Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I call Members to order.

The first item on our agenda this afternoon is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs. Question 1, [OAQ51567], is withdrawn. That brings us to question 2, Mark Isherwood.

Thank you. Our key programme for tackling fuel poverty is Welsh Government Warm Homes, which includes the Nest and Arbed schemes. For the period 2017-21, we are investing £104 million in improving the energy efficiency of up to 25,000 homes of those on low incomes or living in deprived areas of Wales.

Diolch. Reducing emissions from our housing stock is key to meeting our broader energy and climate change targets. Given that 90 per cent of today's homes will still be in use in 2050, will you, as Cabinet Secretary, commit to working with the cross-party group on fuel poverty and energy efficiency to consider introducing a revised fuel poverty strategy and action plan to outline new targets to improve homes to a minimum energy efficiency standard of EPCC, whilst acknowledging the benefits that some schemes, such as Arbed, have brought forward, and recognising that there's much work to do, given that the 2018 targets originally set are not now going to be met?

I think you make a very important point, and we had a decarbonisation ministerial task and finish group on Monday, where we were talking about this, because, obviously, we've been concentrating on energy efficiency as our way of tackling fuel poverty, but we also need to look at retrofitting in respect of decarbonisation and how we are going to obviously hit those targets as well.

We will be having new fuel poverty data at the end of 2018 and that will absolutely inform the discussions that we have, particularly with our stakeholders. I'd be very happy to come along to a cross-party group, if you wish me to do so.

Cabinet Secretary, I recently met with Citizens Advice in my local area to discuss their work campaigning on pre-payment meters. I'm sure that you will be fully aware that people on pre-payment meters are some of our most vulnerable citizens, who are often disadvantaged to the tune of several hundred pounds a year. Rhondda Cynon Taf actually has the highest number of households with pre-payment meters in Wales. I appreciate that this isn't an area that is devolved, but what work has the Welsh Government done, or what consultation has the Welsh Government had with the UK Government around this key issue? 

Again, I think the Member makes a very important point. It's not a matter for the Welsh Government, but, of course, it is something that we are extremely interested in. I know that my officials have had discussions with officials in the UK Government around what we can do to support, as you say, some of the most deprived people in our constituencies.

In the future, as well as advice and support services, we should be looking at smarter and more efficient homes to begin with. I understand that the Welsh housing quality standard has mandated better efficiency in social housing, but we need to be looking at a wider approach. The SPECIFIC Innovation and Knowledge Centre in Swansea University has created a design for homes as mini power stations, and plans were approved for 16 such new homes in Neath in August of last year. The design itself could cut household utility bills by 60 per cent. I was just wondering what plans you have to outline more support in this area so that we can look at more innovative housing to bring the cost down for those who potentially can't afford it.

I mentioned in my original answer to Mark Isherwood that we had a meeting of the decarbonisation ministerial task and finish group, and Rebecca Evans, the Minister for Housing and Regeneration sits on this, because we need to look beyond 2020 now, when all of our homes will have reached the WHQS, about what we then do with that funding that's been available for that. I think we need to look at much more innovation in our homes, and certainly those discussions will be ongoing between me and the Minister for Housing and Regeneration.

I recently met with the British Plastics Federation, RECOUP, Plastipak Holdings Inc. and Iceland to discuss what industry is doing to increase recycling and reduce the usage of plastic packaging. We're working to reduce it through a number of actions, including the carrier bag charge and a study into extended producer responsibility for food and drink packaging.

Earlier this week, the European Union pledged to make all plastic packaging recyclable by 2030. That's something I fully support, and I'm sure all of us here would, because we understand the huge toll that plastic is having on our environment, our wildlife and, ultimately, our health. As things stand, we will be out of the EU by 2030. What discussions are you having with Government to ensure that Wales will not be a less environmental country in a future that's outside the European Union?

I think that's a really important question—really important points made—and you're right that the scourge of plastic use is really high in the public consciousness at the moment. It's important that we embrace that and take action alongside it.

In the Welsh Government, we're very keen to make sure that we are leading the way on this, that we are committed to tackling the use of plastic, and at the moment we have the Eunomia consultation, looking at extended producer responsibility, but it looks at a range, not just the things we've seen highlighted such as beverage cups, but all the different containers. Also, there is work to look at the pilot on the deposit return scheme, and actually, we have the legislation in place through the Environment (Wales) Act 2016—Part 4 of the environment Act—which enables us to take that further in terms of responsibility on businesses. We have the legislation there, and I think it's important, now, that we make sure that comes into action, but we are committed to doing that in a range of areas, and I'm sure I'll update this place in due course.

Minister, last September, the Welsh Government announced that it had commissioned research into the ways in which the Welsh Government could introduce extended producer responsibility. Now, this could, of course, encourage producers to design their products in a different way. Can I ask when you expect to report on the outcome of this research?

That research, as I mentioned, by Eunomia into extended producer responsibility is due to report back to us next month. So, I hope to have an update for this place in the not-too-distant future.

Thank you for those answers, Minister. Can you agree that, obviously, the best way to reduce plastic packaging is to reduce it at its source? Obviously, we're very encouraged to hear about Iceland's intentions to stop using plastic packaging in their goods within five years. With that in mind, I just wondered whether you've held any discussions with businesses in Wales to seek an end to the use of all non-recyclable packaging materials, or could you bring forward legislative proposals to enable that to happen?

You're absolutely right to mention Iceland, with their proposals to reduce their own-brand plastic packaging by 2023. I think it's really important that industry is a driver as part of this as well, and, as I mentioned, I met with Iceland just before Christmas and learnt more about their plans in sustainability. I also met with Plastipak in Wrexham, which uses PET recyclable plastic, and we've—. In terms of when we're looking at the extended producer responsibility study, businesses and stakeholders have been involved with that, and I've also met with representatives of the retail industry. So, we are taking that forward and we want businesses to be part of that with us.

Minister, every year, more than 8 million tonnes of plastic ends up in our oceans, costing at least £6.2 billion in damage to marine ecosystems and killing an estimated 1 million seabirds, 100,000 sea mammals and untold numbers of fish. Supermarkets use ridiculous amounts of unnecessary plastic packaging, simply adding to the problem. Wales led the way on single-use carrier bags. Let's lead the way in tackling the issue of unnecessary plastic packaging. Minister, what discussions have you had with major supermarkets about the use of plastic packaging, and will you consider legislation if major retailers fail to voluntarily reduce the amount of plastic packaging?

Thank you very much for that question. There seems to be a clear consensus on this issue in terms of needing to tackle it. As I said previously, I have met with a number of major supermarkets and with retail representatives to discuss this as part of our study into extended producer responsibility. We'll await the findings of that and then take it forward from there. 

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

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can I pursue this point about the role plastics play in generating so much waste and destruction of our environment? Reference has been made to the excellent action of Iceland, and that supermarket actually conducted a very extensive survey before they took that action, and 80 per cent of the people they polled said they would endorse moves to go plastic free. I think, responding to such a public sentiment, the UK Government has committed to working with the Waste and Resources Action Programme to explore the introduction of, for instance, plastic-free supermarket aisles in which all the food is loose. I think we need this type of thinking. I wonder what plans you have to review the Towards Zero Waste programme to make it more ambitious and to reflect this growing public demand for action.

Thank you very much for that question. You're absolutely right that it is a bold move for a major retailer like Iceland, and hopefully that will also stimulate others within the sector to actually take their lead as well. I think that's when we do have some healthy competition in terms of actually ticking the boxes, and, actually, you can see a shift in people being more aware of the packaging and what they're buying.

In terms of our Towards Zero Waste strategy, there is a plan to refresh that later this year as we increase our targets and our ambitions in terms of how we look into practice. Hopefully, the extended producer responsibility study and the work we're doing with WRAP will all feed into a part of that.

Minister, you may know that the UK Government's 25-year plan includes a pledge to eliminate all avoidable plastic waste by 2042. They also have a goal to eliminate all avoidable waste by 2050. The latter—all avoidable waste by 2050—is also contained in Towards Zero Waste, but there's no earlier deadline for the elimination of plastic waste. I just wonder if you're going to review the document so that we could have something that at least matches the ambition of the UK Government or, even better, given our increased ambition perhaps in this area, that beats it.

The Welsh Government, and here in Wales, we are proud that we have led the way in the past in terms of bringing the plastic bag charge and plastic packaging in that respect. We are continuing to work with industries and local authorities to find better markets in Wales especially for plastics. There are great opportunities in Wales for businesses to look at how they can get involved with the plastics recycling industry. Of course, when we're refreshing the strategy, we will look at how we actually can create more ambitious targets, but not just the aspirations in those targets but actually the actions that we need to take over the course of the short, medium and long term to make sure that we do actually lead the way again in Wales.

I just wonder if we need to completely look at a different scale in terms of what's happening out there. You're seeing this incredible social and commercial movement to address this problem, and it's the politicians who are perhaps falling a bit behind, and in particular—in this area anyway—the Welsh Government. We've heard from Wetherspoon that they're going to ban plastic straws and they're going to bring in biodegradable ones. This obviously introduces the whole question of single-use plastics. You've told us what's happening with the review into producer-led initiatives, but isn't it time we raised the stakes and just started a very bold consultation on banning single-use plastics within a set time from our economy?

The Member again raises some very important points on that and prescient points on that. I'm loath to name-check the many more major corporate companies, but another well-known fast food brand has, I believe, also announced that they're looking to remove straws and other plastics in the next couple of decades.

I think we need to be bold in our ambition, and when we look at refreshing the strategy we should look at how we achieve that, but I think it's really important that we do work with industry on this, that industry is involved with it. It also creates opportunities in terms of recycling and in terms of the skills and jobs that we have here in Wales as well.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Simon Thomas.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. I will remain on the topic of plastics as it is all around us. Just to pick up on what David Melding said, I think it is true to say that citizens and communities are ahead of some politicians in this area. I look at communities such as Aberporth who have declared themselves to be plastic-free and are working across small businesses and across the community to achieve that, and I welcome that. Of course, this Assembly just last week, on a Plaid Cymru motion, voted in favour of the principle of introducing a single-use plastic tax. This is something we haven't discussed yet today. So, as the single-use plastic tax is one of the four taxes you as a Government are considering, will you commit now to go along that route and to select that tax because the public, very clearly, are willing to accept such a tax?

Thank you for your question.

As you'll be aware, the disposable plastic tax is one of four taxes currently being considered by the finance Secretary. I think that's probably a question for him further down the line, but it is something I am in discussions on with the finance Secretary, and also keeping in the loop on and linked in with the proposals that you saw in the UK Government's budget on the twenty-second, to look at something similar there, to see how we can feed in as part of that as well. So, it is something that's still on the agenda, and in ongoing discussions. I'm sure the finance Secretary will look at it. 

I don't think I'm going to get a commitment to a plastic tax out of you today, so I'll change tack, if I may, to something else that you as a Minister are also responsible for, which is air pollution. ClientEarth is taking the Welsh Government to court by 23 February, due to concerns of illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide in towns and cities, often emerging, of course, from diesel vehicles. Do you recognise the problem of air pollution in Wales? I presume you do, but do you recognise your responsibility in your Government to deal with this, and how, particularly, will you respond to this court case and respond to the claims of ClientEarth?

The Member is right. Air quality is something—. Actually, the first debate in this portfolio that I led was on air quality. It is a commitment and remains a priority. You refer to the ClientEarth case. I can't comment on that in detail at the moment, as it's an ongoing case. But, actually, in terms of our aspirations in the clean air plan that we've set out, it's not just about meeting those obligations. It's actually making sure that we pave the way for the future and we go above and beyond. We know how important air quality is. Poor air quality impacts, obviously, on the most vulnerable communities, and it is really important that we take action on this.

In the debate, we did outline the clean air plan for Wales, which includes clean air zone frameworks. We are going to be working with local government, and you heard in the budget yesterday there is additional funding for that as well. It's also actually using all the levers we have at our disposal, as well as encouraging the UK Government to press forward on areas where they can take action, such as phasing out diesel vehicles.

I think it's really important that there's a commitment to work across Government on that. Whereas air quality is considered an environmental issue, it can't be tackled that way alone. So, it's really important that we work across, looking at transport, for low-emission vehicles, and look at our infrastructure, and make sure that when developments are taking place, air quality provision is taken into account when that happens.

Well, indeed, it might be seen as an environmental issue, but it's as much a public health issue as anything else. In fact, the Assembly voted, in that debate that you just referred to, again for a Plaid Cymru amendment that called on the Welsh Government to treat air pollution as a public health issue as well as an environmental issue. You're not responsible for public health, I know, but across Government, clearly this needs to be joined up.

The Scottish Government has said that it wants to go in front of the Westminster Government in terms of phasing out new petrol and diesel by 2032. We have examples around Europe of cities phasing out diesel and petrol vehicles in a much shorter space of time than the Westminster Government's talked about. Is it not the time to at least consider pilot areas in Wales where diesel and petrol may actually be banned, either on specific days or specific times, in order to achieve some improvement in air quality in those areas that, to be frank, the current system just isn't tackling, and there are public health deaths quite directly as a result of that?

The Member is quite right to raise the public health concerns on this. Like he said, it's very clear that it's always been perceived to be an environmental issue, but, actually, if we're going to get to the root cause and tackle it and improve our air quality, it does have to involve cross-Government and cross-government working as well, in terms of local government and the UK Government.

In terms of looking at areas or zones where perhaps you could ban or limit access for high-emission vehicles, that's something that could be considered under clean air zones. But what we made clear in the debate too is that the clean air zones are not a one-size-fits-all approach. There will be different problems, and therefore different ways that we can best tackle it in different areas across Wales.    

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. Capable and competent as the Minister is in answering her questions, I want to give the Cabinet Secretary her moment in the sun today as well and move to different areas of policy. I know we have differing views about the virtues of EU membership generally, but I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will agree with me that being outside the common agricultural policy, and the common fisheries policy, and the single market does give us the opportunity to have high standards of animal welfare than obtained in many areas of the EU, and in one area in particular, in relation to fishing. At the moment, the EU permits something called electric pulse fishing, which involves putting an electric current through the water—usually about 60 amps; so, it’s quite high intensity—and stunning fish, which are then dragged by nets into the boats. This has a number of unfortunate effects, not least on the fish themselves, because that method tends to break fish's spines and cause a great deal of internal haemorrhage. The trawling at the sea bed denudes it of all wildlife. And traditional catches are caught up in this as well and are discarded. If we recover policy responsibility for this area, we'd be able to ban electric pulse fishing. I wonder if the Welsh Government will commit itself to that.

You're quite right when you say that we have very differing views around Brexit, but I’ve always said that we would look at opportunities. I think we have very high animal health and welfare standards in Wales, and I would certainly not want to see those drop at all.

In relation to your specific question about banning that specific type of fishing, it’s certainly something that I will be considering in great detail.

I’m grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for that answer. Another area that could also lead to an improvement in animal welfare is if we banned the live export of animals. At the moment, the EU estimates that around 4 million cattle, 28 million pigs, 4 million sheep, 243 million poultry, and 150,000 horses are transported for more than eight hours within the EU. Once we're out of the EU, we will be able to stop the British element of that. I know there’s not a great deal of that which comes from Wales, but nevertheless, every little helps, as a famous supermarket says, and we will be able to make our contribution to the improvement of an important element of animal welfare.

Yes, absolutely, and certainly, my preference would be for animals to be slaughtered as close as is practical to their point of production, and I think that, again, that is something that, as you say, doesn’t have a huge effect on Welsh exports. However, it doesn’t matter how small it is; I would certainly want to have a focus on that.

I'm grateful again to the Cabinet Secretary. This note of amity is very welcome in the Assembly, I’m sure everybody will agree.

The third area in which I think we ought to be able to improve animal welfare is by the installation of CCTV cameras in abattoirs in Wales. The larger ones already do this, but the smaller ones on the whole don’t. Out of the 29 abattoirs in Wales, I believe there are 18 that are not monitored by CCTV, and they are generally the smaller ones. But it seems to me very important, and I think important for farmers generally and the agriculture industry generally, that the public has confidence in the food that is put on the table and the methods by which it is produced and processed, and in order to keep up public support for farmers and agriculture generally, we need to be proactive in showing that animals are kept and, when they are killed, also are killed in a humane way and to the highest possible standards of animal welfare. So, this is an area in which the Welsh Government could take an initiative, even at the moment, before we leave the EU. I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary would give further consideration to extending the existing controls.

Absolutely. I had a meeting this morning with the chief veterinary officer on this very topic, because, you will be aware, we had the consultation previously. England are looking to do this; Scotland are looking to do this. I have to say that the vast majority of certainly large slaughterhouses do have CCTV, but I am very keen to look at making it mandatory, to see what package of support would have to be made available, because I think that is the way to improve standards and practices and keep that confidence that the public have. So, I’ve got officials working very closely on this matter, and I will be bringing forward a statement to this place in the not-too-distant future.

Animal welfare is a priority for the Welsh Government. An overarching strategic outcome of the Wales animal health and welfare framework group is:

'Animals in Wales have a good quality of life'.

Work is ongoing to revise the existing Welsh Government livestock and companion animal welfare codes of practice.

Thank you for that answer. Cabinet Secretary, RSPCA Cymru believes that an animal abuse register would act as a deterrent for individuals who may otherwise have committed acts of cruelty, and could also help to prevent the suffering of other animals from reoffenders. Will the Welsh Government consider an animal abuse register?

Thank you for that question. Certainly, I have been approached by the RSPCA in relation to this, and it's something that we are giving very serious consideration to. 

Cabinet Secretary, I heard your exchange with the leader of UKIP earlier about CCTV in abattoirs, and it is correct to say that all large abattoirs do have CCTV. There is an issue that it should be rolled out in the rest of the abattoir sector, and we on these benches support that. From your findings and your deliberations on this, would it be correct to say that funding could be released from the rural development programme to support such an initiative so that there wasn't an undue burden placed on small abattoirs, on a cost basis, that could jeopardise their future, which is vital to the promotion of red meat in this part of the United Kingdom?

Certainly, yes, it is something that we are looking at from the RDP. I mentioned in my answer to Neil Hamilton that I had a meeting just this morning with Professor Christianne Glossop about this. I don't want that to be a burden. I don't want smaller slaughterhouses to come to me and say that funding to do this is a barrier, so I would want to take that away. You asked specifically about the RDP—obviously, there may be legal matters that I would have to look into—and that is the piece of work that's currently ongoing.

Cabinet Secretary, I wanted to ask you about the rearing of game birds. There appears to be no regular inspection of these sites by animal health inspectors and the current code of practice on game bird rearing is now seven years old. It is very basic and it doesn't even require a minimum space for the birds to be reared in. So, really, they're often reared in overcrowded, battery-like conditions. We don't allow hens to be in such conditions, so I wondered if the Cabinet Secretary would commit to review the regulatory framework on the welfare of game birds that are reared for so-called sporting purposes at the earliest opportunity.

Thank you, Julie Morgan, for that question. I mentioned in my original answer to Mandy Jones that we were currently revising many of the existing codes of practice. Certainly, there was a code of practice for the welfare of game birds reared for sporting purposes in 2011, for instance. So, we have been in consultation with the industry and welfare organisations, looking at that particular code of practice. I'd be very happy to see if we need to change that.

I think we should also remind those who are responsible for game birds that they should be knowledgeable and competent in husbandry and management techniques. The code of practice states that when birds are housed or penned, the accommodation should be well constructed and managed and of sufficient size to ensure good health and welfare. As I say, we are looking at revising these codes of practice, so if we look at it and we think that something needs changing in the regulations, that would be the opportunity to do it.

I wanted to carry on with the question with regard to the animal abuse register. Clearly, we're well advanced in this particular area with the working group led by RSPCA, but I wondered whether you'd taken on my concerns last time whereby those who had started the campaign, such as Tŷ Nant animal sanctuary and Maxine Berry from Justice for Chunky, would be involved in that particular working group. Could you give us an outline as to when you would be making your initial statements or thoughts as to whether this would be something Wales could lead on—a Wales first—to have this register? I think progress on it would be welcomed by campaigners in the field.

Yes, as you say, the working group has now met. I think they're due to report to me in the summer. So, I would imagine the timeline for being able to bring forward a statement would probably be the summer or as soon as we come back following the summer. It's a piece of work that, obviously, you've shown a particular interest in and I think it would be great if we could be first. Certainly, at the moment, we're ahead of the game, but the link between—. What we had a discussion about, Bethan, was in relation to an animal abuse register and the link with domestic abuse. I attended a seminar on that and it was very clear that Wales was ahead of the game in drawing those comparisons together.

As I stated in Plenary on 13 December, forestry is one of my top priorities. The Welsh Government will work with stakeholders to develop ways to continue to provide support for forestry as part of the sustainable land management proposals that will eventually replace the current CAP.

Thank you for that statement. As the Minister knows, stakeholders generally feel that the policy direction of the Welsh Government's strategy, 'Woodlands for Wales', is appropriate. In a recent debate on a report by the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, I raised the importance of increasing access to and community benefits from woodland. What progress has been made on this since the CCERA report? 

I welcome the Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee's further political and personal interest in this key area, and following up from the debate that we had just last month. Welsh Government are aware that the woodland estate is an important social asset. We know that it brings great health and well-being benefits from being able to access it, and a sense of identity and place at the local level as well. We're currently analysing the responses to our consultation, 'Taking forward Wales’ sustainable management of natural resources', which contains proposals to update the legislative framework for public access to the outdoors, and we will publish a summary of that and the Government response in due course. 

I also note that, during the debate, there were some very good examples cited by colleagues in terms of community woodland. I wish to reiterate my commitment then that if Members would like to invite us to see that, so that we can see best practice at first-hand, that could then hopefully influence us further down the line.

Minister, you'll be aware of the importance of the timber industry in my own constituency, particularly for businesses like Clifford Jones Timber in Ruthin, which, of course, is a significant employer and one of the main forestry-related companies, if you like—timber-related companies—in Wales. One of the concerns that they've cited to me, and was raised with the committee during the course of its work, was the shortage of the supply of wood, and the need to plant more wood in order to compensate for that. They tell me that if they had access to more reliable sources of wood, they would be able to expand their business and create more employment and wealth in north Wales. What specific action is the Welsh Government taking to drive up the availability of wood for use in the timber industry? 

It might surprise the Member that I wholeheartedly agree with everything he said there. That won't happen very often. [Laughter.] As I said, forestry is one of the top priorities, and I'm well aware of the issues that he's raised. Actually, my first meeting in post was with Confor, where they raised similar issues that there is the demand there, but we have to increase the supply as well, and we have to look at how we best manage that, too, in terms of woodland creation. And the issue at the moment is actually accessing the land management and how we do that, and that is something that we are looking at in more detail. I'll also be going to Scotland early next month to learn more from the relative success they've had there, to see if there are things that we can apply in creating new woodland to increase the productive potential of woodland in Wales. I think to do this, we need to work with stakeholders, such as the company you mentioned in your constituency, to develop ways that we can provide that support for forestry as part of the design of sustainable land management proposals, which, as I said, will eventually replace the current CAP. 

