Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the First Minister, and the first question is from Steffan Lewis.

As a Government, we are committed to nurturing supply chains across Wales. The future for Welsh supply chain companies is bright, and supporting Welsh businesses of all sizes to access major investment opportunities now and in the future is a key priority.

The Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply has recently concluded an extensive survey of businesses in the UK and on the continent in light of the EU referendum last year, and it found that nearly half of continental businesses expect to reduce their use of UK suppliers. The survey also found that 65 per cent of UK businesses have seen their supply chains become more expensive as a result of the weaker pound, and nearly a third are renegotiating some contracts. The Irish Government, although, of course, Ireland’s staying within the European Union, has pre-empted the potential risk to supply chains as a result of Brexit. I wonder if the First Minister would agree to convene a summit of Welsh supply businesses, and consider and explore the possibility of establishing a business loan scheme to support Welsh supply chains through the coming two years of great uncertainty to them?

Well, I think the first thing that we have to be clear about is what the nature of Brexit might look like. We’re still no clearer as to what that might mean. His party and, indeed, ourselves as a Government, have been very clear that it means full and unfettered access to the single market. Until we have an idea of what the future holds for Welsh businesses, then it will be difficult to give them the certainty that they require. That said, it is hugely important that we work with our businesses in order to make sure that they’re able to procure as many Welsh contracts, certainly, as possible, and to press on the UK Government that they should not reduce the ability of Welsh businesses to do business in Europe in the future.

On 8 April, I and my colleagues, Dawn Bowden and Rhianon Passmore, held a local summit of our own to discuss the Cardiff capital region deal, at which Alun Davies spoke very well. [Interruption.] The event was attended by representatives of the local authority, local employers—he was heckling me there, reminding me to mention it—further and higher education and transport providers. One of the key themes to come out of the event was the importance of sharing social capital across local supply chains in the northern Valleys, where collaboration between local firms is as important, if not more important than competition between them. Would the First Minister, therefore, recognise that regional growth deals need to accept the importance of social capital, strong local procurement and the views of indigenous businesses if the capital deals are to be successful?

We remain committed to delivering successful deals for all regions of Wales and to be a full partner in their development and delivery, because, as the Member has said, deals offer Wales, and particularly the regions of Wales, an opportunity to unlock additional Treasury funding to support interventions that can deliver sustainable economic growth. A lot of work needs to be done, of course, in order to get not just businesses, but businesses and local authorities to work together, but we know that that is a path that offers the best outcome for all the communities of Wales.

First Minister, the Welsh Government’s record to date in working to ensure that Welsh firms benefit as much as possible from public procurement issued in Wales is a poor one, I think. As of early 2016, of the 130 Welsh Government corporate procurement contracts awarded since 2011 and worth more than £500,000, just 53 per cent were awarded to Welsh businesses. And nothing highlights this more than the Heads of the Valleys road project, which, despite being a capital project based in the heart of Wales, was awarded to an English-based contractor. So, going forward, what can you do to ensure that Welsh companies benefit far more from public contracts offered in Wales in order to help build the supply chain here in Wales?

We’ve seen a significant increase in the number of Welsh businesses who are accessing Welsh public sector contracts. The figure has gone from around about the 37 per cent mark, if I remember, to over a half now, which is a great improvement. Through initiatives such as the supplier qualification information database, for example, and the procurement initiative, we have ensured that Welsh businesses are better able to compete for contracts, and in particular are able to work together with other firms in order to be successful in getting those contracts in the first place. Clearly, there will be particular contracts that can be only be delivered by companies with particular specialist skills, but, nevertheless, we have seen a significant growth in the number of Welsh businesses that are successful in bidding for public sector contracts.

Well, we’ll review recycling targets as part of the ongoing review of the Wales waste strategy. As well as evaluating our successful performance against current targets, this will include a consideration of targets to be set beyond 2025.

Thank you for the reply, Minister, but ‘successful’ is coming to this: the First Minister will be aware that his Government set a target for local authorities to recycle 58 per cent of waste by 2016. In April, it was reported that three councils—Newport, Blaenau Gwent, and Torfaen—had all missed their target, but would avoid being fined also. Does the Welsh Government have plans to review recycling targets in Wales, and, if they are to be increased, what incentive will there be for underperforming councils to improve, given the reluctance to use fines in Wales?

Well, I’m glad the Member has pointed out that, by the end of 2016, the target was 58 per cent. Indeed, we reached 60 per cent, as a result of the work that was done. The reality is that there is an inbuilt financial incentive for local authorities to recycle more, because they can get more money for the products that they offer for recycling, and they don’t have to pay as much in terms of the landfill tax. So, those local authorities that don’t meet the targets that have been set, effectively, are costing themselves more money, and that is the inbuilt incentive in terms of ensuring that we see more recycling. And I can say that we are certainly on course to exceed the 70 per cent target that we have set for the year 2024-25.

Although I welcome the success in this area of recycling, it’s true to say that the main focus should now be on reducing waste in the first place. It’s particularly beneficial to bear in mind that every piece of plastic ever created is still in existence now, unless it’s been incinerated or burned. Therefore, isn’t it time to look at issues such as a deposit-return scheme, to see how we can reduce the use of plastic and polystyrene in our environment?

It is a problem—I agree with you there. I don’t believe this is something that will be resolved on a Welsh level because so many imports come from other countries where there are different regulations. So, for me, as to the way of ensuring that less waste is generated in the first place, that should be dealt with on a European level at least, but, really, on a global level, in order to ensure that producers in places like China, which export a great deal of their products to Europe, reduce the amount of plastic in their products in order to ensure that less plastic needs to be recycled in Wales.

First Minister, if we are to have any chance at all of reducing the amount of waste we send to landfill each year, recycling schemes should be made as easy as possible for homeowners to recycle. Unfortunately, local authorities appear to do the opposite. Bridgend, for example, have completely messed up the introduction of their new recycling scheme, which, in the words of the council’s deputy leader, has caused damage to the goodwill of the residents. The situation is now so bad that more than 40 councillors have taken the unprecedented step of writing to the council’s leader to complain. First Minister, without the goodwill of residents, recycling schemes are doomed to failure. What can your Government do to ensure that local authorities make it as simple as possible for the residents to recycle?

Well, as someone who lives in Bridgend, it is simple, and I’ve certainly recycled in the new system for the past two weeks without any problem at all. It’s not massively different to the old system, in reality. There have been instances where rubbish has not been collected as it should have been, and that is something I know that the council have been focused on. But I have to say that some of the people who are complaining are people who didn’t want the new contract in the first place, and who are not convinced that the current system is something that is worth while doing in any event. It is a matter for Bridgend council, of course, to deal with any problems that arise, but I am assured by them that they are doing so.

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

Diolch, Llywydd. The negotiations for the UK to withdraw from the European Union have now begun, and the importance of those negotiations to Wales is beyond doubt. In the first quarter of 2017, our trade surplus with the EU increased to £2.5 million. I’m of the view that the UK election a fortnight ago did not deliver a mandate to leave the single market. Do you agree?

The general election did not deliver a mandate for a hard Brexit, and, as her party and my party have agreed, what we need is full and unfettered access to the single market. That view hasn’t changed and nor will it change in the future.

First Minister, on a visit to Airbus on Deeside, the company told me that their two key priorities for the UK’s future relationship with the European Union were, firstly, that there should be no tariffs on their goods and parts, and, secondly, that they should be able to benefit from freedom of movement of skilled workers. We’ve recently heard warnings from Airbus that a failure to meet these priorities could jeopardise jobs and business investment. You would want to guarantee those two priorities, in line with our joint White Paper, but, at a Confederation of British Industry dinner on Friday, you said that membership of the single market would be incompatible with the EU referendum result. Will you now provide clarity? Are you ruling out membership of the European Free Trade Association and are you ruling out being a part of the European Economic Area?

I would remind the leader of Plaid Cymru what she’s already agreed to as part of the White Paper. The position is well understood. You cannot be a member of the single market without being a member of the EU. You can have access to the single market without being a member of the EU, as Norway has demonstrated and as the EFTA countries have demonstrated. I don’t rule out membership of EFTA. I don’t rule out membership of the EEA, for that matter either, particularly in the short term. But if you are a member of the single market, it implies you have a say in the rules under which that market operates. The people of the UK have said they don’t want to be part of the EU and, therefore, don’t want to have a say in the way the market operates. That doesn’t mean we can’t have access to the single market.

What’s important for Airbus—and there are two issues for Airbus—first of all, is that they are able to sell in the single market not just without tariff barriers, but non-tariff barriers, or regulatory barriers, as well, and, secondly, work visas. She will know that there are people who travel back and for between Toulouse, Filton and Broughton every day to work, and Airbus fear that those people may need work visas, either for every visit, or perhaps for a period of time in the future, which can’t be good in terms of Broughton’s position vis-à-vis its future. We need to make sure that visas are not required for those workers and, secondly, that there are no tariffs, either in terms of regulation or in terms of money, that obstruct Airbus’s full and unfettered access to the single market that exists at the moment.

First Minister, you are all over the place on this. [Interruption.] Labour MPs are using the term ‘single market membership’. Chuka Umunna has said that access to the single market doesn’t go far enough. Your shadow trade Secretary, Barry Gardiner, has spoken of reformed membership of the single market—membership. Now, there are implications for Airbus from both of those positions when it comes to freedom of movement, and for our other industries as well. We’re once again seeing a multitude of positions on this inside the Labour Party and between the Welsh and the UK branches. First Minister, now that the formal negotiations are under way, what will you do to ensure that the final deal is one that works for Wales?

I would sometimes hope that the leader of Plaid Cymru actually listens to my answer and then adapts the question she asks before she asks it. She was accusing me of being all over the place. Firstly, she said to me, ‘You’ve said you’re not in favour of membership of the EU’, and then she talked about EFTA, which is an entirely different organisation, consisting of three countries: Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland. She herself—her party has already agreed that you can’t be a member of the single market without being a member of the EU. That is what we agreed, if she remembers that. She accuses me of being all over the place. She’s forgotten that. I don’t want to get into a debate that is not needed between two parties that agree on the same thing, namely that we want to make sure that Welsh businesses have full and unfettered access to the single market. If you’re a member of it, you have a say in its rules. You cannot have a say in its rules unless you’re in the EU, and that matter has been resolved. What we need to do is to make sure we get the best deal—full, unfettered access to the single market for Welsh businesses, as she’s already agreed to.

We understand that there is a difference between membership and access, but, as far as Welsh businesses are concerned, we want to make sure that that is an invisible difference, that we look at other models such as the EEA, such as EFTA, particularly in the transitional period—because there isn’t going to be a deal by March 2019. Everybody sensibly understands that. It is a great shame that, instead of contributing to the debate, she forgets what her own party’s already agreed to.

That’s absolute rubbish.

You weren’t there. How many voices?

Leader of the opposition, Andrew R.T. Davies.

I feel as if I’m intruding on a bit of a domestic here, and we’re seeing the coalition of chaos right in front of us, believe it or not. When—[Interruption.] Hopefully when we get to agenda item 4 this afternoon, you might give a bit more clarity to the position, First Minister, because if your partners don’t understand it, what hope has anyone else got to understand it?

But I would like to understand what the Welsh Government position is regarding the targets for the PISA examination results for 2021, because your education Secretary said, in the children and young people committee meeting last Thursday, that the target that had been set by the previous Government and your Minister—a Labour Minister, Huw Lewis—of having a score of 500 in the three categories was not her target. Can you give us some clarity as to what is the Welsh Government’s target for the 2021 PISA results?

Achieving 500 in 2021 remains the Welsh Government’s target. The Cabinet Secretary was correct in the sense that she didn’t set the target, because she wasn’t a Minister at the time, but she is part of the Government that is adhering to that target. But remember, the target is one diagnostic indicator amongst many others such as GCSE performance, the closing of the attainment gap, school categorisation and Estyn inspections.

That is a slap down, in fairness, First Minister, to your Cabinet Secretary. You either have a target that the department and the Cabinet Secretary work to, and the education system here in Wales works to—and we welcome the target, because it gives a direction of travel—but it is a fact that twice, now, a target has been disowned by successive Cabinet Secretaries on education here in your Government: obviously, Leighton Andrews’s target of being in the top 20 by 2015, and then on Thursday, the target of having 500 in the three categories by 2021 was disowned by the Cabinet Secretary. So, can you tell me how, in this disjointed Government, can educationalists, parents and pupils have any confidence that by 2021 we will see this Government hitting that target and delivering the improvements we want to see in education?

The target remains. We’ll continue to invest in education. We will not have grammar schools in Wales, nor will we reduce education spending, as his party has advocated for many years.

Is that it? Is that the answer—the sum total of your answer? You’ve got you saying one thing—that a target exists—and you’ve got the Cabinet Secretary confirming in front of a scrutiny committee of this Assembly that it is not her target. Who’s taking ownership of education here in Wales? Is it any wonder it is such a complete shambles under your leadership? Again, I ask you: will you commit to a road map of how the education system here in Wales will hit your target in 2021, or the Cabinet Secretary’s ambition for where she wants education to be? You can’t have two targets, First Minister.

Let me say it for the third time: achieving 500 in 2021 remains the Welsh Government’s target. The Cabinet Secretary was making a statement of fact that she wasn’t the Minister in place at the time the target was set, but the target is the Government’s target.

He talks about a coalition of chaos and a shambles. I see that Ruth Davidson, his Scottish colleague, is allowed into UK Cabinet meetings; he’s banned. He’s banned. How much humiliation can one man take? He was replaced for the leaders’ debates in the election. How much humiliation can one man take? He actually allowed himself to be trampled over by Theresa May, who came to the Welsh Conservatives’ manifesto launch, elbowed him out of the way, banned him from coming to the launch, and then made a speech that turned the election around in our favour. So, thanks very much for that. When we hear the word ‘shambles’ we can take no lessons from the experts who sit on the benches opposite.

Leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. I’m sure the First Minister, like me, is looking on with envy at the Democratic Unionists in Northern Ireland using their muscle in the House of Commons to extort the best possible deal in the interests of the people of Northern Ireland. And instead of refighting the last war, as the leader of Plaid Cymru seems intent on doing, wouldn’t it be better for Plaid Cymru members in the House of Commons to use their pivotal position to get the best possible deal for Wales by increasing the size of our block grant or any one of the numerous things that we want, which would improve the lives of the Welsh people?

I wouldn’t advise any party to extort money, as the leader of UKIP put it, but it is right to say that the UK Government must listen. It does not have a mandate for the kind of Brexit that it wished. It failed to achieve that in the election, and now is the time for them to listen to sensible voices in order that there should be a sensible Brexit that works for the people of Wales, the people of Britain, and particularly for businesses and jobs.

Well, I’m sure we’ll explore this point further later on this afternoon in the statement on the Government’s paper on Brexit.

I want to move to another issue. As a result of the dreadful fire in Kensington and the terrible loss of life that was suffered there, is it not rather undesirable for the leader of the opposition, Jeremy Corbyn, to try to weaponise this as an issue and to incite people to occupy private property in order to house those who have been dispossessed? It is a very dangerous situation indeed for politicians in positions of responsibility to use such things. We know that there are certain important members of the Labour Party who believe that insurrection is an acceptable political tool. John McDonnell many times has said that parliamentary democracy is only one option, and that the picket lines and the streets are the places where the real political battles can be fought. So, does the First Minister agree with me that it would be most unfortunate if the Labour Party were to perpetuate this kind of rhetoric?

I’m afraid that the leader of UKIP exposes a complete lack of humanity, I have to say. People have died here. People have died. Jeremy Corbyn, as an MP for the local area, went to visit people. He went to comfort many people who were his constituents, and he expressed the anger of many who felt that, at the time, they weren’t being given sufficient support, whether it was by local government or central Government. I make no comment on that because I think, this week, it’s hugely important to focus on the fact that people have died, and to focus on the fact that it’s hugely important that we learn the lessons of what happened in order to make sure that it doesn’t happen again. That is the message of this week, not a cheap political point that he’s trying to score.

Well, it’s very far from a cheap political point. I was quoting from one of our national newspapers—[Interruption.]—where the headline is

‘Let inferno victims seize empty homes, says Corbyn’.

He’s the one who said it. I have no objection, obviously, to Jeremy Corbyn articulating the views of people, particularly those of his constituents. We all do that. But in these highly charged situations, it is very dangerous indeed for rhetoric of that kind to be used when sobriety in the way that we express ourselves is to be desired. To attempt to make political capital out of this in that way, I think, is very undesirable indeed.

He is, indeed, right to say that sobriety is needed. It’s a shame he didn’t follow his own advice, I have to say. He quotes from a national newspaper. Well, as we all know, the papers are always correct about everything, and he has past experience of such things. He has gravely misjudged the mood, I believe, of our nation of Wales and the UK this afternoon. He has gravely misjudged the mood of this Chamber, I believe, and he must reflect, as somebody who has been in politics for many years, on the comments that he has made, and reflect as to whether, in fact, the comments that he has made reflect the humanity that we share in this Chamber, because I don’t believe that they do.

The Year of Legends 2017 provides an opportunity for us to build on the essential role of tourism in Pembrokeshire, and the Welsh Government tourism strategy sets out our priorities for all of Wales.

The Welsh Government has earmarked this year as the Year of Legends, and certainly Pembrokeshire has its fair share of cultural history, which includes assets such as St David’s cathedral and Castell Henllys et cetera. It’s extremely important that every part of Wales receives a fair share of funding in order to celebrate the Year of Legends. So, can you tell us how you, as a Government, have supported every part of Wales and ensured that every part of Wales is treated equitably? For example, how much support have you given to Pembrokeshire in the light of this particular initiative?

Well, first of all, in terms of the tourism fund for 2017, funding has been provided for a pollinator trail at Dr Beynon’s Bug Farm; funding has been given to TYF Group Ltd for the SUP Kids Wales project; and funding has been allocated to Seren Collection in relation to the Welsh roots project in the Narberth area. More broadly, there’s been funding for the wildlife trusts in terms of their projects, and of course other projects in Pembrokeshire. We’re also very supportive of the bid by St David’s in terms of the UK city of culture in 2021. We’re very supportive of that bid, as we are supportive of the Swansea bid. It’s true to say that the response to the St David’s bid has been very positive indeed.

I saw that the town of Pembroke had erected a new statue for Henry VII, in an attempt to attract tourism and to reflect the close relationship of that family with Pembroke. Today, I have hosted an exhibition in the Assembly of another statue that it is hoped will be established in Pembrokeshire—a statue of Chelsea Manning, another character that was raised and educated in Pembrokeshire, and that has had a great influence on the world in which we live at present.

Can the First Minister tell us what the Government are doing to promote public art generally and empathy with public art as part of tourism, reflecting all our history as a nation? Can the Government look at the intention to erect a statue to Chelsea Manning in order to support her in Pembrokeshire?

Well, we receive a number of applications in terms of supporting the erection of statues across Wales and it’s important that any statue has sufficient local support so that that project can move forward. We do understand, of course, how important the visual arts are in terms of conveying a message to people, and that was true of the exhibition at Caernarfon castle, ‘The Weeping Window’, which conveyed very powerfully the impact of the first world war not only on local communities, but also on those who were killed in battle.

I too visited the exhibition of the proposed sculpture of Chelsea Manning. Would the First Minister agree with me that a sculpture of Chelsea Manning, who must be one of the most famous sons and daughters of Haverfordwest, would indeed increase tourism in Pembrokeshire?

These are matters, ultimately, for the community and town councils, and for the local authority, to determine whether they’d want to give support to this sculpture, or any other.

‘Taking Wales Forward’ contains a range of actions to improve the health and well-being of older people, focusing on timely interventions and effective partnership working. For example, we are investing in initiatives for older people to maintain their independence and remain at home through the integrated care fund.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister, but one of the things you failed to mention was the increasing isolation that has been faced by many older people in Wales. It’s estimated that around 75,000 older people across the country are reported as being very lonely, and that loneliness can have the same sort of impact as smoking 15 cigarettes per day on people’s health. I wonder whether you will join me in supporting Age Cymru’s campaign on loneliness, ‘No one should have no one’. What work is the Welsh Government doing to support people like Gill Stafford, from Abergele in my own constituency, who’s widowed, takes care of her disabled son, and told Age Cymru that she takes the bus just so that she can actually get out and speak to somebody and have a conversation? What action are you taking to support people like Gill and many others who are facing that sort of isolation and loneliness?

We look to work with all third sector organisations who do so much work in helping older people. The Member’s right to say that isolation and loneliness is a particular issue, particularly in these days when families have moved away, and it does have a detrimental effect not just on people’s mental health but, it seems, on their physical health as well. We do want to work with Age Cymru. I commend what Age Cymru are doing to ensure that isolation, firstly, is recognised as a problem, and, secondly, that solutions are found to that problem.

One of the things that we can do to improve the lives of older people is ensure that our dementia strategy is ambitious and genuinely life-changing. As you know, the Cabinet Secretary is currently considering the very large number of responses that the Government has received on this, but I believe this is very much a matter for the whole Government, particularly as I believe it will need extra resource in order to be implemented effectively. What assurances can you give that this will be a priority for you, and that when we have the final dementia strategy, it will be as transformational as we all want to see?

We are committed, of course, to making Wales a dementia-friendly country, and of course to publish the first national dementia strategic action plan for Wales. It will be published later this year. It will set out the key actions with ambitious measures to be delivered by the Welsh Government and external partners to support people affected by dementia, and, of course, there will be a need, as part of that plan, to provide the resource that is required to enable it to succeed.

First Minister, many of our older people are being targeted and fall victim to scammers, who prey on their vulnerability to defraud them of their life savings. I recently helped a constituent who was being targeted, and I have to say the support from South Wales Police was outstanding. Unfortunately, not everyone gets this support. What more can the Welsh Government do to protect and educate older people about the scams, and how to avoid falling victim to these scammers?

No-cold-calling zones are a part of it, but, of course, they, naturally, can’t affect scams that emerge on line or by telephone. I have seen local authorities—Bridgend is one example—that run very successful campaigns through their trading standards departments to inform people of what scams can look like, and they can be very effective, and that campaign was very effective. I saw it myself in Bridgend. Now, it’s important that local authorities learn from each other to see what they can do to protect people from scams that aren’t detectable, through methods such as no-cold-calling zones.

It will continue to be strengthened.

Short and sweet, thank you. First minister, you may be aware that the First Minister of Northern Ireland is in favour of abolishing air passenger duty to help air passengers support growth, jobs and cut costs from businesses. Given the Scottish Government has now used its newly devolved power and brought in its Air Departure Tax (Scotland) Bill, as a replacement for air passenger duty, and has committed to reducing it from 2018, what are you going to do to ensure that air passenger duty is devolved, and once it is devolved, what will you do with it?

The First Minister of Northern Ireland isn’t in place, at the moment—hopefully soon—but he will surely know that this is something that we’ve argued ad nauseam for it to be devolved. There is no reason why it should be devolved in Northern Ireland, devolved in Scotland, but not devolved in Wales. What would we do with it? We would certainly look at reducing or removing it for long haul, because we know that Cardiff Airport is particularly well placed for long-haul passenger flights. But the UK Government has resolutely refused to devolve it to us, despite the fact it’s devolved to Scotland. There is no reason for this, there is no rationale for this, there is no fairness in this, and, certainly, it’s something that the Conservatives in this Chamber have not been particularly vocal about in the last few weeks or months.

And a further positive development, First Minister, of devolution is the right to determine the conduct of our own elections here in Wales. And during the general elections a couple of weeks ago, we witnessed a significant increase in the number of young people both registering to vote and an apparently unprecedented high turn-out amongst that group. And if pundits are to be believed, this did benefit Labour in many parts of the UK, as we saw with the extraordinary results in places like Kensington and Canterbury, and even Cardiff North, with young people taking a stance against hard Brexit and austerity. Do you agree with me, First Minister, that this engagement by young people, in the political process, is to be greatly welcomed and lend support to arguments for extending the voting age to 16 when we get the option to do that here in Wales?

I’m personally in favour of extending the voting age to 16. And I fail to see why, if it’s good for Scotland in one referendum, it can’t therefore apply across every election, put bluntly. There’s no rational for doing it for one vote, but not for others. For many years in this Chamber, politicians of all parties have wrestled with how we get more young people engaged in politics, fearing that they don’t vote. We saw lots of them voting in droves at the general election, at levels I’d not seen before, particularly in the morning. In my local polling station it was very, very noticeable. I certainly want to see that trend continuing, because it’s hugely important that voting isn’t seen as something you do when you get into middle age.

First Minister, I’m happy to be vocal in favour of the devolution of air passenger duty to this Assembly. I’m sorry if you haven’t quite heard our calls on that over the last few weeks and months, but, certainly, that is our position.

Nathan Gill, in his question, was right to refer to tax devolution as the next big development in devolution within Wales—indeed, in the devolved parts of the UK as well. The deadline when the UK stamp duty and landfill disposal tax are to be replaced with Welsh taxes is fast approaching, in April 2018, and then with income tax partially in 2019.

First Minister, one of the key arguments in favour of tax devolution has been increased accountability, but this relies on public awareness of where that responsibility lies. Do you agree with me that there is still a lack of awareness amongst large sections of the Welsh electorate out there, certainly the people who I speak to, and that’s not good in the medium and long term for that accountability? So, would you agree to look at ways that we can have a speedy awareness-raising campaign over the months and years ahead, as taxes are devolved to Wales, so that people in Wales can fully understand what taxes are being raised here, what’s being wa—raised in the UK and how we can move forward together?

I could mischievously say he used the word ‘wasted’ in the UK, but he meant ‘raised’, I know that. He makes a good point. I mean, it’s hugely important that people understand what happens here and there will be a communications plan in place to inform people of what is going to happen next year and indeed the year after. It’s hugely important that’s done, not just via the traditional media either. We saw in the general election that media such as Facebook were probably more powerful than the tabloid newspapers for the first time ever. So, a wide variety of media will be used in order to convey the message.

Powys teaching health board and Hywel Dda university health board are both committed to providing the best-quality and timely cancer care to their respective populations.

I thank the First Minister for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating Elly Neville who’s aged nine years old and has raised £109,500 for the support of work in ward 10 in Withybush hospital, where her father was treated for cancer? Although I acknowledge that the Welsh Government has been doing a great deal to try to reduce waiting times in hospitals for cancer treatment, we’re still missing the 62-day target by quite a bit, and that produces inevitable problems, like my other constituent whose wife is battling cancer for the second time and has had her application for treatment rejected both by the NHS in Wales and by London specialists and has gone to be treated privately, and instead of being given no hope, as she was by the NHS in Wales, has been given the information now that her cancer is capable of being treated.

I know that this is an inevitable problem with limited resources, but if we can provide the resources that are needed to treat all such sad cases, we’re never going to be faced with these difficult decisions in the first place, which is going to be to everybody’s advantage. So, can the First Minister perhaps give us a forward view of what he hopes his Government will be able to achieve in relation to cutting these waiting times and treatment decisions for cancer in the coming years of this Assembly?

Three things: first of all, in Powys, for example, the performance against the 62-day pathway has been 100 per cent on five occasions in the last 12 months. In Hywel Dda, more than 90 per cent of patients on the 62-day pathway were seen within target—it’s been about 90 per cent on six occasions in the past 12 months.

With regard to his constituent’s case, it’s very difficult for me to comment without knowing more about it. He’s welcome, of course, to write on his constituent’s behalf if he feels that that is appropriate. Elly I’ve met, so I know how enthusiastic and energetic she is, and she’s a great credit to her parents and indeed to Pembrokeshire and to Wales.

