfortunate circumstance at the moment with the weather in eastern Europe. These are all migratory birds that are affected, and the migration could possibly increase if that weather front hangs in eastern Europe, where a lot of these birds are coming from. So, if you are able to tell us whether that is in your consideration.

Thank you, Joyce Watson, for those comments and questions. I think you’re quite right: we need to make sure the public do understand that if they come across a dead bird or a group of five dead birds, they should report that, but they need to know where to report it. So, there is the GB helpline, but you’re quite right: they can report it to their local authorities as well.

I think the point I made—I think it was in my response to Paul Davies—was that I’ve asked officials to look at what we can do for keepers of under 50 birds to make sure that they do register. There are a number of them already registered, so they will get the e-mail and the text update immediately. But it is my concern that people with, say, two or four or six birds aren’t getting the information. I think the only way we can do that is to make it compulsory for them to register, but that’s a significant piece of work. It would require secondary legislation, for instance, and as I mentioned, I think it would be good to have a consistent approach across the UK, but those discussions have started.

The reason I mentioned that the incidence is unlikely to decrease is because of the issues that you referred to in relation to migrations. So, they are very much in consideration in the discussions, particularly between the chief veterinary officers and officials at a UK level.

Thank you again, Cabinet Secretary, for your second statement on this. I think that proves to us as Members just how seriously you, in fact, are taking this. Obviously, it was a great disappointment when it was discovered that a deal teal was found at the RSPB Conwy reserve. I have to tell you that, on Twitter last night, the manager of the reserve, Julian, was concerned that this will cause people not to visit. So, it’s how we get that positive message out there that at least it has been identified, and it’s going in as part of your biosecurity. On my Twitter feed, I made the announcement that you were making a statement today, and they will be looking out for that. So, anything you can do, working with local authorities, to highlight the fact that it is still safe for visitors to attend.

Moving on, you mentioned the smallholding in Carmarthenshire, and that was just a handful of birds, really. I just wanted to ask, on that particular example, had they already registered the fact that they were keeping that poultry, or were they in fact on any register. The reason why I ask this: I actually know quite a few people who keep poultry—low numbers, but they just do not see the necessity. They tend to imagine that it’s the bigger poultry farmers, and those who keep animals free range. I just wondered are you working with local authorities so that they can perhaps, on the ground, be more aware.

Also, certainly in my part of north Wales, there are numerous hobbyists and visitor attractions keeping tropical bird aviaries, birds of prey and of course domestic poultry, and it’s very difficult to mesh off in order to feed birds and everything, in terms of those kinds of birds, without wild birds coming down to visit and, actually, very close contact. It’s how can you actually make people very aware of the dangers posed by avian flu and the need for all outdoor poultry owners to come forward, join the register and keep them indoors. Perhaps your department could use social media more and then we, as Members, can look out for it and tweet it, because I think it’s a message we need to get out.

Clearly the onus is as much on these bird owners as large-scale poultry farmers, who may be finding it difficult, as you rightly pointed out, to adhere to the requirements of the prevention zone. How can you ensure that they are also taking the necessary precautions in terms of sanitation, disinfection and registration? The H5N8 strain is highly pathogenic and given its potential to spread can cross-contaminate or mutate, and we obviously cannot afford to underestimate the potential dangers. How are you seeking to prevent any cross-contamination when contact between humans and infected birds is inevitable, because clearly people are feeding them not realising that at the time? I’ve done quite a lot of work on this previously, and I am in fact a bird owner myself and I know that if I actually contract flu, it depends which flu it is, but you have to be very careful, because you can cross-infect.

Finally, you state that the level of risk of avian influenza may increase over the coming weeks. The World Organisation for Animal Health suggests vaccination should this situation become more problematic. I just wondered, in terms of resource, how you’re able to look at that, if—and I’m only saying ‘if’ because obviously there’s a cost with that. But more so, what about the fact that, in our local authorities across Wales, a lot of our regulatory and public protection departments have lost budget and they’ve lost many of their important officers? How do you think, given that this is a situation that could—? We know it’s on the increase. How do you think you are placed—your department, and indeed our local authority departments—in actually dealing with this in terms of where we can all have full confidence?

Thank you. Just in relation to the Member’s questions around vaccination, there is actually no vaccine against H5N8 currently authorised for use in the UK. So, I think that’s a very important point to get across. I mentioned, in a previous answer, about local authorities, and certainly in Carmarthenshire, my officials particularly said how quick they had been to deal with the incident in Carmarthenshire and there were certainly no concerns around capability or capacity. I think the point that you raised about the dead teal that was found in Conwy—. I think it’s just as important to get that message out about tourism and public health at the same time—that it’s very safe to visit and it’s safe to eat poultry and eggs.

Again, I think I’ve answered the questions around how do we get people with under 50 birds to know about this information. The best way is to put yourself on that poultry register so you get the updates regularly. I’m very pleased to hear from Janet that she is using her social media feed. I think my department has been very, very good. Certainly over the Christmas period we’ve managed to tweet a great deal of the information that we’ve been getting out, because it has evolved so quickly since I first took the decision around the prevention zone on 6 December.

Biosecurity—people are aware of biosecurity. I really can’t emphasise that point too much. I can’t possibly, and neither can my officials, visit every farm and every poultry keeper. So, again, it’s just about making sure we continually get that message out because, sometimes, when things go quiet as well, people might not think the risk is there. So it is really important that, over the next seven or eight weeks, and while that zone is in place until 28 February, we continually take every opportunity to get that message out.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on our agenda is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport on the new treatment fund. I call on Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, once again, Presiding Officer. I am pleased to announce that the new treatment fund is now established and I will be releasing, immediately, £12 million for the first tranche of funding for this year. The new treatment fund was a key commitment that we put before the people of Wales in May 2016 and we are delivering on that commitment. Our commitment was to invest £80 million over the life of this Government in a new treatment fund. We are delivering, with the new fund providing an additional £16 million each year, for five years, to speed up access to new medicines in Wales.

The fund will support health boards to make all new medicines recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group available faster and more consistently across Wales. I wrote to Assembly Members this morning, providing the detail of how the new treatment fund will operate. The new fund will benefit patients in Wales in three key areas. All new recommended medicines will be made available within two months of the recommendation being published, rather than the current three months. Medicines recommended by NICE will be made available within two months of the first publication of the final appraisal determination, rather than waiting for the final technology appraisal guidance, which is published after the appeal period, which can be up to eight weeks later. And, new cancer medicines given an interim recommendation by NICE will also be available to patients in Wales within these same timescales.

The new treatment fund has been designed to treat all conditions equally. We recognise that each person affected by a condition that impacts upon their life will want to be assured that the Welsh Government is just as interested in their situation by making sure all new recommended medicines are introduced as quickly as possible and consistently no matter where an individual lives within Wales, and that is not an approach that has been taken in other parts of the UK. The Welsh Government has already provided an extra £200 million for NHS Wales in the 2016-17 budget to fund the ongoing impact of demand for health services and pay and other cost increases, as was set out in the recent Health Foundation report, ‘The path to sustainability’. This additional funding of £80 million over the life of this Government for the new treatment fund represents a significant further investment that will deliver that faster and more consistent early introduction of new medicines.

We recognize that new medicines and treatments are being discovered, developed and tested all of the time, offering the hope of a cure or a better quality of life for people with a range of life-threatening illnesses. This significant investment will help remove uncertainties around funding for new treatments in the future and help NHS Wales prepare sustainable plans for the introduction of new medicines. The £12 million I am making available now will be used to help support the all-Wales delivery of new and effective medicines recommended since April last year. This includes new medicines to treat prostate and ovarian cancer, muscular dystrophy and heart failure. Each one of these carries an annual cost of around £1 million.

It will also be used to support the introduction of new medicines recommended in the last few months, plus those coming through the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence pipeline this month. That includes new medicines to treat cancer, severe psoriasis, hepatitis C, the treatment of cystic fibrosis in children under six, severe asthma, and a new drug that represents a much-needed treatment option for rare and life-threatening lung diseases. All of these diseases are life threatening and/or debilitating, and these new medicines address an unmet clinical need or represent a step change in treatment. The £12 million that I am releasing now to health boards will support the fast and consistent delivery of all of these important new medicines that have been recommended.

The final tranche of £4 million for this financial year will be released to health boards later this month to support the fast introduction of these medicines and to enable health boards to plan more effectively to introduce new medicines coming through the appraisal pipeline between now and the end of March 2017.

During 2017, we will be improving the medicines appraisal forward look to facilitate the funding being released in advance at regular intervals throughout each year of the fund and to support early planning to introduce the new medicines. I will be issuing new directions to health boards before the end of the month to ring-fence the fund for the purpose of supporting the introduction of newly recommended medicines. We’ll also be monitoring the take-up of new medicines and the reduction in timescales, because I want to be clear that the fund is being used for its purpose and that it is making a real difference.

To further support access to medicines in Wales, I will continue to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to work with NHS Wales on supporting our agenda to make new recommended medicines available quickly. The industry has a key role to play in supporting and improving our forward planning linked with longer-term financial forecasting and assisting health boards to identify at the earliest possible stage where infrastructure and/or service reconfiguration are needed to support the introduction of a new medicine. If our healthcare system is to deliver a sustainable, responsive approach to the introduction of new medicines that is fast and responsible, we need a concerted joint effort between industry, NHS Wales and the Welsh Government, and this message was well received when I spoke at the annual conference of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry in November last year.

This Government pledged to deliver a new treatment fund to give the people of Wales fast access to new, innovative and effective treatments. I am proud to confirm that we’re delivering on our commitment in the first year of this Government and ‘Taking Wales Forward’. I’ll report on progress with the operation of the new fund before the summer recess.

Cabinet Secretary, I welcome your statement today, and of course the Welsh Conservatives are delighted to see £12 million going into the NHS—all additional moneys into the NHS are more than welcome. However, I am somewhat confused by the promise that you made to people in your manifesto, which was, and I will read it to you, if I may:

‘We will introduce a ground breaking New Treatment Fund, enabling the most advanced drugs and high cost treatments for cancer and other life threatening illnesses to be available in Wales first.’

Now, many people will have taken that to read that, in those instances where drugs have been approved in terms of their technical ability—they do the job—but they have not been approved by NICE because of the cost-benefit analysis, then people have been trying to get those drugs through. And, when we talked about a cancer treatments fund from the Welsh Conservatives, we were talking about putting the money out for those kinds of drugs, whereas it seems to me that this money you are talking about today, the £12 million leading to the £80 million over five years, is actually about getting health boards to provide the drugs that have already been agreed by NICE, and already been agreed by the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group, a bit faster. To be frank, they should be doing that anyway, because all of the people of Wales, all of the citizens of Wales, have a right to access treatments that have been agreed and approved by those bodies, and no health board should be dilly-dallying over that.

So, please can you clarify for me what will happen for those drugs that have been approved in terms of their technical efficiency, but have not been approved because of the cost-benefit analysis—drugs that don’t fit into the independent patient funding requests system? Does this mean that there will be an end to the postcode lottery, where people in Wales were trying to travel into England or other home nations to access drugs and treatments that they couldn’t access here? If it means an end to that postcode lottery, I, for one, will be utterly, utterly delighted. So, I’d be grateful if you can clarify that for us.

I took on board the point the Welsh Government made that, actually, the problem with just having, for example, a cancer treatments fund was that it was too narrow, and I do welcome the fact that this is for all cruel and unusual illnesses, that this is for all new treatments, and, actually, could you please confirm to me that it doesn’t just relate to drugs but it might also relate to technical treatments—very specialised kinds of surgery, for example? Because I’d like to make sure that they were also included—surgery that’s not run of the mill. Could you clarify for me what would happen if NICE approve a drug? Is there ever a situation where the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group might not have the same opinion? Is there ever a conflict? If there is a conflict, is there a proposal in place for the resolution of that conflict?

Will you also confirm to me whether or not the money that is for new treatments will also include extra support around the drugs? Now, I did, obviously, read your paragraph that says to

‘support access to medicines in Wales, I will continue to encourage the pharmaceutical industry to work with’

health boards, et cetera, but, of course, quite a lot of these drugs will require dedicated support to implement them. So, will the money be used for just the drug, or the drug and the support, or would you expect the health board to do their reconfiguration of their support staff and their infrastructure from within their own funds? I think that would be a useful piece of clarification, because although £12 million, maybe £16 million, a year—£80 million over five years—is incredibly welcome, it’s a very finite number, and there are a lot of very new drugs coming on to the market that can do an awful lot to help prolong people’s lives and give them the treatments that they need, but of course are eye-wateringly expensive at the moment. So, I want to ensure that that money really does go just for the drug and not to enable a health board to do internal reconfiguration. Thank you for that.

Thank you for the comments and suggestions and questions. I’ll try and pick up your final point about the drugs that you described as being effective but eye-wateringly expensive. Well, those drugs that are eye-wateringly expensive are drugs that are unlikely to be approved by NICE or the AWMSG. That’s why we have a recommended process: the benefit has to be in accordance with the cost as well, because part of the challenge why the cancer drugs fund was a failure and has been reformed—in fact, junked and remade completely and gone through a NICE process—is they recognise they are providing access to drugs at a price where they had no control over them at all, so that’s why it massively overspent, but also access to drugs where, on a number of occasions, you could not prove that they were effective. You don’t need to take my word for it: look at the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons; ask Dr Sarah Wollaston what she thinks of the previous cancer drugs fund. So, actually, that’s why the UK Government has ditched the previous cancer drugs fund, which was politically effective but a poor use of public money, and they’ve gone down a process where they’re actually now having a proper appraisal through NICE. What we’re saying through this fund is that we’ll make sure that people in Wales are not treated any less favourably. So, where those drugs go through and they get the interim appraisal from NICE, those are now available in Wales.

I’ve already determined on the previous indication that had come through, the previous medications. They are available in Wales too. Part of the reason why we’re talking about effective medication is that it goes through that authoritative process to understand that it is really effective. Those medications, they will be available on a more consistent basis, on a more rapid basis, because we recognise that there was a challenge previously in health boards’ ability to plan for introducing new medications, not having that grown-up relationship and conversation with the aim of what was coming on board, and different health boards had different abilities to manage significant costs into the drugs budget. That’s why we saw inconsistency across the piece in different parts of Wales for approved medications. This new fund will ensure that does not happen in the future and we’ll have more rapid access. In terms of NICE, because we’re making this at an earlier point in time and not waiting for the appeal period, that’s why it’ll be certain that we will have recommended medications available at an earlier point in time in Wales than in England. It is a real benefit and is genuinely groundbreaking, in accordance with our manifesto pledge.

I want to turn back to the point that you’re making about the industry and the support and service reconfiguration that may be necessary. I made comments and reference to this in my statement and in my letter as well. There is something here about our developing a more grown-up and mature relationship with the pharmaceutical industry here in Wales, because, if they want their medications to be available rapidly within the system, they have to go through a proper appraisal process, they need to be upfront about what is coming on board and to have some trust in those conversations with the service and in the whole appraisal process. That includes how that medication is delivered, and we’ve seen this on a number of fronts, where, actually, the industry is more open to talking about what you would need to do to be able to deliver a new medication effectively and what that means for the health board—not just the money, but the support around it as well. That is what the fund is intended to help deliver. So, I’m genuinely positive about what we’re doing in delivering on a manifesto pledge, delivering on a key commitment in the programme for government, and I think it will be proven to make a real difference to the NHS, but, much more importantly, a real difference to the people of Wales we are here to serve.