Simon Thomas. 

I have no question. 

The Welsh Government’s flood and coastal risk management programmes are actively addressing risk across north Wales. The £5 million St Asaph scheme, protecting 548 properties, will complete shortly. In addition, we are investing over £7 million in over 30 flood schemes across north Wales.

One of the areas that has received significant investment in recent years, of course, is the bay of Colwyn, but there is one part of the bay of Colwyn that is particularly vulnerable to flooding, and experienced flooding very recently in Storm Eleanor, which hit north Wales just a few weeks ago when the promenade of Old Colwyn was flooded. This is a regular occurrence now, and I'm very concerned at the vulnerability of the defences in that area, which, of course, as you will know, Minister, protect the A55 and the north Wales railway. We need some leadership on this, and I believe that that leadership needs to come from the Welsh Government. I would be very grateful if you would join me in a visit to Old Colwyn to inspect those defences, and to bring together the various agencies and partners that will be required in order to upgrade the facilities and the defences there. 

Thank you for your question. You're right that the risk at Old Colwyn is to the infrastructure—rail and road—rather than to homes, and you'll be aware that officials have encouraged Conwy County Borough Council to seek appropriate partnership contributions from those stakeholders before seeking further grant funding, but Conwy borough council, I understand, are also planning to hold discussions with Welsh Water regarding Old Colwyn. And, in November, officials from the council met with Network Rail to develop a potential joint solution to coastal risk at Old Colwyn. I understand that those discussions were positive, but if the Member would like to write to me to invite me to visit, I'd be happy to consider that. 

I'm very willing to help the Minister to fill a day of visits in north Wales by asking her to visit Anglesey as well. We had floods in many parts of Anglesey before Christmas, and, of course, I have visited those communities from Dwyran to Lanfairpwll to Menai Bridge and Llangefni, and so forth.

I would like to mention the situation in Llangefni specifically. I, of course, have been discussing the situation there with Natural Resources Wales. It has become apparent that the Isle of Anglesey County Council asked NRW a few years ago to undertake flood prevention work on the Cefni river following floods, historic floods there, in the last few years. And it is clear that NRW hasn't been able to prioritise that work, which isn't especially complex work, but it is necessary. Could I have a commitment from you as a Minister that you will ensure that NRW will prioritise this work, because it's not a risk on paper, as we've seen in other parts of Wales, including Roath in Cardiff, that we have here, but a real risk that has been proven by evidence?

Thank you for your question.

I didn't catch the beginning of it. Was that an invitation to come and visit? I'm always happy to visit north Wales. I'm acutely aware of what happened in November, just before Christmas across Ynys Môn, and I know that Welsh Government officials have been in touch with local authorities and NRW, but if the Member would like to write to me on that, then I will then take it up for him.

Diolch. There are five adopted local development plans in north Wales, with Wrexham County Borough Council and Flintshire County Council expected to adopt their plans by 2020. Conwy County Borough Council and Denbighshire County Council are due to commence a review of their respective LDPs, and I've recently invited them to prepare a joint plan instead.

The mid-year population estimates are showing clearly that the projections that have been used as a basis for many of these local development plans are clearly incorrect. In Wrexham's case, the population projection back in 2014 was for an increase of around 1,200 people in population by mid 2016. We now find, of course, that the increase has actually been four—not 4 per cent; four people. Now, clearly, that basis is fundamentally flawed in relation to the LDPs that we do have. They're wildly inaccurate, but they still remain the basis for the LDPs that have been reviewed or that are currently in place. So, will you agree with me that this inherent flaw in the LDPs is leading to an overestimation in terms of population, which in turn means that there will be more and largely unnecessary developments in terms of greenfield areas, in places, for example, where you yourself have opposed such schemes, in places such as Llay, in the past?

I am absolutely committed to a plan-led approach to development across Wales. I think it's really important that local authorities bring forward their LDPs. It's unfortunate—and you mention my own constituency of Wrexham in particular—it's very unfortunate that they haven't had an LDP in place. I wouldn't say they're flawed. I think the difficulty around LDPs is that they have to be constantly under review, and I think, going forward, we need to move away from LDPs and have more strategic development plans. Certainly, that's the work that's ongoing. My chief planning officer is currently going round Wales meeting with all local authorities, but I think we need to have those plans in place to make sure that we have the decision making, but of course the information needs to be correct, so that the decision making then is as appropriate as possible.

In October, the leader of Conwy council wrote to you stating that the Welsh Government's removal of the past building rate methodology from the calculation of land supply process had significantly undermined local development plans across Wales, rendering councils unable to defend speculative development applications that put the wrong houses in the wrong places. The only reason Wrexham doesn't have an LDP is because they'd nearly completed their LDP, but the Welsh Government told them to start again because they didn't have enough houses, and we've just heard from my colleague across the Chamber what resulted from that.

In December, you wrote to me saying that the underlying cause of Flintshire's exposure to speculative planning applications was their failure to adopt an LDP, and adding, you said that Flintshire is one of the few local planning authorities in Wales still to adopt an LDP and is likely to be the last authority to do so. So, which is the problem? Is it the failure by county councils to produce LDPs or does Conwy council have a point?

It's really important that local planning authorities have their five-year land supply and you referred to a letter I sent you before Christmas. The problem is when they don't have those five-year land supplies, we see developers coming in with very speculative applications. So, I think it's really important and I don't want to talk about specific plans because, obviously, our powers in the development process means that I can't. But I think, looking at it on a case-by-case way, when a Member writes to me, I respond in that way. So, if I wrote to you about Conwy, that's what I stand by; if I wrote to you about Flintshire, that's what I stand by, also.

Natural Resources Wales are responsible for the scheme. I met with their officials and elected representatives, including yourself, on 9 January to further discuss this scheme and the concerns of residents. During the meeting, NRW explained the reasons for the works and the options they had considered to alleviate flood risk.

Yes, and thanks for arranging that meeting. I think that was a useful clear-the-air meeting, as far as it went. The problem is, by that point, we already had many local residents protesting against the felling of trees by climbing up the trees and doing other activities on site. So, clearly, something did go wrong with the consultation. Could you now work with NRW to assess exactly what did go wrong and hopefully avoid this kind of repercussion in future schemes?

Thank you for your question and your interest in this. Roath Brook Gardens and Roath Mill Gardens are the final phase of the flood alleviation works, and this process has been under way for five years. We've gone through planning and consultation and it's now at the implementation stage. Residents' concerns were raised very late in the process and at this final implementation stage. I called for a meeting with NRW at the earliest opportunity, in post, in order to understand the work and its impact on the parks. I understand that concerns had not been flagged up with the department prior to my coming into post.

The consultation has been ongoing during this time and I'm happy to write to the Member, and other Members with an interest, with a full list of the public consultation, but throughout the scheme's planning and construction phases, NRW have consulted with the local community, Cardiff council and stakeholders, and they confirm that this has included local AMs, MPs and councillors. I also understand that local councillors have been heavily involved though briefings, have attended most public meetings and have facilitated residents' discussions. I know that NRW have tried to work constructively throughout the scheme to improve the scheme, to try and reflect residents' views, and I know that that is ongoing, as NRW are meeting with residents as we speak to see if further resolution can be sought.FootnoteLink

Can I also thank you for the meeting you arranged last week with interested Members and NRW? It's important that we do advance in scientific and technical evidence. I think one of the things that may have assuaged the protesters would have been if we'd had an existing and more abundant tree canopy. It's a problem, then, when we do, unfortunately, have to see trees removed, either because they're diseased or would be, or as a result of the new course of a brook, for instance. So, could we just increase the amount of woodland we have in cities, please?

The Member makes a very important point, and I'm glad you were able to join us for that meeting last week. In this particular case, more trees are being replanted than are being felled. I recognise the strength of emotion and feeling that people have for their local parks and recreation places. I think, as part of our woodland creation strategy, we do, perhaps, need to look again at how we create urban centres and areas of parks, with canopy creation in mind as well.

The Welsh Government is providing new enforcement powers to Natural Resources Wales to tackle illegal and poorly operated sites. We have also provided funding for fire and rescue service staff to be seconded to NRW to develop fire prevention and mitigation plans and help train operators in the waste industry.

Minister, I'm sure you've probably heard the BBC Radio Wales report that indicated that firefighters were called to deal with 68 of the 123 recorded waste fires in the last few years, and that expended about 22,000 person hours to extinguish the flames, at a total cost of some £1.8 million. Mark Andrews, who leads on these matters in Wales and England for the National Fire Chiefs Council, said that increased rates of recycling, which, of course, we want, mean more waste and more fire risk, and he called on regulators to take a much more robust line. Isn't that at the heart of this matter, that we need effective regulation here?

Absolutely. The Welsh Government has provided £200,000 to Natural Resources Wales to help fund additional waste crime work. The funding has paid for an officer from the fire and rescue services to work with Natural Resources Wales to develop and embed guidance on fire prevention at waste sites. The Welsh Government introduced powers in October 2015 to make it easier for the regulator to suspend permits and to take steps to remove any risks. We will be laying another instrument on waste crime towards the end of this month, for scrutiny by the National Assembly, to provide the powers for Natural Resources Wales to lock the gates of sites to stop access and prevent waste coming on to a site, and a second power will be aimed at those who unlawfully keep or allow waste to be kept on land and make them responsible.

Thank you to the Minister and the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item, therefore, is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, and the first question—Lynne Neagle.

Thank you. Our research shows that the welfare changes from 2010-11 to 2015-16 have hit the south Wales Valleys hard. This includes Torfaen, which was the seventh worst affected local authority area in Wales, with average income losses above those for Wales as a whole. In terms of the welfare changes introduced since 2015-16, and those that are continuing to roll out over the next few years, analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows Torfaen will be hit hard again. 

Thank you. After the first six months of full service universal credit in Torfaen, the council's head of revenues and benefits, Richard Davies, said he felt the ethos of his role had changed from paying benefits and making sure people had their entitlements to ensuring people had food on the table. Sadly, there is no sign of improvement, and, last week, the chair of Bron Afon Community Housing predicted the number of tenants adversely affected by universal credit will rise again, and the level of rent arrears already being caused is deeply worrying. What steps is the Welsh Government taking to support residents in communities that are struggling under universal credit, and, in particular, what steps can we take to ensure the problems with rent arrears do not lead to an increase in evictions and homelessness?

I thank you very much for that question, and I share your deep concern about the impact that universal credit, particularly, but welfare reform and austerity in the wider sense, are having on our communities. It's a concern that's shared by the Cabinet Secretary for Local Government and Public Services, who, today, actually, has met with the leader of Torfaen council, and part of the discussion was about the impact that welfare reform is having on people living in Torfaen. I've been very clear with the UK Government that there are severe issues with the roll-out of universal credit, not least the impact that the changes to payment of housing support are having on people with rent arrears.

Welsh Government is really keen that people are proactively offered that choice to have the alternative payment, where the payment is made to their landlord rather than to the individual. We know that makes much more sense for people who haven't had to budget in that way previously, and it gives surety to the individual that they will have that roof over their head. I've had discussions around that with Jobcentre Plus in Wales to try and ensure that people do have that proactive choice and they're not just asked, 'Would you like alternative payments?', because 'alternative payments' doesn't mean anything to anybody, but that the option for an alternative payment is explained in terms of the fact that it will mean that your rent is paid for you and you don't have to worry about that.

We're really keen to ensure that people do have the advice and the support that they need, which is why Welsh Government has invested nearly £6 million of grant funding to support our advice services across Wales, supporting, particularly, funding for front-line advice, Better Advice, Better Lives, and the Communities First shared outcomes project. That's because we are really committed to ensuring that people do have free, independent advice. I've spoken also to Citizen's Advice, because I've been really keen to understand their experience in Torfaen, which has had full roll-out now. They were very clear that rent arrears are a problem for people who have been moved over to universal credit. They are undertaking some local mitigating action, such as access to local hardship funds, for example, and tenants are being helped in that way, alongside those alternative payment arrangements I was talking about. But the message is very strong that this issue is putting quite strong pressure on our advice services and on Citizen's Advice in Torfaen, particularly.

Does the Cabinet Secretary agree that our benefits system should be designed to make sure work always pays? And will she join me in welcoming the fact that unemployment in Torfaen has fallen by 37 per cent since November 2010? Thank you.

The Welsh Government absolutely agrees that work should pay, which is why we have such severe concerns about universal credit, which actually means that in many cases work doesn't pay. People who are in employment, such as lone families, and families with disabled people who are in employment, some of them will actually see their income fall as a result of the impact of universal credit. It's absolutely important that work pays, but it must pay well as well, which is why we're doing so much work around the issue of the living wage. And we have to address issues such as zero-hours contracts. We've made a commitment to do so under the areas where we do have power to do so—for example, in the field of social care. We're keen to ensure that zero-hours contracts are not something to see now as an acceptable way in which to employ people.

I thank you for the question. I welcome the ending of the tolls and the benefits that it will bring to Wales. I recognise that this could influence housing demand and prices in the region. I'll be meeting with both Newport and Monmouthshire local authorities to discuss this issue in more detail, and I have already had some early discussions with house builders. 

Minister, it could lead to higher house prices. We've already seen in the past year house prices go up by more than 9 per cent in Monmouthshire, and more than 6 per cent in Newport. I just wonder if there's a need for a greater urgency about this. I'm delighted to hear about the meeting she's having, but where there is demand and the opportunity to boost the economy, and bring high-earning people in and help the tech centre in Newport, could the Government perhaps look to do more to assist Newport and Monmouthshire in getting sites ready and accelerating development to benefit from this?

I thank you for the question. Having complete coverage of adopted local development plans across Wales is really crucial in terms of ensuring that the homes that Wales needs are delivered. For the South Wales East area, there are significant opportunities and challenges that are larger than any single local planning authority, and are certainly best addressed through local authorities working together, which is why I'm pleased that the Cabinet Secretary with responsibility for planning has written to local authorities in the area, inviting them to come together and submit plans to prepare a joint LDP.

We know that there has been a positive trend of house building across Wales—722 new dwellings completed in south Wales during the July to September quarter of 2017. But I do agree that the removal of the tolls does provide us with an opportunity to increase and improve the speed of house building, as does our innovative housing programme, for example, in the area. I'm keen to work with the local authorities and with house builders to ensure that we do that alongside registered social landlords.

Minister, what would certainly help address any increase in house prices would be delivery of Welsh Government plans for 20,000 extra affordable homes in this Assembly term. So, will your discussions with Newport City Council and Monmouthshire County Council include discussion as to how affordable homes can be best taken forward in that area?

I thank you for the question, and almost any discussion I ever have in this portfolio does include the important role of making sure that we hit our 20,000 target for affordable homes. But I'm also really keen to ensure that we do increase the speed and the amount of the development of homes for market sale as well, because we know that we need the whole diverse package in Wales to meet different people's needs for different types of housing. It's difficult to understand at the moment what the impact might be in the longer term on house prices in the area, but we're certainly keeping a very close watching brief on that. Were there to be increases in house prices, that would obviously be good for the local housing market and existing home owners. However, I do recognise that it could potentially have a big impact on the ability of local first-time buyers to access properties in high demand areas, which is why it's so important that we continue our housebuilding right across Wales, but particularly in this part of Wales, and why we look at what different kind of packages we can put together to support people to buy a home.

I'm really excited about the development work we're doing on the rent to own project. So, that will be a package available for people who can afford a market rent but haven't been able to save up a deposit for a home, and that will be able to allow them to buy a home under a new package that we're currently developing, and I hope to say more about that in the very near future.

Thank you. We now move to spokespeople's questions. The first spokesperson this afternoon is the UKIP spokesperson, Gareth Bennett.

Thank you, Dirprwy Llywydd. Minister, we've had the issue of homelessness in the news a lot lately. This tends to become a big topic as we approach Christmas every year, but, more significantly, we've also had the latest annual empty homes figures, which show a rise in Wales from an estimated 23,000 empty homes a year ago to 25,000 homes now. So, despite the Welsh Government's Houses into Homes initiative, the empty homes situation does seem to be getting worse. What do you think your Government can do to improve this situation?

I thank you for the question. The issue of empty homes is an issue of concern for the Welsh Government. There have been, as you say, some good projects delivered under our empty homes project in particular, but it is an opportunity, really, to look right across our opportunities for regeneration to see how we can turn, for example, empty shops in our high streets into homes. That's something that we're pursuing through our town centre loan scheme, for example. It's something that's been part of our Vibrant and Viable Places project, but could, in the future, form part of our targeted regeneration investment programme. That's a new programme launched in October of last year, which is a £100 million of investment in regeneration. So, I'm keen that, whenever we are thinking about regeneration, we're also thinking in the context of home building and particularly turning empty properties back into homes.

Yes. Thanks for the answer. I think an holistic approach, as you've advocated, would be good, but I think you need to keep on top of the empty homes situation as a specific issue. Now, in terms of increasing housing supply in other ways, I know that you and Mark Drakeford, the Finance Minister, have been having discussions over a possible vacant land tax. Could you give us any update on the Government's progress on this issue, and how do you think this might help the housing situation if you do agree to proceed with that tax?

Well, this is certainly one of those four areas of a potential future Welsh tax that Welsh Government has been considering and has been subject to a poll undertaken by the Welsh Treasury to understand the views that people might have on this as one of the potential four. Obviously, you wouldn't expect me to make any announcement on the way forward today, because it is still a matter for discussion, and I'm sure that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance will be able to provide an update to Members as soon as he's able to do so.

Yes, thanks. I appreciate that it's still a work in progress and, of course, it cuts across the finance Minister's portfolio, so I look forward to an update in due course. So, perhaps instead of me pursuing that issue, I could go back to the empty homes problem. Councils in Wales also have the power to take control of empty homes through empty dwelling management orders. Now, the figures show that these orders are hardly being used in Wales at the moment. Is there a case, do you think, that councils should now be guided into using these powers more often?

The way in which the councils generally approach the issue of empty homes tends to be, in the first instance, to try and work with the owner of the property in order to bring that home back into use. But then, if that fails, the empty dwelling management orders are there for local authorities to avail themselves of and I would encourage them to do so if they feel that it is appropriate to do. There are areas of good practice where local authorities are working with the owners of properties. For example, in Swansea, the local authority will work with owners in order to bring a property back into use by providing them with a loan in order to refurbish the property to the necessary standard, but then also guarantee that they will have a secure tenant for two years or more as a result of that. So, I think there are opportunities for local authorities to learn from one another and to explore the good practice that is being undertaken. I'm also keen that local authorities consider as well whether or not to increase the council tax on second homes. That's an option that local authorities can and do take and I think it is a sensible way in order to try and prevent second homes taking over some villages—as we do have a situation in Wales—and that people who do own those homes do contribute to the local area.

We now move to the Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Siân Gwenllian.

As this is the first time I have questioned you in your new role as the Cabinet Secretary for local government, may I congratulate you and wish you well? I would like to ask you first what sort of style you will adopt in your new role.

I'm grateful to the Plaid Cymru spokesperson for her kind words at the beginning of our new relationship. I'm not sure that I've ever considered myself as someone who has any sort of style in any way. I may be wrong. The tone I want to adopt in the discussions that I've already started with councillors and council leaders across the country is a tone of respect towards councillors and councils in terms of the work that they do. I said during the debate that we had yesterday on the local government settlement that councillors and council leaders undertake some of the most difficult jobs in Welsh politics at the moment.

I was brought up in a home where public services were discussed around the dinner table. My father worked for Tredegar Urban District Council, Blaenau Gwent Borough Council and then Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council, and therefore the services provided by councils are something that I was brought up with. I respect the work that's being done, and I respect the workers that are doing that work.

I agree with you that the relationship that you develop with the leaders of different councils and authorities is key. Your predecessor took the approach of collaboration, with a relationship built on the basis of respect, even though there are tensions that sometimes exist between the Government and local authorities. But that wasn't always true, looking at former Ministers in your party. I remember, when I was a cabinet member in Gwynedd Council, I had experience of one of your predecessors who used the style of an angry headteacher with a cane. Now, that sort of style is never going to get things done.

The regionalisation of services is an example of where there is a need to tread carefully, of course, and maintain this important relationship with local authorities. But there is also an approach that needs to be important as well in terms of regionalisation, which is accountability. Even though I support the efforts to ensure that services are run more strategically and are more effective, I am concerned about this approach and losing that accountability. How are you going to ensure that this new level of governance is going to be accountable to councillors and, more importantly perhaps, to the electorate?

I agree with the Plaid Cymru spokesperson in her analysis—perhaps not every single word of it, but certainly the main thrust of her message. I understand that. May I say this? I think it's important that we find a balance. This is a discussion I had this morning, as it happens, not just with the leader of Torfaen, who's already been mentioned, but also the leader of Caerphilly, about the tension that exists between ensuring that services are provided at a strategic level, but also ensuring that the way that we deliver services acknowledges the importance of place, and the importance of collaboration with those people who are in receipt of the services. So, there is a tension there on occasion, and we must ensure that we do have services that are delivered at a level that is strategic, robust and that will maintain services of the highest possible quality, but are also accountable and can respond to very localised needs. At the moment, I'm considering where we are in terms of our policy. We know that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance has worked very hard to put in place a new and different vision for local government. I will now be using or drawing upon the work done by the Cabinet Secretary as a foundation to moving forward in ensuring that we can deliver the kind of high-quality services that we all want to see, and in ensuring that that is sustainable for the longer term.

I look forward, therefore, to seeing how exactly you're going to sustain that important accountability, which is what I was asking about.

Turning now to the electoral system and the White Paper on local government reform, it notes that reforming the electoral system to the single transferable vote would not be mandatory to all councils in Wales and that councils would have a choice to bring it forward or not. In my view, that is a mistake. It would enable some local authorities not to move towards real representation for political reasons, perhaps, or self-interest, or whatever reason. Will you consider that, therefore, and ensure that reforming the electoral system to STV is mandatory for all local authorities in Wales?

The Member is tempting me to get onto very dangerous ground here. May I just say that my personal view as an individual is that I support STV? I think that is the system that provides the greatest accountability and provides a fair vote to everyone across the nation—in this place, in local government, and, frankly, in Westminster, too. But I'm not sure that in saying that I represent the views of everyone on these benches and everyone in this Chamber. So, I do intend to proceed with changes in electoral arrangements. I have asked for permission to make an oral statement on that on 30 January, when I will make a clear statement on our way forward in terms of electoral reform for local government in the future.