First Minister, radium-223 is a vital tool in fighting stage 4 prostate cancer. It is National Institute for Health and Care Excellence approved and has been implemented, I think via the new treatment fund, so far in north Wales. However, there is real drag here in the south. Neither Velindre hospital nor Singleton are yet ready to offer this. It is a nuclear medicine so it does require particular set-ups. However, I am told that when and if Velindre are able to offer it, it will then be available to the people in south-east Wales but not able to take on board patients who will be coming up from mid and west Wales. Of course, I’m deeply concerned about that, because a significant number of my constituents also suffer from prostate cancer. At the moment, everyone in south Wales has to go to Bristol to have this treatment—that doesn’t save a life, but it prolongs a life, and if it’s your life I’m sure that’s beyond important.

Could you please, First Minister, review this? Could you look at how north Wales have managed to implement this very vital strand of medicine, why it’s not happening in south Wales, what we can do to make sure that Velindre and/or Singleton get the opportunity to offer it, and that when it is here in south Wales it is offered equitably to every single constituent in Wales, no matter where they live?

There will be no question of people not being offered a treatment in one part of Wales if it’s available in other parts of Wales via the new treatment fund. That’s what the fund is designed to eradicate—the postcode lottery. Implementation of the fund is going well, but it’s not as consistent as I want it to be at the moment. Instructions have been given by the Cabinet Secretary to the health boards that he expects the situation to be consistent, certainly by the end of the summer, and then we will be at the point where the postcode lottery has been completely eradicated. It’s on the way to that happening now, but the health boards have been told very clearly that this is something that the Government will see done.

It was published in 2013, after wide public consultation. It made Wales an early adopter of the EU’s smart specialisation approach to innovation, and is regularly referenced by the independent Innovation Advisory Council for Wales.

Thank you, First Minister. The market disruption that’s accompanying what’s widely called the fourth industrial revolution does give us an opportunity to reimagine the Welsh economy and make it more resilient to the challenges being unleashed by global forces. The current Innovation Wales strategy does need updating and it does need greater ambition in the face of this. Would the First Minister agree to a radical review of where future opportunities lie, looking particularly at emerging markets and not just existing ones, and looking beyond infrastructure investment and concentrating on more intangible ways of boosting growth in this vital area?

Regular reviews are important, because we know that technology changes so quickly that things can move on at a rapid rate. We talk about innovation 4.0—that would have been unknown in 2012, for example, so he is right that there need to be reviews. He is right that we need to look at new ways of creating jobs. I have to say that the infrastructure is important, although we must define infrastructure in the broadest way possible, and that means, for example, including, as I always have done, broadband in infrastructure—that’s a way of ensuring that jobs can remain, for example, in rural communities, where otherwise they would have disappeared. Certainly, as a Government, we are committed to regularly reviewing Innovation Wales in order to make sure that the plan is as up to date as it can be.

Would the First Minister reconsider how the Innovation Wales strategy supports a digital cluster in south-east Wales, and, in particular, review what more could be done to support cross-border research and development, given the increasing importance of the Bristol economy in digital technology?

Well, clusters tend to emerge in those areas where there are already skills to support them and also where there are already businesses that exist in that area. That doesn’t mean, of course, they can’t be created elsewhere, but they are more difficult to create in areas where those skills are not as available. Nevertheless, we’d want to ensure that the clusters that are created are sustainable—that they are specialised—and, of course, we’d promote cross-border working. Indeed, we’d promote working across Europe and across the world, because in that way, of course, we can tap in to the best research and also the best advice as we look to develop the Welsh economy.

Two reports have been in Ministers’ hands for almost a year now, from Professor Kevin Morgan and others suggesting the creation of a national innovation body for Wales, similar to what the Scandinavian nations have. I understand that the suggestion being made now is that innovation should be given as a responsibility to the new tertiary education body. The risk with that is that the higher education dimension gets its proper place, but at the expense of the kind of broader economic issues that Lee Waters referred to.

We have to ensure that there is balance. We know that skills in the higher education sector are extremely important, particularly with, for example, Wylfa Newydd. Further education is also important in order for people to have the skills—practical skills—in order for them to secure jobs. We do understand that that balance is important, and, of course, this will be part of the way in which we consider this ultimately.

The national transport finance plan, published in 2015, sets out investment for transport and infrastructure and services for 2015-20 across all parts of Wales.

First Minister, a number of constituents have recently contacted me about the inadequacy of public transport links between the Cynon valley and Cardiff on Sundays, with, for example, infrequent services making it difficult for them to access employment opportunities, both within the capital and simply further down the Cynon valley itself. Under the south Wales metro, or any future revised rail franchise, how can we make sure that this is not the case and that there are appropriate opportunities to use public transport on Sundays?

It’s hugely important that we start to think of Sunday as a day that is not exactly like any other day, of course, but similar in terms of people’s work patterns. We are no longer a Sabbatarian nation and people do travel on Sundays, and, quite often, the public transport networks don’t reflect that. It is something that we will reflect on as part of the franchise negotiations. It’s hugely important that people are able to travel to work on a Sunday, as many people do now work, particularly in the retail sector, on a Sunday. So, this is something that we will consider as part of the roll-out of the metro and as part of the franchise.

First Minister, the frequency and reliability of services is crucial, and in terms of Arriva’s services, I really think that we need to see a dramatic improvement in such practices as cancelling services or stopping a service half way up the valley. If you want to get to Aberdare, it stops in Mountain Ash and you have to get off and wait for the next train. These are really important tests of a service, and I do not think that sort of service is acceptable.

It’s hugely important that people are able to travel on a reliable service and in comfort. There are many occasions where Members have drawn attention to a breakdown in that service over the years. From next year, of course, it is the responsibility of the Welsh Government, and we accept that. He should count himself lucky he was not in London yesterday, where I travelled back and fore on a Great Western train where there was no air conditioning at all. If I’d taken a rubber plant with me, it would have prospered in what were mid-30s temperatures—that is, centigrade—on the train itself. That was wholly unacceptable by Great Western. It’s wholly unacceptable for any train company to operate in that way. That’s why it’s so important with the new franchises, as they are allocated, that we look not just at frequency, but that we also look at the comfort that passengers experience when they’re on the trains, in order to make sure that more people use the trains.

Thank you, First Minister.

The next item on our agenda is the business statement and announcement, and I call on the leader of the house, Jane Hutt.

Diolch, Llywydd. There are several changes to business this week. The Business Committee has agreed to schedule a motion to allocate committee Chairs to political groups immediately after the business statement. The Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children will then make a statement on fire safety in Wales, the steps being taken following the Grenfell Tower fire. After this the First Minister will make a statement on ‘Brexit and Devolution: Securing Wales’ Future’. The Business Committee has also scheduled two motions tomorrow to seek the Assembly’s agreement of updated finance procedures and a new budget protocol. Business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement, found in the meeting papers that are available to Members electronically.

Good afternoon, leader of the house. May I ask you to beseech the Cabinet Secretary for health and social services to bring the statement back to the Chamber on school nurses that was postponed a fortnight ago? School nurses play an important role in Welsh schools, not just dealing with minor injuries, but also offering pastoral advice and general health information. A number of professionals were keen to learn of the contents of this statement and so were a great many Assembly Members. It is an issue of vital importance. We know how many of our young people suffer with mental health issues, suffer with items such as obesity, and to be able to understand clearly how the Welsh Government is going to support the role of school nurses would be of use to all of us. I would prefer this, please, leader of the house, to be an oral statement if at all possible, because I think that this is an issue that absolutely merits debate.

Thank you very much, Angela Burns. Of course, I think, shared across this Chamber, is recognition and applause for the role and the contribution that school nurses make across Wales on every level, in terms of prevention and the health and well-being of our children and young people. Certainly, I know there will be a chance to start, I’m sure, with questions tomorrow to the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport, but clearly this is something that the Cabinet Secretary will consider in terms of further opportunities.

I hosted a young carers event in the Senedd on Saturday, which was well attended, mostly by young carers from across Cardiff. I know that they told me there that you’re working on a card system so that young carers can identify in schools or in social settings that they are a carer, so that they get treatment that’s sensitive to what they need. But, almost all the young carers that I spoke to mentioned the fact that if they need to pick up a prescription and they’re under 16, in an emergency situation—. One of the girls who was there, her father is psychotic and needed to have medication urgently, but she was refused access to that medication because she was under 16. Many of them told me how they felt they weren’t respected because they weren’t able to pick up that medication. They weren’t wanting to use it for any other reason, apart from to give it to their loved ones. I want the Welsh Government to look at this and bring back a statement, to look if there are ways to be more flexible for those young carers who actually need to do this for very real reasons, and to try and communicate with them as to what you’re doing as a Government, generally, for young carers in Wales.

Bethan Jenkins brings a very important point to the Assembly this afternoon in terms of, I’m sure, all of us being engaged and recognising the role of carers as we look at Carers Week. But, specifically, you’re focusing on young carers and, of course, their needs are so often hidden and not understood unless we have the engagement, not only active engagement of schools—. And, indeed, we’ve already reflected on the role of school nurses, which is very relevant, I think, as well to the point you make particularly in terms of the responsibilities the young carers have. So, that is certainly something that I will discuss with the appropriate Cabinet Secretary and Minister in terms of taking on board those points.

People have been horrified by the Grenfell Tower fire and the failure of local and central Government to ensure that building controls are in place. I wondered if the Government could make a statement on how we could reinstate the powers of local government to be able to effectively inspect all new buildings, and indeed refurbished ones, to ensure that they are fit for people to live in, because local authorities have been absolutely stripped of both the resources and the expertise. And I am particularly concerned that contractors can now appoint their own building inspectors from an approved list, because that obviously opens up huge opportunities for corruption, and there are many cases, I’m afraid, that I’ve heard about in Cardiff where buildings are not up to the standard that they have been advertised as.

Well, clearly, Jenny Rathbone raises a very important point, which I know that the Cabinet Secretary, not only will be addressing, but there will be further questions in his statement in terms of, not only steps being taken following the tragic Grenfell Tower fire, but also in terms of the reviews that will have to be take place and, indeed, the scope of the public inquiry, which is being launched. But it is important that you raised the point today.

Cabinet Secretary, may I ask for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport on the establishment of a Welsh cricket team? It’s a fairy tale story that happened last weekend. On Sunday, the Pakistan cricket team, which was the lowest ranking cricket team in the world, won the world cup and there were some talents. The boys came from a remote part of the country; they were unheard of; they were not familiar with the British ground or conditions or weather or whatever it was. But the first match they lost and after that they beat India, South Africa and other top countries in the world. They won it. I think if Scotland, Ireland and other countries are involved in the ICC World Twenty20 and the ICC Cricket World Cup, why can’t we, Wales? I believe the time has come for Wales to have its own cricket team to compete on the world stage. We need to widen the pathway for Welsh players to play international cricket. In my view, the best interest of the sport in Wales would be served by Welsh players taking the field to play international cricket for Wales. Could we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary on this issue, please?

Well, I think Mohammad Asghar has got quite a lot of support across this Chamber for a statement on cricket for Wales, so I’ll see what I can do with the Cabinet Secretary.

Sunday was Father’s Day. Thousands of children across Wales would have been prevented from seeing their fathers. Could you give a Government statement on what the Government is doing to enable both parents to see their children, because something really should be being done?

I know Mark Isherwood spoke very powerfully last week about the role of fathers. That was pre Father’s Day, and you raise an important point, of course, Neil McEvoy, but this is something that is very clearly within the framework of our justice system, as well as positive parenting policies.

Can I welcome the change of business to actually resolve the outstanding matter of the chairmanship of CCERA? We’ve done very well and I commend the Members who’ve rotated through the chairmanship, having lost the Chair for a short period, but as anybody knows when you go without a Chair for a long period, you eventually do need to rest your legs. It’ll be good to have somebody in pole position there.

So, as one of the small but perfectly formed group of Welsh Labour and Co-operative Party Assembly Members, now joined, noticeably, by the biggest number ever of UK Labour and Co-operative Party Members in the UK Parliament, we’re keen to celebrate the Co-operatives Fortnight, which showcases the growing movement of co-operatives across the UK and, indeed, across the globe. So, what better way to mark that than to request a debate here in the Senedd, where we can highlight the role of the UK co-operative economy? A debate that would allow us to discuss a real alternative found in the co-operative economy, now valued at £35.7 billion in the UK, with over 226,000 employees in over 6,000 co-ops, covering housing, transport, farmers, food producers, healthcare, social care, renewables and retail, from community enterprises to multimillion-pound businesses. It would be a good chance to hear that there is a different, alternative and successful way of doing business, where the customers and the employee are valued, not just the balance sheet and the shareholders.

Huw Irranca-Davies draws attention to the very good result from the general election, which has meant that we have more Welsh Labour and Co-operative Members of Parliament, joining, of course, the Welsh Labour and Co-operative Members here. This is a very important point, which is not just shared by Welsh Labour; I know that there is a strong spirit in this Assembly, not just in terms of Labour, but with colleagues in Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Conservatives, although I’m not sure about that party over there. But I think the points you make are very important. The contribution in terms of the economy and the opportunity to debate that, I think, would be very welcome, and I hope that would be embraced across the whole of this Chamber. So, I think that we should then table a debate accordingly.

Leader of the house, could we have a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for Education in light of the comments from the First Minister that seem to have reinstated the PISA target for 2021, after her assertion in the Children, Young People and Education Committee meeting last Thursday? I do think it is vitally important that everyone with an interest in education does know who is running education here in Wales. Is it in the gift of the Cabinet Secretary for Education, or is it the First Minister overruling the Cabinet Secretary for Education in setting the goals and objectives for the department and, indeed, the education system here in Wales? Because we all want to see improvement in our education system, and we all want to see consistency in that improvement, but what we witnessed this afternoon was a complete dislocate between the Cabinet Secretary and the head of the Government, the First Minister. So, can we have a statement to clarify exactly who is running the education system here in Wales?

I think the First Minister made the position absolutely clear this afternoon and, in fact, you had three opportunities to ask the question and he responded to, again, confirm his position. Achieving 500 in 2021 remains the Welsh Government’s target. And, of course, I think it is important to say that the target is just one diagnostic indicator amongst many others, such as GCSE performance and the closing of the attainment gap, school categorisation and Estyn inspections. But the First Minister made the position absolutely clear.

Thank you, leader of the house.

The next item is a motion to allocate committee Chairs to political groups, and I call on the leader of the house to move the motion formally—Jane Hutt.

Formally.

Diolch, Llywydd. I want to put on record this afternoon my extreme disappointment at the changes that are taking place in relation to the reallocation of committee Chairs following Mark Reckless’s decision to leave the UKIP group and join the Welsh Conservative group. Now, the Presiding Officer—[Interruption.] Now, the Presiding Officer made it quite clear—[Interruption.] The Presiding Officer made it quite clear in her determination that Mark Reckless is indeed a member of the Welsh Conservative group, and that means that the number of members of the opposition now stands at 12 for the Welsh Conservative group, 11 for Plaid Cymru, and five for UKIP. It’s my view that the Assembly should honour and respect the Presiding Officer’s determination, and, indeed, the decision of the Member to join another political group. And, therefore, the Welsh Conservative group should be allocated three committee Chairs and Plaid Cymru two committee Chairs, not the other way around. However, it has become clear in this morning’s Business Committee meeting that the other political parties in this place do not share my view. It is unacceptable and frankly worrying that the National Assembly for Wales proposes to operate in this manner. We on this side of the Chamber are objecting to this motion as a matter of principle, given that this particular change is taking place without due regard for the entire political balance of this Assembly. In fact, Standing Order 17.2R quite clearly states, and I quote:

‘Where the position of chair becomes vacant, the Business Committee:

‘(i) must consider the effects of that vacancy on the balance of committee chairs between political groups’.

Therefore, it’s clear that the decision to allow Plaid Cymru to continue with three committee Chairs versus our two breaks that Standing Order. It is not right that an opposition party in this institution with fewer members now has more committee Chairs, and this could have serious implications in the future for this institution. This sends the message that it doesn’t manner how many Members your group has in this place, all that matters is your ability to make deals regardless of any political balance. If this motion is passed—[Interruption.] If this motion is passed without due regard for the entire political balance, then it has become clear that two thirds of the Assembly no longer—

I do want the views to be heard. Paul Davies. That means be quiet, basically.

Diolch, Llywydd. If this motion is passed without due regard for the entire political balance, then it has become clear that two thirds of the Assembly no longer support a balanced Assembly that reflects the political balance of its Members. Therefore, in closing, Llywydd, I believe that this is a very sad day indeed for the National Assembly and its operations. I sincerely hope that future Governments and business managers will decide to reflect the political balance of this institution when co-ordinating Assembly business, so that the people of Wales can have full confidence that the Assembly is working in an open, transparent, and democratic manner.

Tomorrow, there is a motion from Plaid Cymru proposing that the National Assembly for Wales asserts itself as the national parliament of Wales—except it seems when it comes to a consistent approach to Standing Orders, particularly when they inconvenience—[Interruption.] Particularly when they inconvince Plaid Cymru—[Interruption.] I’m sorry?

Okay, okay—

Is that the intervention?

[Continues.]—calm down. The Member has only just started his speech. Carry on, Mark Reckless.

The motion, Llywydd, that you’ve put forward proposes we should act in accordance with Standing Orders 17.2R and 17.2A, but what about Standing Order 17.2B? That states:

‘In tabling a motion under Standing Order 17.2A, the Business Committee must have regard to the need to ensure that the balance of chairs across committees reflects the political groups to which Members belong.’

If this motion passes today, that will not be the case. This group has 12 members, that group has 11 members. Yet they have two Chairs, and we have three. That’s a clear breach of Standing Order 17.2.

We also have a Business Committee that should be determining this motion, yet is the reality not that that Business Committee meeting was suspended so that the Plaid Cymru and the Labour representative could go outside the room and agree between themselves what the motion should be, and that decision was then adopted by Business Committee? We should apply our Standing Orders, we should apply them consistently, and if the reality is that Plaid Cymru and Labour will stitch up deals—not between themselves, according to their own proper business, as and when they may, but according to the Standing Orders of this Assembly, and breach those without regard to what the rules of this institution say, then how can you put forward that motion tomorrow, asserting that we should be considered the national parliament for Wales, when you behave in that manner?

There are no other speakers to this motion. And, before I move on to asking for a vote on this, I do need to say that, during our deliberations since the Chair became a vacant Chair on 6 April—. During our deliberations in the Business Committee, the relevant provisions of the Standing Orders, our Standing Orders, have been made—all members of the Business Committee have been made aware of those provisions. And I have encouraged Members to reach agreement as soon as possible as to how the vacancy should be filled. After numerous discussions within the committee, over a period of weeks—and, I’m sure, outside the committee as well—the motion before you this afternoon represents the proposal that has the greatest degree of cross-party support.

Y cwestiwn yw, felly: a ddylid derbyn y cynnig? A oes unrhyw Aelod yn gwrthwynebu? [Gwrthwynebiad.] Felly, gohiriaf y bleidlais ar y cynnig yma tan y cyfnod pleidleisio.

The next item on our agenda is the statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Communities and Children on fire safety in Wales, and the steps being taken following the Grenfell Tower fire. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make a statement—Carl Sargeant.

Thank you, Llywydd. Everyone is, of course, horrified by the tragic fire at Grenfell Tower in west London last week. On behalf of the Welsh Government, and, I’m sure, those of the whole Assembly, I should like to convey my deepest sympathies to those who have been affected by it.

Everyone wants to understand what happened and how to prevent it from happening again. This is just as true in Wales as it is elsewhere, and I am determined to ensure we learn the lessons and act upon them. We will approach this thoroughly and comprehensively. However, some of those lessons are already reasonably clear. Buildings like Grenfell Tower are constructed so that a fire in a single flat can be contained and therefore extinguished before it spreads. This is a critical safety feature for residents of high-rise buildings. Its catastrophic failure at Grenfell Tower accounted for the tragic outcome. While we must await the findings of the fire investigation, it appears that the direct cause of that failure may have been the use of combustible cladding on the outside of the building. Once the fire spread to the cladding, there was little the London fire brigade could do to contain it.

We have therefore completed a first round of urgent discussions with all residential social landlords in Wales. Between them, they own 36 blocks of flats of seven or more storeys. Social landlords have told us none appear to be fitted with the type of cladding used at Grenfell Tower. Seven blocks in Wales have been retrofitted with sprinklers, and, of course, where any new or converted high-rise residential blocks are developed here, under the changes introduced as part of the Domestic Fire Safety Measure (Wales) 2011, they would be required to include sprinklers. The requirements were introduced for flats and houses on 1 January 2016.

Installing sprinklers in new housing and as part of refurbishment programmes, which some Welsh councils and housing associations have already done, will go a long way to minimising the risk of death and injury from fire. I hope this gives some immediate assurance to residents of those premises. That, though, is not the end of the matter, and there is certainly no cause for complacency. A fire or any other disaster on this scale does not have just one cause. There was probably a whole chain of failures that led to the events of last week. These may have included the design and refurbishment of the building, the immediate cause of the fire, the raising of the alarm and the accessibility of the premises for firefighters.

All of that needs to be analysed and understood if we are to prevent similar tragedies in future, whether in high-rise social housing or other premises indeed. We are therefore setting up an expert group, including representatives from the social housing and fire sectors, which will be chaired by my chief fire and rescue adviser. It will examine all of the lessons coming out from the Grenfell Tower tragedy and their application to Wales. It will also consider how prepared we are to deal with such an incident if that occurs. Our civil contingency capability has been amply demonstrated, most recently in the Champions League final. But responding to a disaster on the scale of Grenfell Tower would be a different matter altogether. So, again, we need to make certain our capability to do that, and that lessons from the emerging events in London are learnt.

At the same time, I and my officials are in regular contact with counterparts in England and Scotland to ensure that we pool intelligence and share learning. This process is at a very early stage and it will be some time before the full truth about what happened in Grenfell Tower is known. However, I and my colleagues are completely committed to acting on the findings, while doing all that we can do in the meantime to keep the people of Wales safe from fire. Llywydd, I will make a further statement to the Assembly as work progresses.

Llywydd, can I join with the Cabinet Secretary in expressing our deepest sympathy for all those bereaved and to say that the victims are in our thoughts and prayers at the moment? The Grenfell Tower fire was truly appalling and must lead to a comprehensive review of fire safety regulations. Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for making such a prompt statement? I definitely think that was the appropriate way to proceed. I’d just like to raise some issues that I think need to be examined and no doubt the Cabinet Secretary will do that either this afternoon or as a result of the various inquiries that are now taking place.

I understand from Community Housing Cymru that half of their members’ tower blocks that were built in the 1960s have been fitted with sprinklers. This means, therefore, that half have not. But I note, from the information I’ve had from Cardiff, that sometimes sprinklers are in bin chutes and not elsewhere. So, I think we need to look at this. There may be sprinklers in buildings but we need to be assured that they are where they need to be, also, within those buildings.

Can I move to cladding and insulation? We do need to be reassured that any cladding in place is fire resistant. We’re obviously moving to cladding as many buildings as possible to meet new energy requirements, but I’m sure many people have been shocked that it may be a fault in the cladding material or how it is installed that has been a material cause in this tragedy. I’m sure that will come as a shock and a surprise to many people. So, we need an audit immediately, I think, of these materials and how they have been installed.

I know that we’ve been told by the likes of Cardiff council and CHC that high-quality insulation materials have generally been used, such as Rockwool, but again there’s an issue of installation and we need to know that there aren’t the presence of inadequate materials somewhere in our housing stock.

Can I turn to planning? I was reassured to hear that the Cabinet Secretary is going to look at how local authorities develop and plan. Their emergency plans clearly need to be robust. I think we’ve all followed the news and heard the criticisms of the quality of the initial response. Some of the failings, I think, are because the scale of the tragedy was not fully planned for. One can understand, I suppose, in some ways, that one doesn’t want to make these preparations, but, of course, it is part of the duty of the civic authorities to be prepared for appalling possibilities like this occurring. And I think how to involve residents and volunteers in the way the community and the authorities respond is very important.

I now turn briefly to building controls. Again, I hope that the expert group that has been set up—and I welcome this, as I think that, again, is an appropriate thing to do—will be able to look at building controls and standards. These are minimum standards and they need to be reviewed and updated regularly. It’s most important to know, in relation to both the materials and how they are installed, how building regulations operate effectively. Building regulations is a system that is based on compliance and not on inspection—a point that was referred to earlier. I think, again, we need to be assured that this is adequate, because leaving it to the responsibility of those undertaking the works or building for the first time does create a weakness in the system if there is not, at least on a selective basis, some prospect of inspection so that we can be assured that compliance is seen as a system that can operate in general terms.

I welcome the further statement that he’s going to make and can I urge that that statement is an oral one? Thank you.

I thank the Member for his questions and the conversations that we’ve had offline of Plenary. First of all, the issue of sprinklers and the installation and appropriateness of them. As the Member will be aware, we introduced a Measure for new builds and retrofit builds. Some of the high-rise blocks have been already installed. That will be part of the investigation by the team and the chief fire officer, to see what the extent of that provision is, particularly in the high-rise block at this moment. I think, what I’m hoping to be able to do is a two-part programme of assessment. So, where we take the major risk of high-rise blocks of flats like the tower block in London, we’re going to have a very quick investigation into those and then move on to other potential risk buildings as well, of the lower level.

In terms of cladding, early indications, as I said earlier, would indicate that no buildings have been installed with cladding similar to the one that was used at the Grenfell Tower flats. However, in line with concerns and to give additional certainty, these will all be inspected and I’ve also instructed my team—I think there are only 18 samples required—that 18 samples be removed and tested by the agencies appropriately to give us assurance of that. Both inspection and quality is an important process in terms of ensuring confidence for residents.

I don’t believe that the systems in place are in the same condition as that of those in some English authorities. I do believe that we are ahead of the curve, but we are not complacent. I think we’ve got a lower stock level and, therefore, we’re able to manage that in a different way. But the registered social landlords and local authorities are very keen to ensure that they are feeding back detail on that.

In terms of building regulations, this is split between Lesley Griffiths and myself. Lesley Griffiths manages building regulations, but we are working very closely together in terms of making sure that building regulations and safety certificates are appropriate, and we will look at that as part of the review. The chief fire officer will report on that. I will, as I said in the statement, make a further detailed statement once we have some more information from the UK Government.

I, too, would like to offer my condolences to those who lost their lives in this tragic circumstance. I’d also like to praise the Welsh volunteers who were in the media today and who have gone and helped those at Grenfell, and I would like to encourage that to happen. Where we can see that there is human tragedy across borders, then we should try and help others, as far as I’m concerned. But it is also a message to us all that we need to be proactive in these issues, and we shouldn’t be reactive when it comes to issues like safety. It’s important that we are at the front of the political agenda in this regard.

Many of my comments or questions are in relation to your consultation on ‘Building Regulations Update—Approved Documents A, B & C’ from last year. Part B relates to fire safety in particular. In that consultation, it was noted that the consultation proposed, and I quote, the same changes as the Department of Communities and Local Government have made in England. The English impact assessment identified significant benefits, one of those being reduced costs to development and manufacturers, together with energy efficiency and carbon savings. Now, can you tell me that you’re absolutely satisfied that these savings do not compromise safety in England and would not compromise safety here in Wales? We know, sometimes, that costs seem to override other things, and, in this instance, as we know from this occasion, it should not come before safety.