I certainly welcome this development. I’m pleased that through both deliberations following the election leading to the compact and in more recent discussions on the budget we have been able, working with the Government, to make sure that we have this package that will, hopefully, make a difference to patients in Wales. I’ll make a note that it is important to await the result of the IPFR review, because that is going to be key also for people with rare diseases and rare forms of disease. I’m pleased that the Conservatives now see that they were not pursuing patients’ interests in Wales in pursuing the cancer drugs fund. [Interruption.] No, if you were here a minute or so ago, you would have heard—[Interruption.] You would have heard your spokesman saying that this is rightly opening the door to funding for patients suffering from all diseases, because it’s not just cancer sufferers that Government needs to be helping, and I am pleased that this is a new treatment fund and not just a cancer drugs fund, as important as it is to get drugs to cancer patients.

I have a number of questions. The change to two months following approval is to be welcomed, but we know that three months was a struggle for LHBs at times, despite it being a requirement—we must remember that—and often patients had to have interventions from Members here to get access to medicines approved for general use. So, mechanisms to ensure delivery are key here. Would the Minister outline those mechanisms and explain what happens if he hears of an LHB that doesn’t add a new medicine to the formulary?

Secondly, both NICE and AWMSG are respected organisations, they do valuable work, but the process of evaluating new medicines can sometimes be time consuming and can also neglect new uses of older medicines. I’m thinking, for example, of bisphosphonates and breast cancer. Does the Minister think that there is a case for AWMSG to meet more frequently now to look at these issues, particularly given that finance shouldn’t be as much of an issue in these cases?

The statement doesn’t mention how long funding of each medicine will last, but you have previously said it’s 12 months funding before LHBs have to fund the drugs themselves. Could you confirm that that continues and what processes you’re putting in place to ensure that that does happen?

And finally, sometimes the best treatment may not be pharmaceutical and may not be a medicine; it may be a new piece of equipment or technique for surgery. It may be a new non-clinical intervention. Perhaps increasingly, in future, we’ll see wearable technology playing a role in monitoring patients. But we know that, often, Wales has been, in the past, slow to adapt to these new technologies as well. So, how are you ensuring that the Welsh NHS is able to monitor these new technologies to ensure we are able, here, to use the latest machinery and equipment where doing so is in the best interest of the patient?

Thank you for your series of questions and comments. To be fair, I didn’t expressly deal with the question that Angela Burns asked about other new technologies, which you finished on as well. Indeed, this announcement is about a new treatment fund for medicines. There are other processes and means to assess the effectiveness or otherwise of other interventions, whether they’re talking therapies or whether they’re other technological interventions in different parts of the service. For example, I previously talked about new microsurgery for lymphedema as a new innovation that is actually groundbreaking and leading here in Wales, as well. So, I’m disappointed to hear the Plaid Cymru spokesperson saying about Wales being slow on the uptake on a range of things. Actually, on a range of things, we’re at the forefront of them as well.

There’s a balance in what we should do and in talking about what the NHS in Wales is doing, but of course, we always want to understand what progress means, where progress can be made and how to actually have a whole-system approach to doing that. For example, in technology, there’s a range of different measures that we are taking to try and deliver a genuinely once-for-Wales approach on a range of these different areas. But that is a different matter outside the subject of today’s statement and announcement.

On the individual patient funding request, as you will be aware and as other health spokespeople and Members will be aware, I’m expecting to receive the report to be published at some point early in this year and I look forward to receiving it from the group that’s been set up, following conversations with people across parties. That will deal with those things that are not recommended through NICE or the AWMSG. That is that more difficult area where there are difficult choices to be made about the balance and individual benefits. So, I look forward to having the report with recommendations for us to consider and debate, and then, ultimately, the Government will have to decide on a way forward for the service. But that is a separate matter that will come in the coming weeks.

I recognise the point of the discussion you were having across the Chamber with the Conservatives about the fact that this a genuine all-condition approach. We agreed with what the King’s Fund said when they talked about the cancer drugs fund having difficult ethical questions and the inequity that arises in valuing some NHS patients’ lives more than other people, depending on the nature of their condition. We were never going to take that approach and we’re being consistent with a genuinely equitable all-condition approach in delivering the new treatment fund.

On the accountability for making sure that the money is used for a purpose, that’s why I’ve been clear that there’ll be new directions and that there’ll be monitoring for the use of that money. So, I’m clear that the money is there for a purpose, I expect it to be used for that purpose and health board leaders will be held to account if that’s proven not to be the case.

Again, on your point about the evidence for the frequency of the meeting of the AWMSG, if there is more evidence that it should meet more frequently, that is something we will consider. That’s not something that’s been brought to me at present, either by other individuals or by the group itself, but I’m always open-minded if there’s something that the evidence tells us we could or should do to improve the position here in Wales. I’m happy to confirm again that this is to help the first year of the introduction of these new medications. After that, our evidence tells us that health boards are much better at managing and delivering new medicines thereafter. So, it’s to make sure that, in the first year, there isn’t that inequity, either in the consistency or in the speed of access to genuinely life-changing new medications.

Thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, and your letter earlier today. The news that patients can now benefit from the new treatment fund is most welcome and will be of great relief to many Welsh patients, some of whom have gone to England previously for treatment.

When access to medicines is discussed, it usually relates solely to cancer drugs, so it is refreshing to see that new medicines have become available to treat conditions such as cystic fibrosis, severe asthma and hepatitis C, as well as treatments for lung, breast and renal cancer. Other than to welcome the fund’s introduction, Cabinet Secretary, I only have a few questions for you, as we have discussed this scheme at length last year. Cabinet Secretary, in your letter, you mention that 60 new medicines have been approved since April. Are you working with the pharmaceutical sector to ensure that we are conducting sufficient horizon scanning, so we are adequately equipped to deal with new medicine appraisals in future?

Your statement and letter talk about the introduction of new medicines, but there is little mention of new treatments. Can you confirm that the fund will also allow for patients to access innovative new treatments, such as new types of radiotherapy and any new treatment that demonstrates clear clinical benefit for patients?

I am pleased to see you will be encouraging closer working relationships between the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry. We must work much more collaboratively with the pharmaceutical industry in future if we are to deliver improvements to patient care.

Cabinet Secretary, the new treatments fund is clearly earmarked to deliver better treatments for patients, so will you be allocating further resources in order to improve this collaborative working in future? We need improvements to the NHS infrastructure if we are to continue delivering the best available treatments to Welsh patients.

Thank you once again for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. I look forward to receiving details of how the scheme is working in practice when you report on progress later in the year. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you for your comments and questions, and your welcome for the delivery of this part of the programme for government. I’m happy to reconfirm the point about the appraisal process for other new forms of technology. The new treatment fund we’re talking about is for the delivery of new and approved medicines. In terms of your point about horizon scanning for new medicines; that is part of what we’ve got better at in Wales because we’ve had a change in the nature of our relationship with the industry. That maturity really matters to us, to make sure that our public service values are secure, and that the value we get for the new medicines for the health service and for patients is maintained as our first priority—but equally, understand how we maximise the opportunities for that to be the case, and to make sure that, if there are other benefits that can be taken in terms of the ability to develop the industrial potential for this industry in Wales, we take those up too.

But, actually, we recognise, with the industry having a different relationship, that it’s actually in their interest to have this grown-up conversation with us. If they want their new medicines to be made available, to be properly appraised so they can understand what they will do in a patient access scheme if that is required, to understand all of the advice and information that is required to allow the appraisal to be undertaken rapidly and effectively and then delivered, it is in their interest to have that conversation about what is coming on stream in the future. I’m genuinely optimistic about that—not from the simple point of being a naturally optimistic person, but actually the conversations that we’ve had with industry. I particularly welcome and recognise the supportive comments made today by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry on the introduction of the fund.

The point about new medicines—and again, on the point that this isn’t just about choosing cancer as our only basket of conditions where we’re prepared to spend additional money in this way—in the launch for the new treatment fund I actually went to the blood-borne viruses clinic in the Heath. It’s an all-Wales service and it does a quite amazing job for people right across the country. What’s really changed there is not just the access to new medication that we’ve delivered with new money—that’s made a huge difference for the staff and the way they network and work across Wales—it’s actually delivered a real sense of clinical purpose in the way they talk about the way they want to deliver this on a genuine all-Wales basis. So, the new money and the new medicines have actually been part of helping to change real progress in clinical behaviour, treatment and outcomes for patients. Because that, for me, was the most inspiring part of the visit—to meet patients who have actually now had a genuine cure as a result of the new medication that’s been introduced on the back of the specific investment that’s been made. That’s what I want to see more of now and in the future. So, good news for the health service, but even better news for the patients that the health service serves.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement? I very much welcome this announcement today and the additional funding that comes with it. I’m also very pleased that the money that’s going to be going out to health boards is going to be ring-fenced and monitored. With that in mind, I would just like to ask: my experience in Aneurin Bevan health board is that they are actually very, very quick at making drugs available to patients once they’ve been through the appraisal process, so I do have a little bit of a niggling concern that, by setting timescales for all health boards, there is a danger that things may fall behind in other health boards where the performance has been, to date, very, very good. So, can I just ask you about that, and also ask you about the mechanism for actually allocating the resources to each health board? Will it go out on a formula? Will it be done on the basis of need? Because I also wouldn’t want to see us paying health boards that haven’t been performing when organisations like Aneurin Bevan health board have been delivering, as far as I can see, very well in this area.

The other point that I wanted to raise was in relation to the AWMSG and the way that it works. I welcome the tone of your statement where you talk about the concerted joint effort between industry, NHS Wales and the Welsh Government. I was grateful to you for meeting with me recently to talk about Avastin, and also to Roche for coming to see me about it, but I understand that one of the problems that Roche have had is lack of information from AWMSG, unlike the Scottish medicines authority and NICE, who give detailed information on the reasons for declining an appraisal. They haven’t been able to get that information from AWMSG. So, can I ask that that’s something that you look at so that we can make sure that this process, which is key now to accessing this extra funding, is as transparent and as open as possible?

Thank you for the comments and for the question. Of course, I monitor the use and the impact of the fund. It’s important not just to have a statement where we can say we’ve made a promise and we’ve delivered on it. We then need to make sure it’s doing what we thought it would do and providing that real benefit for individuals across the country. And, in doing that, there’ll be money for each health board. I want to ensure that every health board gets a proper share of the resource, but then has a proper expectation that they’ll deliver against that. This isn’t just money to go into the pot to do what they want with. That’s why it is going to be ring-fenced. That’s why there will be directions. That’s why we will be monitoring the use and the impact of the money.

The AWMSG process has been successful for us in Wales. At least 29 new medicines have been available much quicker than NICE have been able to do for the whole of the UK as well. So, that’s a real benefit in our ability to have medication available on an earlier basis in Wales. This will add to that as well. Part of the challenge has been on delivering patient access schemes—the point about the benefit and the cost between the public purse, the company and the individual who could benefit from the treatment. That does mean that I have difficult conversations sometimes with the pharmaceutical industry. I want to see that improve as we go through.

The information that I’ve had about the issue you raised about Roche and Avastin has been about the challenge over the provision of information, the time that should be provided, the ability and the willingness to sign up to a patient access scheme, but then also about the conversations about how that information is transferred between the two. I’d be very happy to have a conversation with you to respond to information about what’s happened in a particular case, but also for the future as well, because I do want to see that maturity in relation to what I’ve described being developed and continuing for the future. Because, as I say, it’s in the interests of the industry; but equally, it’s in the interests of the NHS and the patients that we’re here to serve as well.

It is the case that, if a Cabinet Secretary or Minister in any part of the UK comes forward with additional money to assist in the accessibility of drugs that have proved problematic over the years, and indeed have also, through the administrative process, proved cumbersome in getting those approvals through for patients who have got life-limiting conditions, that decision is definitely going to be warmly welcomed, Cabinet Secretary. I very much hope that, obviously, you do see this through and you make sure that we’re not, in 12 months, 18 months or two years, still talking about administrative blockages within our LHBs that prevent people from accessing the drugs that NICE and the All Wales Medicines Strategies Group have approved. The problem that is always at the crux of this is the drugs that are not approved. You have touched on the fact that you’ll be bringing forward another statement in the coming weeks and months around the IPFR process, and AMs from across the Chamber here have worked on an all-party basis, highlighting issues around this particular issue. It is this issue that, time and time again, really comes to the root cause of many families, many patients, and indeed many clinicians’ issues about accessing life-enhancing and life-improving drugs that haven’t got over the initial trials but show promising progress in the development work that has been undertaken by the pharmaceutical companies. Am I correct to assume that this money that you’ve announced today will do nothing to assist the IPFR process, and that the money that you have announced today is not available to the IPFR process to assist patients or clinicians in making decisions about attracting funding for those medicines? In particular, on cystic fibrosis, for example, Orkambi—I hope I’ve pronounced that right; I think you’re familiar with the drug because of, I think, a constituent of yours and mine, but I’m not asking you to comment on the constituent because I appreciate that you can’t do that—would not be available under the scheme that you’ve announced today, because, while it has had promising trials, it has not been approved by NICE. Is that the case? And can you appreciate the frustration and the importance, now, of a very quick turnaround in any deliberations you may be having to solve the blockage that has been in the IPFR process here in Wales?

Thank you for the question. As I said through the statement—previous statements and today—this is about quick, consistent access to approved, effective medication. For those that are not approved through NICE or the AWMSG process, there is the individual patient funding request process—the IPFR process. Members are all aware that we have undertaken a particular piece of work with a rapid review to look at what we have done in terms of improvements we think we might have been able to make in the last couple of years, and further improvements that we wish to make—and to have a genuine and challenging piece of work to try and help us do that. Now, I’ve indicated in response to the questions that Angela Burns and Rhun ap Iorwerth have asked today that I’m expecting that report to be with me within the coming week. It is a matter of weeks, not months, when I will receive that. I’m sure that everyone will have a view on it, and the Government will ultimately have to respond. That is a separate issue. That is not the issue that I am announcing today. That is not what our manifesto pledge was designed to deliver. I look forward to coming back to this Chamber in the coming weeks to provide you with another statement, Llywydd, on the IPFR process, on the review, and what the Government’s response to it will be. So, at that point in time, I will have an answer for you on the issue that you raise today.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on our agenda is the debate on the final budget, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. The Welsh Government’s draft budget was laid before the Assembly in October and had to be developed in very challenging circumstances. The UK Government’s autumn statement, which promised to reset fiscal policies, was published a few weeks after the draft budget was tabled. In the final budget, which was published on 20 December, we had to consider the statement’s impact on Wales. The draft budget and the final budget contain measures that are the result of discussions with Plaid Cymru. I’m very grateful to Adam Price and his team for ensuring that they were available during the tight timescales that are involved in the budget-making process. I also look forward to working together on the significant agenda that has been agreed for the joint committee on finance over the coming months.