Cabinet Secretary, this year we celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of the suffragette movement's success in obtaining true equality for women by means of securing the vote. We also celebrate—well, we should be able to celebrate—48 years of the Equal Pay Act 1970, yet here in Wales it is paid lip service only. We still see disgraceful equal pay gaps present within Welsh public services—not only at the heart of Welsh Government, but also in local government. Now, I have been chasing this issue for quite some time now, since I became aware of it. But the fact of the matter is, as I stand here today, we still have 92 equal pay claims outstanding. Now, that is an appalling set of events. I have to say, it was up in the hundreds when I first started raising this in the Senedd here, and some authorities have been made aware that this is not acceptable. But I have to tell you that Ynys Môn and Swansea are among the highest. These women deserve this money; it is their money. And at the moment, the back and forwards that is happening between lawyers holding out on these women, who have already earned this money, and the money should be theirs—. Now, I also note that the Welsh Government's strategic equality plan, back in 2012, committed the Welsh Government to work with partners to identify and address the causes of the gender, ethnicity and disability pay and employment differences. Cabinet Secretary, with respect to our local authorities and their leaders, what efforts are you taking to stamp out this really bad practice of inequality and ensure that these women get their just deserts and the pay that they are due?

I agree with the whole of her question, and at risk of simply repeating her own words, I think we do celebrate 100 years since the beginning of extending the franchise to everybody in this country. I've already spoken to a Minister at the Cabinet Office about UK Government plans to celebrate that anniversary, and certainly the Welsh Government will wish to support and take part in that celebration as well. Part of what we're seeking to do, as I said in an answer to Siân Gwenllian, is that we want to continue to extend the franchise, we want to continue to deepen and enrich our democracy and how people are encouraged and enabled to participate in that democracy. At the heart of Siân Gwenllian's question was accountability. Accountability, for me, is best delivered through the ballot box. What we have to ensure is that the ballot box is at the heart of our democracy and how we encourage and enable people to participate within it.

But in terms of equal pay, I've nothing to add to the points that you make in your question, and the observations you make. It is an appalling reflection on our system that women are still waiting for these matters to be resolved. It is appalling that anybody would not be paid an equal rate for the job. We're seeing a debate taking place in the BBC at the moment. You'd have thought they would know better. I hope that they reflect on what has been said over the last few weeks particularly, and I hope also that, as we continue to develop our policy—. The Minister for Housing and Regeneration spoke, in answer to an earlier question, about Wales as a fair work nation. I believe that fair work is essential for everybody, and that means a fair and equal rate for the job. We value our public service workers—we value all our public service workers, male and female—and they all deserve a fair living wage for the commitment that they make to our communities.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for a respectful and considerate response. Another issue I've had to raise, sadly, is about the secrecy that takes place within some local authorities in terms of the democratic proceedings and how the press and public are restricted from those. Now, I'm really proud to be an Assembly Member and part of this institution, when transparency and allowing the public to view our proceedings—. They can go on Senedd.tv and see them. But the fact of the matter is that we are still seeing—and you'll see the release that we've put out today. We've taken the figures now of the times that members of the public and the press are excluded during very important decision making within local authorities. Last year, Bridgend excluded the public in 93 per cent of its meetings, Conwy in 81 per cent, and Merthyr Tydfil 71 per cent. I might add that, with Conwy, of course, it was the previous administration. Now, decisions made at a local level have such a direct impact on the lives, jobs, homes and locality of our residents, and such secrecy and lack of participation, engagement and enablement is a real concern. Now, looking at your Welsh Government record for local government—and I don't blame you for this one iota—the responsibility for this portfolio has changed hands no less than five times in six years. Fundamentally, this Welsh Labour Government refuses to get a handle on the issues that matter most to those so largely dependent on the delivery of much-needed vital local services. So, Cabinet Secretary, how will you get a grasp on this portfolio and champion efficient financial probity, greater transparency and true democratic accountability?

I'm interested, Deputy Presiding Officer, in the point she makes about the public being excluded from meetings. Members may be interested to know that I took the opportunity to attend full council in Blaenau Gwent last Thursday morning when I was in my constituency, and I was asked to leave the meeting at one point whilst they debated and discussed issues from which the public were excluded. Now, I take it in good faith and in trust that they are doing so for the right reasons and debate and discuss issues that should rightly be conducted in private. It is, I think, incumbent upon all of us who exercise public responsibilities to do so in a way that is transparent and open to encourage and enhance and root democracy, which we all care about.

The Member asks a number of somewhat related questions. In terms of the wider issues about transparency and accountability, for me, accountability is about being able to remove people and to hold people to account, where they fail or where they don't deliver. Now, it's not a matter for me to comment on cabinet appointments, but it is a matter for me to be put at ease that the frameworks that we have for local government provide a level of transparency, openness and accountability. For that we need simplicity in terms of our structures and our processes and our procedures. I hope that we can work together. I don't think there's a—. Siân Gwenllian talked about a tension between Welsh Government and local government in her questions, but I hope that we can all agree a set of important basic principles upon which we will operate. Trust, respect, openness, transparency, and a commitment to real partnership and collaboration is what I think local government wants from this Government, it's what this Government offers local government, and I think it's what both local government and Welsh Government have to demonstrate to our electorate. 

Thank you. You are doing really well so far. Keep it up. More than one of your predecessors pledged—

You can do really well by just asking the question because you're four minutes over time.

More than one of your predecessors pledged to introduce webcasting of council meetings and, in doing so, provided £40,000 to each local authority. I have received representations from residents in Conwy, across north Wales and beyond, from as far as the Vale of Glamorgan and Rhondda Cynon Taf, who are concerned that they are unable to access the democratic decision-making processes as council and cabinet meetings are not available via the webcasting systems that your Government has actually provided the funding for. Going forward with the proposed local government Bill, can you confirm for us today—. I know that Mark Drakeford AM, your immediate predecessor, did pledge to make webasting a mandatory requirement. Will you stick to that in any future local government reform?

I certainly will. I'm looking across at the Cabinet Secretary, hoping that he's going to indicate in some way that he did make that commitment [Laughter.] He is. On the basis of that, I reiterate that commitment from the point of view of the Government today. 

Local authority services play a vitally important role in the lives of all citizens in Wales. The Welsh Government continues to protect funding for all our local authorities, so that those vital services, both statutory and non-statutory, can go on being provided. Local service delivery, however, is for local determination.

Cabinet Secretary, leisure services are vital to health and quality of life and enjoyment for our people here in Wales. Will you join me in recognising the value and the contribution of Newport Live, which delivers recreational, sport and cultural services? I've been involved in a number of meetings they've had with Aneurin Bevan Local Health Board and a range of partners, including Newport City Council, to ensure that we do take steps to get our local population more active. I believe that that's testament to the breadth of the vision that Newport Live have and the contribution they are making. Most recently, they succeeded in a bid to bring the transplant games to Newport, which will have very obvious benefits. So, I would be very pleased if you would join me today, Cabinet Secretary, in recognising the contribution that they make and commit Welsh Government to continue working with them and key partners to bring these benefits to the local population. 

I absolutely will, Deputy Presiding Officer. I know that the Member for Newport East has championed a healthy lifestyle and an active lifestyle for many years in this place, and he actually lives it as well, which is a constant example to the rest of us. Can I say this: Newport Live benefits from a strong relationship, with a forward-looking council in Newport, with a dynamic leadership in Newport, which seeks to ensure that organisations in the city do work together? I'm aware of the work that Newport Live does in encouraging and supporting families with health inequalities to live a healthy lifestyle. I think that, in many ways, this might be an example for many other organisations and authorities across the rest of Wales. 

Cabinet Secretary, as a result of the poor local government settlement, Newport City Council has announced cuts to many statutory services. These include cuts to school breakfast clubs, transport for children with special needs, activities for people with autism, and family information services. Newport City Council also intends to cut its contribution to a Gwent-wide service for finding missing children. Will the Cabinet Secretary commit to reviewing Newport City Council’s plan to see what he can do to offset the effect of cuts to these services in Newport? Thank you.

No. It’s a matter for local authorities to take those decisions. I have no intention at all of interfering or commenting or making observations on those decisions. I said yesterday in the debate we had that local authority leaders and local authorities are dealing with extraordinarily difficult times, and I have to say that any Conservative Member who comes to this Chamber to complain and to grizzle about spending cuts needs to start looking to home and the responsibility of a Conservative Government that has failed, through years of austerity, to deliver either economic growth or to reduce the deficit. On every objective they’ve set themselves, they've failed, and the only consistency we’ve seen from a Conservative UK Government is that of failure.

Positive progress has been made by public services boards to meet their obligations under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Having published their assessments of local well-being, PSBs are now consulting on their draft well-being plans. The focus must then shift to making a difference for their communities.

Thank you for that answer. When public service boards were set up in 2016, one of the objectives was a set objective that was designed to maximise the public services boards’ contribution to the well-being goals. What progress has been made towards achieving this?

Currently, all public services boards are consulting on their objectives as part of their well-being plans. Local well-being plans must explain why the objectives the public services boards have chosen will maximise their contribution to achieving their national well-being goals.

I will say to Members that I have seen some of these plans. The quality of some of them is, quite frankly, variable, shall we say? We are working with local authorities and PSBs and others to ensure that we do provide the support for PSBs to deliver the sort of planning that we would all like to see.

I also want to take the opportunity to welcome the initiatives that some PSBs have taken in order to ensure that they are able to strengthen their work. I’m aware that Conwy and Denbighshire have formally merged to create a single PSB, as have Rhondda Cynon Taf and Merthyr. Anglesey and Gwynedd have chosen to collaborate to produce a joint assessment plan for their areas. I welcome those initiatives, and I welcome the way in which PSBs have moved to address these issues.

Cabinet Secretary, these boards are largely invisible, and they certainly need a sharper focus. I think they should be tasked with showing how they’re implementing the well-being of future generations Act. And the way they can do that is to actually demonstrate, perhaps in an annual report, what is changing, what services have been adapted, what services are being collaborated on in their delivery, so we can actually see the change agenda taking place.

The Conservative Member for South Wales Central has described what my expectations are as well. I would say, very gently, that we are at the beginning of this process, rather than halfway through or at the completion of it. PSBs are, at the moment, undertaking their consultation. The Member would be very welcome, of course, to contribute to his own PSB with those observations, and I would very much welcome that. Certainly, the test for this piece of legislation, and the test for this process, is how it affects people’s lives. That is the key issue for all of us, and that is what I would certainly be seeking to address in the future.

The Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011, as amended, requires the independent remuneration panel to hold an eight-week consultation on its draft report and produce its final annual report by 28 February. Its determinations then take effect in the next financial year.

Can I thank the Cabinet Secretary, who responded to a letter on this question just a few days ago? Your reply perhaps slightly misses the point, as this is in regard to the timing of the independent remuneration panel for Wales's report on allowances for elected members. Local councils, of course, have to set budgets by mid January. That means either the councils have to guess what might be in the final report or have to make allowances for something that might not happen at all. Can I ask you to consider asking the panel to start their consultation earlier and to publish their annual report by the end of December each year? That would, of course, allow councils to take decisions into account during their budget process.

I am aware of the concerns that have been raised with the Member by, I think, Welshpool Town Council. I will give some consideration to the points that he raises, but I will say to him as well that there is already guidance available to town and community councils on how they manage their finances. We have a practitioner's guide, which has been published by One Voice Wales and the Society of Local Council Clerks, and it is written specifically for town and community councils. I would very gently suggest that he asks the town council in Welshpool to consider the matters covered in that guidance and I hope that will resolve the issues that they've raised with him.

Will the Cabinet Secretary join me in thanking and congratulating the dedicated town and community councillors who do so much for their fellow citizens in my constituency and in much of Wales? To give an example, Cowbridge and Barry town councils are promoting their towns to be fair-trade towns, and Barry is promoting their town to be the first real-living-wage town in Wales.

I certainly will. I think the Member provides some very great examples of the difference that town and community councils can make. I know, growing up in Tredegar myself, that Tredegar Town Council was always a force for good in the town, and today is, I think, a model of what a town council can achieve for the population it serves. The examples that the Member has given in the Vale of Glamorgan also provide other examples of how town and community councils can play an essential role in the well-being and livelihood of communities. Can I say this: we do currently have a group looking at the future role of town and community councils? What I would like to see is how we can strengthen the role of town and community councils. I think there are many concerns amongst the electorate about how our towns are developing and how change is managed in many of our small towns across the whole of Wales. I feel and I believe that town councils have a very important potential to fulfil a role within towns and communities across the country and I would certainly very much welcome any suggestions and proposals to strengthen their roles in the future.

Public services deliver vital services to people in Pembrokeshire and across Wales. Their ability and resilience to deliver positive outcomes in challenging times is a priority for me and this Government.

Of course, one way of ensuring that the provision of local public services is truly local is to ensure that services are not centralised and that local authorities remain truly local. Does the Cabinet Secretary therefore agree with me that merging local authorities like Pembrokeshire should not take place, as local public services are best delivered by individual local authorities accountable to local people, and what the Welsh Government should be concentrating on is ensuring that we see real and meaningful collaboration between local authorities?

I hope that we will see real and meaningful collaboration amongst authorities in the future. We need to be able to deliver services at a scale that is both robust and delivers excellence in terms of delivery of the services and for the people delivering those services. How we deliver services will be different in a rural part of west Wales, which the Member represents, in north Pembrokeshire than it will be in the centre of Cardiff. What I'm anxious to do is to ensure that we're able to consider how we structure local government in the future to best enable us to deliver the services that the Member has described but also the accountability that we've already debated this afternoon. I want to see both effective services and a rooted democracy in different parts of the country that is a rich democratic debate about the future of our vital public services. I will be making statements on this in the next few weeks.

I hope shortly to be meeting with Pembrokeshire officials and cabinet members to discuss the budget for next year. You will know that Pembrokeshire has had a public debate around increases in council tax way above the 5 per cent guidance that has been issued. What message would you have for Pembrokeshire County Council and also for the taxpayers there if there is a rate set that is way above the 5 per cent guidance that has been used in the past? 

I'm not sure that it helps the local democratic debate that Siân Gwenllian was championing earlier in this session for Ministers to be passing observations and comments on the decisions of local authorities. I believe in local government. I believe in local decision making. I believe in local democracy. And that means that local democratically accountable political leaders should have the right to take decisions that I may disagree with, that other Members here may disagree with, that Members who live in that area may disagree with, but it is their right to take those decisions and they then must argue their case to the local electorate, who will hold them to account for those decisions.  

Council tax in Pembrokeshire has consistently been amongst the lowest in Wales. Council tax is set by all councillors, not only by the executive, in the same way as the amount of money spent here and the amount of money raised here is set by all Assembly Members. Does the Cabinet Secretary agree that council tax rises is a matter for elected councillors, who will answer to local electors for their decisions? 

I'm absolutely delighted to be in complete agreement with the Member for Swansea East. I once disagreed with him on local government matters, I'll never do so again, and I'm delighted that I don't have to do so this afternoon.  

Welsh Government is working with Community Housing Cymru, the police, police and crime commissioners and other stakeholders to develop a national approach to tackling anti-social behaviour for use by all social housing providers in Wales.  

Thank you, Minister. Unfortunately, I've seen a big increase recently in complaints from tenants about anti-social behaviour, and in some cases they've been very serious and even life-threatening cases. One of the things that appears to be consistent is a reluctance to give evidence because of fear of reprisals, and whilst in recent years there's been an increase in the use of professional witnesses to support cases, it is inevitable that they will not witness or experience the same issue as someone who is living with a situation 24/7. What further support can the Welsh Government offer to ensure that social landlords and tenants in Torfaen are better protected to ensure that such cases are dealt with more effectively, and even to prevent them from happening in the first place? 

I thank you for raising this important issue, and I'm sorry to hear about the serious anti-social behaviour issues that your constituents have been facing. I met with police and crime commissioner Alun Michael earlier in the week, and his deputy, and they're working together to lead that piece of work, which is developing a resource for all social housing providers, hopefully, subject to the successful evaluation of that pilot scheme. And my intention would be for it to be rolled out as soon as possible after the evaluation. I expect to have the full report by the end of March, and I'm keen to establish which local authorities and which social landlords in particular would benefit most from the use of the resource. So, perhaps if we could have a conversation and pinpoint some particular registered social landlords in Torfaen, that might be a good area where we could start making some progress. Obviously, there are issues of confidentiality here, so if you would like to me to ask my officials to speak to any specific landlords about issues that your constituents are facing, I'd be very happy to do so.    

Thank you very much, Minister. 

The next item on the agenda is topical questions, and this afternoon's topical question is from Russell George. 

Diolch, Deputy Presiding Officer. There is, of course, understandable excitement about the decision—[Interruption.] Sorry, yes. 

That does help; now we all know what you're talking about. 

I do indeed share the Member's excitement about the investment the Welsh Government has made in TVR, which follows a process of thorough due diligence, and we provided a repayable commercial loan of £2 million in early 2016. This was made alongside a private sector lender. We've also invested £500,000 into equity on the same terms as other investors, giving the Welsh Government a minority stake of 3 per cent in TVR, ensuring that the Welsh taxpayer benefits from the company's success. 

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary, and sorry, Deputy Presiding Officer—I got too excited myself in my question there.

There is, of course, the prestige of the TVR badge, but that's of course not the only thing that's of consideration. Two and a half million pounds is a significant investment, and the public, of course, want to see the evidence that taxpayers' money is properly being safeguarded. Now, papers filed with Companies House suggest that the Welsh Government has told the company that £2 million of the loan will not be called on for repayment, provided that the company secures private sector investment equal to or greater than £5.5 million. Can I ask you to confirm if that's correct?

During committee this morning, you were unable to confirm whether the Welsh Government has an observer on the board of TVR. I wonder if you could also clarify that position. And, to date, the two listed companies connected with this investment have a headcount of just six jobs. Now, commercial common sense and respect for taxpayers' money dictate that there must be an economic benefit to this spending. So, can I ask what conditions the Government has placed on TVR in return for investment, and what is the delivery date by which the promised 150 jobs will materialise? And finally, do you agree that the Welsh Government does have a moral and economic duty to the people of Blaenau Gwent to ensure that this exciting project doesn't turn into another disappointment for that area?

Can I thank the Member for his questions and say that the car received, importantly, a commercial and critical success? The reception was quite astonishing at Goodwood in the autumn when it was unveiled. It's a remarkable machine. The design incorporates unique and cutting-edge elements of automotive design by Gordon Murray, who himself is well known to automotive experts as being one of the best designers anywhere on the planet. His contribution to the vehicle, I think, has made it an immediate success in terms of orders. The order book is extremely healthy. I would encourage Members to take the opportunity to visit the car when we have the Welsh launch.

In terms of the conditions that have been attached to the loan and the equity stake, I think the Member raised an important point about the repayable element of the finance that we've offered. It's not correct that Welsh Government has said that the £2 million is non-repayable. The £2 million is fully repayable. The loan will last for a five-year period. It became active in March 2016. However, if they don't bring—. I think where some of the confusion has been created is that there was a condition in the support stating that, if they didn't bring manufacturing to Wales then we could demand immediate repayment of that loan. As a consequence of us not demanding immediate repayment of that loan, I think it's been viewed wrongly as Welsh Government saying that the loan needn't be repaid. The fact is: it will be repaid.

In terms of the equity stake that we've taken in the company, again, that is protected because we can require the company to buy back at the greater of the market price or the original cost the equity that we've taken in the company. But, as I said earlier, the car has received an incredible reception at launch, the order book is very healthy indeed, the market for this type of vehicle is buoyant globally, and I believe that the car will be a huge success. It resurrects one of the most popular British automotive brands in our history, and the orders that were taken at Goodwood in particular showed that, when people see the vehicle in the flesh, people respond by handing over cheques.

Now, in terms of the benefits of the scheme and the time frame moving forward, TVR identified that a privately owned building at the Rassau industrial estate offered the best option for their manufacturing and, as a consequence, Welsh Government officials spent many months negotiating with the private owners to secure that building. Having completed that agreement, lawyers for both Welsh Government and for TVR are finalising an agreement for lease. In the meantime, we are pleased that TVR are negotiating to take a short-term lease on a small factory nearby in order to complete the engineering development work, but they've also got an office at the works, which is where a small number of people are currently working on the project. Longer term, by quarter 2 of 2019, we aim to have TVR manufacturing the vehicle for sale next year. At that point, we also expect a considerable number of people to be employed at the site—over 100 people. This will be hugely important to Blaenau Gwent, not just in terms of the employment offer, but also in terms of reshaping perceptions and giving that area huge confidence.

Did the Cabinet Secretary answer the question in relation to the membership of the board, because he was unsure, when he was asked this morning, whether the Government had nominated, presumably not a director according to the company accounts, but a nominated observer, at least? Is it Government policy to have nominated observers in situations like this where the Government has taken an equity stake? He said this morning that the reason the Government had taken a direct stake in this instance, rather than going through the development bank, because the development bank hadn't been established—. But will it now be the policy, from now on in, for those equity stakes to be held via the development bank, which deals with investments on a regular basis, and would therefore seem a more sensible approach?

Can we have a Government statement every time an equity stake—? I mean, this is different, surely, from a grant or a loan. If the Government is taking part ownership in a company, then surely it shouldn't be up to the BBC to report that—that should actually be provided either in a written statement or a statement on the floor of the Assembly.

I'm happy to issue written statements confirming whenever Welsh Government takes an equity stake in a company. The Member asked about the role of Finance Wales as it was, and the development bank as it now is. The development bank is monitoring the progress of the business, but the reason that Finance Wales was not able to take an asset investment in TVR was, in part, because it could not take an investment in TVR, because the company was, at the time, located outside of Wales. We were able to, on the condition that manufacturing came to Wales. 

In terms of representation on the board, as a minority shareholder, with just 3 per cent, we would not be expected to be able to present a board member. However, as I indicated this morning, a Welsh Government official does attend board meetings as an observer, and, of course, I closely scrutinise activities and progress with regard to this particular vehicle, but the company as a whole as well.

Hewlett-Packard, of course, started with two people, and Facebook with one, so I don't think the number of people you're starting with is of great importance; the number of people you end up with is the most important.

There are three ways of funding: grants or non-repayable loans, as they used to be described, loans and equity. Will the Cabinet Secretary explain why he's chosen equity in this case?

We chose a mix of both a loan and equity: equity, in part, to ensure that we were able to benefit from the success of the company, as I've already said, and the loan in order to make sure that we get manufacturing to Wales. There are risks and rewards in any investment, but with this particular investment, the brand is incredibly strong and the potential of the reward is therefore immense. The potential of the reward for Blaenau Gwent, again, is potentially huge, and so I think the balance of risk versus reward is heavily skewed towards reward.

Cabinet Secretary, I rise today not so much to pose a question, but simply to say that UKIP unreservedly welcomes and congratulates the Welsh Government on this investment, particularly as it's in an area that is one of the most deprived in Wales, and I'm absolutely certain that the constituents of Ebbw Vale will wholeheartedly welcome this announcement. TVR ticks all the boxes as far as desirability is concerned: a high-tech iconic brand and a global image for design excellence, with a proven and loyal customer base. There is huge export potential from the newly emerging wealthy economies for this designer-style vehicle. If we are to expand our manufacturing base in Wales, I see no better recipient for funding than this type of company. Again, I congratulate the Welsh Government on this announcement. Perhaps there is a question: when can we have more of the same?