The sections relating to lighting notes there are some issues, because certain types of lighting are more susceptible to causing fire, yet are more energy efficient, and I quote:

‘This presents a growing conflict between the provisions for fire safety and those for energy efficiency.’

Can the Cabinet Secretary clarify the regulations and any plans relating to lighting installation safety in particular? In this particular consultation, as well, you responded as a Government saying that it was awaiting outcomes from a European Commission project into the regulation of smoke and toxic gas before making any revisions regulating this. Has your position now changed on that particular issue?

As has been mentioned earlier, Wales has led the way in terms of sprinkler provision to some extent, and I know that Ann Jones deserves praise for that. We know, as David Melding has said, that housing authorities are installing sprinkler systems in many areas, and Community Housing Cymru has sent us that briefing. But this still hasn’t happened in many of them and we need to make sure that this does happen. So, do you have any plans to strengthen regulations regarding the installation of sprinklers, and have you had any discussions regarding making more funding available for that to take place in older buildings?

In the communities committee, you came and we scrutinised you last September, and I asked you specifically about safety regulations regarding appliance and device fires, as there has been a rise in fires relating to these issues. It was also noted that Electrical Safety First has been lobbying you on this for some time. You implied to the committee that you didn’t see legislation as being required as certain aspects were covered previously as part of the wider housing Bill. As a precautionary measure—as I started this statement by saying—to try and be proactive, will you now commit to looking into how electrical safety and the risks associated with appliance and device fires potentially need changing, or if there’s anything you can do in terms of improved regulation?

I note that there is going to be an inquiry in London, of course, and I would be interested to find out, when the parameters of that inquiry come into play, how you will be feeding into that inquiry on a Wales basis. I note too that Scotland has set up its own review. I’m wondering why you’ve opted for an expert group over carrying out a root-and-branch review in Wales. I understand that they will be trying to do that in a different way, but can you just satisfy me as to why you haven’t decided to do a review in and of itself, and how this expert group will take into regard the issues with regard to this consultation? Because I, personally, don’t know where many of the issues that were raised in the building regulations update consultation have gone, and I don’t think we can now rest on our laurels. We have to make sure that this becomes a political priority, perhaps in tragic circumstances, yes, but then it can stop anything like this ever happening again, and make sure as well that tenants feel listened to. Because I think, from watching the news, that seemed to be one of the biggest concerns—tenants did raise concerns. We have to make sure that we have avenues in place for tenants to feel that they can make those complaints without feeling that they will be reprimanded in any way, because they’re only raising those concerns for the safety of themselves and for the safety of their neighbours.

Of course, and I thank the Member for her constructive questions. In terms of the detailed questions on the building regulations specifically, they do lie with Lesley Griffiths. What I will do is ask the Minister to write to you, but put a copy of those responses in the library for Members too.

In terms of fire and fire application, what happened in Grenfell Tower fire was tragic. It’s still unknown about the cause of ignition there, but what we do know is that fires in Wales have been reduced by over 50 per cent since devolution of the fire service. So, fires are becoming less frequent here, despite the tragic events that did take place there. We need to learn lessons from that, and whether that was through appliance or otherwise, we still have to wait to find out what actually caused the fire and what the catalyst was for the fire to move so quickly within the building structure.

I’m very keen to ensure that residents have a view on the quality of their housing stock and their relationship with RSLs and local authorities, and I will ensure that continues. I think we’ve got, again, a very different relationship—what happens in Wales and what happens in England.

With regard to the inspection regime that I’ve asked my chief fire officer and team to look at, this is a very specific piece of work on the high-rise blocks of flats of seven storeys or more. Currently, there are 31 of them and, therefore, that will be a very quick piece of work. I spoke to the housing Minister in Westminster on Saturday afternoon, and I spoke to the Scottish Minister yesterday morning, and we are working on a collective piece of work about how we can share this intelligence. I don’t think it makes any sense for us to do three pieces of separate work. The piece of work I’ve instigated is about our very particular stock and, therefore, that will feed into the overall principle of what we work to together, but I will keep the Member informed.

Thanks to the Minister for his statement today. Yes, this was a major tragedy. I would also like to offer my condolences. As you say, the main thing is that we do learn lessons from it and ensure nothing like that happens in Wales in the future. I think your action in swiftly setting up the expert group is welcome. There are various points that have been made. Bethan made the very valid point that there’s evidence that the tenants group in London actually did warn about a fire previously, so I wondered whether there was any way of, perhaps, regularising procedures whereby tenants groups interact with their landlords, housing associations or local authorities. I wondered what you thought about that.

There are seeming discrepancies about the provision of sprinklers in older blocks. Seemingly, Swansea and Flintshire do have sprinklers already, but Cardiff doesn’t. So, I’m not sure why there is a discrepancy, but perhaps that needs to be addressed.

Another aspect was student accommodation, because there are large student halls of residence that have been constructed recently in Cardiff, and probably in Swansea and Newport as well. I don’t know whether any of them would be brought into the category of high-rise blocks or whether the provisions they’ve got in those buildings need to be looked at.

I don’t know if Jenny Rathbone is speaking in this one, so I’ll just return to the point she made earlier, which was a very specific point about the powers of local government being restored in relation to building inspections. I know that may be slightly beyond your remit, but if you have any thoughts on that, they would be welcome. Thank you.

Thank you. The Member will be aware that we already fund tenants participation groups to feed back into Government and also to local authorities and RSLs, in the way that operates. Already, RSLs do work very closely with their groups, independently of the tenants participation groups, in addition to that.

The nature of the sprinkler programme—some buildings are affected for future use by the sprinkler Measure, which we introduced in the Assembly in 2011. The issue with the buildings the Member talked about will be retrofitting, which doesn’t come under the Measure. However, this is something I’ve asked the fire inspector to look at in particular.

I listened carefully to Jenny’s points around the independent inspectors, and your contribution also. I don’t have any evidence to suggest that the independent inspectors are acting inappropriately in their inspection regime. If the Member has any evidence of that, I would be very interested in the detail of that, but I have noted the comments and I will ask my team to look at that specifically.

Can I thank the Minister for his statement today and place on record my condolences too for those who lost their lives last week? I’m very grateful to Bron Afon Community Housing for meeting with me very promptly last week to discuss the repercussions of this terrible tragedy for Torfaen. As you’ll be aware, Cabinet Secretary, we have three high-rise blocks in Torfaen, and, thankfully, they’ve all been retrofitted with sprinklers. However, there is still anxiety in the community, and I understand from Bron Afon that the sprinklers are currently tested six monthly, so I would be interested to know whether there is any view in Government as to whether six monthly is the right interval to test those sprinklers, or whether there is likely to be any further guidance forthcoming.

Similarly, the fire exercises in the high-rise blocks are also undertaken six monthly, and I would be interested in your views on the timeliness of that. There is, as I’m sure you’re aware, a lot of anxiety now out there, and I’ve been contacted by many constituents who are very worried following the events last week, and many of them live in lower rise buildings in Torfaen—none of which have sprinklers and all of which have had external cladding fitted. So, I would be interested in your comments, particularly on how quickly you will be able to move to reassure the public, through inspection and other measures, about the safety of those lower rise buildings. But it also strikes me that housing providers—and in Torfaen all the housing stock has been transferred—have an absolutely crucial role to play now in ensuring that there is reassurance given to the public and that communication is very clear. Bron Afon have issued a very brief ‘frequently asked questions’, but it certainly doesn’t answer all the questions I’ve given them, and I would personally like to see more detailed information given, not just to tenants, but also to leaseholders and other residents affected. So, I would be interested to know what guidance you are giving to housing providers on how that communication should take place, because I don’t think it should just be a sheet of paper. It needs to be face to face, there needs to be use of social media, and the whole variety of modes used. Thank you.

I thank the Member for her questions and the conversations we’ve had, also, around this. On the issue of six-monthly testing of both alarms and sprinkler services, we have to be a little bit cautious that what we don’t do is push the testing system into a frenzy. What happened in London was tragic, and we have to learn about what the events were that led to that process. It is clear that there are some fundamental failures within some of the spend there, in terms of whether that be cladding or whether that be operational issues within the building itself. It is my job, and that of RSLs and local authorities, to give people living in tower blocks or in other accommodation in Wales confidence that they are as safe as they can be within the systems that we operate, and I believe the six-month testing rule is appropriate where things are in place to ensure the safety continues.

In terms of the lower blocks and accommodation, the reason why we’ve gone for the seventh floor and above is because the aerial platforms of fire authorities can’t reach anything beyond that, whereas all the buildings that the Member talked about are accessible for the fire service, and I hope that gives confidence to your residents and constituents. On the issue of the lagging that we used and the issues around the WHQS, it’s not just about an environmental issue; this is about making sure the internals and externals of the envelope of the building are upgraded. So, it’s not just about energy conservation, but actually it makes a better living solution for the people in those properties, and we are not aware of the same material being used as it was in London anywhere in those processes in Wales. So, I do hope we can give your constituents and all constituents across Wales confidence that the conditions we have in place, with the regulations that are in place, are a safe environment for them to live in.

The first thing I’d like to do is offer my condolences to all those who have been affected by this, but also my thanks, alongside everybody else, to those who helped in the rescue of those individuals and the support thereafter. I don’t want to repeat some of the comments that have been said, but I do think that there is one very obvious statement that has to be made here today, and that is that not one single person in the UK has ever died in a building where a fire sprinkler has been fitted. And I will leave further comments on that to my colleague Ann Jones, who I hope will take part in this debate later on.

What I want to bring your attention to are some of the issues that haven’t been mentioned here in the Chamber this morning: the issue about stairways in high-rise blocks or houses of multiple occupation, and whether you consider, when we are moving forward in looking at when planning is being granted, that they must have some multiple stairways, so that they can provide different routes in and out, as has been evidenced as being probably a positive move forward by the experts who attended this most dreadful scene. I would also ask that the standard of the materials that are being used is seriously examined, because we have some dispute about that at the moment. It is clear, whatever that dispute is, possibly, that the standard of the materials that were used may well have complied with the existing guidance, but it seems possible that the existing guidance wasn’t stringent enough.

The other thing I would ask you to consider, Cabinet Secretary: we all know that letting agents play a major role in people seeking accommodation, whether that’s students or others, within the city. I would like to suggest that letting agents also secure some fire safety certificates from those landlords of HMOs so that those people then moving into those accommodations can feel at least confident that those checks have been made.

I thank the Member for her comments. I think today, certainly, is not a day for the politics of sprinklers. We in Wales made a conscious decision to introduce sprinklers into legislation, and it hopefully will have a positive effect in terms of the relationship that the Member makes reference to. What we’ve got to remember is that these buildings—particularly around Grenfell Tower and some of the older, larger multi-storey buildings—are pre-1976 build, and the building regulations are pre-1974. We’ve moved a long way in that process now, into modern-day proposals. But what we’ve got to ensure is, when there are alterations made to those buildings, that they comply with modern standards, and therefore the quality of the workmanship on those buildings is paramount to ensure that we get that right. As I said earlier, I will be asking the chief fire officer to give me a full report on the buildings currently in situ, then we’ll move on to the next phase in terms of what happens with other buildings of less risk, albeit still carrying a risk. I think it’s going to have to be a two-stage approach in terms of that, alongside the building regulations and fire safety certificates. My understanding is that the current fire certificates are only considered for the internals of a building. So, the cladding element of a building would not be counted in that. Maybe that’s something that we should consider as we move forward as well.

Cabinet Secretary, thank you for your statement today, and the speed with which you brought it forward. Our thoughts and prayers are, of course, with the victims and their families of the terrible fire that consumed the Grenfell Tower in west London last week. The images were truly horrific and will live with many people for the rest of their lives. We need to ensure that nothing similar happens anywhere in the UK again.

I’m pleased that you’ve had discussions with social landlords. You said earlier that cladding of the type used on the Grenfell Tower and the cladding that increasingly seems to have been responsible for spreading the fire so quickly has not been fitted to buildings in Wales. I think you’re right on that. However, we need to be absolutely clear that the cladding that has been used is as safe as it possibly can be. Are you confident, from your discussions—and I appreciate this is early days—that the other types of cladding that have been used are appropriate? And can I concur with David Melding’s call for an audit of the materials that have been used? Because many materials might not have been as bad or as flammable as those used in the Grenfell Tower, but materials will have their flammability level. So, we need to be sure that, in any situation of fire and heat, those materials will be as safe as possible and not spread a fire in the same way that happened last week.

Secondly, it wasn’t just the materials themselves that were to blame. Again, it looks increasingly the case that it was the way that they were fitted to the building: on a framework, and with a gap between the material and the facade of the original building. In that situation, the gap that’s created can result in a funnel effect—a chimney. It seems as though the fire actually spread up behind the cladding once it burnt through it, and then reached the upper levels of the building. So, it’s not just the cladding; it’s the way that it’s attached as well. So, can you ensure that any audit looks at the way that cladding on Welsh buildings has been fitted?

Can I finally call for a review? I think Bethan Jenkins—and other Members—called for a review of building regulations in Wales. I’m not saying that there’s anything wrong with the regs that we’ve got, but I think this is a fast-moving situation and any lessons that can be learned from the tragedy last week, and changes that can be implemented here to ensure that doesn’t happen again, will be welcome. As Lynne Neagle said, there is a need at the moment—and we do appreciate the fact that there are more sprinklers fitted in Welsh buildings than is the case with these types of buildings, certainly, in London and England—but there is a need to reassure people living in those flats, and with social landlords, that they are living in safety. Finally, we need to look at the guidance as well. I believe that, in the case last week, people were told to stay in their homes. That possibly wasn’t the right advice. I know that we do have sprinklers here, which makes the situation different, but can you look at the guidance so that people can have absolute confidence that they are doing the right thing if and when these sorts of tragedies occur?

Thank you. As I indicated earlier, I agree with the Member with regard to the make-up of the composite of the materials, and I’ve asked for samples to be taken from all of the buildings that hold lagging—multi-storey buildings—for inspection. They will be tested, irrespective of what we understand of the product already, although we do know that it’s not the same system that was used in London as in our services. Nevertheless, to give confidence to people in Wales, I think we should do that as the bare minimum.

In terms of the building regs, I would err on the side that we are stronger in some cases in terms of the development of our building regs. They have been reviewed recently, but I’m sure the Minister and myself will have further conversations about how we may need to strengthen them post the review of the fire service inspectorate.

In terms of sprinklers, the Members is also right to raise this issue. The Member will be aware that I was heavily criticised for introducing more red tape into the system and for introducing more cost into the system, by builders and other interested parties. I didn’t regret it then and I do not regret it now—this is the very reason why we need to ensure that we have safe buildings for people, and sprinklers are the option. I hope that other parts of the country will take that on board too.

In terms of the guidance issued, we are confident that the guidance issued by RSLs and local authorities is appropriate where the building framework acts appropriately. What we saw in Grenfell Tower, where residents were told to stay in situ, was that that would have been fine subject to fire doors working properly, or fire doors being installed properly. There is an awful lot of detail to come from the investigation into Grenfell Tower, but our guidance and practices are being reviewed and we will consider that as we move forward.

Like other Members, I would add my condolences to all those affected by these tragic events. I also want to place on record my thanks to colleagues from the emergency services and in particular my former colleagues, both firefighters and control-room staff, many of whom will be returning to the scene of that tragedy for some days, and for some considerable time, which reawakens all of the issues that many of them have faced.

Minister, thanks to the First Minister, and to you—and you’ve alluded to it—together will colleagues in this Chamber, Wales did pass that legislation requiring mandatory fitting of sprinklers into all new home builds, and we became the first country to do so. Like you, having faced a barrage of opposition, I still feel that what we did was right, and I stand by what we did, and I stand shoulder to shoulder with you and the First Minister for that very brave decision that you took. I believe that will serve our communities well in the future, and if that’s what we are as politicians—that’s what we’re about; protecting our communities.

Now, there have been lots of calls about retrofitting with sprinklers, and there is some good research. Lynne Neagle mentioned that Bron Afon have retrofitted sprinklers in their high-rises, but there’s also another piece of research at Callow Mount in Sheffield, which does need to have an airing amongst people who are looking at retrofitting. As you said to my colleague Joyce Watson, today is not the day to talk about the introduction of sprinklers, but the day will come when we should be pushing for more sprinklers, for the legislation to be reactivated, and activated elsewhere. When that day does come, Minister, will you join with me in doing all we can to show that other parts of the UK, and indeed other countries in the world, can learn from the brave decisions that you as a Welsh Government took in passing sprinkler legislation?

I thank Ann Jones for her contribution again, and, I suppose, congratulations—only last week the Member received an award, an international award, based on the legislation that she pursued as an individual Member’s debate. As a former firefighter, I have never seen such a ferocious fire as I saw at the Grenfell Tower block fire. Something significantly went wrong in that space, and I pay tribute to the emergency services and volunteers and family members who tried to rescue individuals in that community. It must be a tragic event that will tower over those communities for many years to come.

I think the Member is right to raise the issue of the importance of the legislation, the brave move I think we did take in terms of the lobbying that we received on the back of introduction. But I, likewise, with the Member, think we were right to do that then, and we are right to continue with that programme into the future.

And finally, Jeremy Miles.

Can I also extend my condolences to those who lost their lives and lost their homes in the Grenfell Tower, which is an example of what happens when a society fails to protect the most powerless in the place where they should feel safest? Most of the questions I have have been answered. I have two outstanding questions. Firstly, what arrangements will be in place between the Welsh Government and the UK Government inquiry to ensure that Welsh Government has timely access to evidence given to that inquiry, so that lessons can be learnt in real time? Secondly, where culpable parties are identified as part of the chain of causation, what steps will the Welsh Government take to ascertain whether those parties have been involved in any Welsh public procurement?

I thank the Member for his question. I spoke to the UK Minister, as I said, on Saturday afternoon, and the Scottish Minister yesterday. We are in early discussions about what that review may look like and how the interfaces between the three Governments will look at that, and I will continue to inform the Assembly of the detail of that as that comes forward. As to the Member’s latter question, it is a little bit premature on the basis that we haven’t had the review yet, and I will caution on offering advice on that, but we will look at that very carefully, subject to any evidence coming forward.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on our agenda is the statement by the First Minister on Brexit and devolution: securing Wales’s future. And I call on the First Minister to make his statement—Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Llywydd. Just about everyone can agree that leaving the European Union is a step of massive importance for Wales and the UK as a whole, and in a whole range of ways. The EU we will leave is much bigger and more complex than the Common Market, which we joined all those years ago, and it’s precisely because of this that leaving is an even bigger step than joining was. So, the challenges are many. They have been thrown into sharper relief by the general election result, and this, in my judgment, makes it inevitable that the UK Government will have to radically reshape its approach to this most crucial issue of the day, and, dare I say it, move closer to the balanced and coherent position set out in the joint Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru white paper, ‘Securing Wales’ Future’.

Of course, I welcome the fact that the first meeting between the UK Government and the European Commission yesterday went well, but this is just the first step on a long and complicated journey. Members will be clear that, for the Welsh Government, it is securing jobs and the economic prosperity of our nation that is right at the top of our agenda for Brexit. That has not changed and will not change. But today I want to focus on the implications of leaving the EU for devolution, and for the future governance of the UK.

Llywydd, first off, while acknowledging the result of last year’s referendum, let’s also remind ourselves that devolution is itself the product of two referendums here in 1997 and again in 2011: in the second of these, two thirds of voters voted in favour of the Assembly acquiring powers over primary legislation.

I hope we can agree across this Chamber that devolution, as endorsed in those referendums, represents the settled will of the Welsh people and is not something to be treated lightly by the UK Government, any more than it could ignore the EU referendum result. We roundly reject the UK Government’s assertion in the White Paper it published before the election that devolution is in any sense premised on UK’s membership of the EU. On the contrary, the demand for devolution is a freely expressed ambition of the Welsh people and the fact of EU membership at the time when devolution began was, in that sense, a purely practical feature of our arrangements. The task now, therefore, is to acknowledge the force of the various referendums by finding new arrangements for governing the UK that give practical effect to Brexit while taking full account of the permanence of devolution in the UK constitution.

The document before us today, ‘Brexit and Devolution’, builds on ideas we first tabled in ‘Securing Wales’ Future’, published jointly with Plaid Cymru back in January, and is the first of a series that will explore key issues arising from Brexit. There’s much to think about and discuss and that’s why we aim to stimulate debate here in the Assembly and beyond.

Leaving the EU will create new governance challenges here. We don’t yet know for certain how far, if at all, we will continue to align UK regulatory networks with those of the EU after Brexit, or whether we will remain in a customs union with the EU. But it’s certain that co-ordination of policies, which has previously taken place in Brussels, will, at least to some extent, need to be developed at home.

We readily recognise, for example, the need, in the exercise of our own powers, to work with the other administrations to develop binding UK-wide frameworks in a number of devolved areas to prevent friction entering into our own internal UK market. Four wholly different and incompatible animal health regimes, for example, would clearly be in no-one’s interests. Equally, there are UK competences in which we will have a clear Welsh interest.

So, we will need new and better ways for the various Governments to work together. But the existing consultative JMC machinery is simply not fit for the new task in hand. The right way to manage this business is through new and refreshed inter-governmental machinery. The four Governments must sit around a table to negotiate and agree binding UK frameworks in devolved areas where these are necessary, or in the short term each agree, of our own volition, not to make any changes to the current EU-derived frameworks, if that is needed.

The same machinery should facilitate discussion and agreement on non-devolved polices in which we will clearly have an interest, such as state aid and, particularly if we are outside a customs union with the EU, international trade. We propose in our paper a UK council of Ministers, along lines partially similar to the EU version. If it’s possible for 28 Governments to reach decisions in common areas, it should certainly be possible for the four Governments here in the UK to do so.

This is not an attempt to increase the powers of the Government or this Assembly. Again, the previous UK Government’s White Paper gave a wholly misleading impression that, in the work of developing frameworks at EU level that applied to devolved policies, such as the common agricultural policy or environmental policies, the UK Government alone determined the UK position. That’s simply not the case.

On the contrary, the UK Government is obliged by the memorandum of understanding, updated and ratified by this Chamber in 2013, to consult with the devolved administrations and develop a UK position that reflects agreement between all four administrations. It would be ironic if, in a UK in which we have, as it was put, taken back control from Brussels, the devolved institutions have less, not more, influence over the frameworks in which we operate.

If the UK Government is open to developing machinery that enables the four Governments to take forward common business in a collaborative way, they will find in the Welsh Government a willing partner. But let me be clear, if they do not, if they wish to impose frameworks or to legislate in Westminster to put new constraints on this Assembly’s powers and competence, we will resist them every step of the way, using all the tools available to us. As I’ve written to the Prime Minister, this is a fight that, now, of all times, she does not need.

Let me reiterate: we want legislation at Westminster, whether that be the great repeal Bill or an equivalent, which is a success in achieving the UK Government’s goals—providing legislative continuity and certainty and ensuring that, on day one after we leave the EU, our regulatory environment is identical to that of the EU. That is our first ambition.

But we require such legislation both to respect devolution and trigger the joint working we hope will facilitate a constructive collective future. If it fails to do this, if it tramples on devolution, then we will, of course, have to respond forcefully and negatively, and we are already in the process of developing our options for this eventuality. One primary responsibility of the Welsh Government, and indeed this Assembly, is to uphold the devolution settlement for which our people voted. I hope that message is heard clearly and noted in Whitehall.

We also think the time is right for a convention on the future of the United Kingdom. It’s an idea I have canvassed previously ad nauseam, as have others, but it is a matter of increased urgency now. Leaving the EU is a big step that requires a big response at home. It’s a natural position from which to think afresh about what kind of country and what kind of union we want to be for the long term. The convention should involve all voices, all political parties, civil society and all parts of the UK. And as I have said many times, the Welsh Government has plenty of ideas but no monopoly of them.

Let me be clear, then, Llywydd: I’m positive about our union. I want the UK to be flourishing, dynamic and well governed. I want the inter-governmental relationships among the four administrations to promote the dynamism that our union should show. Acting in the name of Welsh voters, we deserve something more than a grudging transactional relationship based on a bare minimum of fig-leaf consultation. Each administration needs to respect the political legitimacy and the mandate of the others in approaching this debate. Through discussion and co-operation, good ideas can develop into better ideas, and everyone wins. An effective United Kingdom helps all and hurts none.

It’s true to say, Llywydd, that the UK remains deeply divided. The way to heal those divisions is through respect and working through problems together—trying to see other people’s point of view. Secrecy, lack of consultation, imposition of diktats from the centre—these will do nothing to build the mature, dynamic, multifaceted and outward-facing UK that we can be. The paper we have published is intended to contribute to the thinking now needed to meet that challenge, and I commend it to the Assembly.

First Minister, thank you for your statement, and, indeed, thank you for early sight of that statement that was made available to the parties before we started Plenary today. I did notice that in the last paragraph you talked about ‘secrecy, lack of consultation, imposition of diktats from the centre’. I have to say that, sitting on this side of the Chamber, I almost feel like saying to you, First Minister, ‘Look in the mirror and there you will find that description’. Because, certainly, when it comes to having discussions over the last 12 months on these important issues, you really have not reached out across the political divide in this Chamber. As I’ve said many times before, this Chamber really does act in its best interests when that political consensus can be reached. I have said in response to many statements that you have given over the last 12 months, and in debates in this Chamber, that we stand ready to engage positively in those discussions.

If I may invoke the name of the former First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, I do know full well that in previous Assemblies there was that consensus and there was that political will to engage across the political divide back when he was First Minister, around the Government of Wales Act 2006 and around the constitutional changes that were happening in the Assembly in its early days. I do draw your attention again to the offer that is made to you to reach out across the political divide and have that discussion, because it is a little rich, reading this statement today, when the actions you’ve undertaken reinforce that polarisation that you profess to abhor in politics, if you actually want to try to reach a consensus on some of these major issues that do need resolution across the whole of the United Kingdom.

We all want to make sure that when we do come out of the Brexit negotiations, the deal that emerges is a deal that reinforces the ties that make this union of ours so great—the union of the United Kingdom—but that it is a union that is fit for the twenty-first century and not one that is looking back to a way that these islands might have been governed in the 1950s and 1960s. I stand ready, as does my group and my party, to make sure that that does happen. Ultimately, we will succeed if we work together in that aim.

I would also ask the First Minister to confirm exactly what the agreement is that Plaid and the Labour Government have reached, because as we saw in First Minister’s questions, there clearly is a difference. If you can’t get that simple basic starting point right, what credibility, what weight, can be given to the White Paper and the document in particular that you have brought forward? That can be a basis for discussion—in fairness, there was an agreement there, but anyone who witnessed that discussion here in First Minister’s questions was left bemused, to say the least, that there is such a chasm that seems to have opened up between two parties that put their signature on a document that you, in this statement, constantly refer to as the basis for the negotiating position.

So, could you use your response to me today to give complete clarity as to exactly where that agreement lies and what the understanding is, from your point of view, as to what that agreement will deliver around the single market and access to the single market?

I would also like very much to understand what part of the Lancaster House speech that the First Minister disagrees with, which the Prime Minister brought forward. She endorsed 12 principles that are the negotiating principles that were started yesterday in the negotiations, and on this side of the house, we believe those are 12 principles that need to be taken forward in the negotiations that will clearly put those negotiations on the footing that they need to be to offer a sound tramline for us to develop the agreement that we want to see at the end of these two years. And I do notice in this entire statement—. In fairness, you are referring to your own document, but surely the document should have some reference to what the UK Government’s key negotiating lines are. And those 12 principles are fundamental to the negotiations as they proceed.