Llywydd, I don’t intend to reiterate the details of the draft budget today. The Finance Committee has ably summarised these measures and has scrutinised them in its report. I’m grateful to the committee for its work on the draft budget for 2017-18 and for its constructive recommendations. Yesterday, I wrote to the Chair of the Finance Committee to respond to these recommendations in the report. Today, I intend to focus on two aspects. To begin, I will note the main differences between the draft budget and the final budget, and I will focus specifically on the impact of the autumn statement. I will then look to the future and consider the process of preparing next year’s budget and the need to ensure that our budget processes are appropriate for our new fiscal powers.

Gadewch i mi ddechrau, felly, Lywydd, gyda'r prif newidiadau sydd yn gorwedd rhwng y gyllideb ddrafft a'r gyllideb derfynol. Mae'r gyllideb derfynol yn cynnwys swm ychwanegol sy’n werth £337 miliwn o gyfalaf dros bedair blynedd, a ddyrennir i flaenoriaethau allweddol. Mae hyn yn cynnwys £136 miliwn ar gyfer datblygu tai fforddiadwy, cynlluniau atal llifogydd a phrosiectau adfywio ledled Cymru. O'r swm hwn, bydd £33 miliwn o gyllid cyfalaf ychwanegol yn cefnogi gwaith Cyfoeth Naturiol Cymru ac awdurdodau lleol ar gynlluniau rheoli risg llifogydd â blaenoriaeth dros y cyfnod hwnnw o bedair blynedd. Mae hyn yn ychwanegol at y £150 miliwn o arian rheoli risg arfordirol arloesol a fydd yn dechrau o 2018.

Mae pum deg tair miliwn o bunnoedd o'r cyfalaf ychwanegol wedi ei ddyrannu i gyflymu'r broses o gyflawni ymrwymiad craidd Llywodraeth Cymru i gyflenwi 20,000 o gartrefi fforddiadwy yn ystod tymor y Cynulliad hwn. Yn gyfan gwbl, mae hyn yn dod â chyfanswm ein buddsoddiad cyfalaf mewn tai i £1.413 biliwn dros y blynyddoedd nesaf. Bydd pum deg miliwn o bunnau o'r cyfalaf ychwanegol yn cael ei fuddsoddi mewn rhaglenni adfywio sy'n canolbwyntio ar ein cymunedau mwyaf difreintiedig.

Yng nghefn gwlad Cymru, rydym yn buddsoddi £20 miliwn mewn cynllun grant cyfalaf bach i ffermwyr, gan ddod ag arian cyfatebol o £20 miliwn ychwanegol o raglen datblygu gwledig Llywodraeth Cymru. Bydd y £40 miliwn yn helpu ffermwyr i leihau allyriadau carbon a gwella eu cydnerthedd a’u cystadleurwydd, gan gynnwys trwy arallgyfeirio.

Mae system drafnidiaeth Cymru yn cael hwb dan y gyllideb derfynol gan gyfalaf ychwanegol gwerth £15 miliwn dros bedair blynedd i leddfu mannau cyfyng trafnidiaeth ledled y wlad, ac mae £50 miliwn yn ychwanegol mewn cyllid cyfalaf yn cyflymu darpariaeth ffordd osgoi Llandeilo yr A483. Ac mae'r ddau ddyraniad hyn yn rhan o'n cytundeb cyllideb gyda Phlaid Cymru.

Ym maes iechyd a gofal cymdeithasol, mae cyllid cyfalaf ychwanegol o £40 miliwn yn cael ei ddyrannu i wella ystad iechyd Cymru, wedi’i dargedu'n benodol at y gwaith o ddatblygu ein hadeiladau gofal sylfaenol mewn arddangosiad pellach o benderfyniad y Llywodraeth hon i fuddsoddi ar y rhyngwyneb iechyd a gofal cymdeithasol. Yn wir, Lywydd, mae hon yn gyllideb sy'n parhau i roi blaenoriaeth i anghenion y sector gofal cymdeithasol. Yn y gyllideb ddrafft, mae £25 miliwn yn ychwanegol yn cael ei ddyrannu i wasanaethau cymdeithasol. Yn awr, yn y gyllideb derfynol gerbron y Cynulliad y prynhawn yma, mae £10 miliwn ychwanegol o gyllid rheolaidd ar gael fel rhan o gytundeb tridarn rhwng Llywodraeth Cymru, llywodraeth leol a chyflogwyr gofal cymdeithasol i dalu costau cydnabyddedig yn y sector hwnnw.

Yn olaf, cyn belled ag y mae cyfalaf yn y cwestiwn, mae’r gyllideb derfynol hon yn darparu £40 miliwn ychwanegol dros bedair blynedd ar gyfer mesurau effeithlonrwydd ynni. Ymysg pethau eraill, bydd yn helpu 25,000 o gartrefi pellach i wresogi eu cartrefi am gost fwy fforddiadwy ac yn cefnogi mentrau twf gwyrdd eraill.

Lywydd, trof yn awr, yn fyr, at y prif newidiadau refeniw a gynhwysir yn y gyllideb derfynol, yn bennaf o ganlyniad i ddyraniad o'r cronfeydd wrth gefn. Yn 2017-18, bydd £15.5 miliwn o arian refeniw ychwanegol ar gael ar gyfer prentisiaethau. Mae hyn yn ychwanegol at y £111 miliwn a gyhoeddwyd yn y gyllideb ddrafft ar gyfer prentisiaethau a swyddi dan hyfforddiant.

Lywydd, rwyf wedi gwrando'n ofalus ar sylwadau a wnaed yn uniongyrchol yn ystod y cyfnod ymgynghori. O ganlyniad, bydd refeniw ychwanegol o £10 miliwn yn cael ei ddarparu ar gyfer cynllun grant rhyddhad ardrethi wedi'i dargedu i helpu busnesau bach ar y stryd fawr ac mewn sectorau lletygarwch gyda'u hardrethi busnes y flwyddyn nesaf. Ac rydym wedi cytuno ar y mecanwaith ar gyfer dosbarthu’r £10 miliwn hwn gyda Phlaid Cymru, a bydd ar waith erbyn mis Ebrill eleni. Mae hynny'n ychwanegol at y cynllun rhyddhad ardrethi trosiannol o £10 miliwn yn y gyllideb ddrafft.

Lle mae awdurdodau lleol yn y cwestiwn, rydym hefyd wedi dyrannu £6 miliwn ychwanegol, a adlewyrchir yn y gyllideb derfynol hon, a fydd yn mynd i mewn i'r grant cynnal refeniw i helpu i fynd i'r afael â'r problemau penodol ynghylch atal digartrefedd.

Yn olaf, Lywydd, cyn belled ag y mae newidiadau refeniw yn y cwestiwn, rwy’n arbennig o falch i dynnu sylw at y £500,000 o refeniw ychwanegol i ddarparu cymorth newydd i blant yn ein cymunedau mwyaf agored i niwed yn ystod gwyliau hir yr haf. Mae hyn yn enghraifft glir o ble y mae defnyddio lens Deddf Llesiant Cenedlaethau'r Dyfodol (Cymru) 2015 wedi dylanwadu'n uniongyrchol ar wneud cyllideb.

Mae argymhellion 4, 5 a 6 o adroddiad y Pwyllgorau Cyllid yn canolbwyntio ar y cydadwaith rhwng y Ddeddf a phroses y gyllideb. Rydw i wedi ymrwymo yn fy ymateb i wneud mwy i adlewyrchu'r Ddeddf mewn paratoadau a chanlyniadau cyllideb yn y cylch cyllideb nesaf.

Lywydd, gadewch i mi droi yn awr, wrth orffen, at baratoadau’r gyllideb ar gyfer y flwyddyn nesaf. Y gyllideb y bydd y Cynulliad hwn yn ei hystyried ar gyfer 2018-19 fydd y gyntaf i arfer ein cyfrifoldebau cyllidol newydd a gwneud hynny o fewn y fframwaith cyllidol newydd a gytunwyd gyda Phrif Ysgrifennydd y Trysorlys ym mis Rhagfyr. Byddaf yn ateb cwestiynau ar fanylion y fframwaith cyllidol o flaen y Pwyllgor Cyllid yfory a byddaf yn gwneud datganiad yn ei gylch yn y Siambr hon yr wythnos nesaf. Bydd hyn oll yn gofyn am newidiadau i baratoadau cyllideb fewnol y Llywodraeth ei hun a chraffu arno gan y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol. Rwy'n edrych ymlaen at drafodaethau pellach gyda'r Comisiwn a’r Pwyllgor Cyllid i roi'r trefniadau newydd hyn ar waith wrth i ni ymateb i'r argymhellion yn y maes hwn a nodir yn adroddiad y pwyllgor.

Gadewch i mi orffen, felly, lle y dechreuais ym mis Hydref. Mae'r gyllideb o flaen y Cynulliad heddiw yn cyfuno sefydlogrwydd ac uchelgais. Mae'n darparu cyfnod cymharol fyr i baratoi ar gyfer cyfnod anoddach a dewisiadau caletach sy'n ein hwynebu yn ddiweddarach yn nhymor y Cynulliad hwn. Serch hynny mae’n buddsoddi yn ein dyfodol ac yn gosod y sylfaen ar gyfer y cyfrifoldebau cyllidol newydd sydd o'n blaenau. Rwy’n edrych ymlaen at y ddadl y prynhawn yma ac yn cymeradwyo'r gyllideb derfynol hon i Aelodau fel cyllideb i symud Cymru ymlaen.

I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to the Cabinet Secretary for opening this debate. Like him, I don’t want to reiterate what was said during the debate on the draft budget. I will also be focusing my comments on the changes since the draft budget, and also on some of the Government’s responses to the Finance Committee’s recommendations.

It is a shame, although the Cabinet Secretary responded appropriately to the recommendations, that the timetable that we set ourselves as an Assembly for this means that Assembly Members haven’t had an opportunity, in any meaningful way, to look at the Government’s response to the recommendations. Most of the recommendations, published overnight, relate to long-term budgeting, but there are some specifics that the Government has responded to in preparing its final budget.

So, I will be concentrating on some of the changes made, not necessarily because of the Finance Committee, although the Finance Committee is interested in these issues, but also other Assembly committees that brought evidence to the Government based on the draft budget, asking for further resources or shifts in resources, or, of course, further outcomes as a result of the autumn statement.

I think it’s important to underline that the Finance Committee looked in particular at sustainability in terms of health financing, and therefore I am pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted our recommendations in relation to health funding and I am also pleased to see that additional capital of over £40 million has been allocated over four years to improve the health estate and accelerate innovation within that sector. That actually dovetails with the Finance Committee’s interest in preventative services and the balance between the increase in NHS funding and the funding available for social services. I am pleased, therefore, to see the final allocation of £10 million additional revenue funding for social services, which reflects the discussion in the Finance Committee, as well as discussions within subject committees.

I also note that some capital funding has been returned to the budget of the Cabinet Secretary for energy, climate change and rural affairs: £10 million additional capital for the energy-saving schemes that have just been mentioned by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government; an additional £3 million in funds for flood alleviation measures, which were originally cut and which caused great concern to the climate change committee as well as the Finance Committee; and an additional £5 million of capital support that has just been mentioned as well for rural communities.

So, there have been significant changes that have been facilitated by the autumn statement between the draft budget and the final budget, but the Cabinet Secretary has said that he did keep some reserves in hand in case the autumn statement would be detrimental to the Assembly and to the Government. As it hadn’t been detrimental to such an extent, then some of these funds could be released for Government aims, which correlate with a number of things that the Finance Committee was very interested in.

The Finance Committee would have liked to have seen more assurance on local government revenue for the future, because the Cabinet Secretary, wearing his other hat, is to prepare a White Paper on local government reform, and the Finance Committee will follow the issue of local government funding with some interest during this ensuing period, including the possibility of moving away from annual funding to more long-term funding on a three yearly basis, similar to the pattern that should happen with health boards—some such pattern. That would certainly be of interest to the Finance Committee.

We also heard evidence during our debates in the Finance Committee on the possible impact on the workforce in the NHS and the social care sector of the UK’s exit from the EU. We recommended that the Welsh Government work closely with local government and the NHS to mitigate any potential repercussions. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted this recommendation and is committed, therefore, to exploring all options to facilitate the retention of the NHS workforce that we have, a workforce that is very reliant on migrants from the rest of the EU as well as the rest of the world, of course.

I would also make reference to the fact that the Government has accepted the committee’s recommendations on the way the well-being of future generations Act impacts upon the way in which the Government prepares its budget. I would have liked to have seen more evidence of this in the draft budget and the final budget, in terms of how that Act has steered Government decisions. The Cabinet Secretary did give us an example in the area of children’s services of the way that that particular Act had been of assistance in making Government decisions, and I very much hope that when we look at the next budget, there will be more evidence of this Act being implemented. Certainly, stakeholders were very eager to see that.

In closing my comments on this budget, it’s fair to mention that the Finance Committee will scrutinise enthusiastically the changes that will ensue over the next year or two. We will turn to those in the next few days in the Assembly, with the further devolution of fiscal policy, the framework agreed between the Government here and the Government in Westminster, and the possibility that we as an Assembly do move to a far more parliamentary system of budget scrutiny through a full finance Bill, which could be amended, and, in light of that, of course, could impact on taxation rates. That, in my view will certainly add to democracy here in Wales.

I’m pleased to contribute to this debate today on the final budget. Can I firstly concur with the comments made by the Chair of the Finance Committee and also welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s response to some of the Finance Committee’s recommendations, some of which I received earlier today?

As the Cabinet Secretary said in opening this debate, the lateness of this year’s budget, due to the timing of the autumn statement, has understandably caused difficulties for him and his team. It has also caused the now increasingly familiar headaches for the Finance Committee, which the Chair alluded to.

During the draft budget debate before Christmas, I welcomed the news that the UK Government was to deliver an extra £436 million of capital funding between 2016 and 2021 on capital projects, as a result of extra infrastructure spending in England. We are all well aware of the pressing need to invest in infrastructure to grow our economy. I think we’d all agree that Wales needs a truly sustainable budget that looks to the future.

I note that, in the Cabinet Secretary’s response, he’s accepted in principle the idea that the budget should deliver on the goals that have been set in the programme for government. You’re right, Cabinet Secretary, it’s not always easy to draw a line between funding and outcomes, but it is very important that the Government attempts to do so.

Now, it’s quite clear that this additional capital money needs to be carefully spent and the budget proposals talk about an integrated long-term approach to capital funding. I would say, of course, we have heard this a number of times before. Assembly Members who were here in the fourth Assembly may recall, if you were listening of course—you may not recall—that two years ago I warned that the lack of commitment to phase two of the eastern bay link road, beyond phase one, would inevitably lead to greater congestion on Rover Way in southern Cardiff, at the so-called roundabout to nowhere. There is still no sign of the rest of that link road, but I notice that we do today have a commitment to the Llandeilo by-pass, and progressing that—a very popular road scheme, I’m sure, with the people of Llandeilo and further afield who would use that road—but what I would ask is: are we absolutely convinced that these decisions are being taken on the right basis, with long-term sustainability in mind, which I’m sure the Chair of the Finance Committee would talk a lot about? We need to be sure of that, and the public do as well.