Thank you. You redeemed yourself there in your last statement.

Can I thank the Member for his endorsement of our decision to invest in TVR? I share his belief in the company. It has one of the biggest followings of enthusiasts of the brand of any British motor manufacturer, and I think the naming of this particular car the Chimaera, as well, recognises the strong heritage that the brand has. In the past, there have been two Chimaeras; this is the third. Currently, if you're looking at investing in a classic car, it's said that the Cerbera and the original Chimaera are two of the fastest rising classic cars available at the moment. I'm in no doubt that the new Chimaera, to be produced from next year, will prove equally popular, not just amongst existing enthusiasts of TVR, but also amongst new purchasers globally.

I thank the Minister for his answers so far. I want to make it quite clear that we're very supportive of Government support for companies, especially when they offer exciting and dynamic propositions. Where we do have concern is where other businesses point to support being given to companies, and they themselves are refused support. In particular, they draw attention to the last set of published accounts from TVR that clearly indicate, and I read from the accounts, that the £2 million loan has been given by the Welsh Government, and it goes on to say that the lender—that is your good self—

'has indicated that they have no intention of demanding repayment' 

of this loan. I do think that does need clarifying, because it doesn't go on to say that that money would be repayable in five years' time, as the Minister has indicated, or it's on commercial terms. That statement is, from just an observational point of view, quite misleading.

It also says that the company is obliged to raise an additional £5.5 million of equity. The Minister has indicated that the Welsh Government have put £500,000-odd in as an equity stake. Could he also inform us how much of that £5.5 million of equity has been raised, separate to the £0.5 million that the Welsh Government has put in, to give us an indication of how much confidence other investors have in what, potentially, if it comes through as promised, could be an exciting development for Blaenau Gwent?

Can I thank the Member for his question and suggest that, in order to really show his support for TVR, he puts an order in today for the new Chimaera? The last set of accounts do indeed state that, but it's incorrect to assume that the loan is non-repayable. We were not responsible for submitting those notes, but the quote 'no intention of demanding repayment', as I said to Russell George, relates to the clause that we had built into the support that would have enabled us to demand immediate repayment should the company decide not to bring the manufacturing of the Chimaera to Wales. That's clearly not the case, because of the investment already made in the works and the negotiations under way to acquire the small factory and, indeed, the work that's under way by our officials in making the full facility ready for the commencement of production. Therefore, the loan will be repaid in full.

In terms of equity, of course, our equity was significant. However, the company has been successful in drawing the required equity to get this motor vehicle into production. In addition to the scrutiny of the business plan that KPMG carried out prior to the March 2016 decision, I'm pleased to say that Deloitte have been operating on our behalf more recently and they have given us confidence in the company's ability to take the project forward, to take the car forward and to deliver, not just for the investors, but also for the customers. 

Thank you very much.

Item 4 on our agenda this afternoon is 90-second statements, and the first one this afternoon is by Dawn Bowden.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The fine Gothic former synagogue in Merthyr Tydfil had served the Jewish community there since the 1870s. The Jewish community at Merthyr reached its peak in the 1930s, but having now largely disappeared from the town, there are still signs of their presence, including the Jewish cemetery in Cefn Coed.

In 1955, there was held, and I quote, 

'an impressive service in which the Chief Rabbi re-consecrated the 80 year old Synagogue.... In his address...the Chief Rabbi referred to the persecution which made Jews leave the lands of their birth and how they had found',

to quote, 'freedom of worship in Merthyr.'

It's therefore sad to note, which you'll see from the picture, the current condition of the former synagogue. The UK-based Foundation for Jewish Heritage recently mapped all the historic synagogues right across Europe, which they categorised according to their significance and condition. The Merthyr Tydfil synagogue is one of only two in the UK highlighted by this work and shown to be in the most danger. Thankfully, the foundation has already found the funds to undertake a preliminary study of the building that could lead to its restoration. The synagogue is an important part of our collective history, not just for Merthyr Tydfil and for Wales, but beyond that as well. So, I wish the foundation well in their work; it deserves to succeed and for this important building to be saved.

In 1994, 10 years after the miners' strike, the UK Government turned their attention to the last deep pit in south Wales. The target of their economic vandalism was Tower Colliery. Tower in Hirwaun was profitable—it had been commended by John Redwood, of all people, for its productivity. But Westminster still decided to strike its final blow against the once-mighty miners. The NUM Tower workforce and local community rose to the challenge.

Cynon Valley MP Ann Clwyd joined the miners in a sit-in deep underground to highlight the valiant campaign. The response from the UK Government and the NCB was further betrayal and backsliding. The miners had no choice but to vote for closure. But their story did not end there. Led by branch secretary Tyrone O'Sullivan, 239 miners each contributed £8,000 of their redundancy to buy the mine. It was resurrected as a workers' co-operative; the first mine in the world to be owned by its workforce. January 2018 marks 23 years since Tower reopened—a brave and bold new chapter in its history. 

Tower is now closed, but there are exciting plans for the future of the site; plans that will ensure Tower and its story of struggle live on. To paraphrase from the narrative boldly owned by the miners of Tower: they were ordinary men, they want their jobs, they bought a pit.

Last year, Llŷn Coastal Bus ran two buses regularly between Llanbedrog, Abersoch, Porth Neigwl, Aberdaron, Porthor and Nefyn between May and the autumn. It's supported by a community transport group, providing a door-to-door service. Llŷn Coastal Bus follows a route that complements the public transport service, allowing people to walk the coastal path, leaving their cars. It opens the door to an area of outstanding natural beauty and an area where the Welsh language is the language of daily conversation.

The bus is also used regularly by local people. A group of friends went from Abersoch to Aberdaron and visited Porth y Swnt and had a meal before going home. The bus is used by young and old, by mothers and their children during the summer holidays. It's of assistance in tackling health problems by encouraging people to keep fit by walking, and also tackles loneliness by providing transport to various events and heritage attractions.

I had an opportunity prior to Christmas to meet a number of people who were involved with the success of the scheme in Nefyn and heard from businesses and local individuals how the Llŷn Coastal Bus brought environmental, social and economic benefits to the Llŷn peninsula. I'd like to thank the drivers, the volunteers, and all those who maintain this service, and in the face of uncertainty in terms of funding for this year, I would encourage the Government to support this important link in all ways possible.

The next item is the motion to elect a Member to a committee, and I call on a Member of the Business Committee to move the motion formally. Paul Davies. 

Formally.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item, therefore, is the debate on a Member's legislative proposal, and I call on Steffan Lewis to move the motion.

I'm very pleased to formally move the legislative proposal for a Welsh continuity Bill. I want to also place on record, Llywydd, that the introduction and even enactment of a Welsh continuity Bill is not, and has never been, the preferred option of Plaid Cymru.

Indeed, I recall suggesting in the aftermath of the European referendum that the four Governments of the UK get together, perhaps using an accession in reverse template as a means of establishing how we leave the European Union and how we can accommodate the constitutional complexities of this union. That would not have been easy, it wouldn't have been a straightforward process, and it would've taken time. But, it would have been the best process, the fairest one, and it would've resulted in the UK being in a position to trigger article 50 with its eyes wide open. The UK Parliament then could have considered a far more satisfactory withdrawal Bill that would have effectively been concurrently written and agreed by all Governments of the UK. Instead, Llywydd, the UK Government have shown little but contempt for the devolved nations.

Members will recall my alarm at the now infamous paragraph 4.2 of the UK Government White Paper for what was then called the great repeal Bill, which intentionally misrepresented how the UK agrees to common EU frameworks that refer to devolved matters. Plaid Cymru correctly predicted at the time that this misrepresentation acted as a means to lay the groundwork for a Westminster power grab, and here we are with the now named EU withdrawal Bill, which is a naked power grab if ever there was one.

Clause 11 of the Bill will put new constraints on this Assembly's ability to legislate. Powers over long-devolved matters, like agriculture and environmental protection, will be seized by Ministers in Westminster. Decisions that will deeply affect the livelihoods of Welsh farmers, for example, will be made in Westminster by those who are also very keen to strike new trade deals with countries like America, Australia and New Zealand at all costs.

The UK Government have promised that the Assembly will be strengthened, offering substantial new powers, although they have been so far unable to identify a single one. Since the alarm bells have been ringing, Plaid Cymru has called for unilateral legislative action in the form of a continuity Bill, not because we wanted Wales to be under this threat, but because Wales is under this threat.

Llywydd, when I've spoken about a continuity Bill in the past, there have been a few Members here who have questioned my motives and, perhaps, suspected that it's part of a remoaning Welsh nationalist plot to stop Brexit and bring down the British state somehow. Well, I have learned in the last few weeks that life is far too short not to say what you believe and to believe what you say. I am a Welsh nationalist, and I will always believe in a European future for my country, but whether you were leave or remain, and whether you are unionist or nationalist, are irrelevant to the question of the continuity Bill. Whether to support a continuity Bill or not comes down to how you answer one simple question: do you believe that the referendum of 2016 provides a mandate to the UK Government to remove powers from this National Assembly? Plaid Cymru says it does not provide such a mandate, particularly when quite the opposite was promised to the people of Wales during that referendum.

Llywydd, timing is also important and I am at a loss to understand why the Welsh Government wishes to push this issue to the very last minute. Not one Welsh Government or Scottish Government joint amendment was accepted by the UK Government in terms of the withdrawal Bill; the UK Government even broke its own promise to bring forward its own amendments to improve the Bill at Reporting Stage. What more do they need to do to threaten Welsh devolution before we are prepared to act in defence of our hard-won democracy?

Llywydd, be in no doubt: once they have their hands on Welsh agriculture, the Welsh environment, there are measures that they will implement that may prove irreversible if ever we get those powers back. We have a window to act in the interests of our citizens and the rights and standards that they hold dear, in addition to the democratic structures that they have endorsed in two referenda. Let's take this opportunity with both hands. I commend this proposal to the National Assembly. [Applause.]

Although the UK Government's European Union (Withdrawal) Bill doesn't actually take back existing competencies from the Assembly, there is no end date for the restriction on devolved competency created by the retained EU law model it would introduce. We, Welsh Conservatives, instead believe that any common framework in any area must be agreed and not imposed by the UK Government, and further we will support this motion on the basis that it notes only a proposal for a Welsh continuation Bill.

However, we do welcome last week's statement by the Secretary of State for Scotland, confirming that amendments to clause 11 of the Bill will be brought forward in the House of Lords, and adding,

'I regret that it has not been possible to bring forward amendments at the report stage but our commitment to improve the bill remains absolute.' 

We, here, received assurance that the language used by David Mundell last week still stands.

Will the Member give way?

As the—. Yes, indeed.

I thank the Member for giving way. Do you agree that it's disappointing that they've had the Welsh Government's and Scottish Government's amendments since Novermber, they've had our committee's amendments since November—they've had plenty of time to actually look at these and produce their own amendments by the Report Stage, which was actually yesterday and today?

I'm coming to that. I share the disappointment expressed by David Lidington, which I'm going to come to.

As the Scottish Conservatives' constitutional spokesperson said last weekend,

'clause 11 of the bill needs to be amended to restore the spirit of the Scotland Act.'

And obviously, by association, legislation applying here. He said:

'There is a fundamental principle on which Scottish devolution rests and has rested since its creation 20 years ago which is that everything is devolved unless it is expressly reserved.'

He said,

'that is the principle that clause 11 needs to be amended to comply with and that is our position too.... It is relatively easily done. This does not have to be difficult.'

May I say that that is also the Welsh Conservatives' position here? 

Will you take an intervention?

We also supported the—.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Just very briefly, much along the lines of a libertarian argument on public surveillance—if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear—is it not the case also that, if there's nothing to fear from the undermining of the integrity of devolution from what the UK Government are seeking to do, why not just have a belt-and-braces approach and introduce a continuity Bill as well?

I've said that we are going to support this motion—I hope that that should provide you with some reassurance—but on the basis that we note.

We also supported the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee's European Union (Withdrawal) Bill interim report on the legislative consent motion, including its objective 1, to remove the clause 11 restriction on the devolution settlement. And, although, despite all the work that continues on the withdrawal Bill and frameworks, the UK Government is not yet in a position to table amendments to clause 11, it's understood that the new man at the Cabinet Office, David Lidington, spoke with the First Minister on 9 January and the next day expressed disappointment that agreement had not yet been reached on amendments to devolution aspects of the withdrawal Bill. He also said that he's committed to work to reach agreement with Welsh and Scottish Ministers and that this work will intensify. The Prime Minister also repeated that commitment at Prime Minister's questions in Westminster. It would therefore be helpful if the Cabinet Secretary could update us on the further discussions that he or the First Minister have had regarding this with both the Cabinet Office and the Welsh Office. Thank you.

In the three minutes I have, I rise to support this motion. I do so because this is probably a motion on what may be the most important constitutional piece of legislation that we can bring to this Assembly. I don't have time to go into detail, so I'll sum up very quickly: there are two major constitutional issues that are coming before the House of Lords. One is the upholding of the Sewel convention, and where the House of Lords effectively acts as a constitutional wing of Parliament, that it will not legislate in the absence of a legislative consent motion from this Assembly, which, at the moment, it seems that it is impossible for us to give in the light of the Bill. And the second one is the actual support of the devolution statutes, which would require, in those areas that Parliament has already devolved, the consent of this Chamber.

The Bill in its current form—let's be very clear, it is a continuity Bill of its own, but it's a continuity Bill for the British state and one that also seeks a recentralisation of the British state. I think that, in the absence of any clear amendments from the UK Government to accept the devolution statutes and the principles that underline them about decentralisation of power, and in the absence of any guarantee on financial autonomy for this Chamber—because that's another very important area that we mustn't forget to it, the financial autonomy of the Welsh budget, which the withdrawal Bill also seeks to undermine—that means that the position is totally unacceptable. It is lamentable that the UK Government has failed, at every stage, to either engage with or to properly participate with this Government in the actual drafting of a proper constitutional settlement within the withdrawal Bill.

There is no constitutional logic to the UK Government's position, because just about every parliamentary committee and every Assembly committee that has considered the constitutional position recognises that the starting point of the UK Government is fundamentally wrong. For that reason, we are left, in the absence of any last-minute major constitutional changes by the UK Government, with the position of 'What do we do?' We can either wait and see whether the withdrawal Bill goes through in whatever format—and that isn't a guarantee by any stretch in any event—or we can say, ourselves, 'It is time for us to assert what is the correct constitutional position of this Assembly and to have that on the statute books', so that, when the Lords consider this matter, they are not just considering the issue of legislative consent and Sewel and upholding those constitutional conventions, they're also considering legislation we have passed with Royal Assent that properly sets out what the constitutional powers and authority of this Assembly are. Thank you.

Thank you, Llywydd, and thank you to Steffan Lewis for an excellent speech that summarised the situation we're facing at the moment and how late in the day it is in terms of these principles.

I want to focus on the environment and agriculture in this context. It's important to bear in mind that some of the most fundamental principles in terms of our environment have emerged from European legislation—the precautionary principle has emerged from European legislation, and also the principle that the polluter pays. Now, both of these principles are a foundation for the laws that we pass in this place in relation to the environment, and, as we exit the European Union, I'm of the view that people in Wales do want to keep hold of these principles, and the most convenient way of ensuring that is by supporting a continuity Bill.

The third thing that emerges from the environmental sphere in this area is that Welsh citizens at the moment have a right to go to the European Court of Justice in order to access environmental justice, and there have been no guarantees given or safeguarded in the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill to ensure that it would be possible to seek environmental justice as we leave the European Union. I think that that principle has been crucially important. Just today I asked a question of the Minister, Hannah Blythyn, about the fact that there was a court case against the Welsh Government in terms of air pollution. Now, we should be safeguarding the rights of citizens to challenge any Government—the Government here, the Government in Westminster—on the basis of their failings in the environment. That is secured within the current system, but we need a continuity Bill to secure that access too.

The second principle in agriculture is this: if we see that the hands of Westminster are going into our pockets for the funding that is currently safeguarded under CAP, and is twice as much as we would get under any Barnett formula arrangement—once Westminster gets its hands on that money, less and less will be transferred as part of the budget. Mick Antoniw referred to this. The current system doesn't safeguard the budget for this place, and, specifically, it doesn't secure the flow of funding that has emerged from the common agricultural policy and has provided such sustenance to so many farmers and rural communities in Wales. On that basis alone, we should argue for a continuity Bill.

I encourage the Government, as I did last week—. As I said, don't trust the Tories, and you said that you don't trust the Tories. Well, don't, then, believe that the House of Lords is a means of delivering the amendments that we need to see. Publish the Bill now, in draft form, so that we can see the way forward clearly, and publish the Bill in draft form in order to bring persuasion to bear on the Westminster Government.

It's impossible, of course, except for reasons of perversity, to oppose this motion, because it's just a 'take note' motion, but I want to make it clear that I, and my party, also support the intention behind the motion. I haven't always taken that view, because, following what Steffan Lewis said in his compelling opening speech today, I had perhaps thought originally that the purpose behind this was somehow to delay or get in the way of the Brexit process. I've now come to believe that that is not the intention behind it, and it's regrettable that the United Kingdom Government has made the Brexit process less palatable to people who were against the decision that the public made in the referendum campaign, and would like to have avoided that, but I do believe that most people who are in that position do not now want to reverse the process. I do think it's unfortunate that the United Kingdom Government, therefore, has made it more difficult to pass the EU withdrawal Bill than it need have been. I have to say that it's par for the course, in a way, because, as Simon Thomas pointed out yesterday, it's rather extraordinary that the Secretary of State for Wales, on a transparently bogus excuse, refuses to meet the Finance Committee of this Assembly.

The devolution settlement is one that I didn't want in the first instance, and that was a referendum—two referenda—where I was on the other side from those who won, but I unreservedly accept the decision of the Welsh people, and it's actually been a great pleasure to me to be here to help make that work. I've become a lot more enthusiastic about it, as a result, as well, and I see the advantages of further devolution because I see the EU withdrawal as the ultimate devolution Bill, in a sense, for bringing power back to the people. I believe in devolution of taxation, because that makes the Welsh Government more responsible, and I believe in competition between the nations of the United Kingdom in public policy terms. So, there are great advantages in this, and I want us to see the EU withdrawal accepted by as many people as possible, and indeed embraced with enthusiasm.

So, I think that the policy of the United Kingdom Government's actually quite contrary to the best interests of those of us who want to see Brexit achieved as quickly and as completely as possible. So, I am delighted to support this motion today, and to congratulate Steffan Lewis on the way that he introduced the debate, in what I thought was a splendidly succinct speech, which was also complete as well as compelling.

The Bevan Foundation published a report in 2016, after the EU referendum, called 'Wales After Brexit: An Agenda for a Fair, Prosperous and Sustainable Country'. I was particularly struck by the opening message, relevant to the debate today:

'Nobody knows what the future holds—the optimistic and pessimistic forecasts are all based on assumptions that may or may not be realised.... How our leaders respond in these extraordinary times will be critical.'

So, I do welcome the Member's legislative proposal debate, initiated by Steffan Lewis today, and I wish to start by thanking Steffan for his robust and constructive scrutiny in the External Affairs and Additional Legislation Committee of all things relating to Brexit. Having recently joined the committee, I've looked to Steffan for his extensive knowledge base, as well as attention to detail, guided as well, of course, by the Chair, David Rees. Steffan has been resolute in addressing the issues and impact of Brexit on Wales, and we've every reason to respect and support his motion today and thank Steffan for raising a question, for example, of the First Minister last week welcoming the £50 million transition funding announcement. I do see that as an example of the way the Welsh Government has shown leadership and grasped its responsibilities, which, of course, started with 'Securing Wales' Future', in partnership with Plaid Cymru, with six key objectives, which have stood the test of time since it was published.

It's against these objectives that further work has been undertaken by the Welsh Government, most recently with the paper, 'Regional Investment in Wales', providing a clear way forward for Welsh Government to exercise its responsibilities, with a call on the Welsh Government to make good on promises in the EU referendum—part of the objectives, of course, of 'Securing Wales' Future'—to ensure that Wales is not a penny worse off as we leave the EU. The plan provides the framework for utilising replacement regional funding across public, private and third sectors.

So, this does demonstrate the commitment of the Welsh Government to be constructive and responsible in terms of negotiations with the UK Government, but unwavering in its commitment to safeguard the devolution settlement. The UK Government's negative response to amendments from not only the committee but both Welsh and Scottish Governments to the EU withdrawal Bill—a naked power grab, as Steffan Lewis has described—provides no certainty that the UK Government will respect our constitutional settlement or the constructive approaches that we have made as a legislature, and the Government have made.

So, the First Minister's statement yesterday, and your motion today, Steffan Lewis, provide more than a warning to the UK Government of our position. I want to finish by referring to just one of the six objectives in 'Securing Wales' Future', which puts into context what's at risk. And, of course, Simon Thomas refers to the environmental protections. I would also, finally, like to say guaranteeing EU rights for working people, including—just one example—equal treatment of part- and full-time workers.

So, I'm glad that the Welsh Government has prepared a continuity Bill. I thank Steffan Lewis for giving us the opportunity to consider its importance today. It needs to be debated, it needs to be supported, and you have my support.

I'm proud to rise in support of my colleague Steffan Lewis's excellent presentation on the need—the absolute need—for a Welsh continuity Bill. It's the only way to save our sovereignty here in Wales. Let's be plain: we stand at a crossroads here at the National Assembly for Wales. We have lost powers already with the Wales Act. Since the last referendum, where the people of Wales overwhelmingly voted 64 per cent in favour of increasing the powers of this Assembly, we've managed to pass 22 pieces of legislation, since 2011. Had the new Wales Act been in place since 2011, we would have only been able to pass eight such pieces of legislation. We have already lost powers and we are facing losing more, which is the current pressure on the timeline of the current legislation about minimum alcohol pricing. We must get to the end of Stage 1 of that legislation by April Fools' Day; otherwise, it falls.

Following Brexit, we face losing more powers with the EU withdrawal Bill—powers that we've always had here in the National Assembly for Wales since 1999. Fisheries, environment and agriculture always came from Brussels to Cardiff. Now, all of a sudden, there's going to be a redirection—Brussels to London—with no guarantee for what's going to come on to Cardiff. That is totally and utterly unacceptable. We've had a lot of talk about respecting the results of referendums, and I do. But, let's respect the result of every referendum. That includes the one of March 2011, when the people of Wales voted resoundingly to have more powers in this place. They certainly have never voted to lose powers, and in the last Brexit referendum, they did not vote to lose powers from Wales. In fact, those on the 'leave' side were continuously going on about how leaving the EU would increase the powers we would have in Wales. Well, that's a very hollow promise in the face of a reality of the EU withdrawal Bill and UK Government doing nothing about this Government's honourable amendments to that Bill.