I endorse entirely what you say about the Joint Ministerial Committee, and I’ve said this before that it is not an organisation—. Not that I’ve ever sat on that committee, but, in fairness, observing it from afar, and observing references made by politicians from across the political divide, it is clearly not fit for purpose, and it is not a vehicle that can actually deal with the dispute resolutions and the discussions that will follow after Brexit and the agreement. And I do believe that we do need greater coherence in developing a more robust framework for the devolved administrations and the UK Government to work through. And I’d be grateful to understand whether the First Minister sees any light and progress along the road to making sure that we do have—and I will call it the JMC at this point because that’s what we’ll understand it is—a successor body to achieve the outcome that we want, once the Brexit negotiations have concluded.

I agree entirely with the First Minister that there is a positive future for this country, but it does depend on politicians rising to the challenge and rising to the opportunities that lie ahead. And on this side of the Chamber, we certainly will be rising to the challenge, and rising to the opportunity that is there. And, again, I reiterate the point that I hope that other politicians, from whatever political persuasion, will do exactly the same.

Can I thank the leader of the Welsh Conservatives for his comments? Can I say to him: I listened to what he said about looking to come to a common position, but it would certainly help me if I were to understand what his position is on some of the more fundamental aspects? I know he was somebody who advocated that the UK should leave the EU. That is there for all to see. But does he believe that we should retain full and unfettered access to the single market? Does he reject any idea of tariff or non-tariff barriers? Does he accept that there is a need perhaps to modify freedom of movement, but not to end it completely? What is his view in terms of the border between north and south in Ireland? What is his view then in terms of the maritime border between Wales and Ireland and how that would operate? What is his view on the UK being inside of the customs union or not? If it’s outside of the customs union, then that border with the UK and Ireland cannot operate as a seamless border. Does he believe that the transitional arrangements, and they will be needed, should be such that we should consider European Economic Area membership, or European free trade area membership in the short term? All these questions I’ve not heard him express a view on. I invite him to do so, but what I do know is that he wants to leave the EU and that’s clear. What I don’t know is what, at the moment, he expects to see in its place.

In terms of the White Paper, the White Paper remains the joint paper between ourselves and Plaid Cymru. He asked in particular, ‘Where are the points of disagreement?’ First of all, tone. What we saw from the Prime Minister before the election was a nationalist tone. I can’t describe it in any other way. The kind of tone that we saw from people who said to us that the EU would fall at our feet in order to get a deal. That was false and we see that now. The voters rejected that tone, and now it’s time to reset. Firstly, I don’t believe that no deal is better than a bad deal. I think that is nonsensical. No deal is the worst deal. Nor do I believe that if there is no transition that is something we should not be afraid of. I cannot understand why there’s this desperate need to fall off the edge of a cliff when there is a bridge that can be walked over and that bridge is EEA membership or EFTA membership.

I don’t agree with her idea that freedom of movement must end completely. Again, you cannot control your borders unless you shut the border with the Republic of Ireland. There’s no other way of doing it. And that is something that people have not yet understood. I do not agree then with the position that she’s taken on that. I don’t agree with her that, somehow, the UK would not be subject to any kind of court outside the UK. Of course it would. Even where the UK was in a position to sign a free trade agreement with another country or trading block, there would still be the need for a court to adjudicate disputes that arise from the free trade agreement; it’s bound to happen. And that would mean having a court, at the very least, if there were a free trade agreement at some point with the EU—a court made up possibly of ECJ judges and UK judges, which would constitute the trade court. There is no escaping that. If you want to have a free trade agreement, then you have to accept that other people will also have a view on the way that free trade agreement actually operates.

I don’t know what the UK’s position is any more, if I’m blunt. There has been no engagement with the devolved administrations. We know it can’t be the same as it was before the election. We know that the UK’s position was that it wished for the issue of the UK’s leaving the EU, and the UK’s future relationship with the EU, to be dealt with in parallel. The EU’s position was that it should be sequential. We hear now that the EU’s position has won out—that it will be a sequential negotiation. So, that ground has already been given. What was apparently going to lead to the row of the summer, to quote David Davis, that’s not going to happen.

I welcome what he said about the JMC, and the fact that it’s no longer fit for purpose. But there is another fundamental issue here that I believe the great repeal Bill will try to address, and in a way that is negative. And that is that, where powers in devolved areas return from Brussels, they never arrive in Whitehall, they come straight here. The great repeal Bill, we believe—well, certainly, before the election—was going to try to alter the devolution settlement, without reference to the people of Wales, to stop that happening. That is a fundamental constitutional principle. And we could not accept any situation that would override the clearly expressed view of the people of Wales in 2011. It would be much more sensible if we simply say, ‘Okay, those powers are going to the devolved administrations, but let’s agree to do nothing with them, until such time as we can implement a common framework.’ The alternative is to have that common framework imposed, and that’s something we could not agree to, because that would actually overturn a part of the devolution settlement that is absolutely fundamental. We wait to see what the great repeal Bill actually says, but there clearly is an issue here for Wales.

The other issue, of course, which I touched on in the statement, though it is fundamental to us, is that, if we look at trade, trade is not devolved. There’s no dispute about that. But, if, for example, the UK were to sign a free trade agreement with New Zealand, then there’s a massive Welsh interest, because of the New Zealand lamb that would arrive in far greater quantities on the UK market. Clearly, we have a strong view on that—it’s not something that we would welcome. So, there has to be a mechanism as well to make sure that the views of the devolved administrations are, at the very least, taken into account when the UK looks to negotiate free trade agreements, where such an agreement would represent a negative disbenefit to countries such as Wales. There will be other examples that affect different parts of different countries in the UK in different ways, but these are fundamental questions that need to be addressed. We have sought to do that, and I’d invite him to express a view on those issues that I’ve already outlined, in order for us to understand more fully where his thinking has gone since the result of the referendum last year.

Thank you. Steffan Lewis.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank the First Minister for his statement today.

Wrth gwrs, does dim amheuaeth bod yn rhaid i drefn llywodraethu'r DU yn y dyfodol newid ar ôl inni adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Byddai llawer ohonom yn dadlau bod angen iddi newid beth bynnag oedd canlyniad y refferendwm y llynedd, wrth gwrs. Mae'r ddogfen a gyhoeddwyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru heddiw’n ymhelaethu ar y cynigion ar gyfer Cyngor Gweinidogion i’r DU i gytuno ar y cyd ar y fframweithiau cyffredin y bydd eu hangen ar ôl inni adael yr UE, ac mae'n nodi’n gywir ystod o feysydd a swyddogaethau sydd wedi'u datganoli, ond sy’n gweithio o fewn ffiniau fframweithiau presennol yr UE.

Ar ôl gadael yr UE, mae’r materion hyn yn parhau i fod wedi'u datganoli, fel y dywedodd y Prif Weinidog, oni bai bod Llywodraeth y DU yn gweithredu’n unochrog i gymryd y materion hyn yn ôl, yn ôl i'w statws cyn 1999, ac, wrth gwrs, byddai hynny'n annerbyniol i Blaid Cymru. Ond rydym yn iawn i fod yn bryderus am hyn, oherwydd, fel y mae'r Prif Weinidog wedi’i ddweud, nid ydym wedi cael dim manylion am fecanwaith y datganoli sydd gan Lywodraeth y DU mewn golwg ar ôl Brexit, ar wahân i eiriau cynnes. Ac rwy’n tybed a all y Prif Weinidog roi'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf inni am unrhyw newid meddwl sydyn a gaiff Prif Weinidog y DU am fecaneg datganoli a chydweithrediad rhwng y gweinyddiaethau datganoledig yn y dyfodol ar y materion hynny lle bydd angen cydweithio a chydweithredu. Rwy'n clywed bod hi wedi bod yn astudio llywodraeth ddatganoledig yn galed ers yr etholiad cyffredinol am ryw reswm.

Er bod Plaid Cymru yn croesawu, wrth gwrs, y cynigion am Gyngor Gweinidogion y DU, fel yr amlinellwyd yn wreiddiol yn y Papur Gwyn rhwng Llywodraeth Cymru a Phlaid Cymru, mae'r papur a gyhoeddwyd ac sydd dan ystyriaeth heddiw’n cynnwys iaith na fyddai, wrth gwrs, yn cyd-fynd â phatrwm gwleidyddol Plaid Cymru o ran gwydnwch, na hyd yn oed ddymunoldeb, undeb gwleidyddol canolog y Deyrnas Unedig. Ond, rydym yn cytuno ei bod er lles pawb ac er lles pob cenedl i’r gwledydd weithio gyda'i gilydd a chydweithredu lle y gallant. A byddwn yn argymell bod y Prif Weinidog yn darllen pamffled a gyhoeddwyd gan Gwynfor Evans yn 1960, nad yw ar gael mewn unrhyw siop lyfrau dda, 'Hunanlywodraeth i Gymru a Marchnad Gyffredin ar gyfer Gwledydd Prydain'. Does dim angen gwladwriaeth or-ganolog arnom i hwyluso cysylltiadau da iawn rhwng ein gwledydd.

Mae amgylchiadau wedi newid, fel yr wyf wedi sôn amdano eisoes, ers etholiad cyffredinol y DU. Mae'r Blaid Unoliaethol Ddemocrataidd nawr yn dal cydbwysedd grym ar draws y Deyrnas Unedig. Mae hyn yn sicr yn rhoi un mantais wleidyddol i un weinyddiaeth ddatganoledig a allai ddod yn fantais economaidd sylweddol hefyd. Felly, tybed a yw'r Prif Weinidog wedi cael sgyrsiau gyda Phrif Weinidog y DU am sut na allwn ni gael Cyngor Gweinidogion y DU ar ôl Brexit, ond yn wir Cyngor Gweinidogion y DU brys cyn Brexit, nawr bod trafodaethau ar y gweill ac nawr bod un blaid, sy’n arwain gweinyddiaeth ddatganoledig, yn dal cydbwysedd grym ar draws y Deyrnas Unedig. Beth yw asesiad y Prif Weinidog o'r tebygolrwydd y gwnaiff gweinyddiaethau datganoledig eraill nawr gytuno â Chyngor Gweinidogion ffurfiol i’r DU, ac ystyried y cyd-destun gwleidyddol newydd hwnnw oherwydd, yn wrthnysig, nawr byddai er budd i un blaid, o leiaf, pe na bai Cyngor Gweinidogion y DU, ond yn hytrach, berthynas ddwyochrog rhwng y Blaid Unoliaethol Ddemocrataidd a'r Blaid Geidwadol ac Unoliaethol?

Hefyd, a soniodd y Prif Weinidog am hyn yn ei ymateb i arweinydd y Ceidwadwyr Cymreig, o ystyried y ffaith bod y cwestiwn am ffin Iwerddon, mater yr ardal deithio gyffredin a'r fframweithiau sy'n gorgyffwrdd sydd eisoes yn bodoli rhwng Gogledd Iwerddon a Gweriniaeth Iwerddon yn uchel iawn ar yr agenda yn y trafodaethau rhwng yr UE a’r DU—yn wir, fe'u trafodwyd ddoe ar ddiwrnod cyntaf un y trafodaethau dwyochrog hynny—onid oes lle yn awr i fynd y tu hwnt i'r ddogfen a gyhoeddwyd gan Lywodraeth Cymru a chyflwyno cynigion ar gyfer Cyngor Prydeinig-Gwyddelig newydd tebyg i’r Cyngor Nordig? Wrth gwrs, yn ardal y Cyngor Nordig mae gweinyddiaethau datganoledig, gwladwriaethau annibynnol—rhai y tu mewn i'r UE, rhai y tu allan i'r UE—a chwestiynau am ffiniau tir. Onid oes angen inni yn awr fod yn edrych y tu hwnt i gyfyngiadau'r Deyrnas Unedig yn unig a sicrhau y cawn Gyngor Prydeinig-Gwyddelig gweithredol gyda chyfranogiad llawn gan y gweinyddiaethau datganoledig? Oherwydd, wrth gwrs, bydd y penderfyniadau a wneir ym Mrwsel rhwng y DU a'r UE am y cwestiynau sy’n ymwneud yn benodol ag Iwerddon yn arwain at ganlyniadau enfawr ar gyfer meysydd datganoledig, o amaethyddiaeth i faterion gwledig ac i weinyddu’r porthladdoedd, yn enwedig yng Nghaergybi. Felly, byddai gennyf ddiddordeb mawr mewn clywed a yw Llywodraeth Cymru yn bwriadu cyhoeddi dogfen debyg ar gyfer cynigion ar gyfer Cyngor Prydeinig-Gwyddelig newydd a fyddai'n cynnwys holl genhedloedd yr ynysoedd hyn, nid dim ond y rhai ohonom sy’n aelodau o’r Deyrnas Unedig ar hyn o bryd.

Yn olaf, pleidleisiodd y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol hwn, yn gymharol ddiweddar, o blaid cyflwyno Bil parhad er mwyn gwarchod cyfansoddiad Cymru ac ymgorffori’r amddiffyniadau a’r hawliau yr ydym yn eu mwynhau heddiw yng nghyfraith Cymru. Byddwn yn ddiolchgar pe gallai'r Prif Weinidog roi'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf i'r Cynulliad am y cynnydd o ran cyflwyno Bil o'r fath.

Can I thank the Member for his comments? I think it’s fair to say that before the general election the idea of there being an equal partnership of four Governments was not in the vocabulary of the UK Government. They saw themselves as being superior to the three devolved administrations, even in areas that were devolved. The language has changed. I’m not sure that the desire, in terms of what to do during the Brexit negotiations, has necessarily changed. There are three things that need to be in place before the UK leaves the EU. The first is that the Council of Ministers must already be up and running because the structure to decide what happens with devolved powers when they return must be in place when those powers actually do return. It wouldn’t be good enough just for us to see Brexit and then set up a Council of Ministers. Secondly, there needs to be established a set of rules that would govern the internal single market of the UK. Sensibly, it’s probably best to keep the EU state aid rules as they are until such time as a set of rules can be developed. Thirdly, and most importantly, there needs to be, as Members will have heard me say before, an independent court that polices the rules of the market. At the moment, there is a dispute resolution process that exists, but the disputes are resolved, ultimately, by the UK Treasury. So, if we are in dispute with the UK Treasury, it’s the UK Treasury that resolves the dispute, and that can’t be realistic or proper—well, it’s not proper now, but it certainly can’t be proper in the future. For any single market to succeed, if there are rules in that single market then all those involved in that market must have faith that the rules are being interpreted impartially, probably by a trade court. It could be easily done by simply saying, ‘Let the Supreme Court do it’.

With regard to Scotland, it’s not clear what Scotland’s strategy will be in the future. I think it’s fair to say that, in the past, Scotland’s view has tended to be, ‘Well, we agree with what you’re saying but our direction of travel is different.’ I’m not sure that is as clear following the general election.

With regard to Ireland, we have bilateral links with Ireland but Ireland are in a difficult position with regard to the British-Irish Council, in the sense that at the British-Irish Council the Republic of Ireland is part of the other negotiating party—it’s part of the EU, so it’s hugely awkward for the Republic of Ireland to offer a view in the BIC because it’s part of the collective view of the EU. The Ireland administrations find the BIC very useful because it’s their chance to meet with bigger jurisdictions, and they have a particular grievance in the sense that, if the UK leaves the customs union, so will they, without being asked. So, from their perspective, they find themselves in an invidious position. I think, in time, once Brexit is resolved and the Republic feels that it has perhaps a little bit perhaps more freedom than it does at the moment in terms of negotiation, then the BIC might start to grow. It has to be said that, historically, the BIC has not been the place where decisions are taken, and has tended to be a place where there’s been general discussion, some bilaterals, but it’s not been a particularly forceful body. In the more than seven years now that I’ve been First Minister, not once has the UK Prime Minister attended the BIC, which shows you, really, how much precedence the UK gives to the BIC, even though the Irish Taoiseach has always been there.

In terms of some of the issues that he raised, the issue of Ireland, again, he mentioned it in the context of the BIC. It does have, as I’ve said before, a resonance for us in Wales. If the maritime border between Wales and Ireland is seen as more difficult than the border between the north and south in Ireland, there are trade implications for us. Seventy per cent of the trade between Great Britain and the island of Ireland goes through the Welsh ports. Anything that interferes with that clearly is bad for Wales, and bad for jobs.

Finally, he asked about the continuity Bill. It is something that we are still considering. He has made the case for it—I’ve listened carefully to it and he makes a strong case for it. Whether the situation has changed since the election, we don’t know, but I don’t think we can take anything for granted. So, I can assure him that the continuity Bill is now being considered by lawyers.

Thank you very much. David Rees.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd, and can I thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon and the paper he produced and published last Thursday? I think, as the committee has taken evidence over the last 12 months, we’ve identified many issues. And you talked about the JMC—I think, from our first report onwards, the JMC has been seen as more of a pantomime than actually as a functioning body that will make decisions, and I’m very glad of your highlighting the issue to address that. Can I ask a couple of points? You highlighted state aid as one example, and I agree with you that consistency across the UK is needed for that internal market, but have you had discussions with the other devolved nations as to how that may proceed not just by the Council of Ministers but perhaps other mechanisms to allow those discussions to take place to ensure that we have a consistent approach by our devolved nations? I do appreciate that the Northern Ireland Executive isn’t sitting at this point in time, but they are as important as elsewhere.

In your paper, you actually highlighted—and in your statement—that you’re preparing to protect Wales from being trampled over by Westminster Tories, and I hope that the eight surviving Welsh Tory MPs will join you and support you in that. But can you provide any more details? Because, in your answer to Steffan Lewis, you didn’t actually indicate what trigger point would be the case, introduced under continuity Bill, if you needed to do so, because the timescales that we would have are important in that aspect, and it is important to understand what trigger point you would want to push that button, effectively.

Can you also answer the question as to the capacity in the Welsh Government? We’ve had this question many times as to do you have capacity to actually work with devolved nations and Whitehall to ensure that this delivers. Now, this Council of Ministers indicates that there will be a separate administrative body with seconded members onto it from different devolved nations. Do we have the capacity to do that to ensure that it can actually work?

The day after you published your report, the committee published its report on the initial considerations of the great repeal Bill, and I think you will find we have deep concerns over the ability of the UK Government to actually talk to devolved nations. From what evidence we’ve received, they don’t, to be honest. On the repeal Bill, they didn’t consult with the Welsh Government. These are legislative, important considerations, which they need to consider with you and this Assembly as a whole. I would hope that you will be pushing the UK Government—not just the Council of Ministers—for better interaction with the parliamentary bodies as well to ensure that the legislation that will come through as a consequence of the great repeal Bill can be considered and ensured it delivers for both the UK and the devolved nations independently.

And, finally, we actually met with Irish officials and Ministers yesterday on our visit to Ireland to discuss Welsh ports. There are clearly problems they face greatly as a consequence of the decision to leave the EU by the UK people. We talked about Welsh ports and links east-west, effectively. I know the focus has been on the links north-south, in the island of Ireland itself, but it’s important we reflect that in the UK, because the TEN-T considerations for the routes across the UK—the language that’s been used—are important. Discussions need to be had there with the UK Government. I’m also concerned that the UK Government may focus clearly on the English ports, with the continent of Europe, more than us. It was reported yesterday, to us, that discussions with Philip Hammond had indicated that they would take four years to put into place mechanisms in Dover to actually handle anything that is not part of the customs union. What’s going to happen to the Welsh ports in that sense, and how will we ensure that we get our fair share of treatment and it’s not just left to the English ports and we are left in the cold once again?

Can I thank the Member for his comments? First of all, the approach has not been consistent, shall we say, with regard to the devolved nations. Some departments are better than others, at official level, in engaging. The very first act that Michael Gove—one of the very first acts that Michael Gove—took forward when he became the DEFRA secretary was to cancel meetings with the devolved Ministers, which was not perhaps the most positive step that he could have taken. I have, as the Member will know, written to the Prime Minister. In that, I’ve suggested an immediate JMC. I’ve suggested we should invite the leaders of the DUP and Sinn Fein, even though they’re not First and Deputy First Minister yet, but I think it’s important they are part of those discussions.

The Welsh Conservative MPs have been completely silent, as far as I can tell, so far. It’s in marked contrast to the view taken by the Scottish Conservatives, who’ve been very vocal and had a good election result in Scotland. Ruth Davidson and her team have been very vocal in outlining what they think the UK should do. I’ve not heard anything at all from Welsh Conservative MPs, and I regret that because they have an important voice as part of the debate, but nothing heard from them yet.

With regard to the continuity Bill, the one thing we do know is that the continuity Bill would need to become an Act before the great repeal Bill became an Act, because we would need to preserve our position before the great repeal Bill was able to interfere with it. So, the work is already ongoing, but we know that that’s the timescale we are working to. The great repeal Bill is going to take—I mean, there are some voices in Westminster who think this can be done by Christmas. Bluntly, the fact there’s no Queen’s Speech next year is an indication of how long it’s actually going to take. So, we’ll keep an eye on the timescale there.

The question about the capacity of Welsh Government is a fair one. It is something that I’ve been exploring for some time with the Permanent Secretary. I’m confident that we have the right people in place. We will never have depth in the way that the UK Government does, because of numbers, but we have ability and expertise and I’m confident that we can meet the challenge that is ahead of us. There will be, inevitably, consequences for this Assembly. There may be major legislative burdens that the Assembly will face over the next few years. We won’t know until we see the text of the great repeal Bill itself.

And, finally, on the ports—. Well, of course, the view of the UK Government will be, ‘Well, Ireland will be fine because there’s always been a common travel area’. Well, that’s not the case anymore. For the first time, there will be potentially border controls in place. Nobody wants to see that. Perhaps more realistically, there will be customs checks again. Now, you can’t have a seamless border and customs checks. If Ireland is within the customs union and the UK isn’t then you will have customs checks that are rigorous, and with that you run the risk of igniting conflict in Northern Ireland again, or you create a paradise for smugglers, quite frankly. That border was known for years as a place where a great deal of smuggling went on. This would make it even worse. That is something that would not be in the interest either of us or indeed of the island of Ireland. When I’ve raised this issue, the answer I’ve always had back is, ‘Oh, it’ll be resolved’. Well, there’s no sign of it being resolved yet, and that, potentially, is the most difficult part of the negotiations. What do you do—? Because most people who live on this island think that the UK is an island and haven’t given thought to the fact that there is a land border—actually, that’s one of the most difficult issues that’ll need to be resolved.

I welcome the statement today. In particular, I welcome the tone that the First Minister has adopted, which I think is both realistic and reasonable and all the more persuasive for that. I’m glad that he’s moved on from the referendum in the last 12 months, in marked contradistinction to the tone that we heard from the leader of Plaid Cymru earlier on today. That’s the way, I think, to advance Wales’s interests with the Government of the United Kingdom and, indeed, more widely as well.

Although I do endorse what the leader of the Welsh Conservatives said, that we need to establish as wide a consensus as possible in support of the Welsh Government’s position vis-à-vis the United Kingdom Government, and, in UKIP, the First Minister will find that perhaps we are nearer to his position than the Welsh Conservatives are. In particular, as I’ve said all along, we should get every penny that Brussels currently spends of British taxpayers’ money in Wales back here in Cardiff, and also we are against any land grab of any kind of the powers that have been devolved. And I fully support the statements that the First Minister has said today in relation to all of that.

I also support his view that the UK Government needs to treat us with respect and the union will survive and prosper only if each participant in it exhibits those characteristics. It is a shame, I think, that the UK Government has not been more inclusive and sought to move forward with the Welsh Government in this respect. I certainly deprecate Michael Gove’s cancelling of his meeting that was planned with devolved Ministers.

The First Minister asked the leader of the Welsh Conservatives what his policy is on a range of issues, and, of course, we want free access, as far as possible, to European markets, and we’re against non-tariff barriers. The problem with the single market as it developed was not the conception that the Government had when I was a member of it, which was based upon the European Court of Justice case of Cassis de Dijon, which didn’t require minute regulation of every product that was produced in the European Communities, as they then were, so that everybody was put within a single straitjacket of regulation, but that you could sell any product that was legal in one country in any other country, and that would’ve been, I think, a much better way for the European Union to proceed. But they took the opposite direction and the result has been the vote, I think, on 23 June last year.

But we have to accept that free movement is a non-negotiable item for the British Government, because that was one of the principal ingredients behind the decision of the British people last June. There are problems with the borders of Northern Ireland—I fully accept that and those are practical problems that need to be resolved. As regards the customs union, I can’t see how we could conceivably remain inside the customs union, because that would mean one of the principal benefits of Brexit would be denied to us, which is the ability to enter into free trade agreements with the 85 per cent of the global economy that is not part of the EU.

Whilst I fully accept what the First Minister says, that there are bound to be winners and losers in any free trade agreement, and the losers have to be protected as far as we possibly can, the British Government should, therefore, enter into meaningful discussions with the devolved administrations to try to come up with a composite proposal that means that any particular grouping—let’s take sheep farmers, for example, as one of the best examples of this—that could be disadvantaged by a free trade agreement, as the First Minister said, with New Zealand, that we have some means of protecting their interests. I, unfortunately, don’t see any mechanism at the moment that has been set up by the UK Government to address that constitutional difficulty.

So, I welcome the proposals that the First Minister has put forward in relation to the creation of a kind of council of Ministers for the UK, although those of us who’ve been members of the Council of Ministers in the EU have, no doubt, many criticisms of the way that secretive organisation works. It’s certainly an interesting idea that a kind of qualified majority vote system should be introduced in the UK—of the UK Government plus one devolved administration—although that I wouldn’t want to endorse without further thought.

I don’t agree with the First Minister where he said that the country is deeply divided. The divisions that exist are deep, but the overwhelming majority of people in this country have either welcomed enthusiastically the decision of the referendum last June, or have adjusted to it. It’s only perhaps 20 per cent of the population who take a different view, and 83 per cent of the people who voted in the general election just a few days ago voted for parties that are committed formally to leaving the European Union. I’m not sure that a convention on the future of the UK is useful at the moment. In fact, the general election result, as the First Minister referred to, in Scotland shows that maybe the direction of travel north of the border there is rather different from what we thought it to be just a few weeks ago, and perhaps it would be better to see how things go for a little while yet before we try to come up with formalised institutions that are designed to be permanent.

There’s only one other point that I wish to make, in view of the time, that has not been referred to hitherto, and that’s the statement on page 12 of this document, which refers to the corpus of regulation that we will inherit from the EU when we leave. I don’t think it is right just to make a blanket statement that we should preserve for the long term the social and environmental protections that we’ve accrued through the EU. I think we should look at everything that is currently on the legislative statute book and consider it afresh as to whether it’s fully proportionate, whether many of these regulations could be dispensed with altogether or mended in some form to reduce the cost to the public without endangering any of the public benefits that they’re designed to protect. Over 45 years, a mass of legislation has been generated in the most minute detail, very often with very little parliamentary oversight at all. Regulations that are directly applicable, for example, have never been in any way voted on in the House of Commons. With many of the directives—having sat on committees considering them but not having the power to make any amendments many times in the past decades—I’ve come to be fully aware of the democratic deficit, so we should address that. It will take a very, very long time indeed, but nevertheless I think we should take a flexible view of this. And in the interests of Wales, given that we are the poorest part of the United Kingdom, we should want to make ourselves as competitive as possible to raise the level of income of our people. So, I give the First Minister broad support for the approach that he has taken today, and I think this is a much better document than the joint document that was produced with Plaid Cymru. I think he’s much better when he is ploughing his own furrow, rather than having somebody slowing down the speed of the plough behind him.