The point is that there is sometimes the appearance that decisions are being taken, dare I say it, as part of a short-term budget deal, that doesn’t just look—well, doesn’t even look three years ahead, doesn’t even look one year ahead, but looks just a short space of a few months ahead. That is something that all of us, in principle, want to get away from, but at the same time it is easier, I know, to fall into some short-term deals that we might regret later. Too often budgets have been for short-term political gain, rather than long-term economic advantage. The Finance Committee report recommends that in future years the draft budget should clearly demonstrate how the programme for government has informed and driven the budget-setting process, and how it integrates with the future generations legislation—or doesn’t, as too often the case seems to be.

I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted the Finance Committee’s calls for a strategic impact assessment of budgets on the well-being of future generations objectives. That’s positive. Government is all about priorities and making do within the constraints set. Of course we know those constraints are set to be relaxed: this budget will be the last to cover a period in which the Welsh Government does not have tax powers or significant borrowing power. In the draft budget debate, I pointed out that given that the devolution of tax is now a little over a year away, we might have expected some recognition of this, and an indication of how tax powers will be used as a tool to support the programme for government in future. I know we don’t have those powers yet, but it’s not far off, and if we want other areas of the public sector and Government organisations to work in multi-year budgets and multi-year cycles, then I think we do need to start leading by example in that respect.

I appreciate it’s not just a question of the Welsh Government planning better for the future; the Cabinet Secretary knows, I believe, that the UK as a whole needs to do this too. I’m pleased that since the draft budget debate we had before Christmas, we do now have an agreement on a fiscal framework, which is a massive step forward. We are going to have that statement on the fiscal framework, I know, in a short time to come, so I won’t go too much into that now; suffice to say it will hopefully make it easier for the Welsh Government to plan further ahead. In relation to tax powers, I agree with the Cabinet Secretary that it’s vital that future reductions in the block grant are properly indexed and appropriate. We can’t afford to get this wrong.

Can I say, Cabinet Secretary, in moving to a conclusion, we welcome the move towards a new treatment fund? I still think it’s a shame that the previous Welsh Government didn’t heed our calls for a cancer treatment fund all those years ago. I’m not clear about this new fund in terms of the extent to which it covers existing treatments and those drugs that haven’t been fully approved. Perhaps the Cabinet Secretary can clarify some of the confusion on that. But in conclusion, Cabinet Secretary, we do welcome this budget today. Clearly we have to have a budget, but if sustainability is at the heart of the Assembly’s constitution, then I think we do need to do far more to plan further ahead and to make sure that our budget processes are as modern as possible. It won’t surprise you to know we are not supporting this budget. There are some good things in it, but it falls short of the truly sustainable long-term budget that Wales needs, and this is why we are unable to support it.

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary for his statement today and for introducing the final budget of the Welsh Government. As has already been mentioned, of course, this budget is partly the fruit of discussions between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government—discussions that arose from this new method of collaboration that we have devised. I have to say that I do believe that our politics and our democracy benefit from this kind of dialogue, and perhaps we need more of this approach. Through improving the budget—[Interruption.] If the Member opposite wants to stand on his feet, he is welcome to do so.

This is the very root of democracy, isn’t it? We are elected to this place on the basis of a manifesto, and our main duty, of course, is to deliver on those promises that we have put before the people who have elected us. Of course, we haven’t been able to secure agreement between us on everything in this budget; we don’t agree on everything, but, as a minority party in this place, we have been able to have an influence for the benefit of the lives of the people of Wales. Isn’t that at the heart of democracy, ultimately: improving things? It would be a very bad thing to see democracy as a way of opposing things, and only to oppose at all times. I would encourage other parties to have this more constructive attitude towards politics, to put forward ideas, and if they disagree, then be part of the dialogue. I do welcome Simon’s comments about creating a more parliamentary method for the budgetary process.

We succeeded, through the agreement, to secure additional funding for sectors that have, in our view, suffered financially over the past few years—sectors such as further and higher education, the arts, the Welsh language and local government, capital investment for diagnostic equipment, as we heard in the statement over Christmas, and funding for mental health, and so on. And, of course, in the discussions that we had after the autumn statement, we succeeded in getting further funding to get to grips with problems that arose as a result of the revaluation of business rates, for example, and it was good to see further funding for flood prevention. That’s the prize for those of us who are willing to be part of democracy on the basis of dialogue, and I would defend that as an important principle if this place is to do its work properly.

In looking to the future, I do think that there is room for improving the process and I think that the Cabinet Secretary is open to that. We have to ensure that this Senedd, this parliament, grows in maturity and capacity in terms of its ability to influence the budget, and that’s true for all parties. We need additional transparency if we are going to do our work as Assembly Members and as groups. For the draft budget, we collated, with the assistance of the Government, ultimately, the different items—the main expenditure groups, the expenditure programmes, the action points, the BELs, and so on—around 7,000 different budget lines. If we’re going to do our work, then we have to give that information and present it in a clearer way and a more open way to all Assembly Members and to the groups. I agree with Nick Ramsay, I think that we have to connect expenditure with aims and objectives. I referred in the debate on the draft budget to the programme budgeting of Robert McNamara from the 1960s in the United States. That is, in laying a budget, it’s important to set out what outcomes you aim to ensure through that expenditure so that you can measure against achievement at the end of the budget period.

Finally, I think that it’s totally unacceptable, of course, with the process that we have today, that we can only approve or reject the budget. That is, if you look at the OECD, over half of those parliaments have an unrestricted right to amend a budget. We’re right at the other end of that, where we can only, at present, say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ to a budget and, through that, we lose all of the ideas that we have. Nobody has a monopoly as a party or Assembly Member on good ideas, and through this binary process that we currently have, we’re losing that wealth of different perspectives that exist across the Chamber. So, I do very much hope that we will be able to move towards a parliamentary system that includes everyone—and I do mean everyone—as we put together budgets for the future.

It’s a pleasure to follow Adam Price and I’m very interested in the perspective and the nuance of what he says, because it does seem to me that there is clearly a range of views within his party, and those who were previously part of it, as to the appropriate extent of co-operation with the Labour Government and the degree to which Plaid takes responsibility for this budget. When we started the process, I at least had the impression that it was a transaction between Plaid and the Labour Government, and, in return for Plaid abstaining on the budget, the Government would agree to a number of very specific measures that Plaid wanted, and that was the deal. But, to listen to him speak now, he appears to take a far greater degree of responsibility, even pride, in the budget that is before us today, even if, in the event, his party is still to abstain. He describes it as a sort of fruit of discussions between Plaid and Labour, but isn’t the reality that the fruit of those discussions were a number of particular projects? We heard about a particular bypass and the prioritisation of that over perhaps other road schemes. But it wasn’t in the event a deal on the overall budget and this isn’t Plaid’s budget to defend every part of, because you’ve only agreed to let it through in exchange for getting a series of specific things. I think we would benefit from a greater degree of clarity about how much Plaid or particular individuals who may be spokespersons take responsibility. I give way.

I’m not sure if the honourable Member was following me in that section of my speech. I think I did say pretty clearly that we did not agree with everything in the budget and, indeed, there were demands that we made as part of our discussions that were not met. So, we’re very clear: we were able to improve the budget, but we are abstaining because we do not agree with the budget as a whole.

The Member gave an example: he said that the future further funding for flood protection was one of the prizes he would defend through this process. Actually, there is some increase in the flood protection budget between this final budget and the draft budget, but the overall budget I believe for flood protection is still very significantly reduced. And, yes, our Finance Committee has been listened to and there has been some put back on the capital side to Lesley Griffiths’s budget, but there are still very significant reductions affecting what for a signalling of great virtue are described as ‘climate change projects’. There are cuts there, and he talks about defending these further increases with pride, but that is not actually the situation. If he looks at the full budget—[Interruption.]—rather than the specifics. Well, I’m not quite sure that you did, Adam. I’m talking about this section here. You agreed a series of very specific things, which Labour then have to find money elsewhere to pay for what they’ve agreed to give you in order to abstain, and the largest single element of that, mostly on the capital side, is those reductions to climate change projects. I think you need to recognise that, rather than like to claim support for the things you appreciate but not for others.

However, I do recognise what you say and what Simon said in terms of a move to what I think Simon said was a more parliamentary process of a fully amendable finance Bill. Of course, in the Westminster Parliament, the finance Bill solely deals with tax and that will, even next year, remain a fairly modest amount of what we do. The key criterion for me is whether the spending side of this budget is going to be amendable and, in particular—and some of our comments in Finance Committee have been listened to and I appreciate that—will there be an opportunity to amend spending lines of the budget in Finance Committee, where, at least notionally, we have an opposition majority.

We have some changes. The finance Minister spoke about the £46 million increase in revenue spending between the draft budget and the final budget. He described that as coming primarily from reserves. I’m not quite clear how he assesses it that way, given that, between the draft and the final budget, we had an increase in £23.4 million in revenue spending available from the UK Government through the autumn statement. That’s slightly over half of the increase he now has in the revenue. So, I’m not clear that that does come from reserves. Some of what that’s been spent on—£10 million for the business rates relief and some of the big increases being mitigated there—I just wonder whether we could perhaps indicate more clearly in advance through the valuations as to what businesses would be required to have. I particularly welcome the £6 million for the homelessness prevention. I note that there’s a number of other items that feed through to local government that was given a broadly flat budget before and my worry still is that there are severe cuts coming in the local government area, but that the Government has found it politic to put those off until after the local elections.

Note the further changes in capital budgets: we’re going to have another £7 million for roads next year and then £83 million over the course of the four-year period on capital. That sum, of course, is swamped by the amount of money that Welsh Government would put into the black route, estimated at £1.1 billion plus. I just make a final appeal: couldn’t we consider that money better spent on the cheaper, but, I think, faster, more deliverable version of the blue route, and look at putting that very large sum of capital to other projects that might get quicker and more appropriate returns across Wales?

Firstly, can I say I very much welcome the Llandeilo bypass? We are allowed new roads in south-west Wales as well. The budget needs to be put into the context of policies being pursued at Westminster. Although almost all of the Welsh Government’s budget comes through the block grant, cuts in expenditure in England generate, via the Barnett formula, cuts in the Welsh block grant. What we’ve seen since the Conservatives came into office is a substantial real-terms cut in the Welsh budget. This is the economic equivalent of the practice of physicians until the eighteenth century of using a single treatment to treat every malady—bloodletting. The theory behind the practice changed over time, but the practice itself remained much the same, with doctors often bleeding patients until they were weak, in pain, and sometimes unconscious. That is what the Tory austerity policies are doing to Britain—bleeding the economy until it’s weak.

From Hoover in 1920s America, who turned the stock market crash into the Great Depression, to Argentina and Greece more recently, austerity has always failed. The Tories are committed to austerity, not as an economic policy, but as an ideology. They want to reduce the public sector and what they cannot cut they seek to privatise.

I want to talk about the two largest lines in Welsh Government—health and local government. Firstly, health: if current trends continue, health will exceed 50 per cent of the Welsh budget in the next two years, and my guess is probably next year. I’m now going to quote from page 16 of the Nuffield report in 2014, ‘The four health systems of the United Kingdom: How do they compare?’ Across the four countries, there had been a reduction in total in inpatient admissions per hospital doctor and dentist between 1999-2000 and 2011-12. This is an inevitable outcome of the rates of increase in numbers of hospital doctors exceeding the rates of increase in hospital admissions. Wales fell from just under 140 to approximately 90—approximately a drop of about a third. What the current figures are, I do not know, but I would be amazed if they were anywhere near the 1999-2000 figure.

Health, of course, is more than about hospitals. There’s primary care and lifestyle choices. Since health boards were created, the proportion of the health budget spent on primary care has reduced. Too often, we seem to think, ‘For health, see hospitals’. One of the biggest boosts to health has been the reduction in the number of people not smoking. Getting people to stop smoking, getting people to have a more active lifestyle, reducing obesity and increasing physical exercise will all improve health, and I’m not the only one who believes that reducing the number of sports facilities such as leisure centres will impact on the health of Wales.

Turning to local government, while this year’s local government settlement is better than expected—substantially better than expected—it’s still a real-terms cut. I believe that social care within social services is under greater pressure than health. Social care is something that people need over a long period of their life. Whilst there are people who end up in hospital or having major health problems in the last 12 months to two years of their lives, people can end up needing social care support for anything up to 40 years of their lives. That is going to bear costs that will come across through local government. As more and more people are living to be 100—I’m speaking, probably, to a room full of people who all hope to do the same—I think it is important that we realise that people are going to need more and more care as they get older. This is, really, the time bomb that is sitting there, not just in Wales, but throughout the rest of western Europe.

We’ve got a health crisis in England that the Tories have created. They’ve cut local government expenditure, they’ve cut social care, and what they’ve ended up with is hospitals being unable to discharge patients. They’ve discovered where they’ve gone wrong, they’ve changed what used to be their policy on local government, and we haven’t had a local government debate without Janet Finch-Saunders getting up and saying, ‘We should have a freeze on council tax.’ But you’ve changed it in England now; you say you can raise money to pay for social care, which is not going to be particularly advantageous in the poorest regions. It’s almost like going back to the old Poor Law, where the poorest areas, which have the most people in need, have the least capacity to raise money, while the richer areas have the greater capacity to raise money. That’s where social care is going and I, for one, am not happy with that, and I’m very glad that we’ve got a Labour Government in Wales, which is not following on from what the Conservatives have done to destroy health and local government in England.

Local government has faced disproportionate cuts by the Tories in England, and I’ve followed the Tories’ policies over the last six years of what they want to do: the total local government settlement should be cut and additional money should be given to health, council tax should be frozen, and local government should concentrate solely on statutory services, and central expenditure by local education authorities should end. What does it actually mean? Because people often talk about cutting things, but what do they actually mean by that? It’d mean closure of most libraries, closure of all parks, closure of all leisure centres, no free school transport, and an end to the school building programme. More importantly, as I said earlier, we would end up like England, with hospitals unable to discharge patients because they had no-one to look after them and nowhere to go.

It took centuries to discover bloodletting did not work. Let us hope the failure of austerity is going to be identified a lot sooner, preferably when we get a different type of Government.

I welcome the moves in the budget to implement some of the key pledges in the Welsh Labour manifesto from last year, specifically, the £53 million towards delivering 20,000 affordable homes, the £15 million for widening access to apprenticeships as part of the move to implement 100,000 all-age apprenticeships, as well as some of the smarter economic measures—the £40 million for energy efficiency, which, as the Minister mentioned, will cut bills for 25,000 homes, as well as producing local jobs—and also some of the smaller interventions, such as the £1.5 million for genomics, as well as the £20 million small grants fund for rural communities, which enables communities to fund things like ICT and data and develop towards the precision agriculture model that we’ve discussed in this Assembly. So, this budget, I think, is a huge achievement and a concrete step forward towards implementing the Welsh Labour manifesto.