Steffan has proudly led us as a party, and this Assembly, in all his diligent hard work over many months on the whole complicated and vexed issue of the EU withdrawal Bill. I pay tremendous compliments to his hard work, ingenuity and intelligence in scrutinising every little last detail; a shame it is not replicated up in Westminster. Support the continuity Bill. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance to respond to the debate—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the debate. I'd like to start by saying on a personal level, as Jane Hutt said, how pleasing it is to see Steffan Lewis once more leading a debate on Brexit here in the Assembly. Members of the Government will support the motion, which notes the position that has been reached at the moment on the continuity Bill.

The First Minister set out yesterday our position on a continuity Bill. The UK Government's European Union (Withdrawal) Bill places constraints on the National Assembly's legislative competence, which, for the reasons just set out by Dai Lloyd, are wholly unacceptable. The Welsh Government will not be able to recommend consent to the EU withdrawal Bill as it currently stands. Not that this is at all, as Neil Hamilton acknowledged, about frustrating Brexit. The Welsh Government's preference remains that the UK Government's European withdrawal Bill is a success. We understand the case for providing legal clarity and certainty for citizens and businesses as we leave the European Union. Opposition is the same as that set out by Steffan Lewis when he said that it is not, and never has been, the preferred option of Plaid Cymru that we have to rely on a continuity Bill. But, without the necessary amendments to the withdrawal Bill that fully respect the devolution settlement, we have to prepare our position.

That is why we, along with the Scottish Government, put forward amendments to the withdrawal Bill that would have ensured that the devolution settlement was properly respected. Of course, we are deeply disappointed, first of all that the amendments were not accepted by the UK Government, and then that the UK Government itself failed to honour the promise it had made on the floor of the House of Commons to bring forward amendments at the Report Stage. We need to see firm proposals from the UK Government on amendments to the withdrawal Bill that respect the devolution settlement and that would then allow us to recommend a legislative consent motion to the Assembly.

We will now take our fight to the House of Lords. I look forward to a joint event, sponsored together by the Welsh Government and the Scottish Government, that we will hold there shortly, in which we will make our case there for the amendments that we see are necessary. And we continue to work closely with the Scottish Government on the content, on the timing, on the tactics that we will use to make sure that our joint interests in securing the devolved responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and of the National Assembly for Wales are safeguarded in that process. If that does not happen, then the First Minister has commissioned the necessary work to prepare a continuity Bill that will provide clarity and certainty for the citizens of Wales as we leave the European Union.

We have been undertaking work on the continuity Bill. We are confident that the Bill is in a state of readiness and could be put before the National Assembly if needed. In his written—

Would there be anything to be lost, in his view, in publishing that Bill in a draft form?

Well, some of what I have to say to you is that what would be lost would be the undertakings and the agreements that we have come to with the Scottish Government to work alongside them, to act in a way that is consistent with the way that they will act. Just as they have indicated that they will send their Bill to the Presiding Officer in the Scottish Parliament, yesterday the First Minister gave an undertaking that we would submit our continuity Bill to the Llywydd here before the end of this month, unless it is clear that the UK Government will bring forward satisfactory amendments during the remaining stages of the withdrawal Bill's passage through the Parliament. 

Llywydd, I listened very carefully to what Mark Isherwood said in this debate. Those of us who are committed to preserving the rights and responsibilities of this Assembly I think should take a generous view of what the Conservative Party has said here this afternoon. I think Mr Isherwood went further than I’ve heard the Welsh Conservatives up to this point in making it clear that they, too, have real reservations about clause 11 and that they share some of the potential solutions that the Scottish Conservatives have set forward as a potential solution to that Bill. So, I think it was very good to hear that this afternoon.

I do want to say, as Mick Antoniw has said, that there is more to the withdrawal Bill than clause 11. And while the Government will be supporting the motion laid before us today, and we look to use the support of this National Assembly for continuity Bill preparation as part of the points we make to the UK Government, there’s more than clause 11 that we have to get right in those discussions. There will be a need for a Welsh continuity Bill if those negotiations and discussions do not succeed, but in the meantime, we continue to work with others to get the UK withdrawal Bill into a position where it works for the United Kingdom, it works for Wales, and we can bring forward a legislative consent motion that we could recommend to this National Assembly.

I call on Steffan Lewis to respond to the debate.

I thank all Members for their contributions this afternoon and for the many kind personal comments that have been expressed as well.

Due to my excitement earlier, I don’t think I’ve got time to go through every contribution, but I’d like to echo what the Cabinet Secretary said in terms of the contribution by the Conservative group today. I think this is a very constructive contribution. Certainly, I think it sends a far stronger message from this institution when parties from all sides can come together to say that enough is enough and there has to be genuine respect for the constitutional settlement that we all value and cherish.

I’ve had a bit of time on my hands recently, Llywydd, and yesterday spent six hours watching the debate in the House of Commons on the EU withdrawal Bill. You might be surprised that I’ve bothered turning up today; it was riveting. [Laughter.] One of the misconceptions that is repeated often is that the UK Government isn’t taking any power away, it’s just replacing the European Union with itself in terms of the confines of devolved matters. But of course, that is not true, because, as things stand now, all that changes after separation is that the European ceiling on devolved matters is lifted, but the devolved matters remain devolved. The legislation in Westminster acts contrary to that and acts in order to take those powers away, or at least places confines upon them.

On the point about the co-operation with the Scottish Government, I welcome that. I think it's disappointing that UK Government hasn't listened to both Governments in terms of their amendments. But, my understanding is that the Scottish Government could, within a matter of a week or so, submit its continuity Bill to the Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament. I'd like to echo what Simon Thomas said: I don't think that publishing a draft Bill or even submitting a Welsh continuity Bill now to our Llywydd would in any way undermine joint action in the House of Lords. In fact, I believe it would strengthen it, as Mick Antoniw alluded to in his contribution.

Wouldn't it just be dreadful if this place, which has spent so much time debating the merits and otherwise of the continuity Bill, and has even drafted one and had one ready for some time, is the last one to publish? We won't be on the agenda in Westminster, it'll be Scotland again. So, I would urge the Cabinet Secretary—. I don't want to pre-empt anything, but it sounds to me like we might have consensus in this Chamber today on this matter, in which case that is a very strong mandate for this Government to move swiftly. Publish the continuity Bill, bring it forward. You have the backing, I think, of a majority in this house. Bring it forward, publish it, and protect Welsh devolution, before it's too late.

The proposal is to note the motion. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed.

The next item is the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21, and I call on Mark Isherwood to move the motion.

Diolch, Llywydd. Today's debate follows a meeting of the cross-party group on neurological conditions on medicinal cannabis that took place in October 2017, attended by people from across Wales living with a range of medical conditions—many of whom are in the public gallery today—who find a benefit from using cannabis for medicinal purposes, but by doing so run the risk of prosecution. As both a north Wales Assembly Member and chair of the cross-party group on neurological conditions, I've been working with MS Society Cymru on this issue for some time. The motion recognises that whilst it may not be currently in the gift of the Welsh Government to legalise cannabis for medicinal purposes, it is asking the Welsh Government to ask the UK Government to reschedule cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 so that it may be prescribed and legally supplied in recognition of the medicinal value of the drug. 

In July 2014, the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group recommended Sativex, a cannabis-based drug, for the treatment of spasticity, and only then available to a small group of people living with multiple sclerosis who meet the criteria. The Welsh Government agreed to endorse this. Wales was the first UK nation to approve Sativex. However, MS Cymru expressed concern in March last year that many people were struggling to obtain it because the infrastructure didn't exist. It's only in the last few months that all local health boards in Wales are able to prescribe Sativex to those people living with MS who are deemed eligible. The MS Society UK changed its policy position to call on the UK Government and health bodies to develop a system that legalises cannabis for medicinal use, in light of positive evidence of the use of cannabis in treating both spasticity and pain. The society estimates that around 10,000 people with MS in the UK could benefit from this—not everybody, but a huge number of people. As the MS Society Cymru states, symptoms associated with MS can be relentless and exhausting and make it impossible to manage daily life. The conventional daily drug regime for those experiencing these symptoms can include morphine, codeine, paracetamol, pregabalin and diazepam.

The clinical and anecdotal evidence of the effectiveness of cannabis for medicinal use is compelling. People living with conditions such as multiple sclerosis, dystonia, epilepsy, arthritis, cerebral palsy and cancer who use cannabis to alleviate the symptoms associated with their conditions cannot wait for a time when Wales may have the legislative competence to legalise cannabis for medicinal use. They should be able to make the decision without fear of prosecution. Accessing a reputable supply of cannabis is a real issue for many. Some feel forced to utilise street dealers. Some are concerned that, by using cannabis, they'll be putting the people close to them at risk of prosecution and exposure to other drugs. In September 2016, the UK all-party parliamentary group for drug policy reform emphatically called on the UK Government to legalise medicinal cannabis based on the results of their seven-month inquiry into the issue, and on the findings of an independent review of global evidence, led by Professor Michael Barnes, which ran alongside the inquiry. That report heard that people are suffering unnecessarily and that some in great pain are travelling abroad to find the cannabis they need to ease their symptoms. And it concluded that all this could change by moving cannabis from Schedule 1 to Schedule 2 for medical purposes. Such a change would also free up research and lead to new medicines for chronic pain and disease. 

Professor Michael Barnes, who is a UK neurologist and rehabilitation consultant, has highlighted dozens of peer-reviewed research papers that have proved the efficacy of medical cannabis. He said such drugs have alleviated pain in all its manifestations, treated muscle spasms, anxiety and nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing chemotherapy. He also said there was evidence that medicinal cannabis was successful in helping people with epilepsy and sleep disorders, and described the side effects associated with using the drug in a medicinal setting as minimal. He added that thousands of people with chronic conditions can benefit from this drug that has been around for centuries. 

A recent study from Tel Aviv in Israel found that medical cannabis significantly improved the condition of children suffering from cerebral palsy. According to their interim findings, treatment with cannabis oil reduced the disorder's symptoms and improved the children's motor skills. It also improved the children's sleep quality, bowel movements and general mood. 

Arthritis Care Wales and Arthritis Research UK state there is an urgent need for better pain relief to help the millions of people who live with the daily agony caused by arthritis, and that previous research has suggested that drugs that targeted cannabinoid receptors could help to relieve pain and inflammation in the joints. When I attended the Gout: No Laughing Matter Assembly reception last November, I learned of arthritis sufferers who use cannabis to help manage the pain caused by their condition. Last month, WalesOnline reported a grandmother from Cwmbran diagnosed with MS in 2014, who stated that after being prescribed a number of medications with bad side effects, she now relies on cannabis to relieve her symptoms. However, highlighting the dangers of buying cannabis, she recalled that a close friend of hers who was suffering with MS was robbed at knifepoint when attempting to buy some cannabis to treat her condition. 

I've recently been contacted by a number of constituents regarding this debate. One said:

'I have MS and believe many people who have long-term illnesses and live with pain could benefit from the use of cannabis.'

Another said:

'I live outside Wrexham and have had MS for 18 years now. I've recently gained access to Sativex, which is benefiting me greatly. However, this is not prescribed for pain, and I understand the benefits of using cannabis really helps with this and other symptoms too.'

Earlier, in this building, I met somebody who's travelled from north Wales who I understand has MS who doesn't access cannabis because it's illegal, but wants the legal right to choose to do so to see whether it does give him pain relief. He's here today. He wants to hear some positive news from us. 

As MS Cymru have told me, many people have said that they were not using cannabis to try to manage the symptoms of their conditions because they simply don't know where to get it, or how much to take if they did.

There are a growing number of countries that regulate the medical use of cannabis and cannabis derivatives because of the strength of the evidence—Canada, the Netherlands, Israel, and 29 of the states in the United States of America regulate herbal cannabis for medical use. A number of others, including Germany and Switzerland, enable patients to import cannabis for medical use from the Netherlands. These are countries that do not legislate in such matters without an evidence base. Ireland's Cannabis for Medicinal Use Regulation Bill 2016 was passed in the Dáil in late 2016 and is currently at Committee Stage. In the meantime, licences are being used on a case-by-case basis by the Irish health Minister. 

Our motion also calls on the Welsh Government to map out a system within the Welsh NHS whereby cannabis for medicinal purposes could be made available via prescription to those who could benefit. One of the positions that is used against making cannabis available for medicinal use is that we would potentially see patients getting their prescriptions for cannabis and selling it on the streets. However, as the director of MS Society Cymru has stated:

'Since my time at the MS Society, I have never known of anyone living with MS who collects their Oramorph or any other drug for that matter then heads off to the nearest street corner to sell it!'

I suspect the same applies to people with other conditions in a similar circumstance.

In October last year, Labour's Newport West MP, Paul Flynn, presented a 10-minute rule Bill on the legalisation of cannabis for medicinal use in Westminster. The Bill was put through unopposed to the next reading on 23 February 2018. I repeat: the Bill was put through unopposed. As he stated,

'The tide of world opinion is moving in the direction of legalising cannabis. Some 29 states in America—the majority—have already legalised medical cannabis without any problems arising. There are six or seven states in Europe where it is possible to use cannabis medicinally.'

He added:

'If we legalise drugs, we reduce side effects by taking the market out of the hands of the criminals and the scammers, and putting those drugs in a legal market that can be run by doctors using medical priorities. These are the lessons from all the states in America that have taken this step.'

He continued:

'It is time for us to lead public opinion rather than following it. It would be an act of compassion and courage for us to pass this Bill and make the very minor change it proposes: moving cannabis from schedule 1 to schedule 2.'

After all, because it is appreciated that there are people with chronic pain and debilitating illnesses who seek to alleviate their symptoms illicitly by using cannabis, the majority of whom would far rather obtain legally prescribed cannabinoid medication than be forced to smoke or access illegal substances, the Sentencing Council's guidelines on drug offences already identify such circumstances as a potential mitigating factor. What a ridiculous state of affairs. Instead, Wales should have a system whereby cannabis for medicinal purposes can be made available via prescription to those who could benefit. So let us make this happen now.

First of all, can I thank Mark Isherwood for his enthusiasm in bringing this debate forward and for what he said up to now on it? There's nothing he said that I disagree with. The good news is that I'm not going to replicate any of it.

Firstly, can I say what this debate is not about? It's not about legalising cannabis for recreational use. It is not a legal excuse that someone caught with cannabis can use, saying, 'Oh, I've only got it for medicinal reasons.' It's not about people being able to import it and say, 'I've only brought it in for medicinal reasons.' It's not about: 'I'm going to take some cannabis; I think it might help me.' It's not about self-medication with cannabis. It's certainly not a back door method to legalising cannabis. It's about trusting our medical practitioners to prescribe the drug if they think it will benefit the patient.

To me, the key point, and one I asked Mark Isherwood to insert prior to signing up to the resolution, is:

'map out within the Welsh NHS how a system whereby cannabis for medicinal purposes could be made available via a prescription to those who could benefit.'

To me, the key words are 'via a prescription'. It's got to be via prescription, meaning a person medically qualified who is able to write a prescription can prescribe it. No-one else can prescribe it or tell somebody down the road, 'I think you'd benefit from a bit of cannabis. Just say that and you can get away with it.' It's about ensuring we trust our medical practitioners.

If you don't, and you don't have a prescription for it and you're using it, you'll be treated by the courts exactly as you are now. At Westminster, the all-party parliamentary group for drug policy reform, as Mark Isherwood just said, emphatically called on the UK Government to legalise medical cannabis based on the results of their seven-month inquiry. The MS Society, which was against it, has changed its policy position to call on the UK Government and health bodies to develop a system that legalises cannabis for medicinal use in light of the positive evidence of the use of cannabis in treating pain and spasticity. This is something some of my constituents and some people I know have been making a case for: it has health benefits. I think that's really the key. People are taking it for health benefit, not for some recreational purpose. 

Where the cannabinoid symptom-management drug, Sativex, is available on the NHS—and the Welsh Government have gone that far in making it available—it is only licensed for the treatment of spasticity to a small number of people living with multiple sclerosis. I am asking that cannabinoid drugs should be available where medical practitioners believe they can help. Would this be setting a bad precedent? I think that's one of the arguments that have been used against it. Well, let me ask you what the following drugs have got in common, apart from being available to patients: morphine, thebaine, oxycodone, hydrocodone, buprenorphine, oxymorphone and hydromorphone. All are either natural derivatives or synthetic derivatives of opium, and they are available on prescription.

Now, there are those of us who think that opium-based drugs are far more serious and dangerous than cannabis. They are available and people have morphine—many people have morphine towards the end of their lives in order to stop the pain. This is asking for the same availability of cannabinoid drugs to be available for people suffering from MS to help stop their pain. Let the medical practitioners, not politicians, decide if patients would benefit. 

Finally, I do not support legalising cannabis for non-medical use, and before anybody asks, no, I have never smoked cannabis or taken it in any form. But I urge Members to trust medical practitioners to prescribe cannabinoid drugs, as they do opiates, when the patients can benefit. Let the medical practitioners be the ones making the decision, not us making it out of our prejudices.

I'm pleased to be able to contribute to today's debate and to sponsor it alongside colleagues from several parties in this Chamber. It follows effective evidence-based campaigning by the MS Society UK and others, and valuable discussions at the cross-party group on neurological conditions. At a meeting of that group last October, I encouraged patients and politicians to take forward a campaign on this, and I'm happy to offer my continued support to that campaign today.

The classification of drugs is something that is mostly decided at the UK level. Now, I and us on these benches want that situation to change; we want to be able to decide these matters for ourselves here in Wales. But in the meantime, I've argued that Wales should adopt a position on this. We've had Sativex licensed for usage here, but access is difficult and limited. We have a wider situation whereby some people who are living with MS and other conditions are forced to use cannabis illegally to help with their symptoms. I've heard testimonies from people having to buy cannabis in a way that is still technically illegal, and a situation where old-aged pensioners have had to find dealers who can grow and sell cannabis, when morphine, as others have said—and morphine is, effectively, heroin—is given on prescription. Now, that can't be right, and it shows how counter-productive current drug policy is in this country.

I was disappointed to see the Welsh Government in the media today using prohibition as an excuse not to regulate cannabis. I'll just quote the Welsh Government, who said, through a spokesperson, and I quote:

'Using an illegal raw drug of unknown quality is not how we want to provide medicines.'

Llywydd, the whole point of medicinal cannabis is that it is no longer an illegal raw drug, it's no longer of unknown quality, because it can be sourced properly and regulated, and the different strains and their different benefits can be properly understood. 

Retaining prohibition will not reduce cannabis use. It just prevents safe, regulated medicinal use and pushes law-abiding people towards an illegal marketplace. That's why a clear step forward is to decriminalise cannabis for medicinal use, and the motion today sets out how Wales could advocate such a change and also prepare for it to happen.

The wider debate about whether drugs should be prohibited and accessed illegally or whether they should be controlled and regulated so that they can be used safely is still one that we must have. But we've got examples in this motion of countries and territories that have allowed this change for medicinal use of cannabis, and those countries have been listed, but Canada and the Netherlands come to mind. 

Now, I'm pleased to see reference to the review by Professor Michael P. Barnes, originating from the all-party group at Westminster, and it's important that the evidence as to how cannabis helps manage symptoms can be solidified and publicised. After a seven-month inquiry, the Barnes review found evidence, and I quote:

'Overall, there is good evidence for the use of cannabis in many important conditions that effect many thousands of disabled people.' 

I hope today's debate leads to an outcome where the Welsh Government now can adopt a formal position on this. The Welsh Government should make the case to the UK Government for cannabis to be available for medicinal use. It should then map out how prescriptions could be produced for those in need and, failing that, if the Government doesn't want to rock the boat or be bold, why not offer to meet Professor Barnes and hear a summary of that evidence? By building the case and sending a message that Welsh patients could benefit from these treatments, we can help win the argument at a UK level where decisions on decriminalisation are still made.

This Assembly is here to be radical, to take steps that help Welsh citizens to make a practical, real difference to people's lives. Sometimes, what can seem very radical is actually only common sense. Diolch yn fawr.

I'd like to thank Mark, Leanne, Mike and Rhun for bringing forward this debate today. Cannabis has many medicinal benefits. It can be used to control pain, treat spasticity, help with the side effects of chemotherapy, and new studies show it can help control epileptic seizures in children. We are only just beginning, though, to understand the possible benefits that cannabis can deliver, and I welcome wider research into its use for medicinal purposes.

I cannot, however, support the reclassification of cannabis, in the same way I would not support the reclassification of opium or heroin, which may also have medicinal purposes. Unfortunately, smoking cannabis has many harms associated with it. The British Lung Foundation identified cannabis smoke as a carcinogen and also found that awareness of the danger was very low, with 40 per cent of under-35s thinking that cannabis, when smoked, was not harmful. Studies have found that THC, the principal psychoactive substance within the cannabis plant, can cause cognitive defects, particularly if taken long term—

Will you take an intervention on this, please?

Yes, certainly.

From what I gather, we're talking about the drug Sativex, which I fully endorse. I'll stand with you on this one. When you talk about—this is an unknown intervention from me; I'm new, okay. When you talk about smoking cannabis, it isn't just smoking cannabis as you would smoke a cigarette.

You're taking an amount of time.

I'm really, really sorry. There are other drugs out there that are cannabis based, like cannabis oil and all those cannabinoids and—.

I do understand.

Thank you so much. It's not just about smoking.

It's all right; you're welcome.

Studies have found that THC, the principal psychoactive substance within the cannabis plant, can cause cognitive defects, particularly if taken long term. Recent medical evidence strongly suggests that the long-term use of cannabis by people who begin use at an early age—they display a higher tendency towards mental health problems and other physical and developmental disorders. According to a 2014 Northwestern Medicine study, when cannabis use begins in the teen years, it can have a significant impact on brain development, including decreased brain activity, fewer neural fibres in certain areas and a smaller than average hippocampus, which controls learning and memory functions.

In my years working in the prison service, I witnessed first-hand the harms associated with smoking cannabis long term. Many of the young people suffered from paranoia, anxiety, memory problems and other such problems. We therefore need further research into the long-term use of cannabis, particularly its effects on young people, before we can say it's safe to reclassify it for medical use.

The MS Society state that there is currently insufficient,

'evidence to suggest that smoking cannabis can treat spasticity or pain in MS and smoking can negatively impact on an individual’s MS.'

Therefore, we need to focus on extracting the benefits from the cannabis plant, whilst, at the same time, mitigating the potential harms. The main problem with cannabis is the complexity of the active ingredients, the huge variation that exists in the levels of compounds between the species of plants, the various cultivars, and even in plant to plant. While a particular strain of plant, or cultivar, could be developed to increase the medical benefits and limit the psychoactive effects, there is no guarantee that the mix of active ingredients are the same from one crop to the next. There is no disputing—. [Interruption.] Not another one, sorry. I'm out of time.

There is no disputing the huge benefits that the various cannabinoids can have in treating a number of conditions. I believe we have to work at isolating those compounds. In the UK, we license Sativex, an extract of cannabis, to treat MS symptoms. In the US, too, additional cannabinoids have been created to treat the side effects of chemotherapy. I hope to see this work accelerated.