Well, I suspect if he was there, then the plough wouldn’t move at all if I was trying to push it. I’ll try and be generous in terms of what he said. We’re in very different positions. There’s one thing that I agree with him about, and that is that it’s hugely important that the UK adjusts to the new reality. He and I are never going to agree on the customs union; I think we should be within the customs union. I can’t see there’s any other option. Ireland’s already been mentioned in terms of ensuring that, for example, we have fair play for our automotive manufacturers, for companies like Airbus, for our steel industry—that is the bare minimum that is required.

He is right to say that most people either voted for Brexit or have become reconciled to it; I think that’s fairly true. The problem is that people can’t agree on what sort of Brexit they want. We know people don’t want a hard Brexit; they rejected that in the general election. People will have very different views on what Brexit means for them. I’ve had people say to me, ‘I voted for Brexit because I wanted to get out of the European convention on human rights’ and I’ve had to say to people, ‘That’s nothing to do with the EU’. And yet some people have said to me that’s the way that they voted. Most people want to see Brexit happen—they take the view that the vote is the vote and that’s it—but it’s quite clear from the election that people don’t want to see it happen in the hardest way possible. They don’t want to see a situation where there is no deal; they don’t want to see a situation where there’s a cliff edge after March 2019; and they want the British Government to be reasonable in negotiation, conducting it from a pragmatic viewpoint, not a nationalist viewpoint, which they’ve been doing up until now.

I can’t agree with him on the issue of the convention. Now, more than ever, we need a convention. He is right to say that the journey towards independence in Scotland has gone in a different direction after the general election, but that’s not to say that, somehow, there is a lack of appetite for devolution either in Scotland or in Wales. That’s why it’s so important that, as we face the future, as we see the UK—which is now going to be like a miniature EU, rather than a country that looks like France or Germany in the future—that we get the structure right in order that the UK can maintain the flexibility that it’s been able to show in the past to enable the identities and viewpoints of the smaller nations to be heard while, at the same time, preserving the union. The union’s had to change. The union will have to change in the future. It’s in that flexibility that there should be strength.

His view is that we should become a low-tax haven. He’s said that several times. I cannot agree with him on that. I’m not prepared to dilute environmental regulations. Let’s not forget that the UK, at one time, had appalling environmental legislation. Our rivers were highly polluted, the air was polluted and we were responsible, in large part, for acid rain. It was the European Union that forced us to clean up our act, and the last thing we want to do is to go back to those days. That’s why, to me, it does make sense to keep the current corpus of EU legislation and, in time, examine what regulations are appropriate to Wales.

Can I welcome the First Minister’s statement and the ‘Brexit and Devolution’ statement, which is a substantive and reasoned case, and advocates a new reality? It also, critically, has a tone of partnership in recognising that all parts of the UK want to make these new arrangements work after we leave the European Union.

Could I ask the First Minister—? In his statement and in the ‘Brexit and Devolution’ paper, there are references to ‘binding UK frameworks’ being ‘drawn up and agreed’. Can he clarify whether he envisages that, in addition to individual decisions within the council of Ministers, the basic frameworks could also be agreed on that basis of a UK plus 1 formula that the statement also sets out? Also, can he confirm the sense in which those frameworks would be binding? Is the statement, in effect, saying they would be binding in statute in some way?

There are also references, which he echoed in his statement, to ‘independently managed arbitration’. Again, is that process going to be one that is a statutory process that has teeth, or, if not, can he elaborate on that proposal?

There are references in the paper to a statutory underpinning for the council of Ministers, and I’m encouraged that, perhaps, we share the view that—notwithstanding the UK Government’s historic reluctance to deal with matters generally in this area with a view that is based on coherence and reason—we could move beyond a sort of handshake approach to one that enshrines, in statute, these new intergovernmental relations, just as the devolution powers are enshrined in statute and, dare I say it, perhaps, at some point, we might have a fair funding formula based in statute as well.

First of all, yes, in terms of the UK frameworks, UK plus 1, we believe, is a reasonable way of resolving disputes. We’d hope, of course, that there would be unanimity, but in the absence of unanimity, there has to be a process in place that deals with how to get decisions done.

In terms of binding frameworks, those frameworks wouldn’t be binding by statute, but they would be binding by agreement. Now, that would mean, for example, that if a business felt that state aid rules were being breached by one Government, it would have the confidence to go to the adjudication body in order for their complaint to be dealt with. So, it’s not so much a question of one Government complaining about another; it’s more to do with businesses taking issues to court that they feel breach state aid rules, much as is the case now.

In terms of what the court itself would do, it would be an adjudicator, rather than an arbitrator. It has to be a decision maker in that regard. It would simply be the case that the parties agree that that court should be the independent court that binds them. It’s common in internal single markets. The US Supreme Court acts as the regulator for interstate commerce within the US, so preserving the United States’ single market in terms of goods and services. As far as the EFTA Court is concerned, it does the same for EFTA; the ECJ does the same for the European single market. There has to be, in any single market, if there are going to be rules, an independent adjudicator that polices those rules, as I’ve said before.

In terms of the council of Ministers, he raises an intriguing point: should it have statutory underpinning? I suppose that statutory underpinning would be via joint legislation that would have to be taken through all four parliaments at the same time in order for it to have the kind of statutory underpinning that would be required. That’s an interesting idea. The co-ordination of it would present a challenge, but nevertheless it’s one that certainly is worthy of examination. But ultimately, an internal single market can only work if there is agreement between the parties that exist within that market and if there is a body to police those rules. Otherwise it ceases to be an internal single market, and it then becomes a market where it’s possible, effectively, to have trade wars within that market, and that’s not something, surely, that we would welcome, particularly given our size and the chaos it would cause within that market.

I, like others, welcome the statement today, but also the document, ‘Brexit and Devolution’, as well. I would say, as well, that we commend once again the fact that here within the Welsh Assembly—within the Welsh Government—there is a willingness to step up and show leadership on things that, to many people, they’d say ‘Why is this important?’ And yet if you read the document that underpins this statement, you can see there is an element here of futureproofing, as well, the UK constitution. It’s not simply a response to what’s currently going on within Brexit and European negotiations; it’s looking ahead a little bit as well. But I want to just test the First Minister a little bit on whether this is throwing a massive boulder in the pool to see what will come out from the ripples that flow from it, or whether some of this is actually achievable imminently as well. We notice that, in the concluding remarks in the report that underpins this, the Welsh Government says:

‘The Welsh Government appreciates that, for many in the UK, some of the ideas set out in this document may appear challenging. Adopting them would amount to a major constitutional reconstruction of the UK, and we do not under-estimate this.’

But it does, both within the statement and within the document, split up those that are wider issues, and longer issues, perhaps, such as the constitutional convention and that wider debate, from the immediate issues that we are currently faced with, such as, as many others have remarked about, the possibility of moving to a council of Ministers—not a JMC; not a strengthened JMC but a council of Ministers and all the mechanisms that would entail.

So, the first question to the First Minister is: how realistic does he think are the prospects of the UK Government adopting the proposals in here for a council of Ministers? Or does he think that there is some measure that is on the way to that, such as a strengthened JMC that would have some of the same characteristics of a council of Ministers? More parity; more esteem between the partners within it; an agreed meaningful agenda that is set by those who participate within the JMC, where decisions are made—in all but, in effect, a council of Ministers as he’s saying. Is this something that he would hope, even short of this, that the UK Government, and the other partners around the UK, would actually accept?

Secondly, can I ask him: in the current political context we have on this side of the general election that we’ve just had, does he think this makes his ambitions within here more or less realisable? Neil has already mentioned that he thinks some of the larger issues such as the constitutional convention may still be ones that are longer-term aspirations. I don’t know, but I’d be interested in the First Minister’s response to that because, again, it seems within here that there are some parts, like the council of Ministers, that are an imperative—an urgent imperative. Others might be longer-term ambitions. But has the current political context changed the possibility of this being made reality?

Thirdly, this—

You are the third speaker, and therefore it should be a statement and one question, and I think I’ve been lenient.

My apologies.

As you are Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, I will allow you that third point, very briefly.

Thank you very much. In which case, my third of the many I have in front of me will be this one: the First Minister has actually pointed out in here not only a positive, collaborative, collective way forward—and it comes across very clearly—but he’s also carrying a very big stick as well. He has said within his statement today that if this collective, collaborative, positive way forward is not seen, then the Welsh Government is ready to respond, in his quotes, ‘forcefully and negatively’. Mention has been made already of the continuity Bill—is that what is in the consideration, or are there other mechanisms as well in which the Welsh Government would respond forcefully and negatively if there was not a will to make this happen?

First of all, in response to my friend the Member for Ogmore: not just do I believe that what is in this paper is achievable, but it’s necessary if the UK is going to show its flexibility in order for it to prosper in the future. Does it mean, for example, we re-examine, in time, concepts such as parliamentary sovereignty? Yes, it does. We know that there are other countries, like Canada, where shared sovereignty is the rule. Is that so radical that it destabilises a country? Clearly not, because we know that hasn’t happened in Canada.

In terms of the alternative, the UK Government hasn’t offered an alternative as yet. For me, the council of Ministers would be a natural evolution from the JMC. The JMC doesn’t take any decisions. It has no mechanisms to take decisions. As we leave the EU, there has to be a decision-taking body in place that is representative of all four Governments. So, the JMC would evolve into a council of Ministers in any event. So, the structure’s already there. It’s simply a question of ensuring that the body has more teeth. At the moment, bluntly, often it is a place of full and frank discussions, shall I say, but it doesn’t actually lead to anything. It’s a great shame because I think it has potential as a council of Ministers.

Are these goals realisable? I think if the result had been different and there had been a majority for the current UK Government, the answer would have been ‘probably not’, but times have changed, as you know, and it means that it’s hugely important now that other voices beyond those who advocate the kind of Brexit, or the kind of constitutional settlement, that the Prime Minister was advocating are listened to. I won’t kid myself that there are not those in the UK Government, and in the governing party, who think devolution is a mistake and who would willingly take the opportunity to roll back devolution as it is, regardless of the democratic mandate that underpins it. So, sometimes, the stick has to be displayed, if I can put it that way, because the only alternative is to modify the devolved competencies not just of ourselves, but of the Scots and Northern Ireland as well, without the consent either of this institution or the people of Wales. This is a hugely serious matter, and it’s right that we should put down on record what our position would be if such a retrograde and radical step was taken. Of course, we will resist it in any way that we can. Of course, if there’s an imposition of state aid rules by the UK Government, we’ll resist that as well. Why would we feel that we had ownership of it if it was an imposition? Far more grown-up—bluntly—and far more sensible would be the establishment of the mechanism that I’ve referred to, where we can sit down and agree a common approach where everyone has a sense of ownership. That is far more likely to work than imposing systems or frameworks on devolved governments in devolved areas without their consent.

And finally and briefly, Mark Isherwood.

Diolch. Given your references to Ireland, particularly, and David Rees’s reference, as Chair of the external affairs committee, to our visit yesterday—he referred to Irish Government officials and Ministers who are obviously speaking to their counterparts in the other 26 EU member states regarding the negotiating position of the Commission—how do you respond, given your statements and concerns, to the statement made by a Minister that the common travel area issues should be resolved without any real problem, and from, finally, the Irish Marine Development Office, which acts on the aegis of the Department of Transport, Tourism and Sport, that Brexit won’t close the 18-hour advantage of the land bridge to the continental markets through Welsh ports after the detailed modelling they’ve done based on the likely customs check and customer arrangements that will exist, as they hypothesise, after exit, if there’s a soft border between the north and south of Ireland but a Brexit border on the Welsh coast?

These things have to be resolved based on parity. I don’t think it is right that there should be a difference in the nature of the border regardless of where that border actually is. The common travel area issue cannot be resolved unless you have border controls on the border because otherwise it’s perfectly possible for people, once they arrive in Ireland from wherever they are in the world, simply to cross into the UK. There are issues there, potentially, involving people trafficking if we’re not careful, because that border—if you have an EU passport, you can get into Ireland and get into the UK without any checks at all. If you get into Ireland, then effectively you’re into the UK. These are issues that weren’t properly considered at the time of the Brexit referendum. They haven’t been properly considered now. No-one wants to see a hard border. I don’t think anyone’s advocating that, but no-one has yet come up with any idea of how that hard border can be avoided. A hard border there carries consequences that are considerable and which no-one would want to see.

I don’t believe that we can be optimistic about the land bridge if there are two sets of customs checks in place. If you are an Irish freight operator and you’re offered the choice between going into Holyhead with customs checks, and going to Dover and queuing, with the border agency plus customs checks, then that becomes unattractive compared to the ferry journey, for example, between Rosslare and Cherbourg. Now, these things have to be looked at carefully in terms of the economics, but in terms of the potential delay that would be in place, well, what would your choice be? To be able to move seamlessly from Ireland to France, or to move via two sets of customs controls to France via the UK? These are issues that have not yet been resolved. To my mind, there is a great deal of misplaced optimism about what happens in Ireland. Because everybody agrees that something should happen, that doesn’t mean that it will happen. We have to make sure that people understand that there will be no control over the UK border. It’s just not going to happen. It is cloud-cuckoo-land, because control of the border implies border controls at the border. That’s not going to happen. If people are willing to accept that, the UK has to accept that it will have an open border with the EU in Ireland, then there are more possibilities in terms of what might be possible in terms of trade. But what is absolutely clear is you cannot keep on using the line, ‘We will control our borders’ when you know that isn’t true. I don’t mean the Member particularly, and I’ll make it clearer: nobody can say that we can control our borders if the border’s going to be open. It’s just not possible to do it, and the sooner we move away from that pretence, the better it will be for the negotiations.

Thank you very much. Thank you, First Minister.

Item 5 on our agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Education on post-compulsory education and training consultation. I call on Kirsty Williams to introduce the statement.

Deputy Presiding Officer, earlier this year I made a statement to the Assembly announcing the Government’s response to Professor Ellen Hazelkorn’s report, ‘Towards 2030: A framework for building a world-class post-compulsory education system for Wales’. That report made significant recommendations for reforming the post-compulsory education and training—hereafter I shall call it PCET—system in Wales. The two primary recommendations, which the Welsh Government has accepted, were that we should develop an overarching vision for the PCET system and that there should be a new arm’s-length body as the sole regulatory, funding and oversight authority for the post-compulsory system.

I was delighted by the cross-party support given in January to the direction of travel set out in Professor Hazelkorn’s report, and I am pleased today to announce the publication of ‘Public Good and a Prosperous Wales’, our White Paper, that sets out our proposals for reforming the PCET system, covering further and higher education, research and innovation, work-based learning and adult community learning, and which seeks the views of stakeholders on the way forward.

At the heart of the White Paper are our proposals for a new body—the tertiary education and research commission for Wales—which would replace the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales and provide oversight, strategic direction and leadership for the whole PCET sector. This model draws on best practice from successful tertiary systems and economies around the world. We propose in the White Paper that the commission’s functions would include: the strategic planning of educational and skills delivery across PCET; funding; quality assessment and enhancement; managing performance and risk across the system; overseeing and co-ordinating Welsh Government’s research and innovation expenditure; and providing a step change in available data, including measuring educational progression, destinations and outcomes for learners.

A key focus of the commission would be protecting the interests of learners, ensuring that vocational and academic routes are equally valued, and helping to impart the skills needed to succeed in an increasingly competitive economy. Through its strategic planning and funding activities, the commission would also be responsible for aligning PCET more closely with the needs of employers, helping to build a stronger future economy.

We set out in the White Paper three potential models for managing the relationship between the commission and providers of education and training, based on the core principle of registration. The three models are: (1) a registration of provider model; (2) an outcome agreements model; and (3) a regional compacts model. The consultation seeks views on each of these.

Research and innovation is integral to the future success of our universities and economy. The commission would be responsible for co-ordinating research and postgraduate research capacity funding in a more strategic and dynamic way. It is proposed that a statutory committee of the commission, to be known as ‘research and innovation Wales’, would lead on this. This would protect and promote Wales’s interests in the context of UK Government changes, which are likely, I believe, to blur the difference between UK and English interests.

This consultation proposes a ‘made in Wales’ approach to post-compulsory education and training so that it’s easier for people to learn and acquire skills throughout their careers. Our lives and economy are undergoing huge technological change—it was referred to earlier in First Minister’s questions. The knowledge and skills needed in a transformed workplace mean that average is over. Doing nothing or maintaining the status quo is not, in my view, a viable option.

We also need to encourage and support increased research and innovation activity in companies and other organisations. We need to build on our strengths—and we do have strengths—but align them where possible and appropriate with the needs and aspirations of business and the broader community. By doing so, we hope to attract increased research funding from UK investments over the next five years. Moving in this direction will be increasingly important if we are to manage the process of leaving the EU with the minimum of disruption to our research and science base. The new commission would be charged with overseeing these changes and developing research, innovation, and enterprise activities in universities, colleges and with other providers.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I’m pleased with the progress that has been made in embedding student representation into the governance structures of institutions in Wales. But there is still more to do. I would expect to see students’ involvement, both in the commission and at individual institutions, extended further within our new system. The consultation also sets out the opportunities and challenges of including sixth forms within the remit of the new commission. This includes the possibility that the commission might be established initially without sixth forms in its remit and that legislation might allow for them to be brought within its ambit at a later date. The paper seeks views on this approach and the wider position of sixth forms.

I believe the proposals in the White Paper will enable us to raise standards, support learners in Wales to achieve their full potential, whatever their background and circumstances, and make our PCET system one of the best in the world. But we have to acknowledge it will take time to implement these changes. The formal consultation will run until late October. This will be followed by a more detailed technical consultation towards the end of the year. And these far-reaching changes will also require legislative reform. During the period of transition, the Welsh Government will be seeking new members for the HEFCW board with experience of a wider range of areas, including business, to help guide and support the move to a new system.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I recognise that to make a success of these ambitious reforms we need to work closely with our stakeholders. So, if you are a learner or, indeed, a potential learner, an education or training professional, a learning provider, a researcher, or a business person with strong views about the skills of your workforce, then we want to hear from you. We need your ideas about how best to ensure that the system can work well, both now and in the future. We will also be holding engagement events throughout Wales this autumn. I will also be undertaking a separate young persons’ consultation. I hope I can count on Members from across all parties in the Assembly to encourage engagement in these consultation exercises, so that we can have the very best ideas to draw upon in developing a PCET system that will meet the needs of learners, communities and the businesses of Wales for many years to come. Thank you.

Thank you to the Cabinet Secretary for her statement this afternoon and for the way that she’s engaged in giving briefings to opposition Members in respect of her plans. I’m delighted to see that Professor Hazelkorn’s recommendations have been supported and taken on board and, as we have done in the past, I think it’s important that we move together on this as a nation because we need to get it absolutely right. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware that I’m a firm believer that education underpins how Wales responds to the new challenges of the future, and it’s very important that we recognise also that education is a lifelong journey and that people’s careers and personal aspirations will change, possibly, over time, with people going from one career to another, and education is absolutely key to helping to make that happen.

I’ve obviously got a few questions on the statement that she’s made this afternoon. First of all, in relation to the commission’s functions, I’m very pleased to see some clarity in terms of the functions that you want the commission to fulfil, but I do note that one of those functions includes quality assessment and enhancement. I just wonder to what extent some of these functions might overlap with some of the functions of the other statutory bodies that we already have in Wales. So, in terms of the quality of education, of course, we have Qualifications Wales, we have organisations like Estyn that will also have some role to play, particularly in further education institutions. So, I think it is important that we’ve got clarity on this, going forward, so that we don’t have too many cooks spoiling the broth, really, when it comes to our education system—our post-compulsory education system.

I also note that the commission’s going to have this responsibility in terms of investing in research and innovation, and I think that it’s right that it has that role to play, because we all know that there are lots of commercial reasons why people should be investing in research and innovation, and sometimes there’s research and innovation that is going to require investment that has to come from the public sector, or has to be supplemented by the public sector. So, it’s absolutely right that the commission has got this role. But clearly, particularly with those commercial opportunities, it will be important to ensure that people with sufficient commercial expertise and experience have a role to play on that new commission, and I note that you’ve referred to the need for business people, if you like, to get involved in HEFCW in the interim period, but I would be grateful to know what sort of shape that board—this new commission—will have, and what engagement you expect it to have with the commercial sector, particularly in terms of that research and innovation.

You refer to the three proposed models that are outlined in the White Paper, and I think they’re three interesting models: the registration and provider model, the outcome agreements model, and the regional compact model. But I see no reason, actually, why they need to be three separate models. I think that elements of all three, personally, should be within the remit of the commission. I think it’s absolutely appropriate that, obviously, HE and FE providers and other trainers are registered with the new commission. I think it’s entirely appropriate that, in return for the public investment that they receive, there should be some outcome agreements around that, that they can be held to account to. And I think also, particularly with the FE sector, that there ought to be regional compacts about what you expect them to be delivering on the ground. So, I don’t think it should be an either/or in terms of those options. I actually think that elements from all three should be included, in terms of how the commission operates, going forward. I’d appreciate, Cabinet Secretary, whether you could tell us whether that is something that you’ve also considered, or whether you are wedded to this either/or approach that is set out in the White Paper.

I noted your comments in respect of the UK approach to research and innovation as well. You seem to be suggesting that an England model would be muscled, if you like, upon the rest of the UK, going forward. I don’t see any evidence that that would be the case at all, actually, and I think that it’s entirely appropriate that we have UK models in terms of research and innovation sometimes, so that our Welsh universities, which have expertise in things like engineering and medical sciences, should rise to the top and actually receive investment on a UK-wide level. So, I’m not sure why you’re ultra-cautious about that. I think it is appropriate that we have some UK-wide mechanisms in terms of investment in our research, and I’d appreciate it if you could point me to some evidence to substantiate the concerns that you have about Wales’s research voice, if you like, being drowned out by this new approach that might be taken at a UK level.

Just also on the subject of student voice, I’m very pleased to hear you make reference to the fact that students’ voices must be listened to, and obviously there has been some progress in terms of student representation in governance structures, and I acknowledge that, in recent years. But, I think it’s also important to note that there are different voices within the student bodies of organisations that also need to be heard. The voice of adult learners and the voice of part-time learners are very often drowned out by the voice of full-time learners. I wonder what assurances you can give us that the new commission will have to listen to the varied voices of the student community, so that it can get things right for all learners, not just those who are full time.

Finally, if I can just turn to sixth forms, I am very cautious about this body having any remit and responsibility for sixth-form education; I believe that that sits best with those local education authorities. Clearly, there are some parts of Wales where there are arrangements in place for tertiary education between local authorities and further education providers in a different way to the traditional school sixth-form model, but why should we intervene in something that is working for many learners and provides that choice for many learners across Wales? I don’t think that it’s right at all—I don’t think that the evidence supports this—that we ought to move forward with sixth forms being part of the remit of that new commission.

Could I thank Darren for his broad welcome for the direction of travel outlined in the White Paper? In response to many of the questions that he has raised, the whole point of having a White Paper and a consultation is because we want to canvass a wide variety of views on these areas.

First of all, if I start by going backwards, I’ll start with the sixth forms and you’ll be aware that the question in the paper does not give a hard and fast proposal for where sixth forms could sit. Ellen Hazelkorn, in her report, said that in most systems, sixth-form provision would sit outside PCET, but it is a part of post-compulsory education and training. So, the question is: do we want to subject that particular part of PCET to a different type of regime, one that is fundamentally monitored by Estyn and very much part of the school system, or do we see it as what it is—as part of post-compulsory education and training? So, there’s a genuine debate to be had about how best sixth-form provision can be regulated.

But, let me be absolutely clear that this is not about saying that we’re not going to have sixth forms, and this is not about saying that we’re moving to a tertiary model. This is about saying, for those particular groups of learners: how can their interests—how can we look after them and provide opportunities in that way that will have quality assurance and the issues around destinations, making sure that people are doing the right course at the right time? There’s a genuine opportunity to feed back in that.

Student voice is very important to me at all levels. I think in the past, politicians of all stripes have been guilty of regarding students as your typical 18-year-old school leaver, perhaps, who completes their A-levels and goes off to university. What we do know, and what our economy demands, is that people need to have access to training and educational opportunities for the entire period of their life, and people will make different choices about when studying is right for them—they will have to combine it often with caring responsibilities, perhaps. So, diversity in the student voice is very important, and we recognise that, as a Welsh Government, as we try to move towards a new system of student support that will give parity to undergraduates whether they study full time or part time, or whether they are undergraduate or postgraduate. We recognise the diversity in that.

With regard to the issue of changes in England, I have to say to the Member that I am very concerned about changes arising out of new legislation in England and what that might mean for us. So, for instance, with regard to UK Research and Innovation, the Member says, ‘Give me an example of why you should be worried about this’. The absolute intransigence of the previous Minister, and I think he still is the Minister—Jo Johnson has been reappointed—to acknowledge having a Welsh representative on that body, and, indeed, having a Scottish representative on that body, fills me with concern. The fact that each devolved Government will not be represented on that body gives me cause for concern.

We’re asking an awful lot of these people involved in UKRI. For most of the time, this will be an England-only body—they will just be thinking about the needs of England. But, occasionally, they will have to switch mode and they’ll have to think about a UK model. And, this is a lot to ask of somebody. This is a lot to ask of people. I think we need to make sure that we protect our interest. We also have to recognise that in making moneys available, maybe the strategic direction and the priorities for that body might well serve the English economy, but that isn’t necessarily the same as what we need for our economy and what the research needs are for our economy. We can’t abdicate responsibility for that and that’s why I am extremely cautious and why I feel we need to look to protect Welsh interests in this particular area.

I’m not saying for a minute that our institutions can’t compete for this funding. But I’m just saying that we need to protect Welsh interests and to put ourselves in the strongest position to take advantage of these issues, because research is absolutely crucial to us as a Government, and crucial to us as a nation. We need to make sure that research is integral to the work of this particular body. Can I make clear that this is not about stepping onto the very important principle of institutional autonomy or guaranteeing academic freedoms? Those are very dear to me. But the commission will build on current strengths and encourage increased research and innovation activities in companies and other organisations, because if we’re honest, we’re not where we would want Wales to be, especially when it comes to private sector investment in research and innovation. We’re not where we want to be. We need a new focus on this and that’s why I’ve invited, along with my colleagues, the Reid inquiry to look at what best we can do and this sits alongside this particular piece of work.

The Member also raised the issue of duplication. Well, the purpose of having one body in this way is to try and make sure that we move away from issues around duplication and confusion. And issues around quality, again, let’s be absolutely clear: because of changes that have happened across the border, we have to take this opportunity to see whether we need to protect ourselves to assure quality. So, for instance, at the moment, a student can apply to an institution in England that doesn’t have degree-awarding powers. So, you could start, as a student at an institution—. Because of the marketisation of that particular sector, you could start on a course without knowing that that course will lead to a degree because that institution doesn’t have degree-awarding powers. We need to make sure that issues like that and quality and student assurance are underpinned in our system, and this White Paper gives us the opportunity to make sure that we’ve got that.

I welcome in broad terms the statement from the Cabinet Secretary today. Before I go into detail on the statement, I just want to, as the Cabinet Secretary is here, mention one thing to her and bring to her attention. There’s a very misleading article in ‘The Guardian’ newspaper today on Welsh language education. I can see that the Cabinet Secretary is aware of it. All I can say to her is that I hope that she responds or the Government responds officially to that article, because it is wrong in fact and it is wrong in its implications as well.