I think, in spirit of the discussion that’s been had in the Chamber this afternoon, it’s beholden on us to acknowledge that we do not have a majority in this Chamber, and this budget has only been possible because of the co-operation across party lines. We’ve seen that in terms of offering a place to the Liberal Democrats in Government, and also in terms of the compact with Plaid Cymru, which has borne fruit in this budget, and I think we should acknowledge their constructive influence in that. I think I should, in keeping with some of the things that have been said, offer some pause for reflection on how we’re going to conduct these discussions in future years. It is not my preference that we make annual deals like this, but, if that is to be the way, then, inevitably, we are going to be tempted towards the lowest common denominator. I think there is a real challenge in this Assembly—the first Assembly elected in the aftermath of the future generations Act—to take a longer-term view. There’s clearly going to be a tension in that in the necessary political arrangements we have to meet to get a budget passed in the short term. I’d hate to see us go the way of other democracies, most notably the American political system, where we descend towards a pork barrel politics. It’s a mark of the American budget system that hardly a budget is passed without a museum or a bridge or a bypass being awarded in the name of the chair of various committees. Much as I know people in his own party believe Adam Price to be the future prophet, I would hate to see statues to the ‘Mab Darogan’ littering the countryside of Carmarthen East.

But I think there is—the one bit of the budget I am struggling with, and Nick Ramsay did make the point, as did the Minister, about the need to reflect the future generations Act in future budgets, and I look forward to Nick following through the logic of that and revising his position on the M4. But I think, when it comes to the spending priorities we make, the figures I’ve mentioned for the manifesto priorities, compare also then to £50 million for a bypass on top of £24 million for pinch points on roads, and £15 million for local transport network funds, two thirds of which is anticipated for highway projects, and we have this cognitive dissonance we’ve discussed in the Chamber before between accepting that our commitments to planning for the long term and taking into account carbon emissions, those do have policy and spending implications that we need to build into our thinking and not simply revert to the practices of the past, and not simply to revert to projects to win support for political parties to show that they’ve exerted influence. That’s not an easy thing to do. We need to be grown up about this. There is a real tension there. It was a cross-party commitment to doing things differently. If we mean what we say, that has got to be reflected in our discussions around the budget. Thank you.

I welcome this budget and the opportunity to contribute to my first final budget debate as Assembly Member for Delyn. I particularly welcome a number of the recent revenue and capital allocations, including an extra £10 million a year for social care. I think it’s right that we address the pressures on social care—the growing pressures as people are growing older and living longer—and recognise the role of the often much undervalued workforce who take care of our nearest and dearest. Also, the additional £32 million over four years for flood alleviation measures. Communities in my constituency, like many other areas across the country, have been devastated by flooding in the not-too-distant past, and I hope that, with this extra investment, we’ll see steps taken in the areas that need it. And finally, the £84 million more over four years to support road and transport schemes. Transport networks are crucial to regeneration—the regeneration that drives investment and sustains better jobs closer to home. So, it’s important to me and to others that this is a budget that addresses and meets the needs of the whole of Wales.

A further £15 million to relieve transport pinch points across the country will be music to many commuters’ ears. As somebody who regularly travels from north to south, I appreciate the opportunity this funding provides to tackle junctions that are causing congestion and to look at improving overtaking on key routes from north to south. The same also needs to happen east to west in north Wales. The extra money is needed and will be well received to help ease congestion and the well-documented difficulties on the A55 and other trunk roads in north Wales, such as the A5, the A483 and the A494. The £50 million put forward to develop the metro in north Wales will innovatively complement the investment in our roads and will be significant in the economic development of the region and unlocking our links to prosperity across north Wales with our near neighbours in the north-west of England. So, going forward, I think we really need to make sure that this investment sees practical steps taken to get north-east Wales metro ready with a better integrated public transport system, and also press ahead now without delay with much-needed and much-wanted improvements to the A55 gateway to north Wales.

Budgets are about choices. Although none of us would feel, in this Chamber, that we have the resources available to the Welsh Government that we would need to do what we want to do, this budget, I believe, shows—as Mike Hedges indicated—the shortcomings of austerity and the possibility, even within reduced resources, of making the right choices. The choice that the Welsh Government has made in this budget is to stand on the side of people who are doing their bit but are finding it hard. So, if, like a young parent in my constituency, you were able to send your children to Food and Fun in Melin Junior School this summer, giving you a little bit more time to go to work, taking some pressure off your care budget, giving them two meals a day and playing and reading with their fellow pupils, the great news is that the Government’s going to expand that project, both in our area and elsewhere. If you’re an apprentice, you’ll be comforted in knowing that the Welsh Government is spending every penny of the apprenticeship levy on expanding its apprenticeship programme. If you’re looking to buy a home and finding that hard, then £53 million to bring forward the commitment to affordable homes is going to be good news. If you’re going into care, doubling the capital limit and making a start on that in this budget is very significant. Knowing that the care worker who is looking after you is on the path to earning the living wage, as a result of the Welsh Government’s commitment, is going to be a good thing. So, these are choices; and the Government, in my opinion, within the limited constraints of the budget, are making the right choices.

I’d also like to say, in relation to the fiscal framework—I’d like to congratulate the finance Secretary on his achievement in negotiating that settlement. This is the last budget that will be taking place under the old—or the current—regime. It’s incredibly significant that he has managed to bake into the formula a needs base for Barnett, and incredibly significant that we will have an independent review for the formula and an independent dispute resolution mechanism. It doesn’t, in my view, go far enough, and I believe that to be his view and the view of others in this Chamber as well. Nevertheless, that is a major step forward. My personal preference would be for a statutory mechanism that enshrines these principles in law. We take our powers on the basis of statute, and we get our funding on the basis of a handshake, and this mechanism starts us on the journey of moving away from that. In that, it is very significant, and he is to be congratulated on that achievement.

I am very pleased to speak in this very important debate, and I would like to congratulate the finance Secretary for his handling of these issues in the challenging circumstances that he referred to at the beginning of his introduction. I welcome the final budget and the additional revenue and capital funding that has been allocated, and I just wanted to speak briefly about a few of those additional areas today.

I am particularly pleased that there is £6 million in additional revenue funding to help prevent homelessness. I think that one of the messages, certainly from the Finance Committee and from many of the discussions that we have had about how we plan our finances, is that we want to work on prevention. I think this is clearly an area where we have made great strides, and I think it is widely acknowledged that Wales is leading the way in the UK in preventing homelessness. I think this £6 million—although, obviously, not a huge amount—is certainly going to make a significant difference. It is important for us to remember that this is an area where we are making progress. There have been calls from homelessness charities for the UK Government to follow the example of Wales in its legislation, in placing a legal duty to help people in housing crisis, to prevent and relieve homelessness. I know that the statistics have shown that that is working. So, I think that the money that is given towards preventing homelessness is really putting money where it should go. So, I really want to very strongly welcome that money towards homelessness.

Many speakers have mentioned the additional £10 million for social care, and how vitally important social care is. Mike Hedges, of course, referred to the long-term nature of social care, and this additional funding, I know, will help meet the extra cost of funding the national living wage, and is in addition to the extra £25 million announced in October. So, I think, again, it shows the priority that the Labour Government in Wales is giving to social care.

I also want to take the opportunity to comment on the £1.7 million funding to provide financial support for people and their families with contaminated blood. Obviously, there is a consultation on payments for people infected with contaminated blood and their families, which is still ongoing until 20 January. So, I know that no decisions have yet been made about how this £1.7 million in funding will be distributed. I am very pleased that the Cabinet Secretary for health came along to the last meeting of the cross-party group, which I chair, to hear concerns and worries about the people who are hoping to benefit from this money. He was able to listen to the experiences of many of the families and people directly affected by this scandal, which of course dates back to the 1970s and 1980s. I wanted to mention that group in this budget debate because, obviously, the decisions that we make about money are of huge individual importance to all of those people who have suffered from this major tragedy. I am hopeful that we will be able to come forward with a solution that will help satisfy some of their greatest concerns. I think it is very important to remember that the families of those who have had hepatitis C and liver disease suffer greater financial hardship as a result of family members receiving contaminated blood, because they are penalised when it comes to getting loans and getting insurance. That has a massive detrimental effect on their financial stability. That’s why they argue for ongoing support, rather than one-off payments. So, I wanted to make that point in the budget debate, although I know that decisions haven’t yet been made.

Finally, I'd just like to echo the good news about the progress that has been made about the financial stability that we hope will be obtained. I particularly welcome the idea of having the independent regulator, and I think that this is a final budget that is much to be applauded.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Llywydd.

A gaf i ddiolch i’r holl Aelodau hynny sydd wedi cymryd rhan yn y drafodaeth? Mae llawer o Aelodau wedi cyfeirio at y pethau hynny yr ydym wedi gallu eu cyflawni yn y gyllideb, yn y buddsoddiadau newydd yr ydym wedi gallu eu gwneud rhwng y drafft a'r gyllideb derfynol. Roeddwn i’n credu y byddwn yn y fan yma yn ailadrodd y llwybr gwneud penderfyniadau a nodais gerbron y Pwyllgor Cyllid mewn cysylltiad ag unrhyw gyfalaf ychwanegol a allai fod wedi dod i ni yn natganiad yr hydref. Fy mlaenoriaeth gyntaf i oedd adfer arian i gyllidebau lle’r oedd cyfyngiadau ar y cam cyllideb ddrafft yn golygu nad oeddem wedi gallu gwneud popeth y byddem wedi hoffi ei wneud. A dyna pam yr ydych yn gweld yn y gyllideb hon fuddsoddiadau newydd mewn rheoli risg llifogydd ac mewn adfywio trefol.

Yr ail flaenoriaeth oedd edrych ar yr ymrwymiadau allweddol hynny yn y rhaglen lywodraethu a, lle bo modd, cyflymu ein gallu i gyflawni hynny. Rwyf wedi ymrwymo’n arbennig i’r 20,000 o gartrefi fforddiadwy—targed heriol, ond mae’r angen am dai yng Nghymru yn fater real iawn, iawn i lawer o deuluoedd, ac mae unrhyw beth y gallwn ni ei wneud i ymateb i'r agenda honno yn rhywbeth yr wyf yn awyddus i’w gefnogi yn y gyllideb hon.

Ac yna, pan oeddem wedi gwneud hynny, edrychais i weld a oedd unrhyw syniadau nad oedd wedi bod yn bosibl eu cefnogi o gwbl tan nawr, ac yno, y buddsoddiad o £40 miliwn yn yr ystâd gofal sylfaenol —enghraifft arall o benderfyniad y Llywodraeth, ac rydym wedi clywed nifer o enghreifftiau ohono y prynhawn yma, i wneud pethau pwysig ym maes gofal cymdeithasol, yn ogystal â meddygaeth sylfaenol a chymunedol, i gydnabod y system honno fel system o fewn y cylch.

Lywydd, rwy’n credu bod tair thema wedi rhedeg drwy'r drafodaeth. Byddaf yn dweud rhywbeth yn fyr iawn am bob un ohonynt. Yn gyntaf oll, bu rhywfaint o drafodaeth ddiddorol am y ffordd y mae'r gyllideb yn cael ei gwneud. Gadewch i mi gytuno â'r hyn a ddywedodd un o’m cyd Aelodau: ein bod yn Llywodraeth heb fwyafrif, ac nid oes gennym fonopoli ar syniadau. Felly, mae gweithio gyda phleidiau eraill i ystyried ein cynigion, i fod yn gallu ychwanegu at y rhestr o bosibiliadau, yn fy marn i, yn rhywbeth y dylem ei groesawu fel ffordd o gynnal busnes yma. A yw'r gyllideb yn wahanol o ganlyniad i'n trafodaethau gyda Phlaid Cymru? Wrth gwrs ei bod. A oes unrhyw beth yn y gyllideb hon na fyddai Aelodau Llafur yn falch i’w gefnogi? Wrth gwrs nad oes. Dyna natur trafodaethau. Ochr yn ochr â'r trafodaethau uniongyrchol hynny, felly, fe welwch, oherwydd ein bod wedi ei chyhoeddi fel rhan o gytundeb y gyllideb, mae gennym agenda o faterion tymor hwy y byddwn yn eu trafod yn y grŵp cyswllt cyllid. Eleni, heb etholiad a heb y cyfyngiadau y mae hynny’n eu rhoi ar ein hamserlen, byddwn yn gallu rhoi sylw i’r materion hynny hefyd.

Bu dadl y prynhawn yma am ansicrwydd a chynaliadwyedd. Wrth gwrs, roeddwn wedi dymuno gallu darparu cyllidebau tymor hirach ar yr ochr refeniw i fynd ochr yn ochr â'r cyllidebau cyfalaf pedair blynedd yr ydym wedi gallu eu cynnig. Ond, fel y dywedodd Simon Thomas, mae ansicrwydd yn ein hwynebu, nid eleni yn unig, ond yn y blynyddoedd i ddod. Bydd yn rhaid inni ymgodymu ag effaith gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae gennym anhawster parhaus y polisi diffygiol a hunandrechol o gyni y tynnodd Mike Hedges sylw ato a'r ffordd y mae hynny yn gwasgu ar ein cyllidebau. Mae gennym yr anhawster penodol a gadarnhawyd gan y Canghellor ei fod yn bwriadu mynd ymlaen â gwerth £3.5 biliwn o doriadau refeniw yn 2019-20. Byddai hynny ar ei ben ei hun yn dileu unrhyw un o'r enillion refeniw a gawsom gan Lywodraeth y DU dros y blynyddoedd diwethaf. Felly, er fy mod yn gwbl barod i gydnabod pa mor ddymunol yw cynaliadwyedd mewn cynllunio tymor hir, mae’n rhaid i chi ddal i ymdopi â'r ansicrwydd real iawn sy'n eich wynebu chi yma, ar hyn o bryd, ac a fydd yn parhau i fod yn gyd-destun anodd ar gyfer gwneud cyllideb yn y Cynulliad hwn ar gyfer y cyfnod nesaf.

Yn olaf, bu trafodaeth am broses y gyllideb, ac rwy’n cytuno yn llwyr, wrth inni ddechrau ymarfer ein cyfrifoldebau cyllidol newydd, y bydd angen i ni ail-bennu ein prosesau i wneud yn siŵr ein bod yn gallu canolbwyntio ar y penderfyniadau ehangach a fydd wrth wraidd y ffordd y mae'r gyllideb yn cael ei pharatoi a'i datblygu mewn blynyddoedd i ddod. Rwy'n credu bod gwahanol syniadau ynglŷn â’r ffordd orau y gellid gwneud hynny, ond mae'n drafodaeth y mae adroddiad y Pwyllgor Cyllid yn darparu sylfaen ddefnyddiol iawn ar gyfer cytuno ar fanylion hynny dros y flwyddyn nesaf.

Lywydd, mae cynllunio a pharatoi gofalus o'n blaenau, felly, er mwyn wynebu her y dewisiadau caletach hynny a’r ystod amrywiol o bosibiliadau sy'n ein hwynebu dros y 12 mis nesaf. Rydym eisoes yn paratoi ar gyfer y cylch cyllideb nesaf, a thu hwnt byddwn yn defnyddio adroddiad craffu'r Pwyllgor Cyllid fel cyfraniad pwysig at hynny. Rwyf eisoes wedi dechrau trafodaethau gyda fy nghydweithwyr ynghylch sut y byddwn yn bwrw ati yn ystod gweddill y flwyddyn hon. Serch hynny, yn yr holl amgylchiadau hynny, Lywydd, mae hon yn gyllideb sy'n mynd â Chymru yn ei blaen. Mae'n buddsoddi yn y meysydd pwysig hynny a fydd yn gwneud y gwahaniaeth mwyaf i fywydau pobl, ac fe'i cymeradwyaf i'r Cynulliad y prynhawn yma.