Given the possible harms and the limited evidence base about the efficacy of smoking cannabis for medical purposes, I cannot support the legalisation of medical cannabis at this stage. I will, therefore, be abstaining on the motion today, although other Members in my party will have a free vote. I look forward to new research into the medical use of cannabis, and if it can be shown that the benefits vastly outweigh potential harms, I would be happy to support the rescheduling of the drug at that stage. Diolch yn fawr.

It was only last week I raised this question with the Minister, and I'm very pleased, within a week we are debating on this issue. Over 100,000 people in the United Kingdom suffer from multiple sclerosis. In January 2016, the number of MS sufferers in Wales stood at 4,260, and every year, another 200 people are diagnosed with the condition. MS is unpredictable and different for everyone. It is often painful and exhausting. Quite simply, it can make it impossible to manage daily life. There are treatments available, but they do not work for everyone.

We know that, in some cases, cannabis compounds could help in relieving pain. In the United Kingdom, MS is the only condition that has a licensed treatment derived from cannabis. Sativex is currently available in Wales on the NHS, but not in other parts of the United Kingdom. The benefit of Sativex was brought home to me recently in a message I received from a constituent. Presiding Officer, I'll read that little note from my constituent. He said, 'I have had multiple sclerosis since 2003. I suffer from spasticity, muscular spasms and pain, for which I take morphine and liquid morphine daily. More importantly, I take Sativex, which I have been taking since I was bed bound for six months a few years ago. I cannot explain how much this drug helped me, as I'm trying my best not to be in my wheelchair full time. It helps with my spasticity and muscle spasms, and I cannot explain how much worse it was before I started on the drug. Before, I also tried normal cannabis and risked prosecution, and I can compare both and, obviously, it is not as strong as the Sativex. I, myself, am lucky as I meet the criteria. Lots of other MS sufferers do not have to risk prosecution, which I, myself, have, when I have been in so much pain and did not know what else to do. If you are in extreme pain for long enough, I think it breaks the strongest person after a few years. So, please support this Bill as you do not know the dramatic difference you can make to MS sufferers in Wales.' His message ends.

I think it says everything, Presiding Officer, and this, I believe, is a crucial point. Law-abiding members of the public are being driven to break the law to relieve their pain in this civilised country, or this civilised world. It's very, very, very unethical. It is time to realise cannabis for medical purposes. Currently, cannabis can only be obtained from illegal gangs who also push hard drugs. So, we are driving soft-drug users into the arms of hard-drug pushers.

Many other countries, like Germany and Canada—like my colleagues have already mentioned—have made cannabis available for medical use. Only in the last couple of weeks, even California in the United States of America has legalised on medical grounds. Ireland is also considering following suite. Wales must take the lead on this, Presiding Officer. It is time to relieve the pain and suffering experienced by people with MS in Wales.

I, only this week, put a survey on my social media internet—on Twitter. This afternoon, 14:30, 70 per cent of my followers agreed to have cannabis legalised in Wales. Forget London and everybody, we made this law here, and 70 per cent is a good number in south-east Wales. I'm pretty sure if you all go for a survey of the whole country, of Wales, I'm pretty sure you'll find that the majority of people will support cannabis to be used on medical grounds and get pain relief for these people who are getting the illegal drug, and this is totally unacceptable and unethical. We should help them right, left and centre. Thank you.

I'm very pleased to be supporting this debate today. To me, it's a simple matter—a very, very simple matter. When people are suffering an illness that has symptoms that most of us don't have an idea of their seriousness, nor how they bring everyday life to a stop; where living with the condition is a real pain that paralyses someone, or makes them feel that life is not worth living; where sleep doesn't exist, night after night; I think that everything possible should be done to alleviate that suffering.

What we're discussing this afternoon is the right to use cannabis as a tool to alleviate pain or suffering. Cannabis, of course, is a word that is controversial. Debates and arguments on decriminalising cannabis or legalising cannabis for recreational use have existed for many decades. There are strong viewpoints on both sides of that argument. But, today, may I appeal to people to leave their views on that debate to one side? We're not talking about that today. We're talking about a drug in the medical sense, and no other sense at all. The fact that that drug is used in a different context by some people should not be a barrier to looking at the values of cannabis as a medical drug.

The Conservative Member for Clwyd West—I'm pleased to see him in the Chamber—has confused both issues in the past. I read an article where he was quoted as saying:

'Cannabis, whether used for medicinal or recreational purposes, is a dangerous substance and would have catastrophic consequences to health and society if it was ever legalised.'

You cannot, though, just slip out the phrase

'whether for medicinal or recreational purposes'

as if the two are one and the same, because they're not, and that is the appeal I make today and, of course, I'll welcome an intervention.

I'm grateful to you for taking the intervention. I wrote that article because I was concerned that there was a growing number of people who were taking an interest in the use of raw cannabis for medicinal purposes. I object to the use of raw cannabis for medicinal purposes. I do not, however, object to the use of cannabis-derived drugs that are effective clinically and can reduce the sorts of symptoms that you and others in the Chamber this afternoon have been describing. We have a drug that is available in Wales, which I campaigned to be made available in Wales, and if other drugs pass through the regulatory hoops because they are found to be effective in relieving suffering, and they are derived from cannabis, then I'd have no problem with those either. But what I object to is an increased availability of raw cannabis, which I do believe could and would be abused, and be dangerous in our society in Wales.

I welcome that intervention, but I would point out that what we would be talking about here is possibly regulated raw cannabis, which would be much safer, of course, and would be prescribable. That is the whole point of what we're talking about. I will also address a point that was made in an intervention and also from the UKIP Member for South Wales West, who talked about smoking cannabis. Who's talking about smoking cannabis here? I think it's very important that we are able to draw that distinction. But it is irrelevant to today's debate whether Darren Millar or anybody else is right or wrong on the risks of cannabis as a recreational drug, because we're not talking about that; I hope I've made that clear. And, in fact, there are plenty, of course, of examples of the abuse of prescription drugs. You don't, as a result of the abuse of prescription drugs, ban those prescription drugs that have proven beneficial effects when used in a correct way. What you try to do is tighten control of those drugs—absolutely. Cannabis, it seems to me, is treated in the opposite way. Used widely recreationally, with beneficial effects medicinally, but not allowed to be used.

The evidence is clear, I think, or certainly I have been convinced. In 2016, as we heard, the results of seven months of research by a cross-party group in Westminster were published. That inquiry, in turn, was based on a world-wide review of evidence, and the very clear recommendation was that cannabis should be legalised for medical use.

It is important, of course, that we draw up legislation or come to a view, as we wish to do today, based on evidence, and here we have the evidence, I think. The MS Society looked at the evidence very carefully before deciding to change its policy on this, and now they are enthusiastic supporters and enthusiastic campaigners on this issue. Why? Because they know about the advantages. They deal on a daily basis with people who are looking for ways to alleviate the effects of a cruel disease. Let us as an Assembly look objectively at the evidence and give our support to those individuals who would benefit from this sensible change.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Presiding Officer, and I'd like to thank Members for their contributions today, and the consideration that they've given to the concept of providing herbal cannabis to patients for medicinal use. I recognise the very genuine and cross-party interest in this subject, and a very sensible debate, I think, it's been, about—. But, before I go into the heart of the Government response, I want to recognise that there's more than one purpose to having these Member debates. There's something about saying you definitely want the Government to do something in the here and the now, and some people may want that to happen absolutely, and others may want to make sure there continues to be a public debate about the use of cannabis for medicinal purposes and how that can be advanced. But, for myself and from a Government point of view, the motion provides not just food for thought, but, in practical terms, for me it raises more questions than answers. And I do, of course, accept that there is some evidence that cannabis or its derivatives can have a role to play in managing chronic pain, anxiety, spasticity, and nausea and vomiting in the context of chemotherapy. And historically, of course, a tincture of cannabis was used for pain relief alongside laudanum and opium. However, we are now far more aware of the damaging side effects of poorly understood, poor-quality drugs, and prefer to use safe and regulated medicines. And we want people to have access to licensed, effective medicines to alleviate these conditions rather than people resorting to what are currently illegal drugs of unknown provenance, potency or purity.

I think it's fair to comment on some of the confusion about the purpose in what we're being asked today, because, in different contributions by proponents and supporters of the motion, we've heard the difference between, say, herbal cannabis and making that available for medicinal use, or the use of cannabis derivatives, or, as has been regularly referred to, cannabinoid drugs. I want to clarify: I don't think, from a Government point of view, this is really a debate about decriminalisation. There are different issues about decriminalising cannabis. I think this is really about should you make it available for a specific purpose, and, if so, in what form. So, it isn't about a prohibition on cannabis derivatives in licensed medicine.

But I'm pleased that, in the course of the motion, Members did recognise that this Government is the only administration in the UK that has recommended using Sativex to treat the spasticity symptoms of multiple sclerosis, such as spasms and cramps. It maybe helpful to remind Members how and why we did so: because the manufacturer took considerable time, money and effort to develop Sativex, the first cannabis-derived medicine in the world. The company had to produce a safe, effective medicine that met modern standards, and therefore followed exactly the same rigorous procedure required for the development of every new medicine for use in the UK. That included identifying which of the 60 cannabinoids and other chemicals present in cannabis could act to reduce pain. At that point, it's worth mentioning that the pharmacological effects of many of these are still unknown. Having identified them, the development stages then involved establishing the most effective combination of these chemicals and early testing for toxicity before proceeding to a clinical trial stage. The clinical trial phases are, of necessity, tightly regulated to protect the volunteer test subjects and the subsequent potential patient population. It's worth noting that it's been estimated that only four out of every 100 medicines developed by pharmaceutical companies ever make it to market.

In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, the MHRA, they licensed Sativex for use in the UK in July 2010. That is only one part of making it available on the NHS, because they only authorise a licence or a marketing authorisation when satisfied that the medicine is safe and treats the targeted condition. Then the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence or the All Wales Medicines Strategy Group appraise new medicines by comparing their clinical and cost-effectiveness with existing treatments already on the market. Now, NICE does not recommend Sativex for treating spasticity in MS on cost-effectiveness grounds—so, not efficacy, but on cost-effectiveness. As a result, it's not available routinely for NHS patients in England, but the Welsh Government asked the AWMSG to undertake an appraisal of Sativex, and they recommended it to us in August 2014. My predecessor then made sure that it was available in Wales from that point, where clinically appropriate. I know there have been challenges about getting Sativex properly available to all people who could and should benefit, but that in itself has nothing to do with the fact that it is a cannabis derivative. There's a broader challenge there that we're trying to address within Government about making sure that the new medicines that are recommended and are available are then made properly available to all people as clinically appropriate.

This underpins our approach, not just here today in this one instance, but together with the appraisal process, and indeed the review we had on the individual patient funding request process as well, that we want to have and we will continue to take an evidence-based approach to determining which medicines could and should be made available on the NHS here in Wales.

Thanks for giving way. I also welcome the fact that the Welsh Government did make Sativex available for the treatment of medical conditions. Isn't key to this motion, though, the problem that it is not available to all those people who need it, perhaps because there are supply issues, cost issues—whatever that might be—and people are currently being criminalised because they are having to use cannabis in the raw form, as it's been referred to, because it's not available? Those people should not be criminalised, because they have an illness and they are seeking treatment that is not available to them through the NHS currently.

I don't think that's a fair characterisation of the way in which medicines are made available in the national health service. There's a challenge here about saying, 'There's an unmet need', and 'How do we get an effective, licensed, safe product available on the national health service to do that?', and simply saying, 'The answer is to make cannabis available medicinally'. I'll come on to some of the challenges about that, but Sativex became available because it fulfilled all of those criteria: the safety and efficacy tests of licensing, and then, secondly, the medicine passed the rigorous appraisal process—

Will you take an intervention?

—and that is the most scientific and impartial method to ensure that patients receive safe and effective medicines.

Just very briefly—and thank you for taking the intervention—wouldn't removing the barrier of legality help ease the way towards seeking methods of using cannabis in a medicinal way?

I don't think that's borne out, actually. I'll try and go through why in the remaining time available. Because what the motion advocates is the use of herbal cannabis and circumventing our long-established and respected regulatory and appraisal processes. Those processes are in place to safeguard patients and ensure public money is being spent on proven clinical and cost-effective treatments. Without an evidence base, without clarity on purity, dosage and strength and the conditions for treatment, we would also place prescribers in an untenable position. Because you have to understand, if you're not going to have a cannabis-derivative drug that, at present, you can have available—. The fact that cannabis itself is not a lawful recreational drug doesn't make any difference to that. It's about the ability to isolate the cannabinoids and then to test them in a rigorous, safe process and make sure they are cost-effective as well. That's the only bar to getting cannabinoids available in a drug form to be available within the national health service. If you then make a raw form of the drug available, or a herbal form, then you can't know the potency of that. You can't know what condition you'd prescribe that for and the strength for that particular condition as well. It's a practical challenge, as opposed to a principled objection to medicinal cannabis, and that's the point. It's about how we take a genuine evidence-led approach to making medicines available on the health service. [Interruption.] I don't know if the Llywydd will allow me even further latitude on time to take a further intervention. 

Yes. Please do.

Thank you. I'm very grateful to you for taking the intervention. I have to say, I find myself in the unusual position of agreeing with almost every word that you've said. One thing I think that would be very, very important would be further research into the benefits of cannabis and some of the medicinal purposes for which it can be used. I wonder, Minister, whether there's any work that you could do, perhaps with the AWMSG and with pharmaceutical companies, to help to isolate some of these key chemicals in the cannabis plant that might be beneficial to people's health in alleviating symptoms. Is that something that you might be able to do as a Welsh Government?

Well, I think the next parts in my contribution may help with that. I said earlier that there are 60 different cannabinoids that the manufacturers of Sativex had to identify, then go through those that would help with particular conditions. The manufacturer of Sativex is currently developing three new cannabis-based medicines to help treat epilepsy, schizophrenia and autism spectrum conditions. A further 18 cannabis-based medicines are in development by other manufacturers to treat a range of conditions. So, this is an area that is rich in research and the potential for cannabis derivatives to be made available in a safe, licensed and effective form. 

Now, the report produced by the all-party parliamentary group, or this motion, they don't indicate the costs associated with introducing a regulatory system for herbal cannabis as a medicinal product, or indeed the costs of establishing and managing a new regulatory body to oversee production, procurement and distribution, and they're based on the costs of monitoring its use, including reporting and investing adverse incidents. There's a challenge here about how we choose to direct the national health service or press upon it to spend its resources. At this time in particular, I can't say this would be this would be a priority for me as a health Minister. But I am interested in the way in which we take advantage, in exactly the same way that any other new medicine comes into the market.

I have to say, just dealing with the point made about drugs legislation in other countries, it's true that other countries have taken a different view. But other countries take different views on a range of subjects as well. Just because states in the United States of America do this, it doesn't say that we must follow. We have a range of differences that I celebrate between ourselves and the United States, as well as key similarities that I would also celebrate too. And I don't think this is a campaign issue to replace our evidence-led approach to new medicines. Sadly, the motion, if implemented, would undermine our national evidence-based approach, and I want to ensure that the health service continues to provide safe and effective treatment. On the basis of the reasons I've set out, the Government will not support the motion, and we will be abstaining. 

I call on Mark Isherwood to reply to the debate.

Can I thank everybody who's contributed? Mike Hedges came straight in with the key point: this is not about legalising cannabis for recreational use. It's about ensuring that we trust our medical practitioners to provide legal prescriptions of cannabinoid drugs when patients can benefit. As Leanne Wood said, following effective evidence-based campaigns by MS Cymru and others, plus the cross-party group on neurological conditions, she has reached a principled position, that people are forced to use cannabis illegally to manage their symptoms, yet morphine—effectively heroin—is given on prescription. She said that this is about stopping people having to access an illegal raw drug—stopping people having to access an illegal raw drug. The wider debate about drugs is a different debate, because this is a health debate.

Caroline Jones said that cannabis has many medical benefits, but doesn't support the reclassification. She said that THC in cannabis can cause cognitive defects. Well, the marijuana plant is comprised of over 100 chemicals, or cannabinoids, with each having different physical effects. The two main chemicals are THC, which we referred to, the element that produces the high, and CBD, which does not produce any psychoactive effects. The particular point about medical cannabis is that it has a high CBD content, not a high THC content.

Mohammad Asghar said that over 100,000 people in the UK have MS, including 4,260 in Wales. He talked about the benefits of Sativex for spasticity, but also noted that lots of MS sufferers have to risk prosecution to manage their pain, and Wales must take the lead on this. Rhun ap Iorwerth said it is a simple matter: everything possible should be done to alleviate suffering. Cannabis use for medical and recreational purposes is not the same, and there are plenty of examples of existing prescription drugs being abused, but we don’t ban those.

The Cabinet Secretary’s speech was largely a response, I feel, to what I didn’t say, rather than an evidence-based response to what I did. He said that just because the United States, or some states in the US, do it, we don’t have to. But it’s not just the US; I listed many other examples across the globe. The point is that this is becoming the norm globally. We’re getting left behind. And he said that this motion raises more questions than answers. So, could I ask him: would he agree to meet with medical advisers, endorsing the comment made by Leanne Wood, including Professor Barnes, to discuss the evidence to date on cannabis for medicinal use? We’ve all heard about the work of the all-party parliamentary group. Well, Professor Michael Barnes found that, overall, there is good evidence for the use of cannabis in many important conditions that affect many thousands of disabled people in the UK. He said:

‘Generally, cannabis and cannabis products are safe and well tolerated. It is clear from this review that cannabis does have medicinal value’.

And he said:

‘We consider that the evidence firmly suggests that cannabis should be a legal product for medicinal use, as long as the quality of the product is guaranteed and the supply chain secured and that medical users are, as far as possible and practicable, entered into proper long term studies of both efficacy and side effects.’

That is what we are proposing.

On the basis of his report, the States of Jersey said it formed the basis for planned changes across both Jersey and Guernsey. So, again, I will conclude by asking the health Secretary: will the Welsh Government agree to meet medical advisers, including Professor Barnes, to discuss the evidence to date on cannabis for medical use and to look at the detailed work across seven months by our colleagues in Westminster and the very detailed and evidenced-based international study that Professor Barnes conducted? Thank you very much.

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

The next item is a debate on the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee's report on primary care clusters, and I call on the committee Chair to move the motion—Dai Lloyd.

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to open this debate on our committee's report on primary care clusters.

Now, for patients, primary healthcare is their first point of contact with the healthcare system in the NHS. The main source of primary healthcare is in general practice. Primary care clusters are groups of general practitioners working with other health and social care professionals, and they do so in order to plan and provide services locally. The committee decided to undertake a review into primary care clusters as we wanted to take a close look at whether this model of working is delivering improved services to patients and whether it is on track to make the systemic changes we know are needed within primary care. 

From December 2016 to February 2017 we ran a public consultation. We received 47 written responses, representing a range of healthcare organisations, professional groups and individual clinical staff. We heard oral evidence from a number of witnesses and at events held in Carmarthen, Caernarfon and Wrexham we met with GPs, practice managers and other representatives from clusters and LHBs. The group discussions focused on the maturity of clusters, cluster development, workforce, funding, patient satisfaction, and accountability. The evidence we heard helped us come to some very clear conclusions and enabled us to make robust recommendations to the Cabinet Secretary.

Earlier today, we met with people who gave evidence to the original inquiry over in the Pierhead at lunchtime, and that was in order to seek their views on the report’s findings and the Welsh Government’s response to it. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all those who took part in that.

Moving on to the conclusions and recommendations, our report covers a wide range of issues, including whether clusters are reducing demands on GPs, the benefits of multidisciplinary team working, and the level and allocation of funding. We have made a series of 16 recommendations to the Welsh Government and we hope they will contribute towards delivering the major step change we believe is needed in the development and direction of primary care clusters if they are to relieve pressure on GPs and Welsh hospitals.

Our first set of recommendations—1, 2, 3 and 4—relate to the pace and nature of cluster development. There is significant variation in the maturity of the 64 clusters and their stages of development. Whilst variation is not in itself a negative, the committee wants to be assured that this is as a result of responding to local needs, rather than because of a lack of consistency in the pace of development. We heard differing views about the purpose of clusters and believe this adds to the variation in how they are developing. Whilst some are very effective at bringing key delivery partners and stakeholders together, in other areas they appear to be primarily seen as a vehicle to apply for funds. According to some respondents there is a large degree of reliance on the energy and enthusiasm of individual GPs, GP practices or cluster leads, and that this is not a sustainable long-term model. We also heard that not all the right stakeholders are involved and that some clusters still have a focus on general medical practice.

We agree with the Welsh Government that primary care services should have a strong focus on local planning and delivery of services to meet the identified health needs of the population. Therefore we support the view that clusters need autonomy. However, this must be positioned within a much more defined and structured governance framework. There is a need for a clearer view on the future shape, accountability, powers and structure of clusters. Without this, there is a danger of a variety of ad hoc local approaches that will not deliver sustainable change. I therefore welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s acceptance, wholly or in principle, of recommendations 1 to 4.

Turning now to whether clusters are delivering the Welsh Government’s ambitions for primary care—these are recommendations 5, 6 and 7. We fully support the Welsh Government’s aim for clusters to play a significant role in planning the transfer of services and resources out of hospitals and into their local communities. This will not happen without an increased impetus and focus on how secondary care professionals can be meaningfully involved in cluster working, and how clusters can engage in the very big challenges around reducing unscheduled care. The Welsh Government must set out a clear plan as to how this aspect of cluster work will be taken forward.

We also heard about the need to change patient expectations in terms of the appropriateness of seeing a range of primary care professionals rather than seeing the GP. Examples were given of patients insisting on an appointment with a GP, despite there being other staff such as a practice nurse who it may have been more appropriate for them to see. We therefore support the need for a national campaign, building on the existing Choose Well strategy, to increase patient understanding and support for the increased multidisciplinary team approach. We welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s acceptance, wholly or in principle, of recommendations 5, 6 and 7.

Recommendations 8, 9 and 10 focus on issues related to staffing. There are obvious and substantial benefits to the multidisciplinary team approach on which the cluster model is based. However some of the associated practical difficulties are substantial and, in our view, potentially pose the most significant challenge to the future of cluster working. These include: the recruitment and retention of GPs and a wide range of other professionals involved in primary care; the question of who employs cluster staff and the associated issues of pensions and indemnity, perhaps the most significant barrier to effective cluster working; the potential for GPs to spend time dealing with HR and management issues rather than on delivering clinical care; that the clinical supervision of the MDT is becoming diluted as staff are placed outside traditional management models and physical locations; the negative impact of annual funding allocations impacting on the ability to recruit and retain staff; and associated governance issues.

We also heard about the need for properly planned and co-ordinated workforce training and skills development for staff. It is therefore disappointing that the Cabinet Secretary has rejected our call to put in place a national lead to co-ordinate training and development needs within clusters and I would welcome further explanation from the Cabinet Secretary of his reasons for this. Cluster funding was welcomed by all of those involved in cluster working, whether nationally or locally. We made three recommendations, 11, 12 and 13, in relation to funding, all of which were based on the evidence we received and were not calling for any additional funding. It is therefore disappointing that the Cabinet Secretary has chosen to disregard these important points.