Can I turn to the report—the White Paper, I should say—now that we have before us? As I said, Plaid Cymru has long advocated a parity of esteem between vocational and academic education, and we set out in our manifesto how we wanted the Hazelkorn review to work towards the elimination of duplication and unnecessary competition and more collaboration in this sector. In fact, I have been so enthusiastic for it that the Cabinet Secretary has accused me perversely in the past of wanting to take money from universities and give it to sixth forms. But, I think we know where we are. We want to see a real choice for our young people that really rewards them in the decisions they make, whether it’s education through university or through apprenticeships or through training or through sixth form or through post-sixth-form or whatever it may be.

I had several questions coming in to the statement this afternoon. Though, as the Cabinet Secretary has usefully pointed out, these are all questions that are asked in the consultation and we don’t have any answers to them yet. So, I’ll try and elucidate some that I think perhaps the Cabinet Secretary can give some steer on at this stage. I’ll start with where we ended, actually, which is the UKRI and the relationship between this new body, the tertiary authority and other UK-wide bodies—they’re supposed to be UK-wide, but don’t include representation from Wales on them. We do have an establishment, the UKRI, we do have a real issue around Brexit, leaving the European Union, and European funds that were accessed directly by Welsh universities. A very successful ‘science at the Assembly’ day just a couple of weeks ago here showcased a lot of that work, and particularly showcased how successful international collaboration is amongst our universities, bypassing to a certain extent what’s been done at a UK level because of that direct access to European collaboration. So, is it the Government’s intention in this new structure to try and seek to ensure that we get more research money from the research councils? Because that used to be the Government’s intention and I’d like a restatement of that, because I’d like to see that that’s within a remit letter, or whatever is written to this new body at the end of the day. We really have to make up for some of the money that disappears from Europe, but also really press the abilities for Wales to act at that level.

I also wonder if the Cabinet Secretary could say whether, having now published the White Paper, she’s looked at the Diamond proposals and what’s in the White Paper, and whether she sees any need to realign any of the Diamond proposals or any of the timetabling or any of the issues around Diamond, or whether she is content that, at the moment, that is all aligned together. She’s also mentioned the Reid review, for example. These all need to come together.

Can I just draw the Cabinet Secretary’s attention to the Wales Audit Office report on the oversight of further education colleges in particular, which pointed out that, while generally sound, their finances would benefit from a more long-term and more integrated approach? I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary would say that this proposal here today is a more integrated approach. In terms of long term, however, I wonder whether there is any consideration of three-year funding for this body and for this sector. That’s something we now have at least offered to health bodies. They can’t take it up because they’re inefficient and can’t meet the standards, but it’s offered to them and I wondered whether we wouldn’t be looking at that for this sector as well, which would give some assurances and some interesting ideas that perhaps could emerge in terms of investment going forward.

Now, we touched on sixth forms, and I very much accept that this is a consultation question, but what’s not quite clear to me is whether the Government has a particular preferred option, if we can put it that way, about the actual governance of sixth forms. I’m not talking about the strategic role—because, clearly, this new body will have a strategic influence on sixth forms—but whether the governance should still reside at a local education authority level, or whether she wants to go further and take that governance level up to a national body as well, which I think is where perhaps there’ll be more questions askedit’s an interesting proposal.

And, of course, it also leads us to the almost final point—the final point but one that I have—which is whether the Cabinet Secretary has considered, in looking at implementing Hazelkorn and looking at this new authority, whether we should raise the age of compulsory education in Wales. I should say ‘education and training and everything else’, because we’re not talking about sticking reluctant people in sixth forms; we’re talking about the expectation that you stay in education until you’re 18. That’s happening in England and is moving ahead, in effect, and perhaps it’s something that we should consider in the light of this White Paper as well.

And my final question is around something else that I think has just been touched on but I’d like to hear a little more about: what relationship this new body will have in terms of quality assurance in university education. We have had suggestions in the past of changes to the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education that would have affected Welsh universities and affected the UK nature of this. This is all very—. Perhaps it’s no longer on the cards, following a very strange general election, but how will quality assurance be maintained within this new body? It won’t have, I think, the direct control, because that’s still elsewhere within a UK university sector, but, clearly, it will have a role in ensuring that that does happen, and a reputational role for universities as well.

Thank you very much, Simon. Can I begin where you began with regard to ‘The Guardian’ article? I am absolutely dismayed by the misleading headline and by the factual inaccuracies that pepper that particular so-called piece of journalism. It is very disappointing and it is a gross mischaracterisation of what is going on in that particular community and, indeed, the Welsh Government’s ambitions for Welsh-medium education. It is a matter of huge regret for me, and I can assure you, whenever these issues around the language come up, whether that be the University of Warwick and how they view Welsh-language A-levels, or articles like this, then we will look to correct and give the correct impression of what is going on in our bilingual education system.

If I could move on to the substantive points with regard to the statement—yes, it is absolutely the Government’s intention to gain more research money into Wales. We have some absolute stars. Our Seren programme, for instance, gives us a really good example of what can be achieved, but we need to do better. That is particularly important given the consequences of an EU Brexit on the higher education sector. Obviously, so that’s—. I’m very happy to restate that is the Government’s overall aim.

With regard to alignment, I do believe that Diamond is aligned with the proposals that are set out here and I don’t have any intentions to change the timescales with regard to the implementation of the Diamond report. It is important that we see that and the Reid review as well as the Government’s White Paper on implementing Hazelkorn to dovetail together.

With regard to—I can’t read my own writing—. With regard to sixth-form governance—. The issue with sixth forms is a really interesting one, around the issue of governance, because, actually, Simon says about the role of local education authorities—in some ways sixth forms have become nobody’s child, because they’re not actually funded by the local education authorities. They’re funded from direct money from the Welsh Government. So, in a way, local government have almost washed their hands of them. Also, it has not been subject to Estyn inspection. So, when Estyn have gone into schools—even when that school has a sixth form—it has not been the job of Estyn to report on the provision within that sixth form. That’s not acceptable to me. If we want to see an increase and a raising of standards in all aspects of our education system, that has to include sixth forms. So, I’m very pleased to say that Estyn will now be looking at sixth-form provision in those schools that have them, because I think, in some ways, as I’ve said, they’ve become nobody’s child and maybe they have fallen through the net when it comes to really making sure that they’re doing a good job on behalf of the students that are in them.

The funding certainties—that’s what I can’t read: funding certainties and a three-year funding cycle. I recognise that sometimes institutions would make different decisions if they had a longer-term view of funding that was made available to them. In some ways, those may be better long-term strategic decisions. I am trying, in discussion with my Cabinet colleague for finance, to do what we can to provide certainty of funding wherever possible, in all aspects of the education system. That’s really been quite difficult because of, sometimes, situations out of our control with regard to when budgets and autumn statements are announced in London. Obviously, there’s grave uncertainty at the moment. I had hoped, following the election result and some of the utterances by the Prime Minister, that the foot would be taken off the austerity pedal. But, if one listens to the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech this morning, if any of us had any beliefs that that was about to happen, I think those probably have been dispelled by what Philip Hammond had to say this morning. I take your point, and we will look to see what we can do to provide that longer-term view for institutions, because I recognise how valuable that is for them.

I have no plans at present to look at raising the compulsory education age beyond 16. With regard to quality assurance, this body will have a key role. Unlike some of the changes that we’ve seen in England, for instance, we’re very keen to continue to involve the Privy Council, for instance, in quality assurance, degree-awarding status, university title. These things are very important to me and I’m going to use this opportunity to make sure that they are where we would want them to be and make changes, if necessary, to provide that assurance—to both students, international students, and would-be investors in research and innovation—that we have that quality underpinning our HE sector.

Thank you. Michelle Brown.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary. I welcome the consultation on the reforms to post-compulsory education and training. I do have some questions. I appreciate that you may not have a firm answer right now to some of them and, if that’s the case, I’d like your assurance that the views of stakeholders will be sought on the points.

I note the intention to create a new tertiary education and research commission for Wales, which will replace the existing higher education funding council. Can the Cabinet Secretary tell us what the comparative costs are for the existing council and the new commission, and will the creation of the commission lead to a reduction or increase in overall cost of overseeing post-compulsory education? Approximately how big will the commission be and to whom will it be accountable? If the commission doesn’t fulfil its objectives, who will be responsible for this?

Recent years have seen vocational training—what used to be called ‘getting yourself a trade’—reduce in status while academic qualifications have been treated almost as the be-all and end-all. This has resulted in generations of gifted young people almost being thrown on the scrap heap or encouraged to study for courses that won’t fulfil their potential because their skills and abilities don’t lie in traditional academic areas. Although academic graduates are needed, it’s the tradesmen who build our schools, hospitals, houses, and everything else and, without them, we have no buildings, no power, no roads—nothing.

The lack of qualified tradesmen and women in Wales needs to be addressed by Wales training its own. I therefore welcome wholeheartedly the Cabinet Secretary’s objective to ensure that vocational and academic training have equal value in our education system. In a work environment in which it is less and less likely that a person will leave school and then spend their working life either working in the same role or for the same employer, it’s vital that people are given the ability to retrain or upskill, so that they can take advantage of new work opportunities. If the Cabinet Secretary can significantly improve access to training and education for people looking to improve or update their existing skills or learn new ones, I’ll applaud her.

I would like to see the Cabinet Secretary making provision to give advice and guidance to Welsh businesses that are conducting research and development to assist them exploit the patents they create, as well as assisting universities and colleges to improve the quality of their bids for research funding. I note that sixth-form provision may be covered by the new commission, but that sixth-form provision may not be included in the consultation. I understand your reasons for that, but, if sixth forms are going to be covered by the new commission, when will that proposal be put out to consultation if it is not included in this present one? Young people need to be able to choose the right sixth-form environment for them. Some will want a school sixth form, others will want to attend a sixth-form college. Can the Cabinet Secretary assure us that young people will continue to have the choice of studying at a sixth-form college or school sixth form?

As regards the consultation itself, how have you publicised the consultation and how are you ensuring that the correct stakeholders have been notified of it? I welcome the consultation on the commission and the reforms being considered and I would encourage all interested parties to contribute to that consultation. Thank you.

Thank you very much to Michelle for her questions. Costs are currently being developed and will be published at the same time as the technical consultation, which will happen later on this year. The commission will be accountable to Welsh Ministers. Parity of esteem is a crucial issue for me. One of the reasons for having one single body organising and having a strategic overview for post-compulsory education and training is to achieve that parity of esteem and to recognise, as you quite rightly say, that the days of having a job for life and staying in one place when you leave school are over. That’s one of the reasons why we need to change how we plan and organise post-compulsory education and training. The Welsh Government recognises that, for instance, in its all-age apprenticeship scheme that it is developing over the course of this particular Welsh Government.

Michelle asks whether the issue around sixth forms is contained in the consultation document and when we’re going to consult on it. Well, it is in the consultation document. I appreciate—. I’m concerned that maybe the Member hasn’t had a copy of the White Paper. I think it has been e-mailed out to all Members. I certainly saw it in my own AM inbox and it’s quite clearly in there—the questions regarding sixth forms are in the consultation and it is a genuine question that we’re asking of people.

The Member also asks how we’re publicising the consultation. Well, this is part of the reason why we’re doing an oral statement today—to update Assembly Members following the statement I made earlier in the day. As I said in my statement, there are a number of stakeholder events ongoing until the consultation ends in October, and we will do a specific young persons’ consultation, because at the heart of this is getting it right for the learner and they need to be involved in this consultation exercise also.

As far as I can see on the HEFCW website, the current staffing numbers are 50 staff across four directorates. Can you confirm if that’s correct? If so, how would the future staffing and organisational structure compare to the current Higher Education Funding Council for Wales arrangements?

I would hope that HEFCW’s website is correct and is an accurate description of their employment practices, but I will double check with the chief executive, and confirm that to you. With regards to the size of the commission, I’m always a firm believer in the principle that form follows function, and at this stage, while we’re consulting on the form of the commission, we’re not at this stage in a position to say exactly how that will look, because that will depend on where we go forward. That is the point of having a technical consultation at the end of this White Paper process so that those more technical in-depth issues and the detail that you’re requiring will be consulted on at a later date. But at this moment, what is important to us is that we are clear and we get agreement on the functions of this body and then move forward on how effectively it will be staffed. What’s important is, of course, under these proposals, HEFCW will go and we will be working closely with HEFCW and hopefully new members of the board with a broader range of experiences to make a seamless transition from one organisation into the next.

Thank you very much for the statement and for the commitments that are in it. I appreciate that we’re talking primarily about structural change, but the purpose of the structural change is to improve opportunities for learning, and learning ready for a Wales that will be taking part in a global competition, if you like, as well as promoting the local economy. If the Welsh Government’s plans for a million Welsh speakers are to have any traction, further down the line we will have businesses looking for Welsh language skills—I won’t say necessarily fluency—but beyond that, other language skills as well, particularly post Brexit. Even though English is the international language of business, it’s certainly a help for people in Wales if they’re able to speak more than one language when they’re trying to engage in international trade. Can you tell me, then, whether the consultation in particular and the commission’s future work will be taking into account the place of deft communication skills in non-statutory education? Thank you.

Thank you very much, Suzy, for that contribution. As you will know, increasing the opportunities for students, school pupils and those in FE and HE to acquire language skills in the Welsh language and to be able to utilise those skills in their mode of studies is something that is very important to me. With regards to FE, we’re currently asking Delyth Evans to do a piece of work on whether the role and remit of the Coleg Cymraeg should be extended to the FE sector, and we expect to receive that report before the summer recess. Obviously, any organisation that is charged with the planning of HE and FE and work-based learning provision in our nation will have to think about how they deliver that through the medium of Welsh as well as in English.

With regard to wider languages, I’m not in a position to say at this moment the roles and responsibilities that this organisation will have with regards to that. But planning qualifications and planning and commissioning a range of language qualifications and courses, whether that be in modern foreign languages, in Welsh, or in the ability to express yourself confidently and coherently—perhaps better than I’m doing at the moment—obviously is something that we’ll be looking at in terms of commissioning courses that will be available. And I recognise that the ability to express yourself and communicate effectively is an important one, and of course that is why we have kept an oral examination as part of our English language GCSE, whereas that has been abolished in England.

Only in Wales could the answer to the exam question ‘How we as a nation become a world leader of innovation’ be the establishment of not just a committee—not even a committee—but a sub-committee, which is what Research and Innovation Wales is in relation to this new body. Can the Cabinet Secretary confirm that this is diametrically opposed to the advice to the Government’s own Innovation Advisory Council for Wales, and indeed of two reports of global experts in innovation policy, which recommended, in contrast, the creation of a dedicated innovation body for Wales? Could she say where this leaves the Reid review on research and innovation in Wales, set up as a result of the Hazelkorn review, whose purpose, and I quote, was to provide

‘advice in the form of a report to the Welsh Government on the governance…regulation and oversight of Government funded research and innovation in Wales’?

If the Welsh Government has already come up with the answer, why ask Professor Reid the question?

First of all, it’s not a committee, it’s a commission, and it will have the status of such. Perhaps the question should be: ‘Only in Wales, the answer to the problem is to have yet another body’, which is what I believe the Member is in favour of creating. We already have—[Interruption.] I think we already had, at the last count, 47 individual bodies in Wales that had some remit or responsibility for research and innovation. I would suggest that adding another one to those 47 is not what we need. What is really important to me—and I heard your question to the First Minister earlier—is that we don’t create individual fiefdoms, but that we have a systematic approach that means we can have the best of relationships with both the higher education sector and with the world of employment, and we don’t need to choose one or the other.

With regard to the Reid report, I am committed to getting the relationship of Government funding for research right, and to help that, Professor Reid is conducting his report, and his report will be integral to how we take these proposals forward. But I have to say again, Deputy Presiding Officer: when we’ve already got 47 bodies looking at this and Wales is underperforming with regard to innovation and research, simply adding another one isn’t the answer.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

Item 6 on the agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs on bovine TB, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to introduce the statement—Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I would like to begin by thanking the members of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee for their report on our TB eradication programme. I formally responded to the report this morning, and was particularly pleased to see the committee’s recommendations were in line with our proposals, which were consulted on late last year.

Building on progress made over the last nine years, many of you know the significant financial and social impact bovine TB has on farming families, their businesses and the rural economy. It is important we continue to tackle this disease to safeguard the future of the industry and to protect public and animal health. The consultation attracted almost 1,000 representations, and I want to thank all those who responded. Many agreed with the need to take a more regional approach and so, later this year, I will establish low, intermediate and high TB areas.

Over the last few years, real progress has been made. The number of new incidents has fallen by over 40 per cent since its peak in 2009 and is now the lowest it’s been in 12 years. Through increased testing, we are now finding infected cattle at an earlier stage and around 5 per cent of herds now have TB. The regional approach will build on what we have already achieved and accelerate progress towards a TB-free Wales.

Today, I have published the Wales TB eradication programme document and the first delivery plan, which provides the detail of evidence-based controls to be applied to each region. The low TB area in north Wales is where the disease has not become established. Here, becoming TB free is within our grasp in the short to medium term. TB-free status will boost trade opportunities and mean herds require less regular TB testing, reducing costs for farmers and Government. Our evidence shows cattle movements into the area are the main driver of disease that does occur and so, from 1 October this year, post-movement testing will be introduced. This will help protect the area by identifying infected animals at the earliest opportunity, before they go on to infect others. The evidence shows movement of cattle from neighbouring higher TB areas is one of the main drivers of disease in the intermediate areas. Post-movement testing will, therefore, be introduced to the intermediate areas late next year.

The priority for the high TB areas is to continue to reduce the number of TB breakdowns and the severity of each case. In the consultation, we asked for feedback on a proposal for herd testing to be carried out every six months instead of annually. Six-monthly testing has been beneficial in the intensive action area, where this more frequent testing finds 22 per cent of all breakdowns. It has also been successfully used in eradication programmes in other countries. However, I know from my discussions with farmers it can be inconvenient and practically difficult to gather cattle from pasture in the summer months. This is why I’ve decided six-monthly testing will only be required for those herds that have the highest risk of becoming infected. We’re gathering the evidence needed to identify these herds, and so for now, annual testing will remain for all Wales.

Farmers told us they want herd TB status information made available so they can make a judgement on the risk of the cattle they are buying. We know risk-based trading schemes have made a significant contribution to TB eradication in New Zealand and Australia. Providing herd-level information will be one of the most important parts of the programme going forward, complementing our regional policies. We have made a start by grant funding livestock markets to update their equipment to receive and display TB information. In the longer term, only a mandatory system will make sure cattle sellers provide TB information at the point of sale, and we will explore ways this can be introduced.

The Cattle Health Certification Standards TB voluntary health schemes, known as CHeCS, will also play a pivotal role by allowing herds to demonstrate they are a lower risk even if they are in a high TB area. This will help buyers minimise the risk of introducing the disease, and participating herds classified as the lowest risk will be exempt from some of our controls. I urge Members to help me encourage farmers to sign up to a scheme, and ask for TB information of the cattle they are buying no matter where they come from.

A key element of our approach to disease eradication is to deal with TB in long-standing and recurrent TB breakdowns. Some of these chronic TB breakdowns have been under TB restrictions for many years. Eliminating disease in these herds will significantly reduce the costs and implications to the taxpayer, herd owners and neighbouring herds.

We are putting in place tailored action plans for chronic breakdowns, with measures specifically aimed at clearing up infection. In some of these chronic breakdowns, badgers may be identified as part of the problem, and unless we accept these herds remaining persistently infected, we must find ways to break the cycle of infection between badgers and cattle. We are considering a range of options to do this, including where necessary cage trapping and humanely killing infected badgers. This is a new approach and is not a repeat of the reactive culling previously used in England. The trap, test and removal operations being planned will be restricted to those breakdowns where investigations indicate badger infection is a key driver of the disease persisting. We will also only remove test-positive badgers. In areas where it can be proved badgers are not contributing to the disease, we will continue with cattle-specific measures, including increased biosecurity.

Along with these new measures we also need to be prudent with our budgets, especially with the future loss of European funding. It is important we prevent slaughtered animals being overvalued, because it increases the cost to the taxpayer. I am concerned our average compensation payments are 60 per cent higher than in England, so I am reducing the compensation cap to £5,000 and reviewing our compensation system. I will look at those used in other countries to inform any changes.

I fully appreciate just how distressing and debilitating TB is for farmers. My message to them is: things are getting better, and through working together we can achieve our mutual aim of eradicating this disease.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary for her statement this afternoon and for giving me an opportunity to meet with officials earlier on today? I’d like to state, for the record, that my parents-in-law’s farm has been affected by bovine TB over the last 15 years, and I know from personal experience just how devastating this particular disease is.

We, on this side of the Chamber, welcome today’s statement and the Wales TB eradication programme document and delivery plan, and I hope that in responding to my questions today, the Cabinet Secretary will give us more detail about her initial targets and time frames for delivering a TB-free Wales.

I’m particularly pleased to see this Cabinet Secretary starting to take the necessary steps to remove this disease from the wildlife population, as well as tackling the disease in cattle. I’ve always believed that a full, holistic approach is needed to eradicate this disease, and I’m pleased that the Welsh Government is now, at last, taking that approach, as a strong eradication programme relies on dealing with all sources of the disease. So, I’d like to congratulate the Cabinet Secretary on her decision here today to start removing infected badgers.

Now, my first question to the Cabinet Secretary is regarding the decision to remove infected badgers from severely affected farms. Can I therefore ask her what monitoring arrangements are in place for this policy? Perhaps she could provide some more specific detail on the practicalities of these new measures, for example the likely frequency of cage-trapping badgers on severely affected farms and how much funding will be provided to implement these new measures. Indeed, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary will tell us how she will be reporting on the effectiveness of these measures so that we can absolutely be sure that the intervention is targeted appropriately.

Now, today’s statement confirms a regionalised approach, and it’s crucial that the measures are appropriate to the level of risk in each area and that they do not inadvertently result in more burden and red tape for farmers. Therefore, I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will give a cast-iron commitment that that will not be the case. However, there are some very valid concerns regarding the impact of a regionalised approach on trade—and, in particular, trade between Wales and England, which could be negatively affected as a result of these changes. So, it’s crucial that the Welsh Government monitors any knock-on effects that the new approach might have on markets. Perhaps the Cabinet Secretary could also give an indication of how this new approach would impact on livestock markets across Wales.

Now, today’s statement also refers to the introduction of TB status information being made more readily available, similar to the risk-based trading system in New Zealand. Whilst I support the idea of a system that informs farmers of the status of cattle they are buying, could the Cabinet Secretary confirm exactly how the system will ensure that there’s no discrimination against farmers whose cattle have had the disease but are now off restrictions? Indeed, does the Cabinet Secretary recognise the concern of farmers in high TB areas about the potentially negative impact on their trade, and also, how can the Welsh Government properly police this system so that farmers can’t claim that their herd has been free of disease when it has not?

Now, today’s statement also refers to post-movement testing in low and intermediate TB areas, and it’s crucial that any new testing measures are put in place as conveniently as possible in order to minimise disruption to farmers in those areas. I understand that this will not be popular amongst farmers in those areas who feel that it could be costly to the industry. So, could the Cabinet Secretary therefore tell us what assessment she’s made of the financial impact that any additional testing may have?

In the Welsh Government’s consultation, there were proposals for lifelong restriction for inconclusive reactors in high TB areas, like Pembrokeshire, in my own constituency, and elsewhere, and there has justifiably been a number of concerns on this particular issue. The general concept of any lifelong restriction has worried farmers, who believe that restricting inconclusive reactors not only undermines the current skin test but it also could potentially infect the herd if left on a holding. Therefore, given that the statement makes no reference to inconclusive reactors, could the Cabinet Secretary provide some much-needed clarity on this matter and confirm that these lifelong restrictions are no longer being considered?

Farmers have also been concerned about six-monthly whole-herd testing in high TB areas, and it’s good to see that the Welsh Government is now looking at more proportionate testing in these areas. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has re-looked at this specific proposal, although I would still be interested in any research that has been undertaken regarding the impact that six-monthly whole-herd testing in high TB areas would have on trading with farmers outside of Wales and health and safety. Therefore, perhaps the Cabinet Secretary could provide more detail on the impact of six-monthly whole-herd testing in high TB areas.

Now, the statement also confirms a compensation cap from £15,000 to £5,000, which will have a significant impact on some farmers in Wales. So, will the Cabinet Secretary confirm how the Welsh Government will account for any additional pressure placed on farmers as well as how the Government will actually recognise pedigree stock?

Llywydd, can I thank the Cabinet Secretary, once again, for her statement this afternoon; and can I, once again, put on record my broad support for the Welsh Government’s proposals? Members are all aware of the importance of eradicating bovine TV. The agricultural industry has made it quite clear that unless urgent and proactive action is taken to manage the source of infection in both cattle and in wildlife, post-Brexit trade negotiations could be put at significant risk. Therefore, I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has brought forward proposals to tackle this disease holistically, including tackling the transmission routes between cattle and wildlife, and we look forward to constructively scrutinising these proposals as they develop.

I thank Paul Davies for his broad welcome for the refreshed TB eradication programme. You started off by talking about targets, and you’ll be aware that I responded this morning to the recommendations made by the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. I think it was recommendations 1 and 2 that were around targets, and I was very happy to accept those recommendations. I will bring forward some targets, and also interim targets, by the end of this calendar year.

Regarding monitoring, that will be constant. The idea of having the first delivery plan was to have the overarching strategic document in the eradication programme, but then underneath that, have the delivery plan, which can be flexible. So, if we need to respond to a changing pattern, for instance, we would be able to do that quickly. I want that delivery plan not to be a Welsh Government document. I want that to be very much in conjunction with the sector, with farmers and with the veterinary profession. You’ll be aware of the bespoke plans that we’re going to have with the chronic herd breakdowns. We’ve got 10 per cent of our herd breakdowns that are the chronic herd breakdowns, i.e. over 18 months—some of them since 2001. It’s completely unacceptable, and I said this in my statement last October, before we went to consultation, that we really needed to look at these chronic herd breakdowns specifically. I absolutely agree: transparency is imperative, and again, we will be doing annual monitoring, and I will be very happy to report back on that.

In regard to the regionalisation approach, again, the consultation—some people were in favour, some people weren’t, but I think it’s really important that we have it, and as I said in my statement, I think TB-free in north-west Wales, in that low area, is within our grasp, and that would really send a very positive message out. I don’t want to burden farmers any more than they are. I don’t want more regulation. However, we do want a TB-free Wales, so we have to have this holistic and new approach to the disease.

You asked about trade between Wales and England and officials have certainly spoken to DEFRA and had discussions around that. I’m very happy with the arrangements that we’ve currently got in place. You referred to the informed purchasing status. I think that’s really important. So, we’ve had a voluntary sort of scheme, if you like, and we’ve given grant funding to livestock markets. Not all livestock markets have taken up the grant funding. I would say that not all livestock markets are producing the information that I think buyers need. So, I do think the only way forward, really, is a mandatory scheme, so I’ve asked officials to look at how we could introduce that.

I mentioned in my statement that checks are really important and I think particularly for farms. You know, I was asked the question about: if you’re in a high TB area but you haven’t had TB breakdown, how do you then inform people that you haven’t had it? So, I think checks are a way forward to do that, and as I said, I would encourage everybody to encourage farmers to do that.

You asked about post-movement testing in the low and intermediate TB areas and I said that this year, on 1 October, we’ll introduce that in the low TB area. I just think we need to identify disease at an earlier stage. We don’t want the disease introduced into the low TB area. I think we must do all we can to protect that. And because we know the majority of the way that it’s spread from high TB areas into intermediate TB areas, I plan to introduce it next year there.