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

The next item is the debate on the general principles of the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Llywydd, thank you for calling me to open this debate on the general principles of the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill. I am grateful to the Chair and members of the Finance Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for their thorough scrutiny of the Bill. I welcome the Finance Committee’s recommendation that the National Assembly agrees the general principles of the Bill. I’d like to thank those who have engaged with us and contributed to our thinking as we developed the land transaction tax legislation.

Rwy'n ddiolchgar i'r ddau bwyllgor hynny am eu hadroddiadau pwysig ar ddiwedd ystyriaeth Cyfnod 1 y Bil hwn. Yn amlwg, mae pwyntiau manwl yn adroddiadau’r ddau bwyllgor y bydd angen eu hystyried yn ofalus. Mae llawer o'r hyn y byddaf yn ei ddweud y prynhawn yma, Ddirprwy Lywydd, yn canolbwyntio ar y materion hynny a amlygwyd yn ystod y broses graffu Cyfnod 1 hwnnw. Rwyf wedi ysgrifennu at Gadeiryddion y Pwyllgor Cyllid a’r Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol i ddarparu gwybodaeth ac eglurder ychwanegol ynglŷn â rhai o'u hargymhellion. Rwy'n bwriadu ysgrifennu eto at y Pwyllgor Cyllid i ymateb i bob un o'r argymhellion yn ei adroddiad, ac rwy'n falch o gadarnhau heddiw fy mod yn gallu derbyn dau o'r tri argymhelliad yn ystyriaeth y Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol.

Rydw i'n mynd i geisio ymdrin yn eu tro â chyfres o faterion penodol a amlygir yn yr adroddiadau hynny. Rwy’n mynd i ddechrau â'r mater o ganllawiau oherwydd, wrth reswm, drwy gydol hanes y Bil, wrth ei baratoi ac wrth graffu arno yng Nghyfnod 1, bu llawer o drafodaeth am bwysigrwydd canllawiau cadarn. Yn benodol, bu pwyslais ar y rheol gyffredinol ar atal osgoi, y rheol wedi’i thargedu ar atal osgoi ar gyfer y gostyngiadau y gellir eu hawlio, y gwahaniaethau rhwng y dreth trafodiadau tir a deddfwriaeth treth dir y dreth stamp, a thrafodiadau trawsffiniol. Mae’r thema o wneud yn siŵr bod canllawiau cyfredol, manwl gywir a hygyrch ar gael wedi ei hadlewyrchu’n briodol yn adroddiad y pwyllgor ar egwyddorion cyffredinol y Bil.

Rwy’n cydnabod awydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid i ddeall y broses ar gyfer datblygu’r canllawiau hyd nes y bydd yn mynd yn fyw ym mis Ebrill 2018, ac ar y sail hon, rwy'n hapus i dderbyn argymhellion y pwyllgor ar y materion hyn. Rwyf wedi gohebu yn flaenorol â Chadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid wrth i’r broses graffu fynd rhagddi ac esboniais yn yr ohebiaeth honno y bydd y gwaith o ddatblygu’r canllawiau yn fater i Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru. Rwy’n awyddus i sicrhau bod Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru yn gweithio gyda rhanddeiliaid cyn gynted ag y bo modd i ddatblygu canllawiau o ansawdd uchel, effeithiol, sy’n hawdd eu defnyddio. Bydd gweithgor yn cael ei sefydlu yn rhan gyntaf y flwyddyn hon, a fydd yn cynnwys pobl sy'n gweithio yn y maes, arbenigwyr technegol o'r tu hwnt i'r Cynulliad, a fy swyddogion fy hun, i drafod materion technegol a gweithredol ac i helpu i ddrafftio'r canllawiau.

Bydd hon yn broses ailadroddol, ond bydd y canllawiau terfynol yn barod i'w rhannu a’u trafod â threthdalwyr a'u hasiantau mewn da bryd i helpu eu dealltwriaeth o'r gyfundrefn dreth newydd. Rwy'n awyddus i barhau i roi gwybod i'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol am y cynnydd wrth sefydlu Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru. Ail argymhelliad y Pwyllgor Cyllid yw y dylai diweddariadau o'r fath gael eu darparu bob tymor ac rwy'n hapus i weithio yn unol â’r amserlen honno.

O ran costau, mae’r adroddiad blynyddol diweddaraf ar Ddeddf Cymru 2014 a osodwyd gerbron y Cynulliad ym mis Rhagfyr yn cadarnhau nad yw ein hamcangyfrifon presennol wedi newid ers iddynt gael eu cyhoeddi y llynedd. Byddaf mewn sefyllfa i roi'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf am gostau yn fuan, pan fydd cyfres arall o benderfyniadau wedi cael eu gwneud am gynllun sefydliadol Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru a phan fydd y gost wedi ei chadarnhau ar gyfer gwasanaethau digidol. Byddaf yn ysgrifennu at y Pwyllgor Cyllid cyn trafodion Cyfnod 2 i roi'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf am y gwaith i ddatblygu amcangyfrifon costau, ac i nodi pryd y bydd amcangyfrif diwygiedig, terfynol ar gael.

Ddirprwy Lywydd, rwy’n troi yn awr at gwestiwn y gordal annedd ychwanegol. Ar 14 Hydref, cyhoeddais fy mwriad i gynnig gwelliannau i'r Bil yn ystod Cyfnod 2 er mwyn cyflwyno gordal o'r fath. Gwnes i hynny oherwydd bod cyflenwi gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yng Nghymru yn hollbwysig i’r Llywodraeth hon, ac at y dibenion hyn, mae'r cyllid ychwanegol y bydd y gordal yn ei gynhyrchu yn hanfodol. Fy mwriad i yw y bydd y gordal annedd ychwanegol yn dilyn yn fras reolau cyfraddau uwch treth dir y dreth stamp. Fodd bynnag, byddaf yn cymryd y cyfle, wrth gyflwyno diwygiadau Cyfnod 2, i wneud y rheolau yn gliriach a, lle bo modd, yn decach, er mwyn gwella’r modd o’u defnyddio. Rwy’n dal i fod wedi ymrwymedig i sicrhau bod y darpariaethau gordal yn addas ar gyfer anghenion Cymru. Cyflwynwyd amrywiaeth o awgrymiadau gan randdeiliaid ynglŷn â sut i wneud hynny yn ystod yr ymgynghoriad technegol diweddar. Bydd angen asesu’r rhain yn briodol ochr yn ochr â thystiolaeth o effaith cyfraddau uwch treth dir y dreth stamp wrth iddi ddod ar gael. Ddirprwy Lywydd, dyma un o'r rhesymau dros gymryd pŵer i wneud is-deddfwriaeth, i ddiwygio'r gordal annedd ychwanegol, pe byddai tystiolaeth sy'n dod i'r amlwg yn dangos bod hyn yn angenrheidiol. Byddai'r rheoliadau hyn yn ddarostyngedig i'r weithdrefn gadarnhaol. Mae hyn yn rhan bwysig o'r ddeddfwriaeth gan y bydd yn ein galluogi ni i sicrhau bod y gordal yn addas at y dyfodol a’i reoli'n effeithiol. Rwy'n ddiolchgar i'r Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol, yn gysylltiedig â hyn, am eu hymgynghoriad bod y Bil yn taro'r cydbwysedd cywir rhwng yr hyn sy’n cael ei gynnwys ar wyneb y Bil a'r hyn sydd ar ôl i’w gynnwys mewn is-ddeddfwriaeth, ac ar wahân i un enghraifft, mae’r weithdrefn a ddewiswyd o ran gwneud is-ddeddfwriaeth yn un yr oedd y pwyllgor yn ei hystyried yn rhesymol ac yn gymesur.

Rwy’n troi yn awr at gwestiynau trawsffiniol. Rwy’n cytuno â phwyslais y Pwyllgor Cyllid ar yr angen i Cyllid a Thollau EM, Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru, Y Gofrestrfa Tir ac Asiantaeth y Swyddfa Brisio weithio mewn dull cydweithredol. Rwyf wedi ysgrifennu at y pwyllgor yn amlinellu'r gwaith sydd eisoes ar y gweill. Caiff opsiynau eu harchwilio yn awr o ran y ffordd orau o gynorthwyo trethdalwyr i nodi ble y mae’r ffin yn gorwedd ar deitlau perthnasol. Byddaf hefyd yn gwneud yn siŵr bod y cyrff hynny yn gweithio gyda'i gilydd i gyflawni dull integredig o ymdrin â materion gweithredol a pholisi eraill, gan gynnwys, yn bwysig, gorfodi a chydymffurfio.

Rwy’n troi yn awr at y mater o ryddhad. Mae rhanddeiliaid wedi bod yn glir yn eu hawydd i sicrhau cysondeb gyda threth dir y dreth stamp o ran rhyddhad ac eithriadau. Rwy’n bwriadu monitro’r defnydd a gwerth rhyddhad preswyl ac amhreswyl, gan mai fy null o ddiwygio rhyddhad, neu gyflwyno rhyddhad newydd yn y dyfodol, fydd yr un a nodais yn y Pwyllgor Cyllid. Mae hyn yn ei gwneud yn ofynnol i ryddhad newydd posibl gael ei gyfochri â blaenoriaethau Gweinidogion Cymru, i fod yn gost-effeithiol, i gyrraedd y targed polisi a fwriadwyd, ac i fod wedi’u seilio ar y dystiolaeth orau.

Mewn ymateb i argymhelliad 11 yn adroddiad y Pwyllgor Cyllid, rwy’n bwriadu cynnig rheol, trwy ddiwygiad Cyfnod 2, sy'n nodi sut y bydd cynlluniau contractiol awdurdodedig cydberchnogaeth yn cael eu trin at ddibenion treth. Mae'r rheol yn sicrhau ein bod yn gallu ystyried cyflwyno rhyddhad i drosglwyddiadau cychwynnol ar gyfer CoACS a chronfeydd buddsoddi eiddo awdurdodedig yn y dyfodol pan fydd digon o dystiolaeth i wneud hynny.

O ran cyfraddau a bandiau, gallaf gadarnhau fy mwriad y prynhawn yma i gyhoeddi cyfraddau treth ar gyfer yr holl drethi datganoledig mewn da bryd cyn Ebrill 2018. Bydd amseriad penodol unrhyw gyhoeddiad yn ystyried effeithiau posibl y bydd cyhoeddiadau yn eu cael ar ymddygiad drethdalwyr, a gofynion y broses gyllidebol. Yn y cyfamser, byddaf yn parhau i ymgysylltu â rhanddeiliaid a sefydliadau am gyfraddau a bandiau, fel gydag unrhyw fater cyllidebol pwysig arall. Yn y modd hwn, rwy’n credu y byddwn yn cyflawni ysbryd degfed argymhelliad y pwyllgor i gynnal ymgynghoriad llawn a helaeth ar gyfraddau a bandiau. Mae'n bwysig imi ddweud nad oes cynsail wedi’i osod gan Lywodraeth y DU na Llywodraeth yr Alban o ran cynnal ymgynghoriad ffurfiol cyn pennu eu cyfraddau. Nid yw hyn, fodd bynnag, yn atal ymgysylltu a deialog barhaus, ac rwyf yn parhau’n ymrwymedig i hynny.

Yn olaf, Ddirprwy Lywydd, i roi hyn i gyd yng nghyd-destun polisi ehangach, rwy’n croesawu adroddiad Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru, sy’n tynnu sylw at y cynnydd a wnaed dros y flwyddyn ddiwethaf ar yr agenda ddiwygio cyllidol. Mae'r archwilydd cyffredinol yn cydnabod bod hwn yn faes cymhleth, ac mae’r Bil hwn yn un o'i gerrig milltir arwyddocaol.

Rwyf hefyd yn falch o fod wedi dod i gytundeb gyda Phrif Ysgrifennydd y Trysorlys ar yr hyn sydd yn fy marn i yn fframwaith cyllidol teg, y bydd y dreth hon a threthi datganoledig eraill yn gweithredu oddi mewn iddo. Edrychaf ymlaen at drafod manylion y fframwaith â'r Pwyllgor Cyllid yfory a gwneud datganiad llafar arno yn y Siambr hon yr wythnos nesaf.

Drwy gydol y rhaglen waith hon, rydym wedi elwa ar gyngor a chefnogaeth nifer o unigolion a sefydliadau. Rwy’n ddiolchgar am eu cymorth ac rwy’n edrych ymlaen at barhau i weithio gyda nhw yn y blynyddoedd i ddod.

Bydd taith lwyddiannus y Bil hwn, os bydd yn symud ymlaen trwy'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol, yn anfon neges bod Cymru yn parhau i fod yn uchelgeisiol ac yn hyderus wrth gymryd y cam allweddol nesaf hwn wrth ddatganoli trethi. Gofynnaf i'r Aelodau gytuno i egwyddorion cyffredinol y Dreth Trafodiadau Tir a Bil Gwrth-osgoi Trethi Datganoledig (Cymru) y prynhawn yma.

Thank you very much. I call on the Chair of the Finance Committee, Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I very much welcome the tone of what the Minister has said in response to the Finance Committee’s recommendations on this Bill. I think it’s important to set out at the start that this is widely talked about as the first piece of tax legislation in Wales for 800 years. It’s very difficult to understand what tax legislation was in Wales 800 years ago—one thing was for certain, the Welsh princes were very fond of moving their courts around, arriving at a locality and saying, ‘Right, you’re now paying for us, mate.’ That’s why we’ve got so many Welsh plac names called ‘llys’ in Wales, it seems. And that was also a very medieval way of doing things.

We also know that Edward I, shortly after conquering Wales, tried to raise a subsidy on the Welsh people in order to pay for his war in Gascony. It was very unpopular with the people of Wales because, at that stage, we weren’t sending anyone to Parliament, of course, to decide on tax legislation. It was also unpopular with the Marcher Lords for other reasons. And we also know that after conquest, the English kings often tried to levy taxes on the Welsh people, and local ‘parliamentaria’ were assembled to decide whether the levy would be paid or not. That was a very informal way of trying to reflect the parliamentary process, perhaps, and using the word parliamentarian from time to time. What we can say with certainty is that this is the first Welsh tax to be brought forward before a Welsh Parliament, that has been, at least in part, accepted in principle by the Welsh people, by the referendum in 2011, and therefore is the first real democratic approach to taxation that we’ve had the opportunity to consider in Wales. And it’s in that context that I think I’ll move on to some of the detail of what the Finance Committee now has to say.

Felly, wrth droi at argymhellion y Pwyllgor Cyllid, yn y lle cyntaf, wrth gwrs, mae’r Pwyllgor Cyllid yn derbyn ac yn cymeradwyo bod y Cynulliad yn cymeradwyo’r Bil yma. Rŷm ni’n gwneud hynny ar ddwy sail. Yn gyntaf oll, oherwydd y penderfyniad democrataidd i ddatgymhwyso treth dir y dreth stamp yng Nghymru, fe fydd, wrth gwrs, colled ariannol i gyllid y Llywodraeth oni bai ein bod ni’n creu ein system drethiannol ein hunain, ac mae hynny’n troi o gwmpas cytundeb ar y fframwaith cyllidol, fel sydd wedi cael ei grybwyll gan yr Ysgrifennydd Cabinet, a gyhoeddwyd jest cyn y Nadolig. Byddwn ni’n trafod hynny bore yfory gyda’r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet ac, wrth gwrs, fe fydd y Cynulliad yn cael cyfle i edrych ar y fframwaith ehangach yr wythnos nesaf. Ond, ym marn y pwyllgor, mae’n gwbl briodol fod y Llywodraeth yn deddfu yn y maes yma, yn cyflwyno Bil trethiant yn y maes yma, ac yn gwbl briodol, felly, eu bod nhw’n gwneud hynny yn y ffordd y maen nhw wedi ei wneud.