The NHS needs timely and effective infrastructure to support the change to cluster working. This includes both the primary care estate and ICT infrastructure—recommendations 14 and 15. The evidence we heard suggests that progress in this area has been minimal and that the estate, in its broadest sense, remains a significant issue for the primary care sector. I welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s recent announcement of £68 million to deliver 19 new integrated health and care centres across Wales by 2021, as these will be key to relieving pressure on GPs and hospitals by keeping vital health services closer to home in people’s communities. I also look forward to hearing the Cabinet Secretary’s response to the findings of the parliamentary review of health and social care in relation to ICT infrastructure.

Our final recommendation, recommendation 16, relates to the need for a much clearer and robust mechanism for evaluating cluster work. Whilst in general we heard some positive feedback about the perceived impact of cluster initiatives, there was very limited quantifiable and measurable evidence to back up these perceptions. Concerns were expressed about whether it is possible to demonstrate the impact of clusters, and about whether there are mechanisms in place to ensure the robust evaluation of what they do, and the extent to which they are improving patient outcomes. Evaluation and monitoring were seen as vital not only in assessing progress, but also in ensuring that successful cluster work was shared with others and rolled out where appropriate. It is therefore disappointing that the Cabinet Secretary has rejected recommendation 16. I look forward to the debate this afternoon. Thank you.

I was very pleased to have been part of the Health and Social Care Committee when we decided to undertake this inquiry into primary care clusters. Our decision to look at this stemmed in great part from the concerns that other committee members and I had been made aware of through our discussions with doctors in general practice, and we wanted to evaluate this new method of working. I would like to thank the committee staff and all the witnesses who, through their frank evidence, enabled us to challenge the health boards and the Government, and develop a set of recommendations that we believe would enhance the development and authority of the GP cluster network in Wales. 

We heard of so much good practice by GP clusters where there is a strong representation and involvement by other healthcare professionals, such as occupational therapists, physiotherapists, palliative care nurses and mental health specialists. We heard of examples where an idea to enhance services to the patient had been nurtured, received funding, been piloted, shown to be good practice and then either expanded or stalled. In most examples, the barriers to best practice becoming common practice emerged with a similar theme. Health boards wanted to dictate and control the money, thereby stifling the very innovation we needed. There was a lack of sustainability in either people or the money, projects stopped and started, and projects were driven to year end rather than having longevity. 

Not all clusters engage with a broad spectrum of allied healthcare professionals, who had services and ideas to offer, but simply couldn't gain traction. Projects that worked have had to fight to be adopted as common practice by the health board. The checks and balances and reporting overwhelm the green shoots and, of course, there is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the health boards don't adopt the successful projects and make them their own, then the cluster funding that's tied up in that project cannot be released to act as seed funding for the next innovation.

GPs sometimes found it extremely difficult to engage with the clusters themselves because of the sheer pressure of their case loads, and there was a sense by some allied healthcare professionals and community pharmacists that they could do more, that they were there ready, willing and able but that, in some instances, the cultural shift to stop thinking 'doctor' and utilise their skills and training was hard to achieve.

But where it works, it works well. I would cite examples from the Argyle Street medical practice based in Pembroke Dock in my own constituency, a practice under immense pressure with the largest patient roll in Wales and three doctors down. For chronic conditions and palliative care, they have utilised cluster funding to bring on occupational therapists and palliative care nurses, some of whom are funded directly by the health board and who have become the new front line in helping these vulnerable patients, thereby enabling the doctors to act as a backstop for the more complex conditions.

However, our inquiry, as the Chair has said, did find that it was very much a mixed bag, which is why I find the rejection by Welsh Government of our recommendation 16 so utterly astonishing. We wanted Welsh Government to ensure that there's a clear methodology for the evaluation of cluster work. We believe this would enable best practice to be adopted as common practice more quickly and would help to identify why some projects didn't work and ensure that they were ceased rather than money continually being flung at them. The response by the Government is frankly jargonese, hiding behind the King's Fund, and I've never been able to get my head around any organisation, Government or not, that will spend money without costing that spend—and I reference commentary from your response to our budget report—or measuring outcomes. We must quantify and evaluate. How can we do that without the appropriate information?

Recommendation 11: the Welsh Government have rejected our recommendation that cluster development money should be allocated to individual clusters on a three-year rather than one-year basis, yet the need for sustainability in cluster funding to enable training to get the right staff on board to alleviate concerns over which organisation people work to, the need to pilot, trial, evaluate and adopt—you can't do all that in a year. But a three-year funding cycle at least enables some measure of sustainability. I urge the Cabinet Secretary to review these two recommendations again in the light of all the evidence the health and social care committee took.

I do recommend, Members, that this report is read by all of us, because, given the emphasis on primary care within the parliamentary review into health and social care, clusters are a model for the way forward, but they need to be funded, freed, accountable and, ultimately, evaluated.

As a member of the committee, I largely welcome the response of the Welsh Government to the report as we continue to develop and strengthen the primary care clusters in the years ahead.

My overriding impression from the evidence we took in this inquiry is that, for many, it was too soon to take an informed decision or an informed view on the overall success of the clusters. So, I do think that the evaluation of activity in existing and developing clusters will be vitally important if we are to roll out good practice across Wales.

So, today, however, rather than focusing on any of the particular recommendations, there are just three points that I want to make. Firstly, investing our money to help deliver much-needed change and ensuring that we share good practice. Secondly, investing our money to help people make the right choice about their care, building on the work of the Choose Well campaign that Dai Lloyd's already referred to and delivering change in the primary care settings. And thirdly, how the work on primary care clusters is just one part of the huge responsibility to be placed on this whole Assembly in light of the parliamentary review of health and social care.

So, first, I'd like to link the growing role of primary care clusters to the vital task of spending the health budget wisely. I think the case for cluster working is well evidenced, although evaluation at present is not, and the task facing the Welsh NHS is to ensure the examples of best practice are rolled out quickly and effectively as the cluster models mature. The challenge we all face, irrespective of party-political colour, is to ensure that the moneys we invest in the Welsh NHS help to make the real changes in service delivery that we know are required. We now need to ensure that clusters are able to influence integrated medium-term plans and that those plans allow for the intended innovation the cluster funding was intended to deliver. I'm firmly of the view that we can't afford to continue investing in models of care that don't respond to the ever-changing needs. The evidence tells us that we need to shift services to the primary setting and if done properly, clusters can be an effective way of doing this, and there are some excellent examples of good practice already out there.

In my own health board area of Cwm Taf, for example, we've seen the success in Merthyr of the Baby Teeth Do Matter project, which is ensuring that under two and five-year-olds are receiving early access to dental care through healthcare support workers and dental therapists. GP support officers are supporting GPs to focus on what they can do, helping people with social care needs and care co-ordination, and the cluster is leading with ICT projects like the GP web, which provides online triage.

Cwm Taf have also piloted a virtual ward cluster project in Aberdare, which, I understand, they're soon to roll out in Merthyr as well, which saw a multidisciplinary primary care team target 150 frequent hospital attendees, mainly elderly frail, by proactively visiting them in their own homes, to offer support through physios, occupational therapists, paramedics and pharmacists. Over an eight-month period, this has seen GP appointments reduce by 60 per cent, hospital admissions reduce by 80 per cent, and calls to out-of-hours services reduce by 90 per cent. This has allowed GPs time to deal with more complex issues in their surgeries. 

So, to resist change in service delivery, like the examples I've just given, is to encourage stagnation, and stagnation does not reflect what the people of Wales need from their health and social care system. Therefore, I welcome the Welsh Government's response that firms up the commitment to provide a clearer vision on the work of primary care clusters. 

This leads me to my second point. As the current pressures on the system show, the next phase of the work on primary care clusters must help to strengthen the important work that underpins the Choose Well campaign. It's beyond doubt that, as users of the NHS, we must continually be reminded about the way in which our personal choices can impact on the integrity of the whole system. Strengthening services in primary care clusters, therefore ensuring that people do not need to routinely visit a hospital for their treatment, is part of the overall strategy. Perhaps we need to move back to using the full terminology of 'accident and emergency' to reinforce what the hospital-based service is truly about.

Finally, and my third point, this report on primary care clusters is just one part of what I believe is a significant year for the NHS in Wales, as we will also need to work extra hard as we receive and consider with great care the recommendations of the parliamentary review of health and social care that we debated yesterday. We have much important work ahead.

Certainly, I learnt a great deal during this inquiry. I have experience in my constituency as an Assembly Member for Ynys Môn of seeing a cluster at work—a very effective cluster as I understand it. I've sat in on cluster meetings and have seen the multidisciplinary work coming together in a way that I believe was very effective on behalf of my constituents in Ynys Môn.

But I've also learnt in this inquiry that a cluster can mean something very, very different in different parts of Wales, depending on everything from geography to the size of individual GP surgeries, to the kind of correlation between different elements of the multidisciplinary teams—depending on personalities even, and depending on people's attitudes towards clusters and what their purpose was. We've heard from people who were seeing the cluster as something that was genuinely there to bring a team together. We've seen federalisation happening as a further step. We've heard of others seeing clusters as a mechanism just to draw in additional funding for a particular project.

So, if we look at the first recommendation, I think that that summarises, possibly, the major intention of what we discussed, which is the need for clarity with regard to what exactly a cluster is:

'The Welsh Government should publish a refreshed model for primary care clusters' 

and that the model needs to be clear. I'm looking forward to seeing how that will be implemented by the Government.

Welsh Government has rejected five of the committee recommendations. That's nearly a third. I'm disappointed at that as a committee member. I don't think it's particularly acceptable, in that none of those five, I don't think, are particularly controversial. I don't consider them to have massive financial implications, but, of course, I look forward to hearing the Cabinet Secretary's comments.

Let me go through those rejected recommendations. Recommendation 10—that's about improving planning for national training. Given our frustrations in recent times about workforce planning in Wales, perhaps one obvious and rather cheeky comment would be to say that at least the Government is consistent in refusing to carry that out, but, again, I look forward to hearing more about the rationale. Recommendation 11 says three-year financial planning should be introduced. Why reject that when Government was supportive of LHBs moving in that direction? Recommendation 12 says to review funding streams to ensure maximum impact from funding. It beggars belief why there's anything wrong with that.

Recommendation 13—

'establish clear decision making processes for quickly evaluating and scaling up successful models and ceasing funding for less successful initiatives.'

I think, perhaps, this is one of the biggest problems in the NHS. Successful initiatives, and, goodness me, they exist. We've seen plenty of them. We know of plenty of examples of innovations devised by staff within the NHS and managers, but they're not scaled up effectively. We see failed ventures allowed to continue, and I think rejecting the recommendation there suggests to me that we have this persistent problem in that particular area.

Recommendation 16, then, says to

'ensure there is a much clearer and more robust mechanism for evaluating cluster work.'

Why on earth reject the idea of collecting evidence to see if a policy is working?

So, we learned much as a committee. I certainly learnt that the principle of clusters is a principle worth pursuing, and I think it's in the interests of the NHS in Wales to see how we pull different parts, in this case, of the primary care sector together in the interests of Welsh patients. I look forward to hearing more about what the Cabinet Secretary believes he has learnt too.

I'm a member of the committee, so I was very pleased to take part in this inquiry, and my view, I think in line with that of the committee and most of those who gave evidence to us, is that the principle of clusters is a very good one, that the principle of interdisciplinary work is excellent. But I think we all felt that there's a lot more work to do to make the clusters more effective, and there are a lot of issues that need to be ironed out.

The highlight of the inquiry for me was the focus group in Carmarthen, ably facilitated by Angela Burns, where we were able to hear first-hand about the issues that concerned the participants there and the frustrations that they experienced in the cluster groups. Of course, the Chair mentioned in his contribution the lunchtime meeting we had with the professionals here today before this report, and in that meeting at lunchtime, I was so struck by the enthusiasm of the participants there for doing a good job in the health service and really making a great commitment. I think that came over really strongly today, and I think they all were, in principle, in support of the clusters, but they were very keen to raise the very practical ways that the clusters could be improved and the ways that we could move forward.

Obviously, one of those key issues is funding, and Members who've spoken before me have raised the issues about funding, but I think there is definitely some tension between the local health boards and the funding to the cluster groups. I think it was also mentioned in the report, and I think the BMA stated that they were aware of significant delays in the release of these funds. And there is a case, as well, for the cluster development money to be allocated directly to the clusters rather than to the health boards. So, along with the issue of the annual funding, I hope that the Cabinet Secretary will look at these issues, because there is this great enthusiasm, and I think that we need to make it as easy as possible for the clusters to develop.

The multidisciplinary working is so much to be welcomed, and one of the very interesting discussions in the Carmarthen focus group was how the patients are not able to see the GP in the way that they used to, and for some of the elderly patients who were used to seeing a GP and used to seeing always the same GP, it's quite a break in culture to see the nurse instead, or to see another allied professional more appropriate for their needs. I think, obviously, being able to see someone who is most appropriate for their needs is the key thing of multidisciplinary work. I think that as patients gradually get used to this way of operating, it will be a very effective way to operate, and the patient will see the most relevant person. I think there is, also, the opportunity, because I think patients do like continuity, they do like to see the same person, that there's no reason that can't be an allied health professional who sees them on a regular basis. That could be the same person.

I wanted to just mention quickly my experience in the constituency. Certainly, in this inquiry, fears about shortages of GPs and the difficulties of replacing GPs have cropped up all over the place, and we have had a difficult experience in Cardiff North where one of the local GP surgeries actually closed down. What happened was the existing partners of Llwynbedw practice in Birchgrove and Cathedral View in Llandaff North gave notice of their intention of terminating the general medical services contract, giving six months' notice. The health board were unable to secure another group of GPs to take over the practice, and no single practice came forward to take it over. So, both the buildings belonged to the GPs—the existing GPs. One of those is being sold. But this has had a very upsetting effect on many of my constituents who've contacted me, because it has resulted in the disruption of the pattern of healthcare that they were used to receiving. I attended a meeting of the cluster group in Cardiff North, and I know that the GPs in that cluster group felt that it should have been possible to stop this disruption for patients, and there should have been some way of ensuring that these—many elderly—patients weren't left bereft, because they were no longer able to go to the surgery they'd been to for many years. And it has resulted in a much heavier case load for other GP surgeries.

So, I think that the cluster groups are an excellent way forward that does give the opportunity for expertise to be shared, to bring in the allied professionals, and in this meeting at lunch time today, I was sitting next to the only nurse who is the lead in a cluster group. There's only one in Wales who leads a cluster group, but we hope that is a pattern that may happen in many other place.

I'd like to thank the committee clerks and all those who gave evidence to our committee during our inquiry into primary care clusters. Primary care clusters have the potential to transform the care delivered in our communities, but whilst we saw some excellent examples of successful clusters, there is a large variation in performance. Many GPs expressed their disappointment at the clusters. Some were highly critical. One GP described their cluster as 'amateur'. Whilst there is widespread support for the principles behind the clusters, it is broadly felt that they're not living up to the expectations. 

Many witnesses pointed to the fact that development was being held up by local health boards. Cluster development funding is controlled by local health boards, and many of the clusters found they were unable to use the moneys in the most effective way, due to overly bureaucratic rules and regulations. We heard that around 90 per cent of the funding was being used to pay for staffing costs. We also heard, time and time again, that the local health board's role in allocating development moneys added unnecessary delays in getting the funding to the clusters. The Welsh NHS Confederation told us that the need to spend moneys by year end made it difficult to redesign a service, recruit, train and make real change, due to the inflexibility and insufficient lead time. As a committee, we felt that funding should go directly to the clusters, and that it should be allocated on a three-year basis to avoid short-term planning decisions, which often do not offer the best value for money. I'm disappointed that the Cabinet Secretary has rejected recommendation 11, and I urge him to reconsider.

It became apparent to me, over the course of this inquiry, that it wasn't just the funding issues: health boards were hindering the ability of the clusters to deliver real change. The British Medical Association called for greater autonomy for clusters, and that they should be at arm's length from local health boards. I'm therefore pleased that the Cabinet Secretary has accepted recommendations 2 and 3, which recommend new governance structures and delegation of decision making to clusters. 

Of course, the clusters are only effective when they have consistent and clear leadership. The BMA told us that where clusters are successful, it's largely due to specific individuals who have shown proactive leadership despite the constraints of their clinical responsibilities. The committee feels that all relevant professionals need the time and space to be meaningfully involved. We recommend that there be a refreshed model and that guidance be published, setting out core membership to ensure that clusters involve the right people and have the best possible leadership team. I'm pleased that the Welsh Government have accepted this. The Cabinet Secretary has indicated that a workshop will take place next month to draw together proposed governance arrangements. The BMA has requested that the date of this workshop be moved to allow GPs to attend. I would be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could inform us if that is possible.

All of us here want primary care clusters to succeed. As highlighted by the parliamentary review, the future of care will focus more on primary rather than secondary care, so it is important that we improve health and care provision in our local communities. Clusters have an important role to play in delivering those improvements and change. Our committee have made 16 suggestions for improving the role and operation of primary care clusters, and I urge the Welsh Government to reconsider and accept all of our recommendations. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr.

This report was published in October, and I'm obviously keen to understand why we're only debating it now. I appreciate you have to wait for the Government's response, but as I'm not a member of the committee, it is important that we are all absorbing the evidence that you're gathering, because we are talking about half our whole budget, and therefore we all have a duty to ensure that the money we are allocating to health is being spent in the best possible way.

I think primary care clusters are hugely important as a way of breaking down artificial barriers—artificial demarcation lines—between different professionals. It's also a way of tackling underperforming practices, or struggling practices, like the case that Julie Morgan's just described where the practice went out of business and nobody was prepared to take it on. Had they known about it earlier, had the cluster arrangements been closer, perhaps another practice would have been ready to take it on, particularly if they weren't presented with a surprise.

Today, I've had an excellent experience with a practice manager. I needed to very quickly establish whether a particular form that's called DS1500 had been provided to the DWP to enable somebody to get the attendance allowance that people are entitled to at the end of their life. So, this is an urgent matter. I have nothing but praise for the practice manager. This is a practice manager task. It's nothing to do with a GP in the sense that I'm not seeking clinical advice; I'm seeking administrative advice. I need to know whether this form has been sent. When we managed to establish that the DWP had lost the form, she immediately agreed to send it again and to ensure that it got there in time. So, I would just like to say that any GP who is not delegating the day-to-day administrative management of their practice to a practice manager is not using their clinical skills effectively. They should not be needing to worry about whether or not the equipment that people need to examine patients is available. That is something that somebody else should be doing.

Equally, I do find it very frustrating when I visit pharmacists to learn that GP practices are resistant to sharing the information about what medication patients are receiving. This should be available through the IT system, to enable the pharmacist, who is the specialist in medicines, to be seeing exactly what cocktail of drugs this patient is getting and whether or not what's been written on the prescription is appropriate to that individual. I'm afraid it's not uncommon, with prescriptions, for the point to be in the wrong place, and that can be extremely worrying. Of course, pharmacists are the front line. Everybody knows stories of the difficulties of getting an appointment with the GP, whereas with the pharmacist, you can walk in and you will get the advice immediately. So, I think that clusters need to be working much more closely with pharmacists, as well as other professionals, who will enable us to share the workload more effectively in line with prudent healthcare. I read, with some puzzlement, that pharmacists weren't always invited. It's not that everybody needs to be at the cluster meeting on every single occasion. It all depends on what is the subject that's going to be discussed at a particular meeting.

Should the health boards be more or less involved? Well, we always have to follow the money because if health boards aren't prepared to ensure that the money is being passed down from secondary to primary care, we are never going to get the change that we need to ensure that we have a sustainable health service.

I'd just like to finish by reminding people that I mentioned in the Assembly previously the case study of Canterbury, New Zealand, which has spent several years getting more integrated care between primary, secondary and community care, and that that has prevented the ballooning of demands on hospital care, which we all need to see. We don't need reminding as to what's going on out in the world today. So, we need to learn quickly and we need to get on with this rather than delaying further. This has to be one way forward.

Thank you. I now call the Cabinet Secretary for Health and Social Services, Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I'm grateful to the committee for undertaking this inquiry into primary care clusters. The Welsh Government set out, yet again, in 'Prosperity for All' that we continue to see primary care clusters as key catalysts for reform and change in local healthcare. I want clusters to continue to develop their role as local collaborative mechanisms for assessing the needs of communities, and then making the best use of available resources. That means using funding, people, skills and other assets within the national health service, but also in local authorities, the third sector and communities themselves, to meet that need. 

We are already seeing the benefits of collaboration at cluster level, with evidence of increased collaboration resulting in a better use of resources. We also see GP practice mergers, federations and social enterprises as some of the solutions to sustainability. To improve access, as well as sustainability, clusters continue to develop and make use of a wide range of health professionals. We increasingly see pharmacists, physiotherapists and paramedics working alongside GPs within the local healthcare team—more people having more timely access to the right professionals for their needs closer to home. 

It also means that services are better able to manage demand and, increasingly, capacity and better manage workloads. For example, the bay cluster in Swansea makes prudent use of a paramedic to carry out house calls. That has resulted in people, often the elderly, being seen sooner and not having to wait for the GP to finish surgery. And, in the Llanelli cluster, they've appointed two social prescribers who are helping people access the care they need from a wide range of non-clinical services that are available from the third sector, and that's reduced the call on GP time. Some of the people who've been supported by these services have actually gone on themselves to become involved in volunteering and helping others as a result. Now, to keep people at home and avoid inappropriate emergency admissions to hospital, the cluster in north Powys is making prudent use of the new professional roles of urgent care practitioners and physician associates. I expect the pace and scale of innovation and improvement to continue to increase.

I do welcome the fact that the body of the committee report recognised the wide range of good work being undertaken by clusters. This has developed since the national plan for a primary care service in Wales was published in 2014. However, while I gently disagree with some of the tenor of the recommendations, I note that they fully recognise the progress made by clusters in what is a relatively short period of time. At the outset—and I'm not saying this because there was a different Minister at the time—there was a significant current of antipathy and ambivalence within primary care towards the creation of clusters. People doubted that they'd make any difference, and, worse, many people said they would simply take up time, and there'd be more meetings to attend and more forms to fill. There is now a significantly different attitude and approach to clusters within not just general practitioners, but the broader teams of local healthcare. And, as we heard from Jenny Rathbone, more people want to be engaged and involved in the discussion and the decision making, and the value that brings. For my part, I will continue to encourage clusters to evolve and mature as the right approach to planning accessible and sustainable local healthcare.

I outlined in both my written and my oral evidence to committee, and again in my response to the recommendations, that there are already a number of key pieces of work already under way or planned that address the lines of enquiry and the recommendations. I make it clear in my evidence that we have to be careful to avoid being overly prescriptive about how clusters should develop. We set out to ensure they had the flexibility to respond to local challenges and needs assessments whilst providing a framework within which clusters and health boards operate.