I absolutely agree with you about six-month testing, and we looked at the consultation responses. My advice from the chief veterinary officer’s office was to continue with annual testing, but, again, we will obviously monitor that.

In relation to the compensation cap, it was £15,000 and it’s now going to be £5,000. Looking at last year’s figures, that would affect about 1 per cent of farmers. However, there is an issue around pedigree cattle, and I would encourage people who feel they’ve got cattle more valuable to look at insurance.

You ask about inconclusive reactors and, again, we’ve said that, in those chronic herd breakdowns, we will be removing them immediately, but just, again, as part of the bespoke plans, and life long has been ruled out.

Simon Thomas.

Thank you, Llywydd, am I’m very pleased to see you chairing this particular statement. May I start by telling the Cabinet Secretary that we’re very pleased that she concluded her statement with the recognition of the detrimental impact that this disease has on farmers and the industry more generally? I very much hope that the Government will continue to acknowledge and recognise that, because this disease does cast a very long and dark shadow over large areas of Wales, including many of those areas that I represent as a regional Member for Mid and West Wales.

Although many people will question aspects of today’s statement, Plaid Cymru certainly wants to work with much of what’s contained here in order to see that there’s an approach to eradication of this disease that takes fully into account real animal welfare issues, and that is the herds as well as the badgers. This disease exists in those animals that we are involved in their husbandry, and is also in the wildlife reservoir, and we need to eradicate it from both of those sectors. And in that context, I welcome what the Cabinet Secretary has had to say this afternoon.

I just have a few questions, because I think that most have already been asked and answered, but there are a few aspects that I would like a little more detail on. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware that there is a strong recommendation from the committee that she responded to this morning in terms of securing from the Westminster Government that the TB status of Wales isn’t going to be any sort of barrier in trade negotiations with the rest of the European Union as we leave the union. The Cabinet Secretary has stated positively that she will do that, but, of course, with a new Government in place, I just wanted to ensure that that is done as a matter of urgency, and that these issues are raised with the Government negotiating trade on our behalf.

I’d like to hear a little more about how the Cabinet Secretary intends to report back to us as an Assembly or to the committee responsible for this, namely the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, particularly in relation to those new aspects in this report, and that is tackling the issue of badgers on specific farms where there are breakdowns that have been in existence over a long period of time, 18 months and more, and the Cabinet Secretary made reference to that in the statement. She’s pledged already, in response to the committee, to return in a year’s time, but I would like to see that becoming some sort of consistent report-back system, every six months or every year, so that we can monitor what is being done.

And just in the context of tackling the badger population where there is a link between the existence of badgers on a farm and the recurrent transmission of that disease, who’s going to establish that link? We can get people such as ecologists to go to farms and we can actually find where the badger population is in relation to the pasture and so on, but who’s going to actually make that decision that there is that link? And then, of course, there are some of the outcomes that would emerge from that, including the culling of badgers, where appropriate.

Can I just ask on risk-based trading? I think there was an element of sadness for the Cabinet Secretary that more of the industry hasn’t grasped this opportunity to make more information known in markets and so on and so forth, and although she doesn’t intend to make that compulsory at present, what steps will she take during the next year or two to put her risk-based trading system on firmer foundations in Wales, so that we can monitor whether that is making a difference in ensuring the eradication of the disease regionally, at least, in parts of Wales?

And can I ask whether she intends to retain the cap? We have discussed the cap, and the impact on breeding particularly, but does she intend to keep the cap under review in case there are unexpected consequences emerging from that?

The final question I have—. I genuinely welcome the fact that, in responding to the consultation, it appears to me that the Cabinet Secretary has shifted from a system, for example, that is six months for everyone in the intensive action area to a system that is more based on risk. But, in light of that, of course, you will have to be more certain of the risk level—you’ll need to be aware which farms and which herds are truly at risk and which are in a different situation. That does raise a question on resourcing and staffing, and how that’s going to be achieved, and I would like to hear a little more from the Cabinet Secretary as to how she can ensure that the risk standards are contained within the new plan.

Diolch, Simon Thomas, for, again, his broad welcome for the new eradication programme and for his questions. I absolutely agree with you about the detrimental impact. Some of the most distressing conversations I’ve had with farmers since I’ve been in post over the last year have been around TB, so I absolutely agree with you on that point.

In relation to the new approach within the chronic herd breakdowns with badgers, I think it would be good for the badger population, as well. So, I’ve been asked the question—this comes back to your last point—‘Why aren’t you doing that everywhere?’ We don’t have the resources and the funding to do it, but we will then be able to have some information, working with farmers and their private vet, to get their bespoke action plan together—that’s how we will know whether there is that link between wildlife and cattle coming into contact.

Around the question of our TB status and trade with the UK Government, I actually think that we’ve had some success. Since we’ve had our eradication programme back in 2008, we’ve seen a 40 per cent drop in incidence. So, I don’t think Europe, any other country that wants to trade with us or any other part of the UK would see that as a failure, but it is something—. Within our ministerial meetings at an agricultural level, we’re having a look specifically at trade, which—

When you get one.

Yes, I am hoping that will soon be—. I’m going to have a conversation with Michael Gove in the morning, and I’m hoping we’ll be able to reinstate our monthly meetings as quickly as possible.

You ask about how I will report to this place, whether it’s in the Chamber or with the committee. I certainly think I need to report annually, so we can look at whether that’s here or to the committee. One of the reasons I didn’t particularly want an annual delivery plan was that I just think that the plan needs to be flexible and fluid, but I do think that I need to report annually to Members, so that they can be aware of how successful the new approach is.

In relation to the compensation cap, as I said in my answer to Paul Davies, it was £15,000 and it’s come down to £5,000 now. It would’ve affected 1 per cent of people—of farmers—last year. However, it would save £300,000, and I am concerned that our compensation rate is 60 per cent higher than England. We have to be pragmatic about this. We are going to lose EU funding, which is currently about £4 million, in a couple of years. I’m going to hold the UK Government to what they said, but we have to plan that we won’t get that funding. I spent £11 million last year on compensation, so we have to look at it. But, again, I’m very happy, you know, the whole eradication programme needs monitoring, and I’m very happy to include that in the report to Members.

Well, Simon Thomas lamented at the start of his remarks that there weren’t many questions left to be asked and now there are even fewer, but I would like to join everyone else in welcoming this statement and actually congratulating the Cabinet Secretary on her willingness to engage with farmers and to listen to all views, and for the flexibility of her approach. I do think that this document, taken in the round, is a significant step towards the eradication of TB.

There will, no doubt, be lots of complaints about individual parts of the package, but I think that, as a whole, it does represent very significant progress indeed, in particular the difficult political decision—I acknowledge that right at the outset—to envisage culling of badgers, be it of a limited kind. There is no unanimity on the value of this even within my own group, so I do understand the difficulties that the Cabinet Secretary has to cope with on this particular aspect of it.

As regards regionalisation, I think this is a sensible approach and it will be particularly welcomed, of course, in north-west Wales. And there are, of course, fears in the farming community—in the high-risk areas in particular—that this is going to stain them, in a sense, and increase their costs and adversely affect prices. I think we must do as much as we possibly can to explain to the public at large, and others who are interested stakeholders in this, that this is not necessarily something that makes the meat and other farm produce that is produced in these areas unsaleable or inedible. I think it’s very important to carry on with what the Cabinet Secretary has been doing, which is to take the farming industry with us in a collaborative venture towards the goal that we all want to see.

As regards the compensation cap, I heard what the Cabinet Secretary said about—. Actually, I think the figure is only 95 animals that were involved last year, over £5,000. But there is a specific unfairness to individuals, particularly where they’ve invested significant sums of money in animal genetics. I’m pleased to hear that she’ll keep this under review, and if it proves to be the case that individuals are losing significant sums of money, given the precariousness of farming incomes, I think it would be very welcome if this could be revisited as soon as there’s enough information available.

As regards the role of wildlife, I notice that the document does say that TB can infect all animals and some are regarded by veterinary experts as reservoirs, which can lead to a persistence of the disease. Of course, this particularly involves badgers. We know from the most recent Wales ‘badger found dead’ survey that there was an infection rate of nearly 7 per cent, which is much higher than that found in cattle, and in some areas of Wales about one in five badgers tested in this survey were shown to be suffering from the disease. I think it’s very important that we should see this as an animal welfare issue for badgers and other wildlife, as well as for cattle, and it needs to be explained that TB is a horrible disease for badgers as well as for cattle and there are other issues involved with an explosion in the numbers of badgers as well. We accept that deer need to be culled. There isn’t a great deal of controversy about that. Given that badgers have no known predators and there’s been a collapse in the hedgehog population and significant problems with ground nesting birds, there are other reasons for the control of badgers as well. These are issues that, I think, which have to be faced up to if we are to have real biodiversity in the countryside. I know that’s not directly relevant to this particular statement but it is an important part, I think, of the argument to try and bring the public with us on what is, I know, a very difficult issue.

So, I’ll just repeat what I said earlier on, that I do think that this is a step change for the Welsh Government in dealing with this problem and I congratulate the Cabinet Secretary for grasping this nettle.

Thank you, Neil Hamilton, again for your welcome for the refreshed TB eradication programme and for your questions. Actually, you said about Simon Thomas, I didn’t refer to the question around the informed purchasing scheme that Simon asked about, and you said that you thought I answered Paul Davies with sadness. We did bring this grant funding forward in the hope that all livestock markets would take it and then use it in the way that we would want. And as I said before—I think it was to Paul Davies—I don’t think we’re going to get anywhere; I think we are going to have to have a mandatory scheme. So, I have asked officials to look into how that could be introduced, probably through legislation. So, we’ll have to work that up.

I think it’s really important to work collaboratively and it’s something I’ve always done. I mentioned in relation to the delivery plan, it’s not a Welsh Government delivery plan, it’s owned by ourselves along with farmers and also the veterinary profession. I think that is the only way we’re ever going to get a TB-free Wales, which we all want to see. You’ll be aware that, when I made my statement in October, I talked about Northern Ireland and what they were doing around trapping badgers and testing them. If they were positive, they were humanely killed and if they were negative, they were vaccinated. We don’t have the vaccination available to us at the moment. It’s something that I’m hoping will come back next year, maybe late next year, and then holistically I would use it as part of the programme.

In relation to the compensation cap, you reiterated what I said, and I do appreciate that some people have invested significant sums of money in pedigree cattle. But, as I say, we will continue to monitor it, but they need to look at ensuring that.

You’re right about animal health and welfare, and I said in my answer to Simon Thomas that I think this way will be good for the badger population as well. So, whilst I absolutely rule out an England-style cull, because I don’t think it works, and the science and the evidence show that, I do think we have to break those chronic herd breakdowns. We cannot have herd breakdowns for 16, 17 years; it’s just completely unacceptable to the farmers and to the taxpayer, so we have to have this new approach.

I thank you for your statement, Cabinet Secretary, and I do welcome some elements and I will be raising concerns about others.

The intensive action area—the IAA—does lie within the region that I’ve represented for 10 years now, so I know only too well what a blight bovine TB is, and the disease has been a chronic and malign affliction for many farmers for many, many years. I am encouraged, however, that the incidence of bTB in the IAA has declined by 35 per cent. That’s 12 per cent more than the comparable in nearby areas. That seems to suggest to me that the measures currently being taken are, indeed, having a very positive effect, and I welcome that you’ve decided to take a different approach to the shambolic policy pursued in parts of England. I do have reservations, however, and I hope that you will be able to reassure me on a number of points.

Members in this Chamber will be aware of my past position on this issue, and I’ve spoken from and voted in line with the scientific evidence. The only credible evidence that we have regarding badger culling and its impact on the spread of bovine TB is from the 10-year randomised badger culling trials conducted by Lord Krebs. It concluded that in order to have even a modest reduction in bTB, 70 per cent of the badger population in an area no smaller than 150 sq km must be eradicated, and that this must be done in a short period of time—that’s about six weeks every single year. But it also goes on to say that if too many badgers are killed, there is a high risk of local extinction and that, indeed, did happen in some areas of the Irish Republic. It also goes on to say that if you don’t kill enough badgers, you risk perturbation, and that spreads the disease even further and wider. So, my question has to be, Cabinet Secretary: how does the proposed action of trapping and terminating diseased badgers, and possibly microchipping them, stack up against those Krebs recommendations, and how is it actually going to make any difference whatsoever? You know my views on badger culling, and I will repeat them yet again; I will not support it.

I also want to raise other questions about the spread of bTB in relation to slurry on farms. I do understand that grazing on land where manure and slurry is spread is not recommended for two months, and that is because the infection can stay within the manure and slurry for up to six months. Can you clarify then whether it is compulsory for all manure and slurry to be stored for six months prior to spreading? And would you consider enforcing the two-month grazing moratorium that is currently recommended?

My final point that I want to ask is: what other assessments have you made about the potential spread to cattle of bTB from foxhounds? Twenty five foxhounds from the Kimblewick hunt tested positive for bTB earlier this year. I don’t know whether we’ve done anything in Wales in terms of testing foxhounds in Wales, but what I do know is that there are around 20 hunts in west Wales. Do you not think, therefore, Cabinet Secretary, that it might be actually prudent to suspend all hunting with hounds until at least the risks are properly assessed?

I thank Joyce Watson for her questions and I absolutely know her views on a badger cull just as much as she knows mine. You’ll be very aware this is just about those chronic herd breakdowns. These plans, these bespoke action plans, which will be drawn up—which, if it’s proven there is, or there’s evidence that there is, contact between badgers and cattle that could be contributing to the disease, we will then undertake this trapping. It could be that some farmers don’t want those badgers done, and the bespoke action plan will only be done in consultation with the farmer and with their private vet.

You mentioned about microchipping. I am aware that in other countries this has been done, where, if a badger has been trapped and tested and it’s negative, it’s microchipped, so that, if the disease then does go to that farm, for instance, and you go back, you catch the badger that’s microchipped, they’re aware of the previous history, if you like, of the badger.

You talked about perturbation. I have to say that much of the effect of perturbation on the disease is not known and I think there is some significant work that needs to be done around that. I think one area where we have benefitted is in the ‘badger found dead’ survey. It’s given us some really good evidence in relation to the areas across Wales, and I have said that that will continue, that survey, going forward.

You ask about slurry and you quote the regulations around slurry and could it be made compulsory, because, again, that is something that—you know, the farmers have to take action around that. They know the risks and how long it should be stored for, et cetera, to get rid of the high moisture levels, but it’s something that we can certainly look at going forward.

You ask about foxhounds. Now, I’m not aware of any testing of foxhounds that’s gone ahead but I’d be very happy to look at that and write to the Member and put a copy in the Library.

I think, on the latter point, you should follow the scientific evidence—I would commend that. I think it is slightly perverse for a Member to quote the need to follow scientific evidence and then throw into the debate something that has certainly not been examined by the committee, or the Welsh Government by the sound of it. But, as I said, evidence has to be taken seriously when it’s robust.

I welcome the target setting. I think that’s very important, that we set a national target and then we have the interim targets for the three regions. I do think it’s important that we emphasise that, in the two regions that unfortunately are not very close to TB-free status, every effort over the period of the target will be taken, and that we will not let up. Our determination is to have a Wales free of bovine TB. So, I think they need reassurance because I think some feel that if north Wales is designated TB-free then the whole issue gets lessened on an all-Wales basis. I know that’s not your intention, but it is something that is mentioned by the farmers unions for instance, so we need to keep that in mind.

I think that trapping, testing, and removing infected badgers in high-risk areas is appropriate. Surely, it would be an odd animal welfare decision to release those badgers back into the wild if they are found to be heavily diseased. So, I do think this is an appropriate approach. The committee did find here evidence, both in England but also around the world, that some removal in the wildlife reservoir is appropriate, and, again, we’re always open to the evidence.

I think the new strategy needs to be effectively monitored and evaluated. The committee looked at this in great detail and I welcome the fact that you’re going to make regular, possibly annual—you’re yet to decide that—statements, and I think it’s an appropriate thing for the Assembly to return to on that basis as well.

I will just say, about adequate compensation, I think one way that we can respond to this disaster, really—if you look at a map of TB spread in the 1960s and look at it now, it is a truly dismal advance the disease has taken over that time. But, one thing we could do, as we progress to disease-free status, is improve the quality of the stock, and here pedigree breeding is important. So, I would ask you to look at that one very carefully, because that was specifically raised with us in committee.

Thank you, David Melding, for those questions. You’re absolutely right. This has all been done on an evidence base—that’s how we should make our decisions. But I’m very happy to look at anything that anybody suggests to get that aim that we want, and that’s that TB-free Wales.

I hear what you say about the high-risk areas being concerned about, you know, if north-west Wales is designated a TB area—. I’m the other way. I think that will really give us a boost, and I think, as I say, it is within our grasp in the short to medium term, but probably more in the short term. So, I hope I’ve offered that reassurance.

Around the compensation, I hear what you’re saying about improving stock and pedigree stock, and I know that some people have invested heavily in it, but, equally, we have to look at why our compensation rates are so high compared with England. Sixty per cent I don’t think is acceptable. I don’t think it would be acceptable to the Welsh taxpayer, and, if I am looking at reducing funding—not me personally reducing funding, but if my budget would have a reduction in funding, if we do lose that money from the EU, we have to look at that issue very carefully.

I absolutely agree about animal health and welfare, and I do think, in those chronic breakdowns, if we can prove or the evidence is there to show that badgers are contributing to the disease in that herd, that we take the action that I think is appropriate and proportionate.

Will the Cabinet Secretary confirm that this has been a real consultation, that she’s listened to farmers and to their representative groups and that the policy has firmed up as this has developed? Some months ago, I was sceptical of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee doing an inquiry on this; I feared that people would have entrenched positions and that there wouldn’t be much movement in response to quite a lot of evidence taken from witnesses. I found the absolute reverse, and it’s been the same with the Cabinet Secretary and what she’s done with this consultation.

We have had press releases from the NFU and the FUW. The NFU welcome the positive measures to address bovine TB in wildlife and say it’s a step forward to achieving a TB-free Wales. The FUW have, I think, re-released their press release, but, nonetheless, it has a statement in it that the programme continues to focus almost entirely on cattle controls without significant measures to tackle the disease in wildlife. Does she agree with me that that is not a fair assessment of the programme? Perhaps if you look at the volume of it and how much is written, I can see where they’re coming from. But, on the delivery paper you’ve put out today, it says that

‘where the Welsh Government views that badgers are contributing to the persistence of disease in chronic herd breakdowns, badgers will be trapped and tested on the breakdown farm and test positive badgers will be humanely killed. ‘

That is a real development, that it does address TB in the wildlife population, and is not an easy step for her to take and won’t meet with universal approval within her party—but that she, like the committee, have looked at the evidence. I had a certain frustration with the way that some witnesses and others described the Krebs report and the randomised badger control trials almost as if they’re tablets being handed down from on high, and, yes, an awful lot of money was spent on those trials, but there are actually some serious problems about how they were conducted, and they were stopped—when it seemed that there was a perturbation, in fact, they stopped actually measuring it, and there have been other trials and other evidence that has shown that that perturbation effect dies down. I think, as the committee looked at this more, we found that Christianne Glossop, your excellent chief vet, was sceptical of the degree of emphasis put on the perturbation out of the RBCT. In particular, three members of the committee that I then chaired, we went to the Republic of Ireland and found that, actually, for their approach, their assessment had been that perturbation was significantly less of a problem than the RBCT had said.

So, will she confirm that we’ll continue to find and develop evidence? And, actually, science is about looking at, and testing, and doing new things and assessing how you’re doing that. A key part of the strategy is going to be in seeing, when badgers are removed in this way, what impact that has, checking that the perturbation effect isn’t too great, and taking things forward in a decision by the Government that responds to evidence, responds to farmers, responds to the committee, and on which I’d like to congratulate the Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you, Mark Reckless, for your contribution. You’re absolutely right; it had to be a meaningful consultation. You may remember when I came to committee just before Christmas—we launched the consultation in October and I think it ran to the middle of January, and I was extremely concerned that, in the run-up to Christmas, we’d had something like 15 responses. I knew how important this issue was to farmers, so I think I put a plea out in Cabinet, and then, by the time we finished the consultation in January, we’d had over 1,000 responses. We’ve taken our time to look at those responses, because I thought that was very important, and I hope people will see I certainly didn’t have an entrenched position, and the fact that we’ve listened—I mentioned before about the consultation question around six-monthly herd testing, and we’re not doing it now because farmers have said, particularly during the summer months, it’s too difficult to bring cattle in from the pasture. So, I do hope people recognise that.

You mentioned the two main farming unions having little bits of a difference of opinion, but you can’t please all the people all the time. I was at the FUW AGM yesterday, I spoke at that, and certainly I think there is a broad welcome for this, but it is really important that we monitor it. Somebody mentioned before that I haven’t decided how often I was going to report back—well I have, it is going to be annually, it’s just whether I report back to the Chamber or back to the committee. You mentioned the committee report, and I’m sure you’re very pleased to see that all the recommendations have either been accepted or—I think two—accepted in principle, because I do think the committee report did align with our proposals.

Finally, and very quickly, Russell George.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I have two very short and focused questions. Cabinet Secretary, you have confirmed that you will reduce the cap for compensation from £15,000 to £5,000. Now, there will be, of course, some farmers that have invested in high genetic valuables to improve the genetic value and productivity of their herd. How is the Government going to ensure that farmers in this particular situation receive a fair value? And, secondly, can you just confirm when the programme to cage-trap and humanely kill affected badgers will commence?

In response to the first question, I think I’ve answered that, but, if any farmer believes they’ve got cattle worth more than £5,000, I would suggest that they look at insurance. However, it’s something that we will continue to monitor, the new cap on the compensation.

The bespoke actions plans in relation to the chronic herd breakdowns, we have started to pull those together. So, we’ve got about 10 per cent of herds in chronic herd breakdown, so that’s between 50 and 60—certainly at the last quarterly figures I saw. I think we’ve already been out to about 40 farms, starting to draw those action plans together. I think we’ve got 10 action plans done. So, where, as I say, we have the evidence to show that there is the link between badgers, wildlife, and the disease, we will start that—as soon as the action plan has been drawn up with the farmer and with the farmer’s private vet, we will start those bespoke actions plans, and that will be part of the process.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on the agenda is The Allocation of Housing and Homelessness (Eligibility) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2017. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move the motion—Carl Sargeant.

Formally.

There are no speakers. Therefore, I don’t need to ask for a response to the debate. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item is voting time, and there is one motion to vote on, which is the motion tabled in my name, and to say, as is required under 17.2D, that the passing of this motion won’t be allowed unless two thirds of the Members voting do support the motion. I therefore call for a vote on the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 41, no abstentions, 12 against. And, therefore, the motion is agreed.

Before we move to the Stage 3 debate on the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill, I will suspend proceedings for 10 minutes, and the bell will be rung five minutes before we reconvene. I would encourage Members to return to the Chamber promptly, please. Therefore, the session is adjourned.

We move to Stage 3 of the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill.

Group 1 is the landfill disposals tax communities scheme. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 2, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. Since this is my first contribution to today’s proceedings, I’d like to make a few general remarks. Our aim in this Bill has been to build on the administrative framework that was established by the Tax Collection and Management (Wales) Act 2016. We do that by setting out the operational framework for introducing landfill disposal tax in Wales, which will replace landfill tax in April next year.

I believe it to be common ground amongst us all that we should establish a replacement tax on disposals to landfill made in Wales that can be managed and collected efficiently and effectively in Wales. That will need to happen within a tax system that protects revenue and that is also clear, open and fair for the taxpayer.

I would like to thank all Members of the Assembly, particularly the members of the Finance Committee and the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for their scrutiny of the Bill to date. This has been an extremely valuable contribution to helping to shape this tax legislation.

I’m also very grateful to those who have been willing to engage with us and contribute to our thinking as we develop the landfill disposals tax legislation. Throughout this process, I think it’s fair to say that the Welsh Government has listened to the views of stakeholders and Members. I was pleased to be able to accept almost all of the committee’s recommendations, and where necessary, I brought forward Stage 2 Government amendments to address the issues raised.

Wedi dweud hynny, Dirprwy Lywydd, byddaf yn troi at y gwelliannau penodol yng ngrŵp 1. Hoffwn i gynnig a siarad am ddau welliant y Llywodraeth yn y grŵp hwn, a hefyd roi sylw i welliant 52 Nick Ramsay.

Mae dau welliant y Llywodraeth yn y grŵp hwn yn gymharol dechnegol, ac mae eu hangen i adlewyrchu newidiadau a gytunwyd yn nhrafodion Cyfnod 2. Mae bob amser wedi bod yn fwriad y Llywodraeth i gynnig cynllun cymunedau fel rhan o dreth gwarediadau tirlenwi. Argymhellodd adroddiad Cyfnod 1 y Pwyllgor Cyllid bod cyfeiriad at y cynllun yn cael ei roi ar wyneb y Bil. Cyflwynodd y Llywodraeth welliant mewn ymateb i'r argymhelliad hwnnw, a chafodd y gwelliant hwnnw ei gefnogi yng Nghyfnod 2, ac, ar 13 Mehefin, cyhoeddwyd memorandwm esboniadol wedi’i ddiweddaru ac asesiad effaith rheoleiddiol, yn cynnwys manylion am y cynllun cymunedau.

Heddiw, mae gwelliant 2 yn adlewyrchu’r datblygiad hwnnw drwy ychwanegu cyfeiriad at y cynllun cymunedau i mewn i adran drosolwg y Bil. Mae angen gwelliant 32 hefyd i sicrhau cysondeb arddull drafftio ar draws y Bil, a gofynnaf i Aelodau gefnogi dau welliant y Llywodraeth yn y grŵp hwn.

Bydd yn rhaid i mi ragweld ychydig o'r hyn yr wyf yn credu y gallai Nick Ramsay fod ar fin ei ddweud, ar ôl clywed ei gyfraniadau yng Nghyfnod 2, ac mae ei welliant, fel y bydd Aelodau yn gweld, yn anelu at roi mwy o fanylion am y cynllun ar wyneb y Bil. Rwyf am fod yn glir y prynhawn yma nad oes gennyf unrhyw wrthwynebiad i'r syniadau a grynhowyd yn y gwelliant hwnnw. Maent yn gyson iawn â'r trafodaethau a gynhaliwyd eisoes yn y pwyllgor ar fanylion y cynllun. Fy rheswm dros beidio â gofyn i'r Aelodau gefnogi gwelliant 52 yw oherwydd fy mod yn awyddus i aros yn gyson gydag ymrwymiad a wnes yng Nghyfnod 2, a ailddatganwyd gennyf mewn llythyr at Gadeirydd y Pwyllgor Cyllid ar 5 Mehefin, sef ymrwymiad i barhau i weithio gyda'r Pwyllgor Cyllid wrth ddatblygu manylion y cynllun.

Mae briff wedi cael ei gynnig i'r pwyllgor, ar ôl toriad yr haf, i'r Aelodau gael y wybodaeth ddiweddaraf. Bydd y briff hwnnw yn cynnwys manylion am yr ymarfer caffael ar gyfer y corff dosbarthol ar gyfer y cynllun, ac mae’r ymarferiad caffael hwnnw eisoes wedi dechrau. Rwy’n credu ei bod yn bwysig caniatáu i gyrff dosbarthol posibl ddod â'u barn at y bwrdd o ran sut y byddent yn rheoli'r broses ddyfarnu grantiau ac asesu ceisiadau unigol.