Fe fydd, wrth gwrs, y dreth yn cael ei gweinyddu, serch hynny, nid gan y Llywodraeth, ond gan Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru, sef corff nad yw wedi ei sefydlu eto yn llawn. Bydd yn hanfodol, ym marn y pwyllgor, bod trefniadau ar waith i sicrhau trosglwyddiad diffwdan o’r system dreth gyfredol i’r system dreth newydd fel nad yw’r newid cyfundrefn yn peri trafferth i drethdalwyr neu gynghorwyr, neu’r ymarferwyr yn y maes. Bydd yn rhaid i Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru fod yn barod i gasglu trethi o’r cychwyn cyntaf, gan sicrhau bod ganddo’r adnoddau a’r seilwaith technoleg gwybodaeth briodol i weithredu’n effeithiol. Ac rwy’n ddiolchgar iawn i’r Ysgrifennydd Cabinet am ymateb yn bositif i un o argymhellion y pwyllgor y prynhawn yma trwy ddweud y bydd mwy o fanylion ynglŷn â chostau sefydlu swyddfa Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru yn cael eu cyhoeddi cyn ein bod ni’n ystyried Rhan 2 o’r Bil yn llawn.

Nawr, fel sefydliad newydd, ym marn y pwyllgor bydd yn bwysig i’r awdurdod cyllid gael mynediad at yr un wybodaeth a’r un arbenigedd â staff Cyllid a Thollau Ei Mawrhydi yn bresennol. Credwn mai’r ffordd fwyaf effeithiol o sicrhau hyn yw sefydlu memoranda o ddealltwriaeth rhwng Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru a Chyllid a Thollau Ei Mawrhydi a’r Gofrestrfa Tir, sy’n elfen bwysig yn y jig-so yma.

Mae canllawiau ar weithredu’r darpariaethau yn y Bil yn fater pwysig a godwyd yn gyson yn adroddiad y Pwyllgor. Rydym wedi argymell, felly, fod Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru yn ymgysylltu â gweithwyr proffesiynol perthnasol yn y maes ynghylch paratoi canllawiau fel y gellir harneisio eu gwybodaeth ar gyfer llunio trefniadau yn y dyfodol a rhoi arweiniad effeithiol. Ac, fel yr oedd yr Ysgrifennydd Cabinet yn ei ddweud, mae tipyn o ohebiaeth rhyngom ni, fel pwyllgor, ac yntau ynglŷn â’r ffordd y bydd y canllawiau a’r cyngor yn cael eu paratoi.

Nawr, testun pryder i nifer o dystion ac aelodau’r pwyllgor oedd sut y byddai’r dreth yn cael ei chyfrifo ar gyfer pryniant eiddo sy’n pontio’r ffin rhwng Cymru a Lloegr. Fe ddechreuwyd craffu ar y Bil gan feddwl bod yna tua 400, o bosib, o eiddo neu dai, neu beth bynnag, yn y cyd-destun yma, ond, tua diwedd y craffu ar y Bil, fe dyfodd y nifer yna i tua 1,000 neu dros 1,000. Ac un o’r pethau oedd braidd yn syfrdanol i mi yn bersonol, mae’n rhaid dweud, i’w ddeall yn y broses yma oedd nad oedd gan y Gofrestrfa Tir ffin digidol ar eu mapiau o’r gwahaniaeth rhwng Cymru a Lloegr. Nid oedd angen, wrth gwrs, i fod yn deg, ond yn sicr bydd angen un nawr, achos mae’n hynod bwysig ein bod ni’n gwybod lle mae’r ffin. Rydym ni’n gwybod lle mae’r ffin yn wleidyddol, rydym ni’n gwybod lle mae’r ffin yn ddemocrataidd, ond, o ran prynu tŷ ac eiddo, mae’n rhaid bod y Gofrestrfa Tir yn gallu dweud yn hollol bendant wrth ymarferwyr yn y maes, wrth gyfreithwyr, prynwyr, darpar brynwyr ac ati, lle mae’r ffin.

Mae hefyd yn fater o bryder i’r pwyllgor, er ei bod yn glir yn y cyd-destun cyfreithiol sut mae’r dreth yn cael ei chodi ar y ddwy ochr, nad yw efallai mor glir i drethdalwyr sut y bydd y dreth yna’n cael ei gweithredu mewn ffordd deg rhwng Cymru a Lloegr. Y ffaith amdani yw, os bydd eiddo yn pontio’r ffin, bydd y rhan o’r eiddo sydd ar ochr Cymru yn talu treth dir y dreth stamp—sori, ar ochr Lloegr, yn talu’r dreth dir y dreth stamp, SDLT, yn Lloegr, a bydd y rhan sydd yng Nghymru yn wynebu’r dreth trafodiad tir, LTT, fel sydd gennym ni yng Nghymru. Felly, mae dwy dreth yn cael eu talu ar un eiddo, ac mae hynny’n ffaith sy’n deillio o’r systemau cyfreithiol a chyfansoddiadol presennol, ond nid yw’n gwneud codi trethi y peth mwyaf rhwydd i’w wneud, mae’n rhaid dweud. Ac yng ngoleuni’r dryswch ynghylch trefniadau trawsffiniol, roedd y pwyllgor felly yn arbennig o bryderus o ddeall bod angen map digidol a dylid comisiynu’r Gofrestrfa Tir i ddarparu map digidol o’r fath er mwyn hwyluso’r broses.

Yn ystod gwaith y pwyllgor, wrth inni graffu ar y Bil, mynegodd yr Ysgrifennydd Cabinet, fel rydym newydd ei glywed, ei fwriad i gyflwyno cyfraddau uwch o’r dreth trafodiadau tir ar gyfer pryniant eiddo ychwanegol—er enghraifft, prynu i osod, cartrefi ychwanegol, tai haf, ac ati. Roedd y pwyllgor wedi cael ei ddarbwyllo gan resymeg yr Ysgrifennydd Cabinet o ran diwygio’r Bil—dyma’r dreth sydd yn bodoli yn Lloegr a bydd y dreth yn cael ei cholli o Gymru oni bai ein bod ni’n gweld y gwelliannau. Ond, rydym yn edrych ymlaen nawr at y gwelliannau gan y Llywodraeth i weld sut fydd y dreth yma yn cael ei gweithredu yng Nghymru.

Roeddem ni’n siomedig, fel pwyllgor—ac rydym newydd glywed hyn gan y Gweinidog eto—nad yw’r Llywodraeth am gynnal ymgynghoriad llawn ar y mater hwn. Mae’r Llywodraeth o’r farn mai un o swyddogaethau allweddol y Llywodraeth yw pennu cyfraddau a bandiau treth. Fel mae’r Gweinidog newydd ei ddweud, nid yw’n digwydd mewn rhannau eraill o Brydain. Ond, fel rydym newydd drafod o ran y gyllideb, rydym ni’n edrych ar broses mwy seneddol, sydd yn gallu symud y pwyllgor a’r Senedd i gyd gyda’i gilydd i graffu mwy ar y broses o osod cyfraddau treth. Mae hynny’n bwnc y byddwn ni’n dychwelyd ato yn fwy eang, mae’n siŵr gen i, nid jest yng nghyd-destun y dreth yma.

I gloi, felly, ar y ddwy reol ar osgoi trethi sydd yn y Bil, mae yna reol dargededig ar atal osgoi ac mae yna reol gyffredinol ar atal osgoi yn y Bil. Roedd y pwyllgor wedi’i ddarbwyllo bod angen y ddau, ond roeddem yn arbennig yn chwilio am ganllawiau i sicrhau bod y rheolau yma’n glir yn y ffordd y maen nhw’n ymwneud â threthi nas datganolwyd. Felly, rydym yn cynnig yn gryf iawn i’r Cynulliad bod y Bil yn symud yn ei flaen at y cyfnodau nesaf.

Thank you very much. I now call on the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. We reported on this Bill on 16 December and, as well as making some general observations, we made three recommendations. We welcome the fact that the Cabinet Secretary’s letter earlier today has responded to those recommendations and, indeed, as he’s just reiterated, has accepted two of them. So, in the words of that great sage of legislative and constitutional affairs, Meatloaf, ‘Two out of three ain’t bad’.

This Bill covers very difficult and complex issues. So, we do welcome the approach that the Cabinet Secretary has adopted in drafting the Bill, both in the early involvement of practitioners and by seeking to provide clarity in the drafting of the Bill. In particular, we welcome the element of consolidation. This will help to improve the accessibility of this piece of law, and it’s an approach our predecessor committee championed in its inquiry called ‘making laws’. I hope that this positive approach towards consolidation is repeated and developed further with future Government Bills. We are, indeed, as the Cabinet Secretary has remarked, content with the balance that has been achieved between what is included on the face of the Bill and what is left to subordinate legislation.

We note that the Bill draws on existing primary legislation from Westminster and the Scottish Parliament. However, we did feel that the explanatory memorandum could have been used to provide some greater transparency to stakeholders on how the Bill had been developed from these pieces of legislation. The Bill introduced a new procedure for the scrutiny of subordinate legislation, designed to excite us on the committee—the provisional affirmative. We found this new procedure to be sensible in principle, particularly because the National Assembly has now taken on the responsibilities for taxation in this and some other areas. But, in addition, we also agreed with the consistent and carefully considered way in which this procedure was applied in the making of specific regulations under the Bill.

We made, as I mentioned, two recommendations, seeking clarification of the Cabinet Secretary’s approach in relation to certain aspects of regulations made under section 34 and section 76. I really welcome the positive response of the Cabinet Secretary in his letter responding to the committee’s report and in his subsequent remarks this afternoon.

Our final recommendation related to regulations to amend primary legislation using the negative procedure. In our report, we agreed, and we continue to agree with our predecessor committee, that any changes to primary legislation made by subordinate legislation should be achieved by the affirmative procedure. This, we believe, ensures that the rights of the National Assembly, in terms of its scrutiny role, are protected. And we made a recommendation to this effect in relation to regulations made in accordance with section 76(2). In doing so, we expressed disappointment that this Bill, the first Welsh Government Bill in the fifth Assembly, is seeking to apply the negative procedure to regulations that amend primary legislation. The use of these so-called Henry VIII powers, and the type of procedure attached to them, arose again in our scrutiny of the landfill disposals tax Bill yesterday, and, as I’m sure he would agree, we had a frank but friendly exchange of views with the Cabinet Secretary. So, I was not surprised—none of the committee members were surprised—to see and to hear the Cabinet Secretary’s response to this particular recommendation.

We, like many respected legal practitioners and commentators, see this issue as a matter of constitutional principle, and, for that reason, we will continue to monitor the Welsh Government’s use of secondary legislation to amend primary legislation and the procedure that applies throughout this fifth Assembly. But, in closing, let me say: whilst there might be issues of constitutional principle such as this on which there is disagreement, I do think it is appropriate to reflect the acknowledgement of the committee of the constructive way in which he and his officials have consistently sought to engage with and consider with respect and with due diligence the recommendations of the committee and our role in actually ensuring the constitutional and legislative propriety of such matters. This rigour of engagement between the executive and the legislature assists effective scrutiny, and we look forward very much to this continuing.

A light afternoon for us, Cabinet Secretary, isn’t it? I’m pleased to contribute to this debate. I think we have on numerous occasions in debates and statements over the last year or two highlighted that stamp duty land tax will be the first tax devolved to Wales in several hundred years, a point made by the Chair of the Finance Committee. Indeed, as the Chair said, it is the first time that we’ve needed to do other things such as get the Land Registry to fully and completely map the England-Wales border—issues that we’ve never had to address before. So, I think it’s been a more complicated process than any of us realised it would be at the outset. I see Mike Hedges nodding vigorously in agreement. I know the Cabinet Secretary and his predecessor would agree with that.

Welsh Conservatives will be supporting the general principles of this Bill. I would say we do, of course, have no choice. That sounds a bit harsh, but, of course, we all know that the reality is that, on that fateful day or night—I’m not sure what time it happens—in April 2018, the UK stamp duty tax is turned off in Wales, and there is of course then a need to replace it, because that is what we would all seek to do, and we do need, it’s true, to have a replacement that is ready to go and is fit for purpose.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his responses to some of the Finance Committee’s recommendations, which, again, I received this morning? The Chair’s alluded to some of them. I mention in particular your response to recommendation 8, in relation to determining consideration of cross-border transactions, which has been spoken about in depth in the Chamber this afternoon. I’m sure that Mike Hedges will be raising this—yes—in further depth, so I won’t go into much depth on this other than to say that it may well only affect a minority of transactions, and in fact we weren’t entirely sure about the number that are affected, but those will be in border constituencies like mine, and this issue does need to be addressed. I know a lot of work has been done by the Cabinet Secretary and his officials to ensure that that happens. We know that Wales has a long, porous border and is more susceptible to border issues than Scotland, for instance. I think it’s around 50 per cent of the population live within 30 miles of it—I don’t remember the exact statistics, but it’s very close to the border. So, it needs to be sorted out.

As regards recommendation 10, I am mildly disappointed that the Welsh Government has on the face of it rejected the recommendation to consult before the setting of rates and bands. I think this might be semantics, in a large degree. I fully agree, actually, Cabinet Secretary, that the setting of rates and bands is ultimately a matter for the Government, and that’s the case with the Scottish Government and the UK Government and other executives. But I do think there is no harm in seeking as wide a range of views as possible prior to the setting of those bands. We do aim to be—aim to be—as transparent as possible here, and just because England and Scotland don’t do something doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t look at doing it, and maybe look at doing it differently. That said, you have committed to engaging with stakeholders as extensively as possible, so I hope that, as I said, this is semantics and that this process will be as robust as possible and that stakeholders will be happy with the end result.

I think we do have to accept that there is concern among some stakeholders, and understandably so. This is a new tax; it’s breaking fresh ground for all of us. It’s the first time the Assembly has done this and many issues need to be ironed out before the tax goes live. I’m sure that the experience that we learn from this process will help in the development of landfill tax and future taxes. So, it’s understandably a difficult process. I think we all went into this knowing that that would be the case.

So, I welcome your approach, Cabinet Secretary, and indeed the previous Minister’s approach, that the system here should not deviate too much from that across the border unless there’s a compelling case for it to do so. I know that that has been the view of the Government for a long time. It seems an eminently sensible maxim to me; it reduces the potential for confusion during the transition period and minimises the potential for a distortion of the housing market in Wales relative to England. That has been one of the concerns: that any setting of rates that are disparate with those in England will cause confusion and disruption. We heard that in the stakeholder event that we held over in the Norwegian church in Cardiff Bay last year. It’s particularly a problem for practitioners operating from England. If all the practitioners were actually operating locally here, then there might be a greater awareness of what’s happening, but clearly awareness needs to be raised across the border as well as here, and perhaps you can say a little bit about how you intend to do that.