The time is now right for some collective national action to support clusters to evolve. That will be informed by learning and the innovative solutions so far undertaken. So, I've asked the national primary care board to agree a set of national governance arrangements for cluster working by June of this year. And, importantly, I've asked for those governance arrangements to be enabling and not overly prescriptive. I expect them to be designed to support each cluster's individual development journey. And I set out in my response that this work will address a number of the recommendations in the report.

I recognise that committee members will always be disappointed where a Government rejects recommendations, but I would gently say that I don't think it's unacceptable for a Government to reject recommendations any more than it is acceptable for a committee to make recommendations that are difficult or challenging. We, as a Government, have to accept the need to come here for scrutiny and explain what we're doing and why, just as, I think, committees need to know that there is good faith in either rejecting or accepting only in principle.

I just want to turn to recommendation 10. I think there's something here about recommending a national lead to deal with all these local services. I don't think that would actually deliver the sort of improvement that I know Members are generally looking for in training.

And, in response to recommendation 11, I just want to point out that we've made £10 million available on a recurrent basis for clusters to decide how to invest, and I recognise some of the evidence given, both to the committee and that I've heard individually, about some of the variance in the agility with which clusters can use that money together with their local health board. But clusters do take different decisions on how best to use moneys. They have different cluster development plans that they themselves have been involved in designing, and, while it's used to test innovative solutions, I have asked health boards to review their planning processes to ensure systematic evaluation.

I'm trying to deal here, again, with recommendation 13, in part, because that three-year rolling planning process, at cluster and at health board level, has to ensure that unsuccessful initiatives are stopped and successful ones are scaled up and funded from health boards core discretionary resources. I expect that to release funding at cluster level to invest in new innovative projects to drive continuous improvement.

Just on a specific point mentioned by the UKIP spokesperson, I'm happy to confirm that David Bailey, Dr David Bailey from the BMA, will be taking part in the February workshop, so there will be doctor representation there from the ground.

I think we also need to reflect, having had the report and having had the series of responses to the recommendations, that we also yesterday had the parliamentary review, and the significant status and thought given to the role of primary care within that review, and recommendations about planning and about the role of primary care being more specific in the integrated medium term plan process, and indeed changes they've recommended for the IMTP process itself and about the relationship with local government. They're things that we need to be open minded to and to take on board in actually coming to our final response to it.

So, this isn't a point in time where there is a closed door on everything and anything. I expect to see more evidence for the efficacy of clusters in different parts of Wales in the quality and outcomes framework we already have for primary care. That should really help us to understand and evaluate the real impact of clusters. There will of course be learning about what works and what is not working. I think the committee report and its recommendations have been a useful exercise to help take us forward and to actually spread more understanding about the work that clusters are undertaking. 

Having noted the recommendations, I'm pleased again to recognise that a range of them centre on areas of work that we too have already recognised and expect to report back to the Assembly upon. As I said in my response, action is under way or planned, and the committee's report and the wealth of evidence it contains will help to inform our work and our future consideration.

Thank you. Can I call Dai Lloyd to reply to the debate?

Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. I'd like to thank everyone who has participated in the debate and again echo our thanks to the clerks and researchers for all of their work, and of course to those who have provided us with evidence over the past months. It was wonderful to meet with many of them, as Julie Morgan said, at lunchtime at the Pierhead in order to complete the circle, as it were. They'd presented evidence, they'd read our report, they'd seen the Government's response to it, and then they could discuss that. That's the first time that we as a committee have done that, and I would see it as a template for other committees, as a modus operandi for them too.

There were a number of speakers: Angela, Rhun, Dawn, Julie, Caroline, Jenny. I was pleased to have a contributor who is not a committee member—not that I want to disrespect any committee member who spoke, but it was nice to have a non-committee member contributing to the debate, and, of course, we also heard from the Cabinet Secretary himself.

The fundamental point—and we will continue to disagree on this point, I'm sure—is this need for financial security to employ, in particular to employ new staff at cluster level. The Cabinet Secretary himself mentioned those examples of clusters employing paramedics, and also pharmacists. It's far easier to employ someone on a three-year contract than a one-year contract. That's the fundamental point that many of our witnesses made, that they need that financial security, and also contractual and pension security, in terms of who manages those. Because the clusters themselves are an entity that, unlike the health boards, are not a legal entity in terms of employment issues. So, those are the issues that need to be resolved in order to get those paramedics and pharmacists, who do laudable work, I have to say, because the paramedics we have in the cluster that I am part of have transformed the way we work. If there's an emergency call now in the middle of a surgery, a GP doesn't have to leave the surgery, and all the patients there, to go and see someone who may have fallen or whatever. The paramedic is there and they phone us. It has transformed the way in which we run our services from day to day. Therefore, they do make a valuable contribution, and we need to retain them and respect them.

So, we've heard all of the arguments made, and I won't rehearse the arguments as to which recommendations have been accepted and which have been rejected, but it is true to note that these clusters are an exciting development. I'm old enough to have had the very debate that the Cabinet Secretary mentioned—at the start, years ago, no-one was sure whether these were going to work or whether they would be an additional layer of bureaucracy for GPs, with not enough of us in place in the first place, and more work would need to be done and so on. Well, we've partially overcome that problem, but partially the jury is still out. That's why people are asking, and that's why the main recommendation of this report is that we need a fundamental change, a step change indeed, in terms of the development of the clusters and their implementation, so that we can secure and achieve this aspiration of having these MDTs working together for the benefit of our patients. Thank you very much.  

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

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I now intend to proceed to voting time. 

Okay. So, we'll now vote on the Member debate under Standing Order 11.21. So, I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the names of Mark Isherwood, Leanne Wood, Mike Hedges and Rhun ap Iorwerth. Open the vote. Has everybody voted that wants to vote? Okay. Close the vote. For the motion 31, 18 abstentions, two against, therefore the motion is agreed. Thank you. 

We now move on to the short debate, so if you're leaving the Chamber please do so quickly.

Right, can we all leave—? Those who are leaving, please do so. We now move to the short debate, and I call on Lee Waters to introduce the debate topic he has chosen. Lee. 

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd. 

'And we will build brutal energy cut into a much better home. It's a movement towards the beautiful legal scams and better share. And it was a gingelly deal, and I don't think they're never worth in a middle deal to be parted to Mexico.'

Not the most inspiring opening to a speech, I'll admit, but what sets this opening apart is what sets this debate apart. It was written by a robot, a gimmick carried out by The New Yorker last year. They fed 270,000 words spoken by Donald Trump into a computer programme that studies language patterns. It analyses word choice and grammar, and learnt how to simulate Trump's speech. It doesn't totally make sense, but neither does Trump. Although I like the term 'gingelly deal', I don't think it's yet part of the popular lexicon, but I opened with it because I want to bring the abstract into the real quickly. 

Until now, automation and robotics has largely been confined to manufacturing industries, but the exponential growth in the application of artificial intelligence will now hit every industry, every profession. Doctors, accountants, lawyers, translators—any role that has a repetitive element is likely to be impacted. It's estimated that around 700,000 jobs in Wales will be hit by automation, and we need to mobilise to prepare people for the change that is coming, and it's a big change. Indeed, analysts have compared the impact of artificial intelligence with the arrival of electricity in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century; it's that big a shift. The technology writer, Luke Dormehl, used the parallel to help us get our heads around the scale of the change that we are facing. That was a profoundly disruptive change that interrupted the regular biological rhythms of life: electric light allowed people for the first time to create their own schedules for work and play, so night and day no longer mattered, and it unleashed a chain of innovation. The network of wires ushered in a slew of connected devices that created industries and changed lives forever.

It's that scale of profound change that we're on the cusp of again. Right now, we're in the early adopter stages of the artificial intelligence revolution, but we can discern an outline of the type of change that’s ahead of us. I was blown away by the robot who was able to cook a meal by just being shown a 'how to cook' video on YouTube without any direct human input. Researchers at the University of Maryland did this experiment two years ago now, and they're planning to use a similar deep learning approach in areas like military repair. Elon Musk at Tesla thinks that a car manufacturing factory without any human workers is within reach. Amazon are trialling a shop without workers, where you're automatically billed when you leave the store. These are all game changes, changing the way we behave. Amazon, Airbnb and Uber are all demonstrating how quickly technology can change how we shop, sleep and move from A to B. And they're up-ending business models in the process. You won’t find the largest global retailer on the high street. The world’s largest accommodation provider doesn’t own a single hotel. And the largest taxi firm doesn’t own a single car.

As the director of the Confederation of British Industry in Wales points out in a recent article, in 2004, Blockbuster had 84,000 employees and had revenues of $6 billion. In 2016, just 12 years later, Netflix employed 4,500 people and made $9 billion. It's called disruptive change for a reason, and it's evolving quickly. In the early days of the internet, it was about tasks like finding information or listening to music, but now technology is moving to anticipate our needs. Innovation expert Alec Ross points out that robots used to be stand-alone machines carrying out basic tasks. Now they're all connected to the cloud and are learning as they go, not just from their own experiences, but, because they can be linked to every other similar machine across the world, they learn from each other and adapt in real time. He calls it a quantum leap for the cognitive development of robots.

It's the equivalent of you and I being able to tap into the combined brainpower of every other human on earth to make a decision and to do so in a split second. Imagine how much smarter we'd be. Imagine how much better we'd be at making decisions. That's what's happening with robots. It is extraordinary. And it's also terrifying. For an economy like ours, there is a disproportionate number of jobs that are vulnerable to automation, but this change is unstoppable and we must get our heads around it and adapt. I wouldn't swap my digital alarm clock for a knocker-upper, just as nobody would turn back the clock to a world lit by candlelight or horsepower. So, too, we shouldn’t try to halt automation; we should harness it.

'The graveyards are full of indispensable men'

Charles de Gaulle famously said, and of course it's human nature to resist change. None of us wants to face up to the fact that our job may be made obsolete. But it's our responsibility to ensure that this wilful blindness is not replicated at a national level. When Gerry Holtham recently suggested at an Institute of Welsh Affairs event that we might get rid of GPs altogether because technology could do their job for them, the professions jumped on him. Both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Physicians denounced him. Like the guild of craftsmen from the days of old that orchestrated the banishment of William Lee in 1589 because he'd invented a knitting machine, we must not let their desire to protect their trades stop us from harnessing these changes.

'Consider thou what the invention could do to my poor subjects' 

Queen Elizabeth I told him. 

Let’s be clear: the threat of job losses will pale into insignificance to what will happen if we don’t take advantage of the possibilities. We know there is a shortage of doctors and that demand is rising and public spending is falling. We know that many of the new technologies are more accurate than humans and that patients in many cases would prefer to be diagnosed by a machine. So, let's free up overworked paramedics to do what only they can do and let's harness technology. And this is my plea in this afternoon’s debate, Cabinet Secretary: if we face up to the enormity of the challenge that is upon us, we can use it to improve public services, to free people from dangerous or routine tasks. But if we hold back, there's a danger that the downsides of change will dominate the debate and create a climate of fear.

Atos and other consultancies are as we speak touting themselves around cash-strapped councils offering to save millions by cutting routine jobs and replacing them with automated processes. If we allow this approach to take hold, all talk of automation will be seen by the workforce as a cost-cutting exercise, and it needn't be. If we harness it, we can use new labour-saving devices to free up staff to work on the front line, to improve public services. That’s the debate we need to have. And Government needs to mobilise, right across its whole breadth, to face up to how we can use these new technologies to help tackle the problems we know we face—[Interruption.] Yes, I'm happy to give—

No, there is no intervention. The Member may offer you a minute at the end of his speech.

Apologies. I am unfamiliar with the rules of these debates, too.

In education, for example, we need to ensure that we’re preparing young people for roles that do not yet exist, and we need to be mindful that many of these changes are coming in the next 10 to 20 years. I don’t know about you, but I still hope to be gainfully employed in my fifties. We must think about training for those already in work, too. In the economy, Ken Skates's new economic strategy recognises the productivity gains that can be made through encouraging the adoption of automation, but we need to be smart in how we apply this new criteria. Inevitably, Government will end up giving financial assistance to firms, which will lead to them cutting some jobs, but when that happens, we must make sure that companies are helping those who are displaced to upskill, to be redeployed rather than made redundant. In finance, the evolution of blockchain technology offers us an opportunity to be totally transparent in how we spend public money. And in rural Wales, we must seize opportunities presented by big data, not only to transform how we farm and produce food, but also to position Wales at the forefront of this emerging precision agriculture industry. In local government, we must follow the example of other cities that have gone smart, trialling real-time-driven services such as smart parking, smart refuse collection and smart lighting.

There are huge opportunities in healthcare to improve patient care and outcomes, from therapeutic robots that can help deal with our loneliness crisis to sensors that can track if people are missing meals or behaviour is becoming more erratic, helping dementia patients remain independent in their own homes for longer; contact lenses capable of measuring glucose levels that can then trigger the injection of insulin via a pain-free patch; and smart hospital machinery that can alert nurses to real-time changes in patients' vital signs, ensuring that changes in condition are picked up immediately, rather than periodically, and leaving nurses to focus on other aspects of patient care.

Actually, if we look at the implantable technologies coming our way, these are just the tip of the iceberg. This is a cross-Government agenda, relevant to every Cabinet Secretary. These innovations will save money and they'll improve the quality of public services. But these are all examples of technologies that are already out of date—and we haven't adopted any of them. Where are we in Wales? We're not even in the foothills of this. The NHS is the biggest purchaser of fax machines. And the two reports issued in the last week—the Wales Audit Office report on informatics, and yesterday's parliamentary review—painfully highlight that we are way behind. The Government needs to be radical here. We not only need new systems, we need new cultures and new leadership to bring about this transformation. As technology evolves, people come, increasingly, to expect to be able to access the services they need where and when they need it. If I can’t see a doctor and Babylon Health is giving me the chance to talk to one online for £25, the chances are I’m going to take it. But if we fail to keep pace with public expectation and private providers step in, it could threaten the very foundations of our public services.

This is a huge challenge for Government, especially since we are fighting on so many other fronts. Local government is almost paralysed by austerity and central Government by Brexit. And it's constraining our ability to respond to a rapidly evolving environment. But, our future generations Act demands that we face up to these long-term challenges. Llywydd, Wales needs a plan. We need a unit in the First Minister's office dedicated to horizon-scanning new developments and rapidly experimenting with new approaches to benefit public service delivery and encourage the growth of new industries in the private sector.

I'll close with a quote from the World Economic Forum—an organisation not known for its alarmist views: 

'The individual, organizational, governmental and societal adjustments are not trivial, and everyone will feel their impact. The speed of various aspects of the transition is hard to predict, but it is not difficult to see that the world will function quite differently 10 to 15 years from now. Being prepared to navigate the transition begins with awareness of the shifts to come, and some understanding of their implications.'

Diolch.

Thank you. Did you intend to offer a minute to the Member?

Nobody has indicated, but I'm happy to offer a minute if anybody wishes.

All right then, thank you. So, I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Transport to reply to the debate—Ken Skates.

Can I thank the Member for his contribution today and for bringing forward the subject to a short debate? It's a subject that I know he feels particularly passionate about, and today, again, he has delivered an outstanding speech, which identifies some of the major challenges, but also the opportunities that can be had if we adapt to the fourth revolution ahead of our competitors. It is interesting; I'm spending a good amount of my time at the moment in the constituency of Alyn and Deeside, and it was brought to my attention by the local Member of Parliament Mark Tami earlier this week that that particular constituency of all across Britain is the fifth most vulnerable to automation in the UK. That's a constituency that is home to some of the biggest employers in the private sector, some of the most innovative companies in the private sector in the UK, but it's an area that we must ensure can be resilient in the future, given its contribution to the Welsh economy.

Now, we're not just developing a new economic action plan to enhance the prospects of Alyn and Deeside and its local manufacturing base, which is home, of course, to Europe's biggest industrial park. We're also rolling out, as a priority and an immediate intervention, the advanced manufacturing research centre that will focus very much on the opportunities of automation for the manufacturing base in that area and, indeed, across the entire region. But I think this debate reflects the importance of this issue and its impact upon constituents we represent right across the country. Lee is most certainly correct to assert that how we respond will determine our future prosperity and the security of our economy. As others have pointed out in the past, our economy and our industrial base have confronted technological change before from the first industrial revolution, through the second, into the third, and now, as we approach the fourth revolution. We've always had to rise to new challenges and face fresh opportunities, but I do think, Deputy Presiding Officer, that it's fair to say that in the past Welsh industry hasn't always kept apace with changing technology.

We're now on the cusp of a fourth industrial revolution, with breakthroughs in artificial intelligence and automation that will transform the very fabric of our economy and the way we live our lives. In the midst of this unprecedented change, Government most certainly has a pivotal role to provide leadership and to develop a strategic response. We simply cannot sit back and leave this change to the markets. So, our role is ensuring that that leadership, that vision and that support for business are available at all times. We can't stop the development of new technologies in the fourth industrial age, nor should we try to prevent the progress that it represents. But we can, and we must, equip our businesses and our people to futureproof themselves against the change that lies ahead. That's why the economic action plan that was launched just before Christmas clearly identifies automation and digitisation as some of the key strategic challenges and opportunities facing the Welsh economy over the coming years. 

The five calls to action contained within the plan provide us with a platform, working together with industry, trade unions and other partners, to respond to the challenges that Lee has outlined. We're focusing funding around supporting businesses to prepare for the challenges of tomorrow, to futureproofing our economy and workforce for what automation is likely to bring. It's why the action plan places such an emphasis on skills, on innovation and on building upon regional economies that are productive and competitive. Deputy Presiding Officer, it's why we want to build our approach in the context of a constructive and mature relationship with business, an approach that is founded upon the new economic contract, where businesses may well ask us to show them the money, but where we ask them to show us their plans for the fourth industrial revolution. It's easy to despair—

Will the Minister give way? I think you're being reassuring and really competent and diligent and thorough, but I think what I got from Lee Waters was just the pace of change. We had 10,000 years of the agricultural revolution, 200 years of the industrial revolution. This is all within a generation almost how we've been transformed by the revolution in computing, which started in the second world war but, in the last 10 or 20 years, has really gone to remarkable depth. We need deep thinking in the Welsh Government and he suggested a unit in the First Minister's office. Well, why not have that?

The Member's absolutely right. We're likely to see change take place over the next 10 years that is greater than the change that has taken place over the past 200 years. Indeed, many changes will come so fast that we won't see them by the time they've already passed. I think it is essential that we look at emerging technological changes and trends. Certainly, that's a role that has been occupied in recent years by the digital team. When I was in the position now held by the leader of the house, where I was responsible for technology, we had an intelligence unit that was able to provide us with that sort of horizon scanning over a period of a single decade, two decades, right out to 2050, analysing the challenges and the opportunities for Wales. Also, there are units within higher education that do just that. There's also the Public Policy Institute for Wales, which has a responsibility and a role for ensuring that we are horizon scanning in a way that can equip our economy and our workers with the skills that are required to adapt to the fourth industrial revolution. I don't think it's just for the First Minister's office to do that. It's for the First Minister's office to ensure that it has the intelligence that is gathered from a number of bodies, organisations and from across Government to, in turn, guarantee that policy is well informed and is based on the future rather than just on today's challenges and opportunities.

I think it's sometimes easy to despair that automation and digitalisation and artificial intelligence will have a devastating impact on employment. What they do is show us the need to prepare today in a way that David Melding highlights is absolutely crucial. I don't think that we should overlook the potential impact of automation on productivity, which is exactly what Lee mentioned. Increased productivity could result in businesses being more competitive, in winning more business and in growing, therefore potentially displacing some of the jobs that could be lost to automation. In developed countries such as ours, increasing healthcare for ageing societies and investment in infrastructure and also in energy will create demand for work that we should use to again partly offset the displaced jobs.

I think, in terms of adapting to change and preparing ourselves for what is certainly down the tracks, the key will be working proactively with business and, indeed, others to ensure that there are sufficient opportunities emerging in the new economy to replace those jobs and businesses that will be lost in the old economy. A key element will be in ensuring that people right across the country, as I've said, are equipped with the skills to exploit them. That's very much the intention of our action plan, and the dignity of skilled employment is critical to this plan. We held a round-table event back in June of last year and I'd like to thank Lee Waters again for arranging that. In that session, we discussed the concern of jobs at risk from automation in Wales over the next two decades. That work has certainly helped to shape the thinking behind the economic action plan, because Wales needs to be at the forefront of the adoption of new technologies. That's why we've developed the Tech Valleys initiative—

Will the Minister take an intervention?

Yes, of course. Yes.

Very briefly, could I urge him, in line with David Melding's intervention, to look specifically at this idea of creating what many Governments—they call them i-teams, which are cross-Government, which are a dedicated team of people looking at public service innovation. This is an area where Wales could lead. We have a public sector that's large relative to our economy as a whole, but if we became really good at deploying these technologies to public sector policy issues, the world could beat a path to our door.

I think it's not within my gift, but I would agree that this is something that we're urging the private sector to do very regularly to make sure that they're scanning opportunities that currently, perhaps, aren't being considered. I think it's essential that, right across Government—within Government and within local government—there are units that are set up, there are ways of learning from others, from best practice that can apply lessons and can also futureproof those organisations at whatever level they may sit.

I think skills are a huge building block for the exploitation of technology and for changing the mindset and the behaviours within institutions and organisations. And the development of a futureproofed skills agenda and the need to find ways of encouraging, in particular, Deputy Presiding Officer, girls and women into STEM subjects and careers is vital for future economic success. Because human capital will be key and there will be an increased demand, no doubt, for a knowledgeable workforce and a highly skilled set of workers right across every sector.

It's important that we don't overlook the opportunities to work beyond our borders. We'll be holding the UK Government to its commitments in its industrial strategy and its promise to invest in the technologies and the businesses and in the skills of the future. The five foundations of productivity laid out in the UK industrial strategy—ideas, people, infrastructure, business environment and places—are central to addressing those factors responsible for raising productivity and earning power within an economy, and under these sit four grand challenges where Britain can lead the global technological revolution.

Now, there are very clear overlaps, in my view, between the grand challenges and our calls to action, and between the five foundations of productivity and the objectives in the economic action plan. The economic contract, calls to action and national thematic sectors set out in the economic action plan are all central to meeting these challenges and opportunities.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I'm mindful of the time I've taken so far to respond to this short debate, but the debate has shown that there are huge challenges. We recognise them and we are taking mitigation very seriously indeed. The speed of technological change and its adoption is rapid, and, in some cases, we're standing on a burning platform. The message could not be clearer: we need to invest and embrace. Automation and digitisation is coming right now, and now is the time to innovate and to improve productivity to create new opportunities, or we risk losing competitiveness and economic stagnation could ensue.

There is cause for optimism—sure—and for confidence about the future so long as we are prepared to act now to harness the opportunities and to manage the threats posed by the fourth industrial revolution. I would again like to thank Members for their contributions today.

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