Gallai gwelliant 52 Nick Ramsay, er ei fod yn gyfraniad defnyddiol iawn at y drafodaeth honno, gael canlyniad anfwriadol o gyfyngu ar eu cyfraniadau, pe bai'n cael ei basio yn y cam hwn. Er fy mod i'n awyddus iawn i roi ymrwymiad y prynhawn yma y bydd sylwedd gwelliant 52 yn ffurfio rhan o'r drafodaeth barhaus ar fanylion y cynllun cymunedol, rwy’n gobeithio na fydd yr Aelodau'n cyfyngu ei ddatblygiad drwy osod y gwelliant hwn ar wyneb y Bil y prynhawn yma.

Can I firstly, Cabinet Secretary, welcome the introduction of Stage 3 of the Landfill Disposals Tax (Wales) Bill? We’ve spent a long time talking about how historic the introduction of LTT was as the first Welsh tax in so many hundreds of years, and this is clearly also historic—the second, and I suppose the Buzz Aldrin to the Neil Armstrong, if you were looking for a space analogy, which you might be, but, of course, you might not be. I can see that Mike Hedges liked that analogy anyway. The Finance Committee has welcomed your close co-operation during the previous stages and, indeed, working with your officials. I’ve had a number of meetings with your officials and yourself—and support staff of the Welsh Conservative group have as well—and that’s been very beneficial. We know that this tax, like LTT, is essential in that, in April 2018, its UK equivalent, which we’ve been operating under to date, and up until April next year, will be switched off. So, there’s no doubt at all that this tax is needed.

Turning to group 1 and the communities scheme, which you rightly say is very important, we will be supporting the lead amendment in the group and, indeed, the second Government amendment as well. But turning to the more controversial amendment—our amendment 52—which you did pay credence to, I recognise that you do think that there are good things within that amendment. You were quite right to say that we did have a fair amount of discussion about this at Stage 2, at the committee stage, and the views that I expressed at that point for placing this on the face of the Bill do remain. I believe that amendment 2 narrows the criteria for applications down slightly on the Bill’s face. There’s no mention of the eligibility criteria themselves on the face of the Bill. Although this will be a scheme separate to the traditional Landfill Communities Fund applied in England and Scotland, which is based on vouchers, there is the need to narrow down the criteria, I feel, for eligibility, which are based in existing legislation and which would guide the committee’s work on the scheme. Currently, Scotland has the Scottish Landfill Communities Fund, which has a number of detailed points about eligibility to the fund, which are outlined under Part 7 of the Scottish Landfill Tax (Administration) Regulations 2015, including protection of the environment, community-based recycling, reuse and waste prevention projects and conservation projects. This amendment also clarifies the position of local bodies when applying for a grant under the landfill communities scheme. Furthermore, when looking at the provision of grants and the ability of smaller local charities to bid, it’s essential that clear guidance is available so that they have an equal playing field. For example, Community Foundation in Wales has provided accessible guidance for organisations, including their financial information and a project description.

As I say, we did have a fair discussion about this at Stage 2, Cabinet Secretary, and I do appreciate your reasons for not wanting your hands tied, as you put it, by putting this on the face of the Bill. I do, however, still believe that it useful for us to have an amendment in this place at Stage 3 so that, firstly, you can make your points forcibly, which you have done, and which I’m sure many Members will agree with, but also so that we can set out our reasons for wanting this information clarified as soon as possible. One way of doing that would be by placing it on the face of the Bill, so I would still like to proceed with this amendment, although I do fully understand the Cabinet Secretary’s reasons for opposing it. If this amendment does fall, then hopefully the Finance Committee can continue with the process of working with you to develop a reasonable, acceptable and sustainable alternative.

Very briefly, just to say that we, on these benches, are very supportive of the principle underpinning amendment 52 in the name of Nick Ramsay, namely to ensure that a communities fund works for the benefit of communities, but, on this occasion, we will abstain on the vote because we do think it’s important that we keep the Cabinet Secretary to his word that he wants to collaborate with the committee before the summer and to bring the relevant organisations at a community level into the negotiations as to how we can take forward the community fund for the future. We have nothing against the principle underpinning Nick Ramsay’s amendment, but we didn’t want to limit, at this stage, what we could do in future with better negotiation between all the parties involved.

I just want to express my thanks as Chair of the Finance Committee on behalf of the whole of Finance Committee for the Cabinet Secretary’s willingness to work with us on this Bill. I do think that the Bill is improved by the scrutiny that it went through at committee stages, but I think there is an element of joint legislation in this Bill. As we look at the possibilities for new taxation and innovative taxation, and new ways of using the powers that we have, then I think the precedent underpinning this Bill and, to be fair, the previous Bill that related to land transaction taxes, is a precedent that we hope that not just the current Cabinet Secretary, but Cabinet Secretaries of any Government of any party would wish to take forward jointly with this Assembly, as we develop into a Parliament.

The Cabinet Secretary said that he had accepted all of our recommendations in one way or another. That is true, and it’s good to see that evidence gathering, discussing that evidence and bringing the evidence forward is a means of persuading the Government to look anew at their Bill. Having said that, it wasn’t a particularly poor Bill initially, and we need to be clear about that. We have scrutinised it, and we have noted a few things that were missing and a few things that were erroneous, and in the context, particularly, of these amendments, something that hadn’t been included in the initial phase. But in bringing persuasion to bear on the Cabinet Secretary, there is a specific commitment in the Bill as it is taken forward that there is to be a landfill disposals tax communities scheme, and that’s very positive for those communities affected by landfill sites or waste transfer sites, which can be a blight on certain communities.

As Steffan Lewis has just outlined, we’re not quite willing to accept the amendment in the name of Nick Ramsay as a party at the moment. I think the principles underpinning the amendment are important guidance, and I would want to see the Finance Committee taking those things forward to steer the discussion between ourselves and the Cabinet Secretary.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thanks to those Members who’ve spoken of their indications of support for the Government amendments in this group.

Nick Ramsay described his amendment 52 as a controversial amendment, and I just want to be clear again that it is not the content of the amendment that is controversial.

Nid ydw i ddim yn erbyn yr egwyddorion y tu ôl i’r gwelliannau o gwbl. Y broblem yw gyda’r amserlen.

The problem is just one of timing. As Nick Ramsay said, his amendment aims to narrow down criteria and flesh out detail, and the Government’s view is that we will come to a point where that will be necessary, but I want to do it in consultation with the Finance Committee, and in taking a wider range of views, which are still to be gathered in relation to the detail of the scheme.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I’m very happy to say again to Nick Ramsay that, if his amendment were to fall this afternoon, then the content of it, as well as the general willingness to go on shaping the scheme together, will certainly form part of the discussions that I want to go on having with members of the Finance Committee as this scheme is brought to fruition.

The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We move to group 2, which is on definition of intent. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 50, and I call on Nick Ramsay to move and speak to the amendment. Nick Ramsay.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’m pleased to speak to the lead amendment and to move the lead amendment of group 2 on the definition of intent. We’ve tabled this amendment—section 6, page 3, line 29, if you want the exact details—saying that after ‘waste’ we should insert ‘and the definition of intent’, as it provides for the flexibility to revisit the issue of intent. This was an issue that was raised by both witnesses and the Finance Committee during Stage 1 of the Bill. At Stage 2, I tabled an alternative definition of waste and intent. However, the Cabinet Secretary declined to accept this, stating that he did not want to risk litigation and reiterating his opinion that the existing provisions on intent were ‘carefully balanced’—that was the terminology used by the Cabinet Secretary.

This amendment before us today is therefore a compromise for the Welsh Government and ensures that forthcoming legislation by the UK Government on landfill tax, based on recent case law, does not clash with the Welsh Government’s definitions.

The disposal of material as waste and the intention to discard has been a technical and complex area of the Bill, as well as being a litigious area outside this Assembly, and I’m very grateful to the committee and to its Members for giving this important issue such detailed consideration. I responded to the committee’s recommendation 5 that the Government considers the definition of a disposal of material as waste with a detailed technical note setting out the rationale underlying each component of section 6 of the Bill, which deals with this matter, and the process that went into arriving at that draft, and I also provided the committee with a summary of the relevant UK landfill litigation.

The provisions relating to the definition of a taxable disposal, and in particular the circumstances in which the condition that a disposal of material as waste has been met, have been carefully crafted so as to minimise the risk to the revenue. I was grateful to the Finance Committee and its Members for their recognition of this approach when we were voting on amendments in this area at Stage 2.

I recognise that Nick Ramsay’s amendment 50 is a development of the amendment that he laid at Stage 2. It now, I think, accepts that making changes to the substance of the Bill could pose a risk to the revenue in that it does not now seek to amend any of the provisions setting out what is a taxable disposal, but instead it seems to want to futureproof the Bill by adding to the regulation-making power at section 6(4) of the Bill, so as to allow the Welsh Ministers to modify the meaning of ‘the definition of intent’. The problem with the amendment is that neither section 6 nor the wider Bill introduces a definition of intent. Therefore, an amendment to modify something that is not in the Bill is neither practical nor, I think, desirable.

Members of the Finance Committee will be very well aware that the Bill’s approach to whether or not there has been a disposal of material as waste is made up of a number of components within section 6. The regulation-making power at section 6(4) as currently drafted allows the Welsh Ministers to modify the meaning of a disposal of material as waste, by amending section 6. This power would allow the intention-to-discard test that underpins the definition of a disposal of material as waste to be removed, added to, or otherwise changed, and in so doing changes can already be made to each of the components of section 6.

In other words, the Bill already provides Ministers with a power to achieve what lies behind Nick Ramsay’s amendment, but, I believe, in a more practical and workable way. For those reasons, I hope that Members will accept that the Bill as drafted is already sufficiently futureproofed to allow for changes in this area and agree that amendment 50 is not workable. On that basis, I ask Members not to support this amendment.

Nick Ramsay to reply to the debate.

Diolch. As I said in opening this group, group 2, and moving this amendment, this amendment is actually a compromise on the original amendment tabled at Stage 2, a point recognised by the Cabinet Secretary, and merely seeks to clarify definitions and ensure that Welsh Government legislation does not clash with UK legislation. The issues that the Cabinet Secretary has put forward today are similar to the issues that were put forward at Stage 2, in that there is a concern, I know, about future litigation and about how the amendment then, and this amendment, could actually make things more complex.

I listened to the Cabinet Secretary at Stage 2 carefully, which is why I didn’t proceed with the wording of that amendment at this point. I’ve listened to you again today, Cabinet Secretary. On the basis of what you’ve said, I’m happy not to move this amendment. However, I will do so on the basis that we could continue discussions, because I do feel that there is an issue here that hasn’t been satisfactorily dealt with at either Stage 2 or Stage 3, and I would like to see further work on it. However, I do appreciate that the Welsh Government—or a future Welsh Government—doesn’t want to get into a litigation problem in the future, so if I could suggest that as a way forward, perhaps we can—. Well, I’m happy not to—is it withdrawing or not moving? I always get confused.

You have to withdraw it.

I will withdraw, then.

Okay. I have to ask: does anybody object to the withdrawing of the amendment? No. Thank you.

The next group contains technical amendments. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 3. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group—Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’d like to move and speak to all 33 Government amendments in this group, but not each one individually. I’m grateful to those who are responsible for organising these things for agreeing to put all technical amendments into this one group. I wrote to Members earlier today to provide some background as to the purpose behind the Government’s technical amendments set out in this group.

Very briefly, then, the amendments fall into a number of different categories. There is one amendment—amendment 5—needed to reflect changes to the Bill made at Stage 2; there are 18 amendments that update references in this Bill to paragraphs in the Land Transaction Tax and Anti-avoidance of Devolved Taxes (Wales) Act 2017; there are seven amendments that correct minor grammatical issues or drafting style; there are four amendments that clarify drafting; there are two amendments that ensure accurate cross-referencing in the Bill; and finally, there is one amendment that changes the description in the long title of the Bill to ‘disposal of material as waste by way of landfill’, which is an accurate description of the competence in this area and reflects drafting elsewhere in this Bill.

None of these amendments, Dirprwy Lywydd, makes any difference to the substance of the Bill as scrutinised to date, and I hope that Members will feel willing to accept them.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for that. I have no wish to go through the majority of these amendments either, because, as my chief whip has said, it’s sunny outside and we don’t want to be here until the dark hours. However, Welsh Conservatives will be supporting all of these amendments, apart from—we do have an issue with the first amendment, the lead amendment, and perhaps you can provide clarification on this.

The lead amendment refers to the maximum period specified in the notice designating the area under section 54(3). However, the rest of section 54 does not refer to maximum periods of notice. This seems to make the reference more complex, to me, and I’d be grateful for clarification on the reason for this—it does seem to be erroneous, given that the other amendments do seem to be quite acceptable.

My understanding is that the amendment that Nick Ramsay refers to is one that ensures accurate cross-referencing in the Bill. The non-disposal area covered in amendments 3 and 25 will be designated by means of a notice given under section 54. I don’t believe that there is an inconsistency in the Bill as a result. I’m very happy, of course, after today to make sure that we can respond in more detail to the point that the Member has made and to take any action, if any action is needed, but I don’t believe that it will be.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll move to an electronic vote. Open the vote.

Deputy Presiding Officer, my computer is on the blink.

I think you can still vote.

I have—as long as you’ve recorded it.

Fine, okay. So, close the vote, then. For the motion 42, 13 abstentions. Therefore, amendment 3 is passed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 4.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 4 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 5.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 5 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 6.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 6 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 7.

Formally.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 7 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 8.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 8 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 9.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 9 is agreed.

Group 4—qualifying materials. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 10 and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in this group—Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, I’d like to move the two Government amendments, amendments 10 and 11, in this group and to address Nick Ramsay’s non-Government amendment 53. If I speak first to the non-Government amendment, could I say I’m grateful to Nick Ramsay for tabling the amendment, which in effect amplifies the Bill in relation to Schedule 1? This Schedule of qualifying material was inserted as a result of a Government amendment at Stage 2. Nick Ramsay’s amendment usefully extends the list of material included in that Schedule. I’m grateful to him for tabling it and the Government will support that amendment this afternoon.

Dirprwy Lywydd, the Government amendments in this group respond to a very particular issue, but one which has been regularly rehearsed throughout the passage of the Bill and, indeed, before the law courts. The two Government amendments relate to what are known as fines. In this context, a fine is not a monetary penalty, but the particles produced by a waste treatment process that involves mechanical treatment. The nature of the material means that it can be difficult to determine the exact nature of the load of material and this has presented opportunities for unscrupulous waste producers, carriers or operators to claim that a load is eligible for the lower rate of tax when it should, in fact, have been taxed at the higher, standard rate. In response to this issue, what is called a loss on ignition testing regime was introduced for UK landfill tax in April 2015, and for Scottish landfill tax in October 2016. This testing regime assists landfill site operators in determining the correct tax liability of fines and to improve compliance in this area. As I explained to the Finance Committee earlier in the Bill’s process, I have been keen to ensure that we are able to learn from the implementation of these testing regimes, both in Scotland and the United Kingdom, before introducing our own arrangements in Wales. Both Government amendments in this group ensure that the Bill allows us to do just that.

The first amendment in the group, amendment 10, is a technical amendment. Amendment 11 is the substantive amendment and it does three things. Firstly, it provides an updated list of provisions that can be made in connection with loss on ignition testing regulations so as to reflect further learning in this area. Secondly, amendment 11 ensures that regulations made in relation to loss on ignition testing can make provision for penalties or reviews, and appeals if necessary. And, thirdly, the amendment allows regulations made under section 17 to deal with notices. Notices have been adopted in the context of fines and particularly loss on ignition testing requirements by both HMRC and Revenue Scotland. And I believe that it is sensible to ensure that powers exist to enable a comparable approach to be taken in Wales.

In summary, Dirprwy Lywydd, the amendments the Government has brought forward would allow regulations relating to mixtures of fines and the loss on ignition testing regime, in particular, to be made so that they are effective and based on powers that have sufficient in-built flexibility so that they are robust and workable at an operational level. Throughout the passage of the Bill, it has been clear that the testing of fines is a new policy area and that lessons learnt outside Wales may inform the approach taken to the regulations and the underlying regime in this area. These amendments are designed to allow that to happen, and I hope that Members will support them this afternoon.

Thank you. Nick Ramsay.

Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, Welsh Conservatives will be supporting the lead amendment in this group, which appears, as you suggested, to alter a drafting—to correct, I should say—a drafting issue in the original provision.

Turning to our amendment 53, I’m very pleased to hear that you’ve decided to accept that amendment; I thought that that would be your position given the indication you gave me earlier. We do have concerns that a number of materials have been left out of the list of qualifying materials, materials including glass fibres, silica, mineral abrasives—I could go on but I won’t, because time is pressing on and we’re not all experts on landfill. I’m pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has agreed that these are omissions. I understand that these do feature in the current landfill tax that we’re about to replace, so it’s obviously an oversight that you’ve agreed to rectify. So, I’m pleased that you’ve accepted that, and I’m happy to accept the lead amendment as well.

Thank you. Do you wish to reply to the debate?

No, just to thank Nick Ramsay for those observations.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, amendment 10 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 11.

Formally.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we move to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 42, no abstentions, 13 against. Therefore, amendment 11 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 12.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 12 is agreed.

Group 5 is taxable weight of material and the lead amendment in this group is amendment 13. I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group—Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lywydd. Each of the next three groups, Dirprwy Lywydd, deals with an issue that is relatively narrow in intent, but in each case looking to bring extra clarity or fairness to taxpayers. In this group, there are three main amendments—amendments 13, 16 and 18—which relate to the taxable weight of material in a taxable disposal.

Amendment 13 makes an amendment to section 18 of the Bill. Where the operator or the WRA, or both of them, calculate the taxable weight of material in a taxable disposal, the amended section 18 provision identifies which of those calculations is to be used to calculate the amount of tax chargeable on the disposal. This amendment provides further clarity to the taxpayer, particularly where both the operator and the WRA calculate the taxable weight of material in a taxable disposal.

Dirprwy Lywydd, as a result of reviewing the provisions in relation to the taxable weight of material, carried out in the light of discussions on this topic at earlier stages in the Bill, we have laid amendment 16 to remove the current regulation-making power in relation to water discount, and in its place to introduce a broader regulation-making power through amendment 18. Such a power will ensure that operational experience, policy changes or future changes in technology in this area can be reflected in the legislation.

Amendment 15 in the group is a further technical amendment that ensures that the Welsh Revenue Authority can specify either the form of a water discount record or the information required in it, without being compelled to do both. I ask Members to support the amendments in this group.

Cabinet Secretary, you were saying on amendment 18 you’re taking a broader power, by regulation, to modify provisions relating to the taxable weight of material. I wanted to ask you: did you envisage using this in respect of the issue of when the material is weighed—an issue that we discussed at Stage 1—because the initial Bill, at section 20, said that

‘The operator of an authorised landfill site must determine the weight of the material in a taxable disposal before the disposal is made’?

When the Finance committee visited the Lamby Way site, we discovered the practice there was to weigh the material on the laden lorry as it went in and then weigh the empty lorry on the way out, the difference then being determined to be the weight. Now that the amendments at Stage 2 have been made, we have at 20(2)(a)

‘That the material is weighed on the weighbridge before the disposal is made’.

Can you clarify that you see that as consistent with the practice we saw at Lamby Way, and that weighing the material in the lorry and only then determining it when comparing that to the weight of the empty lorry is in line with the Bill as it now is, or do you consider that regulation power might need to be used in future to vary it?

I know that when Mark Reckless was a member of the Finance Committee, he took a particular interest in the issue of when the weight of a taxable disposal should be identified, and indeed in water provisions and how we should make sure that they were effectively reflected in the Bill, and amendments were moved at Stage 2 to respond to some of the points that he had made in earlier discussions. So, the way in which the Bill, as amended at Stage 2, deals with the point at which material should be weighed is now consistent with what members of the Finance Committee saw when they were at Lamby Way, so I don’t envisage that this regulation-making power would be immediately needed to respond to that. But as members of the committee heard during that visit and from other expert witnesses, technology in this area is changing all the time and it may be that in future some other, more accurate methods of weighing material to be taken to landfill will be devised, and this regulation-making power would allow Ministers to make sure that the way in which the law operates in Wales would be consistent with the best practice in the field. That’s why we are hoping to take the amendment through the Assembly this afternoon.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 13 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 14.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 14 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 15.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 40, no abstentions, 13 against. Therefore, that amendment is carried.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 16.

Move, Chair.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 16 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 17.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 17 is agreed to.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 18.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 18 is agreed to.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 19.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 19 is agreed to.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 20.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 20 is agreed to.

Group 6 is accounting for tax. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 21 and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group—Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Amendments 21 and 22 are the substantive amendments in this group and they amend sections 38 and 39 of the Bill.

Amendment 21 seeks to amend section 38. Section 38 of the Bill makes provision for the accounting periods that apply to registered and unregistered operators of authorised landfill sites. We have come to the view that the current provision does not deal fully with those circumstances in which an unregistered operator who has carried out taxable operations, subsequently becomes registered. As currently drafted, the Bill may have the undesired effect of requiring the registered operator to account for disposals for which they have already accounted when they were unregistered. Government amendment 21 clarifies that position by ensuring that, where an unregistered operator subsequently becomes registered, they will not have to account for any taxable disposals for which they had already accounted while they were unregistered. This amendment also clarifies the filing date and accounting periods that apply where the Welsh Revenue Authority has varied the dates or the periods under section 39 of the Bill.

As a result of the consideration given to sections 38 and 39, we are also seeking to remove section 39(3)(b) of the Bill to ensure that the WRA are able to issue a variation notice in respect of filing dates generally and this is achieved through amendment 22.

The other amendments in this group—amendments 33, 34 and 37—are all consequential on amendment 21 and make amendments to section 94 and Schedule 4 to the Bill. At Stage 2, as a result of the Finance Committee’s recommendations and ongoing engagement with experts and practitioners in this very specialised field, a number of Government amendments were laid to strengthen the fairness to the taxpayer in the practical application of landfill disposals tax. The amendments in group 6 are further efforts to achieve the same outcome and I ask Members to support them.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 21 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 22.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 22 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 23.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 23 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 24.

Move.

The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, therefore, amendment 24 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 25.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 42, 12 abstentions, one against. Therefore, amendment 25 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 26.

Moved, Chair.

The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 26 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 27.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 27 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 28.

Formally.

The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 28 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 29.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 29 is agreed.

Grŵp 7 yw marwolaeth, analluogrwydd ac ansolfedd a'r prif welliant yn y grŵp hwn yw gwelliant 30. Galwaf ar Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet i gynnig a siarad am y prif welliant a'r gwelliant arall yn y grŵp. Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I’d like to move both amendments in this group, which arise from an issue identified with section 84 of the Bill as currently drafted.

In cases where there is a change in the person carrying on a landfill business due to the death, incapacity or insolvency of the operator of a landfill site, section 84 allows the Welsh Revenue Authority to be able to treat another person carrying on the business as though they were the taxpayer in certain circumstances. Section 84(5) requires the Welsh Revenue Authority to issue a notice to the person who is going to be treated as the taxpayer, but does not explicitly require a similar notice to be provided to the person who is no longer responsible for paying the tax. Moreover, should the position be reversed, so that Welsh Revenue Authority stops treating a person as if they were the taxpayer, with the effect that the original taxpayer resumes that status, the Bill as it currently stands does not require both parties to be informed of that change. It only requires the person who is no longer being treated as the taxpayer to be notified.

Amendments 30 and 31 address that position, they require the WRA to issue notices to both parties where that would be appropriate. I believe that these amendments ensure fairness and transparency for the taxpayer, and I ask Members to support the Government amendments in this group.

Thank you. Nick Ramsay. No? Thank you. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Amendment 30 is agreed.

Cabinet Secretary, amendment 31.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Therefore amendment 31 is agreed to.

Rydym yn symud i grŵp 8. Mae'r grŵp nesaf yn ymwneud ag ymarfer Gweinidogion Cymru ar bwerau a dyletswyddau dan y Ddeddf hon. Y prif welliant a’r unig un yn y grŵp hwn yw gwelliant 49. Rwy'n galw ar Steffan Lewis i gynnig a siarad am y gwelliant. Steffan.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and I formally move. Amendment 49 puts the stated objective of this Bill, which is to reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, on its face. From its introduction, this Bill has been described as having an environmental purpose rather than a fiscal one. So, the Cabinet Secretary has said that the Bill is intended to help the Welsh Government achieve their goal of a zero-waste Wales—a goal that we share. It may be unusual for a tax to have its fiscal and policy purposes linked in this way, but in this case the tax is more about the impact it will have on public behaviour than about the money it will raise. Therefore, we believe it appropriate for the policy objective of this tax to be enshrined on the Bill’s face.

As other Members have said during the scrutiny of this Bill at committee stage, landfill disposals tax is unusual because it seeks to become less financially beneficial over time, and because this tax should reduce the amount of waste going to landfill, the amount of money raised will also be reduced. It is possible at some point to envisage a time when the cost of administering this tax may become greater than the revenue raised, but it’s vital that the tax is not abandoned at this point. That would have the perverse impact of re-incentivising landfill and potentially undo the environmental progress we hope to make.

When we reach the point where we need to re-evaluate this tax, its policy purpose must remain central to that re-evaluation. I understand that there may be exceptions in some limited circumstances, so amendment 49 does include provision for Welsh Ministers to have regard to other matters as they think appropriate when exercising their powers under the Bill, in addition, of course, to the primary environmental objective. By ensuring that the environmental objective is preserved on the Bill’s face, we can be certain that the landfill disposals tax will continue to have an environmental objective both now and in the future. It’s important to futureproof this legislation, so that any future Government that might seek to abandon the environmental objective will require a change of the law and the approval of the Welsh Parliament in order to do so.

Welsh Conservatives support this amendment in principle. However, Steffan Lewis has—I would say inadvertently, but probably advertently—hit upon an interesting aspect with the way that this tax proceeded in committee at Stage 2. We did have discussions about that balance, that very important balance between having a tax that is there to raise funds, and we know we’re going to lose money from the block grant when this tax is devolved, so that’s its primary aim, vis-à-vis the environmental aspect of the tax, which others argued is the primary aim. I wasn’t entirely confident in the Stage 2 deliberations we did that we were entirely clear about where that balance lay. I just heard what you said, Steffan, that this is primarily an environmental tax and so its future role in reducing landfill should be safeguarded at all costs. I’ll give way to Mike Hedges.

When it was first brought in as landfill tax, the reason was to stop local authorities just dumping, to make it no longer economically viable for them to just dump, and the additional cost meant that people started recycling, and it had a huge effect on recycling. So, when it first came in under the Government of Westminster, the aim was, almost exclusively, to try and change behaviour.

Yes, you’re completely right. When the UK tax was brought in, that was the reason. But, of course, this is a devolved tax and we’re losing money through the block grant once it’s devolved. So, over time, as the tax diminishes, then, clearly, that amount would diminish. Now, I’m not saying that that’s not happening at the UK level. Clearly, there is a fall-off in the tax, but we have got—. And the reason for me speaking on this amendment is because I’m not saying we’re opposing this in any way, Steffan Lewis, but we do believe that it does raise a number of interesting issues about the way that a devolved tax operates, and the way a future Government might seek to use it. There is a revenue implication to this, and this is primarily a tax Bill. It is not primarily an environmental Bill. I just think that it would be helpful if, moving forward, when the Welsh Government does bring forward future taxes—because you have the right to develop your own taxes in the Welsh Government, independent of those; we know that that’s part of the current settlement—that these sorts of issues are resolved in the future. But we are happy to support this amendment.