Just finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, the second aspect of this Bill is, of course, tax avoidance and enforcement. The committee has looked in some detail at the general avoidance rule, the targeted avoidance rule—the Chair of the Finance Committee went into this—and needless to say, it is vitally important that we get this right. This is the start of a process. What was that old expression? ‘Devolution is a process not an event.’ Well, I think this is also a process, not an event and we all want to work together to make sure that we do develop the best possible tax regime in Wales over the months and years to come, and indeed a regime that is not open to avoidance, that is not just equitable, but I would like to see a system here that is better than that across the border in England. That must be our ultimate aim and goal.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. As we’ve heard two speeches from two committee chairs and one from a party spokesperson from one of the opposition parties, I think I will keep my comments brief, because I don’t want to rehearse the same old issues. But generally speaking, we welcome and accept, as Nick Ramsay said, just how necessary the introduction of this tax is, considering, as Simon Thomas mentioned, the significant decrease in Welsh funding that would come about if we weren’t to introduce such a tax in light of the changes that are to take place in two years’ time. So, I think it’s a reasonable step to introduce a new land transaction tax in order to avoid that situation arising. Of course, in terms of this afternoon’s debate, we are at Stage 1 and we will have an opportunity to scrutinise fully the types of details that we’ve just had a taster of. Of course, there’s a great deal more detail available in these very useful reports, and we’re grateful for the work of Members on both committees.

It is one of the most technically complex Bills that the Welsh Government has ever introduced. I think we should praise them on the broad-ranging consultation that has taken place on this Bill, and their willingness to include practitioners and stakeholders in the process as a whole, and the type of approach that has been reflected in the way that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has treated with this process. I do think that we would all accept the fundamental principle that we should ensure that the transfer from the old system to the new system is as smooth as possible. It is understandable, since SDLT is long established in Wales, that practitioners are well used to that way of working, I think, therefore, that the Cabinet Secretary’s endeavours in drawing up a Bill that introduces a new tax, but one that has enough of the features of SDLT to make it easily recognisable for practitioners, is a sensible step.

Of course, I think we are eager, as has started to happen in Scotland, that we should be taking the opportunities that will emerge from having these powers to innovate in due time. I think it’s a matter of getting the balance right that is the challenge for us. This is what we will be discussing in more detail during the next stages of the Bill’s scrutiny: for example, the ability to create regional bands in order to reflect the different characteristics and natures of the housing markets and other relevant factors in various parts of Wales, and the differences in talking about the current situation as far as second homes and buy to let are concerned. Of course, that context too is different in England, and particularly in London as compared to the situation in Wales. It may be different again on a regional and local level in Wales. Therefore, what we want to ensure is that that balance is correctly struck in terms of the Bill, in terms of creating the framework where we have sufficient consistency with the old SDLT system, and then taking the opportunity to innovate. Certainly, in thinking about the debate that we have just had, we do need an appropriate role for the Senedd here—and both Chairs touched upon this issue—and we do need to ensure that as we are legislating for the first time here, in creating this tax for the first time in 800 years, then we must ensure that we get the foundations and principles right in terms of the balance of power between the Executive and the Parliament in terms of acting on this Bill and this tax, but also in terms of the way in which we legislate and tax more generally.

Can I bring a note of caution to discussions here? Remember that this is a tax that is volatile if you’re cyclical, and is highly affected by changes in the economy. We saw what happened to it in 2008 and 2009 when the British economy collapsed and the amount of stamp duty then went down. So, I’m very pleased to see it being devolved, but it’s not all win-win, and there is a level of danger, a level of risk, that is built into it, which the Welsh Government will have to deal with. I’m sure, as the Cabinet Secretary says—. And I also welcome the unanimous decision of the Finance Committee that the general principle of the Bill should be agreed by the National Assembly. I hope that the proposals to move to Stage 2 will also be agreed by this Plenary session. I also hope that the unanimity on this recommendation, achieved by the Finance Committee, can be replicated in the Chamber today.

Whilst it is important that all legislation is devoid of loopholes, deals with conflicts and is consistent throughout, it is especially true of tax legislation. Whilst the first legislation passed in the fourth Assembly, the Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Act 2012, lacked, amongst other things, the mechanism to resolve disputes between county or county boroughs and community or town councils regarding the implementation of byelaws, this has as yet created no problems. Any loophole or anomaly in tax legislation will be ruthlessly exploited and lead to a reduction in the money available for Welsh services. Thus it is imperative that loopholes are not available in this legislation and that the drafting is correct. And remember there will be people earning very large sums of money whose main aim in life will be to find loopholes in it, to find ways of avoiding tax on it, and they will have spent hours trying to find any way to avoid it, as they do with all sorts of other taxes.

As important as drafting the legislation is, getting a no-detriment agreement with the Treasury is probably more important. Remember that London is an international city. High-cost property in London is bought by people from all over the world and as the pound reduces in value, as it has done since June, then the cost of property in dollars, euros and other currencies decreases, thus leading to an increase in property prices in London in pounds. With further reductions in the value of sterling against other currencies likely in the next two years, then the value of London properties in pounds is likely to increase. If we are set a fixed proportion of land transaction tax on day one, then as London prices increase, no matter what the Welsh Government does or this Assembly does, we are bound to lose. So, we need to have no detriment there. London is different and I think that we need to make sure we get that sorted out, or we’re going to pay a very high price.

Returning to the proposed legislation and the Finance Committee’s report, cross-border issues concern me, although not all committee members were quite as concerned.

‘Recommendation 7: The Committee recommends that, should the National Assembly agree the provisions in this Bill, the Welsh Government should commission the Land Registry to carry out the work of providing a map of the border between Wales and England in readiness for the commencement of Land Transaction Tax.’

There is a desperate need for the boundary to be known by the Land Registry prior to the commencement of the Act in order for the right tax to be paid to the right body. When the committee commenced the investigation into this, the number of properties identified as cross-border were very few. The number increased rapidly up through the hundreds, and I think the last figure we had was possibly more than 1,000. This led to recommendation 8:

‘The Committee recommends that further information is produced by the Welsh Government explaining how it intends the legislation to determine the apportioning of the consideration payable on cross-border property transactions. This information should cover issues such as “just and reasonable apportionment”, and clarity on requirement for two transfers for cross-border transactions. This information should be available before any Stage 2 considerations.’

I think you’ve got to remember that if we don’t get this right, we’ll know where the Welsh border is because it’ll have a long row of houses and buildings going along it, because it will be a means of reducing people’s tax—the amount they have to pay. So, I don’t think we want to be able to identify it by a street going from the border in Monmouth all the way up to where it touches the Wirral. I think what we want to do is have a border that is not covered in houses and other buildings, because we don’t want to give that incentive to build along the border, which you will if it’s a means of saving tax. So, it’s important that the incentive does not exist.

The legislation is necessary because, as Nick Ramsay said, they turn the tap off in 2018 and if we don’t put the tap back on again, we end up with a gap in the amount of money coming into Wales. But it really is important that no loopholes or perverse incentives exist.

Finally, I hope we can unanimously support moving to Stage 2, just as the Finance Committee did unanimously, because I think it really is important to take taxation forward in Wales.

I think it’s safe to say that my party doesn’t approach the devolution of the first tax in Wales for 800 years with the same enthusiasm or excitement as perhaps some Members, particularly on the Plaid side of the Chamber, but we do respect those who do see and emphasise that significance. On our own journey in this direction, we opposed the measure of devolution that went to a referendum in 2011, but the people of Wales voted for that and we accept that. What we sought to do in our manifesto was to support the process of devolution as it had developed and, in particular, what had been agreed at the St David’s Day agreement. We perhaps believed its billing there—perhaps a little naïvely—that this was going to be a clear devolution settlement for Wales that stands the test of time. And as we’ve seen with the progress and developments of the Wales Bill and some of the discussion about that, I think perhaps our optimism around that has become less.

Nonetheless, land transaction tax was one of the two taxes that were part of that consensus that were going to be devolved, and rather than continue the process of constitutional navel gazing or disagreement for the sake of it, we did say that we would respect the decision and support the devolution of this particular tax that had been agreed with others, along with the levy that we’re going to see on landfill disposal. That is not our position with respect to income tax without the referendum that was promised, however we wish to be constructive on this land transaction tax. And also, to the extent you’re considering what relatively small tax is sensible to devolve, there are good arguments for this one. In the longer term there may be opportunities to consider how stamp duty, or, here, land transaction tax, links with council tax and with business rates, and having all three elements of that revenue raising devolved may, at least in principle, allow good consideration of ways in which they may be better combined if there are arguments in that direction.

I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for how he has engaged with the Finance Committee as the first stage of this process has taken place. At an initial stage I was concerned that there were some elements of the Bill that seemed to be slightly changing the rules around avoidance in a way to send a message as to how against tax avoidance we were, and we just had some concerns about using legislation for that—sending a message and slight changes in definition that could lead to great complexity and arguments within courts and uncertainty as to what the legislation did. I think it’s fair to say that the Cabinet Secretary largely mitigated those concerns and particularly some points I raised, as he I think gained confidence in explaining the legislation and taking us through some really quite technical detail as the process continued. I think I now understand why the targeted anti-avoidance rule has to include non-devolved taxes, whereas the general anti-avoidance rule does not, but I reserve my right to reconsider that as we go into Stage 2.

I think it’s right that we haven’t spent time looking at a disclosure of tax avoidance schemes specifically for Wales, which would be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. And even those who, in principle, prefer having Wales separate legislation arrangements haven’t pressed the point on that, and I think we’ve been able to take a pragmatic approach on many of these issues.

I am concerned about the communication of the measures in this Bill to the legal profession in England, and whether one of the consequences of this may be that, in future, people, for instance, who might be moving from England to Wales, where they’re using a solicitor who only rarely would undertake one or more transactions in Wales—would that solicitor feel that they were able to undertake that, or would they have to hand that process to a Welsh firm of solicitors, which might support the legal profession in Wales but might also inconvenience people in such circumstance?

I think the important thing is that if a solicitor who perhaps hasn’t genned up on the specific Welsh context as much as they might seeks to pay the land transaction tax in what was previously the normal way to HMRC—it’s important they get a clear communication quickly that that’s not required, and be directed to appropriate guidance as to how to make the appropriate payment to the Welsh Revenue Authority, which we are setting up.

Finally, in respect of some of the points addressed by Mike Hedges, I don’t think there’s any serious prospect of building of houses along the border because of the great tax advantage of doing so. I think any tax advantage is at the margin and certainly isn’t going to lead to such a building boom. I think we do need extra housing provision. But I think there are issues, and, overall, if someone has a property that straddles the border, it will be the case that sometimes the tax paid will be less. That is the nature of our progressive system, where, as the price of the house rises, you at the margin pay a somewhat higher rate above certain thresholds. If the overall cost is divided and you pay tax on each element, then the overall tax will either be the same, or it may be less, but it won’t be more. What I’m concerned about is that we don’t spend an awful lot of time trying to apportion and get into a lot of detail about precisely how you measure which part’s in England and which part’s in Wales when, actually, overall, the revenue consequences of that are likely to balance out. So, earlier on, we heard from the Cabinet Secretary that you apportion taxes according to how much of the property is in either place, being Wales or England, but I think, on further reflection and study, I hope you’ll accept that the requirement is a just and reasonable apportionment. I look forward to making the argument that what is just and reasonable would potentially be an equal split, simply because the costs of investigating in each case what the precise proportion of the overall land area, or the precise proportion of the built-up area, is in Wales and England is going to lead to considerable bureaucracy and cost for no overall benefit when, actually, the flows of finance are likely to even out. Thank you.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to reply to the debate. Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank all Members who have taken part in what has been I think a very constructive and interesting debate? My starting point is the one that Nick Ramsay set out. Whether you regard tax devolution as a matter of high excitement or deep trepidation, it’s going to happen and our job is to prepare for it and to do that in a way that is as careful and as competent as we can make it.

In framing this piece of legislation, the priorities that I have followed have been the ones that others have set out in the debate. First of all, continuity—that was the key message from stakeholders. On the day that this law comes into being, they want it to be recognisably the law with which they are familiar already, and we constructed the law in order to deliver that.

A second principle, though, is that, while providing for continuity, we also want to improve the accessibility of the law in this area. We’ve drawn together, under the one Bill, a series of disparate parts of existing law to make them more comprehensible and more accessible.

Then, thirdly, in the way that Adam Price set out, we’ve designed the Bill in a way that allows for the possibility of greater differentiation in the future. That’s why the Bill has this combination of powers on the face of the Bill and regulation-making powers. I’m grateful for what Huw Irranca-Davies said about endorsing that balance, because it would allow the National Assembly, in the future, to differentiate the way we do these things in Wales, as matters develop.

Taking on responsibilities for the first time in 800 years is undoubtedly challenging; it leads to some maters of complexity, which you’ve heard this afternoon. I see that Adam Price didn’t put to you the conundrum he put to me about the person who owns a property along the border that has a river that meanders in and out of Wales and wishes to sell the fishing rights on one part of a bank and where will they be when this legislation comes into being? Well, that’s what Stage 2 will be all about: working out some of those details, provided, of course, the Assembly is prepared to give the go-ahead this afternoon.

A number of Members have reminded us that this is a Bill about anti-avoidance measures as well as about land tax itself. I would have to say to Mark Reckless that, actually, I do want this Bill to send out a message that, when taxation is devolved to Wales, the National Assembly is not going to be a soft touch in any way as far as tax avoidance is concerned, albeit that we construct the Bill itself in a way that is careful and proportionate.

Will the Cabinet Secretary give way?

Of course, yes.

I’m grateful. I would like to clarify that we’re all against tax avoidance, but just sceptical of fiddly changes to legislation that may lead to greater bureaucratic and legal uncertainty, and we should avoid that. But I think actually that he has largely put my mind to rest in terms of what he’s doing and there’s significant consolidation and the regime is likely to be sensible.

I completely agree. We don’t want to go about the business in a way that leads to unnecessary complexity. We deal with anti-avoidance, I think, in a careful and proportionate way. Our first recourse will be to the specific targeted anti-avoidance rules that deal with abuses that we know have been there in the past. If that doesn’t capture matters, we have a general targeted anti-avoidance rule in the field of reliefs and, if that doesn’t catch matters, we have a general anti-avoidance rule on which the Welsh Revenue Authority will be able to rely in future—all of that with checks and balances built into the Bill.

None of this will happen, Dirprwy Lywydd, however, unless the National Assembly agrees with the advice from the Finance Committee and from the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee that the Bill is fit to pass Stage 1 scrutiny. If that happens, I look forward to the further debate that we will undoubtedly need to have then.

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

We move on to the last debate of the afternoon, which is the debate on the financial resolution on the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move that motion.

Formally, Chair.

Thank you. I have no speakers, therefore, and as it’s been moved formally, the proposal is to agree that motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, that motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We now move to voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, we’ll proceed to vote on the outstanding matter.

So, therefore we now a vote on the motion, which is the final budget statement of 2017-18, and I call for a vote on the motion, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion, 27, eight abstentions, 17 against, therefore the motion is passed.

That brings today’s proceedings to a close. Thank you very much.